There is as much difference between Lashar-e-Tayyiba and the Maoists as between Al-Qaeda and the Naxalites. This recognition is important if the system has to defeat the terrorists
Over the last few weeks, there has been a ratcheting up of the Naxalite/Maoist violence to bring truth and justice to the Indian democracy. A parallel movement has occurred over the same period – a campaign by “liberal intellectuals” (I am sorry but that is the most accurate description, though Yasser Arafat would have added so-called) to cleanse the ever increasing flow of blood. We are told, in breaking news terms, that the violence can only be stopped with “development”; that unless progress is brought to the poor tribals, arresting the violence will be of little consequence.
We are also told that it is not only incorrect but unfair to characterize the N&M’s as terrorists. The reason not? Because unlike genuine terrorists, the N&Ms are genuinely interested in development and helping the poor. For example? Well, a Maoist leader and a leading member of their Politburo, Mr. Kobad Ghandy, has been glowingly reported as a development junkie. His movement, we are told, has been operating in poor villages for decades; they have been talking and cajoling the poor tribals to use boiling water, something that the official authorities presumably haven’t done.
How does one differentiate the N&Ms from all the NGOs that have devoted their lifetime to helping the poor, and in many more ways than just communicating the importance of boiled water? For that matter, how does one distinguish the N&Ms from Bill Gates’s foundation, or for that matter from international organizations like the World Bank? Before we get all syrupy about violent protesters having a heart of gold, we need to understand, and define, the limits to action in the name of the poor. If media reports are to be believed, the N&M violence is often against the poor, only they are a different kind of poor. They are the local police, or local government officials. Other times, the violence is against “ordinary” poor people.
One of the main complaints of the N&Ms is that development often does not reach the poor, that it gets eaten up by the state, as official help travels from the center to the hinterland. This is a complaint that is widely echoed by the liberal intellectuals, as they staunchly defend their defence of the N&Ms. The defence, therefore, has two components; first, that the violence is perpetrated by the Maoists because they have little option; the state has in many instances behaved badly, and is massively corrupt, so corrupt that it would steal from the poor. Second, that the N&Ms are really like any other NGO, going to remote areas where the middle class does not dare to tread, and helping the poor by telling them about the importance of boiled water.
Criticism of the non-beneficial nature of the state, and its innate corruptness, is not the monopoly of the N&Ms or their defenders. This claim has been made by most; indeed, the first person to concretize this proposition was no less an establishment figure than the former Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi. And he made that claim – that less than 15 percent of government expenditures meant for the poor actually reached the poor – in 1985, when the present day M&Ns were mere toddlers.
There are other people who resort to violence when they feel that they are unjustly treated by the state, or by art. India’s leading painter, Mr. M. F. Hussain, has been in exile for several years. His crime? That he dared to paint nude Indian goddesses. There was protest violence, though not as violent as that by the N&Ms. Yet, no one has come to the defense of these vandals – nor they should. But by any count, these “morally right” lumpen proletariat has done less violence to the poor than the N&Ms. So why are the latter defended and the former vilified?
Throughout history, there have been several champions of the poor; these champions came to power in the name of the poor, and soon destroyed the poor and the nation. There was Stalin, and more recently Pol Pot of Cambodia. Look into their histories – it is the same sad movie over and over again. They say the system is rotten; the intellectuals support them, because the terrorists are also smart enough to realize what resonates with the “intellectual” elite. Then they come to power and when they leave, the system, and the poor, is a lot worse off than when they started.
Above, we had discussed the question of differentiation of those who do good. The flip-side question is equally important. How does one, nee should one, distinguish between those who do bad? To put it starkly – there are few people (except the mandatory some) who defend the actions of a terrorist group like Al-Qaeda. Since these “some” reside in India, let me restate the proposition – how many Indians would defend the perpetrators of 26/11? Did I hear any? No. Now what is the difference between the 26/11 terrorists and Al-Qaeda ? None; indeed, the financing for the two organizations most likely comes from the same source. What do these terrorists have in common? Much; for starters they have the same cause: fighting for the poor, and the oppressed. And why are they fighting for the poor and the oppressed? Because the system has failed, the system is corrupt, and only the valiant in the name of the poor terrorists can right historical wrongs. Honestly, there is as much difference between Lashar-e-Tayyiba and the Maoists as between Al-Qaeda and the Naxalites. This recognition is important if the Indian system has to defeat the terrorists.
Blurb: There are few parallels in history for the rapid ascent of the Communists in 2004, and its deep plunge into near oblivion in 2009.
In the run-up to Election 2009, I was struck by the number of politically correct chatterati-glitterati who voiced the following: the Left may not be good for the country, but they are the conscience of India. Or that we need someone to speak for the poor of India, and so let’s give the Communists a big hand. How can a party that pays homage to Stalin on a daily basis at its headquarters in Kolkatta be considered anything but morally repugnant is a mystery to me. As is the fact that consistently, and throughout history, the communist parties have erred on the wrong side of patriotism. The latter is a crime in many countries, but some view it as a badge of conscience in India.
But that was in the past; the future is as bright as the Northern star. For Election 2009 posted one mega result: the Left is history. There is an unwelcome side effect of this joyous news - we are not going to have the Left to kick around anymore. The facts documented in the table have all the confirmatory evidence.
But as is common knowledge, the Left is not just the combination of communists (political parties CPM and CPI). A large element of the Congress party has beyond leaning Left elements. So there is a large interest group which will want to paint the magnitude of the communist loss as “normal”, or par for anti-incumbency (what do you expect after 30 years of rule etc). Echoing this sentiment, political scientist Atul Kohli writes “The proclaimed demise of the Left may turn out to be premature. In spite of losing seats, both the CPM and the CPI maintained their relative shares of the popular vote between 2004 and 2009.” (Indian Express, May 19, 2009).
The table shows the historical record for the CPI, CPM and joint performance since the time of the first parliamentary election in 1952. (I have deliberately not tried to calculate the seats for the Left since that is an amalgam of parties and correct counting would demand that the Left within the Congress also be identified!) Two facts are obvious – the communists never had it so good as in 2004, and have never, ever, had it so bad as in 2009. In 1952, the Communists won 16 seats out of 39 contested; in 2009, 20 seats out of 130 contested. The joint vote share – 6.8 percent – is less than at any time in history since 1952. Note the steep decline between 2004 to 2009 – this just doesn’t look like an ordinary election event. From winning more than half the seats contested to winning just 15 percent – the previous lowest percentage of seats won by the communists was 21.2 percent in 1962.
There can be debate about what caused this decline, but the fact that the left is fast on its way to extinction is quite clear. The left faces some clear decisions, and introspection. So far, except for expelled member Somnath Chatterjee, the Communists madly believe that there is nothing to worry – elections are lost, there always is the next election. That “communism” may be appealing to a rapidly shrinking fringe element is something the leadership is loathe to see; in contrast, its bête noire the BJP already admits that identification with its own parallel fringe was one of the major electoral lessons in 2009. To the extent they can, the BJP also admits to a failure of leadership. In contrast, the Left feels it saw no evil, and definitely did no evil.
The choice for the last remaining communist party on this planet is clear. (Did you know that they and they alone celebrated the 90th anniversary of the October 1917 revolution. I would appreciate being corrected on this fact i.e. was there any other official celebration, anywhere, celebrating this “occasion”.) It either reinvents itself, as its brethren around the world have repeatedly done. Or it walks off into the JNU sunset.
If the left is out of the way for the Congress, what remains? We have all assumed that May 16 2009 was a historic moment in Indian democracy – the beginning of the end of the two-party system, and the beginning of true, responsive middle class democracy in India. By the end of this week, Manmohan Singh will announce his cabinet, and the selection of his team will give verification, or rejection, of the “history in making” hypothesis. No matter how it is camouflaged (continuity, experience, wise old men at the helm etc.) , if the team is the same old men then I am afraid all bets are off. India, yet again, would have lost an opportunity, and Manmohan Singh would have lost his chance to make an indelible mark on the Indian polity, and history. He will always be fondly remembered for his stellar role in jointly making history with Narasimha Rao in 1991; the last five years are best forgotten by the Congress. Let’s chalk it up to party building. Fair enough. But what now – who are the cabinet members, the team, to lead India (and the Congress) forward. Will the Congress continue to rely on feudal politics for its leaders, or will it begin to bank on middle class professionalism, and entrepreneurship? If the former business as usual model is chosen, then it will be confirmed to all that the Congress did not win this election, but that the regional parties, the Left and the BJP , lost it.
If the latter, and ex-ante there is a 50 percent chance of this happening, the team is A class, relying more on merit than on caste, sex, age, religion, and party experience, then there is a very high chance of May 16 being mega historic. It would mean that the Congress has become forward looking, and that it was on its way to shedding its left past, and on its way to fulfilling Nehru’s (and all of our) dream of achieving our destiny. The changed world order places a high premium on whether India can provide the necessary leadership at beyond the Prime Ministerial level. Look no further than the Sensex’s reaction once the Cabinet is announced. If euphoric, India will make new history. If tepid, then it may not be even the case of Good men, bad ideas. It will be bad, bad… And Rajiv Gandhi’s commendable efforts to rebuild the party will slowly turn into failure. The Congress won because it appeared to promise something different from the Left, from the BJP, from caste, from regionalism. It promised a middle class democracy – let us hope the solemn promise is fulfilled.
The Inverted V of Communism in India – Gained in 52 years, lost in 5
Year
Joint Vote
Joint Seats
Joint % seats won
Number of Seats won by
%
(number)
(seats won/seats contested)
CPI
CPM
1952
3.3
16
32.7
16
N/A
1957
8.9
27
24.5
27
N/A
1962
9.9
29
21.2
29
N/A
1967
9.4
42
25.0
23
19
1971
9.8
48
31.6
23
25
1977
7.1
29
20.1
7
22
1980
8.7
47
42.3
11
36
1984
8.6
28
23.5
6
22
1989
9.1
45
39.5
12
33
1991
8.7
49
48.0
14
35
1996
8.1
44
37.3
12
32
1998
6.9
41
31.8
9
32
1999
6.9
37
27.2
4
33
2004
7.1
53
51.5
10
43
2009
6.8
20
15.4
4
16
Notes: Joint refers to the combined share of CPI and CPM.
Blurb: History may well remember 2009 as the beginning of the historic end of regional party politics in India.
Today, May 16th, 2009 is likely to be remembered as C D and E days. C for counting, D for a major event day (as made famous by the Allied troops for the date of the invasion and the beginning of the final assault on Germany, June 6 1944) and E for elimination. Of what, one might ask? Of regional politics in India. Most likely elimination is too strong a word; so let us make it the beginning of the elimination process – a BCDE formation, if you will.
In my previous article (Middle Class and Democracy – I, Business Standard, May 14th, 2009) I had suggested that a large force was emerging as an important parameter in Indian elections – the role of the middle class. Further, that the values, aspirations, and goals of the middle class were universal across the world (and across time). And these values left little room for narrow parochial considerations, whether such considerations were based on religious beliefs, or extreme ideological beliefs, or differences in language, etc.
A strong prediction of the middle class and democracy thesis is that the two major parties outperform the regional parties. The table documents the vote share and seats of Congress and the BJP in each Lok Sabha election since 1989 (individual, not coalition, data). Barring 1991, the joint seats achieved by the two parties has been in the narrow range of 282 to 323; the joint vote share 47.9 to 52.1 percent, with 1999 as the peak and 2004 as the trough. The two major parties have been able to garner only 50 percent of the seats and votes, hence the extended era of coalition politics in India. If this is also the future, then the “middle class election hypothesis” will be discredited.
Alternatively, this election could mark the beginning of the end of narrow parochial politics of (outdated) ideology, caste and religion. The emphasis is on the beginning. And a good beginning will be marked by any one, or all of the five signals noted below:
1) Congress + BJP jointly get close to the previous “peak” of 323 seats
2) The Left gets around 35 seats, perhaps even less than 30.
3) The caste based parties in UP (Mulayam and Mayawati) get less than 50 seats, perhaps even less than the half-way mark of 40;
4) Caste based parties in Bihar fail to make a mark.
5) Regional, caste, and idelogical parties from Assam to Kerala do badly
6) What would be consistent with the above is that the regional parties in Tamil Nadu also are booted out; this is not possible in 2009, but if some of the above come true, this will be a genuine possibility in the future.
But there is another implication of the strong role that the middle class will play, and this time it pertains to the two major parties, Congress and the BJP. For the Congress, the warnings are clear. The decline of the Congress started because of the devastating mixture of dynasty and dictatorship. Dynasty remains, and the fact that politics and governance has become a family affair for all shades of politicians should be of little comfort to the Congress. To his credit, Rahul Gandhi realizes the drawbacks of dynastic leadership and is courageous enough to openly talk about it. The Congress has also begun to walk the talk with Manmohan Singh being unquestionably supported for a second term. If the Congress wins and lasts out the full second term, then India would have had the first Prime Minister (since Nehru in 1962) to last two successive 5 year terms. Leadership without dynasty – very possible, and whether middle class India applauds will be known shortly.
The message for the BJP is equally blunt, especially if the BJP stays stationary at the 2004 level and the Congress accelerates to beyond 170 seats. This widening gap is the result of communalism (as opposed to regionalism and leftism – what the middle class dislikes more is a good quiz question). The BJP will have to move away from its fringe elements, even though they may be good at getting out the vote and creating mayhem. For pointers, they just have to look at the destruction of the Republican party in the US, which relied a bit too much on the fringe. It should be a no-brainer that most of society has little respect, and even less admiration, for the fringes. Mr. Vajpayee fully realized this, and it remains an open question whether the NDA would have won in 2004 if Godhra 2002 had not happened.
What if the Congress and/or the BJP are not as smart as the middle class hopes? Then here is a forecast to which yes, I can be held “accountable”! There will be the emergence of a third national party, a party whose initials will be MC. It will be a party representing basic and universal values: the near zero role of religion outside of one’s home (as traditional India always had – until 1947 and beyond); the recognition of human rights, equal opportunity, merit and the allocation of resources according to choices that individuals, not bureaucrats or the state, makes. This party will be able to recruit farmers, and teachers, and nurses, and lawyers, and businessmen. Only one criteria will be applied – are you in politics for your family and for life, or do you want to be a politician because the work appeals to you, and you feel qualified to do the job? None of this “I am in politics because I want to serve the people” humbug. No – just as some people seek out to be doctors, there are others who want to become politicians. They like the work, the application of policy to problems. That is as it should be and, Insha Allah, it will.
Middle Class Votes: Revival After Stagnation
Election Year
Seats Secured By
Share of Votes Secured By
BJP
INC
BJP+INC
BJP
INC
BJP+INC
1989
85
197
282
11.4
39.5
50.9
1991
120
244
364
20
36.6
56.6
1996
161
140
301
20.3
28.8
49.1
1998
182
141
323
25.6
25.8
51.4
1999
182
114
296
23.8
28.3
52.1
2004
138
145
283
21.7
26.2
47.9
2009*
140
175
315
23.0
28.7
51.7
Forecasts based on a voting model, and adjustments.
We have just witnessed some defining moments in our economy, and polity. Expect voters to vote in performance, not ideology; expect large interest rate cuts, and even some tax cuts.
