Prime Ministerial stakes in 2014

VIEWPOINT

AMITABH SHUKLA

  

Opinion and exit polls are to be taken with a pinch of salt. What they reveal is crucial but what they conceal is vital. They have gone horribly wrong on several occasions while occasionally, they have been able to help gauge public opinion as to which way the wind is blowing.

A recent survey shows the NDA marginally ahead of the UPA. Even as the Congress is losing ground in a big way, the gains for the BJP are not enough to catapult it to power in the elections. But the opinion poll pertains to the present situation and has several variables like the turn of events in the run-up to the Lok Sabha polls and also the NDA and UPA getting new allies.

BJP campaign committee chief Narendra Modi is clearly helping his party get votes in several states and the urban areas. Elevation of Modi coupled with the general disenchantment with the Congress-led UPA is helping BJP get 30 more seats than the Congress in the opinion polls.

Given the fact that either NDA or UPA will be in a position to form government with the present allies they have, it would all boil down to the mathematics of addition and subtraction after the polls. It seems the winner would not be decided by the people but in the drawing rooms of Lutyen’s Delhi. If that indeed happens, there could be nothing more unfortunate for Indian democracy. Remember, how the country fared with Prime Ministers like HD Deve Gowda, Inder Kumar Gujaral, Chandra Shekhar and earlier Chaudhary Charan Singh. All these leaders were selected as prime ministers through political maneuvering in the drawing rooms of senior leaders in New Delhi rather than by the people. Even VP Singh was chosen on the political chessboard though he enjoyed popular support in 1989 when he overthrew the Rajiv Gandhi Government and became Prime Minister on the crutches of the Left and the Right.

In BJP, there is an internal debate raging ever since Modi was catapulted to the centrestage. Talk to some leaders and they would admit after some prodding. BJP leaders admit privately that Modi could take the party to the threshold of power, the way LK Advani did in the Mandir days, but when it comes to enjoying the perks, he will be at a natural disadvantage. They point out that there is many a slip between the cup and the lip as far as Modi’s prime ministerial ambitions are concerned. They say post verdict mathematics and internal dynamics could install either LK Advani, Rajnath Singh or Sushma Swaraj in the chair in the name of “broader political consensus”. And, it would be the post poll mavericks, moves and realpolitik which will make or break Modi’s ambitions.

Look at a possible scenario where NDA, which includes BJP, Akali Dal and Shiv Sena gets 180 seats, almost 90 short of power. From where will it get the numbers from? If JDU in Bihar has say 20 seats but wants Advani on the chair, will the BJP have the conviction to refuse the offer of support? Similarly, if BSP manages 25 seats in UP and joins hands with JDU saying that they don’t want Modi as PM but anyone else from the BJP is acceptable, will the saffron party be able to resist such a pressure?

If NDA has any realistic chance of forming the next Government at the Centre, it will have to do business with its erstwhile allies like the AIADMK, JDU, Trinamool Congress, Biju Janata Dal and also possibly BSP in Uttar Pradesh and the TDP or TRS in Andhra Pradesh. Except AIADMK which would agree to Modi’s name, none of the other potential allies have shown any such inclination and will seek their pound of flesh and that would obviously be any other name not that of the Gujarat Chief Minister. If BJP wants Modi on the chair and wants to reward him for bringing the party close to power, it will have to single handedly get 200 seats and then the remaining numbers could come without any problem or preconditions imposed by other parties. If the people of the country indeed want Modi for the top job, they will have to restrict Congress to below 125 seats and give over 200 to BJP. Simply put, if the BJP wants to come to power, the difference with Congress has to be around 75 seats. Anything less at this point of time will not help its cause.

What is clearly discernible at this juncture is that despite doing badly in its second term, Congress is convinced that the moment it crosses 150 and keeps NDA in the region of 180, it will be in an advantageous position. It won’t have to work hard to get the allies given the fact that the secularism-communalism debate is turning shriller and BJP is trying its best to get into the trap laid by the Congress. Obviously, Congress would like the election to be a referendum on secularism so that people forget the mega serial scams, mis-governance, inflation, unemployment, lack of growth and general economic despondency.

While BJP has almost got into the Congress trap of secularism, the grand old party has refused to take the bait of BJP which wants 2014 to be a contest between two personalities — Modi and Rahul Gandhi. Congress knows that the moment it is converted into a battle of personalities, the way it is done in the presidential system of the United States, it stands little chance. Rahul is yet to show anything worthwhile or a successful model of governance, preferring to be a man of the organisation. Modi, on the other hand, has a successful track record in politics and earlier in the organisation.

Post polls, while BJP could be burdened with the choice of the Prime Minister, I think in Congress the choice would be rather easy this time — Rahul Gandhi. If Congress insists on retaining Manmohan Singh, it will easily lose around three dozen seats in the country so lacklustre has been his performance. Rahul, on the other hand, is an untested commodity with apparently a committed though NGO type approach towards governance. Though all his political ventures have failed — Assembly elections in UP, going alone in Bihar, so called democratisation of Youth Congress, etc but still Congress has USP of youth in Rahul. But given the way Rahul functions, he would show any interest in the job only if the party gets over 200 seats on its own, a distinct impossibility at this point of time. Perhaps Rahul and his close aides would be ruing their decision in 2009 when Manmohan Singh became the Prime Minister for the second time in a row and not the scion of the Gandhi-Nehru family despite Congress crossing the figure of 200 on its own and running a comfortable Government for over four years now.

Some in the Congress now say that Manmohan Singh could have been asked to “retire” on health ground during the halfway phase of UPA II, sometime towards the end of 2011 and Rahul installed in his place. That could have helped the party counter anti-incumbency and also Rahul could have taken some pro-people vote catching decisions in the remaining tenure. But that was not to be. It’s too late now for such a misadventure. (July 29, 2013)

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/chandigarh/prime-ministerial-stakes-in-2014.html

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/dehradun/2013-07-28-16657.html

Maturing of Indian Democracy: Don’t take voters for granted

VIEWPOINT

AMITABH SHUKLA

The countdown for the big battle of 2014 has begun with the BJP constituting a massive team to help the party come to power after a decade in wilderness. Constitution of as many as 20 committees with 98 leaders clearly indicates that this is a “please all” formula which the Congress has been practicing for decades.

Apart from the all inclusive mammoth team, what is clear from the overhaul is the fact that Narendra Modi had his way in the constitution of the committees and their role in the run up to the Lok Sabha elections. Now there is hardly any doubt that he would be the unannounced prime ministerial candidate of the party and even a coup, possibly by LK Advani, would not change that equation. 

As per the scheme of things in BJP, only two leaders—Advani and party President Rajnath Singh—would not report to him. All others, including Leaders of Opposition in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley would report to him in the all powerful Campaign Committee. While Modi is the President of this Committee, other party leaders, some of whom were thought to be his challengers, are mere members. This includes not only the leaders of opposition in the two Houses of Parliament but also former BJP Presidents and heavyweights.

While BJP would not admit that the new team has a stamp of Modi and would insist that it believes in collective leadership, Congress has no such qualms. It went gaga last month when a reshuffle was carried out in the AICC and said with much fanfare that this has the stamp of Rahul. Obviously, if anything happens in the Congress, it has to have the stamp of Rahul or party Chief Sonia Gandhi. Nothing happens without their approval. Congress may be crying hoarse that it is for internal party democracy, holds internal elections, so on and so forth but ask any leader—big or small—and they would tell you that the hierarchy in the party begins and stops at Sonia and Rahul Gandhi.

With Modi taking a centre stage, BJP would have to guard against this authoritarianism which has existed in Congress since the days of Nehru and Indira. Congress may have won successive elections and claim that people’s love brought it to power but the fact remains that except when Narasimha Rao was the Prime Minister, the party for all practical purposes was family owned, managed and controlled. Simply put, the party cannot imagine itself without the family. BJP would be better served if it manages to keep away from authoritarianism of a person (Modi) or an organisation (RSS) and continues in the philosophy of collective leadership to distinguish itself from the 127 year old Congress.

This is important as the people and electorate of the country are maturing and have shown tremendous maturity while electing their representatives and the Governments—both at the State-level and Central Government. You simply cannot take the voters of the country for granted given the tremendous skills they have employed to judge who is better to govern them for the next five years. They have set aside all conventional theories, giving a tough time to the pollsters and the psephologists.

Take the largest State of the country—Uttar Pradesh—which gave a clear verdict for the Samajwadi Party in 2012 and earlier the BSP in 2007. There was no confusion in the minds of the voters as to who was better suited to run the state government for two successive terms after a rag tag of coalitions ruled them for several years. Similarly, when the Congress led UPA formed the Government at the Centre in 2009, the party managed a remarkable 22 seats in the State—it’s best ever performance in two decades. But as the Congress was nowhere in the picture in the Assembly polls to form a Government, all it managed was 28 seats in the 2012 polls. This shows the maturity of the voters and their preferences as to whom they want as head of the Government.

In Punjab, which has never seen the repetition of the same Government ever since 1966, the Akali Dal-BJP Government came to power again in 2012. For the first time in four and a half decades, there was a pro-incumbency vote in the State in favour of SAD-BJP.  

In the first term of the UPA (2004-09), Congress did reasonably well and brought in policies like NAREGA and loan waivers and was catapulted to power for the second time in a row. It is a different matter that in its second avatar, fatigue has set in and it has mismanaged almost everything and derailed the economic policies, affecting every section of the populace.

If we go to each State and analyse the voting pattern in the last 10 years or so, we see a pattern of maturity amongst the Indian voters. They elected Sheila Dikshit in Delhi for three consecutive terms and Narendra Modi in Gujarat for an equal number of terms along with Tarun Gogoi  in Assam. The same voters in Gujarat voted overwhelmingly for Modi in Assembly elections but in Lok Sabha elections, they gave a respectable 12 of the 26 seats to Congress indicating that they differentiate between a local and a national election and vote accordingly.

In Madhya Pradesh, Congress was rejected twice in a row and it could well be a hat-trick of rejections later this year in favour of BJP’s pro development agenda.  People in the state still remember how the Digvijay Singh led Congress government empowered the local self-Government while crippling all development and economy. Madhya Pradesh could be repeated in Chhattisgarh as well. The voters rewarded Congress in Andhra Pradesh, Haryana and Maharashtra for good governance and also lack of unity in the Opposition ranks. They also recognised how the Left parties had misruled West Bengal for decades and brought in Mamata Banerjee though she might not have lived up to their expectations. Naveen Patnaik has been going strong in Odisha on the ruins of the Congress for a while now. In Bihar, backed by good performance, JDU-BJP came to power. Obviously the equations have changed after BJP withdrew support to JDU and it is a three cornered contest in the State in the next Lok Sabha polls.

Also the voters changed Governments in five years wherever they saw that their aspirations have not been fulfilled and wherever they expected more from their elected Government. Karnataka brought Congress back to power after five years and so did Himachal Pradesh. Tamil Nadu brought in AIADMK while in Kerala the see-saw continued with Congress led UDF coming to power though the margin was wafer thin. In Goa, BJP’s Manohar Parrikar having a clean image got a clear mandate overriding all affiliations and he has managed to deliver since then.

For the 2014 elections, voters are in the process of making their mind. A lot of them must have already done so. They have shown tremendous maturity in the last few years in choosing who would govern them. If any political party takes them for granted, it would be at its own peril. (July 22, 2013) 

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/chandigarh/2013-07-21-15793.html

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/dehradun/maturing-of-indian-democracy-dont-take-voters-for-granted.html

BJP needs to rethink political discourse

VIEWPOINT

AMITABH SHUKLA

Narendra Modi was doing fine as the Campaign Committee chief of the BJP though there were tremors of minor magnitude all around. The sulking LK Advani created ripples for a while but it subsided after a few headlines. As expected the Janata Dal United walked out of the alliance but the impact may be marginal.

But one interview which he gave to Reuters has been the subject of hundreds of interpretations. Almost everyone is interpreting it with their respective ideological and political baggage. But the damage seems to have been done. The Modi baiters clearly managed to interpret the interview to their advantage and made the secular-communal debate shriller ahead of the Lok Sabha elections.

Modi had so far managed to avoid media and refused to give interviews something which the Congress trio of Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Manmohan Singh has done throughout their respective careers. The Prime Minister, however, has given “controlled” interviews where the line of questions was obviously reverential. I do not remember Sonia Gandhi and Rahul speaking their mind out in any interview so far though they have addressed a few press conferences. Obviously, this is a political master stroke. Though no one knows what they think on crucial national issues, politics, economy or international relations, the mystery element keeps them going.

Perhaps Modi wanted to “demystify” himself in the run-up to the polls and gave an interview which is now widely seen as a trigger of further polarisation on communal lines. No one would be happier than the Congress which has been fighting a losing battle all these four years on the back of a series of scams, misgovernance, badly run economy and a crisis of credibility.

The interview of Modi has shifted the goal post, at least for the time being. A politician like Modi would have known how each and every word he speaks is open to varied interpretations and clearly he did not choose his words carefully. He would also know that whatever he says is scrutinised in terms of secular-communal idiom and here he should have learnt lessons from the trio of Sonia-Rahul and Manmohan who never speak on anything significant. However, hard you try; you cannot interpret anything from what they speak.

By shifting the debate from misgovernance and corruption to the secular-communal platform, Congress has outsmarted BJP when time was running out for the ruling party in the Centre. Given the dynamics of Indian politics and the reality existing on the ground, only alliances would help either the BJP or the Congress to head the next government at the Centre. It is here that the grand old party of the country has sought to pin down the Modi led BJP. The more the

secular-communal debate gets shriller in days to come, the more Congress would gain in terms of new allies at the cost of the BJP.

A senior bureaucrat, well versed in the nuances of Indian politics, has analysed the voting pattern and the number of seats which the BJP got after the 1989 Lok Sabha elections in each of the State, considered its stronghold. He chose the best performance of BJP in every state since that election to arrive at the conclusion that even if the saffron party manages to repeat its best performance in each state (like winning over 50 seats in UP once, over 20 seats in Gujarat once and most of the seats in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi and Chattisgarh), the tally would not cross 250. Obviously, there is no such wave for the BJP at this juncture to repeat its best performance in the last 24 years in each of these States.

So from where do the numbers come? It has to come through the regional players and the post election give and take could be crucial here. But when the agenda on which the election is fought is converted into a debate on secularism and communalism, BJP would be in a distinct disadvantage.

If one starts from the biggest state of Uttar Pradesh which sends 80 members to the Lok Sabha, both the main parties BSP and Samajwadi Party are allied with the Congress. SP would never back the BJP given its ideological moorings and vote base. BSP has done business with the BJP in the past but it seems unlikely at this juncture. So will the BJP manage to cross 50 seats in the largest State of the country? Even the most optimistic BJP supporter would rule it out. For the BJP, it has been the law of diminishing returns in UP and Modi or Amit Shah may not help the cause beyond a point.

In Bihar, which sends 40 members to the Lok Sabha, BJP may gain a seat here or there from what it has right now. But the gains would be offset by the loss due to JDU going away and likely to support Congress.

In West Bengal while the Left Front is ruled out, Mamata Banerjee has been a part of previous NDA Government. But even when she was a part of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Cabinet, she created one problem after the other, the way she did to the present UPA government before walking out. BJP would need a lot of convincing skill to persuade Banerjee and she will weigh her options carefully before lending support as this would alienate a section of her minority vote bank in the State.

Odisha’s Naveen Pattnaik did support BJP but since then a lot of water has flown in the Ganges and is happy ensconced as a freelancer of Indian politics. He is likely to remain aloof — maintaining equidistance from both Congress and BJP.

In Andhra Pradesh, none of the two main parties — headed by Chandra Babu Naidu and Jaganmohan Reddy would support BJP. The third party TRS mat support it provided BJP comes out with an open support for Telengana. In Maharashtra, the seats have been traditionally divided by four parties — Shiv Sena, BJP, NCP and Congress. There is little to indicate that this time it would be different.

There is a possibility of AIADMK supporting Modi led BJP but that is perhaps the only silver lining in the entire political dynamics being played out. In Karnataka, BJP has gone for a six and even if Yeddyurappa joins it, the fortunes are not likely to change much.

So BJP managers would be wondering from where the allies would come to help Modi form the government even if the party does exceptionally well and gets over 160 Lok Sabha seats. They know it well that 180 seats of BJP under Modi is equivalent to 130 seats by the Congress as the Sonia Gandhi led party could have allies ranging from Left to SP, BSP, DMK, JDU and others just on the name of keeping the “communal forces out of power”.

When Modi spoke at the Fergusson College in Pune on Sunday, he tried to bury the controversy over his interview and spoke on issues which the middle class, the youth and the people of the country wants to hear. He talked about the social media to connect with youth, how the country needs a proper direction, how the youth can contribute to the growth of both India and the world, the power of positive thinking, how there are solutions to all problems, nation building through human resource development, etc.

This could perhaps be the way forward. If BJP wants to attract more allies in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections either as pre poll partners or post poll tie-ups, it has to guard itself from falling in the trap of secular-communal laid down by the Congress and refuse to bog down on Ayodhya Ram Temple issue (raised by Amit Shah) or the post Godhra riots (Modi interview). Development, reforms, youth centric policies, growth, modernization, empowerment and vision for the future has to be the central point of the debate for the party. The moment it falls in the Congress trap, its doomsday. (July 15, 2013) 

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/chandigarh/2013-07-15-15031.html

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/dehradun/bjp-needs-to-rethink-political-discourse.html

Political consensus needed to fight terror

VIEWPOINT

AMITABH SHUKLA

In the last three decades, there have been hundreds and thousands of deaths in encounters, both genuine and staged all over the country from Jammu & Kashmir to Kanyakumari.

All law enforcement agencies from the State police to the paramilitary forces and army have been involved in these encounters not only in States facing secessionist violence and insurgency but also in peaceful metro cities of New Delhi and Mumbai. In fact, terrorists and gangsters who were hanged after due process of law in three decades would not even touch the figure of two dozen if compared to the encounter deaths which must be in thousands.

But except two-three encounters in the last three decades, none became the talking point of the entire country the way Ishrat Jahan encounter case in Gujarat has. The encounter was politicised by the Congress so much so that almost everyone in the country now has an opinion with some justifying the killing of terrorists in encounters and others arguing that the due process of law should be followed. With CBI’s independence still a far cry, motives are being attributed to the agency for toeing the Congress line in this case, filing a suspicious looking charge sheet, bringing the Intelligence Bureau in the picture as co-conspirators and also attempt to find political motive for the killing of terrorists. The Congress has deviously managed to polarise the people on religious lines and divide public opinion in the country forcing the BJP to practically stop short of justifying the extra-judicial killings.

I have followed the Ishrat Jahan encounter case from the very beginning and it was a simple explanation expected of the police force in any such killing — staged, controlled or genuine. There was an input from the Intelligence Bureau. A gang of terrorists wanted to kill Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and before they could do that, the police spotted them and fired at them when challenged leading to the deaths.

As a journalist, I have seen hundreds of such Press releases by the police from almost every State of the country. Even in small mofussil towns of the Hindi heartland in the 1980s and 1990s, journalists on the crime beat would vouch for the regularity of such releases and how encounters took place. It went like this. “A gang of three-four people were sitting on a small bridge in the late evening hours. They were planning to commit a dacoity. When the police reached there on a specific tip-off and challenged the criminals, they opened fire. When the police fired in self-defence, one person was killed and the others fled taking advantage of darkness. A country made pistol, a knife and live cartridges were recovered from the spot”.

This was the standard release from the police forces in several parts of the country a few years ago. The language could be different, the arms recovered could be different or the place of encounter could be a semi-forest area or a deserted park. The details were strikingly similar. No one shed any tears for the dead as invariably they were wanted in a series of cases and the locals always rejoiced such killings as it made their life better without fear of the criminals. When dacoits were killed in Chambal region or elsewhere in UP and Bihar, their bodies were tied on tractors, and announcement made on a megaphone that so and so has been killed. People used to come out of their houses, see the body, rejoice and even garland the team of police which had conducted the killing. None of the villagers ever asked if the encounter was fake or genuine when they saw the bodies of the dacoits who had tormented them on vehicles.

If the newspaper readers recall, statements about encounters were routine not only from the insurgency-hit Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, the North East but even in places in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. Of course, the Mumbai Police and the Delhi Police had their encounter specialists who bragged that they have killed 50 or 60 gangsters in encounters. No one asked them how they did it as long as a gangster was involved. There were invariably huge gaps in how the encounters took place and why did they take place.

In Punjab, which perhaps remains one of the world’s few places, where armed insurgency backed by Pakistan was vanquished, releases from the security forces were quite similar. “Two people were riding a motorbike. They approached a check post and when questioned, opened fire from automatic weapons…The police retaliated. When the firing from the other side came to an end, police found two bodies. Two AK 47 rifles with four magazines were recovered. They were later identified as so and so from so and so organisation”. Any person who used to read the newspapers and watched State-owned Doordarshan news in the early 1990s would recall that this happened almost everyday, sometimes twice a day when the security forces led by the Punjab Police started having an upper hand against the terrorists before liquidating them completely. There are gaping holes in these. But no questions were raised.

Could anyone believe today that it was a Congress Government headed by Beant Singh in Punjab which had a DGP like KPS Gill which was responsible for the end of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in the border State? Did anyone in the country at that point of time question the modus operandi of the security forces in the fight against terrorism? Everyone was simply looking upto the police for restoring law and order in the State. There was collateral damage, innocents were killed but the larger purpose of the country was solved. Of course, there were CBI cases against some of the encounter deaths in Punjab as well but there was a political consensus between Congress and the Akali Dal in Punjab that terror would not be politicised. The police officers, against whom the CBI registered cases of fake encounters, were defended by top lawyers of the country with the money released by the successive State Governments. Both the ruling parties-Congress and Akali Dal supported them and continue to do so as this was not a war of one police officer against the terrorists but the collective effort of the entire Punjabis. The police officers were risking their lives and doing this not for personal ends and medals but for the country.

Now the same Congress which has such a successful track record of supporting the fight against terrorism in Punjab is shedding tears for the death of terrorists in Gujarat just because it thinks that at this point of time this could help in communal polarisation and secure the votes of the Muslims as those killed were from this community. Since when did the Congress start believing that terrorists have a religion?

It was time for the Congress to do some quick introspection on terrorism and desist from taking mileage out it. Two of its Prime Ministers — Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi — were victims of terror designs. But not long ago, its leader Digvijay Singh was shouting from the rooftop demanding “justice” for the terrorists killed in the Batla House encounter in Delhi. Remember, Delhi is ruled by the Congress and so is the Central Government whose Home Ministry controls the Delhi Police, the personnel of which were involved in that encounter.

No doubt, the law, the Constitution and the process involved has to be followed and no one can be allowed to take a life. But then, things are not always in black and white. There are often shades of grey. There are occasions and circumstances when it is difficult to judge between right and wrong. In security and intelligence parlance, there is a thin line dividing right and wrong and often the line does not exist.

A senior police officer who fought insurgency in Punjab once told me the dilemma which those on the ground face. He gave an illustration. An A-list terrorist, who prided himself in calling Lt General of a Khalistani terror outfit, was caught in a surprise raid. He was named in at least 75 killings, including that of police officials. Now what do they do after catching hold of the terrorist? The jails were not safe as in the heydays of terrorism, jail brakes were not uncommon. The lower judiciary was not willing to try these cases as they themselves faced threat if a terrorist was convicted or even tried. Moreover, ferrying a terrorist to a court and back to jail was a Herculean task in itself as there were several cases in which their fellow terrorists freed them killing the accompanying policemen. The officer left it on the wisdom of the people, the civil society and lawmakers of the country as what needed to be done to the terrorist at that point of time.

It is here that a political consensus is needed. Will the political parties rise to the occasion and build a consensus to fight terror the way they did in Punjab? (July 8, 2013) 

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/chandigarh/political-consensus-needed-to-fight-terror.html

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/dehradun/2013-07-08-14198.html

Worst comes true: Politicisation of a human tragedy

VIEWPOINT

AMITABH SHUKLA

One could never have imagined even in the wildest dream that the tragedy which struck Uttarakhand could be politicised and milked with an eye on the next Lok Sabha election. But this is what precisely happened and Congress emerged as the main culprit in the saga where human tragedy was sought to be trivialised and prime ministerial candidates were sought to be projected amid the dead bodies.

It was not only a Narendra Modi versus Rahul Gandhi in Uttarakhand but also Congress MPs from Andhra Pradesh versus the TDP MPs from the State, Parkash Singh Badal versus Partap Singh Bajwa for votes in Punjab along with several personal battles which were fought in the name of rescue and relief operations.

It all started with Modi visiting the State and reports, not attributed to him but claiming that he helped rescue 15,000 Gujaratis from the tragedy in a day. Even if the number 15,000 was exaggerated would anyone deny that Gujarat government was the first to put in place a micro disaster management system in the State to carry out relief operations with a specialised team of officers? Ask non-Congress relief workers, independent observers and even the officials on the ground in Congress-ruled Uttarakhand and they will admit that the Gujarat officers had put in a system with the help of the BJP workers which proved beneficial for those trapped. But how could the Congress digest the fact that a “communal” Modi was helping people in another State. The party immediately saw a “design” in relief and launched a blistering attack on Modi, terming it “Rambo” like and what not.

The spokespersons of the party and the government used choicest printable abuses to be heaped on Modi simply because he took the initiative which none of the other Congress State governments had launched.

For God’s sake, why politicise a tragedy of this magnitude the imprint of which would be there for generations. Let Modi do rescue and relief work and take credit for it. After all, he is helping save lives. You too do the same and take credit. Who is stopping you? But instead of doing that Congress saw an opportunity to attack Modi where none existed. The grand old party should remember that with this kind of politicisation, there is egg on its face and this is not going to be washed away easily.

If indeed Modi and his team from Gujarat was in Uttarakhand for political mileage what prevented other Congress Chief Ministers like Prithviraj Chavan in Maharashtra, Kiran Reddy in Andhra Pradesh, Tarun Gogoi in Assam, Oomen Chandy in Kerala, Sheila Dikshit in Delhi or Ashok Gehlot in Rajasthan to undertake similar relief and rescue work by sending their teams. They could have done that and hogged the limelight. But did they do it? What was important in the tragedy-struck State was relief and rescue of the hapless pilgrims, tourists and the locals. It was immaterial who was doing it. The army did a great job and so did the ITBP.

 But the problem is that Congress smells a rat whenever and wherever Modi is involved in anything. BJP terms it “Modi phobia”. I am not sure what it is but this was disgusting, a response not expected of a party which has ruled the country for over five decades after Independence. I am sure, if Modi had not visited the State at all, Congress again would have criticised him for not doing anything. Agreed, BJP’s campaign committee chief is a political challenge for the Congress in the election year and the ruling party is nervous and the counter attack was a knee jerk reaction. But then, there are other political platforms to criticise the Gujarat Chief Minister and take him head on. You criticise him left, right and centre for everything he does or does not do but not on rescue and relief operations.

As compared to the Congress and government spokespersons, both Modi and later Rahul Gandhi showed maturity. Modi never spoke or tom-tommed on what he did or did not do in Uttarakhand. Unnerved by the criticism on his absence, Rahul Gandhi visited the State, spoke to the victims and left but did not publicise his visit nor did he or his supporters claim anything.

If Modi versus Congress verbal spat was not enough, there was more to follow. Andhra Pradesh MPs belonging to Congress and Telugu Desam practically took each other physically and could be separated only by security personnel and onlookers before they could box each other. Both the parties wanted to take credit for ferrying the rescued pilgrims from their State back home. This was unbelievable. How could you fight on an issue of such a grave concern? This simply means that both of you were in Uttarakhand to take mileage from a tragedy and not to help people.

As Congress was hell bent on trivialising the tragedy and take political mileage, it took on the Parkash Singh Badal government in Punjab also on rescue and relief. The senior Badal was holidaying abroad, cut short his visit and streamlined the rescue and relief efforts for the pilgrims of Punjab who had gone to visit Hemkunt Sahib. The PR machinery of Badal got active and highlighted the rescue and relief operations of the officials and Punjab Police. Now how could the Punjab Congress chief Partap Bajwa let go of an opportunity to criticise Badal. His PR machinery also got active and started contradicting the claims of Punjab government on rescue and relief. Bajwa reduced himself to comic levels with the act as even the Congress supporters would be put off if you politicise such a tragedy. You criticise the Akali Dal-BJP government.  That is your constitutional right. But why choose a tragedy for it? This will only lower your image among the people.

Then you have the case of Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde who issues an advisory asking VIPs not to visit Uttarakhand as it affects the work of the agencies involved in rescue and relief. Obviously, this was done to target Narendra Modi as he was one of the first to get into rescue and relief work. Shinde wanted Modi not to enter the State again lest he walks away with all the attention and credit. But when Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi visited the State, Shinde issues another statement saying the situation has changed. The jury is out on Shinde on several fronts but this was one disaster which only Shinde was capable of making.

Now that the rescue work is getting over even though rehabilitation would take months and years, it was time to take stock of the tragedy in the hill state. But first and foremost, one has to draw a strategy and build a consensus on how to prevent politicisation of natural calamities. The way political parties, particularly the Congress, tried to silence its rivals and trivialise it, has to be prevented at all costs.

Then comes a rethink and introspection on what went wrong and how the natural calamity was aggravated manifold by human intervention over the years-by changing the eco system of the fragile Himalayan mountains and rivers. How unchecked commercialisation, constructions in river beds and landslide prone mountains created a havoc of unparalleled magnitude. The policy on dams and power projects also needs a revisit. Disaster management preparedness also needs a thorough overhaul. It was time to find a consensus on the way ahead. (July 1, 2013) 

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/chandigarh/worst-comes-true-politicisation-of-a-human-tragedy.html

http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/dehradun/2013-07-01-13395.html