Seriously Speaking

The politics of building statues in India (August 2009)

Indian politicians are known to stoop to low levels, work out devious ways and permutations to win votes.

One latest instance happens to be Mayawati, the incumbent chief minister of India’s biggest and yet one of the most backward states Uttar Pradesh (UP).

While other regions in India, especially the west and south, focus on building software parks and special tax free economic zones to attract investments, Mayawati has a different agenda.

She has chosen to build statues of herself and her late political mentor Kanshi Ram within expansive concrete parks, costing the exchequer big amounts of tax payer money.

The parks are being constructed by the state machinery with a zeal which perhaps could have been better channeled to build roads, health care, education, development and law and order problems that bedevil UP.

Like the Kings of the past who built massive monuments in an attempt to ensure their legacy for eternity, huge effigies of Mayawati and Kanshi Ram have sprung up across UP.

So have marble/stone carved elephants, the election symbol of Mayawati’s political outfit, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP).

According to estimates, the state has already spent over Rs 15 billion for the purpose, with an aim to finally construct 10,000 statues across the state.

Hundreds of trees have been cut down in the process, to the chagrin of the many Environment conscious. Reports say nearly 20,000 trees were hacked to erect 30 giant size statues of Mayawati and Kanshi Ram at a park in Noida (in UP) that adjoins capital Delhi.

In the supplementary budget for 2009-10, the UP government has allocated a-further Rs 7 billion for memorials and parks, with Rs 270 million earmarked only for new statues.

On the other hand, there are no state funds earmarked for drought relief measures that have affected hundreds of thousands of farmers who face deprivation and death.

Mayawati’s belief is that big structures of her own self will embolden the spirits of the dalits (considered of the lower castes and among the poorest and down trodden in the country) who are her main support base.

Not too long back Mayawati was touted as a future Prime Minister of India, given the nature of India’s coalition politics and the fact that UP contributes to a big 80 seats to the federal Parliament.

Her band of politics sought to coalesce dalit and Brahmins (higher caste) voters that won her the provincial elections, was seen as a lethal winning combination.

Her ambitions, however, were check mated by a young Rahul Gandhi, the scion of the national Congress party, whose development agenda instead of a caste and communal focus appealed to the UP electorate much more.

Ever since, Mayawati has lost it a bit and is on a statue building spree which makes no rational sense. She has been on such a course earlier as well, but defeat in the elections seems to have steeled her resolve to build her own effigies.

However, Mayawati is not the first politician in India to play the crude vote bank game as a short cut to political glory.

Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s famous slogan Garibi Hatao (remove poverty) of the 70s and 80s sought to build a pan-Indian vote base of the country’s poor, without meaning much at the grassroots level. She also infamously imposed Emergency in the country for fear of losing elections.

In a cruel irony it has also happened in the past that chief ministers of development oriented states, Chandrababu Naidu in Andhra Pradesh and S M Krishna in Karnataka have lost state elections as it created cadres of ``have’’ and ``have nots’’ that divided votes, with the latter far outnumbering the former, given the huge populations.

On the other hand Lalu Prasad Yadav ruled the impoverished state of Bihar for years showing for no performance as it kept the electorate uniformly poor and deprived. Lalu too wielded the wand of caste and symbolic politics to good effect for long.

Elsewhere, during election time, politician, especially in the South resort to gimmicks such as distributing clothes, food, TV sets, scooters and motor cycles to influence voters.

Loan waivers, free electricity and water that benefit mainly large and rich farmers are another regular fare that stretch government finances which could be better used to actually benefit the poor.

The main opposition and the other national outfit Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), meanwhile, has been flirting with communal politics for long, a line that was most virulent in the nineties and is being still played out in states such as Gujarat under chief minister Narender Modi.

The BJP has been on a re-think and re-invention mode following electoral reverses in 2004 and 2009, coining terms such as Bandhutva (promoting friendship) instead of Hindutva, the original ideology that emphasizes majority Hindu rule.

Such introspection is still a good sign for Indian democracy and better than building self aggrandizing idols.

Indeed, as the BJP is realizing, the Indian voter cannot be taken for granted, is resilient, learns from past mistakes and cannot be fooled for long.

If there has been a singular message in the 2009 May election results, it is that the people of India want their political representatives to engender a national policy focus, push development and provide a stable government.

It was a mature verdict even as regional parties with limited and parochial notions about national issues and others with communal leanings have been sidelined.

Today, Lalu has been shown the door. The emergence of regional satraps such as Mayawati, who ride on narrow caste politics, as potential Prime Minister has been blunted.

Leaders and parties in states such as Bihar (Nitish Kumar), Delhi (Shiela Dikshit), Orissa (Naveen Patnaik), Madhya Pradesh (S Chauhan) and Chhatisgarh (Raman Singh) that have provided a-corruption free pro-growth governance have emerged victorious, repeatedly, overcoming anti-incumbency factors.

There is every sign that Indian democracy is maturing, but leaders such as Mayawati have still not got it.

To be Frisked or not to be Frisked (July 2009)

When officials of America’s Continental Airlines recently India’s former President APJ Abdul Kalam, it touched a raw nerve.

Despite protests by Indian security men, Kalam, also referred as India’s missile man for his contribution in the field, was made to take off his footwear and physically checked in New Delhi before he could embark on his journey to America.

Kalam, known for his down to earth demeanor went through the security process without much ado.

An-uproar followed in Parliament with demands that the concerned American carrier be banned, India’s civil aviation minister has called on the Prime Minister to brief him on the issue while a police report has been lodged to investigate the matter.

Some said that as a response to such overbearing attitude by an American carrier, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on a visit to India, should be put through security checks.

This, however, is not the first time that the issue of an important person, referred in Indian security parlance as Very Very Important Person (VVIP), being bodily frisked has caught attention.

In the past, New Delhi reacted angrily to then federal defense minister George Fernandes being searched (he had to take off his shoes and socks) by security officials in America in a post-September 11, 2001, security check.

Fernandes, known for his anti-US tirades, was apparently "disrobed", according to former deputy secretary of state Strobe Talbott, not once but twice.

Talbott, in a book chronicling the events, says Fernandes was angered by the incidents.

Last year, New Delhi took offense to Russian security officials insisting on searching Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, who was on a visit to the country.

Though the search statutes exist on paper, in most instances ministers are not actually frisked, accompanied as they are by an entourage of officials and bodyguards, who usher them through.

In Mukherjee’s case, it was apparent that Moscow wanted to convey its unhappiness with New Delhi's new found bonhomie with the US that translated into more defense deals and the civilian nuclear pact.

A feel-up was one way of conveying the irritation as Moscow does know a bit about Indian politicians' aversion to being body searched.

In the recent past, an offended junior minister Anand Sharma created a furor by arguing with officials at the New Delhi airport and eventually got the rule book changed to exclude him self from being searched for bombs.

Somnath Chatterjee, former Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Lower House of India’s Parliament, is known to particularly squeamish about being searched by airport security officials.

He cancelled a trip to London, to follow up on a similar instance in 2005 to Sydney, even as frenzied diplomatic efforts by the Indian High Commission for an exemption failed.

The British Foreign office was clear about international security guidelines that “only Heads of States are exempted.”

However, Chatterjee was equally adamant, explaining that he cancelled the trip “because it involves the honor of the constitutional office”.

In 2005 Chatterjee canceled his visit to Australia following a verbal war of words in the media on the issue. He also has had big problems with his wife being required to walk through a scanner while traveling within India.

Most ordinary citizens know about the rigors of security checks, including a physical rub-down, in times when terrorism is at an ugliest.

However, some seek to be above this process, as a measure of their importance and image.

Even as foreign security drills are more difficult to tamper, the list of those eligible to forego domestic airport checks has been drastically amended to suit individual interests, in the game of political patronage, where outward show of power matters a bit.

In the 1980s, there were only five exemptions: president, vice president, prime minister, chief justice of the Supreme Court, speaker of the Lok Sabha (the Lower House of Parliament) and state governors. Today it includes cabinet ministers, ministers of state, bureaucrats and sundry others with access to the powers-that-be.

Yet, there was some sympathy late last year when it came to the fore that India’s military chiefs are by statute required to be frisked at domestic airports.

This was a reflection of the unflattering status of the defense forces in India's civilian democratic setup, unlike in a country such as Pakistan.

On paper, the heads of the three armed forces, navy, air force and army, were supposed to be treated like civilians and required to be searched by security personnel before they could board a passenger flight.

The service chiefs are otherwise responsible for the security of the nation, protect the borders against incursions, command the second-largest army in the world and sophisticated arsenal.

While nobody argues for the overbearing primacy of the military in civil society, what pinched was the list of exemptions that had been granted.

It was an irony that a private businessman Robert Vadra, the son-in-law of Congress party president Sonia Gandhi, and husband of Priyanka Gandhi, was exempt, as were some senior bureaucrats outranked by the service chiefs.

Following a bit of media furor, defense minister A K Antony took up the matter with the federal civil aviation ministry, at the behest of the three service chiefs who had previously written a letter requesting an exemption.

Initially, the aviation ministry refused Antony’s proposal.

The reasoning was that other authorities, mostly civil servants who head ministries and are referred to as secretaries, would voice similar demands.

Thankfully, the list now stands amended and the Generals do not have to line up even if on paper.

The near obsession about freedom from airport frisking, however, is just at the tip of the exemptions and perks that are sought by India’s power holders who still carry a colonial mindset and see themselves as above the rule of law.

One hot tag is threat perception, especially from known terror groups such as al-Qaeda or Lashkar-e-Toiba. The highest Z-plus category accompanies the star label, VVIP.

There is always a rush of supposedly important people wanting to include themselves in a higher risk category that entitles them to personal commandos (referred to as Black Cats due their attire and skill) and escort vehicles.

The commandos mostly function as bouncers fending off private citizens, while the red-beacon, siren-fitted escort vehicles specialize in jumping traffic lights and shooing away nearby vehicles. Anybody driving in Delhi can vouch for this nuisance done in the name of ``security.’’

Another sought after perquisite is allotments at the prime New Delhi bungalow area which are always very reluctantly vacated.

If a minister or political leader dies, families insist (taking even legal recourse) on converting the accommodation into a memorial or museum, while continuing to occupy the same.

Sometimes former Members of Parliament, ministers, retired officials have to be physically evicted along with belongings. Bureaucrats are in a constant wrangle for dual postings to retain official apartments in the national capital.

Indeed, this power list can go on.

Not being touched up, however, remains a high priority. Even if a humble Kalam did not mind, there are others who do.

It is a question of high prestige, after all.

India without computers, English (May 2009)

Indian politicians are known to take short cuts to garner votes. Otherwise building vote backs around communal polarization, caste politics and pseudo-secularism (appeasing minorities) would not be so assiduously followed.

In the recent past, a debate has centered round the use of computers and the English language, the two bedrocks around which the country’s very successful software and outsourcing sectors are built, employing millions of youth and others.

In the build up to elections 2009, regional satrap Mulayam Singh Yadav from Uttar Pradesh (UP), who, given the mercurial nature of India’s coalition politics, could well be Prime Minister, has vehemently opposed both computers and English.

Mulayam has said that the use of English and computers engenders an inferiority complex in rural youth.

Mulayam said: ``I speak in the language of 1.1 billion people and not of 20 million; for the Samajwadi Party (that Mulayam heads), the politics of 1.1 billion is far more important than 20 million. Only uninformed people opposed my views on English and computers.”

He said that computerization leads of more jobless, as had happened in America and Japan. ``60-65 per cent unemployment in the farm sector was due to corporatization of agriculture and mechanization. If the trend increased, more farmers would become jobless, leading to poverty and suicide,’’ he said.

Mulayam is a wily politician who knows about the rough and tumble of Indian politics, social and economic situation, better than anyone else.

He knows that within India and especially in his strong hold UP, millions subsist at basic survival levels, forget about accessing computers and learning the English language, considered by others as a ticket to economic mobility.

Irrespective of the rationality of learning computers and English, by downgrading the same, Mulayam automatically is identified with sections who are larger in numbers and thus matter more in a democracy.

Personally, Mulayam couldn’t be believing in what he says --- the next generation of his family, including nephews, nieces and more, have been educated in English teaching private schools and abroad.

But, he knows a bit about the contemporary political history of the country.

In the past leaders who have built their political brands around technology and growth have suffered --- they include Chandra Babu Naidu of Andhra Pradesh and S M Krishna of Karnataka --- both lost heavily in elections as rural belts, unaffected by the software boom, new airports and Expressways, voted them out.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) under Atal Behari Vajpayee lost elections in 2004 when the party poll managers oversold their India Shining and development campaign.

The BJP had done a good job in the arena, but given the vastness of India, there were still many more who were unaffected by the growth picture and voted against the party for failing to deliver them from their abject existence, while others around seemingly prospered, as portrayed.

Indeed, it is always politically tricky business in India to go overboard on development as it creates an automatic constituency not impacted by the same that creates an anti-vote and backlash.

One politician to recognize the political vicissitudes has been Bihar satrap Lalu Prasad Yadav. He ruled the state, the poorest in India, for long without delivering on any growth or progress that kept the electorate uniformly backward.

He was ultimately voted out by Nitish Kumar (supported by the BJP) who has promised development with corruption free governance. Nitish has been pushing hard on the front in Bihar. It remains to be seen whether growth creates dissonance in his political fortunes.

Yet, this is not to say that the development agenda does not work. It does, but it requires a bit more.

It has worked in Delhi (under Shiela Dixit), Orissa (Biju Patnaik), Madhya Pradesh (Shivraj Chauhan) and Chhatisgarh (Raman Singh), in which the people have voted leaders and political outfits back to power.

Here the state leaders from the national parties Congress and BJP have combined a strong development push with a corruption free image.

It seems the one reality of Indian politics today is that leaders need to provide a good mix of growth and clean governance for voters to back and believe in them.

This is one reason that India’s middle class and the educated are generally appalled at the emergence of the maverick Mayawati in UP as a potential Prime Ministerial candidate.

She mixes the kind of political opportunism displayed by Mulayam, having played caste politics to rise to the top and has a record that looks blemished by corruption.

Mulayam and his party too are known for their strong-arm tactics and working as agents of land sharks.

There is thus doubt about BJP’s Narender Modi, another potential Prime Minister. His development record as chief minister is good, his government in Gujarat is clean, but his aggressive pro-Hindutva and communal approach to winning elections can never go down well.

Incumbent Prime Minister Manmohan Singh scores high as incorruptible, but many feel that he could have backed India’s development agenda much more aggressively, given his background as an economist and experience as finance minister.

Instead, Manmohan is largely seen as a mute spectator to higher power Congress President Sonia Gandhi.

He has the Indo-US nuclear deal to show as his singular achievement, which is good enough had he been minister, not head of government.

All of this, of course, makes Indian elections 2009 a complicated process with nobody sure about the final winner.

India’s Political Shoe-Stoppers (April 2009)

Elections to the world’s largest democracy have always had their share of drama.

This time, like always, Bollywood, India’s big movie industry provides the added spice with actor Sanjay Dutt taking the political plunge and then being debarred.

Another Bollywood A-grade star Salman Khan is campaigning for both Congress and BJP candidates due to personal equations, rather than political ideology.

But, a bit of the thunder has been stolen by shoe-throwing, a world wide trend ever since Iraqi journalist Al-Zaidi hurled his at former US President George Bush at a press conference.

It has rubbed off in India as well and what better occasion that election time when politicians, loved or reviled, are face to face with the electorate, breaking security strictures to make an appeal.

In a land that has seen satyagraha (non-violent protest espoused by the great Mahatma Gandhi), the shoe has turned into a political weapon of dissent.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was the latest target over the weekend, when an unemployed youth hurled a shoe at an election rally in Gujarat. The shoe missed by a distance but the message of rising job losses was delivered.

L K Advani, head of the national Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and incumbent Home Minister P Chidambaram too recently joined the high list of global dignitaries who have been shoe-targets.

Bush apart, they include Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Israel’s ambassador to Sweden.

In January protestors of Israeli attack on Gaza threw their shoes at British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s official residence at Downing Street.

Earlier this month, Advani, the BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate and former deputy Prime Minister was in the line of attack of a slipper, which luckily missed him. The chucker was a disgruntled BJP worker.

Before that, a Sikh journalist, Jarnail Singh, unknown to most of the world apart from colleagues covering the defense beat, lobbed a shoe at Chidambaram, at a press conference in New Delhi.

Jarnail had been angered by the Congress party’s inaction to punish the guilty in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Though Jarnail’s shoe also missed, it did cause a bit of collateral damage,

The Congress was concerned about a backlash in the general elections this and next month, especially in Punjab and Delhi, where Sikhs pre-dominate.

Thus, two political strongmen from Delhi, Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar, alleged to have orchestrated the violence in 1984, were asked to withdraw their nominations as candidates.

Following Jarnail, sitting Member of Parliament and industrialist Naveen Jindal also had a shoe flung at him during an election rally. This one too missed the target.

All of this has of course created a piquant situation for security personnel on high alert due to the threat of terror.

``The security is extremely tight for politicians, and we are keeping a close watch on everyone,’’ a Delhi Police spokesman said, while referring to the shoe throwing incidents.

Such knee jerk actions cannot be justified. They are wrong.

Still, it would be presumptive to assume that such acts will not be repeated. In an age of high voltage global television such fads can catch on quickly. But, there is a serious element that cannot be ignored.

They do reflect people’s rising expectations from their leaders and in instances such as Jarnail a deeper sense of hurt of a community that feel betrayed by the political class.

Shoes have been hurled at leaders irrespective of political affiliations.

Yet, one shoe hurled will not lessen the innumerable human rights violations Indian security forces and police are accused of.

Other aberrant behavior includes right-wing Hindu outfits for their strong-arm and Taliban like tactics against trends they consider to be un-Indian culture or aping the West.

Actions have included punishing amorous couples in public, cracking down on Valentine's Day celebrations and assaulting women in what they consider are revealing clothes or even in pubs.

Hindu extremists have attacked cinemas featuring movies perceived to be too sexually explicit and have destroyed works by artists.

Yet, footwear apart, elections India circa 2009 has had its share of drama and a war of words, perhaps stinging more than any shoe hurled.

BJP’s leading campaigner Narendra Modi, known for his acerbic remarks has compared the Congress to an old woman, not incapable of changing the destiny of young India.

Priyanka Gandhi, Congress’ star campaigner has retorted, “If BJP’s prime ministerial candidate LK Advani and Modi consider themselves young, it is good for them. If elderly people feel young it is good for their health.”

In response, Modi in an obvious reference to Priyanka called her and the Congress party a ‘gudiya’ or doll, words used at one time for Priyanka’s grandmother Indira Gandhi when she was a political novice and disproved later.

The usually soft spoken Prime Minister Manmohan Singh too reacted to the BJP calling him a ``weak PM,’’ in an obvious reference to the control that Congress supremo Sonia Gandhi exercises.

Singh hit back surely surprising Advani. “His only achievement has been the demolition of the Babri Mosque”, said the PM.

Sonia hammered the point in by calling Advani “a slave of the RSS (a hard line pro-Hindu outfit).’’

A BJP spokesperson meanwhile said: “Mrs Gandhi has a captive PM (Manmohan) whose future is being questioned by her own daughter (Priyanka).”

Welcome to democracy being played to the hilt.

India steps into economy class (September 08)

It is not often that Indians get to see their political rulers in the midst, except during election time.

Otherwise they are usually visible only on TV; in real life, they are surrounded by heavy handed security personnel and travel in chartered jets, helicopters or first class at least, even as armed convoys of vehicles cover their presence on road.

Lately, however, in keeping with its signature slogan of being one with the aam aadmi (common man), the ruling Congress party and the government are looking to be a bit different in times of drought, recession, lay offs, price rise and lower growth.

The aim is to strike down 10 % government non plan expenses so that the money saved can be used to help the needy and the drought stricken.

The cuts cover mainly hotel, travel expenses, lavish banquets, advertising and publicity, seminars and conferences, office and administrative expenses and buying new vehicles.

Leading the austerity charge is Congress party President Sonia Gandhi, known to set a high moral agenda, who recently traveled economy class on a flight from New Delhi to Mumbai, surprising fellow passengers who lined up for autographs.

The move embarrassed at least one Parliamentarian accompanying Sonia, who promptly exchanged his place in the vaunted double value business class with a lucky economy class traveler, who readily obliged.

The Congress party ``high command,’’ as Sonia is referred has advised her elected Member’s of Parliament (MPs), ministers and party functionaries to slash their non essential expenditures and accept salary cuts. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh too has written to his ministers to show restraint.

Following immediately on his mother’s footsteps, Congress party scion and general secretary, Rahul Gandhi, traveled by train in a chair car from Delhi to Punjab, when he could have easily availed of a first class coach or a helicopter.

A Congress leader has been quoted to say, “In tough times such measures by Congress top leadership will set an example for others and youngsters to lead a simple and austere life, thinking of those who are less fortunate.”

While Sonia and Rahul’s travel bills are footed by the party as they hold no government position, the message has got through to others, though private airlines are not too happy with a sudden dip in their business class revenues even as corporate travel has dwindled due to the economic slowdown.

Bureaucrats, ministers and MPs, whose bills are paid by the government, have been the only segment to be able to keep up with luxury travel.

Meanwhile, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, ever the loyal Congress soldier, flew in a low cost carrier on a recent trip from New Delhi to Kolkata.

Mukherjee has also been instrumental in the exit of at least three ministers housed in expensive five star hotels, who have been awaiting their official accommodation to be readied to move in.

Foreign minister S M Krishna, minister of state for external affairs Shashi Tharoor and the chairman of unique identification authority (a ministerial rank), Nandan Nilekani have vacated their temporary luxury abodes to move to sedate government guest houses, not known to be the best in upkeep and comfort.

Given the proliferation of important people in Delhi, housing is always a scarcity, even as ministers wait for their allotment.

Krishna, meanwhile, has reportedly chosen to fly economy class in a commercial air liner on an official visit to Belarus and Turkmenistan, instead of an exclusive government plane that is usually used by the country’s foreign minister. To save on expenses, his entourage has been reduced considerably.

Federal civil aviation minister Praful Patel has taken to economy class air travel, even as Home Minister P Chidambaram is reported to have cracked down on wasteful expenditures in his ministry.

Everybody, of course is not happy with the latest turn of events. Important federal ministers such as Sharad Pawar (Agriculture), Farooq Abdullah (renewable energy), M S Gill (sports) and Dayanidhi Maran (textiles), Anand Sharma (commerce) have reportedly been critical of the finance ministries austerity measures.

At least one minister is supposed to have complained that his girth is such that he cannot fit into economy class seats; one more has spoken about his height being unsuitable to cramped space; another has reportedly said since foreign countries host Indian dignitaries in fine restaurants and hotels, the gesture should be reciprocated in kind.

One prominent Congress leader has been quoted to say: “To be austere should not be reduced to one’s line of travel.”

A clearly unhappy Tharoor wrote on his social networking website that he would travel ``in cattle class out of solidarity with all our holy cows!’’ much to the chagrin of his party higher ups, who see his statement as hurting the sensitivities of the many who travel economy.

The Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has described these latest events as “ludicrous display to deflect attention from the unprecedented price rise ever witnessed.”

A spokesperson of the BJP said: ``the euphoric sermon of United Progressive Alliance (UPA) leaders is suspect.... Simplicity and austerity is utopian to the Congress party and the facade is not going to stay for long.’’

The left parties, meanwhile, have prided themselves by declaring that their leaders travel economy class in any case.

Indeed, the gestures, welcome as they are, count for nothing and are merely symbolic tokens when one looks at the big expenditure heads of the government.

Estimates are that the austerity measures would save at the maximum Rs 2 billion, which is a pittance compared to the overall situation, including the rising fiscal deficit and profligacy of the government.

In 2009-10, the budget projected government spending of over hundreds of billions of Rupees in subsidies (in food, power, fuel), farm debt waiver schemes, pensions, wages and defense outlays, where the scope of any cuts is very limited.

Then there are immense amounts being spent on new ministries and departments that continue to be created at a fast pace.

The room for increased spends on infrastructure, health, education, poverty alleviation, thus remains curtailed.

There are those who say that pegging down of some perks enjoyed by the high and mighty only bring down their exalted levels of existence to that of the upper middle classes.

On the other hand, there are over 300 million in India, out of a population of 1.2 billion, who continue to eke out a bare existence below poverty levels and lead a life of deprivation --- for them one meal a day and basic shelter are a luxury. No health care exists.

In such circumstances, traveling economy or hosting at a lower star hotel should be seen as the norm rather than a sacrifice. Frugal living was preached and followed by the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, given the living conditions of the masses.

Yet, most agree that such asceticism by the power holders will not continue for long as politicians and bureaucrats in this country are a pampered lot, who cannot change in a hurry.

The self imposed deprivation, if one can call it that, is expected to die out soon, even as the rains have picked up and the monsoons have turned near normal.

Given the frayed tempers, there are already signs of a thaw. Mukherjee has been quoted to say: “I have suggested that in domestic services one should try to avoid (traveling executive class) because the distance is not far off. So far as international flights are concerned they can travel executive class instead of first class.”


Crying Over Onions (October 2005)

There are scarcities in India, but this one has to be tackled on a war footing akin to a disaster management. It is to do with onions of which there is an acute shortage in the country due to unsuitable turn of the weather and other factors.

New Delhi might have refused international aid for the recent earthquake and the tsunami earlier, in keeping with building an image of India as a regional power with the ability to handle its own problems and disasters, but when it has come to onions, the tails have turned turtle and India has sought out even Pakistan for help.

Thankfully there are no diplomatic and symbolic wrangles the like witnessed post the recent earthquake along the Line of Control (LoC) that separates Indian and Pakistan Kashmir and the onions from Pakistan have begun to be ferried in, both by the government and private parties who have reportedly ordered over 2,000 tons of them.

The present crisis across the country has happened due to depleting stocks given a mix of weather conditions, high humidity, excessive rainfall in some areas as well as less rains in others, given the geographical spread of onion cultivation in the country.

Due to heavy rains in the main onion producing belts in the state of Maharashtra, farmers have delayed harvest. At other places warehouses have been inundated by floodwaters leading to destruction of crop. High humidity has also destroyed the crop in some areas.

The combined impact of the current crisis has been an explosion of onion prices in the country that has rocketed five fold to over half a dollar (Rs 25) per kilogram. After an initial reluctance, even denial that the shortages had reached crisis proportions, Pakistan has been sought out to meet the shortfall. The government has also decided to subsidize the onions brought in from Pakistan.

‘‘We have instructed some of our organizations to go in for imports. We have decided to import from Pakistan through the Wagah border. The prices are high in Pakistan too but we need to take some precautionary measures,’’ said union agriculture minister Sharad Pawar, who initially had ruled out any import.

The governments in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi are in an emergency management mode distributing onions through government managed retail outlets, a difficult task given the leakages at every level.

Reports suggest that the Prime Minister’s Office under Manmohan Singh is personally monitoring the onion situation in the country despite being embroiled in an unseemly match-up with Pakistan on how to deliver aid to people affected by the earthquake on October 8.

Due to government intervention the indications are that the shortage will last for two weeks at the most, with onions from other areas such as Karnataka, Gujarat and Rajasthan making up for the scarcity

Indeed, there is reason for New Delhi as well as the state governments to be so worried about onions. In the past governments in the states as well as at the federal level have lost power or faced electoral defeat due to their inability to handle an onion crisis.

Indians have to grapple with several problems in their daily lives --- civic concerns, infrastructure issues, pollution, crime, pollution, policemen, doctors and lawyers out to make money, schools seeking donations, power and water crisis, bad roads, traffic congestion …the list goes on.

Most are prepared to face the problems the best they can, while hoping for a better future and governance. However, if the government fails to deliver even on onions, the basic and staple food item of Indians that cuts across social barriers, the anger gets indelibly stamped the next time the opportunity arises during elections.

The psychological explanation of such a severe reaction is that unlike water supply, electricity and housing, most of the billion Indians are used to partaking onions in every meal. And if even this gets taken away, it is a problem.

It may be recalled that Mahatma Gandhi galvanized the Indian freedom movement around taxes imposed by the British on salt, an essential commodity that every Indian could identify with.

Choosing salt was considered a political masterstroke given the participative potential of the people to protest over the issue. It finally ended up chasing the British away.

In the current context, an inability to manage the supply of onions, in times of tall claims of India being a global economic power can be equally deleterious for any incumbent government.

The Indian population may forgive and forget an unforeseen event such as an earthquake or a tsunami or floods wherein the government might have blundered, but not onions.

In 1998, the then Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee was trounced in the assembly elections of three big states in India, due to the inability of handle a similar onion crisis.

What made the defeats that much more dramatic was the fact that the BJP had delivered the same year on an electoral promise to turn India into a full-fledged nuclear weapons state.

A story, even if apocryphal had gained credence at that time that the shortage of onions was due to millions being packed into underground sites to mitigate the radiation effects of the five nuclear devices that were exploded.

The real reason, however, was the government allowing export of onions to more lucrative markets which had led to hoarding and artificial shortages. Though the Vajpayee government subsequently banned the export of onions, the crisis had its immediate impact on the state elections.

The BJP lost even in Delhi, considered a stronghold, and has not been able to wrest back power, though it has managed to make a come back in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.

Observers say that there are certain tenets that are ingrained in the Indian way of thinking. These relate to democracy, pluralism, secularism and the ability of the government in power to sustain these.

The Vajpayee government did well on several fronts such as economic reforms and foreign policy, but the specter of the Gujarat riots in which more than 2,000 Muslims were massacred during its tenure could never be obliterated. This resulted in the defeat of the BJP last year to the Sonia Gandhi led Congress party.

An inability to deliver on a basic item as onions is symbolic of the failure of an elected government that the people have reposed their faith.

Currently elections are being held in the state of Bihar and soon other important states such as Kerala, West Bengal and possibly Uttar Pradesh will also see new governments. The last thing the Manmohan government would want is cry over onions, the way the Vajpayee dispensation did in 1998.