Dissolution of Bihar assembly - Congress pastime back again

It definitely is not surprising for the political analysts that UPA government has recommended the dissolution of the Bihar assembly. It seems that all the constituents of the UPA agree on a one point agenda, though it goes without mention in CMP. To vanquish the opposition - NDA generally and BJP specifically - even if it means resorting to illegal and unconstitutional practices. While the most recent episode is the dissolution of the Bihar assembly, we have earlier witnessed Goa, Jharkand, Pukhan commission, inquiry into Centaur deal and defence purchases, Banerjee committee, dismissal of governers and so on.

After all, dismissing the non-congress governments IS the congress pastime since independence. But, now there is a little difference, the left and other aliies are supporting the congress openly; in the name of preventing NDA from coming to power in Bihar. Probably, the congress allies together with Indian communists - followers of a dead theory - are aiming for something like China, where you have no opposition. This is clearly to prevent Nitish Kumar from staking claim to form government with the help of rebel LJP MLAs, though the official reason given out is 'to prevent hrose-trading'. It is unclear, how in the hell they arrived at horse-trading, while the LJP rebels came out openly against Paswan accusing him of preventing the formation of a government sans RJD, which was anyway the mandate for Paswan given by the Bihari people.

In all possibilities, Nitish Kumar could have proved the majority genuinely and formed a non-RJD government with the help of LJP MLAs disillusioned with Paswan, which probably would have ushered a new era in Bihar. And it should be remembered that LJP strongly campaigned against RJD during the election and the 29 MLAs were voted by the people to keep the RJD out. So, when majority of the MLAs united and decided to support Nitish Kumar in forming the government, UPA could just not stomach NDA coming to power in one of the important states and what better weapon does it have other than 'dissolution'.

The dissolution wouldn't have raised opposition, if it was done immediately after it became clear that no party or combination of parties was ready to form the government. But the sudden move by UPA, when Nitish was to stake claim after the LJP rebels came in public supporting him - proves the point that Congress and its allies are intolerant to the opposition NDA and are willing to go to any extent to prevent it from coming to power. It has earlier happed in Goa, then in Jharkand and now in Bihar. The gameplan is clear - if you can't form the government then prevent others from doing so - all in the name of saving democracy and preventing horse-trading.

It is a clear murder of democracy and an attempt to finish the opposition by immoral means. While, it seems bad for the NDA and BJP, it is not so actually. NDA should clearly understand that, even if Nitish was allowed to form the government, it would have been an unstable government heavily dependent on a coalation the I-want-more MLAs. In the long run this unholy for-the-sake-of-power alliance would definitely have created a bad image for the NDA in general and BJP in particular. Now, the UPA has done good by saving the NDA off such embaraassments and in fact provided it a moral high ground.

Lalu along with leftists have definitely scored in this round by successfully applying pressure on the congress to dissolve the house. But there is no reason for NDA to feel disheartened and anyway the final round is to be fought in september/october elections. In fact this is a golden opportunity for the NDA, which is yet to come to terms with the unexpected defeat in 2004; to get its act together and lauch a united and strategised effort in Bihar, whenever elections are held. After watcing Paswan's flip-flop with RJD and congress's insensitivity towards Lalu's jungle raj, there is a very good probability that people vote for the NDA during the next elections. Of course, religion and caste will be two key factors that will be playing heavily against NDA. It should work hard and focus on development, which I believe they will.

NDA should never forget the Biharis are yearning for a change from Lalu's jungle raj. And now, this is the time to do that.

Dealing with Lalu - Will NDA learn from its mistakes?

Lalu Prasad is increasingly becoming intolerant towards NDA and more specifically towards some members including Modi, Advani, George Fernandes and so on. Well, this is nothing new and evident from more than one instance. The U C Banarjee committee set up by Lalu immediately after he took over as Railway minister was just the beginning. The report was 'fixed' by Lalu even while the committee was being constituted. The outcome, it was clear even then that it is going to be against Modi and BJP, but what was surprising was the manner in which it was achieved - it concluded that Godhra was an accident caused by cooking fire.

However, Lalu's mastery in story-telling came to the fore when he alleged Narendra Modi for engineering attack on him during his visit to the Vadodra hospital after the ill-fated Sabarmati express accident. The whole nation and the parliament was forced to listen to Lalu's allegation, when nearly 20 people lost their lives and more than 100 passengers were injured. Lalu achieved two objectives in just one stroke, i) successfully deflecting any criticism towards him for the accident, ii) painting the sangh parivar as villian (which, the English press gleefully parroted). He went to extent of seeking the dismissal of Modi government for 'attack on a central minister'.

NDA has completely failed in taking on Lalu and his lies, by boycotting the parliament. It thus failed on two counts, i) to raise the issue on increasing train accidents and have a meaningful discussion on rail safety, ii) to call his bluff about the alleged attack on his car. Its protests and press meets outside the parliament houses fell on deaf ears. And remember, congresss smelled the rat right in the beginning; it was completely silent on the issue and neither offered any comment nor joined the RJD in the parliament to protest against BJP and sangh parivar.

His anger is understandable, especially after NDA along with Paswan literally ruined his chances of continuing the proxy-rule in Bihar. This by itself is quite normal as politicians all over follow the same route. But, his recent attack on EC and two of its commissioners is quite alarming for the reason that EC is an constitutional authority and any attempt to draw it into political rivalry will undermine its authority. The only solace in the whole episode is that the law minister and the prime minister refused to side with Lalu and stanchly defended the EC.

But, unlike the media portrayal, I view Lalu's attack as the one targeted more against Advani and BJP rather than on EC. "The letter by Saptrishi to the law minister" said Lalu, "accuses the Election commissioners acting at the behest of Advani in ordering repoll in Chapra", while showing the letter purportedly written by Saptrishi to the full media glare. Lots of things happened later and following questions beg for answer from Lalu.

* When both the law minister H R Bharadwaj and rural development minister Raghuvansh prasad (under whom Saptrishi works) denied receiving any such letter, to whom did Saptrishi wrote?

* How did the letter find its ways to Lalu, without the knowledge of the law minister?

* Why did Saptrishi abandon a press meet at India International Centre on May 8, which was never authorised according to IIC official Lalit Joshi?

* We were told that Saptrishi won 'warm praise' from his chief T S Krishnamurthy for a job well done as Special Observer for Bihar in the polls. But, what we were not told that emerged much later is that, such a letter is a customary one written to all the central observers.

* Why was the congress deafeningly silent in the whole issue, save for the statements of the prime minister and law minister in their official capacities?

* Why was Saptrishi, a soon-to-be-retired officer was appointed in a three-year fixed tenure posting as the Director-General of CAPART under the rural development ministry headed by an RJD MP?

* Why wasn't any inquiry ordered in the whole affair to bring out the truth? Though union law minister Bharadwaj indicated that Saptrishi might have breached official discipline by criticising the EC, what disciplinary action was initiated by the rural development ministry?

There is no point in blaming the UPA in the whole affair. The party to be blamed is none other than NDA. This would have provided them a great opportunity to grill the government and corner Lalu on the floors of the parliament. It is fully clear that Lalu has lied to the media. You now require little intelligence to raise this in parliament and bring a motion to dismiss or impeach Lalu as the case be. Probably, government can be pressurised to secure the resignation of Lalu (this would have been a simple way than parroting 'tainted-minister' over and over again). At the very least, Saptrishi could have been made to pay for his misadventure, if not Lalu. Significantly you have the prime minister and law minister on your side.

NDA has thus done a grave mistake by letting Lalu to escape unscathed in the twin issues of sabarmati express accident and Saptrishi affair. NDA has lost much by boycotting the parliament. George Fernandes should realise this at least now and be willing to fight it out directly. Worst, the boycott has brought bad reputation for the BJP/NDA, which is being blamed for stalling the now diluted Employment Guarantee Scheme Bill.

Will the NDA at least learn now?

Resumption of arms supply to Nepal - A step in the right direction

Finally, better sense has prevailed upon the UPA government as it decided to resume the arms supply to Royal Nepalese Army, ignoring the protests from the leftists and self-declared protectors of democracy that includes some media houses. It took India nearly weeks to reverse its earlier stand of cutting-off the supply, which was a knee jerk reaction immediately after the royal coup in February.

The argument that Gyanendra has suspended an elected government and acting like a dictator holds no merit. True he might have dismissed the government, suppressed the press and might have done so many other things. What about Pakistan & China, gentlemen? The proponents of Nepali democracy never had any hesitation to cuddle up and cajole with General Musharraf or the communist China, where the mere utterance of the word 'democracy' can put you behind bars.

One important parameter to be considered in the India-Nepal equation is 'Maoists', and ignoring that would create serious problems for us in the long-term. Already, we are surrounded by two unfriendly governments in east and north-west and one untrustworthy government in north-east. And we all know too well about the infiltrating in J&K and North-east to need mention. Add to that, the home grown Naxals and Maoists who are spread in 175 districts. It is no secret that the Maoists in India and Nepal collaborate with each other in several ways, arms and narcotics smuggling included.

To make the issue worse, ISI has been active in Nepal and uses it as launch pad for smuggling in the terrorists and fake currency, trying to spread the theatre beyond J&K and North-east. Memories of the hijack of IC-814 from Kathmandu and the subsequent exchange of 3 militants for 154 hostages should be an indicator of the ISI's ability to operate from Nepal.

The proponents of the democracy doesn't understand that the foreign policy should be flexible and should balance between the current realities and long-term goals. It wouldn't be prudent to be myopic and act in a knee-jerk manner, when handling sensitive issues like this. With respect to foreign policy there is also an important term in the government lexicon, namely 'national interest'.

Unfortunately, for many people in India the word 'national interest' has become irritating, merely because it is often repeated by BJP. Look at a recent article by Praful Bidwai, belonging to a group made up of leftists and other 'secularists' in Rediff titled "India's U-turn for a despot". It is always funny to read him as you will find Bidwai contradicting himself and giving out astonishing statistics, which you will never know how he arrived at. To quote him:

Fears about the 'Maoist factor' are, to put it mildly, exaggerated. The Naxalite movement is indigenous. Less than a fifth of the 175 districts affected by it (in India) are anywhere near Nepal.

By using the word 'indigenous', Bidwai cleverly tries to mask the connections between Maoist groups in India & Nepal. Now, sample this:

India should not worry much about China and Pakistan becoming Nepal's substitute arms-suppliers. Pakistan is playing a small game, and has no major influence in Kathmandu. Neither Pakistan, nor more importantly China, would like to lose the greater benefits of peace with India for tiny potential gains in Nepal.

It would be better if somebody can remember Bidwai about IC-814 and circulation of fake currency notes. And, may be he still want to believe that Pakistan and China will prefer benefits of peace over the opportunity to destabilise India by using Nepali soil apart from the Bangladesh. Such Bidwais never had any problem with China's engagement with Myanmar or the military coup in Pakistan.

China never hesitated to meaningfully engage with the military regime in Myanmar and took several steps such as supplying arms, encouraging bilateral trade, building roads between two countries, encouraging military-to-military contacts, while we were blindly opposing the regime post-1988. When India woke up finally and started looking seriously into Myanmar during the Vajpayee government, thanks to Narasimha Rao's 'Look East' policy, much has been last. Chinese are way ahead of us in gas exploration in Myanmar, whereas we are just starting with two contracts. Given a huge potential of reserves available in Myanmar, we would have to act fast to secure the resources for our future energy needs. Energy is just one example of what we lost by isolating Myanmar. Security is another area of concern and the reader can read this to know more on security threats arising out China's engagement with Myanmar.

Given these factors, it would have been unwise to make yet another enemy in Nepal by denying assistance to the King, when he needs it more. And thinking again about the 'national interest' Manmohan Singh has done a good job, although after an initial goof up, by resuming the arms supply to Nepal and he deserves to be appreciated for his act despite opposition from the leftists, who want to have the authority without any associated responsibility. By doing this we've striked at least three goals:

• Making a friend in Nepal, which will be strategically important for our dealings with China
• Denying the maoists an upper hand in their battle with the King, which will have ripples in our own naxal infested districts
• Preventing Pakistan and China from meddling with Nepal and offering assistance to it thereby gaining upper hand with us

This is not to suggest that India is against democracy in Nepal. By providing this assistance to RNA, the Indian govt. would definitely have gone down in the minds of the public, press and political parties in Nepal, which again is not good. Right now, our decision to provide arms from RNA has been taken to address the short-term concerns. In the longer run the Indian govt. should continue to work with King and Nepali parties to restore the democracy in the himalayan kingdom.