Desicritics Section: Politics

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.

Delhi High Court Makes Consensual Gay Sex Legal

DeeptiA — Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:30:06 EDT

The world over, different countries have different concepts revolving around homosexuality. There are states in the United States that have made marriage between homosexuals as having the same legal sanctity as that between a man and a woman, there are other states where this is a matter of huge debate and controversy (with the Catholic and Protestant churches being against it), countries in parts of Europe are liberal while those where the Church has a stronger influence are less likely, and there are the Islamic countries where the concept is abhorrent - forget marriage between homosexuals, even the concept of a relationship was unacceptable (for example, in Iraq, insurgents would target homosexuals for murder).

What about the thought of homosexuality in a country such as India, which has a long history, and where there is a lot of debate even among historians about whether homosexuality was prevalent in the past. India, till today, had a law called Section 377, that made homosexuality a crime (even among consenting adults). This law meant that even among groups with a higher risk pattern for AIDS (such as gays), it was difficult to really follow anti-AIDS programs since a number of people would hide their homosexuality, or not be open about it.

For the past several years, there has been a debate stoked by AIDS campaigners and gay rights groups about revoking this section of the penal code (it was introduced by the British in British ruled India in 1861, and is no longer prevalent in the Britain of today). However, attempts by the Government to do a debate on removing this section of the penal code runs aground due to opposition by religious groups (and there are enough people in each religious group to be outraged by the thought of homosexuality), so it would have seemed difficult by the Government to move fast on such a law. And then came this stunning judgment by the Delhi High Court (and interestingly, it uses the same argument as used by several US state courts, using the theory that such laws are violative of many of the equality and fundamental rights of citizens) (link to target):

In a breakthrough judgment, the Delhi High Court on Thursday legalised gay sex among consenting adults holding that the law making it a criminal offence violates fundamental rights. "We declare section 377 of IPC in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 15 of the Constitution," a Bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Murlidhar said.

It further said that this judgement will hold till Parliament chooses to amend the law. "In our view Indian Constitutional Law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconception of who the LGBTs (lesbian gay bisexual transgender) are. "It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster dignity of every individual," the Bench said in its 105-page judgement.

It is pretty much sure that there will be appeals to the Supreme Court by many sections of society, one only hopes that the Government will not try to get this judgment over-turned. At the same time, this is a judgment by the Delhi High Court, and is applicable in the capital city (even though it is a precedent that can be used by organizations all over the country); ultimately it is either the judgment of the Supreme Court or a law passed by Parliament that can ensure coverage across the entire country.

Delhi High Court Decriminalizes Homosexuality

Aaman Lamba — Thu, 2 Jul 2009 01:44:32 EDT

Society changes at the edges, at first in opposition andslowly, but then the torrent builds, until the barriers are broken. What seems impossible to accept and against the 'norms' of society is soon enough commonplace.
The battle to decriminalize homosexuality in India has been one such battle. While homesexuality has always been as much a part of Indian society as anywhere else, it has had to lurk in the shadows and be reduced to furtive fumblings in park bushes and bus shelters, increasing health risks. The right to walk tall and proud was denied. While the debate in Western countries shifted to securing equal legal rights, India was still applying Victorian laws to hold back the tide.

The Delhi High Court gave succour to everyone today by agreeing that the law was unfairly stated, and that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which imposed a life sentence on those indulging in "carnal intercourse against the
order of nature" would only applly to cases involving children or non-consensual sex", as it rightly should. Thus, finding that it was a violation of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, and of fundamental human rights. They asked the Government to implement the guidelines of the Law Commission in this regard and look at rewriting the law in question. They invoked Jawaharlal Nehru's committment to human rights and his "Objective Resolution" as well as the 'Inclusiveness' of the Indian Constitution. The entire judgement was ordered placed online immediately(PDF). The judgement goes into the history of anti-homosexuality laws dating back to the middle ages, and notes that Great Britain
decriminalized homosexuality between consenting adults in 1967 under the Sexual Offences Act. The petitioner, Naz Foundation, which had seen the same case dismissed earlier in 2004 on 'academic' grounds, had brought the case before the court "on the ground that HIV/AIDS prevention efforts were found to be severely impaired by discriminatory attitudes exhibited by state agencies towards gay community, MSM or trans-gendered individuals, under the cover of
enforcement of Section 377".

The Court noted that

A rather peculiar feature of this case is that
completely contradictory affidavits have been filed by two wings of Union of India. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) sought to justify the retention of Section 377 IPC, whereas the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare insisted that
continuance of Section 377 IPC has hampered the HIV/AIDS
prevention efforts.

It noted the MHA affidavit was not well supported in terms of evidence, and there was more weight to the Health affidavit. Shocking notes on abuse of LGBT persons is recorded in the judgement, including the "Bangalore incident
of 2004". It applied the principle of 'severability' in delinking the decriminalization of adult homosexual acts from the continuing applicability to crimes against children and non-consensual acts.

There is much more ground still to be covered, and appeals against this decision are likely, but Incoming Addl Solicitor General Indira Jaisingh said she expects the Govtnot to be swayed by religious/moral arguments if any appeal was filed. On the other hand, All Indian Muslim Personal Law Board member Kamal Farooqui calls it a sad day for "civilised people".(Notes from href="http://www.twitter.com/gay_india">@gay_india)

Democracy was seen to hold fast in India today, and the fight must go on.

Spain's Audiencia Nacional To Be Reined In By Parliament

Vinod Joseph — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:29:08 EDT

The International Court of Justice at The Hague (“ICJ”) has a dual role. As stated on its website, the ICJ acts as a world court and decides, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by member States. It also gives advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of organs of the United Nations, such as the Security Council or specialised agencies authorised to make such a request.

In 2002, an International Criminal Court (“ICC”) was set up at The Hague as a permanent body for prosecuting individuals for crimes against humanity, genocide etc. So far 108 countries have signed the Rome Treaty that gave rise to the ICC. India and China have not signed up to the ICC. Israel and the United States became parties to this treaty (after some hesitation), but later withdrew from it. The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed on the territory of signatory states and by individuals who are citizens of a signatory state.

However, since over ten years, a third entity has been playing a role on global stage in the field of international justice. Spain’s National Criminal Court, the Audiencia Nacional, started to intervene in cases involving international human rights abuses over a decade ago. According to this BBC report, the Audiencia Nacional has been happily hearing and disposing cases involving human rights abuses from places as far afield as Guatemala, Rwanda, Chile, Tibet, Gaza and Guantanamo. No, not all cases have a Spanish link and the only justification for hearing such cases seems to be that they involve human rights violations or abuses of such a grave nature that they give raise to ‘universal jurisdiction’ and any court in the world would be justified in trying them. The only bar to the Audiencia Nacional trying a case is the knowledge that another court elsewhere is already on that case.

The main difference between the Audiencia Nacional and the ICJ is that ordinary mortals cannot take a dispute to the ICJ, whilst the Audiencia Nacional happily caters to individuals who are unable to obtain redress in their home states. As for the ICC, its jurisdiction is restricted to member states and it can only try offences committed after 1 July 2002 (when the Rome Treaty came into force) or the date when the relevant member state signed up to the Rome Treaty, which ever is later. If Israel were to sign up to this treaty in 2010, Israeli nationals cannot be tried for their actions during the January 2009 invasion of the Gaza Strip.

The most spectacular international case tried by the Audiencia Nacional was that of General Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean dictator. Based on an arrest warrant issued by the Audiencia Nacional, General Pinochet was arrested in the UK where he was undergoing medical treatment and placed under house arrest. After a lengthy court battle, he was released on medical grounds. On his return to Chile, he was indicted and another series of trials ensured. Before any conviction could be made, General Pinochet died on 10 December 2006. Even though General Pinochet was not formally punished, the international arrest warrant issued by the Audiencia Nacional almost delivered justice to his numerous victims.

Currently the Audiencia Nacional is considering action against Bush’s advisors who helped establish the legal basis for waterboarding and other interrogation tactics used at Guantanamo Bay. Also visible on the cross hairs are Israeli politicians and generals for their actions in the occupied territories during the recent invasion of Gaza and Chinese officials for alleged human rights violations in Tibet.

One of the reasons why the Audiencia Nacional is so much admired and feared is that many dictators and other nasty people like to travel to Europe for some decent R&R after having carried out various excesses back home. The threat of a warrant from the Audiencia Nacional has forced many a dictator to cancel his European travel plans.

The Spanish government has not been very happy with the actions of the Audiencia Nacional which are obviously not designed to improve Spanish relations with powerful and mighty states such as the United States and China. From time to time, the Spanish public prosecutor has tried to rein in the judges at the Audiencia Nacional, without much success. Therefore, it came as no bolt from the blue when the Spanish government formally took steps to curtail the Audiencia Nacional which not surprisingly has been the darling of human rights activists worldwide. The Spanish Parliament, the Cortes Generales, is all set to pass a law which will prevent Spanish courts from trying cases unless either the perpetrators or the victims are Spanish or there is some other link to Spain.

For various reasons, I’m glad that the Spanish government is clamping down on the judges at the Audiencia Nacional. My main reason is that I don’t like the idea of Spain (or any other country for that matter) taking on the role of a globo-cop. Spain has one of the worst records among the various colonial powers, it was an ally of Nazi Germany (though it didn’t take part in the Second World War) and had a horrible human rights record until General Franco’s death in 1975. It is only in the last thirty years or so that Spain, like most other Western powers, cleaned up its act. Memories of General Franco’s atrocities are still afresh and it rankles a bit when Spain unilaterally takes on the role of global arbitrator.

It is very tempting to saying that courts anywhere in the world ought to be entitled to try grave violations of human rights under ‘universal jurisdiction.’ However, despite claims by the judges at the Audiencia Nacional, we are yet to evolve a universally acceptable standard for ‘grave violations of human rights’. A judge in Saudi Arabia may decide that the CEO of a Scottish brewery is guilty of the worst form of abuse (by encouraging drinking) whilst a judge in Jakarta may rule that employees of an NGO working for Gay rights ought to be hanged. Further, if courts all over the world start trying alleged human rights violations, it is only a matter of time before biases start creeping in. Courts in Colombo may rule that fund raisers for the LTTE are all guilty of abetting the worst form of human rights violations, whilst Malaysian judges will not be sympathetic to companies supplying weapons to Israel.

Courts in Belgium used subscribe to the theory of universal jurisdiction on account of a 1993 law which purported to give Belgian courts jurisdiction over offences committed anywhere in the world if they are grave enough and contrary to basic human values. However, after the ICC came into existence in 2002, Belgium modified its laws and drastically reduced the scope of universal jurisdiction wielded by its courts.

Unlike Belgium, Spanish courts adopted the principle of universal jurisdiction without a specific legislation. Now it looks like they will have to be forced by the Cortes Generales to give up the power they took on ten years ago without statutory authority.

US Troops Withdraw From Key Iraqi Cities

DeeptiA — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:59:37 EDT

Most people now recognize the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 to have been a mistake, given that it had negative consequences in a variety of different areas (we'll talk about that later). The invasion led to Iraq becoming a magnet for Islamic fighters from all over, unleashed the sectarian divisions that had been brutally suppressed by Saddam Hussein, led to horrific casualties among the population in the fighting that followed, and scared the neighboring countries (other than Iran), since it led to a Sunni ruled state becoming a Shia ruled state. It also put the United States in a position which was deemed comparable to Vietnam in the sense that mere military might did not lead to a winning position, and dealt huge blows to the armed forces of the US (to both the regular army and to the National Guard).

The issue about getting the army back from Iraq played a major role in the last Presidential campaign, and there is a lot of pressure on Obama to bring back the military; with majority public support being to bring back the army. For many years, it was unclear as to what the timeline for this would be ! However, in the last year or so, the US finally managed to get the right alliances (including with the Sunni minority, elements of which would have been fighting the American forces just a few months back). It was only this reduction of violence, along with fledging steps taken by the Iraqi army and police force (another self-created problem - the initial US head of the Provisional Authority had dissolved the Iraqi army as a contaminated Baathist organization without making any contingency plans). The situation in Iraq now, although not as secure as the US would have liked to see in an ideal world, is enough that the US is able to do the major symbolic action of withdrawing its forces from 6 major Iraqi cities (link to article):

US troops are withdrawing from towns and cities in Iraq, six years after the invasion, having formally handed over security duties to new Iraqi forces. A public holiday - National Sovereignty Day - has been declared, and the capital, Baghdad, threw a giant party to mark the eve of the changeover. US-led combat operations are due to end by September 2010, with all troops gone from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Some 131,000 US troops remain in Iraq, including 12 combat brigades, and the total is not expected to drop below 128,000 until after the Iraqi national election next January. The US Ambassador to Iraq, Christopher Hill, said there would be no major reduction in forces until next year but the pullback was a "milestone".

The current Iraqi Government is treating the event as a major watershed in its regaining total control of Iraq, since the presence of US troops in the cities ensured that the Iraqi Government could not take many steps that they would have liked (such as when the Government wanted to apply pressure on Sunni sections in the cities, they had to face some resistance from the US army). With the general elections also due in the next few months, the Iraqi Government is sure to use the opportunity to claim this withdrawal as a victory.

However, the withdrawal does not really reduce the number of troops in the country, and many of the problems that Iraq faces are still there:
1. Security remains a problem
2. Simmering tension between the Sunni and Shia factions remains in place, increased by the impending elections and signs of fraud
3. The army and police are still not upto the required level of training, and not free from factional bias

Mayawati's Statue Fixation

Ashish — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:58:42 EDT

It is common knowledge that Dalits in India were a oppressed lot (and still are), long being treated as a political base by the Congress party. It was the emergence of Kanshi Ram, who resigned from his Government service and setup the Bahujan Samaj Party for giving the Dalits a voice. In our modern word, it is hard to believe that a politician would not have ulterior motives for doing what he did, and it was not easy to understand fully the acts of Kanshi Ram, but his actions (including the fact that he did not actively seek any political power for himself) lead to a suggestion that he did in fact not hanker for power for himself.

It was Kanshi Ram who started the process of making the Dalits believe that they could wield political power, and as a part of taking this process forward Kanshi Ram handed over the actual power wielding to Mayawati (wikipedia). It has been Mayawati who has taken the party much further in its quest to become a major political power in the country, starting with the critical state of Uttar Pradesh. It is also true that among the urban class, there is a certain negative feeling against Mayawati. Mayawati projects that as an upper class-lower class divide, and there may be some truth in that; at the same time, there is also a deep feeling of rejection against the image that Mayawati projects.

She flaunts her corruption, she flaunts her grab of power, she flaunts her image of wanting to make it big (the images of big diamonds, asking partymen to contribute money for election tickets and for her birthday party), all of these are images that people do not normally see in politicians. It would be that she is like any other politician in corruption, but she does not hide it like others do.

This is further exemplified by her fixation on setting up statues for herself, something that no other politician in India would encourage while they are alive, to the degree that she does:

Opposition parties on Friday slammed Mayawati for unveiling statues and parks of Dalit leaders ahead of schedule, saying it was aimed at pre-empting the Supreme Court from putting these projects on hold. “The manner in which the Chief Minister hurriedly unveiled the statues and parks yesterday is indicative of her guilt at misusing government funds for party work,” Congress spokesman Akhilesh Pratap Singh said in Lucknow.

Mayawati had unveiled the 15 statues, which included that of BSP founder late Kanshi Ram and her own, and parks at a hurriedly-organised function in Lucknow on Thursday, nine days ahead of schedule.

She has made this a mini-industry, along with the gratuitous naming of parks, naming them primarily for Kanshi Ram and herself. The level to which she does this, and the money and effort spent on these efforts is remarkable. Naming objects after leaders is not new, given that the Congress names almost all things after Nehru, Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi, but they do name projects; they do not destroy existing structures for this. Mayawati has destroyed existing green areas for setting up huge statues as for example in Noida, and tried to pull down sections of a stadium in Lucknow for the same reason. But who would stop her ? Do people expect her to spend effort on development, or to create memorials for herself ?

Will Mousavi Go The Tsvangirai Way?

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:47:21 EDT

You might wonder what Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Morgan Tsvangirai have in common. It’s very simple. Currently, Mousavi is treated as the angel of deliverance in Iran, the only human being capable of saving the people of Iran from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mad Mullahs. There was a time when Morgan Tsvangirai occupied a similar position in Zimbabwe. Out in Harare, evil was personified in the form of Robert Mugabe, a one time revolutionary and freedom fighter who had grown so drunk with power that he lost all his supporters outside Zimbabwe, with the possible exception of China and North Korea. Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai was a brave rebel who, despite being arrested and beaten up so many times, was leading the fight to bring democracy to Zimbabwe. In September 2008, Tsvangirai signed a deal with Mugabe under which he became the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe.

Things didn’t change much for Zimbabwe after Tsvangirai started to share power with Mugabe. The food shortages, unemployment and high inflation continue. On 6 March 2009, Tsvangirai and his wife Susan were involved in an accident. The car they were travelling in was hit by a lorry and Susan died. Morgan Tsvangirai escaped with minor injuries. Allegations of foul play flew thick and fast, including from Tsvangirai himself. The allegations had credibility since Mugabe has a record of using such ‘accidents’ to get rid of his opponents. Later Tsvangirai rescinded his statements and said that the ‘accident’ was just that – an accident.

Very recently, Tsvangirai went on a tour to Western Europe and North America to ask for financial aid, something that was denied to Mugabe when he was fighting Tsvangirai. Morgan Tsvangirai, darling of various western rulers and human rights organisations when he was in the opposition, did not have much luck in persuading western donors to give him money. Hoping to raise £5 billion, Tsvangirai managed to get £60 million from the UK and $73 million from the US. Neither government was willing to give the aid directly, considering Zimbabwe’s track record and history. During his time in the UK, Tsvangirai addressed a meeting of Zimbabwean exiles who used to support him till just a year ago, and was jeered when he tried to explain his support for Mugabe.

Tsvangirai’s unsuccessful visit made me wonder if Mousavi will face a similar fate if he manages to come to power. Like Tsvangirai, Mousavi was never a saint to start off with. Just as Tsvangirai used to be an ardent Mugabe supporter and a member of Mugabe’s Zanu PF Party, Mousavi was a revolutionary who struggled for the ouster of the Shah. Later Mousavi became the Prime Minister of Iran from 1981 to 1989 when the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) took place and ten year old Iranian boys were being sent off to the battlefield as human mine sweepers. Mousavi is also a member of the High Council for Cultural Revolution, an organisation responsible for purging Iran of un-Islamic books, movies and other artistic works. Of late, Mousavi has not been an active member of this Council.

Will Mousavi manage to depose Ahmadinejad and become the President of Iran? It appears highly unlikely to me since Mousavi’s support seems to be restricted to the big cities. Let me clarify that I would personally like to see Mousavi in power and Ahmadinejad in permanent retirement. Mousavi may be just another ruthless politician, but he is likely to give the people of Iran, especially the ones who want a modern Iran, a better deal. However, it is much more likely that Mousavi will strike a deal with the evil regime he is battling and share power with them.

Lalgarh, Is it Liberated?

Amitabh Mitra — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:56:02 EDT

Lalgarh is a small village in Jhargram Subdivision of West Midnapore District. The Midnapore railway station is 45 kms away from the village. Lalgarh has become a symbol of defiance against adivasi repression and oppression.

Everything started after the Shalboni incident on 2 November 2008 when a land mine explosion was targeted at the Chief Ministers’convoy.

This resulted in hyperactivity of the police which resulted in rounding up of entire villages and subjecting them to inhuman torture, detention was carried out at mere speculation and sexual assault was the part of interrogation.

Joint ruthless operations were carried out on 5 November 2008 into the villages of Choto Pelia, Boro Pelia, Bashber and Kata Pahari.

Many people were left with broken limbs and jaws, some went blind.

The police thought that these simple tribals who don’t have the backing of CPM, Trinamool Congress or Congress I would not revolt or even complain.

Crores are spent on modernising Lalgarh Police stations but the people still leave in thatched huts.

I was surprised to see a three storey mansion-like building belonging to the local CPM leader being rightly brought down by the peasants while women made a hooting sound as concrete and plaster fell. The local panchayats have misappropriated the money for building their own houses.

The Lalgarh Adivasis organised themselves and decided to take the law in their own hands on 6 November 2008.

Can they be called Maoists just because they wanted a better life?

They don’t even know who Mao is.

I remember Sitaram Yechury advising Buddhadev da to ban the Maoists when he hardly knows the intricacies of the Lalgarh problem.

I even saw Aparna Sen on NDTV trying to get some political / cultural mileage by going to Lalgarh and asking everybody to keep their guns down.

Lalgarh would be forgotten soon, what would remain will be the fear and pain of the adivasis, blind people and people walking over with crutches and deformities as a result of police and paramilitary excesses would be an example of an uprising that was nipped even without listening to their problems.

Gwalior Politics and Conspiracies

Amitabh Mitra — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:22:37 EDT

Many years back I had written to Anand Sharmaji asking him if there is a remote possibility of me getting a Congress nomination for the Gwalior Lok Sabha Polls. I had told him in no uncertain terms that I lack financial clout in spite of the people of rural and urban Gwalior loving me.

Anand Sharmaji was a leader of the Youth Congress during those days. It was an abrupt question to which he had no answer, other than asking me to spend more time in Delhi.

Is it possible for an ordinary Indian like me to have dreams of being a part of the August body, the Indian Parliament?

I belong to the town of Gwalior, a ramshackle old place with heritage and honour which I proudly share with its entire people.

The auto driver tells me in chaste bad land Hindi ‘Doctorji. Please don’t come back to Gwalior, because it is painful for all of us when you leave’ In typical Hindi / Urdu mixed dialect he adds that I give urticaria (Khujli) to everybody here, the journalists, doctors, engineers and politicians. We keep on scratching even after you have gone. This would not happen if I settle down permanently back in Gwalior.

The palace in the middle of the town has kept the common man in awe for centuries and in the 60th year of independence, palace politics dominates the Lok Sabha elections also.

A Member of Parliament who brought shame to the people of Gwalior is Ram Sevak Singh of Congress,Gwalior MP in the Lok Sabha . He was caught on camera accepting 50,000 rupees for asking five questions in the Parliament. The sting operation rolled by the news channel Aaj Tak caught 11 MPs taking bribes representing different political parties. Ram Sevak Singh, a virtually unknown face in Gwalior was pushed up suddenly by the Congress I and given a parliamentary seat. It is a well known fact that parliamentary seats are given and not won. The Congress had to remove him from his primary membership as a face saving gesture.

Yashodhara Raje Scindia of the BJP was declared elected to the Gwalior Lok Sabha seat. She defeated her nearest Congress rival Ashok Singh by over 35,000 votes. The misfortune is that Yashodhara Raje never belonged to Gwalior.

Yashodhara Raje Scindia, a fabled billionaire in her own right was pitted in a 24-candidate contest. Businessman Ashok Singh also a millionaire and owner of prime properties in Gwalior of the Congress was her main rival.

Besides 18 independents, Mr Munnalal Goyal of Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party nominee Kedar Singh Vidhuri and Lok Janshakti Party's Phool Singh Baraiya were also in the fray.

Dreaded dacoit Rambabu Gadaria's sister Ramshri Baghel was also in the fray as Rashtriya Samanata Dal nominee.

About 14 lakh people exercised their franchise in 1470 polling stations on March 8. The votes were counted on March 11.

In the faction-ridden Congress in Madhya Pradesh, political compulsions forced Jyotiraditya to campaign for party nominee Ashok Singh, who is considered close to AICC General Secretary Digvijay Singh.

For the foreign-educated Yashodhara, her elder sister and Rajasthan Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje had taken over the campaigning reminding the electorate about the contributions of the late Rajmata.

Late Rajmata (Cong) and Vajpayee (Jan Sangh) were earlier elected from Gwalior in 1962 and 1971 respectively. The late Madhavrao Scindia represented the constituency in 1984, 1989 and 1991.

In 1996, the BJP had not fielded its candidate to facilitate the victory of Madhavrao, who was in the fray as a candidate of Madhya Pradesh Vikas Congress after the Congress denied him a ticket along with other hawala-tainted dreaded dacoit Rambabu Gadaria's sister Ramshri Baghel who was also in the fray as Rashtriya Samanata Dal nominated leader.

Yashodhara Raje Scindia of the BJP got 252314 votes and was declared elected to the fifteenth Lok Sabha. Ashok Singh of the Congress I got 225723 votes and was defeated again.

So why did the Congress high command give Ashok Singh a seat in spite of losing in the previous elections?

The parliamentary seat always went to obscure people who obviously have used their financial clout to get a seat allotted for them. M.J. Akbar, a former Member of Parliament and a well known literary figure has confessed in his blog about the vast amount of money which each contesting member spends to retain the constituency

Jaswant Singh has won from Darjeeling. Like Yashodhara Raje of Gwalior, he doesn’t have any connection with Darjeeling. I had met a Punjabi journalist in Bhutan during 1985 who revealed that he is a Member of Parliament of Darjeeling. I couldn’t stop my laughter when he couldn’t reply me in Nepali.

I believe that I can speak better Nepali and have a better understanding of the Nepali psyche of the Gorkhaland areas than Jaswant Singhji.

Jaswant Singhji also knows that a separate Gorkhaland state is just a dream. He is playing a dangerous game with Gorkha Janmukti Morcha and the aspirations of people there.

Rahul Gandhi, I believe had a dream of bringing professionals to the forefront of politics irrespective of their financial status or family background.

Let me see if such things happen in the distant politics of India.

Also Read: Faces from Gwalior

After Cairo, Will Obama Back Up His Words With Actions?

Vinod Joseph — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:30:13 EDT

There has never been any doubt that Obama is a good speaker and Obama’s Cairo Speech has only reaffirmed what everyone knew, that Obama is a master of rhetoric and linguistic finesse. With the exception of Churchill’s Blood, Sweat, Toil and Tears speech, I can’t think of any other address by any politician in the last hundred years that was so eagerly anticipated and which lived up to its promise. Yes, Kennedy’s Ich Bin Ein Berliner is equally important and memorable, but that was a one-liner and it is always easy to get a one-liner right, though Armstrong did goof up with his.Obama’s speech confirms a clean break with past US policy on the Middle East, especially in light of his predecessor George Bush’s track record. Obama has made it clear that he does not think all Muslims are terrorists or that Islamic culture is not something to be despised or treated with contempt. It is only a small minority of Muslims who are extremists and Obama is very happy to do business with the rest, provided they are willing to meet with him halfway. To do all this, Obama did not hesitate to refer to his own Islamic background or to praise past Islamic contributions to art, architecture etc. Obama also promised to fight crude stereotypes of Islam and demanded that Muslim reciprocate in equal measure. Can it be said that Obama spoke for all Americans? Can it be assumed that a majority of Americans are as appreciative of Islam as Obama is? I am not too sure of that, though it is clear than most Americans do want to make a fresh start.

A few times, Obama went a bit overboard in his speech, but I don’t think many people have noticed, though a few obviously did. For example, he said that the first nation to recognize the US was Morocco by signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796. What Obama failed to say what that Morocco was not an independent state and that the treaty was signed with the Pasha of Morocco who owed allegiance to the Ottoman Empire. Along with the other two Barbary nations Tunisia and Algeria, Morocco was officially in the business of piracy.Ships sailing in the Mediterranean or the Atlantic would be attacked by Barbary corsairs unless they were protected by a strong navy or had paid protection money to the Moroccans. After the US became independent in 1783, it no longer had the protection of the British navy and signed the treaty of Morocco under which it paid a large sum of money to the Pasha so that ships flying the American flag would not be attacked. A few years later, the Pasha wanted more money and there was a brief war between the United States and Morocco, following which a second treaty was signed. Whichever one of Obama’s speech writers thought this one up ought to be shot! In my opinion, the first nation to recognise the United States was Great Britain which, at the end of the War of Independence, signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 under which the right to independence of the thirteen states that initially formed the United States of America was recognised.

Obama also said that America was founded upon the ideal that all are created equal. As far as I know, the founding fathers of America believed that all rich white land owning men are equal.

Obama said that he wanted to create a nuclear weapons free world where no nation would have nuclear weapons and all nations, even Iran, would be able to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Splendid thoughts, but I just don’t see the US or any other nuclear power giving up its weapons. I though the best bit of Obama’s speech came when he talked of US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. And the worst bit, for me at least, was when he talked about Israel and Palestine. Obama rightly acknowledged US ties to Israel and the sheer horror and brutality of the holocaust. However he had me confused when he said,

‘On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighbouring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.’

For me the way Obama used the phrase ‘pursuit of a homeland’ is worrying. You see, the Palestinians had a homeland before the Jews returned and it was the Jewish pursuit of a homeland (in my opinion, perfectly justified in principle, but executed with so many blemishes) that has caused so much misery to the Palestinians.

Further some of the Palestinian suffering is the Palestinians’ own fault. But I just couldn’t figure out where Obama stood on all this. To me, it sounded as if he was trying to make a set of very safe statements without offending anybody. Obama wants a Palestinian state and wants the building Israeli settlements to stop. Hurray! Very few people (like Libyan President Gaddafi) still believe in a one-state solution and I didn’t really expect Obama to do so. Obama doesn’t like violence (which he says is wrong) and he reminds Palestinians that all over the world, deprived and downtrodden people have won their rights through non-violence. Does the US have the moral right to make this statement when it is involved in so much fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don’t think so.

Mind you, I am not saying the US shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, only that Obama shouldn’t be sanctimonious and preach about non-violence. From the time Israel won the six-day war in 1967, during which time Lyndon B. Johnson was the US President, the US had taken the stand that Israel should stop building settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Except during George W. Bush’s time, when the US was silent on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, US policy in this regard has not changed since 1967. The US has also always supported the idea of a Palestinian state. Bill Clinton (when he was President) actually went further than Obama did in Cairo and demanded that the Arab parts of Jerusalem (the Eastern bits) be under Palestinian control.

Obama on the other hand was silent on the fate of Jerusalem, , except to say that he wanted Jerusalem to be a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, which doesn’t convey much. I would like to know if Obama believes Israel is entitled to the whole of Jerusalem. Or would Obama like to see East Jerusalem as a part of the independent Palestinian State?If Obama were a doer and not just a talker, this is what he would do to force Israel to give up the occupied territories. Military and financial aid to Israel would be sharply reduced.

No, I would not advocate a total cut since Israel does face many serious security threats and yes, it is in a very hostile neighbourhood. Hamas and Hizbollah would be recognised as legitimate political entities and treated with some degree of respect. Political parties in Israel which support the cause of an independent Palestinian state – I mean a fully-functioning state with its own armed forces and the right and ability to defend itself, not what Benyamin Netanyahu has in mind – will be patted on the back whilst the fundamentalists like Lieberman will be given short shrift. And all along, the US will keep reiterating the demand for an independent Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. Yes, East Jerusalem should be part of the independent Palestinian state.I am not too sure if Obama will do all or, even a part of, what I have mentioned above. The reason I don’t have much confidence in Obama is that I see him as a man unwilling to offend any one. And the Palestinian dispute cannot be solved unless the United States is willing to step on many a toe and twist many an arm. Why do I say that Obama is unwilling to offend anybody?

Look at Obama’s response to a totally different, but equally serious issue facing the United States. Yes, I am referring to the healthcare crisis. Unlike Canada and all countries in Western Europe, America does not have nationalised healthcare. In the US, healthcare is provided by private institutions and it is very expensive. Buying health insurance cover is a very common practice and most employers provide their employees with insurance cover. However, almost fifteen percent or forty seven million Americans do not have health insurance. Addressing this issue was a cornerstone of Obama’s election-time pledge to reform and change America. And how does Obama address this issue? Does he want to create a country-wide, healthcare system akin to the British NHS funded by the taxpayer? No. Is Obama going to introduce legislation that will cap the total compensation payable in medical negligence cases? No, even though such a move would drastically reduce the cost of health care insurance. Does Obama have any plans to reform tort litigation in the US? No. The US is the world’s most litigious society.

Unlike in the UK, plaintiffs in the US have an easy ride. Contingency fee arrangements are very common and attorneys will take on a case for no fees on the understanding that a big chunk of any compensation awarded will go to them. Contingency fee arrangements are totally illegal in India and are permitted only in certain limited circumstances in the UK. Further, even if a plaintiff loses a case which was proved to be frivolous, US courts rarely order the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs. In the UK, it is not only common for a losing party to pay a substantial part of the winner costs, on filing a suit, a plaintiff is usually asked to provide security for the defendant’s costs that would be payable if the plaintiff were to lose.

So, how does Obama propose to reform healthcare in the US? By introducing a government-run health care insurance plan that will apparently compete with private insurance plans. There is no guarantee that a government run plan will lower costs. “A Rasmussen Reports poll found that only 32 percent of Americans believed a government-run insurance plan would, lower costs.” There is actually a very good chance that such a plan might turn out to be as expensive as private ones. It is very rare for any government in the world to successfully compete with private operators, even if it doesn’t intend to make a profit. In other words Obama does not want to seriously offend insurance companies or doctors or tort litigation attorneys who make a killing out of the present system.

If Obama is unwilling to say ‘Boo’ in the face of powerful insurance companies, will he say ‘Boo’ to Israel? Very, very, unlikely.