|
|
|
The 114 year old Congress Party never had it so bad at the husting. From commanding heights of the yester years, it has touched the lowest ever tally of paltry 110. While in 11th Lok Sabha it had 139 MPs, the 12th Lok Sabha resulted in accretion by 2 to touch 141. Congress Party had then attributed this face-saving performance to Sonia Gandhi's .......more National Conference which
has won 4 out of 6 seats in J&K is all set to not
only join NDA but also participate in the governing
apparatus. Chief Minister has showered praises on
Vajpayee's leadership........more |
|
The Missing Minister: Fictions can breed only
falsehoods.... Complex discussions |
 |
||
EDITORIAL The 114 year old Congress Party never had it so bad at the husting. From commanding heights of the yester years, it has touched the lowest ever tally of paltry 110. While in 11th Lok Sabha it had 139 MPs, the 12th Lok Sabha resulted in accretion by 2 to touch 141. Congress Party had then attributed this face-saving performance to Sonia Gandhi's hectic campaigning. But for that, the apprehensions were that Congress would be reduced to less than 100 MPs and become virtually a regional party rather than remain formidable national party. It is to be noted that Sonia then herself did not contest but only campaigned for the party. There were slogans like ‘Sonia Lao, Desh Bachao’. Subsequently, she became all important and more powerful as the Congress President and worked hard to dislodge Vajpayee government and occupy the Delhi throne herself with the help of other parties. At that point the blunder committed was that Congress led by Sonia would form the government, she would be the Prime Minister and other parties must extend support from outside. The message was that Congress would not share power but only like to have support. It was this aspect that led Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh to disagree and refused to extend any such support to Congress to form the government. But for this, she would have become the PM then. The point to be noted is sharing of power with supporting parties is crucial to rule the country. This blunder however persisted right up the last date of polling during the 13th Lok Sabha election when Congress continued to harp on the theme of seeking outside support if it could not make on its own. At no stage it agreed to share power. The second blunder was choosing electoral tie-ups with the most corrupted set-ups like Jayalalitha of the AIADMK and Laloo Prasad of RJD in Bihar. Same is true of Ajit Singh's party in UP. Sonia went ahead with these despite advice to the contrary from its state units in Tamil Nadu and Bihar which opposed such tie-ups tooth and nail. It is there for everyone to see that both these alliances as also the ones with RPI and Ajit Singh have miserably failed. Third factor very significant factor is the charisma of gathering crowds wherever Sonia hopped to address written speeches. Going by the crowds and the reception, one could gather the impression that Congress would gain substantially from 141 to say at least 170 seats. The fact remains together with its allies it remains at horrible level of 134 only. This clearly indicates that despite crowds and personal charisma of Sonia and her daughter Priyanka, crowds failed to get translated into votes, barring 2 or 3 constituencies where she herself contested and won with thumping majority and another in Rae Bareilly where family friend Satish Sharma defeated formidable like Arun Nehru. This is indicative of bad base at the local level which failed to translate crowds into votes in all other constituencies. Grassroot level weaknesses thus manifest abundantly. Fourth, Congress President Sonia herself lacked sufficient knowledge about the real winners. She totally depended on the coterie around her for giving party nomination to candidates who least deserved in terms of their popularity and acceptance by the electorate. It thus follows that even CWC members have been defeated at the husting because they happen to be the ones who lack grass root level acceptance. Such dependence on the coterie has indeed resulted in many defeats because mature electorate knew their track record so well. This poses the question of inner party democracy which has been totally absent in Congress ever since 1969 split. Till date it persists and ad-hocism rules the roost. Party revamp has thus to be totally based on restoration of full inner party democracy at all levels. It also means CWC must comprise of persons who have made no sacrifices but also contributed nothing to the party and the nation. CWC itself is victim of ad-hocism with more than half of its strength nominated. Likewise, AICC has to be broadbased to give the message loud and clear that only the best and most capable persons become AICC members. Fifth, if Pawar went out of the party it was precisely attributed to the importance given to the coterie rather than the senior leader and most experienced parliamentarian that Pawar happens to be. His exit has cost the party loss of more than 20 seats in Maharashtra alone. If only inner party democracy was at work and Sonia had acted independent of the coterie, Pawar as a leader, manipulator and organisor should have been in the forefront. Why conditions were so created asto ensure his exit from the party ? Sixth, Congress had hoped that minority vote has shifted to their fold after apologies and promises of reservations etc. But Muslims went in for tactical voting in UP to vote for the candidate who is in position to defeat the BJP candidate. Here they found BSP and SP candidates stronger than the Congress. This clearly shows that even Muslim voter continues to treat Congress with suspicion. In fact, for the first round of elections on September 5, Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid asked Muslims to vote for anyone but Congress. If all minority votes had gone in favour of Congress in UP, then both SP and BSP would not have gained substantially. Lastly, Congress spokesman Kapil Sibal overplayed his role by going all out to denigrade AB Vajpayee as also raking up Kargil and corruption against him. This proved counter productive. Vajpayee's stock was at its zenith and handling of dangerous situations very tactful. The habit of criticism even when it goes against nationalism must be given up. Sonia will now be the leader of the Opposition. She should ensure that only healthy criticism and correct parliamentary behaviour and decorum remains paramount. Where ruling party does good for the people and the nation, it should be appreciated and supported. National Conference which has won 4 out of 6 seats in J&K is all set to not only join NDA but also participate in the governing apparatus. Chief Minister has showered praises on Vajpayee's leadership. Umer Farooq has given indication to joining NDA formally. This means National Conference is ready to come out of the protective cocoon of J&K State and join the mainstream full throttle. Uptill now it has been stop-go-stop affair as regards support to Vajpayee government. NC MPs would criticise the government and either abstain, partly vote or even vote against. It was like being neither here nor there, a course bad enough to create doubts in other's mind. It has been repeatedly stated by Chief Minister that his party is with the one that rules at the centre because state is totally dependent on central help in every sphere. Now that NDA has romped home with convincing majority and all indications are that this government would run full five year term, it is quite prudent on the part of NC leadership to fully participate in the nation building in accordance with the national agenda for governance adopted by NDA. With state's nominee in the governing apparatus, there is always better scope for better deal and interaction with other ministries for clearance of projects, counter guarantees and obtaining other help. It also helps strengthening of the federal structure and ensuring rapid development of the state and contribution to national building programmes. |
||
|
||
The Missing
Minister: BJP and Muslims Where is Sikandar
Bakht? There is a simple reason for asking this question. A federal Government in India has traditionally sought to maintain a geographic and demographic balance so that all sections and communities of the nation feel that they are represented at the highest level of power. This is how democracy works, any democracy. It is not simply a matter of winning a majority; it is also, very vitally, a question of involving both the possessed and the dispossessed into the power structure so that no section feels alienated. During these sixteen months of BJP rule, Sikandar Bakht was the ranking Muslim in the Government and the only one in the Cabinet. So why is he not out in the fields and cities, along with his colleagues, campaigning for his party? Heaven knows that Atal Behari Vajpayee could do with a bit of help from Sikandar Bakht in Lucknow, where a quarter of the vote or thereabouts is Muslim. The answer is not very complicated. If Vajpayee and Advani address a Muslim audience today, they will get a hearing if not a vote. The only garland that Sikandar Bakht will get is an unpleasant one. In its first sixteen months of real power, the BJP has proved that is only policy towards Christians has been of outright hostility; and towards Muslims of outright indifference. Sikandar Bakht had more time for international cigarette companies than for Indian Muslims. The question is relevant because it is now being gradually acknowledged that the reason why the expected, and paid-projected "Vajpayee wave" has spluttered out is because the Muslims and the Christians consolidated against the BJP and its allies. The important point is not that they voted against the BJP, but that they consolidated against the party and punished its allies. Without this determination, the National Democratic Alliance would have got these extra seats that make the difference between survival and confidence. In critical states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, which between them control half of the Lok Sabha, it is the Muslim vote, acting with unprecedented purpose, which has tilted the advantage away from either the BJP or its allies. If the Muslims of Uttar Pradesh had stayed with Mulayam Singh Yadav, this general election would have been a different story. They punished Mulayam for his single mistake in their eyes, which was to keep the BJP Government alive last summer, and moved towards the Congress giving the Congress the ballast that it needed to return to the reckoning. In the last general election, Mamata Banerjee's success in Calcutta owed a great deal to the Muslim vote she received in Calcutta and its hinterland. This time Jyoti Basu brilliantly seized the opportunity provided by a single visit by Lal Krishna Advani to divide Mamata Banerjee from her Muslim constituency. A single word, "criminal", found a resonance and shifted votes. Laloo Yadav would probably have been wiped out if he had been deserted by the Muslims. In a straight contest against the BJP-led alliance, they have rallied behind him with the enthusiasm they displayed in 1991. **** The irony is that his need not have been so. The BJP never realised that the Muslims, in 1998, were an opportunity rather than an adversary. No community of India has hated the Congress, in the Nineties, as much as the Muslims. They held the Congress as guilty as the BJP for the demolition of the Babri mosque; and the manner in which every Congress minister sucked up to P V Narasimha Rao after his scandalous indifference to his constitutional obligation to protect the mosque, rubbed salt and chilli deep into open wounds. Till the 1998 general elections, the Muslims voted for just a straggle of Congress candidates, and only under severe duress, when every other option was closed. The BJP opportunity existed precisely because it had moved away from its single party thrust and towards alliance politics. There were distinct advantages. One, it had already compromised on the rebuilding of the Ram temple at Ayodhya; it might have begun as the price to be paid for an alliance, but an intelligent party leadership would also have used the shift to make an independent bid for the minority vote. Second, many of its allies had perfect credentials with the Muslims, for instance Chandrababu Naidu, Rama Krishna Hegde and Mamata Banerjee. Third, the wooing process could have proceeded in phases, and all phases would have brought attendant rewards. The first task was clearly to prevent any further alienation, and thereby ensure that the allies did not get by any desertion virus. But the Vajpayee Government was either bankrupt of ideas or psychologically incapable of coming to terms with the minorities. Probably both. What could the BJP have done? It had an interesting opportunity to actually do what some of its moderate leaders have always professed: to address the minority question in a different language. They should have adopted what I would call a 4M policy: Mosque, Modernisation, Motivation and Mobilisation. The mosque question we have dealt with. It is Modernisation that would have paid some dividends. The key to Modernisation lies in education. The BJP could have, for instance, put computerisation in Muslim mohalla schools, or even in madrassas, on its programme. There is surely no 'appeasement" in making a Muslim child computer literate? This approach would have led directly to a catchment area within the Muslim community: the young. There is now a second generation that has been born in free India, and lives outside the mindset of the Partition. They are waiting for some political party to address their principal concerns: selfrespect, integration and jobs. The BJP neither cared nor pretended that it did. The BJP has always placed Muslim reform on its agenda. The reason why this is not taken seriously, is because the intention is hostile rather than sympathetic; the BJP "reforms" are designed to enrage the community rather than to enlighten, because the BJP foments a "Hindu vote bank" through the process of teasing, provoking and converting the Muslims into an "enemy". A sneering hatred bristles through every line when some BJP columnists write on this subject. Even the genuine need for reform among minorities is vitiated in this political vortex. A quick question for the BJP think tank: who said this? (Islam was) a dynamic and progressive movement... but with the passage of time, the Muslims at large sought to concentrate more on the dogmatic aspects of Islam.... Those who looked forward to progress and advancement came to be regarded as disbelievers and those who looked backward were considered devout Muslims. It is a great injustice to both life and religion to impose on twentieth century man the condition that he must go back several centuries in order to prove his bona fides as a true Muslim. It was not an intellectual of the RSS who said this. This was part of a speech made by a leader of Pakistan, Field Marshal Ayub Khan, to Deobandi ulama in May 1959. Ayub Khan was not dubbed a kafir for saying this, because he said it out of concern for his community. Perhaps Modernisation can never be part of the BJP agenda for any community of Indians precisely because the BJP and the RSS are full of people whose minds go back several centuries in order to prove their bona fides. Motivation and Mobilisation can only follow a certain quid pro quo between those who rule and a nation's citizens. It probably never crossed the BJP leader Sikandar Bakht's mind that as industry minister he cold offer a hundred jobs to Aligarh graduates. He was too busy advocating the arrival of cigarette companies into India. There is an example, from within, which the BJP could have emulated. Lalji Tandon, an important Uttar Pradesh leader, has an excellent understanding with the Shias of his Lucknow Assembly constituency, because he helps them when they want his ministerial attention. If Atal Behari Vajpayee gets any Muslim votes in Lucknow in this election it will be Lalji Tandon's votes. For sixteen months BJP leaders thought they had done enough for Muslims by restraining their more rabid elements from aggression against the community and its symbols. That is offering the peace of the grave. **** The Muslim upsurge, commitment and consolidation behind whoever could defeat the BJP or its allies have been the most remarkable fact of this election. It is possible, if you succeed in making politics an arithmetical process, to win an election without the support of the Muslims. If the BJP does form the Government after the thirteenth general elections, this will actually have happened. But you cannot govern India by marginalising a community that has the size and spread of Indian Muslims. Alas, no prizes for guesssing who will be Atal Behari Vajpayee's ranking Muslim Cabinet Minister if Mr Vajpayee remains India's Prime Minister. |
||
|
|
Complex discussions on
Kashmir The games they play, these self-appointed (not always) do-gooders, out to settle the "complex" Kashmir issue. They sound very earnest in their discussions and in the papers and the non-papers they present. There is usually a working paper too, prepared by the host (s), round and round which they go. Among them are retired military men, diplomatists, "intellectuals" et al. The rarefied atmosphere of the chambers in which they confer obviously enhances their vision as well as their thinking. And every time they conclude their "indepth" deliberations we are asked to believe that a solution may well be in sight. The venue of these discussions could be (usually) Washington, New York or Geneva. These discussions, we are again reminded, constitute track II diplomacy, whatever that may mean. Several US foundations have been sponsors of these get-togethers for the past few years. And to go by reports that sometimes trickle out, some of the suggestions they discuss do even appear to be reasonable, at least within the four walls of the chambers they are discussed in. But for the most part, all the suggestions remain unimplementable because track II is no substitute for track I, direct contact at the political level. Certain individuals, based in the US and some in London do as well indulge their fancies by roping in a certain class of people for "brainstorming" sessions. This variety is made up of rich busybodies, self-made millionaires and, therefore, qualified, as they believe, to find a solution to the problem. Two of the busiest such individual are both Kashmiri Muslims who have made their fortunes in the US and somehow believe that they must play a role in helping their co-religionists in the State, preferably via a solution that accords it a place in the Pakistani scheme of things. One of them, the richer one, appears to have had second thoughts since the times he was openly advocating Kashmir becoming a part of Pakistan. He now tends to see a third option, namely, Kashmiri independence. This man was welcomed earlier this year in New Delhi and feted privately by the elite in the hope that this might persuade him to better appreciate the Indian position. He has had links with the Pakistani mujahideen and even with Osama bin Laden, though, lately he has distanced himself from both after one of his kin got killed in Afghanistan. But there is yet another man, operating from London, a Kashmiri Muslim doctor, who, too, has been fishing in the troubled Kashmiri waters. He is influential, persuassive and full of ideas. His latest brainchild is to virtually set up a parallel government in Kashmir, although, to make it acceptable, he, for purposes of discussion, is willing to embrace the entire State of Jammu and Kashmir. He apparently sees the All Parties Hurriyet Conference as the tool that should be used to achieve the objective. The success of the Hurriyet's boycott call of the just concluded parliamentary polls - much of the credit or discredit for whose success must first and foremost go to the militants and then to an inept State administration - seems to have convinced him that the objectives set out by him in a lengthy working paper sent by him to the Hurriyet leaders in Kashmir, can be achieved by marginal but vital changes in its functioning. It's another matter that the All Parties Hurriyet leaders are reluctant to go along with Dr Ayub Thakur's scheme, for it greatly cuts into their individual fiefdoms and the comforts that has accrued to them over the past ten year of insurgency. The proposal nevertheless is worth examining if only to prepare ourselves to nip it in the bud. For starters, the London proposal demands a restructuring of the Hurriyet "not only the name, by which it is known, should be different; its structure should also undergo a fundamental alteration".... "No better time like (sic) the present would offer itself to bring about the necessary change in the struggle's political platform for the reason that change is overdue..." Suggesting the new nomenclature "Freedom Party", the document says there is no need for emphasising "All Parties" since "there would be no conglomerate of political groups (as the Hurriyet is) with their separate existence and identity". The Kashmiri struggle would henceforth be served only by a newly constituted "Freedom Conference". Anticipating the problems which parties with a religious orientation would have in parting company with their agenda, the document requires all such partners of the existing Hurriyet to divest themselves of their political agenda and instead concentrate only on religious work. "Their political identities would be merged in the Freedom Conference". "The objective of the Freedom Conference would be to strive for the attainment of freedom for all the people of Jammu and Kashmir through peaceful, democratic political means. And, it would be open to all Kashmiris who believe in freedom for the Kashmiri people". There is a catch, though, to the reference to "freedom through peaceful, democratic means". It become, apparent when the proposal suggests that the present President of the All Parties Hurriyet be declared as the interim president of the Freedom Conference and that the existing executive council of the Hurriyet be converted into an interim working committee of the Freedom Conference. The interim president and the interim working committee members would sever their links with their original parties. What follows makes even more interesting reading. The interim president with the assistance of the interim working committee would constitute an independent election commission of four eminent personalities headed by a retired High Court Judge. The commission would be empowered to create units at the constituency level, hold elections of representatives under its own auspices. The representatives would be elected from out of a panel of four suggested for each constituency by the working committee publicly and in the presence of the election commission. The elected representatives so elected would constitute a General Council which would in turn elect a President and ten members of the Working Committee. The Working Committee - or Cabinet if you will - would also have two members from the expatriate Kashmiri political organisations of occupied (Indian) Kashmir working at the international level. "The General Council would be the parliament of Kashmir freedom struggle and would ratify major decisions on various aspects of the struggle. The proposal further envisages that the president of the Freedom Conference and the working committee constituting the executive branch of the FC "would function as a Cabinet with its members having responsibility of allotted portfolios. These may include political, foreign, finance, relief rehabilitation, human rights and media affairs". The conversion of Hurriyet into Freedom Conference would "make the Kashmiri struggle effective, democratic, accountable and strong besides saving it from the confusion which often blurs the struggle.... It would enhance the freedom struggle's stature, respect, accountability and counter the image of the so-called elected puppet regime (in Srinagar), both inside the State and abroad. The final constitution of the Freedom Conference would be ratified by the "parliament", (General Council). "The Freedom Conference constitution would specify various sources of finance, methods of its collection and an interim Central Bank to keep the funds including the establishment of an International Fund for Kashmir... The F.C., being a democratic and representative body of the freedom struggle would gain international recognition, a recognition that would be difficult for India to meddle with or subvert. If it did so India would be pilloried for not respecting the democratic voice of the Kashmiri people". Any member of the General Council who deserts the F.C. ranks will lose his seat in the council and the election commission will have a fresh member elected instead. The document also suggests the opening of its missions by the F.C. in world capitals such as Washington, London, Moscow, Paris, Beijing, Brussels, Bonn, Cairo, Jeddah, Ankara, Islamabad, Kaula Lumpur, Tokyo and New Delhi. Underlining the need for a common, effective and unified umbrella organisation to direct and coordinate the Kashmiri "freedom struggle" the document says the non-existence of a strong coherent, democratic platform of the Kashmiri struggle has affected the promotion of its cause at the international level. Another drawback has been the uncoordinated linkages, strategies and programmes between groups working at the international level and Kashmiri leadership in Indian Kashmir. The document in effect promotes the idea of setting up a parallel government for "Indian" Kashmir. It's not as weird as it may seem. It has takers in Kashmir as well as in some other parts of the world. The document even as it goes without mentioning its pro-Pakistan linkages, leaves no room for doubt about where its sympathies lie. It consistently refers to Kashmir (Indian) as "occupied" without raising any concern about the future of those living in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Besides, the author, it seems has many sympathisers in Hurriyet, in the valley and among the expatriate Kashmir Muslim community in the US, London and elsewhere. What might make the weird proposition saleable is the alienation of the Muslims in the valley from and unresponsive Farooq Abdullah government. The extremely poor voter turnout in the valley in the parliamentary polls bears to the fact that there is a total loss of trust between the people at large and the government. That's what makes the Thakur document more sinister than it may be seem. The situation in the valley - never mind the spin put on it by the State administration - is far from being normal. Indeed, people's frustration with the Farooq government provides an ideal breeding ground for the kind of seeds Ayub Thakur is trying to sow. Corruption, unemployment and general discontentment are stark realities. And these are elements that don't make for stability, let alone normalcy. |
|
|
|
