After their first significant electoral victories in 1967, the then Jan Sangh, BJP’s precursor, embarked on a series of informal alliances with princely notables in Madhya Pradesh, who were not only deeply influential in central India, but were, until then, staunch supporters of the Congress Party. &nbsp;

Much later, in the 1980s and 1990s, LK Advani and others in the BJP, continued this policy, broad basing it to include a vast spectrum of people and celebrities, who were not in any way related to the RSS or traditional Sangh politics. &nbsp;

Cut to 2019, when BJP is in a pole position in Indian politics, particularly after Narendra Modi’s second emphatic victory, obviously there is a queue to join the party. &nbsp;In many ways, the contrast could not have been starker. Since the 1960s, when the Jan Sangh was a pariah, seeking reluctant allies, to 2019 when political leaders of all hues are making a beeline to get into the party, is a long-distance travelled. &nbsp;

However, the BJP needs to exercise caution with rampant poaching — read defection exercises — that has led to politicians of various shapes and sizes, lining up to join the party in power. These days, not a week goes without someone or the other, in many cases even political heavyweights, joining the BJP. &nbsp; &nbsp;To be sure, party-hopping in not a new phenomenon in this country, and well precedes the advent of Narendra Modi. Every general election or Assembly poll is invariably accompanied by individual politicians, mostly local notables, transferring their loyalties from one party to another.&nbsp;

This switch is usually based on the ‘winnability’ factor. If an anticipated swing in favour of one party is complemented by a person’s local appeal, success is more or less guaranteed. On their part, political parties aren’t exactly selective about admitting turncoats, who may have been attacking them just the other day!

The pre-election switches may be uneven, but not exactly unethical, because if the electorate decides to back rank defectors, there is nothing that anyone can say or do.&nbsp;

This process of aya Rams and gaya Rams merely reinforce — if indeed any reinforcement was needed — that political parties, given the extreme diversity and vastness of Indian society, can scarcely be ideological at all, even loosely.&nbsp;

It would, therefore, be a mistake to describe the BJP as an ideological party, not the least by its own supporters, let alone critiques on the Left-Liberal end of the spectrum. To propose therefore that the BJP is entirely controlled by the RSS, is inaccurate. This may have held true for the early Jana Sangh, but over the decades the BJP has evolved into something far bigger than just the Sangh Parivar. There is little doubt that the RSS’s inputs to the BJP’s ultimate execution of its programmes are very significant, but the party’s stalwarts like Advani believed long ago that to expand its footprints, the BJP would have to move beyond a strictly regimented existence, something that the Left in India was unable to do. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

A look at the BJP’s leadership today, particularly in states where it has come to establish a presence only recently, will help to elucidate this point. Local BJP units, many of them set up newly, have to factor in local issues and deal with new entrants into the party fold, who do not come from the traditional saffron fold. They could belong to the Congress or even a regional party. To be sure, the RSS does provide the cohesion needed, but BJP’s horizontal, nationwide expansion, is its own doing.&nbsp;

Typically of India, the situation varies from one state to the other. In West Bengal and Tripura, the BJP was a very small party until quite recently. It constituted individuals associated with the Sangh Parivar, not all of them familiar with the ways of conducting electoral politics.

Many individuals from the Trinamool Congress and Congress who joined the BJP after 2014 or even just before the 2019 election, were better equipped to fight elections than the old-timers. &nbsp;

It would be fair to say that the remarkably good performance of the BJP in these two states, is thanks in the main to these new inductees, who skillfully harnessed the larger popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi for electoral gains.&nbsp;

Such political integration is, however, not without its downside. In West Bengal, after the BJP’s electoral triumph in the Lok Sabha elections, there have been tensions in the local party unit on differing perceptions of Sangh old-timers and recent entrants. &nbsp;

A look at recent defections to the BJP in Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra, presents a different side of the problem. The implications of destabilising the HD Kumara Swamy government in Bangalore is being attributed to a lack of political ethics, because the provocation was triggered by Modi’s resounding mandate.

Yet, it would be instructive to remember that the Congress — Janata Dal (S) coalition that came into existence after the Assembly election in Karnataka last year, was itself steeped in rank opportunism. Both the parties had contested the polls bitterly against each other. Under the circumstances, replacing one unprincipled combination with another may hardly be deemed unethical.&nbsp;

Having said that, the BJP would be well-advised not to lose its original hallmark — party with a difference. The 2019 victory was prompted by peoples’expectations and coming so soon after that mandate, the murky games in Karnataka, Goa and poll-bound Maharashtra could make the party lose its moral sheen. 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-defections-and-poaching-2778104">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

After their first significant electoral victories in 1967, the then Jan Sangh, BJP’s precursor, embarked on a series of informal alliances with princely notables in Madhya Pradesh, who were not only deeply influential in central India, but were, until then, staunch supporters of the Congress Party.

After their first significant electoral victories in 1967, the then Jan Sangh, BJP’s precursor, embarked on a series of informal alliances with princely notables in Madhya Pradesh, who were not only deeply influential in central India, but were, until then, staunch supporters of the Congress Party. Much later, in the 1980s and 1990s, LK Advani and others in the BJP, continued this policy, broad basing it to include a vast spectrum of people and celebrities, who were not in any way related to the RSS or traditional Sangh politics. Cut to 2019, when BJP is in a pole position in Indian politics, particularly after Narendra Modi’s second emphatic victory, obviously there is a queue to join the party. In many ways, the contrast could not have been starker. Since the 1960s, when the Jan Sangh was a pariah, seeking reluctant allies, to 2019 when political leaders of all hues are making a beeline to get into the party, is a long-distance travelled. However, the BJP needs to exercise caution with rampant poaching — read defection exercises — that has led to politicians of various shapes and sizes, lining up to join the party in power. These days, not a week goes without someone or the other, in many cases even political heavyweights, joining the BJP. To be sure, party-hopping in not a new phenomenon in this country, and well precedes the advent of Narendra Modi. Every general election or Assembly poll is invariably accompanied by individual politicians, mostly local notables, transferring their loyalties from one party to another. This switch is usually based on the ‘winnability’ factor. If an anticipated swing in favour of one party is complemented by a person’s local appeal, success is more or less guaranteed. On their part, political parties aren’t exactly selective about admitting turncoats, who may have been attacking them just the other day! The pre-election switches may be uneven, but not exactly unethical, because if the electorate decides to back rank defectors, there is nothing that anyone can say or do. This process of aya Rams and gaya Rams merely reinforce — if indeed any reinforcement was needed — that political parties, given the extreme diversity and vastness of Indian society, can scarcely be ideological at all, even loosely. It would, therefore, be a mistake to describe the BJP as an ideological party, not the least by its own supporters, let alone critiques on the Left-Liberal end of the spectrum. To propose therefore that the BJP is entirely controlled by the RSS, is inaccurate. This may have held true for the early Jana Sangh, but over the decades the BJP has evolved into something far bigger than just the Sangh Parivar. There is little doubt that the RSS’s inputs to the BJP’s ultimate execution of its programmes are very significant, but the party’s stalwarts like Advani believed long ago that to expand its footprints, the BJP would have to move beyond a strictly regimented existence, something that the Left in India was unable to do. A look at the BJP’s leadership today, particularly in states where it has come to establish a presence only recently, will help to elucidate this point. Local BJP units, many of them set up newly, have to factor in local issues and deal with new entrants into the party fold, who do not come from the traditional saffron fold. They could belong to the Congress or even a regional party. To be sure, the RSS does provide the cohesion needed, but BJP’s horizontal, nationwide expansion, is its own doing. Typically of India, the situation varies from one state to the other. In West Bengal and Tripura, the BJP was a very small party until quite recently. It constituted individuals associated with the Sangh Parivar, not all of them familiar with the ways of conducting electoral politics. Many individuals from the Trinamool Congress and Congress who joined the BJP after 2014 or even just before the 2019 election, were better equipped to fight elections than the old-timers. It would be fair to say that the remarkably good performance of the BJP in these two states, is thanks in the main to these new inductees, who skillfully harnessed the larger popularity of Prime Minister Narendra Modi for electoral gains. Such political integration is, however, not without its downside. In West Bengal, after the BJP’s electoral triumph in the Lok Sabha elections, there have been tensions in the local party unit on differing perceptions of Sangh old-timers and recent entrants. A look at recent defections to the BJP in Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra, presents a different side of the problem. The implications of destabilising the HD Kumara Swamy government in Bangalore is being attributed to a lack of political ethics, because the provocation was triggered by Modi’s resounding mandate. Yet, it would be instructive to remember that the Congress — Janata Dal (S) coalition that came into existence after the Assembly election in Karnataka last year, was itself steeped in rank opportunism. Both the parties had contested the polls bitterly against each other. Under the circumstances, replacing one unprincipled combination with another may hardly be deemed unethical. Having said that, the BJP would be well-advised not to lose its original hallmark — party with a difference. The 2019 victory was prompted by peoples’expectations and coming so soon after that mandate, the murky games in Karnataka, Goa and poll-bound Maharashtra could make the party lose its moral sheen. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

BJP now sees politicians of all denominations lining up to join its fold

Those writing the political epitaph of the Gandhi family, particularly that of Rahul, would be well advised to hold their horses. Sure, at the moment, the situation looks grim for the Congress, particularly for its first family that has led India’s 134-year-old party up the garden path, potentially up to a point of no-return.

But the obvious weakness of the Congress — mainly its discredited leadership, or joint family leadership — is also its asset. The rest of the party, with its multi-faceted talents, even if somewhat short on mass appeal, may not be able to stick around for too long without a member of the Gandhi family at the helm.

Those suggesting that the Congress may break after a heavy second Lok Sabha drubbing, are daydreaming. A party that did not split with a rock-bottom 43 Lok Sabha seats in 2014 is unlikely to splinter at an improved 52 Lok Sabha seats in 2019.

Please note that not a single discordant note has been sounded in the Congress, despite another pathetic electoral performance. In any other party, including the BJP, such heavy reverses would have caused sufficient ripples within the leadership, party rank and file.

The reasons are not far to seek. Old timers in the party remember the PV Narasimha Rao era with some trepidation. The Congress suffered a series of splits during the 1990s. Rao faced difficulties right after taking over, in running the government as well as the party. There was mistrust between him and veterans such as Arjun Singh and ND Tiwari. At the Tirupati AICC session in April 1992, Singh won the Congress Working Committee (CWC) polls with the highest margin; Sharad Pawar too was victorious. Rao asked the entire newly-elected CWC to resign on the pretext that there was not enough representation of women and Dalits. He then reconstituted the CWC and included Singh in the nominated category.

But the trouble was far from over. After the demolition of Babri Masjid, Singh started spreading the view that Rao was not secular enough. A power struggle ensued in which Rao lost Sonia Gandhi’s support because he was not seen as active enough on the question of Rajiv’s assassination.

In 1994, the Congress lost in Rao’s home state Andhra Pradesh, which emboldened his critics. The feud resulted in Arjun Singh’s ouster from the Cabinet and suspension from the party, resulting in another split. A breakaway faction was formed with ND Tiwari as president and Arjun Singh as working president. After running a minority government for five years, the Congress lost power in 1996. It would take them another eight years to come back. Rao resigned and AICC treasurer Sitaram Kesri took over, but he too was challenged by other senior leaders. The two years following the 1996 defeat saw backroom manoeuvring and intrigue. In the 1997 Congress presidential election, Kesri defeated Pawar and Pilot. Two years later, he was thrown out of the party after Sonia indicated a willingness to take over.

The broader point, however, is that in the absence of a Gandhi family member at the helm of the party, notably Sonia who had decided to lie low for several years after Rajiv’s assassination, the Congress was in a state of flux with periodic exodus of leaders big and small.

For the Congress to be revived from its comatose stage, it took a Sonia to get all factional leaders and party satraps under one roof by the time she took over in 1998. A year later, she had countered a rebellion from senior leader Sharad Pawar. But what had become clear in this turbulent decade was that the party could not survive without a Gandhi at the helm.

Even more stark was the realisation that the perpetually warring Congress leaders and factions, only listen to their first family, as there remains little scope of reconciliation among themselves.

Once again, politics is running true to form. A party that has been vanquished at the hustings, is pleading with the party president — who himself has been humbled in his bailiff Amethi — to kindly assume leadership of the party, indeed salvage the grand old party from distress and demoralisation. One senior leader after the other is making a case as strongly as possible for Rahul to shed his diffidence and take the bull by the horns, with the latter barely willing to demur.

Comically — if the situation was not so tragic — state Congress leaders have been asked to put in their papers and scapegoats are being pulled out of broom closets, without any responsibility being placed at the door of the top leadership.

One of the main reasons for the Congress to have reached this stage is its inability to introspect. There has been no inner-reflection — as a Gandhi or Nehru would have done — on where and how things have gone wrong and the remedies thereof. Instead, there is this touch of arrogance, with the BJP victory being attributed to fudged EVMs, smart marketing and even the devil’s luck. Not a word about the fading appeal of the once-mighty party, pushed further down the drain by a listless Gandhi family, whose stories of political planning for the polls, post the defeat, are too shocking to be true.

There is no candid admission that for a man who made his political debut in 2004, Rahul has not only not influenced any electoral outcome till 2019, but unbelievably, there is no known plan of action ahead. In fact, there appears little clarity on whether Congress even has a party president or not! 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-dynasty-glue-that-won-t-let-go-2765313">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Those writing the political epitaph of the Gandhi family, particularly that of Rahul, would be well advised to hold their horses. Sure, at the moment, the situation looks grim for the Congress, particularly for its first family that has led India’s 134-year-old party up the garden path, potentially up to a point of no-return.

Those writing the political epitaph of the Gandhi family, particularly that of Rahul, would be well advised to hold their horses. Sure, at the moment, the situation looks grim for the Congress, particularly for its first family that has led India’s 134-year-old party up the garden path, potentially up to a point of no-return. But the obvious weakness of the Congress — mainly its discredited leadership, or joint family leadership — is also its asset. The rest of the party, with its multi-faceted talents, even if somewhat short on mass appeal, may not be able to stick around for too long without a member of the Gandhi family at the helm. Those suggesting that the Congress may break after a heavy second Lok Sabha drubbing, are daydreaming. A party that did not split with a rock-bottom 43 Lok Sabha seats in 2014 is unlikely to splinter at an improved 52 Lok Sabha seats in 2019. Please note that not a single discordant note has been sounded in the Congress, despite another pathetic electoral performance. In any other party, including the BJP, such heavy reverses would have caused sufficient ripples within the leadership, party rank and file. The reasons are not far to seek. Old timers in the party remember the PV Narasimha Rao era with some trepidation. The Congress suffered a series of splits during the 1990s. Rao faced difficulties right after taking over, in running the government as well as the party. There was mistrust between him and veterans such as Arjun Singh and ND Tiwari. At the Tirupati AICC session in April 1992, Singh won the Congress Working Committee (CWC) polls with the highest margin; Sharad Pawar too was victorious. Rao asked the entire newly-elected CWC to resign on the pretext that there was not enough representation of women and Dalits. He then reconstituted the CWC and included Singh in the nominated category. But the trouble was far from over. After the demolition of Babri Masjid, Singh started spreading the view that Rao was not secular enough. A power struggle ensued in which Rao lost Sonia Gandhi’s support because he was not seen as active enough on the question of Rajiv’s assassination. In 1994, the Congress lost in Rao’s home state Andhra Pradesh, which emboldened his critics. The feud resulted in Arjun Singh’s ouster from the Cabinet and suspension from the party, resulting in another split. A breakaway faction was formed with ND Tiwari as president and Arjun Singh as working president. After running a minority government for five years, the Congress lost power in 1996. It would take them another eight years to come back. Rao resigned and AICC treasurer Sitaram Kesri took over, but he too was challenged by other senior leaders. The two years following the 1996 defeat saw backroom manoeuvring and intrigue. In the 1997 Congress presidential election, Kesri defeated Pawar and Pilot. Two years later, he was thrown out of the party after Sonia indicated a willingness to take over. The broader point, however, is that in the absence of a Gandhi family member at the helm of the party, notably Sonia who had decided to lie low for several years after Rajiv’s assassination, the Congress was in a state of flux with periodic exodus of leaders big and small. For the Congress to be revived from its comatose stage, it took a Sonia to get all factional leaders and party satraps under one roof by the time she took over in 1998. A year later, she had countered a rebellion from senior leader Sharad Pawar. But what had become clear in this turbulent decade was that the party could not survive without a Gandhi at the helm. Even more stark was the realisation that the perpetually warring Congress leaders and factions, only listen to their first family, as there remains little scope of reconciliation among themselves. Once again, politics is running true to form. A party that has been vanquished at the hustings, is pleading with the party president — who himself has been humbled in his bailiff Amethi — to kindly assume leadership of the party, indeed salvage the grand old party from distress and demoralisation. One senior leader after the other is making a case as strongly as possible for Rahul to shed his diffidence and take the bull by the horns, with the latter barely willing to demur. Comically — if the situation was not so tragic — state Congress leaders have been asked to put in their papers and scapegoats are being pulled out of broom closets, without any responsibility being placed at the door of the top leadership. One of the main reasons for the Congress to have reached this stage is its inability to introspect. There has been no inner-reflection — as a Gandhi or Nehru would have done — on where and how things have gone wrong and the remedies thereof. Instead, there is this touch of arrogance, with the BJP victory being attributed to fudged EVMs, smart marketing and even the devil’s luck. Not a word about the fading appeal of the once-mighty party, pushed further down the drain by a listless Gandhi family, whose stories of political planning for the polls, post the defeat, are too shocking to be true. There is no candid admission that for a man who made his political debut in 2004, Rahul has not only not influenced any electoral outcome till 2019, but unbelievably, there is no known plan of action ahead. In fact, there appears little clarity on whether Congress even has a party president or not! (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Congress culture: Dynasty glue that won’t let go

In India, one of the most unedifying sights of an early morning rail ride is mass scale defecation along the tracks, in the villages as the train chugs along and in the open fields, where crops provide a cover for concluding one of nature’s most elementary acts.

Of all the flagship programmes launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his first term, one that seems to have carried the day is the Swachh Bharat mission. Its impact on the hundreds of millions of Indians, especially women, deprived of basic sanitation facilities, can scarcely be underestimated.&nbsp;

An important part of the Modi persona has been the BJP-led NDA government’s flagship programmes like the Jan Dhan Yojna, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, Atal Pension Yojana and Ayushman Bharat, among others. But in terms of impact on the common voter, the Swachh Bharat mission should be considered the high water mark.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Swachh Bharat or cleanliness programme, a nationwide campaign that aims to clean up the streets, roads and infrastructure of India’s cities, towns, and rural areas, can be safely assumed to have impacted BJP’s electoral prospects, ahead of any other public welfare programme launched by the Modi government. Sure, one factor is never enough to tilt the balance in a party’s favour, yet certain facts are worthy of consideration.&nbsp;

On October 2, 2014, Modi launched the nation-wide cleanliness campaign on the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary. The concept of Swachh Bharat is to provide sanitation facilities to every family, including toilets, solid and liquid waste disposal systems, village cleanliness and safe and adequate drinking water supply. Modi’s pledges to keep the environment clean were met with sniggers from a class of people, who had never faced sanitation issues in their lives. But they, as luck would have it, were not the archetypal Indian voter. &nbsp;

To the professional historian, the prospects of Modi, a former RSS pracharak, invoking Gandhi would be anathema, but the prime minister went ahead nonetheless. In Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s memorable words, “Sanitation is more important than independence”. He made cleanliness and sanitation an integral part of his agitational politics.&nbsp;

In his newspaper Navajivan (November 2, 1919), Gandhi famously wrote: “In some countries spitting on the road is a criminal offence. Those who spit after chewing betel leaves and tobacco have no consideration for the feelings of others. Spittle, mucus from the nose, etc, should also be covered with earth.”&nbsp;

At the official launch of the Swachh Bharat campaign, Modi — who has a way with words — called it ‘Satyagraha se Swachhagrah’ in reference to Gandhi’s Champaran agitation in favour of indigo farmers. &nbsp;The mission had two thrusts: Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (rural), which operates under the ministry of drinking water and sanitation and Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (urban), which works under the aegis of the ministry of housing and urban affairs. According to the latest data, the government has constructed 86 million toilets since 2014 under the mission, reducing the number of open defecations from 550 million to fewer than 150 million in 2018. &nbsp;

In 2017, the government cited a UNICEF Survey carried out in 10,000 households across the country to claim that the Swachh Bharat Mission was meeting its targets, three years after its launch. The survey, conducted across 12 states, stated that 85 per cent members of the households studied were using toilets.

While government data should rightly be regarded with scepticism, in political terms, an idea had been thrown open in the public domain, coming from the highest office in the country. Somewhere the worm had turned, despite the Congress branding it as a mediocre idea, when it was first announced. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Now, from the benefit of hindsight, one can say that the Prime Minister knew all along what he was doing. As early as March last year, obviously with an eye on the on 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Modi urged chief ministers of BJP-ruled states to expedite implementation of welfare schemes and to take his government’s flagship programmes to the masses.

At this crucial meeting, work done by different states were discussed and deliberations were held on coordination between the Centre and the states for effective implementation of the government’s flagship schemes, in particular, the health insurance scheme. Even though the health scheme, promoted as NaMo Care, has not made as many waves as the party expected, it’s implementation in Modi’s second term, could be a potential winner. &nbsp;

The importance of social welfare programmes seem to have been driven home, even if it was not so evident during the course of political discourse in a virulent campaign. Chief ministers present at this meeting were asked to submit a report on the implementation of the welfare schemes. The support that Modi has got from the country’s 48 per cent women voters makes a good study for researchers. His ambitious social welfare scheme —Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana —with the aim of providing 5 crore LPG connections to women below the poverty line across the country, took a heavy toll on the opposition campaign. It seemed a strategic decision to reach out to women in a scheme aimed at replacing unclean cooking fuels, used mostly in rural India with the clean and more efficient LPG gas.&nbsp;

Election results, particularly in UP where the Prime Minister was able to develop a connection with women at large, seem to reflect in the UP Lok Sabha results.&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-flagship-programme-wonders-2753695">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In India, one of the most unedifying sights of an early morning rail ride is mass scale defecation along the tracks, in the villages as the train chugs along and in the open fields, where crops provide a cover for concluding one of nature’s most elementary acts.

In India, one of the most unedifying sights of an early morning rail ride is mass scale defecation along the tracks, in the villages as the train chugs along and in the open fields, where crops provide a cover for concluding one of nature’s most elementary acts. Of all the flagship programmes launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his first term, one that seems to have carried the day is the Swachh Bharat mission. Its impact on the hundreds of millions of Indians, especially women, deprived of basic sanitation facilities, can scarcely be underestimated. An important part of the Modi persona has been the BJP-led NDA government’s flagship programmes like the Jan Dhan Yojna, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, Atal Pension Yojana and Ayushman Bharat, among others. But in terms of impact on the common voter, the Swachh Bharat mission should be considered the high water mark. The Swachh Bharat or cleanliness programme, a nationwide campaign that aims to clean up the streets, roads and infrastructure of India’s cities, towns, and rural areas, can be safely assumed to have impacted BJP’s electoral prospects, ahead of any other public welfare programme launched by the Modi government. Sure, one factor is never enough to tilt the balance in a party’s favour, yet certain facts are worthy of consideration. On October 2, 2014, Modi launched the nation-wide cleanliness campaign on the occasion of Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary. The concept of Swachh Bharat is to provide sanitation facilities to every family, including toilets, solid and liquid waste disposal systems, village cleanliness and safe and adequate drinking water supply. Modi’s pledges to keep the environment clean were met with sniggers from a class of people, who had never faced sanitation issues in their lives. But they, as luck would have it, were not the archetypal Indian voter. To the professional historian, the prospects of Modi, a former RSS pracharak, invoking Gandhi would be anathema, but the prime minister went ahead nonetheless. In Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s memorable words, “Sanitation is more important than independence”. He made cleanliness and sanitation an integral part of his agitational politics. In his newspaper Navajivan (November 2, 1919), Gandhi famously wrote: “In some countries spitting on the road is a criminal offence. Those who spit after chewing betel leaves and tobacco have no consideration for the feelings of others. Spittle, mucus from the nose, etc, should also be covered with earth.” At the official launch of the Swachh Bharat campaign, Modi — who has a way with words — called it ‘Satyagraha se Swachhagrah’ in reference to Gandhi’s Champaran agitation in favour of indigo farmers. The mission had two thrusts: Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (rural), which operates under the ministry of drinking water and sanitation and Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (urban), which works under the aegis of the ministry of housing and urban affairs. According to the latest data, the government has constructed 86 million toilets since 2014 under the mission, reducing the number of open defecations from 550 million to fewer than 150 million in 2018. In 2017, the government cited a UNICEF Survey carried out in 10,000 households across the country to claim that the Swachh Bharat Mission was meeting its targets, three years after its launch. The survey, conducted across 12 states, stated that 85 per cent members of the households studied were using toilets. While government data should rightly be regarded with scepticism, in political terms, an idea had been thrown open in the public domain, coming from the highest office in the country. Somewhere the worm had turned, despite the Congress branding it as a mediocre idea, when it was first announced. Now, from the benefit of hindsight, one can say that the Prime Minister knew all along what he was doing. As early as March last year, obviously with an eye on the on 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Modi urged chief ministers of BJP-ruled states to expedite implementation of welfare schemes and to take his government’s flagship programmes to the masses. At this crucial meeting, work done by different states were discussed and deliberations were held on coordination between the Centre and the states for effective implementation of the government’s flagship schemes, in particular, the health insurance scheme. Even though the health scheme, promoted as NaMo Care, has not made as many waves as the party expected, it’s implementation in Modi’s second term, could be a potential winner. The importance of social welfare programmes seem to have been driven home, even if it was not so evident during the course of political discourse in a virulent campaign. Chief ministers present at this meeting were asked to submit a report on the implementation of the welfare schemes. The support that Modi has got from the country’s 48 per cent women voters makes a good study for researchers. His ambitious social welfare scheme —Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana —with the aim of providing 5 crore LPG connections to women below the poverty line across the country, took a heavy toll on the opposition campaign. It seemed a strategic decision to reach out to women in a scheme aimed at replacing unclean cooking fuels, used mostly in rural India with the clean and more efficient LPG gas. Election results, particularly in UP where the Prime Minister was able to develop a connection with women at large, seem to reflect in the UP Lok Sabha results. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Swachh Bharat campaign had a major role to play in BJP’s spectacular poll success

The Congress party is at the crossroads of its 134-year-old existence. Despite a rousing electoral campaign, aided by liberal photo-ops and larger-than-life sound-bytes, it is abundantly clear that Rahul Gandhi is not a saleable commodity.

Had there been anyone else in Rahul’s place, minus a Congress lineage as distinguished as his, he would have long been shown the door and pushed into political oblivion.&nbsp;

However, fact is that Rahul has continued merrily since March 2004 when he first announced his entry into politics. Fifteen years down the line, this is his time of denouement. Where does Congress go from here? Indeed, where does Rahul go from here?

Rahul’s ‘chowkidar chor hai’ slogan is going to come haunt him and surely will go down as one of the most ill-conceived pieces of poll-time sloganeering — one that may well have signed the epitaph of India’s oldest political party.

The larger question is whether in an aspirational India, entitlement itself is under the hammer as suddenly, even the lowest of the low is feeling the pangs of empowerment. After all, for over six decades, India has invested in democracy and it has to show somewhere. Birth may no longer be enough to win public office, even though there are political scions who have won elections this time as well.

Since his debut in 2004, Rahul has been held out as the great Congress hope to pull the party’s chestnuts out of the fire. It has not played out that way. The party was vanquished out of India’s most politically crucial state, Uttar Pradesh, in 1989, and it has not come back to the Congress. Thereafter, despite being repeatedly projected as the Congress’ prime ministerial aspirant, Rahul has come a cropper, including in a couple of Assembly elections in UP, where the party has been all but marginalised.

A few years ago, there was hope. From winning 10 Lok Sabha seats in 2004 in UP to 21 out of 80 seats in 2009, there seemed promise, but since then, the Modi tsunami has simply swept aside whatever was left of the fight.&nbsp;

In 2019, it has been no different. This time, the Congress pulled out another supposed ace — Priyanka Gandhi — from its pack of cards to make a dent into proceedings. However, Priyanka’s foray into UP politics in poll 2019 is another classic example of what has gone wrong with Congress politics. First, came the coy announcement — not so much an announcement as a mealy-mouthed hint — that she may contest from Varanasi. It energised a demoralised Congress cadre, lying dormant for decades in the state. But only temporarily. Within days came a less-than-upfront denial that she had no such plans. Potentially, a Modi-Priyanka standoff was a mouth-watering contest, which would have compelled the prime minister to stay put in his constituency, without travelling too much. But the prospect of defeat is simply too much to stomach for the Gandhi family and Priyanka backed out at the last minute.

Congress’s first family is obviously out of touch. Rahul, who had the opportunity of acquiring experience under the Manmohan Singh dispensation as a minister, simply let go of the opportunity — apparently he was made for better things like being prime minister, which has not come to be till now. It would have been a chance of a lifetime to work in a government and see how things function from inside the system. He does not know how a government works, while arch rival Narendra Modi does, having served three terms as Gujarat chief minister.&nbsp;

Likewise, Priyanka backed out from a straight fight against the PM in Varanasi. In the worst case scenario, she would have lost, but the mileage gained would have been worth its weight in gold. For the Gandhi family, no public offices are now given — they will have to fight for it tooth and nail.

Rahul’s rise in the party organisation has been steady. In a reshuffle, he was appointed general secretary of the All India Congress Committee in September 2007. In 2013, he was elevated to the position of party vice-president. But tragically, Congress under his leadership slumped to its lowest-ever tally of 43 Lok Sabha seats. In 2019, it is only an incremental improvement. Rahul’s tally of fancy party designations has led to a corresponding decline in the fortunes of his party.&nbsp; 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-gandhi-family-s-hold-takes-congress-down-the-drain-2753025">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

The Congress party is at the crossroads of its 134-year-old existence. Despite a rousing electoral campaign, aided by liberal photo-ops and larger-than-life sound-bytes, it is abundantly clear that Rahul Gandhi is not a saleable commodity.

The Congress party is at the crossroads of its 134-year-old existence. Despite a rousing electoral campaign, aided by liberal photo-ops and larger-than-life sound-bytes, it is abundantly clear that Rahul Gandhi is not a saleable commodity. Had there been anyone else in Rahul’s place, minus a Congress lineage as distinguished as his, he would have long been shown the door and pushed into political oblivion. However, fact is that Rahul has continued merrily since March 2004 when he first announced his entry into politics. Fifteen years down the line, this is his time of denouement. Where does Congress go from here? Indeed, where does Rahul go from here? Rahul’s ‘chowkidar chor hai’ slogan is going to come haunt him and surely will go down as one of the most ill-conceived pieces of poll-time sloganeering — one that may well have signed the epitaph of India’s oldest political party. The larger question is whether in an aspirational India, entitlement itself is under the hammer as suddenly, even the lowest of the low is feeling the pangs of empowerment. After all, for over six decades, India has invested in democracy and it has to show somewhere. Birth may no longer be enough to win public office, even though there are political scions who have won elections this time as well. Since his debut in 2004, Rahul has been held out as the great Congress hope to pull the party’s chestnuts out of the fire. It has not played out that way. The party was vanquished out of India’s most politically crucial state, Uttar Pradesh, in 1989, and it has not come back to the Congress. Thereafter, despite being repeatedly projected as the Congress’ prime ministerial aspirant, Rahul has come a cropper, including in a couple of Assembly elections in UP, where the party has been all but marginalised. A few years ago, there was hope. From winning 10 Lok Sabha seats in 2004 in UP to 21 out of 80 seats in 2009, there seemed promise, but since then, the Modi tsunami has simply swept aside whatever was left of the fight. In 2019, it has been no different. This time, the Congress pulled out another supposed ace — Priyanka Gandhi — from its pack of cards to make a dent into proceedings. However, Priyanka’s foray into UP politics in poll 2019 is another classic example of what has gone wrong with Congress politics. First, came the coy announcement — not so much an announcement as a mealy-mouthed hint — that she may contest from Varanasi. It energised a demoralised Congress cadre, lying dormant for decades in the state. But only temporarily. Within days came a less-than-upfront denial that she had no such plans. Potentially, a Modi-Priyanka standoff was a mouth-watering contest, which would have compelled the prime minister to stay put in his constituency, without travelling too much. But the prospect of defeat is simply too much to stomach for the Gandhi family and Priyanka backed out at the last minute. Congress’s first family is obviously out of touch. Rahul, who had the opportunity of acquiring experience under the Manmohan Singh dispensation as a minister, simply let go of the opportunity — apparently he was made for better things like being prime minister, which has not come to be till now. It would have been a chance of a lifetime to work in a government and see how things function from inside the system. He does not know how a government works, while arch rival Narendra Modi does, having served three terms as Gujarat chief minister. Likewise, Priyanka backed out from a straight fight against the PM in Varanasi. In the worst case scenario, she would have lost, but the mileage gained would have been worth its weight in gold. For the Gandhi family, no public offices are now given — they will have to fight for it tooth and nail. Rahul’s rise in the party organisation has been steady. In a reshuffle, he was appointed general secretary of the All India Congress Committee in September 2007. In 2013, he was elevated to the position of party vice-president. But tragically, Congress under his leadership slumped to its lowest-ever tally of 43 Lok Sabha seats. In 2019, it is only an incremental improvement. Rahul’s tally of fancy party designations has led to a corresponding decline in the fortunes of his party. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Lok Sabha election result 2019: Gandhi family’s hold takes Congress down the drain

Look across the political and electoral spectrum in India, and try to identify mass leaders. By definition, they should be strong, stand alone types, capable of rousing people with stirring speeches, which could include filling up New Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan, Patna’s Gandhi Maidan, the Marina in Chennai, Azad Park in Mumbai or the numerous grounds that are used for political rallies throughout the land. &nbsp;

It comes as sobering realisation that beyond a clutch of leading politicians –and they can be counted on the fingers –the breed of mass leaders have virtually disappeared in this country.&nbsp;

Outside of Narendra Modi, Mamata Banerjee, Lalu Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav of the old, and Navin Patnaik, there are not many who qualify for this distinction. &nbsp;

To be sure, south India has its quota of mass leaders in Chandrababu Naidu, K Chandrasekar Rao and VS Achuthanandan, who represents the once-hoary Left tradition, but beyond their own bailiffs and states, they rarely so much as venture out even in peak election time.&nbsp;

In other words, the mass leaders of the yesteryears - the Nehrus, Lohias, Vajpayees, the Left stalwarts, MGR and Karunanidhis and several others before them, are now a thing of the past.&nbsp;

It is revealing to ask why it has panned out this way. After all, a vibrant multi-party democracy like India should have been brimming with orators, flamboyant mass leaders and stalwarts who could have generally made a difference. Remember, there are a total of 1,841 parties registered with the Election Commission of India, of which seven are national parties, as many as 52 state parties and incredibly, 1,785 unrecognised parties, making India a democracy without a parallel.&nbsp;

Yet, there are not more than a dozen politicians who can stand up and hold the attention of a million people for an hour, in a country of 900- million plus voters. &nbsp;&nbsp;

The roots of this anomaly lie in the country’s deep-seated feudal politics, never mind the copious lip service to democracy and other such western concepts. &nbsp;

The Congress, which could boast of several mass leaders in the course of the freedom struggle, who could and did sway people towards non-cooperation and other forms of protest against British rule, slowly started to disappear from public life as it gradually settled into the role of the ruling party.

Jawaharlal Nehru’s period was not bereft of such stalwarts. BC Roy in Bengal, Pratap Singh Kairon in Punjab, SK Sinha in Bihar and Gobind Ballabh Pant in UP, were among the leaders who dominated the political spectrum in the provinces, along with several other independence-era stalwarts like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, CD Deshmukh and Jagjivan Ram, who held fort at the Centre.

The rot can be traced to the Indira Gandhi period in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when every single leader of any consequence, beginning with K Kamaraj, was shafted out of the Congress system and the political networks, quite systematically and ruthlessly.&nbsp;

Things reached such a pass by the late 1970s that there was little scope for any mass leader to have any place in a political system dominated by the Congress. Stalwart chief ministers were replaced by family minions, who had no mass base nor any support among state MLAs, which until then was the principle criterion for selecting chief ministers.&nbsp;

In fact, it became a liability to be a mass leader and an asset to be a political lightweight, as it opened the doors of political office. &nbsp;

Even today, the Congress is paying the price. One of the main reasons for their political decimation is the absence of any popular leader outside of the Gandhi-Nehru family, whose fading aura has coincided with the corresponding rise of the BJP.&nbsp;

The all powerful, overbearing and dominant Congress culture took its toll across the political spectrum. Political parties, as a rule, began to look for ways to whittle down any leader of promise, who could become a potential challenger, making sure that he or she was sent to oblivion.

So by the 1980s and 1990s, the leaders who did manage to build a bridge with the masses, did so by default and through sheer happenstance. Mamata Banerjee, for instance, fought her way up the Youth Congress ladder because she got the opportunities and was willing to take her chances, and not because of any encouragement provided to her from any political quarter. &nbsp;

Similarly, Lalu Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Nitish Kumar found the JP movement in the mid-1970s as their ladder to establish themselves as leaders of consequence. There was no question of anyone encouraging them to reach where they did, except their own reflexes, instincts and guile.&nbsp;

Down south in Tamil Nadu, the likes of MGR, Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha used the powerful Tamil film movement to make their presence felt and gradually but steadily, expanded their mass base.&nbsp;

But having reached the positions that they did, these politicians turned out to be no different. Parties that they headed became family enterprises (save Nitish), where no outsider, let alone a mass leader, was ever going to be encouraged.&nbsp;

Things have remained that way. Why, even today, the country’s most important political entity, the BJP, cannot boast of one single popular national leader outside of Narendra Modi. While the dynamics of a cadre-based party like the BJP or the Left are entirely different, for one reason or the other, they too have failed to produce a leader, whose writ runs large through the length and breadth of the Indian republic.&nbsp;

&nbsp;(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the<a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-only-followers-needed-here-please-2749305"> original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Look across the political and electoral spectrum in India, and try to identify mass leaders. By definition, they should be strong, stand alone types, capable of rousing people with stirring speeches, which could include filling up New Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan, Patna’s Gandhi Maidan, the Marina in Chennai, Azad Park in Mumbai or the numerous grounds that are used for political rallies throughout the land.

Look across the political and electoral spectrum in India, and try to identify mass leaders. By definition, they should be strong, stand alone types, capable of rousing people with stirring speeches, which could include filling up New Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan, Patna’s Gandhi Maidan, the Marina in Chennai, Azad Park in Mumbai or the numerous grounds that are used for political rallies throughout the land. It comes as sobering realisation that beyond a clutch of leading politicians –and they can be counted on the fingers –the breed of mass leaders have virtually disappeared in this country. Outside of Narendra Modi, Mamata Banerjee, Lalu Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav of the old, and Navin Patnaik, there are not many who qualify for this distinction. To be sure, south India has its quota of mass leaders in Chandrababu Naidu, K Chandrasekar Rao and VS Achuthanandan, who represents the once-hoary Left tradition, but beyond their own bailiffs and states, they rarely so much as venture out even in peak election time. In other words, the mass leaders of the yesteryears - the Nehrus, Lohias, Vajpayees, the Left stalwarts, MGR and Karunanidhis and several others before them, are now a thing of the past. It is revealing to ask why it has panned out this way. After all, a vibrant multi-party democracy like India should have been brimming with orators, flamboyant mass leaders and stalwarts who could have generally made a difference. Remember, there are a total of 1,841 parties registered with the Election Commission of India, of which seven are national parties, as many as 52 state parties and incredibly, 1,785 unrecognised parties, making India a democracy without a parallel. Yet, there are not more than a dozen politicians who can stand up and hold the attention of a million people for an hour, in a country of 900- million plus voters. The roots of this anomaly lie in the country’s deep-seated feudal politics, never mind the copious lip service to democracy and other such western concepts. The Congress, which could boast of several mass leaders in the course of the freedom struggle, who could and did sway people towards non-cooperation and other forms of protest against British rule, slowly started to disappear from public life as it gradually settled into the role of the ruling party. Jawaharlal Nehru’s period was not bereft of such stalwarts. BC Roy in Bengal, Pratap Singh Kairon in Punjab, SK Sinha in Bihar and Gobind Ballabh Pant in UP, were among the leaders who dominated the political spectrum in the provinces, along with several other independence-era stalwarts like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, CD Deshmukh and Jagjivan Ram, who held fort at the Centre. The rot can be traced to the Indira Gandhi period in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when every single leader of any consequence, beginning with K Kamaraj, was shafted out of the Congress system and the political networks, quite systematically and ruthlessly. Things reached such a pass by the late 1970s that there was little scope for any mass leader to have any place in a political system dominated by the Congress. Stalwart chief ministers were replaced by family minions, who had no mass base nor any support among state MLAs, which until then was the principle criterion for selecting chief ministers. In fact, it became a liability to be a mass leader and an asset to be a political lightweight, as it opened the doors of political office. Even today, the Congress is paying the price. One of the main reasons for their political decimation is the absence of any popular leader outside of the Gandhi-Nehru family, whose fading aura has coincided with the corresponding rise of the BJP. The all powerful, overbearing and dominant Congress culture took its toll across the political spectrum. Political parties, as a rule, began to look for ways to whittle down any leader of promise, who could become a potential challenger, making sure that he or she was sent to oblivion. So by the 1980s and 1990s, the leaders who did manage to build a bridge with the masses, did so by default and through sheer happenstance. Mamata Banerjee, for instance, fought her way up the Youth Congress ladder because she got the opportunities and was willing to take her chances, and not because of any encouragement provided to her from any political quarter. Similarly, Lalu Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Nitish Kumar found the JP movement in the mid-1970s as their ladder to establish themselves as leaders of consequence. There was no question of anyone encouraging them to reach where they did, except their own reflexes, instincts and guile. Down south in Tamil Nadu, the likes of MGR, Karunanidhi and Jayalalitha used the powerful Tamil film movement to make their presence felt and gradually but steadily, expanded their mass base. But having reached the positions that they did, these politicians turned out to be no different. Parties that they headed became family enterprises (save Nitish), where no outsider, let alone a mass leader, was ever going to be encouraged. Things have remained that way. Why, even today, the country’s most important political entity, the BJP, cannot boast of one single popular national leader outside of Narendra Modi. While the dynamics of a cadre-based party like the BJP or the Left are entirely different, for one reason or the other, they too have failed to produce a leader, whose writ runs large through the length and breadth of the Indian republic. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

India only has a few politicians who can be called mass leaders

When poll pundits call the ongoing general election presidential, they are missing the woods for the trees. It is one thing for shrill TV channels to split the screen and show PM Narendra Modi in one part and Rahul Gandhi in the other, it is quite another to start believing your own rhetoric and brand the poll presidential, as if two leading political behemoths are stalking the land.

The reality is far from it. The Indian election system is not presidential, constitutionally speaking, and that is the way it stands. The real battle for the hearts and minds of the voters is not just being fought between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress, but a clutch of regional parties, that do not necessarily have the same high profile as the two national parties, but whose representatives are scouring the electoral landscape with the same vehemence as anyone else contesting the elections.&nbsp;

In the big states, as is now apparent after three phases of elections, it is by no chance just BJP vs the Congress; remember India is a federal country and the elections, in a larger sense, represent a series of smaller polls - even downright local rivalries - that will determine the kind of government Indians can hope to see after May 23.

As a matter of fact, none of the big poll-bound states pit BJP vs the Congress. In Bengal, it is Trinamool and Mamata Banerjee vs the rest; in the biggest state of them all, Uttar Pradesh, it is mainly BJP vs two regional satraps, SP and the BSP. In Maharashtra, BJP-Sena are battling Congress and NCP while in Bihar, it is JD (U)-BJP against RJD and Congress from the outside. In Tamil Nadu, there is no BJP vs Congress fight, neither is there any Congress vs BJP standoff in Odisha, where again a regional outfit, Biju Janata Dal (BJD) has been calling the shots for the last decade-and-a-half.&nbsp;

Neighbouring Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are once again dominated by regional parties, the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) and the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) respectively.&nbsp;

If there is a real Congress vs BJP poll battle, it remains confined to MP, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Assam and Gujarat. It is simply too small a base to call an Indian election presidential, given the size of the country. So where pray, is this magnificent, all-consuming presidential elections taking place? Not in India, to be sure.

There is another side to this. The risk of pitting Rahul against Modi is to conjure, farcically, of course, a highly unequal contest. Taken to its logical conclusion, it is a signal to the electorate that if Rahul cannot beat Modi, no one else can, while the reality is that a carefully calibrated opposition plan could have made the BJP’s well oiled electoral machine a little slower in its response time. That it may not happen now, is part of this problem of projecting an excessively presidential style of polling, when none actually exists on the ground.

Even though it can be said that Prime Minister Modi’s campaign style is typically presidential, overflowing with speeches, perhaps more than his own party or even the opposition. In true presidential fashion, the focus remains on the principal contender, who is larger than life, not just for the public, but also for the media.

Modi’s campaign style is excessively personal. There are barely any references to the BJP - in fact the punch line for election 2019 is ‘Phir ek baar Modi sarkar’ (Modi government again); in 2014, it was ‘Abki baar Modi sarkar’ (Modi government this time). Campaign Modi is, therefore, the end product of a complex web of back end outreach initiatives, nearly totally technology driven. &nbsp;&nbsp;

With such an onerous comparison, Rahul Gandhi has had no option but to imitate a presidential style campaign and the jury is still out whether it suits him or not. &nbsp;

However, that is where the comparison ends, because the Constitution of the country dictates the style of government and not the style of the practitioners. Perhaps, more clarity on it would come, once the poll results are known.&nbsp;

Unlike a presidential campaign, there are powerful regional satraps, who dominate India’s political landscape in their own bailiwick, campaigning ceaselessly, against both Modi and occasionally, the Congress.

The BJP’s fight, as the final numbers will bear out, is going to be against the powerful regional satraps, and not the Congress, as is being incorrectly projected. &nbsp;

A presidential election would necessarily mean high-velocity televised debates while in India, such arguments are the prerogative of television studios, where a number of low ranking leaders looking to make a mark, flex their muscles at each other, the higher the decibel level the better the entertainment. Direct polemics between leading political lights is not just uncommon, it is not even heard of. Speeches delivered are extempore at different locations and there is no question of anyone raising any point of order. Everyone on stage is a fellow traveller, so any dissension, as a form of political expression, simply does not exist. &nbsp;

Politically speaking, when and if an alliance is cobbled, then the presidential aspect would not come into the picture. It would not be an alliance between two big parties, but two big political formations. Parties, with wide ideological divergences in the past, would suddenly deem it fit to form a government, once an alliance is put into place. &nbsp;By May 23, India would undoubtedly be as far away from a presidential system as it ever has been.&nbsp; 
 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the<a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-misnomer-of-presidential-polls-2744048"> original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

When poll pundits call the ongoing general election presidential, they are missing the woods for the trees. It is one thing for shrill TV channels to split the screen and show PM Narendra Modi in one part and Rahul Gandhi in the other, it is quite another to start believing your own rhetoric and brand the poll presidential, as if two leading political behemoths are stalking the land.

When poll pundits call the ongoing general election presidential, they are missing the woods for the trees. It is one thing for shrill TV channels to split the screen and show PM Narendra Modi in one part and Rahul Gandhi in the other, it is quite another to start believing your own rhetoric and brand the poll presidential, as if two leading political behemoths are stalking the land. The reality is far from it. The Indian election system is not presidential, constitutionally speaking, and that is the way it stands. The real battle for the hearts and minds of the voters is not just being fought between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress, but a clutch of regional parties, that do not necessarily have the same high profile as the two national parties, but whose representatives are scouring the electoral landscape with the same vehemence as anyone else contesting the elections. In the big states, as is now apparent after three phases of elections, it is by no chance just BJP vs the Congress; remember India is a federal country and the elections, in a larger sense, represent a series of smaller polls - even downright local rivalries - that will determine the kind of government Indians can hope to see after May 23. As a matter of fact, none of the big poll-bound states pit BJP vs the Congress. In Bengal, it is Trinamool and Mamata Banerjee vs the rest; in the biggest state of them all, Uttar Pradesh, it is mainly BJP vs two regional satraps, SP and the BSP. In Maharashtra, BJP-Sena are battling Congress and NCP while in Bihar, it is JD (U)-BJP against RJD and Congress from the outside. In Tamil Nadu, there is no BJP vs Congress fight, neither is there any Congress vs BJP standoff in Odisha, where again a regional outfit, Biju Janata Dal (BJD) has been calling the shots for the last decade-and-a-half. Neighbouring Andhra Pradesh and Telangana are once again dominated by regional parties, the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) and the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) respectively. If there is a real Congress vs BJP poll battle, it remains confined to MP, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Assam and Gujarat. It is simply too small a base to call an Indian election presidential, given the size of the country. So where pray, is this magnificent, all-consuming presidential elections taking place? Not in India, to be sure. There is another side to this. The risk of pitting Rahul against Modi is to conjure, farcically, of course, a highly unequal contest. Taken to its logical conclusion, it is a signal to the electorate that if Rahul cannot beat Modi, no one else can, while the reality is that a carefully calibrated opposition plan could have made the BJP’s well oiled electoral machine a little slower in its response time. That it may not happen now, is part of this problem of projecting an excessively presidential style of polling, when none actually exists on the ground. Even though it can be said that Prime Minister Modi’s campaign style is typically presidential, overflowing with speeches, perhaps more than his own party or even the opposition. In true presidential fashion, the focus remains on the principal contender, who is larger than life, not just for the public, but also for the media. Modi’s campaign style is excessively personal. There are barely any references to the BJP - in fact the punch line for election 2019 is ‘Phir ek baar Modi sarkar’ (Modi government again); in 2014, it was ‘Abki baar Modi sarkar’ (Modi government this time). Campaign Modi is, therefore, the end product of a complex web of back end outreach initiatives, nearly totally technology driven. With such an onerous comparison, Rahul Gandhi has had no option but to imitate a presidential style campaign and the jury is still out whether it suits him or not. However, that is where the comparison ends, because the Constitution of the country dictates the style of government and not the style of the practitioners. Perhaps, more clarity on it would come, once the poll results are known. Unlike a presidential campaign, there are powerful regional satraps, who dominate India’s political landscape in their own bailiwick, campaigning ceaselessly, against both Modi and occasionally, the Congress. The BJP’s fight, as the final numbers will bear out, is going to be against the powerful regional satraps, and not the Congress, as is being incorrectly projected. A presidential election would necessarily mean high-velocity televised debates while in India, such arguments are the prerogative of television studios, where a number of low ranking leaders looking to make a mark, flex their muscles at each other, the higher the decibel level the better the entertainment. Direct polemics between leading political lights is not just uncommon, it is not even heard of. Speeches delivered are extempore at different locations and there is no question of anyone raising any point of order. Everyone on stage is a fellow traveller, so any dissension, as a form of political expression, simply does not exist. Politically speaking, when and if an alliance is cobbled, then the presidential aspect would not come into the picture. It would not be an alliance between two big parties, but two big political formations. Parties, with wide ideological divergences in the past, would suddenly deem it fit to form a government, once an alliance is put into place. By May 23, India would undoubtedly be as far away from a presidential system as it ever has been. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

It's no way just BJP vs Congress as regional satraps dominate India’s political landscape

There is little doubt that Narendra Modi’s phenomenal victory in the 2014 Lok Sabha election was fashioned in the main by the youth or more specifically, the first-time voter.&nbsp;

This was no ordinary display of youth power. Disillusioned by years of Congress corruption and cynicism, the BJP leader’s catchy slogans and persuasive appeal to the young and aspirational voters, won the saffron party its most significant spurs in history.

Given that two in three Indians are below 35 years of age and about a million more need employment every month, the then Gujarat chief minister’s promises found many takers.

While old habits like voting for dynastic politicians and netas with criminal backgrounds continued in 2014, there was greater awareness of macroeconomic issues than ever before. Modi’s constant stress on development reiterated that point. &nbsp;&nbsp;

For the young voters, Modi’s record on development as Gujarat chief minister offered hope in a country that had begun to lose faith in the Congress.

In the forthcoming 2019 Lok Sabha elections, with an estimated 12.7 crore first-time voters, making India the youngest country in the world, the big challenge for the ruling party is to keep the young and the aspirational voters on its side.&nbsp;

It is instructive to fall back on the past to perhaps understand what could happen in 2019. A media survey in early 2014 said that almost half of the nearly 15 crore Indians, who were going to be first-time voters in the 2014 general election, wanted to see Modi as the Prime Minister. And so they did.

But this vast flotsam is like a tinderbox; their passion can easily turn into a strong dislike, if the going gets tough and with little skills, the going is never going to be easy.

Consider this. According to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), a think tank that tracks business and economic data, as of February 2018, 31 million jobless people were looking for employment opportunities. This number is likely to rise as a fresh batch of graduates joins the market.

Between April and December 2016, a nine-month period, 2.3 lakh jobs were created across eight key sectors. However, given the enormous economic complexities, this is far short of what is needed: the latest figures suggest that 10 lakh Indians enter the job market every month.

The situation is so grim that one recent report indicated that 20 million Indians had applied for 1,00,000 jobs in the Indian Railways. In other words, there were 200 young jobless people applying for one post and competing with each other. And the jobs were no top-of-the-line railway executive openings, but people vying for locomotive drivers, technicians and the railway police — all of them need bare minimum qualifications.

Yet, such is the level of desperation that even highly qualified PhD scholars were among the applicants for the role of technicians.&nbsp;

India’s job crisis is now staring the Narendra Modi government in the face more ominously than when it came to power in 2014. The big problem for the present government, which has been trying and thinking out of the box to get around the problem, is that there is simply no time left to fix it. Elections are now a few months away and economic issues are not something that can be solved overnight.&nbsp;

The bigger problem is that the young generation, that is growing up on 4G and a 24-hour information inflow, has grown a little too aspirational for any government - let along this government’s comfort.&nbsp;

Most surveys, particularly the serious ones, believe that unemployment and lack of jobs are the main reasons for dissatisfaction among the young.&nbsp;

Two months ago, a group of students protested on rail tracks demanding employment. Stories of stampedes during examinations for government jobs, are not new by any chance, but they continue to be reported in India, live examples of how lives may not have changed with the change of government that has promised and even tried hard to achieve numbers that are simply humongous.&nbsp;

But clearly, elections every five years is a constitutionally guaranteed opportunity to keep seeking change until good governance is delivered.&nbsp;

Employment is directly linked to skills and the Modi government programme for skilling, despite best efforts, has run into choppy waters. Of the millions entering the workforce every year, skills are at a premium. &nbsp;

Now consider this. By 2022, India aimed to create a pool of 500 million skilled workers. The overly ambitious target could hardly be flawed, but it obviously did not take volumes into consideration.&nbsp;

According to the latest government statistics, the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) has been able to train 51 million since 2014. Of them, 21 million managed to get jobs. &nbsp;

A deeper study reveals that India could have taken a leaf out of China’s book. The Asian rival’s success in creating a skilled labour force can be attributed to its technical, vocational education and training system, which helped it to successfully transform into the world’s manufacturing hub after it was able to train millions of unskilled into highly skilled workers.

In the case of India too, the millions of those entering the job market are quite simply unemployable.&nbsp;

According to the Election Commission data for the 2014 Lok Sabha election, the highest percentage of young voters were in Jharkhand at 9.03 per cent. The state witnessed an increase in voter turn out from 55.28 per cent in 2009 to 62.62 per cent in 2014. Some other states registering significant increases included Odisha (2.64 per cent), Haryana (2.23 per cent), Rajasthan (3.29 per cent), Chhattisgarh (4.94 per cent) and Tamil Nadu (3.23 per cent). 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-the-young-and-aspirational-2705421">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

There is little doubt that Narendra Modi’s phenomenal victory in the 2014 Lok Sabha election was fashioned in the main by the youth or more specifically, the first-time voter.

There is little doubt that Narendra Modi’s phenomenal victory in the 2014 Lok Sabha election was fashioned in the main by the youth or more specifically, the first-time voter. This was no ordinary display of youth power. Disillusioned by years of Congress corruption and cynicism, the BJP leader’s catchy slogans and persuasive appeal to the young and aspirational voters, won the saffron party its most significant spurs in history. Given that two in three Indians are below 35 years of age and about a million more need employment every month, the then Gujarat chief minister’s promises found many takers. While old habits like voting for dynastic politicians and netas with criminal backgrounds continued in 2014, there was greater awareness of macroeconomic issues than ever before. Modi’s constant stress on development reiterated that point. For the young voters, Modi’s record on development as Gujarat chief minister offered hope in a country that had begun to lose faith in the Congress. In the forthcoming 2019 Lok Sabha elections, with an estimated 12.7 crore first-time voters, making India the youngest country in the world, the big challenge for the ruling party is to keep the young and the aspirational voters on its side. It is instructive to fall back on the past to perhaps understand what could happen in 2019. A media survey in early 2014 said that almost half of the nearly 15 crore Indians, who were going to be first-time voters in the 2014 general election, wanted to see Modi as the Prime Minister. And so they did. But this vast flotsam is like a tinderbox; their passion can easily turn into a strong dislike, if the going gets tough and with little skills, the going is never going to be easy. Consider this. According to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), a think tank that tracks business and economic data, as of February 2018, 31 million jobless people were looking for employment opportunities. This number is likely to rise as a fresh batch of graduates joins the market. Between April and December 2016, a nine-month period, 2.3 lakh jobs were created across eight key sectors. However, given the enormous economic complexities, this is far short of what is needed: the latest figures suggest that 10 lakh Indians enter the job market every month. The situation is so grim that one recent report indicated that 20 million Indians had applied for 1,00,000 jobs in the Indian Railways. In other words, there were 200 young jobless people applying for one post and competing with each other. And the jobs were no top-of-the-line railway executive openings, but people vying for locomotive drivers, technicians and the railway police — all of them need bare minimum qualifications. Yet, such is the level of desperation that even highly qualified PhD scholars were among the applicants for the role of technicians. India’s job crisis is now staring the Narendra Modi government in the face more ominously than when it came to power in 2014. The big problem for the present government, which has been trying and thinking out of the box to get around the problem, is that there is simply no time left to fix it. Elections are now a few months away and economic issues are not something that can be solved overnight. The bigger problem is that the young generation, that is growing up on 4G and a 24-hour information inflow, has grown a little too aspirational for any government - let along this government’s comfort. Most surveys, particularly the serious ones, believe that unemployment and lack of jobs are the main reasons for dissatisfaction among the young. Two months ago, a group of students protested on rail tracks demanding employment. Stories of stampedes during examinations for government jobs, are not new by any chance, but they continue to be reported in India, live examples of how lives may not have changed with the change of government that has promised and even tried hard to achieve numbers that are simply humongous. But clearly, elections every five years is a constitutionally guaranteed opportunity to keep seeking change until good governance is delivered. Employment is directly linked to skills and the Modi government programme for skilling, despite best efforts, has run into choppy waters. Of the millions entering the workforce every year, skills are at a premium. Now consider this. By 2022, India aimed to create a pool of 500 million skilled workers. The overly ambitious target could hardly be flawed, but it obviously did not take volumes into consideration. According to the latest government statistics, the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) has been able to train 51 million since 2014. Of them, 21 million managed to get jobs. A deeper study reveals that India could have taken a leaf out of China’s book. The Asian rival’s success in creating a skilled labour force can be attributed to its technical, vocational education and training system, which helped it to successfully transform into the world’s manufacturing hub after it was able to train millions of unskilled into highly skilled workers. In the case of India too, the millions of those entering the job market are quite simply unemployable. According to the Election Commission data for the 2014 Lok Sabha election, the highest percentage of young voters were in Jharkhand at 9.03 per cent. The state witnessed an increase in voter turn out from 55.28 per cent in 2009 to 62.62 per cent in 2014. Some other states registering significant increases included Odisha (2.64 per cent), Haryana (2.23 per cent), Rajasthan (3.29 per cent), Chhattisgarh (4.94 per cent) and Tamil Nadu (3.23 per cent). (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

2019 Lok Sabha elections: The challenge of job creation

Before the 2015 Bihar state assembly elections, a new concept was introduced in India’s already crowded political lexicon, the ‘mahagathbandhan’. Loosely translated, it stood for a grand alliance of many parties who did not share too many commonalities except for one driving factor — the incessant desire to stop the then seemingly unstoppable Narendra Modi juggernaut in its tracks.

In trying to achieve what they wanted, the ‘mahagathbandhan’ had its way. Modi at the height of his popularity was bested in Bihar, the ascendant BJP coming up a cropper with 59 seats against the combined might of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Janata Dal (U) and the Congress, which bagged a formidable 180 assembly seats.

A great political idea had been sown, showing the way ahead to checkmate the BJP if it could. The logic was simple arithmetic. The BJP, which had garnered 31 per cent of the total vote share, had won 282 Lok Sabha seats. It was also the smallest ever vote share for the largest number of seats won. The previous lowest was the Congress that got a little over 40 per cent of the total vote share and 283 seats in 1967, in the days of the yore when the political canvas was a lot less crowded.

It proved just one thing: the BJP had gained heavily on account of the badly splintered vote and if closing the ranks would help, the tide could be turned against the saffron party. And that is what happened in Bihar.

Since then, it is increasingly becoming apparent that while ‘mahagathbandhan’ is a winning idea, implementing it on a national scale would be a tall order. As things stand now, the whole idea of a grand alliance against the BJP is largely restricted to UP. In Bihar, mahagathbandhan’ already stands dashed with one of the original authors of the idea, Nitish Kumar, on the side of the BJP.

It is only in a vast state like UP, which sends 80 members to the Lok Sabha, that such a grand alliance plays out. Obviously, the idea of a such a coalition does not apply in, let’s say, Bengal, Odisha, the Northeast or the regional parties in the South other than Kerala.

Alliances in states like Maharashtra are between national and regional parties while in most parts of central India, the Hindi-speaking states, like Rajasthan, MP, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat, it is going to be a fight mainly between the two national parties, the BJP and the Congress. The two national parties are also locked in a direct confrontation in states like Assam, Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand and Goa, making it very difficult for a `mahagathbandhan’ to take shape in these states.

Sure, events in the last two weeks have demonstrated that BSP supremo Mayawati, the Samajwadi Party and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) are looking to expand their base in MP and Chhattisgarh, hoping to cash in on a three-term anti-incumbency against the BJP and the disenchantment with the long decades of Congress rule.

But the difficulty in launching a ‘mahagathbandhan’ appears formidable. The Congress has ruled out giving more than 10 seats to the BSP in MP, which has some presence in districts like Jhansi that border UP and three seats to the SP in MP, which has had some areas of influence and lots of pretensions to power in that state.

All of this adds to complicating the situation as far as carving out a grand alliance in UP is concerned. The two regional outfits are already accusing the Congress of acting like the `big brother’in the forthcoming assembly elections in MP, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan and promise to get back in kind in UP where the Congress is in a relatively weaker spot.

And it is here that the problem lies. In two critical Lok Sabha by-elections in Phulpur and Gorakhpur in UP March this year, the margin of losses are noteworthy. In UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s pocket borough Gorakhpur, the BJP lost by a little over 21,000 votes to the SP that was backed by BSP and the Congress while Phulpur was lost to another SP-led opposition ‘gathbandhan’ by a more respectable under-60,000 votes.

Then again in May, the Kairana Lok Sabha bye-elections in UP saw another battle royale with Ajit Singh’s Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD)-led combined opposition, including the SP, BSP and Congress, edging out the BJP comfortably by a 50,000 vote margin.

But it is instructive to remember that margins like 21,000 or even 50,000 in a Lok Sabha bye-poll in a vastly populated state like UP can be no indication of how things will shape up in the absence of a ‘mahagathbandhan’. And if BSP’s mercurial and unpredictable boss Mayawati’s statements against allying with other parties are any indication, a coalition in UP, at least at this stage, appears like a tall order. After all, if the united opposition polled 51.1 per cent of the total votes in the Kairana constituency, the BJP, which was the loser did not too badly with 46.5 per cent of votes. In the absence of a combined alliance, this verdict could well be reversed.

There is wisdom in the old adage that the reins of power in India go through UP. Modi knows that better than most and is hence running down any idea of a ‘mahagathbandhan’. A 40-50 seat loss, if such an alliance is in place in UP, will mean the difference between re-assuming office or sitting out in the opposition.

 
(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-grand-alliance-comes-to-haunt-2674384">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Before the 2015 Bihar state assembly elections, a new concept was introduced in India’s already crowded political lexicon, the ‘mahagathbandhan’. Loosely translated, it stood for a grand alliance of many parties who did not share too many commonalities except for one driving factor — the incessant desire to stop the then seemingly unstoppable Narendra Modi juggernaut in its tracks.

Before the 2015 Bihar state assembly elections, a new concept was introduced in India’s already crowded political lexicon, the ‘mahagathbandhan’. Loosely translated, it stood for a grand alliance of many parties who did not share too many commonalities except for one driving factor — the incessant desire to stop the then seemingly unstoppable Narendra Modi juggernaut in its tracks. In trying to achieve what they wanted, the ‘mahagathbandhan’ had its way. Modi at the height of his popularity was bested in Bihar, the ascendant BJP coming up a cropper with 59 seats against the combined might of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Janata Dal (U) and the Congress, which bagged a formidable 180 assembly seats. A great political idea had been sown, showing the way ahead to checkmate the BJP if it could. The logic was simple arithmetic. The BJP, which had garnered 31 per cent of the total vote share, had won 282 Lok Sabha seats. It was also the smallest ever vote share for the largest number of seats won. The previous lowest was the Congress that got a little over 40 per cent of the total vote share and 283 seats in 1967, in the days of the yore when the political canvas was a lot less crowded. It proved just one thing: the BJP had gained heavily on account of the badly splintered vote and if closing the ranks would help, the tide could be turned against the saffron party. And that is what happened in Bihar. Since then, it is increasingly becoming apparent that while ‘mahagathbandhan’ is a winning idea, implementing it on a national scale would be a tall order. As things stand now, the whole idea of a grand alliance against the BJP is largely restricted to UP. In Bihar, mahagathbandhan’ already stands dashed with one of the original authors of the idea, Nitish Kumar, on the side of the BJP. It is only in a vast state like UP, which sends 80 members to the Lok Sabha, that such a grand alliance plays out. Obviously, the idea of a such a coalition does not apply in, let’s say, Bengal, Odisha, the Northeast or the regional parties in the South other than Kerala. Alliances in states like Maharashtra are between national and regional parties while in most parts of central India, the Hindi-speaking states, like Rajasthan, MP, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat, it is going to be a fight mainly between the two national parties, the BJP and the Congress. The two national parties are also locked in a direct confrontation in states like Assam, Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand and Goa, making it very difficult for a `mahagathbandhan’ to take shape in these states. Sure, events in the last two weeks have demonstrated that BSP supremo Mayawati, the Samajwadi Party and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) are looking to expand their base in MP and Chhattisgarh, hoping to cash in on a three-term anti-incumbency against the BJP and the disenchantment with the long decades of Congress rule. But the difficulty in launching a ‘mahagathbandhan’ appears formidable. The Congress has ruled out giving more than 10 seats to the BSP in MP, which has some presence in districts like Jhansi that border UP and three seats to the SP in MP, which has had some areas of influence and lots of pretensions to power in that state. All of this adds to complicating the situation as far as carving out a grand alliance in UP is concerned. The two regional outfits are already accusing the Congress of acting like the `big brother’in the forthcoming assembly elections in MP, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan and promise to get back in kind in UP where the Congress is in a relatively weaker spot. And it is here that the problem lies. In two critical Lok Sabha by-elections in Phulpur and Gorakhpur in UP March this year, the margin of losses are noteworthy. In UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s pocket borough Gorakhpur, the BJP lost by a little over 21,000 votes to the SP that was backed by BSP and the Congress while Phulpur was lost to another SP-led opposition ‘gathbandhan’ by a more respectable under-60,000 votes. Then again in May, the Kairana Lok Sabha bye-elections in UP saw another battle royale with Ajit Singh’s Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD)-led combined opposition, including the SP, BSP and Congress, edging out the BJP comfortably by a 50,000 vote margin. But it is instructive to remember that margins like 21,000 or even 50,000 in a Lok Sabha bye-poll in a vastly populated state like UP can be no indication of how things will shape up in the absence of a ‘mahagathbandhan’. And if BSP’s mercurial and unpredictable boss Mayawati’s statements against allying with other parties are any indication, a coalition in UP, at least at this stage, appears like a tall order. After all, if the united opposition polled 51.1 per cent of the total votes in the Kairana constituency, the BJP, which was the loser did not too badly with 46.5 per cent of votes. In the absence of a combined alliance, this verdict could well be reversed. There is wisdom in the old adage that the reins of power in India go through UP. Modi knows that better than most and is hence running down any idea of a ‘mahagathbandhan’. A 40-50 seat loss, if such an alliance is in place in UP, will mean the difference between re-assuming office or sitting out in the opposition. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Grand alliance comes to haunt

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Ranjit Bhushan

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.