Dear Readers,
This is a space for all kinds of comments and suggestions. You can pen down, rather key down, your thoughts on democracy or Empowering India or any queries here and we will reply back to you.
Thanks,
Making Democracy Meaningful!
Team EmpoweringIndia.org
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
The example set by India’s greatest political party has been followed by many lesser ones too, who have treated their parties as family firms. The “greatest enemy of the Congress” is “Itself”, writes Ramchandra Guha in The Telegraph.
Inspiring Bhakti
Growing up as an only child, with a sick mother and a father frequently abroad or in jail, Indira Gandhi did not allow herself to easily trust anybody. Least of all, the Congress Old Guard. Thus, the very men who had helped make her prime minister were the men she broke away from, soon after assuming the top job in Indian politics. In 1969, Indira Gandhi divided the Congress. The faction that stayed with her was soon recognized as the real Congress, especially after it won an authoritative victory in the general elections of 1971, riding to power on the backs of the slogan of “Garibi Hatao”.
To retain control over party and government, Indira Gandhi adopted four different strategies. First, she built a core of loyal advisers outside the Congress. She increasingly took her counsel not from her fellow cabinet ministers but from civil servants and technocrats in the prime minister’s office, which was headed by her fellow Allahabadi, PN Haksar. Second, she disbanded the old, decentralized structure of the Congress — where district and state units had substantial autonomy — and placed individuals who were personally loyal to her at the head of Pradesh Congress committees. Third, at Haksar’s inspiration, she floated the idea of the ‘committed’ civil servant and the ‘committed’ judge, so that key positions in the bureaucracy and the judiciary were also now occupied by individuals known to be loyal and subservient to the prime minister. Fourth, at election time she appealed directly to the voters, asking them to place their trust in her as an individual rather than in her party or its programme.
The dangers of Indira Gandhi’s brand of politics had been anticipated by the chief draughtsman of the Indian Constitution, BR Ambedkar. In his final speech to the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar warned his compatriots against an unthinking submission to charismatic authority. He quoted John Stuart Mill, who had cautioned citizens not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions”. This warning was even more pertinent here than in England, for, as Ambedkar observed, “in India, Bhakti, or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be the road to the salvation of a soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”
From the time she split the Congress in 1969, Indira Gandhi worked systematically to dismantle the institutions and procedures of constitutional democracy. This she did by privileging loyalty over competence — in her party, in her council of ministers, in the legislative and judicial branches of government. Ministers, Congressmen, bureaucrats, judges, and in time even ordinary citizens — all were encouraged to lay their liberties at the feet of this Great Woman, the submission conveyed in the slogan, “Indira is India, India is Indira”.
...
When Sanjay died in an air crash in 1980, Indira Gandhi immediately drafted her other son into the Congress. When she was herself killed in October 1984, this son, Rajiv, was sworn in as prime minister. One of his first acts was to bring his old schoolfriends into politics. Like his mother, he could not bring himself to trust his own partymen...
Jawaharlal Nehru did not hope or desire that his daughter should succeed him as prime minister — a fact that is not as widely known as it should be. On the other hand, Indira Gandhi worked to make first Sanjay and then Rajiv her political successor. Sonia Gandhi has followed her mother-in-law scrupulously in this respect, for she has likewise ensured that her own son would head the party, and, perhaps in time, the government. The example set by India’s greatest political party has been followed by many lesser ones. Had Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi not acted in this fashion, perhaps Bal Thackeray, Parkash Singh Badal, M. Karunanidhi and Mulayam Singh Yadav would not so brazenly have treated their own political parties as family firms.
The novelist, Gore Vidal, once remarked of his adopted homeland, Italy, that it combined the worst features of socialism with the worst features of capitalism. The Republic of India goes one step further — it adds, to the worst features of socialism and of capitalism, the worst features of feudalism...
…
A Spanish journalist recently asked me what I thought the “greatest enemy of the Congress” was. I answered, immediately and instinctively, “Itself”.
Read the full story here.
Inspiring Bhakti
Growing up as an only child, with a sick mother and a father frequently abroad or in jail, Indira Gandhi did not allow herself to easily trust anybody. Least of all, the Congress Old Guard. Thus, the very men who had helped make her prime minister were the men she broke away from, soon after assuming the top job in Indian politics. In 1969, Indira Gandhi divided the Congress. The faction that stayed with her was soon recognized as the real Congress, especially after it won an authoritative victory in the general elections of 1971, riding to power on the backs of the slogan of “Garibi Hatao”.
To retain control over party and government, Indira Gandhi adopted four different strategies. First, she built a core of loyal advisers outside the Congress. She increasingly took her counsel not from her fellow cabinet ministers but from civil servants and technocrats in the prime minister’s office, which was headed by her fellow Allahabadi, PN Haksar. Second, she disbanded the old, decentralized structure of the Congress — where district and state units had substantial autonomy — and placed individuals who were personally loyal to her at the head of Pradesh Congress committees. Third, at Haksar’s inspiration, she floated the idea of the ‘committed’ civil servant and the ‘committed’ judge, so that key positions in the bureaucracy and the judiciary were also now occupied by individuals known to be loyal and subservient to the prime minister. Fourth, at election time she appealed directly to the voters, asking them to place their trust in her as an individual rather than in her party or its programme.
The dangers of Indira Gandhi’s brand of politics had been anticipated by the chief draughtsman of the Indian Constitution, BR Ambedkar. In his final speech to the Constituent Assembly, Ambedkar warned his compatriots against an unthinking submission to charismatic authority. He quoted John Stuart Mill, who had cautioned citizens not “to lay their liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions”. This warning was even more pertinent here than in England, for, as Ambedkar observed, “in India, Bhakti, or what may be called the path of devotion or hero-worship, plays a part in its politics unequalled in magnitude by the part it plays in the politics of any other country in the world. Bhakti in religion may be the road to the salvation of a soul. But in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship.”
From the time she split the Congress in 1969, Indira Gandhi worked systematically to dismantle the institutions and procedures of constitutional democracy. This she did by privileging loyalty over competence — in her party, in her council of ministers, in the legislative and judicial branches of government. Ministers, Congressmen, bureaucrats, judges, and in time even ordinary citizens — all were encouraged to lay their liberties at the feet of this Great Woman, the submission conveyed in the slogan, “Indira is India, India is Indira”.
...
When Sanjay died in an air crash in 1980, Indira Gandhi immediately drafted her other son into the Congress. When she was herself killed in October 1984, this son, Rajiv, was sworn in as prime minister. One of his first acts was to bring his old schoolfriends into politics. Like his mother, he could not bring himself to trust his own partymen...
Jawaharlal Nehru did not hope or desire that his daughter should succeed him as prime minister — a fact that is not as widely known as it should be. On the other hand, Indira Gandhi worked to make first Sanjay and then Rajiv her political successor. Sonia Gandhi has followed her mother-in-law scrupulously in this respect, for she has likewise ensured that her own son would head the party, and, perhaps in time, the government. The example set by India’s greatest political party has been followed by many lesser ones. Had Indira Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi not acted in this fashion, perhaps Bal Thackeray, Parkash Singh Badal, M. Karunanidhi and Mulayam Singh Yadav would not so brazenly have treated their own political parties as family firms.
The novelist, Gore Vidal, once remarked of his adopted homeland, Italy, that it combined the worst features of socialism with the worst features of capitalism. The Republic of India goes one step further — it adds, to the worst features of socialism and of capitalism, the worst features of feudalism...
…
A Spanish journalist recently asked me what I thought the “greatest enemy of the Congress” was. I answered, immediately and instinctively, “Itself”.
Read the full story here.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Congress needs to nurture Rahul: Not goad him on when he is unprepared
I believe that the Congress is loading Rahul Gandhi with some really unrealistic expectations. To be fair, there is nothing terribly wrong with Rahul Gandhi. But he is simply not capable of working out a new paradigm for the party or for Indian politics at large, writes Madhu Kishwar in DNA.
Rahul’s no Obama...at least not yet
I believe that the Congress is loading Rahul Gandhi with some really unrealistic expectations. If you expect someone to wave a magic wand over what increasingly appears to be a moribund party and revive it with the sheer force of his personality or charisma, you are asking for too much. And remember that Rahul Gandhi is not a Barrack Obama. You need real genius to pull off that kind of a miracle.
To be fair, there is nothing terribly wrong with Rahul Gandhi. But he is simply not capable of working out a new paradigm for the party or for Indian politics at large. He is no doubt a good guy, but he is not competent to handle the enormous load he has been stuck with. There is a problem with this role that he is supposed to be taking on. On the one hand, he is under training — a large team of intellectuals is supposedly engaged in training him to take charge and become a good politician. On the other hand, he is supposed to be also playing a leader to the party and a potential PM. This is like some on-the-job-training and it doesn’t work.
It is clear that Rahul is only an average political talent. And he is incapable of dealing with the huge agenda the Congress has piled on him. Why just him? Any inexperienced young politician would crack under it. It is terrible to be brought into politics as though you were born to rule. Or to be told that one has to come to power because one is born into a certain family. Everyone in the Congress has to dwarf himself or herself in the public arena so that Rahul can appear tallest and can shine like no other. He is not treated like a young person who is finding his feet in politics. He has been invested with almost semi-divine powers to prop up the Congress’ sagging fortunes.
Read the full story here.
(Madhu Kishwar is a senior fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.)
Rahul’s no Obama...at least not yet
I believe that the Congress is loading Rahul Gandhi with some really unrealistic expectations. If you expect someone to wave a magic wand over what increasingly appears to be a moribund party and revive it with the sheer force of his personality or charisma, you are asking for too much. And remember that Rahul Gandhi is not a Barrack Obama. You need real genius to pull off that kind of a miracle.
To be fair, there is nothing terribly wrong with Rahul Gandhi. But he is simply not capable of working out a new paradigm for the party or for Indian politics at large. He is no doubt a good guy, but he is not competent to handle the enormous load he has been stuck with. There is a problem with this role that he is supposed to be taking on. On the one hand, he is under training — a large team of intellectuals is supposedly engaged in training him to take charge and become a good politician. On the other hand, he is supposed to be also playing a leader to the party and a potential PM. This is like some on-the-job-training and it doesn’t work.
It is clear that Rahul is only an average political talent. And he is incapable of dealing with the huge agenda the Congress has piled on him. Why just him? Any inexperienced young politician would crack under it. It is terrible to be brought into politics as though you were born to rule. Or to be told that one has to come to power because one is born into a certain family. Everyone in the Congress has to dwarf himself or herself in the public arena so that Rahul can appear tallest and can shine like no other. He is not treated like a young person who is finding his feet in politics. He has been invested with almost semi-divine powers to prop up the Congress’ sagging fortunes.
Read the full story here.
(Madhu Kishwar is a senior fellow at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.)
Mayawati and the Middle class
Seetha has written the article below on her blog 'Beyond Labels'.
I am petrified at the thought of J Jayalalitha becoming Prime Minister. I am also petrified at the thought of Lalu Yadav becoming Prime Minister because of the way he ruined Bihar. And I am petrified at the thought of Mayawati as Prime Minister too.
I am getting a bit tired of all criticism of the idea of Mayawati as Prime Minister being attributed to urban English-speaking middle class snobbery and a class prejudice. I have seen several commentators take this line in recent months, the latest being Suryakant Waghmore in today's Indian Express.
I am quoting from his article (to which I have provided a link) only because I have it in front of me, but the points that he makes have been made by several others.
First he says "while the English speaking middle class largely opposes Mayawati because of her caste, they do not express this by hurling caste abuses. They try to respond (not react) through English politeness and thus create a new English speaking middle class caste-culture.
"This, surely, runs contrary to a truly liberal attitude that would have celebrated Mayawati's great success and recognised what she has done as a single Dalit woman without any family legacy, in a highly patriarchal and hostile environment."
Now this is patently ridiculous. I have a sneaking admiration for Mayawati for where she has taken the BSP. I am sure that she could not have done this if it were not for Kanshi Ram's patronage, but I concede that she could have wasted that patronage but did not. I fully agree with Waghmore that "Mayawati and BSP's growth represents the deepening of democracy in India."
But look beyond that. What else is Mayawati known for? Personal aggrandisement and corruption. Has she done anything for Dalits or for the state in each of her tenures? Or even the current tenure, when the BSP has a complete majority? Apart from building statues and monstrous memorials, that is? Waghmore comments on English speaking middle class obsession with her statues. But why shouldn't that be subject to criticism? Is that a measure of development of the state or the uplift of Dalits? When, in 2007, Mayawati came to power on the basis of a new social coalition, eschewing the upper caste hatred that had marked the BSP's politics till then, many expected that this would be a sobering influence on her and that she would behave in a more responsible way, focussing on administration and good governance. Two years on, can anyone testify that she has done that? She appeared to be making some right moves in the beginning, especially on the economic front. But she quickly backtracked. The counter argument is that the Mulayam Singh was equally bad. Sure, but the thought of Mulayam Singh as Prime Minister will also frighten a lot of people. Sure no government has ever done anything for Dalit uplift. But does that mean Mayawati should not be criticised for doing nothing for the group she claims to work for?
Arguments like Waghmore's precludes the possibility of the urban middle class reacting to issues like corruption and personal aggrandisement. Despite my cynicism about its apathy, I think this is an unfair charge. The middle class was quite accepting of a Dalit as president and now as Chief Justice of India. If it was reacting purely on the basis of prejudice, then there would have been equally sharp reactions to these appointments.
I am an English speaking urban middle class Iyengar Brahmin. I am petrified at the thought of Mayawati as Prime Minister. But I am equally petrified at the thought of J Jayalalitha (who is not a Dalit but an English speaking urban middle class Iyengar Brahmin) becoming Prime Minister. Because Jayalalitha's regimes have also been marked by rampant corruption and a highly personalised style of functioning. Just like Mayawati.
I am petrified at the thought of Lalu Yadav becoming Prime Minister. Not because he is a Yadav or because of his rustic ways, but because of the way he ruined Bihar. I am more comfortable with the idea of Nitish Kumar as Prime Minister, even though he is a Kurmi and though he is an engineer by education, he is not an English speaking urban middle class person. I am petrified of Ram Vilas Paswan becoming Prime Minister one day not because he is a Dalit but because of stories about his corrupt ways. But I am also petrified of Kamal Nath, an English-speaking urban middle class person, becoming Prime Minister (never mind that he probably doesn't have those ambitions) again because of his reputation for corruption.
Behind such insinuations of the kind Waghmore makes is the belief that Mayawati should not be opposed or criticised just because she is a Dalit. This is carrying the politics of victimhood a bit too far.
~ Seetha
(Seetha is a journalist and a committed liberal.)
For the full story click here.
I am petrified at the thought of J Jayalalitha becoming Prime Minister. I am also petrified at the thought of Lalu Yadav becoming Prime Minister because of the way he ruined Bihar. And I am petrified at the thought of Mayawati as Prime Minister too.
I am getting a bit tired of all criticism of the idea of Mayawati as Prime Minister being attributed to urban English-speaking middle class snobbery and a class prejudice. I have seen several commentators take this line in recent months, the latest being Suryakant Waghmore in today's Indian Express.
I am quoting from his article (to which I have provided a link) only because I have it in front of me, but the points that he makes have been made by several others.
First he says "while the English speaking middle class largely opposes Mayawati because of her caste, they do not express this by hurling caste abuses. They try to respond (not react) through English politeness and thus create a new English speaking middle class caste-culture.
"This, surely, runs contrary to a truly liberal attitude that would have celebrated Mayawati's great success and recognised what she has done as a single Dalit woman without any family legacy, in a highly patriarchal and hostile environment."
Now this is patently ridiculous. I have a sneaking admiration for Mayawati for where she has taken the BSP. I am sure that she could not have done this if it were not for Kanshi Ram's patronage, but I concede that she could have wasted that patronage but did not. I fully agree with Waghmore that "Mayawati and BSP's growth represents the deepening of democracy in India."
But look beyond that. What else is Mayawati known for? Personal aggrandisement and corruption. Has she done anything for Dalits or for the state in each of her tenures? Or even the current tenure, when the BSP has a complete majority? Apart from building statues and monstrous memorials, that is? Waghmore comments on English speaking middle class obsession with her statues. But why shouldn't that be subject to criticism? Is that a measure of development of the state or the uplift of Dalits? When, in 2007, Mayawati came to power on the basis of a new social coalition, eschewing the upper caste hatred that had marked the BSP's politics till then, many expected that this would be a sobering influence on her and that she would behave in a more responsible way, focussing on administration and good governance. Two years on, can anyone testify that she has done that? She appeared to be making some right moves in the beginning, especially on the economic front. But she quickly backtracked. The counter argument is that the Mulayam Singh was equally bad. Sure, but the thought of Mulayam Singh as Prime Minister will also frighten a lot of people. Sure no government has ever done anything for Dalit uplift. But does that mean Mayawati should not be criticised for doing nothing for the group she claims to work for?
Arguments like Waghmore's precludes the possibility of the urban middle class reacting to issues like corruption and personal aggrandisement. Despite my cynicism about its apathy, I think this is an unfair charge. The middle class was quite accepting of a Dalit as president and now as Chief Justice of India. If it was reacting purely on the basis of prejudice, then there would have been equally sharp reactions to these appointments.
I am an English speaking urban middle class Iyengar Brahmin. I am petrified at the thought of Mayawati as Prime Minister. But I am equally petrified at the thought of J Jayalalitha (who is not a Dalit but an English speaking urban middle class Iyengar Brahmin) becoming Prime Minister. Because Jayalalitha's regimes have also been marked by rampant corruption and a highly personalised style of functioning. Just like Mayawati.
I am petrified at the thought of Lalu Yadav becoming Prime Minister. Not because he is a Yadav or because of his rustic ways, but because of the way he ruined Bihar. I am more comfortable with the idea of Nitish Kumar as Prime Minister, even though he is a Kurmi and though he is an engineer by education, he is not an English speaking urban middle class person. I am petrified of Ram Vilas Paswan becoming Prime Minister one day not because he is a Dalit but because of stories about his corrupt ways. But I am also petrified of Kamal Nath, an English-speaking urban middle class person, becoming Prime Minister (never mind that he probably doesn't have those ambitions) again because of his reputation for corruption.
Behind such insinuations of the kind Waghmore makes is the belief that Mayawati should not be opposed or criticised just because she is a Dalit. This is carrying the politics of victimhood a bit too far.
~ Seetha
(Seetha is a journalist and a committed liberal.)
For the full story click here.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
EI Suggestion: Painting all with the same brush...
Here is a mail that we received from a reader – Mohan Menon. He has sent us a few suggestions on what we could include in more comprehensive information on EmpoweringIndia.org
Similarly, we would like to urge our readers to let us know what they would like to know about their leaders, and we would make an honest attempt in providing the same.
The email:
Dear Sir,
I congratulate you for spreading awareness about the financial assets & criminal records of candidates contesting for the General Elections in our beloved country. I have read various reports published in news papers and magazines on these matters – wealth and criminality of MPs/ MLAs. However, I would urge you to consider the following suggestions and use your communication power to improve the presentation of facts so that it is easily understandable by the citizens.
(A) ASSETS
There should be a parameter to distinguish the ill-gotten assets form those made by sheer hard work and professionalism.
(a) Many employees of Infosys are crore-patis. Let us call them Honest Professionals 'H'. This category could have employees of Wipro and its chairman Azim premji (honest tax paying business), Ratan Tata , Mafatlal (once a millioaire), Shaporji Pallonji, etc. – businessmen who are known for their ethical business practices.
(b) Then there are businessmen known to employ short cut methods like - bribing, political patronage, muscle power. They make money and hide incomes. They have both black & white money stashed away. Money was the end and the means did not bother them. These businessmen let us call them 'B'.
(c) The third category is professional politician known for honesty and integrity with or without family wealth who used political power to do good work for people. They did not amass personal wealth or curry favour for sons, relatives or anyone. Leaders like Sri Gulzari Lal Nanda, Indrajit Chatterjee, Sri K Kamraj, Sri Madhu Dandavate, Sri Vasudevan Nair, Sri AK Antony and Dr Manmohan Singh fall in this category.
They are known for their personal integrity and professionalism. Let us call them Model Leaders "M".
(d) Then there are professional politicians who rose as student leaders or trade unions leaders or local thugs /goodas with little or no family wealth and no professional achievement or high scholastic ability. They get elected and amass wealth slowly at first and at greater rates as their money-cum-political clout enhance. Many start legitimate looking businesses. These politicians are not genuinely interested in the progress of the country but usually create projects to get kick backs. They form sadly the bulk of the elected representatives. Let us call them “P”.
(B) CRIMINAL RECORDS
Among the hardcore criminals, there are many people who have with politically sponsored criminal cases foisted on them. Hence, we cannot categorise all criminals as one. Below are a few categories that I can think of:
(a) Student activists who get little bit of success in their altruistic struggle often get locked up by politicians. E.g. the recent agitations in All India Institute of Medical Sciences where students struggled to prevent erosion of its reputation. Some of the students were arrested and criminal charges of rioting were registered against them. They are the usual democratic agitators. Let us call them Democrats - "D".
(b) Then there are the professional politician's henchmen who agitate, indulge in all kinds of violence and goondaism. Let us call them Goons "G".
(c) The political rally is disturbed by agitators of opposite party – party in power – who uses official strength of Police to suppress the agitation. Criminal charges are filed. Often the leader of the opposition is implicated. It is a politically motivated criminal case. Let us call such politicians “V” (victims).
(d) The mafia Dons and erstwhile goondas who came to get elected by the corrupt political system. They have genuine criminal cases, rape & murder cases registered. Let us call them “C” (criminals).
In your published articles and news reports all the categories that I differentiated above are clubbed together under high asset ('A' above) rich candidates and candidates with criminal records ('B' above). Is it accurate to paint Rahul bajaj & Mayawati with same brush.??
Many CPI /CPM candidates have criminals charges filed against them. Factually they fall under category "D" democratic agitators. There are Dons & Goons who have committed murders (of subcategory "G" above). But candidates of both subgroups D and G are clubbed under one category in reports "Candidates with criminal records". Is it fair?
Please do consider the above submission and act honestly with integrity and no private agenda.
- Mohan Menon
Chennai
Similarly, we would like to urge our readers to let us know what they would like to know about their leaders, and we would make an honest attempt in providing the same.
The email:
Dear Sir,
I congratulate you for spreading awareness about the financial assets & criminal records of candidates contesting for the General Elections in our beloved country. I have read various reports published in news papers and magazines on these matters – wealth and criminality of MPs/ MLAs. However, I would urge you to consider the following suggestions and use your communication power to improve the presentation of facts so that it is easily understandable by the citizens.
(A) ASSETS
There should be a parameter to distinguish the ill-gotten assets form those made by sheer hard work and professionalism.
(a) Many employees of Infosys are crore-patis. Let us call them Honest Professionals 'H'. This category could have employees of Wipro and its chairman Azim premji (honest tax paying business), Ratan Tata , Mafatlal (once a millioaire), Shaporji Pallonji, etc. – businessmen who are known for their ethical business practices.
(b) Then there are businessmen known to employ short cut methods like - bribing, political patronage, muscle power. They make money and hide incomes. They have both black & white money stashed away. Money was the end and the means did not bother them. These businessmen let us call them 'B'.
(c) The third category is professional politician known for honesty and integrity with or without family wealth who used political power to do good work for people. They did not amass personal wealth or curry favour for sons, relatives or anyone. Leaders like Sri Gulzari Lal Nanda, Indrajit Chatterjee, Sri K Kamraj, Sri Madhu Dandavate, Sri Vasudevan Nair, Sri AK Antony and Dr Manmohan Singh fall in this category.
They are known for their personal integrity and professionalism. Let us call them Model Leaders "M".
(d) Then there are professional politicians who rose as student leaders or trade unions leaders or local thugs /goodas with little or no family wealth and no professional achievement or high scholastic ability. They get elected and amass wealth slowly at first and at greater rates as their money-cum-political clout enhance. Many start legitimate looking businesses. These politicians are not genuinely interested in the progress of the country but usually create projects to get kick backs. They form sadly the bulk of the elected representatives. Let us call them “P”.
(B) CRIMINAL RECORDS
Among the hardcore criminals, there are many people who have with politically sponsored criminal cases foisted on them. Hence, we cannot categorise all criminals as one. Below are a few categories that I can think of:
(a) Student activists who get little bit of success in their altruistic struggle often get locked up by politicians. E.g. the recent agitations in All India Institute of Medical Sciences where students struggled to prevent erosion of its reputation. Some of the students were arrested and criminal charges of rioting were registered against them. They are the usual democratic agitators. Let us call them Democrats - "D".
(b) Then there are the professional politician's henchmen who agitate, indulge in all kinds of violence and goondaism. Let us call them Goons "G".
(c) The political rally is disturbed by agitators of opposite party – party in power – who uses official strength of Police to suppress the agitation. Criminal charges are filed. Often the leader of the opposition is implicated. It is a politically motivated criminal case. Let us call such politicians “V” (victims).
(d) The mafia Dons and erstwhile goondas who came to get elected by the corrupt political system. They have genuine criminal cases, rape & murder cases registered. Let us call them “C” (criminals).
In your published articles and news reports all the categories that I differentiated above are clubbed together under high asset ('A' above) rich candidates and candidates with criminal records ('B' above). Is it accurate to paint Rahul bajaj & Mayawati with same brush.??
Many CPI /CPM candidates have criminals charges filed against them. Factually they fall under category "D" democratic agitators. There are Dons & Goons who have committed murders (of subcategory "G" above). But candidates of both subgroups D and G are clubbed under one category in reports "Candidates with criminal records". Is it fair?
Please do consider the above submission and act honestly with integrity and no private agenda.
- Mohan Menon
Chennai
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The back story of the gigantic election operation: The role of election observers
This story is an attempt to bring forth one aspect of the Election Commission’s back-office work in an incredible effort through an individual story of an election observer to ensure free and fair voting. It underlines the gargantuan effort that goes into conducting a general election in India with all its problems of limited or sometimes no infrastructure, violent caste and communal divides, topographical extremities, and so on, writes Anil Padmanabhan in The Mint.
Not sure how many of you will agree, but I definitely feel a sense of pride when I hear references to India, despite the warts and all, being the world’s largest democracy, with a voter base that’s at least twice the size of the entire population of the US, the world’s oldest democracy. But that is the big story—what about the backstory on how this gigantic operation works? Like all back-office stories, it remains largely untold.
This is an attempt to bring forth one aspect of this incredible effort through an individual story of an election observer appointed by the Election Commission (EC) to ensure free and fair voting. It was built around a conversation I had with Ashok Lavasa, then director in the department of economic affairs in the ministry of finance, immediately after the general election of 1998, and picked up when I re-established contact with him earlier this year. Lavasa is presently serving as principal secretary (power) in the state government of Haryana.
Ahead of the 1998 Lok Sabha election, Lavasa, the election observer for the Bayana Lok Sabha constituency in Rajasthan, discovered while perusing the data for the previous elections that one of the villages actually showed no polled vote despite having around 100 voting adults.
Curious, Lavasa decided to journey to the village. Easier said than done, since the village only had a pathway connecting to the road head. He managed to procure a tractor and complete the 3-4km journey from the road head and reached the village by dusk. By then, as is typical of rural India, word had already spread and the village was awaiting the visit of an “official”. In the light provided by a clutch of kerosene lanterns, Lavasa identified himself as an election observer and made it clear that he was not a government representative there to address grievances. He then went on to ask the villagers why they had not voted.
Lavasa recalls that he did not anticipate their response: The villagers had chosen to boycott the poll as a protest against the authorities for repeatedly ignoring their requests for a proper road. According to them, the problem became most acute during the monsoon, when the village was completely cut off, making it impossible to access even medical help or to cremate a body. Hence, the village collectively decided to boycott the poll—or cast a negative vote—and hoped the protest would draw a response.
Technically, they had cast a negative vote, which never got recorded as such. Under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, a voter who wants to cast a negative vote must inform the returning officer, who will register his/her name and address in an election book, though it will no longer be a secret ballot.
(Ironically, 13 years after the village cast its negative vote, the Supreme Court has taken up public interest litigation which demands that the ballot paper should include an option that rejects all candidates, thereby ensuring the choice remains a secret; the matter was referred to a constitutional bench, as reported in Mint on 23 February.)
This compelling story about the role of the election observer—appointed by the EC to ensure free and fair conduct of the poll—underlines the gargantuan effort that goes into conducting a general election in India with all its problems of limited or sometimes no infrastructure, violent caste and communal divides, topographical extremities, and so on.
Read more here.
Not sure how many of you will agree, but I definitely feel a sense of pride when I hear references to India, despite the warts and all, being the world’s largest democracy, with a voter base that’s at least twice the size of the entire population of the US, the world’s oldest democracy. But that is the big story—what about the backstory on how this gigantic operation works? Like all back-office stories, it remains largely untold.
This is an attempt to bring forth one aspect of this incredible effort through an individual story of an election observer appointed by the Election Commission (EC) to ensure free and fair voting. It was built around a conversation I had with Ashok Lavasa, then director in the department of economic affairs in the ministry of finance, immediately after the general election of 1998, and picked up when I re-established contact with him earlier this year. Lavasa is presently serving as principal secretary (power) in the state government of Haryana.
Ahead of the 1998 Lok Sabha election, Lavasa, the election observer for the Bayana Lok Sabha constituency in Rajasthan, discovered while perusing the data for the previous elections that one of the villages actually showed no polled vote despite having around 100 voting adults.
Curious, Lavasa decided to journey to the village. Easier said than done, since the village only had a pathway connecting to the road head. He managed to procure a tractor and complete the 3-4km journey from the road head and reached the village by dusk. By then, as is typical of rural India, word had already spread and the village was awaiting the visit of an “official”. In the light provided by a clutch of kerosene lanterns, Lavasa identified himself as an election observer and made it clear that he was not a government representative there to address grievances. He then went on to ask the villagers why they had not voted.
Lavasa recalls that he did not anticipate their response: The villagers had chosen to boycott the poll as a protest against the authorities for repeatedly ignoring their requests for a proper road. According to them, the problem became most acute during the monsoon, when the village was completely cut off, making it impossible to access even medical help or to cremate a body. Hence, the village collectively decided to boycott the poll—or cast a negative vote—and hoped the protest would draw a response.
Technically, they had cast a negative vote, which never got recorded as such. Under the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, a voter who wants to cast a negative vote must inform the returning officer, who will register his/her name and address in an election book, though it will no longer be a secret ballot.
(Ironically, 13 years after the village cast its negative vote, the Supreme Court has taken up public interest litigation which demands that the ballot paper should include an option that rejects all candidates, thereby ensuring the choice remains a secret; the matter was referred to a constitutional bench, as reported in Mint on 23 February.)
This compelling story about the role of the election observer—appointed by the EC to ensure free and fair conduct of the poll—underlines the gargantuan effort that goes into conducting a general election in India with all its problems of limited or sometimes no infrastructure, violent caste and communal divides, topographical extremities, and so on.
Read more here.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Internet, Transparency and Politics
A talk by Barun Mitra, Chairperson of the Liberty Institute, a Delhi-based think tank, was held at CIS recently, organised by Zainab Bawa in relation to her CIS-RAW project on 'Transparency and Politics'. In this post, the third in a series exploring questions of transparency and politics, Zainab reports on the lecture and discussion.
On April 15, 2009, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) hosted a talk by Barun Mitra on “Internet, Transparency and Politics”. Barun Mitra is the Chairperson of Liberty Institute, a think tank based in Delhi. Liberty Institute conducts research and advocacy on policy issues ranging from health, environment and trade to democracy and governance.
In 2004, Liberty Institute developed www.EmpoweringIndia.org (henceforth to be referred to as EI) to compile information that electoral candidates provided in the affidavits they filed before elections. These affidavits contain details of the candidate’s assets and liabilities, education background, PAN number, income tax records and criminal records, if any. The purpose of compiling this information was to standardise it and make it available for the voters in a comprehensive format. This, in turn, would enable voters to use the information and make informed choices when casting their votes.
EI has undergone several rounds of iterations and is already in the third generation of its development. The aim has been to build a robust database that will allow citizens to extract information as per their specific and nuanced queries and use it during the elections and afterwards, to enforce accountability on the part of the elected representatives. Barun Mitra began his talk by emphasising that EI was more than just a website, contrary to what he found was the initial perception of most audiences. He explained, “I was not interested in merely the information. The larger question driving my initiative was ‘how do we look at politics’?” EI was developed to introduce a different paradigm of understanding politics and participating in it.
The interesting aspect of Barun Mitra’s talk was the question he asked--“What makes information flow?” He decided to move beyond the passé rhetoric of “information is power”. Two specific experiences enabled Barun to understand this question around the flow of information. “I had made a presentation to audiences in Kerala about EI in 2008, trying to solicit their support in disseminating the information on the site to local groups in the state. However, the audience in Kerala saw EI only as a website and raised questions accordingly. Following this, I made a presentation to slum dwellers in Delhi who immediately began to demand information about the candidates who were going to contest from their constituencies in the 2008 New Delhi state assembly elections. The slum dwellers and some of the groups working with them even asked me to provide the information in Hindi and local languages. I was surprised by the fact that two vastly diverse audiences responded in such dramatically different ways to EI. That is when I realized that those who have sustained our democracy, namely the poor, need this kind of information. There is a demand for it among them and therefore, we need to supply it. The second experience was from Gujarat. During the 2007 state assembly elections, we found that a number of local media collectives and the panchayats had used the information on EI. This was because the mainstream media was covering the major politicians and candidates in this election while the local groups needed information on all kinds of candidates contesting from their constituencies. I have now come to believe that demand and supply are two aspects to information and it needs to be provided accordingly where the demand for it is emanating from.”
Barun also reiterated that EI is non-judgmental, in that it leaves it to the audiences to decide how they want to interpret the information. This has been a significant paradigm shift in transparency initiatives that are being developed on the belief that providing more information to people enhances engagement between people and the state. Websites of government departments continue to provide information which they see as important for the citizenry. For instance, see www.bmrc.co.in, the website of the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation, which claims to be transparent and provides particular kinds of information, while concealing other aspects of the project development and implementation. On the other hand, some non-government organisations are focusing on organising large chunks of information concerning particular aspects of governance, and presenting it to people in a way that allows them to extract that information which they find relevant.
One of Barun Mitra’s goals for the future is to develop parameters for judging the performance of elected representatives At the launch of EI in Bangalore on April 16, he pointed out that while he can provide information about the attendance records of MPs (Members of Parliament) in the Lok Sabha (House of the People) sessions, it would be inaccurate to judge the MP’s performance on the basis of this criteria. This is because MPs often sign the attendance register but they may not sit through the Parliament session. He therefore feels that more robust criteria have to be developed which will provide a somewhat holistic picture to the people about the performance of their elected representatives.
Finally, Barun Mitra spoke on the issue of authenticity of the information filed in the affidavits. “People often ask, ‘how authentic is this information?’ The election commission does not take it on itself to verify this information. But I would say that authenticity is a secondary issue. First, we have to make information available to the people. People will then, of their own accord, raise questions about the authenticity of the information. For instance, the Criminal Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed cases in the Supreme Court challenging the authenticity and sources of the assets declared by current chief minister (CM) of Uttar Pradesh (UP) Mayawati and former CM Mulayam Singh Yadav.” Specifically, Mayawati’s assets in 2003, which amounted to Rs. 1 crore, increased to Rs. 50 crores in 2007. This information came to light through the affidavit which Mayawati had to file before the state assembly elections in UP in 2007. “Filing such a case was possible only because Mayawati and Mulayam Singh were compelled to provide information about their assets to the public.”
Barun Mitra’s talk raises an important question for me: how effective are initiatives like EI in fostering interaction between the state and the citizens? I will address this question in my next blog post, where I will examine the case of the Digital City project in Amsterdam. I will look at the concepts and practices of cyberspace, urban space and citizenship through the Digital City Project and other projects undertaken to foster transparency. I will then try to analyse the initiatives undertaken during the 2009 general elections in India and make some tentative remarks on democracy and participation.
--
Zainab Bawa
Ph.D. Student and Independent Researcher
On April 15, 2009, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) hosted a talk by Barun Mitra on “Internet, Transparency and Politics”. Barun Mitra is the Chairperson of Liberty Institute, a think tank based in Delhi. Liberty Institute conducts research and advocacy on policy issues ranging from health, environment and trade to democracy and governance.
In 2004, Liberty Institute developed www.EmpoweringIndia.org (henceforth to be referred to as EI) to compile information that electoral candidates provided in the affidavits they filed before elections. These affidavits contain details of the candidate’s assets and liabilities, education background, PAN number, income tax records and criminal records, if any. The purpose of compiling this information was to standardise it and make it available for the voters in a comprehensive format. This, in turn, would enable voters to use the information and make informed choices when casting their votes.
EI has undergone several rounds of iterations and is already in the third generation of its development. The aim has been to build a robust database that will allow citizens to extract information as per their specific and nuanced queries and use it during the elections and afterwards, to enforce accountability on the part of the elected representatives. Barun Mitra began his talk by emphasising that EI was more than just a website, contrary to what he found was the initial perception of most audiences. He explained, “I was not interested in merely the information. The larger question driving my initiative was ‘how do we look at politics’?” EI was developed to introduce a different paradigm of understanding politics and participating in it.
The interesting aspect of Barun Mitra’s talk was the question he asked--“What makes information flow?” He decided to move beyond the passé rhetoric of “information is power”. Two specific experiences enabled Barun to understand this question around the flow of information. “I had made a presentation to audiences in Kerala about EI in 2008, trying to solicit their support in disseminating the information on the site to local groups in the state. However, the audience in Kerala saw EI only as a website and raised questions accordingly. Following this, I made a presentation to slum dwellers in Delhi who immediately began to demand information about the candidates who were going to contest from their constituencies in the 2008 New Delhi state assembly elections. The slum dwellers and some of the groups working with them even asked me to provide the information in Hindi and local languages. I was surprised by the fact that two vastly diverse audiences responded in such dramatically different ways to EI. That is when I realized that those who have sustained our democracy, namely the poor, need this kind of information. There is a demand for it among them and therefore, we need to supply it. The second experience was from Gujarat. During the 2007 state assembly elections, we found that a number of local media collectives and the panchayats had used the information on EI. This was because the mainstream media was covering the major politicians and candidates in this election while the local groups needed information on all kinds of candidates contesting from their constituencies. I have now come to believe that demand and supply are two aspects to information and it needs to be provided accordingly where the demand for it is emanating from.”
Barun also reiterated that EI is non-judgmental, in that it leaves it to the audiences to decide how they want to interpret the information. This has been a significant paradigm shift in transparency initiatives that are being developed on the belief that providing more information to people enhances engagement between people and the state. Websites of government departments continue to provide information which they see as important for the citizenry. For instance, see www.bmrc.co.in, the website of the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation, which claims to be transparent and provides particular kinds of information, while concealing other aspects of the project development and implementation. On the other hand, some non-government organisations are focusing on organising large chunks of information concerning particular aspects of governance, and presenting it to people in a way that allows them to extract that information which they find relevant.
One of Barun Mitra’s goals for the future is to develop parameters for judging the performance of elected representatives At the launch of EI in Bangalore on April 16, he pointed out that while he can provide information about the attendance records of MPs (Members of Parliament) in the Lok Sabha (House of the People) sessions, it would be inaccurate to judge the MP’s performance on the basis of this criteria. This is because MPs often sign the attendance register but they may not sit through the Parliament session. He therefore feels that more robust criteria have to be developed which will provide a somewhat holistic picture to the people about the performance of their elected representatives.
Finally, Barun Mitra spoke on the issue of authenticity of the information filed in the affidavits. “People often ask, ‘how authentic is this information?’ The election commission does not take it on itself to verify this information. But I would say that authenticity is a secondary issue. First, we have to make information available to the people. People will then, of their own accord, raise questions about the authenticity of the information. For instance, the Criminal Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed cases in the Supreme Court challenging the authenticity and sources of the assets declared by current chief minister (CM) of Uttar Pradesh (UP) Mayawati and former CM Mulayam Singh Yadav.” Specifically, Mayawati’s assets in 2003, which amounted to Rs. 1 crore, increased to Rs. 50 crores in 2007. This information came to light through the affidavit which Mayawati had to file before the state assembly elections in UP in 2007. “Filing such a case was possible only because Mayawati and Mulayam Singh were compelled to provide information about their assets to the public.”
Barun Mitra’s talk raises an important question for me: how effective are initiatives like EI in fostering interaction between the state and the citizens? I will address this question in my next blog post, where I will examine the case of the Digital City project in Amsterdam. I will look at the concepts and practices of cyberspace, urban space and citizenship through the Digital City Project and other projects undertaken to foster transparency. I will then try to analyse the initiatives undertaken during the 2009 general elections in India and make some tentative remarks on democracy and participation.
--
Zainab Bawa
Ph.D. Student and Independent Researcher
Monday, April 13, 2009
EI Launch in Bangalore
It gives us great pleasure to announce the EI launch in Bangalore.
Press of Institute of India and Liberty Institute, in partnership with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, cordially invite you to the launch of Empowering India, in Chennai. Mr Sudhakar Rao, Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka has consented to release the web site. Justice Santosh Hegde, (retd.) Supreme Court of India will be the guest of honour. All are welcome at 10 am, on April 16, 2009.
Find the details of the programme here.
Making Democracy Meaningful!
Press of Institute of India and Liberty Institute, in partnership with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, cordially invite you to the launch of Empowering India, in Chennai. Mr Sudhakar Rao, Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka has consented to release the web site. Justice Santosh Hegde, (retd.) Supreme Court of India will be the guest of honour. All are welcome at 10 am, on April 16, 2009.
Find the details of the programme here.
Making Democracy Meaningful!
A talk on "Politics on the Internet"
The 2009 general elections in India have been preceded by various initiatives that seek to provide information to the voters about candidates contesting the elections. The aim of providing this information is to help voters to make 'informed choices' when casting their votes. With the advent of the internet, information is becoming more accessible. What is the impact of the internet on the political landscape in India?
Barun Mitra will be speaking at The Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore, on 15th April 2009.
Find more details here.
Barun Mitra will be speaking at The Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore, on 15th April 2009.
Find more details here.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Political campaigns suffer as India Inc tightens its purse strings
With a recession-hit India Inc tightening its purse strings, there has been a significant dip in corporate contributions to the election campaign chests of political parties. Estimates vary, but the consensus is that corporate donations are down by at least 20% this time.
The number of companies volunteering financial support has come down, while the others are reluctant to fully redeem their commitments. There are also those who have wriggled out of commitments, citing their plunging bottom line.
Political parties claim that the hit is bigger than what companies themselves say. Parties say corporate contributions are down 35%-40%, although industrialists insist that ''political demand is inelastic'', and despite these trying times, they have cut back by just 20%.
Said a senior Congress leader: ''We are having a tough time. These companies have to be reminded. Few are coming forward on their own.'' BJP sources agreed on the trend but righteously claimed that they could make do as they were not planning to run a lavish campaign.
Sources in the Samajwadi Party, which is known for its good links with industrial houses, also said corporate support was down 40% from the last time. ''But we will not be affected as we have committed supporters,'' claimed a SP leader.
Read the full article here.
The number of companies volunteering financial support has come down, while the others are reluctant to fully redeem their commitments. There are also those who have wriggled out of commitments, citing their plunging bottom line.
Political parties claim that the hit is bigger than what companies themselves say. Parties say corporate contributions are down 35%-40%, although industrialists insist that ''political demand is inelastic'', and despite these trying times, they have cut back by just 20%.
Said a senior Congress leader: ''We are having a tough time. These companies have to be reminded. Few are coming forward on their own.'' BJP sources agreed on the trend but righteously claimed that they could make do as they were not planning to run a lavish campaign.
Sources in the Samajwadi Party, which is known for its good links with industrial houses, also said corporate support was down 40% from the last time. ''But we will not be affected as we have committed supporters,'' claimed a SP leader.
Read the full article here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
