Land Acquisition Ordinance fails to address larger concerns

By: Ravi Sinha

Not that Hitender Tyagi of Noida was a prosperous landlord, yet he felt like the one with his small piece of 12 acre of agricultural land. Today this ailing farmer feels like a pauper who as forced to do away with his source of bread and butter as his land was forcibly acquired by he Noida Authority. The compensation was too meagre to give him any long-term financial security. With no other option of future livelihood this 58-year-old man soon realised that he is too old for any other job. As a result, the compensation money was soon spent and the family went broke.

“My son bought a car with the compensation given to me and is now working as a driver. My daughter-in-law works as a domestic help in the nearby apartment where till yesterday I had my right over the land. It makes me cry my heart out but I am not alone to suffer this kind of cruel injustice by the government. Now when I am told about the new law coming that can make any farmer lose his right over the land as and when rich people want it and the government being a party to it, I feel a collective suicide is better for us than to see our children working as servants on our very own land,” says a dejected Tyagi. 

 

Contentious issue

Land acquisition in India has always been a contentious issue and the urban planners for long were calling for a need to amend the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. Following some violent protests and legal logjam post the land acquisition in many parts of the country, the government in 2007 and 2011 tried to address the issue but could finally came up with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act in 2013 that laid down the process for land acquisition that removed the urgency clause on part of the State and prescribed Social Impact Assessment Survey, Preliminary Notification stating the Intent for Acquisition, a Declaration of Acquisition and Compensation to be Given by a Certain Time. All acquisitions required rehabilitation and resettlement to be provided to the people affected by the acquisition.   

However, the industry in general and real estate in particular termed the 2o013 Act unreasonable that could make land acquisition a very cumbersome process for the industry. The grouse was that it was proving to be a major bottleneck for reviving infrastructure development and green field investment.

The BJP Government in December, 2014 hence amended Section 10(A) of the Act to expand sectors where assessment and consent was not required. For five sectors, the consent clause was removed. Now the government or the private developers no longer needed mandatory consent of 80 per cent of land owners for acquiring land in those five sectors. The mandatory ‘Consent’ clause and ‘Social Impact Assessment’ was not to be applicable if the land was acquired for national security, defence, rural infrastructure including electrification, industrial corridors and affordable housing including PPP where ownership of land continues to be vested with the government.    

Industry welcomes amendments

As expected, the industry and real estate sector cheered the new provisions. Analysts within the built environment even expressed that the dream of ‘Make in India’ could become reality only with enabling provisions for industrial corridors and defence purposes. The sector even welcomed the Ordinance ‘way to go’ for the feasibility of government’s ambitious plan of ‘Housing for All by 2022’. There was a general feeling that exempting industrial corridors from the consent clause would boost the commercial activity as well along such corridors.

Anshuman Magazine, CMD of CBRE South Asia maintains that the amendments will have a positive impact on the infrastructure and real estate sector. Feeling hopeful of the new norms to ease off the inordinate delays seen so far in the land acquisition process for large scale infrastructure and affordable housing projects, he says the infra industry, in particular, is expected to gain much from these new changes, as will housing for the poor.

“I hope this is just the first steps in amending the Land Acquisition Act, as much more amendments are required to ease land acquisition procedures in India. It could perhaps bring in more segments of organised real estate within the ambit of such faster processing norms, which would be beneficial for construction activity across the country,” says Magazine.

Niranjan Hiranandani, CMD, Hiranandani Group says the Indian Government has taken a welcome step on the issue of land acquisition norms, having approved certain amendments in the land acquisition. These seek to fast-track the purchase process of land, while bringing more projects under the provisions of rehabilitation and compensation of land owners.

“While the amendment has the potential to give a boost to affordable housing, it will also facilitate a scenario where infrastructure projects will be fast-tracked. For ‘Affordable Housing’ to become a reality, it will need time bound land acquisition and creation of infrastructure, which the amendment will facilitate. What is most important is that the amendment does not impact the compensation to farmers, while it ensures time-bound acquisition, it remains ‘Socially Correct’ while also being ‘Business Friendly’,” says Niranjan Hiranandani.

Welcoming the Ordinance Rohit Raj Modi, President, CREDAI NCR says it is expected to boost much needed infrastructure development and housing construction in the country. This shows a serious commitment from the government towards bolstering economic reforms.

“The likely changes in the Act that includes removal of consent clause for land acquisition for affordable housing, rural infrastructure and industrial corridors would prove to be a game changer. The Act is likely to benefit affordable housing segment the most and would help achieve the government’s ambitious plan of ‘Housing for all by 2022’”, says Modi

Home buyers not impressed

Such optimism of the real estate developers, however, fails to impress the home buyers either who feel the free-for-all land acquisition law would only help the developers. Sandeep Acharya, a home buyer from New Chandigarh points out that the government may be giving a feeler that more compensation & rehabilitation offered to the farmers would escalate the home prices, it is not well founded. He reminds how in several cases the financial burden on the developers post the additional compensation to farmers due to judicial intervention was nullified with extra FSI/FAR granted to the developers.

“Even when the developers were given extra FSI/FAR to compensate their business profitability after the court order to grant additional money to the farmers, the developers still raised the cost of the flat. I feel this fair justice and compensation to farmers is an alibi not for the home buyers’ interests but to safeguard the interests of the big industries who want cheap land,” says Acharya.

  

As per rough estimates, restrictions on buying land are among the barriers holding up projects worth almost US$ 300 billion in various sectors. However, before the issue of whether the amendment and the Ordinance would kick-start hundreds of billions of dollars in stalled projects could be answered, the government found itself in tough waters as there is a growing discontent across the country over the ordinance and the debate has spilled over from Parliament to the streets with various political parties, pressure groups, farmers and activists taking to streets against what they call a draconian law to snatch the farmers’ land.

Under pressure from opposition, civil society and even within the ruling alliance, the government is now giving feelers that it is ready to consider suggestions on the Land Acquisition Bill, but there hardly seems to be any consensus emerging to address the issue with the consent of all the stake holders, including the farmers, industries, developers, socio-political groups and home buyers.

Major differences between 2013 Act & 2014 Ordinance

1.  Exclusion of SIA in RFCTLARR Act: As per the 2013 Act Social Impact Assessment (SIA) was part of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement but the new law does not make SIA mandatory.  

2.   Removal of consent clause in five areas: The Ordinance removes the consent clause for acquiring land for five areas - industrial corridors, public private partnership projects, rural infrastructure, affordable housing and defence. Nearly all government acquisitions happen under these 5 clauses.

3.   Irrigated multi-cropped land: Now there is no limit to acquire irrigated multi-cropped land and other agricultural land, which earlier could not be acquired beyond a certain limit.

4.   Return of unutilised land: As per the Act 2013, if the land remains unutilised for five years, then it needs to be returned to the owner. But according to the Ordinance the period after which unutilised land needs to be returned will be five years, or any period specified at the time of setting up the project, whichever is later.

5.  Word 'private company' replaced with 'private entity': While the Act 2013 says that the land can be acquired for private companies, the Ordinance replaced it with private entity. A private entity is an entity other than a government entity, and could include a proprietorship, partnership, company, corporation, non-profit organisation, or other entity under any other law.

6.  Offence by government officials: As per the Ordinance if an offence is committed by a government official or the head of the department, then one cannot be prosecuted without the prior sanction of the government.

Ends…

Challenges beyond the euphoria of stable government

By: Ravi Sinha

Stable government has been the buzz word in India for quite some time; it has actually been one of the focal points of General Elections of 2014. In India since 1984 no government at centre could take charge of the office without the added baggage of unlike minded friends as alliance partners. The rise and growth of regional aspirations and emergence of regional power centres, however, has always been blamed in the academic circles as bad economics and governance since pulls and pressures of conflicting interests had brought the governance at standstill on many occasions. Just at a time when the country seemed to be destined to policy paralysis, the electoral verdict of 2014 has changed the dynamics of governance altogether.

A clear and decisive mandate to the NDA Government at centre clearly suggests that the days of coalition compulsions are over. While the political pundits are deliberating over the cost-benefit analysis of too powerful a government with toothless opposition and weakening regional forces, India’s business community has finally got what it has been looking for: a stable government with business friendly face as the Prime Minister of India. However, with the obvious sky high expectations the challenges for the new government at office is not that easy. And it is not just the business captains of the country; rather even the young first-time voters who turned out in record numbers to cast votes are equally restless to see the tangible results too soon.

What can the government do to make sure the perception of policy paralysis changes? Of course, the only answer to this is the measures that the new government can take to revive the economy. Once the economy is on a growth curve, many other pending issues will naturally be on the back seat with collective consciousness backing the growth story of the country. Hence, the new government has some real challenges to deal with beyond the euphoria of a stable government at the helm of affairs.

A turnaround of the economic wheel is, however, not easy as the current account deficit clearly suggests there is no room for any largesse on part of the government; rather subsidies and other beneficiary measures have to be curbed in the short term. What affects the most to the average Indians, interest rate, can also not be cut till the time inflation is not curbed. It is a catch 22 of Indian economy and a balancing act is something that will be the first acid test of the government.

So, the first task that is cut out for the Narendra Modi Government is to control the inflation that has been the prime reason why they have been given the mandate. This can be quite a challenge, if the forthcoming Monsoon does not play as sportingly as the voters for the Modi Government. After all, India’s economy is still dictated by the monsoon fortunes. Naina Lal Kidwai, CEO, HSBC India has a suggestion for the government when she says, “The government should, on a priority basis, restart the investment cycle. It should free the land, labour and capital markets from their rigidities; make fiscal prudence the cornerstone of its functioning; evolve a plan for mitigating food inflation. On the social side, it should look at areas like health, environment and education.”

However, framing a roadmap for fiscal consolidation is easier said than done; it has its own challenges. The government will have no option but to constantly increase the fuel prices to completely eliminate subsidy and that is something which may not go down well with the voters who have high expectation of government’s largesse. Use of direct transfer of cash for subsidies is one of the many measures to help check the public anger, but then such attempts in the past have been met with quite resistance by various sections, including the party that is now in power. Deepak Parekh, Chairman, HDFC has a word of caution in his wish list when he says, “The economic agenda is huge. What is needed is simplification. In the World Bank ranking on ease of doing business we are right at the bottom. I think the name of the game should be to make it simpler for people to invest.”

Though the government seems to be determined to improve business environment by easing laws and policies, it is not something that can be achieved in a short span of time. As a matter of fact, a long term strategy is needed to see tangible results after easing the FDI norms and time-bound clearances of projects. After all, a poor business environment has deterred the investment in India, of late, which is the biggest reason of decline in growth. Add to it, corruption and leakage in the system at every level and the new government has a challenge in hand to deal with.

There is no denying that long-pending reforms such as GST and DTC need to be implemented at the earliest. There is also a need to expedite the liberalisation of FDI regime. The India Inc is by and large optimistic that with a strong mandate, the new government will do well and will implement economic policies that benefit people and industry.

Rahul Gaur, CMD of Brys Group has a caveat here when he urges the new government to ease credit flow to industry and infrastructure. According to him, at a time when the government does not have financial surplus and the nation is struggling to manage with the shortages, the core focus should be to identify the execution capability to execute the large infra projects. For that the government should better create an atmosphere where private players have access to long term funds.

“The policies of the government have to be clear on the lending norms and the government should target steps to boost lending to infrastructure sector. Housing and infrastructure can revitalise the economy, create more jobs and bring overall change in the outlook to the economy. I do understand the reluctance of banks to fund infrastructure due to asset liability mismatch but then better infrastructure is the only way to help the country grow at above 8% GDP. I feel the time has come for the government to roll out clearly defined measures for ease of credit flow,” says Gaur. 

Analysts have often pointed out that one of the key areas where India could have reaped its demographic dividend is the manufacturing sector; something that China has already done in the last over two decades. The new government must take pro-active steps to encourage local manufacturing and for that it should give fast track clearances to stalled manufacturing projects; re-look the SEZ policy which have thus far proved to be detrimental and also the government can put the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor on a fast forward execution.

Many economists believe instead of pro-poor policies like NAREGA, streamlining the manufacturing is a better way to bring the poor into economic mainstream and also lessen India’s dependence on the agriculture. However, all these measures may sound to be very easily achievable, yet it needs time and concerted efforts to achieve. That could not be achieved in the last few years due to the compulsions of coalition politics. The challenge of governance is no doubt beyond the euphoria of a stable government.  

Defying judicial prudence & law of natural justice

Dec 22. 2013

By: Ravi Sinha

Populism has swept the collective consciousness of the Indian masses in general and educated middle class in particular. Whatever is fancy and suits the wish list of middle class in the urban pockets is nowadays being advocated aloud without the cost-benefit analysis of the issue. This populism, or better to call it populist rhetoric, is writ large today in the power corridors, judiciary and media alike. When Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi bluntly suggested to tear apart the ordinance of the Union Cabinet against debarring convicted law makers, he was seen to be taking a moral high ground. However, he was just responding to the populist rhetoric that was threatening to get the voices louder on the issue. 

Rahul Gandhi though had a reason to side with the populist rhetoric, as the main opposition party that did not contest the Ordinance or the Bill, rather just suggested a few changes here and there, wanted to stump the government on the issue with backstabbing. After all, they had failed to see the larger threat to democracy if every convicted or charge-sheeted law maker is debarred from the House and prevented to contest electoral process.

Having sniffed the fact that the BJP Parliamentary Board had planned a march to the President against the Ordinance, the Congress Vice President was left with no choice but to triple cross the double-cross efforts of the BJP. However, in this political one upmanship an ordinance that could have saved the democracy from many future challenges was stalled. It is not about one Laloo Yadav going to jail or one Rasheed Masood losing his membership of Parliament that is the core issue, the core issue here is how many emerging mass leaders could be framed and political careers spoiled in the time to come.

Where is this holier-than-thou politics goading to the Indian democracy? Has the greater god for greater number of people being sacrificed for populism is a question that is threatening the future fair play in the battle of democracy. It seems now a few educated middlemen will write the destiny of the masses, even though the larger number will have a right to vote; of course vote only to those who are allowed by the few men sitting over their fate with whatever coloured vision they may be having against the uneducated but popular leaders of the country.   

It seems judicial prudence and law of natural justice is being compromised, if not outrightly butchered in India, thanks to the new wave of populist rhetoric. India is not a tiny country like Singapore where a referendum democracy can work, nor could few vocal voices in the urban pockets be termed as the popular voices or voices of the masses. Unfortunately, today even a few TV news channels have the audacity to call them the ‘Nation’.

The nation, however, does not rest in the studio of a TV news channel, nor in the drawing rooms of those who watch these channels. The way India, the real India deep rooted in the semi rural and rural pockets works, if charge sheet or even being convicted is allowed to rob the democratic rights of the Indians tomorrow any rising mass leader can be framed and convicted. Have not we seen many convicts being declared innocent after decades of trial in various courts? What if they are emerging leaders and hence being framed by the political heavy weights against whom they dared to stand?

The way Indian judiciary functions, if one is not resourceful it takes no less than 20-25 years to get a clean chit from the lower courts to the Supreme Court if one is framed with all the might. Who will compensate if a bright political career is spoiled by getting him convicted? Can the judiciary or those who are carried by populist rhetoric return someone his glorious years fighting in the courts and denied democratic rights to contest elections, even if they have masses with them?

What if the ‘Real’ public support of a mass leader comes out on the streets against his vindictive legal framing? Are we inviting social unrest and civil war in the process? These are the challenges of a large democracy like India that are unique only to this part of the world. So, imagining Singapore or the USA and making a populist statement on cleansing the Indian system in general and politics in particular is simply bullshitting in my opinion.

It is not just about this one Ordinance or the Bill that is the issue today. It seems in every walk of life whether it is judiciary or the media one is either guided by the populist rhetoric or just plain subconscious desire of 15 minute of fame that drives our collective consciousness. And that is something which threatens to derail the democratic process of the country, curtail the civil rights and deny judicial prudence and law of natural justice.

Take for example, ‘None of the Above’ option while electing a candidate in the elections. It may not have much impact in the rural pockets, but in the urban constituencies where the voices leading to populist rhetoric are louder, it may create a unique situation where the constituencies will either be represented by a real tiny mandate or it will go to polls again and again only to get the candidates discarded. The question is who will bear the cost of the repetitive elections? Or does the wisdom of a few drawing room experts think we Indians are fools to go to polling booths, stand in queue for hours only to exercise the right to refuse all?

These are all fancy thoughts that sound unique, ideal and revolutionary at face value. But scratch the surface, dig deeper into the issues that this country confronts on a day-to-day basis and one finds in the name of creating a clean society we are sowing the seeds of political and social unrest. Right to reject or right to recall is a thought that just does not fit into a large, heterogeneous society like India. The architect of the Indian democracy and constitution were not fools who did not address it the way it is being addressed now.  

The alternate voices in politics and other walks of life have always raised their heads in every society. The unique problem with India today is that these alternative voices that raise many questions without themselves having any rational answer are increasingly taking the centre stage. And that is something which threatens to drive the nation not on the merit of issues & agenda but populist rhetoric. If not nipped in the bud, such media orchestrated populist rhetoric also threatens to rob the sanity out of the society.       

Development or developmental engineering replacing social engineering

Oct 9. 2013 Ravi Sinha

Social engineering is passé as it has fallen flat on the face of those who engineered it successfully for long, be it Laloo Yadav in Bihar or Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh. It is ‘Out’ and what has come ‘In’ promises to transform the Indian politics in general and governance in particular. Sadly, this new opium of masses is even more dangerous as this emerging genre of vote bank politics takes even higher a moral ground in the name of ‘Votes for Development’. However, beyond this idealistic façade lies another sort of engineering—‘Developmental Engineering’ which as of now has earned enough curiosity among the media and intellectuals. Its proponents nevertheless fall way short of not just ideals but also ideas for any tangible transformation, be it Narendra Modi or Arvind Kejriwal.      

Intellectuals argue whether any other term has been so over-used and abused in the collective consciousness at the political level than ‘Development’ which, of course, means different things to different people. For some it is the GDP growth that is indicator of development, others find holistic development including liveability index and other social indicator as a benchmark. Populism has also been a development indicator in this part of the world for quite some time, but social engineering is increasingly waning and the void that it creates promises to put development card on the forefront.

With the general elections 2014 a few months away and five states also going for polls, the subject of development has yet again gained prominence. While it is convenient to assume that the young and aspiration driven India is no more ready to be carried by rhetoric alone, a close scrutiny of India’s socio-political consciousness reflects development as an agenda is yet to make inroads into politics and translate into votes. India’s ballot box traction point runs much deeper than macro level media rhetorics. In the name of development, what is actually happening is that a sort of developmental engineering is replacing the tried and tested social engineering that is waning its charm, thanks to its over-use and abuse by the so-called messiah of social justice.

There are two kinds of lies that are applied by respective governments to over-project its development card—plain lies and statistical engineering. The opposition party uses the same methodology to carry home the point lack of development. In plain lies all propaganda machinery is put to use to create an aura of ‘feel good’ or ‘fear psychosis’ which does not have a factual bearing on the ground. Secondly, it is the statistical engineering which is applied and by selective use of statistics it is made to believe that the state’s growth on development index is reflective of its progress. If Narendra Modi symbolises developmental engineering, Arvind Kejriwal is orchestrating plain lies.   

However, GDP growth or economic prosperity on a macro level does not often give the correct picture. Unless the state’s growth has been inclusive and growth is at par or parallel on various social indicators also, such growth is neither sustainable nor tangible enough to be called ‘Greater Good for Greater Number of People’.  

Take for instance the over-hyped and over-projected development model of Gujarat. Indeed the economic growth of Gujarat has been better than the national average. However, equally true is the fact that other states like Delhi, Bihar, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand and Tamil Nadu have done better than Gujarat in recent times. Gujarat is neither the best performer in the top ten best performing states, nor is its growth evaluation on various key indicators any impressive.

Poverty, a key indicator of development is not reducing significantly in Gujarat and its less than impressive performance shows it is at number 18^th position. As per Planning Commission figure all India BPL (Below Poverty Line) percentage has gone down from 37.20 to 29.8 between 2004-05 and 2009-10 whereas Gujarat’s percentage has gone down by only 8.6 points during the same period. Add to it, the Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s lofty economic remark that nutrition has gone down because women are health conscious in the state and eat less. That, of course, is indicative of state’s seriousness with this key development metrics.

Even from a purely economic development standpoint, Gujarat is number nine among the top ten states with percentage of population having concrete roof over head. Even states like Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Punjab are ahead of Gujarat; with tiny places like Puducherry and Lakshadweep having better track record than Gujarat.  

In terms of sex ratio, another indicator of a developed state, Gujarat stands at a patriarchal low rank of 20^th position, with only 918 females per 1000 males. Though Gujarat often boasts of better literacy rate than the national average, its standing is at 15^th position in the country. In terms of infant mortality rate, again Gujarat’s statistical projection may boast of better than national average but it stands at 18^th position. Maternal mortality rate also shows states like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh are doing better than Gujarat.

This raises a fundamental question about the developmental engineering and its relevance beyond the vote bank politics. The moot point is development for whom and at what cost? Definitely, a development plank meant for industrialists can not be an effective development model. When the Congress President Sonia Gandhi emphasised that “passion for progress must be supplemented with compassion for poor” during deliberation on Food Security Bill, it was that grand vision of development model on which Gujarat stands nowhere.

Gujarat is just a case study here, but the fact of the matter is that many of the states that boast of development as their USP may not come out with relatively modest score when judged with all the key indicators of development. Reasons why many of the governments are shown the door even after creating so much of development projection, most classic example being the ‘India Shining’ of Atal Behari Vajpayee Government at centre.

In India the elections have by and large not been contested on development plank; it is just that the term development that is symptomatic of the developmental engineering instead of social engineering which has lived its shelf life. And it is not just the politicians alone who are to be blamed for this. What are we up to as Indians, as vote banks? Do we really scrutiny to differentiate the wheat from the chaff? If so, how come someone like Arvind Kejriwal take a moral high ground with absolutely no solution to offer for most of the developmental, both social and economic, problems afflicting the Indians.

So, it is basically one rhetoric being replaced by another without any tangible focus on development that still stands as the bane of Indian democracy. The mirage of a better governance continues; some have channelized it in the name of social justice while others are orchestrating in the name of development. Some others with no track record have taken an altogether different route of developmental engineering in the name of creating an utopian society. India just stands as the laboratory for all engineering and the Indian voters are at the best guinea pigs for them.  

Sorry Mr TVR Shenoy, your advocacy won’t make Modi a polarising factor

July 4, 2013, Ravi Sinha

Veteran journalists often become ‘veteran’ on the merit of their ideological backing to a given political party. It is not necessary that they actually believe in what they advocate publicly. But in the process they turn out to be the poor Xerox version of party hopping politicians looking for happy hunting ground. Senior journalist TVR Shenoy’s recent assumption of BJP being in a positioning to form a stable government at Centre and Narendra Modi being a polarising factor is a classic case in point.

Though I do not carry any authority to dictate or moderate any individuals’ fundamental right to opt for a governance choice—good, bad or indifferent but still would maintain that a political analyst should not write a pleasure analysis to a political party that promises to boomerang on the face of the writer itself in the days to come. Having said this, I understand that what bifurcates between political analysis and political advocacy in collective consciousness is very thin, especially when the stakes are pretty high, ranging from decorative ‘Padma Bibhushan’ to coveted ‘Rajya Sabha’ seat.

I believe it is better to be known as a journalist with outstanding credibility and tell on the face of the political party their grey zones, even if one ideologically supports them. That gives the journalist more credibility both as a party ideologue and from advocacy standpoint. With my limited exposure and understanding of Indian politics after nearly two decades of having seen it closely; first as a student leader, then a trade unionist and later as a journalist, I find no merit in the argument that next Lok Sabha will have a BJP-led government.

Even if BJP emerges as the single largest party in the next Lok Sabha elections, it is not the same BJP with a Vajpayee kind of manipulative organiser to hold the flock of 24 unlike-minded political parties. An arrogant Modi is not acceptable to the BJP itself within the party, forget the alliance partners.

Furthermore, the argument that the single largest party keeping out of government is a fundamental insult to the democracy is a misplaced conviction. This also challenges the fundamental tenets of democracy which has never been able to representational character world over. Added to this, the history of Indian democracy shows how the Congress has itself opted out of the government twice despite of emerging as the single largest party.

In the general election of 1989 the Congress won 197 seats, well ahead of the (then united) Janata Dal, which won 143 seats and BJP 85 seats with the Left Front getting 52 seats. V P Singh then became the Prime Minister not by playing on the fears of both the BJP and the Left Front, as TVR Shenoy would like us to believe, but because the Congress read the writing of an unstable government on the wall and strategically played it smart to bounce back to power within 15 months.

History repeated itself again in 1996 when the single largest party in the eleventh Lok Sabha was the BJP, with 161 seats. The Congress was second, having won 140 seats. But while the BJP remained untouchable to forge an alliance for the government, Congress played the trump card by roping in the Prime Minister of India to a man from a party with just 46 seats, the Janata Dal. True to the expectations of the Congress, the eleventh Lok Sabha lasted just over eighteen months before it was dissolved.

Coming to the next Lok Sabha elections, whether 2014 or 2013 itself, while the BJP is struggling to cope up with the leadership changes where the party stalwarts themselves are up against the so-called polarising figure in Modi, the BJP is slowly but surely losing grip on its core constituency and the states that it rules. If Karnataka was a big blow to them, coming assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh are poised to be the beginning of the end of the BJP era that Vajpayee heralded 1996 onwards.

Moreover, no leader in any political party has ever been able to emerge as the national leader who does not come from the Hindi heartland, and Modi is no exception. Even Morarji Desai could not challenge this reality of Indian politics. Modi’s mindless PR of having saved 15,000 Gujaratis in Uttarakhand calamity in a single day has already proved that the rumour machinery that he so successfully managed in Gujarat does not have a national charisma. Added to this, the criminal cases related with Godhra and fake encounters looming large over his fortunes would be a great dampener for the BJP on the eve of general elections.

The short sighted parent organisation that the RSS is, it is also not helping the cause of the BJP. The saffron brigade that only recently glorified the so-called transparency movement of Anna Hazare assuming that such a rumour and road-side publicity stunt would defame the Congress and mobilise votes for them has already boomeranged on the BJP. Now Kejriwal may not be in a position to win any elections for his party but will surely eat into the anti-incumbency votes that would have otherwise gone to the BJP. Needless to say, the conventional wisdom of electoral politics suggests that such Index of Opposition Diversity is going to help the Congress in a big way.   

Moreover, the Congress that is the most strategic in governance and electoral politics has already started working on Plan A and Plan B. Remember it was not the BJP but the Congress that started Modi’s name dropping as a strategic ploy to play with the mind of the BJP. The realisation that the next Lok Sabha elections would be purely on national issues made them add fuel to the fire of so-called polarisation. And now it is going to be secular versus communal forces where even the regional parties are forced to take sides.

As a result, BJP’s first casualty has been Bihar Government of Nitish Kumar who is up to the sleeves of the Congress as Plan B. And since BJP is increasingly losing ground in each of the states, this game plan has viability as well. In case Congress fails to form its own government, something like the 1989 or 1996 scenario, it will extend outside support to the Third Front. Mr Shenoy’s remark on Third Front alliance of Nitish Kumar, Mamata Banerjee, Navin Patnaik as East India Company is a racist statement in my opinion.

Such right wing political advocacy only makes the ideologue lose his credibility and lose his political spectrum as well in the long run. In the BJP right from Govindacharya to Swapan Dasgupta there is a long list of ideologues who floated heroic theories of BJP Government at the Centre only to be sidelined in course of its inherent failure. It is not the political advocacy that leads to the government formation but the ground realities that are at odds against the BJP. I can just wish Mr TVR Shenoy all the best…    

My profile in Prabhat Khabar

Jan 12, 2011                                                                                                                                                 

Prabhat Khabar did my profile recently. Since my facebook post earlier was not readable, here's a readable version on public demand. Please click on the image above to enlarge and read.

Click on the image above to enlarge