Tag Archives: Rajya Sabha

100 Days of Narendra Modi

28 Thu Aug 2014

Posted by in India, South Asia

≈ Comments Off on 100 Days of Narendra Modi

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It was US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt who borrowed the term ‘100 Days’ from Napoleonic history to describe the feverish working of the 73rd US Congress which had sat for a 100 days from March 09 to June 17, 1933. The term was first used in a radio address on July 24 of the same year and contrary to popular belief, it does not refer to FDR’s first 100 days in office – he was sworn in five days earlier – but that session of Congress.

Since then, 100 Days has gone on to become a barometer of performance of all US presidents, much to their chagrin, and now an Indian prime minister. Few leaders have enjoyed the sort of control FDR and the Democrats had over the House and Senate in 1933 – a 196-vote margin in the former and a 23-vote margin in the latter. Unfortunately for Modi, he holds a small majority of 64 in the Lok Sabha but is 67 votes short of a majority in the Rajya Sabha.

Beyond numbers, the 100 Days barometer is unsuited to a system of government wherein the Executive is not as powerful as it is in a presidential system. Furthermore, the short time frame is not as fair a judge of a new government as an annual address to the nation, taking stock of the achievements, shortcomings, and ambitions of the next year, would be…the first one after a full year in office. As Sir Humphrey would have reminded his audience, diplomacy is about surviving until the next century whereas politics is about surviving until Friday afternoon.

In the realm of foreign policy, Modi’s 100 days have been been interesting; right off the bat, he invited the leaders of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) to his inaugural address and spent time each of them the day after his swearing-in ceremony. It was an interesting choice of guests, shunning all the major powers and even strategic partners like Israel or Japan. However, it appeared to be the first play of the new prime minister’s decision to pivot India towards Asia. During his conversation with Nawaz Sharif, Modi pushed Sharif again on the granting of Most Favoured Nation status by Pakistan to India, which has been pending for almost two decades. This initial optimism towards Pakistan was dampened after India cancelled foreign secretary-level talks after the Pakistani high commissioner to Delhi met with the leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) leaders.

In line with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s manifesto to reinvigourate SAARC, Modi’s first international visit was to Bhutan, followed by a visit to Nepal; his foreign minister, Sushma Swaraj, also visited Bangladesh. The flurry of foreign visits to the neighbours, has resulted in agreements on Indian aid, the joint development of hydroelectic power, and discussions on any grievances such as the India-Nepal Friendship Treaty of 1950.

Another major foreign policy initiative by Modi Sarkar came during the BRICS summit at Fortaleza right after the World Cup finals. The New Development Bank was established, with India as its first chairman and its headquarters in Shanghai. The bank provides yet another avenue for India to develop its soft power while fostering new markets for its goods and services. Modi had previously met with Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi in Delhi regarding Beijing’s investment in Indian manufacturing and special economic zones. China has also accepted India’s full inclusion into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO).

True to the election manifesto, Modi’s international contacts so far have prioritised economic development. Beyond BRICS and SAARC, India set a delegation to Vietnam, a country that will play a strategic role in any “Look East Policy.” Easier trade with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was also promised. However, his rejection of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Trade Facilitation Agreement despite pressure from the United States and other Western states has cooled the ardour for Modi’s reforms in the West. It indicates, however, a clear awareness India’s problems and the solutions it would need to develop. In fact, Modi’s medium-paced economic reforms show far more wisdom and maturity than many of his followers’ urgent appeals do.

The new government has also played host to several international leaders. Swaraj met with her Omani counterpart and Russian counterparts in her first month in office, as well as French (Laurent Fabius), German, British (William Hague, George Osborne), and American (John McCain, William Burns, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel) leaders. The international community’s eagerness to do business with India is a heartening sign that the acerbic rhetoric before the elections has given way to pragmatism in foreign capitals and boardrooms.

Two international crises intruded on Modi’s 100 Days – the kidnapping of Indians by ISIS in Iraq and Israeli action against Hamas in Gaza. Delhi’s response was deemed slow but there were hardly any options either. Thankfully, the crisis was resolved with many of the Indians returning home. On Gaza, the government initially refused to even hold a parliamentary discussion but in a very unpopular move with BJP supporters, eventually voted against Israel at a United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC).

India has also sealed a nuclear deal with Australia which is to be signed in September. Also on the books for the month just beyond his 100 Days is a visit to Washington DC and one to Tokyo, where the Indian delegation has already signed a historic defence agreement with Japan and has agreed to institute a 2+2 dialogue (foreign and defence minister) between them; Japan has such dialogues only with the United States, France, Australia, and Russia.

Modi has earned a reputation for being a meticulous planner and it shows; India’s initiatives with its neighbours and other partners have proceeded according to a plan and gone well. However, Delhi’s slow and muddled response to sudden crises reveals a weakness in the Ministry of External Affairs, one that has been known for decades. If Modi is to rely on his MEA over the next five years, some attention should be paid to acquring area studies, language, and cultural experts on regions of interest to India.

In the realm of security, Modi Sarkar has sped up clearance for critical border roads along the frontier with China and moved to strengthen troop deployment as well as civilian settlements in the region. Over ₹30,000 crores of procurement proposals have been cleared and 100% FDI in the defence sector has been allowed. Given the long gestation period of defence development, these initial steps indicate that the government is headed in the right direction – a little long-term reform without ignoring the pressing needs of the day.

On the whole, it has been a decent 100 Days. Compared to the lethargy of the previous administration, Modi Sarkar has indeed set a refreshing pace. While the list of concrete achievements may be small, Modi’s period in office has been equally small. By reaching out to SAARC and BRICS first, Modi did exactly what he had said he would during his campaign. The slight surprise was, however, his warm response to US overtures of friendship; many analysts had predicted a sour relationship between the two democracies given the visa imbroglio. Modi has proven to be a far more pragmatic leader than his critics or even his supporters had thought.

The most important task for Modi in his first 100 days in office was to maintain the enthusiasm about India, both within and without – India was the land of opportunity, the next growth miracle. The prime minister had to make people believe that the country is headed in the right direction; in that, he has succeeded. The barometer is inadequate for anything more substantial. As they say, Rome was not built in a day.

This post appeared on Daily News & Analysis on September 01, 2014.

A Question of Merit and Character

03 Thu May 2012

Posted by in India, Opinion and Response, South Asia

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

On April 26, 2012, Sachin R. Tendulkar – cricket icon, youth icon, sports icon, in short, India’s new G-d – was nominated to the Rajya Sabha. The announcement, which came as a surprise to most people within and without the sporting community, was not sudden – apparently, senior government figures, including minister of state for parliamentary affairs Rajiv Shukla, had been in touch with Tendulkar for a couple of weeks prior, and the news was announced only once the cricketing maestro had conveyed his acceptance to Sonia Gandhi.

Public reaction to the announcement was clearly divided. Many of Tendulkar’s uncritical fans applauded the move, while the Mumbaikar’s more inquiring fans (lets face it – lonely is the Indian who is not the Little Master’s fan) questioned his abilities to play cricket and contribute to Parliament simultaneously. Seen differently, the reaction broke down along partisan lines too – a huge segment of Tendulkar’s anti-Congress supporters felt that his decision was a tacit acceptance of the kleptocracy India has devolved into during the United Progressive Alliance’s (UPA) second term, while those with other political inclinations saw Tendulkar’s nomination as well-deserved and a breath of fresh air for the beleaguered UPA in the Rajya Sabha. Whatever the tilt, reactions were quite strong, resulting in a call to “unfollow” Tendulkar on twitter (not that he would care), and questions were raised on whether the Congress ‘bought’ Tendulkar’s acceptance in return for a Bharat Ratna or a Padma award.

The buzz around Tendulkar’s nomination has even elicited an article from one of India’s most eminent jurists, Soli J. Sorabjee. In a long-titled piece in the Indian Express on May 03, Sorabjee effectively debunks any legal arguments against Tendulkar’s nomination. Former Lok Sabha secretary general and constitutional expert Subhash C. Kashyap was also of the same opinion as Sorabjee. Regarding Tendulkar’s nomination in the ‘social service’ category, said Kashyap, “It looks like stretching it a little bit, but the government had been doing it in the past.”

Unfortunately, Sorabjee’s article misses the point – there is little doubt that there are no legal grounds for challenging Tendulkar’s nomination. The objections to it are personal, in that many people feel that Tendulkar’s name is being used by the Congress to purchase some credibility after the series of scandals that have rocked the government, and structural, in that some people wonder what merit Tendulkar possesses that would serve him well in Rajya Sabha proceedings. In the non-legal world, both are valid, though perhaps not actionable.

A question of merit

Nominations to India’s upper house of parliament are governed by Article 80 (3) of the Constitution, Sorabjee reminds us. According to the statute, 12 people may be nominated to the Rajya Sabha if they fall under the specified categories, namely “literature, science, art, and social services.” Presumably, the argument for the creation of a bicameral parliamentary system which allows the nomination of eminent personalities was an acknowledgement by the founders of the Indian republic that the country had very low literacy levels, let alone citizens with a public school education. The selection, rather than election, would, it was hoped, curb the crass populist impulses of the elected members of the lower house, the Lok Sabha. Sorabjee argues that the categories mentioned in the constitution are merely illustrative and not limiting – how else could former Chief Justice of India, Ranganath Misra, or Fali Nariman have been nominated to the Upper House? Sorabjee tries to persuade his readers further that sport can also be considered an art since it requires skill.

Neither of these points can be contested. In the jurist’s own words,

It bears emphasis that the purpose of nomination is that the nation may have the benefit of the views of eminent and experienced persons when legislative measures relating to a particular subject, with which they are familiar, are debated.

And therein lies the question – what subject has Tendulkar shown a mastery of that his experience can inform “legislative measures” in parliament? Clearly, Sorabjee thinks it is cricket (as do we all). It is indeed a sad state of affairs when parliament has to interfere in matters of corruption within an industry – one would have thought the general laws on fraud, embezzlement, etc. would apply without special hearing in the national legislature or special application. The best laws are precise in definition yet wide in scope, as Sorabjee surely knows. But then again, who am I kidding? This government thought the Ganguly-Chappell controversy (2005) worthy of attention from parliament. India’s parliament has nothing better to do, it seems, than busy itself in national minutia, and if this is conceded, perhaps Tendulkar’s nomination makes sense.

One thing Indians can be assured of is that their government does not understand the concept of consultants. Foreign policy is certainly one area in which New Delhi has seen it fit to bungle through decade after decade. Whereas in Europe or the Untied States, elected officials hire short-term consultants for different projects if expertise cannot be found within the bureaucracy, Indians (apparently) nominate parliamentarians to the Upper House. Taking Sorabjee’s point to its logical conclusion, we should also expect nominations to the Rajya Sabha among sex workers, sanitation workers, plumbers, carpenters, kho kho and kabbadi players, and a plethora of other professions similarly un- or under-represented. This is obviously untenable, and the correct approach (if corruption in cricket were truly the concern) would have been to consult with Tendulkar (among others) in the deregulation of the sport.

What is essential among leaders – parliamentarians in this case – is intellectual acuity. A broad, liberal education, logic, philosophy, and strong horse sense will be of use far more than ‘skill,’ particularly if the skill is in one area alone. Among India’s early leaders and framers of the constitution – Jawaharlal Nehru, BR Ambedkar, Rajendra Prasad, C. Rajagopalachari, S. Radhakrishnan – surely, this was the intent and the categories named under Article 80 (3) merely illustrative. Sorabjee insists that the statute be understood in spirit, and he is right – but his reading of it is just as problematic as Tendulkar’s critics’. As for Tendulkar himself, he could not even lead eleven men, let alone 1.2 billion.

Sorabjee also falls back on the familiar refrain that such things have been done before, and he gives the example of Dara Singh, the wrestler, who was nominated to the Rajya Sabha in August 2003 by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Yet Sorabjee should realise that his example is exactly the reason why celebrities devoid of the right temperament should not be nominated. Dara Singh attended barely 76 of 127 sittings of the Rajya Sabha during his first year, and other celebrities have done worse – Hema Malini 50/127, Mrinal Sen 30/170, and Lata Mangeshkar 6/170 (!) sittings; Shabana Azmi’s record of 113/170 is the highest attendance rate among celebrities from the Arts. By repeatedly nominating from a group that has shown 66% attendance or less, successive Indian governments have shown that they care about the business of running India only 66% of the time – is that satisfactory for the ‘aam aadmi‘ that every political party loves to invoke?

A question of character

Tendulkar’s nomination to the Rajya Sabha has been further tainted by its association with the Congress Party, which has been severely hit by the revelation of one scam after another. This is what moderns term ‘guilt by association,’ or by the longer phrase, “Show me your friends and I’ll tell you who you are.” The Mish’ley, from the Tanakh, puts it more succinctly and poetically: Walk with the wise and become wise, for a companion of fools suffers harm (13:20), and in the New Testament, Paul quotes Menander, saying, “Bad company corrupts good character” (Corinthians 15:33). Among the Greeks, Aristotle states that if one of two good people who are friends becomes bad, the natural (and hence proper) course of action is to break off the friendship (Nicomachean Ethics, 1165b22). Tendulkar’s acceptance of the nomination by Congress thus reflects badly upon him.

The political equation is not binary – it is not that Congress is the only party that has committed egregious acts of corruption, sanctioned incompetence, encouraged violence, and reduced the political sphere to bread and circuses. The BJP, as well as the regional parties are equally to blame. Yet Tendulkar’s nomination stands out for its timing – coming so soon after a series of scandals and Anna Hazare’s agitation, there is strong anti-Congress sentiment across the country as the recent municipal and by-elections have shown. To choose to associate with Congress despite this will only be translated as acquiescence to their method of governance. Had the nomination taken place in 2004, it would probably have met with near-universal approval despite the question of merit; Tendulkar’s clean record on the cricket pitch just took a dent off the field.

The Late Republic

In many ways, India today resembles Rome after the destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE and before the rise of Julius Caesar in 49 BCE. The Late Republic, as historians call the period, was a time when an influx of new wealth and lack of crisis threw up populist leaders who circumvented laws and customs with abandon, hoarded ill-gotten wealth, ran down the administration of the eternal city, and corruption bloomed at every level of the state. In this populist orgy, Congress nomination of a cricketing god is the latest argumentum ad populum. That Tendulkar accepted the nomination – and let’s be honest: who wouldn’t be tempted? – only reiterates that he too, is merely a mortal. For a cricket-crazy nation that is thirsty for heroes, it must truly hurt the average Indian to criticise a legend who has achieved such heights and that too without courting any controversy. What Sorabjee has failed to realise, or at least articulate, is that in this world of cheap demagoguery, the protest against Tendulkar’s good fortune is the sound of the realisation that no giants walk among the people of India any more.

This post was originally written for the CRI and has been reproduced with permission.