• Home
  • About
  • Reading Lists
    • Egypt
    • Great Books
    • Iran
    • Islam
    • Israel
    • Liberalism
    • Napoleon
    • Nationalism
    • The Nuclear Age
    • Science
    • Russia
    • Turkey
  • Digital Footprint
    • Facebook
    • Instagram
    • Pocket
    • SoundCloud
    • Twitter
    • Tumblr
    • YouTube
  • Contact
    • Email

Chaturanga

~ statecraft, strategy, society, and Σοφíα

Chaturanga

Tag Archives: elections

Quo Vadis, Mr. Modi?

12 Mon Aug 2013

Posted by Jaideep A. Prabhu in India, Opinion and Response, South Asia

≈ Comments Off on Quo Vadis, Mr. Modi?

Tags

498A, 66A, corruption, elections, Food Security Bill, foreign policy, FSB, Hindu temple autonomy, India, Narendra Modi, National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, NREGA, religious personal law, security

It ought to be clear by now that neither the Indian National Congress nor the country’s media have any interest in critiquing Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujarat and the potential prime ministerial candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party. The regularly manufactured hungama over some trivial comment about puppies (not to mention his choice of headdress or the colour of his kurtas) is indicative of the intellectual depths Modi’s foes are trolling during what promises to be an election for the ages. It is therefore, ironically, left to someone more sympathetic to Modi to grill the man India’s upwardly mobile middle class seems to want at 7 Race Course Road next year.

It should be noted that, officially, the BJP has not declared Modi as their candidate for the nation’s top job. Modi himself has taken an innovative approach by playing the heir-apparent-in-waiting, so to speak, with his country-wide rallies coupled with his silence on his personal ambitions for 2014. Nonetheless, in the wake of what can only be called his pre-campaign speeches and given the likelihood of Modi becoming the BJP nominee, it is only right that that we seek answers from him on matters of national importance, forcing him to separate rhetoric from policy.

First, and very importantly in India’s present geopolitical environment, what are Modi’s thoughts on foreign policy? The BJP claims to be the party with a difference, but as Rajnath Singh said so recently, there is little it intends to change in the Congress’ steering of the ship of state. Does Modi agree with his Party’s president, or does he stick to his own view that, for example, Pakistan ought to be responded to in the same way it behaves with India? In the TV show, Aap Ki Adalat, a few months ago, Modi was vague about what that meant. The answer, though, is of the greatest importance to India, not least because of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and its infestation with terrorists. It is easy, sitting in Opposition, to mock the Congress-supported Aman ki Asha and advise that Delhi “stop writing love letters” to Islamabad, but what can Indians expect from a Modi-occupied Panchavati (PM’s residence)?

India’s foreign policy extends beyond its aggravating neighbour in the west. What are the Gujarat CM’s thoughts on India’s porous border with Bangladesh and the influx of thousands of illegal immigrants? Where does Modi stand on the Tamil imbroglio in Sri Lanka? Is the often witnessed fondness between Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha and Modi to be taken as his adoption of her views on the matter? Will those form Delhi’s official response to the island republic? How does Modi wish to improve relations with India’s other neighbours, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives? The arrogance of India’s foreign service bureaucrats has destroyed any warm welcome Indians once had in those states.

Critically, where does Modi stand on India’s relations with the superpowers – Russia, China, and the United States? Cables leaked by Wikileaks indicate that the United States thought Modi’s ascendancy would put an anti-American prime minister in power, and Russia has been worried of India’s recent drift towards the West in terms of military and commercial trade. China represents not only a worrying trade imbalance but also a security risk on the border as well as in the cyber domain. What is Modi’s proposed course through these treacherous shoals? Furthermore, can Tokyo expect its relations with Gandhinagar to be promoted to the national level? How will Modi play India’s cards in the increasingly important Indian Ocean Region?

What little Modi has uttered on India’s external affairs makes no sense to anyone classically trained in international relations – his suggestion that each state have their own representatives to countries they trade with devolves foreign trade relations to states, something that has not worked well in the past (remember the US Articles of Confederation?). His belief that India can do without organisations such as the United Nations is questionable; for example, Indian troops in blue helmets can be effective ambassadors of the country too. The forum, if not a positive force, at least acts as a venue for damage control when thorny issues such as Kashmir, environmental guidelines, and international issues of interest to India such as global laws for the internet, nuclear policy, terrorism, and R2P interventions are discussed. The Man From Gujarat seems to limit his view of the Ministry of External Affairs’ portfolio as “trade + Pakistan,” a worrying attitude to have as India strengthens ties with countries as far-flung as Australia, Japan, Israel, and the United States.

Second, on security: Modi has certainly ticked off all the boxes on a politician’s check list of terms to spout, such as “zero tolerance.” However, this silver bullet does not seem to have solved the problem anywhere in the world. On other issues, like defence production indigenisation, Modi has expressed support. Yet that is the same rhetoric we have heard from the Congress for decades; few politicians argue that India must import all its weapons systems, so what exactly does Modi intend to do differently? Then there was, of course, what can only be described as a feet-in-mouth moment at the India Today Conclave where the Gujarat chief minister proposed that the Border Security Force install solar panels along the border with Pakistan. Mr. Modi, your panels will not stop Pakistani tanks, and nor should the military be deployed for civilian tasks. In addition, an ocean of panels obstructing clear vision of the border might in fact aid infiltrators in avoiding detection!

Third, the BJP’s likely prime ministerial candidate has also spoken about increased federalism. Like any idea, it has its strengths and weaknesses. For those paying attention to Indian politics, would Modi please clarify what his vision of the idea looks like? India’s states already have trouble seeing eye to eye on a variety of issues, water sharing being among the more prominent – in this climate, particularly with linguistically based identities, are strong states and a weak centre not a cause for concern?

Fourth, Modi has made good governance the foundation of his political message, and it seems that he has personally delivered on his promise. However, not everyone in the BJP is Narendra Modi, and it remains to be seen how he will act on corruption within his own ranks. Though the Congress Party has drilled to new depths in its corruption, the BJP is no paragon of virtue either and coming to power only increases the opportunities for a little side income. Furthermore, how would Modi deal with corruption among alliance partners whose support would be crucial, especially since the BJP is not expected to secure anywhere close to 272 seats next year?

Fifth, a key concern – real or not – for many is where Modi draws the line between minority protection and minority pandering. It is undeniable that the Congress has been opportunistically pandering to minorities, and this has earned the ire of many not in the BJP too. Modi has been clear in his actions if not words that his regime will not continue this partial treatment, and his opposition to educational scholarships to religious minorities is ample proof of that. The issue becomes murkier when it comes to noise pollution by religious buildings, evangelicalism, and personal law. Matters become even more complex when one considers the deep schisms within Islam, for example, and the different interpretations of sharia. In addition, not all markers of religious identity are problematic in a liberal, multi-cultural democracy – while sharia marital jurisprudence and certain aspects of the dress code come under frequent attack, hygiene, ritual obligations, and dietary laws ought not be of concern to outsiders. Any genuinely neutral humanist would agree that Islamic personal law needs to be rescued from orthodoxy, but what mechanism does Modi have to bring all parties to the table in good faith? Would he dare push for the constitutionally mandated adoption of a Uniform Civil Code?

Sixth, the BJP has visibly protested several of the Congress’ policies, some on administrative differences and others on ideological grounds. The question is, if they have power, what policies will they actually reverse? Will it have the parliamentary mandate? Will it succumb to political pressure and co-opt the questionable legislation? Does it dare touch Article 370? Section 66A? 498A? The Food Security Bill or the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act? Will it make Hindu temples autonomous from state takeovers?

As the recent transfer of power from George W Bush to Barack Obama has demonstrated, behind much of the chest-thumping of politicians, there usually lies a continuity of policy between different administrations.

At a Twitter conference in Bangalore last year, a senior BJP leader, when asked about freedom of expression and S. 66A, responded that the law was not bad in itself but was poorly implemented; he then proceeded to give an example of some brewery using the Hindu goddess Durga on its logo. Combined with Modi’s attempt to ban Jaswant Singh’s book on Mohammad Ali Jinnah a couple of years ago, one wonders if the state machinery would not just be turned around to enforce a different shade of intimidation.

Finally, economics is seen as Modi’s strong suit. It would be interesting to hear where he strikes the balance in the Hayek – Keynes (or Bhagwati – Sen, if you wish) debate for India. On the one hand, Modi has worked very hard to attract investors, both foreign and domestic to his state, but on the other, his response to the FDI reforms suggested was lukewarm. The (de)merits of the proposal aside, it is evident that a country with India’s population and poverty statistics needs both, investment and a smidgen of welfare. Ideally, even the welfare would be so structured as to build capability for further growth and reduction of non-revenue generating spending. How does Modi intend to synchronise his economic and human development policy? While he mocked the notion of inclusive growth yesterday in Hyderabad, Modi’s own state has not taken as hard a free market line as his rhetoric would have us believe. Modi is too shrewd to believe in a false economic binary like welfare vs. growth, so could we please have something other than rhetoric?

Modi has certainly asked a lot of good questions in a spate of recent speeches at the India Today Conclave, the SRCC in Delhi, Bangalore, Fergusson College in Pune, and Hyderabad. His counter offer, however, is not clear. Just because a party is not in power does not mean it has stopped governing – Opposition is also a critical role in a democracy and one in which the BJP has failed miserably. Modi has at least put together a cogent critique, but what are his solutions?

It must be remembered that the Gujarat chief minister has not yet been nominated as a prime ministerial candidate. The questions raised herein are in anticipation of that eventuality and also in frustration with the present tamasha around Modi. It must also be noted that the Congress has been completely mum about their choice for the prime minister’s chair. Perhaps it wants to protect Rahul Gandhi from direct comparisons to a man who has demonstrated immeasurably greater results and achievements in public life. As for other contenders, I am still searching in my dictionary for “Third Front.”

None of this is to say that Modi or the eventual Congress candidate do not have answers to our questions – they might. One would hope that they’d also be shared with the citizens in a timely manner. Modi has raised the level of political discourse in India from empty sloganeering to development and governance – it remains to be seen if he can live up to his own standards on a pan-India basis.


This post appeared on Daily News & Analysis (DNA) and Fair Observer on August 12, 2013.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

Iran in the Voting Booth

14 Fri Jun 2013

Posted by Jaideep A. Prabhu in Iran, Middle East

≈ Comments Off on Iran in the Voting Booth

Tags

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ali Khamenei, elections, Guardian Council of the Constitution, Hassan Rouhani, Hezbollah, Iran, Mohamed Reza Pahlavi, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Mohammad Khatami, nuclear, Saeed Jalili, Syria

Iran goes to the polls today and observers wait with bated breath for the result, an odd situation considering that despite regular elections, Iran is not truly a democracy. Iran’s ‘elections’ are rigged from the start – only candidates approved by the Shora-ye Negahban-e Qanun-e Assassi, the Guardian Council of the Constitution, are allowed to stand, and the results are often unpredictable and followed by accusations of rigging.

At 08 00, Tehran time, 66,000 polling stations opened across the country for over 50 million people to choose from six presidential candidates, and 207,000 local council seats. Polling remained open until 22 00 across Iran and until 23 00 in Tehran due to long lines. Voter turnout has been rumoured to be above 75%. Over 450 foreign journalists covered the elections.

Opinion polls conducted yesterday indicate that Hassan Rouhani, a law doctorate from Glasgow Caledonian University (though some doubts have been expressed), is the favourite with 38% of the respondents and Tehran’s mayor, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, second with 25%. Rouhani, endorsed by former presidents Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, is seen as the best moderate choice against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s man, Saeed Jalili.

Yet whoever wins the elections, little is likely to change. No candidate will question fundamental policies such as Iran’s support of Bashar al-Assad in Syria or its nuclear programme. Contrary to media wisdom, Iran is far more nationalist than it is Islamic, and issues vital to Iran’s strategic well-being will not be easily negotiated away. One reason for this is that the president of Iran does not have the final say in policy-making – according to the Iranian constitution, the office of the Supreme Leader is the most powerful in the land. The president is the second most powerful, more concerned with quotidian implementation of the constitution.

Another reason is that the vetting by the Guardian Council would have already disbarred any candidate liable to rock Iran’s foreign or security policy boats. A third reason is that any Western hope that a new president might be able to put the brakes on Iran’s nuclear programme, reduce its support to Syria, or abandon Hezbollah is pure fantasy – Iranians are far more nationalist than given credit for, usually misunderstood because of the media penchant for portraying them as crazed Islamic radicals. Tehran’s Islamic government, despite its public anti-Israel rhetoric, continued buying arms from Tel Aviv until 1992, and the nuclear programme that the ayatollahs are fiercely defending was initiated under Shah Mohamed Reza Pahlavi in 1957.

While the international community has little skin in Iran’s elections, the outcome will certainly affect ordinary Iranians. As Karim Sadjadpour notes, the president can play a major role in managing the economy, Iran’s “domestic atmosphere, and its international image… Whereas Khatami is most remembered for his slogan calling for a dialogue of civilizations, Ahmadinejad will be remembered for his Holocaust revisionism and diatribes against Israel.” In addition, a new president brings new personnel to important administrative positions in Tehran as well as in the provinces and they could change the present pervasive flavour of hopelessness in the country.

As polls closed around the country, the counting of votes has already begun in Iran. Sources tweeting from Iran indicate that Rouhani and Ghalibaf are the likely first and second placed candidates as the opinion polls predicted, but in a six-way election, no candidate is likely to acquire over 50% of the popular vote. Therefore, a second round run-off will be held on June 21 between the top two candidates in the first two rounds.

While many people do not believe in Rouhani, the backing of previous moderate presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami seems to have gained him many votes. Ghalibaf seems to have benefited from his tenure as the mayor of the capital city and his image as someone who might be able to improve the country’s economy. Iranian voters are also far too realistic to believe that Khamenei will refrain from tampering with the voting, and some still expect a last-minute Jalili surge.

An old Indian adage goes, “It takes two hands to clap.” If the new Iranian president is unable to persuade the West into reducing sanctions by conceding some ground on the nuclear issue, Iran’s top executive will be busy trying to woo countries to continue trading with Iran despite the US and EU stranglehold. The president’s power to influence the economy will be weakened, and to maintain control over a population already restless with the state of the economy, social reforms (if any are planned) will likely be put on the back burner. The winning candidate’s presidency could be defined more by countries like India, China, Korea, and Japan than by domestic factors. As the French seem to be fond of saying, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.


This post was published at Niti Central on June 15, 2013.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...

What Israel Said at the Ballots

23 Wed Jan 2013

Posted by Jaideep A. Prabhu in Israel, Middle East

≈ Comments Off on What Israel Said at the Ballots

Tags

Benjamin Netanyahu, elections, Gaza, HaBayit HaYehudi, Hatnua, Iran, Israel, Jerusalem, Likud, Naftali Bennett, Palestine, Tzipi Livni, West Bank, Yair Lapid, Yesh Atid, Yisrael Beiteinu

As Israel’s elections drew to a close last night, incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu squeaked through to retain his position as the country’s most powerful official. In an election that saw voter turnout at over 66%, the highest since 1999, Netanyahu’s Likud won 31 seats, down from 42 last time, while Yesh Atid secured a surprising 18, Labour 17, Naftali Bennett’s HaBayit HaYehudi and Shas 11 each, Tzipi Livni’s Hatnua and the far-Left Meretz 7 each.

The results reiterate the truism many policy analysts, myself included, are prone to forget – that politics is about domestic concerns and even foreign policy must play second fiddle. Contrary to what the media played up – Iran’s nuclear quest and the squabble between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama – Israelis threw up a surprise by voting for Yesh Atid in large numbers. Yair Lapid, the leader of the party and a former host of a popular TV show, campaigned solidly on economic issues concerning Israel’s large middle class. In his Yediot Aharanot column, he challenged the government, “This is the big question asked by Israel’s middle class, the same sector on whose behalf I am going into politics. Where’s the money? Why is it that the productive sector, which pays taxes, fulfills its obligations, performs reserve duty and carries the entire country on its back, doesn’t see the money?”

It is amusing to see Yair Lapid being proclaimed a centrist by the media. Lapid has consistently argued against the return of East Jerusalem to Palestine and the retention of large parts of the West Bank under Israeli control. Though Lapid claims to be open to a two-state solution, the truncated Arab state he envisions is clearly unacceptable to the Palestinians.

As many observers have said, the election results are protest vote against Netanyahu and his Likud partner, Yisrael Beiteinu. As the social protests of 2011 indicated, many Israelis are unhappy with the rising cost of living. Higher taxes, higher unemployment, and the rising cost of food, health, housing, utilities, and education have created strains in Israeli society. In addition, the budget deficit stood at 4.2% last year, double of what was projected. The Federation of the Israeli Chambers of Commerce has marked increased participation of minorities, stronger property rights, easing of stringent customer protection laws, and liberalising the economy as priorities for the incoming government.

Interestingly, despite the deficit, a poll found that Israelis supported increased public spending on healthcare, education, and housing, suggesting that cuts come primarily from settlement-building, followed by infrastructure and defense. Israelis also showed a preference for higher taxes on luxury goods, including alcohol and tobacco, and an increased capital gains tax, while lowering it on basic items.

On the whole, no one has been impressed by Netanyahu’s fear-mongering over Iran, but as public support of Mivtza Amud Anan in November 2012 showed, citizens do care about security. This is clear from the migration of many Likudniks to Yesh Atid, another Right party, than to the Left with Labour or even Hatnua. On Iran, however, the friction between the country’s civilian administration and security professionals has not gone unnoticed. Ex-Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, has repeatedly described Netanyahu’s posture on Iran as stupid, while current Mossad director, Tamir Pardo, insists that Iran is not an existential threat. Benny Gantz, the Army Chief of Staff, told journalists in April 2012 that latest reports indicate that Iran has not yet decided to build a nuclear weapon.

The Harpaz report, released just a few days ago by the State Comptroller, revealed the magnitude of the internecine conflict between the joint Minster of Defence and Deputy Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, and former military chief of staff, Gabi Ashkenazi. Worse, former Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin’s long interview in Yediot Aharanot paints a dismal picture of Israel’s top two leaders – Barak is arrogant and not interested in others’ opinions, while Netanyahu is indecisive, insecure, and more concerned about his image. Diskin is not the first to reveal the dysfunctional dynamic, but he is the senior-most official with most access to the establishment.

The high-stakes catfight in the top echelons of the country’s government has left many voters disgruntled and wondering if their leaders have not been blinded to the dreams and aspirations of the common man by the hubris of power. Last night’s vote was certainly a protest, but it was not a choice between security and economics. Lapid is hardly much softer on Palestine, and certainly not HaBayit HaYehudi (whose seat count also went up from 3 to 11) or Shas! If anything, Israelis are tired of having to choose between the economy and their survival…and they are also tired of the antics of the past three years. I am inclined to agree.


This post was published at Niti Central on January 23, 2013.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →

Chirps

  • Elysium's new reactor eats nuclear waste: youtube.com/watch?v=C6BGLg… | See? Nuclear "waste" is a red herring 5 days ago
  • Iran resumes uranium enrichment up to 20% at Fordow: bbc.in/38akZug | Yeah, how has that walking out of th… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 2 weeks ago
  • Along the LoAC, India is clumsier in 2020 than it was in 1962: bit.ly/3o8z29g | Or at least, a sparrow wou… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 2 weeks ago
  • נובי גוד שמח קמראדים 🙂 youtube.com/watch?v=W_6Vs8… 3 weeks ago
  • US authorises sanctions in case of Chinese interference in selection of next Dalai Lama: bit.ly/37T5lTR |… twitter.com/i/web/status/1… 3 weeks ago
Follow @orsoraggiante

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 213 other followers

Follow through RSS

  • RSS - Posts

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • The Mysterious Case of India’s Jews
  • Polarised Electorates
  • The Election Season
  • Does Narendra Modi Have A Foreign Policy?
  • India and the Bomb
  • Nationalism Restored
  • Jews and Israel, Nation and State
  • The Asian in Europe
  • Modern Political Shibboleths
  • The Death of Civilisation
  • Hope on the Korean Peninsula
  • Diminishing the Heathens
  • The Writing on the Minority Wall
  • Mischief in Gaza
  • Politics of Spite
  • Thoughts on Nationalism
  • Never Again (As Long As It Is Convenient)
  • Earning the Dragon’s Respect
  • Creating an Indian Lake
  • Does India Have An Israel Policy?
  • Reclaiming David’s Kingdom
  • Not a Mahatma, Just Mohandas
  • How To Read
  • India’s Jerusalem Misstep
  • A Rebirth of American Power

Management

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com
Considerate la vostra semenza: fatti non foste a viver come bruti, ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza.

Blog at WordPress.com.

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: