The ‘middle class’ is a humongous classification. It can consist of a salaried employee, a small businessman, a pensioner, even an under-employed person who survives on a generous contribution to his wellbeing by relatives. To add to the complexity, the middle class is subdivided into ‘lower middle class’, middle class’ and ‘upper middle class’, all with varying incomes and different concerns and desires. But what binds them together is the taxes they pay as individual assesses, and the perennial grievance which arises from such a tax-trap. The middle class is also the most difficult to appease and its loyalty takes no time in shifting from one political party to another.&nbsp;

When finance minister Piyush Goyal stood up to deliver his Budget speech on Friday, he was not unaware of the challenge of pleasing this mercurial section of the population. And more so, since in recent months, his party had suffered electoral reversals in three important north Indian states, with one of the major causes being the shift of the middle-class votes away from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Something had to be done, since this was the last Budget, even if an interim one, before the party faced the people in the Lok Sabha election. And something was done. Whether the last-ditch effort will bring rewards, will be known in about four months. 
&nbsp; 
Given the middle class’s expanse, just one measure would not have sufficed. So the finance minister announced a slew of dramatic proposals, which were greeted with loud thumps and vocal cheering from the treasury bench. A nonplussed opposition looked on with a somewhat dazed expression, though its leaders later recovered and, outside Parliament, rubbished the announcements as the ‘final jumla’ of a government on its way out. Nevertheless, the moment belonged to the Modi regime. &nbsp;

The one announcement which most energised the NDA rank and possibly the millions that fall in the middle-class category was the 100 per cent tax rebate for individual tax-payers whose annual income does not cross five lakh rupees.&nbsp;

Until now, they had to pay five per cent as the tax on their income. The five lakh rupee ceiling can go even higher if the individual takes advantage of various tax-saving measures related to interest on educations, national pension schemes, medical claims, interest on home loans etc. According to experts, it is possible for individuals earning as high as eight to ten lakh rupees per year to remain out of the tax net with some help from the existing tax-saving avenues. &nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
To understand the potential political reach of this proposal, one needs to only remember that close to 30 million taxpayers from the middle class will end up saving more than Rs 18,000 crore annually. There are the other spinoffs. Savings on tax can result in a boost to consumption, which in turn could positively affect industrial output, even if that impacts largely the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector. At any rate, it could lead to more money flowing in tax-saving instruments, which is not a bad thing in itself.&nbsp;

The middle class was given further bonanzas. The standard deduction limit has been proposed to be raised from the present Rs 40,000 to Rs 50,000; &nbsp;second-time home buyers, again an important constituent of the aspirational middle-class category, will get exemption on notional rent earned on the second house, benefits from long-term capital gains tax, and relief on tax deducted at source (TDS) for rental income (up to Rs 2.40 lakh). Here too, there are multiple benefits, besides those to the middle class. With more middle-class taxpayers being encouraged to own a second home, the housing sector, which is struggling with unsold properties, can get a leg-up.

As if these were not enough — clearly the finance minister believed that if he had come this far, a little further would do no harm — the tax exemption limit on interest on savings in banks and post offices was increased fourfold, from Rs 10,000 to Rs 40,000. &nbsp;

Leave aside the economics — where is the government going to find the money for these concessions, or, will it be able to adhere to the fiscal deficit target, etc — for now. That is for the next regime to grapple with. If it’s going to be the BJP-led NDA again, then it will be judged by its ability to deliver on those promises and also simultaneously offer a roadmap for fiscal prudence; if it’s a new regime, it can simply junk Goyal’s proposals in its full-fledged Budget and dish out something else in their place. It’s the politics that matters in the immediate term, which is what the Budget has been all about.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

The ‘middle class’ is a humongous classification. It can consist of a salaried employee, a small businessman, a pensioner, even an under-employed person who survives on a generous contribution to his wellbeing by relatives.

The ‘middle class’ is a humongous classification. It can consist of a salaried employee, a small businessman, a pensioner, even an under-employed person who survives on a generous contribution to his wellbeing by relatives. To add to the complexity, the middle class is subdivided into ‘lower middle class’, middle class’ and ‘upper middle class’, all with varying incomes and different concerns and desires. But what binds them together is the taxes they pay as individual assesses, and the perennial grievance which arises from such a tax-trap. The middle class is also the most difficult to appease and its loyalty takes no time in shifting from one political party to another. When finance minister Piyush Goyal stood up to deliver his Budget speech on Friday, he was not unaware of the challenge of pleasing this mercurial section of the population. And more so, since in recent months, his party had suffered electoral reversals in three important north Indian states, with one of the major causes being the shift of the middle-class votes away from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Something had to be done, since this was the last Budget, even if an interim one, before the party faced the people in the Lok Sabha election. And something was done. Whether the last-ditch effort will bring rewards, will be known in about four months. Given the middle class’s expanse, just one measure would not have sufficed. So the finance minister announced a slew of dramatic proposals, which were greeted with loud thumps and vocal cheering from the treasury bench. A nonplussed opposition looked on with a somewhat dazed expression, though its leaders later recovered and, outside Parliament, rubbished the announcements as the ‘final jumla’ of a government on its way out. Nevertheless, the moment belonged to the Modi regime. The one announcement which most energised the NDA rank and possibly the millions that fall in the middle-class category was the 100 per cent tax rebate for individual tax-payers whose annual income does not cross five lakh rupees. Until now, they had to pay five per cent as the tax on their income. The five lakh rupee ceiling can go even higher if the individual takes advantage of various tax-saving measures related to interest on educations, national pension schemes, medical claims, interest on home loans etc. According to experts, it is possible for individuals earning as high as eight to ten lakh rupees per year to remain out of the tax net with some help from the existing tax-saving avenues. To understand the potential political reach of this proposal, one needs to only remember that close to 30 million taxpayers from the middle class will end up saving more than Rs 18,000 crore annually. There are the other spinoffs. Savings on tax can result in a boost to consumption, which in turn could positively affect industrial output, even if that impacts largely the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector. At any rate, it could lead to more money flowing in tax-saving instruments, which is not a bad thing in itself. The middle class was given further bonanzas. The standard deduction limit has been proposed to be raised from the present Rs 40,000 to Rs 50,000; second-time home buyers, again an important constituent of the aspirational middle-class category, will get exemption on notional rent earned on the second house, benefits from long-term capital gains tax, and relief on tax deducted at source (TDS) for rental income (up to Rs 2.40 lakh). Here too, there are multiple benefits, besides those to the middle class. With more middle-class taxpayers being encouraged to own a second home, the housing sector, which is struggling with unsold properties, can get a leg-up. As if these were not enough — clearly the finance minister believed that if he had come this far, a little further would do no harm — the tax exemption limit on interest on savings in banks and post offices was increased fourfold, from Rs 10,000 to Rs 40,000. Leave aside the economics — where is the government going to find the money for these concessions, or, will it be able to adhere to the fiscal deficit target, etc — for now. That is for the next regime to grapple with. If it’s going to be the BJP-led NDA again, then it will be judged by its ability to deliver on those promises and also simultaneously offer a roadmap for fiscal prudence; if it’s a new regime, it can simply junk Goyal’s proposals in its full-fledged Budget and dish out something else in their place. It’s the politics that matters in the immediate term, which is what the Budget has been all about. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Budget 2019: The moment belonged to Narendra Modi government and middle-class taxpayers

A few days ago, the Pravasi Bharatiya Sammelan held in Varanasi came to a grand close. From various accounts, it was a major success and is viewed as a fitting display of India’s soft power. A more formidable demonstration of soft power happened in 2015 when the United Nations, at New Delhi’s prodding, adopted June 21 as the International Yoga Day.&nbsp;

While soft power, as well as hard power, is driven by the political leadership of the day, the sustenance and credibility of such power depend largely on the strength of a nation’s international diplomacy.

In our case, it’s the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) ecosystem which shoulders that responsibility. Over the decades since independence, the IFS has given us brilliant officers who have effectively presented India’s stand before the world community, not just when the country spoke from a position of strength but also when it had to defend itself in times of grave challenges — global sanctions following India’s conduct of nuclear tests in 1998 is one such instance. But this must not lead us to presume that our international diplomacy infrastructure, which is responsible for furthering the country’s foreign policy, is at its best.

Several experts have commented on the subject, but most recently it is former Deputy National Security Advisor and retired IFS officer Arvind Gupta, who has flagged the matter. In his book, "How India Manages its National Security", Gupta has raised pointed issues which need urgent course-correction. His credentials to comment on the issue are impeccable, and his views need serious consideration. Here are some of the concerns.

In terms of both size and global outreach, Russia and the United States of America are key players. Russia has over 10,000 diplomats — roughly 3,000 are based in Moscow alone. The US has more than 11,000 members in its diplomatic service, whereas the other big country, China, has approximately 7,500 diplomats.&nbsp;

Where does India stand? According to the book, the number stands at a low of about 1,200. An article in Bloomberg has pegged the number at an even lower 940. This does not gel with the country’s global ambition.&nbsp;

It’s true that efforts have been made in recent years to bolster this pathetic number, but the new recruits will take time to gain expertise. And this where the second concern lies. As Gupta points out in his book, the scarcity has compelled the Ministry of External Affairs to absorb officials from other ministries and agencies on deputation to meet the workload. The limitations that this brings on the table are obvious.

A key element of India’s soft power derives from the country’s rich civilisational history — cultural diversity, heritage and language. Here, Gupta points out that our diplomats, “exposed to global influences, are often unaware of and not sufficiently trained in the Indian ethos”. One does not need to be an expert to understand that such a deficiency is hitting at the very foundation on which India’s soft power rests.

There is also the issue of area and domain specialisation, which in the author’s words, “are the twin pillars that support effective diplomacy”. While random efforts are made to acclimatise the IFS officers in these aspects, there hasn’t been, according to Gupta, “a conscious policy of developing are expertise among diplomats”. The result is that after a few years, even those officials who have gained some expertise, tend to lose touch with their core strength — such as, for example, proficiency in a foreign language which they may have acquired.

The External Affairs Ministry has several territorial divisions which are mandated to handle bilateral relations. Given that New Delhi has over the years not just reached out to many countries but also built solid relationships based on mutual interests and shared concerns, one would expect the territorial divisions to be fully equipped to meet the challenge. But again these divisions are considerably understaffed and overloaded with work. The fallout is a drop in efficiency to nimbly respond to global developments. “This weakness affects the overall diplomatic effort of the country”, says the book.

The expansion of our diplomatic corps, in both numbers and reach, needs money. India has 184 missions and posts abroad, and they cannot be run on a diet of pragmatic idealism; finances are required. Funds are also needed to meet the obligations that India has vowed to many countries for their development. If that is impacted due to the paucity of money, the country’s diplomacy suffers loss of face. Given the ambitious scale on which New Delhi has been pursuing its global outreach, one would expect the Union Budget to set aside an acceptable allocation for the External Affairs Ministry. But look at what a 2017 report of the Standing Committee of Parliament had to say: “While analysing the budgetary allocations made for the MEA during 2015-16, the Committee had found that the Ministry had sought an allocation of Rs 22,967.01 crore… against which the actual allocation made at the Budget Estimate stage was only Rs 14,966.83 crore.” The panel went on to say that despite an intervention made by the External Affairs Minister, “the situation could not be improved”.

Arvind Gupta offers an interesting to enhance coordination among the various diplomatic efforts. He states that “coordination among the MEA and other agencies involved… is where Indian diplomacy hits a weak spot”. He laments the frequent turf wars, and suggests a structure that would not just coordinate diplomatic efforts with the various agencies involved, keeping national security in mind, but also have teeth — meaning, it must go beyond being an advisory body.

It’s now too late for the incumbent regime at the Centre to undertake a revamp and reform of the country’s diplomatic infrastructure. Will the next government bite the bullet?

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

A few days ago, the Pravasi Bharatiya Sammelan held in Varanasi came to a grand close. From various accounts, it was a major success and is viewed as a fitting display of India’s soft power.

A few days ago, the Pravasi Bharatiya Sammelan held in Varanasi came to a grand close. From various accounts, it was a major success and is viewed as a fitting display of India’s soft power. A more formidable demonstration of soft power happened in 2015 when the United Nations, at New Delhi’s prodding, adopted June 21 as the International Yoga Day. While soft power, as well as hard power, is driven by the political leadership of the day, the sustenance and credibility of such power depend largely on the strength of a nation’s international diplomacy. In our case, it’s the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) ecosystem which shoulders that responsibility. Over the decades since independence, the IFS has given us brilliant officers who have effectively presented India’s stand before the world community, not just when the country spoke from a position of strength but also when it had to defend itself in times of grave challenges — global sanctions following India’s conduct of nuclear tests in 1998 is one such instance. But this must not lead us to presume that our international diplomacy infrastructure, which is responsible for furthering the country’s foreign policy, is at its best. Several experts have commented on the subject, but most recently it is former Deputy National Security Advisor and retired IFS officer Arvind Gupta, who has flagged the matter. In his book, "How India Manages its National Security", Gupta has raised pointed issues which need urgent course-correction. His credentials to comment on the issue are impeccable, and his views need serious consideration. Here are some of the concerns. In terms of both size and global outreach, Russia and the United States of America are key players. Russia has over 10,000 diplomats — roughly 3,000 are based in Moscow alone. The US has more than 11,000 members in its diplomatic service, whereas the other big country, China, has approximately 7,500 diplomats. Where does India stand? According to the book, the number stands at a low of about 1,200. An article in Bloomberg has pegged the number at an even lower 940. This does not gel with the country’s global ambition. It’s true that efforts have been made in recent years to bolster this pathetic number, but the new recruits will take time to gain expertise. And this where the second concern lies. As Gupta points out in his book, the scarcity has compelled the Ministry of External Affairs to absorb officials from other ministries and agencies on deputation to meet the workload. The limitations that this brings on the table are obvious. A key element of India’s soft power derives from the country’s rich civilisational history — cultural diversity, heritage and language. Here, Gupta points out that our diplomats, “exposed to global influences, are often unaware of and not sufficiently trained in the Indian ethos”. One does not need to be an expert to understand that such a deficiency is hitting at the very foundation on which India’s soft power rests. There is also the issue of area and domain specialisation, which in the author’s words, “are the twin pillars that support effective diplomacy”. While random efforts are made to acclimatise the IFS officers in these aspects, there hasn’t been, according to Gupta, “a conscious policy of developing are expertise among diplomats”. The result is that after a few years, even those officials who have gained some expertise, tend to lose touch with their core strength — such as, for example, proficiency in a foreign language which they may have acquired. The External Affairs Ministry has several territorial divisions which are mandated to handle bilateral relations. Given that New Delhi has over the years not just reached out to many countries but also built solid relationships based on mutual interests and shared concerns, one would expect the territorial divisions to be fully equipped to meet the challenge. But again these divisions are considerably understaffed and overloaded with work. The fallout is a drop in efficiency to nimbly respond to global developments. “This weakness affects the overall diplomatic effort of the country”, says the book. The expansion of our diplomatic corps, in both numbers and reach, needs money. India has 184 missions and posts abroad, and they cannot be run on a diet of pragmatic idealism; finances are required. Funds are also needed to meet the obligations that India has vowed to many countries for their development. If that is impacted due to the paucity of money, the country’s diplomacy suffers loss of face. Given the ambitious scale on which New Delhi has been pursuing its global outreach, one would expect the Union Budget to set aside an acceptable allocation for the External Affairs Ministry. But look at what a 2017 report of the Standing Committee of Parliament had to say: “While analysing the budgetary allocations made for the MEA during 2015-16, the Committee had found that the Ministry had sought an allocation of Rs 22,967.01 crore… against which the actual allocation made at the Budget Estimate stage was only Rs 14,966.83 crore.” The panel went on to say that despite an intervention made by the External Affairs Minister, “the situation could not be improved”. Arvind Gupta offers an interesting to enhance coordination among the various diplomatic efforts. He states that “coordination among the MEA and other agencies involved… is where Indian diplomacy hits a weak spot”. He laments the frequent turf wars, and suggests a structure that would not just coordinate diplomatic efforts with the various agencies involved, keeping national security in mind, but also have teeth — meaning, it must go beyond being an advisory body. It’s now too late for the incumbent regime at the Centre to undertake a revamp and reform of the country’s diplomatic infrastructure. Will the next government bite the bullet? (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Scarcity of diplomats at Centre affects India's global outreach

By now it should be obvious that there is going to be no grand national coalition to take on the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2019. Instead, there would be mini-alliances at the state-level to contain the ruling party and dent Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s personal charisma. Some such partnerships have already been formalised.&nbsp;

In Uttar Pradesh, the BSP and the SP have joined hands; in Maharashtra, the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party have decided to contest as a team; in Telangana, the TDP and the Congress are together. Besides, the possibility of the Congress and the DMK aligning with each other in Tamil Nadu, and the National Conference, PDP and the Congress striking a deal in J&amp;K, is strong. &nbsp; 
 
The prospect of a pre-poll national alternative to the BJP-led NDA is bleak despite the impressive show of solidarity among opposition leaders that was witnessed on Saturday at a rally organised by Mamata Banerjee in Kolkata.&nbsp;

Leader after leader in their speeches called for the ouster of the Modi-led NDA regime, accusing it of various improprieties. It must be recalled a similar show of strength had been seen some months ago in Bangalore when HD Kumaraswamy was sworn in as chief minister of Karnataka. It had led to speculation that at last, the opposition was on the way to uniting. But it did not happen. It’s not just that many regional parties are wary of partnering with the Congress. There are contradictions among the regional outfits themselves.&nbsp;

For instance, Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao has also launched his drive for a similar alternative, but he skipped the Kolkata event. The NCP will contest Lok Sabha seats in Maharashtra in alliance with the Congress, but its leader Sharad Pawar was in attendance at Banerjee’s event which was billed to promote a regional front as opposed to a Congress-led one. BSP supremo Mayawati did not attend, though her Uttar Pradesh partner Akhilesh Yadav was there. Even DMK leader MK Stalin, who has endorsed Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s candidature as prime minister, was present in the Kolkata rally which certainly was not held to stamp its approval to Rahul Gandhi’s leadership. &nbsp;

Then there are the likes of powerful regional satraps such as Naveen Patnaik of the Biju Janata Dal who refuse to play ball with the idea of the so-called federal front or align with the Congress, even as they position themselves in opposition to the BJP. The AIADMK too has consistently kept away from these initiatives, possibility because it wants to keep the doors open for a tie-up with the BJP in the coming months. &nbsp;

Given the confusion, it’s not surprising that regional parties who often attend grand programmes and vow to oust the Modi regime are bereft of both an acceptable face who will lead them to the national electoral battle and policy direction on issues of national importance. In fact, these are not even priorities for them, as they have stated time and again. The priority is to get rid of the Modi government; everything else is supposed to seamlessly follow thereafter. The problem is: Recent political history shows that ‘everything else’ does not follow.&nbsp;

In the run-up to the 1977 Lok Sabha poll, a large number of leaders belonging to various outfits got together and formed the Janata Party with the express and sole purpose to defeat Indira Gandhi and her Congress in the aftermath of Emergency. They had no other agenda — no economic policy, no foreign policy etc. They exploited the mood against her and won. But within months the unravelling began and in two years the government collapsed. The ‘oust one person’ agenda does not work by itself.&nbsp;

It is ironical that the Kolkata rally should have glorified coalition politics when some of the participants are having sleepless nights managing a coalition. Kumaraswamy had, for instance, only hours before the event, lamented that he had to run a coalition government. He said that he would have been able to govern far more efficiently had his party, the Janata Dal (Secular), been given a clear majority by the electorate. And who can forget his teary-eyed statement that coalition politics was a “poison” which he had been compelled to consume! &nbsp;

Besides, Kumaraswamy is currently facing a crisis in his home state, with reports of a few Congress MLAs ready to rebel. Two Independents have already withdrawn their support to his government. While the BJP has been blamed for seeking to destabilise the coalition regime, the fact is that the upheaval is largely due to friction within the Congress, divided into the DK Shivakumar and the Siddaramaiah camps, and the BJP is naturally hoping to cash in on the internecine conflict. &nbsp;

The perils of an unnatural coalition are manifest in the Karnataka example — as they were in the BJP-PDP alliance in Jammu &amp; Kashmir. Raising hands in unity on public platforms is one thing; contesting elections on the ground in an equally united fashion with a leader at the helm, is another.&nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By now it should be obvious that there is going to be no grand national coalition to take on the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2019. Instead, there would be mini-alliances at the state-level to contain the ruling party and dent Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s personal charisma.

By now it should be obvious that there is going to be no grand national coalition to take on the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2019. Instead, there would be mini-alliances at the state-level to contain the ruling party and dent Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s personal charisma. Some such partnerships have already been formalised. In Uttar Pradesh, the BSP and the SP have joined hands; in Maharashtra, the Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party have decided to contest as a team; in Telangana, the TDP and the Congress are together. Besides, the possibility of the Congress and the DMK aligning with each other in Tamil Nadu, and the National Conference, PDP and the Congress striking a deal in J&K, is strong. The prospect of a pre-poll national alternative to the BJP-led NDA is bleak despite the impressive show of solidarity among opposition leaders that was witnessed on Saturday at a rally organised by Mamata Banerjee in Kolkata. Leader after leader in their speeches called for the ouster of the Modi-led NDA regime, accusing it of various improprieties. It must be recalled a similar show of strength had been seen some months ago in Bangalore when HD Kumaraswamy was sworn in as chief minister of Karnataka. It had led to speculation that at last, the opposition was on the way to uniting. But it did not happen. It’s not just that many regional parties are wary of partnering with the Congress. There are contradictions among the regional outfits themselves. For instance, Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrashekhar Rao has also launched his drive for a similar alternative, but he skipped the Kolkata event. The NCP will contest Lok Sabha seats in Maharashtra in alliance with the Congress, but its leader Sharad Pawar was in attendance at Banerjee’s event which was billed to promote a regional front as opposed to a Congress-led one. BSP supremo Mayawati did not attend, though her Uttar Pradesh partner Akhilesh Yadav was there. Even DMK leader MK Stalin, who has endorsed Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s candidature as prime minister, was present in the Kolkata rally which certainly was not held to stamp its approval to Rahul Gandhi’s leadership. Then there are the likes of powerful regional satraps such as Naveen Patnaik of the Biju Janata Dal who refuse to play ball with the idea of the so-called federal front or align with the Congress, even as they position themselves in opposition to the BJP. The AIADMK too has consistently kept away from these initiatives, possibility because it wants to keep the doors open for a tie-up with the BJP in the coming months. Given the confusion, it’s not surprising that regional parties who often attend grand programmes and vow to oust the Modi regime are bereft of both an acceptable face who will lead them to the national electoral battle and policy direction on issues of national importance. In fact, these are not even priorities for them, as they have stated time and again. The priority is to get rid of the Modi government; everything else is supposed to seamlessly follow thereafter. The problem is: Recent political history shows that ‘everything else’ does not follow. In the run-up to the 1977 Lok Sabha poll, a large number of leaders belonging to various outfits got together and formed the Janata Party with the express and sole purpose to defeat Indira Gandhi and her Congress in the aftermath of Emergency. They had no other agenda — no economic policy, no foreign policy etc. They exploited the mood against her and won. But within months the unravelling began and in two years the government collapsed. The ‘oust one person’ agenda does not work by itself. It is ironical that the Kolkata rally should have glorified coalition politics when some of the participants are having sleepless nights managing a coalition. Kumaraswamy had, for instance, only hours before the event, lamented that he had to run a coalition government. He said that he would have been able to govern far more efficiently had his party, the Janata Dal (Secular), been given a clear majority by the electorate. And who can forget his teary-eyed statement that coalition politics was a “poison” which he had been compelled to consume! Besides, Kumaraswamy is currently facing a crisis in his home state, with reports of a few Congress MLAs ready to rebel. Two Independents have already withdrawn their support to his government. While the BJP has been blamed for seeking to destabilise the coalition regime, the fact is that the upheaval is largely due to friction within the Congress, divided into the DK Shivakumar and the Siddaramaiah camps, and the BJP is naturally hoping to cash in on the internecine conflict. The perils of an unnatural coalition are manifest in the Karnataka example — as they were in the BJP-PDP alliance in Jammu & Kashmir. Raising hands in unity on public platforms is one thing; contesting elections on the ground in an equally united fashion with a leader at the helm, is another. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

A strong show of unity, but chances of grand alliance still bleak

The political wheels have come full circle in Uttar Pradesh. About 25 years ago, the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party came together to successfully contest the 1993 Assembly elections in the state. The idea was to keep the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at bay following its rise. Now the two parties have aligned yet again to counter the BJP in the coming Lok Sabha polls. Since we are into history, let’s recall a few incidents that happened thereafter.&nbsp;

Then it was Mulayam Singh Yadav from the SP and Kanshi Ram from the BSP who stitched the partnership. Two prominent industrialists had played a significant role in bringing the rivals together, and they were subsequently rewarded with Rajya Sabha seats. The BJP still won the largest number of seats but fell short of a majority, while the combined numerical strength of the SP and the BSP led to the formation of a coalition regime with Mulayam Singh Yadav as the chief minister. Mayawati did not join the government, but she was entrusted with the task of supervising the partnership. &nbsp;

The alliance worked well for the first few months, but friction began to develop thereafter, more so after incidents of violence which had erupted following the removal of an Ambedkar statue in Meerut in 1994. The state police, which had a good number from the Yadav caste, came down hard on the protesters and at least two members of the Scheduled Castes died in the firing. More problems arose when the Yadav community protested against the installation of an Ambedkar statue on a plot of land it claimed belonged to the community. The Yadav-Scheduled Caste confrontation led Mayawati to get aggressive, and soon reports began to circulate that she was interfering in the functioning of the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led government. &nbsp;

Then came then infamous guest house incident in mid-1995. By then, political equations had begun to change in Lucknow. The BJP and the BSP had got closer to each other with the latter realising it would have to pull out of the coalition regime to keep its Scheduled caste vote-base intact. Indeed, Mayawati had met the Governor and effectively withdrawn support to the government. All hell broke. Mayawati had summoned a meeting of her legislators at the state guest house in Lucknow to discuss further course of action. Once the meeting was done, the BSP leader was closeted with a few senior leaders for fine-tuning the political strategy. A mob of around 200 SP leaders and supporters attacked the guest house and raised casteist slogans against her and her community. It was followed by more filthy language and threats to kill. Power supply to the guest house was cut off and the mob shouted for Mayawati to be dragged out and taught a lesson. The BSP legislators who came in contact with the mob were brutally assaulted. &nbsp;

Two junior police officers came to Mayawati’s rescue. Later the district magistrate of Lucknow and some BJP leaders played important roles in the rescue of the BSP leader. A traumatic Mayawati and her guru Kanshi Ram vowed to never do business with the SP. She soon became chief minister with the BJP’s support.&nbsp;

Cut to the present: On Saturday, sharing the stage with SP leader Akhilesh Yadav to announce the renewed partnership between the SP and the BSP and the seat-sharing deal, Mayawati remarked that she was willing to forgive and forget the 1995 incident in the larger interests of the nation (read, to get rid of the Modi government from the Centre). &nbsp;

Then, as now, the common factor is the need to counter the BJP. But that’s where the commonality ends. The first difference is that the two leaders who made the alliance possible in 1993 are not in the picture this time around. Kanshi Ram is dead and Mulayam Singh Yadav is a mere bystander in the party which he founded. While both Kanshi Ram and Mulayam Singh Yadav were astute, in the present case Mayawati, now a veteran both in terms of years in politics and mercurial nature, clearly has the edge, whereas Akhilesh Yadav is subdued by his relatively junior status and inexperience. Everybody knows who will call the shots in the post-result scenario if the combine does well, is not a secret.&nbsp;

The second difference is that the 1993 alliance had been for Assembly elections, whereas the present one — at least for now — is for the Lok Sabha polls. Then it was Mulayam-Kanshi Ram versus Kalyan Singh of the BJP, who had been deposed as chief minister following the Ayodhya mosque destruction incident. Today it is Akhilesh-Mayawati versus Narendra Modi — a more formidable challenge.&nbsp;

The third refers to the political status of the BJP. Then, the BJP was not in power either at the Centre or in the state. Today it’s there in both places. In the 2014 general elections, the party had got 40 per cent of the vote-share in Uttar Pradesh. The SP could manage only five seats while the BSP ended with none. The situation was not much different in the 2017 assembly polls where the SP and the BSP had to bite the dust while the BJP romped home with a huge majority. &nbsp;And yet the SP-BSP combine has reason to feel upbeat. It had tasted blood in the Phulpur and Gorakhpur Lok Sabha bypolls, and this had proved to be a trigger to explore a formalise alliance between the two parties.&nbsp; &nbsp;

There, questions remain: First, will the coalition deliver in 2019? Will it last in case of failure? Will it sustain even after the victory or become victim to ego battles, as had happened in 1995?&nbsp;&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The political wheels have come full circle in Uttar Pradesh. About 25 years ago, the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party came together to successfully contest the 1993 Assembly elections in the state.

The political wheels have come full circle in Uttar Pradesh. About 25 years ago, the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party came together to successfully contest the 1993 Assembly elections in the state. The idea was to keep the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at bay following its rise. Now the two parties have aligned yet again to counter the BJP in the coming Lok Sabha polls. Since we are into history, let’s recall a few incidents that happened thereafter. Then it was Mulayam Singh Yadav from the SP and Kanshi Ram from the BSP who stitched the partnership. Two prominent industrialists had played a significant role in bringing the rivals together, and they were subsequently rewarded with Rajya Sabha seats. The BJP still won the largest number of seats but fell short of a majority, while the combined numerical strength of the SP and the BSP led to the formation of a coalition regime with Mulayam Singh Yadav as the chief minister. Mayawati did not join the government, but she was entrusted with the task of supervising the partnership. The alliance worked well for the first few months, but friction began to develop thereafter, more so after incidents of violence which had erupted following the removal of an Ambedkar statue in Meerut in 1994. The state police, which had a good number from the Yadav caste, came down hard on the protesters and at least two members of the Scheduled Castes died in the firing. More problems arose when the Yadav community protested against the installation of an Ambedkar statue on a plot of land it claimed belonged to the community. The Yadav-Scheduled Caste confrontation led Mayawati to get aggressive, and soon reports began to circulate that she was interfering in the functioning of the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led government. Then came then infamous guest house incident in mid-1995. By then, political equations had begun to change in Lucknow. The BJP and the BSP had got closer to each other with the latter realising it would have to pull out of the coalition regime to keep its Scheduled caste vote-base intact. Indeed, Mayawati had met the Governor and effectively withdrawn support to the government. All hell broke. Mayawati had summoned a meeting of her legislators at the state guest house in Lucknow to discuss further course of action. Once the meeting was done, the BSP leader was closeted with a few senior leaders for fine-tuning the political strategy. A mob of around 200 SP leaders and supporters attacked the guest house and raised casteist slogans against her and her community. It was followed by more filthy language and threats to kill. Power supply to the guest house was cut off and the mob shouted for Mayawati to be dragged out and taught a lesson. The BSP legislators who came in contact with the mob were brutally assaulted. Two junior police officers came to Mayawati’s rescue. Later the district magistrate of Lucknow and some BJP leaders played important roles in the rescue of the BSP leader. A traumatic Mayawati and her guru Kanshi Ram vowed to never do business with the SP. She soon became chief minister with the BJP’s support. Cut to the present: On Saturday, sharing the stage with SP leader Akhilesh Yadav to announce the renewed partnership between the SP and the BSP and the seat-sharing deal, Mayawati remarked that she was willing to forgive and forget the 1995 incident in the larger interests of the nation (read, to get rid of the Modi government from the Centre). Then, as now, the common factor is the need to counter the BJP. But that’s where the commonality ends. The first difference is that the two leaders who made the alliance possible in 1993 are not in the picture this time around. Kanshi Ram is dead and Mulayam Singh Yadav is a mere bystander in the party which he founded. While both Kanshi Ram and Mulayam Singh Yadav were astute, in the present case Mayawati, now a veteran both in terms of years in politics and mercurial nature, clearly has the edge, whereas Akhilesh Yadav is subdued by his relatively junior status and inexperience. Everybody knows who will call the shots in the post-result scenario if the combine does well, is not a secret. The second difference is that the 1993 alliance had been for Assembly elections, whereas the present one — at least for now — is for the Lok Sabha polls. Then it was Mulayam-Kanshi Ram versus Kalyan Singh of the BJP, who had been deposed as chief minister following the Ayodhya mosque destruction incident. Today it is Akhilesh-Mayawati versus Narendra Modi — a more formidable challenge. The third refers to the political status of the BJP. Then, the BJP was not in power either at the Centre or in the state. Today it’s there in both places. In the 2014 general elections, the party had got 40 per cent of the vote-share in Uttar Pradesh. The SP could manage only five seats while the BSP ended with none. The situation was not much different in the 2017 assembly polls where the SP and the BSP had to bite the dust while the BJP romped home with a huge majority. And yet the SP-BSP combine has reason to feel upbeat. It had tasted blood in the Phulpur and Gorakhpur Lok Sabha bypolls, and this had proved to be a trigger to explore a formalise alliance between the two parties. There, questions remain: First, will the coalition deliver in 2019? Will it last in case of failure? Will it sustain even after the victory or become victim to ego battles, as had happened in 1995? (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

BSP-SP alliance returns after 25 years; will the coalition deliver in 2019?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a recent interview that the 'grand alliance' being talked of against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) would result in a contest between the people and the coalition. It remains to be seen whether this new narrative will gain traction among the voters in the months to come, but there is an alliance that can create serious problems for the ruling party - the one between the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp; 
 
Neither PM Modi nor his party can ignore the elephant in the room, or to be precise, the elephant plus the cycle. This is for several reasons. The first is that the SP-BSP combine is a very real possibility, unlike various other opposition combinations that exist only in the air. The two parties are already collaborating. When the BSP withdrew its minister from the HD Kumaraswamy government in Karnataka, the SP was quick to support the move. When the BSP demanded the withdrawal of certain cases against members of the Scheduled Castes in Kamal Nath-ruled Madhya Pradesh, the SP was again fully supportive.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The two parties have given serious indications of contesting the Lok Sabha polls together, at least for the 80 seats in Uttar Pradesh. They are both on the same page with regard to treating the Congress as a very junior partner in case the latter decides to join their group. But both prefer not having any truck with the Congress.&nbsp;

The other reason for the BJP to take the possible combine seriously is the state itself. Uttar Pradesh, from all available accounts, holds the key to government formation at the Centre. The BJP rode to a majority — the first time a single party achieved it since 1984-85 — on the strength of its performance in the state, winning 73 seats along with its allies. If it suffers a setback there, it will have considerable difficulty in being in the pole position nationally. &nbsp;

The Samajwadi Party-Bahujan Samaj Party combine is lethal on caste grounds too. The Yadav community and the Scheduled Castes together form a formidable voter force; together they comprise case to 30 per cent of the population. Add to it the Muslim voters, and the situation gets only more grim for the BJP. It can be argued that not all Scheduled Caste voters will back the combine — they had supported the BJP in large numbers in 2014. But then, 2019 is not 2014, and there was no alliance between the SP and the BSP.&nbsp;

The situation is more challenging for the BJP in the state this time around also because of trouble with allies. The Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party and the Apna Dal (Sonelal) are upset for various reasons. Leaders of both parties have been keeping away from BJP events. Most recently, they were absent from a rally the Prime Minister addressed in Ghazipur. Statements of discontent have been made from both party leaders on various occasions. The BJP will have to mollify them quickly or face the prospect of loss of precious votes in pockets where the two parties are influential. The ruling party cannot afford to lose partners like it did in neighbouring Bihar. Two regional parties which had contested the2014 polls as partners of the BJP have broken away and joined the RJD-led front. But at least in Bihar, the BJP has a tie-up with a dominant Janata Dal (United) to compensate for the loss; in Uttar Pradesh, there is no such solace.&nbsp;

Given the situation, the BJP is readying itself for the grand challenge in the state. It could try any one or a combination of the following factors: Use the Ayodhya card to rally the majority faith voters to its side; play upon the threat of minority appeasement as well as the dominance of the Yadav community to lure voters; recall the development agenda of both the Modi regime and the Yogi Adityanath government in the state.

The potency of the first factor depends greatly on the path the Supreme Court takes in the weeks to come. The second hinges largely on the level of fear that the BJP can arouse song the people. It must be recalled that the BJP had swept the Assembly election in 2017 also because the people had been disenchanted by the minority appeasement policies of the then Samajwadi Party regime led by Akhilesh Yadav. The consolation of Hindu votes had happened as a result. Further supported by the success of schemes such as Ujjwala, the BJP had cut across caste votes to register a fine win. &nbsp;

Is an encore possible?&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a recent interview that the 'grand alliance' being talked of against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) would result in a contest between the people and the coalition.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a recent interview that the 'grand alliance' being talked of against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) would result in a contest between the people and the coalition. It remains to be seen whether this new narrative will gain traction among the voters in the months to come, but there is an alliance that can create serious problems for the ruling party - the one between the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in Uttar Pradesh. Neither PM Modi nor his party can ignore the elephant in the room, or to be precise, the elephant plus the cycle. This is for several reasons. The first is that the SP-BSP combine is a very real possibility, unlike various other opposition combinations that exist only in the air. The two parties are already collaborating. When the BSP withdrew its minister from the HD Kumaraswamy government in Karnataka, the SP was quick to support the move. When the BSP demanded the withdrawal of certain cases against members of the Scheduled Castes in Kamal Nath-ruled Madhya Pradesh, the SP was again fully supportive. The two parties have given serious indications of contesting the Lok Sabha polls together, at least for the 80 seats in Uttar Pradesh. They are both on the same page with regard to treating the Congress as a very junior partner in case the latter decides to join their group. But both prefer not having any truck with the Congress. The other reason for the BJP to take the possible combine seriously is the state itself. Uttar Pradesh, from all available accounts, holds the key to government formation at the Centre. The BJP rode to a majority — the first time a single party achieved it since 1984-85 — on the strength of its performance in the state, winning 73 seats along with its allies. If it suffers a setback there, it will have considerable difficulty in being in the pole position nationally. The Samajwadi Party-Bahujan Samaj Party combine is lethal on caste grounds too. The Yadav community and the Scheduled Castes together form a formidable voter force; together they comprise case to 30 per cent of the population. Add to it the Muslim voters, and the situation gets only more grim for the BJP. It can be argued that not all Scheduled Caste voters will back the combine — they had supported the BJP in large numbers in 2014. But then, 2019 is not 2014, and there was no alliance between the SP and the BSP. The situation is more challenging for the BJP in the state this time around also because of trouble with allies. The Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party and the Apna Dal (Sonelal) are upset for various reasons. Leaders of both parties have been keeping away from BJP events. Most recently, they were absent from a rally the Prime Minister addressed in Ghazipur. Statements of discontent have been made from both party leaders on various occasions. The BJP will have to mollify them quickly or face the prospect of loss of precious votes in pockets where the two parties are influential. The ruling party cannot afford to lose partners like it did in neighbouring Bihar. Two regional parties which had contested the2014 polls as partners of the BJP have broken away and joined the RJD-led front. But at least in Bihar, the BJP has a tie-up with a dominant Janata Dal (United) to compensate for the loss; in Uttar Pradesh, there is no such solace. Given the situation, the BJP is readying itself for the grand challenge in the state. It could try any one or a combination of the following factors: Use the Ayodhya card to rally the majority faith voters to its side; play upon the threat of minority appeasement as well as the dominance of the Yadav community to lure voters; recall the development agenda of both the Modi regime and the Yogi Adityanath government in the state. The potency of the first factor depends greatly on the path the Supreme Court takes in the weeks to come. The second hinges largely on the level of fear that the BJP can arouse song the people. It must be recalled that the BJP had swept the Assembly election in 2017 also because the people had been disenchanted by the minority appeasement policies of the then Samajwadi Party regime led by Akhilesh Yadav. The consolation of Hindu votes had happened as a result. Further supported by the success of schemes such as Ujjwala, the BJP had cut across caste votes to register a fine win. Is an encore possible? (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

BSP-SP alliance may prove to be a stumbling block for BJP

Like the year 2017, &nbsp;2018 also ends with a round of important state elections. But unlike 2017 which the Bharatiya Janata Party rounded off with a hard-fought victory in Gujarat, 2018 has seen curtains down for the party in the key states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. That alone makes 2019 crucial, but what adds to the importance is the fact that that year will also witness a contest to determine which party or combination of parties rules the country.&nbsp;

It is, therefore, natural that electoral issues will be thrown up in the coming months. Although different topics will seek to occupy the primary narrative, every party will swear by the development agenda. While the BJP will present the development it has done in the past five years, others will dig up credit-worry material from the past when they were in power. The question is: Will the politics of development alone be the decisive factor? This is important because, if the answer is in the affirmative, then various other issues, many of them polarising and contentious, ought to be consigned to the dustbin. But the country’s recent political history does not point in that direction.&nbsp;

The Congress-led regime of PV Narasimha Rao presided over the most dramatic economic reforms the country has seen since Independence. It discarded decades of a socialist structure that had impeded growth and openness in the Indian economy. Its impact has been so profound that it is not just being felt today but will continue to be felt for many more years to come. Those bold measures were remarkable for another important reason: They were helmed by a leader who had himself spent a lifetime soaked in the Congress’s socialist credentials as far as economic policies were concerned. And they saved the country from certain bankruptcy. And yet, the Rao government lost power in 1996. The development agenda failed to click.&nbsp;

The fate of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee dispensation was no different. Prime Minister Vajpayee initiated arguably the biggest reform in decades in the infrastructure sector — national highways, rural roads, electricity, telecommunications. The India Shining campaign highlighted those undisputed achievements, but the BJP was ousted from power by the Congress which had only less than a decade ago played a role in the destabilisation of two non-Congress governments. Besides, it had also virtually trashed Rao’s development politics by relegating him to a non-entity in the Congress’s galaxy of tall leaders. People had not forgotten the shabby treatment it had given to Rao even after his death. But nothing mattered, and the Congress-led alliance formed the government in 2004. &nbsp;

Both Raman Singh in Chhattisgarh and Shivraj Singh Chouhan in Madhya Pradesh, in their long stints at the helm, had to a large extent succeeded in improving a lot of the people of their respective States through developmental politics. Madhya Pradesh is an especially interesting case because it had been considered part of the BIMARU (sick) conglomeration of states when Chouhan took charge. In more than a decade in office, his regime had managed to extricate it out of this pejorative terminology— which then comprised Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. But the people of the state voted his regime out recently.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Political parties understand this reality, which is why, although they talk of the politics of development, they are careful to cultivate other factors as well, sometimes at the cost of development. The constant use of identities — of religion, caste, regional pride — is one such weapon that these parties deploy. To be fair to them, they do so because they know that the voters also —despite being vocal on public platforms — about issues of development — are often swayed by parochial considerations.&nbsp;

This explains the budding romance between the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh. If the alliance between the two regional heavyweights happens, it can signal big trouble for the BJP in the state which sends 80 members to the Lok Sabha and which can well decide on who will form the next government at the Centre. It cannot be the politics of development which has brought the two entities this close, because both have a miserable track record on that front. What we can witness is the return of unabashed caste politics in Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Similar is the story with other parties. The BJP has enough to talk about developmental politics — from empowering the common man to have bank accounts to enhancing road, rail and air connectivity to providing cooking gas connections to millions of needy families to implementing various new insurance schemes for the farming and the health sectors, and the Make in India, Digital India, Startup India projects etc. But even it realises that these may not be enough.

That said, it must be acknowledged that voters do have issues other than development which bothers them, and when such issues are ignored or belittled, the people let their annoyance known through the EVMs.&nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Like the year 2017, 2018 also ends with a round of important state elections. But unlike 2017 which the Bharatiya Janata Party rounded off with a hard-fought victory in Gujarat, 2018 has seen curtains down for the party in the key states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

Like the year 2017, 2018 also ends with a round of important state elections. But unlike 2017 which the Bharatiya Janata Party rounded off with a hard-fought victory in Gujarat, 2018 has seen curtains down for the party in the key states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. That alone makes 2019 crucial, but what adds to the importance is the fact that that year will also witness a contest to determine which party or combination of parties rules the country. It is, therefore, natural that electoral issues will be thrown up in the coming months. Although different topics will seek to occupy the primary narrative, every party will swear by the development agenda. While the BJP will present the development it has done in the past five years, others will dig up credit-worry material from the past when they were in power. The question is: Will the politics of development alone be the decisive factor? This is important because, if the answer is in the affirmative, then various other issues, many of them polarising and contentious, ought to be consigned to the dustbin. But the country’s recent political history does not point in that direction. The Congress-led regime of PV Narasimha Rao presided over the most dramatic economic reforms the country has seen since Independence. It discarded decades of a socialist structure that had impeded growth and openness in the Indian economy. Its impact has been so profound that it is not just being felt today but will continue to be felt for many more years to come. Those bold measures were remarkable for another important reason: They were helmed by a leader who had himself spent a lifetime soaked in the Congress’s socialist credentials as far as economic policies were concerned. And they saved the country from certain bankruptcy. And yet, the Rao government lost power in 1996. The development agenda failed to click. The fate of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee dispensation was no different. Prime Minister Vajpayee initiated arguably the biggest reform in decades in the infrastructure sector — national highways, rural roads, electricity, telecommunications. The India Shining campaign highlighted those undisputed achievements, but the BJP was ousted from power by the Congress which had only less than a decade ago played a role in the destabilisation of two non-Congress governments. Besides, it had also virtually trashed Rao’s development politics by relegating him to a non-entity in the Congress’s galaxy of tall leaders. People had not forgotten the shabby treatment it had given to Rao even after his death. But nothing mattered, and the Congress-led alliance formed the government in 2004. Both Raman Singh in Chhattisgarh and Shivraj Singh Chouhan in Madhya Pradesh, in their long stints at the helm, had to a large extent succeeded in improving a lot of the people of their respective States through developmental politics. Madhya Pradesh is an especially interesting case because it had been considered part of the BIMARU (sick) conglomeration of states when Chouhan took charge. In more than a decade in office, his regime had managed to extricate it out of this pejorative terminology— which then comprised Bihar, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. But the people of the state voted his regime out recently. Political parties understand this reality, which is why, although they talk of the politics of development, they are careful to cultivate other factors as well, sometimes at the cost of development. The constant use of identities — of religion, caste, regional pride — is one such weapon that these parties deploy. To be fair to them, they do so because they know that the voters also —despite being vocal on public platforms — about issues of development — are often swayed by parochial considerations. This explains the budding romance between the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh. If the alliance between the two regional heavyweights happens, it can signal big trouble for the BJP in the state which sends 80 members to the Lok Sabha and which can well decide on who will form the next government at the Centre. It cannot be the politics of development which has brought the two entities this close, because both have a miserable track record on that front. What we can witness is the return of unabashed caste politics in Uttar Pradesh. Similar is the story with other parties. The BJP has enough to talk about developmental politics — from empowering the common man to have bank accounts to enhancing road, rail and air connectivity to providing cooking gas connections to millions of needy families to implementing various new insurance schemes for the farming and the health sectors, and the Make in India, Digital India, Startup India projects etc. But even it realises that these may not be enough. That said, it must be acknowledged that voters do have issues other than development which bothers them, and when such issues are ignored or belittled, the people let their annoyance known through the EVMs. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

It will take more than just 'politics of development' as parties prepare for 2019 Lok Sabha elections

The Congress promised to waive off loans to farmers in the run-up to the recent Assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, and won the right to rule those states. Now the party has decided to keep that promise.&nbsp;

The move will make the farmers happy, no doubt. But there is also no doubt that it will leave the economy of the respective states in a mess so profound that there will be difficulty in extrication. It will also impact the banking sector. Worse, the loan waiver will not resolve the fundamental factors which lead to farmer debts.&nbsp;

Had loan write-offs been a solution, then the problem ought to have gone away a long time ago. This is not there first time that governments have decided to waive loans, but every few years of this step the issue returns to loom large on the agricultural sector. This in itself is an indicator that loan waivers are a non-workable solution. But because they have the potential to fetch votes in the short term, political parties merrily indulge in them.&nbsp;

&nbsp;Let’s look at some figures cursorily. The Congress’s promise of loan write-off to farmers could cost the public exchequer around Rs 70,000 crore — close to 48 per cent of Rajasthan's annual Budget. The Ashok Gehlot regime has little leg space to go in for additional borrowings because out of the borrowing capacity of Rs 36,000 crore in the budget, it has already drawn Rs 25,000 crore. &nbsp;

The situation in Madhya Pradesh is no less worrisome. Farm loan waiver here comes with a cost of roughly Rs 50,000 crore. The Congress had proclaimed that it had inherited empty coffers from the previous Bharatiya Janata Party regime. A former BJP Minister is reported to have said every citizen of the state had an average debt burden of Rs 13,853 as of March 31, 2016.&nbsp;

But, having promised the write-off, the Congress regimes in the two states now have to deliver. One possibility to soften the blow is for the mandarins to work out a formula based on cut-off dates and kinds of loans taken — which will enhance the prospect of selective waiver of the loans. That will, of course, lead to resentment among those that are left out, with such annoyance being exploited by political rivals of the Congress. &nbsp;

And yet, the issue really should not be about politics, because no political party has been averse to adopting this quick-fix solution to an issue that demands structural changes. Why are huge loans taken by farmers even as they know it will be difficult for them to repay? And why then are they unable to face the problems they anticipated well in time in most cases? &nbsp;A simple answer would be that at the end of the day, their earnings fall far short of the investments they have made. Depending upon this gap, the farmer either falls into a vicious debt — taking one loan (often at higher rates from a money-lender) to repay another — or in desperation ends his life. On most occasions, the second follows the first.&nbsp;

Most experts agree that the essence of the solution to the problem lies in the following: Reduction in input costs; diversification of crops; increase in non-farm activities and incomes for farmers; effective crop insurances schemes.&nbsp;

In the first case, the cost of fertilisers, seeds, labour, machinery etc is factored. Small land-holders are not in a position to avail of high-end technology, and so they have to essentially depend on economical availability of seeds and fertilisers. The second, crop diversification, is not just essential to spread the risk but also necessary to promote cultivation of cash crops. Non-farm activities would include income generating sources that are available to the farmer near to his place. Informed commentators accept that for the small and marginal farmers, farming alone is not going to take care of his and his family’s costs and rising aspirations. MNREGA has been one supplementer, now that the scheme has been further enhanced. But that too is not enough. More avenues such as poultry, pisciculture, floriculture etc are to be adopted.&nbsp;

And finally, a good crop insurance scheme that does not milk the beneficiary needs to be put in place. Although the Modi government had recently announced an ambitious crop insurance scheme, experts pointed to certain drawbacks in it, and there are reports that the government is considering a tweak to weed out the defects. &nbsp;

But it has to work harder on the other aspects, such as providing the input subsidies directly into the account of the farmers through Direct Benefit Transfer, instead of through the firms. There is also the issue of the e-National Agriculture Market (e-NAM), established to empower farmers into getting better prices for their produce. The e-NAM is working well in certain regulated markets, but just limping along in many others. &nbsp;

The political cost of ignoring farmer distress is obvious enough; the economic costs are huge too. Let’s not forget that the agricultural sector employs 53 per cent of the country’s workforce but contributes to only under 18 per cent of its GDP (2015-16). 
 
While we are among the world’s top producers of various agricultural commodities, over the years the share of agriculture imports has risen ( from 2.8 per cent in 1990-91 to 4.2 per cent in 2014-15) while that of exports has come down (18.5 per cent in 1990-91 to 12.5 in 2014-15). The need of the hour, therefore, is a holistic and not a populist approach. &nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The Congress promised to waive off loans to farmers in the run-up to the recent Assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, and won the right to rule those states.

The Congress promised to waive off loans to farmers in the run-up to the recent Assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, and won the right to rule those states. Now the party has decided to keep that promise. The move will make the farmers happy, no doubt. But there is also no doubt that it will leave the economy of the respective states in a mess so profound that there will be difficulty in extrication. It will also impact the banking sector. Worse, the loan waiver will not resolve the fundamental factors which lead to farmer debts. Had loan write-offs been a solution, then the problem ought to have gone away a long time ago. This is not there first time that governments have decided to waive loans, but every few years of this step the issue returns to loom large on the agricultural sector. This in itself is an indicator that loan waivers are a non-workable solution. But because they have the potential to fetch votes in the short term, political parties merrily indulge in them. Let’s look at some figures cursorily. The Congress’s promise of loan write-off to farmers could cost the public exchequer around Rs 70,000 crore — close to 48 per cent of Rajasthan's annual Budget. The Ashok Gehlot regime has little leg space to go in for additional borrowings because out of the borrowing capacity of Rs 36,000 crore in the budget, it has already drawn Rs 25,000 crore. The situation in Madhya Pradesh is no less worrisome. Farm loan waiver here comes with a cost of roughly Rs 50,000 crore. The Congress had proclaimed that it had inherited empty coffers from the previous Bharatiya Janata Party regime. A former BJP Minister is reported to have said every citizen of the state had an average debt burden of Rs 13,853 as of March 31, 2016. But, having promised the write-off, the Congress regimes in the two states now have to deliver. One possibility to soften the blow is for the mandarins to work out a formula based on cut-off dates and kinds of loans taken — which will enhance the prospect of selective waiver of the loans. That will, of course, lead to resentment among those that are left out, with such annoyance being exploited by political rivals of the Congress. And yet, the issue really should not be about politics, because no political party has been averse to adopting this quick-fix solution to an issue that demands structural changes. Why are huge loans taken by farmers even as they know it will be difficult for them to repay? And why then are they unable to face the problems they anticipated well in time in most cases? A simple answer would be that at the end of the day, their earnings fall far short of the investments they have made. Depending upon this gap, the farmer either falls into a vicious debt — taking one loan (often at higher rates from a money-lender) to repay another — or in desperation ends his life. On most occasions, the second follows the first. Most experts agree that the essence of the solution to the problem lies in the following: Reduction in input costs; diversification of crops; increase in non-farm activities and incomes for farmers; effective crop insurances schemes. In the first case, the cost of fertilisers, seeds, labour, machinery etc is factored. Small land-holders are not in a position to avail of high-end technology, and so they have to essentially depend on economical availability of seeds and fertilisers. The second, crop diversification, is not just essential to spread the risk but also necessary to promote cultivation of cash crops. Non-farm activities would include income generating sources that are available to the farmer near to his place. Informed commentators accept that for the small and marginal farmers, farming alone is not going to take care of his and his family’s costs and rising aspirations. MNREGA has been one supplementer, now that the scheme has been further enhanced. But that too is not enough. More avenues such as poultry, pisciculture, floriculture etc are to be adopted. And finally, a good crop insurance scheme that does not milk the beneficiary needs to be put in place. Although the Modi government had recently announced an ambitious crop insurance scheme, experts pointed to certain drawbacks in it, and there are reports that the government is considering a tweak to weed out the defects. But it has to work harder on the other aspects, such as providing the input subsidies directly into the account of the farmers through Direct Benefit Transfer, instead of through the firms. There is also the issue of the e-National Agriculture Market (e-NAM), established to empower farmers into getting better prices for their produce. The e-NAM is working well in certain regulated markets, but just limping along in many others. The political cost of ignoring farmer distress is obvious enough; the economic costs are huge too. Let’s not forget that the agricultural sector employs 53 per cent of the country’s workforce but contributes to only under 18 per cent of its GDP (2015-16). While we are among the world’s top producers of various agricultural commodities, over the years the share of agriculture imports has risen ( from 2.8 per cent in 1990-91 to 4.2 per cent in 2014-15) while that of exports has come down (18.5 per cent in 1990-91 to 12.5 in 2014-15). The need of the hour, therefore, is a holistic and not a populist approach. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The economics and politics of loan waivers

It took three days for the Congress, after its electoral victory, to name a chief minister for Rajasthan. There was nothing exceptional in the delay; the Bharatiya Janata Party had consumed nearly a week before it could finalise chief ministers for Maharashtra and Haryana. It can be argued that unlike in the case of the two latter states, the chief ministerial faces for Rajasthan were evident to the party even as it went to polls.&nbsp;

True, but instead of easing the situation, this really made the task of selection more difficult.&nbsp;

Neither Ashok Gehlot nor Sachin Pilot was a pushover. The first had experience; he had been chief minister on two occasions. The second, as the state Congress chief, had revived the party after its defeat in the 2013 Assembly elections, and later in the 2014 Lok Sabha polls where the party drew a blank in the 26 seats.&nbsp;

As a veteran, Gehlot had the support of a number of senior leaders, both at the state and at the grassroots levels. Pilot has age on his side and he connects effortlessly with the aspirations of the youth; besides he is a fresh and dynamic face. &nbsp;

The last factor ought to have in normal situations worked in Pilot’s favour. After all, as Congress president, Rahul Gandhi has often spoken of giving the youth a push-up in the party and appointed several young faces in leadership spots across the country. But the Rajasthan case was not normal. Not only was the Gehlot camp formidable but there was also the looming Lok Sabha elections to be considered. The choice between the two leaders, therefore, boiled down to the prospect of 2019.&nbsp;

Matters became further complicated for the Congress leadership after Pilot’s camp decided on aggression on the streets. The young leader’s followers blocked roads and even indulged in some arson to demand that he be made the chief minister. This was posturing of an extreme kind. On the other hand, Gehlot’s street backers remained relatively subdued. Perhaps their leader had sent across a warning that such outpouring of support would be counter-productive to his cause. Or perhaps he was confident of emerging the winner in the end, because he knew that Sonia Gandhi backed him and would have the final say.&nbsp;

Most media accounts inform us that Pilot was Rahul Gandhi’s choice, but that UPA chairperson and former party chief Sonia Gandhi rooted for Gehlot. There was no way her opinion could be ignored. Her intervention is understandable. She is the Congress’s tallest leader. Besides, as UPA chairperson, she had a role to play, given that the Congress had to take the support of others to form a stable regime. But there was also the Priyanka Vadra factor. She too participated in the extensive deliberations and is said to have backed Pilot’s candidature. Gehlot’s success, thus raises the question: With Rahul Gandhi failing to get his candidate chosen, did he not demonstrate the fact that he is not the final voice in the party, even though he is the party chief? &nbsp;

Nobody knows for certain which of the two leaders enjoyed the majority support of the newly-elected MLAs. Some reports have it that Pilot had the upper hand. If that was indeed the case, then Gehlot was thrust on the MLAs as their leader. It will also make his task as chief minister a little more difficult. Ironically, the compromise formula worked out which led to his being chosen the Chief Minister, itself could hamper his functioning in the months to come. With Pilot being named the deputy chief minister, Gehlot will be looking over his shoulder all the time.&nbsp;&nbsp;

While the months ahead will demonstrate the workability of the arrangement, the fact remains that the Rajasthan government will have two power centres — one led by the chief minister and the other by his deputy, and friction cannot be ruled out. Perhaps what will make the two leaders work in tandem, at least for now, is the challenge of 2019. Both realise that their long-term prospects depend on the Congress’s performance in the state in the Lok Sabha polls. There will be another time and day to pursue their rivalry. But Pilot would know that his vote bank, especially the Gujjar community to which he belongs, will not be happy for too long with the present arrangement. His supporters feel let down, more so because they see the deputy chief ministership as nothing more than a sop, more so because Gehlot is unlikely to give his younger colleague the leeway that the latter must be hoping for in party and governance issues. &nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

It took three days for the Congress, after its electoral victory, to name a chief minister for Rajasthan. There was nothing exceptional in the delay; the Bharatiya Janata Party had consumed nearly a week before it could finalise chief ministers for Maharashtra and Haryana.

It took three days for the Congress, after its electoral victory, to name a chief minister for Rajasthan. There was nothing exceptional in the delay; the Bharatiya Janata Party had consumed nearly a week before it could finalise chief ministers for Maharashtra and Haryana. It can be argued that unlike in the case of the two latter states, the chief ministerial faces for Rajasthan were evident to the party even as it went to polls. True, but instead of easing the situation, this really made the task of selection more difficult. Neither Ashok Gehlot nor Sachin Pilot was a pushover. The first had experience; he had been chief minister on two occasions. The second, as the state Congress chief, had revived the party after its defeat in the 2013 Assembly elections, and later in the 2014 Lok Sabha polls where the party drew a blank in the 26 seats. As a veteran, Gehlot had the support of a number of senior leaders, both at the state and at the grassroots levels. Pilot has age on his side and he connects effortlessly with the aspirations of the youth; besides he is a fresh and dynamic face. The last factor ought to have in normal situations worked in Pilot’s favour. After all, as Congress president, Rahul Gandhi has often spoken of giving the youth a push-up in the party and appointed several young faces in leadership spots across the country. But the Rajasthan case was not normal. Not only was the Gehlot camp formidable but there was also the looming Lok Sabha elections to be considered. The choice between the two leaders, therefore, boiled down to the prospect of 2019. Matters became further complicated for the Congress leadership after Pilot’s camp decided on aggression on the streets. The young leader’s followers blocked roads and even indulged in some arson to demand that he be made the chief minister. This was posturing of an extreme kind. On the other hand, Gehlot’s street backers remained relatively subdued. Perhaps their leader had sent across a warning that such outpouring of support would be counter-productive to his cause. Or perhaps he was confident of emerging the winner in the end, because he knew that Sonia Gandhi backed him and would have the final say. Most media accounts inform us that Pilot was Rahul Gandhi’s choice, but that UPA chairperson and former party chief Sonia Gandhi rooted for Gehlot. There was no way her opinion could be ignored. Her intervention is understandable. She is the Congress’s tallest leader. Besides, as UPA chairperson, she had a role to play, given that the Congress had to take the support of others to form a stable regime. But there was also the Priyanka Vadra factor. She too participated in the extensive deliberations and is said to have backed Pilot’s candidature. Gehlot’s success, thus raises the question: With Rahul Gandhi failing to get his candidate chosen, did he not demonstrate the fact that he is not the final voice in the party, even though he is the party chief? Nobody knows for certain which of the two leaders enjoyed the majority support of the newly-elected MLAs. Some reports have it that Pilot had the upper hand. If that was indeed the case, then Gehlot was thrust on the MLAs as their leader. It will also make his task as chief minister a little more difficult. Ironically, the compromise formula worked out which led to his being chosen the Chief Minister, itself could hamper his functioning in the months to come. With Pilot being named the deputy chief minister, Gehlot will be looking over his shoulder all the time. While the months ahead will demonstrate the workability of the arrangement, the fact remains that the Rajasthan government will have two power centres — one led by the chief minister and the other by his deputy, and friction cannot be ruled out. Perhaps what will make the two leaders work in tandem, at least for now, is the challenge of 2019. Both realise that their long-term prospects depend on the Congress’s performance in the state in the Lok Sabha polls. There will be another time and day to pursue their rivalry. But Pilot would know that his vote bank, especially the Gujjar community to which he belongs, will not be happy for too long with the present arrangement. His supporters feel let down, more so because they see the deputy chief ministership as nothing more than a sop, more so because Gehlot is unlikely to give his younger colleague the leeway that the latter must be hoping for in party and governance issues. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Rajasthan government will have two power centres

The Bharatiya Janata Party believed it would retain Rajasthan with a clear victory. The Congress was confident that it would sweep the election. The voters of the state had a somewhat different plan, which became known on December 11.&nbsp;

The BJP was denied a simple majority and the Congress was deprived of an overwhelming win. In the days to come, both parties will find arguments to either amplify their success or underplay their failure. Facts are facts, though, and none of the two contestants can escape them.&nbsp;

Facts about the Congress. First, the party failed to capitalise on the level of discontent that existed among the electorate against the Vasundhara Raje regime. Second, the Congress seemed to have exaggerated the extent of that discontent. Third, it could not optimally exploit the departure of rebel leaders from the BJP who contested on their own, as also those who joined the Congress. Fourth, it did not succeed in forging a winnable caste equation. And last, the formidable-looking Ashok Gehlot-Sachin Pilot combination does not seem to have worked on the ground. &nbsp;

Facts about the BJP are as follows: First, it avoided a washout of the kind the party appears to be on course in Chhattisgarh. Second, it has suffered a massive dent since its 2013 grand victory. Third, it did manage to contain to some extent the damage of anti-incumbency. And fourth, while its tallest leader Vasundhara Raje has lost credibility, it’s far from being a humiliating loss.&nbsp;

But electoral politics is all about forming a government, and the Congress has the edge. Not only does it has the larger number of seats, but it also stands a better chance of winning over the support of the ‘others’ that have won — they are neither with the BJP nor with the Congress.&nbsp;

Introspection would be called for, from both sides. How is that the Congress could not decisively defeat the Vasundhara Raje regime despite the well-accepted perception that her regime had become extremely unpopular for a variety of reasons? It could be the failure of the state’s tall leaders entrusted with the task of crafting a major Congress win. Although for the record, both Pilot and Gehlot were working shoulder to shoulder to defeat the BJP, the ground situation was not apparently as rosy, with workers of the two camps working more as rivals than colleagues. Equally, it is possible that the Congress had hyped up the existing dissatisfaction of the voters with the BJP and fed that version all over, including the media. &nbsp;

Though it is early hours yet to fully understand the caste-wise voting pattern, it is clear from the results that the Congress did not gain the unqualified support of every section of the caste rainbow. Neither the Gujjars nor the Jats nor the Meenas nor the Rajputs seem to have lock, stock and barrel dumped the BJP and aligned with the Congress.&nbsp;

Perhaps only the Muslim community remained firm behind the Congress. This calls for some questions that the Congress must itself raise an answer. Why is it that it could not succeed in its caste calculations to the extent it had wanted? It had leaders from various communities right in the front ranks of the battle — Gehlot, Pilot and the new recruit, Manvendra Singh. &nbsp;

The BJP, on the other hand, can take solace in the belief that it has been beaten but not mauled. That’s no consolation, really. &nbsp;The party failed to retain an important north Indian state, a state that had given all its 26 Lok Sabha seats to the party in 2014. Although it had won decisively in the 2013 Assembly election, in five years it managed to fritter away much of the goodwill it had gained. Vasundhara Raje, who had been seen as a saviour five years ago, ended up as, to some extent, a liability for the party in Rajasthan. She earned the reputation of being aloof, even arrogant. Far from visibly seeking to redress grievances of the people, she was not even perceived to have been sympathetic to those grievances. &nbsp;

If there is a lesson here for the BJP, there is also the same lesson for the incoming regime. Get caste mathematics right, always remain connected with the people, at least appear to be doing something to reduce the sufferings of the electorate, and strengthen the party organisation. If these lessons are not learnt, then five years from now, Rajasthan will do what it has been doing since the last two decades — vote out the incumbent and bring in its rival.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Bharatiya Janata Party believed it would retain Rajasthan with a clear victory. The Congress was confident that it would sweep the election. The voters of the state had a somewhat different plan, which became known on December 11.

The Bharatiya Janata Party believed it would retain Rajasthan with a clear victory. The Congress was confident that it would sweep the election. The voters of the state had a somewhat different plan, which became known on December 11. The BJP was denied a simple majority and the Congress was deprived of an overwhelming win. In the days to come, both parties will find arguments to either amplify their success or underplay their failure. Facts are facts, though, and none of the two contestants can escape them. Facts about the Congress. First, the party failed to capitalise on the level of discontent that existed among the electorate against the Vasundhara Raje regime. Second, the Congress seemed to have exaggerated the extent of that discontent. Third, it could not optimally exploit the departure of rebel leaders from the BJP who contested on their own, as also those who joined the Congress. Fourth, it did not succeed in forging a winnable caste equation. And last, the formidable-looking Ashok Gehlot-Sachin Pilot combination does not seem to have worked on the ground. Facts about the BJP are as follows: First, it avoided a washout of the kind the party appears to be on course in Chhattisgarh. Second, it has suffered a massive dent since its 2013 grand victory. Third, it did manage to contain to some extent the damage of anti-incumbency. And fourth, while its tallest leader Vasundhara Raje has lost credibility, it’s far from being a humiliating loss. But electoral politics is all about forming a government, and the Congress has the edge. Not only does it has the larger number of seats, but it also stands a better chance of winning over the support of the ‘others’ that have won — they are neither with the BJP nor with the Congress. Introspection would be called for, from both sides. How is that the Congress could not decisively defeat the Vasundhara Raje regime despite the well-accepted perception that her regime had become extremely unpopular for a variety of reasons? It could be the failure of the state’s tall leaders entrusted with the task of crafting a major Congress win. Although for the record, both Pilot and Gehlot were working shoulder to shoulder to defeat the BJP, the ground situation was not apparently as rosy, with workers of the two camps working more as rivals than colleagues. Equally, it is possible that the Congress had hyped up the existing dissatisfaction of the voters with the BJP and fed that version all over, including the media. Though it is early hours yet to fully understand the caste-wise voting pattern, it is clear from the results that the Congress did not gain the unqualified support of every section of the caste rainbow. Neither the Gujjars nor the Jats nor the Meenas nor the Rajputs seem to have lock, stock and barrel dumped the BJP and aligned with the Congress. Perhaps only the Muslim community remained firm behind the Congress. This calls for some questions that the Congress must itself raise an answer. Why is it that it could not succeed in its caste calculations to the extent it had wanted? It had leaders from various communities right in the front ranks of the battle — Gehlot, Pilot and the new recruit, Manvendra Singh. The BJP, on the other hand, can take solace in the belief that it has been beaten but not mauled. That’s no consolation, really. The party failed to retain an important north Indian state, a state that had given all its 26 Lok Sabha seats to the party in 2014. Although it had won decisively in the 2013 Assembly election, in five years it managed to fritter away much of the goodwill it had gained. Vasundhara Raje, who had been seen as a saviour five years ago, ended up as, to some extent, a liability for the party in Rajasthan. She earned the reputation of being aloof, even arrogant. Far from visibly seeking to redress grievances of the people, she was not even perceived to have been sympathetic to those grievances. If there is a lesson here for the BJP, there is also the same lesson for the incoming regime. Get caste mathematics right, always remain connected with the people, at least appear to be doing something to reduce the sufferings of the electorate, and strengthen the party organisation. If these lessons are not learnt, then five years from now, Rajasthan will do what it has been doing since the last two decades — vote out the incumbent and bring in its rival. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Assembly election results 2018: In Rajasthan, incoming Congress regime has a lesson to learn from BJP

With the people of Rajasthan voting for a new Assembly four days from now, the electoral script has been virtually finalised, which can change only if there are last minute dramatic twists. While such a possibility remains in the realm of the unknown, what is known are the developments over the past few weeks in the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party camps. They can provide an indication, even if not decisively, of the state’s political colour over the next five years. &nbsp;

First, Congress. The party is upbeat, not so much because the people have suddenly realised the merits of its governance but because they are angry with the Vasundhara Raje regime for a variety of reasons — though not all of them may be valid. If one studies the Congress’s poll drive, one would discover that it has not identified in concrete terms ‘misgovernance’ of the incumbent BJP regime. Instead, it has tapped on the public perception of dissatisfaction. The Congress has not vigorously attacked the various developmental schemes of either the state or the Modi government, only half-heartedly pointing to lacunae. Perhaps this is because the benefits are all too obvious to ignore. The party’s manifesto too is not marked by any exceptional promises. &nbsp;

The Congress is depending on various other factors, besides anti-incumbency. It believes that the arrival into its camp of Manvendra Singh will dent the BJP’s Rajput vote-bank; it calculates that the departure from the BJP of senior leaders such as Ghanshyam Tewari will adversely impact that party; it thinks that individual players such as Hanuman Beniwal will eat into the BJP’s votes since he is a BJP rebel. On a more positive side, however, it holds that the presence of its two strongest state leaders — Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot — will swing the votes in its favour.&nbsp;

Congress president Rahul Gandhi has vigorously campaigned in the State. He has a reputation — to not uphold but establish. Perhaps because he believes that Rajasthan offers him the best chance, compared to Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, to do so, that he has gone all out in this state. Success will power him as a leader of consequence and maybe even ignite his dream of leading a non-BJP coalition in time for the 2019 Lok Sabha election. The opposite outcome will not keep him where he is — which is bad enough — but slide him down further. It can be safely predicted, though, that if the Congress still loses a battle it believes is in its bag, then the blame will be shared by the State’s leaders and Rahul Gandhi will be insulated from taking accountability.&nbsp;

The BJP is from all accounts, locked in a grim contest. Poll surveys and perceptions — or at least what has been publicly stated — have not been a cause of cheer for the party. Even its sympathisers believe that it would be a miracle if the BJP retains the State. Of course, there could be undercurrents of support for the party which has not been mapped. But would that be sufficient to turn the tables on the Congress?&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the party is furiously engaged in what it does best: Booth management at the micro level. Party president Amit Shah has stationed himself in Rajasthan and is directing the campaign by ironing out the weaknesses and promoting the strengths. There is no doubt that many behind-the-scenes calculations are being done in the run-up to the poll and the result thereof. For the moment the BJP’s central leadership has completely backed Vasundhara Raje’s candidature. This was to be expected because changing the captain (even if that captain is problematic) in the midst of a fight is not the most sensible thing to do. Doing so would also have invited serious factionalism at a time when the party needed to fight the ‘enemy’ as one. Besides, the BJP does not have a State leader who can match Vasundhara Raje’s stature.&nbsp;

Realising the delicacy of the situation, the RSS has pumped in its manpower resources to ensure a BJP victory. This is significant for two reasons. The first is that the RSS has considerable hold among the electorate and there is thus the possibility of swinging indecisive votes in the BJP’s favour. The RSS has units that have been for long working among slum-dwellers, traders and the poorer sections of society, and hopes to cash in on that support base. The second issue of significance is that the RSS has shed, for the moment, its wariness towards Vasundhara Raje, and has agreed to back her in the BJP’s larger interests. &nbsp;

Will that be a game-turner for the BJP, or will it prove inadequate to match a resurgent Congress in the state, remains to be seen.&nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

With the people of Rajasthan voting for a new Assembly four days from now, the electoral script has been virtually finalised, which can change only if there are last minute dramatic twists.

With the people of Rajasthan voting for a new Assembly four days from now, the electoral script has been virtually finalised, which can change only if there are last minute dramatic twists. While such a possibility remains in the realm of the unknown, what is known are the developments over the past few weeks in the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party camps. They can provide an indication, even if not decisively, of the state’s political colour over the next five years. First, Congress. The party is upbeat, not so much because the people have suddenly realised the merits of its governance but because they are angry with the Vasundhara Raje regime for a variety of reasons — though not all of them may be valid. If one studies the Congress’s poll drive, one would discover that it has not identified in concrete terms ‘misgovernance’ of the incumbent BJP regime. Instead, it has tapped on the public perception of dissatisfaction. The Congress has not vigorously attacked the various developmental schemes of either the state or the Modi government, only half-heartedly pointing to lacunae. Perhaps this is because the benefits are all too obvious to ignore. The party’s manifesto too is not marked by any exceptional promises. The Congress is depending on various other factors, besides anti-incumbency. It believes that the arrival into its camp of Manvendra Singh will dent the BJP’s Rajput vote-bank; it calculates that the departure from the BJP of senior leaders such as Ghanshyam Tewari will adversely impact that party; it thinks that individual players such as Hanuman Beniwal will eat into the BJP’s votes since he is a BJP rebel. On a more positive side, however, it holds that the presence of its two strongest state leaders — Ashok Gehlot and Sachin Pilot — will swing the votes in its favour. Congress president Rahul Gandhi has vigorously campaigned in the State. He has a reputation — to not uphold but establish. Perhaps because he believes that Rajasthan offers him the best chance, compared to Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, to do so, that he has gone all out in this state. Success will power him as a leader of consequence and maybe even ignite his dream of leading a non-BJP coalition in time for the 2019 Lok Sabha election. The opposite outcome will not keep him where he is — which is bad enough — but slide him down further. It can be safely predicted, though, that if the Congress still loses a battle it believes is in its bag, then the blame will be shared by the State’s leaders and Rahul Gandhi will be insulated from taking accountability. The BJP is from all accounts, locked in a grim contest. Poll surveys and perceptions — or at least what has been publicly stated — have not been a cause of cheer for the party. Even its sympathisers believe that it would be a miracle if the BJP retains the State. Of course, there could be undercurrents of support for the party which has not been mapped. But would that be sufficient to turn the tables on the Congress? Meanwhile, the party is furiously engaged in what it does best: Booth management at the micro level. Party president Amit Shah has stationed himself in Rajasthan and is directing the campaign by ironing out the weaknesses and promoting the strengths. There is no doubt that many behind-the-scenes calculations are being done in the run-up to the poll and the result thereof. For the moment the BJP’s central leadership has completely backed Vasundhara Raje’s candidature. This was to be expected because changing the captain (even if that captain is problematic) in the midst of a fight is not the most sensible thing to do. Doing so would also have invited serious factionalism at a time when the party needed to fight the ‘enemy’ as one. Besides, the BJP does not have a State leader who can match Vasundhara Raje’s stature. Realising the delicacy of the situation, the RSS has pumped in its manpower resources to ensure a BJP victory. This is significant for two reasons. The first is that the RSS has considerable hold among the electorate and there is thus the possibility of swinging indecisive votes in the BJP’s favour. The RSS has units that have been for long working among slum-dwellers, traders and the poorer sections of society, and hopes to cash in on that support base. The second issue of significance is that the RSS has shed, for the moment, its wariness towards Vasundhara Raje, and has agreed to back her in the BJP’s larger interests. Will that be a game-turner for the BJP, or will it prove inadequate to match a resurgent Congress in the state, remains to be seen. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Rajasthan Assembly elections 2018: Whose script will triumph?

There could be more than meets the eye in senior Congress leader from Rajasthan, CP Joshi’s remark that questioned the competence of backward castes in understanding Hinduism and asserted that only Brahmins knew about the religion. 
 
The Assembly election is due in the state on December 7, and by most accounts, the Congress stands a good chance of displacing the Bharatiya Janata Party regime there. Why did Joshi then offer a comment that has the potential to antagonise the vast majority of voters who are outside the Brahmin fold? He has since expressed regret for his statement after his party chief Rahul Gandhi pulled him up, but the damage has been done.&nbsp;

On the surface, it may appear that Joshi was taking potshots at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders for speaking about Hindutva, when he said, “What is Uma Bharti’s caste? Does anyone know? What is the caste of (Sadhvi) Rithambara? Is it known? If anyone knows about religion in the country, it is the pundit, the vidwan, some say Brahmins… Sadhvi ji belongs to some religion, she talks about Hindu religion. Narendra Modi belongs to some religion, he talks about Hindu religion.” But even he must have known of the silliness of what he was speaking and realised the electoral damage it could cause to the party. Perhaps it’s precisely because of such a realisation that he shot his mouth off. Let’s understand how.&nbsp;

From all accounts, Ashok Gehlot is the frontrunner in the chief ministerial race in case the Congress wins in Rajasthan. The other aspirant, Sachin Pilot, may have party president Rahul Gandhi’s approval, but Gehlot is considered better placed, more so after the list of candidates the Congress has declared comprises a large number of his nominees — and the winners among them are certain to put their weight behind him when the time comes. Quite possibly, it’s not a situation that Joshi relishes, and he could be quite willing to torpedo the Congress’s chances in order to deny Gehlot the chief ministership. His comments were designed to anger the vast majority of voters who belong to the Other Backward Classes, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as well as even upper castes such as the Rajputs.&nbsp;&nbsp;

One need not go too far back to understand the political rivalry between Gehlot and Joshi. The two leaders were at loggerheads during the 2013 Assembly election. Joshi was then a serious contender for the state’s chief ministership in case the Congress gained power. He was also considered close to Rahul Gandhi who had begun to tentatively explore the possibility of bringing in new (if not young) faces to the forefront. Gehlot, on the other hand, was more senior — indeed, he had once mentored Joshi — and seen to be in the Sonia Gandhi camp. The tussle between the two State leaders was, therefore, natural.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Joshi had become a Cabinet Minister in UPA-II, an elevation that was interpreted in political circles as a stamp of approval from Rahul Gandhi. The import was not lost on anyone: A first-time Member of Parliament had become a Cabinet Minister in the Union Government even as other more senior aspirants had to cool their heels. When Rahul Gandhi assumed greater responsibilities in the party, in fact becoming the de facto chief, Joshi quit the government and assumed organisational responsibilities — as a general secretary and a member of the All India Congress Committee. &nbsp;Despite this endorsement from the highest levels, he must have been dismayed by the fact that he had little role to play in the distribution of tickets in Rajasthan. That was to change soon.&nbsp;

Rahul Gandhi summoned Gehlot and Joshi for a meeting prior to the Assembly poll. A subtle message was sent with the exclusion of the then state party chief Chandrabhan — a known Gehlot acolyte — from the confabulation. But the reconciliation process went nowhere, with neither of the leaders agreeing to back down on their respective methods for choosing candidates.

Eventually, the tiff became one of the reasons for the Congress losing the election. However, over the last five years, while Gehlot has managed to stage a comeback within the party — even wriggling his way into the Rahul Gandhi camp — CP Joshi has not managed a similar feat. His acts of defiance targeted at Gehlot have also not yielded results, though there have been patches of success. Recall that Joshi had become the president of Rajasthan Cricket Association much against Gehlot’s wishes and designs. In various recent agitations and fire-fighting situations — when Rahul Gandhi led an agitation outside the CBI headquarters in Delhi recently, Gehlot was by his side; when government formation had to be done in Karnataka after a hung Assembly came into being, Rahul Gandhi despatched Gehlot to the State to sort matters out — Gehlot has been the chosen one. &nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

There could be more than meets the eye in senior Congress leader from Rajasthan, CP Joshi’s remark that questioned the competence of backward castes in understanding Hinduism and asserted that only Brahmins knew about the religion.

There could be more than meets the eye in senior Congress leader from Rajasthan, CP Joshi’s remark that questioned the competence of backward castes in understanding Hinduism and asserted that only Brahmins knew about the religion. The Assembly election is due in the state on December 7, and by most accounts, the Congress stands a good chance of displacing the Bharatiya Janata Party regime there. Why did Joshi then offer a comment that has the potential to antagonise the vast majority of voters who are outside the Brahmin fold? He has since expressed regret for his statement after his party chief Rahul Gandhi pulled him up, but the damage has been done. On the surface, it may appear that Joshi was taking potshots at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other BJP leaders for speaking about Hindutva, when he said, “What is Uma Bharti’s caste? Does anyone know? What is the caste of (Sadhvi) Rithambara? Is it known? If anyone knows about religion in the country, it is the pundit, the vidwan, some say Brahmins… Sadhvi ji belongs to some religion, she talks about Hindu religion. Narendra Modi belongs to some religion, he talks about Hindu religion.” But even he must have known of the silliness of what he was speaking and realised the electoral damage it could cause to the party. Perhaps it’s precisely because of such a realisation that he shot his mouth off. Let’s understand how. From all accounts, Ashok Gehlot is the frontrunner in the chief ministerial race in case the Congress wins in Rajasthan. The other aspirant, Sachin Pilot, may have party president Rahul Gandhi’s approval, but Gehlot is considered better placed, more so after the list of candidates the Congress has declared comprises a large number of his nominees — and the winners among them are certain to put their weight behind him when the time comes. Quite possibly, it’s not a situation that Joshi relishes, and he could be quite willing to torpedo the Congress’s chances in order to deny Gehlot the chief ministership. His comments were designed to anger the vast majority of voters who belong to the Other Backward Classes, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as well as even upper castes such as the Rajputs. One need not go too far back to understand the political rivalry between Gehlot and Joshi. The two leaders were at loggerheads during the 2013 Assembly election. Joshi was then a serious contender for the state’s chief ministership in case the Congress gained power. He was also considered close to Rahul Gandhi who had begun to tentatively explore the possibility of bringing in new (if not young) faces to the forefront. Gehlot, on the other hand, was more senior — indeed, he had once mentored Joshi — and seen to be in the Sonia Gandhi camp. The tussle between the two State leaders was, therefore, natural. Joshi had become a Cabinet Minister in UPA-II, an elevation that was interpreted in political circles as a stamp of approval from Rahul Gandhi. The import was not lost on anyone: A first-time Member of Parliament had become a Cabinet Minister in the Union Government even as other more senior aspirants had to cool their heels. When Rahul Gandhi assumed greater responsibilities in the party, in fact becoming the de facto chief, Joshi quit the government and assumed organisational responsibilities — as a general secretary and a member of the All India Congress Committee. Despite this endorsement from the highest levels, he must have been dismayed by the fact that he had little role to play in the distribution of tickets in Rajasthan. That was to change soon. Rahul Gandhi summoned Gehlot and Joshi for a meeting prior to the Assembly poll. A subtle message was sent with the exclusion of the then state party chief Chandrabhan — a known Gehlot acolyte — from the confabulation. But the reconciliation process went nowhere, with neither of the leaders agreeing to back down on their respective methods for choosing candidates. Eventually, the tiff became one of the reasons for the Congress losing the election. However, over the last five years, while Gehlot has managed to stage a comeback within the party — even wriggling his way into the Rahul Gandhi camp — CP Joshi has not managed a similar feat. His acts of defiance targeted at Gehlot have also not yielded results, though there have been patches of success. Recall that Joshi had become the president of Rajasthan Cricket Association much against Gehlot’s wishes and designs. In various recent agitations and fire-fighting situations — when Rahul Gandhi led an agitation outside the CBI headquarters in Delhi recently, Gehlot was by his side; when government formation had to be done in Karnataka after a hung Assembly came into being, Rahul Gandhi despatched Gehlot to the State to sort matters out — Gehlot has been the chosen one. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Rajasthan Assembly elections: With his 'Brahmin' remark, has CP Joshi cut the nose to spite the face?

The Rajasthan Assembly election is turning out to be more than an electoral contest; at the highest level, it has become a personal fight. The Congress has shrewdly capitalised on its new entrant Manvendra Singh’s desire for revenge against the Bharatiya Janata Party for having sidelined him as well as his father since 2014.&nbsp;

After his recent arrival to the Congress, Manvendra Singh had expressed disinterest in contesting the Assembly poll, preferring to keep his ammunition dry for the 2019 Lok Sabha battle. But the party’s high command successfully played on his hurt and persuaded him to not just fight the immediate battle but also take on incumbent chief minister Vasundhara Raje in her backyard, Jhalrapatan. &nbsp;

Four years ago, Vasundhara Raje had worked hard to ensure the defeat of Manvendra Singh’s father and then veteran BJP leader Jaswant Singh, who had contested as an independent candidate after the BJP denied him a ticket. Interestingly, the ticket had gone to Col Sonaram, who had crossed over to the party from the Congress and was backed by Vasundhara Raje. And, although Manvendra Singh had continued thereafter as a BJP legislator, he was kept at an arm’s distance by Vasundhara Raje — whose clout ensured that he remained cut off from the party’s central leadership too.&nbsp;

The personal clash between Raje and Jaswant Singh’s family goes back even earlier. In 2007, Jaswant Singh’s wife had filed a case in court against the depiction of Vasundhara Raje as a goddess in one of the posters and alleged that the image had hurt her religious sentiments. In the same year, the Vasundhara Raje regime had been quick to order a probe into an unsubstantiated allegation that guests at a function hosted by Jaswant Singh had been served with opium-laced milk! &nbsp;

Whatever the outcome may be, it is a fact that for now Jhalrapatan is poised for an interesting battle. Manvendra Singh may have preferred a constituency in Barmer for his debut contest as a Congressman, but now he has acquired a pan-Rajasthan image. It cannot be that he is unaware of the pitfalls of a head-on collision with the formidable Chief Minister. If he loses, it will be seen as a grave personal setback; for the Congress, though, it will be just a constituency lost. On the other hand, a victory will strengthen his stature within the Congress. More importantly, though, he will have had his revenge. &nbsp;

But the recent developments are unlikely to bring much cheer to the Congress as far as the Rajput vote-bank in the state is concerned. The Congress has fielded just two candidates from the Marwar region, where the Rajput community has a considerable sway. According to media reports, Manvendra Singh felt that the Congress ought to have given tickets to more Rajputs in the region, though he was quick to state that he had not expressed “displeasure” with the party. In contrast, the BJP has given tickets to as many as 10 Rajput candidates from Marwar. The first list the Congress released had in all 12 Rajputs, a number which was less than even the seats that the Brahmins got. The second list of 40 odd candidates did not improve the position.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Personal rivalry is at play elsewhere too. Sitting Member of Parliament Harish Chandra Meena has joined the Congress, and one reason for his switchover is his opposition to Kirori Lal Meena, who is now in the BJP camp. The two heavyweight Meena leaders could not see eye to eye, with each working overtime to project themselves as the real leader of the community. For the Congress, it’s a welcome development since it could solidify the Meena community’s support for the Congress at a time when the former was feeling left out with the Congress making overtures to its traditional political rivals, the Gujjars and the Jats. &nbsp;

It is possible that Sachin Pilot, a Gujjar, could benefit from this Meena- Gujjar combine development (if it works out), given that he is being talked of as a chief ministerial candidate and would be contesting the Assembly poll. But there is a catch. Senior Congress leader Ashok Gehlot, the other strong contender for chief ministership in case the Congress wins, too is fighting the election. More significantly, the first list of candidates released by the party is said to be loaded in his favour, since many of the names he recommended strongly have found favour with the party’s high command. &nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
For now, though, both Pilot and Gehlot have to tackle internal dissensions over ticket distribution. It may well be that, if the Vasundhara Raje-led BJP in the state manages to retain power, it would be more on account of disarray in the Congress camp and less due to the BJP’s popularity.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The Rajasthan Assembly election is turning out to be more than an electoral contest; at the highest level, it has become a personal fight. The Congress has shrewdly capitalised on its new entrant Manvendra Singh’s desire for revenge against the Bharatiya Janata Party for having sidelined him as well as his father since 2014.

The Rajasthan Assembly election is turning out to be more than an electoral contest; at the highest level, it has become a personal fight. The Congress has shrewdly capitalised on its new entrant Manvendra Singh’s desire for revenge against the Bharatiya Janata Party for having sidelined him as well as his father since 2014. After his recent arrival to the Congress, Manvendra Singh had expressed disinterest in contesting the Assembly poll, preferring to keep his ammunition dry for the 2019 Lok Sabha battle. But the party’s high command successfully played on his hurt and persuaded him to not just fight the immediate battle but also take on incumbent chief minister Vasundhara Raje in her backyard, Jhalrapatan. Four years ago, Vasundhara Raje had worked hard to ensure the defeat of Manvendra Singh’s father and then veteran BJP leader Jaswant Singh, who had contested as an independent candidate after the BJP denied him a ticket. Interestingly, the ticket had gone to Col Sonaram, who had crossed over to the party from the Congress and was backed by Vasundhara Raje. And, although Manvendra Singh had continued thereafter as a BJP legislator, he was kept at an arm’s distance by Vasundhara Raje — whose clout ensured that he remained cut off from the party’s central leadership too. The personal clash between Raje and Jaswant Singh’s family goes back even earlier. In 2007, Jaswant Singh’s wife had filed a case in court against the depiction of Vasundhara Raje as a goddess in one of the posters and alleged that the image had hurt her religious sentiments. In the same year, the Vasundhara Raje regime had been quick to order a probe into an unsubstantiated allegation that guests at a function hosted by Jaswant Singh had been served with opium-laced milk! Whatever the outcome may be, it is a fact that for now Jhalrapatan is poised for an interesting battle. Manvendra Singh may have preferred a constituency in Barmer for his debut contest as a Congressman, but now he has acquired a pan-Rajasthan image. It cannot be that he is unaware of the pitfalls of a head-on collision with the formidable Chief Minister. If he loses, it will be seen as a grave personal setback; for the Congress, though, it will be just a constituency lost. On the other hand, a victory will strengthen his stature within the Congress. More importantly, though, he will have had his revenge. But the recent developments are unlikely to bring much cheer to the Congress as far as the Rajput vote-bank in the state is concerned. The Congress has fielded just two candidates from the Marwar region, where the Rajput community has a considerable sway. According to media reports, Manvendra Singh felt that the Congress ought to have given tickets to more Rajputs in the region, though he was quick to state that he had not expressed “displeasure” with the party. In contrast, the BJP has given tickets to as many as 10 Rajput candidates from Marwar. The first list the Congress released had in all 12 Rajputs, a number which was less than even the seats that the Brahmins got. The second list of 40 odd candidates did not improve the position. Personal rivalry is at play elsewhere too. Sitting Member of Parliament Harish Chandra Meena has joined the Congress, and one reason for his switchover is his opposition to Kirori Lal Meena, who is now in the BJP camp. The two heavyweight Meena leaders could not see eye to eye, with each working overtime to project themselves as the real leader of the community. For the Congress, it’s a welcome development since it could solidify the Meena community’s support for the Congress at a time when the former was feeling left out with the Congress making overtures to its traditional political rivals, the Gujjars and the Jats. It is possible that Sachin Pilot, a Gujjar, could benefit from this Meena- Gujjar combine development (if it works out), given that he is being talked of as a chief ministerial candidate and would be contesting the Assembly poll. But there is a catch. Senior Congress leader Ashok Gehlot, the other strong contender for chief ministership in case the Congress wins, too is fighting the election. More significantly, the first list of candidates released by the party is said to be loaded in his favour, since many of the names he recommended strongly have found favour with the party’s high command. For now, though, both Pilot and Gehlot have to tackle internal dissensions over ticket distribution. It may well be that, if the Vasundhara Raje-led BJP in the state manages to retain power, it would be more on account of disarray in the Congress camp and less due to the BJP’s popularity. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Battle in Rajasthan isn’t merely about personalities; it’s deeply personal too 

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Rajesh Singh

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.