An Early Warning

This article was first published by Tehelka (www.tehelka.com) on 18 September 2014 under the headline "An Early Warning"

Rude awakening: Narendra Modi and Amit Shah have their task cut out for them and there is neither room for complacency nor scope for hubris

What do the bypoll results mean for the BJP and Narendra Modi? Ramesh Ramachandran and Virendra Nath Bhatt try to find some answers

It may be too early to conclude that the results of the recently concluded bypolls in nine states, particularly Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan and to a lesser extent Gujarat, are a referendum of sorts on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 100-odd-day-old government or, conversely, signal a Congress recovery after its humiliating loss in the recent General Election.

At best, they could and probably should be seen as an early warning for the BJP and its affiliates whose impulse has been to pick the low-hanging fruit in the form of, say, appealing to the baser instincts of man a la ‘love jihad’ than to making a concerted effort to build on attempts by BJP patriarchs Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani to make the BJP the natural party of governance.

Bypolls have now been held in 54 Assembly constituencies across 14 states (Uttarakhand in July; Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Karnataka in August; and Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Assam, West Bengal, Tripura and Sikkim in September) since the BJP-led NDA government came to power on 26 May. The BJP and its alliance partners had held 36 of those Assembly seats but they have managed to retain only 20 of them.

Whither Modi wave?

The BJP rode on Modi’s popularity to an unprecedented win in the General Election when it won 71 out of 80 seats in Uttar Pradesh, all 25 seats in Rajasthan and all 26 seats in Gujarat. Amit Shah, who has since taken over as BJP chief, was largely seen as the architect of the party’s strategy in Uttar Pradesh. Cut to September and the party suffers a setback in varying degrees in each of those states, which is why the contrast is that much starker.

In Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat, which together account for 24 Assembly seats where bypolls were held, the BJP retained only 10 seats (it had 23 seats going in to the bypolls) while its ally, Apna Dal, lost the Rohaniya seat — which falls in the Varanasi parliamentary constituency held by Modi — to the Samajwadi Party (SP).

Apna Dal national president Krishna Patel only managed to garner 61,672 votes, whereas in the Lok Sabha election, Modi had polled 1.19 lakh votes from this Assembly segment alone. (Krishna Patel’s daughter Anupriya was the sitting MLA from Rohaniya when she was elected as the MP from Mirzapur.)

In Rajasthan, the Congress wrested the Nasirabad, Weir and Surajgarh seats from BJP, leaving the latter with only one win in Kota. Similarly, in Gujarat, the Congress won three seats and the BJP six.

The only consolation for the BJP was that it made its debut in the West Bengal Assembly by winning the Basirhat Dakshin seat.

Predictably, BJP spokespersons maintain that the bypolls results are not a reflection on Narendra Modi’s government or governance. They are quick to point out that bypolls in Assembly constituencies, as opposed to Lok Sabha seats, are generally fought on local issues and therefore too much should not be read into the results.

The Congress, on the other hand, claims that the verdict is a clear indication that voters have rejected the divisive politics practised by the BJP. Although some Congress office-bearers went overboard in their assessments of the party’s performance in the Rajasthan and Gujarat bypolls, the only sobering voice was that of Shakeel Ahmad, a general secretary and a spokesman of the party, who sought to suggest that although the verdict is more against the BJP than for a particular party, it would be incorrect to write it off or to say that the BJP has been rendered inconsequential. What Ahmad leaves unsaid is that the Congress was in a similar situation 10 years ago when it performed badly in the bypolls that were held immediately after the UPA came to power in 2004.

History bears it out, too. The party that wins a Lok Sabha election tends to perform below par in the Assembly bypolls immediately afterwards, especially if the Centre and the state(s) concerned are ruled by different parties or coalitions. That may, therefore, explain the BJP’s less-than-impressive performance in Rajasthan and Gujarat, where it is in power, and also its particularly disappointing tally in Uttar Pradesh, which is ruled by the SP. It is not to say that there are no other factors, or a combination thereof, that could be at play here: complacency, a lack of motivation, local issues holding sway over regional or pan-national concerns or even the choice of candidates are also known to have affected the outcome of a bypoll.

For the BJP in particular, Modi’s absence would have affected its political fortunes in the recent bypolls, too, which sends out another equally worrisome message to the party rank and file: that Modi is still the BJP’s (only?) best bet; that the BJP’s organisation and leadership in certain states are not as strong as it would like them to be; and that going forward, the services of Modi and a battery of other leaders would be required if the party wants to come good in the Assembly elections in Maharashtra, Haryana, Jharkhand and Jammu and Kashmir this year, Bihar in 2015 and Uttar Pradesh in 2017, among others. (In the bypolls held in Bihar in August, the alliance between and among Janata Dal (United), Rashtriya Janata Dal and the Congress won six out of 10 seats.)

BJP campaign backfires in UP

So what went wrong for the BJP in Uttar Pradesh? At the outset, the BJP’s campaign in the run-up to the bypolls in the state saw the party employ some of the same rhetoric or tactics that one saw in the Lok Sabha election. That gambit may have worked for it then but not this time; on the contrary, it benefited the SP as the minorities voted en bloc for it even as the Dalits remained indifferent towards the BJP.

For a party that was voted to power at the Centre on a hugely popular poll plank of development, the BJP chose to whip up communal passions. For instance, Sakshi Maharaj, the sitting BJP MP from Unnao, described madrasas as a breeding ground of terrorists while Yogi Adityanath, the BJP MP from Gorakhpur, was accused of making inflammatory statements. Union minister Maneka Gandhi, in turn, claimed that money from meat trade was being used to fund terror activities. The BJP had also staged a month-long drama at Kaanth town in Moradabad after the district administration removed a loudspeaker from a temple frequented by the Dalits living in a predominantly Muslim village during Ramzan in the month of July.

Looking back, the law of diminishing returns appears to have put paid to the shrill campaign orchestrated by the likes of Yogi Adityanath and Sakshi Maharaj as it clearly failed to enthuse even the BJP's own supporters. Drafting Adityanath as a star campaigner proved to be another fatal flaw as the SP conveniently exploited it to its advantage. Fearing communal polarisation, the SP and the Congress fielded few Muslim candidates; the Congress fielded two Muslims and SP one. As it turns out, the SP’s lone Muslim candidate won from Thakurdwara, defeating the BJP candidate by more than 27,000 votes.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the BJP singularly failed to capitalise on the strong anti-incumbency against the Akhilesh Yadav government, whose tenure has been marked by an unprecedented power crisis; a record number of incidents of communal tension and riots, including, but not limited to, Muzaffarnagar; and a steep rise in crimes against women.

Pramod Kumar, a professor at Lucknow University, says that the BJP probably misattributed its performance in the Lok Sabha elections in the state to communal polarisation when it was actually the development plank, strongly marketed by Modi in his inimitable style of communication, which influenced the voters.

On balance, if a political obituary for Modi and the BJP is premature, so are the assertions by a section of the political parties ranged against the NDA, particularly the SP, that the results of the bypolls indicate a strong voter preference for their respective leaderships or programmes. The SP wrested seven out of the 10 seats held by BJP (and one seat held by Apna Dal). It won the Charkhari Assembly seat, in Bundelkhand region, vacated by Union minister Uma Bharti, with a comfortable margin of more than 50,000 votes; the Congress came second and the BJP third. Incidentally, the bypolls were necessitated in the state because the BJP MLAs from all 11 seats have since been elected to Parliament.

Akhilesh Yadav, who completed 30 months in office on 15 September, says that the voters have reposed their faith in the SP in spite of the criticism heaped on the party and the government by its political rivals and media alike.

“Communal forces should draw a clear lesson from the poll verdict… the voters have rejected them and endorsed the development agenda of the Samajwadi Party government,” says Yadav.

A senior SP leader, in turn, says, “It is the end of the so-called Modi magic or wave… For the BJP, the party is over.”

However, AK Verma, who teaches political science at Christ Church College in Kanpur, counters by saying that the results of the bypolls to 11 seats can neither be interpreted as an indictment of the Modi government nor an endorsement of the Akhilesh Yadav government.

An analysis of the SP’s performance would also not be complete without first understanding the consequences of the BSP’s decision to keep away from the bypolls. In the March 2012 Assembly election, the BSP had finished second in six out of the 11 Assembly constituencies where the bypolls were held. This time, the SP managed to get some Dalit votes, particularly in the Bundelkhand region (Hamirpur and Charkhari seats) and eastern Uttar Pradesh (Sirathu seat in Kaushambi and Balha in Bahraich).

In Bundelkhand, the victory margins of the SP candidates — with more than 66,000 votes — gives a clear indication that this would not be possible without a chunk of the Dalit votes voting for the SP. Also, the Congress did not have winnable candidates in the bypolls. That meant that the BJP was in a direct contest with the SP as compared to the four-cornered contest in the parliamentary election. Therefore, the victory of the SP, whose record of governance has been uninspiring from the word go, needs to be seen in its proper context.

Verma explains that the SP’s vote share fell by only 1 percent, from 22 percent in the 2009 parliamentary election to 21 percent in the 2014 parliamentary election, but its tally of seats plummeted from 21 seats in 2009 to a mere five seats in 2014.

“The SP was wiped out by a Modi wave as it was Modi versus the rest,” says Verma. “Also, the people of Uttar Pradesh had overwhelmingly voted for Modi’s development plank and not as much for the BJP. However, Modi was missing in the bypolls and the BJP did not enthuse the voters that much. Moreover, the BSP was not in the race and the Congress’ candidates were too weak to pose any challenge to anyone. Therefore, it became a straight contest between the SP and BJP. The voters were left with not many options, so they voted for SP; it not only won by default but it almost got a walkover in eight of the 11 seats.”

The road ahead

The message from the results of the bypolls is clear: the BJP and Modi (not necessarily in that order) were elected to power by the development- and good governance-starved voter who hopes to have more of the two over the next five years. Veer away from the straight and narrow and the Modi-Shah duopoly runs the risk of committing the same mistakes first made by Manmohan Singh and the Congress and then by Arvind Kejriwal and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).

If the slew of scams in UPA-2 came as a disappointment to a section of the middle classes that swore by Manmohan’s Teflon image, those who voted Kejriwal and AAP to power in Delhi in the hope of getting for themselves an efficient administration felt let down when he quit within 49 days.

Modi and BJP have their task cut out for them and there is neither room for complacency nor scope for hubris. As one who excels in micromanagement and pays attention to detail, Modi knows only too well that he cannot take the voter for granted or insult their intelligence. Belie their hopes and expectations and the unforgiving voter will strike back.

ATOMIC MESS !

* This article was first published by Tehelka (http://www.tehelka.com) weekly magazine on 12 September 2014 under the headline The Nuclear Disarmament Mess.

------- + -------

Why India could join hands with Japan and Kazakhstan to push the world on the road to nuclear disarmament, says Ramesh Ramachandran

Pix Courtesy: Reuters

Astana and Semey in Kazakhstan
29 August 2014
On 29 August, Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with a group of Japanese journalists ahead of his visit to Tokyo and sought to reassure them about India’s commitment to universal, non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament and a unilateral and voluntary moratorium on nuclear explosive testing. The same day, in the far-away steppes of Kazakhstan, former Japanese diplomat Yasuyoshi Komizo joined the locals of Semey, a small town located on the banks of the Irtysh river, bordering Russia, to mark the International Day Against Nuclear Tests by observing a moment’s silence in honour of all victims, living and dead, of nuclear tests.

Komizo, 66, who now serves as the chairperson of Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation and the secretary general of Mayors for Peace, also planted a sapling of the Gingko Bilopa tree, which survived the 6 August 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

Present on the occasion was armless Kazakh painter Karipbek Kuyukov, 46, who is a second-generation victim of the nuclear tests at Semey and the face of the anti-nuclear movement in Kazakhstan.

Kuyukov, who holds a brush in his mouth or between his toes to give expression to his creative spirit, was born near Semey and is one of more than 1.5 million people, as per a United Nations estimate, who suffered the consequences of nuclear testing.

Today, he divides his time between painting and campaigning for a global ban on nuclear tests as an honorary ambassador of The ATOM Project (an acronym for Abolish Testing. Our Mission), which Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev launched on 29 August 2012.

The coming together of the victims of nuclear tests such as Kuyukov and the Hibayushas (Japanese for survivors of an explosion) of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only victims of atomic bombings, is instructive for India and the world.

A Study In Contrast

The Republic of Kazakhstan was not even born when the late Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi unveiled his now eponymously-named “action plan to usher in a world order free of nuclear weapons and rooted in non-violence”, on 9 June 1988 at the UN General Assembly.

However, since then, while India’s moral heft and political will to pursue the twin issues of non-proliferation and disarmament to a logical conclusion have seen a decline, Kazakhstan — undaunted by the prospect of a David versus Goliath battle or unfazed by the criticism of not making enough progress towards genuine media and political freedoms — has taken upon itself to champion the cause of a global test ban leading to an eventual ban on nuclear weapons. And it has all the right credentials, to boot.

On 28 February 1989, a poet-activist by the name of Olzhas Suleimenov, now 78, founded the Nevada- Semey anti-nuclear movement to mobilise public opinion against the nuclear explosions conducted by the then USSR at the Semey (formerly Semipalatinsk) test site and to show solidarity with similar movements in the US for closing down the Nevada nuclear test site.

A groundswell of public opinion following the launch of the movement ensured that the erstwhile USSR did not conduct another nuclear test at Semey after 19 October 1989 (although it would not be until after the 24 October 1990 test at Novaya Zemlya, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean, that the erstwhile USSR completely stopped all nuclear tests.)

On 29 August 1991, Nazarbayev, president of what was then the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, officially shut down the Semey nuclear test site. (Kazakhstan became an independent country on 16 December 1991.) It brought to an end a 40-year-long history of nuclear tests at Semey, which began on 29 August 1949; a total of 456 tests (including 116 above-ground tests) were conducted at Semey. He followed it up by announcing that Kazakhstan would voluntarily renounce its nuclear arsenal — the fourth largest in the world at the time — that it had inherited from the erstwhile USSR.

That process was completed by 1996 but his ambitious endeavours didn’t stop there. Next on his agenda was a Central Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty, which was signed by all five Central Asian States — Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan — on 8 September 2006 at Semey and came into force in 2009. This May, all five permanent members of the UN Security Council signed the protocol to this treaty, giving negative security assurances and committing themselves not to use nuclear weapons against the Central Asian States.

On 2 December 2009, the 64th session of the UN General Assembly accepted Kazakhstan’s proposal for declaring 29 August as the International Day Against Nuclear Tests. The Resolution 64/35, which was adopted unanimously, called for increasing awareness “about the effects of nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions and the need for their cessation as one of the means of achieving the goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world”. (India and seven other countries — China, Pakistan, the US, Iran, North Korea, Israel and Egypt — are still to sign and/or ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear- Test-Ban Treaty or the CTBT.)

During his visit to Semey in April 2010, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged the leaders of all countries, especially the nuclear powers, to follow the example of Kazakhstan on disarmament and non-proliferation.

In memoriam People gather at the Stronger than Death Monument in Semey, Kazakhstan, to mark the International Day Against Nuclear Tests on 29 August
Pix courtesy: Ramesh Ramachandran

Among the latest to join countries such as Kazakhstan and Japan in a concerted campaign for a global test ban leading to eventual disarmament is Marshall Islands, a tiny archipelago in the Pacific Ocean, where the US had conducted a series of nuclear tests, including the detonation of a nuclear device that was equivalent to a thousand Hiroshimas. (In April this year, Marshall Islands filed a lawsuit against India and eight other nuclear-armed countries at the International Court of Justice at The Hague for not disarming themselves.)

In comparison, India’s quest for a nuclear-free world dates back to 1954 when the late prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru became the first statesman to call for a “stand still” agreement on nuclear testing. Three decades later, the late prime minister Indira Gandhi joined five other heads of state and/or government in issuing the Appeal of May 1984 to refocus the world’s attention on nuclear disarmament. However, by then a combination of circumstances and national security imperatives had already begun impelling India towards effecting a shift from a foreign and security policy based on moral considerations to one that was dictated by realpolitik; the nuclear tests by India in 1998 are a case in point.

As Rajiv Gandhi had said in his 1988 speech, “Left to ourselves, we would not want to touch nuclear weapons. But when, in the passing play of great power rivalries, tactical considerations are allowed to take precedence over the imperatives of nuclear non-proliferation, with what leeway are we left?”

Reconciling Dilemmas

To the proponents of non-proliferation and disarmament, the discourse in India today, unlike the time when it sought to punch above its weight in the international arena, has markedly shifted away from a moral self-righteousness to the pursuit of a foreign policy bereft of a moral compass. Yet, there is an overwhelming body of opinion, both within the government and without, that India can and must play an effective role in working towards attaining the goal of disarmament. As Prime Minister Modi himself said in his interaction with the Japanese journalists in New Delhi, “There is no contradiction in our mind between being a nuclear weapon state and contributing actively to global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.”

He iterated India’s position a second time, this time during the course of an interaction with the students of Sacred Heart University in Tokyo, that India’s commitment to non-violence is total; it is ingrained in the “DNA of Indian society and this is above any international treaty”. Modi went on to assert that “India is the land of Lord Buddha. Buddha lived for peace and suffered for peace and that message is prevalent in India.”

On the face of it, Modi’s remarks are consistent with those of his predecessors, particularly Manmohan Singh, who had wrestled with the pros and cons of disarmament in the light of the relevance (or lack thereof ) of the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan and India’s moral stature in pushing for a global consensus on the issue.

A committee constituted in the second term of Manmohan Singh had recommended, among other things, that India should lead the campaign for disarmament because over the decades, it has been in the forefront of such efforts and its emergence as a power to be reckoned with would further enable it in this endeavour.

The Road Ahead

What Rajiv Gandhi said in his 1988 speech rings true even today: “Humanity is at a crossroads. One road will take us like lemmings to our own suicide. (The) other road will give us another chance.”

Surely, the latter road passes through Semey. The least India can and must do is to lend its voice and weight to the efforts being championed by Kazakhstan and Japan alike. The essential features of the four-fold Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan are similar to the four specific steps that Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida articulated recently in an article published by Foreign Affairs, a leading American magazine on international relations. In the article, Kishida, who, incidentally, hails from Hiroshima, hoped that a consensus could be reached at the 2015 NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) Review Conference on a new plan of action to reduce nuclear weapons and ensure non-proliferation.

The year 2015 would also mark the 70th anniversary of the Hiroshima-Nagasaki bombings. New Delhi and Tokyo would do well to dovetail their efforts for greater synergy. Doing so will also endear India to those sections of the Japanese society that remain sceptical of civil nuclear cooperation with a non-NPT and non-CTBT country such as India.

For its part, Kazakhstan has listed nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation among its key foreign policy priorities in the event of its election as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for the 2017-18 period. As for India, Prime Minister Modi’s talks with the leaders of China and the US and his intervention at the UN General Assembly this month should be a good starting point for it to lay out its vision for reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in international affairs. Therefore, going forward, there is ample scope for India, Japan and Kazakhstan to coordinate their positions.

For if, as Modi said, the friendship between India and Japan will determine what the “Asian century” will look like, then it behoves of them to partner like-minded Asian countries such as Kazakhstan for an alternative universality. A 2012 strategy document, titled ‘Nonalignment 2.0: A foreign and strategic policy for India in the 21st century’, published by the New Delhi-based think-tank Centre for Policy Research, had concluded that “India should aim not just at being powerful. It should set new standards for what the powerful must do.”

In a similar vein, Jonathan Granoff, president of the US-based Global Security Institute, had said on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan in 2008 that “the world needs the compass point of leadership”. Will India, and Modi, oblige?

The Armless Crusader

Painter Karipbek Kuyukov is a living testimony to the damage caused by radioactive fallout from nuclear testing, says Ramesh Ramachandran

Trailblazer Karipbek Kuyukov
Pix courtesy: Ramesh Ramachandran

The remoteness of Semey (formerly Semipalatinsk) proved to be its undoing. A land that was once home to Kazakhstan’s most famous poet, Abai Kunanbayev, or the place where Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky of Crime and Punishment fame was exiled to, is today infamous for the nuclear pursuits of the erstwhile Soviet Union. The Cold War saw the Soviets use the vast steppe around Semey for conducting a series of nuclear tests. Consequently, this nondescript town, which today has a population of only a little over 300,000, has seen some of the worst human, man-made tragedies.

Karipbek Kuyukov, 46, is a living testimony of the damage caused by radioactive fallout from the explosions. He was born in 1968 in the village of Yegyndybulak, about a 100 km away from Semey, where the former Soviet Union tested its nuclear weapons between 1949 and 1989. Little did his unsuspecting parents know that years of indiscriminate nuclear testing during the Cold War would rob their son of the simple pleasures of life that you and I, who are far removed from the steppes of Kazakhstan, would take for granted. Kuyukov was born without arms — an unwitting victim of his parents’ exposure to nuclear radiation.

“When I was a child, my parents used to tell me stories about how the ground trembled,” Kuyukov recalls. “Growing up, I remember the armoires shaking and the rattling of dishes.”

He spent an early part of his life at an institute in St Petersburg (formerly Leningrad), where his father hoped he would learn to use prosthetic arms. The young Kuyukov tried but failed to master the prosthetic; he wouldn’t tell if it militated against his aesthetic sensibilities but he lets you in on his intimate thoughts and how and why he chose art to give expression to his creative talent. “My soul was looking to create something beautiful,” he reminisces.

What began as a painfully slow and exhausting attempt at redeeming himself eventually transformed into a cathartic, and almost transcendental, experience — one that would not only give meaning to his life but hold him up as a conscience-keeper for generations to come.

“I will be the happiest if I am among the last victims of nuclear tests,” says the diminutive painter, who has made it his life’s mission to encourage people, as opposed to governments, to seek a ban on nuclear tests and to make a world free of nuclear weapons a reality. Left to themselves, governments will forever cite reasons for holding on to their nuclear arsenals but people can turn the tide when they force governments to sit up and take notice of the will of the people, he reasons. And that is the message he seeks to convey through his paintings. Holding a brush in his mouth and between his toes, Kuyukov has painted on themes ranging from fear and loneliness to the mushroom cloud and nature.

“Through my works, I want to share with the people the horrible consequences of nuclear tests, the pain and suffering of the victims of nuclear tests and the agony of mothers,” he says. Today, he spends a considerable part of his time campaigning for a ban on nuclear tests in his capacity as an honorary ambassador for The ATOM Project. (The ATOM Project is a global petition drive to mobilise international public opinion against nuclear tests and to deliver those petitions with signatures to the leaders of the countries with nuclear weapons.)

“The last 25 years of my life have been a battle. When I joined the movement, I remember that in those days when neither the Internet nor mobile phones existed, we collected signatures on sheets of paper from every region,” Kuyukov says. “I don’t have arms to hug you but I have a heart and it belongs to you!”

According to The ATOM Project, “Today, many in the area around the former Semipalatinsk nuclear test site (or The Polygon, as it was known) do not live past 60 and, as a result of exposure to radiation, the genetic code of those parents and grandparents was permanently altered, resulting in horrific birth defects to this day. According to the UN, in all, more than 1.5 million people in Kazakhstan are believed to have suffered premature death, horrible radiation-related diseases and lifetimes of struggle as a result of birth defects.”

The ATOM Project has designated 11.05 am (the local time in respective countries) on 29 August of every year as the occasion to observe a moment’s silence in honour of all victims of nuclear tests. At 11.05 am, the hands of a clock form a ‘V’ for victory and it therefore chose this time to signify a victory of common sense over fear and for global efforts towards a nuclear weapons-free world.

BJP's NDA partners pitch for minus-Modi formula for next parliamentary election in order to bait new allies

Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi on the cover of the
26 March 2012 issue of the Time magazine of the U.S.

Hyderabad

17 March 2012

Making it to the cover of Time magazine may prompt two-time Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi's followers to believe that he has it in him to lead India, but BJP's allies seem to think otherwise.

These parties seem to be making up their mind that the NDA's electoral prospects in the next parliamentary election, whenever it is called, would be better served without Modi in the lead. Some of them have suggested sotto-voce that the NDA could hope to become more acceptable to voters and allies -- present and potential -- alike, if the likes of a Narendra Modi or even an LK Advani are not projected as shadow premiers. They are calling it a minus formula, similar to the minus-one or minus-two formulae seen in the politics of neighbouring Bangladesh and Pakistan.

For one, the JD(U), which is the second largest constituent of the NDA, sees Modi as a liability and it does not fancy the idea of going to polls with him at the helm. More so, when JD(U) leader and Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar himself is seen as a potential choice for prime minister. What goes in Nitish's favour, as compared to Modi, is the degree of acceptability towards him among non-BJP, non-Congress political parties, some of whom are coming together to constitute what is loosely being called a third or federal front comprising regional parties such as the Trinamul in West Bengal, BJD in Odisha, AIADMK in Tamil Nadu, and, now, SP in Uttar Pradesh, where Mulayam Singh Yadav's party has emerged the winner of the recently concluded Assembly election.

The third front is not without problems or internal contradictions, though. Complicating matters for this motley group is that there are many potential contenders for prime minister, including, but not limited to, Mamata Banerjee and Mulayam Singh Yadav. Already, Samajwadi Party sources have indicated that their next goal after getting a brute majority in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly is to make "Netaji", as Mulayam is called in his party, the prime minister. The SP has indicated its support to the UPA in the event of the Trinamul pulling out of the alliance and there it is speculated that the Congress could offer Mulayam a Cabinet berth to return the favour.

From the Deccan Chronicle, Bengaluru edition

From the Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad edition

For its part, the Trinamul would not mind an early election because it is better placed than its rivals after winning the last Assembly election. However, if Congress veteran and finance minister Pranab Mukherjee is to be believed, Mamata has a huge challenge ahead of her simply because she is not fluent in Hindi. "If you don't know Hindi, you cannot be a prime minister. There are certain skills that are required for certain work. That is why Narasimha Rao became a good prime minister", Mr Mukherjee had famously remarked in 2009 when asked whether he was in contention for the top job. The language handicap notwithstanding, Mamata's Trinamul could emerge as the pivot of this front and a potential kingmaker in the event of a hung Parliament, where no party or alliance has absolute majority in the Lok Sabha.

Incidentally, the question asked about Modi has been used for Rahul Gandhi, too. A section of the Congress party is in favour of seeing the Gandhi scion succeed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh before the next parliamentary election, if only to enthuse party cadres and voters alike, but Congress President Sonia Gandhi has dismissed the possibility for now. Like cricketer Sachin Tendulkar, Dr Singh is faced with a career dilemma: they would want to know when is a good time to retire. Dr Singh's anxiety is compounded by the fact that for one who invested a large quantum of political capital in the UPA-1 on seeing the India-US nuclear deal through, even at the cost of risking his own government, he is today having to explain why nuclear projects in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and West Bengal have not taken off. Also, big-ticket reform measures such as entry of FDI of up to 51 per cent in multi-brand retail, or in insurance sector, has been put on hold for want of consensus among the UPA allies.