Exploring the alternatives

Coloured by corruption, nepotism, red tapism and blatant misuse of power, ‘politics’ has become a shady pedestrian expression off late. But are there any alternatives to this hackneyed term? Political commentator and psephologist Yogendra Yadav has an interesting prelude to offer in this context. According to him, alternatives with respect to policy can be classified into three broad categories namely: 

·        Alternatives to politics

·        Political Alternatives

·        Alternate politics

Simply put, politics is the twilight terrain where hope and despair live in an uneasy truce. Politics is the only transformation that can bring alignment in ideological bandwidth of millions of lives associated with it. Alternatives to politics will mean alternative to democracy. Democracies all over the world have been dismantled through vocabulary of this kind. But let not the contempt for alternates to politics camouflage the sorry state that Indian politics is plagued with. Politics in our country has been reduced to contesting elections, casting votes and agitation. The need of the hour is to explore alternatives in politics.

 Political alternatives on the other hand signify oscillations within the political establishment. This practice is religiously complied by prostitutes who masquerade as leaders with questionable ideological chastity who seem to be in bed with every other political establishment that pampers them with money and power positions.

However, it is alternative politics that offers genuine differentiation. Alternative politics is more than just denial of corruption, lal battis and scams and scandals. It is reimagining politics in the wider sense of the word. For a long lasting engagement between people and power, the very idea of politics has to be revisited. Politics has to become the amalgamation of aesthetic culture, language, beauty, lifestyle and art. For long it has been perceived as a monologue, but the time is ripe to change it into a forum for ‘public’ discourse. But how can this transformation come about without reorganising political establishments?

The first step in restructuring political parties will have to come through gigantic changes in their ideologies and source of income. Now, let us reason why there is an urgent need to envision a new organisational culture with respect to these two principles. The root cause of nepotism and crony capitalism is the funding of these organisations. Even with ample checks by the election commission in place, candidates spend a fortune in election campaigns with the hope of recovering the money once they are in positions of power. So instead of being accountable to the electorate who voted for them, they owe allegiance to the corporate biggies who sponsored them. The only pragmatic solution to this is that citizens should start funding these political parties in a bid to ensure accountability in the public domain.

Coming to the issue of ideological moderation, political parties have recently claimed ownership of national leaders including Nehru, Gandhi and Patel. These national leaders have become a metaphor for a scathing political war between our two leading parties. But what these political parties fail to understand is that these leaders are a national treasure and cannot be appropriated upon by any political entity. To commemorate the 125^th birth anniversary of India’s first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, what ensued was a searing war of words between the BJP and the Congress. While both political behemoths seem to be on a leader shopping spree, it is worth asking that should national leaders be the context of attacking political opponents? It is also interesting to note that the Congress party who claims to own Nehru does not adhere to his own ideologies. Known for his eclectic charm, snaring wit and his subtle sense of humor, Nehru could largely be held responsible for many policy failures that India is crippled with. But he was one of the few leaders who had the audacity to mock himself and laugh over it. There is one particular incident that sheds light on this aspect of his personality and that it is one of the yardsticks by which alternative politics can be judged.

In November 1937, in Calcutta based highly respected magazine Modern Review, appeared an anonymous article on Nehru arguing that men like him are ‘dangerous’ and ‘potential dictators’. “He had gone like some triumphant Caesar, leaving a trail of glory and legend behind him... He calls himself a democrat and a socialist but a little twist and he might turn into a dictator...His conceit is already formidable and it must be checked. We want no Caesars”, said the article. It soon became known that the author of this denunciatory article was none other than Jawaharlal Nehru.  These unnecessary risks and the ability to look over himself made him the apple of people’s eyes and earned him critical appreciation worldwide. India today needs leaders of his stature whose ideologies will be aligned with the idea of India and who will have the temerity to look beyond their stature and bring about a revolution on how politics is perceived today.

But the counter argument to this can be that, is it necessary for a political organisation to subscribe to the 20^th century ideologies like Marxism or communism or socialism? Like our mannerisms, shouldn’t ideologies evolve with time? Why do we need to adhere to one of them or seek refuge in the policies of our national leaders? It is time to think afresh, it is time to break free from the shackles of obsolete ideologies, it is time to unlearn and it is time to explore the new world of alternative politics.

The Reluctant Fundamentalist

2014 has been the most anticipated elections this country has ever seen not only in terms of the growing electorate but also because alternative political narratives are promoting an alternative discourse. Narendra Modi’s anointment as BJP’s Prime Ministerial nominee catapults to the national scene the Hindutva poster boy who is seen by his critics as a “polarising” and “divisive” figure after the 2002 Gujarat riots. With ideological moderation and political pragmatism, his campaign rhetoric has defied ideological templates. Isn’t it the tyranny of discourse that once an RSS pracharak has become the face of secular India? His deliberate attempts to underplay the Sangh Parivar’s well-known repertoire of Hindutva has amassed high commendations from the middle class voters and propelled them to vote for this change.

Known for playing the communal card under the secular cloak, Narendra Modi in a bid to increase his pan Indian appeal, surprisingly refrained from crediting “saffron nationalism” or “Hindutva” in his speeches as BJP’s prime ministerial candidate. Hindutva presents BJP’s concept of nationhood. The BJP is a highly ideologised political entity with the RSS ( Rashtriya Samaj Sevak Dal)  as its ideological mentor. Having said that, it is rather surprising that the BJP’s 2014 election manifesto has only a page dedicated to volatile issues coloured by identity politics such as Ram janmbhoomi and Ram Sethu. These issues represent the papering of serious contradictions, given the fact that the BJP traces its origin to the volatile Sangh Parivar. On Ayodhya the BJP takes care to mention that it would explore possibilities of facilitating the construction of the Ram temple within the framework of the Constitution. Ram Sethu and the Sethusamudram project are now issues of cultural heritage and not of religious faith. While the Ganga is described as a symbol of faith in India, the project for the purification of its waters is also justified by pointing to its importance for agriculture, fodder production and drinking water supply. The protection of the cow, another core Hindutva agenda item, is now seen in the context of the contribution of cattle to agriculture, and socio-economic and cultural life. There is no mention of secularism, but the manifesto commits the BJP to the preservation of the “rich culture and heritage” of India’s minority communities. The manifesto thus is an attempt to appeal not only to the core Hindutva supporters but also to the larger populace.

The BJP’s projection of utopia has largely been successful primarily due to the ‘Anything but congress momentum’. Our national political stage has become a compelling soap opera, but let us not confuse the contempt for the Congress as approval for the BJP.  Despite initial fears of polarisation on communal lines this election campaign has so far been secular with developmental issues trumping mandir-mazjid issues. This election is more about personalities rather than issues. With the saffron brigade all set to assume power in Delhi, we might need to introspect that aren’t the Hindu communalists are masquerading as nationalists? But Narendra Modi has an interesting prelude to offer in this metamorphosis from a Hindutva revivalist to a reluctant fundamentalist. In UP and Bihar he questioned the Hajj quota lying vacant while drawing parallelism from Gujarat where Hajj quota is generally oversubscribed.  This reference was largely unexpected from a Hindu nationalist. But the man himself seems to be in a state of dilemma on whether to adopt the imbibed principles of Hindutva for the national narrative or fight the election on the basis of governance.

A civilisation is greater than the sum of its individual values and an election is bigger, more poignant than the sum of its candidates. But the larger than life portrayal of Modi seems to defy this mighty rhetoric. The cult of the Gujarat CM is being assiduously cultivated, maybe at the cost of BJP. This election is being projected as a fight between Modi and political parties that oppose him. The BJP is almost an afterthought. Given the changing focus of the BJP to governance, their marriage of convenience from the Sangh Parivar seems to be on a downfall. As the BJP declines as a party, as the older generation of visionaries disappears, a party in crisis produces a caricature of itself called Narendra Modi. BJP is suffering from political poverty cannot produce more than a mediocre leadership. Mr. Modi seems a solution of an RSS desperate for power rather than a BJP rethinking the possibilities of politics. Nagpur has fettered India for decades to come.

No doubt that Namo is distancing himself from the conventional politics of the Bhartiya Janta Party and bringing in his own version of Hindutva 2.0, a particular variant of neoliberalism that dovetails religious nationalism with economic progress. But Mr. Modi’s Neanderthal model of development in the age of sustainable and human development shows that Mr. Modi is an anachronism, dusted up and presented as technocratic model of development. It will not take long to prove that the Gujarat model of development and the Gujarat model of violence are part of one picture.

And as the BJP says that India is at the cusp of “democracy, demography and demand” and we need to do justice to our nation by attuning all three. This is a time when we cannot afford to let subjectivity camouflage objectivity. This is the time where we have to choose between the past and the future, between an old idea of India and a new one.

Decoding AAP

An anarchist by admission, an aam aadmi by rendition and a strategist in transition.  Yes, Arvind Kejriwal is the man behind these words. Every now and then, this muffler clad man has had the audacity of challenging the system. He is gifted with an uncanny ability of gauging public perception and sifting right through it. From an anti- establishment crusader to a now emerging political behemoth, the Aam Aadmi Party has come a long way. But Kejriwal who has risen like a righteously indignant messiah railing against corruption, corporate nepotism, criminalisation of politics and politicisation of crime is in danger of losing moral high ground.

His populist act of renunciation of the Chief Minister’s chair has plagued the entire nation with scepticism and apprehension not only regarding the future of the Assembly of Delhi but also the way AAP has portrayed itself as the herald of change. India is in a democratic and political metamorphosis and AAP has rightly tapped into this democracy deficit, promising to bring governance closer to the people. But is its abdication of power a tactical masterstroke? It is politics unlimited this electoral season and it remains to be seen whether this gamble will backfire upon AAP or will they reap rich dividends.

Thwarted from introducing the Delhi Jan Lokpal Bill, Arvind Kejriwal resigned on February 14 disregarding people’s mandate and extenuating the goodwill bestowed by the electorate. This act bore testimony to the fact that the ideology of AAP is populist and not pro people. In his defence Kejriwal reinstated that “When we tried to pass the Delhi Jan Lokpal, the Congress and the BJP ganged up to stall it. People from the Congress and the BJP know if this law is brought in, their leaders will end up in jail.” Had Mr. Kejriwal shown restrain in wending out his political weapon, he would have noticed that according to Section 22(3) of the Government of India NDTC Act 1991, “Any bill which involves expenditure from the consolidated fund of the capital cannot be passed by the Legislative Assembly unless it has been approved by the Lieutenant Governor.”In the light of this the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi even consulted the Solicitor General of India, who confirmed that the bill could not go to the assembly without the former’s permission.

This narrative raises severe questions on AAP’s morality and it’s holier than thou attitude. Couldn’t the AAP have pursued the bill lawfully in the Delhi assembly? Or was the resignation always a part of their game plan to garner political capital? The AAP has often conveyed a disregard for rules, suggesting that they are empty protocols that exist to serve a corrupt system. All too often, it has ended up showing a dangerous contempt for the rule of law itself, treating warrants as mere niceties, trying to arm organised crowds with sweeping powers over local government bodies. This time, the Jan Lokpal has simply hit a wall — the law of the land.

 “We end up being exactly who we said we’d never be!” This analogy suits AAP reasonably well.  During its short 49 day stint, the Delhi government did exactly what it has accused others of: favouring its benefactors. The AAP’s 50% subsidy to electricity bill defaulters during their bijli-paani movement could be read as a signal to the electorate that you are either with us, or against us. The AAP’s subsidy goes against the grain of constitutionally mandated principles of equality that the government sanctions relief to its “supporters” alone. The Supreme Court has consistently maintained that there should be an “intelligible differentia” that justifies the state’s favourable treatment of one group over another. Allegiance to the ruling party’s agenda surely fails this test.

On corruption, it failed to move towards instituting transparent processes or reducing practices of discretion, preferring showy sting operations instead. Most troublingly, its law minister’s moral policing, and the AAP’s insistent and self-righteous defence of it, showed up the party’s disregard of due process and its tendency to go with an illiberal majority consensus rather than defend human rights. Instead of tilting the state towards becoming more accountable and non-arbitrary in various areas, the AAP simply claimed that it knew best. And anyone who critiqued its decisions and actions was placed on a steadily lengthening list of the Corrupt.

I’m no big fan of the BJP or the Congress. But the method, timing and motivation behind Kejriwal’s resignation raise suspicion. If this abdication of power was not on the docket, then why did the AAP not seek a vote from the electorate like it did when it assumed power? Also, it can be well argued that now since Delhi is no longer their concern, it will give them ample amount of time to prepare for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. Given the time and the resources they had, maybe this is the best Kejriwal could have done. It was a well planned, shrewd, morally arguable and politically right decision.

 It is ironic that even after becoming a nationalised political party, the AAP still chooses to be anti-system with the ideology of undermining the system. But instead of taking to the street, the Aam aadmi Party should head for a recourse for it is democracy not mobocracy. The romance of campaigning is being courteously swapped away by reality of governance. AAP is being populist and not pro people and it cannot afford to conflate the two this electoral season. How to combine an anti-system impulse with governance will remain the AAP’s fundamental political dilemma.