Manu Sharma | Contributing Editor - Fair Observer https://www.fairobserver.com/author/manu-sharma/ Fact-based, well-reasoned perspectives from around the world Sun, 23 Jun 2024 15:06:29 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.1 Indian Elections: Ten Valuable Data Points for India’s BJP https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/india-news/indian-elections-ten-valuable-data-points-for-indias-bjp/ https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/india-news/indian-elections-ten-valuable-data-points-for-indias-bjp/#respond Sun, 09 Jun 2024 10:57:17 +0000 https://www.fairobserver.com/?p=150511 In the recent Indian elections, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won 240 seats out of 543 in India’s lower house of parliament, the Lok Sabha. This left the BJP 33 short of a majority to form the government on its own. Yet all is not lost for the BJP because the party is part of… Continue reading Indian Elections: Ten Valuable Data Points for India’s BJP

The post Indian Elections: Ten Valuable Data Points for India’s BJP appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
In the recent Indian elections, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won 240 seats out of 543 in India’s lower house of parliament, the Lok Sabha. This left the BJP 33 short of a majority to form the government on its own. Yet all is not lost for the BJP because the party is part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) comprising smaller regional parties. Together, the NDA has secured 293 seats. On June 5, the NDA reaffirmed incumbent Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as its leader. So, Modi will stay on as prime minister.

The results are a bitter disappointment for Modi. He had been aiming for 400 seats in these elections. Still, Modi continues to be the most powerful leader in India. He campaigned across the length and breadth of the country, drawing big crowds. Millions voted for the BJP because of Modi and continue to support the party because of him. This is the first data point that much of the media seems to be ignoring. Note that the Indian National Congress (INC) has come a distant second with 99 seats.

Related Reading

The effectiveness of the safety net is the second valuable data point. The Modi government’s program to distribute five kilograms (11 pounds) of wheat or rice every month to over 800 million people. This has provided food security to the Indian masses. At a time when food inflation is raging across the world, the Modi government has saved millions of poor people from the pressure to earn enough to eat.

The third data point is that alliances saved the day for the BJP. The BJP’s new alliances forged in 2023–2024 helped the party to retain power. The alliances formed with Janata Dal (United) in Bihar, JD (Secular) in Karnataka and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) in Andhra Pradesh have saved the day for the Modi-led BJP. In 2004, the BJP lost power after its “India Shining” campaign bombed at the electoral box office. In 2024, the party avoided that fate.

The fourth data point is the BJP’s continued hold over Central India. The BJP retained its hold on Central India. In Madhya Pradesh, Shivraj Singh Chauhan led the BJP to victory in 29 out of 29 seats. The INC contested 28 seats and lost all of them. In Chhattisgarh, the BJP won 10 out 11 seats. The INC won just one seat in the state. Both states have BJP governments and, if the anti-incumbency factor had taken root, the BJP might have been in trouble.

The fifth data point is that the BJP has succeeded in its strategy of expanding east and broadening the base of the party. The BJP’s huge efforts paid off to win votes in Odisha, where the BJP won 20 seats and the INC won only one. The local Biju Janata Dal drew a blank. It is true that this electoral outreach did not yield big results in West Bengal. Mamata Banerjee’s All India Trinamool Congress won 29 seats; the BJP won 12, and the INC won one. Worryingly for the BJP, it lost six seats and its vote share fell from 40.64% to 38.73%.

The sixth data point is that the BJP has breached the opposition bastion of South India. The BJP made inroads into South India. In Karnataka, the party had lost the recent 2023 state elections. Of the 28 seats, the BJP won 17 seats and its ally JD(S) won two seats. The INC won just nine seats. In Telangana, the BJP won eight seats out of 17. The BJP also won three seats in Andhra Pradesh where it had won none in the last elections in 2024. The BJP also won the seat of Thrissur in Kerala, a historic first.

The seventh data point is that the Modi-led BJP still retains women support. Women voters continued to support Modi. By focusing on menstrual hygiene, toilets, piped water to homes and gas cylinders, the prime minister has won over women. Solid women support helped the BJP counter the youth disaffection arising from lack of jobs.

The eighth data point for the BJP is that a strong national security policy helped the BJP. Indians see the INC-led government from 2004 to 2014 as soft on Pakistan. Indians continue to trust Modi and the BJP with national security more than INC and its leader Rahul Gandhi.

The ninth data point for the BJP is fulfilling promises on core issues. The Modi-led government abrogated Article 370, which gave special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This year, Modi also inaugurated the Ram temple in Ayodhya. This pleased many core BJP voters. Article 270 and the Ram temple are core issues for the BJP’s parent organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), In 2004, many RSS workers and BJP supporters were disappointed, leading to the fall of the BJP-led Modi government. 

The tenth and final data point for the BJP is that voters have rewarded the Modi administration for providing a relatively clean and competent national government. Before 2014, Indian voters always put corruption among the top three national issues. In fact, a national anti-corruption movement rocked the INC-led government in 2011 and decimated its public support. In contrast, Modi has won a third term like Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, and made history.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Indian Elections: Ten Valuable Data Points for India’s BJP appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/india-news/indian-elections-ten-valuable-data-points-for-indias-bjp/feed/ 0
FO° Talks: Geopolitical Guru on the State of Indian Democracy, Part 2 https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-geopolitical-guru-on-the-state-of-indian-democracy-part-2/ https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-geopolitical-guru-on-the-state-of-indian-democracy-part-2/#respond Mon, 03 Jun 2024 12:51:10 +0000 https://www.fairobserver.com/?p=150432 On Tuesday, June 4, India will release the official results of its 2024 parliamentary elections. At least 644 million people have cast their votes in the largest democratic election in human history. For most of its history since independence in 1947, India has been ruled by the Indian National Congress (INC) party. Leadership of the… Continue reading FO° Talks: Geopolitical Guru on the State of Indian Democracy, Part 2

The post FO° Talks: Geopolitical Guru on the State of Indian Democracy, Part 2 appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
On Tuesday, June 4, India will release the official results of its 2024 parliamentary elections. At least 644 million people have cast their votes in the largest democratic election in human history.

For most of its history since independence in 1947, India has been ruled by the Indian National Congress (INC) party. Leadership of the party passed from father to daughter to son to son’s widow to grandson as the INC has dominated Indian politics for 40 years. During the rule of the Nehru dynasty, India maintained close relations with the Soviet Union and followed socialist policies, without the bloody purges of its big brother. 

The INC first lost power in 1977 and opposition parties came to power in coalitions but the grand old party of Indian politics could always stage a comeback. In 2014, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) triumphed and the INC-led coalition lost power. Since then, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has presided over a blossoming economy and is still exceedingly popular. The BJP is now the dominant party in the country like the INC.

Modi is widely expected to win the 2024 election. If he does, he will become only the second prime minister in Indian history to win three elections. Jawaharlal Nehru did so in 1951–1952, 1957 and 1962. Given the BJP’s likely victory, what can we expect from a third Modi term?

What to expect from Modi III

The Modi government will probably take steps to address slow job generation, especially in the manufacturing sector. In the past, poor physical and power infrastructure limited India’s ability to boost this sector. Today, the roadblocks are high cost of capital, labor and land. Another challenge facing the Modi government is the poor civic management of India’s cities. Presently, Indian cities are difficult to live in due to congested roads, crazy high air pollution and a lack of clean drinking water.

The Modi government would also have to tread carefully in its relations with foreign partners. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently blamed India for the assassination of a Canadian citizen in British Columbia. Similarly, the US believes that India was involved in an attempt to murder an American citizen. In India’s eyes, the two assassinated gentlemen were Sikh terrorists advocating the dismemberment of the Indian state. Both immigrated from India, the Canadian on a false passport.

Despite the diplomatic tiff, Washington and Ottawa are keen to maintain close ties with Delhi. They want to bring together all democracies in the Asia-Pacific to create a united front against China. However, India is more diffident about the West. Modi may keep the US at arm’s length, instead engaging closely with middle powers on bilateral terms. The government may also prefer a transactional foreign policy rather than a values-based one.

India’s troubled neighborhood

China is India’s northern neighbor and is indeed a threat.China disputes Indian territory in the Himalayas and has seized Aksai Chin, which India claims as part of Ladakh. India may no longer be able to rely on trade deals and economic relations to keep the peace with China.  India needs to reassess its defense architecture to deal with China.

Myanmar is currently in the midst of a civil war. In the past, militias based in Myanmar have caused trouble in the northeastern Indian states of Manipur and Nagaland. India may need to fortify its border to prevent the spillover of the Myanmarese civil war into India.

Nepal, which traditionally has close ties with India, is now trying to balance relationships with both India and China. India’s challenge is to keep Nepal firmly in its sphere of influence and prevent the expansion of Chinese influence in a country where the local communist party has become quite powerful.

Maldives recently asked India to remove its 89 soldiers and support staff. The country is growing increasingly Islamist and hostile to India. China will be all too happy to step into the vacuum but Maldives is in India’s sphere of influence. As in Nepal, India will compete with China for influence in Maldives.

Finally, relations between India and Pakistan have been deteriorating due to Islamabad’s sponsorship of cross-border terrorism. As Pakistan’s economy goes into free fall, Modi may have the opportunity to improve relations by securing a Pakistani pledge to discontinue these operations.

Modi certainly has his work cut out for him. Rising to these challenges will be crucial for the success of his third term.

[Aniruddh Rajendran wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: Geopolitical Guru on the State of Indian Democracy, Part 2 appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-geopolitical-guru-on-the-state-of-indian-democracy-part-2/feed/ 0
FO° Talks: Geopolitical Guru on the State of Indian Democracy, Part 1 https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-geopolitical-guru-on-the-state-of-indian-democracy/ https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-geopolitical-guru-on-the-state-of-indian-democracy/#respond Tue, 28 May 2024 14:09:39 +0000 https://www.fairobserver.com/?p=150343 On June 4, India will release the official results of its 2024 parliamentary elections, bringing this six-week saga to a close. India’s elections are the largest democratic exercise in world history, with nearly a billion registered voters participating. India has been a democracy since its independence from Great Britain in 1947. Its constitution, which came… Continue reading FO° Talks: Geopolitical Guru on the State of Indian Democracy, Part 1

The post FO° Talks: Geopolitical Guru on the State of Indian Democracy, Part 1 appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
On June 4, India will release the official results of its 2024 parliamentary elections, bringing this six-week saga to a close. India’s elections are the largest democratic exercise in world history, with nearly a billion registered voters participating.

India has been a democracy since its independence from Great Britain in 1947. Its constitution, which came into effect on January 26, 1950, is the world’s longest and draws inspiration from Britain, Ireland and the US. 

Fundamentally, India’s system of government is based on the British Westminster model. The Parliament of India has two houses, the Rajya Sabha (House of the States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The former is elected by state legislatures and is the upper house while the latter is elected directly by the people. The prime minister of India must command the support of the majority of the members of parliament (MPs) in the Lok Sabha just as the British prime minister has to command a majority in the House of Commons.

Sometimes, one party has commanded a full parliamentary majority. At other times, the largest party formed government by forging a coalition. Sometimes, larger parties support smaller parties but did not join the government. In this “outside support” tactic, the smaller parties’ leaders become prime ministers or state chief ministers. This experiment is unique to India.

How does a party “win” the Lok Sabha elections?

India is a large, vibrant, rambunctious democracy. After independence, numerous observers predicted that this poor, inexperienced country would fall into authoritarianism. India defied them all. Even under the Indira Gandhi government — India’s closest experience with Soviet-inspired one-party rule — multiparty elections continued.

Related Reading

This vast nation is divided into 543 constituencies, each of which elects one Member of Parliament (MP) to the Lok Sabha. To become prime minister, a leader must have the support of 272 MPs. Thus, either one party must win 272 seats or it must find enough coalition partners to make up the magic number.

Like British parliamentary constituencies and US congressional districts, Indian constituencies use the first-past-the-post system. In this system, there is only one round of voting, and the candidate with the greatest number of votes wins, regardless of whether the candidate secures 50% of the votes. This means that if many parties fight for one seat, the candidate who gets the highest votes wins. The victor just needs one vote more than the runner-up. In 2019, the BJP won a thumping majority by winning 37.36% of the national vote. Every winning party has fallen short of the 50% vote share, including the fabled post-independence Jawaharlal Nehru-led Indian National Congress (INC).

India’s elections are largely freely and fair. In the past, violence was common during elections, as was voter intimidation. Booth capturing, a practice where goons of candidates captured voting booths and stuffed ballot boxes, was part and parcel of Indian elections. No longer is such behavior acceptable to a much more informed and assertive electorate.

The Election Commission is autonomous. It takes charge when elections are announced. Many polling booths are set up in constituencies so that people can vote in their own neighborhoods. Workers from all political parties are present at polling booths. They check both the voter list and the integrity of the process. In contrast to earlier times, when one person could stamp many votes, electronic voting machines (EVMs) have to reset each time after someone votes. In the 1990s, T.N. Seshan brought in reforms that have made elections a lot fairer than in the past.

Those who cast doubt on EVMs forget that even Indira Gandhi did not find it easy to tamper elections. The size and scale of the Indian electorate make it very difficult for anyone to rig the elections. Even in 1977, Indira Gandhi lost the elections even though she had imposed the “Emergency” and was a de facto dictator.

Indian elections are a lot cleaner than before

Many in the Indian opposition are seeking answers that explain their poor performance. They might be convinced that they merit more votes. In India, politicians tend to have big egos and cannot accept that either their performance or positioning might be lacking. So, they conjure up conspiracy theories to explain poor election results.

In part, Modi’s ascent is thanks to Seshan’s reforms and the EVMs. In the poorer parts of the country, people did not even turn up to vote. They were afraid of retribution. The Election Commission deployed police forces from other states to conduct elections, and this boosted confidence in the election process.

This increased confidence has allowed leaders like Modi and Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of the relatively new Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), to emerge. Aam aadmi literally means “the common man.” Both the BJP and the AAP have leveraged technology and, like new businesses, have demonstrated more energy than the legacy business of the INC.

Since the start of Indian democracy, black money has played a role in the elections. A colorful and powerful politician remarked a few decades ago that elections were all about money, muscle power and mass appeal. The second of the two factors has declined, but the first still matters. Now, candidates are no longer giving money in sacks to journalists, student leaders, mullahs, temple priests et al. 

These intermediaries no longer matter. They cannot turn out the vote for any party. So, they do not get any money. Today, parties spend money on private jets, helicopters and hotel rooms during political campaigns. Just like the US, money is the oxygen every party and candidate needs to campaign. Unlike the US, this money comes in the form of cash. Businesses with cash such as real estate firms, lotteries and liquor chains paid political parties “off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush.”

That is why electoral bonds came into being. The argument for these bonds was that they would formalize campaign finance. They would be anonymous so that businesses would be safe from retribution for donating to one political party. Yet the Supreme Court struck down this measure. The argument of the court is that companies buying these bonds secretly casts a doubt on the integrity of the election process. Indians have a right to know who is financing their parties.

The role of money in politics has led to allegations of crony capitalism. Businessmen back politicians who then favor them in a quid pro quo. In manufacturing, real estate and many other businesses, this shadow system prevails. In India, the capitalist class participates in the political process and spreads their bets. India does not quite have the Southeast Asian-style crony capitalism that we see in countries like Indonesia. Indian politics is far more fragmented.

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Talks: Geopolitical Guru on the State of Indian Democracy, Part 1 appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
https://www.fairobserver.com/video/fo-talks-geopolitical-guru-on-the-state-of-indian-democracy/feed/ 0
India’s League of Internationalists https://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/manu-sharma-shivshankar-menon-india-political-elites-internationalism-narendra-modi-nationalism-news-16271/ Wed, 16 Dec 2020 13:58:17 +0000 https://www.fairobserver.com/?p=94622 Shivshankar Menon, India’s famous former national security adviser, has stirred much controversy recently. His recent article for Foreign Affairs, titled “League of Nationalists,” argues that India’s illiberal drift and new transactional foreign policy has weakened relations with the US. Coming at a time when relations between India and the US have grown closer than ever,… Continue reading India’s League of Internationalists

The post India’s League of Internationalists appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
Shivshankar Menon, India’s famous former national security adviser, has stirred much controversy recently. His recent article for Foreign Affairs, titled “League of Nationalists,” argues that India’s illiberal drift and new transactional foreign policy has weakened relations with the US. Coming at a time when relations between India and the US have grown closer than ever, Menon’s comments are troubling and untrue.

India-US Relationship Is Now Official

READ MORE

Menon’s case has been helped by others expressing misgivings about India. Analyst Ashley Tellis has said that the West will be a less willing partner if India becomes illiberal. Writer William Dalrymple, an Indophile who has made the country his home, is “imagining a future where [he] might not die” in India. Rising illiberalism makes him uncomfortable. Thanks to a colonial hangover, thin-skinned Indians have been rattled by what Tellis and Dalrymple have to say. These Indians are still fixated on the West’s views of their nation. In turn, many in the West take a great interest in India.

Mistaken Assumptions

There is a good reason for this interest. In 1947, independent India began as an internationalist power. Jawaharlal Nehru, its first prime minister, was a Fabian socialist. Along with Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, Indonesia’s Sukarno, Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser and Yugoslavia’s Josip Broz Tito, he started the Non-Aligned Movement. It was a group of newly independent nations that rejected the two power blocs led by the US and the Soviet Union. To this day, this movement retains an element of romance, and many intellectuals view it through rose-tinted lenses.

After seven decades, India is finally moving away from Nehru’s legacy. This is causing heartburn among many, both at home and abroad. Yet Nehruvian internationalism runs deep. Until 2014, his dynasty was in power. It shaped the country’s institutions and patronized its intellectuals. Its legacy still runs strong. Many anglicized Indians see themselves as members of a global leftist movement. They view the Labour Party in the UK and the Democratic Party in the US as natural allies. This metropolitan elite venerates the BBC, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Since Indians now comprise a significant percentage of their readership, these publications offer much advice to India. So do friends of the country like Tellis and Dalrymple.

The fundamental argument internationalists make about the dangerous drift of India is based on two assumptions: first, that illiberalism is on the rise in India and, second, that the West must act to stem the tide. Both assumptions are questionable. While US President Donald Trump wins votes from working-class men, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s most loyal supporters are rural women. There may be illiberal aspects to the current government, but the reality is more nuanced than the simplistic liberal-illiberal juxtaposition at which many hastily arrive.

Furthermore, the idea that the West can stem illiberalism in India lacks historical and political understanding. For the last 500 years, the Western record has not been reassuring. Genocide in the Americas, the colonization of India, the scramble for Africa, the Opium Wars against China and the divvying up of the Middle East reveal a hegemonic bent of mind. In more recent years, the 1953 coup in Iran, the Vietnam War and the 2003 Iraq War reveal that the West may pay lip service to liberal causes, but it functions as per the blood-and-iron laws of realpolitik.

Anglicized Indians often forget that the West favored Pakistan over India for decades. The former was a military dictatorship and the latter was a democracy, but such inconvenient details did not matter. Indeed, the West favored China over India once Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger decided to seduce Zhongnanhai from the arms of the Kremlin. Thanks to the past patronage of the West, India faces a formidable threat on its border by two hostile nuclear powers.

Getting Key Facts Wrong

India’s internationalists fail to pay adequate attention to this threat. To be fair, Menon admits that in “many ways US-India relations are in better shape than ever.” The US has overtaken China to become India’s largest trading partner. In 2019, India-China trade declined to $84 billion while India-US trade grew to $143 billion. The US and India are cooperating on defense and security as well. Yet all is not well because the US and India are “now conceiving of the relationship in transactional, rather than principled, terms.” Given the history of US-India relations, where interests have always trumped principles, this is a rather naive assertion.

Menon also paints a rather simplistic picture of India for his American friends. He claims that “India has excluded Muslim immigrants from the path to citizenship.” Menon is wrong. A cold read of India’s 2019 citizenship legislation reveals that India expedites the path to citizenship for non-Muslims. It does not bar Muslims from getting citizenship. The act was brought in because of persistent persecution and ethnic cleansing of non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. On September 27, the Associated Press reported how the last embattled Sikhs and Hindus fled Afghanistan after threats from a local Islamic State affiliate. These refugees have arrived in India and have a path to citizenship thanks to the 2019 legislation.

Similarly, Menon makes another glib allegation. He critiques the Modi administration for limiting “the autonomy of the Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir region.” He forgets that this former princely state comprised of Buddhist Ladakh, Hindu Jammu and Muslim Kashmir. For years, Ladakhis suffered discrimination from Kashmiris and did not want to be under their yoke. Ladakhi autonomy does not seem to be of concern to Menon. He would be well advised to read an article this author co-wrote with Fair Observer’s editor-in-chief Atul Singh on Kashmir that examines the tortured history of the conflict and its geopolitical complexity. The thorny issue of Kashmir is a little more complicated than Menon’s disingenuous throwaway line would have us believe.

Power, Not Principles         

Menon’s glibness raises a key question: Is he genuinely standing up for liberal principles or is there more than meets the eye? Menon’s grandfather served Nehru as India’s first foreign secretary, and his father was the ambassador to Yugoslavia. Menon himself is a blue-blooded member of the Indian establishment that was dethroned in 2014. Modi’s victory meant that Menon had to leave his colonial bungalow in Lutyens’ Delhi and play bridge with other out-of-work patricians instead.

Embed from Getty Images

One line in particular has angered many, including those who do not have much admiration for Modi: “Uninterested in human rights and democracy, Trump has given the Modi government a free pass on its controversial domestic agenda.” The idea that Trump or any other American president should have the right to give a free pass to a government that won a thumping parliamentary majority at home is neocolonial and deeply problematic.

Menon notes how it has been left to Democrats like Pramila Jayapal of Washington state and Ro Khanna of California to express “public disquiet” over Modi’s domestic policies. The idea that Democrats should intervene for liberalism in India is similarly flawed and problematic. Menon, Jayapal and Khanna come from the upper caste anglicized Indian elite that has been defenestrated. There is a sneaking suspicion that it is not liberal values but loss of power that drives them. 

Menon’s grandfather was an internationalist who loyally served Nehru. Ironically, Menon is attempting to enlist American support in stark contrast to his grandfather who opposed the US and wooed the USSR. More importantly, the former diplomat’s diatribes reflect the beliefs of a significant section of India’s bureaucratic firmament that views the world differently from its own citizenry. For them, India’s politicians are a bunch of uncouth upstarts. They are untrained in grand vision, strategic perspective and humanitarian ideals. In 2007, India’s ambassador to the US at the time called Indian MPs “headless chickens” with “vegetable brains” for opposing some clauses of the India-US nuclear deal.

This blue-blooded elite league of internationalists disdains India’s democratically-elected politicians. They take the view that these politicians should focus on fighting elections and leave matters of state policy to elite bureaucrats. They resent their loss of control over foreign policy and national security under Modi. This league of internationalists, whose children study at Harvard and Yale, want to take back control from the league of nationalists who speak languages like Gujarati, Hindi and Tamil.

Nehruvian Princelings Have Failed India

Menon and his ilk take their cue from Nehru. India’s first prime minister fervently believed in international anticolonial cooperation. He despised the military, distrusted the intelligence community and, as a good Brahmin and a committed socialist, looked down on business and entrepreneurship. Nehru molded the nation in his image. He imposed Soviet-style planning through a colonial bureaucracy. The result was the infamous Hindu rate of growth.

Unlike other leaders who fought for India’s independence such as Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel and Maulana Azad, Nehru promoted his family and established a dynasty. Inner party democracy went out of the window. Social mobility vanished. His daughter Indira Gandhi brought in the idea of a “committed bureaucracy.” In the words of Sir Mark Tully, the legendary former BBC South Asia bureau chief, this ushered in an era of the neta-babu raj — domination by a politician-bureaucrat nexus — which kept “India in slow motion.” Menon’s father loyally served Indira Gandhi and was part of this nexus.

Rajiv Gandhi, Indira’s son and Nehru’s grandson, was not as dictatorial as his mother but not quite democratic either. David Goodall, the then-British high commissioner to New Delhi, observed that Rajiv’s cabinet was like an “oriental court” where he was “king among courtiers.” Menon was a favored page boy in this court. After all, he came from good stock. He was a third-generation Nehru family loyalist. The patrician elite Menon belongs to merrily forgets that India was neither liberal nor democratic when they were in charge.

In the heydays of the Nehru family, India huffed and puffed as a socialist economy. Victory in the 1971 India-Pakistan War was squandered by poor diplomacy in the 1972 Shimla Agreement. India’s anglicized diplomats snatched defeat from the jaws of victory much to the chagrin of the Indian military. These diplomats also shied away from formulating a clear policy on Tibet or Afghanistan. They threw open Indian markets to Chinese goods, getting little in return.

Embed from Getty Images

These heaven-born officials failed to safeguard the rights of Tamils in Sri Lanka or champion the rights of minorities in Pakistan or highlight ethnic cleansing of the Hindu Pandits in the Kashmir Valley. They also took their eyes off Nepal. As a result, Chinese-backed communists took over the country.

In 2008, India’s financial capital Mumbai was attacked by Pakistani terrorists. Hundreds were killed or maimed. Menon was foreign secretary then. Bomb blasts in major cities had already been a regular occurrence. Yet Menon and his underlings failed to mount a vigorous diplomatic effort against Pakistan for using terror as an instrument of state policy. Worse, the establishment Menon belonged to kept arguing for an “uninterrupted and uninterruptible dialogue” with Pakistan. Menon’s strategy led India nowhere, yet he rose to be national security adviser.

Dancing in the Shadows

Today, Menon is dancing in the shadows. His patrons have lost two consecutive elections. Under Modi, Ajit Doval is now national security adviser. He is a former intelligence operative who argues for a muscular foreign policy. Unlike Menon, Doval believes in punishing Pakistan for terrorism through military strikes. He has thrown Menon’s Pakistan policy into the same dustbin where he has deposited Menon’s China policy. This makes Menon and his ilk uncomfortable.

The likes of Menon, who have run India’s foreign and security policy for decades, have been Nehruvian pacifists and internationalists. They decreed that India occupy the commanding heights of international morality. Some aspects of this policy were commendable, such as India’s support for independence of colonized nations and its sustained opposition to apartheid in South Africa. However, this policy largely failed to further India’s national interests in terms of boosting economic growth or achieving national security.

Today, this policy has lost credibility for another reason. Like all elites, the Nehruvian one became corrupted by power. Over time, it earned notoriety for nepotism. Menon became foreign secretary by superseding 14 officers senior to him. There is a possibility that he was indeed so brilliant that he deserved to jump the queue. However, the fact that Menon came from a family of Nehru dynasty loyalists might have helped his meteoric ascent.

There is another tiny little matter. ShivshankarMenon was national security adviser to a government that noted journalist Chaitanya Kalbag damned as “the most corrupt in [India’s] history.” When princelings damn peasants for being unprincipled and transactional, they could do well to remember Bob Dylan’s words that “The Times They Are a-Changin’.”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post India’s League of Internationalists appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
An Indian Revolution: From Indira’s Congress to BJP’s Modi https://www.fairobserver.com/region/central_south_asia/india-narendra-modi-uttar-pradesh-bjp-world-news-43509/ Sun, 12 Mar 2017 17:12:28 +0000 http://www.fairobserver.com/?p=63868 Narendra Modi has given the opposition a thrashing and emerged as the most powerful Indian leader since Indira Gandhi. On March 11, India’s rambunctious democracy took a new turn. Five states had gone to the polls. Of these, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Goa and Manipur are relatively electorally insignificant in a country of over 1.2 billion people.… Continue reading An Indian Revolution: From Indira’s Congress to BJP’s Modi

The post An Indian Revolution: From Indira’s Congress to BJP’s Modi appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
Narendra Modi has given the opposition a thrashing and emerged as the most powerful Indian leader since Indira Gandhi.

On March 11, India’s rambunctious democracy took a new turn. Five states had gone to the polls. Of these, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Goa and Manipur are relatively electorally insignificant in a country of over 1.2 billion people. Everyone was waiting for the result in Uttar Pradesh (UP), the 800-pound gorilla of Indian democracy.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has led the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to a historic victory in India’s most populous state. Over 200 million people now inhabit UP, more than 16% of the Indian population. Even after all the influx of refugees and migrants, the population of Germany was below 83 million at the end of 2016. The number of people living in the United States was a touch more than 323 million on July 4, 2016.

With its population, size and location, UP has always held the key to power in Delhi. Every pan-Indian emperor from Samudragupta to Akbar rose to power by conquering and controlling UP. Once India won independence in 1947, no Indian prime minister has become powerful without winning elections in UP. Indira Gandhi ruled India like a queen because she had UP in her back pocket or, to use an Indian analogy, tied away in the end of her sari.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Modi has emulated Indira and won a landslide in UP. While Indira’s Congress party won 309 seats in 1980, Modi’s BJP has set a new record by winning 312 out of a total of 403. So, what is going on?

First, Modi has short-circuited traditional channels of power that have long held sway in Indian politics. Like India’s infamous caste system, power and patronage in the country have been deeply hierarchical. It works like this: The chief minister lords it over his ministers. They in turn like bureaucrats to kowtow to them. These bureaucrats then dispense goodies to relatives, loyalists and favorites of their political masters. They dip their hands in the cookie jar in the process.

Power brokers play an important role in this traditional dispensing of spoils. Industrialists such as those of the Bombay Club once had the power to make and unmake ministers and even prime ministers. For too many journalists in Delhi have long given up speaking truth to power and focus on brokering deals with the purveyors of power. The Lutyens’ media, as this jet set group of journalists is termed, has been in bed for decades with politicians and bureaucrats who operate out of the imposing edifices that Edward Lutyens once designed for the British Übermensch.

Not only national but also local power brokers abound. They range from India’s fabled holy men to local financiers. The latter bet on candidates and aim to back the winning horse. The entire retinue of such brokers clogs India’s political system and ensures that little gets done. With Modi’s emergence as prime minister, many power brokers are in hot water. In fact, the prime minister connects directly with the voters, and such is his popularity that the BJP did not even announce a chief ministerial candidate for UP.

As the BBC rightly points out, the UP election was a referendum on Modi as prime minister, and the former chaiwalla (tea seller) has won big time. The very fact that Modi began life as a chaiwalla has played to his advantage. He connects directly to the voters. This makes power brokers redundant. It also makes regional leaders of the BJP irrelevant. Modi has inaugurated a new experiment in Indian politics of a de facto presidential style of government within the de jure Westminster model of parliamentary democracy—and people are voting for it.

Second, Modi has emerged as a man of action that Indians are so enamored of in their movies. While Barack Obama pitched the audacity of hope, Modi has successfully sold his energy. Voters see him as someone with the clarity of mind and the courage of conviction to implement tough decisions such as surgical strikes against Pakistan and demonetization of high-value currency notes. Over the last three decades, such decisiveness has become alien to India. The last bold and decisive leader of India was none other than Indira, who nationalized banks, conducted a nuclear test and broke Pakistan into two during the 1971 war.

Third, Modi is first right-wing politician with several firsts to his credit. The man who began life as a chaiwalla is the first person of a backward caste to head a traditionally Brahmin-led party. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the last BJP prime minister, was a classically educated Brahmin who wrote poetry and loved culture. Modi has little time for such luxuries and is infamous for being a hard driving taskmaster who works round the clock.

For the first time, Modi is marrying the fervor of Hindu nationalism to the muscle of capitalism. As chief minister of Gujarat, Modi pushed forth industrialization and courted foreign investment. In more ways than one, Modi is the Indian version of Margaret Thatcher. Like her, he has taken over a party of the established elite and commandeered it to embrace markets more closely. Like her, he has made the bet that private enterprise is the way forward for the economy. And like Thatcher, Modi believes in a muscular foreign policy backed by a robust military strategy.

Modi is also the first right-wing Indian politician who has been able to set a benchmark for good governance vis-à-vis his left-wing rivals. He has championed his abilities as an administrator, while pointing to his rivals’ record of corruption, patronage and incompetence. Pre-2013, the BJP was like the Indian cricket team of the 1960s and 1970s with upper caste genteel leaders who lacked the killer instinct. Under Modi, the BJP has turned into a mean if not lean fighting machine.

Unlike Vajpayee, Modi has made the BJP into the natural party of power and transformed himself into the leader of the nation. It helps that his rivals have lost the plot. Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi and leader of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), has been in a hurry to win elections in other states before establishing a track record in Delhi. He wants to run before he can walk and acts not as chief minister of Delhi, but of the entire country. The AAP began with much promise, but is now a one-man band that has now become a caricature of monumental proportions.

SOCIALISM IN INDIA

The parties of the socialist fold that have produced two of the last five prime ministers are in disarray. When they unite as they did in Bihar, they can still win. But the Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) are locked in a fratricidal battle of mutual annihilation. Furthermore, they are too narrowly focused on the interests of a few castes and capturing the Muslim vote. This has proved to be their undoing, allowing the BJP to change what the BBC calls “the social arithmetic of Indian elections.”

donate to nonprofit media organizationsThe SP, until recently the ruling party of Uttar Pradesh, is primarily a party of Yadavs. They are members of the agrarian landholding caste who have taken over the instruments of the state over the years. Identity politics is the name of the game, and caste matters, not merit. While Yadavs get to be illiterate teachers and dancing policemen, the SP buy the Muslim vote by roping in powerful leaders from the community, patronizing the Urdu press and handing out subsidies to Islamic institutions. It is not without surprise that Mulayam Singh Yadav, the founder of SP, is often called Mullah Mulayam.

Apart from identity politics, the SP is infamous as a party of trigger-happy thugs. Even The Wall Street Journal has reported on SP’s “goonda raj” (rule of goons) and its wanton record of violence. SP’s reputation for brutality is matched only by its record of venality. SP’s own legislators such as Mohammad Ziauddin Rizvi have bemoaned that “corruption is at its peak” in UP with administrative and police officers demanding bribes even from legislators. Some of this money purportedly goes right to the top in UP. It is little surprise that one of Yadav’s sons drives a Lamborghini. Democracy is messy even in America, but it is downright dirty in UP.

In the 1970s, India experienced a great wave of socialism. Leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan, Satyendra Narayan Sinha and Karpuri Thakur campaigned against corruption and misrule. Narayan—popularly known as JP—led the JP movement and the fight against Indira when she assumed dictatorial powers during the Emergency from 1975 to 1977. JP was locked up for his protests and so were thousands of others. These socialists were honest, upstanding and principled. The same cannot be said about their successors.

The socialist parties of northern India have been taken over by landholding agrarian castes. Once, they wanted liberation from the top castes such as Brahmins and Rajputs. Once in office, they developed a taste for power and realized that India’s colonial state could serve their selfish interests. Ironically, instead of these landholding castes turning socialist, they have transformed socialist parties into feudal bastions of pelf and patronage.

All of these parties have also turned dynastic. The Indian National Lok Dal is dominated by the Devi Lal clan; the SP by Mulayam Singh Yadav’s family; the Rashtriya Janata Dal is run by Laloo Prasad Yadav’s household; the Biju Janata Dal is run by Biju Patnaik’s son; and the Janata Dal Secular is the fiefdom of the sons of Haradanahalli Doddegowda Deve Gowda, a former prime minister. This is worse than the caviar communism that has made communist parties in India unelectable.

SECOND TERM IN 2019

The election results of March 11 have demonstrated that the Indian opposition is in disarray. The historic Indian National Congress may have won Punjab, but it has no presence in UP. The party’s base has largely been decimated and is led by fifth generation scion who lacks ideas, energy and verbal fluency. Rahul Gandhi is a modern-day Louis XVI who lacks the ability to lead, the energy to campaign or the interest to govern.

For all their faults, it is India’s socialist parties that are the only challengers to the BJP. They are the only obstacle in the path of Modi and his utter domination of the Hindi heartland. However, until socialists curb their venality, brutality, nepotism and divisions, the field is clear for Modi for a second term in 2019.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Frederic Legrand – COMEO

The post An Indian Revolution: From Indira’s Congress to BJP’s Modi appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
Lessons Greece Can Learn From Seychelles https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/lessons-greece-can-learn-from-seychelles-31079/ https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/lessons-greece-can-learn-from-seychelles-31079/#respond Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:35:57 +0000 http://www.fairobserver.com/?p=52371 Greece should look to Seychelles for lessons on rejuvenating its ailing economy. Oxi it is! In early July, the Greek electorate delivered a thumbs-down to sermons from lenders, media, international bodies and diplomats. Greeks chose not to give in when placed under overwhelming pressure from “Team Euro.” The Greek debate means all sorts of things to people of… Continue reading Lessons Greece Can Learn From Seychelles

The post Lessons Greece Can Learn From Seychelles appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
Greece should look to Seychelles for lessons on rejuvenating its ailing economy.

Oxi it is! In early July, the Greek electorate delivered a thumbs-down to sermons from lenders, media, international bodies and diplomats. Greeks chose not to give in when placed under overwhelming pressure from “Team Euro.”

The Greek debate means all sorts of things to people of all hues. Chiefly, the internationalists and regionalists have hijacked an economic debate and turned it into a philosophical one. This debate may decide the future and form of the European Union (EU), the biggest experiment on regional integration in history. While this philosophical battle rages on in the eurozone, the Greek people are on the sidelines awaiting their dreary fate.

Among all the hoopla about a Greek default, “Grexit” and Greek referendum, a routine press release by the World Bank went unnoticed. Seychelles, a tiny Indian Ocean archipelago, was promoted to a high income category by the World Bank in the first week of July. What is the relevance of Seychelles to the Greek crisis?

In 2008, Seychelles had a debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio of 177%, and a negative GDP growth rate of -2.14%. Greece was in a slightly better position at the time, as it had a debt-to-GDP ratio of 117% along with a GDP growth rate of -0.4%.

Yet 2015 bears testimony to a healthy Seychellois economy, while the Greek economy is still in the doldrums. The numbers speak for themselves. The present debt-to-GDP ratio in Seychelles stands at 63%, and the country’s growth rate is 2.76% for fiscal year (FY) 2014. This is in stark contrast to Greece’s gloomy picture as the country has grown 0.8% in FY2014 with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 172%.

The Greek debt crisis shows no sign of abating, despite the implementation of austerity measures. In the midst of this tedious situation, the 26% unemployment rate has the potential to precipitate a political crisis.

The economic problems of Greece are twofold: a lack of monetary and fiscal leverage. Since its entry into the eurozone, Greece has had no monetary leverage to inflate its way to growth. Printing money would have allowed Greece to rein in interest rates and boost export competitiveness. Furthermore, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is seeking to dictate fiscal policy decisions in order to allow for timely debt servicing. This leaves Greece’s monetary and fiscal policy autonomies to bureaucrats and academics; both of whom are unable to fathom the complexities of Greece’s social fabric while making decisions on the country’s economy.

Amid all this, another vital peg of Greek armory is missing. Prior to 2010, Greek credit was extensively subscribed to private banks, which brought forth serious risks of financial contagion from a Greek default. With credit transferred to the rest of the eurozone’s balance sheets, a widespread systemic disruption is less likely in case of a Greek default; private banks are not as exposed anymore.

As the immediate threat of a nuclear option default is no longer credible, the focus has shifted to retaining Greece within the EU rather than nourishing it back to strong economic health. Under these circumstances, the Greek government can either participate in negotiations with lenders that lead to iterative attrition of its economy, or it can seek innovative ways out of this crisis.

The Seychellois experience becomes relevant under the latter option. How has a tiny debt-ridden country been able to rejuvenate its economy and continue to maintain a welfare state?

Seychelles is an interesting policy example to learn from and adapt wherever relevant. Despite the obvious political and economic dissimilarities between the two nations, basic philosophical bedrocks can always be understood and replicated to help other countries emerge out of a crisis.

The Seychellois crisis of 2008 is succinctly explained by the IMF:

Since independence in 1976, Seychelles—an archipelago of about 115 islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean—had built up a successful economy, supported by a growing tourism sector. But a combination of overly expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, a pegged exchange regime, and a complex system of exchange controls, state subsidies and financial sector restrictions culminated in a severe balance of payments and public debt crisis in the second half of 2008.”

Here are some lessons from the Seychellois experience that Greece would do well to learn from.

Lesson 1: Own Your Reform Process

President James Michel, who was leading a left-leaning party, had a big task of selling the reforms to his constituency. Strategically enough, the government owned and actively aided the reforms process. Instead of packaging the reforms as an imposed necessary evil, Seychelles used the IMF package to rewire its economy with minimal pain. The National Assembly speaker at the time stated that the authorities transitioned from being “proponents of welfarism” to “fervent promoters of entrepreneurship.”

In the case of Seychelles, austerity measures were used to encourage the transfer of employment generation from the public to private sector without cutting employment opportunities. Utilizing the IMF support, Seychelles was able to remove foreign exchange restrictions, float its currency, liberalize interest rates, modernize its monetary framework, and significantly tighten its fiscal stance. Seychelles rejuvenated its fundamentals without the need of bailouts, and this is something that Greece has to take a hard look at.

Lesson 2: Prioritize Policy Goals and Identify New Economic Engines

When it comes to austerity measures, the polity should dwell upon what can and cannot be cut. Seychelles maintained an expansive welfare stance, whereby the government subsidized an entire range of goods and services. Austerity was used as required, but the country remained firm with its welfare mechanisms.

Greece

© Shutterstock

Subsidies on milk were withdrawn as an effort to reduce government expenditure, but public services such as education and health care were available to all Seychellois. The government let go of some subsidies, but it did not dismantle the welfare mechanism meant for social overhead capital.

Paul Krugman and Simon Tilford asserted that Greece has already undertaken significant austerity measures. The real problem for Greece is its tanked economy. Hence, the country must kick-start economic growth in order to survive the crisis. There is an urgent need for Greece to relax its fiscal tightening over certain sectors; otherwise it risks an overall strangulation of growth. At the same time, it has to be wary of dismantling the social welfare mechanisms that are vital for preserving social stability.

The Greeks must use the crisis to identify innovative approaches to re-engineer the country’s economic structure. Seychelles adopted a twin approach of moving up the value chain within its traditional sectors of tourism, fisheries and financial services. The country moved toward high margin and high value product lines within its traditional sectors of competence.

The country simultaneously adopted the concept of the blue economy and turned its attention toward one resource that it had in abundance: the ocean. Seychelles’ blue economy paradigm allowed the country to leverage its oceanic resources for high-end aquaculture products; bio-prospecting for pharmaceutical compounds; renewable energy; and marine fertilizers.

To top it all, Seychelles is keen on local entrepreneurship to power the sunrise sectors, and its government has announced a slew of measures to allow these sectors to grow.

Greece also needs to quickly identify its potential beyond the conventional bounds of the European industry. A pertinent example is Greece’s long coastline. The country sits in a fairly advantageous position to benefit from international trade. In short, Greece should explore its comparative advantage to achieve a brighter future.

Lesson 3: Deft Political Establishment and Diplomacy

Seychelles achieved its political stability through two ways. First, the deft statesman, President Michel, was able to command respect from multiple quarters and was able to muster strong legislative sanction for reforms. This was followed by a strong administrative setup that was able to implement the reforms in its entirety. The Seychellois government implemented radical policies that put the country in uncharted territory. It is one of the smallest economies to rely on a freely floated exchange rate. The Greek polity also needs strong leaders who can deliver. Crisis needs its crisis manager.

Seychelles indulges in an astounding amount of diplomatic outreach given its relative size. As an active member of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), it has blazed a trail in proposing policy paradigms and focused its attention to the negative externalities caused by developed and emerging economies. Seychelles engages actively with old-world economic powerhouses under the aegis of the Paris Club, the United Nations and the European Union.

Beyond that, Seychelles has built robust and independent relationships with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS). Seychelles is vulnerable to external shocks from the international economic climate. The country also has a fragile environment to look after. An effective way to countermand its risks is to have a large number of friends that can help spur its local economy after painful economic shocks, which Seychelles is successfully doing. Greece has a very important lesson to learn, and it needs to look beyond the troika (European Commission, European Central Bank and the IMF) and the borders of the EU.

The Seychellois government was smart, adaptive and resilient in facing the crisis. It approached the problem head-on. Clearly, this should serve as a case study on how to approach an economic crisis. Greece may well do a lot better by keeping the debate limited between the government and its electorate rather than making it an international cause célèbre.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: Gabriel12 / Kostas Koutsaftikis / Shutterstock.com


Fair Observer - World News, Politics, Economics, Business and Culture

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a sponsor.

The post Lessons Greece Can Learn From Seychelles appeared first on Fair Observer.

]]>
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/lessons-greece-can-learn-from-seychelles-31079/feed/ 0