Mockery of Exit Polls

Almost all exit polls predicted a landslide victory for the BJP under Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Some pollsters such as News24-Today’s Chanakya and Aaj Tak-AxisMyIndia predicted the BJP’s win to be bigger than even the 2014 Lok Sabha polls. Only ABP-Nielsen has predicted the BJP to fall short of majority.

Stock market operators are paying TV channels to produce exit polls that will move the market in the days between the exit polls and the actual results and then move the market rapidly in a different direction once results are out. So whatever the exit polls say take them with a pinch of salt - people have advised.

Within 60 seconds, Rs 3.2 lakh crore were added to investor kitty as exit polls see NDA win. The highly exaggerated Exit Polls have become another tool to make money and the rich are getting richer at the expense of the gullible small investors.

ABP giving 56 seats to MGB in UP, India today giving 65 seats to BJP in UP. This is the conclusion of Exit polls!

The BJP-JDU alliance is set to sweep the Lok Sabha elections in Bihar winning minimum 38 out of the 40 seats, according to the India Today-My Axis India Exit Poll. The RJD-Congress led 'Mahagathbandhan' may only bag maximum 2 seats, as per the exit polls. Is it believable?

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has made a stunning allegation against TV channels’ who broadcast their exit poll predictions on Sunday evening. She said that predictions favouring the BJP was a part of a larger ‘game plan’ to ‘manipulate or replace thousands of EVMs through this gossip.’

Telegu Desam Party chief N Chandrababu Naidu dismissed the predictions of the exit polls, pointing out that past experience show such analysis usually turn out wrong. "Time and again exit polls have failed to catch the people's pulse. Exit polls have provIndia ed to be incorrect and far from ground reality in many instances..." Mr Naidu tweeted.

Last week, Arnab Goswami had slammed his rival TV channels particularly India Today for ‘leaking’ their exit poll data that gave the NDA only 177 seats, a loss of 177 seats compared to 2014, they claimed. Faced with widespread condemnation, India Today had later clarified that numbers flashed on its channel were part of the channel’s dummy data.

"I believe the exit polls are all wrong. In Australia last weekend, 56 different exit polls proved wrong. In India many people don't tell pollsters the truth fearing they might be from the Government. Will wait till 23rd for the real results," tweeted the Congress parliamentarian Mr Shashi Tharoor. He was referring to Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison winning what was seen as an unwinnable election, cementing his authority over the Liberal Party and giving him the muscle to end a decade of instability that has seen a revolving door of prime ministers.

National Conference chief Omar Abdullah tweeted "Every single exit poll can’t be wrong! Time to switch off the TV, log out of social media & wait to see if the world is still spinning on its axis on the 23rd". His tweet that did not outright cast doubts on the exit polls that is likely to be seen as a harbinger of the actual results.

Basis Exit Polls, shares of Adani Group companies have shot through the roof:
    Adani Green Energy: 17%
    Adani Gas: 16%  
    Adani Power: 14%
    Adani Transmission: 9% 
    Adani Ports & SEZ: 8%
    Adani Enterprises: 15%

There is no advantage of conducting Exit Polls!  It creates unwanted anxiety to people and politicians. Only TV channels make money.


Many political analysts see opinion polls as an evil in democracy. Opinion polls have bandwagon effect on the fair election process. Opinion polls project what voters are thinking and what their mandate will be. It doesn't direct the voters to go for the majority view or to neglect the minority. Opinion polls are accused of being manipulated and sometimes being wrong. Opinion polls can be manipulated by arranging favorable questions. It is not the duty of the media to keep the moral of the party cadres high. Media is accountable to the people not to the political parties. Indian citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression and ban on the opinion polls will curtail this right. So argument against opinion polls holds no moral ground. In a country like ours, opinion polls and exit polls are much needed to enrich our healthy democracy. But yesterday's exit polls seems to have been manipulated by ruling BJP in order to keep UPA and allies in disarray so that in case of any marginal opportunity they could knock away the chance to form government with the help of President Kovind.

General election 2019 blues

This is a waveless election (2019) wherein the preference or dismissal of a leader and issues seem to be pre-determined by the social background (caste and community) of voters. 

• The BJP  won 31% of the vote with 282 seats nationally in 2014. This is the highest vote to seat conversion indicating heaviest fragmentation of the anti-BJP votes. Plain arithmetic suggests that if all major non-BJP forces come together, the Modi machine will halt.
• Today BJP today rules 17 of 29 states (a year ago 21/29 states), either directly or with its allies. Despite BJP's countrywide presence, it is also true that the opposition has been winning most of the Lok Sabha by-elections which is a sign of defeat for the Modi-Shah combine in these elections.
• Anti Modi factors are: Demonetisation, GST, cow vigilante  lynchings, agrarian crisis, unemployment, inflation, cattle trade ban, etc.
• Pro Modi factors: Good governance, divided opposition, Balakot airstrike, surgical strikes, absence of major scams, etc. Factors such as welfare schemes like the PM Awas Yojana, Ujjwala Yojana (free LPG cylinder connection to BPL families), Rs 2,000 to the farmers, are secondary reasons for BJP.
• BJP which won in UP (71/80 seats), Rajasthan (25/25), Gujarat (26/26), Bihar (31/40), MP (27/29), Chattisgarh (10/11), Maharashtra (22/48) and Karnataka (17/28), in 2014, may lose most of these seats in 2019. 
• There is no perceptible Modi “wave” this time and the muscular nationalism plank that the BJP banks on fails to evoke the required response in the face of widespread agrarian crisis.
• The public resentment against the BJP governments is glaringly evident even though some believe that Modi has no alternative. It is also clear the BJP is not adding any new constituency of voters. The trends point to a clear reduction of the BJP’s tally from its commanding position of 2014. 
• Stung by the failure of the campaign based on muscular nationalism in the early phases of voting, the BJP desperately looks for new strategies and altered roadmaps, with emphasis on Hindutva. The candidature of the Malegaon blast accused, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, in Bhopal against Digvijaya singh is a major step towards Hindutva consolidation.
• Modi's election campaign is increasingly looking like his style of governance over the last five years, particularly the manner in which demonetization and GST were pursued. A new narrative every day, with new reasoning and strategies along with altered road maps to attain a proclaimed objective. This could also lead to results as chaotic as demonetization and GST produced.
• Congress party has scored some vital points in terms of ideation of new policy initiatives and programmes, but has failed to follow this up with solid organisational initiatives and electoral strategies.
• In Uttar Pradesh, multiple narratives are impacting the election in different ways. BJP's candidate's weaker profile as compared to BSP-SP-RLD alliance is widely acknowledged.
• People are not interested in communal issues but have economic concerns. The BJP had impar­ted a larger-than-life cult image to Modi. Even now they are projecting him as a lone lion in the jungle versus the rest. This is not going to work now.
• Had even a single person been killed in Pakistan by our our strikes, would they have returned Wing Commander Abhinandan in one single piece within days? Is Imran Khan not answerable to the people of Pakistan? So how did Amit Shah claim we killed 250 Pakistanis!” -- Raj Thackeray 
• EVM's are neither easy to tamper with and at the same time not tamper proof. Its non-transparent mechanism gives scope for losing candidate to think that EVM has been tampered with. Unless public confidence is earned, EVM will remain a contentious issue. EC telling that EVMs are perfect without explaining how they are perfect is nonsense.
• This election is not about who wins but to ensure that the BJP loses so that the nation survives. “We will take on each other later.”  -- Raj Thackeray 
• Mukesh Ambani had recently extended his support to Congress candidate Milind Deora in South Mumbai constituency. Raj Thackeray called this shift in Ambani’s loyalty from BJP to Congress is a big message to the country. Ambani is Uddhav Thackeray’s close friend but decided to side with a Congress candidate is a clear indication that Modi is heading towards defeat.

As things stand today, a weak opposition is Modi’s biggest strength and he is likely to benefit from the TINA (there is no alternative) factor the most, with other positives contributing towards making him virtually unassailable. Reactions from the echelons of the Sangh Parivar after the first two rounds of polling point towards a sense of unease. Many leaders admit that there is a possibility that the BJP would only win half the seats it had in 2014. 

Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik’s act of dissolving the Assembly when three non-BJP political parties in the State were on the verge of forming a coalition government is of a piece with the systematic undermining of democratic polity. Modi unleashing CBI, ED, Income Tax etc on all anti-BJP parties terrorizing opposing candidates and immobilizing their associates is gross misuse of institutions which are supposed work autonomously. In order to safeguard democracy it is important that Modi & BJP must be defeated in this 2019 elections and be watchful that future governments don't follow the same path. 

Modi runs away from 'No confidence motion'

TDP's and YSRCP's individual no-confidence moves failed to take off on March 19, 2018, for the second time due to disorderly house created by AIADMK and TRS MP's rushing into well and shouting for their unimportant pending demands and creating feeble ruckus. The house was adjourned within minutes strangely for next day, giving rise to the suspicion that AIADMK & TRS protest in Lok Sabha was "stage-managed" by BJP. Despite sweeping powers, the Speaker has not made any attempt to restore order in the House for taking up the important motion of no-confidence and just adjourned the house for the day saying, "I'm duty-bound to bring the no-confidence motion. But I cannot do so that unless the House is in order". Orderly running of the house is the responsibility of Speaker, PM and Parliamentary affairs minister. 

Ever since Modi became PM, discussion on important matters was always thwarted by BJP and questions were never answered straight forward. The recent passage of Finance Bill with 28 amendments in less than 30 minutes amidst pandemonium is a glaring example.

Why BJP is hiding from a no-confidence motion despite having sufficient numbers?

• There is considerable disillusion in BJP arising out of recent LS bye poll defeats in Rajasthan, MP, WB, Bihar and UP with huge margins. It is surprising to note that BJP leaders are the most happiest persons for BJP's debacle in bye polls in North.
• BJP is scared of its own MP may not be present in LS at the time of voting. 
• The entire opposition became united, on AP issues, for the first time in the past 4 years.
• Debates during 'no confidence motion' are unconstrained and will provide great opportunity for all opposition parties to ventilate their grievances on any matter and charge that ruling BJP has nos not done much for many other states. Also all his failures during past 4 years will getting highlighted during the debate.
• Any discussion that allows for scathing criticism in an election year is something the government wants to avoid. This negative publicity is likely to impact BJP's chances, if any, in the forth coming Karnataka elections. The bank frauds can no longer be dismissed as a creation of the UPA as these fraudsters left the country under the Modi dispensation. Above all, Modi doesn't like or he hates criticism and has no attitude to answer questions straight forward.
• The exit of TDP from NDA has already dented BJP's credibility in accommodating its allies. The TDP's no-confidence motion has put an end to the "myth" that the BJP-led Modi government has an unshakable mandate for the next 25 years, as said by Shiv Sena. Shiv Sena's allegation that The TDP's no-confidence motion is for its political reasons and not for any 'nationalist' reason holds no water since TDP is a regional party only. 
• But TDP has no choice since BJP has not fulfilled its 19+ obligations in implementing AP Reorganization Act 2014 even in its last year of the 5 year mandate, which is unpardonable. Needless to say 5 crore AP people are unanimously angry over BJP's attitude of highhandedness and TDP exiting NDA and tabling no confidence motion made Naidu a hero. Public perception can't be ignored in a democracy especially when they are not demanding the sky.
• Even though YSRCP announced no confidence motion a month ago, none took it seriously with their integrity and corrupt background with YS Jagan as A1 in a dozen cases and his properties worth several thousand crores attached by ED so far. The talk in AP is that YSRCP is cooperating with BJP secretly to get out of cases and silently getting its properties out of ED's attachment. With these its mass base is fast shrinking.
• The manner in which BJP has formed governments recently in Goa, Meghalaya and Nagaland without explicit majority or even highest seats denying Congress with highest seats opportunity to form coalition government indicates their utter disrespect for democratic norms and constitution.
• BJP will certainly defend itself even attack opposition invoking irrelevant historical pasts etc. but opposition will have more ammunition to fire at BJP.

BJP must be regretting now that it could have done something on its own (of about 20% as per AP Reorganization Act 2014) for funds starving AP in this last Budget 2018 so that this embarrassment would have been avoided. Modi is paying very big price for his highhandedness and headstrong attitude. Modi successfully added another negative item to BJP's already 'worst performer' account.

With what ever is happening during the past 10 days, Modi & Jaitley with their arrogance belittled themselves as reflected by unity among almost all opposition parties, Chandrababu Naidu became hero of Telugu Pride and BJP got buried underground worse than that of Congress party in 2014. With BJP and Congress seen as AP cheaters and Jagan (YSRCP) seen in collusion with BJP & Modi, TDP is assured landslide victory in 2019 general elections in AP.

TDP moves no confidence motion in LS

    

Minutes after pulling out from NDA, Mr. Chandrababu Naidu TDP supremo changed his strategy of supporting the YSRCP’s no-confidence motion against the Narendra Modi government in the Lok Sabha and directed his party MPs to take the initiative and move it. Apparently the TDP wanted not to be seen allying with corrupt YSRCP and wanted to project itself taking head-on with BJP, which any way is considerably weakened as indicated by a series of bye poll reversals in northern states. 

• While YSRCP's motion didn't attract many of the opposition parties despite its lobbying, Naidu's no confidence motion was supported instantly by 16 opposition parties - Congress, NCP, TMC, YSRCP, SP, RJD, AAP, CPM, CPI, RSP, JD(S), JMM, AIMIM, Kerala Congress, NC, IUML all with about 150 LS members. 
• TRS adopted 'wait & watch' policy. TRS says it supports the demand for special category status for AP but will not support the no-confidence motion in the LS against the NDA government describing the move as a "political gimmick", which is untenable.
• NDA enjoys majority in Lok Sabha and runs no risk of being toppled by this no confidence moved by TDP. The Modi-BJP led NDA government still has a comfortable majority in the Lok Sabha well above the current halfway mark of 270. 
• But the motion has the potential to embarrass BJP as the issue of granting special-category status to AP will be debated at length by various leaders. The issue will hog headlines for several days and will impact the BJP's image and it will become a traitors party as the Parliament Acts and promises are not fulfilled. 
• It will encourage other NDA allies to raise contentious regional issues and increase disaffection within the alliance. Less than an year before the the next Lok Sabha elections, allies turning hostile will be bad optics for the NDA. It will also impact PM Modi's image of a leader that has confidence of several regional parties. 
• Faced with embarrassing electoral reversals in the bye polls in northern states, and no better position in western & central states and strong regional parties in east and south, BJP's prospects of getting even 100 seats in 2019 general elections appears dim.
• The Shiv Sena predicted that the BJP’s tally will come down by 100-110 seats in the 2019 general elections. The two victories by the SP in UP have created panic in the BJP at a time when they were busy celebrating the party’s victory in a small state like Tripura.
• With all major opposition parties rallying with TDP's motion and none of the allies are comfortable with Modi's autocratic style of working, BJP is likely to have tough time overcoming this situation.
• BJP employed cheap trick of using AIADMK & TRS stalling and adjourning LS to avoid discussion on no confidence on Fri, 16th March. Even budget was passed on 14th March without discussion and all 21 amendments adopted within 30 minutes. In the mean time, BJP approached Shiv Sena for truce, which earlier snapped ties with NDA.
• As the passage of the Finance Bill is completed, there is a possibility that the LS will be adjourned sine die thus thwarting no confidence motion. That would be absolute timidity on the part of Modi to avoid facing issues in Parliament which any way he has done so far.
• At present TDP has 16 LS seats and in next LS it is likely to have 20-22. In the event of BJP falling short of majority in 2019, Modi needs to depend on trusted allies and till yesterday TDP was considered a most trusted ally of BJP.

In AP Congress was buried 20 feet below ground with their highhanded and unjust bifurcation of AP in 2014. Now in 2018, BJP got buried 30 feet below the ground for their cheating the people of AP by not implementing provisions of AP Reorganization Act, not granting Special Category Status to AP and denying financial support for 19+ items and in the process insulting people of AP. BJP cadres are dumb faced and are scared of facing people of AP, despite their leadership ordering them to explain that they have done everything. So far, opposition parties were in disarray and now Modi's arrogance had provided opportunity to unite form alliance(s) to defeat BJP in the forthcoming elections. Even UP's recent bye election debacle, has not taught Modi any lesson. Instead of mending his ways and do the right thing, he preferred to kneel down before Shiv Sena for support. Modi's arrogance may end up in isolation of BJP in NDA and many trusted allies are likely to exit. Even though unlikely, if for any reason no confidence motion wins, mid term elections are a certainty paving the way for formation of non-BJP government in Delhi.

Modi insult Advani, a national shame

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in Tripura on Friday March 09, 2018 to take part in the oath-taking ceremony of Biplab Deb, who was has been sworn as the state's new chief minister. Narendra Modi and several other senior BJP leaders including LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, party president Amit Shah had participated in the swearing-in ceremony of Biplab Deb as Tripura Chief Minister. As greeted by everyone on the stage, PM Modi responded to them individually. However, when LK Advani greeted him, PM Modi snubbed him without responding to his greetings. The video of Modi snubbing Advani has received flak from netizens who rebuked Modi's head-strong attitude. Many Twitterati recalled how Modi had traveled with Advani as his assistant carrying Advani's microphone.

• Had Modi intended to really insult and humiliate LKAdvani, he would not have invited him in the first place.
• It was Advani who made Modi, not even an MLA, chief minister of Gujarat. How Modi manipulated Advani to pull down Keshubhai Patel is all together a different story.
• BJP won only two Lok Sabha seats in the elections of 1984, in the aftermath of assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1983 and in the resultant sympathy wave BJP was washed away. 
• It was Advani's Rath Yatra of 1990 that helped BJP win 120 seats in 1991 general elections. Later in 1996 elections BJP won 161 seats and in 1998 midterm elections it won 182 seats to form NDA govt headed by AB Vajpayee.

• Riding on the popularity after Rath Yatra, in 1996 he could have got chance to become PM but he got his senior Vajpayee's name for leadership. He was rightful claimant for the position for building the party but gave up. Vajpayee was only a face of the party, Advani was brain and real organisation man.
• In 2002, when PM AB Vajpayee had prepared the ground for removal of Modi, seen as presiding over the worst communal riots the country, it was Advani who saved the day for Modi. Vajpayee, who had asserted that Modi should adhere to “raj dharma”, bowed to Advani's pressure.

It is clear the future of all parties lies temporarily in coalitions. Coalitions demand consensus, adjustments, the fine art of political management and statesmanship. It is clear that Mr. Modi is not a carrier of such values. It is also clear that the BJP is a graceless party.

Once you get past charm, good looks, intelligence and sense of humour, 

it is modesty that stands out.

Culture of a person, society or the country
is the way they treat their women, disabled, aged and weaker sections.

Pranaam ka parinaam Aashirwaad ... Mahabharat

Modi insults Advani at BJP CM swearing in ceremony at Agartala 

It is a matter of national shame that our prime minister, Narendra Modi, is a manner less and culture less person who insults 90 year old man, LK Advani, who was also Modi's mentor and protector until yesterday on a public platform at Agartala. India's future is unsafe in the hands of this culture-less and ill educated person thy name Narendra Modi.

Jayadev Galla's direct warning to Jaitley & Modi

Jayadev Galla's speech in Lok Sabha on Feb 7, 2018

Jayadev Galla's speech - Translation into Telugu

Jayadev Galla's powerful speech in English in American accent, mincing no words in Lok Sabha on Feb 7, 2018 regarding Centre's neglect in Budget 2018-19 allocations shocked BJP and its bosses. Imagine pin drop silence in Lok Sabha.

• We trusted you and waited for 5 budgets. This budget is the final chance for fulfilling your promises to AP.
• I may be new to politics but I do understand trust.
• Your allies are feeling neglected, betrayed and humiliated as of the 5 crore people of AP.
• This budget has no mention of AP Reorganisation Act commitments.
• Some of your party leaders might have convinced you that BJP can grow in AP by breaking the promises and weakening TDP. 
• Congress too was convinced as well in 2014 of a ill advised strategy and paid a very dear price. From being the strongest state Congress went to zero in AP where it is likely to stay for a very long time. Congress thought by betraying people of AP it will win in Telangana with a secret deal with TRS and win in AP with a secret deal with YSRCP. People of AP are no fools and Congress was wiped out in AP. 
• Please don't be of the opinion that the BJP will fare any better if it by treads the wrong path.
• YSRCP is praising the budget, cozying up the central government, shifting the blame from BJP to TDP. People of AP are no fools, they know YSRCP supports who ever is in centre in order to keep their leader out of jail.
• If you think that YSRCP would make a better alliance partner for BJP in AP it would be a serious lapse of judgement and morality. What is the message you have sent to the country by supporting the party whose founder and president is the poster boy of corruption in India.
• AP CM visited New Delhi 29 times met PM, Ministers and submitted report after report and it is shameful for the government to say that they are still waiting for information and/or examining the situation.
• There are 19 items as AP Reorganisation Act alone yet to be fulfilled.
• In Sep 2016 FM 'Special Financial Package' was announces that stated that they will support AP to the hilt. But nothing has been done so far.
• Not mentioning special package requirements of AP in this budget is injustice and deceiving people of AP. 
• Different packages for several other states were announced from time to time and we all know their fate. Hence AP CM asked for legislative backing for AP special package in lieu of Special Category Status which was agreed in Sep 2016 but not done till date.
• Packages given to back ward districts in MP & Orissa received Rs.6,000 crores where as Rayalaseema & Uttarandhra received Rs.1,050 crores till date. We want the package, not a pittance.
• Five main items are ...
• (1) Polavaram revised proposal for Rs.54,000  crores (Land acquisition and R&R 30,000 crores), as per 2014-15 estimates, is pending with GOI.
• (2) Railway zone at Visakhapatnam that requires consultations with neighboring states. This should have been done earlier. Why are we hearing this after 4 years? Are they not delaying tactics?
• (3) No mention about Vijayawada & Visakhapatnam Metro in the budget which provides Rs.17,000 crores for Bengaluru metro, because of Karnataka state elections soon.
• (4) New capital Amaravati requirement is Rs.1,20,000 lakh crores. Rs.42,935 crores required for essential infrastructure like Secretariat, Assembly, Council, Rajbhavan, High court etc. During last 3 years only Rs. 1,500 crores was provided. Demand at least Rs.10,000 crores annually for next five years.
• (5) Institutions of national importance. Pittance so far. With paltry allocations every year will take 10-30 years for completion. AIMS estimate Rs.1,680 crores. So far not a single penny. May be because elections are not coming up in AP.
• Budget 2018-19 allocation for central corporations in AP is Rs.1,814 crores. Much less than the movie 'Baahubali' collections!

If people of AP has given zero seats to Congress for passing AP Reorganisation Act, imagine what they would think about BJP for not fulfilling minimum requirements of this Act. We demand an explanation. Failing which, we have no option than considering you acting in bad faith and certainly have to reconsider why are we in this relationship. This is your last chance to fulfill your promises and maintain your alliance dharma which we maintained patiently so far. It gives us no joy telling you all this. It is now or never. But we still have belief and trust in FM & PM. Let me remind you again that people of AP are no fools. 

You can fool all the people some of the time, 

and some of the people all the time, 

but you cannot fool all the people all the time .... Abraham Lincoln

With this paltry budget allocations BJP's vote share in AP will definitely nosedive from the present 6-8% to close to zero and may not win any seats in elections. BJP MP K. Haribabu, BJP MLA & Minister Kamineni Srinivas and BJP MLA Vishnukumar Raju, sensing this danger, are rumoured to considering joining TDP for contesting next elections. If this happens, BJP gets buried under ground in AP for next 20 years, worse than Congress.

Bhakts makes leaders infallible

The dividing line between the use and abuse of power is very thin. It is not adulation, but criticism that keep people in power from crossing the line. Bhakti makes political leaders believe in their own infallibility, inflates their self-opinion and, inevitably, leads them to take missteps. History has shown that every authoritarian regime has ended up doing harm than good to their countries. 

• In the history about the rise of authoritarian regimes in 20th-century, two questions confound us. First, how did entire nations and populations allow themselves to be so hypnotised by a person or a political party? Second, how did they permit leaders or regimes to take absolute control and then chip away their liberties and then they could hold sway with an iron grip for decades thereafter?
• The process is even more inexplicable and intriguing in countries that were once democracies and democratic takeovers of power, which eventually degenerated into authoritarian reigns.
• The demonetisation has been aggressively touted as a master stroke against everything from black money to terrorist funding to counterfeit money to corruption, while also being hailed as a major reform towards a cashless economy. 
• Any criticism is almost considered blasphemous and anti-national. This sentiment was not only stoked by the government or party in power but also ordinary middle-class citizens have started behaving like accomplices of the regime by shouting down, mocking and denouncing any contrary views, branding these as unpatriotic. 
• The shoddy and inept planning and execution of the demonetisation exercise is being defended as inevitable. We are being exhorted to treat it as our patriotic duty to suffer long queues, inconveniences, disruptions to our lives caused by this man-made crisis, without complaining or criticism.
• We became so much mesmerised by the larger-than-life aura of a leader that we refuse to believe that he and his government can do any wrong? 
• Popularity has never ever chastened any politician, except very rare exceptions — a Nehru, a Mandela. Most of those who have relied on personal appeal over everything else, have eventually led their nations to grief, when their self-belief descends into megalomania. Megalomania is always fed by popularity and fawning bhakts. The bhakts create an echo chamber, which resounds only with what the leader wants to hear and believe, totally shutting out different viewpoints and realities. 
• Modi and his party won a majority single-party mandate for the first time in 30 years in 2014 and his personal popularity has remained high, despite many questions that still remain unanswered. The authoritarian and majoritarian streak cannot be denied. 
• In the case of the surgical strikes, Modi and his party exploited nationalistic and strong-man sentiments to the hilt. In the case of demonetisation, we have seen him play the brave, lone-crusader card, the selfless, sacrificing leader rhetoric and the emotional appeal. In case of GST, introducing in Lok Sabha as 'money bill' undermining the rights of Rajya Sabha and avoiding constitution amendment speaks volumes about Modi's crookedness in defeating the spirit of constitution, laws and institutions. All these points to his tendency to personalise all his government's decisions to make his regime seem almost presidential in nature and help to build his image as a towering, decisive leader.
• What kind of leader Modi is for time to tell. Many people have bought his spiel hook, line and sinker, while others are sceptical. Whether his regime turns into a democratically elected one with autocratic tendencies, especially if he gets a second term, depends on his bhakts. \
• People are free to support and adore the Prime Minister but they must realise that love for one's country is completely different from love for a particular leader, party or a government. 
• These bhakts have no right to attack, browbeat and brand as unpatriotic those questioning the policies of their beloved leader. If India turns less-than-democratic once again, the bhakts are to be blamed squarely. Every leader derives his delusions from the reflections seen in the distorted mirrors put up by his fanatic supporters.

The theory that leaders are infallible is trash. That is why in our parliamentary democracy, constitution provides checks and balances in the form of independent judiciary, parliament to account for government's actions and independent institutions. How ever a simple parliamentary majority makes all these checks & balances vulnerable and two-thirds majority makes constitution ineffective. Financial interests exposed weakness of media houses and they tow line with authoritarian rulers. For democracy to survive and deliver what is expected these things must be incorporated in constitution or statutes: (1) Truly federal structure with near total autonomy for states and local bodies. (2) Prime Minister's and Minister's executive powers must be severely restricted except during war like situations. (3) All discretionary powers must be replaced with robust processes. (4) No expenditure should be allowed without prior legislative approval. (5) All projects must undergo tendering process and all allotments either by merit or auction. (6) All appointments must be through open & transparent process providing chance to all eligible candidates. (7) Lok Pal and investigative agencies must be granted total autonomy with their scope covering every one and excludes no one. (8) Finally thrift should be the guiding policy in government spending with no extravaganza of any kind.

Rising fuel prices indicates economy in mess?

• Govt of India is the biggest cheater of nation and Prime Minister and his gang (read Cabinet) are worst cheats. 
• During the past three years, crude oil prices in international markets have fallen to 1/3rd and more than 80% of it was knocked off by GOI in the form of increased excise duty.
• Every fortnight Oil Companies adjust their tariff matching international prices in Shastri Bhavan and North Block announces increased excise duty within an hour.
• Since few months fuel pricing was shifted from fortnightly to daily and consumers were to benefit from falling crude prices without any delay is what Arun Jaitley surreptitiously indicated to people of India. 
• But what happened is opposite and reduction in excise duty was conspicuously never mentioned as if it is irrelevant item. It becomes relevant only to lay hands on people's money and not otherwise. Today fuel prices in India are one of the highest in the world. Worse than Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
• Higher fuel prices resulted in higher commodities prices and cost of living is almost doubled, especially to workers and wage earners, during past three years of Modi regime while it was static throughout the world. Are these 'Achche din'?
• For all these non sense activities of driving economy into mess, Modi & Jaitley neither has people's approval nor sanction of Parliament and this issue was never in the agenda of Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. Gross misuse of Executive powers by PM & Ministers. Why can't they stick to sanctioned budget and follow standard expenditure procedures?
• What Modi and Co talk of 'bold fiscal reforms' and raising taxes any time they wish are contradictory to each other and none in world will believe our government. Our credibility is lost and who will come to our country with bags of dollars for investing?
• With these bunch of rogues and cheaters at the helm, there is no way we can progress as a nation.

In a democracy, winning election doesn't confer on winner

autocratic powers to do nonsense things. He must confine to 'rule of law'

Government must confine its expenses with in the legislature approved  budget, in letter and spirit. Only emergency expenses could be met with executive orders. Ditto for modifying tax rates. Today Budget and Parliament are just formalities. Govt does what ever it wants to do, albeit whimsically, without following any procedure or laws and answers none. No rule of law for governments. It is only for the people. Once in a while, courts strikes down some actions of governments giving resemblance of existence of democracy. Our FM Jaitley has announced several times before GST roll out that its revenue model is neutral meaning some prices may go up and most prices will come down and overall government doesn't get more or less. Then why all commodities prices have gone up including food and essential items? Any answer?

Parliamentary processes diminished

• What is our conception of Prime Minister Modi when he called parliament “the temple of democracy”? Is it merely a place to ratify decisions made elsewhere in party cabals or cabinet meetings? Or is it a chamber where the representatives of the Indian people assemble to express their considered opinions and thoughtful disagreements, before coming to an outcome in the interests not of a party but of the country as a whole? I guess for Modi it is the former.
• In parliament, the Government will propose. The opposition will oppose. If matters come to a head and a vote is called, the Government’s brute majority will dispose. Merits of the matter hardly matters. This is how our parliament works these days.
• Parliamentary debates have become a ritual. On most issues whip is cracked and MP's duly vote on party lines.
• Even sensible suggestions by the opposition are never adopted.
• With overwhelming majority the Government simply chooses not to listen.
• The Anti-Defection law was passed with good intentions and with which the road to hell is paved. It was intended to stop the aaya Ram-gaya Ram practice of legislators crossing the floor in pursuit of power and pelf. The idea was noble, and rested on sound principles: governmental stability matters; people must stay loyal to the party on whose platform they contested; the intent of voters must not be betrayed by defections.
• The Anti-Defection law 1985 enabled a practice of party whips on all issues, making receptivity to the ideas of the other side punishable with expulsion from the House. The ‘argumentative Indian’ is on display only when he is arguing strictly according to his party’s position.
• The Anti-Defection law has not eliminated the defections, but dramatically reduced them. It only made defections a group affair, more costlier and at the mercy of Speaker, without fear of legal scrutiny.
• Parliament is supposed to be a forum where individual MPs of ability and integrity met to discuss common problems and agree upon solutions.
• MP's are supposed to advocate the wishes of their constituents, rather than themselves. MP betrays himself and his voters while surrendering his own better judgement to the dictates of his party leadership. This is a travesty of the parliamentary process.
• In the UK no whip was issued on a vote for Brexit. No whip was issued for UK supporting the US in the Iraq war. Dissent was freely and honestly expressed on both sides of the aisle. Such freedom is unknown to the Indian MP with the Anti-Defection Law.
• Government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination. And what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide.
• Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, where not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good of the nation. 
• In the early days a prime minister could even be challenged by MPs from his own party -- think of Nehru being attacked by Feroze Gandhi, Finance Minister TT Krishnamachari being forced to resign by his own backbenchers, or Mahadev Mishra challenging his Prime Minister’s China policy. Today conformity rules the roost. So why give parliament an importance its performance does not warrant?
• The first three Lok Sabhas saw as many as 140 days sittings a year. We are now at about half that number, and it is reducing every year. BJP Government clearly has very little time for the distractions of Parliament. State assemblies are even worse: many sit for fewer than 30 days a year, and in Haryana the average is 12 days.
• In the last Lok Sabha, 25% of the bills were passed with scarcely any discussion. Barely 15% of the Union budget is discussed in detail. Our government is spending taxpayers’ money without the taxpayers’ representatives having a meaningful say in how it is spent. 
• Once bills are passed they become Acts, and these are implemented through the promulgation of rules drafted by the Government and are supposed to be placed on the table of each House. The rules are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Guess how many rules have been discussed in the current Lok Sabha? Precisely zero.
• Our Prime Minister Modi spoke of introducing ‘minimum government, maximum governance’. Instead, we are heading to a system of ‘minimum parliament, maximum government’. The judiciary is stepping into the breach, taking initiatives that should have been done by Parliament. Unelected judges substituting themselves for the people’s representatives. It’s nobody’s fault but our own, but it’s not the democracy.
• It is time to look at our institutions and ask if they are really providing the foundations on which our democratic freedoms must be built. The crisis assailing our legislative representation in Parliament makes this task imperative and urgent.

Beware of ministers who can do nothing without money, 

and those who want to do everything with money

Thrift should be the guiding principle

It is essential that a democracy must function with transparency & accountability and rule of the law must be followed. No expenditure should be allowed without prior approval of parliament or legislature except while dealing with specified emergencies. Ordinances must be discouraged and must be subjected to detailed scrutiny. No Act shall be passed without detailed discussion and rules framed for implementation must be ratified or modified by Parliament or Assembly with in 60 days. Discretion must be eliminated and replaced with well defined processes. Executive decisions must have either cabinet and/or legislature ratification. Projects must be granted by a 'Planning Commission' or 'Niti Aayog' type expert bodies but never by any individual office bearer. Government must focus more on Governance rather than money matters. Nothing should be done unless it benefits larger masses. Extravagance should be despised. 

Hamid Ansari, Vice President's speech at NLSIU convocation

Hamid Ansari, Vice-President's speech at the 25th annual convocation of the
National Law School of India University in Bengaluru on August 7, 2017

In his final address as vice-president, Hamid Ansari spoke at the 25th annual convocation of the National Law School of India University in Bengaluru. In his speech, he said the challenge was to reiterate and rejuvenate secularism's basic principles, including freedom of religion and tolerance. The function was presided over by Chief Justice of India, Jagdish Singh Khehar. 

Here is the full text of the speech Ansari gave on 6 August, 2017:

It is a privilege to be invited to this most prestigious of law schools in the country, more so for someone not formally lettered in the discipline of law. I thank the Director and the faculty for this honour.

The nebulous universe of law and legal procedures is well known to this audience and there is precariously little that I can say of relevance to them. And, for reasons of prudence and much else, I dare not repeat here either Mr. Bumble’s remark that ‘the law is an ass’ or the suggestion of a Shakespearean character who outrageously proposed in Henry VI to ‘kill all lawyers.’ Instead, my effort today would be to explore the practical implications that some constitutional principles, legal dicta and judicial pronouncements have for the lives of citizens.

An interest in political philosophy has been a lifelong pursuit. I recall John Locke’s dictum that ‘wherever law ends, tyranny begins.’ Also in my mind is John Rawl’s assertion that ‘justice is the first virtue of social institutions’ and that ‘in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled and the rights secured by justice and are not subject to political bargaining or to the calculus of social interest.’ To Rawls, the first task of political philosophy is its practical role to see, whether despite appearances on deeply disputed questions, some philosophical or moral grounds can be located to further social cooperation on a footing of mutual respect among citizens.

The Constitution of India and its Preamble is an embodiment of the ideals and principles that I hold dear.

The People of India gave themselves a Republic that is Sovereign, Socialist, Secular and Democratic and a constitutional system with its focus on Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. These have been embodied in a set of institutions and laws, conventions and practices.

Our founding fathers took cognizance of an existential reality. Ours is a plural society and a culture imbued with considerable doses of syncretism. Our population of 1.3 billion comprises of over 4,635 communities, 78 percent of whom are not only linguistic and cultural but social categories. Religious minorities constitute 19.4 percent of the total. The human diversities are both hierarchical and spatial.

It is this plurality that the Constitution endowed with a democratic polity and a secular state structure. Pluralism as a moral value seeks to ‘transpose social plurality to the level of politics, and to suggest arrangements which articulate plurality with a single political order in which all duly constituted groups and all individuals are actors on an equal footing, reflected in the uniformity of legal capacity. Pluralism in this modern sense presupposes citizenship.’

Citizenship as the basic unit is conceptualized as “national-civic rather than national-ethnic” ‘even as national identity remained a rather fragile construct, a complex and increasingly fraught ‘national-civic-plural-ethnic’ combinations.’ In the same vein, Indianness came to be defined not as a singular or exhaustive identity but as embodying the idea of layered Indianness, an accretion of identities.

'Modern democracy offers the prospect of the most inclusive politics of human history. By the same logic, there is a thrust for exclusion that is a byproduct of the need for cohesion in democratic societies; hence the resultant need for dealing with exclusion ‘creatively’ through sharing of identity space by ‘negotiating a commonly acceptable political identity between the different personal and group identities which want to/have to live in the polity.’ Democracy ‘has to be judged not just by the institutions that formally exist but by the extent to which different voices from diverse sections of the people can actually be heard.’ Its ‘raison d’etre is the recognition of the other.’

Secularism as a concept and as a political instrumentality has been debated extensively. A definitive pronouncement pertaining to it for purposes of statecraft in India was made by the Supreme Court in the Bommai case and bears reiteration:

‘Secularism has both positive and negative contents. The Constitution struck a balance between temporal parts confining it to the person professing a particular religious faith or belief and allows him to practice profess and propagate his religion, subject to public order, morality and health. The positive part of secularism has been entrusted to the State to regulate by law or by an executive order. The State is prohibited to patronise any particular religion as State religion and is enjoined to observe neutrality. The State strikes a balance to ensue an atmosphere of full faith and confidence among its people to realise full growth of personality and to make him a rational being on secular lines, to improve individual excellence, regional growth, progress and national integrity… Religious tolerance and fraternity are basic features and postulates of the Constitution as a scheme for national integration and sectional or religious unity. Programmes or principles evolved by political parties based on religion amount to recognizing religion as a part of the political governance which the Constitution expressly prohibits. It violates the basic features of the Constitution. Positive secularism negates such a policy and any action in furtherance thereof would be violative of the basic features of the Constitution.’

Despite its clarity, various attempts, judicial and political, have been made to dilute its import and to read new meaning into it. Credible critics have opined that the December 11, 1995 judgment of the Supreme Court Bench ‘are highly derogatory of the principle of secular democracy’ and that a larger Bench should reconsider them ‘and undo the great harm caused by them' This remains to be done; ‘instead, a regression of consciousness (has) set in’ and ‘the slide is now sought to be accelerated and is threatening to wipe out even the gains of the national movement summed up in sarvadharma sambhav.’

It has been observed, with much justice, that ‘the relationship between identity and inequality lies at the heart of secularism and democracy in India.’ The challenge today then is to reiterate and rejuvenate secularism’s basic principles: equality, freedom of religion and tolerance, and to emphasize that equality has to be substantive, that freedom of religion be re-infused with its collectivist dimensions, and that toleration should be reflective of the realities of Indian society and lead to acceptance.

Experience of almost seven decades sheds light on the extent of our success, and of limitations, on the actualizations of these values and objectives. The optimistic narrative is of deepening; the grim narrative of decline or crisis.

Three questions thus come to mind:

• How has the inherent plurality of our polity reflected itself in the functioning of Indian democracy?
• How has democracy contributed to the various dimensions of Indian pluralism?
• How consistent are we in adherence to secularism?

Our democratic polity is pluralist because it recognizes and endorses this plurality in (a) its federal structure, (b) linguistic and religious rights to minorities, and (c) a set of individual rights. The first has sought to contain, with varying degrees of success, regional pressures, the second has ensured space for religious and linguistic minorities, and the third protects freedom of opinion and the right to dissent.

A question is often raised about national integration. Conceptually and practically, integration is not synonymous with assimilation or homogenization. Some years back, a political scientist had amplified the nuances:

‘In the semantics of functional politics the term national integration means, and ought to mean, cohesion and not fusion, unity and not uniformity, reconciliation and not merger, accommodation and not annihilation, synthesis and not dissolution, solidarity and not regimentation of the several discrete segments of the people constituting the larger political community…Obviously, then, Integration is not a process of conversion of diversities into a uniformity but a congruence of diversities leading to a unity in which both the varieties and similarities are maintained.’

How and to what extent has this worked in the case of Indian democracy with its ground reality of exclusions arising from stratification, heterogeneity and hierarchy that often ‘operate conjointly and create intersectionality’? 

Given the pervasive inequalities and social diversities, the choice of a system committed to political inclusiveness was itself ‘a leap of faith.’ The Constitution instituted universal adult suffrage and a system of representation on the First-Past-The-Post (Westminster) model. An underlying premise was the Rule of Law that is reflective of the desire of people ‘to make power accountable, governance just, and state ethical.’

Much earlier, Gandhi ji had predicted that democracy would be safeguarded if people ‘have a keen sense of independence, self respect and their oneness and should insist upon choosing as their representatives only persons as are good and true.’ This, when read alongside Ambedkar’s apprehension that absence of equality and fraternity could bring forth ‘a life of contradictions’ if the ideal of ‘one person, one vote, one value’ was not achieved, framed the challenge posed by democracy.

Any assessment of the functioning of our democracy has to be both procedural and substantive. On procedural count the system has developed roots with regularity of elections, efficacy of the electoral machinery, an ever increasing percentage of voter participation in the electoral process and the formal functioning of legislatures thus elected. The record gives cause for much satisfaction.

The score is less emphatic on the substantive aspects. Five of these bear closer scrutiny – (a) the gap between ‘equality before the law’ and ‘equal protection of the law’, (b) representativeness of the elected representative, (c) functioning of legislatures, (d) gender and diversity imbalance and (e) secularism in practice:

• Equality before the law and equal protection of the law: ‘The effort to pursue equality has been made at two levels. At one level was the constitutional effort to change the very structure of social relations: practicing caste and untouchability was made illegal, and allowing religious considerations to influence state activity was not permitted. At the second level the effort was to bring about economic equality although in this endeavour the right to property and class inequality was not seriously curbed…Thus the reference to economic equality in the Constitution, in the courts or from political platforms remained basically rhetorical.’ 
• Representativeness of the elected representative: In the 2014 general election, 61% of the elected MPs obtained less than 50% of the votes polled. This can be attributed in some measure to the First-Past-the-Post system in a fragmented polity and multiplicity of parties and contestants. The fact nevertheless remains that representation obtained on non-majority basis does impact on the overall approach in which politics of identity prevails over common interest.
• Functioning of legislatures, accountability and responsiveness: The primary tasks of legislators are legislation, seeking accountability of the executive, articulation of grievances and discussion of matters of public concern. The three often overlap; all require sufficient time being made available. It is the latter that is now a matter of concern. The number of sittings of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha which stood at 137 and 100 respectively in 1953 declined to 49 and 52 in 2016. The paucity of time thus created results in shrinkage of space made available to each of these with resultant impact on quality and productivity and a corresponding lessening of executive’s accountability. According to one assessment some years back, ‘over 40 percent of the Bills were passed in Lok Sabha with less than one hour of debate. The situation is marginally better in the Rajya Sabha.’ Substantive debates on public policy issues are few and far in between. More recently, the efficacy of the Standing Committee mechanism has been dented by resort to tactics of evasion by critical witnesses. A study on 'Indian Parliament as an Instrument of Accountability' concluded that the institution is ‘increasingly becoming ineffective in providing surveillance of the executive branch of the government.
• The picture with regard to the functioning of the Sate Assemblies is generally much worse.
• Thus while public participation in the electoral exercise has noticeably improved, public satisfaction with the functioning of the elected bodies is breeding cynicism with the democratic process itself. It has also been argued that ‘the time has come to further commit ourselves to a deeper and more participatory and decentralized democracy - a democracy with greater congruence between people’s interests and public policy.’
• Gender and diversity imbalance: Women MPs constituted 12.15% of the total in 2014. This compares unfavourably globally as well as within SAARC and is reflective of pervasive neo-patriarchal attitudes. The Women’s Reservation Bill of 2009 was passed by the Rajya Sabha, was not taken up in Lok Sabha, and lapsed when Parliament was dissolve before the 2014 general elections. It has not been resurrected. Much the same (for other reasons of perception and prejudice) holds for Minority representation. Muslims constitute 14.23 percent of the population of India. The total strength of the two Houses of Parliament is 790; the number of Muslim MPs stood at 49 in 1980, ranged between 30 and 35 in the 1999 to 2009 period, but declined to 23 in 2014.
• An Expert Committee report to the Government some years back had urged the need for a Diversity Index to indentify ‘inequality traps’ which prevent the marginalized and work in favour of the dominant groups in society and result in unequal access to political power that in turn determines the nature and functioning of institutions and policies.
• Secularism in actual practice: Experience shows that secularism has become a site for political and legal contestation. The difficulty lies in delineating, for purposes of public policy and practice, the line that separates them from religion. For this, religion per se, and each individual religion figuring in the discourse, has to be defined in terms of its stated tenets. The ‘way of life’ argument, used in philosophical texts and some judicial pronouncements, does not help the process of identifying common principles of equity in a multi-religious society in which religious majority is not synonymous with totality of the citizen body. Since a wall of separation is not possible under Indian conditions, the challenge is to develop and implement a formula for equidistance and minimum involvement. For this purpose, principles of faith need to be segregated from contours of culture since a conflation of the two obfuscates the boundaries of both and creates space to equivocalness. Furthermore, such an argument could be availed of by other faiths in the land since all claim a cultural sphere and a historical justification for it.

In life as in law, terminological inexactitude has its implications. In electoral terms, ‘majority’ is numerical majority as reflected in a particular exercise (e.g. election), does not have permanence and is generally time-specific; the same holds for ‘minority’. Both find reflection in value judgments. In socio-political terminology (e.g. demographic data) ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ are terms indicative of settled situations. These too bring forth value judgments. The question then is whether in regard to ‘citizenship’ under our Constitution with its explicit injunctions on rights and duties, any value judgments should emerge from expressions like ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ and the associated adjectives like ‘majoritarian’ and ‘majorityism’ and ‘minoritarian’and ‘minorityism’? Record shows that these have divisive implications and detract from the Preamble’s quest for ‘Fraternity’.

Within the same ambit, but distinct from it, is the constitutional principle of equality of status and opportunity, amplified through Articles 14, 15, and 16. This equality has to be substantive rather than merely formal and has to be given shape through requisite measures of affirmative action needed in each case so that the journey on the path to development has a common starting point. This would be an effective way of giving shape to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s policy of Sab Ka Saath Sab Ka Vikas.

It is here that the role of the judicial arm of the state comes into play and, as an acknowledged authority on the Constitution put it, ‘unless the Court strives in every possible way to assure that the Constitution, the law, applies fairly to all citizens, the Court cannot be said to have fulfilled its custodial responsibility.’

How then do we go about creating conditions and space for a more comprehensive realization of the twin objectives of pluralism and secularism and in weaving it into the fabric of a comprehensive actualization of the democratic objectives set forth in the Constitution?

The answer would seem to lie, firstly, in the negation of impediments to the accommodation of diversity institutionally and amongst citizens and, secondly, in the rejuvenation of the institutions and practices through which pluralism and secularism cease to be sites for politico-legal contestation in the functioning of Indian democracy. The two approaches are to be parallel, not sequential. Both necessitate avoidance of sophistry in discourse or induction of personal inclinations in State practice. A more diligent promotion of fraternity, and of our composite culture, in terms of Article 51A (e) and (f) is clearly required. It needs to be done in practice by leaders and followers.

A commonplace suggestion is advocacy of tolerance. Tolerance is a virtue. It is freedom from bigotry. It is also a pragmatic formula for the functioning of society without conflict between different religions, political ideologies, nationalities, ethnic groups, or other us-versus-them divisions.

Yet tolerance alone is not a strong enough foundation for building an inclusive and pluralistic society. It must be coupled with understanding and acceptance. We must, said Swami Vivekananda, ‘not only tolerate other religions, but positively embrace them, as truth is the basis of all religions.’

Acceptance goes a step beyond tolerance. Moving from tolerance to acceptance is a journey that starts within ourselves, within our own understanding and compassion for people who are different to us and from our recognition and acceptance of the ‘other’ that is the raison d’etre of democracy. The challenge is to look beyond the stereotypes and preconceptions that prevent us from accepting others. This makes continuous dialogue unavoidable. It has to become an essential national virtue to promote harmony transcending sectional diversities. The urgency of giving this a practical shape at national, state and local levels through various suggestions in the public domain is highlighted by enhanced apprehensions of insecurity amongst segments of our citizen body, particularly Dalits, Muslims and Christians.

The alternative, however unpalatable, also has to be visualized. There is evidence to suggest that we are a polity at war with itself in which the process of emotional integration has faltered and is in dire need of reinvigoration. On one plane is the question of our commitment to Rule of Law that seems to be under serious threat arising out of the noticeable decline in the efficacy of the institutions of the State, lapses into arbitrary decision-making and even ‘ochlocracy’ or mob rule, and the resultant public disillusionment; on another are questions of fragility and cohesion emanating from impulses that have shifted the political discourse from mere growth centric to vociferous demands for affirmative action and militant protest politics. ‘A culture of silence has yielded to protests’ The vocal distress in the farm sector in different States, the persistence of Naxalite insurgencies, the re-emergence of language related identity questions, seeming indifference to excesses pertaining to weaker sections of society, and the as yet unsettled claims of local nationalisms can no longer be ignored or brushed under the carpet. The political immobility in relation to Jammu and Kashmir is disconcerting. Alongside are questions about the functioning of what has been called our ‘asymmetrical federation’ and ‘the felt need for a wider, reinvigorated, perspective on the shape of the Union of India’ to overcome the crisis of ‘moral legitimacy’ in its different manifestations.

I have in the foregoing dwelt on two ‘isms’, two value systems, and the imperative need to invest them with greater commitment in word and deed so that the principles of the Constitution and the structure emanating from it are energized. Allow me now to refer to a third ‘ism’ that is foundational for the modern state, is not of recent origin, but much in vogue in an exaggerated manifestation. I refer here to Nationalism.

Scholars have dwelt on the evolution of the idea. The historical precondition of Indian identity was one element of it; so was regional and anti-colonial patriotism. By 1920s a form of pluralistic nationalism had answered the question of how to integrate within it the divergent aspirations of identities based on regional vernacular cultures and religious communities. A few years earlier, Rabindranath Tagore had expressed his views on the ‘idolatry of Nation’.

For many decades after independence, a pluralist view of nationalism and Indianness reflective of the widest possible circle of inclusiveness and a ‘salad bowl’ approach, characterized our thinking. More recently an alternate viewpoint of ‘purifying exclusivism’ has tended to intrude into and take over the political and cultural landscape. One manifestation of it is ‘an increasingly fragile national ego’ that threatens to rule out any dissent however innocent. Hyper-nationalism and the closing of the mind is also ‘a manifestation of insecurity about one’s place in the world.’

While ensuring external and domestic security is an essential duty of the state, there seems to be a trend towards sanctification of military might overlooking George Washington’s caution to his countrymen over two centuries earlier about ‘overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty.’

Citizenship does imply national obligations. It necessitates adherence to and affection for the nation in all its rich diversity. This is what nationalism means, and should mean, in a global community of nations. The Israeli scholar Yael Tamir has dwelt on this at some length. Liberal nationalism, she opines, ‘requires a state of mind characterized by tolerance and respect of diversity for members of one’s own group and for others;’ hence it is ‘polycentric by definition’ and ‘celebrates the particularity of culture with the universality of human rights, the social and cultural embeddedness of individuals together with their personal autonomy.’ On the other hand, ‘the version of nationalism that places cultural commitments at its core is usually perceived as the most conservative and illiberal form of nationalism. It promotes intolerance and arrogant patriotism’.

What are, or could be, the implications of the latter for pluralism and secularism? It is evident that both would be abridged since both require for their sustenance a climate of opinion and a state practice that eschews intolerance, distances itself from extremist and illiberal nationalism, subscribes in word and deed to the Constitution and its Preamble, and ensures that citizenship irrespective of caste, creed or ideological affiliation is the sole determinant of Indianness.

In our plural secular democracy, therefore, the ‘other’ is to be none other than the ‘self’. Any derogation from it would be detrimental to its core values.

Jai Hind.