Only poor people vote in India…

Rich do the rest, like counting the votes, analyzing the vote, putting the government in place and of course bitching about everything! Disgraceful is the word that comes to mind. Especially after 26/11 we thought South Bombay voters would come out in big numbers and repose the faith in our democratic process. But that was too much to ask for. The rich people in India obviously do not value the price some Indians paid for their independence and their right to vote. Most non-Western countries around the world envy us for our liberties and our political institutions. One day in not too distant a future, a Mayawati would become the Prime Minister of India and institute a “Jazia” on our elite and only then these people would get the message. Just THINK about it!

Indian political movement was started in Bombay in 1885 by the Parsi/British elite of that time. It remained an obsession of the rich lawyers and businessmen of India till the arrival of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi from South Africa in 1915. It was Gandhiji who transformed this urban movement into a national rural revolution. But for him, Indian National Congress and all political activities in India would have remained confined to the metropolitan cities of the country. The legacy of Gandhi has survived in the regional parties of India but the urban leadership has slowly dissipated. The prominent national leaders of India have virtually no appeal in the vast rural areas of India. Dr Manmohan Singh and Lal Krishna Advani are strangers to the rural India.

Last night I was watching the show, ‘We The People’ on NDTV and the topic of discussion was ‘Who’s afraid of Mayawati?’ in a town-hall format. The expert panel was good and the audience questions were also relevant. The obvious concern was “what if Mayawati becomes the next Prime Minister of India”. It was refreshing to see the reaction was acceptance of the situation on the ground and no real panic amongst the elite. The reasons could be the maturity of the electorate and the confidence in India’s bureaucracy. This confidence of Indians must be watched around the world. It shows the resilience of India’s democracy and existence of strong civil institutions. An autocratic politician like Mayawati could be elected the leader of a ‘Third Front’ coalition and thus assume the role of a Prime Minister. This is actually possible!

This has happened before and it could happen again. Remember the rise of Chaudhary Charan Singh in 1979, Chandra Shekhar Singh in 1990, H D Deve Gowda in 1996 and Inder Kumar Gujral in 1997? None of them lasted for more than a year in office but still hurt the economy and our foreign policy. Gujral the most articulate of them all was the biggest disaster when he blew the whistle on our own R&AW (Research and Analysis Wing) in Pakistan. Yet, India did not fall off the cliff, it survived. We will survive Mayawati too but it should wake up our non-voting middle class in Bombay and elsewhere! Mayawati is only 53 years old and has a long way to go in not only the Dalit politics but the entire minority victim hood. She is a solo-star of her party and might be tempted to appoint only Dalits in her central cabinet!

Mayawati to Maneka Gandhi on Varun Gandhi

The evolution of India’s foreign policy – Part IX

The short lived H. D. Deve Gowda administration was not oblivious to the virtues and pitfalls of India’s foreign policy compulsions. Prime Minister Deve Gowda appointed Inder Kumar Gujral as the Minister of External Affairs during his 10 month tenure. Gujral had been the Minister of External Affairs in V P Singh’s cabinet. He propounded his ‘Gujral Doctrine’, which called for better relations with India’s neighbors. Gujral was a proactive foreign minister and was an experienced diplomat. He had also served as the Ambassador of India to the Soviet Union during the prime ministership of Indira Gandhi. Gujral tried very hard to improve relations with the United States of America, the only remaining super power. There were no ideological barriers left post disintegration of the Soviet Union and yet national security imperatives prevented India from constructive engagement with the United States. One of the main obstacles was a Democratic Administration of President Bill Clinton. Democrats have always been more stringent about Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). India could not sign either treaty because of the threat from China and to a limited extent, Pakistan. National security took precedence over Indo-US relations.

Prime Minister Deve Gowda’s tenure (June 1996 – April 1997) was also burdened by India’s robust missile program initiated during Rao’s premiership. In 1992, India successfully tested the Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle (ASLV) and the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV). In 1994, India test fired ‘Prithvi’ and ‘Agni’, two indigenously built ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads. Plans to launch Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAM), that is ‘Trishul’ and ‘Akash’, and an anti-tank missile (ATM) ‘Nag’, were also undertaken during the Rao premiership. These developments alarmed not only the US Congress and the Clinton Administration but also Japan and the European Union. Despite the growth in bilateral trade and American investment in India, these defense related issues killed any chances of improved Indo-US relations during this period. On the other hand the growing numbers of Non-Resident Indians in the United States had started playing a more active role in promoting India’s national interests. The Indian diaspora was emerging as the single most affluent section of the American society. During Deve Gowda’s tenure, the actual inflow of foreign direct investment (FDI) also increased. In 1996, the actual FDI inflow to India was US $ 2383 million, which constituted 21.4 per cent of the FDI approval to India. In 1997, the actual FDI inflow was US $3330 million, and it constituted 21.1 per cent of the total FDI approval to India. Despite all these improved financial statistics we in America did not see any visible improvement in the Indo-American bilateral relations!

Inder Kumar Gujral took over as Prime Minister of a second United Front government on April 21, 1997. There was a degree of improvement in bilateral relations during the Gujral premiership (1997-98), and several factors were responsible for this. First, the ‘Gujral Doctrine’ was successful in India’s international relations, and it helped to improve India’s ties with her neighbors. The U.S. hailed the normalization of relations among South Asian nations, because it considered the region to be a nuclear hotspot. Second, the CTBT issue, which had remained an irritant in bilateral relations since the Rao premiership lost its prominence during Gujral’s tenure. The refusal of the US Senate to approve the CTBT became a liability for the Clinton Administration. Important high-level reciprocal visits took place during Gujral’s short tenure, which was not only indicative of better relations but obviously helped to foster a better understanding between the two countries. Besides Gujral’s official visit to the US, his Industry Minister, Murasoli Maran also went to the U.S. to participate in the “Destination India” program organized to promote US investment and tourism in India.  On the American side, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (the first visit of a US Secretary of State in 14 years), the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, William Daley, and the US Under Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, Thomas Pickering visited India. While everything looked honky-dory, Gujral’s Doctrine was playing havoc with India’s national security. Prime Minister Gujral unilaterally decided to disclose the human assets of Research and Analysis Wing to Pakistan in a gesture of neighborly goodwill. Pakistan wasted no time in liquidating the Indian spies in their country. Thanks to Shri Gujral, Pakistan was successful in mounting a 26/11 type brutal commando operation in Bombay in 2008! I hold Gujral responsible for it.

The evolution of India’s foreign policy – Part VIII

Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao and his administration had a profound impact on India’s image around the world. He was himself a consummate diplomat. Rao understood the importance of nation’s foreign policy and its impact on the domestic growth. He implemented his life-long agenda of unshackling the Indian economy. He was the first non Nehru-Gandhi Prime Minister to have completed a full five year term. Naturally his impact on India was very significant and long lasting. Narasimha Rao’s world view was significantly different from the Gandhi family. India is believed to have covert relations with the state of Israel since 1969 but it was Rao administration that established full diplomatic ties between the two countries on January 29, 1992. Madhavsinh Solanki was the Foreign Minister of India at that time. Israel has become a strong ally of India since then. Prime Minister Rao was intellectually persuaded to declare India a full and open ‘Nuclear Power’ but Americans leaned on him heavily to give up the idea. According to Vajpayee when he became the PM in 1996 Rao handed him a piece of paper which simply stated ‘Bomb is ready. You can go ahead.’ (referring to a nuclear device) and asked that it should not be made public. Vajpayee revealed this only after Rao’s death. Rao also launched the Look East foreign policy.

While Narasimha Rao succeeded in transforming the Indian Economy and Foreign Affairs, his administration was very week domestically. Kashmir insurgency that was brewing since 1989, flared up during the 5 year term of Prime Minister Rao. He was successful in curtailing the Punjab militancy but failed to stop the demolition of Babri Masjid by the goons of VHP (Vishva Hindu Parishad) on December 6, 1992. This destruction of the disputed structure, which was widely reported in the international media, unleashed large scale communal violence, the most extensive since the Partition of India. It is widely believed that the 1993 Mumbai Bombings, which claimed hundreds of innocent lives and left thousands injured was the Muslim underworld’s retaliation for the demolition of the Babri Mosque. This proved to be the single most damaging incident in India’s domestic policy. As I have written earlier, it was a phony excuse for Muslim extremists who were waiting for any such opportunity to create sectarian unrest; it was an idiotic lapse of judgment as far as Ministry of Home Affairs was concerned. This unnecessary violence gave India a very bad name in the international media and damaged the country’s reputation. But for his failed domestic policy P V Narasimha Rao would have been acclaimed as one of the most successful PMs of India! Despite his failures, Rao would remain the father of Modern India.

General elections were held in India in 1996 to elect the members of the 11th Lok Sabha. The result of the election was a hung parliament, which would see three Prime Ministers in two years and force the country back to the polls in 1998. The May 1995 defection of high profile Congress Party leaders like Arjun Singh and Narayan Dutt Tiwari divided the party into smaller factions. Bharatiya Janata Party emerged as the single largest party with only 161 seats in the parliament followed by Indian National Congress with 14o seats. The then President of India, Shankar Dayal Sharma, invited the leader of the largest party in parliament, Bharatiya Janata Party to form the government. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was sworn in as the new Prime Minister on May 15, 1996. He was required to prove a majority in the parliament by May 31, 1996. Vajpayee tried to build a coalition but failed to convince the moderate parties to support the BJP’s agenda. Instead of facing a loosing ‘confidence vote’ on May 31, he decided to resign as Prime Minister in just 13 days. Congress Party then declined to attempt a majority as the second largest party. Instead they agreed to support H D Deve Gowda, Chief Minister of Karnataka, as the next Prime Minister of India. He took office on June 1, 1996. Meanwhile the country drifted and India’s foreign policy was non-existent. Deve Gowda couldn’t last even a year and resigned on April 21, 1997.