Desicritics Author: Chandra

Maharashtra Elections: Final Forecast

Chandra — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 01:18:44 EDT

With two more days to go, it is time to forecast the results of the Maharashtra elections. This is the first election after the Lok Sabha election and therefore keenly watched by everybody. At the outset the fact that the election is happening so close to the Lok Sabha means that forecasting these elections will be quite easy. In many ways that is true.

- Maharashtra voters typically tend to vote for the same parties in both the Lok Sabha and assembly elections

- Maharashtra voters are largely loyal to the party they vote

- No significant events have occurred since the Lok Sabha elections to change voter's perception

Having said this, a few things have changed

- The proportion of rebel candidates is quite high compared to the past

- The SS-BJP coalition have been far more aggressive in dealing with the MNS threat than during the Lok Sabha election

- MNS has lost some of its members to the Shiv Sena

The biggest imponderable in this election as in the past is voter turnout. Voter turnout was quite low during the Lok Sabha elections. Any substantial change in that figure will have a huge impact, particularly in swing constituencies. However, it is unlikely that there will be a huge spurt in voters in most constituencies.

In terms of the main opposition, the campaign has been quite lackadaisical Instead of drumming up 1 or 2 messages consistently across the state, the opposition parties have been trying to raise too many issues. A consistent focus on price rice and measures to eliminate the same would have won them atleast some of the fringe loyalists from the Congress-NCP combine as well as independent voters as a whole.

Considering all the above factors and a clear absence of an alternate and more compelling vision from the SS-BJP combine, my forecast for Maharashtra is as follows

Congress - NCP: 133

BJP- SS: 126

MNS: 6

Others: 13

Difficult to predict: 10

Therefore, it looks highly probable that the Congress-NCP regime is likely to return to power again in 2009. Albeit, in alliance with rebels and smaller parties. This is unfortunate considering the quality of governance provided by the current regime. However, voters donot have too many options giving the ruling parties an edge over the main opposition. The MNS figure looks much lower than what many others have forecast for the simple reason that this is the second election and often rebel parties like MNS tend to lose some steam compared to before.

Also, even in the Lo Sabha election, the MNS managed to lead only in 9 assembly constituencies. Actually, it is likely that the 'others' group that includes a myriad of other parties may be a bigger spoilsport for the Congress-NCP combine than the MNS for the SS-BJP combine. It remains to be seen as to how the rebels factor also plays out. In my forecast, that is an imponderable that I have not considered.

The Congress Party and Cellular Phones

Chandra — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 05:23:38 EDT

As the BJP goes through another needless controversy with the resignation of Sudheendra Kulkarni, mainstream media outlets have been going hammer and tongs at the BJP for refusing to change. The fact of the matter is that most of this criticism comes only because of a catastrophic performance in the last elections. What most media outlets ignore is the simple fact that irrespective of what the BJP did, the BJP was not well placed to win the elections in 2009. For starters, read my election forecast made in 2007.

It is more than 2 months since the Congress Government was re-elected and now we are in a better position to analyse why the Congress won. I want to put forward two new data points to illustrate how difficult it was for anybody to beat the Congress

a. Penetration of mobile phones

During the 2004 elections, only 30 million Indians had a cellular phone, making up for less than 10% of all households. By the time we had elections in 2009, India has 400 million connections covering more than 60% of households. During this period, call rates and handset prices have fallen only marginally. while average inflation was more than 4% with peak inflation nearly 13%. This was possible because of an unprcedented expansion of the Indian economy. A safe claim one can make is that the economic expansion led to significant income expansion amongst at least 50% of the households if not more. The congress party and its allies won less than 35% of votes during the last election

b. State Governments re-election

I have alluded previously to State Governments performance playing a critical role in determining Lok Sabha results. I found another interesting insight while evaluating the performance of state governments. During this period (2004-2009) nearly 60% of top-15 state governments (any party) were re-elected, as opposed to 30% before this period (approximate). The descriptive ‘anti-incumbency’ today has less meaning than before. Here again, the difference between this period and previous period is the significant difference in economic expansion.

What does this say to us?

Here is an article that demonstrates the linkage between economic expansion and Presidential election results in the US. Higher rates of growth have usually helped incumbent governments retain their vote base. Only unpopular decisions can turn away voters from their party of choice. In India, the UPA government for all its incompetence rarely took decisions that could turn away their core voters. On the other hand, their open wooing of muslim voters actually helped the congress expand its vote share marginally (2% pts).

The reality is that the BJP had little chance to win the elections. However, this does not mean that the BJP could not have done better than they did. They ran a poor campaign, were unable to differentiate themselves and many of their Governments performed poorly. All in all the BJP squandered multiple opportunities that would have given the congress a run for its money.

Judgement on IPC Section 377: Counterpoints

Chandra — Sat, 4 Jul 2009 00:25:37 EDT

Liberals and Gay activists are jumping with joy, both in these pages and across the media. To the point that it is getting tremendously irritating and hence this article.

Firstly, it appears that nobody has done any research on Section 377. Nowhere does it talk about Homosexual or lesbian contact. It only talks about unnatural offences. No cases have been brought about in the courts since the last 20 years on consensual gay sex (Please correct me). Even before this judgement it was impossible to win a conviction on consensual gay sex. Secondly, the section itself does not clarify what unnatural sex is. In other words, the law itself was extremely vague and the only place it was used was in cases of non consensual sex (Minors and Animals).

So what is the hullabaloo about? Well, apparently it is about police harassment. I am sorry but police harassment has nothing to do with their knowledge of Section 377. Our police find multiple sections to harass ordinary people and the interpretation of 377 will not end that. Typically cruisers get into trouble with the police while waiting in Parks and similar public areas. But this can happen to heterosexual couples or prostitutes as well. Therefore, the judgement of the court is unlikely to have any impact in terms of the practical implementation of the law. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals alike will get harassed by Police should they find themselves in difficult positions in Public locations.

The second problem is with organisations like NACO and other NGOs who claim that HIV detection and treatment is being impacted by this law. Unfortunately there is little in terms of data that can prove this one way or the other. For example, high risk groups have typically been lower socio-economic groups like truck drivers, migrant labour etc. It is difficult to imagine this group knowing any sections, let alone Section 377. The most interesting data will be to observe change in reported cases of HIV (due to homosexual contact) now that this section does not apply for gay sex. It is highly unlikely that there will be a significant change in numbers.

Therefore, the big question is why then have NGOs pushed for a correct interpretation of the law? This is because they wish to push change down everybody's throats. They want to force the rest of society to start 'accepting' them as normal and to start having debates in our living rooms. The reality is that change can only happen with better education and understanding and not through change in law. For that to happen, these groups should have spent greater time in engaging with society in general rather than ramming it in.

My view is that it is ridiculous to be treating homosexuals as criminals or weird people to laught at. I agree that our society in many ways is quite primitive and does not treat this group of people (and many others by the way)properly. I also agree that section 377 must not apply to this group of people. However, I do not agree that the repeal of this law should be the first step in engaging in a conversation. It took me 3-4 years to learn and empathise with this group and I am sure others would start accepting too with a little education.

The Government Should Scrap the NREGS

Chandra — Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:09:20 EDT

The Congress is on an upswing with what many classify as a decisive election victory. Naturally, this has led to much analysis on what the congress did to move its seat share from 140+ to 200+. One predominant belief is that the congress won on the back of its pro-poor policies - NREGS (National Rural Employee Guarantee Scheme) and the waiver of farm loans. However, my analysis of NREGs indicates that this is not an accurate hypothesis

In fact I pulled out some interesting trends from two states:

In Bihar, out of 23 districts that were covered since launch, the Congress won just two seats. In fact, sitting MP Shakeel Ahmed lost his Madhubani Seat.

In AP, where the Congress swept the elections, out of the 13 districts covered, they lost in 6 out of 13 seats.

The absence of a linkage between the implementation of the program and voting behaviour is not a huge suprise. Here are some reasons

a. There is enough research to show that the program is highly ineffective. Amongst those who have benefitted from the program only 50% expressed satisfaction with it
b. The program has not necessarily reached people who need it the most. This is due to a whole host of factors including caste, political orientation etc
c. Project identification, approval and implementation is a local activity and while this is good for empowerment, it has been observed that on every aspect from Identification to Implementation most projects have been failures . This is due to poor leadership, project management and implementation skills available at the panchayat and district level
d. Lastly but not the least, the lack of proper naming (Rajiv Yojana etc) means that voters donot associate the program with the Congress Govt.

During the last 2-3 years the Government has undertaken numerous steps to plug many of these holes including making it mandatory to open bank accounts. However, a large number of problems relating to project identification and implementation remain. While none of these problems are insurmountable one knows from past history that we will always find ways to circumvent checks and balances.
In light of this, the bigger questions are

a. What is the impact of NREGS on rural metrics including nourishment, health care, education etc?

b. If indeed the Government is confident of surmounting some of the problems that have been laid out, why shouldn't they be spending a similar effort on ensuring better delivery on Education, Healthcare, law enforcement, Water etc all of which are in shambles?

c. Is it wise to run such an expensive program while running a huge deficit ?

Going back to the election analysis, the congress gained most of its seats in urban areas and due to a combination of poor Governance by local Governments and a shift in minority vote in its favour. Therefore, probably the biggest learning from this election is probably to ensure proper governance to all voters rather than running expensive programs targetted at a few.

The Government jettisoned the communists late last year, they should do the same to the NREGS this year.

How Not to Interpret Elections 2009!

Chandra — Thu, 21 May 2009 05:15:07 EDT

In my previous post, I spoke about some intriguing trends that reveal that the Congress did not do as well as the increase in its seat tally suggests and it is the BJP that was more decimated than the Left.

The analysis now going around is how to interpret the mandate. Three thought processes dominate the mind of media and analysts -

a. Most analysts believe that Rahul Gandhi played a critical role. In particular in UP where the congress won more than 20 seats thanks to his decision to go solo

b. The UPA did well because of its pro-poor policies like NREGs, farm waiver and reservations

c. The BJP did poorly because they called the PM weak and did not offer a good alternative to the BJP

My argument is that each of these hypotheses is wrong

a. Rahul Gandhi: Very few media channels report the fact that the congress failed to retain 70% of its seats in UP. They failed to note that a 5% swing in votes to one party in UP has been a constant phenomenon for the last 15 years. This group have not stayed with one party for more than one election. Yes, Rahul Gandhi helped but many other issues matter more to the average voter

b. Ironically, the congress gained most of its seats in Urban areas than in rural areas. The NREGs and Farm waiver are therefore not relevant. Additionally, the NREG is viewed by most beneficiaries as a state program as it is implemented by the state machinery. Also, with the rampant corruption in the system not reaching most users, even amongst those it has reached, the satisfaction levels does not exceed 50%

c. As I mentioned before, the BJP lost due to a whole host of factors including its inability to stitch an alliance due to its ant-Muslim image. Calling PM names has no impact on election results.

I think we as readers should question any hypotheses if not backed by data. In McKinsey, they call it 'fact based' research.

You Read It Here First: Five Truths About This Election

Chandra — Sun, 17 May 2009 23:06:46 EDT

Folks, give me some credit for being one of the closest to the actual results and that too my forecast was when the election began early April. Now that we are done with some bragging, let us get on with some analysis. Let us get rid of the bull shit you see on TV and actually analyse the numbers. The numbers say an interesting story.

a. Huge Congress sweep?

The Congress picked up 65 more seats over last time. If you hear national TV, you would begin to believe that Soniaji, MMS and Rahulji have weaved a magic over Indians, attracted young people yada yada yada.....

Congress: 2004, Vote Share: 26.53%
Congress: 2009, Vote Share: 28.55%

So that is a net shift of 2% of the electorate (about 8 million votes, 400 million voters). That does not sound massive. However, like everything that does not tell the entire story

b. NDA managed to just about retain its seat share?

The NDA ended up at 160 odd, while nobody says it was a good performance, everybody only talks about how CPM got decimated. Read this

BJP: 2004, Vote Share: 22.16%
BJP: 2009, Vote Share: 18.80%

That is 3.6% point shift in vote share. Remember, the BJP's base was lower, it had more alliances in 2004 than 2009. The net gap with the congress, which was just 4% last time, increased significantly to 9.7%. In my language that is called decimation

c. The left got decimated?

Have you heard this before? They won less than half their seats, yada yada yada

CPM+CPI: 2004, Vote Share: 7.07%
CPM+CPI: 2009, Vote Share: 6.76%

That is 0.3% points shift in vote share. In terms of the actual % shift, while 18% of BJP voters ditched them, only 4.5% of left voters ditched them. So who has been decimated? The left or the BJP? It sounds more like the BJP

d. Congress won for excellent governance in AP?

Well, that is what the regional channels and some national experts are saying

Congress: 2004, Vote Share: 41.56%
Congress: 2009, Vote Share: 38.95%

Well, that looks like 2.5% drop to me. So how did they win more seats than 2004? Please send a greeting card to 'megastar' Chiranjeevi

e. BJP lost because they were too focussed on religion in Orissa?

Well, that is what they attribute the loss to in Orissa, no leadership, only focus on religion etc.

Congress: 2004, Vote Share: 40.43%
Congress: 2009, Vote Share: 32.75%

The Congress lost a large proportion (20%) of a traditionally strong state. The BJD picked up almost all their votes from the Congress rather than they did from the BJP. May be it is the Congress that ought to be worried

There are more such interesting truths in the data that needs scrutiny. Instead of hearing all the speculation, visit the ECI web-site to check these trends.

One final point, why did the congress win?

a. They did not have too many state Governments to worry about anti-incumbency unlike other parties.

b. In states like AP and Maharashtra where they had under performing Govts, they were absolutely lucky to have powerful leaders like Raj Thackeray and Chiranjeevi to suck out votes from their competitors

c. However, the big gain in actual number of votes came from UP (about 6 million votes). The congress almost doubled its votes from last year. This was at the expense of the SP (Muslim vote) and the BJP (Upper caste vote).

Irrespective of all these statistics that continue to show the fragmented nature of our electorate, the reality is that the UPA has a majority of the MPs and hence the stability to rule freely. Way back in 1984, the population was thrilled with this young man who became PM, India had won the World Championship of cricket in Australia and we heard of computers for the first time. The ruling party had a brute majority to accomplish anything they could. Instead, they squandered that opportunity in 5 years. Hopefully, this Govt. does not end up disappointing many Indians.

Indian Elections 2009: The Final Forecast

Chandra — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 14:03:23 EDT

Nearly two years ago I forecast that the UPA is likely to return to power in Elections 2009. It is time to update that forecast.

Barring a major upset, I expect the congress to head a new coalition in Elections 2009. My final forecast is as follows

UPA- 255+
Third Front* - 90+
NDA+- 190

*The Third front includes BSP, BJD, ADMK and TDP.

The UPA will likely need the help of ADMK, JD(U) and a few independents to form the next Government. It may even be able to rope in Mayawati if she manages to wipe out Mulayam.

UPA

I expect reversals for the UPA in Bihar, UP, TN and gains in MP, Orissa, Kerala and Rajasthan. Overall, I expect the Congress to increase its tally from 142 to 165. This will make the Congress a much more powerful entity within the coalition.

NDA

Way back on Dec 31st 1999, the NDA did one of the strangest things that a Govt could ever hope to do. Send your foreign minister with 3 terrorists to another country. This surreal sequence completely devastated the BJP on the issue of National security and finished LK Advani's candidature as the PM of the country. Instead of pushing younger people who could appeal to various segments of society, the BJP went backwards with its choice of PM. The party is in a difficult situation for more than one reason. Apart from an insipid leadership by Rajnath Singh, the BJP is in a difficult situation of having its own Governments in many states – Karnataka, Orissa, MP, Gujarat, Bihar and Rajasthan. Non-performing Governments like Karnataka, MP and Rajasthan are a huge liability. These 6 states have more than 170 seats between them and BJP and allies will need to defend more than 120 seats in all these states combined. Only Gujarat and Orissa offer some hope. On the other hand, the BJP has very few states that it can play on to add to its 2004 seat tally. Apart from Maharashtra, Punjab, Delhi and Haryana there are hardly any states that BJP can add seats. Uttar Pradesh will be a major play state but the BJP performance will depend on a whole host of facts, some that they can control and some that they cannot.

Here are my recommendations for the BJP.

a. Change in leadership. Get rid of dodgy Grandfathers and get somebody young and energetic. Arun Jaitly is definitely the man to lead the BJP in the 2009 election. He Symbolises energy and will appeal strongly to the average BJP voter

b. Come out with clear cut plans in the next 12 months that will substantially differentiate the BJP from the Congress and allies. Example

a. Offer Tax reductions to the middle class

b. Promise lower interest rates to farmers, home buyers and businesses

c. Offer lower taxes to Small and medium sized businesses

d. Promise larger budgets for Education with a promise to achieve 100% literacy in the 5-10 age group

e. Promise higher prices to farmers for their crops and promise a more effective supply chain for traders

f. Promise doubling transport and power infrastructure to eliminate most transport and power problems across the country during the next 10 years

g. Promise a boom in single bedroom homes across the country through tax benefits to builders and buyers alike

h. With nearly 100 constituencies in Urban areas, the BJP will need to focus a lot of their vote planning effort in these constituencies through some or all of the above messages. However the message is in itself is not enough. The next two years will have to be spent on ensuring that BJP voters have registered and actually turn out on Election Day. That will mean increasing election turnouts from 30-40% in most cities to 50-60%. With a whole host of benefits (mentioned above), most registered voters should definitely turn up

i. Work with all its existing Governments to identify weak constituencies and carry out targeted programs (not symbolic) that will protect them from any swings against the incumbent state Governments

j. The most critical element of the BJP strategy will be to give up the minority bashing that was so successful in the past. Over the last few years, the minority bashing has led to the loss of allies like Chandrababu and Jayalalitha. It is increasingly proving to be less of a vote winner. The disgusting minority bashing in the UP election did not prevent a significant shift in upper caste votes in favour of the BSP. At the end of the day, the BJP can win in 2009 if and only if it is able to create a coalition. It can do that be reducing barriers for parties like TDP and ADMK and reducing the consolidation of minority vote that happens when the BJP goes about abusing minorities

To summarize, the UPA alliance is well positioned to form a Government in 2009. Only a Tsunami like economic or corruption crisis OR an aggressive campaign by the NDA can prevent this from happening

Why Do We Have a National Holiday on Christmas and Good Friday?

Chandra — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 00:16:43 EDT

Last weekend was another of those weekends, the whole country was shut down for another meaningless holiday. While we in India are not masters of meaningless holidays, our holidays are unique. Some of our holidays are actually meant for 3% of our population!!! It is like Diwali and Holi were national holidays in the US and UK. I suppose that is a possibility too, all we need is a smart politician out there to recognize the opportunity. Coming back to the topic, I have often wondered why we get a National holiday on Christmas and Good Friday. Let us hear the arguments in favour of this

a.Most people celebrate Christmas as it is no more a religious holiday
b.Most of our clients have a holiday, what is the point in us going to work?
c.We should support our minorities, how we treat our minorities is how we will be known as a nation

Each of them are interesting arguments . Let us examine each argument separately.

Firstly, when it does not have religious connotations, what are some people in India celebrating? How is the celebration any different from Diwali, why have two holidays then? Here I am specifically referring to Hindus (or Atheists). Again assuming that this phenomenon is largely a convent school/BPO phenomenon, neither of these groups exceeds 3% of the population. Adding this to the overall population of Christians, we still do not cross 6%, again a minority. Also, what happens if this is not a holiday, will non-Christians bother to celebrate this ‘festival’, highly unlikely!!!

The second argument is that most of our clients have a holiday, so we have one too. This is an interesting argument but a weak one. Let us split clients into two groups, those who are based out of ‘Christian nations’ and those who are based locally. I can understand that those who are on 24x7 support should be at work on Diwali and not on Christmas, therefore no problem at all. However, I suppose this group do not go beyond 1-2% of the population. Please give them a holiday whenever required, no problem. Let us look at those who have largely domestic clients. They have a holiday because others have a holiday who in turn have a holiday because others have a holiday. In other words, it is a holiday because nobody used their brains to understand why they have a holiday in the first place. It is what people call a vicious cycle. Somebody needs to stop this nonsense.

The last argument is a strong one. Yes, it is very critical to enable our minorities to celebrate their festivals. However, this does not explain why many MNCs do not have a single holiday for Muslims. Nor does it explain why most organizations in the South do not have a holiday for Holi or most organizations in the north do not have a long holiday for Pongal. Both these groups are much larger than Christians in their organizations. A typical example in Mumbai would be that 3% of a office in Mumbai are Christians and 10% are South Indians, while the office gets two days off for Christian related holidays it gets none for South Indians. I understand the South Indian part, but donot understand the Christian part, why 2 holidays?

The reality is that none of the above criteria were actually used before choosing Christmas/good Friday as holidays. These are just explanations after the holiday has been given. If the above criteria had been used consistently, Pongal, Holi, Raksha bandhan etc would also have been national holidays and not just regional holidays that they currently are.

Let me tell you why we have a holiday on these two days. There are three strong reasons –

a. We were ruled by the British and this became a practice from before Independence,

b. Most of our senior executives in the past were from missionary or British schools and therefore operated on a default mindset, Christmas must mean holiday,

c. Christians form a reasonable size of the electorate in many states and hence a vote bank, when there is a vote bank, there is a holiday.

To sum it up, nobody knows why we have a holiday. We have just about made up enough reasons to justify it as holiday after it was given but not enough reasons to justify its selection in the first place. Finding explanations after the event is over is of course a hallmark of our Great nation. Jai Hind!

UPA Government and Mumbai: Election Posturing or Statesmanship?

Chandra — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:47:51 EST

The last few days have been really interesting. Our foreign minister has been talking about all kinds of 'options', we have submitted a 'letter' to the Pakistanis from Kasab, Condy Rice talks about Terrorism destroying Pakistan and the Pakistanis themselves have become even more defiant (apart from Air exercises).

In some circles, it appears we are inexorably heading towards war and in some circles, the feeling is nothing is likely to happen (2001-2002).

My opinion is that the current congress government is just posturing. They are incapable of doing anything. This is evidenced by two major news stories over the last one week.a. The demand to hand over Masood Azhar

There are four names that are floating around with respect to the attack on Mumbai - Yusuf Muzammil, Zaki-Ur-Rehman Laqkhvi, Hafiz Saeed and Dawood Ibrahim. So the question is why are we demanding that they hand over Masood Azhar? Well, that is because the previous (equally spineless) BJP Government had handed over this clown during the Kandahar Hijacking. They want to get him back so that they can parade him during the next elections. Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, this Government gives a rat ass to the attack on Mumbai, they are worried about the next elections.b. The inability to deal with AR Antulay

All of us are now familiar with AR Antualy's comments. AR Antulay is a marginalised politician in Maharashtra. Once a powerful CM, he has now dissolved in the background. He claims, he represents many Muslims when he says Hemant Karkare was sent in the wrong direction to his death. I think he is being coy.

The fact of the matter is that out of the 15 policemen who were killed on the 26th-28th, five of them were killed in that single Qualis. Whoever killed the 3 top ATS men, the fact of the matter is that as a Govt minister, there is a time and place to bring about these allegations.

To do it openly means one of the two things. a. A fear that the Govt will sweep these under the carpet and b. Why lose an opportunity to garner a few votes? A simple analysis of the situation is that seasoned politicians like these give a rat's ass to the truth, so (b). is a more likely reason. That brings us to how the Government has responded to his statements. They have two options - a. either agree with or b. disagree with him. Instead of doing either, they have spent the last 3-4 days doing focus groups to understand the impact of his dismissal. It is ironical that the original ATS investigation (and daily leaks) by Mr. Karkare had won them so many Muslim votes and now in his death there is a possibility that they will lose many of these votes. Anyway, the time they took to arrive at the decision indicates the level of seriousness within the congress in dealing with the attack on Mumbai.

It is frustrating to see the way our Govt is handling an obvious attack from across the border. As an Indian citizen, Dec 31, 1999 was the most humiliating day of my life. This Govt is doing it’s very best to reach that nadir. Somebody save us. Jai Hind!

Indian Television Media: Things going wrong?

Chandra — Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:56:25 EST

The advantage of an active media is that other elements of society are very careful about how they conduct themselves. A vigorous media is important for the very survival of society. However, I am increasingly fed up with our TV channels are operating.

a. Most TV Channels are stuck by ideology. Before the attack, most of them were left of centre, out of touch with most people. After the attack, most of them have moved right of centre, again out of touch with most people.

b. Improper coverage: I am not an expert but providing information like ' five commandos are in the front, twenty are in the back' is not the kind of information I should be sharing, more so with terrorists having access to the same information. Some degree of editorial control is required.

c. Agenda: NDTV and CNN IBN are running a specific agenda to save the Govt in the current elections and the General elections as well. By converting a failure under the watch of this Govt to a larger issue of anti-politicians, I see nothing but a strategy to protect the current Govt. The Govt has failed and in a democracy they should be punished. Why drag the opposition parties into this?

d. Sensationalism: A week before, all news channels were publishing salacious details of the Malegaon investigation. Most of this information was from 'sources'. Sorry, ALL the information was from unnamed 'sources'. The same trend continues with this investigation. Can't these media channels invest in resources to investigate on their own? Till date nobody has been able to find out where Terrorist Kasav is from.

e. Candle lights: Fashion of the day that has been foisted on us by the media and now fashionable amongst our educated elite. I feel embarrassed that when we get whacked the way we did, candle lights are our best response? Most of us donot even want to vote or contest elections.