Desicritics Category: Politics: Elections

Chiranjeevi Enters Politics, Promises Change

Aaman Lamba — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:16:52 EDT

The Obama spirit has many adherents. Telugu film star announced his much-awaited entry into politics on Sunday in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, promising change and that he would fill the power vacuum in state politics. He asserted he had no enemies in politics. His new party's agenda and name would be announced at a plenary meeting on the 26th of August in Tirupati. The date was chosen to coincide with Mother Teresa's birth anniversary.

Film stars in India have often chosen politics after attaining stardom, or rather, post their creative peak. Tamil Nadu is particularly prone to giving their celluloid heroes a chance at the political hustings, with M G Ramachandran and Jayalalithaa having garnered much political capital out of their earlier careers. The trend is more pronounced in the southern states, and Bollywood stars-turned-politicians have been perceived more as dilettantes in the political scene.

the other political groupings in Andhra Pradesh have been attempting to counter the potential threat in next year's elections from an expected shift towards Chiranjeevi's new party. While the Telugu Desam Party might claim the legacy of the late NT Rama Rao, they are covering their bases by inducting NTR's family members like Hari Krishna, Bala Krishna, and Taraka Ram - themselves film stars. The Congress (I) has enrolled Rajshekar and his wife, Jeevitha, who are film stars.

Chiranjeevi plans to include his own family members in his party. He is still active in films, although not as much as before. In his recent film, Stalin, he plays the eponymous Stalin, in this case an ex-army officer who wants to overcome the apathy prevalent in society by rendering unconditional support to any and all. He retains the adulation of a wide spectrum of fans, and received the Padma Bhushan award in 2006, following which Amitabh Bachchan termed him the 'King of Indian Cinema'. The role of fan clubs has long been recognized as a critical factor in the rise of film star-politicians. Political parties have also funded films that project their agendas and highlight favorable stars. It will be interesting to see if Chiranjeevi will be able to mediate his celebrity status to political success.

Electronic Voting Machines: Are They Safe?

DSen — Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:29:23 EDT

Right since its first trial in 1982 in a bye-election in Kerala, India, doubts have been expressed by stakeholders like contesting candidates and political parties as to whether Electronic Voting Machines are safe and tamper-proof. Even though use of EVMs was made universal from the 2004 Parliamentary General Elections, as recently as on 20 June 2008, on the eve of municipal elections in the state of West Bengal, political rivals clashed over the issue of testing EVMs and a 12-hour strike was called in Burdwan by three political parties. After the 23 February 2008 Assembly Elections in the state of Tripura, the Tripura Congress demanded a National Police probe on suspected EVM manipulations. On 9 June 2008, a delegation of Trinamool Congress urged the Election Commission of India not to use EVMs in the 2009 Parliamentary Elections. In respect of the 2007 Manipur elections, an application was filed under the Right to Information Act to get precise data on the specific EVMs used. Television talk shows and long essays in newspapers have been keeping the debate alive: are EVMs truly safe and immune from high tech rigging?

The concerns expressed through these discussions and debates are varied. One line of argument compares Assembly polls that used EVMs with Panchayat elections conducted with paper ballots and concludes that better results were obtained by opposition parties where EVMs were not used. Another line of argument goes on to state that it is theoretically possible to reprogramme the resident software to favour one particular political party only. Then there are those who refer to introduction of upgraded versions of the machine to hint that the earlier designs were faulty. Yet another class of doubts stem from the controversies over voting technology in America's presidential election in 2000 and alludes to a wide variety of literature available in the public domain doubting the Diebold-based touch-screen voting machines used in the US. The last group bases its objections on the apparently very forceful logic that if indeed India’s EVMs are so good, why aren’t these adopted by the international community? Why do almost all advanced democratic countries still rely on the good old ballot papers?

A basic reason for a large part of the debate surrounding use of EVMs is that insides of an EVM cannot be seen like an empty ballot box. The transparency with EVMs is demonstrated by conducting a mock poll in each polling booth before the voting actually starts. In this mock poll phase, each polling agent of contesting candidates presses few buttons of the EVM after which the votes recorded are counted and tallied. This is repeated if necessary and after satisfying all agents, the contents of the machine are cleared a final time, the cover concealing the ‘clear’ and ‘results’ buttons is closed and the agents are invited to put their seals on the lock.

But isn’t it possible in theory at least, so the argument continues, to so programme the software of the chip inside an EVM that after the first 100 votes or so – to take account of the mock poll - all subsequent votes could be recorded in favour of only one political party? Even without looking at the software technicalities, it is easy to see why this would not be possible by noting that ballot papers are pasted on its balloting unit alongside the buttons while the sequence of names written on the ballot paper is arranged alphabetically in three groups of recognised political parties, registered parties and independents. This sequence is determined after the list of validly nominated candidates is finalized by the Returning Officer, usually only a few days ahead of the poll, and is thus distinctly different in different constituencies. In other words, since it is not possible that candidates of party X appear only at the, say, fifth button everywhere, even a hypothetically rigged set of EVMs cannot ensure party X’s victory everywhere. Besides, the commissioning of the EVMs is done in full view of the agents of the candidates and the whole operation is video-graphed. For added transparency, the EVMs are assigned randomly to different constituencies and the serial numbers of the machines are carefully recorded for reference. After the ‘candidate setting’, the EVMs are placed in a dedicated strong room with 24x7 armed guards under the watchful vigil of polling agents till their deployment in voting booths.

In a much publicized event soon after the General Assembly Elections in West Bengal in 2006, a public demonstration on how EVMs could be manipulated was organised at the massive Science City auditorium in Kolkata by a group of people who alleged that the just concluded elections used rigged EVMs. It turned out to be a damp squib where only a Power-Point presentation projected few dummy EVM models and some hypothetical scenarios of hi-tech rigging of EVMs. “We never said that EVMs had been actually tampered with” remarked one prominent organizer later. “We merely pointed out that there is a theoretical possibility that this could be done.” In a 2005 case in the High Court of Bombay, even a computer expert of the petitioner challenging the use of EVMs admitted to the Court that no one could hack into the EVM system because the hardware and software used in EVMs were not known.

Nobody has been able as yet to prove that EVMs can be doctored or tampered with.

The Election Commission of India goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the secrecy of the hardware and software in the EVM is maintained. The machines are manufactured only by two public sector enterprises, one of which is under the Ministry of Defence and the other with the Department of Electronics, Government of India. The micro-controller chips are non-erasable and are encoded in machine language that cannot be understood by human beings. The encoding and chip manufacturing is done not in India but in a foreign country and its details are a business secret. The memory is non-volatile and even if the battery is removed, no data is lost. If the connecting cable is damaged or cut, the letters “LE” (Link Error) are displayed. If the memory device is removed, the micro controller detects it and declares that the machine is in an error state. The encrypted code and data is unchangeable and indelible by anybody, even by the manufacturer. Little wonder that the Election Commission has been challenging anybody to show them how to rig these EVMs.

It is therefore no surprise that the Supreme Court, High Courts, Government Standing Committees and Expert Technical Groups have over the years subjected the EVMs to the strictest scrutiny and found them to be totally secure and safe. The Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms that was set up in 1990 included a report of a technical sub-committee consisting of experts from Defence Research and Development Organisation, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and Electronics Research and Development Centre, Trivandrum in which the tamper-proof functioning of the EVMs was fully established. In a Supreme Court case of 2004, the Court examined a scientist who was a co-designer of the EVM as an expert court witness; in its judgment, the Court observed that the EVM was a great invention, a national pride. The same year saw the nationwide roll-out of EVMs during the General Parliamentary Elections 2004 involving 670 million electors.

To understand why the EVMs used in India are quite different from the touch screen voting machines used in other countries like the USA, it is necessary to look at the origins and raison-d’être of the Indian EVMs. The design of the EVM was mandated in India purely by its own needs: to capture and reflect accurately the voters’ intentions, to save money and to make it difficult for miscreants to stuff ballot boxes with bogus unused ballot papers in the dying hours of the poll day. In the paper ballot era, ambiguous or multiple markings on ballots resulted in invalid votes and it was not unusual to find that the number of invalid votes were greater than the margin of victory. Complaints of deliberate counting errors by allegedly biased counting officials were also common and led to frequent recounting pleas and court cases. Reduction in consumption of thousands of tonnes of paper on economical and environmental grounds was also a strong motivation. Because each vote occupied a prescribed predetermined time interval in the EVM, quick loading of false votes were not possible. Above all, the initial design was consciously made to be as close to the system of marking on ballot papers as had been evolved from the third General Elections in 1962 so that the average voter had no difficulty in exercising her franchise.

The Indian EVMs are thus strictly stand-alone devices that record people’s voting intentions accurately and store it in its non-volatile memory till they are counted. The EVMs still have to be physically carried under armed police escort to the counting centres for machine-by-machine result counting in presence of agents of candidates, much like the ballot paper days. In contrast, in all other countries where e-voting is attempted through voting machines, the emphasis is on networking, centralized data transfers through public communication channels and for enabling remote voting by people who are away from their polling areas on the date of poll. In such a scenario, in spite of various levels of security firewalls, there is a larger possibility of hacking from anywhere in the network pipeline. The concerns for using EVMs are thus overwhelmingly different in countries other than India where no networks is attempted, nor any non-resident voting permitted, except for a very few government employees who are entitled to vote by post. Little wonder, therefore, not many advanced countries are keen to adopt the India’s stand-alone EVMs. To extrapolate the controversies over EVMs in other countries to the Indian context would thus be rather fallacious.

Why then do controversies continue? A survey conducted by the Centre for Study of Developing Society in 1999 indicated that 90.6% of the public preferred the EVMs in the 1998 assembly polls spread over two states where EVMs were used. It can be safely presumed that this figure has gone up now. Even so, few skeptics possibly remain. It is necessary to also win them over by publishing white papers and launching a carefully crafted awareness programme. For the just-defeated crest-fallen political candidate, however, the EVM can be a scapegoat to nurse his wounded ego: we think of the legal fight instituted in the Kerala High Court by a contesting candidate challenging the first ever use of EVMs in 1982. He won the election and lost the case. His political rival lost the election and filed an appeal.

It has been said that compared to the shiny touch-screen Diebold-system based US voting machine, the Indian EVM is rather ‘simplistic’. Perhaps. But it is reliable and robust. Born in India, it understands its needs. It can be easily transported in its plain plastic carry-case to the remotest villages through the heat and dust of rural roads. It can be set up by a village school teacher acting as a polling officer on the election day, helping him by displaying messages whenever the cables are incorrectly connected or the batteries run low. It works without electrical power or complex networks of connectivity. It is friendly even to literacy-challenged voter. It can accurately record and count our votes. It can be trusted to keep our votes safe and secret. It may not be much to look at but it is difficult not to be a bit proud of this rather lovable little machine.

UPA Wins Confidence Vote - Cash For Votes Allegations Scar House

Aaman Lamba — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:55:07 EDT

In a tumultuous debate that made Lok Sabha TV the most watched channel in India, the lower house of the Indian Parliament debated the confidence motion in the ruling UPA Alliance government, moved by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh after the Left Front withdrew support over the India-US nuclear deal.

The debate had the usual grandstanding and suave allusions amidst much heat and noise. It might have been a regular day with the vote mostly expected to go closely in favour of the government had the BJP not pulled a large green rabbit out of the proverbial hat. Three BJP MPs - Ashok Argal, Faggan Singh Kulasthe, and Mahavir Arora - brought out large wads of cash, apparently totalling Rs. 1 crore and claimed they had been given this money as a bribe in exchange for their votes in favour of the motion. They claimed that Amar Singh, the general secretary of the Samajwadi Party had allegedly given them the money and that they had a video recording of the same.

This predictably led to pandemonium and jolted the talking heads out of their stupor to rush to the well of the house. The BJP demanded the resignation of the Prime Minister. The Speaker of the House, Somnath Chatterjee, after he had restored order following much brouhaha, asked the Delhi Police chief to carry out an investigation. The Congress Party rejected the allegations and asked for an investigation themselves. They said that Ashok Argal, having accepted the supposed bribe was himself liable. Laloo Prasad Yadav demanded a narco-analysis test be carried out on the three BJP MPs who had raised the allegation.

The resumption of proceeding after a temporary adjournment saw impassioned criticism and alternately support of the government. Omar Abdullah called the attempts to shout down protesters and move motions against the vote itself the 'death of democracy'. Somnath Chatterjee maintained a tenuous decorum with aplomb. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh attempted to make a statement in his soft voice before he was harangued and drowned out by a tumult of voices. He finally submitted his statement in writing.

The vote was finally called and a voice vote appeared to have gone the government's way. A division of the house was called for and initial voting came across as 253 to 232 in favour of the motion, with 2 abstaining. Many MPs indicated they had been unable to vote. The final tally was 275 to 256 - Singh is king, at least for the day.

The allegations raised will take a long time to die down, and the government's functioning will take a knock until the issue is settled.

The India-US Nuclear Deal - What Happens Next?

Ashish — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:03:28 EDT

Whichever way the nuclear deal tilts, the prospects are surely troubling to the Congress chief (Sonia Gandhi, not Manmohan Singh). The same Prime Minister who last August backed down after initially acting like a lion (remember the statement - 'this is not a one issue Government' ?) is now suddenly passing out signals that he wants the nuclear deal to be done, and is willing to sacrifice the support of the left.

Sonia Gandhi must be scared out of her wits - her compliant Prime Minister is suddenly displaying a spine, her reluctant allies (the ever pressurizing left) are threatening that they will have a team outside Rashtrapati Bhavan to give the withdrawal letter to the President if the Government states its intention to go ahead with the nuclear deal, inflation is out of control and threatens to remain so, farmers are protesting in many states because of the fertilizer snafu, the other allies (NCP, DMK, RJD, etc) are all potential allies of the Left and hence not particularly eager to buck the support of the Left and go in for maybe possible early elections where they will also get tagged with the inflation and bad governance tag, and the Congress is losing states left right and center, ceding many of them to the BJP.

This particular issue comes as a surprise to most political observers; after all, the nuclear deal had more or less died out as an issue that the Congress would bother to pick up a fight for - it does not have electoral appeal, most people in the country would not bother to base their voting pattern over such a deal, and the left would have painted proponents of such a deal as being very aligned to the US (not a very appealing prospect to most parties who believe that this would put off the Muslim vote - not a done deal, but most parties believe that this is the likely case). It was only strategic observers who bemoaned the loss that the country was facing over the failure of such a deal (and the fact that such a deal was not something that India's neighboring countries were happy over). There were weaknesses in such a deal, but the fact is that unless India were to steal advanced technology, this deal is about as good a deal as it got (and that too because Washington has its own motives behind such a deal, including the advantages that its own nuclear plant firms would get).

So now what happens? I would suspect that eventually the Prime Minister will back down; they have already done so many rollbacks because of the pressure of the Left that maybe they have lost the guts and sight to see that the Left would face a bad time if elections were held now. The Left faces pressure because of the Nandigram incident, and Kerala is ripe for a movement of the electorate to the Congress (because the Left Government in Kerala has not exactly been an epitome of good governance); further, if the Left withdraws support now, and the BJP comes to power, then the left loses whatsoever influence it has over the policies of the country.

The B-C-O of American Politics - Through Children's Eyes

Blokesablogin — Sat, 7 Jun 2008 11:57:30 EDT

Ever since Super Tuesday loomed, here in California, my otherwise politically ignorant elementary students wanted to know if I would vote for Obama and if not, why. For the interim, I was able to ward off such questions explaining that I do not have the vote as I am not an American citizen. That worried them further- if I was not an illegal immigrant! I had to explain the concept of the Permanent Resident status aka the Green Card.

The way Obama has captured the imagination of the children is unparalleled in the 14 years I have been working with students. I have been through 3 presidential elections prior to this and I have certainly not seen this phenomenon before. Strangely, most of the children in the middle school grades preferred Clinton. They felt she was a better leader and just didn't TALK as much! I thought this was certainly an interesting point of view, worth analysis.

The children were unanimous on their opinion of their current president, Mr. B, who shall not be named! They openly wondered why it was okay for him to fight when they got to sit in the principal's office for barely raised fists! No wonder the kids are not allowed to vote. I think every democracy in the world will be better off if the age of voters was limited to 18! There certainly will be more honesty in the system!

The cable channels got a lot of viewership, playing out the ultimate reality show on TV starring C and O. Clinton could have certainly charged some royalty and got some of her debt written off! Oh well, that makes for another essay! Obama became an overnight star with him smooth deliveries and poise.

We are now heading toward Reality Show Part 2 starring Mac Cain and Obama. May the best man win! The political commentators and pundits will continue their incessant, running commentaries while I rest, grateful I do not have cable! I can take a break until November.

As I type this BCO story, I find that the word "Obama" gets a red line underneath it, as the text editor does not identify this word. It is time to update the text editor.

Obama vs. Clinton - De-Sanctifying Politicians

Ritu Chandra — Thu, 5 Jun 2008 02:33:22 EDT

So, it is official now - Barack Obama is the Democratic Presidential nominee. Hillary Clinton heads towards potentially accepting the vice-presidential nominee slot. A historic bid for the White House comes to an end (I know, not the White House as yet, but as intense, if not more). The results don't surprise me. Clinton's tenacity in the last leg does - mildly.

Over the frenzy of the Democratic race of the past few months one thing has become quite apparent - this historic battle was not purely about race, gender and creed as it was pitched to be. It was as much about the attitudes, aspirations and prejudices that survive and thrive in what is considered by many as one of the most progressive democracies in the world.

Lets talk of prejudices first. Extensive grass-root surveys on why not him? or why not her? have yielded some interesting insights. Mind you, this is not the informed, analytical opinion that has read Obama's excellent speeches or knows of Clinton's impressive track record. This is the 'tabloid fodder' opinion that usually makes or breaks a campaign.

Why Not Him: He is inexperienced. He has no clue of the travails of the white-house. His wife is not proud to be an American. He thinks all Pennsylvanians are gun-toting red necks.

Why Not Her: She is manipulative. She is power-hungry. She is will do anything to be president. She stood by her husband despite the Lewinsky Scandal. She preferred to spend Mother's Day campaigning instead of spending it with her daughter (refer to power hungry). She is as superficial as Aishwariya Bachchan, her smile does not reach her eyes (our desis have an opinion too :))

Do you see a pattern emerge there? If Clinton was a man, would any one of those points genuinely count? Why is being power hungry considered a sin for a woman and ambition for a man? Why would you blame a woman for standing by her errant husband. Should one not praise the strength of her character? Prejudices are things that laws can only reign in, never fix. So they will remain. What emerges in this case is that in the US it is far easier to be anti-woman than be anti-black.

That takes me to the second part of my observation on attitudes and aspirations. These attitudes might be prevalent world over, but they emerge very strongly in US politics. There is a marked double standard that all Americans practice when it comes to their public figures. For a society that does not think twice before filing for divorce, isn't it strange that politicians don't have a chance to any public office if they have been divorced?

Bill Clinton was in the dog-house for having an affair while in office. If that was a criteria for losing a job a large chunk of the population world-over would be jobless. OK, so it was not so much about having an affair, but getting caught in the act right? So you are basically impeaching him for being stupid? I am told it's not even that, it's lying under oath. Point taken, but what is more harmful a lie, Clinton declaring under oath that he did not have an affair(normal human reaction for anyone caught with their pants down) or Bush declaring with conviction 'There are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq'?. Should we have not impeached Bush for not only leading the country on a wild goose chase but also for murdering a country and sacrificing so many American lives in the process? Has he not failed in his job as president as opposed to Clinton whose failure was more personal in nature? To me Clinton deserved a hard knock on the knuckles (mainly for using the white-house for his pursuits, if he had done what he did outside.. none of our business) and Bush impeachment.

If you look around, Clinton was not the only one with a roving eye. JFK had an affair with Marilyn Monroe. Look at the French. They have no problems what-so-ever :). The French of course never had any puritanical pretenses but, closer to home in India, Nehru was a known womaniser, but our nation continued to revere him. And the less we say about 'Mahatma' Gandhi's experiments with celibacy the better. Yet, it is Clinton who has made history. The generation of Americans that turned a blind-eye to JFKs distractions has long given way to the far more demanding modern American. An American who expects his leaders to stand by all those values that he himself has considered out-dated for long.

Which takes me to the moot point of this piece. In this era of specialization, is it practical for us to expect our politicians and heads of state of be sarv guna samppan- impeccable human beings in all aspects? We all have human failings. How can we expect our leader to have none? Isn't that too lofty an ideal to aspire for? . A man could be a bastard in real life, yet run the country with honesty, integrity and acumen that makes a good president. On the other hand another human being could be the perfect family man, yet be corrupt, ineffectual and weak. A politician's job is to run the country. Period. And as long as he does that job well and keeps to the laws of the land we should mind our own business.

I know the halo around Obama's head as just got bigger but I do think it is high time we started de-sanctifying our politicians.

Caste-based Reservations Demands Increasing

DeeptiA — Sat, 31 May 2008 12:11:11 EDT

To say that caste-based reservations demands are increasing is probably a major under-statement, given the events so far over the 2 separate agitations that have taken place in 2007 and 2008. Crores worth of public property have been destroyed, the railways have suffered massives losses, both because of destruction of railways lines and equipment and due to large scale cancellation of trains. Tourism in the region will take a knock (especially with the bombs of just a few weeks back in Jaipur) with advisories already having been issued and coverage of these protests in the international media; and normal people have been put to massive hardships. But, this is not the end. As long as the politics of reservation continues to be patronized by various Governments, they will face such issues. For example, who would have believed that the North East could see such a problem:

SHILLONG: As protests of the Gujjars, who are demanding ST status, spread to fresh areas, the community living in the North-East will also take up the cudgels and launch an agitation in support of the cause.
Representatives of the community from the entire region met in Guwahati on Friday to chalk out a programme to join the protests.

There is no good solution. If the Government bows down to these demands and grants them the ST status (it makes no logic to give the Gujjar community an ST tag, the only reason is that the Jats have been granted OBC, and hence the Gujjar community sees the ST as a way to get more benefit of reservations, and hence these pressure tactics of violence). If they do get such benefits, then other communities will also want to avail of similar benefits, and this is a very slippery slope to go down. Already, both the Central and Rajasthan government have come under fire for letting the agitations causing so much disturbance.

The courts also know this, and from time to time, they have asked the Governments about whether there is plan to take empowered communities out of the net so that only the truly backward get such benefits, but any political party will find it suicidal to remove reservations for any benefit. And yet, parties continue on this policy, well knowing that any benefit is only transient, and other parties will also try to garner the same benefit. As an example of Governments trying to provide reservations even when courts have ruled against this, here is an example of the Tamil Nadu Government providing reservations on the basis of religion:

The Tamil Nadu government on Friday issued orders to "ensure" that Muslims and Christians got 3.5% reservation each in government services to overcome some 'practical problems' faced by the two communities in availing the benefit.

The Andhra Pradesh Government attempts in this regard have been periodically rejected by courts, yet here is another State Government trying the same.

India - Democracy or De-mockery?

Suresh Naig — Fri, 30 May 2008 11:48:52 EDT

You are right. It is about the largest democracy in the world, nevertheless not the greatest. The largest democracy is mockingly different from the established norms of democracy. The essence of democracy lies in the collective responsibility of majority. There are two important questions facing us. 1. Are we ruled by majority? 2. Do the elected representatives truly represent the people who have elected them?

While the answers are obvious to readers, at the cost of redundancy, let me touch upon it and dwell more into why of it? While in most of the elections, voter turnout is anywhere between 55% to 65% and any party getting just 35% of votes, comes to power. In case of a triangular contest, even 28 or 30% of vote share is just sufficient for any party to grab power, defying the essence of democracy. Once a person comes to power, it is his or her wish which is imposed on the people, which may not truly reflect the wishes of masses, defeating the spirit of representation.

This article is aimed at the root cause, than mere lamentation. The whole problem stems from a lack of understanding of our ethos. During the long spell of British rule, many of our earlier value systems, eroded and alien values and cultures imposed on us. When India became independent, democracy was an alien philosophy to us. Instead of improvising the democratic principles for our needs, in a hurry our leaders just copied many of the erstwhile British system. There was a clear division between literates and illiterates. The literates imbibed what was taught by their British masters, and were a confused lot having assimilated the good and bad together. This confused lot started educating all the people in India about democracy and introduced universal adult franchise, pawning their wisdom. Universal adult franchise is introduced, only after a democracy is sufficiently matured. Whereas we were a nascent democracy, without sufficient maturity for universal adult franchise. In haste, to prove it to the world about our maturity, we have made a mockery of democracy.

With the result, we have alienated a majority of right thinking people from the polling booths, who are confined to their arm chairs amidst a plethora of books, condemning all and sundry for the misdeeds and miseries, without raising a finger. A finger with indelible ink mark, once in five years.

BJP Wins In Karnataka

Ashish — Tue, 27 May 2008 02:29:24 EDT

In an election result that has the potential to have an effect on the fortunes of two of the largest political parties in India, the hard fought Karnataka elections has seen the coming of the BJP to the cusp of power in a South Indian state. Till now the BJP has always been castigated as the party of North India, and that South India would always be out of its grasp. However, ever since the last election when the BJP became the largest political party (until the Congress merged some breakaway legislators), the BJP has always been seeing this dream as around the corner. First it agreed to support the JD(S) for half the term, and then when its turn came, it was betrayed by the same party (not something knew to the party since Mayawati has done the same to the party earlier).

There are many points that the BJP can claim with this victory:
- The claim of finally having broken into the states of South India
- Being able to beat back infighting and cashing in on a sympathy wave (so even though the BJP was part of the previous Government, it did not get tainted with any anti-incumbency wave
- Continuing in a string of victories after the morale enhancing Gujarat victory; something that is likely to keep the morale of the cadres high
- The emergence of another strong BJP leader in the form of B S Yeddyurappa who fought off all intra-party dissidence (for the time being at least)

The Congress will have to face some questions after this defeat:
- The Congress can claim that their vote share remained intact, but the fact is that all the vote shift was in favor of the BJP and the Congress was not able to capitalize on being in power in the state for the last 6 months during President's rule
- Their much vaunted winning claim of the Gandhi family took another knock, but since nobody will say this inside the party, you can be sure that all other scapegoats will be found in the form of inability of the Central Government to control inflation as well as appearing weak on the internal security angle
- Any hope that they had of trying to cross the Left party on some reforms as well as the nuclear deal will be further out of the window

The JD(S) has had a massive reduction in its seats, and corresponding credibility on the political scene.

However, not everything is rosy for the BJP. They will be ruling with a razor thin majority, and any strong dissidence is bound to cause problems. In addition, the BJP over-promised in terms of free power, easier loans, lower price food, etc, and will have to arrange for funds to pay for all this. It also needs to show a better mode of governance.

Left Loses Panchayat Polls in Nandigram

Ashish — Thu, 22 May 2008 00:32:26 EDT

Nandigram has been the epicenter of trouble for the Communist West Bengal Government (along with Singur). The Government had proposed to acquire land in the region for the purpose of setting up industry, and this had landed the whole region in problem. Whatever be the purpose of the Government to increase the level of industrialization (and I had looked upon this move with favor, since industrialization and proper compensation for acquiring land does benefit farmers), the next reaction of the CPM regime was shocking.

The Government faced opposition from a collection of different parties and groups, and yet their objective should have been to maintain law and order. However, the Government and Left parties instead treated this as a personal affront against them (and the involvement of the Mamta Banerjee led Trinamool Congress only caused more problems for them). There was a massive confrontation between the armed cadres of the CPM (along with the full support of the state police) against the villagers and their support, and eventually it reached such a stage that there was a wave of condemnation against the tactics of the CPM.

Well, it seems like all those tactics have rebounded on the CPM, since the Trinamool has gained control over a zilla parishad, maybe a watershed in the politics of West Bengal:

In a jolt to the CPI(M)-led Left Front, Trinamool Congress defeated its candidates in trouble-torn Nandigram in the three-tier panchayat elections in West Bengal. The Front also faced rout in three zilla parishad seats in Singur to Trinamool Congress candidates.

Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress wrested control of zilla parishad in East Midnapur where trouble-torn Nandigram is located. It won 32 of the 53 seats, results of which were declared so far. It is the first time that Trinamool Congress gained control over a zilla parishad, the main decision-making body in the district.

I don't believe that there is an inherent opposition to the policies of industrialization that the West Bengal government is following, but the Government seems to believe that it is in China, where any policy can be ruthlessly enforced and any opposition suppressed.