Dynasty in Politics: An Asset or a Liability!

Focus of this article is on why should the grand old party, Indian National Congress, stop apologizing about dynasty! The fact of the matter is Voters actually like dynasty, and the Congress must wear it as a badge of honor.

If there’s any BJP voter thinking of switching over to the Congress, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a reminder: all power in the Congress is concentrated in the hands of one family. On Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s charge that a non-Gandhi cannot be president of the Congress party, P. Chidambaram pointed out names of non-Gandhi party presidents before and after 1947, and also examples of people like Manmohan Singh and P.V. Narasimha Rao whom the Congress made prime minister although they did not come from the Nehru-Gandhi family. His defense looked failed because PM Modi only furthered his attack, reminding everyone how Sitaram Kesri was humiliated by the Congress, his office physically taken over by Sonia Gandhi loyalists in a coup. 

The Congress party need not claim to be democratic in its internal leadership, because it is not an argument they can win. In doing so, they come across as apologizing for being led by a political dynasty. Also, It is strange that they should apologize for their best USP, the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. It’s a charge the Modi-led BJP is making every single day to discredit the Congress. By defending itself, the Congress only falls into the trap. 

Dynastic Politics/Leaders:

The truth is that Indian voters don’t care about dynasty. If anything, it helps voters trust a politician, knowing s/he comes from a political family they have trusted in the past. Why, just look at the number of dynasts who’ve been given tickets by the BJP for the elections. 

Coming to few statistics, Every fifth winner in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections was a dynast. Across the country, in every state and every party, political dynasties are flourishing. Fifteen of 75 ministers in the Modi’s council of ministers are political heirs, as per a September 2017 report. From Yogi Adityanath to Devendra Fadnavis, from Vasundhara Raje to Pema Khandu, from Maneka Gandhi to Varun Gandhi, the BJP has big list of leaders who got into politics thanks to their surnames. It is strange that Amit Shah should run the BJP like a cabal of families and then accuse the Congress of being a family enterprise. 

Political dynasts must be bringing something to the table that Indian voters place so much trust in them. You could argue that Indian politics isn’t that open to outsiders, but it is rare to meet a voter who says s/he is not voting for a politician because s/he is a dynast. Instead, one only sees dynasty re-imposing trust. You’ll typically hear people say ‘He was an old leader of ours, he did a lot for us, now his son is contesting. We’ll vote for him’

BJPs Trap:

The case of Vasundhara Raje Scindia is rather funny. She comes from the Scindia family of Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh, which is better known for being part of the Congress. Her son is a BJP MP too, carrying forward her own political dynasty. And she recently complained about how the Congress party is controlled by four members of the Gandhi family! 

The BJP’s hypocrisy is proof that its attacks on the Nehru-Gandhi family are only meant to put the Congress on the back foot in the narrative wars. Every time the Congress takes the bait, it does itself a disservice, making it look weak and the BJP stronger. Often the BJP doesn’t even have to try. Rahul Gandhi goes abroad and gives interviews to NRI academics in which he almost sounds like saying ‘I’m sorry for being a dynast’. 

Instead of apologizing for being from the Nehru-Gandhi family, Rahul Gandhi should boast about it. The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty is the best USP of the Congress party. Also, Had it not been for the Nehru-Gandhi family, there would have been no Congress party left. The reason why Congressmen begged Sonia Gandhi to take over the reins was because it was collapsing like a pack of cards under Narasimha Rao and Sitaram Kesri.

Be proud and wear it on the sleeve: 

Instead of counting the non-Gandhis who have led the Congress, Sh. Chidamabaram should say he’s proud to be led by the Nehru-Gandhis. Two members of this family laid down their lives for India. Nehru spent almost nine years in jail to fight for India’s freedom. He was made the Congress president for the first time on the recommendation of Mahatma Gandhi, whom Mr Modi has been trying to appropriate. 

Like all influential leaders, the Nehru-Gandhis are a mixed bag of some great achievements and otherwise. Yet, you’ll find none other than the Hindutvawadis abusing them. People old enough to remember Nehru, Indira or Rajiv only remember them fondly. Instead of apologizing for the surname, the Congress should launch a campaign taking ownership of the dynasty. Perhaps, the most amazing dynast till date has been Sonia Gandhi, who managed to displace a towering BJP leader like Sh. Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Under her leadership, the Congress ruled India for 10 years recently, and voters did not buy the BJP’s ‘Italian’ rhetoric about her.

In conclusion, It is by resurrecting Nehru, Indira and Rajiv as icons of modern India that Rahul Gandhi can revel in some inherited glory. Relatively young and  Short of achievements in his own CV, Rahul Gandhi can sell himself to voters as the heir of a family identified with India’s freedom, democracy and progress over the decades, warts and all.

All views expressed here in this article are personal

Unity of Vedic Religion and Modern Hinduism!

Very often in polite liberal circles, there is consternation when it is claimed that Hinduism is the religion of the Vedas. The immediate counter is: "No! That's a brahminical right wing view. Hinduism is extremely diverse, disorganized motley collection of South Asian faiths" I contend however that this fashionable view is very inaccurate. In my view much of the theological and philosophical beliefs of the Hindus actually stems from the Vedas. Also there is a case to be made that Hinduism is actually an extremely well organized belief system with a standardized canon, and a well defined philosophical framework, housing considerable variety within that framework. 

The representatives on the so-called “Hindu Right” often underplay the “organization” of Hinduism in their eagerness to distinguish themselves from the “Abrahamic” faiths. “Organized religion” has become a dirty word of sorts for both the Left and Right in India. So for many on the Right, Hinduism is “special” because it is not an organized religion. But the fact is Hinduism is extremely well organized. And the Right is stupid to deny this. (No offence intended)

Before one gets to the organization of Hinduism, let’s first examine the claim that modern Hinduism bears little resemblance to Vedic religion. This view is articulated by Michael Witzel & Stephanie Jamison in their 1992 work “Vedic Hinduism”- admittedly a well written work. Here’s what they say, “Vedic Hinduism" is a contradiction in terminus since Vedic religion is very different from what we generally call "Hindu religion", - at least as much Old Hebrew religion is from medieval and modern Christian religion” This claim by Witzel and Stephanie is problematic in a number of ways. 

Firstly the claim is so very opposed to the belief of most traditional Hindus who see themselves as part of the grand vedic religious tradition to this day.  But why is that? Why do academics of religion hold a view so very opposed to that of the practitioners on the ground? The most important reason lies in the very different understanding of the term “Veda” on both sides. Typically when academics refer to the “Vedic religion” they usually refer to the “Samhita” portion of the Vedas - the religion of mantras and sacrifices and elaborate rituals, which they believe is non-existent in modern Hinduism. But the traditional understanding of the term “Veda” is very different. When a traditionalist uses the term, he uses it in a catholic sense. Referring not merely to the Samhitas, but also the Upanisads (the knowledge portion of the Vedas). And not just the Upanisads, but the entire corpus of secondary literature inspired by the Upanisads. This literature would include the Sutra literature of different philosophical schools, the Bhagavad Gita itself, the numerous commentaries on the Sutra literature (known in Indian parlance as “Bhashyas”) and the theological / literary traditions inspired by these commentators. The Vedic religion is ALL of the above. And not merely the sacrificial rites described in the earliest layer (which may technically be obsolete).

Also the Hindu religion does not view the Samhitas as obsolete (though specific rituals might be). The ritualistic spirit of the Samhitas (captured by later “Purva Mimamsa”) is very much a part of modern Hindu religion. Though the rituals themselves may have changed in character. While the typical western academic sees the Samhitas and Upanisads as being at loggerheads with each other, the Indian mind does not see the latter as a revolt against the former. In fact a traditionalist would claim that much of the philosophical inquiry found in Upanisads can be traced back to the Samhitas. Two examples being Nasadiya Sukta (the idea of an “Agnostic God”) and “Purusha Sukta” (the germs of later Hindu ideas of division of labor).

The other argument of many indologists concerns theology. There is often the view that Vedic gods like Indra, Varuna, Soma are no longer worshiped in India today. Modern Hinduism’s theology derives mainly from Itihaasas & Puranas, and hence bears no connection to Vedic religion. But then this view downplays a few inconvenient facts.

  

Firstly the major modern Hindu deities - be it Vishnu or Shiva - are very much Vedic Gods. And fairly major ones at that

• Many Vaishnavites to this day chant Purusha Suktam, as they regard the Primeval Cosmic being described in it as “Narayana” or Vishnu - Worth reminding ourselves that this Sukta is very much a part of Samhita portion of Vedas - the part viewed as most remote from modern Hinduism
• The Shri-Rudram hymn (also known as Śatarudrīya) found in the Taittareya rescension of the Yajur Veda Samhita, is chanted by devout Shaivites to this day, in just about every other Shiva temple. Several indologists regard the “Vedic Rudra” as merely a proto-Shiva, and not Shiva himself. Yet the Rudram hymn’s description of Shiva is very much in line with later Puranic conception of the lord. Some of the adjectives used to describe Rudra in the Satarudriya include - 
Shiva (auspicious), 
Triambaka (Three eyed one), 
Tripurantaka (the destroyer of the three cities), 
Mahadeva (the great deity)
, Neelakanta (the blue throated one)
, Neelagreeva (the blue necked one)These are not alien to us. The Vedic description of the lord is very very consistent with that of Shiva today. So the point to be noted is that even if we were to use the highly restricted definition of the term “Veda” by considering only the Samhitas, there are still very very strong commonalities between the religious ideas in the Samhitas and modern Hindu religious ideas.

Now let’s look at the Upanisads. These are a highly influential body of philosophical texts, viewed by every Hindu as very much Vedic. Now why are these texts important? Because they lay out the basic philosophical framework / verbiage leveraged by all Indian belief systems. How closely are these Upanisads connected to modern Hindu religious practice? Very closely.


In fact the two foundation texts of modern Hinduism, Badarayana’s Brahma Sutras and Bhagavad Gita - can both be regarded as texts that systematize the teachings in the Upanisads. In fact Upanisads along with Brahma Sutras and Gita, are together regarded as “Prasthana trayi” - the three indispensable texts in Hinduism. The massive sectarian diversity in India stems from the difference in interpretation of Brahma Sutras and Gita, which in turn are influenced by the Upanisads. It is often stated that there can be no new sect founded in India that does not begin with a fresh take on Brahma Sutras. That’s actually not a very exaggerated comment. 

There are five broad interpretations of the Brahma Sutras that are still extant today. And these five broadly encompass nearly all the Hindu sects that exist today.

1. Adi Sankara Sampradaya (Monism)

2. Ramanuja (Qualified Monism)

3. Madhwa (Strict Dualism)

4. Nimbarka (Dualistic Non dualism)
5. 
Vallabha (Pure Non dualism)

Every Hindu sect can be bucketed under the philosophical framework expounded by one of these five streams. All these five traditions emerged from commentaries written by philosophers who lived between the 8th and the 15th century. And these commentaries were on Brahma Sutra - a "Vedic age" text - the very religious epoch that is regarded by many academics as being remote from modern Hinduism.

The other argument worth making is that the dichotomy between Vedic literature and Puranic/ Itihaasa literature that is often drawn in academia, is not accepted by traditional Hindus. To devout Hindus, there is no distinction between Puranic Hinduism and Vedic Hinduism. For eg: The Gita itself can be viewed as an Upanisadic text, while being part of an Itihaasa. Its author is arguably Veda Vyasa, who is also credited with having authored Brahma Sutras as well as having arranged the Vedas. Vyasa is also credited as author of the important Puranas. While it may seem crazy to attribute so many important texts to a single individual, it is less crazy than it sounds. Many scholars have pointed out the similarities that exist between the Gita and the Brahma Sutras. Both texts reference each other! And they both discuss Sankhya and other rival philosophies at length. So it is plausible that tradition may be right here that a single dominant figure had a hand in the current rescission of both texts.

So to conclude here are some takeaways from this discussion

• Hinduism is more organized than most people think, with a remarkable intellectual continuity, much of which is by design and not accident
• The sectarian diversity in Hinduism (which is held as evidence of it being disorganized) actually stems from a difference of opinion on the same set of fundamental texts - which are Vedic in origin
• Modern Hindu theology is not disconnected or remote from Vedic theology, but in fact descends from the latter, as illustrated in the example of Satarudriya hymn.

To position Vedic religion as a predecessor or a relative of modern Hinduism is simply not accurate. Regardless of one’s ideological or political affiliation, the unity of the two needs to be acknowledged more often by more people. Hinduism is very much the religion of the Vedas!

I would like to acknowledge and thank Sh. Changanti Koteswara Rao garu - whose lectures indeed inspired me to put forth this detailed view on my religion and Sh Samavedam Shanmukha Sarma whose books are the source of many views expressed.

All views expressed here in this article are personal

Indian Electoral History - An insight into robustness of the Indian democracy

India- A democracy in real sense:

India became a republic in 1950 and held its first parliamentary elections in 1952. What was so momentous about this event was that a country largely illiterate and unused to democratic process transitioned to universal adult suffrage in a manner unlike any other country. Close to 80% of the adult population in India was illiterate at the time of the first general election. Yet every Indian was given the right to vote across the country. A very very radical transition.

This is in sharp contrast to say a country like UK, that was NOT a democracy throughout the sixteen, seventeen and eighteenth centuries - when it had its great Industrial Revolution and managed to lift millions above mere subsistence living for the first time in human history. To put the Indian miracle into perspective, it is worthwhile to note that the United Kingdom had a franchise limited to less than 30% of its population even as late as 1914. Even in 1927, most women could not vote in UK. UK moved to 100% franchise only in 1928! This is despite the fact that UK had well over 80% literacy in 1900 - yet the franchise was under 30%, limited to men of property for the most part. So the Indian experience was indeed exceptional. 

Yet how has Indian democracy fared over the past 70 years. Pretty well, as we have mostly held free and fair elections. But it is often opinionated that one party dominated power for too long despite evident non performance.While that may be true, it was largely an outcome of the parliamentary system and the "first past the post" set up. In terms of Vote share, the Indian National Congress never got a majority of votes in ANY general election. Not even in 1952. 

Era of Centralist Congress with Left inclined leader, Nehru at helm

So let's look at how the Congress's vote share has changed in India since 1952 - INC vote share in 1952 was 45%. This however translated to a thumping majority of 364 seats (out of 489). The voter turnout in this election was surprisingly low at 45.7%. The interesting point to note is that even in the very first election where one would have thought Congress was the supreme political power and had no alternatives, 55% of Indians actually did not vote for its candidates. 

In 1957, the Congress vote share actually improved to 47.8% and 371 seats. The opposition was heavily fragmented. The second largest party in both 1952 and 57 was in fact CPI - with 3.3% vote share in '52 which improved to 8.9% in 1957! So the interesting thing to note is that in both 52 and 57 the main challenge to the Congress was not from the Right. But from the Left. The Congress party was perceived as a centrist / center-right party in those early days, despite having a rather left-wing leader in Nehru. 1957 also saw the formation of the first non-Congress government in an Indian state. Kerala saw the victory of CPI that year. A historic moment as it was the first time that Communists had won power through democratic means anywhere in the world (not counting San Marino).

In the next general election in 1962, Congress party's vote share remained high at 44.7% (361 seats). CPI remained the second largest party with 9.9% vote share. However this year was the first time that there emerged an "Indian Right" with a decent vote share. The Swatantra party had been formed 3 years prior to the 62 election. It was arguably India's first explicitly conservative party. The other conservative party in the fray was Bharatiya Jan Sangh founded in the early 50s. These two parties won 7.9% and 6.4% vote in 1962. So for the first time, the Congress faced opposition from not just the Left but also the Right. These two parties put together won over 14% votes. But it was unfortunate for the Indian conservative movement that Rajaji's Swatantra and Jan Sangh never formed an alliance.

Era of Indira Gandhi: Leftist Congress giving  Space for of Right to Rise

1967 was a significant election because it was the first time Congress fought the elections post Nehru's demise. L.B Shastri was a candidate chosen by internal party factions, and never led the Congress in a general election. By 1967 after he had passed on, and Congress projected Indira Gandhi as its Prime ministerial candidate sidelining her conservative rival Morarji Desai. One could say that this was the elections when Congress became more explicitly a left wing party than ever before in Indian politics. What this meant was that opposition to Congress now was primarily from the Right, and not from the Left unlike earlier elections. 1967 saw further strengthening of the Indian Right with Swatantra winning 8.7% votes and Jan Sangh 9.3%. In total these 2 parties won 79 seats!

Between 1967 and the next general elections in 1971, the Congress had a split. Indira Gandhi was expelled from the party and formed her own left-wing Congress (I) as opposed to Congress (O) - a more centrist party led by the likes of Morarji and Kamaraj. However this did not hurt Indira at all in 1971. The elections put to rest speculation on which faction would emerge as the "real" Congress post split. Indira's Congress won 43.7% of votes (352 seats), while Morarji led Congress (O) won just 10.4% of the votes (and 16 seats). In fact in 1971, a "right wing" alliance was formed - with Congress (O) of Morarji aligning with Rajaji's Swatantra and the Jan Sangh. Yet this alliance and the first consolidation of the "Right" did not help matters. The alliance just won 24% of all votes and 51 seats. Part of the reason why the "Right" didn't do well was because it had declined between 1967 and 71. Rajaji was now a frailer, older man. Jan Sangh too had lost Deen Dayal Upadhyaya. Its young brigade led by Vajpayee and Advani was yet to emerge forcefully on the national stage.

The intervening years had also seen Congress move firmly to the Left. With its Garibi Hatao slogan, populist schemes such as de-recognition of princes and nationalization of banks. The Congress was now clearly a Left wing party unlike in 1952. This was also a period of declining political morality. Indira Gandhi was accused of electoral malpractice by the Allahabad High Court in 1975. Instead of resigning she declared an emergency and suspended the democratic process. India was not a democracy from 1975 to 1977. So the elections that were supposed to happen in 1976, did not happen till 1977, when Indira called for fresh elections. This election saw the first defeat of Congress on the national stage and the victory of the Janata Party led alliance which consolidated all non Congress votes. While it is definitely true that there was a very strong anti-Indira sentiment in 1977, one must note that Congress (I) still won 34.5% of the vote that year. 

So Indira's defeat was caused by the first "Mahagatbandhan" in Indian politics when parties as diverse as Congress (O), Jan Sangh, Swatantra, Socialist party, Akali Dal, DMK got together to consolidate the Anti Congress vote. This coalition won 345 seats and 51.9% of votes. What's striking about 1977 was that it was the first non-ideological alliance in Indian politics. The first time socialists joined hands with Hindu conservatives to defeat a common enemy. This lack of ideological coherence was also ultimately the cause of its fall in 1980. The schism in this grand alliance came in 1979 when socialists withdrew support to Morarji Desai the PM - a man who was always seen as a conservative in Indian politics. Charan Singh, succeeded Morarji. But couldn't get the requisite support. Elections were called in 1980.

In 1980 Congress roared back to power with 353 seats, 200 more than the 153 it won in 1977. This reversion to Congress happened largely because the opposition lacked the ideological coherence to stick together. The socialists and the nationalists had little in common. An interesting thing to note is that Congress vote share in 1980 was 42.7% (up from 35% in 1977) - a big increase yes. Nevertheless 57% of the people did not vote for Congress candidates. Clearly underscoring how important opposition unity is.

Era of Rajiv Gandhi - Fall and Rise of Right Forces

In 1984, Indira Gandhi was assassinated, and elections were called again, a year ahead of schedule. Rajiv Gandhi rode on a sympathy wave and Congress came back to power with 404 seats. But this "sympathy" factor is overstated by analysts. Even in 1984, when INC won more seats than ever before or after, the Congress vote share remained BELOW 50%. It was 49.1%.

The right wing faction of the erstwhile Janata Party had now morphed into the BJP - which made its debut this election - winning just 2 seats. What's interesting about Indian politics of this time is the decline of the Right. The Right (comprising of Swatantra and Jan Sangh) had won over 14% of the votes back in 1967, as noted. But 17 years later in 1984, the Swatantra was dead. And the BJP won just 7.7% of votes. This period from 1967 to 1984 - is a dark phase in the history of the Indian conservative movement. The Right had a chastening experience in 1984. And that was when it decided to position itself more firmly and strongly with Hindu causes - a decision that changed Indian politics.

The next election in 1989 saw a massive shift in results. Congress won just 197 seats (down from 405), the Janata Dal (basically the left-wing faction of 1977 JP) won 143 seats and the BJP (the RW faction of erstwhile JP) won 85 seats with Advani at the helm. However vote shares tell us a less dramatic story. Congress actually won 39.5% of the votes in 1989. Sure, it was way below 49% won in 1984. But still by far the highest. Again it was the Gatbandhan of the LW JD and the RW BJP that kept Congress out, brought VP Singh to power. But again this was an alliance of convenience. The socialists and populists in JD had little in common with the conservationists in BJP. The govt had to fall due to its internal contradictions. Chandrasekhar was around for a while with outside Cong support. Eventually he too fell.

Era of Real Coalition Politics:

We had elections again in 1991. But this time Rajiv was assasinated in the last leg of campaigning. The decline of Congress continued. It got just 35.7% seats in 1991 down from 39% in 1989. However its seat tally improved to 244. And it formed a minority govt with outside support. The years between 1991 and 1996 saw the further strengthening of BJP in the wake of the Ayodhya movement. But the govt in power was surprisingly stable despite being a minority govt. Credit partly has to go to PVN Rao - a conservative right-of-center Congressman. But PVN Rao's rule did not help Congress at the hustings.

In 1996, the Congress slide continued. Its vote share was now down to 29% (a huge drop from 35% in 91) And it won just 140 seats. Rao's conservative style had not worked. The Congress ditched him and turned to the left again. The BJP now was clearly the single largest party. Its vote share was just 20% in 96, yet it won 161 seats (21 more than Congress). It was kept out of power till 98 by a Cong supported left-wing coalition called United Front. But its assumption of power in 1998 was inevitable. The BJP assumed power in 1998, but was nevertheless reliant on allies to get to the majority. It was brought down by its southern allies in 1999. However a BJP led alliance re-emerged in 1999. In that year's election BJP won 182 seats and 23.8% of votes. However it is interesting to note that the Congress managed 28% of votes (same as in 1996) even in 1999. But just got 114 seats. The story of these years was the decreasing electoral efficiency of the Congress. It became less and less good at converting votes to seats. The BJP led NDA enjoyed power under the strong leadership of Atal Vajpayee from 1998 to 2004 - a 6 year period of center-right govt unprecedented in the history of Independent India.

But 2004 was a remarkable election that saw a center-left alliance come back to power led by Congress against all expectations. It's interesting to note however that Congress vote share in 2004 was just 26.7% seats (down from 28% in 99). So its decline as a party continued. Yet, there was a consolidation of votes against the BJP and not surprisingly there formed a "United Progressive Alliance" - a left wing alternative to NDA, that managed to cobble together the majority with outside support from the Left front. In 2009 the UPA consolidated its position, and Congress arrested its decline as a party by improving its own vote share from 26% back to 28%. However in 2009 the Congress got more efficient at converting its votes to seats and ended up winning 206 seats on its own. The period from 2004 and 2014 is a 10 year long period of center-left dominance in Indian politics. Which in some ways was inexplicable. It followed a 6 year reign of a center right govt led by Vajpayee (which was perceived positively on the whole). So the re-emergence of the center-left and the arrest in the development of BJP was hard to explain. The most attributable reason was the vacuum in BJP leadership and its inability to drive home its exceptionalism and its conservative credentials.

Real shift of power from Centralist and Left forces to Right Conservative force:

The lesson was learnt in 2014. It was a year of very strong anti-incumbency against a deeply unpopular UPA govt. The BJP rallied strongly behind Narendra Modi - inarguable the most popular Indian leader since Indira Gandhi. The outcome in the 2014 elections was remarkable. And the shift observed between 2009 and 2014 was the most radical in Indian history excepting the 1977 elections.  For the first time since 1984, a single party (BJP in this case) got to 272+ seats on its own! In terms of vote share, this was the first time a Non Congress party got over 30% seats in a general election. A remarkable milestone in Indian history. The BJP vote share in 2014 was 31%. And the Congress vote share was 19% (translating to just 44 seats). This was a HUGE shift. 

The increase in BJP's vote share from 18.8% in 2009 (under Advani) to 31% in 2014 - is without a precedent in Indian electoral history. There has never been a 5 year period when any party has achieved such a stupendous rise in vote share. This remarkable transformation was attributable in large part to one man - Narendra Modi. Yet it is sobering to note that BJP's vote share in 2014 was still lower than what the Congress obtained in 1991 (when it formed a minority govt with 35% vote). While the Modi govt remains extremely popular it has to be mindful of history and form alliances with prudence. As this thread on Indian electoral history shows, "Gatbandhans" have often caused the single largest party to sit in opposition several times since 1952. 

This electoral history also suggests the robustness of the Indian democratic process and its durability notwithstanding the pessimism all around the world in 1952 - when few countries gave the "Indian state" any chance beyond a decade or two.

                                                All views mentioned in this article are personal 

Karnataka: An exceptional mix of Dravidian and Hindutva Politics!!

Karnataka had its 15th assembly election in May - a much discussed election 

While the media followed the election closely, the "exceptionalism" of Karnataka politics was not noted by most of the observers. So what makes Karnataka exceptional in the context of Indian politics?

Let's take a closer look at the results in 2018 - The two national parties - BJP and INC accounted for 74.2% of the votes! This makes Karnataka a battleground for the national parties, unlike any of the other southern states. To put things in perspective - In Tamil Nadu, the two national parties accounted for 9.26% of the votes in the 2016 assembly elections. In AP in 2014, BJP+Cong got 14.8% of the votes polled In Kerala in 2016, the two parties polled 34.4% of the votes.That makes Karnataka's 74% truly exceptional in the context of South Indian politics.

Nor is this a recent phenomenon - the two national parties between them have always polled well over 40% (in most cases 50%+) votes in every assembly election held in Karnataka between 1952 and 2018! This is worth remarking given that Karnataka is a South Indian state that speaks a "Dravidian" language and has a distinct regional political history of its own going back nearly two millennia from the Kadambas and Gangas right down to the Wodeyars in the 20th century.Despite its distinctiveness as a cultural and political bloc for much of Indian history, Karnataka, has post independence, resisted regionalization of its polity. The complete failure of Dravidian politics and the consistent success of the national parties in Karnataka has to be one of the most remarkable conundrums in Indian political history. 

But that's not the only thing worth remarking about Karnataka politics. The other exceptional feature of this state is that it remains in many ways one of the last strongholds of Indian National Congress party - a state where the Grand Old Party has enjoyed more success than perhaps in any other major state. In fact in the 66 years since 1952, the Indian National Congress has enjoyed power in Karnataka for close to 50 of those years! With brief interludes being 1983 to 1989, 94 to 99, and again 2006 to 2013. The dominance of Congress in Karnataka hardly has another parallel in a similarly large state - not even in states with bipolar polity - like Gujarat, Rajasthan and MP, where Congress remains a force, but has not been as consistently dominant as in Karnataka throughout history. In fact in the 15 elections since '52, Congress vote share has dropped below 30% except on just one occasion- in 1994, when HDD Gowda brought the Janata Dal to power. Till 1994, Congress vote share never fell below 40% in any election! Not even in the 1980s when it sat in the opposition

The other exceptional feature of Karnataka has been its hospitability to right wing politics - it was one of the earliest states to provide the BJP some serious encouragement. Very few states responded to the Ayodhya movement as viscerally as Karnataka did. Between 1989 and 1994, the BJP increased its vote share in Karnataka from 4.1% to 17% - an enormous increase. While BJP's remarkable show in 1994 may have fetched it only 40 seats, this was a remarkable rise of a party for which it is hard to find a parallel. But it would be inappropriate to trace back the rise of BJP in Karnataka to the Ayodhya movement per se. A climate of opinion favorable to conservative Hindu politics has always existed in Karnataka right from the 50s. The Bharatiya Jan Sangh contested its first election in Mysore state in 1957. Even in that early year, BJS got 1.3% of all votes in the state! In 1962 that vote share was 2.3% and in 1967 2.8%. This suggests a significant presence of the Sangh in the state from its incipience. When the newly constituted Bharatiya Janata Party fought one of its first elections in Karnataka, in 1983, it got a whopping 7.9% of the vote in the state! This was actually higher than the 7.7% that BJP got nationally in the general elections in 1984! So the point to be noted here is that BJP is not a force that emerged out of nowhere in Karnataka in mid-2000s under Yediyurappa's stewardship. A culture amenable to right wing politics has always existed in the state. Its rise merely got accentuated by the Ayodhya movement. In fact back in the 60s, Mysore was also one of the states where the other conservative party - "Swatantra" enjoyed some success. In 1962, barely 3 years into its founding, Swatantra polled over 7% in the state. So Jan Sangh and Swatantra together accounted for 10% of all votes!

So three remarkable features of Karnataka politics -

1. The failure of Dravidian politics to take root 
2. The dominance of INC throughout the state's history 
3. The state's hospitality to right wing parties and its incredible response to the Ayodhya movement

Some important Questions that arise in this overall discussion are the following:

1. But what makes Karnataka special? 
2. Why has the state bucked the trend in its neighboring states towards greater regionalism? 
3. Why has the state stood by the Congress for as long as it has? 
4. And why has BJP succeeded in Karnataka while failing miserably in rest of the south?

These are questions that are difficult to answer conclusively. Karnataka is very much a part of the Dravidian southern bloc, in lingual terms. It is a state that has had a distinctive regional political culture going back atleast 1500 years Yet it has proved to be different

One of the reasons for this lies probably in the lingual diversity of the state which has prevented language based fundamentalism from emerging, notwithstanding the dominance of Kannada as the lingua franca in the state. As per a recent available census of 2001, Kannada is the mother tongue for only about 66.3% of the state's inhabitants. Other mother tongues include - Urdu (10.5%), Telugu (7%), Tamil (3.6%), Marathi (3.6%), Tulu (3%), Hindi (2.6%), Konkani (1.5%), Malayalam(1.3%) and Kodava(0.3%). An incredibly diverse state. This is in sharp contrast to say Tamil Nadu, where Tamil is spoken by 88% of the population and AP where Telugu is the language of 84%. In Kerala, Malayalam is spoken by 97% of the state's inhabitants!

The other aspect of Karnataka that makes it different from other states is the enormous regional diversity both in landscape and culture. While South Interior Karnataka (often dubbed "Old Mysore") remains the heartland of the state with a very dominant Kannada culture, this is less true for other parts of the state. The coastal areas have considerable Tulu, Konkan, Malayali minority presence. The north western part is usually dubbed "Bombay Karnataka" with very significant influence of Marathi culture. While the North Eastern portion is an arid desert with significant Telugu minority. In fact, the town of Dharwad in north west Karnataka is regarded as the capital of Hindustani music (the north indian variant of Indian classical music). It is regarded as a town where north meets south! Probably emblematic of the state's complex cosmopolitanism.

The other distinctive aspect of Karnataka is the incredible cosmopolitanism of its capital city - Bangalore, where the politics is centered. Bangalore by most accounts has less than 50% Kannada speakers. This is in sharp contrast to Chennai where Tamil is spoken by close to 80%. The multi lingual character of Bangalore isn't new fangled. The city atleast 50% non-Kannadiga even back in the 1940s-50s in its early years as the state's capital, long before its emergence as a PSU and later IT hub. 

The other interesting characteristic of Karnataka is its social structure and culture. The two dominant castes are Vokkaligas and Lingayats which between them account for nearly 35-40% of the population. The Brahmins number around 2-3%, but higher than other southern states. Unlike the Madras Presidency, a culture of Anti-brahminism never developed in Karnataka to the same extent. This is probably because the brahmins in Karnataka had historically succeeded better in sanskritizing language and culture than brahmins in TN, Kerala or AP. The Kannada language is easily the most sanskritized of all the four southern languages (though some Malayalis may object). More importantly there is no gulf in the language spoken by different castes. The Kannada of a brahmin is no different from the Kannada of a Lingayat. This is in sharp contrast to say TN, where to this day, there is a gulf in the language across castes. Brahmin tamil remains a distinctive Tamil dialect. The Tamil brahmins were simply put, less successful, in sanskritizing the language of the masses than the Kannada brahmins.

Similar observations can be made in terms of general culture. Karnataka is home to one of the highest rates of vegetarianism outside of North India. Over 20% of the population is vegetarian, unlike the rates of 2-4% in the states of TN, AP and Kerala. While in the other 3 southern states, vegetarianism remains a mark of "brahmin culture", in Karnataka, vegetarianism is mass culture to a significant extent. 

The other reason for the lack of the development of a "Dravidian" culture in Karnataka is the strong conflict between the two dominant groups - Vokkaliga and Lingayat, in just about every respect. The Vokkaligas are largely inhabitants of "Old Mysore". While Lingayats are dominant in northern Karnataka. So there is a geographical distinction. Lingayats are vegetarians and teetotallers. Vokkaligas are heavy meat eaters. Lingayats are anti-brahmin! While Vokkaligas are not. 

So there never has been a "Dravidian" consolidation in Karnataka, given the diversity that is inherent to the state and the healthy rivalry between the two dominant upper caste groups. 

These are some of the important reasons why Karnataka remains unique, and so is its politics! A truly unique state with a particularly distinctive political, social and lingual culture! 

Feel free to chip in with more thoughts! All the views expressed here are my personal views.

Karnataka War Front - A trade-off between being Constitutional and Ethical

To all those who are saying 'Democracy Won' after the recent turn of events in Karnataka i.e. announcements of the results on 15th May 2018. Sorry I doubt if it has.

There are pre-poll alliances out there in open where the voters asses the alliance collectively and exercise their choice while casting votes. And then there are last minute post election alliances. The later represents the sheer growing opportunism in our blood. 

JDS and BSP went into this Karnataka election in alliance and spoke actively to the voters listing and highlighting the negatives in Congress and BJP and so did the Congress and BJP.

JDS, BSP and Congress joining hands is a representation of the punctured spines of our political class and the complete disregard they have to whatever they say pre poll. It is a representation of how immaterial and insignificant is the ideological and aspirational investment of a voter in a vote for her/his political leader. How vanished or non-existent are concepts like uprightness in the way we operate as a society.

Similar episodes of post poll alliance happened in J&K where BJP and Mehbooba Mufti's PDP joined hands, and also in Maharashtra where BJP and ShivSena joined hands post election ignoring every convincing exercise each of these parties did to make the voters believe how gross and unhealthy will be the arrival of the other. 

Nitish Kumar and BJP did the same in Bihar. The well articulated and well stitched grand alliance of Janta Dal(United), Congress and RJD won 180 out of 243 seats in Bihar. The voters vehemently rejected BJP by they losing on almost 4/5th of the seats they contested. Yet last year Nitish conveniently ditched the collective mandate and joined hands with BJP. What puts me to wonder is, how do you do it without a wrinkle on fore head, I mean for 5 years that is from mid of year 2012 to mid of year 2017 BJP and Nitish despised each other, infact Nitish's entire campaign was curated around how hollow and fascist the BJP is. 

No, Democracy doesn't win when your vote which is a cumulative investment of your trust, aspirations and ideologies is mauled mercilessly in the unadulterated pursuit to remain in power.

What we witnessed yesterday wasn't democracy's win but mere prevention of a constitutional fraud, was mere salvaging some of India's tattered democracy which the BJP President and Karnataka's governor were determined to finish it altogether.  

I wish we don't bask for too long in the slight comfort reeling out from how things unfolded yesterday but feel disturbed on how effortlessly we have been pushed into making peace with 'unethical' vs  'unconstitutional' 

To the BJP supporters in the Karnataka Elections, You project that you reject Congress on how corrupt they are and then you rejoice over Yeddyurappa being named as the Chief Ministerial candidate, the man who was forced to resign from his Chief Ministerial post in 2012 and sent to jail for illegal mining. There are running cases on him of his involvement in murder, extortion and land scams. You reject Congress on corruption and then you accept BJP giving 7 tickets to the famous Reddy Brothers, one of them has spent 42 months in jail for illegal iron ore mining. How do you manage to pull of such hypocrisies? The truth is you are absolutely fine with corruption. You just use the word as your cover for your English Speaking Urban Bigotry. The truth is that the indoctrinated soft hate and convenient demonization you carry in your heart for a set of people gets a channel to outflow and flourish under the saffron Umbrella. Your shallowness and hypocrisy like your political leaders kissed height when your heart was rooting for the brazen buying of the elected representatives. 

I want BJP supporters to offload themselves from the cloak of anti-corruption, anti dynasty politics, come out in open and scream for your burning desire for hegemony. Stop serving the image they want to be perceived in. Their truth deserves the right to be known, to hide it is cowardly.

To the ones over glorifying Supreme Court, What did the Supreme Court do ? 

Well, It played a neutral referee.

 

Isn't that what it is supposed to do at the bare minimum level. Our overt sense of thankfulness towards an institution for just being how they are expected to be underlines the acute dearth in trust and expectations we are left with, in and from such institutions. 

History stands testament to the fact that there have been innumerous cases in past where judgments coming from Supreme Court have been extremely biased. So lets be done with the overglorification. It biases your mind and clouds your vision and therefore unknowingly disempowers you to question that figure. Let the institutions pass through your critical lens every single time, case by case, in individual capacities. 

Nevertheless, I firmly believe in acknowledging and will appreciate in writing that it was very gracious of SC to fix hearing at 1: 45 am on 16th of May. Deserve every bit of kudo for giving more than 3 hours from midnight to dawn. I went through the excerpts of the transcript of the hearing. It was a hearing with quotient of patience par excellence. There would be rare examples of courts making themselves available for justice during that hour of the day at such short notices. No denying, acts like these do restore a degree of faith back in guardian institutes like Supreme Court. Thank you.

Key Takeaways:

• Despite a monument built out of failed promises, despite the carnage of facts and history in his speeches Narendra Modi continues to be the most loved political leader in contemporary India. 
• Congress for the first time in last 4 years has shown dynamism in resistance, a welcome change for the health of democracy
• Due acknowledgment to those MLA's who were offered bribes running into hundreds of crores, threatened by public institutions from the likes of CBI, Income Tax, whose family were under threat. Thank you for not giving up too soon. 
• D K Shivkumar of Congress has emerged as a rare and remarkably astute politician. Guarding 117 MLA's from being bought for 72 hours from the likes of men as powerful and veteran as Amit Shah was no mean feat. 
• There is no direct opposition to Narendra Modi in 2019's LokSabha election, there is no space for a triangular contest on the lines of a BJP, Congress and A Third Front. If there is a fight, if at all there is; it is between the BJP and United Front.
• We have come to the lowest of our political culture as a nation, Horse trading got normalised to such extent that people from both the sides alike were literally finding it exciting and not dangerous. 

Prediction 

- Though the BJP has been shown that there are limits to your arrogance and high headedness. Their mannerism to subvert and collude every public institution has got checked but Amit-Modi duo are highly egoistic and ambitious individuals. They will not rest here, and an attempt to destabilize the upcoming coalition government will soon make inroads.

All views mentioned in this article are personal 

Karnataka Assembly Elections 2018: Why congress has an edge in fight between Siddaramaih and Amit Shah!

Karnataka Legislative Election 2018 looks as if  Rahul has outsourced it to Siddaramaiah and Yeddyurappa has outsourced to Amit Shah

With a little more than a month to go for the Karnataka polls - one of the most-awaited electoral battles this year - political fights are heating up in the southern state. And while there hangs a certain cautious optimism in the Congress camp, the saffron party seems to be fumbling to find a definitive narrative to take on chief minister Siddaramaiah’s regional sub-nationalism, populist image, unwavering hold on his loyal voter base and deft political management.

With Narendra Modi’s aura of invincibility now looking to fade and the grand old party attempting to find its mojo back, the Karnataka elections in all likelihood will set the tone for assembly polls in four more states (Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Mizoram) ahead of the grand battle in 2019 where BJP don't look either confident or winnable except in Mizoram.

And going by the current optics and political developments, the Congress seems to be on a sound footing. And this optimism is not unfounded. The first signs of this were seen in the 2016 zilla panchayat elections. The Congress secured 46.88 per cent of the votes and won 498 zilla panchayat seats and 1,709 taluk panchayat seats while the BJP won 406 and 1,362 respectively.

Coming to recent developments in Karnataka, few days ago, Bharatiya Janata Party national president Amit Shah, at a press conference, said: “The B.S. Yeddyurappa (naming the BJP’s chief ministerial candidate instead of chief minister Siddaramaiah) government is number one in corruption.” The faux pas made things worse for the BJP, which is struggling to build a campaign based on anti-corruption and governance to fight Siddaramaiah and the Congress party.

For the BJP, this entire election depends on its ability to amplify the anti-incumbency – a decisive factor in Karnataka, where no incumbent government has been re-elected in over three decades. But it is facing an inherent crisis of credibility after having projected Yeddyurappa as the chief ministerial candidate.

Yeddyurappa had to step down as chief minister in 2010 following allegations of corruption, and making him the chief ministerial face was a forced decision. He would have split the party like he did in 2011, had he not been nominated. That’s why he was chosen – even though he lacks a clean image and is already 75 years old.

In this scenario, Shah is the one leading the BJP campaign in the state. The Congress seems to be shrewdly crafting a narrative of Siddaramiah vs Shah, in a state vs Centre battle.

After announcing the controversial decision to have a separate Karnataka flag, Siddaramaiah, in a Facebook post, made the case for greater federal autonomy and questioned the principle of allocation of finances. The effort is to build a narrative around the Centre’s injustice towards Karnataka and emerge as the champion of the state and local language.

Centre vs state disputes over the allocation of resources are common in India. To mix that with linguistic and regional identities could lead to a dangerous, but electorally powerful, cocktail.

In many ways, the Congress is like a regional party in this election, led by a regional satrap, and is using linguistic and regional chauvinism to combat anti-incumbency. It’s similar to how Prime Minister Narendra Modi used “Gujarati asmita” and regional pride to his advantage in Gujarat when the UPA was in power at the Centre. His party is at the receiving end now.

In all these issues, state flag or federal autonomy, the BJP state leadership has been forced into silence. Challenging Siddaramaiah would mean risking the perception of going against regional sentiments, but endorsing him won’t help the party electorally at the state or ideologically at the national level.

This has further brought the focus on Shah as the one challenging Siddaramaiah’s statements and engaging the chief minister in a public debate.

The Congress hopes to turn this to its advantage and pit Siddaramaiah as the champion of the state against Shah as the face of the Centre. Rahul Gandhi, for instance, is not dominating the debate like he did in Gujarat, and its Shah vs Siddaramaiah, online and on the ground.

While Shah has been at the forefront of party campaigns in Uttar Pradesh or Gujarat, the larger narrative was a Modi vs Rahul battle. In Karnataka, the BJP has not been able to make it a Yeddyurappa vs Siddaramaiah battle, and a regional satrap usually has the edge over a national leader in a state election.

This apart, the state government’s decision to recommend religion status for the Lingayat sect has created confusion in the BJP. The Lingayats are divided into various sub-sects and form about 14% of the state’s population.

Yeddyurappa’s calling card is that he is the most powerful Lingayat leader in the state, but the religion tag has forced him to spend most of his efforts in consolidating his core base.

Even Congress leaders admit that they may not get a sizeable chunk of the Lingayat votes, but giving them the religion tag has denied the BJP a chance to be on the offensive.

Finally, the BJP needs something to turn the tide. One hope for the party is that Modi will be a powerful counter to the regional sentiments whipped up by the Congress. But at the moment, the Congress and its rare regional satrap seem to have the edge.

All views expressed in this article are personal 

Will Naidu's divorce from Modi makes him a good guy?

In January this year (2018), the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) sided with the Opposition parties inside Parliament over the issue of the Triple Talaq Bill. The BJP was not amused as it saw in the move an indication of things to come.

It was right.

Late on Wednesday  evening, 7 March, the TDP announced its decision to exit the NDA government, making its divorce from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) a matter of time and formality.

Those in the know of things say it was coming for a long time. Though the two parties share power both in New Delhi and in Andhra Pradesh, relations have been anything but smooth. State BJP leaders have taken frequent potshots at matters of governance and the TDP is convinced they have New Delhi's approval. In a rare outburst in January, Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu said he is willing to walk out of the alliance if the state BJP leaders were not reined in.

“Because of coalition dharma, we are keeping quiet. If they don't want us, we will do ‘namaskaram’ and chart our own course,” he said.

More Problems Than Just Money Matters

The Union Budget that gave zilch to Andhra Pradesh was the last straw. The TDP argued that since this was the last Budget before the elections, the BJP had made its intentions clear on not helping out Andhra, a state that suffered huge financial loss, with no state capital, no industry after the bifurcation in 2014.

Naidu has spent the last one month setting the stage for his exit. It was imperative he packaged it well because having enjoyed power in Delhi for four years, the decision to quit at the last minute could boomerang as well. On Wednesday, the decision to quit was gift wrapped as one taken in Andhra interest, but the real reason looks more political.

BJP and TDP have differing versions to offer on how much has been given or not given to Andhra. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley claims that minus the nomenclature of Special Category Status, which was a promise made by then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Parliament and reiterated by Narendra Modi during the 2014 election campaign, Andhra would get the same financial benefits.

This meant the Centre will fund all special projects in the ratio of 90:10 as opposed to 60:40 ratio for other states. But the TDP is insistent on the tag and the tax and investment concessions that will come with it. The Centre is reluctant because more backward states like Bihar have been denied the status.

But it is not just the differences over money matters that ruined the TDP-BJP relationship. When Naidu met Modi this January, it was after a gap of a year. It was widely said that the Andhra CM had found it difficult to secure an appointment, surprising given his stature as an important ally of the BJP.

Things took a turn for the worse two days ago when Jaitley reportedly told a delegation of TDP leaders that the country needed funds for defence as well. The implication was that Andhra was demanding far more than what was due to it.

“When we asked for help, we were met with grave injustice. You spoke as though we were asking all money at the cost of the defence of the country,” Naidu rued.

A Calculated Risk

What Naidu has done is a calculated risk. His sense would be that there is a palpable sentiment among the people of Andhra that they have been deceived twice over, first by the Congress when it divided the state going against popular sentiment of the people in the region and now by the BJP. To exploit that emotion politically and project himself as the sole protector of Telugu interest, Naidu might have taken this step. This can very well get him a second term in office.

Soon after the decision was taken, Nara Lokesh, Naidu’s son and Andhra’s IT minister, said the TDP had waited and believed in false promises enough. Underlined was an accusation of deception.

By raising the pitch against the BJP, what Naidu has also done is to ensure that his bete noire Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy does not ally with the saffron party. YSR Congress leaders would be wary as the BJP is seen as a falling knife at the moment in Andhra.

The BJP will have some reason for discomfort because it is being pilloried as an undependable ally, someone that does not keep its word. While it does not have much to lose in Andhra because it is hardly a political force to reckon with in the state, it will hurt its image in the rest of the country and reinforce its image of a bullying Big Brother.

The other worry is about how corporates will react to this political decision. The industry could be wary of making fresh investments unless it is confident about the Centre helping the state establish infrastructure. While Naidu is looking to borrow to fund his projects, it comes with a huge risk of adding to the debt burden.

Given that the people of Andhra feel emotional about being let down, this positioning may help Naidu. But will it be good for Andhra? When ‘friend’ Modi is said to have not helped Naidu, would ‘foe’ Modi help if he returns to power? How does Andhra gain by investing in the same TDP when it has been unsuccessful in getting gains for the state? Those are the questions the electorate of Andhra will need to answer when it votes a year from now.

This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own.