Mr Powerful Returns, Says NDA has the Edge in Bihar

“Stop moping about the house and get dressed,” the wife told me, with a distinct edge in her voice. “The markets aren’t going to bounce back just to cure your depression. Just get on with it now.”

I looked at her with hurt in my eyes, but one glance at her face made me realise that I had played this depression card for too long. The wife was correct. I had lost a pile in the latest vicious correction, and what was worse, I had recommended the same dud shares to my boss.

Anyway, it was time to drown my sorrows in someone else’s whisky. So, I donned by best evening suit and drove off, with spouse in tow, to Rajesh Damani’s party.

As soon as I entered, I spied old Mr Powerful, sitting in a corner, accompanied by a glass of the choicest scotch. It had been more than a year since I had last seen him. Rumour had it that the old codger had been down with cancer. The doctors gave him six months. He took just four. The Emperor of Maladies beat a hasty retreat but not without leaving Mr Powerful bed-ridden for two quarters.

“Ah! Mr Banker,” he called out to me in a commanding voice, “how have the markets been treating you, young man?”

“I expected the correction,” I lied. “India has been expensive for some time now, so this was bound to come.”

“Why?” he asked with his typical derisive nasal twang. “Acche Din didn’t come for the markets and MBAwallahs?”

“It has only been 15 months,” I said. “The PM needs more time.”

“Hmph! If he loses Bihar, he will have no more time. It will be game over,” said Mr Powerful.

“Well, it is an unfair and unholy alliance that will beat him,” I said, finally finding my voice. “It is a fight between those who want Bihar to remain stuck in mandal politics and those who want to take it forward.”

“Really?” asked Mr Powerful. It was obviously not a question, but a polite way to say that he considered me a fool. “In any case, there is no reason for you bhakts to worry. The NDA has a clear edge in Bihar, and not because of its promise of achhe din, but precisely because it has managed to work out a great caste alliance.”

“Really?” I too made an attempt to sound sarcastic. “How is that going to happen?”

“You see, the backward castes are not one monolithic group. They are made up of several caste groups. The top three are the Yadavs, followed by Koeris and then Kurmis. Together they make up about 25 per cent of the population. That means, one in every four voters is an upper OBC.”

“I can do the maths, sir,” I said sarcastically.

Mr Powerful brushed aside my interruption and continued. “Yadavs or Ahirs are mostly small and middle farmers, but they have also traditionally been cattle-herders and milk-sellers. Yadavs are a martial caste, quick to become violent, which is why they supplied the foot-soldiers for the private armies of Zamindars in the days of the Raj.”

He stopped a passing bearer, and picked up another glass of whisky, took a glug and went on with his lecture: “It will interest you to know that the Yadavs have often been at war with the lower OBCs and Dalits, who are the landless labourers who work the fields and supply the bodies for hard labour in the villages. In fact, the Yadavs formed one of the earliest caste armies in Bihar called the Lorik Sena. And they specialised in killing, beating and intimidating these low-caste tenant-farmers and farm labourers.”

“I knew that,” I lied. Mr Powerful glared at me.

“If you talk about Kurmis and Koeris, they too are mostly small and middle peasants. Kurmis have traditionally been grain-farmers, while Koeris have diversified into vegetables, fruits, tobacco and what MBAwallahs use regulary – opium.” He chuckled in a self-satisfied manner at the last dig at me. I have no idea why the guy hates us MBAs so much.

“Even though Kurmis are smaller in number they are more influential locally, as they are mostly concentrated in the Magadh region in central Bihar. Koeris, on the other hand, are evenly distributed across Bihar. In most areas they have just 2000 to 4000 votes. There are only about 25 odd assembly seats where Koeris make up more than 8,000-10,000 votes.”

“There is one other distinctive feature of Koeris. They are considered the cleanest of the lower castes. Old anthropologists have recorded cases from some regions of Bihar, where Brahmins have accepted food cooked by Koeris. That is why, Koeris are amongst the most sanskritised of OBCs in Bihar, and the most likely to find common ground with upper castes and Hindutva forces.”

“Sir, you seem to treat the two as interchangeable categories,” I interrupted. “Upper castes are not necessarily backers of Hindutva, and those who support Modi for his development agenda don’t necessarily believe we need a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya."

“Don’t they?” again the same sarcastic question. “In any case,” said Mr Powerful, “it does not matter. Upper castes in Bihar support the BJP because they want to gain back their lost glory. They have been out of power for 25 years – although Nitish did bring them in through the backdoor in the past few years. Hindutva is the glue for the upper castes that gives an ideological sheen to their fear of lower caste hegemony.”

“So, are you saying that development does not matter?” I asked.

“No. I am not saying that. Development matters to everyone. Nitish Kumar has been trying to market himself as the poster-boy of development for Bihar. But Nitish’s development rhetoric is sitting on top of the politics of caste. The Modi-Shah development brand rides on Hindutva.”

Mr Powerful took another long, deep sip from his whisky glass, caught his breath and continued with his monologue. “The real battle-ground is neither Hindutva nor development. It is the category of most backward caste and the mahadalit.”

“As I was saying, before you interrupted me, the Yadavs, Kurmis and Koeris, haven’t ever been great friends with the lower backward castes and Dalits. If the Yadavs had their Lorik Sena to subjugate the rural poor, the Kurmis had Bhoomi Sena and the Koeris their Azad Sena. Throughout the Naxalite period, these senas have fought armed squads of the Maoists and attacked lower OBC and dalit hamlets.”

“But, despite their differences on the ground, the backward castes united under Lalu in the early 90s, mostly as a reaction to the anti-Mandal agitation by upper castes. You must have been part of that, Mr Banker?” he asked me.

“No, sir. I wasn’t in India at that time. I was studying in the US.” I said gruffly. I was hoping my tone conveyed my irritation with his humiliating manner.

“Are you getting offended by an old cancer survivors jokes, my boy?” he asked, playing the sympathy card.

“No, no, sir! Of course not. Please carry on.”

“Where was I? Ah yes, I was talking about Lalu. The guy is a genius at carving together caste alliances, a true marketing and sales guru.” (Another dig. Sigh!)

“Lalu managed to whip up an anti-upper caste frenzy. He made dignity the key battle cry, and created an emotive atmosphere that helped unite the different lower and backward caste groups.”

“BhuraBaal Saaf karo,” I said. “I remember that.”

“Exactly! I am very impressed,” said Mr Powerful, genuinely smiling at me for the first time. “Bhumihar, Rajput, Baman Lala – BhuRaBaL. Genius slogan for its times, much like Acche Din aane waale hai was last year.”

“Lalu could have been unbeatable, if he had sincerely done land-reforms in Bihar. You know, the state’s image is one of unbridled landlordism, but did you know that it has the most radical and progressive land reform laws in the India?”

“No,” I said, “I had no idea.”

“Yes, if Bihar’s land-reforms laws are actually implemented, then a tenant who has cultivated someone else’s land for 12 years, will automatically become its owner. It is so radical, that D Bandopadhaya, the legendary architect of West Bengal’s land reforms said they needed to be diluted for them to be implemented by any political party.”

“When Lalu came to power in 1990, Jyoti Babu told him, in front of me, that proper land reforms will keep him in power for at least 20 years. But, you know what Lalu said? He told one of his favourite journalists, that poora balancewa hi bigad jayega – the entire balance will be disrupted by land reforms. What he did not say, is that he will lose the support of Yadavs and upper OBCs if he suddenly handed over land to the poor tenants and agricultural labourers.”

“Everyone knows that Lalu’s 15 years made the Yadavs even more powerful. They occupied government jobs, took over panchayats, and an entire industry of criminality flourished under them. That also meant that the upper OBCs also got divided. Yadavs were now at loggerheads with the Kurmis and Koeris too.”

“Is that why Nitish broke with Lalu?” I asked.

“Exactly. You are one smart banker, I must say,” Mr Powerful said genially, as he stopped a bearer for another refill.

“Nitish Kumar’s break with Lalu had as much to do with Lalu’s growing unpopularity due to his corrupt image as it did with the conflicts on the ground between Yadavs and Kurmi-Koeris. That is why Lalu’s lieutenant, the Koeri leader Upendra Kushwaha also broke away and joined Nitish.”

By now, a small crowd had gathered around us. Mr Powerful, used to be virtually mobbed at parties even two years ago. He was known to have great contacts within the UPA and had a direct line to Mrs.G. His magnetism had waned with the arrival of Good Days, but he was such a good story teller that even today, people had slowly given up their fear of being seen with a certified Congressi and a mini durbar had magically appeared around him, once again.

 “But Powerfulji, these OBCs are bound to unite again, if they feel we are coming together to end their jungle-raaj”, a booming voice proclaimed. I turned around to locate the owner of the voice and recognised our old friend Colonel Clipped Moustache. Colonel Moustache had retired from active service almost a decade ago, and had invested a not-so-inconsiderable inheritance to set up a security guard supplying company. His success in business had convinced him of his own genius and made him inordinately liberal with sharing his illiberal opinions.

“I wish they would,” Mr Powerful said, “so that Bihar does not return to the days of the Atyaachar Raaj of the upper castes. But, unfortunately for human beings and fortunately for you, this is unlikely to happen.”

The fungus on Col Moustache’s face bristled, his upper lip quivered as he searched for a suitable riposte. But, at that moment, words failed the valiant soldier, and he turned his grimace into a smile.

Mr Powerful gave him a dismissive look and continued “The biggest problem that Nitish Kumar faces today, is that he built his brand around the rubbish of development politics and good governance. His Sushasan gambit is just a watered down version of the development rhetoric of Modi. Nitish is trying to fight on a platform where Modi is the clear leader.”

“You mean development is rubbish?!” I asked. “Some of my colleagues who grew up in Patna will vouch for the change Nitish brought about. His sisters had never left their home after six in the evening. When Nitish became CM they could go for movies, malls opened in Patna, people started going out to restaurants. I have seen stories on TV of young girls going to school in villages on their cycles, something they would never have dared to do in Lalu’s time.”

“Ha! This is the problem with you people. Why do you believe what you see on TV? Do you know that registered crime went up by 25% between 2006 and 2010?”

“That is probably because crimes were being registered by the police when Nitish became CM,” I countered. “Before that, it’s quite possible that people didn’t even dare to complain to the police.”

“No, Sir! That is not true,” said Mr Powerful. “In fact, the National Women’s Commission had complained in 2010, that rape cases were not getting registered in Bihar.”

“The real difference is that man there,” Mr Powerful said, pointing to a well-known former bureaucrat-turned-politician-cum-lobbyist. The stocky gentleman with salt and pepper hair was known to be close to India’s biggest corporate house and he had worked his way into Nitish’s inner coterie.

“That man built Brand Nitish, using his friends and beneficiaries in the national media. The local media was bought over by showering bounties of government advertisements, housing for journalists, and even Rajya Sabha seats.”

“The stories you watched on TV, the reports you read in newspapers, were all part of a carefully calibrated strategy of brand-building. I see you are smiling sceptically, young man,” Mr Powerful said.

“I must admit, your stories do sound like mega conspiracy theories,” I said trying to stop myself from smirking. “You seem to think that we are all fools, easily manipulated by a few smart people.”

“No, I am not saying that,” Mr Powerful said. “It is just that we are all likely to believe what we want to believe. Smart people utilise these moments and exploit them for their own benefit. But, you are right. They cannot fool people if the tide is going against them.”

“In Nitish’s case,” he continued, “India’s elite – people like you and me – wanted to believe that by defeating Lalu, he had brought an end to caste politics in Bihar. But, as I told you just now, Nitish’s victory was as much a result of a contingent alliance between upper castes allied with the BJP, the upper OBCs like Kurmis and Koeris who were unhappy with the dominance of the Yadavs and the lower OBCs and Dalits who continued to be as poor as they were under the Congress.”

“The common anger against Yadavs was the glue that joined these disparate caste groups together, and development became the paint that covered these joints. The media helped Nitish actively, in creating the Sushasan image.”

“It wasn’t as if crime was not reported: After all, it is the staple of the local tabloid press in any state. What changed was how it was reported. In Lalu’s time, rape, murder and kidnapping was presented in the media as a government enterprise. During the Nitish era, the same crimes began to be reported as sporadic and random incidents, which the state was trying to fight.”

“But, what about my own friends and colleagues who said things have changed on the ground?” I asked.

“I am not denying that things did change in Patna and other parts of Bihar,” Mr Powerful said. “Nitish did act against top mafia lords and gangs, but he also created his own. What also happened was that unfounded fears turned into an unfounded sense of security.”   

“Nitish came to power with the help of the BJP and, in his initial days, he wanted to create a new caste alliance. He was serious about land-reforms and brought land-reforms guru D Bandopadhyaya in to frame a new policy. Bandopadhyaya recommended two basic things. One was giving permanent tenancy rights to anyone who had farmed a tract of land for more than 12 years. The other was a plan to redistribute ceiling-surplus land amongs the poorest sections and landless labourers. This would have immediately helped the lower OBCs and Dalits.”

“So what happened? That would have been radical,” said a young lady in a cotton sari. I vaguely recognised her from television debates where she represented the left-liberal-secular voice.

“Nothing” said Mr Powerful with a wave of his hand. “Nothing happened. Nitish buried Bandopadhyaya’s report and it was only after prolonged protests from some left MLAs that the government issued a CD copy with the English version of the report. The Hindi version was never released.”

“How awful!” said Cotton sari.

“Don’t know whether one can call it awful, but it could have freed him of the upper castes and Hindutva forces,” Mr Powerful replied. "Nitish realised that implementing land-reforms would have angered his own core support base, the Kurmis and Koeris. So, he chose market-friendly reforms and infrastructure development to create a social consensus.”

“Well, Bihar did become one of the highest growing states in India,” I said. I had written a private client report on this myself, so I knew the details. “If I remember correctly, it grew at an average of 11 per cent per year between 2005 and 2009.”

“You know state GDP numbers are supplied by states themselves,” Mr Powerful countered. “Nevertheless, even if these numbers are true, it is also true that even in 2010, 74% of Bihar’s population was living off agriculture, which provided just 22% of its GDP. 3.5% of farmers owned 33% of the land. UN data suggests 81% of Bihar’s population was poor in 2011. Nitish’s own estimate in 2010 was that 70% of people are poor. Clearly, the majority of the people had not benefited from this miraculous growth phase. You see son, I can rattle off numbers too”

“I never doubted that,” I said smiling graciously to retain my dignity. The old goat had clearly beaten me in this round, as well.

“One more curious thing happened during Nitish’s raj. The RSS, Banjrang dal and other Hindutva forces entered through the backdoor. Upper castes felt more secure to go back to their villages and began to revive some of their old power.”

“Are you sure you should have another one?” I asked, as Mr Powerful stopped a bearer to take his fourth large glass of scotch.

He ignored me and took a big sip. “You know Chris Hitchens – I knew the old chap quite well – used to say alcohol helps him organise his thoughts. It does the same for me. Anyway, what was I saying?”

“You were telling us something fascinating about how the BJP made inroads into Bihar,” Cotton Sari cooed.

 “No, I was saying that Nitish has dug his own grave in two ways. One, that he opened the gates for the BJP and the upper-castes to install themselves in the power structure in rural Bihar. The second is that his focus on jobless growth has led to large scale displacement of the poor, indebtedness continues to grow, malnutrition is as bad as it used to be. In the process, he has lost support from a large section of the rural poor. The mahadalit alliance that he wanted to build has actually ended up moving towards the BJP.”

“Well if Nitish Kumar thinks he is going to win on development, he doesn’t stand a chance against Modji,” Col Moustache piped up. “Look, even now Gujarat is the best place to do business in India. That is why Bihar also wants Modiji.”

“Is that the reason why your Modiji and Amit Shah have mapped each assembly seat by caste?” shouted Mr Powerful. He looked like he was about to burst a nerve. “They did exactly that in the Lok Sabha elections as well. Amit Shah set up a fantastic contact programme on the ground where BJP workers from each of the smaller castes from amongst the lower OBCs were contacted individually. This is going to happen on an even bigger scale this time. They have the manpower and money power to do this.”

Mr Powerful paused, looked around his audience and asked “does anyone amongst you follow the election analysis done by the chappies at CSDS? You should look it up. Their surveys show that the BJP managed to get more than half the lower OBC votes in the Lok Sabha. Kushwaha managed to swing the Koeri vote towards the NDA and Paswan brought in more than two-thirds of the Paswan and Dusadh vote, which is almost 10% of Bihar’s population. Now they also have Majhi in the mix. He will definitely swing a part of the Musahar vote towards the BJP.”

“I had read somewhere that if you add up Nitish, Lalu and the Congress's votes of 2014, the Nitish camp has about 46% and the NDA has about 39%,” I said, trying to impress Mr Powerful with my knowledge. “Doesn’t that amount to a complete sweep for Nitish and Lalu?”

“No, it does not. You see, this vote share hides huge regional differences,” Mr Powerful responded. “The NDA is ahead in two regions, Tirhut and Bhojpur, while the Nitish-Lalu alliance is ahead in the East, Mithila and Magadh.”

“The real fight will be right here, in the Magadh region, which is supposed to be Nitish’s base,” he added, almost conspiratorially. “Will Nitish lose more ground here? Will Lalu make up for it? Or will the BJP-Paswan-Kushwaha-Manjhi combine gain here?”

“But, what about the Muslims?” I asked. “Won’t they play the most crucial role?”

“Yes and no,” Mr Powerful replied. “Yes because they are a big block. One in every six voters in Bihar is a muslim. But, No, because they have already voted as a bloc in 2014. Nearly two-thirds of them voted for the Lalu-Congress combine.”

“In fact, this time Owaisi might cut into that vote,” Col Moustache said gleefully.

“Yes, that might happen,” Mr Powerful conceded. “What is more likely is that Owaisi might play spoiler in tight contests. In any case, each of these separate elements will give Modi the edge in Bihar this time.”

“So, you admit that caste will be defeated by development?” I asked.

“No, not at all. Caste will be defeated by caste.”

Ab Ki Baar, Corporate Ki Sarkar

Big Business aur Industry ke Mitron!

First of all, let me thank you for your financial support and good wishes during the elections. Your money and influence has helped me put together important alliances in several states where we were in a difficult position. You have also helped break alliances of parties opposed to us in key states where we were weak.

Mitron, when I become Prime Minister, I will repay your kindness in every way that I can. My government will be of the corporates, for the corporates and by the corporates. I have already shown in the Fabled Land of Vikas, that big business houses can get away with anything. I promise to take this Vikas model all over the country.

Most of you know what I have achieved because you have personally gained from investing in my state. For the rest of you, I have just a few examples to give. Let me begin with the Tatas, who were pushed out of West Bengal by Mamata. I gave them cheap land, a virtually interest-free loan and I also paid for them to transfer their factory to my state.

The Ambanis, who get even more respect in my state than Sardar Patel did, have special status. I have ensured that public sector companies in Vikas Pradesh give Reliance cheap resources, even if they have to lose money in the process. This progressive policy meant to encourage Vikas has been unfairly targeted by the CAG. Despite that, I have not hesitated to give them ever increasing sops.

But, mitron, the best example of how I help my corporate well-wishers, is the Adani group. My friend is here in the audience and you can ask him whether what I am saying is true or not. I leased out land to them nearly 7500 hectares of land at rates between 60 paise to 25 rupees per square metre. The Adani group then rented out a part of the same land to the government company Indian Oil for about 700 rupees her square metre.

Mitron, in Vikas Pradesh corporates do not need to use their own money to make more money. We give you government money and government assets almost for free for you to utilise for private gains. This is the highest and most developed form of capitalism, mitron. Can anyone else give you this?

I promise you, when I am Prime Minister, there will be no need for environmental clearance, there will be no problem in taking over agricultural land, there will be lot of cheap financing, and SEZs will multiply across the country, so that you people can produce things without having to pay taxes.

Mitron, I believe in minimum government and maximum governance. It means governance that will ensure that the government is entirely yours.

Kyonki, mitron, Ab Ki baar, Corporate ki Sarkar.

The Wife Dreams of RG

I woke up – or should I say was woken up – to find the wife typing away furiously on her laptop next to me. 

I looked at the clock – 03:42 AM.

“W-W-What are you doing?” I asked with one eye shut, to block off the harsh halo from the reading lamp behind the wife’s head.

“I just had the most amazing dream,” she said with a hint of manic glee in her voice. “I have to write it down before I forget it. You go to sleep.”

“What is it about?” I asked.

“I just dreamt that I was interviewing Rahul Gandhi. And, he said the most amazing things,” she said. “Now go back to sleep. Don’t distract me. You can read it in the morning.”

If we had been in the 19^th century, she would definitely have rubbed her hands in glee.

I woke up again. This time the halo was sunlit. The wife had stopped typing and was now re-reading what she had written.

She looked at me. “Good. Wake up and read this.”

“Can I just get myself some coffee first?” I asked.

“No. That can wait,” she said smiling. But, I knew the smile meant I had to read it right then.

And, this is how the imaginary interview went.

TW: Rahul Gandhi, thank you for agreeing to speak to us.

RG: The pleasure is mine.

TW: When one analyses your speeches and interviews, there is a very clear message – the Congress has its base among the poor, the BJP among corporates. These are your very words in your interview to Aaj Tak. Yet, your government’s image is exactly the opposite. It is seen as a government that promoted crony capitalism.

RG: Unfortunately, our government failed to implement the policies of the party, which were outlined by my mother Sonia Gandhi. I cannot deny that. But, the overall thrust of our policies has been pro-poor, whether it is RTI, MNREGA or food security.

TW: MNREGA happened in UPA-1 and since then there has been a steady decline in the amount of money allocated to it by the various Congress finance ministers. Food security was supposed to have been launched in 2010. People were calling it the killer app of UPA-2. It hasn’t been launched properly even now.

RG: I agree with you. Our government should have been more pro-active in implementing the party’s policies. In the first five years, my mother played an important role as a guiding force behind the policies of the government, but in our second stint, her health did not allow her to play that active a role. I think, the party made mistakes in the choice of ministers and we put many technocrats in positions of authority. They were people divorced from politics and from what is happening on the ground. Our economic policies were far too pro-market and pro-corporate – much more than what my mother or I wanted.

TW: But, it is not just ministers. Even the Prime Minister was working at loggerheads with what the party wanted. Do you think it was a mistake to let Dr Manmohan Singh continue as PM even when he was clearly ignoring what the political leadership wanted?

RG: I will not take any names. Dr Singh is a highly respected economist. He has his own views about the economy. People in the party do not always agree with them. For instance, you are right that the party wanted the food security act to be speeded up, and also wanted more money allocated to it. But, the PM set up a committee under Mr Rangarajan, which opposed it. In effect, the policy got delayed, people did not get the right to food when they should have. When the economy was slowing down and inflation was going up, cheap food would have been a very important social safety net for the poor. But, the government had other ideas. In principal, there’s nothing wrong in that. A PM has to be allowed to have autonomy.

TW: Isn’t it ironic, that the PM hardly ever listened to the party leadership, was taking all major decisions on his own, and yet he has successfully painted himself as a puppet? Look at Sanjay Baru’s book. It puts the blame of policy failures completely on your mother’s doorstep.

RG: Look, I don’t want to comment on any book. It is the author’s right to write whatever he wants. But, I will repeat what my sister said the other day. Dr Manmohan Singh was the Super PM, not my mother.  

TW: Do you think you should have changed the PM in 2009?

RG: Changing the PM is not the issue. I think the party should have asserted its role in policy making. The party fights elections, is in daily contact with people on the ground. It gets feedback from the voters who have put their faith and trust in us. We let corporates and vested interests dictate terms, instead of the party. I will give you one example. We had wanted a mining policy where local adivasis would be given a share in the revenues. Our senior minister was replaced by the government in a cabinet reshuffle, and the entire plan was shelved. Instead we saw big corporates getting preferential treatment and being given mines out of turn.

TW: These are very strong words. Cabinet reshuffles are technically done by the PM. Are you saying that the party did not play a role in deciding who gets which ministry and the PM did it on his own?

RG: I think, the party did play a significant role initially. But, the last few reshuffles had been done almost entirely by the Government, on its own.

TW: By Government, you clearly mean the PM?

RG: I don’t want to take any names.

TW: Fair enough. I will not press you on that point, any further. But, why do you think the party lost control over the Government since 2010?

RG: You see, for that, you have to understand several things. My mother was unwell. I was busy trying to rebuild the party organisation in states where we had disintegrated – mainly UP and Gujarat. We were also in the middle of a global economic crisis. There were two ways in which different countries reacted to this problem. Some decided that the corporate sector needs more sops, and government needs to tighten its belt and cut deficits. Others, mainly in Latin America, decided that the state had to intervene and spend more. Oddly, if you look at history, you will find that the US actually decided to increase government spending and public investment after World War II. It is what helped them come out of the crisis and become an economic super power. But, the overall consensus among economists has been that spending needs to be cut. Unfortunately, for us, our Government also took that line.

TW: What would you have done if you had been PM?

RG: Well, first of all, I would not have cared about the fiscal deficit. I would have increased Government spending on infrastructure and agriculture. I would have increased productive subsidies on fertilisers, seeds and fuel. I would have provided tariff protection to some key industries. I would have reduced tax rebates to big corporates. I would have provided financial subsidies to small and medium entrepreneurs. I would have declared tax holidays for key industries, which employ more people. I would have challenged the WTO consensus and faced the consequences.

TW: But, that would have made India a pariah country. Foreign capital would have left the country overnight. How would you have dealt with it?

RG: I don’t believe that at all. Foreign capital wants high returns on investments. History shows that every large country that has seen fast manufacturing driven growth has always done it on the back of heavy government spending. The US is no exception. A high growth economy is always attractive to foreign capital. Don’t forget that UPA-1 followed policies identified under a Common Minimum Programme, which was drafted with the support of Left parties. Yet, that was the same period when we had the fastest growth and maximum foreign investment.

TW: But, that was also in a period of global financial boom.

RG: I am not denying that. I am just saying that there are many reasons for foreign capital to leave a country.  I don’t believe that high fiscal deficits necessary causes foreign capital to run away.

TW: This is very interesting, since this is exactly the opposite of what the PM and senior ministers like Mr Chidambaram have been saying. Do you think they were wrong?

RG: I think the question is not whether they were wrong or right. I think it is an ideological battle. All I can say is that if I become PM, our policies will be very different from what the UPA-2 government had. The entire team running the Government would be different.

TW: So why didn’t you join the government in the past few years? You could have changed its course.

RG: No. One minister cannot do anything when the consensus is in the other direction.

TW: Why didn’t you replace the PM?

RG: Many people have asked us this question. It is a hypothetical question that is best left unanswered. History will judge whether we did the right thing or not. (Smiles mischievously).

TW: Coming to the party now. Have you sensed that there is hostility within the party to your line against big-corporates? The journalistic grapevine talks about your own party leaders planting stories in the press against you at the behest of their corporate bosses.

RG: (Laughs) I think that is a bit far-fetched. Yes, there are people who are identified with some corporate houses and they are a little nervous about what I am trying to achieve. No party is entirely unified. Look at the BJP. There is constant infighting there. That is the nature of the game. Some of it is ideological, some of it is personal and some of it is always going to be driven by the power of money and vested interests. My aim is to gradually clean up the party structure so that people who represent the poor and the marginalised acquire the strongest voices within the party.

TW: Do you think you can achieve this before the elections?

RG: No, I cannot. This is a long term project. It will take several years. We have to empower the local level leaders. We have to give them a voice, not only in the political process, but also in the process of drafting laws and formulating policies. We will not repeat the arrogance of UPA-2 again, where technocrats trained in mainstream economics decided what was good for the country.

TW: But, isn’t that a very populist line to take?

RG: Let me clarify. I am not saying that there will be no experts and no philosophy behind our policies. All I am saying is that those at the grassroots will be consulted before any policy is implemented, it will be explained to them and their voices and feedback heard. It is a crucial part of democratic governance. That’s the only way to keep track of how Government policies are affecting people on the ground.

TW: You are sounding like a Latin American socialist leader. Like a Chavez or a Lula.

RG: (Laughs). If that means that I am sounding pro-poor, then I am proud of it. But, in the end, I don’t want to sound like anyone else from any other country. India is unique, with its unique set of problems. I just want to be true to myself and my beliefs. I just want to sound like Rahul Gandhi.

The Wife Against Modi

On the way to the car from the polling station, I asked the wife who she had voted for.

“ABM party,” she said, “Anyone but Modi.”

“Isn’t that being completely negative? You guys don’t have a positive message,” I said, a tad exasperated. “You just want to keep India’s most popular man out of power.”

“I don’t want to discuss this with you,” the wife barked viciously. “That’s the only way to keep our marriage intact.”

“Why? Why don’t you want to get into an honest debate?” I asked. The wife always wins every debate, but this time I had some points, which she would find hard to counter.

“What’s there to debate? You support a communal fascist, I oppose him.”

“If Modi is communal, then so is the Congress. If Modi had a hand in the 2002 riots, then Rajiv Gandhi was equally responsible for the 1984 Sikh riots,” I said.

“So? Is Rajiv Gandhi fighting the elections to be PM right now?” the wife asked.      

“No. But, the Congress Party is,” I countered. “They have not disowned Rajiv Gandhi. Rajiv Gandhi delayed the entry of the army in Delhi in November 1984. He unlocked the Babri Masjid gates for Hindus to worship. He launched Ramayan on Doordarshan, which produced three BJP MPs. He overturned the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Shah Bano case. How can you say that his politics was any less communal than Modi’s? ”

The wife was a little taken aback. She didn’t expect me to know all this. I didn’t tell her that I had picked it up from what my friend Rahul said on TV last night. The wife doesn’t watch news-TV so she will never know.

“I don’t care what the Congress says about Rajiv Gandhi today,” she said, after a short pause. “He died in 1991. And, there’s a huge difference between his Congress and the Congress Party of his wife and son.”

“Rajiv Gandhi was a pro-market, pro-reform figure,” the wife continued. “He was partial to Reagonmics and the trickle-down theory. He believed in using computers to take India to the 21^st century. He believed that India could be a local Big Brother and fought a disastrous war in Sri Lanka. He was surrounded by extremely cynical career politicians like Arun Nehru and he often took wrong political decisions. That is why he squandered away the biggest mandate ever in Indian politics and lost power in just 5 years.”

“The Sonia-Rahul Congress is entirely different. It is pro-poor, sceptical of market forces, wary of corporates. It is a hard-liberal party on social issues, including on political hot-potatoes like homosexuality. It has taken a consistently strong position against fundamentalisms and communalisms of all kinds.”

“In other words, there is no continuity between the Congress that was behind the 1984 riots and the Congress of today,” the wife said emphatically. “On the other hand, the man who did 2002 in Gujarat is the same man who wants to be PM today.”

By now, the wife had sensed victory. “And let me tell you a little bit more about 1984, than what you have picked up from TV news debates.” The wife has never hesitated from hitting below the belt, even when her opponent is down.

“The entire rank and file of the RSS participated in the 1984 riots. Police records clearly establish that. Nanaji Deshmukh, the great guru of the Sangh, gave a public speech supporting Rajiv Gandhi and implying the Sikhs had it coming. The BJP’s core vote shifted en masse to the Congress, which is why the BJP ended up with just two seats in the 1984 Lok Sabha elections.”

“The same people who were dancing around the bonfires of 1984 are today supporting Modi. And the irony is that they are throwing 1984 in Rahul Gandhi’s face to claim that he is the same as that fascist,” said the wife. “The sad part is that you corporate types buy that argument because you want a pro-market PM to push your agenda.” 

I looked ahead and drove silently.

Have to call Rahul as soon as I get home. Need some more points to counter the wife.

   

The Hyper-real Voter

“Why did you say I am a marine biologist? You know I always wanted to pretend to be an architect.”

-    George Costanzas

Sometime around 1998, I was introduced to Yahoo Chat by a colleague. For hours on end, we chatted with young virtual women our age, from different parts of the world. Since we were rich successful merchant bankers, we had absolutely no way of knowing whether these lines of text responding to us were really women or even young. Luckily, I didn’t have internet at home, or else I would definitely have been addicted. But this colleague had a VSNL connection. So, he often fell in love with unseen people and loved them through words typed out on a keyboard. He told us stories about these girls who were his lovers, and it gave him an odd confidence in his virtual self – a confidence that he otherwise hid conspicuously in everyday life.

My more intimate relationship with virtual reality began when I got Hotmail. I wrote long, involved mails to friends and then logged on every hour to see if they had replied. I had a relationship with the sound of a dial-up connection. I learnt to recognise from the notations of that tinny, scratchy high-pitched wail, whether the connection would fail or succeed. I guess, everyone from my generation had learnt that rough music.

Of course, email was different from chat. Here you actually had a real connection with the person you were writing to. Yet, the email created a second layer, a different textual relationship, whose syntax introduced a certain schizophrenia in one’s connection with others. In fact, the writing down of this relationship became the absent subtext of the text of everyday spoken interactions. It was, at once, hidden as it was acknowledged as an intrusion within corporeal relationships.

Then came SMSes. I was not among those who preferred to text than talk. But, most of those I knew, did. Talking was too much of a commitment. It meant an interaction whose time was not in your control. Texting afforded that control and distance. It introduced an entire new chronology in the act of a conversation. Text – pause – reply text – pause – reply text – long pause – what next? Each side controls how much to say, when to say, and when to end a conversation. It is disembodied and devoid of emotion or inflection. Hence, the introduction of emoticons. Today, even I carry out long conversations in SMSes – conversations that could span several hours or even days. New messaging apps allow us to experience these automatically as conversations even when they are spread over a long period of time. It has changed the way in which we perceive the unfolding of conversational time.

Each of these forms of virtual conversations has given us – quite literally – textual identities, textual personas. The most extreme form of this, of course, is social media. Facebook is a prime example. It appeals to certain characteristic elements of the isolationalist individual – exhibitionism and voyeurism. Exhibitionism because, these are my friends, here is what I do, this is where I have been, this is what I like, this is what I share. This is me at Face value. And, voyeurism because, I can, quietly, without being caught, go through the profiles of my friends, track them, without having to really interact with them, know what their families look like, where they have been, what clothes they want me to see them in. In other words, Facebook allows me to tell the world that I am what I want you to see me as. It is the principles of marketing brought to bear on everyday interpersonal relations. It also lets me decide who I really want to be known to be friends with, to measure people through the friends they have added in the virtual world.  

Then there is the equally revolutionary weapon of hyper-realism – Twitter. Twitter allows people to regurgitate, in 65 words, things they have picked up from the news media and pass them off as their own opinions. In fact, Twitter manages to turn opinions into facts. (Modi has caused massive development in Gujarat, Rahul Gandhi is a moron). It is a macho space where anonymity allows people to drop all norms of polite conversation. It is a space where soundbite style opinions rule and therefore – much like talk TV – opinions have to be aggressive and provocative and inherently banal. The real complexity of things cannot ever be captured in the number of characters Twitter allows. It accelerates the process of 'dumbing-down' that TV news introduced in everyday discourse.

Twitter also establishes a new hierarchy of the flow of ideas – from the followed to the followers. Yet, the thought-leaders in the hyper-real world of Twitter are themselves prisoners of this hierarchy. Because of its apparent democratic nature (interactive=democratic), the mobocracy of followers imposes upon the followed a populist pressure to deliver what they want. It is a self-enclosed world of mirrors where soundbites are reflected back at each other till they congeal and become facts.

Today, we are faced with an epidemic of the hyper-real. It is the primary mode of ideological existence of a large part of our young. And, thanks to cheap faux-smart phones, it has penetrated deep into the interiors of our country. It has created a new identity politics – the virtual identities of hyper-reality. It has created a community of young individuals who operate in a schizoid world – one foot in the lived reality of caste, class and community and the other in the lived hyper-reality of Facebook, Whatsapp & Twitter. It has created a schizoid political world where the traditional pulls of party politics and local power-relations are accompanied by contrary pulls of the Internet mob.

These people make up a large chunk of our first-time voters. And, whichever layer of their schizophrenic existence overdetermines the other, may well decide whether Narendrabhai will actually become the Prime Minister of India.

1984

My friend Rahul officially joined the BJP last week. He was a celebrity CEO till two years ago, when he was sacked for having embezzled some company funds. But, Rahul took this setback in his stride. If anything, he became even more famous. He was one of the first corporate voices to publicly back Modi for PM and that made him a frequent invitee on television talk shows.

“I am not pro-BJP. I am pro-Narendrabhai,” he told me over coffee the other day. “I wasn’t going to join the party, you know? But, Narendrabhai, himself, called me and asked me to work with him.”

I nodded in a non-committal fashion. As a banker, I too have a soft corner for Modi, but I am a bit scared of what the wife would say about that. She is rabidly anti-Narendrabhai.

“We are seeing a complete change in the way politics happens in this country, you know?” Rahul continued. “Parties are dead now. What matters is key individual leaders. It’s like the US. The PM is now like the President, you know? I mean like POTUS.”

“The US has shown that political parties are not necessary for democracy to function. What you need is a strong powerful leader who can lead, you know?”

“That’s not really true, Rahul” I said. “The US has a very strong party system. I mean, the Democrats and Republicans have a lot of say inside the Congress and Senate.” I saw the second season of House of Cards in 4 days flat.

Rahul ignored me. “Democracy can sometimes be very bad for the people. Not everyone understands what is good for the country or the economy. You have to leave these things to the experts so that ordinary people can lead their lives in peace. We need the government out of the economy, and we need people out of government.”

“The Presidential system gives authority to one strong chap, who gets a free hand to set things right. That’s what Modi has shown in Gujarat. He leads it with an iron hand, takes decisions immediately and solves problems immediately.”

“Corporates need that kind of quick decision making. You go to him with a project and you say Narendrabhai I want to invest in this thing, but I need the government to do the following. Modi tells you right there whether it can happen or not. That’s why corporates want this guy.”

Rahul paused as the waiter came with his third cup of espresso. “Boss, don’t you have some biscotti?”

“I will get it right away, Sir,” said the waiter and withdrew.

“You know, I would have nothing against Rahul Gandhi if he had been like his dad. Rajiv was a man who believed in progress. He believed in the private sector and the market. Rahul is like his mother. He is too influenced by pinko NGO-types, you know?”

“But, you corporate types seemed to like him in 2009,” I said.

“No. Corporates liked Manmohan Singh. Everyone was happy when he kicked out the left. But, Rahul has always been anti-corporate. He has always made it clear that he does not trust us. He was behind all this environmental nonsense which has set India’s growth back by a decade, you know? Don’t you remember how he went to the tribal rally and he said I am your soldier in the capital? Crazy, man!”

Rahul controlled his anger by stuffing a mini-biscotti into his mouth. “And then ET does a story on how Reliance has lost faith in the Gandhi family. What did they expect?”

“The Gandhis are honest people, but they are terrible for the country. At a time when the world is pushing austerity, the Gandhis want more hand-outs. You have to train the poor to fish and not just give them fish for free.”

“Modi understands economics better than anyone else. He knows that the private sector has the passion to push growth. You need to encourage the private sector, not shackle it. Give incentives to big companies and they will create jobs for people. All this NREGA-Sharega will only spoil them.”

“But, the BJP is also populist,” I interjected. “Look at MP or Chhattisgarh. They give free food and loads of subsidies. Will the party accept a pro-reform stand by Modi?”

“Boss, that is where you have to understand the difference. You see, today the BJP is nothing. It is of no consequence. Modi is everything. He will decide. The BJP is being completely overhauled, from top to bottom. The old-fogeys have been thrown out and a new professional breed is taking over. It is people like me who are running the party now. It is being run like a company, with a proper marketing strategy and sales targets. Our target is 272.”

“You see, India is a vast segmented market. Each state is different, and within each state there are different target groups who consume politics differently. Our objective is to tailor our message to reach each of these target groups. The old BJP system of pushing an overarching Hindutva ideology is over.”

“Is it really?” I asked sceptically. If there’s one thing I don’t like about the BJP, it is this Hindutva business.

“Hindutva is there.” Rahul replied. “I am not denying it. But, it is horses for courses. Hindutva is important in UP. It is not needed in Delhi. In some places it has to be about jobs, in other places it has to about women’s safety. Horses for courses.”

“Are you trying to say that Narendra Modi is not a convinced Hindutva waala?”

“No, I am not saying that. All I am saying is that it does not matter. The NDA was in power for six years. Did anything bad happen? No. Instead, roads were built, disinvestment happened, the telecom revolution was unleashed, markets opened up to foreign companies. The Gandhis turned the clock back.”

“I, for one, am willing to accept a bit of Hindutva if that means stability, rule of law, a strong India and a free market. All this is more important now, you know? Even Muslims will accept this soon, like they have accepted in Gujarat. IThe Congress is no less communal. If you are talking about 2002, don’t forget 1984.”

The wife had joined us just then to catch the 1984 remark. (We were supposed to go to watch a movie from there.)

“Yes Rahul, you are right,” she said.  “We should not forget 1984. But not the 1984 that you want us to remember. It is a different 1984 that you would not know, since you are completely innocent of literature. That’s the 1984 your Narendra Modi is going to bring to this country.”

Rahul looked completely perplexed. So was I. I have absolutely no idea what the wife was talking about. 

The Numbers Back AAP

Being a banker, I always go by numbers. And, whatever people might tell you, the numbers back Aam Admi Party.

The data on this is pretty clear. AAP says it will reduce electricity tariffs by 50% immediately after it is voted in to power. Along with that, it will give 700 litres of water free. That will mean a saving on both my electricity and water bills.

Now, I took out my electricity bills for the past 12 months and added them up. I have spent one lakh and three thousand rupees on electricity in the past one year. That means, if AAP comes to power, I will save about 51 thousand rupees per year.

Seven hundred litres of free water per day will mean a monthly saving of at least 600 rupees. Project that to the entire year and I save about seven thousand rupees on water.

If I add the two, I get a net saving of about 58 thousand rupees per year if we get an AAP government in Delhi. That’s not an amount to be scoffed at.

Of course, the gains from what I pay for water and electricity might just get offset by direct financial losses and the indirect opportunity cost of an honest corruption-free administration.

For instance, when my driver jumps a red light, we pay about 50 bucks. When he parks in a no-parking zone, we pay 150, instead of 600. It is, what we call in management, a win-win situation. Traffic cops gain, I gain. No one is harmed. An honest AAP government might upset this symbiotic relationship.

But these are minor financial losses. The bigger problem could be if AAP’s honesty makes it difficult to use ‘pull’. Unfortunately, I have grown accustomed to using pull. It makes my day begin. Its ups and downs are second nature to me now. Like breathing out, breathing in.

I use pull to get my air-conditioner fixed. I use pull to get a water tanker on those odd days when the water supply is affected in our neighbourhood. I use pull to get past the queues in the passport office. I am so addicted to pull, that I use it even in places where I don’t need to.

It saves time, it makes life easier. If AAP stops the wheel of pull from turning in the national capital, I will be seriously discomfited. The opportunity costs of standing in queues or waiting with others for everyday things is going to be quite huge. It might wipe out the 58 thousand rupees I will gain from saving on electricity and water bills.

But the latest stings on some AAP luminaries have left scope for hope. There could be nothing better than a government that will cut tariffs and also allow the machine of power to function uninterrupted. I am betting on AAP to do both, simultaneously.

As I said, the numbers back AAP.