The Canadian Parvasi - Issue 95

The International News Weekly India
May 24, 2019 | Toronto 08
The
w w w . canadianparv asi. c o m
Publisher & CEO
Associate Editor
Editor (India)
Online
Graphic Designer
Official Photographer
Contact
Editorial
Sales
Rajinder Saini
Meenakshi Saini
Gursheesh
Kshitiz Dalal
Naveen
Bashir Nasir
editor@canadianparvasi.com
sales@canadianparvasi.com
TsuNamo Again
BJP landslide indicates some deep
structural shifts in Indian politics
If the 2014 Lok Sabha elections were marked by antiincumbency,
pro-incumbency was the keynote of the 2019
elections as BJP decimated the opposition. The BJP juggernaut
rolled across its bastions in the north and west
of the country – in bellwether state UP its voteshare shot
up from 42.6% in 2014 to 49.5%, negating the impact of SP,
BSP and RLD joining hands – while making significant
incursions into the south (Karnataka, Telangana) and
east (Bengal, Odisha). At last count BJP had wins/leads
in 303 seats and its allies in 48 seats, giving NDA a thumping
majority in the Lok Sabha.
What accounts for the shift from anti-incumbency in
2014 to proincumbency in 2019? It’s not as if the economy
has changed much. On the positive side inflation was
managed well during NDA’s first term (but faces upward
pressure now). On the negative side joblessness appears
to have grown more acute. One could attribute BJP’s
success to better administration of welfare schemes, the
Balakot strikes which retaliated against Pakistan’s sponsorship
of terror groups, and Prime Minister Narendra
Modi’s personal popularity. But while all these factors
may have played a role they do not, even in combination,
satisfactorily account for the magnitude of BJP’s sweeping
victory.
It’s possible some deep structural shifts are taking
place in the Indian polity. The so-called “secular” model
many other parties have followed is to work with conservative
Muslim clerics to secure the Muslim vote, and
then add on specific castes as each party’s USP, relying
on post-Mandal social engineering. Thus SP is the party
of Yadavs, BSP of Jatavs and so on. This model, however,
offers plenty of opportunity for countermobilisation. BJP
has moved into this vacuum swiftly and effectively. It
may have capitalised, for example, on the unseen backlash
to aggressive expansion of caste reservations, cementing
its support among upper castes with the EWS
quota. Hindu upper castes would comprise a solid bloc
that can neutralise the Muslim vote (which, in any case,
is split among several parties). Alongside, Modi also projects
a different kind of backward caste identity that’s
fluid, aspirational, upwardly mobile and less dependent
on specific caste networks. As smartphones spread and
cities expand, this style may appeal more to Hindu lower
castes. BJP alone has around 300 Lok Sabha seats which
gives it the power to override even its allies in the next
government. With great power, however, must come
great responsibility. The Indian polity is dynamic and
the voter can never be taken for granted. Now that BJP
has acquired enough confidence in government it must
utilise the first hundred days of its second tenure to
launch the transformative leap that the economy badly
needs – more so since global headwinds are growing –
even as it fully respects constitutional values in letter
and in spirit. BJP started on the right, reformist note in
2014 but veered off track following Congress accusations
of it being anti-poor, lurching later into radical socialist
experiments such as demonetisation.
“Factor” markets of land, labour and capital need
market-oriented reform for efficient allocation of resources;
so do agriculture and education. At the same time, the
state must step in and provide quality inputs where the
market cannot provide these (such as healthcare, basic
education). Unproductive subsidies must be cut, and the
autonomy of public institutions respected and expanded.
Such reforms, whose objective is to ramp up India’s global
competitiveness, may be painful at the beginning. But
BJP has the mandate and trust of the people, and must be
bold enough to push them through. A powerhouse economy
and its spinoff benefits will, in turn, yield a political
bonanza for BJP by the time the next general election
come round in 2024. TNN
Modi vs Modi: Time for unchallenged
leader to decide his legacy
Narendra Modi’s smashing victory has upended many rules of Indian politics.
RUCHIR SHARMA
AFor one, never before
has a party lost by a landslide
in state assembly elections,
then come back to win a
landslide victory in the same
state in the general election,
within six months. The BJP
achieved that feat in Chhattisgarh,
and also flipped Rajasthan
and Madhya Pradesh.
The only factor present in
the general election and not
in those state elections: Modi.
Travelling in Uttar
Pradesh during the campaign,
voters told us that
they were again lining up behind
traditional caste lines.
But when they entered the
booth, it appears, the nearly
100 million first-time voters
broke with tradition and cast
their ballots for Modi, choosing
the person over caste.
This is the new, young India.
They are mesmerised by
the image Modi projects, of
a decisive leader who works
18-20 hours a day, an unattached
man free of corrupting
family ties, a watchman
protecting the nation. National
elections are getting
more presidential, focussed
on the executive authority
embodied in one figure.
Modi now looms over
Delhi with no national rival.
The other parties have no
personality to match Modi.
Certainly not Rahul Gandhi.
On the campaign trail we
met many voters who said
they were for “Modi”, none
who said they were for “Rahul”.
The prime minister’s
second term will be Modi
versus Modi, a time for the
unchallenged leader to decide
his legacy.
To win this big Modi
grasped the lay of the land,
and recalibrated his message.
Though he had run
in the past as a champion
of development, Modi did
not crow about official data
showing that India is the fastest-growing
major economy
in the world. He sensed voter
fears that growth is not generating
enough jobs. Instead
of running on development
Modi ran on his decisive and
tough guy persona, his tireless
work ethic, his claim to
lifting India’s stature in the
world and stiffening its spine
in the recent clashes with
Pakistan. The latest World
Values Survey shows that
70% of Indians now favour
a strong leader who is not
tied down by Parliament and
elections. Modi offered himself
up as that man, and won
big. The question now is why
he would change in a second
term?
Because even the most
successful leaders put their
legacy at risk if they fail to
change. My studies of emerging
democracies cover more
than 100 elections going
back to 1980, and reveal that
just 19 leaders won a second
term. In their first terms,
the country’s stock market
significantly outperformed
the rest of emerging markets
on average, before flattening
out in the second term, when
leaders so often grow complacent.
In the United States this
tendency to stall after a reelection
victory is called “the
second term curse”. Noted
historian Michael Beschloss
has argued that no American
president in two centuries
has accomplished what he
set out to do in a second term.
Modi’s legacy will depend
in part on whether
he delivers on his original
promise of jobs and development.
By all independent
estimates the economy is
slowing faster than official
numbers suggest. Growth
in airport traffic is at a fiveyear
low. Growth in monthly
passenger vehicle sales is at
an eight-year low. Growth
in power generation is at a
15-year low. India is not generating
nearly the millions
of new jobs a year needed
to meet the demands of its
growing population.
Modi subtly acknowledged
that his task is unfinished,
appealing to voters on
the grounds that Congress
has ruled for 70 years, so he
deserves more than five. If
there is one thing Modi can
do to keep momentum in his
second term, it is to let loose
the reins of power. One man
can’t make every decision
for a nation of 1.3 billion. No
man is at his best with just
four hours of sleep and Modi
can’t remain in campaign
mode forever.
One way to refresh his
administration would be to
bring new voices into his
brain trust, reflecting the
complex fabric of Indian society,
including more voices
from the south, the regional
parties, private business
and technocrats. Modi has
come to embrace a populist’s
disdain for all elites, but having
more expertise in his inner
circle might have helped
prevent an experiment like
demonetisation. His core voters
were willing to forgive
this self-defeating move as
well-intentioned, but they
are unlikely to be so forgiving
of another big policy
mistake. Though Modi has
centralised decision-making
in Delhi, when he was chief
minister of Gujarat he would
tell us about the benefits of
giving chief ministers more
authority to run their own
states. He could begin by following
through on a commitment,
so far largely unmet, to
raise the share of central tax
revenue that is transferred to
the states. He could transfer
funds to the states with fewer
demands on how they must
be spent: it serves no one, for
example, to compel a state
like Kerala to administer national
literacy programmes
when its literacy rate is already
100%.
One-size-fits-all schemes
don’t work in a nation of 29
states, as different from one
another as the countries of
Europe. At last count the
number of central government
schemes had reached
more than 1,000. No politician
wants to take blame for
cuts, but that leaves many
district magistrates trying to
run more programmes than
is humanly possible. Better
to focus on fewer schemes
and deliver.
Modi already has a
model in the ODF campaign.
District magistrates attribute
its success of building
public toilets to strong backing
from the prime minister.
That focus, applied to fewer
schemes, could be more effective
than following the
populist template of launching
one scheme after another
to please every section of society.
It could also allow Modi
to revive his 2014 promise of
“minimum government”. In
his first term Modi proved
as statist as his predecessors,
with overzealous tax authorities
driving thousands
of millionaires out of the
country. But it is ironic that
a nationalist government
would target Indian business
as particularly dishonest,
when international surveys
show India is no more corrupt
than you would expect
of a country with a low per
capita income.
Instead, the government
might consider reducing
the regulatory obstacles
that force business people to
dodge the rules. In his first
term Modi also proved as
socialist as his predecessors,
doubling down on Congress
welfare programmes.
Many commentators see
this largesse as necessary to
meet voter demands in a lowincome
democracy. But it
was not only autocracies like
China that focussed first on
developing roads to promote
growth, so they could afford
cradle to grave welfare systems.
The United States and
other democracies also focussed
on development first,
and then built a welfare state,
after they had climbed out of
poverty.
Now that Modi has returned
to power, he is free
to recalibrate priorities, and
would be well advised to do
so. The second term curse
looms in the background.
And the latest election results
have altered the Indian
political landscape in such a
way that Modi has no challenger
but himself.
Source Credit: This article
was first published in The Times of
India. The writer is the author of
“Democracy on the Road”
Parvasi weekly & people associated with it are not responsible for any claims made by the advertisement & do not endorse any product or service advertised in Canadian Parvasi. Please consult your lawyer before buying/hiring/contracting through the
advertisement Publised in this newspaper. The Canadian Parvasi is in the business of selling space and the clains made by the advertisement are not tested/confirmed by an independent source.