Lok Sabha 2019: Why I think the Congress is making an error by fore-fronting Priyanka Gandhi

There are strong reasons why to many Priyanka appears a reluctant politician. And the Congress looks pushed to the wall, pushing her to head its political war, writes L Aruna Dhir on Daily O. Read on: 

The climate is politically charged! In the capital city and other political hotbeds, there is an attempt to turn up the electoral heat — but there is also a collective shiver in people like us about what lies ahead, who will be in power soon, and, more importantly, what will they bring to the table in terms of welfare, advancement and growth once they get the new reins of power handed to them?

The air around politics is indeed as heavy and murky as Delhi’s ‘very poor’ AQI. And, ironically, ‘we the people’ have not much of a clue as to which way precisely the wind is blowing.

There are conspiracy theories being spun with feverish frenzy. 'Mahagathbandhans' are being churned out with as much gusto as was apparently put in during the mythological 'manthan' of the grand 'samundar'. Then, there is the great Modi wave. And there is also a growing ‘Modi-no-way’ wave. The fervour around the military and the recent air-strikes is a whole different saga in itself.

Amidst all this, the been-there-done-that grand old Congress is propping up its babalog and babylog like never before, clearly trying to give the upcoming polls their all, and scramble back into the general reckoning.

Pause the plunge? Perhaps it's time to stop and think. (Source: PTI)

The Congress' trump card so far has been that of the arrival of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra.

But, observing how things look, I personally think fielding Priyanka as the Congress' great hope is a terrible plan.

I am essentially apolitical and have no allegiance to any political party. I only support ideologies and people who can do something coherent and tangible for our country — the rest is simply hogwash for me.

Given this single-point focus, I feel the Congress forefronting Priyanka is a poor idea.

Here’s why.

The Dynasty Dragon
Any attempt to bring Priyanka into the picture drags the dragon of dynasty in as well yet again. Any sane, balanced person knows that a modern, democratic country simply cannot be treated as a fiefdom. We should collectively stop mocking the essence of democracy by encouraging hereditary politics. This sort of colonisation in fact should become a thing of the past.

Apparent Lack of interest
Up until now, Priyanka has apparently shown hardly any interest in hard political life. She has not chosen politics as her profession. She has helped her mother and brother in campaigning, yes, but not in the tough challenges of daily political life. Given this, why assume things will be very different now?

Push vs Pull
The Congress has burnt its proverbial fingers earlier when pushing someone to assume a role when they have apparently not felt an internal pull towards it.

Dr Manmohan Singh, of whom I am a fan, has been a great economist, intellectual and scholar. What Dr Singh achieved under the Narasimha Rao regime is written in golden letters — but what Dr Singh did under Sonia Gandhi is utterly miserable and in fact, in my view, quite forgettable.

The great economic mind, whom Barack Obama and several other global leaders looked up to, got reduced to a cruel caricature in Indian politics. He and his genius could have been used for great things towards the country. Instead, he was reportedly shoved into the role of a “seat warmer.”

The Congress' core focus still seems to be getting Rahul to power. So, why would the Congress repeat the folly of using another to do so? It goes beyond my reasoning or comprehension.

For party fanatics, it is the 'Indira likeness' that is creating a wave of
sycophancy for Priyanka. (Source: IndiaToday.in)

The Indira Hangover
Priyanka may be an Indira lookalike — but she is no Indira. The latter was tutored on the intricate nuances of politics in the very fine political climate that existed at that time, from a very young age and intensively at that. She learned the ropes of the trade from no less than her statesman father and cut her teeth in politics early on, taking on formidable challengers, fighting it out alone initially and triumphing against tough odds to rise to power.

The latter has been brought up by parents, both of whom were initially disinterested in politics, and both of whom were reportedly pushed into it against their will.

If anything, Priyanka appears to show the same sentiment. Why can't her party just respect that?

Sycophancy Syndrome
In the party and in the minds of the party fanatics, it is the seeming Indira likeness that is apparently creating such sycophancy towards Priyanka. In my view, she is being seen as the mythic Joshua by her flock — but what if she may turn out to be more akin the ever-embattled Moses, failing to herd her people into the Promised Land?

Strong biases against
Outside of her party and party followers, Priyanka is seen as a complete greenhorn. She is viewed more like a 'Lutyens’ resident' than as the denizen of a country whose hinterland holds its heart.

She is seen as having been fairly oblivious to the goings-on of the Congress in its UPA years particular and political matters in general. This impression works against her far more in fact than against her mother who is seen as having made a major effort to school herself in India's rough-and-tumble politics.

All lineage — no legacy
The chief reason for Priyanka’s name to be put up is her family background. The second chief reason is the weak footing her brother, Rahul Gandhi, finds himself on even now. Even though I think he has come a long way, he is still up against a veritable tornado.

But, while Indira Gandhi grew up amidst Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr Rajendra Prasad, Sarojini Naidu, Subhas Chandra Bose, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Azad and a host of such tall luminaries that India has known, Priyanka has grown up in a relatively insulated environment, bereft of any great political thinking and exemplary leadership.

Priyanka has been pulled in primarily, as many view it, because Rahul Gandhi
finds himself on a weak footing. (Source: Reuters)

Indira had the legacy of politics handed to her on a platter, yes, but with personal tutorials from the very finest minds of her time; Priyanka has been at a complete disadvantage here.

Country first, politics second, self last — or other way around?
Without being an idealist, and keeping in mind the flavour of petty, self-centred politics that exists around us today, I still feel that it must be country first, political agenda second and only then, the self.

While for most politicians, the order is exactly in reverse, with 'self' being on top, in Priyanka’s case, to many of her critics, it appears like it is only 'self' in terms of the Congress’s premier political family. There seems to be hardly any other agenda. In a tough political fight, why is the Congress limiting its own vision and its own offerings to the voters?

No small handicap
One of the most considerable political handicaps in fact for Priyanka is her husband. Robert Vadra has consistently been named in dubious deals and has the ED perpetually on his case.

Robert Vadra has been named in dubious deals. How will Priyanka
Gandhi deal with this? (Source: PTI)

For any individual, that is a very big drawback to have — while just beginning one's political innings.

No experience to offer
This is the biggest drawback in the case of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra.

At least Rahul Gandhi has been working hard to brush up his image, be close to the ground, challenge the government, rally the opposition, put his viewpoint across, carry the mantle of his party, be its face in India and abroad, pick up several hard lessons along the way and learn the art and science of politics.

But Priyanka?

All the hype and hoopla aside, where is the hard experience gained by such groundwork? Before claims are made to an exalted political status, should voters not expect to see at least some years of committed political learning? Even perhaps some service to society?

These, to my mind, are strong enough reasons to explain why the Congress is doing itself a disservice were it to obsessively focus on pushing Priyanka Gandhi as its biggest political draw this election season. But then, this is also the mad circus of Indian politics, riding on emotions, sops, false promises and nostalgia, often much more than on intelligence, reason, realistic expectations and the very reasonable demand to see political duties actually being fulfilled.

In this, despite the disadvantages I have enumerated above, who knows, Priyanka Gandhi too could find some favour. Indian voters, after all, are a naïve, forgiving and often forgetful lot!

Perhaps that's helping the Congress thus hedge its bets!

India Lok Sabha election: 11 things you need to know

India's general election will take place in seven phases between April and May, the Election Commission says.

Polls to elect a new Lok Sabha, or lower house of parliament, will be held from 11 April to 19 May. Votes will be counted on 23 May.

With 900 million eligible voters, India's election will be the largest the world has seen.

PM Narendra Modi's ruling BJP will be battling the main opposition Congress and a host of regional parties.

Leaders of two powerful regional rivals have formed a coalition against the BJP in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state, and a key bellwether state.

PM Narendra Modi remains his party's main vote-getter

The lower house has 543 elected seats and any party or coalition needs a minimum of 272 MPs to form a government.

So what makes these elections distinctive?

1. It's mind-bogglingly big
Everything about Indian general elections is colossal - the Economist magazine once compared it to a "lumbering elephant embarking on an epic trek".

This time, about 900 million people above the age of 18 will be eligible to cast their ballots at a million polling stations.

The number of voters is bigger than the population of Europe and Australia combined.

Indians are enthusiastic voters - the turnout in the last general election in 2014 was more than 66%, up from 45% in 1951 when the first election was held.

More than 8,250 candidates representing 464 parties contested the 2014 elections, nearly a seven-fold increase from the first election.

2. It takes a long, long time
The dates on which voting will be held are 11 April, 18 April, 23 April, 29 April, 6 May, 12 May and 19 May.

Some states will hold polls in several phases.

India's historic first election in 1951-52 took three months to complete. Between 1962 and 1989, elections were completed in four to 10 days. The four-day elections in 1980 were the country's shortest ever.

Elections in India are long-drawn-out affairs because of the need to secure polling stations.

Local police are seen to be partisan, so federal forces have to deployed. The forces have to be freed from their duties and moved all around the country.

Analysts believe the summer elections will largely be a referendum on Mr Modi

3. It costs a lot of money
India's Centre for Media Studies estimated parties and candidates spent some $5bn (£3.8bn) for the 2014 elections. "It is not inconceivable that overall expenditure will double this year," says Milan Vaishnav, a senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program at the US-based think-tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Compare it to the $6.5bn that the US spent on the famously free-spending presidential and congressional elections in 2016, and you realise how costly India's elections are.

Financing of political parties in India continues to be opaque despite the fact that they are forced to declare their incomes.

Last year, Mr Modi's government launched electoral bonds, which allow businesses and individuals to donate to parties without their identities being disclosed.

Donors have given away nearly $150m in these bonds - and the bulk of it, according to reports, has gone to the BJP.

4. Will women hold the key?
Indian women are voting in large numbers. So much so, that more women are likely to vote than men this time around, the first time ever in a general election.

The vote gender gap has already shrunk - in 2014, the turnout of women was 65.3% against 67.1% for men.

In more than two dozen local elections between 2012 and 2018, the turnout of women was higher than men in two-thirds of the states.

Political parties have begun treating women as a constituency and offering them more sops: education loans, free cooking gas cylinders, cycles for girls.

5. It's all about Narendra Modi
In 2014, Mr Modi led his BJP and its allies to a historic victory.

The BJP alone won 282 of the 428 seats it contested. It was the first time since 1984 a party had won an absolute majority in a general election. The BJP also picked up a third of the popular vote.

The staggering win was largely attributed to Mr Modi's ability to promote himself as a decisive, hardworking leader who promised to usher in corruption-free "better times".

Despite a patchy performance on several of his promises, Mr Modi remains his party's main vote-getter. He's also supported by a formidable and disciplined party machinery, run by his trusted and powerful aide Amit Shah.

Analysts believe the summer elections will largely be a referendum on Mr Modi.

The opposition campaign will be entirely targeted at the prime minister, a polarising leader who is loved and loathed in equal measure.

So expect a presidential-style faceoff in a parliamentary election. Whether Mr Modi remains a durable brand will be known when the votes are counted.

6. India's Grand Old Party will be hoping for a comeback
Can the 133-year-old Congress party step back from the abyss?

In 2014, the party suffered its worst defeat ever in a general election. It won a mere 44 seats - down from 206 seats - and picked up less than 20% of the popular vote.

The Congress is looking to stage a comeback

Things remained bleak as the party lost a string of state elections over the next four years. By the middle of 2018, the Congress and its allies ran only three state governments, while BJP and its partners ran as many as 20.

The party appeared to be in terminal decline. Its leader Rahul Gandhi, fourth generation scion of the famous Nehru-Gandhi family, became the butt of social media jokes.

But in December, the party seemed to seemed to have staged a revival of sorts.

Led by a more assured and energetic Mr Gandhi, the Congress wrested three key northern states from the BJP. Many attributed the recovery to anti-incumbency - two of the three states had been ruled by the BJP for years. But it would be churlish to deny Mr Gandhi and his party workers credit.

Clearly, Congress has got some of its old mojo back. Mr Gandhi has positioned himself as a more open and receptive leader in contrast to the forceful and take-no-prisoners leadership style of Mr Modi. And in a surprise move, his charismatic sister Priyanka has been formally inducted into politics to infuse some fresh energy into the party's campaign.Congress's revival has helped rejuvenate a fractured opposition, and promises to make the 2019 election more of a contest than what was believed it would be.

7. It's the economy, stupid
Under Mr Modi, Asia's third-largest economy appears to have lost some of its momentum.

Farm incomes have stagnated because of a crop glut and declining commodity prices, leaving farmers saddled with debt and angry.

The controversial 2016 currency ban - locally called 'demonetisation' - and a complex and badly executed new uniform goods and services tax hurt small and medium businesses and threw many out of their jobs in India's huge informal economy.

Exports have dropped. Joblessness has risen, and Mr Modi's government has been accused of hiding uncomfortable jobs data. To make matters worse, some of India's state-owned banks are drowning in bad loans.

Yet, inflation is in check. Increased government spending in infrastructure and public works has kept the economy moving. Growth is expected to be 6.8% this fiscal year.

But the fact is that India's GDP needs to grow at a rate faster than 7% for the country to continue to pull millions out of poverty.

Mr Modi has said reforming the economy is a work in progress. The elections will prove whether people are willing to give him more time.

8. Parties are banking on populism
Economist Rathin Roy says India is moving from a "development state to a compensatory state" where governments are putting cash in the pockets of the poor to cover up for the deficiencies of the state.

The result is competitive populism.

Mr Modi's government has announced direct cash transfers to farmers and waivers of farm loans. It has also promised job quotas for the less well-to-do among the upper castes and other religions.

Rahul Gandhi has promised to guarantee a minimum income for the poor if his party wins the elections. Others will be showering the voters with freebies ranging from TV sets to laptops. There is no clear evidence to show that sops win votes.

9. But nationalism could tilt the balance
Mr Modi's muscular nationalism and his party's majoritarian politics have left India a deeply divided and anxious nation, say critics.

But his supporters say it has energised and consolidated his base. They believe there's no need to be apologetic about political Hinduism because India, well, is an overwhelmingly Hindu nation.

Unfortunately the nationalist rhetoric has emboldened radical rightwing groups to lynch Muslims suspected of smuggling cows. Hindus consider the cow sacred. Thanks to aggressive enforcement of anti-slaughter laws, the cow has become a polarising animal.

People critical of radical Hinduism have been labelled anti-nationals. Dissent is frowned upon.

India's 170 million Muslims, many say, have become the "invisible" minority. The BJP has no Muslim MPs in the lower house - it fielded seven candidates in 2014 and all of them lost.

Indians celebrated on hearing news of the strikes on Pakistan

10. And India's attack on Pakistan could bolster Modi's strongman image
The tit-for-tat aerial bombings by India and Pakistan at the end of February following a deadly suicide attack in Indian-administered Kashmir triggered more nationalistic chest thumping.

Mr Modi has made it clear he would not hesitate to retaliate if there was another attack on Indian soil provoked or sponsored by Pakistan-based militant groups.

What is clear now is that Mr Modi will make national security a key plank of his campaign. Whether this will work is not clear. The opposition has to still come up with a persuasive counter-narrative. Will the pull of nationalism override other issues and fetch swing votes for Mr Modi?

11. A battleground bellwether could decide the polls
The northern state of Uttar Pradesh has an outsize influence on Indian politics.

One in six Indians lives here and it sends 80 MPs to parliament. It is also one of India's most socially divided states.

The BJP won 71 of the state's 80 seats in 2014. Last time, Mr Modi's charisma and his party's ability to stitch together a rainbow coalition of castes contributed to the rout of powerful regional parties, Samajwadi Party (SP) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP).

Ms Mayawati, who heads the BSP, is an icon to millions of low-caste Dalits, a fifth of the state. She has now joined hands with her arch rival Akhilesh Yadav of SP, a nominally socialist party. Together they hope to win more than 50 seats and halt the BJP's march to Delhi.

It is an opportunistic alliance - bitter foes turned strange bedfellows - but could end up hurting the BJP's prospects in the state. It will be pinning its hopes on Mr Modi to neutralise the alliance.

(Source: BBC)

Politics, Ek Prem Katha: Lessons in love from Maya, Mamata, and other Indian netas

From an assertive Uddhav Thackeray to the contrarian Mamata Banerjee, our prolific leaders are doling out relationship lessons — you just need to know where to look. If Priyanka Gandhi teaches you to stand by your bae, Mamata is the perfect example of how to be in a supremely happy relationship with yourself.

If we had to learn something from our politicians, the top lesson would be how to con the public into thinking you’re serving them while actually lining your own pockets. But it might surprise you to learn that another area where our netas can inspire us is in the relationship department. From an assertive Uddhav Thackeray to the contrarian Mamata Banerjee, our prolific leaders are doling out relationship lessons — you just need to know where to look.

Keep your partners guessing
Rule #1 for a healthy relationship: Never let your partners take you for granted. And any politician who has ever liaised with Behen Mayawati knows that through painful experience. After all, the formidable Behen of the Hindi heartland had bailed out the Congress in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, where it desperately needed a helping hand to form a government. But not only did Mayawati spring a nasty surprise by refusing to tie up with the Congress in the battle for UP, she has also been keeping the party on tenterhooks with her frequent and sharp attacks on its strategy toward alliance partners. More recently, she tore into the Congress government in Madhya Pradesh, when an accused in an alleged cow slaughter incident was charged under the National Security Act.

Even Akhilesh Yadav, who has been her unlikely ally in a bid to topple Adityanath, can rarely breathe easy. The seat-sharing formula made it amply evident that Behen ji is the boss: In Uttar Pradesh the SP and the BSP have decided to contest in almost half the seats each (of the total 80), prompting SP party founder, Mulayam Singh Yadav to remark, “Now, tell me the basis for giving away half the seats. Now we have only half the seats left.” Poor Akhilesh, his alliance with his father’s political nemesis has been that double-edged sword with which he must carve out his political identity. So the next time you feel taken for granted in a relationship, pull a Mayawati and give them a reality check.

Illustration: Arati Gujar

Ride out the rough patches
Love finds a way. Warring couples, separated couples, divorced couples, partners who simply hate each other — all decide to bury the hatchet and pick up the roses again. The Shiv Sena and the BJP are a perfect case study for relationship counsellors. Ever since they came together to trounce the Congress in Maharashtra, this power couple has never really had a honeymoon in their  lives. Uddhav Thackeray has never missed an opportunity to remind the BJP that neither his views nor his voters can be taken lightly. The BJP has responded by plying the party with just enough to keep it from filing for official divorce, while never really ceding any political ground. And despite using the party mouthpiece Saamna to attack the Modi government on issues ranging from Rafale to communal riots, Shiv Sena decided to stick with the BJP again. (Of course, the pre-anniversary gift of ₹100 crore for the Bal Thackeray memorial might have done the trick.) How the two parties handle their fresh flare-up over the CM’s post will be essential viewing for anyone looking to ride out a rough patch in their own relationship.

There are times when the path to true love is blocked by obstacles, like the whole world hating your choice of life partner.

Love thyself
Sometimes, you have to date around before you realise your true soulmate is you, which are words Mamata Banerjee could live by after reaching out to all non-BJP leaders. Despite the floral photo opportunities with Uddhav Thackeray and KCR, and the fabulous rally in Kolkata, she still finds herself leading a fractured team. At home, her party is struggling with dissenters and trigger-happy cadres. The CBI is snapping at her heels. And the BJP is throwing in some major muscle to put her down. But you have to give it to Didi. She seems to know just how to survive political heartbreaks and move on.

Other than the CBI fracas, Banerjee has been getting tremendous bad press from the artist’s community after she was accused of snuffing a film, critical of her policies, out of theatres. But she shows no signs of slowing down. Or toning down her rhetoric, even when her so-called partners ditch her at the altar. In a way, she is the perfect example of how to be in a supremely happy relationship with yourself.

Stand by your bae
There are times when the path to true love is blocked by obstacles, like the whole world hating your choice of life partner. For those trapped in this dilemma, look no further than Congress heiress Priyanka Gandhi and Robert Vadra, the Gandhi family’s Achilles heel. Until now. Vadra, who has been accused in a 2013 land grab scam, has never been anyone’s favourite. The apolitical masses could never really figure out the chemistry between the seemingly unlikely couple. But as soon as the Gandhi scion announced her maiden foray into electoral politics, her husband was summoned by the ED for questioning in a money laundering case.

Just when you thought the Congress leader would try to downplay the incident, she decided to brazen it out. She even accompanied him to the ED grilling sessions, creating a brazen and rather cheeky photo opportunity. At a time when she has been under fresh and vicious attacks by trolls and political rivals for her lineage and her husband, you would imagine Priyanka to play it safe. But by taking a leaf from her brother’s brand of politics (remember that famous hug and wink in parliament?) she let the world know she stands by her husband. And that, dear kids, is what they call commitment.

So this election season, remember to be political and stay up-to-date with our politicians’ latest antics. You never know, you might find your love life gets a boost.

(Source: Arre)

Why India's Narendra Modi remains star BJP vote-catcher

Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist BJP continues to expand its political footprint relentlessly. His party has emerged as the single-largest in the southern state of Karnataka, and has staked its claim to run what would be its 21st of India's 29 states.

Two other parties - Congress and the regional Janata Dal (Secular) - provided a last-minute twist by announcing a post-poll alliance which they say gives them a rightful claim to power. Between them they mopped up 114 seats, to the BJP's 104. The governor now has to take a call on who to ask to form a government.

However, despite falling short of a simple majority by eight seats, Mr Modi will be more than happy with the results. Over the past year, the BJP has made unexpected inroads into India's remote north-east, which has 25 parliamentary seats. After drawing a blank until now in the five southern states, it has performed exceedingly well in Karnataka (population: 64 million). More than a dozen Congress ministers in the previous administration lost their seats.

Much of the credit should lie with Mr Modi. In a typically no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners campaign, the hard-working leader held more than 20 public meetings and effectively took on the populist regional leader and Congress chief minister Siddaramaiah, who uses only one name. Mr Modi spoke about combating corruption and boosting the economy, while fellow leaders whipped up Hindu resentment against Muslims.

What the poll results again prove is that Mr Modi remains his party's most lucrative asset. He continues to energise the base and attract new converts. The BJP's brutally efficient cash-rich electioneering machine, run by Mr Modi's aide Amit Shah, also makes the party such a formidable opponent.

For Rahul Gandhi's Congress, the loss is a substantial setback. Mr Gandhi's much improved and focused campaign had revived hopes. Admittedly, his party was battling anti-incumbency - Karnataka last re-elected a party in state elections 33 years ago. But the Congress has been hollowed out in recent years by a lack of strong leadership. It has lost voters across various social constituencies at an alarming pace, and failed to offer a compelling narrative of hope to India's restless and ambitious young, who comprise the majority of voters.

"For the Congress, this loss is as dispiriting as it is debilitating. The Congress has lost its last remaining major state. Its fiscal coffers are drying up. Its cadres appear demoralised. And its allure as a potential alliance partner has taken a beating," Milan Vaishnav, director of the South Asia programme at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for Peace, told me.

So is Karnataka really a bellwether for India's 2019 general elections?

Dr Vaishnav says the rough rule of thumb is that state elections held two years or less before a national election tend to be fairly good predictors of the national results. In other words, parties that triumph in states in this period, despite some outliers, "do enjoy a clear honeymoon effect" with voters nationally.

But a year is a long time in politics. Three of the eight BJP-ruled states which accounted for 80% of the party's 282 seats in the 2014 landslide election are facing anti-incumbency and will go to the polls at the end of this year.

A credible performance by the Congress in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan will help boost its flagging morale. But what Tuesday's results also show is that only a united opposition can take on Mr Modi, and Mr Gandhi has a lot of work to do to take on his formidable adversary. A rag-tag opposition coalition without a charismatic leader will not be enough to defeat the BJP.

Also, while Mr Modi remains popular, his government's indifferent economic performance has led many to believe that he has squandered the massive mandate he was given in 2014. Right-wing vigilantism is thriving, and many believe that Mr Modi and other BJP leaders haven't done enough to rein in the mobs.

Many of his ministers and chief ministers are embarrassingly gaffe prone. Two allies appear to be unhappy with the BJP's "arrogant" leadership style. The BJP won by a whisker in his native state of Gujarat earlier this year. Next year's election race is not over yet.

(Source: BBC)

I watched Padmaavat; Modi and Rahul's silence about Karni Sena violence is telling

The cadres and their patrons need productive employment so they can stay off the streets and are denied their 15 minutes of fame, writes Rajdeepa Sardesai in Daily O. Read on: 

Just finished watching Padmavati (oh sorry Padmaavat) in a special preview last night. All I can say is that every sena should be made to mandatorily watch films and read books before they get hot under the collar next time.

To have protested against the film without seeing it is absurd but familiar.

Frankly, the Karni Sena's cadres and their patrons need productive employment so they can stay off the streets and are denied their 15 minutes of fame. As for the governments which have singularly failed to protect law and order, they should be summarily sacked. And before fine talk about being the fastest growing emerging economy in Davos can we be a progressive society in India? That even the prime minister's home state has been touched by lumpen violence is a blot on our image.

Once again, the prime minister has been silent when he should be reading out the riot act to his own BJP ruled governments. You can't be the macho Mr Modi in Davos and then be unable/unwilling to rein in a Karni Sena at home. And why is the Congress and Rahul Gandhi who tweets on all other sundry issues so conspicuous in their silence? Surely an election in Rajasthan can't override a commitment to the Constitution that guarantees free speech and expression?

Oh yes, the film itself?

A tad too long but lavishly mounted and grandly picturised in true Bhansali style. Is a celebration of Rajput pride and honour (and actually of Brahmin betrayal!) Go see it, not just for the beauty of Deepika Padukone as Padmavati but for Khilji, superbly portrayed by Ranveer Singh (Shahid is good too, but Ranveer remains the standout)

And keep some popcorn for the Karni Sena in case they finally decide to watch the film from a jail cell for inciting violence; that's all they bloody well deserve!

Where did the Congress go wrong in Surat?

Surat confused everybody. It was even the venue of Hardik Patel's biggest rally in this entire election season, writes Meghnad Bose in the Quint. Read on: 

If there is one district that determined the fate of the Gujarat election and the battle of prestige on Narendra Modi’s home turf, it has to be the trader-dominated district of Surat. Modi swept Surat in the 2012 Assembly polls, and Modi swept Surat today. In fact, he went home with 14 of Surat’s 16 seats. But the Congress’ opportunity cost, and arguably their biggest blunder this election, lies between the lines right here.

In July this year, lakhs of traders, primarily from the textile industry, hit the streets to protest against the hasty imposition of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Significantly enough, the protests were being led by members of the BJP.

The government did not take kindly to the protests. The traders were lathicharged. The anger only mounted.

But at a time when the relationship between the traders of Surat and their party of choice was at its weakest, the Congress was nowhere to be seen. The elections were still five months away, after all. It wasn’t yet time to hit the ground and start the fight. Or so thought the Congress. And boy, were they wrong!

If the Congress had even split honours with the BJP in Surat at eight seats apiece, the BJP tally would have been down to 93. That’s just one more than the magic figure in the 182-seat Assembly.

Congress: MIA When It Mattered

My Congress brothers and sisters, you have made me very proud. You are different than those you fought because you fought anger with dignity. You have demonstrated to everyone that the Congress’s greatest strength is its decency and courage.

— Office of RG (@OfficeOfRG) December 18, 2017

When the Congress is done celebrating how close the contest in Gujarat was, and the party’s top rung sits down to introspect on these elections, they would do well to wonder whether the bout began a bit too late. The first blow could have been theirs, and it would have hit home strongest in July.

When evocative visuals of textile traders being lathicharged flooded social media at the time, the grand old party was still asleep. It would not be till a few months later that Rahul Gandhi’s first Navsarjan Yatra began their election campaign.

The mainstream media, especially the TV channels, did not make much noise about the massive Surat protests. But does that even surprise you anymore?

The real question thats begs asking is this – when the voter sentiment was swinging hardest against the BJP, and Modinomics was tugging at the aam Gujarati’s purse, could the Congress not have mobilised itself to capitalise on the circumstances? Need they have waited those extra few months to rail against what Rahul eventually called the “Gabbar Singh Tax”?

The Grand Deception of Surat?

Surat confused everybody. It was the venue of Hardik Patel’s biggest rally in this entire election season. Take a look at the crowds that had gathered to cheer on the Patidar agitator.


When Hardik vowed to vote against the BJP, the crowd joined in. But the vows were clearly not kept when polling day came around. And no matter how much Hardik cribs today about “a massive EVM fraud”, the numbers will not change.

The masses gathered, they heard, they cheered and then they voted against the Congress.

Today, as the Congress falls short of the magic figure of 92 by merely 12 seats, they must surely be rueing Surat’s grand deception. Will the party realise, though, that it’s not enough to fight an election when it comes knocking on the door, but to prepare for it for months and maybe even years in advance?

They need look no further than the BJP’s concerted, consistent efforts in states like Kerala and West Bengal. In regions where the BJP is little more than a mere footprint, repeated rallies by the party’s top brass shows a commitment that the Congress has lacked so far.

Whether you call it the BJP’s killer instinct, or its tenacity to fight tooth and nail, it’s a skill the Congress must acquire quickly. 2019 is not too far away. And even before the final, many an important election awaits next year. From Karnataka (due for polls in early 2018) to Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan later in the year, the fight must begin soon. And the preparation must begin now.

Any other way, and the Congress could be left biting the dust yet again.

Why I changed my mind about Rahul: Aditya Sinha

A pessimist might say that even if Rahul Gandhi as PM did absolutely nothing, he would still be better than Modi. But I am more optimistic, writes Aditya Sinha, the author of The CEO Who Lost His Head, in Mid-Day. Read on: 

I've changed my mind about Rahul Gandhi. The Congress vice-president was often in the crosshairs of my writing during the past decade. He publicly threatened a lawsuit against me for a story I did that questioned his 1994 Cambridge MPhil. I published his marksheet and he countered with his degree, signed 2004. His mom Sonia is also wary of me. Shortly after the 2008 Mumbai attack, I wrote a satirical column about the way the then Home Minister Shivraj Patil kept changing his clothes while visiting scenes of the attack; I said he wanted to impress his party president with his sartorial charm. They threatened another lawsuit. I repeatedly referred to Rahul as a 'princeling', a term used for Chinese Communist Party brats.

Not only have I travelled a distance, but my view on Rahul has undergone a paradigm shift. It is not a result of hearing him at Berkeley, California, last week, though clearly he did well there. He critiqued the Government of India without resorting to insult or abuse. Rahul was so disarmingly candid that the BJP government in Lutyens Delhi panicked and held a press conference to hurl personal insults at him. The final straw was the assassination of
activist-rationalist-journalist Gauri Lankesh (the CCTV cameras indicate she was killed in a planned manner by a trained shooter). Enough is enough. The gang in power must go.

Others are still shaking their heads. They are impatient with Rahul for not acting fast or decisively to revive his party to take on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP chief Amit Shah in the 2019 Parliamentary election. They perhaps buy into the BJP narrative that Rahul's not up to the job or lacks the grey matter for it. Hopefully, they will soon snap out of it.

My reassessment of Rahul is not because of the 'anyone is better than Modi' argument, though that is a given. It is also not a calculation that Rahul will lead the next government, given Modi's self-inflicted fatal injury of demonetisation that has pushed the economy into free fall, and given Modi's broken promises of job creation (no wonder the youth are voting against his Sangh Parivar, if the campus elections in Delhi, JNU and Guwahati are anything to go by).

It is a no-brainer to say that Rahul Gandhi is more dignified than the crass and nasty Modi. Perhaps no one noticed it because of Dr Manmohan Singh's quiet dignity. In any case, it is obvious to increasingly more voters that Modi's taunts and abuses were mistaken in 2014 for toughness and determination. Modi's reliance on clever acronyms makes clear his disdain for wisdom. It reinforces the suspicion that demonetisation was not deliberated or calibrated, but an ill-advised move that he blindly jumped into. Former RBI governor Raghuram Rajan felt that demonetisation would hurt the economy in the short-run without long-run benefits and was not offered the usual two-year extension of tenure; Modi prefers his own decisiveness to expert advice.

Rahul Gandhi's frank and open speech at the University of California,
Berkeley, on September 11 seemed to give the BJP heartburn. Pic courtesy YouTube

The BJP rumour machine manufactures lies about Rahul (and he mentioned this at Berkeley). They say he is disinterested, he is reluctant, he would rather holiday abroad, that his sister is smarter, etc. The nastiest lies have been disproved in court, but unemployed trolls like Subramanian Swamy nevertheless continually recirculate them. To Rahul's credit, he does not get bogged down countering each and every bit of calumny.

I think Rahul is basically an introvert. This is not meant as psycho-babble to generate sympathy, but as a fact of life. Some humans are introverts. Perhaps Rahul would have stuck to investment banking had he not belonged to a political family.

Despite being an introvert, he still manages to attempt a shake-up of India's oldest political party or to address massive election rallies.

And he's not a bully. At Berkeley, he honestly answered questions from the audience. Modi, on the other hand, doesn't even meet the press, disparaging the media with such vehemence that his troll machine takes the cue and substitutes abuse for argument. Heck, Modi doesn't even take questions from his own partymen, as Member of Parliament Nana Patole said a fortnight ago.

Clearly, Rahul will not hesitate to take aboard some strong hands when he forms a government. (I hopes he makes Rajan finance minister.) This is a clear contrast to Modi, an insecure man who can only head a Cabinet of duds.
Even fellow traveller Arvind Panagariya had to leave.

A pessimist might say that even if Rahul as PM did absolutely nothing, he would still be better than Modi. But I am optimistic. The Delhi deputy chief minister who worries there will be no alternative to Modi in 2019 will be proved wrong. It is likely that Rahul's government will never plumb the depths of incompetence we currently see. Thus, I've changed my mind about Rahul.

Ramachandra Guha: ‘‘The greatest favour Rahul Gandhi could do himself and to Indian democracy is to retire’’

RAMACHANDRA GUHA, historian, scholar and public intellectual, has just come out with a revised edition of his 2007 seminal work, India after Gandhi. The book, as Guha says in its preface, happened after Picador’s Peter Straus met him in Delhi sometime in the late 90s and suggested that he abandon the project he was working on and write a history of Independent India instead. The new edition brings the narrative up to the present.

Excerpts from a conversation with Guha:

The first edition of India after Gandhi came out in 2007. In the last 10 years, what is the most significant moment in India that you have felt most compelled to write about?
It is a pairing—the decline of the Congress and the rise of Narendra Modi. It’s the story of the decline of a political party and the rise of an individual who belongs to a particular party and exudes an air of authority and charisma not seen since Indira Gandhi. Good or bad, we can discuss that. But after Indira Gandhi, he is the first political leader with a footprint across almost all of India… not all of India.

So these have gone in parallel—the steady decline of the Congress which is going on but unnoticed… and whether the elections of 2009 gave a false sense of complacency to the Congress… But otherwise, one of the things I wanted to write about is the colossal impact of environmental degradation across India which is the flip side of the economic liberalisation. In the first edition, I felt I had not paid much attention to the environment.

There is a perception that there is an atmosphere of insecurity in India, especially among its minorities. Vigilantism, lynching… Do the current developments worry you?
The thing about India is that it operates at many levels in very diverse ways in different parts of the country. It is progressive in some spheres of life, and in some, there is a fear of life. There are attacks on writers and artists, but at the same time, there is greater freedom elsewhere. I argue in the new edition that there are two areas where there is greater freedom in India today. One is that delinking has happened—the delinking [or] semi-delinking of caste- based occupation where the young do not have to follow the profession of their father. Also, there is delinking of family from marriage, particularly in the case of women. Maybe not so much in Haryana, but the fact that the khap panchayats are there and are banning cellphones tells us that women are asserting themselves.

I was writing the first edition when people were saying India was becoming a superpower. And I was researching the 50s and the 60s when all kinds of knowledgeable observers were saying that India is going down the tube. So India watchers often oscillate between triumphalism and despair. I think I wanted to avoid that even this time. Take Kashmir. There is a very serious crisis in Kashmir. But there is relative peace in Nagaland. Now if you look at our history from 1947, these have been two extremities—one part is more trouble, the other part is less trouble. The Maoists are on the decline, but on the other hand, there are things that worry you because there is this cow goondagiri on the rise. So it is a complex and nuanced thing, which is why I believe that the 50-50 democracy formulation still works, and I think that captures India.

Do you think the Left has failed as an idea and has contributed to the rise of the Right in India?
Absolutely, and one of the failures of the Left is [that it] has ceded the space of patriotism to the Right. If you want to go to the Indian Left space of the 30s till late 60s, there were broadly two kinds of Leftists: communists and socialists. So the communists were in the CPI; then it broke into CPI and CPM. The socialists were different from the communists in that they were patriots; they were identified with the freedom struggle. Whereas for the communists, their primary allegiance was to some other power. Their fatherland was the Soviet Union or China; then later on, it became Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela. So the JNU leftists, for them Hugo Chavez is God, not Mahatma Gandhi. The socialists were not like this. They were invested in both gender and caste equality and social emancipation and human dignity. And they were committed to this country. The decline of the socialists after the 60s… now one part turned from samajwaad to pariwarwaad, that is the Yadavs [in Uttar Pradesh], and people like JP [Jayaprakash Narayan] went into social work… and that is the real tragedy because that ceded the space of patriotism to the Right. The communists regained political importance in West Bengal and Kerala. And they retained intellectual importance in the universities. And they promoted social justice without love of India. I think this is really a problem. Socialists like JP or Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay, even [Ram Manohar] Lohia, their primary allegiance was to this country. They wanted to make it a happier, less unequal more contented place. They knew India was flawed.

You recently took part in the ‘Not in my name’ protest. What made you do that?
It was an ordinary act of citizenship—of civility, decency, humanity. I very rarely protest. I believe that this whole beef and cow slaughter business is very dangerous. It goes back to the Ram Janmabhoomi in the 90s, the only dispute in a north Indian town to which the entire country became hostage. And now this beef business—to me, it is worrying. And I am glad that the protest happened under no political party.

But many believe that Left liberals are selective in their fight against injustice. For example, the organisers of the ‘Not in my name’ protest did not mention the Kashmiri police officer, Ayub Pandith, lynched by a Muslim mob.
I feel some of this tu tu main main must stop. I have often argued that there is a double tragedy for liberals in India. The first is that Hindu liberals, who were once influential in their community, from Rammohan Roy to Nehru, [and] defined the agenda [have] now ceded space to the bigots, the reactionaries. The second tragedy is that there has never been a robust movement of liberalism within the Muslim community. That remains an issue. Liberals must be consistent. But having said that, I must emphasise that outside of Kashmir… In Kashmir, Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to civility, humanity, democracy, but outside Kashmir, in the rest of India, Hindu fundamentalism is more dangerous. It is inevitable, if you are a liberal in Pakistan, you will speak much more about Muslim fundamentalism. Or in Bangladesh. In India, because it is reversed, it is inevitable. I wish this whataboutery would stop.

A cogent opposition should have been able to take on this government on so many issues—from demonetisation to cow vigilantism to China. But it seems it is not even able to stand on its feet.
That is because it has got a weak, pusillanimous and incompetent leadership. I have said Nitish Kumar is the only [opposition] leader, but he doesn’t have a party. So if he takes over the Congress— if a party without a leader is taken over by a leader without a party—then some thing could be done. The socialist parties are totally gone; the [communist] Left has its own problems. I think we are in a long period of BJP dominance. But like in the 50s and 60s, when the Congress was dominant, you will have pockets of opposition; they won’t have it all their way. Some opposition by regional parties and some by civil society will keep on. One thing I have noticed which heartens me since Narendra Modi came to power [is that for the past] one year, social media is no longer dominated by right-wing forces. Reasonable voices are speaking out. So that will continue.

But I think the greatest favour Rahul Gandhi could do himself and to Indian democracy is to retire. It’s unbelievable. After Mandsaur, he went [there and then] to Europe for one month. He showed his face and got his photograph clicked and went away. I am mystified how the Congress can put up with it.

What is your assessment of the situation in Kashmir?
I think nobody’s hands are clean in Kashmir. There are four parties to Kashmir: there is Pakistan; there are militants, homegrown or foreign—that is the violent upsurge; there are citizens of Kashmir; and citizens of India outside Kashmir. Pakistan has only mala fide and malevolent intentions. So we should not be dealing with them. I disagree with the line that you should be talking to Pakistan on Kashmir. We can talk to them on other issues. Pakistan has no locus standi in the Valley, as far as I am concerned. Then there is a real issue with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The old Sufism is gone. Also, there is the failure of even the most moderate among the separatists to honestly acknowledge the persecution of Kashmiri Pandits. But having said all this, they are our citizens and if we think that Kashmir should be a part of India, the rest of India has to find a way of giving them assurance, faith, dignity.

I am not responsible for the Pakistani government. I am not responsible for what Kashmiri militants do. But as a citizen and public intellectual, I feel that in the current crisis, Prime Minister Modi has made some serious errors. The first was not meeting Mehbooba Mufti when she came immediately after the killing of Burhan Wani. Even if Mamata Banerjee comes today and says there is a problem in Gorkhaland and I want to speak to you, he should be speaking to her. The other error was when Yashwant Sinha went and was able to talk even to the Hurriyat, and he wanted to give a report to Modi, and Modi did not meet him. Symbols are important.

I also see that most of the mistakes were made by the Congress party in the past, but still we have to find a way. It is good what happened after the Amarnath attack that all Kashmiri voices came together. It would help that the denial of the exodus of the Pandits stopped. It would help if people like the Mirwaiz said that ‘it was our fault, we persecuted them’. But the Mirwaiz is not answerable to me, Modi is.

How has the current government treated public institutions? Are they the same, diminished or more robust?
They are diminished, but again, the Congress started the rot. The Congress [appointed] its friends; the current Government, those who are ideologically Right. I have had disagreements with my friends in JNU about it because they feel I have blamed the Left. But the Left started it. And the Congress. Particularly when it came to universities or institutes like the Teen Murti—when it came to choosing a head, they didn’t choose the No 1, No 2, No 3, but No 10, because he was loyal to them. Now these guys [appointed by the NDA] are going to be No 100 or No 200 because they have no one. But the procedure was tainted by the Congress and the Left.

(Source: Open)

Sagarika Ghose on how lurid misogyny contributed to how we see Indira Gandhi today

Catch a schoolchild today and she is likely to know just two things about Indira Gandhi — Emergency and Operation Blue Star. Catch many young adults and they’d likely know the same words at the same level of depth. Indira as trivia. Even if your interest in political biographies or history is relatively minor, you are likely to find journalist Sagarika Ghose’s new book Indira: India’s Most Powerful Prime Minister, extremely engaging.

Little bits jump out. The image of Indira Gandhi as a careful hostess, taking care to decorate and arrange Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s living quarters at Himachal Bhawan before the peace talks in Simla in June 1972. Or the rumour of her affair with her father Jawaharlal Nehru’s secretary MO Mathai. Or even imagining a 60-year-old Indira journeying to Belchhi in Bihar atop an elephant in pouring rain.

Journalist Sagarika Ghose’s book is a detailed study of the Prime Minister’s life, a “no-holds-barred” biographical portrait. In it, the author not just looks at issues like the Emergency, or her failed marriage or her son Sanjay Gandhi’s curious grip over her, but also contains a dialogue with Indira Gandhi’s ghost through letters, asking her questions that Ghose imagines other citizens would have also had for her.

In an interview with The Ladies Finger, Ghose talks about whether Indira Gandhi was shaped more by the men in her life than the women, how the former PM faced tremendous hate and misogyny (she was called a “goongi gudiya”), and how her death might have rehabilitated her image.

In the course of researching Indira, how did your image of her change?
Before I started, she was to me a cardboard cutout, a stereotype. I had, of course, been fascinated by Indira Gandhi. For Indian women, she has been hardwired into our DNA in some way. But I hadn’t delved as deeply into her persona as I did through the course of my research and I found that politically I was disappointed and shocked with the kind of things she did and the politics she played. But as a woman, I found her uniquely attractive. I found that she had tremendous grace and charm, she was a very contradictory, very fascinating kind of a person. She was an extraordinary person. She was the only PM to head a birdwatching society. But her political legacy was a disaster.

Did the manner of Indira Gandhi’s death rehabilitate her public image?
I don’t think people remember her for the bad things she did. If you go to her memorial museum [Safdarjung Road, New Delhi], her death has made her into a legend. People literally pour into that museum, and there are more people who come there than to Mahatma Gandhi’s Raj Ghat. I went to her memorial museum thrice during the course of my book and I was shocked. Thousands of people come there on a daily basis. A lot of South Indians come. As far as south India is concerned, in the 1977 elections (after the emergency), she won in south India; the Congress did really well. It was in north India that the Congress was defeated — in UP, Bihar, Rajasthan etc. Both Andhra and Karnataka stayed firmly with Indira Gandhi.

I think her appeal was more than how we understand it today. Maybe we have a very stereotypical notion of her — that she imposed the Emergency and she was roundly rejected by the country. In fact, she was only rejected in north India. And the percentage of the votes that the Congress (34) got after the Emergency was higher than the percentage of the votes that Narendra Modi got to win this election. I think her appeal really transcended how we imagine her today. She was much more popular than we give her credit for. Her death made her into a martyr.

In your book, why did you decide to write letters to Indira’s ghost?
As a citizen of India, I wanted to write about Indira Gandhi from the point of view of today. And to look at her in today’s context and how people would see her today and assess her legacy. So I got this idea, maybe because I’m a journalist, and I’m used to asking questions: If she was sitting across from me in a television studio, what would I have asked her. I also feel that her presence looms large still, in India. Which is why I think any citizen of India would perhaps like to ask her these questions. The letters are a kind of a dialogue and I also thought it might be interesting to the reader to break the format of the narrative and also have a direct communication with her ghost.

With Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and a young Benazir Bhutto. Photo courtesy Juggernaut

You talk of Indira Gandhi in binaries — tomboy and dowager, living in darkness and light, absolute power and frailty. 
She was an old woman tomboy! She was a proficient skier, a very good horse rider, a swimmer, she could ride elephants… Which 60-year-old woman would jump onto an elephant barebacked? But I think she was more man than woman, which again was because of the way she grew up. I think the man in her was dominant and she wasn’t publicly feminine and nurturing kind of a force. Quite aggressive, taking charge, very much of a control freak… Very much a natural leader.

How much did misogyny contribute to the all-round condemnation of her?
That’s something I also think about a lot. At the moment we see her in the kind of lurid terms that we do, because of the way men have interpreted her… any aggressive woman or an ambitious woman is always seen as a ‘witch’ and a ‘demoness’ and these are the kind of words that are used. And a man who is similarly ambitious and aggressive is never seen that way. But there was tremendous jealousy of her from a lot of men and I think the way she has been caricatured and the way she has been portrayed is a lot to do with the fact that she was a woman. But, on the other hand, it’s not as if she was all good either. The fact is that she did do a lot of damage to India and Indian democracy. It’s not without reason that she’s criticised. But somewhere the viciousness and the stereotypical kind of crudity of language was used against her was a lot to do with misogyny.

With her grandchildren Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi. Photo courtesy Juggernaut

Do you feel like Indira was more shaped by the men than the women in her life?
Her mother was really important to her — she was very protective of her mother, who remained all her life a moral and emotional symbol. Her mother’s purity and her beauty and the fact that her mother was always victimised by her in-laws… She was a very rare only child in the early 20th century and also a girl child. And the eldest child of the eldest son, who in that traditional situation would’ve been expected to be male, she had to live up to certain masculine ideas of power, physical fitness (Nehru was determined that she’d be physically fit). She was forced to live up to masculine ideals but emotionally, she was much closer to the women in her life, like her mother and even her daughter-in-law, Sonia Gandhi. She wasn’t emotionally close to her father.

You write about how Sanjay needed Indira and then you mention Indira referring to India as a baby. To Indira, were India and Sanjay helpless babies she wanted to protect?
That’s true. At one point she says, “India’s like a baby.” She was a controlling matriarch and saw the country as a child and Sanjay as a child to be protected and indulged… There was no question in her mind that the Nehru-Gandhis were going to rule India. Constitutional democracy just wasn’t her thing. It remains a big mystery as to why she indulged Sanjay as she did. Again, I think it was because she could trust nobody else, by the time she had become so powerful. She fell back on her family. And I think she genuinely admired him in some way and in some way, he was her in a male form. You know when she was young she aspired to be a boy… This daring, restless little boy to her was an alter-ego of herself.

Indira Gandhi with her son Sanjay Gandhi. Photo courtesy Juggernaut

Those are the two sides of her personality, and that’s the darkness and the light. The darkness is Sanjay’s mother and the light is Nehru’s daughter. I think at the end of the day, sadly, she turned out to be Sanjay’s mother than Nehru’s daughter. These two relationships really defined her. But in moments of crisis she did become Nehru’s daughter. For example, when she decided to call off the Emergency, she recalled how Nehru practised his politics, she did recall how he gave up his life for constitutionally democracy and democratic freedom; there was a lot of Nehru in her and she looked on him with nostalgia. But I think she fundamentally thought of him as weak, that he didn’t play tough politics and he didn’t punish his detractors.

How would Indira stack up against leaders of today?
I think what set her apart from everybody else was sheer physical stamina, the endurance. She walked and traveled incessantly, she was always on the road, living on liquid diets, she was travelling in the heat in an Ambassador… Language riots, she was there; communal riots, she was there; when China invaded, she was at the front. She knew how to capture the political movement.

Indira and Nehru with John F. Kennedy and his wife Jackie Kennedy. Photo courtesy Juggernaut

How much are Narendra Modi and Indira Gandhi alike — with their authoritarian tendencies and the ability to charm and hold the crowd?
I think Modi imitates her. And as I write in the introduction, almost every politician today looks at the Indira Gandhi playbook and she wrote that original playbook of the supremo within the party. She was a high command leader, the leader who utterly dominates the party in the government and who reaches out over the head of the party to the people directly, the leader who overrides conditional norms, the leader who doesn’t have much faith in the constitution who doesn’t abide by institutional norms. She was India’s original supremo. Jayalalithaa was imitating her, Mamata Banerjee is imitating her, Modi is imitating her. Which is why I think it’s important we remember that. It was a woman who wrote the playbook of Indian politics today — the Indirafication of politics is very much alive and well. A slightly unfortunate legacy, but it’s something that she did.

(Source: The Ladies Finger)

Priyanka Gandhi’s first election speech shows she is no better than Rahul; here’s why

Priyanka Gandhi conveyed with her speech today that a) She is not very much interested in politics and b) Even if she takes the political plunge, she won't be any better than Rahul Gandhi.

Priyanka Gandhi’s first election rally speech in 2017 was disappointing. Much like the speeches of Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi, it was more rhetoric, less substance. And even some lies. Not only this, it didn’t appear that Priyanka was very much interested in participating or addressing the rally. Her speech lacked the passion of a seasoned politician as she barely spoke for a few minutes, as if obliging the party. Two more things Priyanka conveyed with her speech were — a) She is not very much interested in politics. b) Even if she decides to join politics, she won’t be any better than her sibling and Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi.

Prior to her speech in Rae Bareli today, there was much expectation. Congress workers, as well as sympathisers, hoped she would give a new direction to the Congress campaign. So far, Rahul Gandhi’s speeches in the state have failed to create any sort of wave, or even a ripple, in the state in favour of Congress. Had it not been for Samajwadi Party President Akhilesh Yadav’s popularity in the state, Congress would have been probably wiped out of the state even before the elections, unless, of course, it managed to bring paid crowd to its rallies. Reason: Rahul comes with a lot of baggage, of Congress’ own corrupt past during the 10-year of UPA government. When he launches personal comments against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his words end up as mere jokes, not political weapons to take down the charisma of the PM.

The Prime Minister has settled himself on a morally high position among masses in the battle of perceptions. Especially in states like Uttar Pradesh which has widespread poverty and constitutes mostly of “aam aadmis”, it doesn’t matter how low a politician stoop to attack the opponent. What matters is if he or she is seen in action or perceived to be the one who can act. PM Modi has an edge over the rest of his critiques in UP and Rahul certainly can never match him.

However, Priyanka Gandhi has been argued by many to be possessing the charisma of late PM Indira Gandhi. Many congress workers and sympathisers continue to believe that she can match and beat PM Modi in every aspect. After listening to her speech today, one can easily say that either she is a reluctant politician or overrated. During her speech, Priyanka did the same mistake which Rahul continues to do, and enjoys it as well — that is attacking PM Modi with personal remarks against him.

Commenting on Modi’s Thursday remark that he is the “adopted” son of Uttar Pradesh, Priyanka said that the state doesn’t need an “adopted son” for development. Probably she forgot that the same state offered 71 out of 80 seats to PM Modi in 2014. Priyanka’s second swipe was against the PM was on the latter’s frequent comments against atrocities against women in Uttar Pradesh. Priyanka said PM Modi committed the biggest atrocity against women by making them stand in queues for money after announcing demonetisation. Drawing parallels between rape/molestation of women with standing in queues for money after note ban is the most foolish thing a politician can do. One could have expected that from Rahul, but hearing such argument from Priyanka shows she is no better than her brother as a politician.

Congress’ biggest enemy is not PM Modi or the BJP. Its biggest enemy is its hypocrisy and tendency to take the voters for a ride. This is what you would also feel when you would find Rahul complaining against underdevelopment in Rae Bareli, which has been Congress’ home constituency for several decades, or Priyanka calling note ban bigger atrocity against women than rape. One hopes the grand old party makes a course correction or continue to stagnate the way it already is.

(Source: The Financial Express)