ECLIPSING HIGH COMMAND CULTURE

You may believe in astrology; or you may be a staunch rationalist. But the ground realities do not change depending on your beliefs. That is what we witnessed in 2009, especially in Andhra Pradesh. There were predictions early last year that, on account of three eclipses on a row, there could be disastrous consequences for the nation, especially for the ruler and the ruled. There can be any rounds of discussion on the rationality of such predictions which do not square up with science that we know or seem to know.

But, whoever does a round up of 2009, which has become more of a ritual with the media, one has to take note of the developments which are extremely bizarre, as predicted. May be, one can say, it is just a coincidence. Within three months of a decisive mandate from the voters giving yet another term of five years, Dr Y S Rajasekara Reddy disappeared from the scene under very tragic circumstances which even his arch rivals would not have expected in their dreams.

Soon followed unprecedented floods taking a heavy toll of life and property. Yes, floods is no stranger to the state, but the havoc it caused to the Kurnool town as a whole was something that one could not have imagined.

Not only head of government was taken away in a sad turn of events, but the head of state had to be removed not because of any unconstitutional conduct, but he conducted himself under most ignominious circumstances turning the Raj Bhavan into a place where women of doubtful morality frequented with impunity. This did not happen in the history of any Raj Bhavan in the country though there are folk stories about how the late Charan Singh washed the Raj Bhavan in Lucknow with water from the Ganges after its occupant, incidentally from South, vacated the place.
The issue of statehood for Telangana is not new. But it erupted all of a sudden in 2009, and in its intensity it has surpassed the earlier agitations. The agitation from both regions generated such a bitterness and animosity that It led to an unbridgeable divide between the people speaking the same language, sharing the same civilisational ethos, literature, culture, ethnicity and belief systems just because, by quirk of history, two regions were ruled by two different rulers.

The chain of events right from the day Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief, who was isolated within his own party subsequent to the electoral rout, sat on a drip-fast to salvage his political relevance till the Centre’s decision to convene a meeting of all parties, has thoroughly exposed the political bankruptcy of the Congress High Command. It appeared that the High Command is all powerful only so long as the Congressmen go down on their knees. That is what they did when the CLP passed a resolution entrusting the High Command to take a decision without knowing the pulse of their own electorate. When the core committee of the Congress thought sitting in Delhi that they can decide for the people of the state, things went haywire and the High Command did not know how to proceed.

What is puzzling everyone is this. How come all powerful High Command could not order or rather persuade the AP ministers and legislators not to precipitate the matters. Can we conclude that the High Command’s writ did not run when it involved an emotive issue? What happened to the parrot-like statements of Congressmen that they would always abide the dictates of the High Command? There is an unseemly tug-of-war between the chief minister and other Congress leaders. Even among the Telangana ministers there is no unity. While one section wants to take back the resignations, another group of ministers have a different song to sing. Has the High Command become the proverbial blind cat when rats start standing up? Or, is all this a drama to protect the interests of the party if a situation were to arise when Telangana became a reality? In the case of the latter possibility, the 125-year old party would have put the interests of the party over the people unmindful of the hardship and agony the agitation, whether orchestrated or spontaneous, has been causing to the people in various fields like business, industry, cinema, tourism, IT etc.

There are media reports that the Congress High Command is upset with its own nominated Chief Minister K Rosaiah for providing half-baked inputs which led to a calamitous situation in the state. This is again another unhealthy dimension of the High Command culture. High Command is infallible. If something goes wrong, it is the lowly mortals who have to take the blame. So, Rosaiah is on the dock. But who imposed him on the CLP without any recourse to democratic exercise? High Command never allowed collective political will of the people to prevail.

From the midnight of Dec. 9, the High Command functioned as a fire fighter shifting from one position to another just to douse the fire. Even the all party meeting in Delhi on Jan 5, seems to be one such fire fighting exercise since with the vertical split in both the major parties – Congress and the TDP – there cannot be any consensus. But the Union Home Minister does not agree. He says there is no flip-flop. Probably he thinks that his impeccable English can be a substitute for facts.
Chidambaram says that Telangana found a mention in the CMP of the Congress in 2004 itself and that all the parties were in favour of it in 2009 election manifesto.

Well, what did the Centre do for five and a half years? What did Pranab Mukerjee committee do for five years? Why did Chidambaram discover the “unanimity” only on the midnight of December 9 when he feared that the situation might go out of control? For his clarificatory statement on 23rd, he finds fault with the parties which made a U-turn forgetting that it was his party which started the turn-around game. Now, he invites all parties for “wide-ranging discussions” which he should have done on 9th itself. This is what is known as “flip flop”, Mr Chidambaram!

The only decisive action in the last one month was the decision to post a no-nonsense police officer in the Raj Bhavan who has started acting as though there is President’s rule in the state. There seems to be a clear brief to him to restore law and order since the imposed head of government has failed in the test. One can feel this in the utterances of the state DGP who is talking tough these days and has gone to the extent of warning the media for any violation of high court orders which wanted the media to exercise restraint in the coverage of agitations in the state.

An influential national English daily summed up the situation very well. It said “The Telangana issue spiralled out of control mainly because of the Centre kept postponing a decision on the statehood demand. It later succumbed to the Telangana Rashtra Samiti’s politics of blackmail. A repeat of the situation must be avoided.”

POSTURING FOR POLITICAL SPACE

Two-nation theory that was touted to be the only panacea for the communal pitch that was raised by the Muslim League prior to the disastrous partition of India already proved to be just a tool in the hands of the communalists to divide the nation. Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s pet theme was that Hindus and Moslems could not co-exist for their cultural, civilisational and linguistic backgrounds are entirely different.
What is the position today? People who were sharing the same cultural, civilisational background were divided. India which has the second largest Muslim population in the world has become the homeland for both the Hindus and Muslims and they are in a state of peace and tranquillity, calling the bluff of Jinnah, notwithstanding occasional disturbances here and there which should be understood given the historical factors not devoid of mutual hostility.

In contrast, post-Independence leaders in India thought, though Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru was not so keen, that language could be the uniting factor and hence the formation of states on linguistic basis came into existence in 1956. Just a decade after this experiment, some leaders thought that language could not be the deciding factor to keep the people united and they queered the pitch citing history of the region. That it was not genuine was proved when the demand was given up when those who were spearheading the movement were politically compensated.

Now, the same political class with a “bulgy” nose for political gains wants to divide the people and to prove that language cannot be the basis for uniting people. Praising the Nizams who unleashed Razakars on the people of the state, they would like to go back in history to decide the geography of the state turning, in the process, both Sardar Patel and Potti Sreeramulu in their graves. If Telangana state has to be formed because it existed as a separate state before the integration, what about the composite Madras State that was there till 1953. Can we afford to go back in history and restore those districts in Andhra, Karnataka, Kerala and Orissa to the Madras State? What KCR and his cronies have to understand is that history cannot be re-visited and cannot be re-written.

Ironically, Telugus who paved the way for formation of states based on language, it is feared, may become catalysts for undoing this concept which worked well for 53 years. But, is it that simple?

There are doubts whether the agitations by both separatists and integrationists are spontaneous though the chief minister may think otherwise. If there is no “live” telecast of the agitation for a week, there will be no “immolation” attempts, no one will climb the cell towers. Because media has become an active player in the agitational politics, an impression, should we say illusion, has been created that there is spontaneous upsurge. Had there really been sentiment among the people of Telangana, they would not have kept quiet for two decades which saw four chief ministers from Telangana ruling the state. They have effectively called the bluff of KCR in such a manner that it forced him to take to brinkmanship.

If we look at the timeline that led to the present state of the sponsored turmoil, it becomes clear that every politician, cutting across party lines, is posturing for political space.

Just before TRS leader K Chandrasekara Rao, who had mere 10 members in his legislature kitty and who shied away from GHMC polls, decided to undertake fast-unto-death, a majority of the Congress legislators was plumping for JaganMohan Reddy to become the chief minister and there was no division on regional lines within the party. All those who were loyal to late YSR stood by his son solidly. Even during the pro-T agitation, there were no apparent fissures.

However, all hell broke loose with Union Home Minister Chidambaram’s mid-night announcement. With an impression gaining ground that there is some possibility of T-dream becoming a reality, every legislator wanted to protect his/her political space in the absence of dynamic leadership in the party. If Congress leaders like Sabita Indra Reddy, Jeevan Reddy, Komatreddy Venkat Reddy, who owe their present position to the late YSR, switched their loyalties, it is not because they have turned against YSR legacy, but, in the absence of a strong leader like YSR, there is no one to protect their interests. If they fail to take pro-T stand, KCR would have emerged as the sole champion of Telangana cause. To avert such a possibility Telangana Congress leaders had to resort to political posturing and to hijack the T cause. And that is what we witness today when Sabita Reddy has a soft corner for T-agitators and Jeevan Reddy shouts at the top of his hoarse voice citing distorted history for his stand. Posturing is a sort of political insurance just in case T-state becomes a reality.

Same is the case with Andhra/Rayalaseema Congress leaders. Lagatapati Rajagopal is shrewd enough to see the crisis of leadership in the party after September 2. He wants to seize this opportunity provided jointly by KCR and Chidambaram to emerge as a leader in the coastal districts just in case there is no escape from a division of the state. Or even, if the state remains united, he wants to stand up and be counted.

While one cannot rule out the possibility of Rayapati and Kavuri joining the Lagatapati bandwagon to form a powerful Kamma lobby which lost its political initiative and influence after YSR’s ascendency, one has to understand the emergence of JC Diwakar Reddy and Jagan Mohan Reddy as leaders of the “Samaikya Andhra” movement not to leave the entire political space to Kamma lobby.

Therefore, while headless Congress is pushing individual legislators in Telangana to protect their political space and to ensure electoral dividends, it is a fight between two communities in Andhra/Rayalaseema to fill the void created by the sudden disappearance of YSR from the scene.

The same dilemma is haunting both Telugu Desam and Praja Rajyam Party. If Nagam Janardhana Reddy and Erran Naidu are in the opposite camps, it is not because they have ceased to be loyal to the party leadership. They are only protecting the interests of the party in both the regions.

Posturing for political space can be a temporary phenomenon and one can read through it. But the collateral damage is going to be quite serious and alarming. Pro-T agitators are not confining to politics. They are spreading the divisive mindset to other spheres as well. It started with film industry and now there is talk of extending to business as well. Some T leaders issue ominous warning that if pro-U leaders try to tour Telangana districts, their legs would be broken. Unfortunately, in order to sustain their vested interests, these leaders are prepared to divide the people on socio-political and economic grounds.

The only silver lining amidst these dark clouds is the independence with which the Police is functioning in the state. It is not that the Police force has suddenly become efficient. There is no real political boss to make them function in a partisan manner. Some solace indeed!

BANKRUPTCY OF LEADERSHIP

The reason that Union Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram advanced for the overnight decision on Telangana was the worsening health condition of TRS leader K Chandrasekara Rao. If anything untoward were to happen to him the situation would have gone out of control. That was his unstated fear. Hence, he was prepared to vivisect the state of Andhra Pradesh armed with the hasty decision of a few fire-fighting heads coming together to bail out the state chief minister from a difficult situation. What he did not also say was that the Left extremists and people within his own party would have played havoc in the state in case of such an eventuality.

The same Home Minister, however, while replying to the debate on the dud report of Liberhan, found fault with the then chief minister of Uttar Pradesh Kalyan Singh and by implication his own former Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao for the failure to deploy forces available in the vicinity of Ayodhya to prevent the demolition of the disputed structure. Had the security forces entered the scene, consequences would have been as disastrous as it would have been on 10th Dec in Hyderabad. The dilapidated and disused structure could have been saved only at the cost of hundreds of lives on the spot. Such was the volatility of the situation both on Dec. 6 1992 and now, as Chidambaram feared, on December 9, 2009 at Hyderabad.

When it comes to a State where his party had high stakes, he would like to yield to political blackmail and in the case of a state ruled by his political rival, he has different set of standards and does not want them to respect the popular sentiments and avoid bloodshed. Ah, Talking of popular sentiments, the usual question that emanates from the “seculars” is that “does the Sangh Parivar represent the will of the entire majority community?” If TRS (which was routed in the elections this year in Telangana itself) represents the popular sentiments of people of Telangana, why should there be reservations when it comes to Sangh Parivar and Hindu sentiments?
Keeping aside the historical aberrations, let’s come to the ongoing crisis in the state.

The crisis brings to light very significant realities which the political class will ignore only at the cost of their credibility and relevance.

The President of the Indian National Congress and chairperson of the UPA is simply not a political animal and has no clue about political management. It is only the adulation of her spineless partymen that keeps her in the place that she is now. Electoral success in 2004 and 2009 is due to combination of various complex political realities and certainly not that of the political sagacity of the leadership.

There is complete disconnect between the central leadership of the party and the grass root level leaders that became evident in the last couple of days. The leadership is interested in imposing its will on the people with complete disregard for their genuine aspirations. Atlast Legislators had to choose between their electors and the dictates of the High Command. How long this will last is a different story; atleast they had a taste of the emerging trend which they will ignore at their own peril.

The “high command” culture that has taken deep roots in the party and infected other parties as well like virus, is completely destroying the basic tenets of democracy. Had the legislators elected their leader of the CLP, he would have emerged as a strong leader whose political legitimacy would have stood by him to tackle difficult situations. There would have been no political vacuum in the state which is responsible for the current mess-up. It has become a “policy” of the Congress not to allow leaders to grow on their own strength at the regional level.

Tendency to have “weak” state satraps who will be looking forward to the High Command’s nod even if they have to visit the rest room, might have ensured pliable CMs, but it has annoyed the people and that is what we are witnessing in the state today.

The High Command is unable to shed its love for sycophants whose vested interests influence the decision making process. It never allows the elected representatives to have their say quite frankly. The omnibus resolutions, or should we say one-line resolutions, entrusting with the high command the decision making power is antithesis of democracy.

Combination of these factors is creating a situation in the state which would be a repeat of early eighties in the state. The Congress leadership in Delhi does not seem to have learnt any lesson from the past.

Legal experts feel that it is a travesty of the letter and spirit of Constitution for the legislators to ask Congress party chief to decide on a vital issue like division of a State. The jurisdiction is that of Parliament and the Union Cabinet and of course the consent of the people concerned, that is, if the legislators are allowed to express their views. What is the legal status of a Core Committee? It is more for the convenience of the government in the decision making process and ultimately it has to be approved by the Cabinet. Did the statement that Chidambaram read out on the midnight of 9th December have the approval of the cabinet?

Obviously, Sonia Gandhi wanted to bail out her appointee chief minister K Rosaiah from a difficult situation. Had there been a complete break-down of law and order in the state in the wake of KCR’s health, people would have faulted her for imposing a weak leader, who is not even a member of the Legislative Assembly, on the state. And to protect her “ego” she was prepared to divide the state. There are also unconfirmed reports that her son wanted a dress rehearsal in Telangana for his proposal to divide Uttar Pradesh.

True, there was no acceptable leader after the sudden disappearance of YSR from the scene, and there was crisis of leadership in the grand old party. In such a situation, she should have allowed the Congress Legislature Party to elect a leader in a democratic manner. On the contrary, she treated the elected representatives something like robotic heads and hands to nod their heads and to raise their hands completely disregarding the pulse of their electors. Electors are now sending a message that they cannot be taken for granted. This must come as a wake up call for the high command to change its style of functioning.

TELANGANA AGITATION - TELUGU MEDIA'S ACTIVIST ROLE

Dr Marri Channa Reddy might have been lucky to have had two stints as the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, while at the same time, he was quite unlucky, if one believes in the concept of luck that is, when he led a violent agitation in the late sixties for separate statehood for Telangana. Though Reddy’s agitation took the lives of hundreds of students ruining the academic career of thousands, Dr Reddy did not achieve his goal.

Was it because he was an inefficient leader? Far from it. He was a most dynamic leader of his time, political strategist, not one with his tongue firmly placed in his cheek, steady and full of fire. He might have had some weaknesses, but hypocrisy is not one among them. In a way, he is just the antonym of the TRS chief K Chandrasekara Rao.

Why then did Reddy fail though it is too early to say about the success or failure of KCR?

In the late sixties there were no television channels to give live coverage of all the events big or small. There was only Deccan Chronicle group which also published Andhra Bhoomi from Hyderabad. Telugu dailies like Andhra Prabha or Andhra Patrika or Andhra Jyoti were being published either from Chennai or Vjayawada. There was no gully-to-gully coverage of events, nor were there mini supplements for each and every district and for different regions in the metro to give extensive coverage to the agitation. That is why, chief minister Rosaiah has expressed his concern over the “over-enthusiasm of the media” (Athi Uthsaham) in covering the present agitation.
So, KCR is very lucky, unlike his preceding agitator, to have nearly 15 television channels covering every “act” of the agitation “live” as if nothing else is happening in the world. Additionally, we have nine Telugu dailies which might have combined readership of atleast three crores, not only providing oxygen to the agitation, but fanning the fire as well.

Switch on any Telugu news channel at any point of time, you will find someone, never mind his political status, base or credibility, will be giving a lecture, those days of short bytes of 15/20secs duration are gone, ventilating his demand. The lectures would be repetition galore.

So long as KCR was in Khammam government hospital, the demand was for his shift to Warangal or Hyderabad. Once he was brought to Hyderabad, the demand was for Sonia to make a statement. This only confirmed the perception of atleast a section of the Congressmen that Rosaiah is an ineffective leader. Rosaiah was not in the reckoning even for the ordinary workers.

Press conferences from Telangana Bhavan are “live” whenever they take place irrespective of who addressed the press meet. As a result, even the grass root level worker of the TRS was hogging the limelight.

By thrusting the mike on anyone and everyone found among a group of agitators, the channels were only spreading rumours about KCR’s health. Every one who had a pink shirt or khandwa was interviewed for the non-stop coverage and their only talking point would be a warning to the state government or outbursts against “Andhra officers”. The word “Andhra” became a pejorative term. It was taken to ridiculous proportions when TRS MLAs attributed motives to the doctors at Khammam hospital because they were perceived to be from Andhra region. Such divisive statements went on air unchallenged by the media. There was no time for the media to do very simple verification of facts as they were otherwise busy in “ live” coverage of agitation from as many spots as possible so that there was extensive coverage to provoke people in the name of “sentiment”. No channel had the time to tell the viewer as to what happened to the “sentiment” at the time of general elections and when KCR decided to stay away from the GHMC polls.

Though the government was found napping in the initial days, it started issuing health bulletins and the director of NIMS would say that KCR’s condition was stable. But neither the activists nor the reporters would pay any heed to those bulletins. They would come back to their own conclusion that KCR’s health has deteriorated and that if something happens to him, the entire state would be on fire.

Channels were also spreading “lies” that KCR slipped into coma through the bytes of man on the street. It was nothing but professional stupidity for a reporter to ask a bystander about KCR’s health even after relaying the official health bulletins. A reporter asked the NIMS director what would happen to KCR after two days. Probably, he wanted the director to say that it may worsen so that it becomes a sensational headline and thus provoke the agitators. Look at this gem of a script from an anchor: KCR PARISTHITHI ANDOLAKARNGA MAROCHCHANI KONDARU NAMBDUTHUNNARU.

Yet another straight provocation came from a reporter on the OU campus on Monday. Even as the Police were preparing themselves to evict the students from the campus, the reporter goes live to say that the government brought officers from Andhra and Rayalaseema regions to sabotage the students movement. The OU campus was described as “war zone”. Rapid Action Force does not belong to a region. Either it was sheer ignorance on the part of the reporting staff or pure malice.

Almost all the activists who were before the camera were just issuing threats that if a bill for separate Telangana was not introduced before 10th, entire state would be set on fire. Not satisfied with this, some even said that they won’t hesitate to kill people from the coast. It was absolutely unprofessional and irresponsible for the channels to air the bytes of bystanders especially when they were instigating violence. No channel was an exception to this unjournalistic conduct.

What stood as a pleasantly sharp contrast to the Telugu dailies (each daily was carrying atleast 50 pix everyday) and channels reportage was the coverage by English dailies published from Hyderabad. There was no attempt to sensationalise the events. On the contrary, one could notice the efforts to put things in perspective. Deccan Chronicle was the first daily to report the possible support the agitators were getting from Maoists, for which there was a protest in front of the office of the daily and burning of the effigy of its proprietor.

Times of India (Hyderabad) was another daily whose resident editor, Kingshuk Nag came out with a perspective piece (Is KCR riding a tiger he cannot get off?) Having lost his relevance in AP’s political firmament, KCR was trying to get his relevance back. This was the thrust of the story. He was on the dot when he compared KCR with Raju character in RK Narayan’s novel “Guide”. Though some may consider it uncharitable to KCR, it was nevertheless bold journalism.

New Indian Express resident editor GS Vasu also wrote an edit page article pointing out the mistakes committed by KCR in the past and stating that the police brutality on the Osmania University campus might come to his rescue to regain his lost credibility.

The television coverage of the Telangana agitation should be a case study for those who take to media research. It also highlights the urgent need for Broadcast Regulator. Television, as a mass medium, can play an extraordinary role in reaching the masses at the grass root level, especially when there is a tremendous growth in the number of channels. What is needed is less sensationalism with an eye on TRPs, and more objective and analytical coverage of events. Will they rise to the occasion?

BEST OF BOTH WORLDS FOR ISLAMISTS

Swiss chocolates are good; Swiss watches are the best in the world; Swiss cheese is most delicious and you can add some more to this list. But the people of Switzerland are bigots, sectarian and intolerant of other religions. This is what the liberals feel. The referendum in which the Swiss electorate gave a clear verdict for a Constitutional ban on the construction of minarets in their country is cited by liberals of the world as discriminatory and divisive. Indian Constitution may not have provision for referendum, but some of the modern democracies in Europe have and Switzerland is one among them.

The ruling Swiss People’s Party (SVP), considered to be a right of the centre party wanted to have this referendum as it felt that increasing number of mosques with spiral like minarets would change the landscape of the nation. As everyone knows Switzerland is a small land-locked nation with a population of 7.6 million and 4 percent of the population constitutes Muslims, majority of whom migrated from Yougaslavia after that country broke up. There are already 160 mosques in Switzerland and four minarets.

What then was the fear of Swiss people and why did they vote for a ban on minarets? Practice of burqa, shariat law and unequal treatment of women in Islamic cultures have been troubling the conscience of modern democracies in Europe. The Muslim population in Europe after World War II was one million and now it has risen to 15 million. On the other hand influence of Christianity in Europe is on the wane and the attendance in churches is thinning out causing concern.

This is what is troubling the rulers in Germany,France and Switzerland. We have seen what Denmark did to assert its right to freedom of expression when it permitted those controversial cartoons which set the Muslim world on fire. A German daily also felt that had there been a similar referendum in Germany, Germans verdict would not be different from that of Swiss.

When French President Nicolas Sarkozy was not averse to waging a battle against Muslim orthodoxy, it was this fear of Islamisation of Europe that forced him for a ban on veil. He put a ban on veil saying that he does not want certain neighbourhoods to feel more like Kabul or Tehran than France. He also said that France could be on the “verge of losing its soul because of multi-culturalism that tolerates radical Islamic fundamentalism”.

But, look at our liberals and seculars. They swear by multi-culturalism because that is what will strengthen the forces of political correctness. Never mind what happens to the country’s ethos, civilisation and culture. Contrast this with Sarkozy’s call for Muslims of France. He wants them to share the country’s history and culture accepting its civilisation, values and customs. Don’t you think Sarkozy shares the same spirit of those forces in Nagpur of Jandevalan?

However, some of the dailies are at variance with the viewpoints of governments in Europe and the people. It came out loud and clear when The Times wrote an editorial like our national daily from Chennai calling the Swiss verdict as “bigotry in Switzerland”. Times wrote “Swiss’s cosmopolitan and sophisticated electorate voted (yesterday) to inflame tensions and violate religious liberty” and it was a “destructive and pernicious decision”.

The Hindu wrote “this victory for fear and demagoguery shows clearly the failure of mainstream European politicians to deal decisively with xenophobia, bigotry and racism among their own populations”

The Times readers were not amused with the stand of their daily. Their reaction was quite virulent and pointed. Here are some quotes from their letters:
We get the usual nonsense from liberals who remain in sullen silent shame about how the system does not work the other way round. Try building a Church in Saudi Arabia and you will be treated like Hitler treated the Jews.

Historically, Islam envelopes other cultures once it passes a certain threshold percentage of population. It then eventually ends up as Saudi Arabia has done, banning the practices of all other religions and demoting non-Muslims to the status of Dhimmis.

Swiss vote wasn’t one that was against freedom from religious persecution, but rather one that was against the hard line views put forth by religious fundamentalists who cannot be controlled by the moderates in their faith.
Where Muslims are in a minority, they assume the mantle of the “victim” and demand rights and privileges that the majority does not often have. The situation in Muslim majority countries is something that is known to all of us. There is no question of a pluralistic religious framework in any Muslim majority countries.

As I said before, this again comes in sharp contrast to what our secular forces feel and behave. Take the latest example of Congress striking a deal with MIM for Mayoral post. There is deafening silence on the part of our so-called secular forces. Look at the perception of the Congress. BJP is communal whereas MIM, whose ancestry can be traced to Razakars, is “secular” and you can sup with them.

Apart from secular-communal debate, giving legitimacy to MIM is going to be at the cost of nation’s security concerns. Old City, which is in the grip of MIM, has emerged as one of the hubs of jihadis and we have witnessed the reaction of MIM activists whenever a jihadi is apprehended. It will be foolish to assume that Muslim fundamentalists can operate in the Old city with impunity without the local support. TDP is no better except that it did not have an opportunity to go with the MIM.

Coming back to the Swiss ban, the reaction in the Muslim world, besides the liberal media, has been on the expected lines and there is a sense of outrage with the warning that the ban will have diplomatic ramifications. But, should not the Muslim countries look within instead of trying to get the best of both worlds. You cannot carry even a copy of the Bible in Saudi Arabia. In Maldives you cannot be a citizen of the country if you are not a Muslim. Sudan applies Islamic law even to non-Muslims. Pakistan limits public positions the non-Muslims can hold; Bahai’s plight in Iran is well known; there can be no new churches in Egypt while old ones are being demolished. But Muslims want democracy, equal rights, religious freedom in those European countries where they are in a minority. More than Muslims, those so-called seculars who support their double standards and hypocrisy should be exposed.

LIBERHAN'S BLINKERS

One need not go through 1000-odd pages of Justice MS Liberhan Commission report to conclude that it was just a piece of paper written by someone as a command performance. Along with the “terms of reference” Liberhan was perhaps also given a pair of blinkers. More than what he said in the report, what he did not say profiles the author.

The very fact that the report, deliberately “leaked” to get certain political mileage, became a dead story within two days speaks volumes for the credibility of the report. The national television channels suffering from pathological hatred towards anything that is “right” exhausted themselves on the very second day after the usual BJP bashing and lectures on “secular fabric of the nation”.

For newspapers it was just one-day tamasha and on the second day Liberhan-related stories were pushed inside. Had there been “meat” in the report, the Chennai-based national daily, which is known to be a “daily for the record”, would have published the text of the report and thus served the interests of “secularism” in the country. There were not even excerpts.

Why then the report was leaked after allowing it to gather dust “in the safe custody” of the Home Minister for more than five months? And who leaked it? These questions are becoming irrelevant since the purpose for which it was leaked was not served. On the contrary, it misfired and only suited those who were “indicted” in the report.

When the report was leaked to Indian Express, the understanding could have been that the daily would share it with a television channel of its choice. Everyone knows the professional relationship between the Editor-in-chief of Indian Express and NDTV. So, NDTV must be right when it says that it did not obtain the report from Home Ministry sources. This is like the lie of Dharmaputra on Aswattama.

Coming to the “mouse” that was unearthed by Liberhan after 17 years of futile exercise, what was happening from 1986 to 1992 was not something that was planned and executed as a secret mission. Every step of the Ayodhya movement was in public domain, whether it is “shila pujan” at every village, “shila nyas” at the site, and the Rath Yatra of Advani. There was extensive coverage of the movement in the media for which Liberhan finds fault with the media and wants journalists to be licenced.

The only issue on which there was no clarity was whether the actual act of demolition was pre-meditated or spontaneous. Liberhan was supposed to unravel this mystery; but he not only failed, but chose to indulge in conjectures.
Conjectures, after all, are an anti-thesis of any credible evidence. Therefore, Liberhan, naturally, talks about the exhortations by the Sangh Parivar leaders on various occasions to support his conspiracy theory and not a shred of concrete evidence. For this revelation you don’t need a commission.

Was there a secret meeting to hatch a conspiracy and if so, when and where? Who were all the participants in such a meeting? What was the decision taken? How was it executed? The report is silent on these aspects.

If public speeches of the leaders of the Ayodhya movement can be construed as conspiracy, then Mahathma Gandhi must also be a conspirator for the violence that was witnessed during the independence movement and for post-partition violence unprecedented in the history of mankind. After all, he gave his nod for partition after maintaining a stand that the partition could only be on his dead body.
Liberhan Commission was a fact-finding commission. It was expected to take a holistic view of the issue and offer suggestions or recommendations. It never went into the historic battle for a temple in Ayodhya. Demand for a temple for Ram in Ayodhya is not the brain child of Sangh Parivar in the latter part of the 20th century.

The conflict began in 16th century after Mir Baqi, a General of Moghul Emperor Babur built a mosque after dismantling a 11th century temple. In 1855, there were conflicts between Sunni revivalists and Hindus which claimed nearly one hundred lives. There were frequent skirmishes subsequently and in 1934, there were country-wide Hindu-Muslim riots and Hindus broke parts of the Mosque wall and damaged the dome. Hundreds were killed during these riots. Sangh Parivar was nowhere in the picture.

During the thick of this controversy, Gandhiji wrote in his Navjivan (July 17, 1937) “Mosques built after destroying temples are the sign of slavery and Muslims should hand over the same to Hindu society”. Certainly, our ultra-seculars can’t blame Gandhiji for taking the side of “communalists”.

12 years later, i.e. in 1949, an idol of Ram was installed in the disputed structure when the great secularist Jawaharlal Nehru was at the helm. Following protests, he ensured that the structure was locked.

Who opened the locks? It was his grandson Rajiv Gandhi who opened the lock in 1986 for Shilanyas. Arun Nehru of the Nehru family also played a key role in unlocking the gates of the structure. Liberhan does not think it fit to recall these events nor the fact that this happened during the Congress regime in Uttar Pradesh when Bir Bahadur Singh was the chief minister and Buta Singh was the Union Home Minister. The Congress thought that this would take the wind out of the Sangh Parivar’s campaign for the temple, but everything backfired for the Congress.

Liberhan also talks about the destruction of “secular fabric of the nation” and puts the blame squarely on the saffron forces. Had he taken a peep into the history of Ayodhya movement from the 16th century, he would have noticed that the obduracy of the Muslims in not allowing a temple for Ram, worshipped by millions of people of this country, was also equally responsible for the continuing conflict and the frustration of the majority community. There was no worship at the mosque for decades and the site was not a most holy place like Mecca or Madina for Muslims to be so sentimental about the place. The offer of the Sangh Parivar to construct a mosque in any nearby place at their own cost was also spurned.

Syed Shahabudin , architect of the Babri Masjid Action Committee, promised to give up the demand for the site if it was proved that there was a temple beneath the disputed structure. But, when the Archeological Survey of India started the excavation in mid-nineties and artefacts resembling Hindu structure started surfacing, there was a feverish attempt to stop the excavation. Liberhan turned an ostrich when these facts stared at him.

What is appalling in the report is the clean chit given to PV Narasimha Rao. It was preposterous on his part to say that in the absence of President’s Rule, he could not have done much. Was there a governor in the country who refused to oblige the Centre? Liberhan was partly right when he says that PV trusted the Parivar. Why did he trust the Parivar? Because in the gatherings at Ayodhya prior to December 1992, there were no attempts to tamper with the structure. He must have thought, in the absence of intelligence report to the contrary, that Dec 6 gathering also would pass off without any major disturbance. But his hopes were belied as that of the top honchos of the Parivar. Only the imbeciles would believe that Advani and others, after planning the demolition, would come to Ayodhya and preside over the disaster.

As the renowned journalist, Mark Tully pointed out in one of the television shows, BJP leaders were politically shrewd enough to know that they could sustain the movement only when the disputed structure stood in tact. And he was right. With the demolition of the structure, the movement also lost its fizz and the political graph started declining for the BJP as well.

But how could Liberhan recognise these realities when he had his blinkers firmly placed?

TROUBLED STATES

It is more than a mere coincidence that two states in the South ruled by two surviving national parties are in a state of political flux and distress and what is more, there are a number of similarities between the two. Problems of both are self-made; both are suffering from the side effects of uncouth and unabashed display of money power in politics; and for both trouble is not from outside, but from within with groupism ruling the roost. It is difficult to say which is the B-Team of the other is. It used to be said that the BJP is the B-team of the Congress and now when you look at the manner in which the BJP is conducting itself, outbeating the Congress in political morality, you can easily say that the Congress is the B-team of the BJP.

The most vulgar manner in which the Reddy brothers of Bellary are flaunting their well-gotten or ill-gotten wealth to put a government on notice is something unprecedented and next only to the late senior Ambani’s political game during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure and thereafter, that everyone who is interested in decent public life has to hang his head in shame. It will be a distraction of convenience to attribute political affiliation for such unscrupulous businessmen who use politics as a shield.

Yes, for the moment Bellary brothers are in the BJP. The very same brothers were close confidantes of the late YS Rajasekhara Reddy when he was alive and with whose overt and covert support, they allegedly amassed wealth by means fair or foul in so far as their AP ventures were concerned. Their interests are in both Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, because the mines, geological bounties of nature, do not know geographical boundaries nor do they recognise linguistic boundaries. Hence, their interest is in both the states. Business interest is uppermost in their agenda and not public interest. They invested in BJP in Karnataka and in Congress in AP and we are only witnessing its fallout in both the states today. There are reports that if they are not contained in Karnataka, they may target the AP government which is already tottering.

If the BJP made use of their money power and muscle power in Karnataka, now is the pay-back time for the party. And what they want in return for their support to the party is the head of Yeddiyurappa on a platter. Not because, the Karnataka chief minister swerved from the promises he made to the electorate, but for the simple reason that Yeddiyurappa’s continuance in power is not in their business interest.
If you live by the sword you must be prepared to die as well with the same sword. Yeddiyurappa or his political mentors in Delhi should have known this basic principle when they supped with Reddy brothers. Were the party bosses not aware of the brothers style of politics when the latter were putting the eggs in two rival political outfits at the same time as an insurance for their business. Playing footsie with YSR, they ensured that there was no interference in their business activities in the state. They wanted Yeddiyurappa also turn the other way. But, Yeddiyurappa is no YSR to have mastered the technique of running with the hare and huting with the hound.

Why did Yeddiyurappa not oblige the Bellary brothers, and on the contrary, queered the pitch for a political crisis. It will be foolish to say that political morality made the Karnataka CM to take on the Reddy brothers nor will it be correct to say that the CM wanted to assert his authority. Whatever the reason, here is a stark reality that is staring at all of us. Money power would like to buy over Constitutional power and run the state through its own proxy. Are we going to allow this?

Amidst the dark clouds, the only silver lining is that so far (at the time or writing this piece), the higher ups ensconced in New Delhi have not yielded to money power, but the fact that they are negotiating with those who should never be in politics in the first place is the indicator to the depth to which the party with a difference has descended. The party should have shown the Bellary brothers their place even if it meant sacrifice of power. That would have enhanced the image of the party which has taken a severe beating in the past.

While the neighbouring Karnataka is on the throes of a political crisis induced by money power, Andhra Pradesh is witnessing a crisis of political and administrative authority on account of poverty of leadership and clueless high command. The writ of APCC chief does not run in the party. Except for a handful of rootless wonders, Congress leaders care a damn for the party chief. The Congress chief in the state looks pathetic when he says, after he was snubbed by his own party men rejecting his alliance proposal with PRP, that his party will have a long-term alliance with the beleaguered PRP for 2014.

Andhra Pradesh cabinet has become the theatre of the absurd. Home Minister of the state says that YSR’s son is the only charismatic leader who can provide leadership. Is this not an expression of no confidence in the present head of government? Another minister who was in the forefront of “Jagan Bajan” programme turns around and swears by the present chief minister, when he finds that the latter will have a longer haul. There are reports that the ministers do not attend to their official work and are looking towards Delhi for the final word on leadership. Groupism that was the hallmark of the party in the state in eighties and nineties has staged a comeback with vengeance and it is going to be disastrous for the party. It is this “crab” mindset that prompted APCC chief to come out with an absurd proposal to align with the truncated PRP for the GHMC polls. The present chief minister is unable to inspire confidence among the members of his own cabinet, let alone the rank and file of the party.

If the money power is threatening the very existence of the BJP government in Karnataka, it is a different play of money power in AP which spells doom for the present regime.

DEALING WITH DISCREDITED FORCES - ROLE OF MEDIA

The lifeline for sustenance and growth of any terrorist or violent movement anywhere in the world is publicity. It is the most precious oxygen on which these outfits that do not believe in democracy and rule of law survive. They use media as a perfect tool to promote their cause which, in any way, does not contribute to peace and social harmony. What comes out of their so-called struggle, whatever veneer they may apply to it, is nothing but anarchy and chaos in society.

Should the media oblige such organisations? It is difficult to give a categorical reply “yes” or “no” to this question. It is debatable and it all depends on which side of the political spectrum you are perched. Conventional use of tags for those on the left is that they are “liberal” and those on the right are “conservatives”. This is no longer so in China. Those who are opposed to communism are “liberals” and those who stand by communist ideology are “conservatives”.

Be that as it may,there were two instances in the recent past where the media, wittingly or unwittingly, played into the hands of the political and left extremist elements which are not only discredited but lost public support. Media has only helped them in their efforts for revival.

First, let us take the case of Telangana Rashtra Samiti chief K Chandrasekara Rao. 2009 general elections have exposed his hypocrisy and the elections only helped him grow richer by crores. He is the most discredited and cantankerous politician today known for his thoroughly inconsistent stands and language that does not befit a civilized politician. Of late, he has been talking of militant movement and civil war for Telangana statehood. He knows that people of Telangana no longer trust him. He wants to be in the news and so he talks of civil war. But neither the people nor the state administration takes his talk seriously.

But his only lifeline for survival is the media. When he organised a rally in Siddipet, in a desperate attempt to regroup his truncated party, almost every Telugu news channel (there are 12 in the state) telecast his rally live including the one owned by late Dr YS Rajasekara Reddy’s son. This is the rally in which he reiterated his “resolve” to launch a civil war.

Well, there can be no legal bar on the channels to report the rally in whatever manner the electronic media wanted. But, is there something like professional judgement and discretion in going “live” for the (mis)adventures of a politician? This is where unhealthy competition in the electronic media makes them shed all sense of professional propriety. There is a sheepish mindset. If one channel does “live”, everybody else has to follow suit; otherwise the competing channel may pip the post in the TRP race.

There can be no restriction in reporting the event especially when KCR threatens “ civil war” and people should have enough inputs to judge his credentials. But covering the entire rally “live” is to give an importance that he or his party does not deserve. This is where the editorial judgement should have come to play rather than senseless competition.

Politicians like Ambika Soni are making politically correct statements that the government would not constitute a regulatory body on its own and it should be left to the media establishments to come out with their own regulatory body and a self code. In the competitive atmosphere that we witness not only in Andhra Pradesh, but in the entire country today, will the media barons come out with such a self-regulatory body, and even if they come out with one, will it serve any purpose?
The second instance where media did not come out with flying colours was the one revolving around the West Bengal cop abducted by Maoists. The media space/airtime that Maoist leader Kishenji aka Koteswara Rao got on the national channels in every bulletin was amazing. He was giving exclusive interviews, phone-ins which were getting updated and bytes “behind” the camera. Besides, he also addressed a press conference with a hood covering his head and gun totting over his shoulders. It would have been a “romantic” interlude for the young journos to interview one of the dreaded left extremists rather than interacting with run-of-the-mill politicians who give a boring copy and sedate headlines.

To digress, hitherto, a journalist had to trek several miles blind-folded in thick forest to have an interview with a naxal leader. Now, the Maoists are holding press conferences within ear-shot distance of the Police station.It only reminds us of Nepal Maoist leader Prachanda’s interaction with the media.

But the point here is that Kishenji used media as a tool (not that the Maoists have any love lost for the bourgeois media) to blackmail the establishment. According to the West Bengal government, “the police had nearly cornered the top Maoist leader, but he very shrewdly used the media to blackmail the government threatening that the officer’s life would be in danger if the offensive was not halted immediately”
It is possible that the W Bengal government did not have the nerve to corner the Maoist and developed cold feet. But was it right on the part of the media to have allowed itself to be used for blackmail?

As the Prime Minister had stated time and again, Maoists are the single most internal security threat and the Home Minister has declared “war” on Maoists. Maoists don’t believe in democracy nor in peace talks. They believe in armed rebellion and are not prepared to give up arms under any circumstances. They would like to over throw Costitutionally elected governments. When the state declares “war” against them, what should be the role of media? Should it do something, whatever the professional obligations, that will only publicise and further the cause of Maoists who pose a grave threat to the very concept of nation-state?

There is a school of thought that believes in the jargon “Publish and be damned”. Media cannot be expected to analyse the intentions of those in the news and then report. During the Balkan war, when British media did not toe the official line, it was said that media had no territorial loyalties and truth is the only overriding factor to guide the media. Otherwise, we would not have had “Watergate”.

While it is a case of professional discretion in the case of KCR, it is undoubtedly a dilemma when it comes to Maoists. At least, the latter deserves a debate.

IS THERE A POLICY ON CHINA?

Amidst revived war of words between India and China, the Prime Ministers of both the countries, Dr Manmohan Singh and Wen Jiabo are slated to meet at Bangkok today when they go there to attend the East Asia Summit. There is an accuracy deficit when we say “war of words” because war can only be with the particicpation between two entities. While Chinese media has been using abusive language against India and its diplomats threaten India on a regular basis, Indian response is to go on the defensive except on one occasion when it pointed out China’s infrastructural activities in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. So, the war is unilateral in the absence of a clear China policy for India. We can only pray, with Dr Singh’s track record being what it is, there is no repeat of Sharm-el-Sheikh in Bangkok.

When Indian media was talking about Chinese incursions on the border, Indian government was only trying to pretend as if nothing has happened. The nation was told that there was nothing to panic about such minor skirmishes on the border which are not uncommon on the disputed territories of any nation. The home ministry went a step further and warned criminal action against those correspondents who wrote about such incursions. Further, what was most unimaginable was that the government censored its own Prime Minister’s remarks on China when he addressed the military commanders. Alas, China does not take note of this “good-neighbour” conduct of India.

Now, the issue has become a full-blown controversy with China’s intentions becoming quite clear. Our China friends and those who supported China at the time of 1962 war were also making noises that what was happening on the border must be the handiwork of China’s border police and it may not have anything to do with the country’s rulers. But, will they change their tune after the People’s Daily editorial on October 14?

One should remember that there is no free press in Peoples Republic of China, unlike India, and People’s Daily is the official organ of the Communist Party of China and its subsidiary is Global Times which advocated “balkanisation” of India. The editorials in People’s Daily unmistakably reflect the official position as they are published only after getting clearance from the party higher-ups.

This is what People’s Daily said in its editorial. It describes India as hegemonistic power and talks about the common experience and common difficulties of both China and Pakistan in dealing with India with which both have unresolved border disputes. Look at the diplomatic mischief. It takes Pakistan along while talking about its “difficulties” while dealing with India.

The acerbic editorial further says “In recent years Indians have become more narrow-minded and intolerable of outside criticism as nationalist sentiment rises with some of them even turning to hegemony. Given the country’s history, hegemony is a hundred percent result of British colonialism. A previous victim of hegemony, it is developing its own hegemony. Obsessed with such mentality India turned a blind eye to the concessions China had repeatedly made over the disputed border issues and refused to drop the pretentious airs when dealing with neighbours like Pakistan”.

The editorial also gives gratuitous advice to India. “India which wants to be a super power needs to improve its relations with neighbours and abandon the recklessness and arrogance. For India, the ease of tension with China and Pakistan is the only way to become a superpower.”

Let us look at the “concessions” China has made to resolve issues between the two countries.

1. It blocked the Asian Development Bank loans to India for developmental projects because the project included one in Arunachal Pradesh.

2. It expressed serious reservations on our Prime Minister’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh for electoral activity. Elections have been taking place for decades in this border state and top politicians both in the government and in the Opposition have been visiting the state.

3. China has warned India against Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh.

4. It started issuing separate visas to people of Kashmir origin to underscore the point that J&K is a disputed territory.

5. It showed J & K as a separate nation in its maps.

6. It establishes a spy station in Nepal to monitor India.

7. It has befriended all those countries around India like Pakistan, Lanka, Nepal and Myanmnar with a view to encircle India.

Just three years ago, when Chinese President Hu Jinto visited India he said China was keen on building a strong and cooperative relationship based on shared and common interests. He also said that India and China were willing to work hand in hand for long-term friendship and common development.

What happened in the last three years for China to reverse its stand? Dalai Lama, whose very name is allergic to China, has been staying as our guest for more than half-a-century. Arunachal Pradesh is not a new phenomenon. Why then this sudden hostility?

If we have to understand this, we have to understand human nature. After all, a country is no different from human being when it comes to the mindset and a country is again ruled by human beings. When a person becomes rich all of a sudden, he thinks big, acts big and expects his neighbours to pay obeisance to him. In short, he becomes a “dada” in his neighbourhood.

China is undergoing such a transformation. It has grown fabulously rich. It holds three trillion dollars in foreign exchange reserves which no other country in the world can boast of. Together with the US it accounts for 30 percent of the world’s GDP. The recession in the West, particularly in the US, added to its importance. It has emerged as the world’s largest growth engine and is out to economically humble the mighty US. There is also a talk of saying good-bye to G-8 and replacing it with G-2, i.e. China and the US.

The only country that can come in the way of China’s ambitions to be a unipolar power, militarily, economically and politically, it is India whose political and economic clout in the international arena is on the ascendant. It also suspects that Indo-US strategic relationship is only to counter China. Therefore, it wants to create tension in the border areas so as to divert India’s attention and resources. Not only in Arunachal Pradesh, even in Sikkim it wants to resurrect the ghost that was buried long ago. Dalai Lama is only a red-herring.

COMPETITION DRIVES MEDIA TO GO PRO- ACTIVE

While the nature was flooding four districts of Andhra Pradesh in a manner that was not witnessed in the last one hundred years, eleven Telugu news channels were flooding the drawing rooms of millions of households in the state with non-stop coverage of floods for full five days. Of course, it was necessary to keep the people and the administration informed of the ground realities with visual support. Though such in-depth coverage and studio discussions with irrigation experts and engineers might have sacred some people because of forecasts of deluge, there was no choice before the channels. Even visuals repeated like nobody’s business, dubious claims to exclusivity, “first”- to- reach- the- spot claims and the like are understandable in the electronic media keeping in view the mindless competition. But the problem was, the claims were taken to ridiculous levels.

Anyone who was watching the Telugu news channels during those agonising days of flood fury would have come to the conclusion that it was the electronic media in the state that has taken over control of the flood management, rescue, relief and rehabilitation measures from the state administration.

It was the market leader TV9 that showed the way for others in the fraternity. On October 2 itself the channel started the claim that it was TV9 team that could reach out to places where official machinery could not venture. Of course, there were no specific details or visuals except “bytes” from the villagers to this effect. There was a pattern. A loaded question will be asked to the people “Did anyone come to your area to help?” You can’t expect the marooned people to say “Oh yes, many people came and we are all happy with their timely help” It is quite natural for them to be disappointed and angry. Obviously, when hundreds of villages were affected due to sudden inflow of more than 10 lakh cusecs of water, you can’t expect government officials to be present everywhere. So, a byte will be extracted from them to say that TV9 was the first to visit them. What is the strength of a television channel’s team in the affected areas to replace government machinery? A stringer in each mandal with a cameraman? Besides, the channel might have sent dozen teams from the capital.

How can the competitors of TV9 keep quiet when a rival is taking all the credit? TV5 went a step further. It announced that it was the only channel to have conducted an aerial survey of flood affected areas. If a chief minister or prime minister conducts an aerial survey, the purpose is to assess the damage due to floods and to chalk out plan of relief and rehabilitation measures. What would a TV channel do with an aerial survey if it is not just to shoot visuals? The channel also announced in bold fonts across the screen (not just scrolling) that TV5 rescue teams were active in the affected areas and that affected people in the submerged areas thanked TV5 profusely for the timely help. It was also claimed that the TV5 personnel were operating along with fire service authorities to rescue the flood victims.

The trend that was set by these two channels was meticulously followed by others in making claims and counter-claims. Every channel had “exclusives” and was the first to reach affected villages to lead rescue efforts.

However, there was a blessing in this competition which cannot go unnoticed. It was TV9 again that started collecting relief materials to be sent to the flood victims. The channel gave an appeal for aid and the channel claimed, throwing all decency and modesty into thin air, that the response it got was unparalleled in history and that even the government, NGOs, or the political parties could not get the same level of response which in turn reflected on the credibility of the channel among the people and the unshakable faith they repose in the channel.

On the positive side, this spurred other channels to collect relief materials and if we go by the visuals shown in all the channels there must be hundreds of trucks heading towards those four districts of Kurnool, Mahabubnagar, Krishna and Guntur. This is one area where the competition among the channels benefitted the people if we ignore the tendency of some channels to run down the competitors. When TV9 was collecting clothes, TV5 ran a ticker that it was of no use except for propaganda. Since some channels received cheques/drafts, an attempt was made to discourage it saying that the cheques/drafts must be sent only to the chief minister’s office, as otherwise, there is a likelihood of misuse of funds.

Though Sakshi TV was trying to be professional in the first few days, even cutting live to TDP leader Chandrababu’s press meet in Vijayawada and not making exaggerated claims, it could not probably resist the temptation to cater to its owner’s political interests. There was an extensive coverage of YS Jagan Mohan Reddy’s tour of Cuddapah district with a voice over that smacked of sheer sycophancy.

Of all the channels, ETV2 maintained semblance of balance and sobriety. The reason is not far to seek. There was no YSR in the scene to let loose its prejudice.
While the Telugu channels went overboard because of the real threat perception involving millions of people of the state, the coverage of national news channels was abysmal. On the afternoon bulletins of Times Now, IBN and NDTV 24x7, the lead story was the collapse of two cranes in the Delhi Metro project even as the Krishna flood was threatening to submerge hundreds of villages taking the lives of scores of villagers in the process. On the prime time bulletin at 9.00 PM on 2nd Oct, Times Now found Karan Johar’s apology to Raj Thakeray as more important than the flood fury in the South. Speculation about Shiney Ahuja’s exact time of release from jail was also considered to be more important to be taken before the break whereas the flood fury in the South was pushed as the last item before Sports news.

If we go by conventional wisdom, role of the media is to inform. But then, we are passing through changing times and changing priorities. When we have an Executive whose mantra is “positive discrimination”, judiciary which is told to be committed to social justice, and not just Constitutional justice, why can’t we have a pro-active media? Media which wants to replicate state administrative machinery.

SOUL OF OUR POLITY IS AUTHORITARIAN

We adopt all universally recognised motions of democracy. We have periodical elections to state assemblies and Parliament and elected representatives of the people “elect” chief ministers or Prime Minister. We have a written Constitution which swears by democracy. We follow its provisions in letter. But can we say we follow it in spirit?

The farce that is being witnessed in Andhra Pradesh in electing a successor for the late Dr Y S Rajasekara Reddy only confirms, if confirmation is needed, that we are yet to imbibe the true spirit of democracy notwithstanding the fact that we follow all the superficial features of democracy. Democracy has come to stay, we say; and indulge in self-flagellation comparing ourselves with our neighbours. But, what is the quality of our democracy?

For centuries we were ruled by kings or emperors. Indian tradition treats kings as incarnation of God. A king, benevolent or malevolent, is accepted without a question and what he says is law and his subjects have to obey. In fact, there were kings who, despite unquestioned powers, acted in accordance with the wishes of his people.
Now that we are the world’s largest democracy, atleast in the eyes of the world, has anything changed? “High Command” has replaced the kings in any political party and the credit, shall we say “dubious credit” goes to the Congress for setting this authoritarian trend right from the time of Mrs Indira Gandhi and it has, regretfully, caught up with other parties as well. Only the nomenclature has changed and the king or queen is now called “High Command”.

The state is witnessing an interesting scenario where leaders, who were either defeated by the people, or those who survive in politics because they are the “retainers” of the Nehru-Gandhi family, or those who can never win an election, vent their spleen for something which cannot be considered “democratic” by any standards.

In order not to leave a Constitutional vacuum soon after the death of Dr YSR, an arrangement was made by the High Command to usher in a leader who is not even a member of the Legislative Assembly. True, there was no legal bar. The Congress Legislature Party should either endorse his nomination or elect a leader of its choice. But look at the chorus of Congress leaders both at the Centre and in the State. They shamelessly say that the tradition in the Congress is that the High Command has to zero in on a person and he/she alone will be duly “elected” by the CLP. Do you call this democracy? May be, we can call it “authoritarian democracy” or “despotic democracy”!

Here was a chief minister who stood by the party like a rock and was instrumental in a way for the Congress to be in power at the Centre and the CLP is yet to meet to condole his death even after one month. What is the hitch in convening the CLP meet? There is a fear that the overwhelming majority of elected representatives may elect a new leader which may not be to the liking of the High Command.
That’s why a CWC member from the state says “party high command is the ultimate authority to decide on the state leadership issue”. Do we call this democratic tradition? Legislators are reduced to mere puppets who just have to nod their heads or raise their hands for whatever the direction of the High Command. This is what the kings used to demand from their courtiers. Is there any change under the so-called democratic dispensation?

Look at the audacity of an AICC member, who is at best a domestic help of the first family of the party, and made a political career by singing bhajans to the family, to say “Those who say they won on account of the late YSR should realise that YSR was made Chief Minister due to Mrs Gandhi”. The reality is the other way round. Both in 2004 and 2009, it was YSR who made Mrs Gandhi to wield real power behind the throne. Here was a chief minister who won on his own strength. It amounts to blasphemy to admit that and the credit has to be laid at the feet of the queen. This is another dimension of our unique democracy.

Do you know that in the olden days when any hint of dishonour to the king would be perceived a “Raja Droham” and a severe punishment would await those who committed it? Are you not reminded of it when you watch the reaction to the innocuous incident when a flexiboard poster of Sonia Gandhi was torn in Khammam? Though those who are accused of committing such a “heinous” crime say that their real target was former minister and pink chaddy activist Renuka Chaudhury who happened to be in the camp of “defeated loyalists”, an attempt is being made to paint “YSR loyalists” as the culprits and “Raja Drohi”. The incident is termed in choicest epithets like “ghastly”, “heinous”, “unpardonable”, “very serious” etc. Yes, tearing of a poster is “heinous” crime!

Therefore, the state Home Minister orders a probe into the Khammam incident, chief minister writes to the High Command apologising for the “heinous crime” and assures her of stern action, APCC chief has suspended some four persons, deemed to be partymen. We can only wish that the government machinery at the state level has shown the same seriousness in apprehending the terrorists of Mecca Masjid blasts and the twin blasts in Gokul chat bhandar and Lumbini park or preventing acid attacks on hapless women or increasing incidents of rape and murder.

The High Command also should realise that allowing this anarchy to continue in the state is going to cost the party dearly. If it is under the illusion that it is the brand image of the Nehru Gandhi family that has won them 33 seats giving a decisive advantage in the number game, as is claimed by sycophants, it may have to pay a heavy price in 2014. Those who are singing the praise of the High Command are not only rootless wonders, there are many in the party, of course, but they are born dissidents and they will be of no help to the party when the chips are down.
High Command’s prevarication in taking a timely decision is only going to deepen the crisis in the beleaguered party and make the TDP chief to relax. It should remember that the present chief minister has opted out of the electoral politics. It will be a little too much to expect him to deliver 30 odd MPs to the Lok Sabha in 2014?

HISTORY'S ROLE REVERSAL

President Barack Obama is quite firm that all those non-signatory countries to Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) should fall in line and sign the NPT that came into effect on July 1968. He ensured that the United Nations Security Council adopted a US-sponsored resolution committing to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. The meeting was chaired by Obama himself and the resolution authorises the Security Council with the responsibility to determine and respond as necessary when violations of the Treaty threaten international peace and security. What does this mean is to state the obvious. Obama made a very pious statement that the resolution shared the US commitment to a goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

Since 1968, 189 countries signed the Treaty, five of which are declared Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). Only four sovereign countries have consistently refused to sign the treaty and they are India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. Interestingly, expansionist China, emerging nuclear power nation Iran and rogue nation Libya were signatories. North Korea did sign initially and then backed out. Basically, the present resolution targets India and Pakistan. Israel has not made any open declaration about its nuclear status and North Korea, any way, is a pariah among the international community.

Therefore, India was very quick to respond with a firm “no” to the UNSC resolution. India’s argument is that the NPT creates a club of “nuclear haves” and a larger group of “nuclear have-nots” by restricting the legal use of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the Treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid.

India is also of the view that nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national security and will remain so, pending non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament. Non-proliferation and disarmament are complementary to each other. India maintains that without tangible progress in disarmament, the current emphasis on non-proliferation cannot be sustained.

In fact, Abdel Nasser of Egypt, one of the architects of Non-aligned Movement, once said “basically they did whatever they wanted to do before the introduction of NPT and then devised it to prevent others from doing what they had themselves been doing before.

India also feels that the NPT is flawed because of violations by the five Nuclear Weapon States (NWS). Art 1 of the Treaty prevents transfer of nuclear weapons or the nuclear explosive devices by the five NWS and also not to assist, encourage or induce a non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear weapons. If we go by the nuclear proliferator of Pakistan, AQ Khan’s letter to his wife, China has been doing exactly what the NPT prohibited. What could the signatories to NPT do to restrain China from nuclear proliferation?

NWS are also prevented from using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states except in response to nuclear attack or conventional attack in alliance with a NWS. How did the US follow this provision of the Treaty? It had nuclear war heads targeted at North Korea for decades. US also invoked the possibility of using it against rogue states. France was no exception either. What could the NWS do to the signatory Iran when it is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons?

So, India may not be totally wrong in resisting the attempts by world powers to make India sign the NPT. But one cannot miss the 360 degree turnaround in the world scenario between Fifties and Sixties and the 21st century. There was a time during the Cold War when both America and the Soviet Union, in complete disregard of the world opinion, were indulging in nuclear arms race. It was India which first raised a moral rebellion against nuclear weapons and it was C Rajagopalachari, at the age of 84, who undertook his first foreign visit to meet John F Kennedy to prevail upon him the need to give up the arms race keeping in view the interests of humanity and posterity.

It will be worthwhile to take a peep into history to know how it was left to the first Indian to voice the country’s protest against the nuclear proliferation much before the NPT whereas it may now appear that India is obsessed with the need for n-weapons for its security because of the changed geo-political equations when it says “no” to UNSC resolution.

Soviet Union’s 50-megaton nuclear bang made Rajaji to demand that India ostracise the USSR and Nehru was unwilling to take such a drastic step. Later when America scheduled retaliatory blasts, Bertrand Russell wanted an Indian ship to be sent to the Pacific Zone. Nehru was reluctant even to this proposal. After series of exchange of letters between Nehru and Rajaji, it was agreed to send the latter by the Gandhi Peace Foundation to the US and USRR to prevail upon both the Heads of States to call off the nuclear arms race.

It was on September 28, 1962 (exactly 47 years ago) Rajaji accompanied by RR Diwakar of the Gandhi Peace Foundation and journalist Shiv Rao, met John F Kennedy in the White House. Recalling the visit, Rajmohan Gandhi, grandson of Rajaji goes into the details of the meeting in his book “The Rjaji Story 1937-1972” (pp 311)
“Kennedy sat in his rocking chair, with Diwakar and Shiv Rao on his right and Rajaji and BK Nehru on his left. Rajaji began disarmingly. He was not pleading, he said, for American disarmament: how could he, when his own government had a policy of armed defence? But the immediate cessation of nuclear tests stood on a different footing. Delicately he introduced the argument that the world as a whole had a right to say to the nuclear powers that they could not, in the name of testing, poison the atmosphere and endanger humanity, now and in the future”.

Was the talk fruitful? Rajaji was asked by a reporter. It was “flowerful” was the reply.

What an irony and quirk of world scenario. Nearly half-a-century ago, India was pleading with the major world powers for cessation of nuclear tests which endangered humanity. Now, India is being asked to sign the non-proliferation treaty by the very same powers and India says “nuclear weapons are an integral part of India’s national security".

UPA-II'S TWEETS

The euphoria that the UPA-II’s reasonably impressive victory created during the 2009 general elections seems to be withering away. There is an uncomfortable feeling that things are falling apart and that the Manmohan Singh government is losing control over men and matters. It is really disappointing that there is noticeable drift in such a short span in political and administrative direction of the Union government.
It all started with the fiasco in Sharm-el-Sheikh where the Prime Minister came out in poor light either due to the US pressure or out of his own weakness to be seen as an accommodating head of government. The net result was he had to cut a very sorry figure within the country and it was left to his cabinet colleagues to do damage control. He did irreparable damage to the national interest when he agreed to include Balochistan in the joint statement. The External Affairs Minister, S M Krishna, proved to be another Shivraj Patil minus his sartorial splendour.

As if the discomfiture in Egypt was not enough, Krishna was in the midst of an unseemly controversy when he was residing in a five-star hotel at the cost of tax payers’ money along with his deputy. It was left to the Finance Minister to make amends by going in for austerity measures which for all practical purposes is nothing but tokenism. Even tokenism is okay if it has a bearing on others in the administration. But the Minister of State for External Affairs, Shashi Tharoor threw the Congress party, which came to power on the slogan of “Aam admi”, into great embarrassment with his remark on “Cattle class” and “Holy Cows”. Unfortunately for Tharoor, he made this remark on Twitter network when his boss Sonia Gandhi was travelling by economy class. This has infuriated Congressmen no end and they are after his scalp. Rajasthan chief minister Ghelot wants him to resign. As a side show to this farcical austerity, here comes a report that Rahul Gandhi’s Tamil Nadu tour cost Rs 1 crore. Did this exposure make him to take to Shatabdhi when he went to Haryana?

Union Health Minister, Ghulam Nabi Azad also proved to be a bad choice and the way he handled swine flu pandemic did not bring any credit to the government. The very fact that his proposal to disband the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Councils of India was summarily turned down by the Prime Minister with a suggestion to hold wider consultations before a final decision speaks volumes about the confidence he enjoys with the head of government. Another minister, E Ahmed, though not from Congress, is accused of a massive scandal in Haj pilgrimage. The relationship with the NCP is not too cosy and it is only the fear of Shiv Sena’s return that might keep the Cong-NCP ties in tact, if at all.

More than all these developments which do not anyway enhance the prestige of the government and the party, what should be really worrying the party is the post-YSR drama for succession. Andhra Pradesh played a crucial role under YSR in enabling the UPA bounce back to power at the Centre by sending 33 MPs to Lok Sabha few months ago. The Congress party must have thought that AP is an impregnable fort for the party. Today, that fort is in tatters. Though K Rosaiah was installed as the chief minister by the high command, his writ does not run and the local media is full of reports of how the ministers care a damn for him and how they don’t even attend the CM’s review meetings. Even the Congress legislators have not bothered to call on him for courtesy sake after he took over as CM. There are also reports that if YSR’s son Jagan Mohan Reddy is not coronated, there could be a split in the party. Whether it is true or not, the fact remains that the Andhra Pradesh Congress is not going to be as strong as it was in the last five years and dissidence is bound to weaken the party. It is highly unlikely that the party would be able to repeat its 2009 performance in 2014 when Congress is hoping to be on its own thanks to the heir apparent’s efforts to revitalise the party.

Even the UPA allies are contributing their own share to embarrass the government. The man who revels in blackmail politics, Muthuvel Karunanidhi, has once again raised his pet theme of “Self-Rule” for Tamil Nadu as he finds the Union government to be weak. Well, one does not know what he means by “Self-Rule”, but if what he means is family rule he already has it. It is his family which controls the state in all aspects. But where he might feel threatened is the noise that Crown Prince Rahul made in Tamil Nadu and wanted the Congress to come back to power on its own. This is something that he can’t put up with. Hence Karunanidhi raised the banner of “Self-Rule” as a red rag.

Railway Minister Mamata Banerjee, in her own inimitable style, demanded a CBI enquiry into job scam during the Lalu Prasad regime. This will only queer the pitch and deepen the hostilities between UPA and RJD in Bihar where RJD seems to be on the comeback trail. This comes at a time when Lalu Prasad is slowly trying to cool down the temperature in his relationship with the Congress. Further, if any concrete material about the job racket comes out of the enquiry, more than Lalu, it is going to affect the image of the UPA regime.

Though UP chief minister Mayawati or her party is not part of the UPA, she is also threatening the government of India of serious consequences if memorials dedicated to Bahujan Samaj Party icons are demolished. She is hinting at serious law and order situation, an euphemism for anarchy and lawlessness in the state leading to President’s Rule.

Politics apart, even the image of the judiciary has also taken a severe beating under the UPA-II regime. It is something unusual for the Chief Justice of India to summon a High Court chief justice for his explanation on corruption charges. The Karnataka Bar Association has decided to boycott the courts so long as Justice Dinakaran, CJ of Karnatak High Court continues to be in office. Another judge of the same court had been using the media to express his views on a sensitive subject like disclosure of assets by judges. The Law Minister under UPA-I was only a domestic help of the Nehru-Gandhi family and his successor seems to be no better in protecting the image of the judiciary.

One did not expect that the UPA-II would find itself in such a mess within six months, but fortunately for the Congress, the principal Opposition is in no better position. Not a solace for the nation really!

FAKE SECULARISM

Public discourse, including public domain in the country is getting increasingly communally surcharged. Every incident or development is viewed through the communal prism, especially so if it involves the minority community. When the Prime Minister of the country says that showing special favours to the deprived sections of the minority community, is not appeasement, he only sees the religion behind the deprived sections. This itself smacks of communal approach to the genuine problems of the citizens irrespective of their religious background.

It is not the government alone that promotes communal mindset in the country, but the so-called secularists and rights activists do their best to communally sensitise the people. As a logical corollary, we are also hearing voices that condone acts of terrorism with the cause and effect theory, which always takes one-way route, and also try to find human trait in every terrorist.

There were fears, when so much of media attention was on 26/11 accused Kasab, that he may be made to appear like a hero. The fears have come true when a left-leaning political commentator wrote in a national daily that Kasab was only a puppet and not the puppeteer quoting his statement to the interrogators that he too was a human and that he wanted to run away when his mentors had instructed the group to carry on killing till the end.

According to this columnist, “puppets like Kasab commit inhuman crimes they are told to do, but when confronted with their victims long after the frenzy is over, they sometimes become ordinary human beings again”. The writer wants to make a distinction between them and their controllers and says: “The only tears Kasab’s bosses must be shedding would be at his capture. Kasab on the other hand, surrounded by Indians, Hindus at that, people whom he’s been trained to kill, wonders if anyone will tie him a rakhi” Perhaps the writer thinks on Kasab’s behalf and there will be no wonder if our activists launch a campaign “Rakhi for Kasab” on the lines of “no noose for Afzal Guru”.

The double standards that our “secularists” adopt while dealing with the Gujarat chief minister in comparison with other chief ministers in rest of the states expose their communal mindset and a sense of fake secularism. True, Modi’s track record in 2002 is sullied; that does not mean everything that followed has to be viewed with the same glasses. Emergency in 2005 was a terrible event in the history of post Independent India, but the nation did not look at Indira Gandhi as a despot during the rest of her political career. There are so many Congress chief ministers who bloodied their hands while instigating communal riots. They are forgotten and forgiven. But not Narendra Modi. He can’t be hauled over the coals on any other area like governance, development and corruption-free environment. So, Post-Godhra stick comes handy for the secularists to beat him up with.

Let’s take the case of ban on Jaswant’s book on Jinnah. This columnist does not believe in banning books. Counter to a controversial book is another book exposing the contrived interpretations, if at all. But, let us recall the ban that Rajiv Gandhi imposed on “Satanic Verses”. I don’t remember that anybody had the guts to question the ban nor was there any appeal against the ban in any judicial forum. We never talked about the freedom of expression of Danish cartoonists. We only talked about the offence it caused to a particular community.

Even if there was a petition against “Satanic Verses”, it is doubtful whether it would have been entertained. There was no protest against the ban onTasleema Nasreen’s books as well. But look at the sanctimonious protests against the ban on Jaswant’s book, because it showed a leader, perceived to be a right winger, on poor light.

Now, the media frenzy is on Ahmadabad Judicial Magistrate’s report on Ishrat Jahan’s encounter as if there are no fake encounters in states other than Gujarat. Even after Gujarat High Court stayed the report and ordered an enquiry into the conduct of the Magistrate, newspapers and television channels have not stopped focusing on the report.

In the neighbouring state of Maharashstra one Khwaja Yunus (26) was picked up from Aurangabad by Mumbai Police in December 2002 in connection with a bomb blast in a BEST bus in Ghatkopar. On Jan 7 2003, the police enacted a “drama” of Yunus’s escape while being escorted to the court and since then there is no trace of Yunus. Speculation is that he has been killed in an alleged fake encounter. An SI of Mumbai Police, Daya Nayak, has 83 shoot-outs to his dubious credit and he is named “Encounter Specialist” a la Salaskar martyred on 26/11. Nayak is facing trial not for encounters, but in a disproportionate assets case.

It is not just Maharashtra alone. Data available with National Crime Record Bureau indicate that UP topped the list with 68 fake encounters in 2003-04, Bihar 11, Andhra Pradesh 14, Madhya Pradesh 7. As recently as in July this year, an insurance employee who landed in Dehra Dun to join his duties was killed in a fake encounter. In the year 2009 between April and July, there were 28 fake encounters in the country, according to Union Minister Ajay Maken who gave this data in Parliament. According to NHRC, the second highest number of incidents was in Manipur during 2008-09 with 16 cases, out of which 6 were in just four months in 2009. But, Supreme Court wants only Modi to come clean on encounters and to get to the bottom of such encounters.

The Union government, which was caught on the wrong foot with its affidavit, has booted out the officials responsible for the affidavit which endorsed the fact that Ishrat Jahan and her accomplices were indeed LeT Operatives. All India Muslim League wants all the Gujarat-cadre officers posted at the Centre should be repatriated. A leading national daily had Gujarat as the lead story on three consecutive days with letters to the editor predominantly from one community.

Of course there were two letters in the same daily pointing out the bias. One reader recalled Warangal encounter last year when two suspects involved in a case of acid attack on college girls were killed in “fake encounters”. At that time the police were lauded for their “bravery”. Fortunately for the cops, the suspects were not from the minority community. In such a case, it would have taken a different turn.
Another reader pointed out that the affidavit filed by the Centre also says Ishrat, Javed and the two persons (who are yet to be identified and believed to be Pakistanis since no one claimed their bodies) were terror suspects. Had they planted bombs and killed innocent people, would we not have blamed the Gujarat police for not acting promptly on the intelligence provided?

Admittedly, terrorists or no terrorists, no one can be killed in cold blood. When America wants Osama bin Laden dead or alive or when it eliminated Mehsud and other Talibans, no one talked about their human rights. May be, there are two categories of terrorists and their human rights vary depending on their geographical location.

WAR OF SUCCESSION

This is the season of war of succession. We used to say that nature doesn’t leave a vacuum. Why only nature? Politics too does not leave a vacuum and that is what we are witnessing these days. We have been seeing the unseemly spectacle of “war” within the principal opposition party in the country which once upon a time boasted about its disciplined leaders and cadre. To use a clichéd expression, power corrupted the party much faster than what it did to the Congress. Even before the BJP could sort out its problem, the state Congress has been infected with the same virus, after all, the season being one of viral infections.

With the tragic death of Dr Y S Rajasekara Reddy, known as a faction leader just five years ago, and metamorphed into an invincible neta riding like a colossus in the Congress corridors with no one to challenge him in the faction ridden party, the state Congress is caught unawares. Even as the official announcement of YSR’s death was trickling in, Congress ministers and legislators, have made up their mind as to who should be the successor. Sympathy factor being the major criterion for determining the succession game in Indian politics, especially so in the Congress, a decisive majority of the legislators came out in the open, even as the mortal remains of YSR lay in state for public homage, and announced that YSR’s son Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy should inherit YSR legacy.

There was no Constitutional vacuum as Konisetti Rosaiah had been sworn in as chief minister. Then, why this haste even before the state mourning is over? Rosaiah is not such a politician with great mass appeal and political base, caste playing a major role in building ones political base in our political system, who would have consolidated himself in the new assignment, brought in by a quirk of destiny. In fact, to allay any possible fears, Rosaiah has been repeating himself that he is only an interim chief minister.

So, the apprehensions of YSR loyalists are manifold. Except during the period of YSR rule, when he crushed all dissidence in the party and born dissidents like V Hanumantha Rao, Shashidar Reddy and the like running for cover, Congress has never been a picture of unity. With YSR’s physical disappearance from the scene, state Congressmen, true to their nature, will fight among themselves There will be so many contenders for the top post. Whatever was achieved by YSR will be squandered in no time and the party will go back in history to the eighties. They feel that Jagan would be able to ride the sympathy wave with no one trying to challenge in him so long as the sympathy lasts.

As if to add to their fears, the media started unleashing a long list of contenders. One does not know whether they are real contenders or some of them could be television channel’s favourites. Thus, we had the names of D Srinivas, APCC chief, S Jaipal Reddy, Union Minister for Urban development, Ms Purandareswari, Union Minister, Pallam Raju, another Union Minister.

None of them would fit the bill. Srinivas, being the APCC chief could not win his own election, let alone helping other candidates win. That too, he was defeated by a BJP candidate, whose party has no political influence whatsoever in the state. Jaipal Reddy will never be trusted by the party high command because of his role during the Emergency and Bofors debate. Further, with no political base in the state, he could win his own Lok Sabha seat courtesy YSR. Can he unite the faction ridden party? Purandareswari, a new entrant to the Congress is such a light weight that the “sharks” in the Congress would gobble her up. It is doubtful whether Pallam Raju is known very well to the people of Andhra Pradesh outside Kakinada.Interestingly, no one from within the state cabinet has been named for the top job.

At the moment there seems to be no choice for the Andhra Pradesh legislators except to project Jagan Mohan Reddy in order to scuttle worst form of infighting for power. True, he is quite young for the top post and has no experience. But the emerging trend in the country not only in Congress, but in other regional olutfits, is to bring in young blood. When Congressmen, both old and young, are rooting for Rahul Gandhi for the Prime Minister post, did they give a thought to his inexperience? What was the experience of Rajiv Gandhi when he succeeded his mother?
The scenario in the Congress at the national level is that only an offspring of the Nehru-Gandhi family could unite the party. This is being only replicated at the state level. YSR built up the party profile in such a manner in the state that the partymen have no qualms in projecting a leader for the top post who has only completed 100 days in electoral politics.

Jagan acolytes may also cite instances of Omar Abdullah of J & K, H D Kumaraswamy in Karnataka, Patnaik in Orissa, and M K Stalin in Tamil Nadu, who is waiting in the wings to succeed his father. Besides, Pawar is grooming his daughter Supriya Sule, Mulayam his son Akilesh, Prakash Singh Badal has almost anointed his son as his successor. Let’s be realistic. Like parliamentary democracy, presidential democracy, we have evolved an ingenuous form of democracy, that is, dynastic democracy and let’s accept it with all its faultlines. May be, the Left and to some extent the BJP (barring Rajasthan where Vasundhara and former BJP leader Jaswanth projected their offspring) have not fallen in line with this brand of democracy.

There are reports that 120 legislators and 30 MPs have petitioned the high command (read Sonia) to name Jagan as the successor to YSR. Congress culture being what it is, what counts ultimately is the decision of the high command. Even if a single legislator is not in favour of Jagan and the high command proposes him, everyone will endorse it. Likewise, if Sonia is not in favour of Jagan, all these legislators who are campaigning for Jagan will make a U turn. No doubt, Sonia is on the horns of a great dilemma. She has to keep in mind 2014 when the state party has to stand by her as YSR did. Who will deliver 30 odd seats? Will Jagan do it? At the same time she cannot have two sets of logic, one for the induction of her son and another for a state chief minister’s son.

If sympathy factor prevails and YSR’s baton is passed on to Jagan, he has to prove his mettle within a year. Otherwise, history will revisit the party.