In a major blow to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, 50-60 councillors and some Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) of her party, the Trinamool Congress (TMC), joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) at the latter’s headquarters in New Delhi on Tuesday.

More than 50 TMC councillors join BJP, Vijayvargiya says it's the beginning

Just when we are nearing the close of this gruelling election season, Time magazine Asia’s cover story for May 20 has been receiving wide publicity. It shows a grim-looking Narendra Modi, in an Indian style black bandgala jacket, now popularly known as a Modi jacket, and a saffron shawl draped around his neck. So far so good. Why shouldn’t an Indian serving Prime Minister and most visible candidate, besides most likely to be re-elected incumbent, not grace the cover of an international newsmagazine, especially towards the end of the world’s largest and greatest parliamentary elections? Nearly a billion voters are eligible to cast their secret ballots in the mother of all election battles. Surely, this deserves the attention of the world.&nbsp;

But, wait a minute. What’s the caption next to the photo? “India’s Divider in Chief.” The cover story so titled is by gifted writer and novelist, Aatish Taseer. As if to offer a slightly balancing backup, also blazoned on the cover, is “Modi the Reformer” by Ian Bremmer. After reading both, one cannot but be disappointed. Bremmer makes an attempt to paint Modi in contradictory more than contrasting colours as both economic reformer and failure. There is little approbation for the huge slew of reforms and improvements carried out by the government. Hardly a word in favour of the palpable reduction in corruption, swacch bharat, ujjwala, infrastructure development, reduction in inflation, and blistering growth rate, many of which are seen as incomplete or inadequate. Bremmer’s scathing scepticism may be dismissed as typical of the fading vestiges of the white man’s burden, now more evident in envious disbelief of India’s economic miracle than in any mandate to rule the world.&nbsp;

But it is Taseer’s spleen-driven surliness, almost childishly querulous at times, that is galling. How can the cover-story on Indian elections be such a malevolent diatribe against a single man? There is not the least semblance of neutrality or objectivity here, nor attempt to present a sensible or balanced appraisal. It is an out-and-out hatchet job, full of selectively vicious quotes and incidents, often taken out of context and strung together to amount to a damning indictment. Repeatedly highlighting the plight of the frightened and disenfranchised minorities, mostly Muslims, under assault from the Hindu majority that Taseer portrays as invariably callous, even murderous, his article is nothing short of a doomsday dismissal of both Modi and India.&nbsp;

How to understand Taseer’s fustian fulminations? A good word for his kind of discourse would be re-Orientalism. Coined some ten years back by Lisa Lau, re-Orientalism refers to the continuation of narrative colonialism in post-colonial times. The major difference, however, is that its purveyors and perpetrators are no longer (mostly) white men, but “Orientals” such as ourselves. Mostly diasporic and highly privileged, these re-Orientalists, distort “the representation of the Orient, seizing voice and platform, and once again consigning the Oriental within the Orient to a position of ‘The Other.’” Taseer, with his last book on — what else but Varanasi — surely fits the bill. There is little room for the common Indian or the “real” India in his works, most of which are manufactured and intended for a Western audience.&nbsp;

There are ironies and contradictions galore in Taseer’s piece. “The Great Divider” was a moniker invented for none other than Barack Hussain Obama, the darling of Left Liberals the world over. If Donald Trump inherited it, it was by its sheer currency as an established political descriptor. The big contradiction, when it comes to Modi, is that Modi is actually India’s great Unifier-in-Chief. Modi has not only united Hindus as never before, but also integrated the great Indian middle class into a powerful political formation. He has given them a voice in addition to a vote. He has also unified the opposition, as Taseer acknowledges, “with no agenda other than to defeat him.”&nbsp;

Luckily, there is a silver lining to Taseer’s febrile lamentations. The more Modi is berated in the Western—or for that matter the Indian — media, the more popular he becomes with the Indian masses. Time Asia’s cover story, negative though it certainly is, will strengthen the resolve of the educated classes to vote for him. Especially given of the contempt poured out on their choice of him his their PM, they will take such denunciations as an additional reason make good on the promise, phir ek baar Modi Sarkar (one more time, Modi in power). In the end, of course, what Time says, or does not, matters little to us. We have moved on. To that extent, Taseer’s cover story may end up, if not as a last minute free fillip to campaign Modi, then little more than a blip, a momentary flicker or irritated swipe on a smartphone screen.&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-prime-minister-narendra-modi-great-unifier-or-divider-2748002">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp;

Just when we are nearing the close of this gruelling election season, Time magazine Asia’s cover story for May 20 has been receiving wide publicity. It shows a grim-looking Narendra Modi, in an Indian style black bandgala jacket, now popularly known as a Modi jacket, and a saffron shawl draped around his neck.

Just when we are nearing the close of this gruelling election season, Time magazine Asia’s cover story for May 20 has been receiving wide publicity. It shows a grim-looking Narendra Modi, in an Indian style black bandgala jacket, now popularly known as a Modi jacket, and a saffron shawl draped around his neck. So far so good. Why shouldn’t an Indian serving Prime Minister and most visible candidate, besides most likely to be re-elected incumbent, not grace the cover of an international newsmagazine, especially towards the end of the world’s largest and greatest parliamentary elections? Nearly a billion voters are eligible to cast their secret ballots in the mother of all election battles. Surely, this deserves the attention of the world. But, wait a minute. What’s the caption next to the photo? “India’s Divider in Chief.” The cover story so titled is by gifted writer and novelist, Aatish Taseer. As if to offer a slightly balancing backup, also blazoned on the cover, is “Modi the Reformer” by Ian Bremmer. After reading both, one cannot but be disappointed. Bremmer makes an attempt to paint Modi in contradictory more than contrasting colours as both economic reformer and failure. There is little approbation for the huge slew of reforms and improvements carried out by the government. Hardly a word in favour of the palpable reduction in corruption, swacch bharat, ujjwala, infrastructure development, reduction in inflation, and blistering growth rate, many of which are seen as incomplete or inadequate. Bremmer’s scathing scepticism may be dismissed as typical of the fading vestiges of the white man’s burden, now more evident in envious disbelief of India’s economic miracle than in any mandate to rule the world. But it is Taseer’s spleen-driven surliness, almost childishly querulous at times, that is galling. How can the cover-story on Indian elections be such a malevolent diatribe against a single man? There is not the least semblance of neutrality or objectivity here, nor attempt to present a sensible or balanced appraisal. It is an out-and-out hatchet job, full of selectively vicious quotes and incidents, often taken out of context and strung together to amount to a damning indictment. Repeatedly highlighting the plight of the frightened and disenfranchised minorities, mostly Muslims, under assault from the Hindu majority that Taseer portrays as invariably callous, even murderous, his article is nothing short of a doomsday dismissal of both Modi and India. How to understand Taseer’s fustian fulminations? A good word for his kind of discourse would be re-Orientalism. Coined some ten years back by Lisa Lau, re-Orientalism refers to the continuation of narrative colonialism in post-colonial times. The major difference, however, is that its purveyors and perpetrators are no longer (mostly) white men, but “Orientals” such as ourselves. Mostly diasporic and highly privileged, these re-Orientalists, distort “the representation of the Orient, seizing voice and platform, and once again consigning the Oriental within the Orient to a position of ‘The Other.’” Taseer, with his last book on — what else but Varanasi — surely fits the bill. There is little room for the common Indian or the “real” India in his works, most of which are manufactured and intended for a Western audience. There are ironies and contradictions galore in Taseer’s piece. “The Great Divider” was a moniker invented for none other than Barack Hussain Obama, the darling of Left Liberals the world over. If Donald Trump inherited it, it was by its sheer currency as an established political descriptor. The big contradiction, when it comes to Modi, is that Modi is actually India’s great Unifier-in-Chief. Modi has not only united Hindus as never before, but also integrated the great Indian middle class into a powerful political formation. He has given them a voice in addition to a vote. He has also unified the opposition, as Taseer acknowledges, “with no agenda other than to defeat him.” Luckily, there is a silver lining to Taseer’s febrile lamentations. The more Modi is berated in the Western—or for that matter the Indian — media, the more popular he becomes with the Indian masses. Time Asia’s cover story, negative though it certainly is, will strengthen the resolve of the educated classes to vote for him. Especially given of the contempt poured out on their choice of him his their PM, they will take such denunciations as an additional reason make good on the promise, phir ek baar Modi Sarkar (one more time, Modi in power). In the end, of course, what Time says, or does not, matters little to us. We have moved on. To that extent, Taseer’s cover story may end up, if not as a last minute free fillip to campaign Modi, then little more than a blip, a momentary flicker or irritated swipe on a smartphone screen. (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.)

Narendra Modi has integrated the middle class into a powerful political formation

In this segment of WION, we ask: Is Western-Media agenda driven? Watch the full video to know more.

Is Western-Media agenda driven?

India ka DNA 2019: ''In 2014, Problem was in DNA of some people, not all,'' says Nirmala Sitharaman

American Walter K Andersen, the author of the book on the RSS "The Brotherhood in Saffron" has been a keen South Asia watcher for decades. He has worked extensively for the US government at various levels from the days Henry Kissinger. He is in India once again witnessing the state elections and the big general elections in 2019.

He spoke exclusively to WION on the rise of the BJP &amp; RSS, PM Modi and his relations with President Trump and other big issues connected with the ruling party.

WION: How do you view PM Modi's tenure now that his government is set to face the electorate again next year?

Walter K Andersen: That is a complicated question because there are layers of success. India is now the fastest growing economy in the world today and that has been the status for the last four and a half years. The country has also received the largest foreign direct investment (FDI), I think it was $61 billion last year, which more than China. Also, infrastructure work has been going on but that has a delayed reaction, infrastructure work and FDI results do not show immediately.

The failure has been on the issue of jobs which has had a political impact but then no one could really do it because the number is quite high, in millions. He came into office with the expectation that he will be able to create a lot of jobs for many young people, but he has been able to help the poor... there are a large number of poor people. The health scheme is the perfect example, the gas cylinder scheme too.

WION: Also, the BJP is now in 19 states across India which seems to have fueled it.

Walter K Andersen: Yes, the Opposition wasn't able to put up candidates which captured the imagination of the people. There has been a blowback in the three states which have gone to the polls in which the BJP seems to be running neck-and-neck but they have been in power for quite a few years.

Rajasthan is an example which tends to go back and forth, so if they lose Rajasthan it won't be unusual. They have dominated Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh for quite some time, so it remains to be seen how much the anti-incumbency factor works against the BJP.

WION: As far as PM Modi the statesman is concerned, how does the West view him?

Walter K Andersen: Don't forget he could not visit the US for over a dozen years due to the Godhra riots but once it was clear he was going to be prime minister in 2014, the US ambassador at the time Nancy Powell went to visit him with flowers and there was a sense that maybe he wouldn't get a good reception but in fact he has. PM Modi has been able to turnaround his preception.

PM Modi invited Obama and they seemed to get along beautifully with each other. I understand he invited President Trump for the Republic Day celebrations but for some reason, it didn't work out but I won't be surprised if President Trump is not invited for the big event later.

WION: How do you view PM Modi's relations with President Trump?

Walter K Andersen: PM Modi worked at getting along, he did his homework on what President Trump was like, the prime minister is a very good politician. He is also a good actor, he has done it from when he was a child. If you watch him on the stage, he has a stage presence, he seems to be someone who was born for the stage.

He is also very good at private conversation, I have met him and he looks at you as if you are the most important person, unlike other prominent people who look over your shoulder. He remembers who you are and the circumstances in which you met him earlier which is very effective.

WION: And about your book "The Brotherhood In Saffron", how has that been viewed in India?

Walter K Andersen: Actually, PM Modi read it and said it is outdated, he didn't say write another one (laughs). It was of course written in 1988, at that time Congress was still the dominant party, the BJP was relatively a small party, but some things haven't changed.

The things that have changed is India's largest labour union, India's largest student group and India's largest party - the ruling party - and you can just go down the list and you can see how the RSS has penetrated in all parts of society.

WION: The rise of the RSS has been quite meteoric in the last few years.

Walter K Andersen: Yes, the growth was driven by the economic reforms of the 90s and as the Indian economy grew, urbanisation began to take place and that seems to have worked to the benefit of the Sangh including the BJP.

WION: How do you view the effect of the RSS on the party and then the country?

Walter K Andersen: Obviously, it has some influence. During the elections their cadre worked for the party. In the recent state elections, the RSS cadres went all out in Rajasthan and they used their polling network and the grassroots connect to find out how was the party faring and they got word that they have problems, so in the last few weeks they activated the cadre to attend the local meetings. In fact, the RSS is the best polling agency in India. They really go to the local level - the shakhas and they collect local information and pass it to the party.

WION: How do you think that affects the party?

Walter K Andersen: There is a common feeling that the BJP and the RSS sit down together but that is incorrect. Both are separate organizations and they have differences. Right now the big issue is the Ram Temple at Ayodhya.

WION: The view of the party and RSS it seems differs...

Walter K Andersen: Yes, the RSS and some of the affiliates like the VHP want the construction of the Ram Temple to start tomorrow but within the party, they think we need legislation and there are other views. The other big issue is on development.

The RSS has a much more older, protective view on the Indian economy. It is much less enthusiastic about FDI. The affiliates too the Mazdoor Sangh, the Swadeshi Jagran Manch were organised in the late 90s to oppose FDI and it still does.

WION: Is that good for the country?

Walter K Andersen: It certainly hasn't harmed the country, it has generated debate which one does not often see in political parties. It allows them to think. PM Modi sides with globalisation because he thinks it creates more jobs. He comes from a small enterprise background, his father ran a tea shop, so he understands you have to keep a ledger of inputs and outputs... so he understands as a young person the frustrations involved in moving up the ranks.

WION: In foreign affairs, what do you think has been PM Modi's greatest achievement?

Walter K Andersen: Ironically, I think it is getting India more involved in the international community and in relations with China. It now wants to improve its relations with India. PM Modi too wants to improve relations with China, he has been there several times. He has said some very complimentary things about China but he is a nationalist and the Chinese recognise it.

The RSS wants him to protect India's security and PM Modi has done it at Doklam, he has been able to do it and both sides declared victory which is the best thing - a win-win situation.

WION: And finally, how do you see Amit Shah and PM Modi working together?

Walter K Andersen: It is a remarkable pair. I haven't seen anything like it in Indian politics. There is an example of this in the late 19th century in Germany with Bismark who would organise things and the Emperor who was the public figure. A man like Amit Shah is all organization, he works the ground... he has no doubt built the most effective political organisation which is the BJP.

Amit Shah has worked at the booth level and has people who give feedback and analysis, so planning and execution helps the party and PM Modi and Amit Shah get along well too. They are two very self-possessed individuals, not insulted easily, a lot of people feel insulted, in that sense he is much like our President but then if you feel insulted, you should never be in politics.

I would like to have either one of them on my side in a battle, they are tough guys.

WION: But for the BJP the question is what next?

Walter K Andersen: Yes that is true, there does not seem to be a successor. It is true for Amit Shah as well. He has deputies but none that I know who is waiting to step in... the party needs both PM Modi and Amit Shah.

American Walter K Andersen, the author of the book on the RSS "The Brotherhood in Saffron" has been a keen South Asia watcher for decades. He has worked extensively for the US government at various levels from the days Henry Kissinger.

American Walter K Andersen, the author of the book on the RSS "The Brotherhood in Saffron" has been a keen South Asia watcher for decades. He has worked extensively for the US government at various levels from the days Henry Kissinger. He is in India once again witnessing the state elections and the big general elections in 2019. He spoke exclusively to WION on the rise of the BJP & RSS, PM Modi and his relations with President Trump and other big issues connected with the ruling party. WION: How do you view PM Modi's tenure now that his government is set to face the electorate again next year? Walter K Andersen: That is a complicated question because there are layers of success. India is now the fastest growing economy in the world today and that has been the status for the last four and a half years. The country has also received the largest foreign direct investment (FDI), I think it was $61 billion last year, which more than China. Also, infrastructure work has been going on but that has a delayed reaction, infrastructure work and FDI results do not show immediately. The failure has been on the issue of jobs which has had a political impact but then no one could really do it because the number is quite high, in millions. He came into office with the expectation that he will be able to create a lot of jobs for many young people, but he has been able to help the poor... there are a large number of poor people. The health scheme is the perfect example, the gas cylinder scheme too. WION: Also, the BJP is now in 19 states across India which seems to have fueled it. Walter K Andersen: Yes, the Opposition wasn't able to put up candidates which captured the imagination of the people. There has been a blowback in the three states which have gone to the polls in which the BJP seems to be running neck-and-neck but they have been in power for quite a few years. Rajasthan is an example which tends to go back and forth, so if they lose Rajasthan it won't be unusual. They have dominated Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh for quite some time, so it remains to be seen how much the anti-incumbency factor works against the BJP. WION: As far as PM Modi the statesman is concerned, how does the West view him? Walter K Andersen: Don't forget he could not visit the US for over a dozen years due to the Godhra riots but once it was clear he was going to be prime minister in 2014, the US ambassador at the time Nancy Powell went to visit him with flowers and there was a sense that maybe he wouldn't get a good reception but in fact he has. PM Modi has been able to turnaround his preception. PM Modi invited Obama and they seemed to get along beautifully with each other. I understand he invited President Trump for the Republic Day celebrations but for some reason, it didn't work out but I won't be surprised if President Trump is not invited for the big event later. WION: How do you view PM Modi's relations with President Trump? Walter K Andersen: PM Modi worked at getting along, he did his homework on what President Trump was like, the prime minister is a very good politician. He is also a good actor, he has done it from when he was a child. If you watch him on the stage, he has a stage presence, he seems to be someone who was born for the stage. He is also very good at private conversation, I have met him and he looks at you as if you are the most important person, unlike other prominent people who look over your shoulder. He remembers who you are and the circumstances in which you met him earlier which is very effective. WION: And about your book "The Brotherhood In Saffron", how has that been viewed in India? Walter K Andersen: Actually, PM Modi read it and said it is outdated, he didn't say write another one (laughs). It was of course written in 1988, at that time Congress was still the dominant party, the BJP was relatively a small party, but some things haven't changed. The things that have changed is India's largest labour union, India's largest student group and India's largest party - the ruling party - and you can just go down the list and you can see how the RSS has penetrated in all parts of society. WION: The rise of the RSS has been quite meteoric in the last few years. Walter K Andersen: Yes, the growth was driven by the economic reforms of the 90s and as the Indian economy grew, urbanisation began to take place and that seems to have worked to the benefit of the Sangh including the BJP. WION: How do you view the effect of the RSS on the party and then the country? Walter K Andersen: Obviously, it has some influence. During the elections their cadre worked for the party. In the recent state elections, the RSS cadres went all out in Rajasthan and they used their polling network and the grassroots connect to find out how was the party faring and they got word that they have problems, so in the last few weeks they activated the cadre to attend the local meetings. In fact, the RSS is the best polling agency in India. They really go to the local level - the shakhas and they collect local information and pass it to the party. WION: How do you think that affects the party? Walter K Andersen: There is a common feeling that the BJP and the RSS sit down together but that is incorrect. Both are separate organizations and they have differences. Right now the big issue is the Ram Temple at Ayodhya. WION: The view of the party and RSS it seems differs... Walter K Andersen: Yes, the RSS and some of the affiliates like the VHP want the construction of the Ram Temple to start tomorrow but within the party, they think we need legislation and there are other views. The other big issue is on development. The RSS has a much more older, protective view on the Indian economy. It is much less enthusiastic about FDI. The affiliates too the Mazdoor Sangh, the Swadeshi Jagran Manch were organised in the late 90s to oppose FDI and it still does. WION: Is that good for the country? Walter K Andersen: It certainly hasn't harmed the country, it has generated debate which one does not often see in political parties. It allows them to think. PM Modi sides with globalisation because he thinks it creates more jobs. He comes from a small enterprise background, his father ran a tea shop, so he understands you have to keep a ledger of inputs and outputs... so he understands as a young person the frustrations involved in moving up the ranks. WION: In foreign affairs, what do you think has been PM Modi's greatest achievement? Walter K Andersen: Ironically, I think it is getting India more involved in the international community and in relations with China. It now wants to improve its relations with India. PM Modi too wants to improve relations with China, he has been there several times. He has said some very complimentary things about China but he is a nationalist and the Chinese recognise it. The RSS wants him to protect India's security and PM Modi has done it at Doklam, he has been able to do it and both sides declared victory which is the best thing - a win-win situation. WION: And finally, how do you see Amit Shah and PM Modi working together? Walter K Andersen: It is a remarkable pair. I haven't seen anything like it in Indian politics. There is an example of this in the late 19th century in Germany with Bismark who would organise things and the Emperor who was the public figure. A man like Amit Shah is all organization, he works the ground... he has no doubt built the most effective political organisation which is the BJP. Amit Shah has worked at the booth level and has people who give feedback and analysis, so planning and execution helps the party and PM Modi and Amit Shah get along well too. They are two very self-possessed individuals, not insulted easily, a lot of people feel insulted, in that sense he is much like our President but then if you feel insulted, you should never be in politics. I would like to have either one of them on my side in a battle, they are tough guys. WION: But for the BJP the question is what next? Walter K Andersen: Yes that is true, there does not seem to be a successor. It is true for Amit Shah as well. He has deputies but none that I know who is waiting to step in... the party needs both PM Modi and Amit Shah.

Watch: PM Modi, Amit Shah a remarkable pair in Indian politics, says India watcher Andersen

The BJP accused Congress President Rahul Gandhi of practising the "lowest form of politics" after he accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of humiliating former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee and senior BJP leader LK Advani.&nbsp

News reports quoted Gandhi as having said at a rally in Mumbai that the Congress had accorded more respect to Advani than Modi.&nbsp

The reports quoted Gandhi as saying Advani had been Modi's guru but that he (Gandhi) had noticed "in events" that Modi does not even respect his guru. And that he (Gandhi) feels "very sad" for Advani.&nbsp

Gandhi later tweeted that "Ekalavya cut off his right thumb because his Guru demanded it" but "In the BJP, they cut down their own Gurus. Humiliating Vajpayeeji, Advaniji, Jaswant Singhji and their families is the Prime Minister’s way of protecting Indian culture."&nbsp

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Ekalavya cut off his right thumb because his Guru demanded it. 
 
In the BJP, they cut down their own Gurus. Humiliating Vajpayeeji, Advaniji, Jaswant Singhji and their families is the Prime Minister’s way of protecting Indian culture. <a href="https://t.co/lqUtBtj0t8">pic.twitter.com/lqUtBtj0t8</a>
— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) <a href="https://twitter.com/RahulGandhi/status/1006553306083180544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Gandhi also said Tuesday that the Congress party had fought against Vajpayee but when he was hospitalised on Monday, it was " it was we who first visited him".&nbsp

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Congress party fought against Vajpayee's govt, but when he was sick it was we who first visited him. This is the ideology of Congress party, we respect our opponents: Congress President <a href="https://twitter.com/RahulGandhi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RahulGandhi</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RahulGandhiInMumbai?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RahulGandhiInMumbai</a> <a href="https://t.co/5J7oVjpXlG">pic.twitter.com/5J7oVjpXlG</a>
— Congress (@INCIndia) <a href="https://twitter.com/INCIndia/status/1006509591809572866?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The pushback from the BJP was fast and furious.&nbsp

News reports quoted BJP spokespeson Anil Baluni as saying it was "bizarre" to see Gandhi "stoop to such a low".&nbsp

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Rahul Gandhi has been trying to advise BJP on how to respect senior leaders, he should first of all answer on his ill-treatment to their own senior leaders, like PV Narasimha Rao & Pranab Mukherjee: Anil Baluni, BJP (file pic) <a href="https://t.co/9S1o8snEBO">pic.twitter.com/9S1o8snEBO</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1006564268328669185?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 12, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Baluni added that "Rahul Gandhi has been trying to advise BJP on how to respect senior leaders, he should first of all answer on his ill-treatment to their own senior leaders, like PV Narasimha Rao & Pranab Mukherjee".&nbsp

Congress President Rahul Gandhi said Advani had been Modi's guru but that he (Gandhi) had noticed 'in events' that Modi does not even respect his guru. And that he (Gandhi) feels 'very sad' for Advani

The BJP accused Congress President Rahul Gandhi of practising the "lowest form of politics" after he accused Prime Minister Narendra Modi of humiliating former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee and senior BJP leader LK Advani. News reports quoted Gandhi as having said at a rally in Mumbai that the Congress had accorded more respect to Advani than Modi. The reports quoted Gandhi as saying Advani had been Modi's guru but that he (Gandhi) had noticed "in events" that Modi does not even respect his guru. And that he (Gandhi) feels "very sad" for Advani. Gandhi later tweeted that "Ekalavya cut off his right thumb because his Guru demanded it" but "In the BJP, they cut down their own Gurus. Humiliating Vajpayeeji, Advaniji, Jaswant Singhji and their families is the Prime Minister’s way of protecting Indian culture." Ekalavya cut off his right thumb because his Guru demanded it. In the BJP, they cut down their own Gurus. Humiliating Vajpayeeji, Advaniji, Jaswant Singhji and their families is the Prime Minister’s way of protecting Indian culture. pic.twitter.com/lqUtBtj0t8 — Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) June 12, 2018 × Gandhi also said Tuesday that the Congress party had fought against Vajpayee but when he was hospitalised on Monday, it was " it was we who first visited him". Congress party fought against Vajpayee's govt, but when he was sick it was we who first visited him. This is the ideology of Congress party, we respect our opponents: Congress President @RahulGandhi #RahulGandhiInMumbai pic.twitter.com/5J7oVjpXlG — Congress (@INCIndia) June 12, 2018 × The pushback from the BJP was fast and furious. News reports quoted BJP spokespeson Anil Baluni as saying it was "bizarre" to see Gandhi "stoop to such a low". Rahul Gandhi has been trying to advise BJP on how to respect senior leaders, he should first of all answer on his ill-treatment to their own senior leaders, like PV Narasimha Rao & Pranab Mukherjee: Anil Baluni, BJP (file pic) pic.twitter.com/9S1o8snEBO — ANI (@ANI) June 12, 2018 × Baluni added that "Rahul Gandhi has been trying to advise BJP on how to respect senior leaders, he should first of all answer on his ill-treatment to their own senior leaders, like PV Narasimha Rao & Pranab Mukherjee".

'Lowest form of politics,' says BJP after Rahul alleges Modi humiliated Vajpayee, Advani

India has seen an active participation of women in the country&rsquo;s struggle for independence against the colonial power.&nbsp;This participation was recognised after independence when the universal suffrage was introduced in the very first elections held in independent India.&nbsp;However, in over seventy decades of independence, the country could see only a handful of prominent female politicians, including the first and the only woman prime minister to date, Indira Gandhi.

Pratibha Patil the former President of the country, J Jayalalithaa, Vasundhara Raje, Mamata Banerjee, Sushma Swaraj are few other politicians who managed to penetrate through the male dominance spectrum.

With just 11 per cent representation in the lower house of the Parliament and 10.6 per cent in the Upper House, there is an urgent need for implementing measures to improve female participation in the politics of the country.

While the plan to improve women&#39;s role in politics is in the process for a long time, the bill which was introduced for the same has lapsed in the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha.&nbsp;The Women Reservation Bill, also known as The Constitution (108th Amendment) Bill, 2008 was passed in the Rajya Sabha in 2010 but could not get through the Lok Sabha.&nbsp;It was stuck in the Lower house for long and was finally lapsed after the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha headed by the members elected during the 2009 general elections.

The Bill was introduced with a proposal to amend the Constitution of India and to reserve 33 per cent of all seats for women in the Lower-house of the Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies.&nbsp;These seats were to be reserved on the rotational basis in a way that a seat would be reserved only once in three consecutive general elections.

The foundation of the proposal was laid in a constitutional amendment that was passed in 1993, aiming at reserving one-third positions for women in Gram Panchayat.&nbsp;Since then, the Panchayat and the Municipal have witnessed an increased representation of women. Though most of these women are mere faces to the elections with their husband&rsquo;s or son&rsquo;s leading the political battle.&nbsp;The proposal was also extended for reserving the same 33 percent seats for women in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.&nbsp;However several people opposed the bill saying that it will be discrimination against the others.

The female participation in Indian politics is lower than the global average representation of women. Our country ranks below Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and many more.

Unless and until women&rsquo;s participation in the governing body of the country increases, serious grievances like acid attacks, rape, dowry, molestation, killings will not be addressed with grievous concern.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

The female participation in Indian politics is lower than the global average representation of women. Unless and until women’s participation in the governing body of the country increases, serious grievances will not be addressed with grievous concern

India has seen an active participation of women in the country’s struggle for independence against the colonial power. This participation was recognised after independence when the universal suffrage was introduced in the very first elections held in independent India. However, in over seventy decades of independence, the country could see only a handful of prominent female politicians, including the first and the only woman prime minister to date, Indira Gandhi. Pratibha Patil the former President of the country, J Jayalalithaa, Vasundhara Raje, Mamata Banerjee, Sushma Swaraj are few other politicians who managed to penetrate through the male dominance spectrum. With just 11 per cent representation in the lower house of the Parliament and 10.6 per cent in the Upper House, there is an urgent need for implementing measures to improve female participation in the politics of the country. While the plan to improve women's role in politics is in the process for a long time, the bill which was introduced for the same has lapsed in the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha. The Women Reservation Bill, also known as The Constitution (108th Amendment) Bill, 2008 was passed in the Rajya Sabha in 2010 but could not get through the Lok Sabha. It was stuck in the Lower house for long and was finally lapsed after the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha headed by the members elected during the 2009 general elections. The Bill was introduced with a proposal to amend the Constitution of India and to reserve 33 per cent of all seats for women in the Lower-house of the Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies. These seats were to be reserved on the rotational basis in a way that a seat would be reserved only once in three consecutive general elections. The foundation of the proposal was laid in a constitutional amendment that was passed in 1993, aiming at reserving one-third positions for women in Gram Panchayat. Since then, the Panchayat and the Municipal have witnessed an increased representation of women. Though most of these women are mere faces to the elections with their husband’s or son’s leading the political battle. The proposal was also extended for reserving the same 33 percent seats for women in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. However several people opposed the bill saying that it will be discrimination against the others. The female participation in Indian politics is lower than the global average representation of women. Our country ranks below Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe and many more. Unless and until women’s participation in the governing body of the country increases, serious grievances like acid attacks, rape, dowry, molestation, killings will not be addressed with grievous concern. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: How long will India's women wait for Women's Reservation Bill?

Statues are symbols of politics in many parts of the world. They are associated with cult politics, subversive politics, authoritarian regime, religion and change both from above and below. Statues stand as symbols of power, as an embodiment of certain philosophy.&nbsp;

With the imposition of colonial rule in the subcontinent, the metropolises, such as Chennai and Mumbai and, particularly, Kolkata, witnessed a plethora of statutes being set up at crucial public places. Maidan, the largest green space of Kolkata which separated the British part of the city from the native quarters, boasted statutes of British governor generals and other eminent personalities of the British Raj, including Lord Curzon, Kitchener, Roberts, Minto, Northbrook and Canning.

While men are mortal, statues are there to stay. For the colonialists, this was the best way to ingrain in the public memory of its subjects the face of its rulers. These statues inspired awe and reverence for the British rule beyond the clutch of draconian laws of the colonial masters.&nbsp;

When eventually the colony struck back at the heart of the empire, a role reversal happened. Not only were some of these vestiges of colonial rule removed but many new statues came up after independence, commemorating the &#39;makers of modern India&#39;. Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose, Nehru and statues of women freedom fighters, such as Matangini Hazra was there for us to see and celebrate.&nbsp;

The independent nation-state used these nationalist icons to assert an ideological continuity in the imagination of its citizens.&nbsp;

Thus, while the putting up and taking down of statutes were very much part of the political landscape of modern India, what was absent was the violence and the compulsion of electoral politics. That is something that emerged in more recent times as communities and political groups jostled to remake and redefine, through statutory politics, the political narrative of the country.&nbsp;

We, and the statues that we have built, have come a long way from representing the Indian &#39;us&#39; from British &#39;them&#39;. It has fragmented and splintered into multiple variants of regional political assertion. Consequently, new statues are not simply being built to take the place of the old but political aggression is finding expression in the form of defacement of statues of people who do not fall within our preferred political ambit.&nbsp;

In India, it is not the first time statues have been defaced. Statues of Ambedkar routinely got defaced in Uttar Pradesh. Upper caste saw these as the ugly assertion of Dalit politics. Some saw them as a land grab exercise but statues did not go away. Mayawati went even a step further. She got her statues erected under her supervision only.

More recently, similar incidents of defacing and disfiguring of statues have happened in Tripura, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. In all these cases, there have been forms of physical acts of removal, violence and indecency. The similarity, however, ends here. The violence associated with Lenin, Shyama Prasad Mukherji and Periyar is related to coming of the RSS-BJP combine as the sole national party and their civilizational worldview. It is the same distinction which RSS draws between Gandhi family and the Congress Party. Indian philosophy and western influences. Though the organisation of RSS itself has been modern, the state of Tripura has put on the table the ideological frontier of the RSS-BJP.

&nbsp;It is not about Lenin only. It is about communism&rsquo;s take on religion, internationalism which put the Left in a dock when China invaded India and about a value system which with pro-labour ideas also threatened the cultural vision of India which RSS has. It is for this reason that BJP&rsquo;s engagement with protests in JNU acquired an ideological angle which was pinned to nationalism, commitment to India&rsquo;s border and sense of being &lsquo;true&rsquo; Indian.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Periyar, on the other hand, is the father of Dravidian politics in India. His rationalist thoughts challenged the idea of religion and its hierarchies. It made Tamil Nadu&rsquo;s politics very different from the rest of India. Despite, places of high Hinduism&nbsp;associated with Tamil Nadu, it was Periyar&rsquo;s politics which reshaped the cultural map. He did not believe in God but his supporters made him a God like icon of him.

Though BJP is trying to give Tripura incident a spin of upsurge, we should not forget that Left was not a dictatorship and won elections. Tripura was neither Iraq nor USSR where democracy had a chequered history.

Statues in India, as well as outside, are, primarily, an expression of power and preservation of memories. Most political parties have their leaders enshrined in the form of statues in the Parliament. Every nook and corner of Parliament is littered with them. The present controversy is an expression of the contested idea of India which includes the debate on inclusiveness, nationalism, modernity, tolerance and individual expression.&nbsp;

The violence that has come to surround politics of statues in India can create problems for BJP. Tamil Nadu is one area where BJP wants to have a regional partner. What may benefit them in the North East may hurt them in some other parts of India. The only problem is for Congress which will have to pick sides. The Congress is in no position to argue against the politics of statuary because it has done the same when in power. It ensured that country was littered with statues of Indira and Rajiv. Congress does not belong to the Left but cannot be seen not taking a position against violence.&nbsp;

The statues of politicians or ideologues are here to say. These statues are just like idols; one may not understand the ambiguous philosophical aspect of religion but will bow down in respect to a &#39;murti&#39; of god and goddess. Similarly, in lieu of proper political education, political parties will continue using larger and grandiose statues of their leaders to impress the electorates. Statues, any day, will work more effectively, than political leaflet, particularly in a country like India where the literacy rate is low. But while we accept statutory politics, it is imperative that in a democratic polity, instead of vandalising opposing political insignia, it will serve the interests of the citizens better if we can accommodate statues representing different positions of a political spectrum.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

New statues are not simply being built to take the place of the old but political aggression is finding expression in the form of defacement of statues of people who do not fall within our preferred political ambit.

Statues are symbols of politics in many parts of the world. They are associated with cult politics, subversive politics, authoritarian regime, religion and change both from above and below. Statues stand as symbols of power, as an embodiment of certain philosophy. With the imposition of colonial rule in the subcontinent, the metropolises, such as Chennai and Mumbai and, particularly, Kolkata, witnessed a plethora of statutes being set up at crucial public places. Maidan, the largest green space of Kolkata which separated the British part of the city from the native quarters, boasted statutes of British governor generals and other eminent personalities of the British Raj, including Lord Curzon, Kitchener, Roberts, Minto, Northbrook and Canning. While men are mortal, statues are there to stay. For the colonialists, this was the best way to ingrain in the public memory of its subjects the face of its rulers. These statues inspired awe and reverence for the British rule beyond the clutch of draconian laws of the colonial masters. When eventually the colony struck back at the heart of the empire, a role reversal happened. Not only were some of these vestiges of colonial rule removed but many new statues came up after independence, commemorating the 'makers of modern India'. Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose, Nehru and statues of women freedom fighters, such as Matangini Hazra was there for us to see and celebrate. The independent nation-state used these nationalist icons to assert an ideological continuity in the imagination of its citizens. Thus, while the putting up and taking down of statutes were very much part of the political landscape of modern India, what was absent was the violence and the compulsion of electoral politics. That is something that emerged in more recent times as communities and political groups jostled to remake and redefine, through statutory politics, the political narrative of the country. We, and the statues that we have built, have come a long way from representing the Indian 'us' from British 'them'. It has fragmented and splintered into multiple variants of regional political assertion. Consequently, new statues are not simply being built to take the place of the old but political aggression is finding expression in the form of defacement of statues of people who do not fall within our preferred political ambit. In India, it is not the first time statues have been defaced. Statues of Ambedkar routinely got defaced in Uttar Pradesh. Upper caste saw these as the ugly assertion of Dalit politics. Some saw them as a land grab exercise but statues did not go away. Mayawati went even a step further. She got her statues erected under her supervision only. More recently, similar incidents of defacing and disfiguring of statues have happened in Tripura, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu. In all these cases, there have been forms of physical acts of removal, violence and indecency. The similarity, however, ends here. The violence associated with Lenin, Shyama Prasad Mukherji and Periyar is related to coming of the RSS-BJP combine as the sole national party and their civilizational worldview. It is the same distinction which RSS draws between Gandhi family and the Congress Party. Indian philosophy and western influences. Though the organisation of RSS itself has been modern, the state of Tripura has put on the table the ideological frontier of the RSS-BJP. It is not about Lenin only. It is about communism’s take on religion, internationalism which put the Left in a dock when China invaded India and about a value system which with pro-labour ideas also threatened the cultural vision of India which RSS has. It is for this reason that BJP’s engagement with protests in JNU acquired an ideological angle which was pinned to nationalism, commitment to India’s border and sense of being ‘true’ Indian. Periyar, on the other hand, is the father of Dravidian politics in India. His rationalist thoughts challenged the idea of religion and its hierarchies. It made Tamil Nadu’s politics very different from the rest of India. Despite, places of high Hinduism associated with Tamil Nadu, it was Periyar’s politics which reshaped the cultural map. He did not believe in God but his supporters made him a God like icon of him. Though BJP is trying to give Tripura incident a spin of upsurge, we should not forget that Left was not a dictatorship and won elections. Tripura was neither Iraq nor USSR where democracy had a chequered history. Statues in India, as well as outside, are, primarily, an expression of power and preservation of memories. Most political parties have their leaders enshrined in the form of statues in the Parliament. Every nook and corner of Parliament is littered with them. The present controversy is an expression of the contested idea of India which includes the debate on inclusiveness, nationalism, modernity, tolerance and individual expression. The violence that has come to surround politics of statues in India can create problems for BJP. Tamil Nadu is one area where BJP wants to have a regional partner. What may benefit them in the North East may hurt them in some other parts of India. The only problem is for Congress which will have to pick sides. The Congress is in no position to argue against the politics of statuary because it has done the same when in power. It ensured that country was littered with statues of Indira and Rajiv. Congress does not belong to the Left but cannot be seen not taking a position against violence. The statues of politicians or ideologues are here to say. These statues are just like idols; one may not understand the ambiguous philosophical aspect of religion but will bow down in respect to a 'murti' of god and goddess. Similarly, in lieu of proper political education, political parties will continue using larger and grandiose statues of their leaders to impress the electorates. Statues, any day, will work more effectively, than political leaflet, particularly in a country like India where the literacy rate is low. But while we accept statutory politics, it is imperative that in a democratic polity, instead of vandalising opposing political insignia, it will serve the interests of the citizens better if we can accommodate statues representing different positions of a political spectrum. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why Indians are waging war over statues of Lenin, Periyar, Syama Prasad

After a long wait and keeping people guessing, Rahul Gandhi became Congress president in December, ostensibly via an internal election process.

Congress was founded by A.O. Hume on 28th December 1985, so it has completed 132 years few days after the coronation of Rahul. Congress celebrated the day at their office at Akbar Road. As such it is a sort of farce that present day&rsquo;s Congress claims the legacy of the party which was founded in 1885; neither the people are same nor the ideology. Moreover, Indira Gandhi brought tectonic changes in the core ideology of the party for all times to come during the late seventies.

Now, come to the events during the first three days of March 2018. First, the Gandhi scion flew to Italy, supposedly to surprise his Nani (Grand Mother) on the Holi weekend. It was anybody&rsquo;s guess that he was out on a vacation under the garb of meeting his Nani.

While Rahul was vacationing, the poll results were out for three north-eastern states. The left had a serious drubbing in Tripura as they lost out its old bastion of Tripura to BJP but there was a serious setback to Congress overall. End of the day it&rsquo;s not CPI/CPM but it is Congress who is relevant in the discussions as Congress is the alternative at the national level and not Left Parties. Congress lost heavily in all three states. The major sign of worry for Congress is that they simply allowed BJP to take full advantage of anti-incumbency in Tripura.

It was another reality check for an old grand party, who has been gloating as such after success in Rajasthan by-polls.

The Ostrich Syndrome is pervasive in Congress and with little success, Rahul and his coterie of sycophants start telling themselves &ldquo;hey, we are recovering&rdquo; and then realty would bite them hard and they fall prey to the real challenge. It has been happening for years.

Two months back Rahul and company were telling the whole world that they almost defeated Modi in Gujarat. However, on the bit of analysis, it becomes clear that even in Gujarat, it has been a significant victory for Modi and BJP. Consider all these factors: 22 years of incumbency, disgruntled business class due to demonetization and GST glitches, alienated Patidars, a strong bid by Congress to consolidate anti-BJP factions, no Modi in Gujarat. But still, BJP managed to float with the reasonable level of comfort.

Vote share difference between Congress and BJP in 2012 was 9%, whereas in 2017 it is 7.7%. So even with above-mentioned reasons and Congress&rsquo;s brazen attempt to polarise on the caste basis, only 1.3% of the gap could be bridged. True that Congress made some positive dent in BJP&rsquo;s vote bank but as a political analyst puts it clearly that the dent made by BJP in Congress vote bank in Gujarat-2017 is far more sustainable than what Congress made to BJP&rsquo;s vote bank.

So now with the huge and seminal setback in North-East, what is the way forward to Gandhi scion? Actually more than electoral drubbing, the worrisome fact is that there has been no improvement in the functioning of the party.

I veer my narrative to different direction now. There is a narrative, which we tell in management classes to our salespeople.&nbsp;A few years back a Hindi movie with the title &ldquo;Rocket Singh &ndash; Salesman of the year&rdquo; was released. It was directed by Shimit Amin, the man who directed the iconic &ldquo;Chak De India&rdquo; with Shahrukh.&nbsp;Rocket Singh was a simple guy who acts on his instinct, against general stereotypes of a salesman and makes an outstanding connect with his customers.

The core message of the movie was outstanding and touched the chord. It said &ldquo;If you want to be a successful sales guy then don&rsquo;t chase the sales figures. You rather be passionate and make connections with your customer, understand their pain points, be emphatic and transparent and give them a fair deal. If you are able to do so then you don&rsquo;t have to chase sales figures but sales figure would chase you&rdquo;.

The crux of the message was that one needs to put basics in place and everything else will fall in line. In other words, focus on curing the core infection and don&rsquo;t waste your bandwidth in managing symptoms. If the infection is cured, symptoms would fizzle. &nbsp;&nbsp;

This is quite spot on and applicable in all fields. &nbsp;Achieving success is no petty game; and as Rocket Singh preached, you just need to correct the basics.

Politics is salesmanship only. Politician chases vote counts the way a salesman chases sales figure. This remains the root cause of failure and prevents the revival.

Rahul Gandhi and Congress are suffering from this core problem. Year after year, election after election, Rahul Gandhi is repeating the same mistake; not putting the basics correct across the old grand party and blindly chasing the vote count as last-minute attempt under desperation and on behest of his sycophant advisors. &nbsp;

What are those basics?&nbsp;

Here is the list: first, a strong and compelling narrative to tell the voters; the presence of motivated and strong cadre right up to bottom level. Congress can take a cue from BJP as to how its cadre pulled things in Tripura. Second, the presence of established, strong and vote puller local leaders. Third, relentless efforts to maintain a connection with people &ndash; and lastly, a clear and convincing blueprint of governance if voted to power.

Politics is a funny game and plain arithmetic often fails here. For Rahul, Uttar Pradesh was the glaring example, before he drew his Gujarat plans. His mindless alliance with Samajwadi Party fell flat. Moreover, it demoralised and marginalised whatever little cadre Congress had in UP.

The only way Rahul Gandhi can resurrect the organisation is to by simply putting basics correct without any fear of electoral drubbing. In the process of course correction, if he loses few more election, it won&rsquo;t make a difference. He need not blindly chase vote counts. Like Rocket Singh proved in the movie, if Rahul Gandhi can put the basics of electoral politics right, then vote count will chase him.

Time is running thick and fast. General Election is just 14 months away and if Congress does not recover in 2019, the process of decline will become irreversible. &nbsp;

And yes, politics is 24x7 occupation, Rahul. Your party comes first before anything else so stop flying abroad every now and then. It is so demoralising for the cadre that news of drubbing is coming in and leader is vacationing abroad.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

Like Rocket Singh proved in the movie, if Rahul Gandhi can put the basics of electoral politics right, then vote count will chase him.

After a long wait and keeping people guessing, Rahul Gandhi became Congress president in December, ostensibly via an internal election process. Congress was founded by A.O. Hume on 28th December 1985, so it has completed 132 years few days after the coronation of Rahul. Congress celebrated the day at their office at Akbar Road. As such it is a sort of farce that present day’s Congress claims the legacy of the party which was founded in 1885; neither the people are same nor the ideology. Moreover, Indira Gandhi brought tectonic changes in the core ideology of the party for all times to come during the late seventies. Now, come to the events during the first three days of March 2018. First, the Gandhi scion flew to Italy, supposedly to surprise his Nani (Grand Mother) on the Holi weekend. It was anybody’s guess that he was out on a vacation under the garb of meeting his Nani. While Rahul was vacationing, the poll results were out for three north-eastern states. The left had a serious drubbing in Tripura as they lost out its old bastion of Tripura to BJP but there was a serious setback to Congress overall. End of the day it’s not CPI/CPM but it is Congress who is relevant in the discussions as Congress is the alternative at the national level and not Left Parties. Congress lost heavily in all three states. The major sign of worry for Congress is that they simply allowed BJP to take full advantage of anti-incumbency in Tripura. It was another reality check for an old grand party, who has been gloating as such after success in Rajasthan by-polls. The Ostrich Syndrome is pervasive in Congress and with little success, Rahul and his coterie of sycophants start telling themselves “hey, we are recovering” and then realty would bite them hard and they fall prey to the real challenge. It has been happening for years. Two months back Rahul and company were telling the whole world that they almost defeated Modi in Gujarat. However, on the bit of analysis, it becomes clear that even in Gujarat, it has been a significant victory for Modi and BJP. Consider all these factors: 22 years of incumbency, disgruntled business class due to demonetization and GST glitches, alienated Patidars, a strong bid by Congress to consolidate anti-BJP factions, no Modi in Gujarat. But still, BJP managed to float with the reasonable level of comfort. Vote share difference between Congress and BJP in 2012 was 9%, whereas in 2017 it is 7.7%. So even with above-mentioned reasons and Congress’s brazen attempt to polarise on the caste basis, only 1.3% of the gap could be bridged. True that Congress made some positive dent in BJP’s vote bank but as a political analyst puts it clearly that the dent made by BJP in Congress vote bank in Gujarat-2017 is far more sustainable than what Congress made to BJP’s vote bank. So now with the huge and seminal setback in North-East, what is the way forward to Gandhi scion? Actually more than electoral drubbing, the worrisome fact is that there has been no improvement in the functioning of the party. I veer my narrative to different direction now. There is a narrative, which we tell in management classes to our salespeople. A few years back a Hindi movie with the title “Rocket Singh – Salesman of the year” was released. It was directed by Shimit Amin, the man who directed the iconic “Chak De India” with Shahrukh. Rocket Singh was a simple guy who acts on his instinct, against general stereotypes of a salesman and makes an outstanding connect with his customers. The core message of the movie was outstanding and touched the chord. It said “If you want to be a successful sales guy then don’t chase the sales figures. You rather be passionate and make connections with your customer, understand their pain points, be emphatic and transparent and give them a fair deal. If you are able to do so then you don’t have to chase sales figures but sales figure would chase you”. The crux of the message was that one needs to put basics in place and everything else will fall in line. In other words, focus on curing the core infection and don’t waste your bandwidth in managing symptoms. If the infection is cured, symptoms would fizzle. This is quite spot on and applicable in all fields. Achieving success is no petty game; and as Rocket Singh preached, you just need to correct the basics. Politics is salesmanship only. Politician chases vote counts the way a salesman chases sales figure. This remains the root cause of failure and prevents the revival. Rahul Gandhi and Congress are suffering from this core problem. Year after year, election after election, Rahul Gandhi is repeating the same mistake; not putting the basics correct across the old grand party and blindly chasing the vote count as last-minute attempt under desperation and on behest of his sycophant advisors. What are those basics? Here is the list: first, a strong and compelling narrative to tell the voters; the presence of motivated and strong cadre right up to bottom level. Congress can take a cue from BJP as to how its cadre pulled things in Tripura. Second, the presence of established, strong and vote puller local leaders. Third, relentless efforts to maintain a connection with people – and lastly, a clear and convincing blueprint of governance if voted to power. Politics is a funny game and plain arithmetic often fails here. For Rahul, Uttar Pradesh was the glaring example, before he drew his Gujarat plans. His mindless alliance with Samajwadi Party fell flat. Moreover, it demoralised and marginalised whatever little cadre Congress had in UP. The only way Rahul Gandhi can resurrect the organisation is to by simply putting basics correct without any fear of electoral drubbing. In the process of course correction, if he loses few more election, it won’t make a difference. He need not blindly chase vote counts. Like Rocket Singh proved in the movie, if Rahul Gandhi can put the basics of electoral politics right, then vote count will chase him. Time is running thick and fast. General Election is just 14 months away and if Congress does not recover in 2019, the process of decline will become irreversible. And yes, politics is 24x7 occupation, Rahul. Your party comes first before anything else so stop flying abroad every now and then. It is so demoralising for the cadre that news of drubbing is coming in and leader is vacationing abroad. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: What Rahul Gandhi can learn from 'Rocket Singh' about elections?

After the poll planks of Shiv Bhakt and Janeu Dhari Hindu, it is quite evident that Congress has been slightly leaning towards a mild Hindutva platform. It will be historic for a party whose poll equation starts from Dalit-OBCs and ends up wooing the Muslims. Congress never tried to take Hindus as whole in their account. BJP was never shy to carry Hindutva tag but Congress distanced itself whenever they were caught doing minority appeasement. And during this high potential elections, the newly-elected president of the Grand Old Party is playing a mild Hindu card beyond Dalits and OBCs and started taking intrest in upper castes like Patidars in Gujarat and Brahmin-Thakurs in Himachal Pradesh.

HEADS:

As an old saying goes &quot;Diamond cuts diamond&quot;, perhaps this political technique of Rahul Gandhi may stand against the Hindutva mindset of RSS-BJP. Lots of political analysts and Congress leaning journalists who are acknowledging a sudden maturity in Rahul Gandhi think that this poll plank may add a feather in Rahul&#39;s hat. General people on the ground in Gujarat and especially the Patidars exclusively believe in Hindutva. So this electoral tool of Hinduism might woo Hindutva. In fact they would receive vote chunk from every caste instead of a particular one. The self-styled godmans and other religious yogis who have infuence in Indian political mandate won&#39;t neglect Congress because they are Muslim-only appeasers. The Hindus from states other than Gujarat might get good impression from this gesture of Rahul Gandhi. So called secular ideologues had once appreciated Dr Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan for contributing in works of Hinduism (not Hindutva) so they might praise Mr Gandhi in the same fashion. Muslim appeasement was once the medium of Congress to show that they are secular. It is very astonishing that finally Congress realised that Muslim appeasement and this secularism won&#39;t be a lifeboat for them. Muslims Tribals-Dalits hate Hindutva put forth by BJP-RSS, but they may be comfortable with this mild Hindu card played by the Grand Old Party. The best or worst part in Indian politics is, that Indian voter doesn&#39;t care about a political trend of a party in other state i.e. a voter in Karnataka won&#39;t carry what Rahul Gandhi says in Gujarat. Moreover, the public memory is very short and weak. So that is why the people in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Chhattisgarh, where elections are coming, voters wouldn&#39;t mind this mild Hindu card. Well the best thing which I see is that Congress party till recent years used to think that going to temples and talking on behalf of upper classes is a part of communal agenda. Now the eyes of Congress seem to have opened and leaned towards realism rather than cloud of just rationalism. Overall, this move of Congress would not only help the Grand Old Party to remove its Muslim-only tag but also would help to improve realistic upbringing in Indian politics.

TAILS:

In today&#39;s political phase, India needs a strong opposition having a centrist ideology which identifies state and religion as different entities. So the opposition needs to be far secular i.e. &#39;Empowerment of all and Appeasement of none&#39;. But the current move of 132-year-old party has an opposite ideology i.e. &#39;Empowerment of none but appeasement of all&#39;. This poll plank would definitely hurt our current politics. It&#39;s a matter of great debate whether the political parties should amend their ideologies in time now. I won&#39;t say what Indian political ideologies should generally do, but on this right leaned political pitch, the original centre-left Congress is the only party competent to do proper bowling. The original Congress of Gandhian ideology would propose &#39;Religion neutral, Caste neutral, only Indianity&#39; concept which is needed right now, but unfortunately Congress seems to have forgot Congress! I urge Sashi Tharoor Sir to remind their newly elected (nominated) president, about what original Congress stand for.

Rahul Gandhi needs to be reminded that Hindutva is the last thing that a BJP voter wants. The thing which elevated Chief Minister Narendra Modi to Prime Minister of world&#39;s largest democracy isn&#39;t actually his Hindutva background. Moreover, if there would be any shameful and genuine incident of threat on minorities then it would be impossible for the Grand old Party to present its stance before the nation. Even if a voter wants to vote for rhetoric of Hindutva then Congress is less likely to be first option for him. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley also ridiculed this move of Congress and said that people would vote for original rather than a clone. Congress is questioning the incumbent government very properly, but at the same time, they need to put forth a socio-economic model before the people which have capability to stand before the economic pitches of PM Narendra Modi. Congress still has a chance, but they need to work too hard to achieve even 30 per cent of what those guys hope and quote.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity)

This move of Congress would not only help the grand old party to remove its Muslim-only tag but also help to improve realistic upbringing in Indian politics.

After the poll planks of Shiv Bhakt and Janeu Dhari Hindu, it is quite evident that Congress has been slightly leaning towards a mild Hindutva platform. It will be historic for a party whose poll equation starts from Dalit-OBCs and ends up wooing the Muslims. Congress never tried to take Hindus as whole in their account. BJP was never shy to carry Hindutva tag but Congress distanced itself whenever they were caught doing minority appeasement. And during this high potential elections, the newly-elected president of the Grand Old Party is playing a mild Hindu card beyond Dalits and OBCs and started taking intrest in upper castes like Patidars in Gujarat and Brahmin-Thakurs in Himachal Pradesh. HEADS: As an old saying goes "Diamond cuts diamond", perhaps this political technique of Rahul Gandhi may stand against the Hindutva mindset of RSS-BJP. Lots of political analysts and Congress leaning journalists who are acknowledging a sudden maturity in Rahul Gandhi think that this poll plank may add a feather in Rahul's hat. General people on the ground in Gujarat and especially the Patidars exclusively believe in Hindutva. So this electoral tool of Hinduism might woo Hindutva. In fact they would receive vote chunk from every caste instead of a particular one. The self-styled godmans and other religious yogis who have infuence in Indian political mandate won't neglect Congress because they are Muslim-only appeasers. The Hindus from states other than Gujarat might get good impression from this gesture of Rahul Gandhi. So called secular ideologues had once appreciated Dr Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan for contributing in works of Hinduism (not Hindutva) so they might praise Mr Gandhi in the same fashion. Muslim appeasement was once the medium of Congress to show that they are secular. It is very astonishing that finally Congress realised that Muslim appeasement and this secularism won't be a lifeboat for them. Muslims Tribals-Dalits hate Hindutva put forth by BJP-RSS, but they may be comfortable with this mild Hindu card played by the Grand Old Party. The best or worst part in Indian politics is, that Indian voter doesn't care about a political trend of a party in other state i.e. a voter in Karnataka won't carry what Rahul Gandhi says in Gujarat. Moreover, the public memory is very short and weak. So that is why the people in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Chhattisgarh, where elections are coming, voters wouldn't mind this mild Hindu card. Well the best thing which I see is that Congress party till recent years used to think that going to temples and talking on behalf of upper classes is a part of communal agenda. Now the eyes of Congress seem to have opened and leaned towards realism rather than cloud of just rationalism. Overall, this move of Congress would not only help the Grand Old Party to remove its Muslim-only tag but also would help to improve realistic upbringing in Indian politics. TAILS: In today's political phase, India needs a strong opposition having a centrist ideology which identifies state and religion as different entities. So the opposition needs to be far secular i.e. 'Empowerment of all and Appeasement of none'. But the current move of 132-year-old party has an opposite ideology i.e. 'Empowerment of none but appeasement of all'. This poll plank would definitely hurt our current politics. It's a matter of great debate whether the political parties should amend their ideologies in time now. I won't say what Indian political ideologies should generally do, but on this right leaned political pitch, the original centre-left Congress is the only party competent to do proper bowling. The original Congress of Gandhian ideology would propose 'Religion neutral, Caste neutral, only Indianity' concept which is needed right now, but unfortunately Congress seems to have forgot Congress! I urge Sashi Tharoor Sir to remind their newly elected (nominated) president, about what original Congress stand for. Rahul Gandhi needs to be reminded that Hindutva is the last thing that a BJP voter wants. The thing which elevated Chief Minister Narendra Modi to Prime Minister of world's largest democracy isn't actually his Hindutva background. Moreover, if there would be any shameful and genuine incident of threat on minorities then it would be impossible for the Grand old Party to present its stance before the nation. Even if a voter wants to vote for rhetoric of Hindutva then Congress is less likely to be first option for him. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley also ridiculed this move of Congress and said that people would vote for original rather than a clone. Congress is questioning the incumbent government very properly, but at the same time, they need to put forth a socio-economic model before the people which have capability to stand before the economic pitches of PM Narendra Modi. Congress still has a chance, but they need to work too hard to achieve even 30 per cent of what those guys hope and quote. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity)

Opinion: Rahul Gandhi leaning towards mild Hindutva platform. And it might help Congress

Individuals standing for elections are always finding ways to raise money for running their election campaigns. In India, this money is often used to bribe voters to win elections. Voters are paid in alcohol or bribed in kind by giving blankets, stoves, free talk time. After all this, when an individual wins elections, then one hears that since this politician spent so much money to come to power, he will try to get it all back through corruption. Thus, in the next five years, the politician pillages the system denuding the democracy of every bit of money till he or she reaches the next election cycle.

In all this, democracy suffers. But the challenge is beyond what meets the eye.

System of funding 

If one looks deeper into the system, one realises that the way funding of political parties is taking place, it helps them not to declare the source of funding. A recent report by the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) funded by the Ministry of Finance, &quot;Study of Unaccounted Income of India&quot;, grimly states&nbsp;the scale of the problem. The report says, &ldquo;Cash donations or coupon sales below Rs 20,000 (about $300) is an open avenue for political parties to introduce any amount into their books of accounts, and also avail exemption from tax with no questions asked. This is an avenue open to serious misuse and the introduction of black money.&rdquo;

A political party while filing its income tax returns need not reveal the source of income for donations below Rs 20,000. Such unknown sources include &quot;sale of coupons&quot;, &quot;Aajiwan Sahayog Nidhi&quot;, &quot;relief fund&quot;, &quot;miscellaneous income&quot;, &quot;voluntary contributions&quot;&nbsp;and &quot;contribution from meetings/morchas&quot;. The details of donors of such voluntary contributions are not available in the public domain.

According to a report by Association of Democratic Reforms, the Analysis of Sources of Funding of National and Regional Parties- FY 2004-05 to 2014-15, the income of national parties from unknown sources increased by 313 per cent, from Rs 274.13 crore during FY 2004-05 to Rs.1130.92 crore during FY 2014-15. The income of regional parties from unknown sources increased by 652 per cent from Rs 37.393 crore during FY 2004-05 to Rs 281.01 crore during FY 2014-15.

It is clear that major political parties are heavily relying on black money through unaccounted political donations. The opaqueness in political funding has the potential to weaken the tenets of democracy. In fact, it has already caused enough damage by undermining the trust of citizens of the country in their politicians and political systems.

Cashless funding of political parties, a must 

One of the ways to be able to bring transparency to the entire issue would be to make political parties go cashless. It means that every penny coming into the political party and going out of the political party should have a digital signature. And after demonetisation, this becomes all the more important. The entire nation went through a move that resulted in massive liquidity crunch in the economy impacting businesses and daily life, with the hope that this would put an end to black economy in the country. A move to becoming cashless may bring back some trust. Is it not something that Prime Minister Narendra Modi can do to show that he holds the political parties to the same level of transparency as he expects from the population that he leads? But holding other people to the same standard to which you hold yourself is no easy task.

(This first appeared in DNA)

Indian political parties filing income tax returns need not reveal the source of income for any donation below Rs 20,000

Individuals standing for elections are always finding ways to raise money for running their election campaigns. In India, this money is often used to bribe voters to win elections. Voters are paid in alcohol or bribed in kind by giving blankets, stoves, free talk time. After all this, when an individual wins elections, then one hears that since this politician spent so much money to come to power, he will try to get it all back through corruption. Thus, in the next five years, the politician pillages the system denuding the democracy of every bit of money till he or she reaches the next election cycle. In all this, democracy suffers. But the challenge is beyond what meets the eye. System of funding If one looks deeper into the system, one realises that the way funding of political parties is taking place, it helps them not to declare the source of funding. A recent report by the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP) funded by the Ministry of Finance, "Study of Unaccounted Income of India", grimly states the scale of the problem. The report says, “Cash donations or coupon sales below Rs 20,000 (about $300) is an open avenue for political parties to introduce any amount into their books of accounts, and also avail exemption from tax with no questions asked. This is an avenue open to serious misuse and the introduction of black money.” A political party while filing its income tax returns need not reveal the source of income for donations below Rs 20,000. Such unknown sources include "sale of coupons", "Aajiwan Sahayog Nidhi", "relief fund", "miscellaneous income", "voluntary contributions" and "contribution from meetings/morchas". The details of donors of such voluntary contributions are not available in the public domain. According to a report by Association of Democratic Reforms, the Analysis of Sources of Funding of National and Regional Parties- FY 2004-05 to 2014-15, the income of national parties from unknown sources increased by 313 per cent, from Rs 274.13 crore during FY 2004-05 to Rs.1130.92 crore during FY 2014-15. The income of regional parties from unknown sources increased by 652 per cent from Rs 37.393 crore during FY 2004-05 to Rs 281.01 crore during FY 2014-15. It is clear that major political parties are heavily relying on black money through unaccounted political donations. The opaqueness in political funding has the potential to weaken the tenets of democracy. In fact, it has already caused enough damage by undermining the trust of citizens of the country in their politicians and political systems. Cashless funding of political parties, a must One of the ways to be able to bring transparency to the entire issue would be to make political parties go cashless. It means that every penny coming into the political party and going out of the political party should have a digital signature. And after demonetisation, this becomes all the more important. The entire nation went through a move that resulted in massive liquidity crunch in the economy impacting businesses and daily life, with the hope that this would put an end to black economy in the country. A move to becoming cashless may bring back some trust. Is it not something that Prime Minister Narendra Modi can do to show that he holds the political parties to the same level of transparency as he expects from the population that he leads? But holding other people to the same standard to which you hold yourself is no easy task. (This first appeared in DNA)

Mr politician, who funds you?

Having a face in the assembly elections in India is a basic necessity. Without this&nbsp;it becomes difficult for any political party to fight elections properly.

The BJP is repeating the mistake they made in Bihar&nbsp;by not projecting a chief ministerial candidate in Uttar Pradesh. Barring elections in Maharashtra, Haryana and Jharkhand post 2014, where candidate projection was not done, all other state elections were a referendum on the working ability of a face backed by fine ticket distribution and solid social base. Even the three states mentioned above saw massive caste consolidation because of long anti-incumbency, which allowed BJP to canvass without an overarching face.

In Maharashtra it became a case of Maratha versus&nbsp;non Maratha, in Haryana it was a case of Jat versus&nbsp;non Jat, and in Jharkhand tribal versus&nbsp;non tribal was the ruling sentiment allowing Punjabi-Khatri, ML Khattar to become chief minister in Haryana, Fadnavis, a Brahmin and Raghubar Das a non-tribal to becomes chief minister of Maharashtra and Jharkhand respectively. In Delhi, BJP did give a face but outsourced it from the opponent hence losing the upper hand against Arvind Kejriwal of AAP who looked far more credible.

Coming back to Uttar Pradesh, BJP has decided not to project a particular face despite RSS wanting one. The reason is simple. BJP after Kalyan Singh has not been able to produce a big OBC leader who could carry along upper caste with traditional BJP voters.

Despite the fact that Samajwadi Party is going through an existential crisis where father and son are fighting each other to control the party, Akhilesh Yadav has emerged as a popular face. BJP has faces in UP, but none enough to be projected as prospective candidate. BJP doesn&rsquo;t trust Varun Gandhi, and Home Minister Rajnath Singh has not been sent keeping in mind the OBC clout in the north Indian politics.

Despite remaining committed to soft Hindutva by sporting issues like exodus of majority community from villages and beef controversy, BJP neither has a pan UP face nor a substantive issue around which to&nbsp;consolidate&nbsp;different social segments. Same is the case with the Congress, which is a junior player in Uttar Pradesh.

This leaves Mayawati and Akhilesh Yadav in the fray who can associate governance with a face. Mayawati despite being a mascot of fine law and order, has remained aloof from UP politics, hence not been able to generate the&nbsp;verve&nbsp;necessary before&nbsp;elections. But she cannot be ruled out. Her campaign style remains different from that of BJP, Congress and SP. Her silent campaign was a surprise for many naysayers, even in 2007.

Akhilesh Yadav on the other hand got rid of his anti-incumbency by&nbsp;taking a stand&nbsp;on the issues of governance and induction of tainted leaders against his father and uncle&rsquo;s wish. &nbsp;

Even the bitter critics of Samajwadi Party would concede that Akhilesh today is being perceived as a leader rather than a mere inheritor. Even Indira Gandhi could only establish her leadership in the party after asserting herself electorally and organisationally.

Many argue that BJP could repeat 2014 by harnessing a majority vote to make the Muslim vote irrelevant in the elections. There lies the difference. It was a mandate for the challenger Narendra Modi who had captured people&rsquo;s imagination as a righteous leader. UP voted for a person who would rule India, hence caste lines broke under the euphoria. The assembly election in Uttar Pradesh will be constrained by caste equations and alliances if possible in the remaining time.

Even during Ram Temple agitation, Kalyan Singh, a Lodh remained an important face of BJP in the state. So for the BJP in Uttar Pradesh and AAP in Punjab to campaign without a face is a high gamble. All elections in India at regional levels are being fought on faces. Whether it was Jaya or presently, Nitish, Mamta, Karunanidhi, Chandra Shekhar Rao, Shivraj Chauhan or Raman Singh, faces provide a connect with the masses.

The face as a marker of policy has evolved further because instead of ideology the face becomes the&nbsp;brand dominating the whole political discourse. This is one hard reality BJP will not be able to escape in Uttar Pradesh. People would like to know as to who will stay with them.&nbsp;This is the reason why Uttar Pradesh will see a direct fight between high profile Akhilesh Yadav, with or without a cycle against a low profile campaign of Mayawati.

People will vote the face they can trust, and Uttar Pradesh will decide that face very soon.

(WION)

A face becomes more than a marker of a politician's policy, it becomes the?brand dominating the whole political discourse

Having a face in the assembly elections in India is a basic necessity. Without this it becomes difficult for any political party to fight elections properly. The BJP is repeating the mistake they made in Bihar by not projecting a chief ministerial candidate in Uttar Pradesh. Barring elections in Maharashtra, Haryana and Jharkhand post 2014, where candidate projection was not done, all other state elections were a referendum on the working ability of a face backed by fine ticket distribution and solid social base. Even the three states mentioned above saw massive caste consolidation because of long anti-incumbency, which allowed BJP to canvass without an overarching face. In Maharashtra it became a case of Maratha versus non Maratha, in Haryana it was a case of Jat versus non Jat, and in Jharkhand tribal versus non tribal was the ruling sentiment allowing Punjabi-Khatri, ML Khattar to become chief minister in Haryana, Fadnavis, a Brahmin and Raghubar Das a non-tribal to becomes chief minister of Maharashtra and Jharkhand respectively. In Delhi, BJP did give a face but outsourced it from the opponent hence losing the upper hand against Arvind Kejriwal of AAP who looked far more credible. Coming back to Uttar Pradesh, BJP has decided not to project a particular face despite RSS wanting one. The reason is simple. BJP after Kalyan Singh has not been able to produce a big OBC leader who could carry along upper caste with traditional BJP voters. Despite the fact that Samajwadi Party is going through an existential crisis where father and son are fighting each other to control the party, Akhilesh Yadav has emerged as a popular face. BJP has faces in UP, but none enough to be projected as prospective candidate. BJP doesn’t trust Varun Gandhi, and Home Minister Rajnath Singh has not been sent keeping in mind the OBC clout in the north Indian politics. Despite remaining committed to soft Hindutva by sporting issues like exodus of majority community from villages and beef controversy, BJP neither has a pan UP face nor a substantive issue around which to consolidate different social segments. Same is the case with the Congress, which is a junior player in Uttar Pradesh. This leaves Mayawati and Akhilesh Yadav in the fray who can associate governance with a face. Mayawati despite being a mascot of fine law and order, has remained aloof from UP politics, hence not been able to generate the verve necessary before elections. But she cannot be ruled out. Her campaign style remains different from that of BJP, Congress and SP. Her silent campaign was a surprise for many naysayers, even in 2007. Akhilesh Yadav on the other hand got rid of his anti-incumbency by taking a stand on the issues of governance and induction of tainted leaders against his father and uncle’s wish. Even the bitter critics of Samajwadi Party would concede that Akhilesh today is being perceived as a leader rather than a mere inheritor. Even Indira Gandhi could only establish her leadership in the party after asserting herself electorally and organisationally. Many argue that BJP could repeat 2014 by harnessing a majority vote to make the Muslim vote irrelevant in the elections. There lies the difference. It was a mandate for the challenger Narendra Modi who had captured people’s imagination as a righteous leader. UP voted for a person who would rule India, hence caste lines broke under the euphoria. The assembly election in Uttar Pradesh will be constrained by caste equations and alliances if possible in the remaining time. Even during Ram Temple agitation, Kalyan Singh, a Lodh remained an important face of BJP in the state. So for the BJP in Uttar Pradesh and AAP in Punjab to campaign without a face is a high gamble. All elections in India at regional levels are being fought on faces. Whether it was Jaya or presently, Nitish, Mamta, Karunanidhi, Chandra Shekhar Rao, Shivraj Chauhan or Raman Singh, faces provide a connect with the masses. The face as a marker of policy has evolved further because instead of ideology the face becomes the brand dominating the whole political discourse. This is one hard reality BJP will not be able to escape in Uttar Pradesh. People would like to know as to who will stay with them. This is the reason why Uttar Pradesh will see a direct fight between high profile Akhilesh Yadav, with or without a cycle against a low profile campaign of Mayawati. People will vote the face they can trust, and Uttar Pradesh will decide that face very soon. (WION)

In Indian politics, face matters

Why do Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi continue to pulverise each other with trivialities, sarcasm and cherry picked facts. Is it temporary or does it represents a permanent shift in the way politicians, mainstream and social media would behave with each other? In my opinion, it is a new reality of Indian political life, and it needs to be altered before it does deep and permanent damage to India&rsquo;s democratic discourse. It creates a culture to out-talk the adversary rather than engage in a dialogue, which is the most important pillar of democracy. Nations cannot turn their backs upon new technologies, but must be aware of the potential it holds to change the institution for which it is being imagined to help.

The new technology indeed liberates opinion from few and transfers it to everyone who can afford a 3G connection. It has expanded the pool of opinion makers, both geographically and class-wise. The very act has stolen the thunder from corporately structured mainstream media. It also makes mainstream media look compromised as talk on the social media is open to issue of corporate political nexus.The reduction of message to lowest common denominator, coupled with furious and repetitive messaging, makes technology&nbsp;used&nbsp;less for&nbsp;debate and more about putting down a rival on any trivial issue it can find. &nbsp;

So the larger question is how&nbsp;this aggressive messaging-politics will affect India. In the West it galvanised stereotypes masquerading as facts creating a minority complex within the majority. The results were on the expected line. The liberal opinion was rendered ineffective as it was criticised from the vantage point of political outsider. The accusation, whether grounded in fact or not, creates enough doubt in people to either extend or withdraw support on major issues. It solidifies the support constituency and hardens the opinion, rather than making it open to new ideas. It was best evident when Hillary Clinton lost the election&nbsp;because,&nbsp;only days before voters went to the polls,&nbsp;the FBI chief announced that the&nbsp;agency would open up a new investigation into her email scandal; the suggestion of the case re-opening confirmed her guilt&nbsp;for&nbsp;people who had been&nbsp;barraged with negative email messaging for months. Their&nbsp;minds were already so made up that&nbsp;the fact that&nbsp;she was eventually cleared of all wrongdoing, again, made no impact on their opinion.

Will this happen in India or not is a different story, but it renders certain institutional interactions compromised. The worst brunt of the redefined relationship between Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi because of technologically-enabled constant messaging was taken by the Parliament. Despite repeated offer of talks, both sides remained firm on their position and didn&rsquo;t budge as constant messaging solidified the views of supporters, reducing political elbow room for any compromise. So instead of genuine dialogue, the political discourse has reduced itself to out-talk the other. The process of out-talk, which was limited to assembly and national elections, has extended itself to normal discourse which relies on conversation. The out-talk might have immediate benefits, like management of opinion, but it creates an unhealthy political discourse.

Robust democracies rest&nbsp;on structured and unstructured discussions in every space available. Technology should be used to&nbsp;enable this, but to expect it&nbsp;to act as a wise&nbsp;enabler would be to fool oneself;&nbsp;technology is inherently amoral. The moral rim sprouts from the cultural bed unique to the country where the democracy rests. If India wants to walk a different path, especially from the West--which for the&nbsp;past 50 years&nbsp;has&nbsp;been exporting different phobias, ranging from socialism to an absence of liberty in West Asia and now Islam--it needs to do more. Indian political actors must re-learn the art of conversation and not score partisan points&nbsp;by out-talking each other.

A conversation is a journey in itself, and to out-talk is to walk on a path where the end has been imagined and consumed even before the first syllable has been uttered. &nbsp;

(WION)

Technology has reduced India's political discourse to out-talking opponents, rather than meaningful dialogue. Hopefully, this can change

Why do Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi continue to pulverise each other with trivialities, sarcasm and cherry picked facts. Is it temporary or does it represents a permanent shift in the way politicians, mainstream and social media would behave with each other? In my opinion, it is a new reality of Indian political life, and it needs to be altered before it does deep and permanent damage to India’s democratic discourse. It creates a culture to out-talk the adversary rather than engage in a dialogue, which is the most important pillar of democracy. Nations cannot turn their backs upon new technologies, but must be aware of the potential it holds to change the institution for which it is being imagined to help. The new technology indeed liberates opinion from few and transfers it to everyone who can afford a 3G connection. It has expanded the pool of opinion makers, both geographically and class-wise. The very act has stolen the thunder from corporately structured mainstream media. It also makes mainstream media look compromised as talk on the social media is open to issue of corporate political nexus.The reduction of message to lowest common denominator, coupled with furious and repetitive messaging, makes technology used less for debate and more about putting down a rival on any trivial issue it can find. So the larger question is how this aggressive messaging-politics will affect India. In the West it galvanised stereotypes masquerading as facts creating a minority complex within the majority. The results were on the expected line. The liberal opinion was rendered ineffective as it was criticised from the vantage point of political outsider. The accusation, whether grounded in fact or not, creates enough doubt in people to either extend or withdraw support on major issues. It solidifies the support constituency and hardens the opinion, rather than making it open to new ideas. It was best evident when Hillary Clinton lost the election because, only days before voters went to the polls, the FBI chief announced that the agency would open up a new investigation into her email scandal; the suggestion of the case re-opening confirmed her guilt for people who had been barraged with negative email messaging for months. Their minds were already so made up that the fact that she was eventually cleared of all wrongdoing, again, made no impact on their opinion. Will this happen in India or not is a different story, but it renders certain institutional interactions compromised. The worst brunt of the redefined relationship between Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi because of technologically-enabled constant messaging was taken by the Parliament. Despite repeated offer of talks, both sides remained firm on their position and didn’t budge as constant messaging solidified the views of supporters, reducing political elbow room for any compromise. So instead of genuine dialogue, the political discourse has reduced itself to out-talk the other. The process of out-talk, which was limited to assembly and national elections, has extended itself to normal discourse which relies on conversation. The out-talk might have immediate benefits, like management of opinion, but it creates an unhealthy political discourse. Robust democracies rest on structured and unstructured discussions in every space available. Technology should be used to enable this, but to expect it to act as a wise enabler would be to fool oneself; technology is inherently amoral. The moral rim sprouts from the cultural bed unique to the country where the democracy rests. If India wants to walk a different path, especially from the West--which for the past 50 years has been exporting different phobias, ranging from socialism to an absence of liberty in West Asia and now Islam--it needs to do more. Indian political actors must re-learn the art of conversation and not score partisan points by out-talking each other. A conversation is a journey in itself, and to out-talk is to walk on a path where the end has been imagined and consumed even before the first syllable has been uttered. (WION)

Facts or no facts : Let?s out-talk the other guy

indian-politics

Indian Politics, News on Indian Politics, stories on Indian Politics, articles on Indian Politics, Indian Politics stories at Wion, Indian Politics news, Indian Politics latest news

indian politics