Sania Mirza is an apt ambassador for Telangana

Sania Mirza

In India, political leaders often make baseless allegations to run down opponents. But even by their low standards, Telangana BJP leader K Laxman’s statement that tennis star Sania Mirza cannot be appointed as the new state’s ambassador because she is the “daughter-in-law of Pakistan” is objectionable. Mr Laxman was protesting against the K Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR) government’s decision to appoint Ms Mirza, who is married to former Pakistani cricketer Shoaib Malik, as the ambassador to promote the state nationally and internationally. The objection is nothing but a desperate attempt to fan jingoistic passions and make political capital out of it. The government is well within its rights to appoint anyone it deems fit to further the name and brand value of the state. A prime example of this is Gujarat, which has appointed actor Amitabh Bachchan as the brand ambassador of Gujarat Tourism though he is not a resident of the state. Similarly, Shah Rukh Khan is the brand ambassador of West Bengal.
The view that Ms Mirza was appointed by the KCR government to appease the minority community in view of the coming elections to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation shows is stretching things a bit. It also shows the disrespect the politician — hopefully not the state unit of the party he represents — has for a sportsperson of Ms Mirza’s stature. The player received the Arjuna Award in 2004 and the Padma Shri in 2006 and has made India proud on many occasions. Ms Mirza is also the first Indian woman to win two Grand Slams, she won four gold medals at the 2003 Afro-Asian Games, six medals from three Asian Games, and two at the 2010 Delhi Commonwealth Games. Her career-best ranking of 27 in singles and five in doubles is the highest for an Indian woman in tennis.
Telangana is a new state and for its progress it not only needs an efficient government but also a responsible opposition. Even though it just has five MLAs in the 119-member assembly, the BJP in Telangana must work towards the development of the state and not create a storm in a teacup.

Naidu doesn't think that Modi will hamper TDP's chance this time

The return of Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader Chandrababu Naidu to the BJP-led NDA alliance, a decade after partying ways, does not come as a surprise. Recent opinion polls have suggested that if the TDP were to return to the NDA it would boost the chances of the alliance both in Telangana and Seemandhra. The confidence exuberated by leaders of both the BJP and the TDP on Sunday, when the tie-up was announced, reflected this. However, many would say that this deal will not be a game changer in the two would-be states. The BJP will be contesting 13 Lok Sabha seats and 62 assembly seats from undivided Andhra Pradesh, though the final plan is yet to be chalked out.
Mr Naidu is no longer the ‘hi-tech’, reformer chief minister he once was. The 1999 Time ‘South Asian of the Year’, who had the United States president and the British PM as guests to witness the IT revolution in Hyderabad, has been out of power for a decade and a lot has changed during this time. The Congress, which routed the TDP in 2004, may be a pale shadow of what it was, but other parties have moved into that political space. The K Chandrashekar Rao-led TRS and the Jaganmohan Reddy-led YSR Congress have gained where the two national parties and the TDP have lost. The alliance has also seen discontent within the TDP and in the state BJP unit — TDP members staged a protest outside Mr Naidu’s house and the BJP’s Telangana and Seemandhra unit chiefs were not present during the Sunday announcement. Mr Naidu, in an interview in November 2004, might have blamed the TDP’s poll debacle in the state on its alliance with the BJP — he even attributed the communal riots in Gujarat to have negatively impacted the TDP’s chances — but today political necessities have forced him to sing a different tune.
The TDP-BJP alliance is symbiotic in many ways: It gives the BJP an important ally in the southern state and the TDP a presence at the Centre, if an NDA government comes to power.

Is NaMo reaching out to the Muslims? Not in Uttar Pradesh

Rajnath Singh (left) and Narendra Modi

The importance of Uttar Pradesh in India’s electoral politics needs no elaboration. With 80 Lok Sabha seats, no party that wants to form a government at the Centre can ignore the state. Elections over the decades, with a few exceptions, have shown that the party which wins UP either forms the government at the Centre or becomes a major ally in a coalition running the government in New Delhi. Another reason that keeps UP in the spotlight is that it is home to many high-profile constituencies, like Rae Bareli, Amethi, Varanasi, Lucknow, etc. Varanasi, in UP, will probably be the most-talked about constituency as BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi and AAP’s Arvind Kejriwal are contesting from here. That Mr Modi chose Varanasi as one of the two seats he is contesting from reflects the state’s importance to the BJP.

Narendra Modi with Muslim leaders

With Muslims forming about 18% of the state’s population, their importance cannot be overlooked. Given this, it is surprising that of the 75 candidates the BJP has announced in UP, there is not even one candidate from the Muslim community. On the face of it an analysis on religious lines is not always the right approach, but, for a party that is claiming to be more ‘inclusive’ and keeping a distance from the hardline Hindutva it has been associated with, this void is glaring. The BJP, especially under Mr Modi, has made an effort — or it seems — to reach out to the Muslim community. Party president Rajnath Singh’s “try us once…” comment was widely perceived as an effort to bring the minority community closer to the BJP and thereby boost its chances in the elections. The party was quick to clarify that Mr Singh’s comment was not an apology for the 2002 riots in Gujarat, but an assurance that it will not shy away from apologising for any future mistake. Its list of candidates from UP, however, tell a different story.
The BJP is counting on the upper caste votes and is building on the support of the OBCs. Back-of-the-envelope estimates predict around 40 seats for the party in the state. In the state’s crowded electoral pool this is a commanding figure. But the party will have to put its money where its mouth is. This also gives other parties, especially the Congress that has fielded 11 Muslims from the state, a stick to beat the BJP. This is a criticism the BJP cannot wish away.

Modi-Powell meeting: Does Modi need the United States?

For anyone who has been following the campaign by political parties in India leading to the general elections this summer, the Hindustan Times report that United States ambassador to India Nancy Powell has got permission from the Centre to meet Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not come as a surprise.
If opinion polls are anything to go by, Washington will soon have to do business with a government in New Delhi headed by Modi. For the US, which holds the adage 'there are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests' as the bedrock of its diplomatic relations with foreign nations, it was natural to warm up to Modi. Clearly, both the US and Modi have come a long way since 2005 when the Gujarat CM was denied a US visa.
However, there are two points to take away from this US climb-down. The first: Is Washington trying to 'influence', albeit covertly, the political scenario in India? Citing this, many political parties have taken objection to Ms Powell's move. This is also because the US has a checkered past when it comes to 'influencing' elections (a recent example being the admission by former US defence secretary Robert Gates in his memoir that the US tried to delay and manipulate the 2009 Afghan presidential election outcome). Given this, the US embassy statement that the meeting was "part of our concentrated outreach to senior political and economic leaders which began in November to highlight the US-India relationship" can be taken with a pinch of salt.
The second: Is it really a victory for Modi? The party has rightly refrained from speaking about this proposed meeting in a shrill pitch and will do well to overcome the temptation to go to town tom-toming this as Modi's 'achievement'. If the BJP was to highlight this as an achievement, it can be accused of doublespeak and of being opportunistic.
Modi has grown in stature over the years despite the US and to a certain extent the US boycott has helped further his image as a 'desi' leader who 'is-not-a-American-stooge'.
In the crystal ball of Indian politics, Washington's retraction is a clear shot in the arm for the BJP's prime ministerial candidate. It does not require clairvoyance to see that countries, like the UK, the EU and now the US, are reacting after witnessing the 'Modi wave'.
When the political and diplomatic dust settles one thing is evident: This is a victory for Narendra Modi. But the question to be asked, in true 'NaMonomic' style is: Does Modi require the US or its endorsement at this point of time?
(This appeared in the Hindustan Times on February 11)

NaMo, RaGa.....politicians give facts a miss

Political leaders shooting off their mouth is nothing new. Often in the heat of addressing an audience politicians add, twist or delete historical events to suite the occasion. The problem arises when the public and an attentive media highlight these ‘white lies’. When caught politicians either stand by the comment or use the bogey of being ‘misquoted’. While some of these gaffes are controversial and insensitive, like Congress leader Beni Prasad Verma saying that “I am happy with this inflation”, many are comical and some are replete with fudged facts. Comments that twist historical facts expose the grasp our leaders have over history.

Many of the statements made by Gujarat chief minister and BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi seems to give facts a miss. Some of the examples are: statements saying that Alexander came up to the Ganges, that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to the Gupta dynasty, that China spends 20% of its GDP on education (Beijing devotes hardly 4%), that Gujarat under him empowered women while sex ratio has fell in the past decade and is below the national average. Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi also got it wrong when he referred to the ‘large 70-foot ashes with dead bodies inside’ in Uttar Pradesh in the heat of the state election campaign.

It not just national leaders who are prone to the gaffe bug. Topping the international list would be former Alaska governor Sarah Palin remarks that "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies" or "You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." Former US president George W Bush was so prone to mistakes that his ‘Bushisms’ like "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" have etched their place in public memory.
Some gaffes make us laugh while some appal us. Either way it is in the best interests of leaders that they pay more attention to their speeches — because the callous attitude shown towards what one says does not inspire confidence and reflect their commitment towards what they are capable, or willing, of doing.

Riots in India: A longing for justice

A Delhi sessions court by setting aside the CBI closure report on the 1984 Sikh riot case has brought to the front an issue that has been festering in the minds of thousands of its victims for almost three decades now. Riots, irrespective of where they happen or who are affected, not only bring untold misery but also leave scars that refuse to heal with time. Independent India has seen numerous riots: the 1969 riots in Ahmedabad, the 1984 Bhiwandi riots, the 1980 Morabadad riots, the Mumbai riots, the 2002 Gujarat violence, etc to name a few. Every now and then these blood-stained episodes in our history are brought to public gaze when fresh details emerge and court hearings occur. While there might be different accounts regarding the causes for a particular riot, there’s no two views that its effects are protracted, at times stretching for decades together.

Owing to the large number of people involved in it and the multiple views and accounts, enquires into riots, much like mob violence, are time-consuming processes. This, however, is little excuse. A reason why riot cases prolong is the inadequate or haphazard investigation and evidence collection at the initial phase and this lacuna affects the course of the case. Even in instances where there have been comprehensive investigations and detailed reports, governments of the day for various political exigencies have chosen to sit on it — or worse rubbish it. The Justice B N Srikrishna Committee report on the Bombay riots in 1992 and the blast in 1993 were rubbished by the Shiv Sena government and till date has not been acted upon by any of the Maharashtra governments that followed. Ignoring a commission report defeats the purpose of instituting it and also gives the victims of the riot a sense of further being wronged — this time by the state.
Rather than festering such wounds the government should come up with mechanisms to ensure speedy justice. The pursuit of justice in the case of riots is important, but equally so is the need to compensate and rehabilitate victims. Often the rehabilitation of riot victims has been shoddy. The government, both at the Centre and State, has more often than not failed to provide a sense of closure to victims whom the state is duty-bound to protect.
(An edited version of this appeared in the Hindustan Times)