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

Mr politician, who funds you?

In Indian politics, face matters

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