Rakhi Sawant can govern better than Kejriwal: Shiv Sena

The Shiv Sena, perhaps unnerved by the widespread talk that Mumbai will be the next bastion to fall to Aam Aadmi Party fever after Delhi, has  jumped to the defence of senior Congressman and Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde.

Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray. PTI

While the Aam Aadmi Party has protested Shinde's use of the Marathi word 'yeda' or fool to describe Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, the Sena's mouthpiece Saamna has gone further and called Kejriwal and Co a "carnival of fools".

An editorial  published in today's edition points to author Chetan Bhagat, once a supporter of AAP's innovative methods, claiming, "Bhagat calls AAP the item girl of Indian politics."

 

The editorial goes on to declare, "Even item girl Rakhi Sawant can govern better than Kejriwal... If this is the culture of the Aam Aadmi Party and if this is the kind of anarchy they want to spread, then one has to accept that there is an anti-national force behind this."

Addressing Kejriwal, it says his party "accidentally" assumed power in the national capital, but that does not bestow on him the right to stand on the roadside and call people names. "He used disrespectful language while speaking about Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde -- what kind of culture is this? Only thieves and lafangas use such language," the editorial says.

Calling it a rule by mobs and majoritarianism, and doing exactly what the party has been opposing all along, the paper asks whether this is what the people  of Delhi voted him to power for.

Shinde's statement that Kejriwal is a 'yeda' or fool only reflects people's views, it said. It also made a reference to Kumar Vishwas's statements about women too, adding that Vishwas was eventually forced to apologise.

"In every carnival, thieves, pick-pockets , men with performing monkeys, snake-charmers, performers with sleight of hand tricks and masseurs, all peddling their wares. But when the carnival ends, these guys go home. Until then, the item girl will dance," Saamna concludes with a lyrical flourish.

The idea of AAP, versus the idea of Modi, versus non-idea of rest

Despite the beating it has taken in recent days from the media over the shenanigans of Somnath Bharti, the not-so-lawful Law Minister in Arvind Kejriwal's Delhi cabinet, there is no way the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) can be written off as a diminished force, leave alone a spent force.

AAP volunteer. Reuters image

The BJP may hope it withers on the vine, the Congress may hope that the spoilt brat it has adopted on a temporary basis will not bite it in the butt again, but AAP is here to stay - bark, bite, bad behaviour and all. As the recent opinion polls show, AAP is on the upswing in Delhi and Haryana, and, to a lesser extent, in Punjab and Maharashtra. It has to get many things wrong consistently over a longish period of time to be seen as a loser. It is not one by a long chalk, despite Kejriwal's recent dent in public image over the trifling issue of suspending four cops.

The reason is simple: AAP is not just a newbie political party. It is a powerful idea. An idea that politics will not be conducted as usual, an idea that politicians are servants of the people and not their masters, and above all a promise of excitement and change.

AAP as an idea is larger than the pygmies who currently run the party, and hence the idea itself will outlive Kejriwal and the current leadership of AAP - assuming its leaders do not completely destroy the USP by an extended period of looniness.

In Elections 2014, what the BJP and Congress and, to a limited extent, some regional parties face is the challenge of confronting an exciting idea with a counter idea that could also ignite the voter's imagination. Right now, the only powerful idea on offer to combat AAP is the idea of Modi.

Like AAP, the idea of Modi is larger than the persona of Narendra Modi, who currently personifies it. The idea of Modi is competent governance, and the promise of service delivery to the citizen with a strong leader batting like Superman on their behalf. One can argue that Modi carries the tinge of the Hindutva idea too – but additional attributes/faults will not be decisive in this election.

We will contrast the AAP idea with the Modi idea a bit later, but first let us also understand what the idea of Congress is and what the regional parties encapsulate.

The Congress idea is that of a benevolent feudal dynasty that presides over a big tent under which all can reside. This idea is probably past its sell-by date. If India were a constitutional monarchy, hereditary rule would have some resonance as a unifier amidst the diversities of India, but India is not one and the people are not too enamoured of the idea anyway. It is sycophancy that keeps the idea of Congress alive, not the people.

A related idea of Congress is that of benefactor of the poor - but through a condescendingly feudal attitude. By positioning itself well to the left of the Congress, AAP has essentially demolished this idea. There are now other, more exciting alternatives to this idea.

As for the regional parties - their core idea is simply that they speak the same language in their regions. They are thus closer to their people. Their stock-in-trade is a winning coalition of castes and community/communities - with castes and communities changing sides when one party fails to deliver.

In 2014, the idea of AAP will clash primarily with the idea of Modi nationally – and the idea of the regional face in some states. The Congress is unlikely to be able to hold its own in too many places.

Let's explore the ideas of AAP and Modi a bit more.

The idea of AAP is about a responsive political leadership, where the people coalesce and agitate to teach their rulers a lesson and demand their dues. It is about freedom and empowerment – not rules and constitutional propriety. It is appealing to those who anyway do not benefit from rules and propriety – which would make AAP a party for the dispossessed and the lower middle classes who have little to lose from supporting the current power structure.

This is why one should not overestimate the antipathy Kejriwal supposedly faced during his Delhi dharna. What the dharna did was to pitch Kejriwal strongly as champion of the powerless, and to the far left of the Congress. What this did was to vertically split the coalition of the middle classes that supported his rise – with the upper end now developing doubts about whether he is their man.

The downside to the idea of AAP is that no one ultimately wants endless disruption. At some point, its attraction wanes. But it won't be the case in 2014.

The idea of Modi is where the upper end of the middle class will probably find succour – as the opinion polls show. Moreover, the idea of Modi is not just about competent governance. It is more than that.

Psychologically, we are all driven by two powerful forces – one seeking greater freedom, and the other seeking safety and security. We need both, but often people have to choose between one or the other at a point of time. In times of anarchy, people choose the safety of a powerful saviour; at other times, they seek freedom. The idea of Modi right now offers the promise of stability and security to people who value this. Modi is essentially positioning himself like a Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

The idea of AAP promises more skirmishes with authority and the upending of the currently order. The idea of Modi offers those threatened by big change the security of improvement without disruption. Let's also be clear: the idea of Modi goes beyond Modi. If the BJP does not seek this mantle when Modi moves into the shadows 10 years hence, some other party will claim it.

Put another way, the idea of AAP would appeal to those who feel they have no stake in the current system. The idea of Modi offers security to those who have a bigger stake in the current system. The underclass may like AAP; the upper castes, classes and businesses may prefer Modi. The people in the middle of the two will decide the results in Election 2014.

What about the regional parties who are theoretically secular and hence against Modi? They too face the same choices as the undecided people in the middle.

Regional parties which have no stake in the status quo (like some small Muslim parties of Dalit parties) will go with AAP and a Third Front; those who feel most threatened by the AAP's rise will align with Modi post-election after the results are out. Modi, in short, may have more options than the media imagines. To many regional parties, AAP is a bigger future threat than Modi. For example, Mulayam Singh's SP faces decimation if AAP grows roots in UP. This is why some of his base is shifting to Modi.

The idea of AAP is not going away. If it does not throw away its advantages, and uses its chances in power to change things visibly for its constituency, in 2019 (or earlier) it will be the real challenger for the centre.

Broadly speaking, it is AAP, not Congress, that could become the other (left-wing) pole around which a right-wing BJP will be fighting in future.

AAP and BJP will probably see the rise of class-based coalitions in future than transcend caste and community. We will see it first in urban areas and then the rural areas.

2014 has sounded the bugle for class tussles.

The idea of AAP, versus the idea of Modi, versus the non-idea of rest

Despite the beating it has taken in recent days from the media over the shenanigans of Somnath Bharti, the not-so-lawful Law Minister in Arvind Kejriwal's Delhi cabinet, there is no way the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) can be written off as a diminished force, leave alone a spent force.

AAP volunteer. Reuters image

The BJP may hope it withers on the vine, the Congress may hope that the spoilt brat it has adopted on a temporary basis will not bite it in the butt again, but AAP is here to stay - bark, bite, bad behaviour and all. As the recent opinion polls show, AAP is on the upswing in Delhi and Haryana, and, to a lesser extent, in Punjab and Maharashtra. It has to get many things wrong consistently over a longish period of time to be seen as a loser. It is not one by a long chalk, despite Kejriwal's recent dent in public image over the trifling issue of suspending four cops.

The reason is simple: AAP is not just a newbie political party. It is a powerful idea. An idea that politics will not be conducted as usual, an idea that politicians are servants of the people and not their masters, and above all a promise of excitement and change.

AAP as an idea is larger than the pygmies who currently run the party, and hence the idea itself will outlive Kejriwal and the current leadership of AAP - assuming its leaders do not completely destroy the USP by an extended period of looniness.

In Elections 2014, what the BJP and Congress and, to a limited extent, some regional parties face is the challenge of confronting an exciting idea with a counter idea that could also ignite the voter's imagination. Right now, the only powerful idea on offer to combat AAP is the idea of Modi.

Like AAP, the idea of Modi is larger than the persona of Narendra Modi, who currently personifies it. The idea of Modi is competent governance, and the promise of service delivery to the citizen with a strong leader batting like Superman on their behalf. One can argue that Modi carries the tinge of the Hindutva idea too – but additional attributes/faults will not be decisive in this election.

We will contrast the AAP idea with the Modi idea a bit later, but first let us also understand what the idea of Congress is and what the regional parties encapsulate.

The Congress idea is that of a benevolent feudal dynasty that presides over a big tent under which all can reside. This idea is probably past its sell-by date. If India were a constitutional monarchy, hereditary rule would have some resonance as a unifier amidst the diversities of India, but India is not one and the people are not too enamoured of the idea anyway. It is sycophancy that keeps the idea of Congress alive, not the people.

A related idea of Congress is that of benefactor of the poor - but through a condescendingly feudal attitude. By positioning itself well to the left of the Congress, AAP has essentially demolished this idea. There are now other, more exciting alternatives to this idea.

As for the regional parties - their core idea is simply that they speak the same language in their regions. They are thus closer to their people. Their stock-in-trade is a winning coalition of castes and community/communities - with castes and communities changing sides when one party fails to deliver.

In 2014, the idea of AAP will clash primarily with the idea of Modi nationally – and the idea of the regional face in some states. The Congress is unlikely to be able to hold its own in too many places.

Let's explore the ideas of AAP and Modi a bit more.

The idea of AAP is about a responsive political leadership, where the people coalesce and agitate to teach their rulers a lesson and demand their dues. It is about freedom and empowerment – not rules and constitutional propriety. It is appealing to those who anyway do not benefit from rules and propriety – which would make AAP a party for the dispossessed and the lower middle classes who have little to lose from supporting the current power structure.

This is why one should not overestimate the antipathy Kejriwal supposedly faced during his Delhi dharna. What the dharna did was to pitch Kejriwal strongly as champion of the powerless, and to the far left of the Congress. What this did was to vertically split the coalition of the middle classes that supported his rise – with the upper end now developing doubts about whether he is their man.

The downside to the idea of AAP is that no one ultimately wants endless disruption. At some point, its attraction wanes. But it won't be the case in 2014.

The idea of Modi is where the upper end of the middle class will probably find succour – as the opinion polls show. Moreover, the idea of Modi is not just about competent governance. It is more than that.

Psychologically, we are all driven by two powerful forces – one seeking greater freedom, and the other seeking safety and security. We need both, but often people have to choose between one or the other at a point of time. In times of anarchy, people choose the safety of a powerful saviour; at other times, they seek freedom. The idea of Modi right now offers the promise of stability and security to people who value this. Modi is essentially positioning himself like a Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

The idea of AAP promises more skirmishes with authority and the upending of the currently order. The idea of Modi offers those threatened by big change the security of improvement without disruption. Let's also be clear: the idea of Modi goes beyond Modi. If the BJP does not seek this mantle when Modi moves into the shadows 10 years hence, some other party will claim it.

Put another way, the idea of AAP would appeal to those who feel they have no stake in the current system. The idea of Modi offers security to those who have a bigger stake in the current system. The underclass may like AAP; the upper castes, classes and businesses may prefer Modi. The people in the middle of the two will decide the results in Election 2014.

What about the regional parties who are theoretically secular and hence against Modi? They too face the same choices as the undecided people in the middle.

Regional parties which have no stake in the status quo (like some small Muslim parties of Dalit parties) will go with AAP and a Third Front; those who feel most threatened by the AAP's rise will align with Modi post-election after the results are out. Modi, in short, may have more options than the media imagines. To many regional parties, AAP is a bigger future threat than Modi. For example, Mulayam Singh's SP faces decimation if AAP grows roots in UP. This is why some of his base is shifting to Modi.

The idea of AAP is not going away. If it does not throw away its advantages, and uses its chances in power to change things visibly for its constituency, in 2019 (or earlier) it will be the real challenger for the centre.

Broadly speaking, it is AAP, not Congress, that could become the other (left-wing) pole around which a right-wing BJP will be fighting in future.

AAP and BJP will probably see the rise of class-based coalitions in future than transcend caste and community. We will see it first in urban areas and then the rural areas.

2014 has sounded the bugle for class tussles.

Cong’s ‘Main nahi hum’ campaign: Mediocrity at its best

By Swapan Seth

Mediocrity is the birthmark of political advertising in this country. Barring the odd exception, work done in this category is largely forgettable. The agency is not the culprit.

Greed is.

With the kind of budgets these campaigns have, intellect is strangled. Perspectives are muffled. The mind gets molested by money. The Congress campaign that broke this morning reiterated all that is wrong and wretched about average communication.

"Mein nahi, hum" is a weak jab at the BJP. Equally, it is ironic coming from a party that is so person-centric. That is the campaign's first strategic flaw.

The Congress campaign poster.

"Har haath shakti, har haath tarakki" aside from being grammatically compromised is strategically fractured. That is hardly a claim that the Congress can make given how dangerously every aspect of life under it has slid.

Having said all of the above, writing a campaign for the Congress at this juncture is nothing short of a nightmare. The brand has no compelling proposition.
There are just no insights to borrow from and build upon. And there is no brand promise.

What would I do if I were the Congress?

Present a plan. Communicate a manifesto. Demonstrate intent. And hope that intent is acceptable. Personally, I had great hope in the Congress campaign. It was, at the end of the day, co-authored by ostensibly our hottest creative shop.

Is this the destiny of brilliance? In my humble estimation, with this campaign, baat haath se nikal gayi hai. Now wouldn't that be a great baseline for the BJP? Think about it.

PS: Incidentally, " Main nahi hum" was a slogan coined by Narendra Modi in 2011. Coincidences always happen in this profession.

Thank Bharti says defiant AAP: First sign of political suicide?

Somnath Bharti has every reason to be a worried man. His midnight shenanigans in Khirki extension, when he led a mob into the home of four Ugandan women, accusing them of being part of a 'drugs and sex' racket and then barging into a police station demanding their arrest without a warrant, have caused outrage across the spectrum, uniting disparate elements who usually agree to disagree on everything.

The end result is this: The BJP, Congress, women's groups and even sections of AAP all agree - Somnath Bharti must go.

Yet, the leadership of the Aam Aadmi Party has, in its wisdom, decided to back the state law minister, ruling out his resignation and going so far as to say that he needed to be "lauded for his efforts to address people's grievances."

Image from Facebook

"First, he did not do anything which was unbecoming of a minister. The preliminary probe by the party has not found him misbehaving or assaulting Ugandan women. He was also not found using any racial slur," AAP's chief spokesperson Yogendra Yadav said after an AAP political committee meeting to discuss the minister's conduct. He said however, that action would be taken against the minister if he was found guilty in a judicial inquiry ordered by the Lt governor, Najeeb Jung.

While AAP may have decided that the best course forward is to back its man in the face of overwhelming opposition, how this will play out for the fortunes of the party in the long run is highly debatable, especially given that the Lok Sabha elections are just months away, and the Bharti incident in particular has forced many people to rethink their support for AAP.

In a column yesterday, Firstpost editor Dhiraj Nayyar warned against the temptation of AAP doing things the 'Somnath Bharti' way instead of say, the Yogendra Yadav way or even the Captain Gopinath way. He says:

The fact is that one section of AAP personified by Somnath Bharti genuinely believes only in a politics of vigilantism, blackmail and brinksmanship. In the end, such a politics will only create the same kind of cynicism as the system AAP rages against – the kind which revolts against "the minister is always right" attitude. He also notes that "Unfortunately, Kejriwal's base instincts of an activist-in-a-hurry seem to make him inclined to the Somnath Bharti wing of the party.

Significantly, the incident has also evoked displeasure from within AAP. In a Times of India editorial published this morning, Captain Gopinath reiterates his demand that Bharti needs to be suspended. He writes, "Was the cause just? How can you demand suspension of junior police personnel without also suspending law minister Somnath Bharti at the same time? If police can influence witnesses so can Bharti who has greater power."

The fact is, that in its desire to back Bharti and present a united front, AAP could be acting in a short sighted manner that could well be detrimental to its national ambitions. As we pointed out earlier, there are a number of reasons why Bharti is only going to hold the party back.

Firstly, the law minister has to actually follow the law. After the events of the recent past, Bharti has lost all credibility when it comes to upholding the law. Secondly, mob politicians are political deadweights. And significantly, it is time for AAP to soothe the middle class feathers which were ruffled by Somnath's actions.

The importance of this is clearly pointed out by Ashutosh Varshney in a column for the Indian Express. He says that the magic 'formula' of AAP was that it managed to combine the support of the urban elite and the urban masses. "Normally, mass politics and elite politics dance to very different tunes. The AAP has brought them together," he said.

But with his latest Delhi dharna, Kejriwal seemed to have alienated this crucial segment of support.

Many of Kejriwal's middle class supporters who shook off their lethargy to actually stand in line and vote for him were conspicuous by their absence at the dharna. This is a constituency that has come out in droves previously for the Lokpal agitation and the Delhi gangrape protests. A history that makes their absence all the more conspicuous. And although AAP may pretend to write off this section of the population as a bunch of 'elitist' people who don't want the corrupt system to change because they benefit by it (as charged by AAP media spokesman Ashutosh), Kejriwal cannot afford to alienate them completely.

According to Varshney:

"The most important signal the Rail Bhavan dharna sent is this: it can wean the urban elite and middle class away from the AAP, while keeping the urban poor base intact. The urban poor may savour a dramatic political attack on the police, which harasses them routinely. But losing the urban elite, or middle class, will be suicidal. This class is a source of finance for the AAP, also a source of future leadership, and a reason for media fervour."

The rail bhavan dharna has set off the alarm bells, and the middle class is already skittish. Perhaps kicking Bharti out and apologising for his actions might have helped calm a few furiously beating hearts. In not doing so AAP has lost an opportunity. And worse, it has shown that when it comes to brazenly defending the clearly wrong actions of one of its own, it's really no different from everyone else.

Ready to become PM if party wins and MPs choose me: Rahul Gandhi

Amethi: Amidst clamour among Congress workers that he should be named the Prime Ministerial candidate, Rahul Gandhi on Thursday said he would definitely consider it if the party comes to power and the elected representatives select him for the post.

Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi.

"In Congress, elected MPs select the PM. After elections if our party comes to power and the MPs select me then I will definitely consider it," Rahul told reporters on the second and last day of his two-day tour to his parliamentary constituency Amethi.

He was asked whether he would be ready to bear the responsibility of the top post.

Rahul said even Manmohan Singh was selected by the elected representatives as in Congress there is no system of selecting the PM candidate before polls.

"To select a PM is the right of the MPs and it should stay with them. Selecting a PM nominee before polls is not a democratic system, but part of personality cult," he said.

At the CWC meeting held recently, party chief Sonia Gandhi rejected demands by leaders from various states to anoint Rahul the PM candidate before elections, saying there has been no such tradition in the party.

Rahul on Thursday told reporters in Amethi that "democracy is not strong enough" in Uttar Pradesh and there is too much of personality cult.

"There is too much of personality cult in Uttar Pradesh. In BSP Mayawati distributes the ticket and in SP only one family distributes it. In UP there are only MLAs and they do not have freedom to work properly," Rahul alleged.

When told that even Congress is being run by Gandhi family, he said the party was not run by 10 Janpath and has maximum democracy.

"Democracy is not strong enough in UP. Without associating people, neither the democracy will get strong nor development will take place in the state. I am confident that I will bring Congress government in the state," he added.

Evading direct reply to a question that the party was leveling allegations against the state government, but why it was not opposing it, Rahul said recently the party staged demonstrations against the SP regime and even the state president Nirmal Khatri faced lathis.

Rahul alleged that while the previous Mayawati government halted the entire development of Amethi, the current SP regime overlooked the area on power and road front.

"UP was deprived of development from the last 30 years and unless Congress government comes the situation will remain the same," he said.

PTI

Why India votes is more interesting than who India votes for

The approach of an election means our media explodes into a frenzy of speculation about who will form the government, who will ally with whom, who will get how many seats. But the most interesting thing about Indian elections is not whether the electorate will swing towards Narendra Modi or whether Arvind Kejriwal is the big spoiler. It's the fact that India votes in such huge numbers.Dr. Mukulika Banerjee is the author of Why India Votes? and teaches at the London School of Economics. She spoke to Firstpost at the Jaipur Literature Festival.

What is the scale of an Indian election like the one coming up this year?

The size of our electorate is about 720 million voters. This is larger than the combined electorate of North America, Australia and Europe. So it's vast. We use 1 million Electronic Voting Machines, 8 million polling booths, 2 million election officials. It's on an absolutely phenomenal scale. When a national election happens it is the largest humanly organized event in the world. It's more or less peaceful and free and fair. One must not take away from the fact that a lot is wrong about the kind of money that is spent, The people it keeps out and the rise of paid news. But actually in the conduct of elections it's quite remarkable.

Reuters

Why is it surprising that India votes?

It is surprising because it's unlike all the mature western democracies. In countries like Australia and Greece it's compulsory. But look at the UK, USA, France and others. Our national averages are comparable to theirs. But what makes it interesting is when you take out from the national average the urban educated figures, the rest of the country votes in even higher numbers. The poor vote more than the rich. So while our voter turnouts are comparable, the trend of our voter turnout is actually on the rise while in the west there is a very real concern about voter apathy.

The second thing is the more local the election the greater the turnout. That again is very unusual compared to other democracies. Thirdly the number of men and women in India when it comes to voting are about equal. These are the startling trends.

So why does the mature democracy tend not to vote?

They are thinking about planning a study in Britain around this... about why do people not vote. We do know from anecdotal evidence that people have to feel invested. They have to have a sense of ownership of the system. Otherwise they will feel no need to engage.

I have been stressing about the idea of citizenship being very important. What is citizenship? It's being able to imagine part of a collectivity that's much larger than one person. They have to imagine that if I do this as an individual I am creating something that's much bigger than me. It's this sense of participation, this sense of belonging that you have to have. It's a sense of duty and responsibility of what you need to do. And a sense of pride in being a citizen of having this right that has been given to you by the constitution that you need to fulfill.

You say part of the reason people fulfill this right is the peer pressure of the inked finger. What do you mean by that?

I was talking about the peer pressure in small-knit communities where people care and poke their noses into each others' lives all the time. If you haven't voted and you don't have ink on your fingers everybody asks you why you have not voted. And people feel it's easier to go and vote than to constantly answer questions about why they didn't vote.

What happens in urban areas which are less tightly-knit in that way?

In fact trends in turnout in urban areas are going up. It's the highest ever voter turn out in Delhi we have ever seen. This time people felt they were part of something new and something could change.

What are the other reasons you have found why people do vote?

The second thing is because India is a country of such deep deep social inequality when there is one day in the calendar when they can experience what equality feels like, when it really does not matter what the colour of your skin is or what caste you come from, that is when you begin to realize that this is important.

But you also vote because you might get something - a tin roof or a road or a school. You vote because you are loyal to a party. You vote because you want to punish your party. Or you vote because you are such a neglected part of society you vote to legitimate your presence by marking that machine. By pressing that button I prove that I exist because nothing in government policy seems to remember that people like me exist.

If nothing in policy remembers that person exists, why do they keep coming back again and again to vote?

Well, they live in hope because they want governments to be reminded that they are failing in their duty and governments that don't perform are punished routinely. Also the act of voting itself has meaning, which we must begin to understand. For a lot of ordinary people the sense of pride and belonging that just going to the polling station brings actually has meaning.

What are you looking out for this coming Lok Sabha election?

It will be interesting. There has been a shift in terms of debate about whether people can participate more. There is talk about greater accountability. There is a sense that with the big national parties we know what they are about, is there going to be something else. If these things are in the air it will be interesting to see if we have a phenomenally higher turn out. And I will be very interested to see the figures of NOTA – how many people are using that option.