Party games!

Perhaps the longest held golden rule in Indian politics has been: Muslims and Christians vote en bloc while Hindu votes are scattered. So if you want to rule India, woo minorities, you can afford to ignore Hindus.

This rule has held due to a variety of reasons. One theory I’ve heard is the induced shame of their religion in the minds of the Hindus themselves. This makes them only apologetic Hindus and they vote ‘secular’ parties come election time. The other theory is based around Hindus being divided along caste lines causing political parties pander to that particular caste PLUS Muslims/ Christians. This causes a chunk of Hindus belonging to a particular group to vote for or against a particular Party. There is one more theory that there a bunch of Hindus would like to vote en masse for a Hindu-focussed party but have been disappointed with such partys. For example, while ABV provided a great government at the India level, they did very few things that a Hindu party was expected to do (e.g. Uniform Civil Code, Article 370 etc). There could be many more reason (even contradictory to ones mentioned) that have led to the golden rule being so successful till now, but they are not important for this post.

However, with the advent of Narendra Modi (Namo) this golden rule that scores of secular dynasties have built their mansions by no longer appears to hold. For the first time, the majority of Hindus appear to be converging under the BJP’s banner while the minority votes split among the various parties that profess secularism. This change in the established dynamic is unsurprisingly catastrophic for many established politicians in India. A classic deer in the headlights syndrome. They just don’t know what to do…and they are floundering.

So how does this change impact the fabric of Indian politics. Hmm. There are three types of Indian politicians as far as the golden rule of secularism (the way they define it anyway) is concerned. Some are completely wedded, even blinded, by it for political reasons (and perhaps other reasons best known to them). The second category is people who use it extensively for its electoral convenience and the third is the category that is considered ‘communal’ by the media or is not concerned with ‘secularism’ much.

The Congress, Communists, Muslim League etc, easily fall into the first category. Congress is the prime example that is so, so ‘secular’ that many online commentators consider them actively anti-Hindu (I reserve expressing my opinion on this here). This category will find it exceptionally hard to change tracks. In fact they are so blinded by the rule that has worked so well for so long they probably don’t even think they need to change, forget wanting to or being able to even if they wanted to.

Parties like Samajwadi Party (SP), Bahujan Samajwadi Party (BSP), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Trinamool Congress (TMC), DMK, AIADMK, Biju Janata Dal (BJD) etc are in my opinion in the second category. Most of these were primarily personality based, caste based or region based identity politics parties, in fact they are what I like to call ‘accidental secularists’.

Parties like BJP, Shiromani Akali Dal, Shiv Sena etc fall into the third category. They have not benefited from any sort of secularism. In fact, BJP suffered between 1998 till date because its core constituency thought that is has deviated too far from its Hindutva (true secularism, some might say) in its pursuit of Indian style ‘secularism’.

With Narendra Modi led BJP growing in popularity, a lot of commentators have said that BJP will not find partners to form the next government. Because these geniuses are unable or unwilling to categorise political parties a little bit more subtly like I have done here. Category I seculars will of course not align with BJP at all. Category III will almost always be with the BJP barring any personality issues or conflicts.

The category that is most interesting is category II. It is this category that MSM is assuming will remain steadfast in its opposition to BJP, and this assumption is wrong.

With the allegedly increasing Bangladeshi presence in W. Bengal, and no signs of a revival of a Hindu identity yet in WB it is in TMCs interest to continue with its secular line for now. However a post election alliance is not ruled out. Though I still remain an advocate for BJP to foray aggressively into WB to establish its own base there. I am sure there is a fair sized constituency that want a BJP like option to vote for, that as of now seems absent.

Given the rapport that BJD and AIADMK enjoy with Narendra Modi I believe these two parties will also align with  BJP but mostly post election. BJD is largely a region/ state focussed party and AIADMK is a community focussed party, so for both Indian style secularism while desirable is not crucial for political survival. I expect both to join NDA after elections. It makes sense for them to keep their options open before elections just to hedge their bets. If BJP comes out in lead I think it’s a sealed deal. BJD may support NDA from outside while AIADMK may like to join NDA with a few ministerial berths.

Sharad Pawar’s NCP is the easiest one. He left Congress to form NCP solely on Sonia Gandhi’s foreign issue (and perhaps his own disappointment of not being able to become PM). But within short time did a volte-face to support Congress at the centre and state. In this he is bested only by Mulayam Singh of SP. Anyway, this is what we expect of Sharad Pawar, one of the most astute politician in the last half century in India. India’s version of Teflon Tony in some ways. If BJP were to come out in front, I have little doubt that NCP will join NDA. In fact a confirmation of this would be if after elections are declared NCP has some ‘disagreements’ on seat sharing with the Congress in Maharashtra state and then ‘suddenly’ decides to go it alone.

JD(U) is the saddest case IMHO. It partnered with BJP for the longest time and they have done some good work together. It was an interesting arrangement. JDUs Nitish Kumar became the CM of Bihar in partnership with the BJP. The leader of JDU, Mr. Sharad Yadav who was then politically senior to Nitish Kumar, became the convener of NDA and elevated himself to national status. He was likely to coordinator between BJP and JDU as well. As time passed, media gave a lot of attention to Nitish and despite being junior to Sharad in party political terms he became more popular than him. This has to hurt anyone, especially a politician who are said to live by popularity numbers. It is believed by some people that given his long absence from ground politics in Bihar, Sharad Yadav is dependent on his political survival on Nitish Kumar who likely has more actual control of the party-cadre machinery in Bihar. It is widely understood that Nitish has recently gotten into his head that he himself is Prime Ministerial material. That he has tried to scuttle BJP’s nomination of Narendra Modi’s PM nominationis visible to the most casual observer. Nitish’s higher relative popularity and Sharads political dependence on him may have forced Sharad Yadav to toe this hardline by Nitish eventually leading to a break-up between one of the most fruitful political partnerships in recent years. Now the situation is that Sharad Yadav’s job of national level coordination has been made redundant! He has no national presence without partnership with the BJP and he has no local power without support from Nitish Kumar. It is a difficult period for him. How will he handle his political future? He knows JDU faces an uphill task going it alone against BJP even locally in Bihar as Nitish’s behaviour may have cost JDU some popularity. While Nitish gave the usual secular argument to break ranks with NDA and BJP even he should know he cannot actually bank on this as vote pulling tool. Not with Congress and Lalu Yadav doing so too. This is exactly what I meant when I said that secular votes will be divided! The only way out I see for Sharad Yadav is to break ranks with Nitish Kumar. Whether it will actually happen or not, or on what issue the break will happen is anybody’s guess, but for Sharad, I don’t see how else can he become relevant again on a national or even regional level. So If someone had to stick their neck out and make a prediction, I would not be surprised if the prediction was for Sharad Yadav to part ways to Nitish Kumar and then carve out a new identity for himself with BJP’s help. If this happens Nitish will go the Lalu way. If Sharad Yadav stays with Nitish, then given the Modi wave, both will go the Lalu way J

Speaking of Lalu, he would have been most worried if JDU had aligned with the Congress which would in turn have no use for Lalu’s RJD party. But Congress is the new untouchable thanks to the massive, massive corruption of the last ten years, so JDU has declined to align. This has put JDU ins a very weak position as mentioned above, allowing breathing room for Lalu. I don’t expect Lalu to create a grand comeback but yes he will gain from JDUs predicament.

SP and BSP are the two parties that control between them the most important state (electorally) in India: Uttar Pradesh (UP). BSP, run by Mayawati, caters to the so-called lower castes (dalits) among hindus but has over the past few years tried to attract the Brahmins that constitute a sizeable chunk (~12%) of UP’s population. SP is an out and out Yadav and Muslim party. To the point that I’ve seen Mulayam Singh Yadav (MSY) who runs SP being referred to as Mullah-yam Singh on social media in the past. MSY and Mayawati are bitter rivals and stories of their rivalry are legend. Ever since BJP lost its foothold in UP, the power pendulum here has shifted between BSP and SP almost alternatively. BSP and SP are also bitter rivals. Given this rivalry people are surprised to see them supporting the same government in centre even as they wrestle it out at the state level. The reason that is widely speculated by many is that the Congress has some legal sword hanging over SP and BSP bosses and the CBI is used to blackmail them into submission. As such I will not be surprised to know if both SP and BSP have severe animosity towards the Congress. After all, no one likes to be used and abused for so long. So how will BSP and SP behave?

SP is right now ruling UP. It massively favours its Muslim voters over Hindus, atleast that is the public perception IMHO. The recent riots in Muzzafarnagar has polarised Hindus and Muslims in the state. More so caused by the selective news leaks, biased reporting, biased action and selective visits to communities. A senior Muslim leader in SP, who has long being a power centre on to himself is IMHO using this tragedy to increase his hold on the party putting the father son duo of MSY-Akhilesh Yadav (CM) in some consternation. Ordinarily this religious polarisation would not have bothered MSY so much. Because he would still know that Muslims would rally behind SP anyway. Hindu so-called backward castes would be divided between SP and BSP and some other regional players. Part of the Hindu vote would go to BJP, whose vote share would go up but too much to worry SP. But, Narendra Modi’s advent means that Hindu’s see BJP as a true right of centre party rather than the pale reflection it had become over the last decade. So the polarisation may not be among caste lines any more. All Hindus whether so-called upper or lower castes will rally behind BJP. It is this that makes SP win more difficult. It is this fear that is causing the senior Muslim leader in SP to act so much in haste to make it hardline pro-Muslim pitch. Because Hindus were anyway not his personal core constituency. This worries MSY who cant afford this hardline pitch because he would still want some Hindus to vote for SP. This is a clear conflict of interest. While MSY debates with this situation in his mind, his Muslim colleague will milk this situation to the maximum. He will make it seem like he alone is fighting for minority rights while his bosses dilly dally. In fact this riot related polarisation is perhaps exactly what he was waiting for to make a grab for power. In fact, this has been in a gruesome way a lucky stroke for this guy, almost too lucky. Hmm.  If MSY doesn’t back down, which he cant without losing his identity within his own party first, this leader will cause a break in the party. I will not be surprised if SP breaks up, whether the break-up is cosmetic or genuine is not important at this time. The new hardline group will have a constituency, the other one will flounder around for a couple of years (if that) and fade away for all practical purposes. In other words, I believe the beginning of the political career end for the MSY family has begun.

BSP on the other hand is also facing difficult times. However having been a little bit further on the secularism scale versus SP, and having a sort of insulated voting constituency, Mayawati may yet survive to fight again another day. But for now she will be a diminished force in the face of the Narendra Modi onslaught.

This has been a bit of a long post, perhaps not the most articulate. But given the nature of Indian politics I don’t know if it could have been any more articulate at all. To summarise, Narendra Modi is a force of the sort that has not so far emerged in the history of independent India. Not only does Modi bring a strong ideological backing but has actually delivered on development objectives with minimal wastages and without favouring any one community over the other. He belongs to a so-called lower caste but has never used it as a easy tool for political gain. He reportedly does not like hangers on and is beyond the politics of favours and fear. He is a complete outsider to the Delhi culture of adjustment versus development. He is also a outsider culturally (as mentioned in my last post) making him the ultimate weapon of the sort that has not been faced by any of the old boys club. His ideological background will bring right wing Hindus over to his side, his casteless politics and true democratic distribution of wealth and power will bring the on-the-fence Hindus to him. This will change many things in Indian politics, many masks will be removed, many ‘seculars’ will fall and many parties will be divided as predicted above. For the first time, Hindus will vote as a vote bank, upsetting established equations, perhaps forever. And Modi will find many partners while doing this, much to the chagrin of the mainstream media :)

Why people hate Narendra Modi?

This is a question that has baffled me quite a bit. For the longest time justified their hate (cant really think of another word to describe their reaction to him) by citing his role in abetting the tragic 2002 post Godhra train burning riots. While they may have felt their anger justified soon after the riots, it should logically have abated after the court appointed investigations have all but exonerated Namo from any alleged role in the riots. But that has not happened and these people still are all fire and brimstone over what has happened.

In the earlier post (http://megadodopublication.blogspot.in/2013/08/the-curious-logic-of-hate.html), I have briefly touched upon the brainwashed nature of this hate. However that is applicable to the ‘opinion takers’ amongst us. Lay people, or people who live abroad and try to sound intelligent about India or just the general populace whose daily information dose consists of taking their opinions from Main Stream Media (MSM), rather than forming their own through an application of brains.

However, in this post I want to look closer what why drives the hate of ‘opinion makers’. Ie the people who are in the position of influencing the opinion of ‘opinion takers’. This would normally consist of people who like to interact with a whole bunch of other people: journalists, editors, think tanks, politicians, ‘intellectuals’, celebrities, talking heads on TV panels etc etc. Why should they hate Narendra Modi? The answer that comes to my mind, albeit perhaps incorrect, is that they are simply discriminating against him, but are afraid to do so openly.

Before I explain, I want to highlight a study I briefly read about in (I think) an excellent book ‘Freakonomics’ by Levitt and Dubner. The study was to highlight the racism that continued to exist in sections of America but how it was hidden or channelled differently. The study used the then popular game show ‘The weakest link’ to showcase its theory. The game consists of 6-8 contestants who each answer trivia questions by turn. For each correct answer money gets added to the prize kitty. The game proceeds through multiple rounds and at the end of each round the players collectively to vote out one person from amongst them. Finally the person remaining in the end wins the pot collected through the series of right answers during the game. In the first few rounds it makes sense to vote out the weakest players so that the pot grows bigger. In the later rounds it makes sense to eliminate the strongest players so that the final rounds one has to face only a ‘easy’ opponent. Now the social movements that demonised discrimination against blacks and women are the freshest in ones memory. As such, someone playing on the show with the nation watching would not like to take the risk of being seen as a racist or a sexist. So it appears that the elimination of these two classes of contestants (blacks and females) did not seem to follow the logic of elimination elucidated earlier. But this does not mean the ‘discrimination’ itself vanished. The study found that the targets of discrimination shifted to Hispanics and senior citizens. So Hispanics were voted out in earlier rounds even if they did well etc etc. So the disease of discrimination remains, but the carriers only show it in a different way. For more on this, please read the book I mentioned earlier and/ or have a look at this: http://www.wattpad.com/334172-freakonomics?p=32

Now why do I think the story above is relevant to the ‘opinion maker’ hate of Narendra Modi and the use of 2002 riots to justify it. The reason is simple, Narendra Modi is not ‘one of them’. Consider the senior politicians and journalists and other opinion makers that exist today. Many of them have a ‘pedigree’, atleast in their minds of sorts. A pedigree that comes from belonging to a certain family with a certain surname or having a certain bank balance or a certain award or then having gone to a certain type of school or even the people with whom they have gone to a school with. A simple wiki search for some of the senior editors of MSM and politicians will indicate to you what I am trying to say. Now contrast this with Narendra Modi’s wiki (excerpts below):

“Modi was born on 17 September 1950 to a family of grocers in Vadnagar in Mehsana district of what was then Bombay State (present-day Gujarat), India. While a teenager, Modi ran a tea stall with his brother around a bus terminus.[14] He completed his schooling in Vadnagar, where a teacher described him as being an average student but a keen debater. He began work in the staff canteen of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC), where he stayed till he became a full–time pracharak (propagator) of the RSS. Modi remained a pracharak in the RSS while he completed his Master's degree in political science from Gujarat University.”

Once you read both the sets of data, you can see why one set of ‘opinion makers’ discriminate against Namo. BUT, BUT, BUT…that is not considered socially acceptable, so this set needs to bring out a acceptable reason to justify their hate for him. Another reason for discrimination could likely be Narendra Modi belonging to a so-called lower caste. This also is not an acceptable reason (morally reprehensible in fact) of hating someone. So again, they bring out the bogey of 2002 riots to justify their hate of him, which is in fact, IMHO, caste-ist and class-ist.

Let me illustrate this point by an example. For a minute forget everything you have read above here. Lets say you are back in 1940s in the USA when blacks were still discriminated against to some extent. Now one morning you open a newspaper and read a story of a first time elected black governor of a state in the mid-west of USA. He is one of the few black politicians around. He has come up from a very humble background, worked very hard, studied in local universities, did a lot of social work and through his dint of hard work and determination broke through the not-so-glass glass ceiling and got elected governor. He manages the state very well, in fact it is the best managed state in the entire country in the opinion of many. However one day, things take a turn for the worse and there is a violent incident in the state. That incident prompts a violent reaction. The first-time governor takes immediate action but is sadly unable to prevent the loss of lives associated with a spontaneous social conflagration. Despite his quick control of the situation, this black governor is accused of being complicit in the riots. Lies are invented by the editors and journalists and NGOs to vilify this governor. Incidents that have never happened are passed around MSM as gospel truth. The Government orders all sorts of hearings and enquiries against this governor. The Governor too humbly submits to all these multiple investigations to clear any doubts and instil confidence in the people. While these enquiries are on, the governor also wins three elections, getting a vote of confidence of sorts from the people who actually suffered in the events that he is accused of engineering. The US Supreme court finally orders a thorough all-encompassing enquiry against the black gent in which he is given a clean chit. This is in addition to all the other enquiries that have not been able to find anything on the governor earlier. Finally the people feel that the matter has been settled and the process of healing can begin. However, the media and the opposition governor candidate and his acolytes continue to accuse the governor of the same crimes he has been all but completely exonerated of. The same accusations continue to be repeated in the national media and opposition speeches while the lone governor continues to do good work for the people of his state. End of story. Important to note that this is a hypothetical example made up to illustrate a point, in no way reflective of my opinion of the USA which I consider the biggest meritocracy today.

Now for what would you say this governor is targeted for by the ‘majority’ of his country. For any actual criminal act? No…the courts and investigations have prima facie rejected that. For his economy and development focus….? Perhaps not, who doesn’t like good roads and prosperous industry.  Then what? His skin colour and background? Hmm.

Now compare the situation of this hypothetical black governor with whats happening to Narendra Modi today. You will have the answer to the question asked in the title of the post.