Sorry, and Thank you

By M J Akbar

Narendra Modi has made his first mistake. He has apologised. When your politics is brazen you must live with. its logic. But in an uncharacteristic, departure from the language of revenge, Narendra Modi has sought the ''forgiveness of the people with folded hands'' for any mistakes committed either by him or his colleagues.

Which ''mistakes'' could Mr Modi be talking about? Can you think of any? He surely could not be apologising for letting loose communal havoc, could he? In any case, that was not a mistake; that was official State Government policy. But were there any other ''mistakes'' that he might be referring to? I cannot think of any. Actually Narendra Modi was chief minister for too short a while to make more than one mistake, and that , as we have noted , was not a mistake at all.

We could mark down such penitential sentiments to that well-known disease called pre-poll humility. Politicians tend to recover their manners just before they have to revisit the people for their periodic stress last. It is part of the comedy of elections. They start the electoral process oozing humility and by the time polling day arrives many of them have disappeared in their own ooze. However, the moment, the result is announced a transformation takes place. The defeated, of course, have little recourse except to continue being humble. The winner glows with the special pride of power that quickly and surely replaces the initial relief. Five years of privilege, comfort and virtually unquestioned authority. All the ooze becomes worth it. But were Narendra Modi's folded hands as he begged forgiveness for mistakes of commission and omission also smeared with unacknowledged, and perhaps even unrecognised, guilt? That would probably be too much to ask for. Guilt is the problem of an Othello, not an lago. In suitable circumstancs, guilt can be a powerful inspiration and a motivator for reform. But guilt assumes that one has a conscience. We can consequently rule out guilt.

We can rule in calculation. Narendra Modi has a sharp political mind and a perceptive eye, as capable of provoking a flow as it is of controlling an ebb. He inherited Gujarat from Keshubhai Patel, who was an unremarkable chief minister but a strong leader of his own, dominant, caste. Keshubhai was replaced because the BJP saw little chance of victory under Keshubhai. Whether Godhra was an accident waiting to happen, or a happening waiting to be exploited is probably irrelevant. Narendra Modi achieved his political purpose of divide and-hope-to-rule.

Mercurial politics however has its limitations. Time is a major one. Mercury is not stable. It can shoot up, if you raise the temperature of the environment but it will also begin to fall imperceptibly, with time. Arguably if elections had been held at the peak of riot fever Narendra Modi would have swept the field in most, but not all, urban areas, sufficient to keep him in Gandhinagar till 2007. But the mercury has begun to show the first signs of a dip. Narendra Modi wants an election before the dip becomes a trend. Timing, rather than time, is of the essence.

Timing remains the primary weakness of the Congress. Sonia Gandhi's uncertainty about both the language and persona of Indian politics is repeatedly reflected in her management of the party. If she says anything that is not carefully vetted she tends to sound either a jarring or counterproductive note. Her ''cleared'' speeches are cold, as second-wisdom always tends to be. Her knowledge about the history of our country is patchy and picked up from conversation.

Very few leaders do any serious reading, but others compensate by grasp of detail and the simple fact that they have been participants in the turmoil of the last two decades. With more experience. Sonia Gandhi would have probably welcomed Narendra Modi in Gujarat by making Shankersinh Vaghela her provincial chief instead of leaving this decision so late that it is unlikely to do much good. Modi has simply denied Vaghela the time needed for thrust and parry that can help change the mind of the electorate. One of the great weaknesses of Congress strategy is the extraordinary faith in inertia. Sonia Gandhi spent most of the summer sitting in the air-conditioned comfort of her Delhi bungalow. In fact more could have been done even from that cool and spacious environment. Only the very naive would have presumed that the Gujarat elections would wait till their due date early next year. Indeed, a more concerned Sonia Gandhi would have treated each day as precious irrespective of whether they were held four months before schedule or not. But there has been delay to the point of indifference in her attitude towards the party leadership in Gujarat, which in turn has suited Narendra Modi extremely well. The months that Sonia Gandhi wasted in dithering over Gujarat will prove to be expensive for her as well for the Congress. The failure to win Goa could have been a blip. It could become a biot that spreads. Think of the sequence. Congress loses badly in Gujarat. It is in a hopeless position in Rajasthan. This increases the wobble in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Within a year you have a radically different scenario. Politics is a demanding and tense business, with each minute demanding attention. Whenever she is out of depth, which is more often than not, Sonia Gandhi simply postpones a decision in the hope that time will find an answer. Time serves you far better as a servant; as a master it is a tyrant.

If Sonia Gandhi had the language or the political skills to answer the pseudo rhetoric of Narendra Modi (as Indira Gandhi would have done, effectively, employing both her individual credibility and understanding of emotional nuance) then her self-destructive dithering might not have mattered so much. But Sonia Gandhi's sole weapon is the cliche and that does not travel very far. It is vital for her, therefore, to keep generals in place who know how to fight on her behalf, since she is not interested in surrendering the leadership to anyone else. Gujarat has been the most crucial battlefield of recent times, and in more than just the electoral sense. It is obvious that far larger issues are in conflict there than just the name of the next chief minister. The size of the BJP victory will have repercussions on the party's policy and on national politics; perhaps not immediately and dramatically, but slowly and certainly. It is astonishing that the Congress leadership-- or, more accurately, Sonia Gandhi, since the rest of the Congress leadership is emasculated- did not seem to appreciate what for any political observer would be a simple and obvious truth. How the party could leave Gujarat rudderless and leaderless for so long defies one's sense of reality. Vaghela has provided a glimpse of what he could have done, energising new caste equations and infusing a personal dynamism into a decayed and dormant party structure. He also has a tongue that was born sharp and has been further honed by human nature. But he has not been given enough time. One theory, which seems reasonable, is that Narendra Modi decided that he could not wait much longer once Vaghela's name was finally cleared. Vaghela could have exploited the unhappiness of the Patels with the BJP for dumping their man, and he has the fact to keep his ego aside and pull together the factions in the Congress. As a former BJP leader, Vaghela also understands the local Hindu sentiment that is Modi's trump, and there is no one else who could have spun off some of it at least into a different direction. He understands both Gujarat and the BJP better than Modi, for he has spent more time in both the state and the party than Modi.

Narendra Modi began his election campaign with an apology. He should end it with a thank you note. I hope he has written that letter already. It should be addressed, naturally, to Sonia Gandhi, for playing such a large part in his coming victory.

Narendra Modi could add a postscript, on behalf of the national government. India has for the first time in its democracy a government without an Opposition. Well, more accurately: the only opposition to the BJP is in the BJP itself.

21st Century Media

Demand for 'autonomy'

By Tushar Charan

The appointment of the former Law Minister and BJP’s media savvy spokesman, Arun Jaitley, as the Centre’s interlocutor for talks on "devolution of greater powers" to Jammu and Kashmir may well turn out to be an election-eve "cosmetic" action by the NDA Government than a serious move to give the long-cherished "autonomy" to the troubled State. Jaitley may be an able and persuasive interlocutor, but past experience and present circumstances do not make it look that his mission will contribute to a radical improvementing the situation in the State.

The timing of Jaitley’s appointment, announced in Parliament by the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, L.K.Advani, raises doubts about the success of Jaitley’s labours which, it has been reported, would stretch over months. Implied in this is the fact that Jaitley will continue to be on the job even, after the conclusion of J&K Assembly polls in October. May be that is why the subsequent clarification offered through the RSS route that not autonomy but the quantum of devolution of powers to the State would he the agenda. Obfuscation?

Jaitely’s appointment is clearly linked to the demand for "autonomy-going back to pre-1953 days that has always been one key issue that is raised with full cry in J&K on strategic occasions like the proximity of polls but is muted subsequently. In the run-up to the last Assembly election it was a major issue. Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah had even got a resolution in favour of "autonomy" passed by the State Assembly in June 2000, though the Centre lost no time in rejecting it.

Dr Abdullah is a man who is given to emotional outbursts. A charged Abdullah can make his demand for "autonomy" sound almost like an ultimatum to the Centre. But realising that his State cannot be restored the pre-1953 status, he also pipes down after he has given vent to his anger and frustration with the Centre. Other than ''autonomy", what else does J&K want from the Centre? Is "devolution of more powers" a lesser form of "autonomy"?

In Jaitley’s brief to discuss "devolution of more powers", perhaps there is a suggestion that it covers the demand for "autonomy". In view of its "special status", the State is perhaps right in expecting more powers from the Centre. But these powers have to be meaningful and effective enough to make the State look autonomous". If this is not going to happen, will the state, its politicians and its people be happy?

Each and every State in the Union of India craves for more’ powers and ''autonomy". In fact, most of the states think that the Sarkaria Commission was not generous enough in meeting their full aspirations in regard to their "autonomy". What the States, J&K included, want is a bigger share in resources and more power to legislate on certain matters of their interest.

On the face of it these demands look perfectly justified if the federal character of India is to be maintained and strengthened. But the point is that over the years, the states have become weaker while the Centre has become stronger. It is no less important to note that in the past 10 years or so, the Centre has been ruled by all the major political parties and "ideologies", either singly or through coalitions, but none of the Governments at the Centre showed a real interest in giving more powers to the states.

There are States within the Union that have become synonymous with bad governance and abject financial profligacy but are most vocal in demanding more powers-autonomy". On the other hands, states that are run efficiently have begun to feel that they are made to pay for the sins of the inefficient states because of the unsatisfactory arrangements in Centre-state relationship. With greater "autonomy", these states feel, they can forge ahead at a faster pace. Both the "good" states and the "bad" states want more powers, but see little hope of achieving that.

When it comes to J&K, the question becomes more complicated because of the peculiar conditions there, not least of which is bad governance-some say "absence" of governance, given the State Chief Minister’s frequent dash to his in- laws home in the UK. Then, there is a large section within the present NDA Government at the Centre which openly opposes any move to grant even an ounce of extra power to J&K. Though coalition politics have compelled it to bottle up its demand for abrogating Article 370 of the Constitution that already bestows a sort of "special status" to Jammu and Kashmir, nobody can believe that there has been a real change of heart within the BJP on this issue.

It has been said that where the Government’s latest- move on the "autonomy" question differs from all previous ones is that Jaitely will focus on certain provisions of the 1975 agreement between Indira Gandhi, and Sheikh Abdullah. One of these provisions allows J&K to review and amend laws enacted by Parliament and extended to the State after 1953 on matters relating to the Concurrent List. If this provision was not applied in the last 27 years, it may be more difficult, to do so now and will certainly have a large, "Pandora box" type multiple political fall-out not confined to J&K.

The present Government in J&K may claim, perhaps not entirely without justification, that the appointment of, Arun Jaitley is a "concession" wrested from the Centre. But a "concessions’ that in the end leads to little or no improvement in the situation can be of little consequence. Like all the other states, J&K also needs more powers-may be, more than all the others put together. But to exercise those powers, the State has to have a system of good, clean and efficient governance and. above all, a trouble-free ambience for development.

Pakistan with its dream of dismembering India by annexing Jammu and Kashmir will not easily give up its efforts at creating trouble in the state-unless the Americans really catch Musharraf by the scruff of his neck. But the Pakistani designs can be considerably blunted if the people of J&K are persuaded to see the positive side of joining the mainstream and disown terrorists and "jehadis", both foreign and indigenous, elements who find ready sanctuary in many homes.

The task is not easy, given the long troubled history of the state. But some positive outcome could be expected by opening a dialogue with the people, or rather groups of ordinary people who are fed up with militancy in the state. "Autonomy" may be a fine aspiration but it will not serve them if they are not free of fear and continue to feel alienated from the Government.

The last effort of the NDA Government to open a dialogue with the Kashmiri spectrum of views through K.C.Pant, deputy chairman of the Planning Commission, ended without a beginning. Surely, not a good proof of a desire to start the dialogue process in right earnest.

It may be that for reasons that are all too obvious, many in Kashmir would not like to openly talk to representatives from New Delhi. It is also likely that some of those who claim to represent the "authentic" Kashmiri voice are not willing give up being puppets in the hands of their vicious masters in Islamabad. They represent only a small minority of Kashmiri opinion which is wedded more to violence and mayhem than reason.

But there are many others, unknown figures who have a voice-a voice of reason— that nobody hears. A new crop of representative leadership is waiting to be raised. Talking to them will be no problem, though they may not be in a position to talk in a blaze of publicity. Election or no election, autonomy or no autonomy, for such people restoring peace in their paradise is of-utmost-importance.

Election time only enhances their anxieties because violence of most gory variety, perpetrated by Pakistan-backed terrorists, has become the most striking feature of elections in Jammu and Kashmir. Lest anyone forgets it, the message was conveyed through the latest incident of terrorists attack on innocent persons when 28 of them, mostly women and children, were killed in a shanty town in Jammu. Though many believe that it was part of a sinister design by the terrorists’ patrons across the border to drive away one community from certain districts of the Jammu region to change the latter’s demographic character, it is clearly linked to October polls that Pakistan, on way to becoming a "true" dictatorship under Gen Parvez Musharraf, will try its best to sabotage.

It does appear that the October polls in Jammu and Kashmir are going to be bloody and neither the state administration nor the Centre is equipped to prevent that. The people in the state are a worried lot; many may be demoralised by the incessant and unstoppable violence that takes the lives innocents. Killing innocents has become the terrorists’ religion for they have no respect for life, the greatest gift of God to mankind.

But the tragedy in Jammu and Kashmir is compounded by frequent reports of killings of innocents by police and security forces. All that adds up to the unending sequence of bad governance in Jammu and Kashmir, which cannot be rectified by any interlocutor. Clearly, the Government has to clean up its act before it can expect anything positive from missions assigned to interlocutors’. (Syndicate Features)