Prohibition and who tends to gain from it

Poll promises are seldom realized. We were promised a million benefits in 2014 and I was rest assured that only a handful would come true, optimistically. So when Nitish Kumar said that he is going to enforce a moratorium on the sale and consumption of alcohol, I was pretty sure he won’t. Alcoholism in india is a major problem. Alcohol use can affect all parts of the body but particularly affects the brain, heart, liver, pancreas, and the immune system. This can result in mental illness, Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome, an irregular heart beat, liver failure, and an increase in the risk of cancer, among other diseases. Drinking during pregnancy can cause damage to the baby resulting in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. It definitely acts as a stimulus for domestic violence particularly in the rural areas where educated class is virtually non-existent. (http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/tc/alcohol-abuse-and-dependence-topic-overview)
In early 2016 the Bombay high court passed a judgement declaring that what people eat is not of the government's concern. So should the state interfere in alcohol consumption laws? The answer to that could be contentious depending on your propensity towards religious practices and customs and the level of liberty you deem fit for the society. All major religions proscribe alcohol, some prohibit it completely. But religion should not be used as a scale to map any policy. Politically speaking the state follows no religion. Moreover if religion did in fact act as a tool to drive people away from alcohol, people wouldn’t drink in the first place.

So, should the state enforce a moratorium based on health hazards? There are about 3 million alcohol related deaths each year in the world. In India, up to 1.5% of the people are under heavy usage of alcohol and approximately a quarter of road accidents happen under the influence. (http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/alcohol-consumption-rising-fast-in-india-oecd-report/) Looking at these numbers, the state can have its reservations on alcohol and enforce a complete ban. But won’t that be a pyrrhic victory? People would consider you autocratic, forceful and intolerant. People will fear that the government will ban other food items that cause health problems. Their favorite food, their cola, their coffee and what not.

Alcohol and domestic violence are quite related but don’t have a cause and effect relation. Alcohol consumption won’t lead to domestic violence but surely propounds the latter in a relation already under duress. (http://m.timesofindia.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/Alcohol-use-leads-to-domestic-violence/articleshow/29504962.cms). Rural areas are prone to alcohol induced domestic violence more that urban or semi urban areas. There are more educated people, especially woman in urban areas than in rural areas. This leads to a better understanding of the law of the land. Being educated and independent also allows women to move out of a relationships where alcohol induced violence is happening and still carry on with their lives. In rural areas, women generally depend on their partners for livelihood since either they aren’t educated enough to work or are not allowed to do so by their family. Social structure in villages are much more stringent that in cities and a woman who walks out of a marriage will most likely be ridiculed by the everyone alike. Such issues leave them with no options but to get physically and mentally abused. (http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2016/06/alcohol-ban-bihar-women-happy/).
Now whether a moratorium on alcohol will reduce domestic violence and save women from physical and mental abuse in Bihar which is mainly a rural state is for us to see in the next few years. But it’s the bootleggers who'll be minting money all the while.

Further reading:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/25/tamil-nadu-women-alcohol-banned-prohibition-domestic-violence
http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/bihar-liquor-ban-simply-put-behind-nitishs-liquor-ban-zeal-a-social-problem-and-political-math/

The great Indian power diplomacy chapter 7- The Mahagathbandhan

I'd earlier mentioned that Bihar elections will be crucial for every political party. The longevity of Modi wave was always being questioned and Bihar elections put an end to it. What came as a shock to me was the transfer of power within the Mahagathbandhan. Going by the nationwide support for BJP, it’s hard to fathom them winning fewer seats than last elections. One could argue that BJP won more seats last time because of its alliance with JD(U). One could also argue that BJP played the Hindu card way too strongly, which vexed the minority and lower caste. Not declaring the CM candidate could well be another reason for BJP’s defeat. BJP has always had a strong presence in Bihar and the general election(2014) would ratify that. They should retrospect how they managed to plunge so deeply in times when the whole country seems to support Narendra Modi.

Another issue that will surely come up in the parliamentary board meeting is how much should the prime minister be exposed to the public for party work. Modi made 31 public appearances in Bihar in the past few months: more than the number of campaigns conducted by the congress party. Since Modi was directly involved in this state elections, the loss is more for Modi than BJP. Polarization of public perception will also be discussed and mid-level leaders would be asked not to make statements that can be interpreted as anti-minority. The parliamentary board will definitely question itself for not naming a CM candidate and I can see them give up this practice hence forth. The only good that BJP can derive from this election is that their vote share has increased 16% to 24%. This might be a silver lining but it also questions BJP's approach. With 93 lakh votes(approx 30% more than the largest party RJD) BJP will be shooting themselves for ending up with a meager 53 seats. Anyways, having the biggest vote bank will definitely help them for future elections but this election is a big reality check for them.

Another question is how will the Mahagathbandhan function with 3 ex-CMs within its rank? 

Lalu is widely perceived to be the king-maker while Nitish is the fan favorite to take the post. Dark horses could be Lalu’s sons Tej Pratap and Tejashvi Yadav. Considering that RJD has won more seats, it is only logical to assume that Nitish kumar might as well face problems taking over the post for the third time. Lalu has mastered the art of caste based politics and it seems that he is not slowing down. Recently, Tejashvi prevaricated his role in the government but keeping in mind that the Yadavs have been away from power for well over a decade, Lalu would like to see his son pumped up to a major cabinet ministry, if not the chief minister's office.

What should also be questioned is Bihar electorate's vacillation. The vote share of single parties shows a different trend while the final seat share tells a different story. Urban Bihar is against caste based politics and has voted in large numbers for pro-development BJP while the rural areas are still getting fooled by minority appeasements. Lalu was expected to win a major chunk of Muslim votes and I'm sure he did and Nitish won over the OBC. It is after a very long time that the voters have shown such a polemic response. One thing is definitely clear, Narendra Modi has to look for a different approach to expedite his reforms as a Rajya Sabha majority looks slim.

A valley bloody and beautiful

It is not a two legged race as India suggests nor a three legged race as Pakistan suggests. It is a four legged race between India Pakistan separatists and terrorists. The Kashmir conflict is raked up by Pakistan in international forum incessantly with India proscribing any third party involvement. There have been three full scale wars and many more border skirmishes between the two countries. The result portrayed by the two do not coagulate and are simply not reliable. Internationally, Kashmir has been at the centre of talks in many bilateral and multilateral meets but none of them have ended conclusively. ​

​Primarily due to the Hindu Muslim friction, the Kashmir issue was first realized prior to the independence when princely state of Kashmir did not accede to either of the newly found countries. Raja Hari Singh decide to rule Kashmir as an independent state. During the time of partition, separatists from Pakistan started infiltrating the princely state and Raja Hari Singh turned towards Nehru for help. Only problem, Nehru wanted him to accede to India before the troops were sent in. Devoid of options, Hari Singh obliged. 

Fair and square?

Not even close. Now India had annexed the princely state of Junagadh on the pretext that it is a Hindu majority state with a Muslim rule and that it does not share a land border with Pakistan(Earl Mountbatten famously termed this situation as a "geographical compulsion"). A similar argument was put forth by the Pakistan government for Kashmir. It went haywire when India approached U.N. to intervene but later backed off saying Kashmir issue will be settled internally. India later agreed to involve Pakistan in decision making but the two countries have so many issue that have to be settled before India agreed to even talk about Kashmir. Talks have been cancelled twice in the past year. Pakistan believes that people of Kashmir should also be involved. A group of separatists locally known as Hurriyat want to be a part of the dialogue and they have Pakistan’s backing. India on the other hand believes that no separatists will be involved in the talks as they are not democratically elected and their intentions are against the sovereignty of India. Considering the fact that Hurriyat leaders are random guys from north Kashmir who have never been unanimously elected or nominated to be Kashmir's interlocutor, India’s stand is acceptable. Moreover, in the recently concluded Ufa summit, the two countries agreed to talk about terrorism and only terrorism in the NSA level talks. Whispers will tell you that the Pakistan’s army was not very happy with the talk anyways. This is like deja vo since exactly a year ago, talks were called off for the same reason. Back then Basit, Pakistan’s high commissioner to India met Hurriyat leaders before the Secretary levels talk literally forcing India to call off the talks. Pakistan believes that they have always consulted Hurriyat leaders in the past and it should not be reason to call off the talks now. 

​The first(and the most important) of the many issues still unsettled is cross border terrorism. India believes that a dialogue cannot be conducted if border infiltration continue. Pakistan has been denying any involvement in cross border skirmishes and believes it is being carried on by separatists and terrorists from. Regardless of what Pakistan says, there is hardly any doubt about their involvement. 

​This logjam can only be bypassed if India and Pakistan are able to come up with a conducive environment and allow some respite to the other country by backing off a little bit. The iron stand taken by either is just not acceptable specially from India, a country touted to be a world leader in the coming decades. This kind of juvenile behavior will lead us no where and the people Kashmir will suffer perpetually.

*the title has been taken from INDIA AFTER GANDHI- R Guha.

Chapter-6 Optimism and Pragmatism

Arvind Kejriwal probably took the saying an enemy’s enemy is a friend way too seriously now that he has sided with Nitish and Lalu. The alliance with Nitish is not an issue, what might backfire is his support to Lalu, someone he had heavily censured in the past. At least he now understands the difference between optimism and pragmatism. He had sanctimoniously denigrated congress for shielding Lalu during UPA 2 and now lending support to him seems nothing less than frivolous. He has become more anti-incumbency than anti-corrupt and this turn of event proves how politicians play little games for power. Kejriwal atleast understands politics now. He is definitely politically correct but factually ignorant. The main purpose of AAP and IAC was to weed out corruption and come up with an anti graft bill to criminalize corruption at the highest level. The motto now is to beat Modi. 

​

​

Supporting Lalu has a two fold conclusion. First, Kejriwal has developed some political acumen. Second, by supporting someone who supposedly is the epitome of political corruption in India, he has lost his USP of being anti-corrupt. It is both good and bad for AAP, they need to quickly come up with some sort of an explanation to defend this move. Not long ago, Kejriwal and Anna were in revolution mode, now Anna has been sidelined and Kejriwal is dancing on thin ice. Remember, Bihar is a strong ground for Modi and with the new package announced it will be difficult to beat BJP if not impossible. Moreover, Kejriwal’s ideology is also at stake and he might end up losing everything if JDU loses. BJP will destroy AAP on public forum for supporting an alleged criminal and blame them for putting power over ideology raking up past memories of congress's outside support to AAP in Delhi. In any case, this election is going to be important for all parties as it will tell us whether or not the Modi wave has ended. 

Chapter 5- Religious Evangelism

Prior to independence, RSS was mostly involved in social work with little political insinuation. It was only after the independence that RSS' interest in central politics burgeoned. Even though they were banned, four times, RSS' intentions to break into politics was clearly evident. The second ban was imposed right after the independence. It was alleged that RSS had a role to play in Gandhi’s assassination. They were acquitted soon after as no such evidence was found. The general public perception of RSS is quite baffling as it is supported and opposed equally. The leftists have religiously opposed RSS because of their Hindutva agenda. The congress and accomplice believe that RSS wants a saffron India which is too radical a thought because of the varied religions followed in India.  RSS has been very subtle with Hindutva. They cannot be monikered as a communal party but their propensity towards Hindu agenda cannot be ignored either. 

​
​Their involvement in communal riots are well know but nothing has been substantiated against them. The liberhan commission did blame Sangh Parivaar for the babri masjid demolition, but the Indian government rejected that claim in white paper. RSS has been referred to as the "Indian version of fascism". That might be going a little overboard, but it does hold some ground. However, their concern for India’s future cannot be questioned. What remains debatable is their jingoism that sometimes streamlines towards Hindutva. Their views on certain issues are contentious, to say the least. Even though they’ve never conspicuously stated their intent, the babri masjid demolition and other such instances were enough to prove their pro–Hindu mentality. Politically speaking, RSS has been quite successful with two full time prime ministers coming from their ranks. Neither of the two ever showed communal behaviour. RSS is also considered to be the governing body of BJP. Almost all BJP leaders are either ex-RSS members or are heavily supported by them. It is alleged that all the party decisions are made after consultation with RSS. This has lead the opposition to blame BJP directly for being a communal party. The other political parties have maintained their secular image be it congress, JDU, left or any other major party. This form of secular semblance results in minority appeasement during election. 
​

​
​The politics in India is marred by religious compassion. Many leaders have walked the extra mile to gather minority votes. Minority appeasement is the single biggest bigotry of Indian politics and will remain so till voters start to vote on merit rather than common religion. Political parties spend a fortune on advertising their compassion for the minorities. 
​

​
​Unfortunately, parties will continue to do this as long as they taste successful, and till now, minority appeasement has never disappointed them.

Wake up and smell the coffee

                                  Epigraph

A detour from the usual line of work. Enjoy..!!

It is ironical that western countries like US vehemently oppose any kind of discrimination amongst people yet a few decades ago, their constitution allowed for slavery and slave trading. Countries in Europe vigorously fight for women’s equality, yet in France women had to ask permission from their husbands to work until as recently as 1965. There are countries where women are not allowed to drive. Women’s suffrage was the primary reason for the first wave of feminism in the 1920s. 

​

A lot of countries have, in recent history, conducted biological and chemical warfare experiments on POWs. The Rwanda genocide is etched in everyone’s memory. Ethnic cleansing is still going on in many countries. And regardless of the state’s involvement in these activities, it is evident that a state’s current policies cannot be used as a metric to gauge ethics. 

​

Most well known thinkers assume and ratify that morality changes over the course of time. Something acceptable today might be opposed in the coming years as people become more open to accepting different opinions. But what they fail to accept is the fact that the bottomline of morality hasn’t changed since humans started evolving. Something considered inhumane 2000 years ago is still inhumane. Like murder, rape, blasphemy, buggery among other things. 

​

The grey area of morality is what keeps switching sides. This might include homosexuality, polygamy, polyandry, slavery and anti-neo-feminism among other things. However IMO, the grey area is not exactly grey as it can be abridged to the right of personal choice and freedom, something all successful civilizations believe in. Yet many modern sovereigns states have usurped this right from their citizens based on religious intolerance and or social upkeep. 

​

Modern nations have religiously opposed gay rights movement, waves of feminism, anti-warcrime movements and on some occasions, people have even been incarcerated for fomenting rebellions. All this is done in the semblance to maintain peace. Internally, this is done to keep the orthodox community in the society happy. And be that as it may, we have to make sure that the ethics related to governance should not be benchmarked by the current policies. The future generation is going to be more liberal and understanding than the present generation. There should be no limit to personal space and freedom, and benchmarking your current performance will exactly do that. 

A better method for policy making in this aspect is not unknown. Public opinion should be considered when formulating laws. Some sort of a plebiscite should be a viable alternative to record public opinion. This in turn will be used by lawmakers in the final decision making. 

​

However, in a nutshell, policy makers don't want liberal public policies but stable public policies. Policies that are acceptable to the modern as well as the orthodox community. 

Chapter-4 The Alliances

For once, I felt that a single party majority was impossible because of the emergence of regional parties and the leverage they seem to have created in state level politics. Under these circumstances, pre-poll alliances are the only option national parties are left with to creep through to majority. 

​
UPA did try to form an alliance before 2014 elections but failed nonetheless. BJP relied heavily on the Modi wave. JDU quitting the NDA was definitely a setback but the whole country seemed to be in awe of Modi, which eventually gave them a single party majority, something the country had not seen in over 30 years. 

​
​
Even with a majority at center, BJP did form an alliance but clearly it was more of an outreach program than inclusive politic. Now BJP is known to be at right wing, pro-hindutva group. They belong to the Sangh Parivaar umbrella and are under constant influence of the RSS which is known to be a extreme right, Hindu national party. Not going for autonomous power was a smart move which eventually paid off a few months later with two state level coalition governments. Their major victory came with the JnK election where they came to power for the first time. 

​
​
Unaided, BJP would have still been in center, but is it possible for regional parties to form some sort of an alliance and win general elections? Can they, in future stop playing second fiddle and run the government?

No. 

There was a time when regional parties would talk about a third or a fourth front(more recently, the federal front). It looked promising too, but it’s just so vaguely managed that a power struggle within this front will happen sometime in future leading to major ramifications for the whole country. Fortunately, voters know this. To settle this contention, I would point out to the premiership of Morarji Desai, which eventually fell as Raj Narain and Charan Singh withdrew support.  The Bihar elections will be interesting. Voters are know to be intuitive and can give janata Parivaar a shot, but the real question is whether or not Janata Parivaar's government will be able to run its course, considering that there are 3 ex-CMs in the alliance. 

​
​
The regional parties can therefore be considered as some sort of a contract-based body, only there to provide a supporting role, never really enjoying any degree of autonomous power themselves. This sure is for central politics, the state politics is altogether a different scenario. Anyways, does this make them less important? 

Not at all.

With an all increasing difference in opinion, voters are being segregated continuously, no one is pro-party, we’ve moved on to being pro-candidate. This gives regional parties the scope to act as vote cutters. Weak candidates from strong parties, when pitted against candidates representing regional parties will not be able to effectively use their party’s fanfare for personal victory. This precisely is the leverage I was talking about earlier