China’s ‘capitalism’ weighs heavy - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Opinion

China’s ‘capitalism’ weighs heavy

India’s import basket from China is heavily laden with capital goods. This segment, unlike consumer durables, does not render itself to an easy boycott. Any rash decision, in absence of substitutes, might end up harming production capacity.

PRIYADARSHI DUTTA

Published

on

One of the ways common Indians have reacted to the macabre bloodbath at Galwan Valley is by calling for a boycott of Chinese products. The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) released a list of 3,000 Chinese items that Indians should eschew. Such appeals are nothing new, but have been raised in the times of tranquility as well. The economic reason is that over the last decade and half, low-priced Chinese consumer goods have flooded the Indian markets. This has adversely affected Indian manufacturing sector, leading to job losses.

China is currently the largest source of India’s imports. Its share, in US dollar terms, in India’s import pie is 13.70% with the US placed at distant second spot at 6.88%. Imports from China have consistently outstripped India’s export to that country, leading to a burgeoning trade deficit year-on-year for nearly two decades.

The Rajya Sabha’s Department Related Standing Committee on Commerce in its 145th report titled “Impact of Chinese goods on Indian Industries” (July 2018) acknowledged that “ever-increasing Chinese imports have played a negative role for domestic industries”. The Committee found affected industries are those that have traditionally been large employment generators in India. These included pharmaceuticals, solar industry (National Solar Mission), textiles, toy making, firecrackers, bicycle manufacturing, etc.

 However, a comparison of the nature of India’s imports from China, and export to that country will give away the reason why the mutual trade deficit worsened over the period. A study by PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry on “India-China Trade Relationship: The Trade Giants of Past, Present and Future” (January 2018) found that based on level of processing India exported more raw material to China, but imported more capital goods. While the value of raw materials is lowest, the value of finished capital goods is highest. Say, in 2006, India’s export of raw materials to China had touched almost 60% though a decade later it came down to 25%. The composition shifted more in favour of intermediate goods, which now comprises almost half of the export basket to China.

Curiously, India’s agricultural exports had been on increase since the beginning of the millennium. At one time (2011) it touched 18.73%, though came down to 8.54% five years later. Contrarily, China over the last two decades has almost banished exporting agricultural products to India, though it constituted 8.4% of the exports in 2001.

China methodically consolidated its position as major exporter of capital goods to India. It has risen from 22.4% in 2001 to 56.4% in 2016 as a factor of its exports to India. Capital goods are those goods like equipment, machine tools, earthmovers, processing plant components, printers that are used in production of other goods to be used by consumers. The capital goods are used by manufacturers rather than traders whom CAIT represents. The consumers do not use them and hence an ordinary person will not be able to boycott them despite his/her best intentions.

The growth of the domestic capital goods industry in the last five years in India has been modest. In percentage terms it ranged from minus 1.1% (2014-15) to 2.7% (2018-19), the highest being 4% (2017-18) as told by Minister of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises viz Prakash Javadekar in the Lok Sabha (Unstarred question 284 dated 19 November 2019). A stoppage of imports of capital goods, without revitalising domestic production, will hit India’s manufacturing capacity. So the Dragon will not be off the shoulders of Indian economy merely by boycotting Chinese-made consumer goods.

The National Capital Goods Policy, 2016 conceded the fact that growth in the sector was sluggish, completely out of sync with erstwhile Planning Commission’s targeted growth rate, and rising share of imports, indicating a “looming threat to India’s self-reliance and national security”. Paradoxically, even as imports gained ground, the capacity utilisation of the domestic manufacturers of capital goods stood at 60-70% only.

The report of FICCI Capital Goods Committee titled “Accelerating growth in Indian Capital Goods Sector” (2016) found (as of 2015) the capital goods sector contributed to 0.6% to India’s GDP compared to 4.1% to China, 3.4% for Germany, 2.8% for South Korea and 1.5% for Russia. The total value addition by the capital goods sector in China ($443 billion) was 13 times that of India ($13 billion) as of 2015.

As India’s domestic capital goods manufacturers idle away their installed capacities, there is a yawning chasm between policy and practice. The Rajya Sabha’s Department Related Standing Committee on Industry in its 295th Report (March 2020) was surprised to observe that Department of Heavy Industries surrendered the entire amount of Rs 50 lakh (in itself so meager) allocated to it during FY 2018-19 for undertaking promotional activities aimed at awareness generation about schemes and technology amongst the manufacturers in capital goods sector. During FY 2019-20 the department could do little better by utilising only Rs 20 lakh out of Rs 50 lakh granted. Taking this to be the benchmark of the department’s utilisation capacity, the Ministry of Finance curtailed the grant to Rs 20 lakh for FY 2020- 21. The Standing Committee found the reduced amount utterly inadequate, and instructed the department to seek more funds. The Committee dismissed the department’s excuse that no suitable proposal had been received from Industry Associations/PSUs for providing financial support. The Committee recommended that the department should be more proactive while interacting with the Industry/ PSUs. Cleary, we need to do more homework. I

ndia’s trade deficit with China, at $63 billion, constitutes more than 40% of India’s total trade deficit. While we might boycott low-priced Chinese consumer goods, the capital goods sector presents a real challenge. We might, in an act of bravado, cancel certain deals in this sector. However, unless alternatives are in place, it is anybody’s guess who stands to lose.

The writer is an author and independent researcher based in New Delhi. The views expressed herein are his personal.

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Opinion

Maharashtra thriller is not the first of its kind, nor will it be the last

Published

on

Maybe it’s a good time to remember the celebrated playwright George Bernard Shaw’s words: “Any man who is not a communist at the age of 20 is a fool. Any man who is still a communist at 30 is an even bigger fool. We should have had socialism already, but for the socialists.”

Often when asked why he miserably failed in making his political fortune despite his high intellect and people connect, Bernard Shaw’s response used to be that “possessing knowledge” and “pursuing politics as a career” are oxymorons. He said, “He knows nothing; he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career”.

Like Samuel Johnson once said: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” He meant that every crime and every misbehavior was tolerated as long as the perpetrator screamed that he loved his country. On the other hand, if you questioned the behavior of the country or government, you were promptly dubbed a traitor, no matter how noble you were.”

In spirit of this discussion, Nation and State are to be treated interchangeably as a governance unit. Interesting to note the latest twist to the ongoing Maharashtra Political Thriller: Yes, you heard it right—Eknath Shinde becoming the Chief Minister of the state. While it almost came out of syllabus, in hindsight it looks politically not just expedient, even otherwise prudent given the political equation between major players active on the ground.

This move is expected to achieve more than just one objective and if some can be detailed: (i) BJP would go to the next election with an absolute clean slate; (ii) All issues internal to the Sena and BJP was not fishing in the troubled water; (iii) Aligned to the principle “eliminate the competition” is the best way to deal with the competition; (iv) Gels well with the critical factors relevant to so called caste politics—widely prevalent in the Indian context for all states.

But all said and done, as always, the country has been caught off guard when it comes to BJP’s strategic moves and hope those who underestimate the acumen of the political class in general would introspect.

The political drama is reminiscent of many past political events. Analysts would draw an analogy from the defection engineered in 1978 when Sharad Pawar pulled himself away from the ruling Congress legislative party to become chief minister. He was just 38 and had upstaged the incumbent, Vasantdada Patil. Of course, that was long before the anti-defection law kicked in in 1985 through the 52nd Amendment to the Constitution. It’s another matter that Indira Gandhi dismissed his government when he did not heed her call to merge with Congress (I).

Several such separation events have happened in different states as well. Nonetheless, the peculiarity embedded in the current instance is that the breakaway faction is in the majority, which puts it on a different footing in terms of legality in getting the party symbol. But such situations are likely to be eased out by the judiciary in supersonic speed and rightfully so to avoid a potential anarchy.

One other exciting aspect is the unfolding race to appropriate Bala Saheb’s name and legacy. This reminded me of 2000 when Naveen Patnaik formed the Biju Janata Dal carved out of the erstwhile Janata Dal, of which his father Biju Patnaik was part. The president of the state unit of Janata Dal then, Ashok Das, developed issues with Naveen Patnaik primarily around who has a higher right to Biju’s legacy apart from sharing party coffers. In fact, Ashok Das went to the election in 2000 by coining the below tag line with the hope of confusing the electorate that it’s he who represented Biju’s Bonafide political heir:

(Translation: We do not know who is from which party & whose symbol is what? The country knows we are the true heirs of Biju & our symbol is Chakra!) Of course, this emotive assertion did not cut ice with the electorate. Instead, Naveen Patnaik won in 2000 and has been in charge of governance since. That’s the power of inheritance and more significantly possessing the art of using it to one’s advantage to keep rivals away from the hot seat of power.

Recall what happened recently in the case of the LJP after the demise of its founder Ram Vilas Paswan. The brother and the son of the late leader, Chacha and Bhatija, split, and eventually, the majority group got the party symbol from the EC after a long-drawn process though. In short, the Maharashtra imbroglio is not the first of its kind, nor will it be the last. The fact is that every time such political drama unfolds, some new challenging aspects do emerge not just in terms of constitutionality, but even with political implications. In a way, this may signal some formidable message for the satraps of regional parties who often draw comfort of enjoying absolute control of the respective party.

The least that can be said is that Maharashtra, as the financial nerve center of India, deserves better, though the masala that emerges from such fiascos is entertaining in the short run.

Continue Reading

Opinion

BJP HERE TO STAY

Priya Sahgal

Published

on

At the BJP National Executive in Hyderabad, Home Minister Amit Shah made an interesting comment—that the way he sees it the BJP is here to stay for the next three decades. There is no breaking news in this statement for the way the Congress is going it is clear that there is no stopping the BJP. But at the same time it would be interesting to see what kind of a governance model the BJP has in plan for the next three years. Will he be able to promote India as a vishwa-guru? Will the BJP be able to end the politics of jaatiwad and parivarwaad?

Well Maharashtra seems a step in the right direction if the limited goal is to strike at dynasty politics. For the short term, Chief Minister Eknath Shinde has shown that there can be a Sena without the Thackerays—though we have to see how this plays out in the courts which will take into account the strength of Shiv Sainiks outside the House as well. But if Eknath Shinde (aided and abetted by the BJP) is able to wrest the party symbol from the Thackerays then that sends a very strong message to other political dynasties.

Already Akhilesh Yadav is feeling the heat. In the recent bypolls, the Samajwadi Party lost two Muslim dominated strongholds Azamgarh and Rampur to the BJP. Akhilesh’s silence on the hijab controversy during the recent assembly polls was noticed by the minority community. And now during the national executive Prime Minister Modi pointed out that they need to woo backwards amongst the Muslim community as well. Already the party leadership is divided between Akhilesh and his Uncle Shivpal Yadav. The young SP chief has a tough task ahead and he made the right decision when he gave up his Lok Sabha seat for the MLA one. He has to show he is serious about state politics. Then comes the curious and curiouser case of Rahul Gandhi, the dynast who doesn’t know what to do with his silver spoon. Should he shake it or stir it or exchange it! Party sources claim that the Congress is still not sure as to whether it would be holding its inner party polls in September as planned. Which means that Rahul’s elevation could get further delayed. Which means the confusion will further continue over the leadership issue. Well, on one side, there is a party that has the next three decades chalked out and, on the other side, is a party that is to come up with a definite plan for the next three months!

Continue Reading

Opinion

Team Modi should involve end stakeholders to push reforms

If PM Modi’s natural style is ‘just do it, and do it fast’, now the government needs to pay greater attention to change management to make the reforms more acceptable.

Published

on

In response to the Agnipath scheme, when people took to the streets, it seemed like a familiar sight. One more “good” reform scheme of the Narendra Modi government was being opposed vehemently by the masses. And this time, many noticed a trend in terms of repeat of protests against government schemes— demonetisation, CAA, farm laws and, now, the Agnipath scheme. Even genuine Modi supporters, in a way, felt the fatigue of “defeat” of one more Modi scheme in the durbar of the masses.

Interestingly, team Modi itself had not anticipated the kind of resistance that we have seen repeatedly. So why is it that Team Modi that seems to understand the voters’ mind fairly well when seeking votes fails to predict the pushback to their reforms from the masses? Why has this government failed in pushing through quite a few big reforms despite PM Modi’s popularity and his supposed positive intent? There are a few theories. The first theory is that PM Modi does not involve experts when forming policies. While this seemed true at the beginning of his tenure as PM, learning from the demonetisation “fiasco”, over a period of time, Modi has surely increased the level of consultation—at least the technical aspects, if not other aspects like change management required–with experts when designing big reform policies. GST was almost entirely designed and detailed by “experts”. The scrapping of Article 370 was thought through to the last level of details, including the push back and potential riots. The Agnipath scheme was evidently reviewed and detailed by the heads of Armed forces as mentioned by themselves in various forums.

The second theory is that the government isn’t communicating enough about their reform policies. This seems to be true to a fair extent. The government does make grand announcements and circulates information about the features and (supposed) benefits of their schemes on traditional and social media. But the problem is, people don’t get to hear what they want to hear in those communications. The communications aren’t convincingly conveying “what’s-in-it-for-me”, and, on the contrary, are giving rise to “why-it’s-not-for-me”, which the government has not been able to address. Generally, people of no country like sudden changes—more so Indian masses, a large section of whom are economically vulnerable and hovering around the poverty levels. In a zeal to announce “big transformative” changes, the government might actually be scaring the stakeholders who may not be prepared for reforms like open market competition (farmers, MSMEs) or short-term contractual arrangement (for army) rather than lifelong safe jobs. There are tactics on effective political messaging to push through reforms with relatively lesser resistance like those used in 1991 liberalization which the government might want to deploy.

The third theory is that the government is trying to do “too much too soon”. Team Modi seems to be in a hurry, which could arguably be a good thing, but the changes are probably appearing too suddenly and happening too fast for the people to keep pace with. If a relatively small reform like increasing FDI limit in the insurance sector took more than a decade, the present government aspires to push through big reforms like CAA and GST (from planning to launch to stabilisation) in 4-5 years. That also means that big reforms are not spaced out or phased adequately. The Agnipath scheme could have coexisted with regular recruitment for a few years before it completely replaced the regular recruitment to reduce the pain and fear among the young aspirants. Further, the government could have avoided launching the Agnipath scheme now when Army recruitment had been on hold for a few years due to Covid and lakhs of young aspirants were eagerly waiting for their dream jobs. Balancing speedy reforms with minimising pain of the stakeholders involves careful trade-offs which this government doesn’t seem to be making effectively.

The fourth theory is that this government isn’t seeking feedback from the beneficiaries. This, too, seems to be often true and probably the biggest of their shortcomings. If adequate inputs are taken from “beneficiaries” during the design stage and pilots are conducted, then policy related communications could be smarter and initiatives could be phased better. Be it GST, CAA or the farm laws, the government was caught off-guard for not knowing upfront what beneficiaries or stakeholders would actually want and how they would react.

The root cause of the above flaws in implementing big reforms could be PM Modi’s overconfidence or overenthusiasm or a combination both. Also, if PM Modi’s natural style is “Just do it, and do it fast”, he needs to learn from the experience of the last eight years and do more to alter his natural style with the goal to take the stakeholders along by being more empathetic and sensitive to their real and perceived needs. The government needs to pay greater attention to change management to make the reforms more acceptable. Nothing to take away the government’s efforts in pushing probably the maximum number of reforms and initiatives in India’s history within just eight years even in the challenging times of Covid pandemic and Ukraine conflict. The Modi government has initiated big reforms like Cooperative Banks Regulation Act, disbanding of Ordinance Board, privatisation of Air India, public listing of LIC, merger of PSU banks, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, scrapping ofArticle 370 and implementing GST. History shows that it is relatively easier to push through reforms relating to businesses and corporates compared to those relating to citizens and it is no different for the Modi government. It has faced maximum opposition and failures in reforms relating to farmers, labour laws, land laws, army recruitment and citizenship status of people of India. The Modi government has eight years to look back at, reflect upon, draw lessons from and get better at pushing through reforms successfully. For this, Team Modi needs to ensure greater involvement of end stakeholders when designing reforms, pay greater attention to managing change, have a more palliative communication strategy and phase the reforms better. India needs more reforms from this government and a little more effort towards this will do the trick.

Alpesh Patel is a tech entrepreneur and has been a management consultant with Big4. He is the author of the book ‘Chalta Hai India’ by Bloomsbury, India.

Team Modi seems to be in a hurry, which could arguably be a good thing, but the changes are probably appearing too suddenly and happening too fast for the people to keep pace with. If a relatively small reform like increasing FDI limit in the insurance sector took more than a decade, the present government aspires to push through big reforms like CAA and GST (from planning to launch to stabilisation) in 4-5 years. That also means that big reforms are not spaced out or phased adequately. The Agnipath scheme could have coexisted with regular recruitment for a few years before it completely replaced the regular recruitment to reduce the pain and fear among the young aspirants.

Continue Reading

Opinion

ALL LIVES MATTER, HINDU LIVES INCLUDED

Joyeeta Basu

Published

on

Just when one thought that western legacy media had already hit the nadir with its tendentious coverage of India and India’s majority community, in comes another report that is so mendacious in its interpretation of facts that it plumbs new depths of insensitivity and treads into the territory of religiophobia. We are talking about a new article from the famous—or infamous, seen from an Indian perspective—Time magazine, which has found the social media trend “Hindu Lives Matter” to be dangerous. The headline of the report written by a Kashmiri lady (according to her Twitter bio) blatantly says, “‘Hindu Lives Matter’ Emerges as Dangerous Slogan After Horrific Killing in India” (1 July 2022). It is as if the token use of “horrific” to describe the gruesome beheading of a Hindu tailor by two Islamist terrorists is enough lip service paid, and the main issue is the reaction to the incident on social media, inspired by the movement “Black Lives Matter”. Does one of the world’s best-known news weeklies realise that by publishing such a report it is essentially implying that the lives of people belonging to a particular religion—Hinduism—do not matter? That they could die like flies for all Time cared, as long as the mantle of victimhood stayed with a particular minority community in India. It is as if Hindu victimhood in the face of radical terrorism must be “cancelled”, as Time editors have pre-supposed that Hindus being in a majority in India are naturally oppressors. An Indian/Indian origin leftist commentator quoted in the article has this to say: “‘Hindu Lives Matter’ presumes those lives have been overlooked. Hindu lives have not been overlooked in a Hindu majoritarian state. This is a revisionist fabrication of history and the present.” This is a rather appalling and fabricated narrative where one community is the perpetual victim and another the oppressor, when in reality, India has had a history of conquest and subjugation of the majority community, and the resultant troubled inter-community relations. Even in the present, the situation is anything but black and white. There is nothing revisionist about a beheading on account of “blasphemy”. It is a reality. It happened, and no claims of victimhood by anyone can justify such an action. Instead of acknowledging this, the article normalises violence against Hindus. If this is not Hinduphobia, then what is? That one of the most well-known international news weeklies is providing a platform to such a phobia, and thus legitimising it, is extremely problematic.

In fact, it is the same Time that published another extremely problematic piece on the film, The Kashmir Files—The Kashmir Files: How a New Bollywood Film Marks India’s Further Descent Into Bigotry, 30 March 2022—where the Indian/Indian-origin author claimed the film to be a part of “Indian cinema’s revisionist trend, used to justify the brazen Hindu extremism of the present”. To say that a film on the suffering of Kashmiri Pandits is revisionist is itself a revisionist claim. Hence, one can argue that the trend is now for woke leftists to delegitimise all that India’s majority community has suffered as “revisionist history”.

In journalism, there is a practice of writing the headline before writing the story, where the story is tailored to fit the headline. The problem is that, in such cases, facts often get sacrificed at the altar of a pre-determined agenda or narrative. When it comes to western media’s coverage of India’s current government, and increasingly of the majority population—presumably because the western media sees them as supportive of the government—a template of bigotry and majoritarianism has been pre-decided. This confirmation bias has just to be fed by those who know how to do it, and are willing to do it. This antagonism of the western mainstream media could be because of actual ignorance or plain laziness to learn about the ground situation. It could be ideological, or may have elements of racism in it. It could also be inspired by forces inimical to India, who want to show this country as a cauldron of hatred and thus not a stable investment destination. It could be any of these reasons, or a combination of some or all of these, but the bottom line is that the demonisation of India sells with the western legacy media, resulting in a one-way street of negative coverage.

But the mistake these people make is not realising that India is too big a power to be felled by keyboard warriors. It may be dented, but not felled. It is just that it is sad to see institutions such as Time, instead of promoting “All Lives Matter”, should find “Hindu Lives Matter” to be a dangerous slogan. What a downfall.

Continue Reading

Opinion

No party can dislodge the BJP for 40 years

Union Minister Amit Shah’s statement that the BJP needs to stay in power for another 30-40 years for setting things right, should not be taken lightly. The BJP will use the time to end dynastic and caste politics, and the politics of appeasement.

Published

on

It is extremely difficult for political parties to challenge the BJP’s political hegemony unless they jettison their old ways and discover new methods to give vent to nationalist resurgence. Union Minister Amit Shah’s statement that the BJP needs to stay in power for another 30-40 years for setting things right should not be taken lightly.

The BJP will use the time to end dynastic politics, casteism and the politics of appeasement. Shah, while addressing the BJP’s national executive meeting in Hyderabad over the weekend, described these as the “greatest sins” and the reason behind the country’s suffering. The target of the party would be “fulfilment” and not appeasement as exhorted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The party’s national executive outlined the parameters of its ideological affront on opposition parties. The BJP’s focus is clearly going to be to expose these parties and push forward its agenda of development and good governance. In that sense, the BJP is trying to give a tectonic shift to Indian politics that sank to a new low due to caste or communal divide or dynastic rule.

A country where more than 65% voters fall in the category of youth, this agenda is going to find a strong resonance. A youth is supposed to be rebellious and opposed to caste and communal divide. He is also supposed to champion an open system where all avenues are open to him, including politics. He does not mind private individuals passing on their heritage to family, but is strongly opposed when public offices and political parties are passed on to individuals merely because of the links of birth.

This urge of the youths is likely to dismantle dynasty based parties and make the BJP more attractive to them. Politics is not a business that a father wants to pass on to his son or daughter. It is a vocation and a commitment and a means to achieve social, economic and political transformation. Newer people must get a chance to join this process and contribute meaningfully. An ordinary man can question why even foreign educated sons and daughters of these politicians want to join politics. Is it because it is more lucrative than being the CEO of an MNC?

There is a challenge to this from within the BJP as well. It is but natural for a father or a mother to try to pass on the baton to his son or daughter. The Prime Minister is trying to ensure that politics does not become a handmaiden of dynasties. There are occasions, as for example during ticket distribution for the Assembly seats in Uttar Pradesh, where he has put his foot down and taken the risk of alienating important leaders. The challenge in the coming days would be to institutionalise this process so that the party does not suffer due to aspirations of political families. Unless this is done, there is a real danger that in times to come most political representatives would belong to one or the other political families.

Ideological demolition of other parties would not be tough. The Congress is already on a war path due to its failure to respond to the challenges. It cannot even imagine making someone else from outside the dynasty as party president since the person who would become party president would control all Congress assets and would be all powerful. To find a person who would be loyal to the dynasty forever is extremely difficult.

The youth no longer finds the Congress attractive. Its appeasement politics and attempts to divide people to rule have few takers. It has not been able to give an alternative political vision that would be more attractive than that of the BJP. On the plank of nationalism and patriotism, the Congress would not be able to match the BJP. There are few in the Congress who can claim to understand the civilizational and cultural assets of the country.

Let us try to look at the politics of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. In Uttar Pradesh, every member of the extended family of Mulayam Singh Yadav is in politics, either at the local level or at the level of state legislature or Parliament. It has no ideology except to unite Yadavs and Muslims and a few other castes and somehow come to power. It does not have a national vision. Its other version, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) is suffering due to lack of a democratic structure. It tried caste coalition by asking Brahmins to support the party. Its future looks bleak.

In Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav who was a by-product of anti-Emergency movement had to wait for the anti-corruption movement of V.P. Singh to gain prominence. In the company of Singh, he discovered the virtue of becoming the leader of 52% of OBCs. He has used his plank of social awareness to reward each and every member of this family. His family is a classic example that those who fail in all other fields find acceptability in politics due to caste and family clout. The party would collapse due to vaulting ambition of Lalu’s children and failure to respect democratic values.

Jammu and Kashmir has been ruled by two families the Abdullahs and the Muftis. The young crops of politicians from the grassroots are now itching to give a fight to them. People are reaping the benefits of development and they have begun to think beyond these two families. In West Bengal, it is either Ms Mamata Banerji or her nephew. None outside the family would get the prominence. She is already mad at the ideological attack launched by the BJP and cannot think beyond the politics of appeasement. Her politics gets precedence over national security. How long she can hold on to the state as her citadel is the topic of discussion in West Bengal’s political circles.

Dynasty is thriving in politics of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana—the ruling YSR party in Andhra Pradesh and the TRS in Telangana. The challenger Telugu Desam Party is also a dynasty based party. People are realising the dangers of dynasty in politics and Telangana is going to face stiff challenge from the BJP at the next Assembly elections.

We have already seen the ugly face of dynasty politics in Maharashtra. Sharad Pawar of the NCP is busy sorting out the legacy issue. A person of his national stature has not been able to respond on national issues. The Shiv Sena led by Udhav Thackeray may have got the bitter pill of discovery that the followers are unhappy with dynasty politics. Because of his love for chair, he failed to respond to national issues as per the organization’s ideology.

In Tamil Nadu, the DMK is no longer a movement, but a legacy of M. Karunanidhi. His family thrives. The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha runs on legacy of Shibu Soren (Guruji). There is a vacuum for politics based on ideology and democratic values in both. In Odisha, Biju Janata Dal is doing well under 76-year-old Naveen Patnaik. He has been benevolent, non-controversial and people love him. But everyone wants to know how BJD would survive after he becomes inactive.

The BJP’s aspiration to expand to the South and make a strong mark in other states should be seen in this context. The aspirations are not for immediate realization, but building organizations brick by brick so that it is ready to take up the challenge when the time comes. The party works 24-hours and the entire election machinery is in full force whether it is local elections, state level elections or elections to the Lok Sabha.

Amit Shah often says that the BJP with its strong cadre presence should have no problem registering victory year after year. When you have a person like Narendra Modi whom people respect, this is not tough. With its ideology of good governance and a strong nation, the party is slated to get institutionalized as a natural party of being in government. The challenge as of now is none.

The Congress’ appeasement politics has few takers today. In Uttar Pradesh, every member of the extended family of Mulayam Singh Yadav is in politics, either at the local level or at the level of state legislature or Parliament. The future of the Bahujan Samaj Party looks bleak. In Bihar, Lalu Prasad Yadav’s family is a classic example that those who fail in all other fields find acceptability in politics due to caste and family clout. In Jammu and Kashmir, people have begun to think beyond the Abdullahs and Muftis. In Tamil Nadu, the DMK is no longer a movement, but a legacy of M. Karunanidhi. His family thrives. Dynasty is thriving in the politics of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana—the ruling YSR party in Andhra Pradesh and the TRS in Telangana. The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha runs on the legacy of Shibu Soren (Guruji). In Odisha, everyone wants to know how BJD would survive after Naveen Patnaik becomes inactive.

Continue Reading

Opinion

POLITICAL ACTIVISTS SHOULD STOP ATTACKING THE APEX COURT

Pankaj Vohra

Published

on

Soon after a Division Bench of the Supreme Court virtually indicted suspended BJP spokesperson, Nupur Sharma, for her remarks about the Prophet, right wing activists took to the social media to target the judiciary. This unfortunate attack on the Apex court and its two learned Judges, Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala was completely avoidable and in fact, lowers our belief in the rule of law. The honourable Judges had declined to entertain Nupur’s plea to club the FIRs registered against her in various parts of the country for her comments and observed that she had a “loose tongue’’, “is singlehandedly responsible for what is happening’’ and she should have apologised to the Nation. While the BJP did not take up the issue directly, many of its supporters took to twitter and other social media handles to question the Supreme Court. This is obviously a serious matter since the judiciary is an essential part of our democratic system and along with the Executive and the Legislature is assigned the role of upholding the Constitution. In a totally unrelated development, Chief Justice N.V.Ramana while speaking at a function in San Fransisco, accused politicians of trying to undermine the authority of the courts. He said that the ruling dispensation expects that every action should be endorsed by the courts. The judiciary is not bound by the dikats of any political party and is only responsible for upholding the Constitution. Strong words indeed. Senior Supreme Court lawyer, Kapil Sibal while speaking to a news agency stated that certain sections of the judiciary had let the people down and stated that after being on the bar for over 50 years, his head hangs in shame looking at the manner where certain courts turn a blind eye to gross violation of the rule of law. This fresh debate on the judiciary as long as it is done in the right spirit is fine but trolling judges for their comments, amounts to contempt of the majesty of our judicial system. Kapil has expressed his views in a particular context and so has the Chief Justice. But ordinary citizens may be entitled to their opinion, yet they should ensure that they do not exceed the Lakshman Rekha where the sanctity of the Highest Court gets compromised. Attempts to link Nupur Sharma’s remarks with what happened in Udaipur and Amrawati could be part of a natural reaction. However, it must be clearly understood that the terror act by the killers of Kanhaiya Lal is highly condemnable. Therefore, spokespersons and supporters of all parties must act in a responsible manner so as to contain this hatred which is being spread in our country by vested interests. The National Investigation Agency is probing the Udaipur incident and would certainly come out with its findings shortly. Such cases should be speedily tried in fast track courts to give exemplary punishment to the perpetrators so that others get this strong message. The independence of the judiciary must be preserved at all cost and no attempt should ever be made to undermined the authority and wisdom of the Courts. 

Continue Reading

Trending