COMMUNALISM IN FRANCE

Even as the BJP is fighting over the much-maligned concept of Hindutva and its softer version or harder version or the roots and stems theory and as the “secular” polity is gloating over the unmistakable defeat of “communalism” in the country’s 2009 verdict, here comes a nation, known for its strictly secular polity, not the one that we practice here in India, which says that “burka” is not a sign of religion, but a sign of subservience. Not necessarily, everyone should agree with this interpretation as every religion is entitled to its faith and value system. That is how Hinduism played host to a number of religions in its long history without questioning their beliefs. But, what France thinks is that when such a faith runs counter to the state policy, the latter should prevail. Surely, this is anathema to Indian political system, nurtured in the Nehruvian era, with completely distorted version of secularism which allows the state to place party or sectarian interest over national interest.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who imposed a ban on “burka” in his country says: “We cannot accept to have in our country women who are prisoners behind netting, cut off from all social life, deprived of identity. The burka is not a sign of religion, it is a sign of subservience. It will not be welcome on the territory of the French republic”. What a shame! A country like France is talking as if its President has attended a course in Jhandewalan. But certainly he has opened a can of worms. We can expect quite a few fatwas for Sarkozy’s head. No one will remember that Sarkozy also banned the most colourful and artistically tied up turbans of Sikhs. No wonder, if our Sikh Prime Minister who, supposedly presiding over a “secular” government, declared that the Muslims will have the first take in the country’s resources, appeals to France to reconsider the ban, keeping aside the fact that the ban on turban continues in that country.
Can our “secular” pundits think of such a ban in this country? Oh my God, the very thought should be banished at once. It smacks of rank communalism. Interestingly, what is communalism for India becomes absolute secularism in France. A major section of the French believes that the Republic must uphold its secular principles as firmly as it did against the Church. From the time of French Revolution secularism has been the basic tenet of the country’s progressive thought. Any hint of official recognition of a religion is abhorred by French people. It is not just head scarves, but even crosses and Jewish skull caps, not to speak of Sardarji’s turban, are prohibited in educational institutions. There are no Haj subsidies or State sponsoring trips to Jerusalem in France.

Now, what was confined to the schools has been extended to the whole community by Sarkozy forcing the French National Assembly to set up an enquiry into the rising number of Muslim women who wear burka. Saarkozy was quite candid when he said that the “head-to-toe veil was not welcome in staunchly secular France”. France has Europe’s largest Muslim population and in 60s and 70s, mass immigration from former North African colonies brought about a new challenge to this truly secular country. The second and third generation of migrants, influenced by extremist ideas, are not ready to accept the French brand of secularism and that explains the flare up couple of years ago in the suburbs of France. Nevertheless, the recent ban on burka has thrown up a debate in France and any resistance to ban is considered a threat to nation’s strong secular tradition.

This development only confirms the fact that secularism as propounded and practiced in India is undoubtedly pseudo and runs counter to the true spirit of secularism. Now, IUML minister in “secular” UPA government, E Ahmed has added another dimension to our understanding of secularism. He feels that lighting the lamp or breaking coconuts or doing Bhoomi Puja during official functions is not a secular act and therefore, should be discontinued atleast in railway functions. But he does not find anything wrong when the faithful get a break during the office hours for namaz which facility is not available to other religionists. He does not utter a word against the tax payers’ money being used for sponsoring Haj or Jerusalem pilgrimage. At this rate, he should also object to the motto in our national emblem which was after all picked up from Upanishadic text. Why should we name all our weaponry in some Hindu sounding names like Prithvi, Agni, Trishul, Nag etc. Does this also smack of “communalism” Mr Ahmed? For Heaven’s sake let’s not confuse cultural identity of the nation with a particular religion. If you remove the cultural identity of a nation, it will be reduced to a mere geographical mass.
It is a strange coincidence that the debate on secularism in France comes at a time when the Indian right wing polity is breaking its head over Hindutva. It is difficult to understand what is soft or hard about it. Keeping aside the hair splitting argument, let’s look straight at what exactly is the agenda of Hindutvavadis?

Uniform Civil Code – What is communal about it? That is what Indian Constitution wants. Because, a particular community does not want it, we want to put it in cold storage and call it secular spirit. Why should a truly secular person fight shy of demanding Uniform Civil Code?
Article 370 – This divides the country and creates two categories of citizens. Indian citizens cannot buy property in Kashmir whereas Kashmiris have inalienable right to property in the rest of India. Whatever law made by Indian Parliament is not straightaway made applicable to J & K and the J & K assembly has to ratify it. This again was a temporary provision in the Constitution. The irony is that even as we say J&K accession to India is final and irrevocable, we are not ready to scrap this Article. What is Hindutva about it?

Forced conversions – How can any country allow foreign funded missionaries to exploit poverty,
social discrimination and illiteracy in the country for harvesting of souls and destroying the very culture of Adivasis. Neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka, Thailand and other Islamic countries are totally opposed to this. If some section in India also opposes such cultural rape, can we call it Hindutva? Even Buddhists in Sri Lanka and South Korea and Islam are opposed to such conversions. Why blame only Hindutva for it?

Ram Temple – It was the contention of the Muslim leaders that in case it was proved that Babri mosque was constructed after demolishing the temple, they would give up their demand. When there was enough evidence during excavation for the existence of temple at the disputed site, the excavation was stopped. Is this an even-handed approach of a State which swears by secularism?

To my mind it appears that what we call “Hindutva” and “justice to all and appeasement of none” policy square up very well with the French definition of staunch secularism, whatever derision the very expression “Hindutva” attracts from the so-called secular lobby in India.

RELIGION & POLITICS

Can you mix religion with politics? Yes, you can, provided you don’t belong to the majority community. The taboo is only for Hindu religious heads. Reacting to the drubbing the Left got in Kerala, in particular, this is what a Church publication, “Sathyadeepam” said in its editorial:
“The Left parties paid for what they deserved. The Christians in the State were against the Left parties due to various reasons. Apart from Christians, other communities also used their votes to defeat the Left. When the Left tried to bag Muslim votes using various tactics and strategies, they also reacted against it. The Church is of the view that Hindus also voted against Left for almost same reasons. While analysing the election results, the party leaders should keep in mind the fact that people have turned against them”.

Had any Hindu religious head spoken in the same vein for the defeat of the so-called “secular” parties, there would have been predictable reaction. “Religious leaders should not dabble in politics” would have been the sermon. But in this case, how did the CPI-M react? The party buckled under Church pressure and wants a dialogue with the Clergy on the “various concerns of the Church”. A statement issued by the party said “The CPI-M and the Left Democratic Front Government is (sic) ready to hold talks with the Church leadership to resolve differences in the education and other sectors”.

Did any political party take note of the concern of the Hindu religious heads when they were crying for action against forced conversion, cow slaughter etc? Whenever they raised the topic of forced conversion which is nothing but a cultural rape, what they got in return from the secular political class was a liberal dose of advice on “Constitutional provision for freedom of religion” implying right to convert is an absolute right, reminder about our composite culture whatever it meant and a lecture on “inclusive politics”. All this rhetoric vanished when the Church started twisting the arms of the Left in Kerala especially after its electoral debacle and hence, it reneged for dialogue. Have you ever heard of the government – either Congress ruled or LDF ruled - trying to sit with the Hindu religious leaders in the state to discuss their concerns? Oh that would be blasphemous and indeed would smack of “communal” overtones. On the contrary there is so much of interference in the traditional practices of the temples in Kerala. In fact, our “secular” media made an attempt to question certain traditions followed in Sabarimala and Guruvayoor.

Forget about the “desi” version of secularism which distorted the very concept. Even if we go by the original intent , as we borrowed from the West, there has to be a clear demarcation between the Church and the State and one should not interfere with the other. What is happening in Kerala between the Church and the State is a gross violation of the original, may be Western, definition of secularism.

One of the proposals for the dialogue is the reconsideration of the idea of bringing Church properties under a Trust. This is very strange. Here is a government which controls all the Devaswoms in the State does not want to touch the Church properties. We are told quite often that Secularism enables the State to treat every religion alike and with the same respect or put it differently keep all of them at a safe distance. Then, why should the government have two different sets of rules for enforcing its own brand of secularism. Will the government come forward for a dialogue with the Hindu religious leaders if they insist that the government should keep off the Hindu temples and their properties?

Is the Church so powerful in Kerala where St Thomas is believed to have landed to spread the message of the Jesus? Yes, the Church has always played an active role in Kerala politics. Even during the recent Lok Sabha elections, the powerful Latin Catholic Church in Kerala reportedly sent a missive to the Congress President requesting her to consider a particular candidate as party candidate for the Ernakulam LS seat (Ernakulam is one of the districts in Kerala which has a predominantly Christian population) The letter also provided two more names – all belonging to the Latin Catholic Church – just in case the first name was not acceptable. During the poll campaign, the Church gave an open call to the Christian voters to vote against the LDF and teach them a lesson. Then, why do we find fault with Sangh Parivar when it campaigns for the BJP, though the Sangh is not the Hindu equivalent of the Church. Did the media focus on the Church’s interference in politics in Kerala even as it was so critical of saffronisation of politics elsewhere? The media bias against the majority community is quite obvious.

The church used the solemn Easter for the political campaign. A pastoral letter was issued on the eve of Good Friday attacking the CPI-M and the LDF. The reference was to the state government’s policies on education sector, especially on self-financing colleges which were minting money. All in the name of Constitutional guarantee of minority rights. If you travel in some of the districts of Kerala, you won’t get a feeling that Christians are a minority in the state. Instead, a feeling may sink in you that you are in a Christian theocratic state. I am at a loss to know why EMS Namboodiripad who carved out the first Muslim district – Malappuram – in Kerala did not think of Christian districts. In every village street corner Jesus beckons you with his characteristic open arms perched on a lavishly built abode. Economically also, Christians seem to have made themselves very comfortable and almost all the private transport is owned by the community.

Even in the case of family planning, the Church has a different viewpoint in complete deviation of the government policy and public mood. The Kerala Catholic Bishops Council gave a call for creating awareness on the need to do away with birth control methods. It wants to support families with more children in a bid to counter a decline in the Christian population in Kerala. Do you remember the reaction from media and the “secular” polity when former RSS chief made a similar suggestion? Oh, hell broke loose.

If you take Muslim majority Kashmir and possibly Assam waiting to become a Muslim majority state, sooner than later, Christian majority North East and more or less equal demographic ratio among Christians and Muslims in Kerala, we must have state-specific norm for defining majority or minority. It will be ridiculous to call Christian community as minority in Kerala. Politically, socially and economically, they don’t need any Constitutional props. Such a guarantee has only been abused by certain sections to promote self interests. As the categorisation of BCs varies from state to state and district to district, so should the categorisation of religious groups into majority or minority vary depending on the local factors.

CBI DOES IT AGAIN

It may appear that the prosecution launched against two heinous crimes – Corruption case in Kerala and murder probe in Maharashstra – involving leaders of two different political parties, not on the same ideological platform though, and both pursued by the CBI, to be a mere coincidence. But it is not. The timing – so soon after the 2009 verdict giving the ruling Congress semblance of self-confidence and optimism, suggests that it is a calculated move and a part of the party’s grand strategy to make a lonely furrow tired of its demanding partners.

The murder case against the NCP MP Padamsinh Patil has been pending for the last three years and the successive NCP Home ministers of Maharashtra declared him “clean”. Even a political novice can make out that Patil, being an acolyte of Maratha strongman Sharad Pawar, need not have to do anything to prove his innocence since Pawar might have taken care of it at the lower courts, just like Pakistan did not provide enough evidence before the court to prove LeT chief and mastermind of 26/11 Sayeed guilty. After all, two Home ministers of the state were Patil’s partymen.

Then, the question is how come the CBI thought of pursuing the case now. It is too much to expect the CBI to act on its own. It has always surrendered its notional autonomy at the altar of power at the Centre, whichever party was ruling the Centre, and now, after three years, especially after the poor performance of NCP at the hustings with just 8 members in its kitty, if the CBI proceeds against a powerful MP of NCP, an alliance partner at the Center, can we not deduce that the epicentre for its enthusiasm lies elsewhere. The Congress wants to reap two benefits in one stroke. It wants to fix Pawar for his “audacity” during the run up to the polls and make him vulnerable. How dare can he aspire for the top post when it is reserved for the dynasty or whomever the dynasty nominates. So, he has to be shown his place. That is how the CBI came into the scene.

Secondly, elections to the Maharashtra assembly are not far away. Pawar should be enfeebled to such an extent that he cannot make any ambitious demands at the time of seat sharing nor nurture a thought to be a leading partner of the alliance in the state. In fact, Vilasrao Deshmukh, who was more keen to take his actor-son around the 26/11 debris than reassuring the people of Mumbai about the return of normalcy, jumped the gun and said that the Congress may not need a tie-up with the NCP. Perhaps he wanted to be on the same wavelength of the crown prince, whose strategy it was to go it alone in UP and Bihar, and thus earn his goodwill. However, the party disowned Deshmukh, atleast for now. Well, it does not have the moral strength to ask Pawar to atleast suspend the murder-accused Patil from the party till his innocence is proved in the courts. After all, the party harboured people like Shibu Soren in the cabinet. Even the party in AP cannot absolve itself of the charge of shielding murder-accused. However, after three days of dilly-dallying, the NCP suspended Patil from the party so as to minimise the damage. Perhaps, inaction on the part of the NCP would have suited the Congress.

The second command performance for the CBI is SNC Lavalin corruption case in Kerala involving CPI-M state secretary and former Power Minister Pinarayi Vijayan. The issue has many dimensions – the role of Governor, duplicity of Marxists, glaring rift in the Marxist party and the Centre’s unconcealed desire to fish in the troubled backwaters of God’s own country. In a way, the Centre is only trying to ensure a level-playing field when it comes to corruption charges. Hitherto, the Marxists were playing a holier-than-thou game and now they have lost the game. When B V Raghavulu talks about the corruption of YS Rajasekara Reddy or refer to the video clipping of Banagaru Laxman taking bribe, he has to turn a little and look at his own back.

The widening rift in Kerala CPI-M between the party and the chief minister is an open secret. The present State secretary of the CPI-M in Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, it is well known, has no love lost for the chief minister V S Achuthanandan. When the former was the Power Minister of the state he struck a deal with a Canadian firm for the installation of power projects in Kerala and he is alleged to have made crores of money in the deal. Not surprisingly, the party, which always takes a high moral ground, hushed up the case for long inspite of mounting evidence against Vijyan. Though the chief minister and other Left partners were in favour of proceeding against Vijayan, the cabinet did not recommend to the Governor of Kerala for granting permission to the CBI to prosecute him. Now that the Governor ignored the Cabinet decision and gave his nod to the CBI to go ahead, the party wants to fight legally and politically. The Governor R S Gavai received a threat to his life and the Marxists in Kerala have taken to the streets.
Defenders of Marx and Marxism in the country have taken up the cudgels and point out how undemocratic the Governor’s action was. A legal luminary and an apologist for Communism in the country says that the “Constitution of India is reduced to printed verbosity...If one man can, in his authoritarian discretion, decide Government orders, thereby making the Cabinet a nullity, then the general election becomes a travesty or a farce. This is outrageous”. May be. In the normal circumstances, the Governor has to go by the Cabinet decision. But here is a case where the chief minister, a Constitutional authority duly elected by the people, is in favour of action and he is prevented by the party against such action. Whose will should prevail? Party’s? Or the CM’s? But, for the communists anywhere in the world, party is supreme. If the party felt that Vijayan was innocent, they could have simply accepted the demand for investigation rather than allowing the case to be taken to the door steps of Raj Bhavan. Let’s pause for a while and ponder what would have been the attitude of the Marxists if Modis or Reddys were to be found in a similar situation as that of Vijayan. They would have come out with one hundred reasons to justify Governor’s action.

Legal, Constitutional and moral considerations apart, what suits the new government at the Centre is that it has acquired yet another weapon to tear apart the beleaguered Left which has to face the electorate in West Bengal two years ahead and to make its alliance partner in Maharashstra a toothless Maratha when the state goes to polls in three months time. If you have to win a war, not necessarily you must acquire stronger muscle, but it is enough if you weaken your enemy. That is what the Congress is doing in the states. The only exception is Trinamool Congress whose help it needs in W Bengal to decimate the Left. It will be easier to tackle the DMK whose leader is counting his days on this planet and once he disappears from the scene the family-oriented party will be highly vulnerable.

A REALITY CHECK

Somehow certain time-tested sayings go haywire in the Indian political context. It is said that success has too many fathers and failure is an orphan. For the success of the Indian National Congress there is only one father and that is, who has not become qualified to become a father, so far. 39-year old eligible bachelor Rahul Gandhi is that father who is credited with the “innovative” idea of going it alone in UP and Bihar and strategised the party’s campaign elsewhere and that is reported to have paid dividends. It is a different matter that no one in the party can dare claim credit for success when the family is around. Of course, there would have been a scramble to take the blame in case of failure. Does this not turn the saying on its head?
So, if success has only one father, failure is no longer an orphan atleast in the political domain. Look at the reasons cited for the Bharatiya Janata Party’s ignominy. The first target, as can be imagined, was Narendra Modi. Projecting him as the future Prime Ministerial candidate of the party, according to analysts, was one solid reason for the people to reject the party. Then came the usual suspect – Varun Gandhi. After his alleged “hate speech”, he should have been thrown out; instead he was given a ticket. So ran the argument. Abusive campaign was cited as yet another reason and that the party was concentrating on the “weak” Prime Minister campaign without focussing on any issues. The party failed to project “young faces” as after all 60% of the electorate are under 30 years of age. The major weapon that the voters used to quell the BJP was the “Hindutva” factor. This was the main focus of all the political pundits in print as well as in the news channels. “Hindutva” is passé and so long as the party sticks to this outdated, exclusive and retrograde ideology, it cannot hope to win the hearts of the people. This was the verdict of the analysts without exception. Apologists of the “Hindutva” in the ranks of ideologues took a U turn overnight. Well, let’s imagine for the sake of argument that the BJP had won. All these negative factors would have been shown to us as the “game changers”. That is the power and intelligence of our spin doctors!

The problem with these analysts is that they live in their own cocoons. They presume that what they discuss threadbare during the prime time is reaching those in the remote villages and they are going to decide based on such sterile verbose that was generated in order to fill airtime on news channels or space in the newspapers. If newspapers were to decide who should rule and who should not, the Congress should not have returned to power in Andhra Pradesh. And if the national news channels, who perch themselves on a high moral ground, and pontificate to the nation, were to be taken seriously by the voters, Varun Gandhi should have been given a drubbing in Pilibhit by the voters, Malegoan should not have returned a BJP candidate, and a prime accused in the 2008 anti-Christian riot cases should not have been elected to the Orissa Assembly from G Udyagiri even as he was contesting from jail. If “Hindutva” were to be the culprit, why did the APCC chief D Srinivas, who wanted to cut the hands of those who go against the minorities (never mind he borrowed the line from Varun) lose to a BJP candidate. Mind you, only two BJP candidates were elected in the entire state of AP, and one of them won against the APCC chief!

Prior to the 2009 verdict, pundits were shouting from the studios that the days of national parties are over and that the regional parties have eaten their space. People have proved them wrong. Coalition is no longer an inevitable evil in our polity. If the Congress still sticks to it, it is the because the party is yet to fully regain its self-confidence. It could have thrown out the DMK for the unseemly spectacle it created and still ensured political stability. But it did not do so.
It is only the failure of the national parties that gave political space for the regional parties. Now that the 2009 polls have brought some sense to the national parties, there is a realisation that coalition politics is only strengthening the regional parties and if the national parties have to ensure their rightful place under the sun, it must stand alone. To that extent, Rahul should be given credit. It was a whiff of fresh air for those who used to see electoral politics only through the prism of coalition. Now, there is a realisation that coalition politics with leaders like Karunanidhi and Pawar ruling the roost is only damaging the national interest. Therefore L K Advani admitted, reversing his earlier obsession, that bipolar polity has become a reality after 16th May.

Tamil Nadu is a classic example for the national parties playing a second fiddle to the regional forces. For decades, the Congress was enjoying a piggy back ride on either of the main Dravidian parties. Even today, the Congress, without whose support the minority DMK government cannot survive, is not making a demand to be included in the government. Participation in the government could have given more visibility and influence to the Congress, but it renounced power. Sonia Gandhi may have opted for renunciation for different reasons, but why should the party suffer in Tamil Nadu. Better late than never, and Rahul is reportd to have said that his next focus would be Tamil Nadu. Yadavs in UP and Bihar who were playing the caste and communal card have been shown their place by the voters. Sharad Pawar with his 8 seats cannot wag his tail any longer. So, it is a question of time before the grand old party sheds the “baggage” and stand alone as a truly national party.

The second largest party in terms of seats in the Lok Sabha is the BJP. It has dawned on the saffron party also that if it has to grow it has to stand alone. Quick-fixes will not work. After divorcing the BJP, Biju Janata Dal has shown to the world that it does not need any coalition partners to be in power. This has already given ideas to JD(U) in Bihar and it is most likely that the JD(U) might do a BJD in Bihar when the assembly elections are due. Other coalition partners of the NDA are fly-by-night operators and this is the time for the BJP to build the party on its own strength rather than be dependent on coalition partners who proved to be unreliable. Whether to dilute Hindutva or pursue it vigorously is a matter of detail for the party to work out. But what is important is that both the national parties must stand alone and build the parties on their own strength without regional props.

EMERGING NEW CASTE SYSTEM

Undoubtedly the bane of Indian society, according to present-day sociologists, is its caste system based on Manu’s prescription for division of labour which, once confined to Hindu society, extended its influence to other imported religions like Islam and Christianity. Astonishingly, this evil did not spare Sikhism too – a religion which was born basically to get rid of the caste system that was dividing the Hindu society. What Punjab had witnessed very recently was primarily the blow out of tension between upper caste Jat Sikhs and Dalit Sikhs, the fuse for which was lighted in far away Vienna. This is unimaginable given the fact that this religion founded 500 years ago to protect Hinduism and at the same time to get rid of its evil practices like caste system.

We have enough evidence to show that even Church in India is not according equal status to Dalit or low caste converts though they have been converting them citing caste as the most obnoxious phenomenon of Hinduism. Oh yes, idol worship too was another reason. But now, most of the Churches in Tamil Nadu and Kerala are so designed with the same architecture that you can’t differentiate it from a Hindu temple. You have garlanded statues of Mary or Jesus beckoning you with Dwajasthambam (flag post) in silver or gold in front of the Churches, Car festivals, Girivalam (Circumambulation of the church located on hillocks), Urala Sevas and Aaratis. Perhaps, the Church’s strategy is also similar to Hinduism’s spirit of assimilation as it did in the case of Buddhism.

Even Indian Muslims are unable to isolate themselves from the Varnas and that is the reason we are witnessing Commission after Commission identifying backward class or most backward class Muslims. 26/11 terror accused Kasab was traced to a caste whose profession was butchering. People like Kasab, after all belong to the same Indian gene though the circumstances might have placed him on the other side of the man-made border.

All this boils down to one undeniable factor. Yes, in the name of caste system atrocities were committed and a section of humanity was denied basic rights and privileges. Everyone, including the orthodoxy in the Hindu fold, realise today that casteism is a crime against humanity. But, why does it refuse to go away, and on the contrary spreading its tentacles to other religions in the country. Is it because there is some virtue that goes with the inherent nature and psyche of a society which accepts division of labour in some form or the other minus its inhuman taboos?
Let’s come to the brass tacks. What is the most unedifying and unacceptable character of the caste system as we understand today? It is the fact that ‘caste’ is inherited. The caste label sticks to you as you come out of your mother’s womb. If your father is a cobbler, you are also born as a cobbler, never mind the merits that you may have otherwise. Though there are instances that people not born to an upper caste parentage rose to dizzy heights in politics, religion, literature and social life, they are only exceptions and not rule. Birth has always determined one’s social status.

What is happening today? Are we not creating a new caste system in which birth alone determines one’s rise to positions of power? Is it not the birth that gives a special status to Rahul Gandhi though there may be thousands of such youngmen with better ideas and therefore had an opportunity that was denied to others? May be, media is so enamoured of Indira Gandhi’s son, grandson, grand daughter that it describes in great detail the body and body language of Priyanka or Rahul and if they open their mouth it becomes news even if they blabber. During the poll campaign media made special efforts to show case scions of Nehru dynasty as part of a well thought out strategy. Forget the media as it never gets its priorities right. But, to be fair to the first family of the Congres party which may think that it has the divine right to rule this country atleast by proxy, this new caste system is present in every other party.

We have seen the spectacle of DMK patriarch Karunanidhi making an unabashed demand of ministerial positions for his son, daughter, nephew after clearing the way for his son Stalin (by his second wife?) to succeed him as the party chief and chief minister as well. What is the merit or qualification of Kanimozhi or Azagiri to be in power politics except that they are the scions of Karunanidhi. There was a joke that “Thank God Karunanidhi does not have a third wife, otherwise, children of third wife also might have become claimants”. NTR’s family is no exception. K Chandrasekara Rao of TRS has already inducted his son, daughter into politics. Mulayam Singh Yadav is asking his son Akhilsh Yadav to take care of the party in UP after making his brother leader of the Opposition in UP assembly. Former Speaker PA Sangma makes his 28-year old daughter a minister and his party leader Sharad Pawar made the succession game clear by inducting his daughter. Omar Abdullah succeeds Farooq Abdullah in Kashmir, Asaduddin Owaisi succeeds his father Salahuddin Owsaisi, Yeddiyurappa makes his son an MP though Jaswant Singh failed in his attempt to get his son Manavendra Singh elected to the Lok Sabha. When there were legal constraints, Lalu made his wife the chief minister of Bihar. Bal Thackeray grooms Uddhav to succeed him. So goes the list, and it is never ending.

As we had a number of kingdoms in the past before India became a nation-state, we now have a number of dynasties – Nehru dynasty, Karuna dynasty, NTR dynasty, Mulayam dynasty etc, and they have come together to form a new caste – Modern Kshatriya caste. They and their descendents alone have the right to rule. As in the old caste system, birth is the determining factor. Interestingly, this new Kshatriya caste cuts across religious and party lines. Well, an improvement upon Manu.

Who are the Sudras? The party workers who only slog and don’t get access to their leaders after they get elected. They only wait outside the corridors of power as ‘untouchables’.

We do have modern Vysya caste as well. That is the India Inc where again birth determines the successor – whether it is Ambanis, Tatas, Birlas, Singhanias, Bajajs.

Who will have the last laugh in the re-emergence of caste system? Who else, if not the infamous Manu who codified Hindu social order!!

WHERE IS THE SECULAR-COMMUNAL DIVIDE?

Soon after the results of 2009 polls were out, Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) leader Ram Vilas Paswan, whose party and himself drew blank, said that he was happy that the “secular forces” had won. So was the chorus from other so-called “secular” party leaders that “communal” forces have been routed. They seem to have simply ignored the fact that the great champion of “secularism” in the country, who does not spare any opportunity to brag about his “secular” credentials has been made to bite the dust by the people of Bihar. Atleast he got four seats – a sort of consolation – but his troika partner Ram Vilas could not open his account in the same state. But, they have given a resounding victory to Nitirsh Kumar of JD(U), who had made an electoral alliance with the so-called communal NDA and what is worse participated in the Ludhiana rally. How do we interpret this? Have the people of Bihar become “communal” to stand by an ally of “communal” forces. Certainly not. The so-called divide is only in the imagination of “netas” who play one community against other and in the media mindset and people seem to have different yardstick to judge the parties. They are not carried away by the labels.

Let’s come to Uttar Pradesh. The Indian National Congress scored an impressive victory and this was the state where the Congress and the BJP were written off. It was also touted by the media and pundits that the future belonged to regional formations and the hegemony of national parties were over. It is quite clear that both the regional players – Samajwadi party and Bahujan Samaj Party – who were adopting ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude on the issue of who is more secular, even as they were playing all the tricks to woo Muslim votes, have not been favoured by the minorities. It appears that the Muslims, especially from UP, have seen through the game of Mulayam Singh and Mayawati. To appease Muslims, Mayawati even invoked, illegally though, to put Varun Gandhi under NSA. It did not help her and the voters of Pilibhit, constituting a sizeable number of Muslims, elected Varun to Paraliament. What should have come as a rude shock to Mulayam is the fact that all the 12 Muslims candidates he fielded in Uttar Pradesh, have lost. It is always said that the Muslims resort to tactical voting and they vote only for those who would stand by them through thick and thin. Mulayam has failed obviously in this test. BSP contested 500 odd seats in the country and could get mere 21 seats. Can we interpret UP results to mean that people saw the Congress more “secular” than other state parties who have been practising political untouchability? If that is the case, people should have rejected JD(U) in the neighbouring Bihar. But, they rewarded Nitish for good governance and punished Mayawati for her style of functioning, vindictive politics and greed for power. Not that all politicians are in the business of charity, but they should have a reality check once in a way. Well, an interesting fall out is that people are vying with each other to credit crown prince for the UP results. He must thank Mayawati and Mulayam for what is credited to be his adchievement in UP.

The story of ultra-seculars in the country is quite interesting. I mean the Left parties. They were saying that they would align with any party other than BJP and Shiv Sena to form a Third alternative and that they would also ensure that the NDA did not exploit the number game to come to power. They did not anticipate that their position would become so miserable that they were reduced to one third of their 2004 strength. Does this mean that the people of W Bengal and Kerala turned against “secular” forces if the pre-poll debate on “secular-communal divide” was reflecting the ground reality? If the Trinamool Congress and the Congress are also “secular” parties, what marks the difference between Left brand of “secularism” and the “secularism” of other parties? Either the so-called “secular-communal divide” is only the talking point for the talking heads or there must be three brands of “secularism” in the country. One is the Left brand of ultra secularism that does not hesitate to take the help of alleged terrorist like Madani and keep out JD(S) in Kerala, the second is Mulayam-Lalu-Paswan brand of secularism which does not see anything wrong in appeasing one community against the other and brazenly play caste politics and the third is Congress brand of secularism which sees MIM and Muslim League as secular parties.

The myth of “secular-communal” divide was completely exploded in Andhra Pradesh when the state PCC chief D Srinivas was defeated by a BJP candidate from a constituency where there were 80,000 minority voters and obviously a large number of them voted for the BJP candidate rather than for the state Congrress chief. The Congress fielded 10 Muslim candidates for the state Assembly and one for the Lok Sabha. Barring three Muslim candidates elected to the Assembly, the remaining lost the elections. Therefore, the reality is this. Minority voters also, like their counterparts in the majority community, vote for candidates whom they feel will deliver the goods, rather than looking at the religion. May be the exception is the Old City. Will it be too early to say that the minorities are no longer gullible and can take decisions on their own without being swayed by political rhetoric.

Secularism debate apart, it should be said to the credit of the Congress for its disinclination to take on board Lalu and Mulayam’s party. It should deal with DMK also in a similar manner as Karunanidhi’s lust for power for his family has been exposed. He enacted a similar drama in 2004 when he took a written undertaking about the choice of portfolios from N Janardhan Reddy. Basically, he wants cash-cow portfolios and everyone knows the story of T R Balu and D Raja who became fatter being in power. Therefore, Karuna wants only ATM portfolios (just insert the card and you get instant cash) for his family and partymen. He does this even as his “friend” Velupillai Prabhakaran is awaiting mass burial in Sri Lanka. So much for his love for Sri Lankan Tamils whose cause he shamelessly exploited during the polls.

FULL MARKS TO INDIAN VOTER

We can say quite safely that the Indian voter is much wiser than our politicians, political analysts and media propagandists. For the last three days we have been bored to death with endless discussions, analyses and forecasts about the hung Parliament and how numbers would be made up by the major parties aspiring to be in power. What are all the demands, can we say rather blackmail, put up by smaller parties in return for their support was the subject matter of speculation in newspaper columns and television shows. It ranged from dismissal of governments to plum portfolios and from special status to disposal of CBI cases – whether the Congress will ditch DMK and go after AIADMK, whether SP’s demand for dismissal of Mayawati will be conceded or not, etc. All this while, the Indian voter must have been laughing within himself because he has already made up his mind to give a near clear mandate to a national party, whatever may be its deficiencies and initial blunders, while everyone was claiming that the era of national parties was over and that the regional parties have eaten up that political space. The Indian voter has proved that claim wrong and bogus.

Yet another resounding message or lesson was to our Commies. No longer the Left can bark, leave alone bite. The Indian electorate has shown them their place since they have been making noises disproportionate to their sphere of influence. They behaved with such arrogance as if they hold the veto power as to who can rule this country and who cannot. They said that they would not allow NDA to exploit the numbers even if it comes closer to working majority. Even as they were hobnobbing with a communal leader like Abdul Madani of PDP in Kerala, they were preaching “secularism” to others. Besides bad governance in Kerala, what with internal bickering in the cabinet becoming more and more frequent and hushing up of corruption cases, what must have put off the voters in Kerala is the Left’s hypocrisy when it comes to labelling others with “communal” or “secular” tags as it suited them. The drubbing the Left got should come as a great relief for the UPA government as it will no longer be expected to hold periodical joint meetings with the Left to monitor the implementation of the Common Minimum Programme nor will the Left be breathing down the neck of Dr Manmohan Singh. Now, Dr Singh will have unfettered freedom to pursue his economic reforms which were put on hold due to the Commis blackmail politics.

During the run up to the polls, the Congress was in jitters because the UPA was found to be in disarray. While its 2004 allies like RJD, LJP humiliated the Congress by offering 3 seats in Bihar, relationship with SP was not cosy either. NCP’s Sharad Pawar was nursing his own ambitions. In such a scenario, it looked as if the Congress was unwise to alienate its alliance partners. But fortunately for the Congress, both RJD and LJP withered away. But going by hindsight, it was not such a bad decision after all. Among the Congress’ estranged partners, it is only the SP which has done well in Uttar Pradesh.

It was said that the Muslims of UP were angry with SP for having embraced Kalyan Singh and one of the founders of SP, Azam Khan was making it such a big issue that it was widely believed that SP’s prospects may not be brighter. But the results are otherwise and the UP Muslims did not see a scarecrow in Kalyan. Does it mean something? What is surprising is that both the Congress and the BJP seem to be recovering their past glory and it was made possible not because of any great virtues on their part, but because of bad governance by Mayawati and her vindictive politics. Otherwise, how do we explain the victory of Varun Gandhi in Pilibhit which has high concentration of minorities and despite negative publicity against him by the media. But, attempts will be made to attribute the UP success to the crown prince Rahul Gandhi. If his strategy to go it alone in UP paid dividends, why did it fail in Bihar. That may be a trifle uncomfortable question for the Congress.

There is another myth that was exploded in this election. Whichever party is found to be closer to the BJP or NDA will lose minority votes. Nitish Kumar proved it wrong. Good governance overshadows every other perceived negative factor. Muslims of Bihar did not see Nitish’s association or the company he keeps, but they gave marks to his governance. That’s how we can explain JD(U) sweep of Bihar. Naveen Patnaik’s Orissa, Raman Singh’s Chattisgarh, Chauhan’s Madhya Pradesh, Sheila Dixit’s Delhi are other examples for the reward the good governance gets.

Let’s come to the basic question. What went wrong with the NDA? In fact, it had better cohesiveness when compared with UPA and there were not much of noticeable internal bickering unlike in the UPA. It will be oversimplification if we say that it was the “weak Prime Minister” campaign that did them in. As a matter of fact Dr Singh did not take it lying down and he returned the compliments with gusto which neutralised the original attack. No doubt, the 2009 poll campaign was an abusive campaign, but the blame has to be shared equally by both the formations. Another explanation is that except for JD(U), there were no major allies for the NDA and that is true for the UPA as well. Wherever there was NDA government, they had delivered like Karnataka, Gujarat, MP, Chattiasgarh, Himachal with the exception of Punjab and Uttarkhand. But that did not help.

However, what is remarkable is the verdict delivered by Andhra Pradesh voters. They gave a split verdict. They were quite clear as to who should rule at the Centre while expressing their displeasure at the state government at the same time. They administered a warning to the YSR government by defeating many ministers, APCC chief and the speaker of the outgoing Assembly and allowing YSR to get away by a hair’s breadth. Further, what vindicates the voters maturity is that they rebuffed Chandrababu’s offer of Cash transfer scheme, free television, etc and Chiranjeevi’s “Vandake vanta saraku” (Provisions for just one hundred rupees). This is a lesson for all politicians that they can no longer lure the voters with populist measures which can be no substitute for good governance.

Well, this election has made the job of the President much easier. She does not have to burn the midnight oil to take a Constitutionally correct decision unlike her predecessors. And we will have a Prime Minister who retained his job without much strain and by addressing a few press conferences in metros. The party and its chief took care of everything and he should be beholden to her as he was during the preceding tenure.