How the Congress dug its own grave?

By Kedar Nath Pandey

Politics is a strange game of putting the winning cards at right place and at the right time. The Congress Chief Ministers in the Hindi belt of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh failed in evolving the right equations before the State Assembly elections with the electorate. The three factors, namely Bijali, Sadak aur Paani (Electricity, Road and Water) played the spoilsport over and above the central command leadership. Mrs. Sonia Gandhi was pitted against Atal Behari Vajpayee, L.K. Advani, and BJP poll strategists Pramod Mahajan and Arun Jaitley had the free run against the Chief Ministers, who comparatively were no match to the blitzkrieg launched by the second-rung leadership of the Hindutva brigade. The poll campaign by the Congress (I) was lacklustre compared to the BJP. Thankfully the elections were fought on developmental issues of the states, which tilted the balance in favour of the BJP except in Delhi. The Delhi example of the victory of the Congress Party negates the theory of incumbency factor, which the Congress leadership is touting about.

The BJP’s storming of the Hindi heartland, contrary to all expectations and forecasts, has thrown up a lot of questions, many of them pertaining to the direction that politics in India will take for both the short and the long haul. The toughest question, along with the bitter pill that the losers in the race – Congress (I) – have to swallow pertains to the very future of India’s oldest political party. In more ways than one, there were enough pointers right at the beginning of the poll campaign for these four States that the Congress President, Ms. Sonia Gandhi, could hardly swing the electorate in favour of the party she is leading. Her popularity ratings were lower than that of the party’s chief ministerial candidates. That, at the end of the day, except for Mrs. Sheila Dikshit, all the other Congress chief ministers were made to bite the dust, is another issue altogether.

What must be galling for Congress leaders is that may of the pre-poll surveys gave the BJP icon, the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, a far higher score than that party’s chief ministerial candidates.

Thus, Ms. Sonia Gandhi’s low popularity ratings had made it clear at the outset that the incumbent Congress governments were marching onto the battlefield, with a huge handicap. Against this, Mr. Vajpayee’s popularity was much higher than all of the BJP’s chief ministerial candidates.

Anyway, the people have spoken, and the Congress (I) stands all but ejected out of the Hindi heartland, except for the smaller state of Delhi. They have also sent out the clear signal that a clean and non-controversial leader and good governance can win elections.

But in a strange irony though the Rajasthan Chief Minister, Ashok Gehlot, did score to some extent on both these counts, the people showed his government the door. Attribute it to the caste factor and the ninth hour decision by the Jat Mahasabha to support the BJP, the government officer’s displeasure with Gehlot for dealing severely with their strike, or complaints of his ministerial colleagues not measuring up to the people’s expectations, in the end, he had to bow out, hand over the baton to the BJP’s Ms. Vasundhara Raje Scindia, whose popularity rating was much lower than Gehlot’s.

All through the campaign, she had hardly been looked upon as an ideal chief ministerial candidate. One had heard the comment: "Yeh to maharani hai aur Rajasthan ke liye bahut mehengi padegi. (She is a Maharani who will cost Rajasthan dear)" too often in both the urban and rural areas. But, then, a combination of factors such as anti-incumbency, the BJP’s excellent campaigning, the party’s growing popularity, and last, but not the least, Mr. Vajpayee’s personal charisma, won the desert-State for the BJP.

While the BJP camp is naturally jubilant and there is growing clamour from its ranks for early Lok Sabha polls, the indication given by the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr. J.M. Lyngdoh, to the Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, Mr. N. Chandrababu Naidu, who is seeking early elections, vis-à-vis the time required for revision of rolls is a dampener on their enthusiasm. If Assembly elections to a single State need to be delayed for updating the voters’ list, the EC’s response to a decision on early Lok Sabha polls can be imagined. So, more on that score than anything else, general elections may be a while away, yet.

But the BJP is hardly the one that has to be worried about the timing of the Lok Sabha polls. It is the Congress (I) that has to debate the bankruptcy of its leadership. The party needs to take a long and hard look at the manner in which sycophancy and bowing and scraping before the Nehru-Gandhi clan has resulted in the steady erosion of a credible rank of second-rung leaders.

This election threw up one bitter reality for the Congress (I). Compared to the BJP which has a strong second rung leadership, the Congress faces a serious dearth of leaders who not only have the charisma to woo voters but also the authority and the confidence to take decisions without rushing every time to 10-Janpath.

While friends like Bihar strongman, Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav, refuse to comment on Ms. Sonia Gandhi’s leadership having failed to work any magic on the voters, dubbing it an "internal affair of the party," opponents like the TDP chief, Mr. Chandrababu Naidu, have openly said the people of the Hindi heartland have rejected the Congress under the leadership of Ms. Sonia Gandhi.

Unfortunately, the democracy within the party stands so severely eroded that it is doubtful if any of the party leaders will have the courage to raise this issue at any party forum. Disgruntled voices there will be in plenty, but on the record even a whimper is unlikely.

On its part, the Congress, if it does not want to be decimated in the Lok Sabha polls, should take the election results as a wake-up call and waste as little time as possible in striking a reconciliatory approach towards anti-BJP parties. Thanks to its wooden-headed approach during the Uttar Pradesh elections, and the BJP’s souring of relations with Ms. Mayawati’s Bhaujan Samaj Party (BSP), Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav and his Samajwadi Party (SP) have already cosied up to the BJP. But there are still the Left parties, Laloo Yadav’s Rashtriya Janata Party (RJD), the BSP and other smaller parties with which the Congress (I) can form some kind of an alliance, to give the BJP-led alliance at least a semblance of a fight in the general elections next year.

One of the remarkable factors of this elections is that three of the four chief ministers in the Hindi heartland, not exactly known for its great record on gender rights, are women. Is this then a great victory for women’s representation in Indian politics? Hardly.

Of course, three women chief ministers – two in the cow belt – makes great front-page news and panel displays. Both the BJP and the Congress (I)’s record on giving ticket to women candidates in this elections, as others is hardly exemplary. And let us not forget, all the three come from privileged circles. Ms. Uma Bharti may be a Lodh, which comes under the OBC category, but in the Sangh Parivar she enjoys top ratings and a special position.The Congress seems to have paid for its poor political management with its debacle in MP, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. The party appears to have lost out to the BJP on the substance and style of electioneering, forging of social and political alliances and in closing the gap between the party, government and people. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Congress Party dug its won grave. INAV

Technological Cooperation

By Bharat Jhunjhunwala

Europe’s growth rate had been lower than that of the United States for the last forty years. President of the European Commission Prof Romano Prodi wants Europe to increase its expenditures on Research & Development in line with America. The number of new startups in America was three times that of Europe. He has reason to worry. Born in Italy he has seen his country’s economic supremacy eroded. He recalls that 240 ships were being produced in Venice every year in the fifteenth century when America was discovered. The seas were controlled by that city at that time. But soon bigger and number of ships were being made in England. And, in Mr Prodi’s words, "Venice disappeared from the map of the world." The inability to keep pace with technological development led to the decline of that city. No wonder Mr Prodi stresses the need for greater effort by Europe in technological development.

Unemployment too is increasing. The wages of unskilled workers are falling. The wages of workers in manufacturing are much lower than those employed in the financial services. India’s relation with Europe has to be seen in this backdrop. There are three possible areas of cooperation—trade, investment and technology.

Open trade with India would lead to greater transfer of low-skill jobs to our country though it will provide low cost good to the European consumer. Free trade will be beneficial for India but holds both gains and losses for Europe. Say, it is possible to manufacture a shoe in India by the advanced techniques for Rs 600. Let us say this gives jobs to three workers in India who are paid Rs 200 each. Manufacture of the same shoe in Europe would also require three days wage labour. The shoe manufactured in Europe will have to be sold at Rs 600 in the market since a similar shoe made in India is available at that price. Thus the wages that can be paid to the European worker cannot exceed Rs 200 per day. Additional cost of packing, transport and distribution would be incurred in importing the shoe from India. Even if this is taken into account the price of Indian shoe in European market may not exceed Rs 1,200 or so. Thus free trade necessarily has to lead to a decline in the wages of the European worker. Of course, the European consumer will get cheap shoes.

An investment treaty would provide income to European investors. European companies will be able to freely repatriate their profits to Europe from their operations in India. Europe would not get this income if the same production had been done by Indian companies. The profits will be repatriated to Europe if a shoe is manufactured in India by a European company. The profits are likely to be reinvested in India if the same shoe is manufactured by an Indian company. Thus investment is fundamentally harmful for India. However, India may be benefited in few selected areas where European companies have proprietary technologies that are not available from any other source. Thus investment is mainly beneficial for Europe and not so much for India.

Technological cooperation would lead to generation of high-skill jobs both in Europe and India. It can be beneficial both for India and Europe. Indian scientists have managed to produce supercomputer and send satellites into space at a fraction of the cost of Europe. Mutual cooperation can help both India and Europe to develop new technologies and capture global leadership in technology development. It should be recognized though that some high-skilled jobs may be transferred to India in the process. The exact impact on India and Europe would depend on the capabilities of their scientists. Who benefits more from collaboration will depend upon their respective abilities.

Thus Europe stands to lose in free trade (though it is forced to accept it); it stands to gain by investment treaty and also partly by technological cooperation. India stands to gain by free trade and technological cooperation but stands to lose by investment treaty (except in selected areas involving proprietary technologies). It appears that India should focus mainly on technological cooperation with Europe. We should not focus on demanding the opening of European markets because soon Europe will have to open them out of its own compulsion of providing cheap goods to its consumers; and of providing cheap raw materials to its companies in order to maintain their global competitiveness. Why should we dissipate our energies in asking for something that Europe will have to give us on its own accord?

We should also not enter into an investment treaty which will give freedom to European companies to repatriate the profits. Our thrust should be on technological cooperation alone. Our objective should be to develop those technologies in collaboration with Europe where United States has monopoly presently. That would help us break the American lead on technologies and help create a multipolar world.