26/11 ATTACK: MEDIA, AN UNWITTING PARTNER?

The anniversary of 26/11 attacks is approaching. I can safely presume that TV channels have already made elaborate plans to commemorate the first anniversary of what has been termed as India’s 9/11. Going by the past coverage of such events, one can guess more or less accurately how the coverage will pan out across channels on 26th Nov--- reporters giving lives all through the day from the Taj Hotel, Nariman Point and CST station- the targets of the attack - with stories reliving the horror ( a recap of how the attack was carried out) among other things.

While my heart goes out to all the victims and their families for perhaps the worst terror strike on Indian soil, I have reservations about how the media approaches such events.

Let’s not forget that any terror strike is also an exercise in publicity. A hostage crisis or hijack is said to be successful from the point of view of its perpetrators if it lingers for at least 36 hours as morning and evening editions of newspapers across the globe come out twice during that period and the event gets the optimal publicity.

The Mumbai attacks were televised live for three days - a huge success for its plotters. An extensive coverage on its first anniversary, reliving the horror, will only add to that. It’s a different matter that as the family members of the victims pay homage to their loved ones, the media should analyse and highlight whether lessons were learnt and the present level of security in such places which can be potential targets.

During the coverage of such events, media perhaps unwittingly falls into the trap as it ends up publicising them in a manner that also furthers the sinister designs of those who planned and executed them.

The non-stop live coverage of the 26/11 with a blow by blow account by the TV reporters had come under attack by security experts. Many felt it only helped the terrorists and their masters across the borders in Pakistan prolong the crisis.

It’s indeed debatable where the media should draw the line. But even in the race for TRPs, it’s important that sensible reporting takes precedence over any kind of reportage bordering on the sensational.

VOTER TURNOUT: THE URBAN ENIGMA

Many of my friends put a poser to me about the ‘lower than expected’ turnout of voters in Mumbai in the recent assembly polls in Maharashtra. Quite a few of them were shocked that on the crucial day of political choice, many members of the otherwise conscious 'civil society' went missing from the polling booths.

Mumbai is just a case in point. It’s true of all major cities. It has always been noticed that voter turnout is more in rural areas as compared to urban centres. But surely, it doesn’t reflect a lack of political consciousness.

In fact those in the urban areas are politically more vibrant. Reading newspapers, watching news channels and living room discussions on politics are all forms of political participation of a class that is seen as opinion-maker. There is hardly a living room in a city like Mumbai where politics of the day is not discussed or read about. Then there are the occasional rallies of the like seen after the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai. The question is why doesn’t it translate into attendance (more than what we see) in the polling booths?

Some would say these are double standards by members of the civil society. May be! But there is the other side of the argument too. To my mind, one main reason could be logistical. A substantial chunk of people in cities live in rented accommodation and move residences between elections. There names go missing from the electoral rolls or remain in the old colony that might be many kilometres away, a clear disincentive to vote. A large number of people also don’t bother to go the electoral office to get them registered again or get a new voter I-card with the changed address. Call it lethargy, but the process of getting a new voter I-card is indeed cumbersome for the busy professional.

It’s difficult to imagine somebody travelling from Boriveli to Vrar to cast his vote if he has changed residence since the last elections. In such cases, the temptation is to rather spend the polling day 'holiday' catching up with family and friends. The latest proposal to grant the poll holiday only to those who give proof of having cast their vote seems to be a good idea.

The next step is to think of ways to make the process of registration of name in the electoral list much more convenient for the busy professional or overworked daily wager. Also the cut-off date should be as close to the polling day as possible instead of what’s in vogue today.

The last stage in the evolution could be heralding in 'digital democracy' enabling people to vote from their PCs or laptops from the confines of their offices or living rooms. This would do away even with what many see as the hassle of standing in queue at the polling booth. The world is yet to see this as of now. But it can well be a workable idea in the land from where the world takes lessons in information technology.

Nandan Nilekani has been tasked with the unique national identification project. Perhaps, he can look beyond to make this a reality. That would be the real hallmark of the digital age that we boast of living in today.

ELECTION ANALYSIS IN INDIA: THE PITFALLS

Another round of elections are over- this time in three states- and we had the usual dose of analysis from experts after the results came out. Out of the three, focus was on Maharashtra, followed by Haryana and we heard the same old phrase of index of opposition unity, attributing the lack of it to Congress’ victory. Though it’s true, but I don’t subscribe to the application of the yardstick in the context of the party system in India.

Even for Haryana, at the risk of sounding like holding a flag for the Congress, I would still describe its performance as a victory over the political rivals in the state. Many of the experts across television news channels and in print compared the Congress’ performance in the Lok Sabha elections in the state with the showing in the assembly polls. The INLD which drew a blank in the parliamentary polls, bagged many more seats than projected in the assembly polls. Though the figures are true, I beg to differ in my analysis of the data. After all statistics can often be like a bikini that reveals everything but conceals the essentials.

In India, while analysing polls, we sometimes compare issues or data that shouldn't be compared. Take the case of Haryana first. In the Lok Sabha elections, it could be seen as a vote for/against the performance of the Manmohan Singh government. In the assembly elections, it was surely for/against the Bhupinder Singh Hooda government. That’s a big difference and is reflected in the results. So it may not be prudent to compare the two results- an outcome of voters applying two different yardsticks.

The snapping of ties between INLD and BJP was seen as the other reason for the Congress emerging as the single largest party in Haryana. It was described in terms of the index of opposition unity.

The same logic was applied to Maharashtra where Raj Thackeray’s MNS played the spoiler for the BJP-Shiv Sena combine as the Congress-NCP alliance came to power for the third time in a row. Raj Thackeray was even described as the ‘Man of the Match’ in the elections.

While it’s a fact that MNS was the party-pooper for Shiv Sena-BJP combine, I think an analysis of the poll results shouldn't overlook the multi-party system.

With a plethora of parties, the nature of democratic choice in the Indian polity-both at the Centre and in states- is different from the bipolar democracy of the US and Britain. The attempt to apply the ‘index of opposition unity’ logic only takes one away from the political reality on the ground and amounts to analysing the results in context of a non-existent bipolar system.

In a multi-party system, the single largest party should be seen as a political victor unlike in a two-party model where one of them is bound to cross the half-way mark.

Perhaps that’s the reason why crossing the half-way mark is always described as ‘absolute majority’ in India’s multi-party context and rarely as ‘simple majority’ though going by the political dictionary, both mean the same.

INDIA: A CENTRIST STATE

It has been nearly two months since I wrote on the BJP's existential dilemma (posted on Aug 18, '09) soon after Jaswant Singh's controversial book on Mohammad Ali Jinnah hit the stands. The party has since expelled the veteran leader. I had attributed the BJP's current state of decline to not only a succession battle among the second-rung leaders as they stare at the post Vajpayee-Advani era but its very ideological foundation of Hindutva. I had argued that any brand of exclusivist politics is bound to fail to garner a pan-Indian appeal as the country's political space and culture is inherently centrist in nature. It can tolerate a marginal deviation from the centre on either side but not beyond. Appealing to communal sentiments (be it religious or linguistic) can get some limited temporary electoral gains, but will never broaden any party's base.
Keeping this in mind, I had done my own tabletop projections for the Lok Sabha polls much before the first vote was cast and it was not a surprise that I was close to the final outcome.
A couple of weeks back, it was heartening to read an article by Lloyd Rudolf and Susanne Rudolf in The Economic and Political Weekly in reply to Zoya Hassan's review of their latest book- 'Explaining Indian Democracy'. Rudolf and Rudolf, whose 1987 book 'In Pursuit of Lakshmi' analysed the nature of the Indian state, have taken the thesis a bit forward in their latest book and concluded that Indian state is centrist in nature while explaining the BJP's conclusive defeat in the 2009 parliamentary polls. In fact, looking beyond politics, they argue that the Indian economy is also centrist in nature despite the heavy dose of liberalisation that has unfolded since 1991. The only difference is that from a command and control (Licence Raj) economy, we have moved to a regulated economy rather than going to the extreme of embracing 'free market' (free for all) like the US. This, perhaps, helped India remain substantially insulated from the trend of collapsing financial institutions and absorb the global meltdown better.
The decline of the Congress in the last two decades had much less to do with the apparent expansion of the BJP, but more to the rise of forces like Mayawati, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Lalu Prasad. Together these parties managed to corner the support of the minorities, backward castes and Dalits, wiping off the Congress from UP and Bihar which account for a substantial chunk of parliamentary seats. Verdict 2009 witnessed signs of Congress revival in these two crucial states in the Hindi heartland. Rahul Gandhi's periodic visits to Dalit families in UP seems to be part of a long-term grand strategy of India's grand old party.
What applies to the BJP also applies to the Left. The sooner the comrades realise and move towards a 'New Left' philosophy (not going too far to the left of the centre), the better it will be for their political future. Interacting with a few comrades weeks after the announcement of the parliamentary results, I was surprised that most claimed that the people had committed a mistake instead of analysing where the Left parties faltered.
Like the BJP, the Left parties also seem to be in a denial mode. Both have failed to analyse the mindset of the rising middle class. This aspirational class, even at the lowest levels, is not bothered anymore about the Ram Temple or aggressive trade unionism. For a vast majority, trade unions have outlived their utility as the battle for minimum wages is long over and in the face of huge opportunities in the private sector and for self-employment.
In a few days, we will know the verdict of the people in three states of which the focus is on Maharashtra and Haryana. In Maharashtra, the Thackerays, particularly Raj Thackeray, pandered to the anachronistc regional sentiments (Marathi pride), perhaps forgetting that the migrants' votes tilted the scales against the Shiv Sena and in favour of the Congress-NCP combine in the last elections. This time, it could be worse with the Thackeray family split in the middle.
One more word about the nature of politics in Maharashtra. Unike elsewhere, political leaders at the local level in the state are far more powerful, courtesy the cooperative movement (sugar coopertives etc) that gives them a personal clout, reducing their dependence on the party. That explains why Maharashtra gets maximum number of rebels across parties as contestants. Local leaders don't shy away from defying the party when denied ticket. In a state where 145 is the magic number, more than 115 rebels this time are said to have the potential to have a bearing on the poll outcome in their constituencies.
In less than two weeks, we will know the verdict. It will be interesting to know what the people of the one of the high-growth states in the Indian Union have voted for.

CRISIS OF CONSENSUS

Posting an old blog .... (January 28, 2009)

As the Indian Republic enters the 60th year, it’s perhaps time to take stock of what ails our polity. And the answer could well be- a crisis of consensus.
Nation-building is a continuous process and requires a consensus among those in power and those in waiting. But sadly, this has rarely been seen in India, preventing the country from realising its actual potential.
Opposition for the sake of opposition negates its very role in a vibrant democracy. It’s indeed an irony that within a modern political system that gives a level playing field to all, our leaders lack the maturity and look at national issues though the prism of partisan politics and electoral compulsions rather than judging them on merit.
Let’s take a couple of examples. Over several years, each terror strike has led to a raging debate on measures to tackle the menace. But instead of sitting together to put up a united front against terror, leaders have always indulged in political blame game.
The outcry of citizens against the entire political class after the Mumbai terror attacks, was perhaps long overdue. In that sense, many thought the Mumbai attacks and the protests thereafter could be an eye-opener for the political leaders.
But that was not to be! The all-party meet convened by the UPA government was given a miss by BJP’s prime ministerial candidate L K Advani and party president Rajnath Singh. This was surprising considering that the main opposition party had been demanding anti-terror laws, accusing the UPA of being soft on terror.
Finally, Parliament passed the bills setting up a National Investigation Agency and approving amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. But soon political discord was visible at conference of the chief ministers on terror. As expected, differences cropped up with BJP-ruled states voicing reservations against NIA, saying it dilutes the federal character of the polity.
In short, a consensus on anti-terror measures still eludes us as a nation and it is unlikely that it can ever be achieved.
The next best example is perhaps the Indo-US nuclear deal. The debate on it had more to do with partisan politics rather than the merits or demerits of the deal.
Parties opposed to the deal – ironically from both extremes of the political spectrum (the BJP and Left) – found new ammunition when days before India finally secured the NSG waiver, the US media leaked some communication from the US Congress to the State Department. It said how the communication was kept under wraps to shield Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from political opposition back home.
Both the BJP and the Left parties latched on to it, accusing Manmohan Singh of lying to the nation and calling for a privilege motion against the prime minister in Parliament. It was the same story earlier before the draft of the nuclear deal was cleared by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The main bone of contention is the ‘testing’ clause and fuel supply guarantees and Singh was, time and again, blamed of lying in Parliament on the issue.
On his part, Singh had made it clear in Parliament that India retains the sovereign right to test. The fact that consequences will follow if India were to test including sanctions and perhaps the death of the deal are too obvious. Deal or no deal, the consequences for testing would be the same for India. After all New Delhi had been facing the technology denial regime since the first explosion in Pokhran in 1974.
A day after the NSG waiver, Brajesh Mishra, National Security Advisor in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, said as much, something diametrically opposed to the BJP’s stand.
If not anything else, the BJP should have taken half credit for the deal. The deal’s foundation was, in fact, laid during the Vajpayee regime when the then External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh held marathon talks with Strobe Talbott after the heat of Pokhran-II subsided. The BJP’s subsequent opposition to the deal stemmed more from its current political space that it occupies rather than any sound rationale.
As regards the Left parties, their opposition to the deal was perceived to be rooted in ideology-unable to see India as a strategic ally of the US- rather than the deal per se.
Whether the deal is good or bad for the country is debatable. But unfortunately, the political debate on it could not come out of the fold of party politics.
As India aspires to play an increasingly important role on the global stage, it’s imperative that parties shed their narrow political agenda and think in terms of a national agenda that cuts across party lines.
By retaining Defence Secretary Robert Gates, Barack Obama has shown the way that in the ultimate analysis party politics should be subservient to national interest. We need to emulate that model to take the country to the next level – the high table of global leadership.

BJP’S EXISTENTIAL DILEMMA

I haven’t read Jaswant Singh’s book on Mohammad Ali Jinnah, but it reminds us of the controversy generated by L K Advani’s words of praise for the founder of Pakistan a few years back. Only this time, the BJP leadership is completely silent while Advani was forced by the RSS to quit as party president after having come under attack from his own party colleagues.
First Advani and now Jaswant Singh. Is it all an attempt to project a moderate image, realising the pitfalls of exclusivist politics? All this brings forth a larger question- Has Hinduta become the BJP’s existential dilemma?
The results of successive parliamentary polls have proved beyond doubt that the BJP cannot come to power on its own on the steam of Hindutva that it followed in the last nearly three decades since its inception. Even at the height of the Ram Temple movement, its tally fell far short of 200, something the Congress achieved without any perceived wave in the 2009 elections.
Sitting within the confines of the newsroom in the run-up to the polls earlier this year, I always told my colleagues reporting politics that the BJP had no chance and that the Congress will have a distinctive edge. Even two days before the exit poll results were made public, in response to an SMS query from a friend and former colleague, I had put my entire money on the Congress forming the government at the Centre. In fact, I had also told our psephologist to revise the UPA’s tally to more than 200, far in excess of the projected 155. Finally, it turned out that the Congress alone crossed 200 seats.
No boast here. The writing was clearly on the wall and one needed no expert advice or ground data to guess the broad poll outcome. It’s true regional or state-level alliances do have a bearing on poll results. But let’s not forget, the major chunk of the Indian political space has no place for the Right or Left. By nature, Indian political culture is centrist, something for which the Congress is still considered the best bet as a coalition by itself. This year, added to this was Manmohan Singh’s credentials at a time of economic crisis besides the lingering memory of Sonia Gandhi’s renunciation after the polls in 2004.
As the BJP leadership went into introspection, Hindutva was the major issue of debate. While the RSS attributed the defeat to dilution of Hindutva, some BJP leaders openly admitted that it pulled the party down when it came to competing for a pan-India appeal.
In a few days, the BJP holds its ‘Chintan Baithak’, a stock-taking exercise. Its leaders will do well to realise the futility of holding on to Hindutva. Bulk of the population, whether in urban areas or the rural hinterland, expects the political leadership to come up with a blueprint of economic opportunities rather than a Ram Temple at Ayodhya. The sooner the BJP and Sangh Parivar realise it the better for the party. Or else, we could well be looking at the return of the era of one-party dominance which in the decades immediately after independence came to be known as the ‘Congress System’.

SHARM-AL-SHEIKH AND INDIAN DIPLOMACY

There has been much hue and cry over the Indo-Pak Joint Statement issued after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Gilani at Sharm al Sheikh in Egypt. The opposition came from across the political spectrum including the ruling Congress.

After a heated debate in Parliament, the prime minister did try to explain his and the government’s stand with his much publicised ‘trust but verify’ line, taking a leaf from former US President Ronald Reagan. But the controversy refuses to die down. The criticism has been mainly on two grounds- delinking bilateral talks from terror and the mention of Balochistan where a separatist movement has been raging for quite some time now. Islamabad accuses New Delhi of stoking the fire in Balochistan.

But critics of Sharm el Sheikh document are, perhaps, missing the fine print.
While it was important for New Delhi to suspend bilateral dialogue in the wake of the November, 2008 Mumbai attack to put pressure on Pakistan to act against perpetrators, but it shouldn’t be seen as the stand taken to continue in perpetuity.

For two nuclear neighbours who cannot go to war, the only option is to engage in dialogue and in senses more than one, Manmohan Singh’s step to resume talks doesn’t deserve the criticism it has invited from all over.

Also the mention of Balochistan by itself doesn’t necessarily give Islamabad a handle against New Delhi. If India has nothing to hide, the mention of the so-called ‘B’ word in the joint statement doesn’t mean much as it is being made out to be. In fact, it only reflects India’s openness in contrast to Pakistan’s doublespeak.

One shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that it’s Pakistan which wants to change the status quo with regard to various issues with India. Islamabad is at liberty to come up with radical formulations on various issues including Kashmir, which was particularly evident during Pervez Musharraf’s rule.

On the face of it, all this makes Pakistan’s diplomacy sound much more aggressive. But it’s a greater challenge for Indian foreign policy makers to stick, by and large, to the stated position while trying to make forward movement. India’s caution shouldn’t prevent it from making slight changes within the overall stated position to make incremental progress in bilateral talks.

The most important part is dialogue without which it’s difficult to make any progress. It becomes all the more important if the two nations are neighbours with bilateral ties permeated by an element of trust deficit.

Good diplomacy is all about dialogue management rather than avoiding it and Sharm-al Sheikh should be seen in that light.