Diffident us V/s combative them

.

By any standard, the violence against Indian students in Australia is nasty business. What lends an astonishing edge to it is the Indian Government’s routine, pedestrian, unfeeling handling of it. Indeed, non-assertiveness seems to be a characteristic of the Manmohan-Sonia leadership.

By contrast, Australia took a combative position. First, police bosses remained almost indifferent, refusing to see any racial angle in the repeated attacks on Indian students. At the political level, high-ranking leaders chose to express themselves against violence in general terms while declaring Australia as “the safest country in the world” for students.

On top of this exercise in nationalistic self-justification, the Australian Prime Minister turned provocative last week. He indirectly accused unnamed Indian politicians of seeking to inflame passions. And then he said that Australians in India had also been violently attacked. In the last decade, he said, there were 20 such cases.

Ill-advised words from an inexperienced Prime Minister. White thugs in Australia may well interpret this belligerence as a call to even up the score. (Against 20 Australians attacked in India, only a dozen Indians have so far been attacked in Australia. So another eight can “legitimately” be attacked. Then what about the interest outstanding from a decade ago?)

The strongest statement from the Indian Prime Minister is that “we are appalled” by the attacks. The External Affairs Minister wasn’t even appalled; he just asked Indian students to “concentrate on their studies”. What a noble race we are, combining the virtues of Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus Christ, and turning the other cheek to our tormentors.

Just as Indian students are contributing massively to Australian economy today, Malaysian students were the mainstay of British revenues from education in the 1980’s. Seeing it an easy way to boost the national income, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ordered a big increase in the fees of overseas students. Malaysian families felt cheated and exploited. Their Government then announced the “Look East” policy. Imports from and industrial collaboration with Britain were cut down significantly and Japan given preferential treatment. Hit where it hurt, the famous Iron Lady lost her iron and withdrew the fees increase on Malaysian students.

Malaysia then was governed by neither Mahatma Gandhi nor Jesus Christ, but by the no-nonsense Mahathir Mohammed. He was feared by the West but admired by Malaysians whose quality of life reached international standards during the twenty years of his stewardship. Manmohan Singh is loved by the West, especially by the likes of George Bush. So they feel free to do what is in their national interest and ask us to tag along. And we do.

Even Indian business houses show more assertiveness. From Arcelor to Jaguar, world famous companies have become Indian-owned against stiff resistance. Indian entrepreneurs seldom receive the governmental backing American and Japanese companies routinely receive. In fact, companies like Essar and Reliance have faced problems in major markets like Iran because of American pressure and lack of counterveiling Indian support.

Developing an Indian presence in the Iranian oil scenario would have pointedly benefited India’s national interest. But we surrendered to American national interests even on the critical Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline. America’s policy towards Iran may get friendly tomorrow. By then we will have been overtaken by China and Russia and even Europe on the Iranian oil front.

Why is our national leadership so diffident? Even as they talk of India as an emerging world power, why do they buckle under small-time Australian goons? Why do they forget that even the Christian George Bush never turned the other cheek? He gave’m hell.

.

How foolish can Madam’s Party be!

.

Never before has the Congress been so perverse in its selection of candidates. Tickets have been given to netas who should have taken to vanaprastha long ago, and netas who have no chance of winning, and netas who are too controversial to do the party any good. The shoe hurled at P. Chidambaram in Delhi merely dramatized the Congress’s appalling foolishness.

Was that shame necessary to bring the party to its senses? It is a fact that Congress leaders unleashed murder and mayhem against Sikhs in the wake of Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984. It is also a fact that the Congress did nothing to atone for its sins in the 25 years since.

It did just the opposite when it gave tickets to Jagdish Tytler and an accomplice. A CBI certificate of innocence will not make these men innocent in the eyes of the public. As long as public opinion holds them responsible for the anti-Sikh atrocities, they are a political no-no for any party. Yet, amazingly, the Congress chose to add insult to the injury it had inflicted on Sikhs.

Is Jagdish Tytler such an important national asset that the Congress Party had to pick him at any cost? Outside a pocket or two in Delhi, he is a nobody. His omission would have done the party no harm while it would have done the country some good.

Why then did the Congress act so dumb? Everyone knows the answer. A small coterie of operators, on the strength of their closeness to Madam, manipulate everything in the Congress. Madam, very intelligent and very sharp when it comes to protecting her own and her family’s interests, is not so sure about the intricacies of India’s convoluted regional politics. So the coterie is left free to give full play to its egos and its vested interests.

Consider, for example, the tickets given to Margaret Alva, Veerappa Moily, Jaffer Sherief. Consider K.V.Thomas of Kochi who was not even in the list sent up by Congress leaders in Kerala. Are these personalities so outstanding that India’s future would be in jeopardy if they are not in Parliament? Don’t these veterans deserve some rest after serving the country for so long?

Omissions are as revealing as commissions. In the heart of Bangalore, the Congress’s original gut feeling was to field S.M.Krishna. That would have provided a badly needed boost to the lethargic Congress campaign. But petty rivalries were allowed to keep Krishna out. Now a leaderless, idealess, valueless Congress is poised to confirm its surrender of Karnataka to the BJP.

Coterie rule also prevents the Congress from using one of the most important tools in election politics – strategic manoeuvring. Ahmedabad is a good example. Against L.K.Advani there the Congress has put up a man called Suresh Patel, a remarkably unknown person although he is a legislator. What is the point of such a candidate against Advani? Instead, a smart strategist would have left he field clear for Mallika Sarabhai. She is a credible candidate. With some help, she could put up a reasonable performance. That would send a timely message to the country – and the Congress could derive satisfaction from it.

Alas, nothing of the kind works when small minds play with big issues. It is another matter that Madam’s Party may win enough seats to become a player in the next Government. That will be because Advani’s Party is in a more terrible mess. Are we condemned to choose between the worse and the worst?

.

Another election where voters will lose

Yediyurappa in Yoga, Kumaraswamy with wife Anita and Dewegowda in an Iftar.
Photo Credit : Kannada Prabha

Only fools and TV channels predict election results. And IPS-IAS opportunists. In 1977, after two years of Emergency repression, the Intelligence Bureau famously advised Indira Gandhi that she would easily win a general election. She infamously lost.

In the Karnataka election just announced, there is one prediction the wise will make. That is: The voters will lose. In fact, the voters have already lost with the impending end of Governor's Rule. It's true that the Governor was a faithful Congressman. It's also true that some Congress High Commanders from Delhi were able to pull important administrative strings from behind the scenes.

But that was a small minus compared to the big plus of politicians staying out of sight. The good bureaucrats were able to function, the bad ones stayed mute. Files moved. The corruption graph came down. People began to see what menace "elected representatives" had become and how blissful it was to have no "popular government".

Alas, all good things must come to an end. In a month's time the people will have democracy thrust upon them.

The silver lining is that all parties are in varying degrees of confusion and mess. Besides, all constituencies have been reconfigured this time. No one can now reap the benefit of caste and clan investments of the past. New investments will take time to show results.
Perhaps the one player with some degree of credibility is, incredibly, H.D.

Kumaraswamy. Somehow this young Chief Minister had managed to build a positive image. But he has to bear the cross of a father whom no one trusts. So where does that leave Kumaraswamy's JDS?

Where indeed does S.M.Krishna's return to politics leave the Congress? With experience and urbanity on his side, he should have been an advantage to the Congress. But some Congressmen objected to his return _ mostly tired leaders who live on their yesterdays and have no tomorrows ahead. While such objections can be ignored, caste pulls are a different matter.

Deve Gowda, the country's leading expert on caste arithmetic, carries the same Vokkaliga label that Krishna does. Does this mean a split in one of the major voter segments? Has the other major segment, the Lingayats, abandoned the Congress for good and gone over to the BJP?

The leadership vacuum in the BJP is so bad that a victory for that party may well mean disaster to it as much as to the state. It did nothing to endear itself to the people during the period of half-power it enjoyed. On the contrary, it gave indications that divide-and-rule would be its preferred route to power. Is Karnataka ready for such a restructuring of the basic parameters of life?

It's a pity that fifty years of electoral politics have not yielded a decent choice of parties. They all have the same programme - power. All depend on caste and sub-caste to achieve that end. Some add an extra touch here and there - like dynastic glamour and communal emotion.

None serves the people. That's why many voters, on their way to the booths, will ask themselves: When can we have five years of Governor's Rule?