With the Congress in retreat


Modi and his communal politics seem to be the popular choice

Without any doubt, elections reflect anti-Congress mood. The people of four states, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Delhi, have expressed annoyance at the polls for their legislatures. The saving grace for the Congress has been Chattisgarh where the party is close second because it sacrificed its 32 functionaries while confronting the violence of the Maoists.

Why the party has got the drubbing is due to its 10-year of mis-governance at the centre that manifested itself in the shape of corruption, price rise and the general sense of insecurity. President Sonia Gandhi and Vice-President Rahul Gandhi could not pull the chestnuts from the fire because the former is distant from the people and the latter does not click. Good that the party is going to introspect. To begin with, it can shed the arrogance of power. My feeling is that the dynasty does not sell any longer. Rahul is too prosaic to make any impact as his campaigns in the different states have reflected this. His sister, Priyanka may do better.

Sonia Gandhi has said that the party would name the prime ministerial candidate soon because Gujarat Chief Minister Narender Modi had the focus since he had been put up by Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) for the office of prime minister. She will find it difficult to choose the candidate because she has pushed Pranab Mukherjee upstairs by making him the president. P. Chidambaram is the obvious choice but he would not be as obedient as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been.

The best thing that has happened in elections is the emergence of Aam Aadmi Party which evokes a sense of idealism and strengthens the belief that religion, caste or language does not influence an ordinary person. I wish the AAP had an ideology to pursue. The future has to be chalked out, not only against corruption but also against consumerism which is taking over the nation. It is time to revive the ethos of our freedom struggle: democracy, pluralism and egalitarianism.

The immediate task should be the electoral reforms. The role of money has become important. It has been always there, but has beaten this time all the previous records. There were 6,454 candidates in fray in the five states. Madhya Pradesh had the highest number of candidates – 2,586 for 321 seats, followed by Rajasthan with 2,087 for the 200 seats. There was a drop in Chhattisgarh – 843 contestants for 91 seats, 142 for 40 seats in Mizoram and a whopping figure of 796 for Delhi’s 70 seats. The expenditure runs into thousands of crores.

The various studies show that the cost per Lok Sabha seat is around Rs10 crore. Seven to eight assembly constituencies constitute a Lok Sabha seat and the expense works out to Rs1.25 crore per assembly constituency. But it is said that the minimum expenditure on an assembly seat is at least Rs2 crore. Adding these figures, the total expenditure by the candidates comes to Rs13,908 crore. The Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) explains: “We do not want to put all the eggs in one basket.”

The campaign of Modi, the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, is reportedly financed by the corporate sector. The party cadres are said to be happy for getting the money. The meeting of captains of industry at Ahmedabad last year to support the candidature of Modi for prime ministership emphasizes their preference for him because his speeches indicate how they would have a free hand if he came to power.

They should have reconsidered their stand after the surveillance by the government’s security forces, including the anti-terrorist force, of a girl he had taken ‘fancy’ to in 2004. It was not protection but a close check on whom she met or where she went. The state’s inquiry committee is a farce. There should be a judicial probe. The surveillance is linked with Modi or, probably elections, in Gujarat. The overall picture may not be affected very much. Yet what it suggests is that electoral reforms are essential for free and independent polls.

Two trends have emerged, one plus and the other minus, from these elections. The positive aspect is that more voters have come to the polling booths than ever before, nearly 75 percent exercising their franchise. If spelled out, it means that people have expressed their ever-increasing faith in the ballot box, an essential ingredient of democratic governance.

The negative side is the mudslinging. I have watched campaigns of all elections since independence. There were fierce contests, particularly from the late sixties. Yet none, neither an individual nor a political party, ever hit below the belt.

At best, a remark like the one by Dr Ram Manohar Lohia, a socialist leader, was that Mrs Indira Gandhi, his strong opponent, was a goongi gudiya (a silent doll). There was no malice. Indulging in personal abusive remarks was not considered ethical. Since then the thin line between what is moral and immoral has got erased. And it has become free for all.

The current state elections are considered a semi-final contest. I shudder to imagine how low would the level of the final, the Lok Sabha elections in May 2014, go to. Political parties have to agree upon a code so that the polls are not reduced to street brawls and the candidates do not behave like the urchins.

I think that the Election Commission has been too complacent and too accommodative. I have seen reports of giving warnings and asking for explanations from erring candidates. But no action has been forthcoming so far. I get the feeling that the two have come to develop a cozy relationship, the anti-thesis of independent elections. I do not doubt the veracity of elections. Yet the means are not less important than the end.

My greatest concern is over the attempt to polarize the society. Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi may not have played the Hindu card directly. But all his speeches underline the notion of Hindu nationalism, an anti-thesis of pluralism which is the ethos of our country.

That the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has forced his candidature on the moderate Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) is understandable. But why people like Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley, who are considered left of the BJP ideology, are sharing the rostrum with Modi? L.K. Advani, who has mellowed over the years, has made it clear through his attitude that he is distant from Modi and the communal politics he represents.

Kuldip Nayar is a veteran Indian journalist, human rights activist and a noted author.


  1. I do not see why Modi alone is communal while Congress is not. Congress plays the Muslim-card always, so how can it be not communal? Whoever plays a religion card, be it a Hindu or a Muslim one, is communal. Somehow this simple fact is not recognized by even so-called "reputed" authors in media. Most of the young generation know this and that is why they vote for the candidate who actually performs: fact, Muslims overwhelmingly voted for BJP in Rajasthan. Muslims know both parties are as communal as they can get.
    Lastly somehow Advani is the "good" person now. Funnily he was the "bad" guy when Vajpayee was in power. It shows how this "good" and "bad" are relative terms used according to one's convenience.

Comments are closed.