For team Rahul, it's good politics..... Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/ May 19, 2013

For team Rahul, it’s good politics that will yield rich dividends for poor Indians

The days of good economics are over. For the Congress and the Gandhis, the flavour of the season simply seems to be good politics. After enjoying power for nine years, the Congress High Command has come to the conclusion that the so-called good economics pursued vigorously by the world’s oldest Prime Minister, 81-year-old Manmohan Singh, and his extreme Right wing ministers has made Corporate India only richer and more powerful. Now is the time to devise good politics, which would yield handsome political dividends. After all, the very survival of the Gandhi scion Rahul is so linked to the number of seats the Congress wins in 2014. The party and the Family do not expect a majority. But it is the nation’s First Family which has a much higher stake in politics than most Central ministers in their late 70s. The nine-year-old Laxman Rekha between government and party is becoming blurred with the new Congress leadership dictating the colour and content of governance—directly and indirectly.

Ever since Rahul was anointed the party’s Vice-President and the chief of Congress election strategy, he and his four pillars of wisdom—general secretaries Digvijaya Singh, Janardan Dwivedi, Jairam Ramesh and Ahmed Patel—have been holding long meetings not only to shortlist potential Lok Sabha candidates but also to draft legislative and administrative measures which would bring votes and allies. They meet almost every Saturday sans aides, but with a gamut of gizmos and laptops at Rahul’s official residence at 12, Tughlak Lane. IIT-ian Ramesh, known more for his tech-savvy control over the keyboard than for handling key political issues, provides numerical and qualitative data on economic and social indicators. The troika of Patel, Diggy and Dwivedi add political value to information. Contrary to general perception that government policies and responses are being influenced by NGO-dominated National Advisory Council, it is Group Rahul that is calling the shots with the full knowledge and support of the Congress president. Though the group has left it to the PM to promote economic reforms and dispatch articulate ministers on global tours to promote the UPA’s market-friendly policies and environment, it has been left to the new combination of young ministers and old loyalists to sell Rahul as the messiah of social empowerment.

While over 100 bills are pending for discussion and approval in Parliament, Rahul and team are concerned only with those bills which will get them votes from Bharat, and not laudatory editorials from pink dailies and international rating agencies. There seems to be a clear mission in their method. They have devised legislative and political packages for every section of society encompassing the rural, poor, agricultural labour, minorities, women, widows, slum dwellers, artisans and even vendors. Bestowing legislative legitimacy to UID is primary for the Congress. Sonia and Rahul are pushing for the Food Security Bill; setting up fast-track courts to try cases involving Muslim youth; granting minority status to Jamia Milia University; making more Muslim families eligible for subsidised loan from banks by increasing the income criteria to define BPL levels. For example, the duo goaded Ajay Maken, Union Minister for Housing and Poverty Alleviation, to pilot a legislation to bring urban street vendors into a formal sector. International statistics reveal that about 2.5 per cent of the urban population earn its living as  vendors. India’s urban population is around 377 million. The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood) Bill, which was cleared recently by the Cabinet, makes it mandatory for all states to provide licences to about 10 million street vendors in all cities to do business without harassment from the police and authorities. In Delhi alone, four lakh vendors will get the advantage. With one stroke, the Congress will become the darling of five crore urban Indians, a section it feels is the most affected by corruption at the lower levels. Rahul is also pushing for another legislation, which will give interest-free loans to poor urban women through self-help groups. The women will use this amount to finance petty businesses run by their husbands.

Rahul is not depending on the government to win. His team has fixed a target of winning more than 175 seats so that it can attract more allies. Since it’s reconciled to the huge losses it could suffer in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, West Bengal and Rajasthan, Team Rahul has undertaken a vigorous check on all future candidates. Over 600 observers have visited all constituencies. Barring peer pressure and emotional compulsions, all those who lost the election twice will be denied tickets. Those whose margin of victory has been declining will also face the axe. Those who have been charge-sheeted will not be even considered. For Rahul, winnnability and not connectivity will be the essential qualification to get a Congress nomination. States like Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have been chosen as hunting grounds to win more seats through this experiment with new social engineering. Rahul’s sleuths have already gathered data of over 1,000 potential candidates with the help of faithful aides and government agencies. The Congress hopes to finalise the names of over 300 candidates by August and will intimate each individually. The Rahul-led Congress is rearing to go, not with any coloured ideological weaponry but with a brigade of new faces, which will reflect the united colours of both Bharat and India. Having been let down by his own party in his much-hyped forays into Bihar, Gujarat and UP, Rahul’s new experiment with the heat and dust of India’s political sand dunes has just begun.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me  on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Teekhi Baat with Lalit Modi /

'Where were the anti-corruption units of ICC and BCCI?

Former Indian Premier League commissioner Lalit Modi tells that IPL, BCCI, ICC and world cricket are run from Chennai and nowhere else in Teekhi Baat on IBN7. Excerpts.

With international-level players like Sreesanth getting caught in spot fixing, don’t you thing that the IPL plant that you planted is drying up, almost to death?

This incident is very serious for cricket and a black spot on the game. When we used to run IPL, we were very careful of such things. We had a zero tolerance policy towards the fixing issue. I feel saddened after the revelations made by the Delhi Police in spot fixing scandal.

You were founder commissioner of IPL. One year ago, five players were under the scanner for fixing. When you set up the system of buying players in auction, didn’t you have a screening process to select the right ones?

We had thought that all players should have good income. Hence, we chose the auction method. The players are earning good money, but if somebody’s intentions are bad, how can that be known? That can only be known if you keep on investigating continuously. Create a situation where bookmakers can’t come in association with them and influence them.

The action was taken by the police. Where was IPL’s internal mechanism? Don’t you think that members and administrations should have kept check on such things? But they didn’t.

We had anticipated, and hence I was pressurised on this issue. There were life attempts on me because of my stance on the issue. Today, I cannot tell you what’s happening. But when I was there (as IPL commissioner), we had a zero tolerance policy and we used to check day and night that any match should not be fixed or any player should not be involved in such issues. We had made a foolproof system. It is saddening that the police had to do this operation. Where are the anti-corruption units of the ICC and BCCI? How didn’t they come to know when these things were going on for a month?

N Srinivasan has said that they have zero tolerance for such issues; everybody, including Rajiv Shukla said the same. To what extent has brand IPL been affected due to this incident?

It has been affected badly. Srinivasan saab said they have zero tolerance; then I want to ask him and the ICC, was he sleeping till now? For one month, police were investigating.

Mumbai Police had said that you had threats from Dawood Ibrahim’s gang. Did Dawood pressurise you to fix matches? Even today there is a talk that Dawood’s people are involved in match fixing.

They did not pressurise me; they wanted to gun me down. If they were able to pressurise me, why would they attempt to kill me?

Did you get support in curbing this (fixing) from BCCI?

No.

Did others in IPL support you?

No.

You are founder of IPL, who is responsible according to you and what should happen?

This is just a bubble; there is more to it than meets the eye. One should look into this seriously; the agencies have to look into this very seriously.

You were full-time IPL commissioner; you didn’t do any other work. Today we don’t have a full-time IPL commissioner, because the incumbent, Rajiv Shuklaji, is a minister. Do you think this has resulted in weak administration?

Today, IPL, BCCI, ICC and world cricket are run from Chennai and nowhere else. All people are associated with Chennai-based N Srinivasan and nobody else has a say. There is a big conflict here. I don’t want to keep harping on Mr Srinivasan, but that is a fact.

These days, media is blamed by politicians. Even you are doing the same, but tell me, what is the problem in IPL today—Srinivasan, politicians, Rajiv Shuklaji, or anybody else? Who is the villain in this whole thing today?

These days, Rajiv Shuklaji is only a puppet of Mr N Srinivasan. Whether you say yes or no, I am telling you clearly.

South Block Watch .... /The Sunday Standard/May 12, 2013

Mind the Language

In the armoury of diplomacy, language and selection of words have pride of place. Over centuries, diplomatic engagement has come to mean delivery of messages couched in dignified courtesies—in a way the intended recipient understands its spirit and purpose. Diplomats over the world are taught to disarm counterparts with warm hugs and pleasant words. Moreover, the colour of the message is dictated by the level and venue of the dialogue to avoid damage to the relationship. Explanations, strong or frivolous, are handed out only in exceptional situations. Hence, South Block mandarins were left scratching their heads about the source who advised various MEA officials and even the PM to explain away the Chinese incursions as a “localised issue” and “acne” which could be cured by the ointment of dialogue. Foreign diplomats handed the briefing were aghast at India’s attempt to trivialise such a border violation. While the defence establishment favoured a strong rebuff, the invisible adviser counselled the government to show restraint and offer an apologetic justification for the amicable resolution to the standoff. Those who manage foreign policy made sure that pliable opinion-makers accepted their formulations that a solution could be found only after giving a face-saving exit route to the Chinese. The first briefing made it seem China had dismantled its five tents after India decided to remove its posts from the other side. Though a vague clarification followed, the damage was done. A five-decade-old convention of following the Line of Perception was broken and India accepted the revised border management mechanism it was opposing. India indirectly accepted that it was equally responsible for morning walk incursions as the Chinese. How and why India’s wise diplomats sorted out the standoff is another story.

Security Hazards

Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s decision to set up a National Security Council (NSC) and National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) after the Kargil war was well thought out. The NDA government found that various defence establishments and foreign policy wonks were not on the same page on operational issues. The NSC was expected to offer the political leadership sound sectoral and strategic advice backed by professional and technical inputs. Vajpayee instructed his National Security Adviser to pick the best brains from defence, diplomacy and academia to collate information and provide a comprehensive assessment of the security scenario. But of late, the NSC has been packed with individuals who have personal interests to protect and have hardly made any contribution to formulating policies. After the China fiasco, the Congress leadership advised the Prime Minister to review the NSC’s composition and get rid of globetrotting members who are using the body to promote personal agendas. The leadership is particularly livid with some members writing signed articles in the media. Nothing is more comical than an NSAB member outlining options available on dealing with the recent border standoff with China in a newspaper article. While it is entirely the government’s prerogative to determine who should be appointed as a member of NSAB or its sub-committees, those concerned with the vanishing credibility and effectiveness of India’s strategic policies feel a review is needed to define the desired qualifications and work experience of NSAB members and, most importantly, safeguards to ensure that the system is insulated from undesirable elements.

Top Secret.com

The UPA government takes pride in hawking its tech-savvy image. Most of its departments are active on the official website, providing details about officials and decisions. But the NSAB is an exception. Even after spending hours, one is unable to locate or glean even basic information about the board’s composition, its sub-committees and such elementary information on how many times in a year do these bodies meet. Neither the PMO’s nor the NSAB’s website are of help. A telephone call to a senior functionary elicited sweet words but no information. The only explanation could be that it allows NSAB members to use their visiting cards to peddle themselves as spin doctors for the government in the media and at international forums. For instance, a recent incumbent who has just retired did not have even a nodding acquaintance with strategic issues, let alone any hardcore experience. Some credible officers like Vijay Nambiar were packed off prematurely to the UN. Another officer, Satish Chandra, was denied an extension. Yet another diplomat, Alok Prasad, who reportedly did not get along with the NSA, was dispatched as ambassador to Japan. Some ministers have already demanded full disclosures about the qualifications of various NSAB members and asked the PMO to direct all those who write for the media or appear on TV to either resign or disclose their relationship with the NSAB.

Retire Unhurt

The government’s decision to give yet another term in office to N N Vohra, Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, was widely viewed as appropriate and in the best interest of the state. The decision, however, dampened the hopes of several other aspirants—including a few in the PMO, along with the Deputy National Security Adviser. They were expecting any one of them to go to J&K so that others could move up the ladder. But they haven’t lost hope of extension. Deputy NSA Latha Reddy may move on to higher responsibilities, clearing the way for any of the other retiring Foreign Office mandarins. Among those in the running are serving secretary Sudhir Vyas, recently retired Ambassador to Paris, Rakesh Sood, and some others. Going by past experience, the primary qualification for the post would be—like the Foreign Secretary—a high level of ideological compatibility, functional comfort and acceptability to those who call the shots on security and diplomatic matters. Watch this space.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Teekhi Baat with Digvijay Singh /IBN7 May 11, 2013

No question of early polls, says Digvijay Singh

Congress general secretary Digvijay Singh says he will continue to defend the indefensible, in an interview on IBN7’s Teekhi Baat.

Excerpts:

Two ministers have gone. Will this government run in the same manner that it has? Will ministers come and go.

The Congress has not spared anybody. Be it allies, our ministers, chief ministers, big officers or officers of big corporates.

But you remove them only when the public pressure mounts. For one week you defended Ashwani Kumar and Pawan Bansal.

Regarding Ashwani,  I’ve said the prosecution decides on the CBI’s lawyer.

But the CBI is not under the law ministry, it is answerable to the DoPT.

Has the law minister asked the CBI to implicate some falsely and spare somebody? Only if that is the case, can it be called an ‘intervention’.

Then why was he removed?

Though there is a provision (for the CBI to consult the law ministry), the leadership did not approve of what he did. I respect the Supreme Court very much, but the kind of off- the-cuff observations they make...are they right? If they want to write, issue an order, which we can appeal against.

But the director has endorsed the remarks. 

The CBI is also accountable to someone.

You’ll agree that the Supreme Court has more credibility than the political leadership.

I’m not talking about credibility. Who is the Supreme Court answerable to? To the constitution. Can Supreme Court make law? Didn’t Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan say on record that Supreme Court judges are corrupt.

He spoke about retired ones.

They have said about sitting judges. If this had been said by a politician, he would have been facing a contempt of court case.

Your two ministers were removed after SC comments. They could have been removed earlier.

Bansal’s case is not in the Supreme Court. Even today I say no quid-pro-quo on Bansal’s part has been proved.

He said he had offered to resign a week ago. Why didn’t you take the moral high ground?

This decision is taken by the High Command. Whom to keep and whom not is the Prime Minister’s call.

Is it Sonaiji’s right

No, it is not even Soniaji’s right.

I don’t want to go into the details. But when there is no prime facie CBI case against Bansal or Ashwani, couldn’t you have kept them?

It is clear. All these decisions are taken by the Prime Minister.

Doesn’t Soniaji have a say?

I don’t want to get into this discussion.

It has been written in newspapers that Soniaji didn’t want Bansal or Ashwani as ministers. Even then the PM made them ministers. She made a request, but the PM did not want to remove them. Finally she persisted, which means something is going on.

Your sources are better than mine.

Now with Ashwani’s resignation, the BJP will demand that the PM should resign.

Does the CBI has any evidence linking the PM or ministers to any quid pro quo?

But you are not answering why you removed him if he did not do anything.

His was a technical mistake. Maybe that is why he was removed.

But the presence of Joint Secretaries of the PMO was also a technical mistake. You say the PM had no knowledge of it.

Is there any written order by the PM that the Joint Secretaries should go.

The government is not functioning. Many bills are pending. No constitution amendment could be brought. Even the Food Bill could not get through.

Won’t you ask this question to Sushma Swaraj?

Certainly. The BJP had said if Bansal resigned, the House would function.

They had the condition that the PM should resign.

Don’t you feel the government should go for elections earlier when the House is not able to function.

Even when we had 450 members, the Opposition didn’t let the House function.

After which you lost.

The ruling party and the opposition party have equal responsibility to ensure that Parliament functions.

So you won’t call for early elections.

It’s clear when the term is till May 2014.

You are known as a political guru, but Rahul Gandhi said A K Antony is his political guru.

Antony became Chief Minister in 1977. I was then an MLA.

Age difference would be four or five years.

I have one-fourth experience of what Antonyji has. I will not contest Vidhan Sabha elections and will not be in state politics again.

You will always be defending the indefensible at the centre.

I will do what the party orders me to.

Thank you for coming to our studio.

   Thank you very much!

Teekhi Baat with Manish Tewari / IBN 7 May 04, 2013

"The Congress will get the people’s mandate in Karnataka", says Union minister and Congress leader Manish Tewari.

Excerpts:

Don’t you think the government is in danger from all sides?

If you would have asked me this question after the Karnataka election results, then you would have got the answer yourself. From the past nine years, we have given a stable government to the country. And if you evaluate any government on political stability, communal harmony, internal security, economic development, foreign policy, our government has delivered.

Ashwani Kumar, Bansalji or Sajjan, Congress is in trouble due to Punjabis. Has Punjab become a liability?

The test of perception is when people take a decision. And it will be revealed on May 8, when Karnataka’s Assembly results are declared.

In Uttarakhand, you lost all local elections, which means the issue of perception is there.

The local municipality and zilla parishad elections are contested on different issues.

In Karnataka they are not voting to choose the Prime Minister.

When BJP loses an election, they say they lost due to local issues. If they win, they said it happened due to national issue.

There are so many people who come from Pakistan and make money here. Did anybody speak in favour of India when heads of Indian soldiers were chopped off?

I want to ask you, Sarabjit Singhji was arrested in 1990. In 1998 the NDA government was formed, when Vajpayeesaab started bus service to Lahore, was the issue of Sarabjit Singh on the agenda? In 2001when Musharaff saab came to Agra?

Vajpayee government took small steps like stopping their air lines and use of air space, stopped visa. You too did that for two days.

The same government provided guest-like treatment to terrorists and transported them to Kandahar.

He took some measures.

The whole defence forces of India were mobilised for operation Parakram, and then without making a noise, they were withdrawn. NDA has done a huge loss of India’s coercive diplomacy.

You want people to come 19 km inside out territory, people to behead our soldiers? How long shall you the parties politicise this issue?

On China, there is a Line of Actual Control, along with which there is a perception line, which we and China consider as the border. And many times, we go to our perception line and they come till their perception line.

You feel there is no need for military action for Pakistan and China?

It is not in any country’s interest that a war breaks out.

Elections are slated in 2014. Ashwani Kumar and Pawan Bansal have had a clean record. For the first time they have faced allegations. Don’t you feel somebody should sacrifice to save the party’s image?

As far as 2014 elections in Punjab are concerned, Congress seats would increase due to problem of Akali Dal and BJP.

Do you feel that your party will form government in Karnataka?

In Karnataka people will give us a stable mandate.

But where do you have leaders in Karnataka?

There is Moily saab, Krishna saab, Rammiah, Mallikarjun Kharge, Oscar Fernandes...

If you don’t get majority there, who would you hold responsible? In UP you lost under Rahulji

The Congress leadership and took responsibility in Uttar Pradesh for debacle. In Karnataka, Congress will get majority.

Political Pilgrims .... Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/ May 5, 2013

Political pilgrims rarely understand the agony of those who actually vote

Elections don’t decide the fate of politicians alone.  Nowadays, electoral verdicts too define or demolish the image of many self-appointed political astrologers, number-crunchers, opinion-makers, spin doctors and even master strategists of various political parties. Such a fate awaits many of them as the Karnataka Assembly election results are expected on Wednesday.

Of course, the flavour of the month seems to be the Congress party. Since opinions are disseminated as news, and real news as mere speculation, Karnataka is going to be a real test case for the media and scores of byte smiths-turned-TVrattis of every colour and conviction. Karnataka will either explode or reinforce the general belief that now it is leaders, and not parties, who win elections in the states. Karnataka is perhaps the only state in which the battle is between individuals and a faceless national party. Unlike many other states which went to the polls recently, Karnataka’s voters will have to choose between two national and two regional parties. 

If we go by the opinion polls, the odds are heavily stacked against both the BJP and Janata Dal(S) led by former prime minister H D Deve Gowda and his son, former chief minister H D Kumaraswamy. The opinion that both are doomed has been further strengthened by anecdotes from political pilgrims on seasonal visits to the state. Such pilgrimages to election-bound states have always been aimed at finding space for a brahminical order dominated by the Congress culture. In UP last year, armed with opinion polls or ground reports, the soothsayers were pushing the idea of a Congress-supported SP-led government. In the end, Samajwadi Party won an absolute majority, with the Congress barely in fourth position. 

Since these political augurs hardly understand the local language or the agony of those who actually vote, they end up meeting only those who fall in the category of “me, mine and my type”. B S Yeddyurappa and Kumaraswamy are alien to their culture. It is only the likes of foreign-educated S M Krishna and his ilk who represent the voice and pulse of the people—they are the only ones who understand the idiom of communication and dictate the narrative of electoral politics.

There is no doubt that the BJP provided Karnataka with one of the most corrupt governments ever. It is also a fact that the Gowdas are shining examples of political opportunism. But both parties won or lost elections because of individuals and not ideology. On the contrary, the Congress has an ideology but doesn’t have a leader who can be trusted to provide a strong leadership to steer the state out of the mess. On the other hand, local voters know the three chief ministerial contenders—Kumaraswamy, Jagdish Shettar and Yeddyurappa. According to television reports, almost all local leaders have been drawing crowds bigger than most national leaders. Manmohan Singh’s Bangalore meeting was delayed for half an hour because there weren’t enough crowds. Barring Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi, hardly any national leader made his presence felt in the state.

Since the Congress has been out of power for almost a decade now in Karnataka, it is finding it difficult to project any leader. All its honchos like Krishna, Veerappa Moily, Mallikarjun Kharge and others don’t enjoy pan-Karnataka acceptability and have been out of active state politics. But the pollsters parrot that Karnataka is turning out to be an exception and its people may vote for a national party, but not a regional leader. In more than half the states such as Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, West Bengal, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Himachal Pradesh and even Pudducherry, the electorate has always voted for a leader who was projected as future CM. Moreover, wherever the choice was between an incumbent national and a local party, the voters have always defeated the former and chosen the latter. For example, in 1989, the Congress decided to go it alone in Tamil Nadu under G K Moopanar’s leadership, but it was the DMK that came to power.

In Karnataka too, the undivided Janata Dal led by Deve Gowda defeated the Congress in 1995 to form the government. So, poll predictions in favour of the Congress not only indicate a trend that is witnessed in the rest of the country but also contradict opinion polls. Almost all opinion polls have confirmed that Kumaraswamy is the most popular candidate for the Karnataka chief ministership followed by Yeddyurappa. According to the prognosticators, however, the Congress would get the maximum votes. The BJP and JD(S) are solidly backed by two dominant communities—the Vokkaligas and Lingayats—while none of Karnataka’s major communities back the Congress. Even in 2008, it polled the highest percentage of votes, but it was BJP that won a near majority with fewer votes. For the Congress to win an absolute majority, it will have to break the caste and community coalition, which is heavily positioned against it at the moment.

There are many more flaws and inconsistencies in political astrology. For example, there appears to be a strong anti-incumbency wave against the BJP, but less against the chief minister. Similarly, there is hardly any negative outrage against Kumaraswamy, who is perceived as one of the most decisive chief ministers the state has seen in recent times. The Karnataka verdict has a bigger significance for national politics. Besides deciding the survival of the UPA in Delhi, it will also define the future contours of national politics. A Congress victory in Karnataka would mean the erosion of regional parties and the downfall of local satraps. A mutilated Hand would cripple a 120-year-old party and its ability to retain  authority.