Comments on: India speaks

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 16 May 2004 06:50:40 +0000

“communalism have been defeated”- Just the opposite is true—The working class banded together to defeat a elite that promoted racism, mysticism, and nationalism over the shared plight of working poor. The secular won, as did the communal and rational over the mystical and national.

By: Conrad Barwa

Conrad Barwa — Fri, 14 May 2004 22:37:43 +0000

I don’t know anything about Sonia’s intellectual abilities, but I would like to comment on this discussion of the fairness of wives getting political power due to their (sometimes late) husbands. Technically, I think dsquared is wrong, but his point here is still generally valid. These women did, in fact, ride their family name, in the sense that they would never have gotten where they were without it. It gave them a leg up over many other qualified candidates, and yes, that is unfair. Look the discussion is veering off-track from the real issue at hand here. The point is not whether selection of candidates in most representative democracies are fair or not (though this is an important topic in itself) but whether dynastic politics and specifically the case of the Nehru-Gandhi family in India has/is a good thing. Whether it is fair or not is not really my concern here, what is more important in my view is whether it is good for the democracy in question and for the political situation and I have to say that in the long-term it is not and only debatably so in the short-term. In this particular case, I don’t think it is illegitimate to desire an alternative to this route; political families in Indian politics have tended to incredibly corrupt and nepotistic, combining the worst aspects of patrimonialistic rule without any of its (admittedly limited) benefits – one of the reasons why hijras make popular candidates as they don’t have any of these drawbacks. However, this unfairness is useless to single out. Untill someone comes up with a fair system for offering political opportunities in a democracy, this is no worse than any of the ways that most male politicians in democracies get their opportunities. As has been pointed out here, Sonia is part of a dynasty, and it is just as unfair that many of the men in that dynasty got their opportunities through it as the women. Again, I should point out that this is not a ‘just outcomes’ argument, at least from my perspective. If you read the above comments by other contributors you can get a sample of why people are less than happy with the record of the Congress in the past and when you understand that for the periods in question it has been led by this political dynasty, reservations as to having yet another go on this merry-go ground make more sense. Appeals to dynastic populism, have historically involved an attempt to subsume various social and communal conflicts by focusing loyalty and the locus of attention on a single figure and this kind of demagogic Bonapartism has always been shored up by playing one community against another including damaging appeals to majoritarian sentiment from time to time. Both Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi have been guilty of this in the past and the kind of crude votebank politics they played in the name of foundational constitutional values such as secularism, democracy and development went a long way in discrediting these aspirations and allowing them to be hijacked or de-legitimised by saffronists who derided them as a ‘pseudo-secular’ worldview. This is overlooking the rather dubious contributions to the de-institutionalisation of politics, suspension of democracy and pervasive corruption that have also been the hallmarks of the Gandhi family’s time in power since the 70s. But this is also to some degree besides the point; the most important concern is that Sonia Gandhi didn’t want to enter politics and didn’t want her husband to enter politics but was in many ways forced into doing so (one should recall that she rejected the supine conferral of leadership made by the CWC in the immediate wake of Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination); my problem lies not only in the brand of dynastic politics being promoted here (which has never boded well for our democracy) but in her ability and capacity to rule. Unlike the BJP, the Left or the regional/caste parties, the Congress has no well worked out ideology anymore to give it purpose, lacks a highly motivated and powerful party machinery and cadre network for grassroots activism and doesn’t have the kind of readymade social constituency to anchor its goals as easily. In such a scenario and having to lead a rickety coalition govt it will require some considerable skill and agility as well as vision; which I don’t think will be found in the current Congress President. Politicians should only be judged on what they do with opportunities, not the unfairness of how they got them, unless you can suggest a fair alternative vetting system. Yeah, we need to bring back a level of appointment by pure lottery along classical lines to shake the system up a bit; but as this is not going to happen one should settle for the next best thing; which I don’t think dynastic politics are. Also a few rejoinders on some inaccurate points: People pointed out that Narendra Modi won “only” a majority of seats this time – Im not sure why that is a cause for much celebration. The fact remains that Vajpayee is the moderate face of Hindutva and he lost. I can’t believe people are still seriously pushing this line; the difference here is minimal as the BJP needs to present a number of different faces to different audiences but there is a stronger underlying unity. Which face is put forward when, is strictly a matter linked to prevailing demands of the situation at the time; the communisation of politics and ‘riot systems’ that are in place to spark off such confrontations are as much a part of the ‘moderate’ BJP as it is of the more hard-line elements. The primary function of the so-called moderates is to allow supposedly ‘modernised’ middle class Indians a more comfortable face when dealing with the BJP and the illusion that they are removed from the violence and the chauvinist politics it espouses. If thats not pandering and a return to the days of misguided socialism, I dont know what is. Certainly the opponents of Naidu and Krishna won because there is still frustration in India and they exploited it to the full – but that doesn mean they are right. It is a step backward. Not really, ‘pandering’ to the kisan lobby isn’t really a ‘socialist’ policy as far as I am aware. It has its origins in the rise of the cultivating peasantry which benefited from the Green Revolution and the expansion of state subsidies and was very much a strategy to prevent and class re-orientation in the countryside – part of the point of the Green Revolution was that it would circumvent the pressure for a Red one. Being able to extract subsidies from the state sector is hardly a form of socialism either, just another variant of state capitalism and everyone in India plays this game, from the farm lobby, to the corporate sector and the bureaucracy. Much of Indian industry wouldn’t exist without public subsidies/investment and tariff barriers in one form or another; so it is a bit rich to start denigrating this now. Given the strength of the rural peasantry in most food surplus states it is difficult to ignore their electoral power; both constituents of the NDA like the Akali Dal and others like the SP and JD have realised this. The one thing that is the kiss of death for most mainstream parties is to be construed as ‘anti-farmer’ and few, if any can survive a successful labelling as such easily. This has little to do with socialism or populism and more to do with the socio-economic composition of the countryside and the realities of power there on the ground and as such is an unavoidable aspect of electoral politics. The Yadavs do not represent the lower classes – they represent what are quaintly called “Other Backward Castes” which are not backward at all. If there is a better example of populist panderers, please let me know. This depends on the definition of ‘backward’; there are wide social inequalities which have persisted despite the acquisition of political power at the state level by most OBC and Dalit parties. The OBCs have certainly improved their position greatly but could still be considered as part of the ‘lower classes’ on most HDI indicators; it should be noted that ‘lower’ classes are not the same as ‘lowest’ classes and internal differentiation as well as contradictions remain here as well. These are emphasised by both the left and lower caste politicians who want to eradicate these gaps by closing or reversing them and by upper caste ones who see it as a convenient way of dividing challenges to the established power matrix at the rural level and de-legitimising the rising tide of lower caste assertion. The BJP is not averse to similar sorts of panderings and the Uma Bharti govt in MP can be seen as a variant of this as the Chattisgarh one as well, with its genius idea of providing a cow for every adivasi family in the state to combat rural deprivation. Of course, it is only the lower caste parties that are daubed as populist when they indulge in such measures. Anyway, let me end on a note of hope – there may not be a need for a monstrous coalition, Again there is a play of words here; we have already seen several large and at least at the ideological level highly contradictory coalition tie-ups. What else can explain an old style Socialist like George Fernandes as the convenor of the NDA? Jumbo size ministries are the name of the game in states where the party spectrum is very fragmented like UP and everybody has to play if they want to win – the BJP included. and even the left is not totally anti-business these days. There is a lot that has been said about the supposed ‘anti-business’ nature of the Left; to be expected I suppose given the virulent anti-Communism that exists in large sections of the pro-BJP middle class. If one spent less time listening to the rhetorical flourishes of Stalinist-style members of the Politburo in New Delhi and paid more attention to the actual functioning of LF govts in states such as West Bengal, it becomes quite apparent that the Left is not all anti-business but rather quite reverse. It has reached highly pragmatic accommodations that it needs to stay in power and there is little reason to assume this will not be done at the national level, since it has already be done at state level. Any LF coalition will obviously be less keen to pander to the corporate sector and the desires of the dominant propertied classes (less keen but still willing), but this of course arouses far more howls of outrage than would otherwise be the case. And finally, Indians will always find a way to muddle through the mess that is their government. The burden hardly falls equitable across the board, and is shouldered most heavily by those closer to the bottom than those in the middle or at the top of socio-economic hierarchy. One hopes for the sake of the former at least, that it will not be an intolerably heavy one that has usually been their lot to have to quietly put up with.

By: Vish Subramanian

Vish Subramanian — Fri, 14 May 2004 20:33:50 +0000

A few rejoinders: ” to describe communal violence in India as `regional’ is a ridiculous statement.” I dont think so. Religious violence is almost always perpetrated by local leaders for local reasons (the significant exception being the Babri Masjid riots, somwething that did not repeat when the BJP was in power and that some BJP folks are probably looking back fondly to). People pointed out that Narendra Modi won “only” a majority of seats this time – Im not sure why that is a cause for much celebration. The fact remains that Vajpayee is the moderate face of Hindutva and he lost. “Sonia Gandhi is no more “riding her family name” than did Benazir Bhutto “. Yikes! Does anybody actually remember the disaster that was the Benazir Bhutto government? ” Naidu lost for the very good reason that he forgot the vast majority of people in his state …”. Note the first act of the new Andhra CM - “Dr Y S Rajasekhara Reddy, the new Congress Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, today fulfilled his party’s poll promise of providing free power to farmers and waiving the dues of their power charges, amounting to Rs 1,100 crores.” If thats not pandering and a return to the days of misguided socialism, I dont know what is. Certainly the opponents of Naidu and Krishna won because there is still frustration in India and they exploited it to the full – but that doesn mean they are right. It is a step backward. The Yadavs do not represent the lower classes – they represent what are quaintly called “Other Backward Castes” which are not backward at all. If there is a better example of populist panderers, please let me know. Anyway, let me end on a note of hope – there may not be a need for a monstrous coalition, and even the left is not totally anti-business these days. And finally, Indians will always find a way to muddle through the mess that is their government.

By: Decnavda

Decnavda — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:26:00 +0000

Sonia Gandhi is not an intellectual mediocrity and is no more “riding her family name” than did Benazir Bhutto or Corazon Aquino. Or Hillary Clinton? I don’t know anything about Sonia’s intellectual abilities, but I would like to comment on this discussion of the fairness of wives getting political power due to their (sometimes late) husbands. Technically, I think dsquared is wrong, but his point here is still generally valid. These women did, in fact, ride their family name, in the sense that they would never have gotten where they were without it. It gave them a leg up over many other qualified candidates, and yes, that is unfair. However, this unfairness is useless to single out. Untill someone comes up with a fair system for offering political opportunities in a democracy, this is no worse than any of the ways that most male politicians in democracies get their opportunities. As has been pointed out here, Sonia is part of a dynasty, and it is just as unfair that many of the men in that dynasty got their opportunities through it as the women. I live in a state whose governor got his chance to run because he was an excellent bodybuilder and movie star (as apposed to actor). How fair is that? And it even seems unreasonable to complain about that when we have running for president two members of the Skull & Crossbones society. Our last Presidential election pitted a President’s son against a Senator’s son. Politicians should only be judged on what they do with opportunities, not the unfairness of how they got them, unless you can suggest a fair alternative vetting system.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 14 May 2004 18:00:44 +0000

“It’s as if Queen Noor were to become ruler of Jordan, albeit not with the tense America-Jordan relationship.” Considering Queen Noor is American, one would suspect her becoming ruler of Jordan to be more controversial.

By: roublen vesseau

roublen vesseau — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:06:35 +0000

Also, there’s a big difference between a child inheriting a political position and a wife. It’s as if Queen Noor were to become ruler of Jordan, albeit not with the tense America-Jordan relationship. I’m just saying. . .

By: roublen vesseau

roublen vesseau — Fri, 14 May 2004 12:00:34 +0000

>Sonia Gandhi is not an intellectual mediocrity based on? I’ve seen no evidence one way or another. >and is no more ?riding her family name? than did >Benazir Bhutto or Corazon Aquino. according to someone I respect Benazir Bhutto is really bad news. Like … [POTENTIALLY LIBELLOUS ALLEGATION EDITED-OUT HERE BY MODERATOR] … bad. After Gujarat, the BJP deserved to lose, but I don’t think voteres were rejecting communalism in any serious way, and I cannot get enthusiastic about Vajpayee, a very good PM, getting replaced by Sonia Gandhi or some other Congress hack. What’s interesting to me is the complete collapse of the Janata Dal. If you assume that the main reason people vote for the Congress in such high numbers is name and symbol recognition, how many people would have voted for the “wheel”, if it had been offered?

By: Conrad Barwa

Conrad Barwa — Fri, 14 May 2004 10:46:36 +0000

Sonia Gandhi is not an intellectual mediocrity and is no more “riding her family name” than did Benazir Bhutto or Corazon Aquino. Hmph, I don’t know what standard one is using here but I don’t think the term mediocrity is entirely inaccurate here but this is an old complaint that stretches back through her husband and mother-in-law. High intelligence isn’t necessarily what makes a good prime ministerial candidate as other qualities are more desirable and Indian politicians aren’t exaclty know for their intellectual attributes these days and what talents they have in this area, tends to be grossly inflated – and I speak as someone who actually knows several members of these species quite well. I am also less than enthused by the comparisons with Pakistani and Filipino candidates; with all due respect I don’t think this is something that one should seek to emulate and neither of these politicians ended all that well (with the partial exception of Aquino). My simple point is this, given the history here dynastic politics have not been exactly a positive development alongside democracy and the leaders they have produced, in the Indian context have left much to be desired. The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty are very much a case in point; I just don’t think this is something that should be continued; regardless of what is happening in other countries.

By: vinod narayanan

vinod narayanan — Fri, 14 May 2004 09:54:30 +0000

As a follow-up, I’d like to point out that the Sonia would do well to discourage the Communist’s present gambit of trying to rope in the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and form some sort of grand ‘secular’ coalition . Obviously, the Left hopes to create a larger pressure group within the coalition (although I don’t know how the pro-industrialist SP and BSP would sqare withe the Left’s anti-capitalist ambitions). Anyone who is famialiar with the machinations and history between the SP and BSP in Uttar Pradesh (UP) will tell you that this is one concept which, if realized, will self-destruct fairly quickly, and in a pretty spectacular fashion. And it’s usually not a good idea to include parties whose turf you’re trying to take over, in a coalition which you’re going to head up. Otherwise, the Congress might as well write off the seat-rich state of UP altogether for the next couple of decades. So, Sonia, just say no.

By: vinod narayanan

vinod narayanan — Fri, 14 May 2004 09:38:18 +0000

I think that another significant feature was how the Communists fared. Their best performance ever. The Congress only needs their support to form a government, since the parties like the DMK, RJD etc were part of their pre-poll alliance.* So, I would think that predictions about Ms. Gandhi’s problems managing an unwieldy coalition are premature. On the other hand they are the Communist bloc and they have been against the economic reforms process from the get-go. Plus, should they decide to be a part of the government, they would be the second largest section of the ruling coalition after the Congress. They could just as well decide to throw a spanner in the liberalization works for all I know. It will be interesting to see if Manmohan Singh will indeed be made the FM, since the Communists have often held him responsible for the reform process and therefore, the architect of India’s problems in the rural sectors. And, unlike the BJP-led coalition, no one need expect any sort of pro-US foriegn policy positions to be taken by any Indian government in which the Communists are a part. I think that Vish’s slightly alarmist point of view, where he predicts the emergence of more Narendra Modi’s, is partially inaccurate since the man himself has suffered a serious reverse in his home state of Gujarat. Clearly, selling sectarian violence will not guarantee votes all the time. *We’ll just let the fact that the Communists had a pre-poll alliance with the Congress in many places outside of West Bengal and Kerala slide, since they don’t seem to have gained too much out of it and because they got most of their seats by opposing both the Congress and the BJP in West Bengal and Kerala.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 14 May 2004 09:16:40 +0000

Sonia Gandhi is not an intellectual mediocrity and is no more “riding her family name” than did Benazir Bhutto or Corazon Aquino.

By: Conrad Barwa

Conrad Barwa — Fri, 14 May 2004 08:15:22 +0000

Ikram, These results were notable, but they should not be read as voters endorsing a particular party. The vote share of the rainbow DMK rose by 50% less than the ADMK. And the CPI/CPM saw no change in their vote-share. Both of these notable results were an artifact of FPTP. I disagree, it is best to break down national voteshares as they are too aggregated to provide much of a picture particularly for regionally based parties. One would need to look at the shares at a state level to be able to tell the difference to a large enough degree; particularly for parties like the LF which although ‘national’ political organisations and which contest a large number of seats are really limited to certain regional belts of influence. I think the statewise figures will give a better indication – though the swing won’t be very large – it never is in most FPTP systems as a rule. But frex, given that the CPI and CPI (M) were part of the DMK coalition in TN; it is difficult to disaggregate their respective contributions at the state level and the same can be said for NDA support for the AIDMK. I’m not making a negative comment, I’m a fan of FPTP. And I know that the election will be analyzed by pundits as if the NDA had lost a major ‘popular mandate’ and Congress had gained one. But this isn’t the case from a voter perspective. Well, I am not a fan of the FPTP a way overrated system particularly when the political scenario doesn’t easily fit into a simple two-way contest. Some form of PR is much better suited to Indian conditions, the FPTP is much favoured by those enamoured of ‘stable govts’ but in practise these usually mean ones that inclines towards the status quo which isn’t really in the interests of the bulk of the electorate in this case. As for the ‘pundits’ yeah, well they will say that because they are interested in outcomes not in voter intentions for the most part (despite their ostensible denials here) for them what matters is who forms the govt and who gets the most votes is looked at through this prism rather than through some notion of democratic election for its own sake. Of course in FPTP systems, this is the norm as even dominant parties which can carry out wide-reaching changes will rarely have what can be said to be a ‘popular mandate’ and it will be highly unusual for them to carry the majority of the electorate with them. Think of Maggie Thatcher and her peak support of 40% to put things into perspective. As for the BSP, it is now the fourth most popular party in India (INC, BJP, CPM, BSP), increased its vote share by more than any other party (1.14%), and has gained popularity in every election i the past decade. That’s really striking. Well, like I said this is because it has a broad social constituency that it can reach but I don’t think it is as striking as it appears. Firstly, the IND registered a larger increase in voteshare (1.44%), but this aside, such an outcome is not untypical for caste-based and peasant parties in the northern belt; as you can see from the JD(S) and SP performances; given the realignment of caste-equations and the floating Muslim vote this is to be expected. Also the performance of the BSP looks a lot less impressive when you consider some of the states where it has seen oscillating support – such as Punjab and MP where its record on voteshares has been much more uneven. As different OBC and MBC groups move between the SP, BSP and JD factions one can see this figure fluctuate quite significantly over time as will the local dynamics of state politics – frex an anti-CPI vote won’t mean much in most of West Bengal but can do so in Kerala. Again, I would have to add that national figures need to be broken up into their geographic constituents as well as examined over time for these changes.

By: Ikram

Ikram — Fri, 14 May 2004 07:24:43 +0000

Conrad wrote: Other notable results include the complete sweep across the board for the DMK rainbow alliance in Tamil Nadu where it won all the seats – a first I believe and the incredibly strong showing for the Left parties with 59 seats – this is another reversal of a decline These results were notable, but they should not be read as voters endorsing a particular party. The vote share of the rainbow DMK rose by 50% less than the ADMK. And the CPI/CPM saw no change in their vote-share. Both of these notable results were an artifact of FPTP. I’m not making a negative comment, I’m a fan of FPTP. And I know that the election will be analyzed by pundits as if the NDA had lost a major ‘popular mandate’ and Congress had gained one. But this isn’t the case from a voter perspective. As for the BSP, it is now the fourth most popular party in India (INC, BJP, CPM, BSP), increased its vote share by more than any other party (1.14%), and has gained popularity in every election i the past decade. That’s really striking.

By: Conrad Barwa

Conrad Barwa — Fri, 14 May 2004 07:17:45 +0000

“its brand” being key, bc as mss pandian has been showing, both the dmk and aiadmk have been rolling in saffron in the last decade. I am sceptical about this, Jayalitha tried to push some typical saffronist angles like the anti-Conversion bills but the DMK has been more muted; despite the short-lived stab Karunaidhi had at ‘Dravidian Hinduvta’ much of this is combined at the mainly symbolic level – which is still important but not as central I would argue. I can’t see some parts of the ‘brand’ playing all that well, I mean Ram wouldn’t exactly have the same iconic significance and the greater downward percolation of political power and development in the social hierarchy makes it difficult for the BJP to play the same games that it does in northern India. What I think is key is the fact, as you note that this ‘rolling around’ has only emerged in the last decade (quite late to jump on the saffronist bandwagon, given that Congress had been doing so in an opportunistic fashion for years before this); and is due simply to the power politics in TN; since the Dravidian parties reign supreme at the state level any govt at the centre has to reach an accommodation with either one of the Dravidian formations in the state and will inevitably incur the enmity of the other one. The very fact that the DMK and the AIDMK change partners in Delhi more often than Yashwant Sinha changes political parties; indicates that what they really care about is allying with one of the dominant national formations at the Centre in the hopes of scoring an advantage against their opponents at the state level. To this end, they are quite willing to compromise on idealised values like secularism – which in any case make limited impact in most of the South given the predominance of the Caste master narrative over that of the Communal divide, unlike the north. I doubt that they care much of a fig about saffronist politics, as long as they can outmanoeuvre their main rivals within the state. Laudable, no but such are the unpleasant realities of compromise in politics to gain power. One doesn’t need to have a saffronist agenda to back the BJP, as the case of the TDP shows and of the splinter factions of the JD which are a part of the NDA in Bihar. While this is not a positive development, such adoptions are strictly contingent on prevailing political calculations of obtaning office and so are liable to change as circumstances do.

By: adi

adi — Fri, 14 May 2004 07:14:33 +0000

personally, im in favour of alliances, post or pre-poll. as people, we have to bargain everyday to get what we want from anyone. so why not have that fact reflect in the political sphere which is supposed to represent our concerns in policy decisions? we have all dealt with certain people that we didnt want to ever have to deal with, but sometimes its not an option and so it is in politics(except its like that almost all the time) On a different but related note, i dont get this “fractured” democracy stuff that a lot of pundits think of a multi-party system. i feel(with no particular factual basis) that multi-party systems are a more accurate representation of the needs of any multicultural nation since each group has its own needs and ideals. i thought democracy was about getting your voice heard and not subjugating yourself to whatever structures the power elite throw at you to keep themselves in power. isnt there some quote about not putting all your eggs in the same basket? sorry for rambling, but thats all i seem to do anymore.