Even a year ago, it would have been outlandish to suggest that the Bharatiya Janata Party had any prospect in the Tripura. The State has been a Left stronghold where the communists have been ruling for more than two decades. The only other major party, the Congress, has been pushed to the margins. Besides, its general demographic does not lend itself to the kind of political ideology the BJP pursues. However, the situation has changed dramatically over the last few months, and the BJP now senses a real chance at toppling the Left regime. Even those political observers who are doubtful of a BJP win in the State, concede that the party will emerge as a strong force in the Assembly election.

&nbsp;

What has brought about this change?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The anti-incumbency factor is certainly one reason. In the absence of a viable opposition, the Left had a clear field and it made most of it in the last 20 years. With the BJP&rsquo;s emergence, the ground situation has altered. The second reason is the BJP&rsquo;s relentless focus on the North-East &mdash; politically and otherwise. Its victory in the Assam Assembly election, where it demolished the ruling Congress, had set the tone for its push in the region. It managed to form the Government in Arunachal Pradesh through deft manoeuvrings, and then in Manipur where it was not even the single largest party, when it outfoxed the Congress by stitching an alliance in double quick time.

&nbsp;

The third reason is that the BJP has shown remarkable flexibility in dealing with ground realities in the region. For instance, while it aggressively pursues the cow agenda across the country, it has toned down the rhetoric in the North-East, saying that it does not want to interfere in the eating habits of the people there. The party has also been prompt in having an understanding with regional outfits that wield influence over tribes and communities specific to the region. And so, while it was at the helm of the North East Democratic Alliance (NEDA) which it formed a couple of years ago, the real players are the regional parties. The BJP realises that it cannot make an impact on its own in many parts of the region.

&nbsp;

The BJP&rsquo;s pre-poll surge in Tripura is even more remarkable when one looks back at its past performance. In the 2013 Assembly election, the party had less than two per cent of the vote-share. There was a significant improvement in the 2014 Lok Sabha election, when the party gained a six per cent share. But even that was less than half of the Congress&rsquo;s 16 per cent and the Left&rsquo;s overwhelming 65 per cent. Going by these figures, the BJP ought to have conceded the present contest even before it began. But the change in the public mood &mdash; at least the one gleans through media reports from the ground &mdash; has been so remarkable that the old numbers don&rsquo;t count.

&nbsp;

As has been its habit, the BJP has gone for the kill. Party president Amit Shah has camped in Tripura for long periods, overseeing the election campaign and, in his characteristic style, delving into the micro-management of the process. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has invested politically too, addressing far more rallies than would be normally necessary for a small State such as this. The BJP in charge of the North-East, Ram Madhav, virtually resides in Tripura. Everybody understands that, for public sentiment against the Left regime to be converted into votes for the BJP, the party&rsquo;s poll machinery has to work without tripping &mdash; more so at the last moment.

&nbsp;

The BJP is dependending heavily on the 30 per cent of the tribal votes, and keeping that in mind, is pushing the development agenda call. The tribal regions are among the most affected by non-development. It has tied up with a regional outfit, the Indigenous People&rsquo;s Front of Tripura, that commands some standing among the tribals. But the party is not ignoring the other voters, reminding them that decades of Left rule had pushed the State back while BJP-ruled parts of the country had surged ahead in the last four years of the NDA rule.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Left understands the challenge, and it has fallen back on the tried and tested formula of &lsquo;communism versus communalism&rsquo; narrative. The communists have warned the voters against the dangers of social unrest and communal strife that could come along with a BJP win. They have highlighted the various pro-poor measures that the Manik Sarkar Government has taken over the years. The Left&rsquo;s desperation to retain Tripura is understandable. It has lost its earlier citadel, West Bengal, and rules only in Kerala &mdash; and even there the BJP has begun breathing down its neck, although the Congress still remains the main opposition.

&nbsp;

The Left&rsquo;s track record of development in Tripura is being severely tested. Both the plains and hills have their own sets of problems. Unemployment, lack of road and rail connectivity, poor industrial development, and lack of avenues of opportunities for tribals to improve their living, are some of the major issues. But the communists have some positives going for them. Chief Minister Manik Sarkar enjoys a clean personal image. He has steered Tripura to political stability and has ensured that basic social indices remain decent. No major scandal has hit his regime in the two decades of its rule. Besides, the Left has a strong cadre in the State and its supporters have seeped into nearly every institution, and have the capacity to turn things around.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

On the personality front, the BJP is banking on Prime Minister Narendra Modi&rsquo;s charisma, while the Left has its old warhorse and Chief Minister Sarkar. Left leaders on the national scene, such as Sitaram Yechury and Prakash Karat, hardly have any sway in Tripura. The BJP-led Government at the Centre has gone all out by way of its own contribution to the party&rsquo;s fortunes in the region. For instance, the Union Ministry of Textiles has planned a big push to textile manufacturing in the North-East, which would naturally include Tripura. Other Central ministries have promised loads of development work to the region. Underlying all these assurances is the thrust that a BJP regime in Tripura can gel better with the BJP-led Government at the Centre and, thus, expedite development.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

If the Left can stave off this new and unexpected challenge, it will not just retain power but also perhaps cause a dent in the BJP&rsquo;s drive to politically secure the North-East.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In the upcoming Tripura election, BJP's trump card is development while Manik Sarkar's is that of a scandal-free clean image.

Even a year ago, it would have been outlandish to suggest that the Bharatiya Janata Party had any prospect in the Tripura. The State has been a Left stronghold where the communists have been ruling for more than two decades. The only other major party, the Congress, has been pushed to the margins. Besides, its general demographic does not lend itself to the kind of political ideology the BJP pursues. However, the situation has changed dramatically over the last few months, and the BJP now senses a real chance at toppling the Left regime. Even those political observers who are doubtful of a BJP win in the State, concede that the party will emerge as a strong force in the Assembly election. What has brought about this change? The anti-incumbency factor is certainly one reason. In the absence of a viable opposition, the Left had a clear field and it made most of it in the last 20 years. With the BJP’s emergence, the ground situation has altered. The second reason is the BJP’s relentless focus on the North-East — politically and otherwise. Its victory in the Assam Assembly election, where it demolished the ruling Congress, had set the tone for its push in the region. It managed to form the Government in Arunachal Pradesh through deft manoeuvrings, and then in Manipur where it was not even the single largest party, when it outfoxed the Congress by stitching an alliance in double quick time. The third reason is that the BJP has shown remarkable flexibility in dealing with ground realities in the region. For instance, while it aggressively pursues the cow agenda across the country, it has toned down the rhetoric in the North-East, saying that it does not want to interfere in the eating habits of the people there. The party has also been prompt in having an understanding with regional outfits that wield influence over tribes and communities specific to the region. And so, while it was at the helm of the North East Democratic Alliance (NEDA) which it formed a couple of years ago, the real players are the regional parties. The BJP realises that it cannot make an impact on its own in many parts of the region. The BJP’s pre-poll surge in Tripura is even more remarkable when one looks back at its past performance. In the 2013 Assembly election, the party had less than two per cent of the vote-share. There was a significant improvement in the 2014 Lok Sabha election, when the party gained a six per cent share. But even that was less than half of the Congress’s 16 per cent and the Left’s overwhelming 65 per cent. Going by these figures, the BJP ought to have conceded the present contest even before it began. But the change in the public mood — at least the one gleans through media reports from the ground — has been so remarkable that the old numbers don’t count. As has been its habit, the BJP has gone for the kill. Party president Amit Shah has camped in Tripura for long periods, overseeing the election campaign and, in his characteristic style, delving into the micro-management of the process. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has invested politically too, addressing far more rallies than would be normally necessary for a small State such as this. The BJP in charge of the North-East, Ram Madhav, virtually resides in Tripura. Everybody understands that, for public sentiment against the Left regime to be converted into votes for the BJP, the party’s poll machinery has to work without tripping — more so at the last moment. The BJP is dependending heavily on the 30 per cent of the tribal votes, and keeping that in mind, is pushing the development agenda call. The tribal regions are among the most affected by non-development. It has tied up with a regional outfit, the Indigenous People’s Front of Tripura, that commands some standing among the tribals. But the party is not ignoring the other voters, reminding them that decades of Left rule had pushed the State back while BJP-ruled parts of the country had surged ahead in the last four years of the NDA rule. The Left understands the challenge, and it has fallen back on the tried and tested formula of ‘communism versus communalism’ narrative. The communists have warned the voters against the dangers of social unrest and communal strife that could come along with a BJP win. They have highlighted the various pro-poor measures that the Manik Sarkar Government has taken over the years. The Left’s desperation to retain Tripura is understandable. It has lost its earlier citadel, West Bengal, and rules only in Kerala — and even there the BJP has begun breathing down its neck, although the Congress still remains the main opposition. The Left’s track record of development in Tripura is being severely tested. Both the plains and hills have their own sets of problems. Unemployment, lack of road and rail connectivity, poor industrial development, and lack of avenues of opportunities for tribals to improve their living, are some of the major issues. But the communists have some positives going for them. Chief Minister Manik Sarkar enjoys a clean personal image. He has steered Tripura to political stability and has ensured that basic social indices remain decent. No major scandal has hit his regime in the two decades of its rule. Besides, the Left has a strong cadre in the State and its supporters have seeped into nearly every institution, and have the capacity to turn things around. On the personality front, the BJP is banking on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s charisma, while the Left has its old warhorse and Chief Minister Sarkar. Left leaders on the national scene, such as Sitaram Yechury and Prakash Karat, hardly have any sway in Tripura. The BJP-led Government at the Centre has gone all out by way of its own contribution to the party’s fortunes in the region. For instance, the Union Ministry of Textiles has planned a big push to textile manufacturing in the North-East, which would naturally include Tripura. Other Central ministries have promised loads of development work to the region. Underlying all these assurances is the thrust that a BJP regime in Tripura can gel better with the BJP-led Government at the Centre and, thus, expedite development. If the Left can stave off this new and unexpected challenge, it will not just retain power but also perhaps cause a dent in the BJP’s drive to politically secure the North-East. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Modi vs Manik Sarkar battle about to start in Tripura

Three recent developments in the neighbourhood have posed new challenges for India which is on an overdrive to expand and consolidate its influence across the world. These developments are critical for two reasons. The first is that they have the potential to impact New Delhi&rsquo;s security interests in the region. And the second is that they intensify the China Factor which is at play. That the two reasons are also interconnected to an extent, further underlines the significance. To add to the dilemma, the options for India are limited and fraught with risks. It could be damned if it takes chances, and it could be damned if it doesn&rsquo;t. The country&rsquo;s Neighbourhood First policy faces a stiff test.

&nbsp;

The three challenges come from the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Coincidentally, they have arrived in quick succession, and this has strained New Delhi&rsquo;s nerves even more. Kathmandu is poised to have a KP Oli-led government that promises to be less friendly to India than New Delhi would want; the incumbent regime in Male, not known for its pro-India stance, has declared a state of emergency there and is busy bulldozing its way against an opposition that leans towards India; and the party of former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who turned India-baiter in the last months of his tenure, has signalled a possible comeback with a resounding win in the local body elections. Rajapaksa had leaned towards Beijing once he turned against New Delhi, Oli openly prefers China to India, and the Maldives President Abdulla Yameen is determined to thwart India-friendly opposition leader Mohammad Nasheed&rsquo;s attempts to make a comeback.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It can be argued that some of New Delhi&rsquo;s apprehensions are based on presumptions. For instance, Oli may not eventually be the anti-India figure he is expected to be, given Nepal&rsquo;s geographical constraints. Similarly, Yameen, realising India&rsquo;s growing clout in the region and beyond, will hesitate to antagonise a powerful regional power. As for Rajapaksa, it is still uncertain that his party will return to office &mdash; the national election is due in 2020. In any case, unlike the two other leaders, the former Sri Lankan President had been close to New Delhi once upon a time and it is possible that he may return to his old self if and when he wins. But this line of thought underestimates Beijing&rsquo;s ability to seize an advantage when it sees one in the region, at India&rsquo;s cost.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The common factor in the Maldives and Sri Lanka is that New Delhi had sent boots on the ground there. In the first case, the Indian military had intervened to thwart a joint operation by a group of Maldivians and Sri Lankan militants to overthrow the Mammon Abdul Gayoom regime there in&nbsp; 1988; and in the second, Indian Armed Forces had arrived there in 1987 at the invitation of Colombo to fight the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Operation Cactus of the Indian Army succeeded in Male, whereas Operation Pawan, which involved the erroneously named Indian Peacekeeping Forces (IPKF) entering Lankan territory to disarm the LTTE, ended in a disaster.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

There are voices both in favour and opposition to yet another Indian military intervention in Male. The Maldives is strategically located in the Indian Ocean, of which India is a &lsquo;net security provider&rsquo; and where Beijing is seeking to expand its influence. An unfriendly Male, thus, could become a weak spot for New Delhi in the region. Besides, the Maldives is a member of SAARC, and at a time when India is already facing obstacles from Pakistan in pushing through its various pan-SAARC initiatives, it could do without another obstructionist in the form of Male. The third reason for India&rsquo;s concerns is, of course, China&rsquo;s massive presence in the Maldives &mdash; one that could gain further momentum in an India-unfriendly Government there. By some estimates, 70 per cent of the Maldives&rsquo; debt is owed to China alone. There is, thus, danger in New Delhi remaining non-committal at this stage.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

But those who are opposed to direct India&rsquo;s intervention say that interfering in another nation&rsquo;s internal affairs can only be counter-productive. It would be used by sections there to further boost anti-India sentiments. There is also no certainty that military boots on the ground will fetch results. They add that New Delhi would gain more by pressuring Male diplomatically, both bilaterally and globally, and not by escalating the crisis through direct intervention.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Rajapaksa-backed Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna&#39;s (SLPP) landslide victory in the local body election was the result of many factors, the primary among them being the discord among the ruling parters led by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. The coalition arrangement has been far from smooth, paving the way for Rajapkasa to cash in on the discontent and growing public disaffection with the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the United National Party (UNP) partnership. Given that Rajapaksa&rsquo;s SLPP has won big in Sinhala-dominated wards while the Tamil National Alliance has done well in Tamil-populated wards, the UNP-SLFP got squeezed out.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It may be recalled that New Delhi and Rajapaksa had shared a wonderful relationship at the time when Colombo had waged a do or die battle with the LTTE, in which it emerged victorious following decades of bloodshed. But thereafter things began to go wrong as India felt the Rajapaksa government had failed in meeting the commitments at reconciliation with the traumatised Tamil community. True, domestic compulsions also made New Delhi take a hard stand. But that also led Rajapaksa to start veering towards China. He even attributed his electoral defeat to India&rsquo;s intervention.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Like the Maldives, Sri Lanka too is an important component of the Indian Ocean region and a SAARC member. In case Rajapaksa makes a national comeback and continues from where he had left &mdash; in China&rsquo;s favour &mdash; then New Delhi&rsquo;s hopes of continuing to be a net security provider in the region could be compromised. The already large Chinese presence in Sri Lanka can then only get bigger, much to New Delhi&rsquo;s chagrin. It makes sense for India to initiate some sort of outreach to the former President.

&nbsp;

Closer home, in Nepal, the situation is the most grim of all. It is not in Oli&rsquo;s DNA, nor in that of his outfit, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), to be pro-India. For years, the CPN (UML) has clung on to slogans against &lsquo;Indian expansionism&rsquo;, and Oli has benefitted politically from his anti-India line. The 2015 blockade strengthened his hands and made his rant shriller &mdash; and more credible. In his first, albeit short, tenure, Oli had sought to snub New Delhi and opened the doors for Beijing to be major partners in the Nepal growth story. With the trend likely to resume in the coming months, New Delhi can only hope that the communist leader will soften his position.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

There is a belief that his partnership with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) can achieve this to some extent. The CPN (MC) is led by former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal &lsquo;Prachanda&rsquo;, who is favourably inclined towards India, and he can be expected to temper the coalition regime&rsquo;s anti-India sentiment. But that is only an expectation, and against this, we have the track record of the Oli regime which gives little cause for cheer to New Delhi.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

India&rsquo;s campaign for lasting regional superiority rests on its relations with the immediate and near neighbourhood. The way it tackles the challenges relating to Nepal, the Maldives and Sri Lanka holds the key to success. If New Delhi falters, Beijing gains.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

India’s campaign for lasting regional superiority rests on its relations with the immediate and near neighbourhood.

Three recent developments in the neighbourhood have posed new challenges for India which is on an overdrive to expand and consolidate its influence across the world. These developments are critical for two reasons. The first is that they have the potential to impact New Delhi’s security interests in the region. And the second is that they intensify the China Factor which is at play. That the two reasons are also interconnected to an extent, further underlines the significance. To add to the dilemma, the options for India are limited and fraught with risks. It could be damned if it takes chances, and it could be damned if it doesn’t. The country’s Neighbourhood First policy faces a stiff test. The three challenges come from the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Coincidentally, they have arrived in quick succession, and this has strained New Delhi’s nerves even more. Kathmandu is poised to have a KP Oli-led government that promises to be less friendly to India than New Delhi would want; the incumbent regime in Male, not known for its pro-India stance, has declared a state of emergency there and is busy bulldozing its way against an opposition that leans towards India; and the party of former Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa, who turned India-baiter in the last months of his tenure, has signalled a possible comeback with a resounding win in the local body elections. Rajapaksa had leaned towards Beijing once he turned against New Delhi, Oli openly prefers China to India, and the Maldives President Abdulla Yameen is determined to thwart India-friendly opposition leader Mohammad Nasheed’s attempts to make a comeback. It can be argued that some of New Delhi’s apprehensions are based on presumptions. For instance, Oli may not eventually be the anti-India figure he is expected to be, given Nepal’s geographical constraints. Similarly, Yameen, realising India’s growing clout in the region and beyond, will hesitate to antagonise a powerful regional power. As for Rajapaksa, it is still uncertain that his party will return to office — the national election is due in 2020. In any case, unlike the two other leaders, the former Sri Lankan President had been close to New Delhi once upon a time and it is possible that he may return to his old self if and when he wins. But this line of thought underestimates Beijing’s ability to seize an advantage when it sees one in the region, at India’s cost. The common factor in the Maldives and Sri Lanka is that New Delhi had sent boots on the ground there. In the first case, the Indian military had intervened to thwart a joint operation by a group of Maldivians and Sri Lankan militants to overthrow the Mammon Abdul Gayoom regime there in 1988; and in the second, Indian Armed Forces had arrived there in 1987 at the invitation of Colombo to fight the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Operation Cactus of the Indian Army succeeded in Male, whereas Operation Pawan, which involved the erroneously named Indian Peacekeeping Forces (IPKF) entering Lankan territory to disarm the LTTE, ended in a disaster. There are voices both in favour and opposition to yet another Indian military intervention in Male. The Maldives is strategically located in the Indian Ocean, of which India is a ‘net security provider’ and where Beijing is seeking to expand its influence. An unfriendly Male, thus, could become a weak spot for New Delhi in the region. Besides, the Maldives is a member of SAARC, and at a time when India is already facing obstacles from Pakistan in pushing through its various pan-SAARC initiatives, it could do without another obstructionist in the form of Male. The third reason for India’s concerns is, of course, China’s massive presence in the Maldives — one that could gain further momentum in an India-unfriendly Government there. By some estimates, 70 per cent of the Maldives’ debt is owed to China alone. There is, thus, danger in New Delhi remaining non-committal at this stage. But those who are opposed to direct India’s intervention say that interfering in another nation’s internal affairs can only be counter-productive. It would be used by sections there to further boost anti-India sentiments. There is also no certainty that military boots on the ground will fetch results. They add that New Delhi would gain more by pressuring Male diplomatically, both bilaterally and globally, and not by escalating the crisis through direct intervention. The Rajapaksa-backed Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna's (SLPP) landslide victory in the local body election was the result of many factors, the primary among them being the discord among the ruling parters led by President Maithripala Sirisena and Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe. The coalition arrangement has been far from smooth, paving the way for Rajapkasa to cash in on the discontent and growing public disaffection with the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) and the United National Party (UNP) partnership. Given that Rajapaksa’s SLPP has won big in Sinhala-dominated wards while the Tamil National Alliance has done well in Tamil-populated wards, the UNP-SLFP got squeezed out. It may be recalled that New Delhi and Rajapaksa had shared a wonderful relationship at the time when Colombo had waged a do or die battle with the LTTE, in which it emerged victorious following decades of bloodshed. But thereafter things began to go wrong as India felt the Rajapaksa government had failed in meeting the commitments at reconciliation with the traumatised Tamil community. True, domestic compulsions also made New Delhi take a hard stand. But that also led Rajapaksa to start veering towards China. He even attributed his electoral defeat to India’s intervention. Like the Maldives, Sri Lanka too is an important component of the Indian Ocean region and a SAARC member. In case Rajapaksa makes a national comeback and continues from where he had left — in China’s favour — then New Delhi’s hopes of continuing to be a net security provider in the region could be compromised. The already large Chinese presence in Sri Lanka can then only get bigger, much to New Delhi’s chagrin. It makes sense for India to initiate some sort of outreach to the former President. Closer home, in Nepal, the situation is the most grim of all. It is not in Oli’s DNA, nor in that of his outfit, the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist), to be pro-India. For years, the CPN (UML) has clung on to slogans against ‘Indian expansionism’, and Oli has benefitted politically from his anti-India line. The 2015 blockade strengthened his hands and made his rant shriller — and more credible. In his first, albeit short, tenure, Oli had sought to snub New Delhi and opened the doors for Beijing to be major partners in the Nepal growth story. With the trend likely to resume in the coming months, New Delhi can only hope that the communist leader will soften his position. There is a belief that his partnership with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) can achieve this to some extent. The CPN (MC) is led by former Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’, who is favourably inclined towards India, and he can be expected to temper the coalition regime’s anti-India sentiment. But that is only an expectation, and against this, we have the track record of the Oli regime which gives little cause for cheer to New Delhi. India’s campaign for lasting regional superiority rests on its relations with the immediate and near neighbourhood. The way it tackles the challenges relating to Nepal, the Maldives and Sri Lanka holds the key to success. If New Delhi falters, Beijing gains. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: If New Delhi falters with its neighbours, Beijing gains

Even ordinarily, every Union Budget is important. But the Budget for 2018-19 has an added significance for a number of reasons, which is why February 1 is being so keenly anticipated. External factors, as certainly as internal economic dynamics, have always influenced Budget proposals. This time will be no different, except that those external factors, given the way they have got arranged, should have a greater political import than would normally have been the case.

&nbsp;

Many people had hoped to get a teaser on the Budget in Prime Minister Narendra Modi&rsquo;s first interview of this year, given to Zee News recently. But he did not oblige, merely reiterating that the forthcoming Budget would proceed in the direction of reforms that his Government had initiated and carried forward since May 2014. In a subsequent interview to another television channel, the Prime Minister was no more forthcoming &mdash; he only said that people were not enamoured of sops; they preferred to be gainfully empowered.

&nbsp;

The Union Budget 2018-19 will be interesting for the following reasons. It will be the first national Budget since the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime and the disruption in the economy that resulted as a consequence. It will also be the last full Budget before the Lok Sabha election in mid-2019. It comes soon after the Gujarat Assembly election result, which offers many lessons to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party at the Centre. And, it shall be presented months before a spate of Assembly elections that are scheduled in the major States, the outcome of which could depend, inter alia, on what the Budget offers.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Union Budget for 2018-19 will also, incidentally, be placed just days after Prime Minister Modi returns from the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, where the Indian business story gets hard-sold to an international audience. This cocktail of circumstances makes the coming Budget special.

&nbsp;

There is speculation on what the Budget does to counter the disruption in economic growth consequent to GST &mdash; and, earlier, demonetisation. It is true that the BJP has through its recent electoral wins demonstrated that the people have by and large endorsed the twin measures. But economic management is a different kettle of fish.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

While international agencies, such as the World Bank have hailed GST and demonetisation, they have also pointed to the immediate after-effects that need fixing. GDP growth is expected to be about seven per cent, down from&nbsp; 8.6 per cent in 2015. The best case scenario projects growth to touch 7.3 per cent by this year-end. Sustained growth is essential to both the reduction of poverty and enhancement of employment opportunities. The contraction in manufacturing and to an extent the services sector is seen as a fallout of the GST.

&nbsp;

Given that the most affected have been businessmen and small traders &mdash; both being strong vote-banks of the BJP &mdash; the Budget is expected to address the concerns. How this would be done, remains in the speculative realm. There is also talk that the Government may bite the bullet by drastically overhauling the personal income tax system to provide a big relief to the salaried middle class, yet another important constituent of the ruling party.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Post Davos, international investors will watch carefully the Budget proposals to see whether further concrete steps are taken to enhance the ease of doing business. Now that India has moved several places high to be among the 100 top nations in the &lsquo;ease of doing business&rsquo; ranking of the World Bank, expectations are higher.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It&rsquo;s true that the Government has abolished dozens of archaic laws that impeded business growth, relaxed foreign direct investment (FDI) norms in various sectors, and established a rule-based transparent mechanism in dealings. But investors will would want to know if the Government is willing to put its own money where its mouth is &mdash; that is, show the way to the private sector through massive public investments without compromising on its fiscal deficit target.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

But the real challenge before the Modi Government is to fix the crisis in the rural sector (with the agricultural component being the most essential). The BJP may have won the Gujarat election but that came with a wake-up call from the rural voters. The India-Bharat divide was evident, with urban Gujarat voting solidly for the BJP and the rural regions shifting away &mdash; even if not very decisively for now &mdash; from the ruling party. The obvious cause was the perception that the BJP had failed to address rural distress. In the recent interview, Prime Minister Modi acknowledged the problem of rural distress and stressed on the need to tackle it.

&nbsp;

Three major States with an overwhelming rural population &mdash; Karnataka, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh &mdash; vote for new Assemblies later this year. The last two are ruled by the BJP and there has been unrest among the farmers over a variety of issues. The Congress has naturally been quick to cash in on the discontent and is busy burnishing its image as a farmer-friendly party. The last time the Congress had sought to pin down the Modi regime on the India-Bharat narrative was two years ago, when Rahul Gandhi had floated the &ldquo;suit boot ki sarkar&rdquo; jibe at the Government. In response, the Government presented its &lsquo;credentials&rsquo; of being pro-poor/pro-farmer in the Union Budget for 2016-17. The Prime Minister himself went to town, calling it &ldquo;pro-village, pro-poor, pro-farmer&rdquo;. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) schemes was rewarded with a higher outlay, and the Pradhan mantra Krishi Yojana was announced. Will we see the revival of a similar spirit in the coming Budget?

&nbsp;

Admittedly, the task of setting right the agrarian/rural crisis is enormous, and the Government has additionally raised the bar of performance. It promised to double farmer income in five years. That and other assurances are what it will have to keep, besides offering tangible solutions, for the rural voters in the States going to polls soon. The distress, in short, has arisen from two factors. The first is that the remuneration the farmers get for their produce from Government agencies does not even on occasions cover the input cost. The second, often related to the first, is that farmers have fallen in a cycle of debt from which they are finding it exceedingly difficult to extricate themselves. Farmer suicides have only worsened an already bad situation. Then there is the difficulty of selling their produce in the markets at acceptable prices. Placating the rural voter has never been an easy task.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Today, according to provisional estimates of the Central Statistics Office, agriculture accounts for less than 20 per cent of the nation&rsquo;s economy &mdash; the services sector has 54 per cent while industry is close to 29 per cent. This despite the fact that 44 per cent of the country&rsquo;s workforce is employed in agriculture (according to the World Bank and International Labour Organisation).

&nbsp;

The 2018-19 Union Budget is the last big chance for the Government to tweak its priorities so as to be seen as being pro-rural. Chandrababu Naidu had once lost Andhra Pradesh despite being hailed the world over for his administrative skills; the rural voter was turned off by the glitz and glamour which seemed so alien to his living conditions. In 2004, the BJP&rsquo;s Indian Shining campaign failed to give the party a second consecutive chance to rule &mdash; again because rural India refused to endorse the optimism. Union Minister for Finance Arun Jaitley has a good memory. Let&rsquo;s see if the lessons of the recent months and of the past years get reflected in the coming Budget.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

The 2018-19 Union Budget is the last big chance for the Government to tweak its priorities so as to be seen as being pro-rural.

Even ordinarily, every Union Budget is important. But the Budget for 2018-19 has an added significance for a number of reasons, which is why February 1 is being so keenly anticipated. External factors, as certainly as internal economic dynamics, have always influenced Budget proposals. This time will be no different, except that those external factors, given the way they have got arranged, should have a greater political import than would normally have been the case. Many people had hoped to get a teaser on the Budget in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first interview of this year, given to Zee News recently. But he did not oblige, merely reiterating that the forthcoming Budget would proceed in the direction of reforms that his Government had initiated and carried forward since May 2014. In a subsequent interview to another television channel, the Prime Minister was no more forthcoming — he only said that people were not enamoured of sops; they preferred to be gainfully empowered. The Union Budget 2018-19 will be interesting for the following reasons. It will be the first national Budget since the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime and the disruption in the economy that resulted as a consequence. It will also be the last full Budget before the Lok Sabha election in mid-2019. It comes soon after the Gujarat Assembly election result, which offers many lessons to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party at the Centre. And, it shall be presented months before a spate of Assembly elections that are scheduled in the major States, the outcome of which could depend, inter alia, on what the Budget offers. The Union Budget for 2018-19 will also, incidentally, be placed just days after Prime Minister Modi returns from the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, where the Indian business story gets hard-sold to an international audience. This cocktail of circumstances makes the coming Budget special. There is speculation on what the Budget does to counter the disruption in economic growth consequent to GST — and, earlier, demonetisation. It is true that the BJP has through its recent electoral wins demonstrated that the people have by and large endorsed the twin measures. But economic management is a different kettle of fish. While international agencies, such as the World Bank have hailed GST and demonetisation, they have also pointed to the immediate after-effects that need fixing. GDP growth is expected to be about seven per cent, down from 8.6 per cent in 2015. The best case scenario projects growth to touch 7.3 per cent by this year-end. Sustained growth is essential to both the reduction of poverty and enhancement of employment opportunities. The contraction in manufacturing and to an extent the services sector is seen as a fallout of the GST. Given that the most affected have been businessmen and small traders — both being strong vote-banks of the BJP — the Budget is expected to address the concerns. How this would be done, remains in the speculative realm. There is also talk that the Government may bite the bullet by drastically overhauling the personal income tax system to provide a big relief to the salaried middle class, yet another important constituent of the ruling party. Post Davos, international investors will watch carefully the Budget proposals to see whether further concrete steps are taken to enhance the ease of doing business. Now that India has moved several places high to be among the 100 top nations in the ‘ease of doing business’ ranking of the World Bank, expectations are higher. It’s true that the Government has abolished dozens of archaic laws that impeded business growth, relaxed foreign direct investment (FDI) norms in various sectors, and established a rule-based transparent mechanism in dealings. But investors will would want to know if the Government is willing to put its own money where its mouth is — that is, show the way to the private sector through massive public investments without compromising on its fiscal deficit target. But the real challenge before the Modi Government is to fix the crisis in the rural sector (with the agricultural component being the most essential). The BJP may have won the Gujarat election but that came with a wake-up call from the rural voters. The India-Bharat divide was evident, with urban Gujarat voting solidly for the BJP and the rural regions shifting away — even if not very decisively for now — from the ruling party. The obvious cause was the perception that the BJP had failed to address rural distress. In the recent interview, Prime Minister Modi acknowledged the problem of rural distress and stressed on the need to tackle it. Three major States with an overwhelming rural population — Karnataka, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh — vote for new Assemblies later this year. The last two are ruled by the BJP and there has been unrest among the farmers over a variety of issues. The Congress has naturally been quick to cash in on the discontent and is busy burnishing its image as a farmer-friendly party. The last time the Congress had sought to pin down the Modi regime on the India-Bharat narrative was two years ago, when Rahul Gandhi had floated the “suit boot ki sarkar” jibe at the Government. In response, the Government presented its ‘credentials’ of being pro-poor/pro-farmer in the Union Budget for 2016-17. The Prime Minister himself went to town, calling it “pro-village, pro-poor, pro-farmer”. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) schemes was rewarded with a higher outlay, and the Pradhan mantra Krishi Yojana was announced. Will we see the revival of a similar spirit in the coming Budget? Admittedly, the task of setting right the agrarian/rural crisis is enormous, and the Government has additionally raised the bar of performance. It promised to double farmer income in five years. That and other assurances are what it will have to keep, besides offering tangible solutions, for the rural voters in the States going to polls soon. The distress, in short, has arisen from two factors. The first is that the remuneration the farmers get for their produce from Government agencies does not even on occasions cover the input cost. The second, often related to the first, is that farmers have fallen in a cycle of debt from which they are finding it exceedingly difficult to extricate themselves. Farmer suicides have only worsened an already bad situation. Then there is the difficulty of selling their produce in the markets at acceptable prices. Placating the rural voter has never been an easy task. Today, according to provisional estimates of the Central Statistics Office, agriculture accounts for less than 20 per cent of the nation’s economy — the services sector has 54 per cent while industry is close to 29 per cent. This despite the fact that 44 per cent of the country’s workforce is employed in agriculture (according to the World Bank and International Labour Organisation). The 2018-19 Union Budget is the last big chance for the Government to tweak its priorities so as to be seen as being pro-rural. Chandrababu Naidu had once lost Andhra Pradesh despite being hailed the world over for his administrative skills; the rural voter was turned off by the glitz and glamour which seemed so alien to his living conditions. In 2004, the BJP’s Indian Shining campaign failed to give the party a second consecutive chance to rule — again because rural India refused to endorse the optimism. Union Minister for Finance Arun Jaitley has a good memory. Let’s see if the lessons of the recent months and of the past years get reflected in the coming Budget. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: BJP should focus on winning rural India in Budget 2018

After all its efforts at trying to shout down Prime Minister Narendra Modi while he delivered his speech in Parliament a few hours ago, the Congress had nothing to show but a sore throat. The more its members ranted, the more Modi revelled in tearing its arguments to pieces. And if the Prime Minister, in the immediate analysis, appeared to be the winner, it is because the Congress just did not understand one basic fact: That Modi was not really addressing the Opposition but speaking to constituents across the country, who matter electorally.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Prime Minister&rsquo;s strategy was interesting. He was aggressive in the Lok Sabha where his party had the upper hand, taking swipes across a wide arc &mdash; from Congress&rsquo;s dynasty to that party&rsquo;s failures in governance to the various schemes that his Government had initiated for public welfare. But later in the Rajya Sabha, Modi reached out to his rivals, seeking constructive feedback on issues relating to national projects &mdash; for instance, on the new healthcare insurance scheme. By asking them to form their own task forces which could offer suggestions to the Government as well as identify loopholes, the Prime Minister lobbed the ball into the Opposition&rsquo;s court. The idea was to send the message across to the larger audience outside Parliament that this Government was willing to listen and accommodate positive suggestions.

&nbsp;

But it would have been unrealistic to expect Prime Minister Modi to altogether resist taking swipes at the Congress. In firmly proceeding with the &lsquo;New India&rsquo; narrative which he, and his party and Government, have adopted in recent months, Modi latched on to the Congress&rsquo;s remark that the party wanted not a new India but the old India which it had left behind. Having got an opportunity on a platter, the Prime Minister dug up a slew of distasteful developments &mdash; from the Bofors scam to the Augusta Westland scandal to the massacre of Sikhs in 1980 to the Emergency &mdash; and stingingly added that all that was part of the old India which the Congress has been advocating. But the sting was in the tail: The Prime Minister said he was fully in agreement with the Congress that we must have an India that Mahatma Gandhi wanted, and reminded his rivals that the Mahatma had wanted the Congress disbanded after the country had achieved independence.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Interestingly, unlike in the Lok Sabha, the Congress heard Modi&rsquo;s speech with more attention in the other House, except during the later stage. There were few half-hearted attempts from the Opposition to disrupt the proceedings but nothing came from them. The Prime Minister listed various projects which were initiated but not followed through by the previous Congress regimes, and claimed that such languishing projects had been given a fresh lease of life by his Government. Given his penchant for catchy one-liners, he said that his Government&rsquo;s focus is on the outcome and not just on (funds) outlay.

&nbsp;

It must be understood that the Prime Minister&rsquo;s response, which was on the Motion of Thanks to the President&rsquo;s address to Parliament, was both a formality and an occasion for Modi to push forth his Government&rsquo;s achievements and expose what he believed was the Opposition&rsquo;s failures. Similarly, the opposition parties used the opportunity to put the Government in the dock. A senior Congress leader said Modi&rsquo;s speech in the Lok Sabha was unbecoming of the occasion; that the response to the Motion of Thanks must have sobriety. There can be a debate on this contention, but it was also inappropriate for the Congress to heckle the Prime Minister throughout his address.

&nbsp;

And yet, there is no doubting that both the Prime Minister and his rivals are jostling for electoral advantage. Three northeastern States vote later this year. But the more important election will be in Karnataka three months from now, and later in the year in three States the BJP presently rules &mdash; Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. If Modi has yet again spoken in favour of the anti-instant triple divorce Bill, the Congress has sought to dismiss the Government&rsquo;s claims of achievement as empty talk. If the Prime Minister reminds the people of holistic and time-bound development projects that his Government has initiated, the Congress has emphasised that its regimes had begun most such projects.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It does appear from the repeated manner in which Modi raised the Bofors controversy in the Rajya Sabha, that the BJP and its allies could possibly revive the matter in electoral campaigns, and even more so when media reports have it that the Central Bureau of Investigation has decided to reopen the case after the court&rsquo;s clearance.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The question now remains: To what extent will the Prime Minister&rsquo;s address in Parliament help the BJP on the ground? The party won by a reduced margin in Gujarat, lost three recent by-polls in Rajasthan, and is facing serious rural discontent. The Union Budget with its emphasis on rural development sought to tackle the last mentioned problem. The Congress&rsquo;s challenge is to effectively discredit the Prime Minister&rsquo;s speech and build upon the momentum it has gained in recent months. Meanwhile, the battle lines are drawn and it would now be futile to expect the ruling dispensation and the Congress-led Opposition to see eye to eye on issues that are of national import.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

PM Modi was not really addressing the Opposition but speaking to constituents across the country, who matter electorally.

After all its efforts at trying to shout down Prime Minister Narendra Modi while he delivered his speech in Parliament a few hours ago, the Congress had nothing to show but a sore throat. The more its members ranted, the more Modi revelled in tearing its arguments to pieces. And if the Prime Minister, in the immediate analysis, appeared to be the winner, it is because the Congress just did not understand one basic fact: That Modi was not really addressing the Opposition but speaking to constituents across the country, who matter electorally. The Prime Minister’s strategy was interesting. He was aggressive in the Lok Sabha where his party had the upper hand, taking swipes across a wide arc — from Congress’s dynasty to that party’s failures in governance to the various schemes that his Government had initiated for public welfare. But later in the Rajya Sabha, Modi reached out to his rivals, seeking constructive feedback on issues relating to national projects — for instance, on the new healthcare insurance scheme. By asking them to form their own task forces which could offer suggestions to the Government as well as identify loopholes, the Prime Minister lobbed the ball into the Opposition’s court. The idea was to send the message across to the larger audience outside Parliament that this Government was willing to listen and accommodate positive suggestions. But it would have been unrealistic to expect Prime Minister Modi to altogether resist taking swipes at the Congress. In firmly proceeding with the ‘New India’ narrative which he, and his party and Government, have adopted in recent months, Modi latched on to the Congress’s remark that the party wanted not a new India but the old India which it had left behind. Having got an opportunity on a platter, the Prime Minister dug up a slew of distasteful developments — from the Bofors scam to the Augusta Westland scandal to the massacre of Sikhs in 1980 to the Emergency — and stingingly added that all that was part of the old India which the Congress has been advocating. But the sting was in the tail: The Prime Minister said he was fully in agreement with the Congress that we must have an India that Mahatma Gandhi wanted, and reminded his rivals that the Mahatma had wanted the Congress disbanded after the country had achieved independence. Interestingly, unlike in the Lok Sabha, the Congress heard Modi’s speech with more attention in the other House, except during the later stage. There were few half-hearted attempts from the Opposition to disrupt the proceedings but nothing came from them. The Prime Minister listed various projects which were initiated but not followed through by the previous Congress regimes, and claimed that such languishing projects had been given a fresh lease of life by his Government. Given his penchant for catchy one-liners, he said that his Government’s focus is on the outcome and not just on (funds) outlay. It must be understood that the Prime Minister’s response, which was on the Motion of Thanks to the President’s address to Parliament, was both a formality and an occasion for Modi to push forth his Government’s achievements and expose what he believed was the Opposition’s failures. Similarly, the opposition parties used the opportunity to put the Government in the dock. A senior Congress leader said Modi’s speech in the Lok Sabha was unbecoming of the occasion; that the response to the Motion of Thanks must have sobriety. There can be a debate on this contention, but it was also inappropriate for the Congress to heckle the Prime Minister throughout his address. And yet, there is no doubting that both the Prime Minister and his rivals are jostling for electoral advantage. Three northeastern States vote later this year. But the more important election will be in Karnataka three months from now, and later in the year in three States the BJP presently rules — Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. If Modi has yet again spoken in favour of the anti-instant triple divorce Bill, the Congress has sought to dismiss the Government’s claims of achievement as empty talk. If the Prime Minister reminds the people of holistic and time-bound development projects that his Government has initiated, the Congress has emphasised that its regimes had begun most such projects. It does appear from the repeated manner in which Modi raised the Bofors controversy in the Rajya Sabha, that the BJP and its allies could possibly revive the matter in electoral campaigns, and even more so when media reports have it that the Central Bureau of Investigation has decided to reopen the case after the court’s clearance. The question now remains: To what extent will the Prime Minister’s address in Parliament help the BJP on the ground? The party won by a reduced margin in Gujarat, lost three recent by-polls in Rajasthan, and is facing serious rural discontent. The Union Budget with its emphasis on rural development sought to tackle the last mentioned problem. The Congress’s challenge is to effectively discredit the Prime Minister’s speech and build upon the momentum it has gained in recent months. Meanwhile, the battle lines are drawn and it would now be futile to expect the ruling dispensation and the Congress-led Opposition to see eye to eye on issues that are of national import. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Not the opposition, PM Modi was addressing Indian electorates

There were sufficient hints in recent months and so nobody can claim surprise over the Union Budget 2018-19 offerings. The Gujarat Assembly election result had demonstrated that rural voters were upset with the Bharatiya Janata Party. The BJP had fared less well than it had expected in village local body elections in some States.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had admitted in his recent interviews that rural distress was a reality which his government had to soon address. Community-specific agitations that had occurred in rural parts of the country were seen as a manifestation of ground-level discontent among the people, though they were couched in quota-demand terms. All in all, an agri-rural crisis had shaped up, and it threatened to thwart the Bharatiya Janata Party&rsquo;s march of electoral victories. The government had to do something, and there would not have been another big occasion for it, but this last full Budget of the regime&rsquo;s current term.

&nbsp;

Can it be said that Union Minister for Finance Arun Jaitley has addressed those concerns effectively? The last word will be said only by the end of the coming fiscal year when the impact of the measures he has announced will be known. Needless to emphasise, implementation holds the key. But until then, we have to depend on what has been promised in the Budget. And here, there is no doubt that the government has taken to heart the electoral lessons it has learned over the past few months, and has sought to take corrective measures.

&nbsp;

Performers, generally, like to reserve their best for the middle or the end of their act. But Jaitley&rsquo;s big-bang announcements came right in the beginning &mdash; in the first 45 minutes or so when he was at his freshest. He seemed to relish those moments when he let loose a slew of schemes to address the rural distress and provide health coverage to the very needy (many of whom reside in villages or semi-rural regions of the country).&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Indeed, in the later parts of his speech when he began to list proposals for the corporate sector, Jaitley appeared to do so rather perfunctorily. It was clear from his tone and from the impressions gathered by attentive listeners that this Budget was primarily about the rural poor and the agrarian sector.

&nbsp;

Implicit in this emphasis was the realisation that enough had been done and was being done for corporate India. More importantly, the government had correctly understood that a boost to rural India would have a far greater multiplier effect on the national economy than sops in the shape of tax concessions etc to the industry.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Given that the rural sector employs close to 85 per cent of the country&rsquo;s total workforce, it makes sense to empower that section of the population. If disposable income grows here, it will find its way in the consumer market &mdash; both for perishable and lasting goods. And this, in turn, would boost production in industry and, hopefully, lead to more employment in the organised sector. Conversely, a distressed rural economy can drag down the national growth figures.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Besides, the political costs of alienating the large mass of rural voters (taken as a bloc, it is overwhelmingly the single largest) is one that no party in its right frame of mind will want to pay. Therefore, it would not be surprising if the BJP now extols the Budget to win the affections of voters in the coming elections in Karnataka, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh &mdash; all with huge rural populations &mdash; later this year.

&nbsp;

Even if one concedes that the Union Finance Minister has been driven by necessity in framing a &lsquo;pro-poor/pro-farmer/pro-marginalised&rsquo; Budget, it must also be admitted that he has adopted a wholistic rather than a bits-and-pieces approach. For instance, while he has proposed a hike of at least 1.5 times to the existing minimum support prices for the ensuing Kharif crops, he also appears to understand that a higher MSP alone does not address the grievances. Therefore, he has announced the upgradation of the existing rural haats where small and marginal farmers (86 per cent of the farmers come under this category) can sell their produce at remunerative prices. Jaitley has also proposed a cluster system for the cultivation of horticulture crops to enhance production and marketability.

&nbsp;

But, however, much the government does to improve the production and marketing of traditional crops, it knows that its plans to double farmers&rsquo; income by 2022 is simply unrealisable unless farmers have other means of income. The Finance Minister is, therefore, hoping that his proposal to create a fisheries, aquaculture infrastructure development coupled with the animal husbandry fund (totalling some Rs 10,000 crore), will encourage farmers to adopt these vocations and help double their income.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The National Bamboo Mission, which gets a fund of Rs 1,290 crore, is expected to be immensely useful in the promotion of bamboo cultivation and connected industries &mdash; mostly in the small scale industry sector &mdash; especially in the North-East.

&nbsp;

There is more that the Finance Minister has unveiled to woo rural India. An institutional mechanism will be established to frame policies and practices for price and demand forecast for agri-produce; Kisan Credit Cards have been extended to fisheries and and animal husbandry farmers; a Rs 2,000 crore fund is proposed to be set up for the development and upgradation of agri-marketing infrastructure; and the agricultural credit disbursal target has been increased, albeit modestly, from Rs 10 lakh crore in the 2017-18 fiscal to Rs 11 lakh crore for 2018-19.

&nbsp;

But let&rsquo;s not forget that rural distress does not only cover agriculture and allied activities. It relates to the lack of infrastructure, healthcare, roads, closer-to-home employment etc. The Finance Minister has offered a roughly Rs 14 lakh fund to enhance rural infrastructure and improve rural livelihood. The activities under this category would include the construction of houses, roads, toilets etc which would build capacities and generate jobs. Buoyed by the success of its Ujjwala scheme for providing free cooking gas connections to the rural poor women, the Minister said the earlier target of reaching five crore homes now stood revised upward at eight crores. It must be recalled that the Ujjwala project was one of the primary factors in the electoral victory of the BJP in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election.

&nbsp;

This brings us to another fresh, and by all accounts, an unprecedented, measure the Finance Minister has announced and which could turn the tables in favour of the BJP in coming electoral battles: It has been billed as the world&rsquo;s largest government-funded healthcare system. It proposes to cover 10 crore targeted families (or roughly 50 crore people). The scheme ensures five lakh rupees per year to a family for covering its medical costs (hospitalisation etc). This is just a step away from what is generally known as universal health coverage.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

If this ambitious project were to work well, the demand for a universal basic income (which some lawmakers have favoured, and which even last year&rsquo;s Economic Survey of India had mooted), might not have a purpose. After all, the biggest fear of drain on the resources of a poor family is the fear of expensive medical attention. Do we see a ModiCare in the making?

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

The government had correctly understood that a boost to rural India would have a far greater multiplier effect on the national economy than sops in the shape of tax concessions etc to the industry.

There were sufficient hints in recent months and so nobody can claim surprise over the Union Budget 2018-19 offerings. The Gujarat Assembly election result had demonstrated that rural voters were upset with the Bharatiya Janata Party. The BJP had fared less well than it had expected in village local body elections in some States. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had admitted in his recent interviews that rural distress was a reality which his government had to soon address. Community-specific agitations that had occurred in rural parts of the country were seen as a manifestation of ground-level discontent among the people, though they were couched in quota-demand terms. All in all, an agri-rural crisis had shaped up, and it threatened to thwart the Bharatiya Janata Party’s march of electoral victories. The government had to do something, and there would not have been another big occasion for it, but this last full Budget of the regime’s current term. Can it be said that Union Minister for Finance Arun Jaitley has addressed those concerns effectively? The last word will be said only by the end of the coming fiscal year when the impact of the measures he has announced will be known. Needless to emphasise, implementation holds the key. But until then, we have to depend on what has been promised in the Budget. And here, there is no doubt that the government has taken to heart the electoral lessons it has learned over the past few months, and has sought to take corrective measures. Performers, generally, like to reserve their best for the middle or the end of their act. But Jaitley’s big-bang announcements came right in the beginning — in the first 45 minutes or so when he was at his freshest. He seemed to relish those moments when he let loose a slew of schemes to address the rural distress and provide health coverage to the very needy (many of whom reside in villages or semi-rural regions of the country). Indeed, in the later parts of his speech when he began to list proposals for the corporate sector, Jaitley appeared to do so rather perfunctorily. It was clear from his tone and from the impressions gathered by attentive listeners that this Budget was primarily about the rural poor and the agrarian sector. Implicit in this emphasis was the realisation that enough had been done and was being done for corporate India. More importantly, the government had correctly understood that a boost to rural India would have a far greater multiplier effect on the national economy than sops in the shape of tax concessions etc to the industry. Given that the rural sector employs close to 85 per cent of the country’s total workforce, it makes sense to empower that section of the population. If disposable income grows here, it will find its way in the consumer market — both for perishable and lasting goods. And this, in turn, would boost production in industry and, hopefully, lead to more employment in the organised sector. Conversely, a distressed rural economy can drag down the national growth figures. Besides, the political costs of alienating the large mass of rural voters (taken as a bloc, it is overwhelmingly the single largest) is one that no party in its right frame of mind will want to pay. Therefore, it would not be surprising if the BJP now extols the Budget to win the affections of voters in the coming elections in Karnataka, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh — all with huge rural populations — later this year. Even if one concedes that the Union Finance Minister has been driven by necessity in framing a ‘pro-poor/pro-farmer/pro-marginalised’ Budget, it must also be admitted that he has adopted a wholistic rather than a bits-and-pieces approach. For instance, while he has proposed a hike of at least 1.5 times to the existing minimum support prices for the ensuing Kharif crops, he also appears to understand that a higher MSP alone does not address the grievances. Therefore, he has announced the upgradation of the existing rural haats where small and marginal farmers (86 per cent of the farmers come under this category) can sell their produce at remunerative prices. Jaitley has also proposed a cluster system for the cultivation of horticulture crops to enhance production and marketability. But, however, much the government does to improve the production and marketing of traditional crops, it knows that its plans to double farmers’ income by 2022 is simply unrealisable unless farmers have other means of income. The Finance Minister is, therefore, hoping that his proposal to create a fisheries, aquaculture infrastructure development coupled with the animal husbandry fund (totalling some Rs 10,000 crore), will encourage farmers to adopt these vocations and help double their income. The National Bamboo Mission, which gets a fund of Rs 1,290 crore, is expected to be immensely useful in the promotion of bamboo cultivation and connected industries — mostly in the small scale industry sector — especially in the North-East. There is more that the Finance Minister has unveiled to woo rural India. An institutional mechanism will be established to frame policies and practices for price and demand forecast for agri-produce; Kisan Credit Cards have been extended to fisheries and and animal husbandry farmers; a Rs 2,000 crore fund is proposed to be set up for the development and upgradation of agri-marketing infrastructure; and the agricultural credit disbursal target has been increased, albeit modestly, from Rs 10 lakh crore in the 2017-18 fiscal to Rs 11 lakh crore for 2018-19. But let’s not forget that rural distress does not only cover agriculture and allied activities. It relates to the lack of infrastructure, healthcare, roads, closer-to-home employment etc. The Finance Minister has offered a roughly Rs 14 lakh fund to enhance rural infrastructure and improve rural livelihood. The activities under this category would include the construction of houses, roads, toilets etc which would build capacities and generate jobs. Buoyed by the success of its Ujjwala scheme for providing free cooking gas connections to the rural poor women, the Minister said the earlier target of reaching five crore homes now stood revised upward at eight crores. It must be recalled that the Ujjwala project was one of the primary factors in the electoral victory of the BJP in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election. This brings us to another fresh, and by all accounts, an unprecedented, measure the Finance Minister has announced and which could turn the tables in favour of the BJP in coming electoral battles: It has been billed as the world’s largest government-funded healthcare system. It proposes to cover 10 crore targeted families (or roughly 50 crore people). The scheme ensures five lakh rupees per year to a family for covering its medical costs (hospitalisation etc). This is just a step away from what is generally known as universal health coverage. If this ambitious project were to work well, the demand for a universal basic income (which some lawmakers have favoured, and which even last year’s Economic Survey of India had mooted), might not have a purpose. After all, the biggest fear of drain on the resources of a poor family is the fear of expensive medical attention. Do we see a ModiCare in the making? (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Budget 2018 implies enough had been done for corporate India

An economic survey document is the last place one would expect a film star to feature in. But Chapter 9 in Volume One of the Economic Survey of India (ESI 2018), which was tabled in the Parliament on Monday, introduces the reader to popular actor Sunny Deol and his enduring outburst in one of the films: &ldquo;Tarikh par tarikh, tarikh par tarikh&hellip;&rdquo;. The ESI called those lines an &ldquo;iconic scream&rdquo; and added that Sunny Deol was &ldquo;Bollywood&rsquo;s counterpart to Shakespeare&rdquo;&mdash; the bard had expressed a similar sentiment in a less dramatic fashion in Hamlet. Needless to say, the actor would be as amazed by this analogy as by having found mention in the survey paper.&nbsp;

But Chapter 9 is no treatise on cinema or literature. Lest people get the wrong ideas, it is titled, &ldquo;Ease of Doing Business&rsquo; Next Frontier: Timely Justice&rdquo;. The novelty of ESI 2018 lies, therefore, not just in the evocation of Sunny Deol but also in the inclusion of a section on the role of the judiciary in contributing to a conducive business environment in the country.&nbsp;

The survey strongly maintains that the &ldquo;next frontier on the ease of doing business is addressing pendency, delays and backlogs in the appellate and judicial arenas&rdquo;. The reference is to the various cases that have piled up in courts across the country which have to do with economic development in the direct sense.

The ESI 2018 has flagged an important concern. While the issue has often been a subject of discussion, perhaps not enough attention has been paid to the contribution that timely judicial rulings can make to securing a robust business environment and enhancing economic growth. The matter has gained some traction with the latest World Bank ranking on Doing Business, where India jumped 30 places to enter the top 100 club. This is no doubt a big achievement, but there&rsquo;s still a long road ahead.&nbsp;

It&rsquo;s not surprising that the parameters where the country still lags behind are largely those where litigations are the most common and timely resolutions have been equally most uncommon. These include contract enforcement cases in particular.&nbsp;

The jump in the World Bank ranking has been due to many decisions the Government has taken over the last about four years. India has leaped 53 places in the taxation index and 33 spots in the insolvency parameter. The passage of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has contributed to the achievement, just as more transparent tax laws and their easier implementation have. Similarly, the country scored high on protecting the interests of minority investors.&nbsp;

But a globalised business environment demands more, and the biggest factor that drives progress in such an environment is the sanctity of contracts. In itself, with deals being increasingly struck between Indian and foreign entities and between various Indian agencies and the Government, the area of contract enforcement has become more complicated than ever. The need to thus protect the contract system has also got more challenging. When a contract runs into trouble &mdash; and worse, litigation &mdash; every economic activity connected with it comes to a halt. We see this unwelcome phenomenon especially in the infrastructure sector.&nbsp;

And so, the ESI 2018 quotes a study to highlight that &ldquo;a clear and certain legislative and executive regime backed by an efficient judiciary that fairly and punctually protects property rights, preserves sanctity of contracts, and enforces the rights and liabilities of parties in a prerequisite for business and commerce&rdquo;.&nbsp; &ldquo;Punctually&rdquo; is the key word here.

ESI 2018 acknowledges steps the Government has taken to address some of the concerns, such as scrapping over 1,000 laws, rationalising tribunals that hear economic cases, amending The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 2015 and reducing intra-governmental litigation. Yet, these have not been sufficient. Cases continue to mount in the Supreme Court, the High Courts, Economic tribunals and the tax departments. The survey&rsquo;s analysis on the basis of available data presents disturbing facts.&nbsp;

The pendency of cases at the six most prominent appellate economic tribunals is at about 1.8 lakh. Worse, the unsolved cases have risen over time. Compared to 2012, there has been a 25 per cent increase in the number of unresolved cases. The average age of pendency at these six tribunals is 3.8 years. The survey observes, &ldquo;It is noteworthy that in two cases &mdash; telecommunications and electricity &mdash; the explosion in pendency resulted from interventions by the Supreme Court.&rdquo;

The economic survey points out that the establishment of tribunals did not significantly reduce the pendency of cases at High Courts. Indeed, those continued to increase. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, the total backlog in High Courts in 2017 was close to 3.5 million cases. The average pendency of economic-related cases was nearly 4.3 years for the five major High Courts. The average pendency of tax cases is even more: Nearly six years.&nbsp;

The survey adds that the reduction in pendency, if any in some places, was more due to &ldquo;changes in the counting methodology of pending cases, or due to changes in pecuniary jurisdictions that led to a mass transfer of cases from the original side of the High Courts to District Courts&rdquo;.&nbsp;

The hike in the number of pending cases that are economic in nature is also seen in the Supreme Court. ESI 2018 observes that one of the main reasons has been the liberal use of the Special Leave Petition mechanism. &ldquo;Initially, invoked only in &lsquo;exceptional circumstances&rsquo;, SLPs are now an overwhelming feature of practice at the Supreme Court.&rdquo; The survey has this to say on the issue: &ldquo;The rate at which the Supreme Court admits special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution increased from around 25 per cent in 2008 to nearly 40 per cent in 2016.&rdquo; Of the total pendency before the apex court, nearly 85 per cent have to do with SLPs.

So, what happens when economic cases remain unresolved in courts for years together, though with some interim relief coming every now and then?&nbsp;

They create an environment of distrust, they delay projects, and they contribute to whopping increases in project costs. The sum total is negative for the business environment. ESI 2018 deals with the issue in some detail. In a study of six infrastructure ministry projects that have been currently stalled by the courts, it was discovered that the project costs of the stayed projects amounted to close to Rs 52,000 crore. &ldquo;The Ministries of Power, Roads and Railways have been the hardest hit. Since project costs were predominantly debt-financed, it is likely that project costs have increased by close to 60 per cent given the average duration of stay.&rdquo; and these are figures from only a few delayed projects.

A similarly dismal situation prevails in the direct tax litigations. What makes the situation almost ridiculous is that 68 per cent of pending cases before various courts and appellate tribunals are a claim amount of less than Rs 10 lakh. The indirect tax situation is not rosy either. Is it any wonder that the country&rsquo;s Income Tax Department is the largest litigant! The department&rsquo;s appeals, according to the survey, constitute about 85 per cent of the total number of appeals filed in the case of direct taxes.&nbsp;

A few things are, therefore, clear. The first is that the courts must devise methods which do not encourage needless litigation. The second is that the courts and the appellate tribunals must find ways to offer timely verdicts. The third is that the legal system must filter out obvious tactics of delays through adjournments by interested parties. The fourth is various arms of the Government must stop litigating at the drop of a hat. And the fifth is that the Centre must continue to identify and strike down archaic legislations that have hampered economic activity over the decades.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

India's Income Tax Department is the largest litigant. The department’s appeals, according to the survey, constitute about 85 per cent of the total number of appeals filed in the case of direct taxes.

An economic survey document is the last place one would expect a film star to feature in. But Chapter 9 in Volume One of the Economic Survey of India (ESI 2018), which was tabled in the Parliament on Monday, introduces the reader to popular actor Sunny Deol and his enduring outburst in one of the films: “Tarikh par tarikh, tarikh par tarikh…”. The ESI called those lines an “iconic scream” and added that Sunny Deol was “Bollywood’s counterpart to Shakespeare”— the bard had expressed a similar sentiment in a less dramatic fashion in Hamlet. Needless to say, the actor would be as amazed by this analogy as by having found mention in the survey paper. But Chapter 9 is no treatise on cinema or literature. Lest people get the wrong ideas, it is titled, “Ease of Doing Business’ Next Frontier: Timely Justice”. The novelty of ESI 2018 lies, therefore, not just in the evocation of Sunny Deol but also in the inclusion of a section on the role of the judiciary in contributing to a conducive business environment in the country. The survey strongly maintains that the “next frontier on the ease of doing business is addressing pendency, delays and backlogs in the appellate and judicial arenas”. The reference is to the various cases that have piled up in courts across the country which have to do with economic development in the direct sense. The ESI 2018 has flagged an important concern. While the issue has often been a subject of discussion, perhaps not enough attention has been paid to the contribution that timely judicial rulings can make to securing a robust business environment and enhancing economic growth. The matter has gained some traction with the latest World Bank ranking on Doing Business, where India jumped 30 places to enter the top 100 club. This is no doubt a big achievement, but there’s still a long road ahead. It’s not surprising that the parameters where the country still lags behind are largely those where litigations are the most common and timely resolutions have been equally most uncommon. These include contract enforcement cases in particular. The jump in the World Bank ranking has been due to many decisions the Government has taken over the last about four years. India has leaped 53 places in the taxation index and 33 spots in the insolvency parameter. The passage of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has contributed to the achievement, just as more transparent tax laws and their easier implementation have. Similarly, the country scored high on protecting the interests of minority investors. But a globalised business environment demands more, and the biggest factor that drives progress in such an environment is the sanctity of contracts. In itself, with deals being increasingly struck between Indian and foreign entities and between various Indian agencies and the Government, the area of contract enforcement has become more complicated than ever. The need to thus protect the contract system has also got more challenging. When a contract runs into trouble — and worse, litigation — every economic activity connected with it comes to a halt. We see this unwelcome phenomenon especially in the infrastructure sector. And so, the ESI 2018 quotes a study to highlight that “a clear and certain legislative and executive regime backed by an efficient judiciary that fairly and punctually protects property rights, preserves sanctity of contracts, and enforces the rights and liabilities of parties in a prerequisite for business and commerce”. “Punctually” is the key word here. ESI 2018 acknowledges steps the Government has taken to address some of the concerns, such as scrapping over 1,000 laws, rationalising tribunals that hear economic cases, amending The Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 2015 and reducing intra-governmental litigation. Yet, these have not been sufficient. Cases continue to mount in the Supreme Court, the High Courts, Economic tribunals and the tax departments. The survey’s analysis on the basis of available data presents disturbing facts. The pendency of cases at the six most prominent appellate economic tribunals is at about 1.8 lakh. Worse, the unsolved cases have risen over time. Compared to 2012, there has been a 25 per cent increase in the number of unresolved cases. The average age of pendency at these six tribunals is 3.8 years. The survey observes, “It is noteworthy that in two cases — telecommunications and electricity — the explosion in pendency resulted from interventions by the Supreme Court.” The economic survey points out that the establishment of tribunals did not significantly reduce the pendency of cases at High Courts. Indeed, those continued to increase. According to the National Judicial Data Grid, the total backlog in High Courts in 2017 was close to 3.5 million cases. The average pendency of economic-related cases was nearly 4.3 years for the five major High Courts. The average pendency of tax cases is even more: Nearly six years. The survey adds that the reduction in pendency, if any in some places, was more due to “changes in the counting methodology of pending cases, or due to changes in pecuniary jurisdictions that led to a mass transfer of cases from the original side of the High Courts to District Courts”. The hike in the number of pending cases that are economic in nature is also seen in the Supreme Court. ESI 2018 observes that one of the main reasons has been the liberal use of the Special Leave Petition mechanism. “Initially, invoked only in ‘exceptional circumstances’, SLPs are now an overwhelming feature of practice at the Supreme Court.” The survey has this to say on the issue: “The rate at which the Supreme Court admits special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution increased from around 25 per cent in 2008 to nearly 40 per cent in 2016.” Of the total pendency before the apex court, nearly 85 per cent have to do with SLPs. So, what happens when economic cases remain unresolved in courts for years together, though with some interim relief coming every now and then? They create an environment of distrust, they delay projects, and they contribute to whopping increases in project costs. The sum total is negative for the business environment. ESI 2018 deals with the issue in some detail. In a study of six infrastructure ministry projects that have been currently stalled by the courts, it was discovered that the project costs of the stayed projects amounted to close to Rs 52,000 crore. “The Ministries of Power, Roads and Railways have been the hardest hit. Since project costs were predominantly debt-financed, it is likely that project costs have increased by close to 60 per cent given the average duration of stay.” and these are figures from only a few delayed projects. A similarly dismal situation prevails in the direct tax litigations. What makes the situation almost ridiculous is that 68 per cent of pending cases before various courts and appellate tribunals are a claim amount of less than Rs 10 lakh. The indirect tax situation is not rosy either. Is it any wonder that the country’s Income Tax Department is the largest litigant! The department’s appeals, according to the survey, constitute about 85 per cent of the total number of appeals filed in the case of direct taxes. A few things are, therefore, clear. The first is that the courts must devise methods which do not encourage needless litigation. The second is that the courts and the appellate tribunals must find ways to offer timely verdicts. The third is that the legal system must filter out obvious tactics of delays through adjournments by interested parties. The fourth is various arms of the Government must stop litigating at the drop of a hat. And the fifth is that the Centre must continue to identify and strike down archaic legislations that have hampered economic activity over the decades. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Economic Survey, Sunny Deol and Tax litigation in India

The Four Supreme Court Judges versus Chief Justice of India case has so many strands and multiple knots that it is difficult to identify the principal thread. Fresh developments over the last two days have made the task more onerous. It is possible that the crisis will blow over &mdash; as most crises do if they are addressed across the table with honest intent &mdash; but the stench generated will linger for a while. Meanwhile, it is amusing that the players who did the most to bring the issue into the public domain and create a public tamasha are now claiming it to be the judiciary&rsquo;s internal matter, best resolved within closed doors and without outside interference.

&nbsp;

There is already much written on the trigger for the Friday rebellion of four senior-most judges of the apex court. The Justices took the unprecedented step of addressing the media to say that &ldquo;the administration of the Supreme Court is not in order&rdquo; and that &ldquo;many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months&rdquo;. They stressed that they were compelled to bring the matter before the public because the Chief Justice of India had refused to act on a letter they had written to him, which laid down their grievances over the administrative functioning of the apex court, especially the allocation of cases to judges through the roster system.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

One argument can be that the four judges&rsquo; decision to wash dirty linen in public was a courageous act to clean up the system. Indeed, one of them, Justice J Chelamaeswar, sought to take the moral high ground by stating, &ldquo;We do not want people to say 20 years later that all four senior-most judges sold their souls&hellip;&rdquo; On the lines of this contention, it can be further argued that one among the group, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, could have imperiled his prospects of succeeding incumbent Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to the post, given that he is the senior-most in line to be around when the CJI debits office.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The counter-argument is that no amount of justification can set right the wrong done by judges of the Supreme Court going public against the Chief Justice of India. Since they admit it to be the judiciary&rsquo;s internal matter, the issue ought to have been settled internally. If they were dissatisfied with the Chief Justice&rsquo;s response, or lack of it, they could have tried other avenues, such as requesting respectable names from the legal fraternity, to intervene. Damning the judiciary&rsquo;s image through a publicity stunt for self-glorification is simply not done.

&nbsp;

There has been at least one undesirable fallout that the four judges cannot deny: It has allowed politicians to wade into the controversy and make the issue sectarian. Communist Party of India leader D Raja met Justice Chelameswar soon after the latter&rsquo;s Press meet; Congress president Rahul Gandhi addressed a Press conference hours after the four judges did; the Shiv Sena praised the rebel judges; dissident Bharatiya Janata Party leader Yashwant Sinha advised BJP leaders to take a leaf out of the judges&rsquo; book and &lsquo;speak out&rsquo;, ostensibly against the party leadership &mdash; a clarion call which is certain to go unheeded.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The other undesirability has been that the controversy has split the legal fraternity as well &mdash; the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association took somewhat different positions, though both agreed on the need for a quick internal resolution, whereas retired judges have also taken sides. Brazen partisanship has been displayed.

&nbsp;

At the Press conference on Friday, one of the judges admitted that the issue of allotting a Bench to hear the case of the death of CBI judge BH Loya, had been a flashpoint. He hinted the four dissenting judges had been in favour of giving the case to a Bench with a composition which was different from the one then decided by the Chief Justice of India. Apparently, the CJI had not relented, on the ground that he was the master of the roster and that it had been past practice for the Chief Justice to have a final say on the allotment of cases.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Loya issue is signifiant because it became the focal one for opposition parties to condemn the Modi Government. Judge Loya had been hearing a murder case in which BJP president Amit Shah had been dragged, when he died of cardiac arrest. Last year, the judge&rsquo;s family members raised doubts over his death and demanded a probe. Tehseen Poonawala, an activist with leanings towards the Congress, filed a petition in the apex court. Over the last two days, two developments took place which have muddied the waters.

&nbsp;

The first is Poonawala&rsquo;s disclosures. He said that, as a petitioner, he had no issues with the Bench that had been allotted the case. He added that his lawyer had tried to persuade him to withdraw the case on the ground that a similar matter pending before the High Court in Maharashtra would get delayed in case he went ahead with his plea in the apex court. But the real reason, which Poonawala further said, was that his lawyer believed the judge to whom the matter had been given for hearing in the Supreme Court, was a &ldquo;henchman&rdquo; of the Chief Justice of India. Poonawala alleged that his lawyer had sought to &ldquo;bully&rdquo; him.

&nbsp;

The second development involved family members of the deceased judge, Loya. His son addressed the media and said he no longer harboured suspicions and that medical records of his father&rsquo;s death were clear enough. He admitted to having entertained doubts in the immediate aftermath of the death because he was going through an emotional turmoil. He asked politicians, media and NGOs to leave the family alone.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Taken together, these two twists give rise to the following questions: If the family has no doubts about the cause of death, why is the opposition raising a brouhaha? Why are activist-lawyers lobbying for Benches of their choice? By doing so, are these lawyers not casting aspersions on the integrity of the Justices they would rather not appear before in the case? Finally, if they fault the Chief Justice of India for being &lsquo;selective&rsquo; in allotting cases, what about their own games, which too amount to fixing Benches? Interestingly, the letter which the four judges wrote to the Chief Justice of India has no mention of the Loya case. And yet, it has today become the pivot for heated debates in television studios and outside.

&nbsp;

There is, however, one principal issue that deserves attention, and if there is anything positive that can come out of this unsavoury fracas, it is this: There must be some sort of a transparent mechanism by which the Chief Justice of India allots cases. But it is dangerous to suggest &mdash; as some are arguing &mdash; that &lsquo;sensitive&rsquo; case must necessarily go to the senior-most Justices.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In the first place, such an arrangement would make some judges more equal than the others. Second, it would be tantamount to questioning the professional integrity and competence of the rest of the judges. It must not be forgotten that some of the most politically sensitive cases in recent years were heard and adjudicated upon with a great degree of competence, by not so senior Justices of the Supreme Court. Here are a few of these: 2G Spectrum case, the coal block allocation case, the Aadhaar case, the Vijay Mallya case, the validity of Section 66A case. None of these was handled by senior-most judges of the apex court who occupy court numbers one to four, and yet their verdict had far-reaching and welcome consequences for the country.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

&nbsp;

There must be some sort of a transparent mechanism by which the Chief Justice of India allots cases. But it is dangerous to suggest that ‘sensitive’ case must necessarily go to the senior-most Justices.

The Four Supreme Court Judges versus Chief Justice of India case has so many strands and multiple knots that it is difficult to identify the principal thread. Fresh developments over the last two days have made the task more onerous. It is possible that the crisis will blow over — as most crises do if they are addressed across the table with honest intent — but the stench generated will linger for a while. Meanwhile, it is amusing that the players who did the most to bring the issue into the public domain and create a public tamasha are now claiming it to be the judiciary’s internal matter, best resolved within closed doors and without outside interference. There is already much written on the trigger for the Friday rebellion of four senior-most judges of the apex court. The Justices took the unprecedented step of addressing the media to say that “the administration of the Supreme Court is not in order” and that “many things which are less than desirable have happened in the last few months”. They stressed that they were compelled to bring the matter before the public because the Chief Justice of India had refused to act on a letter they had written to him, which laid down their grievances over the administrative functioning of the apex court, especially the allocation of cases to judges through the roster system. One argument can be that the four judges’ decision to wash dirty linen in public was a courageous act to clean up the system. Indeed, one of them, Justice J Chelamaeswar, sought to take the moral high ground by stating, “We do not want people to say 20 years later that all four senior-most judges sold their souls…” On the lines of this contention, it can be further argued that one among the group, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, could have imperiled his prospects of succeeding incumbent Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to the post, given that he is the senior-most in line to be around when the CJI debits office. The counter-argument is that no amount of justification can set right the wrong done by judges of the Supreme Court going public against the Chief Justice of India. Since they admit it to be the judiciary’s internal matter, the issue ought to have been settled internally. If they were dissatisfied with the Chief Justice’s response, or lack of it, they could have tried other avenues, such as requesting respectable names from the legal fraternity, to intervene. Damning the judiciary’s image through a publicity stunt for self-glorification is simply not done. There has been at least one undesirable fallout that the four judges cannot deny: It has allowed politicians to wade into the controversy and make the issue sectarian. Communist Party of India leader D Raja met Justice Chelameswar soon after the latter’s Press meet; Congress president Rahul Gandhi addressed a Press conference hours after the four judges did; the Shiv Sena praised the rebel judges; dissident Bharatiya Janata Party leader Yashwant Sinha advised BJP leaders to take a leaf out of the judges’ book and ‘speak out’, ostensibly against the party leadership — a clarion call which is certain to go unheeded. The other undesirability has been that the controversy has split the legal fraternity as well — the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association took somewhat different positions, though both agreed on the need for a quick internal resolution, whereas retired judges have also taken sides. Brazen partisanship has been displayed. At the Press conference on Friday, one of the judges admitted that the issue of allotting a Bench to hear the case of the death of CBI judge BH Loya, had been a flashpoint. He hinted the four dissenting judges had been in favour of giving the case to a Bench with a composition which was different from the one then decided by the Chief Justice of India. Apparently, the CJI had not relented, on the ground that he was the master of the roster and that it had been past practice for the Chief Justice to have a final say on the allotment of cases. The Loya issue is signifiant because it became the focal one for opposition parties to condemn the Modi Government. Judge Loya had been hearing a murder case in which BJP president Amit Shah had been dragged, when he died of cardiac arrest. Last year, the judge’s family members raised doubts over his death and demanded a probe. Tehseen Poonawala, an activist with leanings towards the Congress, filed a petition in the apex court. Over the last two days, two developments took place which have muddied the waters. The first is Poonawala’s disclosures. He said that, as a petitioner, he had no issues with the Bench that had been allotted the case. He added that his lawyer had tried to persuade him to withdraw the case on the ground that a similar matter pending before the High Court in Maharashtra would get delayed in case he went ahead with his plea in the apex court. But the real reason, which Poonawala further said, was that his lawyer believed the judge to whom the matter had been given for hearing in the Supreme Court, was a “henchman” of the Chief Justice of India. Poonawala alleged that his lawyer had sought to “bully” him. The second development involved family members of the deceased judge, Loya. His son addressed the media and said he no longer harboured suspicions and that medical records of his father’s death were clear enough. He admitted to having entertained doubts in the immediate aftermath of the death because he was going through an emotional turmoil. He asked politicians, media and NGOs to leave the family alone. Taken together, these two twists give rise to the following questions: If the family has no doubts about the cause of death, why is the opposition raising a brouhaha? Why are activist-lawyers lobbying for Benches of their choice? By doing so, are these lawyers not casting aspersions on the integrity of the Justices they would rather not appear before in the case? Finally, if they fault the Chief Justice of India for being ‘selective’ in allotting cases, what about their own games, which too amount to fixing Benches? Interestingly, the letter which the four judges wrote to the Chief Justice of India has no mention of the Loya case. And yet, it has today become the pivot for heated debates in television studios and outside. There is, however, one principal issue that deserves attention, and if there is anything positive that can come out of this unsavoury fracas, it is this: There must be some sort of a transparent mechanism by which the Chief Justice of India allots cases. But it is dangerous to suggest — as some are arguing — that ‘sensitive’ case must necessarily go to the senior-most Justices. In the first place, such an arrangement would make some judges more equal than the others. Second, it would be tantamount to questioning the professional integrity and competence of the rest of the judges. It must not be forgotten that some of the most politically sensitive cases in recent years were heard and adjudicated upon with a great degree of competence, by not so senior Justices of the Supreme Court. Here are a few of these: 2G Spectrum case, the coal block allocation case, the Aadhaar case, the Vijay Mallya case, the validity of Section 66A case. None of these was handled by senior-most judges of the apex court who occupy court numbers one to four, and yet their verdict had far-reaching and welcome consequences for the country. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Did rebel SC judges want to save democracy or be heroes?

Dislodging rival regimes of recent origin in States through elections appears to have become a habit for the Bharatiya Janata Party in the past four years. Now it has set its sights on a more ambitious programme: Ousting the 20-year old Left Front Government in Tripura in an Assembly poll scheduled for sometime next month.&nbsp;

It&rsquo;s not going to be easy.&nbsp;

Left supporters dismiss the BJP&rsquo;s aspiration as impossible to achieve. They point to four factors. The first is the popularity of Chief Minister Manik Sarkar who has been at the helm for two decades. He is perceived as down-to-earth and humble, with no serious allegations against him.&nbsp;

The second is the BJP&rsquo;s organisational weakness. The party has never been in power in the State and, thus, has little grassroots structure. The third is the demography of the State which does not lend itself to the kind of &lsquo;social engineering&rsquo; the BJP has effectively managed in other States. And the fourth is the absence of any major public failing of the Sarkar Government that can be used to whip up electoral sentiment against the incumbent.

But there is another set of reasoning, which has buoyed the BJP. The party has in recent months made serious inroads in the North-East, establishing its governments in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and now formidably pursuing its interests in Meghalaya. It has a well-defined mechanism in the form of the North East Democratic Alliance (NEDA) to enhance its footprint in the region.&nbsp;

The BJP has roped in various regional outfits of the North-East as part of this umbrella organisation. Led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has addressed several rallies in the region, and managed by influential local leaders, the roughly two-year-old NEDA is the anti-Congress vehicle that the BJP hopes to ride to the finishing line in Tripura.&nbsp;

Then there is the work of the RSS to fall back upon. Over the decades, this parent body of the larger Sangh family of which the BJP is a part, has been relentlessly working to enhance its influence among the locals in the North-East, including Tripura, playing on rival and religious affiliations. So far, all of this did not reflect positively on the electoral numbers for the BJP. In the changed political environment with a BJP-led regime at the Centre and the party&rsquo;s aggressive focus on the region, it is possible that some of that work could bear fruit.

There is also the anti-incumbency factor. Twenty years at a stretch is a long time for any party to rule without losing substantial support among the electorate &mdash; if not for anything else, because of a mere desire for &lsquo;change&rsquo;. Left Front supporters can seek to dismiss the thought by referring to &mdash; ironically &mdash; the Gujarat result, where the BJP retained power despite being in the driver&rsquo;s seat for two decades.&nbsp;

But, as any political analyst will tell, there is no comparison. Besides, the BJP did lose seats in comparison to 2012, and got past the half-way mark huffing and puffing. And, if the Left Front wishes so much to give the Gujarat example, it must remember that a significant section of the Patidar community, dedicated backers of the BJP, dumped the party and voted elsewhere.

It is, therefore, not impossible that many traditional supporters of the Left Front might vote against the communist combine in the changed political environment &mdash; both in the region and nationally. The mere fact that the coalition has entrenched itself for twenty years in the State offers no certainty of its return; remember, the Left combine was unceremoniously ousted in West Bengal after three decades of rule by Mamata Banerjee and her Trinamool Congress. Considered an upstart, Banerjee not just decimated the communists but also the Congress. Both have yet to recover from the drubbing in the State.

There is no doubting that the Left Front in Tripura recognises and understands the fresh challenge, though it publicly downplays the potency. According to some recent media reports, Chief Minister Manik Sarkar told his party leaders that the BJP had emerged as their primary rival and should be accordingly dealt with. The party that threatens to get squeezed out in the contest is the Congress. Its State unit in a shambles with many desertions since the last year or so.&nbsp;

It&rsquo;s true that some of these dissidents have since returned or at least shown signs of supporting the Congress, but that could be a case of too little too late. The Congress is still dependant on patronage from elites, such as the scion of an erstwhile royal family. The last time the Congress had its Government in Tripura was in 1993 &mdash; that too a coalition &mdash; which had lasted just over a year. Since then, the party has been struggling to regain the lost ground. Now, its task has been made more difficult with the rise of the BJP in the region.&nbsp;

Essentially, the Tripura contest is one between two conflicting ideologies and sub-ideologies within the larger ideological framework. Manik Sarkar represents the Marxist image with a dose of the Gandhian spirit. The popular rhetoric of the working class uniting to stave off the evil capitalists has served him well all these years. But now it is confronted by an equally dominant and belligerent call of nationalism and regional pride made by the BJP and its affiliates.&nbsp;

With the Marxists consistently failing to find support, election after election in the country (barring in Kerala where it wins and loses in equal measure), their brand of politics is now seen as close to extinction. The new class of voters is unlikely to be as wedded to the Left doctrine as the earlier ones who imbibed the lofty ideals in the hope that a class-less society of equals could be crafted on the ruins of capitalism.

And then there are local issues. There is an impression that power, rather than being decentralised (to the masses, which Karl Marx dreamed of), has been centralised in the Left Front regime by a handful of leaders, with Manik Sarkar being in the forefront. There is virtually no internal democracy. On the governance front, people still bridle at the memory of the Left blunder in the recruitment of more than 10,000 teachers for Government schools in the State. The Tripura High Court had declared the recruitment as null and void, leading to enormous financial and social misery to the victims and their families. This could turn out to be an important election issue because the bulk of the &lsquo;working class&rsquo; which the Left banks upon to retain power, comes from the close to three lakh Government sector employees and pensioners.&nbsp;

Finally, there is the tribal factor. The BJP has especially targeted the State&rsquo;s four major tribal communities &mdash; Debbarma, Reang, Chakma, and Tripuri &mdash; which together account for 78 per cent of the total tribal population. The party recently sprung a unique depiction of Bharat Mata in the traditional attire of the four tribal communities, instead of in a saree as is usual.&nbsp;

The new Mother India now shares space with photographs of senior party leaders and founders, at various State party events. In all, the tribals form roughly 30 per cent of the State&rsquo;s population. From not having an option and, therefore, being taken for granted by the Left, the tribals are now being wooed assiduously by all political sections. It would not be hyperbolic to suggest that the tribal vote will determine the winner of the coming Assembly election in Tripura.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

It would not be hyperbolic to suggest that the tribal vote will determine the winner of the coming Assembly election in Tripura.

Dislodging rival regimes of recent origin in States through elections appears to have become a habit for the Bharatiya Janata Party in the past four years. Now it has set its sights on a more ambitious programme: Ousting the 20-year old Left Front Government in Tripura in an Assembly poll scheduled for sometime next month. It’s not going to be easy. Left supporters dismiss the BJP’s aspiration as impossible to achieve. They point to four factors. The first is the popularity of Chief Minister Manik Sarkar who has been at the helm for two decades. He is perceived as down-to-earth and humble, with no serious allegations against him. The second is the BJP’s organisational weakness. The party has never been in power in the State and, thus, has little grassroots structure. The third is the demography of the State which does not lend itself to the kind of ‘social engineering’ the BJP has effectively managed in other States. And the fourth is the absence of any major public failing of the Sarkar Government that can be used to whip up electoral sentiment against the incumbent. But there is another set of reasoning, which has buoyed the BJP. The party has in recent months made serious inroads in the North-East, establishing its governments in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and now formidably pursuing its interests in Meghalaya. It has a well-defined mechanism in the form of the North East Democratic Alliance (NEDA) to enhance its footprint in the region. The BJP has roped in various regional outfits of the North-East as part of this umbrella organisation. Led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has addressed several rallies in the region, and managed by influential local leaders, the roughly two-year-old NEDA is the anti-Congress vehicle that the BJP hopes to ride to the finishing line in Tripura. Then there is the work of the RSS to fall back upon. Over the decades, this parent body of the larger Sangh family of which the BJP is a part, has been relentlessly working to enhance its influence among the locals in the North-East, including Tripura, playing on rival and religious affiliations. So far, all of this did not reflect positively on the electoral numbers for the BJP. In the changed political environment with a BJP-led regime at the Centre and the party’s aggressive focus on the region, it is possible that some of that work could bear fruit. There is also the anti-incumbency factor. Twenty years at a stretch is a long time for any party to rule without losing substantial support among the electorate — if not for anything else, because of a mere desire for ‘change’. Left Front supporters can seek to dismiss the thought by referring to — ironically — the Gujarat result, where the BJP retained power despite being in the driver’s seat for two decades. But, as any political analyst will tell, there is no comparison. Besides, the BJP did lose seats in comparison to 2012, and got past the half-way mark huffing and puffing. And, if the Left Front wishes so much to give the Gujarat example, it must remember that a significant section of the Patidar community, dedicated backers of the BJP, dumped the party and voted elsewhere. It is, therefore, not impossible that many traditional supporters of the Left Front might vote against the communist combine in the changed political environment — both in the region and nationally. The mere fact that the coalition has entrenched itself for twenty years in the State offers no certainty of its return; remember, the Left combine was unceremoniously ousted in West Bengal after three decades of rule by Mamata Banerjee and her Trinamool Congress. Considered an upstart, Banerjee not just decimated the communists but also the Congress. Both have yet to recover from the drubbing in the State. There is no doubting that the Left Front in Tripura recognises and understands the fresh challenge, though it publicly downplays the potency. According to some recent media reports, Chief Minister Manik Sarkar told his party leaders that the BJP had emerged as their primary rival and should be accordingly dealt with. The party that threatens to get squeezed out in the contest is the Congress. Its State unit in a shambles with many desertions since the last year or so. It’s true that some of these dissidents have since returned or at least shown signs of supporting the Congress, but that could be a case of too little too late. The Congress is still dependant on patronage from elites, such as the scion of an erstwhile royal family. The last time the Congress had its Government in Tripura was in 1993 — that too a coalition — which had lasted just over a year. Since then, the party has been struggling to regain the lost ground. Now, its task has been made more difficult with the rise of the BJP in the region. Essentially, the Tripura contest is one between two conflicting ideologies and sub-ideologies within the larger ideological framework. Manik Sarkar represents the Marxist image with a dose of the Gandhian spirit. The popular rhetoric of the working class uniting to stave off the evil capitalists has served him well all these years. But now it is confronted by an equally dominant and belligerent call of nationalism and regional pride made by the BJP and its affiliates. With the Marxists consistently failing to find support, election after election in the country (barring in Kerala where it wins and loses in equal measure), their brand of politics is now seen as close to extinction. The new class of voters is unlikely to be as wedded to the Left doctrine as the earlier ones who imbibed the lofty ideals in the hope that a class-less society of equals could be crafted on the ruins of capitalism. And then there are local issues. There is an impression that power, rather than being decentralised (to the masses, which Karl Marx dreamed of), has been centralised in the Left Front regime by a handful of leaders, with Manik Sarkar being in the forefront. There is virtually no internal democracy. On the governance front, people still bridle at the memory of the Left blunder in the recruitment of more than 10,000 teachers for Government schools in the State. The Tripura High Court had declared the recruitment as null and void, leading to enormous financial and social misery to the victims and their families. This could turn out to be an important election issue because the bulk of the ‘working class’ which the Left banks upon to retain power, comes from the close to three lakh Government sector employees and pensioners. Finally, there is the tribal factor. The BJP has especially targeted the State’s four major tribal communities — Debbarma, Reang, Chakma, and Tripuri — which together account for 78 per cent of the total tribal population. The party recently sprung a unique depiction of Bharat Mata in the traditional attire of the four tribal communities, instead of in a saree as is usual. The new Mother India now shares space with photographs of senior party leaders and founders, at various State party events. In all, the tribals form roughly 30 per cent of the State’s population. From not having an option and, therefore, being taken for granted by the Left, the tribals are now being wooed assiduously by all political sections. It would not be hyperbolic to suggest that the tribal vote will determine the winner of the coming Assembly election in Tripura. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Will BJP succeed in trumping Manik Sarkar in Tripura?

If today&rsquo;s electoral outcomes were not to impact tomorrow&rsquo;s, they would be dealt with as standalone and transient phenomena. But because the results have a roll-over effect in varying measure, they get analysed threadbare &mdash; and with some hair-splitting added. Both the winner and loser has lessons to learn, and the one who imbibes them better stands the greater chance to stand high on the podium in the coming days. And so, the verdict on the political contests of 2017 can be a determinant for 2018 as well.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Two crucial elections happened in 2017, and while the end result was the same, the messages the electorate delivered were very different and the level of endorsement varied. That one of these confrontations took place early in the year and the other later as 2017 came near to a close, helped in establishing a &lsquo;beginning and end&rsquo; narrative. Except that every start is a new beginning and every end is the harbinger of a new beginning. It&rsquo;s this belief that keeps political parties going, losing steam one moment, gaining it the next. Of course, the one which recoups its losses the earliest stand the better chance of breasting the tape.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The BJP began 2017 with a bang and the Congress with a whimper.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The former swept the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election with a margin that even its staunchest admirers had not reckoned with. The Congress, which had tagged along with the Samajwadi Party, came to a cropper. There can be endless debate on whether the Congress sunk the Samajwadi Party or the reverse happened.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

With 80 Lok Sabha and 400 plus Assembly seats, Uttar Pradesh has often been the bellwether State. Parties that perform poorly here cannot hope to rule the country. Having won 71 Lok Sabha seats in 2014 on its own, the BJP had the difficult task to live up to the high level. The general sense during the Assembly poll campaigning had been that the party would return to power after nearly two decades in exile, but nobody saw the massive margin of victory coming. The wave flattened the Samajwadi Party, decimated the Bahujan Samaj Party and obliterated the Congress.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The messages were the following: Prime Minister Narendra Modi&rsquo;s charisma was intact (he was the star campaigner for the BJP); the split in the Samajwadi Party as the result of a family feud had taken its toll on the party; the politics of appeasement does not work; talk of good governance still sells; caste considerations, while still relevant and on which both the Samajwadi Party and the BSP heavily rely on, now have limited appeal; and, the party which manages its macro as well as micro election strategies more smartly, using both manpower and technology, has the greater chance of victory.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The outcome of the Uttar Pradesh election threw up a dilemma for the Congress: Should it continue with the tactic of over-relying on strong local leaders or fire up its own local leadership to lead the battle?

&nbsp;

By the time the Gujarat Assembly election came only months after the Uttar Pradesh poll, the Congress was still unsure on this front. For the first time in two decades, it sensed a chance to oust the BJP in the State, and yet there was also a feeling of diffidence. This led to its over-dependence on three young caste warriors whose affiliation to the Congress was tentative and their desire to align with that party was motivated by the prospect of little more than an immediate gain.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It cannot be denied that they - Mevani, Hardik Patel, Alpesh Thakore- impacted the final tally to an extent, reducing the BJP&rsquo;s number as compared to the 2012 figure and bettering the Congress&rsquo;s. But that impact was less than expected, since the BJP did succeed in containing the damage caused by the migration of a section of the Patidar community to the Congress camp. It did appear that, as in the case of Uttar Pradesh, the Congress had placed all its eggs in the basket of local leaders from outside the party.

&nbsp;

It needs to be remembered that the BJP had been as weakened in Uttar Pradesh over the two decades preceding 2014 as the Congress had been. But while the BJP continued to work on its core strengths and weaknesses in the State, the Congress flirted with both the Samajwadi Party and the BSP in a desperate bid to regain influence.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In Gujarat too, instead of focusing on the discontent in rural parts, the disruptive nature of Goods and Services Tax implementation, and the general sense of anti-incumbency of two decades, the Congress outsourced its fate to caste leaders with little political experience. In the end, it was reduced to claiming &ldquo;moral victory&rdquo;, which means nothing in electoral politics.

&nbsp;

The message for the BJP was that it could no longer take the voters for granted, even in Gujarat. Its tally fell by 16 seats as compared to 2012, although its vote-share went up. The party must recall the &ldquo;India Shining&rsquo; moment of 2004 and understand that support can dissipate almost as quickly as it comes. Recent political history is replete with such instances: 1977, when Indira Gandhi led the Congress to a debacle and also lost in her constituency; 1980, when the Janata Party collapsed and Indira Gandhi made a grand comeback; 1989, when Rajiv Gandhi led his party to a defeat, frittering away a three-fourth mandate.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Fresh battle lines will be drawn for 2018, which is a year of many important elections. If both the Congress and the BJP have absorbed the experiences of the year to soon end, we can expect fireworks that will light up the nation&rsquo;s democratic landscape. The Congress will seek to protect its turf in Karnataka and Meghalaya, while the BJP can expect a fight in the States its rules &mdash; Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The rural-urban voting pattern will be tested in good measure, given that Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have a far larger number of rural constituencies than Gujarat has; the BJP did resoundingly well in urban Gujarat and relatively less well in the rural belt. Although each of these States has a different set of issues on which the voters will decide, common factors will be at play too.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The first is the central leadership of the Congress and the BJP. As Congress president, Rahul Gandhi will now be even more than before pitted against his rival party&rsquo;s principal campaigner, Modi. The second is the local leadership of the two parties. Interestingly, while both have strong leaders, there are turf issues as well among these leaders. The State-level leadership tussle, thus, could be a decisive factor.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The BJP had ruled Karnataka before, and so had the Congress in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. If the BJP manages to win over Karnataka and retain the States it governs, the Congress&rsquo;s prospects for 2019 would be bleak. Indeed, even a status quo would be fine for the BJP, though the loss in Karnataka can set back its plans for a south India foray.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

For the Congress, less than the best scenario would be to retain Karnataka and snatch at least one state from the BJP. That would be more than a &lsquo;moral win&rsquo;. The best case situation would, of course, be a complete victory in the north and the south. It&rsquo;s important that the party&rsquo;s new president creates his team well before these contests. Finally, there are de-railers in both the Congress and the BJP. They must be reined in.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

If both the Congress and the BJP have absorbed the experiences of the year to soon end, we can expect fireworks that will light up the nation?s democratic landscape.

If today’s electoral outcomes were not to impact tomorrow’s, they would be dealt with as standalone and transient phenomena. But because the results have a roll-over effect in varying measure, they get analysed threadbare — and with some hair-splitting added. Both the winner and loser has lessons to learn, and the one who imbibes them better stands the greater chance to stand high on the podium in the coming days. And so, the verdict on the political contests of 2017 can be a determinant for 2018 as well. Two crucial elections happened in 2017, and while the end result was the same, the messages the electorate delivered were very different and the level of endorsement varied. That one of these confrontations took place early in the year and the other later as 2017 came near to a close, helped in establishing a ‘beginning and end’ narrative. Except that every start is a new beginning and every end is the harbinger of a new beginning. It’s this belief that keeps political parties going, losing steam one moment, gaining it the next. Of course, the one which recoups its losses the earliest stand the better chance of breasting the tape. The BJP began 2017 with a bang and the Congress with a whimper. The former swept the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election with a margin that even its staunchest admirers had not reckoned with. The Congress, which had tagged along with the Samajwadi Party, came to a cropper. There can be endless debate on whether the Congress sunk the Samajwadi Party or the reverse happened. With 80 Lok Sabha and 400 plus Assembly seats, Uttar Pradesh has often been the bellwether State. Parties that perform poorly here cannot hope to rule the country. Having won 71 Lok Sabha seats in 2014 on its own, the BJP had the difficult task to live up to the high level. The general sense during the Assembly poll campaigning had been that the party would return to power after nearly two decades in exile, but nobody saw the massive margin of victory coming. The wave flattened the Samajwadi Party, decimated the Bahujan Samaj Party and obliterated the Congress. The messages were the following: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s charisma was intact (he was the star campaigner for the BJP); the split in the Samajwadi Party as the result of a family feud had taken its toll on the party; the politics of appeasement does not work; talk of good governance still sells; caste considerations, while still relevant and on which both the Samajwadi Party and the BSP heavily rely on, now have limited appeal; and, the party which manages its macro as well as micro election strategies more smartly, using both manpower and technology, has the greater chance of victory. The outcome of the Uttar Pradesh election threw up a dilemma for the Congress: Should it continue with the tactic of over-relying on strong local leaders or fire up its own local leadership to lead the battle? By the time the Gujarat Assembly election came only months after the Uttar Pradesh poll, the Congress was still unsure on this front. For the first time in two decades, it sensed a chance to oust the BJP in the State, and yet there was also a feeling of diffidence. This led to its over-dependence on three young caste warriors whose affiliation to the Congress was tentative and their desire to align with that party was motivated by the prospect of little more than an immediate gain. It cannot be denied that they - Mevani, Hardik Patel, Alpesh Thakore- impacted the final tally to an extent, reducing the BJP’s number as compared to the 2012 figure and bettering the Congress’s. But that impact was less than expected, since the BJP did succeed in containing the damage caused by the migration of a section of the Patidar community to the Congress camp. It did appear that, as in the case of Uttar Pradesh, the Congress had placed all its eggs in the basket of local leaders from outside the party. It needs to be remembered that the BJP had been as weakened in Uttar Pradesh over the two decades preceding 2014 as the Congress had been. But while the BJP continued to work on its core strengths and weaknesses in the State, the Congress flirted with both the Samajwadi Party and the BSP in a desperate bid to regain influence. In Gujarat too, instead of focusing on the discontent in rural parts, the disruptive nature of Goods and Services Tax implementation, and the general sense of anti-incumbency of two decades, the Congress outsourced its fate to caste leaders with little political experience. In the end, it was reduced to claiming “moral victory”, which means nothing in electoral politics. The message for the BJP was that it could no longer take the voters for granted, even in Gujarat. Its tally fell by 16 seats as compared to 2012, although its vote-share went up. The party must recall the “India Shining’ moment of 2004 and understand that support can dissipate almost as quickly as it comes. Recent political history is replete with such instances: 1977, when Indira Gandhi led the Congress to a debacle and also lost in her constituency; 1980, when the Janata Party collapsed and Indira Gandhi made a grand comeback; 1989, when Rajiv Gandhi led his party to a defeat, frittering away a three-fourth mandate. Fresh battle lines will be drawn for 2018, which is a year of many important elections. If both the Congress and the BJP have absorbed the experiences of the year to soon end, we can expect fireworks that will light up the nation’s democratic landscape. The Congress will seek to protect its turf in Karnataka and Meghalaya, while the BJP can expect a fight in the States its rules — Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh. The rural-urban voting pattern will be tested in good measure, given that Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have a far larger number of rural constituencies than Gujarat has; the BJP did resoundingly well in urban Gujarat and relatively less well in the rural belt. Although each of these States has a different set of issues on which the voters will decide, common factors will be at play too. The first is the central leadership of the Congress and the BJP. As Congress president, Rahul Gandhi will now be even more than before pitted against his rival party’s principal campaigner, Modi. The second is the local leadership of the two parties. Interestingly, while both have strong leaders, there are turf issues as well among these leaders. The State-level leadership tussle, thus, could be a decisive factor. The BJP had ruled Karnataka before, and so had the Congress in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. If the BJP manages to win over Karnataka and retain the States it governs, the Congress’s prospects for 2019 would be bleak. Indeed, even a status quo would be fine for the BJP, though the loss in Karnataka can set back its plans for a south India foray. For the Congress, less than the best scenario would be to retain Karnataka and snatch at least one state from the BJP. That would be more than a ‘moral win’. The best case situation would, of course, be a complete victory in the north and the south. It’s important that the party’s new president creates his team well before these contests. Finally, there are de-railers in both the Congress and the BJP. They must be reined in. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Will Congress's fortune see a turnaround in 2018?

Until about 11 in the morning today, it was not just the Bharatiya Janata Party but also the exit pollsters that were a worried lot. The Congress had gained leads in a significant number of seats in the Gujarat Assembly election result, while the BJP was trailing. But then the trend changed and the BJP surged ahead, and maintained the lead to the end. All said and done, after cutting through various arguments and counter-arguments and nuanced commentaries, the truth was: The BJP had retained Gujarat for a sixth term and the Congress had lost the best opportunity it had in two decades to unseat the ruling party.

&nbsp;

Both victory and defeat are a result of a combination of factors, and the Gujarat outcome too is no exception. The biggest factor has been the leadership. Both the national parties did not have a chief ministerial candidate, and so they had to depend on their central leaders to work the magic. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Congress president Rahul Gandhi found themselves pitted against each other in the State, and the former has emerged victorious.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

What went right for Modi and wrong for Rahul Gandhi? That can be debated endlessly, but the fact is that the Congress&rsquo;s juggernaut of defeats shows no sign of halting &mdash; the party has lost Himachal Pradesh too, and by a massive margin &mdash; just as the BJP&rsquo;s winning spree remains on course.

&nbsp;

The Congress can claim consolation from the following two facts. The first is that its vote-share has gone up as compared to 2012; it has been around 44 per cent. And the second is that the party has secured more seats than it did in the last Assembly election. But it&rsquo;s also a fact that the BJP&rsquo;s vote-share too has been boosted as compared to the previous election&mdash; it stood at about 50 per cent. The ruling party&rsquo;s seat tally has admittedly gone down, but the situation would have been worse had the BJP not been able to compensate for its losses in certain segments of the voters from gains elsewhere.

&nbsp;

It&rsquo;s interesting that even as the Congress improved its performance, many of its senior local leaders, including Shaktisinh Gohil, Siddharth Patel and Arjun Modhawadhia, lost the battle. On the other hand, Chief Minister Vijay Rupani and Deputy Chief Minister Nitin Patel triumphed from constituencies which analysts had believed were this time lost for the party. Rupani contested from Rajkot (West) and Nitin Patel from Mehsana, and both these regions were said to harbour strong anti-BJP sentiments on account of the Patidar agitation.

&nbsp;

In leadership terms, while the BJP depended on Modi for the winning connect with the voters and party president Amit Shah for strategy, Rahul Gandhi had to look for additional support from the trio of three caste leaders &mdash; Hardik Patel, Jignesh Mevani and Alpesh Thakur. It can be said that this strategy did work for the Congress, but in a very limited sense.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

While the party gained considerable ground in Saurashtra &mdash; in fact, this was the only region where Congress was on the course to winning more seats than the BJP &mdash; on the strength of the Patidar votes, it had to pay a price through the loss in support of the tribal and the Scheduled Caste voters. And while the Congress made mild gains in central, north and south Gujarat, they were simply not enough and the BJP maintained its hegemony in those regions. Clearly, voters were not too happy with the Congress&rsquo;s brazen caste politics.

&nbsp;

It should also be kept in mind that while the Patidar votes effectively split and caused damage to the BJP given that the party had a complete hold over this community in the 2012 poll, all was not altogether lost. According to a survey, while the result was pouring in, the BJP managed to gain significantly in a majority of the 39 seats where the Patidar factor was decisive.

&nbsp;

If the Patidar factor fetched limits gains for the Congress, the party&rsquo;s diatribe against the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) failed to work. The BJP swept the commercial cities of Surat, Ahmedabad and Rajkot &mdash; in all of which the trader community was reportedly upset with the ruling party on the issue and supposedly planning to vote against the BJP. The development reminds me of the remark that a businessman in Mehsana had made when I asked him about GST: &ldquo;We may be upset but that does not mean we will vote against the BJP.&rdquo; The BJP can now claim with confidence that the voters of Gujarat have endorsed GST and demonetisation.

&nbsp;

The other interesting factor is the result on seats that voted in the first phase and the second phase. Of the 89 seats that voted in the first round, the BJP won more than half the seats. But in the 93 seats that voted in the second phase, the party swept with more than 60 seats. There are two reasons for this outcome. The first is that Saurashtra, which happened to be the BJP&rsquo;s weak spot this time, voted in the earlier round, and the results reflect that. The second reason is more interesting. It was in the run-up to the second phase that several controversies, including personal slights against Prime Minister Modi came up, and Modi seized the issues to harp on Gujarati pride.

&nbsp;

The BJP has reason to celebrate, given that it has emerged victorious in the face of the most determined onslaught by the Congress in decades and a caste-combination that positioned itself against the ruling party. However, the party cannot brush under the carpet trends that are worrisome for it.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Bharat-India divide was evident in the State election result. Of the 98 seats that fall in rural Gujarat, the majority went to the Congress, while the BJP swept the 53 urban seats. It is evident that the farmer&rsquo;s distress worked against the BJP. Whether the farmer discontent is perceptional, given that the party has been repeatedly saying that agricultural growth in the State has touched 10 per cent over the last five years, is immaterial. If the party does not handle the rural discontent, it could face bigger challenges in the 2019 Lok Sabha poll.

&nbsp;

Similarly, the party has to find ways to win over the Patidar community. Hardik Patel appeared belligerent at a Press conference this afternoon, refusing to accept the BJP&rsquo;s win and claiming that the victory was the result of rigged electronic voting machines. More importantly, he has announced a re-invigorated agitation for reservations. The party cannot depend on a split Patidar community to see it through every time or see its narrative of development alone to fetch triumphs.

&nbsp;

Having blown away a golden opportunity, the Congress, now formally led by Rahul Gandhi, needs to re-evaluate its strategy. It&rsquo;s possible that voices will emerge, yet again, of a grand coalition to take on the Modi-led BJP. Will that happen, and will the potential partners accept Rahul Gandhi&rsquo;s leadership, only time will tell.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

Of the 98 seats that fall in rural Gujarat, the majority went to the Congress, while the BJP swept the 53 urban seats. It is evident that the farmer?s distress worked against the BJP.

Until about 11 in the morning today, it was not just the Bharatiya Janata Party but also the exit pollsters that were a worried lot. The Congress had gained leads in a significant number of seats in the Gujarat Assembly election result, while the BJP was trailing. But then the trend changed and the BJP surged ahead, and maintained the lead to the end. All said and done, after cutting through various arguments and counter-arguments and nuanced commentaries, the truth was: The BJP had retained Gujarat for a sixth term and the Congress had lost the best opportunity it had in two decades to unseat the ruling party. Both victory and defeat are a result of a combination of factors, and the Gujarat outcome too is no exception. The biggest factor has been the leadership. Both the national parties did not have a chief ministerial candidate, and so they had to depend on their central leaders to work the magic. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Congress president Rahul Gandhi found themselves pitted against each other in the State, and the former has emerged victorious. What went right for Modi and wrong for Rahul Gandhi? That can be debated endlessly, but the fact is that the Congress’s juggernaut of defeats shows no sign of halting — the party has lost Himachal Pradesh too, and by a massive margin — just as the BJP’s winning spree remains on course. The Congress can claim consolation from the following two facts. The first is that its vote-share has gone up as compared to 2012; it has been around 44 per cent. And the second is that the party has secured more seats than it did in the last Assembly election. But it’s also a fact that the BJP’s vote-share too has been boosted as compared to the previous election— it stood at about 50 per cent. The ruling party’s seat tally has admittedly gone down, but the situation would have been worse had the BJP not been able to compensate for its losses in certain segments of the voters from gains elsewhere. It’s interesting that even as the Congress improved its performance, many of its senior local leaders, including Shaktisinh Gohil, Siddharth Patel and Arjun Modhawadhia, lost the battle. On the other hand, Chief Minister Vijay Rupani and Deputy Chief Minister Nitin Patel triumphed from constituencies which analysts had believed were this time lost for the party. Rupani contested from Rajkot (West) and Nitin Patel from Mehsana, and both these regions were said to harbour strong anti-BJP sentiments on account of the Patidar agitation. In leadership terms, while the BJP depended on Modi for the winning connect with the voters and party president Amit Shah for strategy, Rahul Gandhi had to look for additional support from the trio of three caste leaders — Hardik Patel, Jignesh Mevani and Alpesh Thakur. It can be said that this strategy did work for the Congress, but in a very limited sense. While the party gained considerable ground in Saurashtra — in fact, this was the only region where Congress was on the course to winning more seats than the BJP — on the strength of the Patidar votes, it had to pay a price through the loss in support of the tribal and the Scheduled Caste voters. And while the Congress made mild gains in central, north and south Gujarat, they were simply not enough and the BJP maintained its hegemony in those regions. Clearly, voters were not too happy with the Congress’s brazen caste politics. It should also be kept in mind that while the Patidar votes effectively split and caused damage to the BJP given that the party had a complete hold over this community in the 2012 poll, all was not altogether lost. According to a survey, while the result was pouring in, the BJP managed to gain significantly in a majority of the 39 seats where the Patidar factor was decisive. If the Patidar factor fetched limits gains for the Congress, the party’s diatribe against the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) failed to work. The BJP swept the commercial cities of Surat, Ahmedabad and Rajkot — in all of which the trader community was reportedly upset with the ruling party on the issue and supposedly planning to vote against the BJP. The development reminds me of the remark that a businessman in Mehsana had made when I asked him about GST: “We may be upset but that does not mean we will vote against the BJP.” The BJP can now claim with confidence that the voters of Gujarat have endorsed GST and demonetisation. The other interesting factor is the result on seats that voted in the first phase and the second phase. Of the 89 seats that voted in the first round, the BJP won more than half the seats. But in the 93 seats that voted in the second phase, the party swept with more than 60 seats. There are two reasons for this outcome. The first is that Saurashtra, which happened to be the BJP’s weak spot this time, voted in the earlier round, and the results reflect that. The second reason is more interesting. It was in the run-up to the second phase that several controversies, including personal slights against Prime Minister Modi came up, and Modi seized the issues to harp on Gujarati pride. The BJP has reason to celebrate, given that it has emerged victorious in the face of the most determined onslaught by the Congress in decades and a caste-combination that positioned itself against the ruling party. However, the party cannot brush under the carpet trends that are worrisome for it. The Bharat-India divide was evident in the State election result. Of the 98 seats that fall in rural Gujarat, the majority went to the Congress, while the BJP swept the 53 urban seats. It is evident that the farmer’s distress worked against the BJP. Whether the farmer discontent is perceptional, given that the party has been repeatedly saying that agricultural growth in the State has touched 10 per cent over the last five years, is immaterial. If the party does not handle the rural discontent, it could face bigger challenges in the 2019 Lok Sabha poll. Similarly, the party has to find ways to win over the Patidar community. Hardik Patel appeared belligerent at a Press conference this afternoon, refusing to accept the BJP’s win and claiming that the victory was the result of rigged electronic voting machines. More importantly, he has announced a re-invigorated agitation for reservations. The party cannot depend on a split Patidar community to see it through every time or see its narrative of development alone to fetch triumphs. Having blown away a golden opportunity, the Congress, now formally led by Rahul Gandhi, needs to re-evaluate its strategy. It’s possible that voices will emerge, yet again, of a grand coalition to take on the Modi-led BJP. Will that happen, and will the potential partners accept Rahul Gandhi’s leadership, only time will tell. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Gujarat election displayed Bharat-India divide

Exit polls in the country have gone terribly wrong in the past. They have either underestimated the projected loser or overestimated the predicted winner. At times, these findings have even underestimated the numbers the eventual winner got, and the recent Uttar Pradesh Assembly election is the most recent example of that. On the other hand, exit polls have also been straws in the wind, showcasing a general trend that gets reflected in the actual results. In any case, there is nothing but these numbers one can debate upon until the votes are counted.

Even the stock market goes by the temporary numbers; the Sensex opened on a high on Friday. On Thursday, half a dozen exit polls conducted by psephologists on Gujarat for television news channels were in agreement that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party would gain at least a simple majority and return to power. The margin of victory fluctuated, though. The reaction of the Congress and the BJP was interestingly similar. Both said the outcome on December 18 would be better than predicted, in their respective interests.

Simplistically put, there are two ways to interpret the exit poll results. The first is from the Congress&rsquo;s angle and the other is from the BJP&rsquo;s perspective. Most pollsters have projected an improved performance by the Congress as compared to its 2012 showing. This is reflected in the number of seats and vote-share. The Congress can claim that it gave a real fight to the BJP this time around under Rahul Gandhi&rsquo;s leadership. The party can also gloat that it could wean away a sizeable section of the Patidar community, who have for decades staunchly supported the BJP, to its side. The Congress can also say that it succeeded in busting the &lsquo;myth&rsquo; of the Gujarat Model, which is especially reflected in the support the party has received in rural Gujarat.

None of the above is an entirely empty boast. By most exit poll estimates, the Congress did manage to split Patidar votes in its favour; its vote share and seats have gone up since 2012, and it has done well in the rural belt of Gujarat riding on discontent over farmer&#39;s distress. However, despite all this tailwind and the formation of a novel caste- grouping comprising the Other Backward Class, the Scheduled Castes and the Patidar community, the best that one exit pollster gave the Congress was 82 seats out of a total 182.

Compare this to the worst that the BJP has been projected to end up with - 99 seats - and it becomes obvious that the Congress&rsquo;s best falls way short of the requirement. Besides, if this is all that the party can manage after having invested everything it had in the election, and with the starting advantage of more than two decades of anti-incumbency that the BJP ought to have faced, then by all objective reasoning the country&rsquo;s oldest political party has failed. And, for the record, the best that the BJP has been given by an exit poll agency is 135 seats &mdash; with the prospect of a higher eventual number.

If the exit poll results hold on December 18, the Congress will need to find suitable scapegoats. Perhaps the process has been put into motion. The Electronic Voting Machine is a prime suspect, and so is the institution of the Election Commission of India &mdash; against whom Congress supporters agitated on the streets in an unprecedented show of hostility. A Congress spokesperson even went to the extent of calling the ECI a &ldquo;puppet&rdquo; of the Union Government. The Congress is also likely to attribute its loss to the &ldquo;divisive&rdquo; campaign the BJP and launched and for having &ldquo;misled&rdquo; the people. It should not be imagined even in the wildest dreams that the newly minted Congress president Rahul Gandhi will be held accountable for the defeat.

From the BJP&rsquo;s view, the exit poll results are a source of comfort. If they are reflected on December 18, it would mean that the party has overpowered anti-incumbency for two decades. But more importantly, it would have successfully neutralised the Patidar agitation against it, which had threatened to unseat the party. Exit poll findings have shown that the BJP has done well to retain a significant section of the Patidar votes across the State, including in Saurashtra and north Gujarat where the community has a dominant presence in electoral terms. True, it has lost ground in the region according the poll projections, to the Hardik Patel factor which worked in the Congress&rsquo;s favour, but not to the extent of staring at a catastrophe.

Going by the exit poll findings, the BJP has not just contained the Patidar damage but also managed to compensate for the loss by winning over a majority of the tribal and OBC votes. In the run-up to the two-phased election, commentators had observed that the party could work on the discontent among the OBCs over the Congress&rsquo;s support to Patidar reservation. This it seems to have done with results that offer a measure of self-satisfaction. According to one exit poll finding, even a significant section of the Thakore community to which OBC leader and Congressman Alpesh Thakore belongs, voted for the BJP. In sum, the Congress, in its desire to run after the Patidar votes, has lost the tribal and the OBC voters &mdash; all of whom the BJP gratefully lapped up.

Having outwitted the Congress in caste calculation &mdash; the major plank on which for the Congress was overly dependent to snatch power &mdash; the BJP was left with no real challenge. The &lsquo;lack of development&rsquo; narrative against the BJP simply did not work for the Congress. The Congress&rsquo;s other offensives, such as personal attacks by its senior leaders and allies on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the after-thought of &lsquo;me-too Hindu&rsquo; campaign by Rahul Gandhi, served to weaken the opposition party&rsquo;s narrative. If the exit poll results get vindicated on December 18, Rahul Gandhi will have begun his innings as president on a dismal note.

The impact could be cascading; Assembly elections are due for a clutch of important States in the next year, including in Karnataka &mdash; the only major State besides Punjab where the Congress is in power. And there is the Lok Sabha poll, which is less than two years away. If indeed the Congress is the vanquished one, come Monday, there is one lesson that it must learn at all costs: It does not pay to outsource leadership. It had paid the price in Uttar Pradesh where it placed its future at Akhilesh Yadav&rsquo;s doorstep. It did the same in Gujarat, depending more on the HAJ factor (Hardik-Alpesh- Jignesh) rather than on its core strengths and issues which it alone had the credibility to raise.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

The BJP has not just contained the Patidar damage but also managed to compensate for the loss by winning over a majority of the tribal and OBC votes

Exit polls in the country have gone terribly wrong in the past. They have either underestimated the projected loser or overestimated the predicted winner. At times, these findings have even underestimated the numbers the eventual winner got, and the recent Uttar Pradesh Assembly election is the most recent example of that. On the other hand, exit polls have also been straws in the wind, showcasing a general trend that gets reflected in the actual results. In any case, there is nothing but these numbers one can debate upon until the votes are counted. Even the stock market goes by the temporary numbers; the Sensex opened on a high on Friday. On Thursday, half a dozen exit polls conducted by psephologists on Gujarat for television news channels were in agreement that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party would gain at least a simple majority and return to power. The margin of victory fluctuated, though. The reaction of the Congress and the BJP was interestingly similar. Both said the outcome on December 18 would be better than predicted, in their respective interests. Simplistically put, there are two ways to interpret the exit poll results. The first is from the Congress’s angle and the other is from the BJP’s perspective. Most pollsters have projected an improved performance by the Congress as compared to its 2012 showing. This is reflected in the number of seats and vote-share. The Congress can claim that it gave a real fight to the BJP this time around under Rahul Gandhi’s leadership. The party can also gloat that it could wean away a sizeable section of the Patidar community, who have for decades staunchly supported the BJP, to its side. The Congress can also say that it succeeded in busting the ‘myth’ of the Gujarat Model, which is especially reflected in the support the party has received in rural Gujarat. None of the above is an entirely empty boast. By most exit poll estimates, the Congress did manage to split Patidar votes in its favour; its vote share and seats have gone up since 2012, and it has done well in the rural belt of Gujarat riding on discontent over farmer's distress. However, despite all this tailwind and the formation of a novel caste- grouping comprising the Other Backward Class, the Scheduled Castes and the Patidar community, the best that one exit pollster gave the Congress was 82 seats out of a total 182. Compare this to the worst that the BJP has been projected to end up with - 99 seats - and it becomes obvious that the Congress’s best falls way short of the requirement. Besides, if this is all that the party can manage after having invested everything it had in the election, and with the starting advantage of more than two decades of anti-incumbency that the BJP ought to have faced, then by all objective reasoning the country’s oldest political party has failed. And, for the record, the best that the BJP has been given by an exit poll agency is 135 seats — with the prospect of a higher eventual number. If the exit poll results hold on December 18, the Congress will need to find suitable scapegoats. Perhaps the process has been put into motion. The Electronic Voting Machine is a prime suspect, and so is the institution of the Election Commission of India — against whom Congress supporters agitated on the streets in an unprecedented show of hostility. A Congress spokesperson even went to the extent of calling the ECI a “puppet” of the Union Government. The Congress is also likely to attribute its loss to the “divisive” campaign the BJP and launched and for having “misled” the people. It should not be imagined even in the wildest dreams that the newly minted Congress president Rahul Gandhi will be held accountable for the defeat. From the BJP’s view, the exit poll results are a source of comfort. If they are reflected on December 18, it would mean that the party has overpowered anti-incumbency for two decades. But more importantly, it would have successfully neutralised the Patidar agitation against it, which had threatened to unseat the party. Exit poll findings have shown that the BJP has done well to retain a significant section of the Patidar votes across the State, including in Saurashtra and north Gujarat where the community has a dominant presence in electoral terms. True, it has lost ground in the region according the poll projections, to the Hardik Patel factor which worked in the Congress’s favour, but not to the extent of staring at a catastrophe. Going by the exit poll findings, the BJP has not just contained the Patidar damage but also managed to compensate for the loss by winning over a majority of the tribal and OBC votes. In the run-up to the two-phased election, commentators had observed that the party could work on the discontent among the OBCs over the Congress’s support to Patidar reservation. This it seems to have done with results that offer a measure of self-satisfaction. According to one exit poll finding, even a significant section of the Thakore community to which OBC leader and Congressman Alpesh Thakore belongs, voted for the BJP. In sum, the Congress, in its desire to run after the Patidar votes, has lost the tribal and the OBC voters — all of whom the BJP gratefully lapped up. Having outwitted the Congress in caste calculation — the major plank on which for the Congress was overly dependent to snatch power — the BJP was left with no real challenge. The ‘lack of development’ narrative against the BJP simply did not work for the Congress. The Congress’s other offensives, such as personal attacks by its senior leaders and allies on Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the after-thought of ‘me-too Hindu’ campaign by Rahul Gandhi, served to weaken the opposition party’s narrative. If the exit poll results get vindicated on December 18, Rahul Gandhi will have begun his innings as president on a dismal note. The impact could be cascading; Assembly elections are due for a clutch of important States in the next year, including in Karnataka — the only major State besides Punjab where the Congress is in power. And there is the Lok Sabha poll, which is less than two years away. If indeed the Congress is the vanquished one, come Monday, there is one lesson that it must learn at all costs: It does not pay to outsource leadership. It had paid the price in Uttar Pradesh where it placed its future at Akhilesh Yadav’s doorstep. It did the same in Gujarat, depending more on the HAJ factor (Hardik-Alpesh- Jignesh) rather than on its core strengths and issues which it alone had the credibility to raise. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Exit poll comforts BJP; Congress may have to look for scapegoats

In exactly a week from now, we shall know whether the Lotus has bloomed or the Hand has swept aside its rivals in Gujarat. We shall also know whether Rahul Gandhi begins his new innings as Congress president with a morale-boosting win or a defeat for which his minions will need to scamper to find scapegoats. And, we shall know too if Prime Minister Narendra Modi approaches the forthcoming electoral challenges after having being endorsed as Gujarat&rsquo;s Pride or rejected in his own backyard. Both sides are confident of a decisive victory, but that is only to be expected. One has to lose and will lose. After all, while many scenarios have been discussed, none has ventured to suggest a hung Assembly where the winner-loser is unclear.

Election campaigns are composed of several issues, and it is rare for just one or two of these to determine the outcome. The 2014 Lok Sabha poll was one such exception where corruption and policy paralysis alone doomed the Congress. Various other matters, factual or perceptional, became subordinate to this twin overriding narrative. In the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election held earlier this year, the two issues that tamed the Samajwadi Party were minority appeasement and poor law and order.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The Gujarat campaign began in a simple enough manner, giving hope to the plethora of commentators of a fairly accurate assessment.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The Gujarat campaign began in a simple enough manner, giving hope to the plethora of commentators of a fairly accurate assessment." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The Bihar Assembly poll was fought and won by the Lalu Prasad-Nitish Kumar combine (which has since evaporated) on pure caste arithmetic. Aside these, elections are contested and decided on multiple grounds, and this makes the democratic exercise all the more challenging &mdash; and even more challenging to predict. Rare is that political commentator who is able to say, with some amount of accuracy, that a particular issue would be the dominant factor. In hindsight, once the results are known, there are many to &lsquo;analyse&rsquo; the impact of one strand or the other.

The Gujarat campaign began in a simple enough manner, giving hope to the plethora of commentators of a fairly accurate assessment. Led by Prime Minister Modi, the Bharatiya Janata Party went on an overdrive, listing its achievements in the State over the two decades of its rule &mdash; especially the period 2002-14 when Modi was the Chief Minister. The Gujarat Model of development was showcased, the ease of doing the business ranking of the World Bank was flaunted, the upgrade in the country&rsquo;s ratings by Moody&rsquo;s was quoted, the robustness of the Indian economy was pointed out, and the &lsquo;exemplary&rsquo; law and order situation in the State was underlined. The Congress sought to pick holes in the Gujarat Model by citing matters of unemployment, poor social welfare indices, farmers&rsquo; distress etc.

Thereafter, as the campaign picked momentum, the issue of reservation for the Patidar community gained ground. While it was there from the beginning, the matter received heft after the Congress and Patidar leader Hardik Patel joined hands officially. Once the Congress formally endorsed Patidar reservation, the BJP swung into action, first by projecting that the Patidars were a divided lot and that the sensible among them &mdash; who according to BJP leaders were in a majority &mdash; would remain loyal to the BJP. Second, the ruling party forcefully projected the &lsquo;impossibility&rsquo; of the reservation in constitutional terms and said the Congress was taking the Patidars for a ride.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The BJP had been keeping an eye on Rahul Gandhi&rsquo;s sudden devotion to temples; by some accounts, he has visited more than a dozen of them during his campaigns in the State.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The BJP had been keeping an eye on Rahul Gandhi?s sudden devotion to temples; by some accounts, he has visited more than a dozen of them during his campaigns in the State." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

So far, the going was simple enough and the commentators were still a happy lot. The BJP pitched for inclusive development (reminding voters of its past record and promising more of the same for the future) while the Congress aggressively pushed for reservation as an affirmative action to benefit the Patidars who form nearly 12 per cent of the population in Gujarat. The caste rainbow of Patidar-OBC-Scheduled Caste, which the Congress had quickly put out, was supposed to extinguish the BJP&rsquo;s flame of hope. Then, the development versus reservation narrative began to change.

For some time, the BJP had been keeping an eye on Rahul Gandhi&rsquo;s sudden devotion to temples; by some accounts, he has visited more than a dozen of them during his campaigns in the State. But after his trip to the Somnath temple, the party got an opportunity to say something. Somebody supposedly from the Congress leader&rsquo;s side entered his name as a non-Hindu visitor to the temple. BJP leaders were quick to demand an explanation. The Congress fell in the trap and one of its senior functionaries claimed that Rahul Gandhi was a &ldquo;Janeu-dhari (sacred thread wearing) Hindu&rdquo;. To top this, Rahul Gandhi said he was a Shiva devotee! His acolytes then went on to speculate on the religious affiliations of both the Prime Minister and BJP president Amit Shah.

The sudden turn towards religion, on which the Congress generally finds itself on the defensive given that the BJP leaders make no bones about where their inclinations lie, shaped the narrative even more decidedly when senior Congress leader and noted lawyer Kapil Sibal demanded that the Supreme Court postpone the hearing on the Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute case, and take it up after the 2019 Lok Sabha election. The direct linkage of the dispute with politics left the Congress red-faced. Worse, even the litigants who had hired Sibal condemned the senior advocate&rsquo;s stand and said they wanted an early hearing and quick settlement of the issue.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The manner in which the BJP latched on to the issue at his public rallies and converted it into a major talking point, should have alerted the Congress against more self-goals.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The manner in which the BJP latched on to the issue at his public rallies and converted it into a major talking point, should have alerted the Congress against more self-goals." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The manner in which the BJP, especially Prime Minister Modi, latched on to the issue at his public rallies and converted it into a major talking point, should have alerted the Congress against more self-goals. After all, it suited the opposite party to target the BJP on the issues of reservation and lack of real and inclusive development. But, perhaps already confident that they were winning Gujarat, senior Congress leaders breached the red line. Mani Shankar Aiyar called the Prime Minister &ldquo;neech&rdquo;, &nbsp;a term which Modi and his team ran swiftly to the electorate and termed it as a slight to his social status of being an OBC. Now, the BJP used the occasion to not just strike at the Congress for its &lsquo;elitist&rsquo; and &lsquo;feudal&rsquo; mindset but also quoted the abuse as an insult to Gujarati asmita (pride).

Had these blunders come in the early stages of electioneering, the Congress could have had a better chance of glossing over them or having them dominated by other, fresher issues. But they have come towards the end stages of campaigning, and their recall value is, therefore, more likely. Does this mean that religion and personal abuse will eventually determine the outcome? The Congress must be hoping to the contrary, and the BJP praying that the issues click.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

The Congress aggressively pushed for reservation as an affirmative action to benefit the Patidars who form nearly 12 per cent of the population in Gujarat

In exactly a week from now, we shall know whether the Lotus has bloomed or the Hand has swept aside its rivals in Gujarat. We shall also know whether Rahul Gandhi begins his new innings as Congress president with a morale-boosting win or a defeat for which his minions will need to scamper to find scapegoats. And, we shall know too if Prime Minister Narendra Modi approaches the forthcoming electoral challenges after having being endorsed as Gujarat’s Pride or rejected in his own backyard. Both sides are confident of a decisive victory, but that is only to be expected. One has to lose and will lose. After all, while many scenarios have been discussed, none has ventured to suggest a hung Assembly where the winner-loser is unclear. Election campaigns are composed of several issues, and it is rare for just one or two of these to determine the outcome. The 2014 Lok Sabha poll was one such exception where corruption and policy paralysis alone doomed the Congress. Various other matters, factual or perceptional, became subordinate to this twin overriding narrative. In the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election held earlier this year, the two issues that tamed the Samajwadi Party were minority appeasement and poor law and order. The Gujarat campaign began in a simple enough manner, giving hope to the plethora of commentators of a fairly accurate assessment. × The Bihar Assembly poll was fought and won by the Lalu Prasad-Nitish Kumar combine (which has since evaporated) on pure caste arithmetic. Aside these, elections are contested and decided on multiple grounds, and this makes the democratic exercise all the more challenging — and even more challenging to predict. Rare is that political commentator who is able to say, with some amount of accuracy, that a particular issue would be the dominant factor. In hindsight, once the results are known, there are many to ‘analyse’ the impact of one strand or the other. The Gujarat campaign began in a simple enough manner, giving hope to the plethora of commentators of a fairly accurate assessment. Led by Prime Minister Modi, the Bharatiya Janata Party went on an overdrive, listing its achievements in the State over the two decades of its rule — especially the period 2002-14 when Modi was the Chief Minister. The Gujarat Model of development was showcased, the ease of doing the business ranking of the World Bank was flaunted, the upgrade in the country’s ratings by Moody’s was quoted, the robustness of the Indian economy was pointed out, and the ‘exemplary’ law and order situation in the State was underlined. The Congress sought to pick holes in the Gujarat Model by citing matters of unemployment, poor social welfare indices, farmers’ distress etc. Thereafter, as the campaign picked momentum, the issue of reservation for the Patidar community gained ground. While it was there from the beginning, the matter received heft after the Congress and Patidar leader Hardik Patel joined hands officially. Once the Congress formally endorsed Patidar reservation, the BJP swung into action, first by projecting that the Patidars were a divided lot and that the sensible among them — who according to BJP leaders were in a majority — would remain loyal to the BJP. Second, the ruling party forcefully projected the ‘impossibility’ of the reservation in constitutional terms and said the Congress was taking the Patidars for a ride. The BJP had been keeping an eye on Rahul Gandhi’s sudden devotion to temples; by some accounts, he has visited more than a dozen of them during his campaigns in the State. × So far, the going was simple enough and the commentators were still a happy lot. The BJP pitched for inclusive development (reminding voters of its past record and promising more of the same for the future) while the Congress aggressively pushed for reservation as an affirmative action to benefit the Patidars who form nearly 12 per cent of the population in Gujarat. The caste rainbow of Patidar-OBC-Scheduled Caste, which the Congress had quickly put out, was supposed to extinguish the BJP’s flame of hope. Then, the development versus reservation narrative began to change. For some time, the BJP had been keeping an eye on Rahul Gandhi’s sudden devotion to temples; by some accounts, he has visited more than a dozen of them during his campaigns in the State. But after his trip to the Somnath temple, the party got an opportunity to say something. Somebody supposedly from the Congress leader’s side entered his name as a non-Hindu visitor to the temple. BJP leaders were quick to demand an explanation. The Congress fell in the trap and one of its senior functionaries claimed that Rahul Gandhi was a “Janeu-dhari (sacred thread wearing) Hindu”. To top this, Rahul Gandhi said he was a Shiva devotee! His acolytes then went on to speculate on the religious affiliations of both the Prime Minister and BJP president Amit Shah. The sudden turn towards religion, on which the Congress generally finds itself on the defensive given that the BJP leaders make no bones about where their inclinations lie, shaped the narrative even more decidedly when senior Congress leader and noted lawyer Kapil Sibal demanded that the Supreme Court postpone the hearing on the Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute case, and take it up after the 2019 Lok Sabha election. The direct linkage of the dispute with politics left the Congress red-faced. Worse, even the litigants who had hired Sibal condemned the senior advocate’s stand and said they wanted an early hearing and quick settlement of the issue. The manner in which the BJP latched on to the issue at his public rallies and converted it into a major talking point, should have alerted the Congress against more self-goals. × The manner in which the BJP, especially Prime Minister Modi, latched on to the issue at his public rallies and converted it into a major talking point, should have alerted the Congress against more self-goals. After all, it suited the opposite party to target the BJP on the issues of reservation and lack of real and inclusive development. But, perhaps already confident that they were winning Gujarat, senior Congress leaders breached the red line. Mani Shankar Aiyar called the Prime Minister “neech”, a term which Modi and his team ran swiftly to the electorate and termed it as a slight to his social status of being an OBC. Now, the BJP used the occasion to not just strike at the Congress for its ‘elitist’ and ‘feudal’ mindset but also quoted the abuse as an insult to Gujarati asmita (pride). Had these blunders come in the early stages of electioneering, the Congress could have had a better chance of glossing over them or having them dominated by other, fresher issues. But they have come towards the end stages of campaigning, and their recall value is, therefore, more likely. Does this mean that religion and personal abuse will eventually determine the outcome? The Congress must be hoping to the contrary, and the BJP praying that the issues click. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: Gujarat elections, a litmus test for Rahul

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.