The American Prospect , Jan 1, 2002 v13 i1 pA2(5)
How to judge globalism: global links have spread knowledge and raised average living standards. But the present version of globalism needlessly harms the world's poorest. Amartya Sen .
Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2002 The American Prospect, Inc.
GLOBALIZATION IS OFTEN SEEN AS GLOBAL WESTernization. On this point, there is substantial agreement among many proponents and opponents. Those who take an upbeat view of globalization see it as a marvelous contribution of Western civilization to the world. There is a nicely stylized history in which the great developments happened in Europe: First came the Renaissance, then the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, and these led to a massive increase in living standards in the West. And now the great achievements of the West are spreading to the world. In this view, globalization is not only good, it is also a gift from the West to the world. The champions of this reading of history tend to feel upset not just because this great benefaction is seen as a curse but also because it is undervalued and castigated by an ungrateful world.
From the opposite perspective, Western dominance--sometimes seen as a continuation of Western imperialism--is the devil of the piece. In this view, contemporary capitalism, driven and led by greedy and grabby Western countries in Europe and North America, has established rules of trade and business relations that do not serve the interests of the poorer people in the world. The celebration of various non-Western identities--defined by religion (as in Islamic fundamentalism), region (as in the championing of Asian values), or culture (as in the glorification of Confucian ethics)--can add fuel to the fire of confrontation with the West.
Is globalization really a new Western curse? It is, in fact, neither new nor necessarily Western; and it is not a curse. Over thousands of years, globalization has contributed to the progress of the world through travel, trade, migration, spread of cultural influences, and dissemination of knowledge and understanding (including that of science and technology). These global interrelations have often been very productive in the advancement of different countries. They have not necessarily taken the form of increased Western influence. Indeed, the active agents of globalization have often been located far from the West.
To illustrate, consider the world at. the beginning of the last millennium rather than at its end. Around 1000 A.D., global reach of science, technology, and mathematics was changing the nature of the old world, but the dissemination then was, to a great extent, in the opposite direction of what we see today. The high technology in the world of 1000 A.D. included paper, the printing press, the crossbow, gunpowder, the iron-chain suspension bridge, the kite, the magnetic compass, the wheelbarrow, and the rotary fan. A millennium ago, these items were used extensively in China--and were practically unknown elsewhere. Globalization spread them across the world, including Europe.
A similar movement occurred in the Eastern influence on Western mathematics. The decimal system emerged and became well developed in India between the second and sixth centuries; it was used by Arab mathematicians soon thereafter. These mathematical innovations reached Europe mainly in the last quarter of the tenth century and began having an impact in the early years of the last millennium, playing an important part in the scientific revolution that helped to transform Europe. The agents of globalization are neither European nor exclusively Western, nor are they necessarily linked to Western dominance. Indeed, Europe would have been a lot poorer--economically, culturally, and scientifically--had it resisted the globalization of mathematics, science, and technology at that time. And today, the same principle applies, though in the reverse direction (from West to East). To reject the globalization of science and technology because it represents Western influence and imperialism would not only amount to overlooking global contributions--drawn from many different parts of the world--that lie solidly behind so-called Western science and technology, but would also be quite a daft practical decision, given the extent to which the whole world can benefit from the process.
A GLOBAL HERITAGE
In resisting the diagnosis of globalization as a phenomenon of quintessentially Western origin, we have to be suspicious not only of the anti-Western rhetoric but also of the pro-Western chauvinism in many contemporary writings. Certainly, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution were great achievements--and they occurred mainly in Europe and, later, in America. Yet many of these developments drew on the experience of the rest of the world, rather than being confined within the boundaries of a discrete Western civilization.
Our global civilization is a world heritage--not just a collection of disparate local cultures. When a modern mathematician in Boston invokes an algorithm to solve a difficult computational problem, she may not be aware that she is helping to commemorate the Arab mathematician Mohammad Ibn Musa-al-Khwarizmi, who flourished in the first half of the ninth century. (The word algorithm is derived from the name al-Khwarizmi.) There is a chain of intellectual relations that link Western mathematics and science to a collection of distinctly non-Western practitioners, of whom al-Khwarizmi was one. (The term algebra is derived from the title of his famous book Al-Jabr wa-al-Muqabilah.) Indeed, al-Khwarizmi is one of many non-Western contributors whose works influenced the European Renaissance and, later, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. The West must get full credit for the remarkable achievements that occurred in Europe and Europeanized America, but the idea of an immaculate Western conception is an imaginative fantasy.
Not only is the progress of global science and technology not an exclusively West-led phenomenon, but there were major global developments in which the West was not even involved. The printing of the world's first book was a marvelously globalized event. The technology of printing was, of course, entirely an achievement of the Chinese. But the content came from elsewhere. The first printed book was an Indian Sanskrit treatise, translated into Chinese by a half-Turk. The book, Vajracchedika Prajnaparamitasutra (sometimes referred to as "The Diamond Sutra"), is an old treatise on Buddhism; it was translated into Chinese from Sanskrit in the fifth century by Kumarajiva, a half-Indian and half-Turkish scholar who lived in a part of eastern Turkistan called Kucha but later migrated to China. It was printed four centuries later, in 868 A.D. All this involving China, Turkey, and India is globalization, all right, but the West is not even in sight.
GLOBAL INTERDEPENDENCES AND MOVEMENTS
The misdiagnosis that globalization of ideas and practices has to be resisted because it entails dreaded Westernization has played quite a regressive part in the colonial and postcolonial world. This assumption incites parochial tendencies and undermines the possibility of objectivity in science and knowledge. It is not only counterproductive in itself; given the global interactions throughout history, it can also cause non-Western societies to shoot themselves in the foot--even in their precious cultural foot.
Consider the resistance in India to the use of Western ideas and concepts in science and mathematics. In the nineteenth century, this debate fitted into a broader controversy about Western education versus indigenous Indian education. The "Westernizers," such as the redoubtable Thomas Babington Macaulay, saw no merit whatsoever in Indian tradition. "I have never found one among them [advocates of Indian tradition] who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia," he declared. Partly in retaliation, the advocates of native education resisted Western imports altogether. Both sides, however, accepted too readily the foundational dichotomy between two disparate civilizations.
European mathematics, with its use of such concepts as sine, was viewed as a purely "Western" import into India. In fact, the fifth-century Indian mathematician Aryabhata had discussed the concept of sine in his classic work on astronomy and mathematics in 499 A.D., calling it by its Sanskrit name, jya-ardha (literally, "half-chord"). This word, first shortened to jya in Sanskrit, eventually became the Arabic jiba and, later, jaib, which means "a cove or a bay." In his history of mathematics, Howard Eves explains that around 1150 A.D., Gherardo of Cremona, in his translations from the Arabic, rendered jaib as the Latin sinus, the corresponding word for a cove or a bay. And this is the source of the modern word sine. The concept had traveled full circle--from India, and then back.
To see globalization as merely Western imperialism of ideas and beliefs (as the rhetoric often suggests) would be a serious and costly error, in the same way that any European resistance to Eastern influence would have been at the beginning of the last millennium. Of course, there are issues related to globalization that do connect with imperialism (the history of conquests, colonialism, and alien rule remains relevant today in many ways), and a postcolonial understanding of the world has its merits. But it would be a great mistake to see globalization primarily as a feature of imperialism. It is much bigger--much greater--than that.
THE ISSUE OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF ECONOMIC GAINS and losses from globalization remains an entirely separate question, and it must be addressed as a further--and extremely relevant--issue. There is extensive evidence that the global economy has brought prosperity to many different areas of the globe. Pervasive poverty dominated the world a few centuries ago; there were only a few rare pockets of affluence. In overcoming that penury, extensive economic interrelations and modern technology have been and remain influential. What has happened in Europe, America, Japan, and East Asia has important messages for all other regions, and we cannot go very far into understanding the nature of globalization today without first acknowledging the positive fruits of global economic contacts.
Indeed, we cannot reverse the economic predicament of the poor across the world by withholding from them the great advantages of contemporary technology, the well-established efficiency of international trade and exchange, and the social as well as economic merits of living in an open society. Rather, the main issue is how to make good use of the remarkable benefits of economic intercourse and technological progress in a way that pays adequate attention to the interests of the deprived and the underdog. That is, I would argue, the constructive question that emerges from the so-called antiglobalization movements.
ARE THE POOR GETTING POORER?
The principal challenge relates to inequality--international as well as intranational. The troubling inequalities include disparities in affluence and also gross asymmetries in political, social, and economic opportunities and power.
A crucial question concerns the sharing of the potential gains from globalization--between rich and poor countries and among different groups within a country. It is not sufficient to understand that the poor of the world need globalization as much as the rich do; it is also important to make sure that they actually get what they need. This may require extensive institutional reform, even as globalization is defended.
There is also a need for more clarity in formulating the distributional questions. For example, it is often argued that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. But this is by no means uniformly so, even though there are cases in which this has happened. Much depends on the region or the group chosen and what indicators of economic prosperity are used. But the attempt to base the castigation of economic globalization on this rather thin ice produces a peculiarly fragile critique.
On the other side, the apologists of globalization point to their belief that the poor who participate in trade and exchange are mostly getting richer. Ergo--the argument runs--globalization is not unfair to the poor: they too benefit. If the central relevance of this question is accepted, then the whole debate turns on determining which side is correct in this empirical dispute. But is this the right battleground in the first place? I would argue that it is not.
GLOBAL JUSTICE AND THE BARGAINING PROBLEM
Even if the poor were to get just a little richer, this would not necessarily imply that the poor were getting a fair share of the potentially vast benefits of global economic interrelations. It is not adequate to ask whether international inequality is getting marginally larger or smaller. In order to rebel against the appalling poverty and the staggering inequalities that characterize the contemporary world--or to protest against the unfair sharing of benefits of global cooperation--it is not necessary to show that the massive inequality or distributional unfairness is also getting marginally larger. This is a separate issue altogether.
When there are gains from cooperation, there can be many possible arrangements. As the game theorist and mathematician John Nash discussed more than half a century ago (in "The Bargaining Problem," published in Econometrica in 1950, which was cited, among other writings, by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences when Nash was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics), the central issue in general is not whether a particular arrangement is better for everyone than no cooperation at all would be, but whether that is a fair division of the benefits. One cannot rebut the criticism that a distributional arrangement is unfair simply by noting that all the parties are better off than they would be in the absence of cooperation; the real exercise is the choice between these alternatives.
AN ANALOGY WITH THE FAMILY
By analogy, to argue that a particularly unequal and sexist family arrangement is unfair, one does not have to show that women would have done comparatively better had there been no families at all, but only that the sharing of the benefits is seriously unequal in that particular arrangement. Before the issue of gender justice became an explicitly recognized concern (as it has in recent decades), there were attempts to dismiss the issue of unfair arrangements within the family by suggesting that women did not need to live in families if they found the arrangements so unjust. It was also argued that since women as well as men benefit from living in families, the existing arrangements could not be unfair. But even when it is accepted that both men and women may typically gain from living in a family, the question of distributional fairness remains. Many different family arrangements--when compared with the absence of any family system--would satisfy the condition of being beneficial to both men and women. The real issue concerns how fairly benefits associated with these respective arrangements are distributed.
Likewise, one cannot rebut the charge that the global system is unfair by showing that even the poor gain something from global contacts and are not necessarily made poorer. That answer may or may not be wrong, but the question certainly is. The critical issue is not whether the poor are getting marginally poorer or richer. Nor is it whether they are better off than they would be had they excluded themselves from globalized interactions.
Again, the real issue is the distribution of globalization's benefits. Indeed, this is why many of the antiglobalization protesters, who seek a better deal for the underdogs of the world economy, are not--contrary to their own rhetoric and to the views attributed to them by others--really "antiglobalization." It is also why there is no real contradiction in the fact that the so-called antiglobalization protests have become among the most globalized events in the contemporary world.
ALTERING GLOBAL ARRANGEMENTS
However, can those less-well-off groups get a better deal from globalized economic and social relations without dispensing with the market economy itself? They certainly can. The use of the market economy is consistent with many different ownership patterns, resource availabilities, social opportunities, and rules of operation (such as patent laws and antitrust regulations). And depending on these conditions, the market economy would generate different prices, terms of trade, income distribution, and, more generally, diverse overall outcomes. The arrangements for social security and other public interventions can make further modifications to the outcomes of the market processes, and together they can yield varying levels of inequality and poverty.
The central question is not whether to use the market economy. That shallow question is easy to answer, because it is hard to achieve economic prosperity without making extensive use of the opportunities of exchange and specialization that market relations offer. Even though the operation of a given market economy can be significantly defective, there is no way of dispensing with the institution of markets in general as a powerful engine of economic progress.
But this recognition does not end the discussion about globalized market relations. The market economy does not work by itself in global relations--indeed, it cannot operate alone even within a given country. It is not only the case that a market-inclusive system can generate very distinct results depending on various enabling conditions (such as how physical resources are distributed, how human resources are developed, what rules of business relations prevail, what social-security arrangements are in place, and so on). These enabling conditions themselves depend critically on economic, social, and political institutions that operate nationally and globally.
The crucial role of the markets does not make the other institutions insignificant, even in terms of the results that the market economy can produce. As has been amply established in empirical studies, market outcomes are massively influenced by public policies in education, epidemiology, land reform, microcredit facilities, appropriate legal protections, et cetera; and in each of these fields, there is work to be done through public action that can radically alter the outcome of local and global economic relations.
INSTITUTIONS AND INEQUALITY
Globalization has much to offer; but even as we defend it, we must also, without any contradiction, see the legitimacy of many questions that the antiglobalization protesters ask. There may be a misdiagnosis about where the main problems lie (they do not lie in globalization, as such), but the ethical and human concerns that yield these questions call for serious reassessments of the adequacy of the national and global institutional arrangements that characterize the contemporary world and shape globalized economic and social relations.
Global capitalism is much more concerned with expanding the domain of market relations than with, say, establishing democracy, expanding elementary education, or enhancing the social opportunities of society's underdogs. Since globalization of markets is, on its own, a very inadequate approach to world prosperity, there is a need to go beyond the priorities that find expression in the chosen focus of global capitalism. As George Soros has pointed out, international business concerns often have a strong preference for working in orderly and highly organized autocracies rather than in activist and less-regimented democracies, and this can be a regressive influence on equitable development. Further, multinational firms can exert their influence on the priorities of public expenditure in less secure third-world countries by giving preference to the safety and convenience of the managerial classes and of privileged workers over the removal of widespread illiteracy, medical deprivation, and other adversities of the poor. These possibilities do not, of course, impose any insurmountable barrier to development, but it is important to make sure that the surmountable barriers are actually surmounted.
OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS
The injustices that characterize the world are closely related to various omissions that need to be addressed, particularly in institutional arrangements. I have tried to identify some of the main problems in my book Development as Freedom (Knopf, 1999). Global policies have a role here in helping the development of national institutions (for example, through defending democracy and supporting schooling and health facilities), but there is also a need to re-examine the adequacy of global institutional arrangements themselves. The distribution of the benefits in the global economy depends, among other things, on a variety of global institutional arrangements, including those for fair trade, medical initiatives, educational exchanges, facilities for technological dissemination, ecological and environmental restraints, and fair treatment of accumulated debts that were often incurred by irresponsible military rulers of the past.
In addition to the momentous omissions that need to be rectified, there are also serious problems of commission that must be addressed for even elementary global ethics. These include not only inefficient and inequitable trade restrictions that repress exports from poor countries, but also patent laws that inhibit the use of lifesaving drugs--for diseases like AIDS--and that give inadequate incentive for medical research aimed at developing nonrepeating medicines (such as vaccines). These issues have been much discussed on their own, but we must also note how they fit into a general pattern of unhelpful arrangements that undermine what globalization could offer.
Another--somewhat less discussed--global "commission" that causes intense misery as well as lasting deprivation relates to the involvement of the world powers in globalized arms trade. This is a field in which a new global initiative is urgently going beyond the need--the very important need--to curb terrorism, on which the focus is so heavily concentrated right now. Local wars and military conflicts, which have very destructive consequences (not least on the economic prospects of poor countries), draw not only on regional tensions but also on global trade in arms and weapons. The world establishment is firmly entrenched in this business: the Permanent Members of the Security Council of the United Nations were together responsible for 81 percent of world arms exports from 1996 through 2000. Indeed, the world leaders who express deep frustration at the "irresponsibility" of antiglobalization protesters lead the countries that make the most money in this terrible trade. The G-8 countries sold 87 percent of the total supply of arms exported in the entire world. The U.S. share alone has just gone up to almost 50 percent of the total sales in the world. Furthermore, as much as 68 percent of the American arms exports went to developing countries.
The arms are used with bloody results--and with devastating effects on the economy, the polity, and the society. In some ways, this is a continuation of the unhelpful role of world powers in the genesis and flowering of political militarism in Africa from the 1960s to the 1980s, when the Cold War was fought over Africa. During these decades, when military overlords--Mobuto Sese Seko or Jonas Savimbi or whoever--busted social and political arrangements (and, ultimately, economic order as well) in Africa, they could rely on support either from the United States and its allies or from the Soviet Union, depending on their military alliances. The world powers bear an awesome responsibility for helping in the subversion of democracy in Africa and for all the far-reaching negative consequences of that subversion. The pursuit of arms "pushing" gives them a continuing role in the escalation of military conflicts today--in Africa and elsewhere. The U.S. refusal to agree to a joint crackdown even on illicit sales of small arms (as proposed by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan) illustrates the difficulties involved.
FAIR SHARING OF GLOBAL OPPORTUNITIES
To conclude, the confounding of globalization with Westernization is not only a historical, it also distracts attention from the many potential benefits of global integration. Globalization is a historical process that has offered an abundance of opportunities and rewards in the past and continues to do so today. The very existence of potentially large benefits makes the question of fairness in sharing the benefits of globalization so critically important.
The central issue of contention is not globalization itself, nor is it the use of the market as an institution, but the inequity in the overall balance of institutional arrangements which produces very unequal sharing of the benefits of globalization. The question is not just whether the poor, too, gain something from globalization, but whether they get a fair share and a fair opportunity. There is an urgent need for reforming institutional arrangements--in addition to national ones--in order to overcome both the errors of omission and those of commission that tend to give the poor across the world such limited opportunities. Globalization deserves a reasoned defense, but it also needs reform.
AMARTYA SEN , the 1998 Nobel Laureate in Economic Science, is Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Vote for Change : Yechury in AP Campaign trail
Vote for Change
Yechury in Election Campaign Meeting in Kurnool
CPI(M) polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury asked people to vote for change. Sitaram Yechury inaugurated his election campaign tour in Andhra Pradesh by addressing a public meeting and road show in Kurnool on Friday 10th April. Yechury will also address election rallies and meetings at Nalgonda, Khammam, Vijayawada, Santanutala Padu assembly constituencies and Araku parliamentary constituency where CPI(M) is contesting. He will end his tour in Andhra Pradesh by attending the Grand Alliance public meeting at Vishakapatnam on 13th April.
While addressing a public meeting organised in support of CPI(M) candidate, M.A.Gafoor, in Kurnool assembly constituency in Andhra Pradesh Yechury told that nation wide people are looking for change. He also said that NDA and UPA are getting weakened day by day. NDA started with more than 30 parties since 1999 ended up with its traditional allies such as Shiva Sena in Maharashtra and Akali Dal in Punjab. He told the gathering that BJP failed not only in attracting the formidable allies but also keeping its own allies together. He pointed out that BJD which is in the company of BJP for the last 11 years is now disserted NDA and joined hands with the Left Parties who are working for Non Congress Alternative Secular Government. He also told that though Lalu Prasad and Paswan are members of UPA, they joined hands with Mulayam in Gangetic belt to defeat the Congress.
He said that the Left parties are working for a policy alternatives. In that effort they are mobilising parties around the certain policy issues such as protecting and expanding public sector, fight against communalism and terrorism, independent foreign policy, social justice. He also said that those parties who are coordinating closely in the election process, will come together after elections and work out an alternative programme basing on which they will form the government. He informed the audience that so far TDP, TRS, AIADMK, BJD came together and some other parties are extending cooperation from out side for the Non Congress Secular Alternative.
He told the gathering that Andhra Pradesh is the vital straw for Congress in centre. He remembered them that 37 seats the Congress and other friendly parties won in the last election became formidable base for Congress to claim power in Delhi. He also told that with a commitment to form an alternative secular government and also to defeat the Congress misrule in Andhra Pradesh CPI(M) joined hands with CPI , TDP and TRS. He reminded that the Congress failed to control the communalism in states where it is in power. Due to this failure, he identified that they lost power to BJP in Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab.
Before the public meeting Yechury addressed a press conference and also participated in a road show. Along with Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) candidate for Kurnool assembly constituency and sitting MLA M A Gafoor, Ex Mayor of Kurnool and TDP leader Bangi Anantayya, CPI (M) district secretary T.Shadrak, CPI(M) city secretary K.Prabhakar Reddy, CPI city secretary Nabi Rasool are also participated in the road show.
Instability is not inherent to any Alternative : Sitaram Yechury
Communist Party of India ( Marxist) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury said that instability is not inherent to any alternative. In his second day of election campaign in Andhra Pradesh, on April 11th, Yechury participated in a road show in Bhoingiri parliamentary constituency. The road show went along Kattangur, Narketpalli, and Nakarikel. Along with Yechury, CPI(M) candidate for Bhoingiri Loksabha seat, Narasimhaiah, CPI(M) candidate for Nakarikel assembly segment, Sarvaiah, MLC CH. Sitaramulu, TDP Nalgonda district president B.Lingaiah Yadava, TRS district president B.Somi Reddy, participated in the road show.
Rebutting the criticism by Prime Minister Manmohan Sing and PM hopeful L.K Advani that the proposed non congress secular alternative is a recipe for instability, Yechury said that the first ever alternative government which came in to existence under the leadership of V.P.Singh was destabilized by BJP and the second chance of establishing an alternative government was thwarted by Congress in the case of Deve Gowda and Gujral. He also said that the instability these governments experienced is due to their dependence on out side support for survival. He hoped that this time, efforts will be made to ensure no dependence on outside support.
About comments of Manmohan Singh and Advani regarding the leader of the secular alternative Yechury said that those who are elected by the people will decide about their leader if the situation arises. He also reminded that in 1977 general election Congress projected Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister but she was defeated by the people. Responding to the questions raised by both the PM and leader of Opposition regarding the leader of the proposed front, Yechury reminded them that it was after elections that parties came together to form United Front and drafted a Common Minimum Programe, and chose a leader. That was the case even with BJP and NDA in 1998 elections and UPA in 2004. In all these cases, the alternative took concrete shape only after the election results were out.
Responding to a criticism by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the proposed third alternative is strengthening the communal forces in the country, Yechury also said that it is the Congress that paved way for BJP to come back in to power in several states including Punjab and Karnataka, thus strengthening the hands of communal forces in the country. He appealed to the voters that it is time to choose a non congress secular alternative which can give boost to the crippling economy due to crisis, and strengthen secular democratic India. He also reminded the voters of Andhra Pradesh that it is AP on whose strength Congress is banking to come back to power in the Center. He felt that
it is imperative to defeat the Congress in Andhra Pradesh to pave way for the non congress secular alternative at the Center.
Nation can be bailed out only with Non Congress Secular Alternative
Yechury in Mahakootami Rally at Vizag
INN
CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury said that the nation can be bailed out from the current economic crisis on by electing the non congress secular alternative to power at the centre. Addressing a huge public meeting in Steel City Vizag’s industrial area Gajuwaka, Yechury said the various sections of people needs bail out packages instead of industries. In the last leg of his election campaign in Andhra Pradesh Yechury addressed a grand public meeting along with TDP supremo Chandra Babu Naidu, CPI state secretary K. Narayana, CPI(M) state secretary B V Raghavulu and CPI(M) candidate for Gajuwaka assembly constituency and Vishakapatnam Lok Sabha candidate MVVS Murthy on Monday April 13th. Before addressing the Grand Alliance public meeting, leaders addressed various meetings in Araku parliamentary constituency where CPI(M) is contesting with the support of Grand Alliance partners.
He expressed confidence that the people of Andhra Pradesh will elect the Non Congress Secular Alternative forces for state assembly as well as to represent the state in Parliament. After touring the state from Karnataka boarder to Orissa boarder addressing several meetings he expressed this confidence.
He also said that already in the country more than 74 % of people are living with meagre Rs 20 purchasing power. Daily 1000 people are dying due to lack of nutritional food. 78 % of women are facing the problem o anaemia. So far due to crisis the country lost 10 million jobs. Due to slump in exports diamond cutting workers in Gujarat and weavers elsewhere committing suicide. Though the government announced 12 billion dollar package, nothing has been spent out of that so far. He criticised central government for neglecting the severity of the crisis. He urged up on the forthcoming governments to increase the government expenditure to bail out the nation from this serious crisis.
He told that with the non congress secular alternative government at the centre, the Left will pursue the people’s bail out packages. He reminded the Left parties role in forcing the UPA government to desist the reforms of more dangerous nature, which included privatisation of pension funds, increase of FDI in Insurance industry, privatisation of public sector undertakings etc. He assured the people that non congress secular alternative government at the centre will strengthen the hands of Left to take up much more constructive steps from people’s orientation. He also assured that the new government’s policies will not be profit oriented ones.
Visualising the non congress secular alternatives taking shape at state level, he reminded people of the developments in Orissa, AP, Karnataka where non congress secular parties are coming together and the developments in the states such as Tamilnadu, UP, Bihar where several key forces are working for such an alternative. He also told the audience that the country entered in to coalition phase 15 years ago and this election is also going to continue with that phenomena.
Mentioning about the criticism from Congress and BJP about the prime ministerial candidate in the non congress secular alternative, he said that number of well equipped qualified leaders are in this alternative. He also told that they don’t want to disrespect the choice of the people. He reminded that it is the representatives who wins the confidence of the people throughout the country will in turn choose their leader unlike the practice in Congress and BJP.
Yechury in Election Campaign Meeting in Kurnool
CPI(M) polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury asked people to vote for change. Sitaram Yechury inaugurated his election campaign tour in Andhra Pradesh by addressing a public meeting and road show in Kurnool on Friday 10th April. Yechury will also address election rallies and meetings at Nalgonda, Khammam, Vijayawada, Santanutala Padu assembly constituencies and Araku parliamentary constituency where CPI(M) is contesting. He will end his tour in Andhra Pradesh by attending the Grand Alliance public meeting at Vishakapatnam on 13th April.
While addressing a public meeting organised in support of CPI(M) candidate, M.A.Gafoor, in Kurnool assembly constituency in Andhra Pradesh Yechury told that nation wide people are looking for change. He also said that NDA and UPA are getting weakened day by day. NDA started with more than 30 parties since 1999 ended up with its traditional allies such as Shiva Sena in Maharashtra and Akali Dal in Punjab. He told the gathering that BJP failed not only in attracting the formidable allies but also keeping its own allies together. He pointed out that BJD which is in the company of BJP for the last 11 years is now disserted NDA and joined hands with the Left Parties who are working for Non Congress Alternative Secular Government. He also told that though Lalu Prasad and Paswan are members of UPA, they joined hands with Mulayam in Gangetic belt to defeat the Congress.
He said that the Left parties are working for a policy alternatives. In that effort they are mobilising parties around the certain policy issues such as protecting and expanding public sector, fight against communalism and terrorism, independent foreign policy, social justice. He also said that those parties who are coordinating closely in the election process, will come together after elections and work out an alternative programme basing on which they will form the government. He informed the audience that so far TDP, TRS, AIADMK, BJD came together and some other parties are extending cooperation from out side for the Non Congress Secular Alternative.
He told the gathering that Andhra Pradesh is the vital straw for Congress in centre. He remembered them that 37 seats the Congress and other friendly parties won in the last election became formidable base for Congress to claim power in Delhi. He also told that with a commitment to form an alternative secular government and also to defeat the Congress misrule in Andhra Pradesh CPI(M) joined hands with CPI , TDP and TRS. He reminded that the Congress failed to control the communalism in states where it is in power. Due to this failure, he identified that they lost power to BJP in Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab.
Before the public meeting Yechury addressed a press conference and also participated in a road show. Along with Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) candidate for Kurnool assembly constituency and sitting MLA M A Gafoor, Ex Mayor of Kurnool and TDP leader Bangi Anantayya, CPI (M) district secretary T.Shadrak, CPI(M) city secretary K.Prabhakar Reddy, CPI city secretary Nabi Rasool are also participated in the road show.
Instability is not inherent to any Alternative : Sitaram Yechury
Communist Party of India ( Marxist) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury said that instability is not inherent to any alternative. In his second day of election campaign in Andhra Pradesh, on April 11th, Yechury participated in a road show in Bhoingiri parliamentary constituency. The road show went along Kattangur, Narketpalli, and Nakarikel. Along with Yechury, CPI(M) candidate for Bhoingiri Loksabha seat, Narasimhaiah, CPI(M) candidate for Nakarikel assembly segment, Sarvaiah, MLC CH. Sitaramulu, TDP Nalgonda district president B.Lingaiah Yadava, TRS district president B.Somi Reddy, participated in the road show.
Rebutting the criticism by Prime Minister Manmohan Sing and PM hopeful L.K Advani that the proposed non congress secular alternative is a recipe for instability, Yechury said that the first ever alternative government which came in to existence under the leadership of V.P.Singh was destabilized by BJP and the second chance of establishing an alternative government was thwarted by Congress in the case of Deve Gowda and Gujral. He also said that the instability these governments experienced is due to their dependence on out side support for survival. He hoped that this time, efforts will be made to ensure no dependence on outside support.
About comments of Manmohan Singh and Advani regarding the leader of the secular alternative Yechury said that those who are elected by the people will decide about their leader if the situation arises. He also reminded that in 1977 general election Congress projected Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister but she was defeated by the people. Responding to the questions raised by both the PM and leader of Opposition regarding the leader of the proposed front, Yechury reminded them that it was after elections that parties came together to form United Front and drafted a Common Minimum Programe, and chose a leader. That was the case even with BJP and NDA in 1998 elections and UPA in 2004. In all these cases, the alternative took concrete shape only after the election results were out.
Responding to a criticism by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that the proposed third alternative is strengthening the communal forces in the country, Yechury also said that it is the Congress that paved way for BJP to come back in to power in several states including Punjab and Karnataka, thus strengthening the hands of communal forces in the country. He appealed to the voters that it is time to choose a non congress secular alternative which can give boost to the crippling economy due to crisis, and strengthen secular democratic India. He also reminded the voters of Andhra Pradesh that it is AP on whose strength Congress is banking to come back to power in the Center. He felt that
it is imperative to defeat the Congress in Andhra Pradesh to pave way for the non congress secular alternative at the Center.
Nation can be bailed out only with Non Congress Secular Alternative
Yechury in Mahakootami Rally at Vizag
INN
CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury said that the nation can be bailed out from the current economic crisis on by electing the non congress secular alternative to power at the centre. Addressing a huge public meeting in Steel City Vizag’s industrial area Gajuwaka, Yechury said the various sections of people needs bail out packages instead of industries. In the last leg of his election campaign in Andhra Pradesh Yechury addressed a grand public meeting along with TDP supremo Chandra Babu Naidu, CPI state secretary K. Narayana, CPI(M) state secretary B V Raghavulu and CPI(M) candidate for Gajuwaka assembly constituency and Vishakapatnam Lok Sabha candidate MVVS Murthy on Monday April 13th. Before addressing the Grand Alliance public meeting, leaders addressed various meetings in Araku parliamentary constituency where CPI(M) is contesting with the support of Grand Alliance partners.
He expressed confidence that the people of Andhra Pradesh will elect the Non Congress Secular Alternative forces for state assembly as well as to represent the state in Parliament. After touring the state from Karnataka boarder to Orissa boarder addressing several meetings he expressed this confidence.
He also said that already in the country more than 74 % of people are living with meagre Rs 20 purchasing power. Daily 1000 people are dying due to lack of nutritional food. 78 % of women are facing the problem o anaemia. So far due to crisis the country lost 10 million jobs. Due to slump in exports diamond cutting workers in Gujarat and weavers elsewhere committing suicide. Though the government announced 12 billion dollar package, nothing has been spent out of that so far. He criticised central government for neglecting the severity of the crisis. He urged up on the forthcoming governments to increase the government expenditure to bail out the nation from this serious crisis.
He told that with the non congress secular alternative government at the centre, the Left will pursue the people’s bail out packages. He reminded the Left parties role in forcing the UPA government to desist the reforms of more dangerous nature, which included privatisation of pension funds, increase of FDI in Insurance industry, privatisation of public sector undertakings etc. He assured the people that non congress secular alternative government at the centre will strengthen the hands of Left to take up much more constructive steps from people’s orientation. He also assured that the new government’s policies will not be profit oriented ones.
Visualising the non congress secular alternatives taking shape at state level, he reminded people of the developments in Orissa, AP, Karnataka where non congress secular parties are coming together and the developments in the states such as Tamilnadu, UP, Bihar where several key forces are working for such an alternative. He also told the audience that the country entered in to coalition phase 15 years ago and this election is also going to continue with that phenomena.
Mentioning about the criticism from Congress and BJP about the prime ministerial candidate in the non congress secular alternative, he said that number of well equipped qualified leaders are in this alternative. He also told that they don’t want to disrespect the choice of the people. He reminded that it is the representatives who wins the confidence of the people throughout the country will in turn choose their leader unlike the practice in Congress and BJP.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Vote for Change
Yechury in Election Campaign Meeting in Kurnool
CPI(M) polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury asked people to vote for change. Sitaram Yechury inaugurated his election campaign tour in Andhra Pradesh by addressing a public meeting and road show in Kurnool on Friday 10th April. Yechury will also address election rallies and meetings at Nalgonda, Khammam, Vijayawada, Santanutala Padu assembly constituencies and Araku parliamentary constituency where CPI(M) is contesting. He will end his tour in Andhra Pradesh by attending the Grand Alliance public meeting at Vishakapatnam on 13th April.
While addressing a public meeting organised in support of CPI(M) candidate, M.A.Gafoor, in Kurnool assembly constituency in Andhra Pradesh Yechury told that nation wide people are looking for change. He also said that NDA and UPA are getting weakened day by day. NDA started with more than 30 parties since 1999 ended up with its traditional allies such as Shiva Sena in Maharashtra and Akali Dal in Punjab. He told the gathering that BJP failed not only in attracting the formidable allies but also keeping its own allies together. He pointed out that BJD which is in the company of BJP for the last 11 years is now disserted NDA and joined hands with the Left Parties who are working for Non Congress Alternative Secular Government. He also told that though Lalu Prasad and Paswan are members of UPA, they joined hands with Mulayam in Gangetic belt to defeat the Congress.
He said that the Left parties are working for a policy alternatives. In that effort they are mobilising parties around the certain policy issues such as protecting and expanding public sector, fight against communalism and terrorism, independent foreign policy, social justice. He also said that those parties who are coordinating closely in the election process, will come together after elections and work out an alternative programme basing on which they will form the government. He informed the audience that so far TDP, TRS, AIADMK, BJD came together and some other parties are extending cooperation from out side for the Non Congress Secular Alternative.
He told the gathering that Andhra Pradesh is the vital straw for Congress in centre. He remembered them that 37 seats the Congress and other friendly parties won in the last election became formidable base for Congress to claim power in Delhi. He also told that with a commitment to form an alternative secular government and also to defeat the Congress misrule in Andhra Pradesh CPI(M) joined hands with CPI , TDP and TRS. He reminded that the Congress failed to control the communalism in states where it is in power. Due to this failure, he identified that they lost power to BJP in Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab.
Before the public meeting Yechury addressed a press conference and also participated in a road show. Along with Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) candidate for Kurnool assembly constituency and sitting MLA M A Gafoor, Ex Mayor of Kurnool and TDP leader Bangi Anantayya, CPI (M) district secretary T.Shadrak, CPI(M) city secretary K.Prabhakar Reddy, CPI city secretary Nabi Rasool are also participated in the road show.
CPI(M) polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury asked people to vote for change. Sitaram Yechury inaugurated his election campaign tour in Andhra Pradesh by addressing a public meeting and road show in Kurnool on Friday 10th April. Yechury will also address election rallies and meetings at Nalgonda, Khammam, Vijayawada, Santanutala Padu assembly constituencies and Araku parliamentary constituency where CPI(M) is contesting. He will end his tour in Andhra Pradesh by attending the Grand Alliance public meeting at Vishakapatnam on 13th April.
While addressing a public meeting organised in support of CPI(M) candidate, M.A.Gafoor, in Kurnool assembly constituency in Andhra Pradesh Yechury told that nation wide people are looking for change. He also said that NDA and UPA are getting weakened day by day. NDA started with more than 30 parties since 1999 ended up with its traditional allies such as Shiva Sena in Maharashtra and Akali Dal in Punjab. He told the gathering that BJP failed not only in attracting the formidable allies but also keeping its own allies together. He pointed out that BJD which is in the company of BJP for the last 11 years is now disserted NDA and joined hands with the Left Parties who are working for Non Congress Alternative Secular Government. He also told that though Lalu Prasad and Paswan are members of UPA, they joined hands with Mulayam in Gangetic belt to defeat the Congress.
He said that the Left parties are working for a policy alternatives. In that effort they are mobilising parties around the certain policy issues such as protecting and expanding public sector, fight against communalism and terrorism, independent foreign policy, social justice. He also said that those parties who are coordinating closely in the election process, will come together after elections and work out an alternative programme basing on which they will form the government. He informed the audience that so far TDP, TRS, AIADMK, BJD came together and some other parties are extending cooperation from out side for the Non Congress Secular Alternative.
He told the gathering that Andhra Pradesh is the vital straw for Congress in centre. He remembered them that 37 seats the Congress and other friendly parties won in the last election became formidable base for Congress to claim power in Delhi. He also told that with a commitment to form an alternative secular government and also to defeat the Congress misrule in Andhra Pradesh CPI(M) joined hands with CPI , TDP and TRS. He reminded that the Congress failed to control the communalism in states where it is in power. Due to this failure, he identified that they lost power to BJP in Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab.
Before the public meeting Yechury addressed a press conference and also participated in a road show. Along with Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) candidate for Kurnool assembly constituency and sitting MLA M A Gafoor, Ex Mayor of Kurnool and TDP leader Bangi Anantayya, CPI (M) district secretary T.Shadrak, CPI(M) city secretary K.Prabhakar Reddy, CPI city secretary Nabi Rasool are also participated in the road show.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Swift Message from Swing States - UPA won't be the Single Largest Post Election Combination
A Swift Message from Swing States – UPA won't be Single largest combination
K. Veeraiah.
Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu were swing states for the Congress in 2004 general elections. Out of 82 seats that both these states contribute to the parliament, almost all except five seats, were bagged by Congress led UPA alliance. This, despite the fact that the UPA at national level emerged after the elections. At the time of elections Congress had entered in to seat adjustments with state level players and like-minded parties in the two states.
In Andhra Pradesh after several rounds of closed door discussions in Delhi and in Hyderabad, Congress high command finally agreed to join hands with Telangana Rashtra Samiti to oust Chandrababu Naidu's 9 years misrule. The important factor that led the then adamant leader of opposition, YSR to join hands with TRS was the fear of losing in case of no alliance. Left parties took a principled stand to oust NDA in Center. Followed by the relentless struggle under the leadership of CPI (M) against TDP's neo liberal economic policies, this principled stand resulted in electoral understanding with Congress in Andhra Pradesh. Thus Grand Alliance against TDP-BJP combine in Andhra Pradesh emerged before 2004 general elections. The same is the case of Tamil Nadu. Left parties joined hands with DMK and Congress joined hands with DMK independently, thus the effective alliances combined with the political situation of these states helped these state level alliances to bag 77 seats in the both states. In the post poll scenario where UPA emerged out of all these state level alliances, this number acted as deciding factor for Congress to take a lead as single largest combination by having upper hand over NDA combination. In this way the state level pre-poll understandings and electoral alliances paved way for post poll coalition governments.
But the general elections of 2009 are witnessing a different scenario in these swing states. Both in Andhra Pradesh and in Tamil Nadu, though the reasons are different, the regional parties TRS and PMK parted ways with Congress led coalition. Both these regional partners hold 13 seats. Apart from that, the Left parties are fighting against the Congress in Andhra Pradesh and the Congress partnered coalition in Tamil Nadu. Both the Left parties have 4 seats. Thus out of 77 seats, the parties capable of winning 17 seats have already walked out from the coalition. The rest 60 seats are distributed between Congress and DMK.
Another important point to take notice of is the fact that in these swing states, the performance of Congress and DMK reached its peak. In Andhra Pradesh Congress never stood in such a strong position commanding almost 30 out of 42 seats on its own. Even in the wave that brought Rajiv Gandhi to power after assassination of the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, Congress in Andhra Pradesh did not gain as much as this. Thus after 1984 general elections TDP emerged as a single largest opposition party other than Congress and the Left. DMK's case in Tamil Nadu is also the same. Though the state is named after the massive shifts in each general election, at no point of time one party benefited so enormously as DMK did in 2004 general elections. In such a situation, in the both the states neither the Congress nor the DMK stand to increase their performance in their tally compared to 2004. According to a in-house estimates of Akbar Road 24, AICC head quarters, Congress is losing 5 to 7 seats from its current strength in Andhra Pradesh. But the ground level information is that it may lose more than 10 from its current strength. Though Congress is contesting in more seats than last time in Tamilnadu, due to PMK's walking out of the alliance, the winnable chances are definitely less for it and it is much more less for DMK. Even if DMK is able to resist the massive shift, the loss will be more than 50 %. Thus it has to shed at least 18-22 seats to the opposition alliance is a minimum. Thus the UPA stands to loose around 30 seats from the swing states. This loss to the UPA can not be compensated from the gains of Kerala and Karnataka, Rajasthan. Thus, the swift message from swing states is simple and clear. Neither Congress is going to retain its position of single largest party nor UPA stands to retain its position as single largest combination to claim power at Indraprastha.
K. Veeraiah.
Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu were swing states for the Congress in 2004 general elections. Out of 82 seats that both these states contribute to the parliament, almost all except five seats, were bagged by Congress led UPA alliance. This, despite the fact that the UPA at national level emerged after the elections. At the time of elections Congress had entered in to seat adjustments with state level players and like-minded parties in the two states.
In Andhra Pradesh after several rounds of closed door discussions in Delhi and in Hyderabad, Congress high command finally agreed to join hands with Telangana Rashtra Samiti to oust Chandrababu Naidu's 9 years misrule. The important factor that led the then adamant leader of opposition, YSR to join hands with TRS was the fear of losing in case of no alliance. Left parties took a principled stand to oust NDA in Center. Followed by the relentless struggle under the leadership of CPI (M) against TDP's neo liberal economic policies, this principled stand resulted in electoral understanding with Congress in Andhra Pradesh. Thus Grand Alliance against TDP-BJP combine in Andhra Pradesh emerged before 2004 general elections. The same is the case of Tamil Nadu. Left parties joined hands with DMK and Congress joined hands with DMK independently, thus the effective alliances combined with the political situation of these states helped these state level alliances to bag 77 seats in the both states. In the post poll scenario where UPA emerged out of all these state level alliances, this number acted as deciding factor for Congress to take a lead as single largest combination by having upper hand over NDA combination. In this way the state level pre-poll understandings and electoral alliances paved way for post poll coalition governments.
But the general elections of 2009 are witnessing a different scenario in these swing states. Both in Andhra Pradesh and in Tamil Nadu, though the reasons are different, the regional parties TRS and PMK parted ways with Congress led coalition. Both these regional partners hold 13 seats. Apart from that, the Left parties are fighting against the Congress in Andhra Pradesh and the Congress partnered coalition in Tamil Nadu. Both the Left parties have 4 seats. Thus out of 77 seats, the parties capable of winning 17 seats have already walked out from the coalition. The rest 60 seats are distributed between Congress and DMK.
Another important point to take notice of is the fact that in these swing states, the performance of Congress and DMK reached its peak. In Andhra Pradesh Congress never stood in such a strong position commanding almost 30 out of 42 seats on its own. Even in the wave that brought Rajiv Gandhi to power after assassination of the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, Congress in Andhra Pradesh did not gain as much as this. Thus after 1984 general elections TDP emerged as a single largest opposition party other than Congress and the Left. DMK's case in Tamil Nadu is also the same. Though the state is named after the massive shifts in each general election, at no point of time one party benefited so enormously as DMK did in 2004 general elections. In such a situation, in the both the states neither the Congress nor the DMK stand to increase their performance in their tally compared to 2004. According to a in-house estimates of Akbar Road 24, AICC head quarters, Congress is losing 5 to 7 seats from its current strength in Andhra Pradesh. But the ground level information is that it may lose more than 10 from its current strength. Though Congress is contesting in more seats than last time in Tamilnadu, due to PMK's walking out of the alliance, the winnable chances are definitely less for it and it is much more less for DMK. Even if DMK is able to resist the massive shift, the loss will be more than 50 %. Thus it has to shed at least 18-22 seats to the opposition alliance is a minimum. Thus the UPA stands to loose around 30 seats from the swing states. This loss to the UPA can not be compensated from the gains of Kerala and Karnataka, Rajasthan. Thus, the swift message from swing states is simple and clear. Neither Congress is going to retain its position of single largest party nor UPA stands to retain its position as single largest combination to claim power at Indraprastha.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Congress Paid back in the same coin
Congress Paid back in the same coin
K. Veeraiah
India News Network, New Delhi
The undoing of UPA in the Gangetic belt is almost complete with the latest developments in Bihar. As per newspaper reports, the differences between Congress and RJD over allotting a fourth parliamentary seat in Bihar led to the curtains falling on UPA in the state. In UP too, the coalition is in trouble for similar reasons. The differences between Congress and SP over four or five seats created rift with both the parties now deciding to contest in maximum number of seats on their own. Thus the Congress has decided to contest 37 seats in Bihar and 70 seats in UP. Both states together constitute 120 seats, which is 22 percent of the total parliamentary seats. It should be remembered that in the 14th Lok Sabha, the Congress had just had won just 3 seats in Bihar, while the RJD had won 22. In UP, it had won 6 while the SP won 35.
But, the main problem lies somewhere else. One can say that the seeds for the current undoing were laid in its political resolution adopted at the time of the Congress Plenary held at Hyderabad in January 2006. In the resolution adopted there, Congress expressed its willingness to fight the next general elections on its own. Speaking in support of the resolution the Congress General Secretary Amibka Soni explained the reasoning behind it. She said that the Congress wants to come back to power on its own free from the shackles of coalition partners. It is to be noted, around then the conflict between the Left and Congress over the Indo-US nuclear deal reached its peak. If we look at the deliberations of Congress Working Committee held on 29th January 2009 in Delhi, the picture would be clearer. After the meeting, the General Secretary Janardhan Dwivedi said, “The Congress will seek votes on its own, except in states where it is in alliance." He also briefed media that the CWC prefers post-poll alliance with like-minded parties instead of forging any national alliance during the elections. With this clear statement, Congress sent signals to Shard Pawar, Mulayam Singh and Lalu Prasad Yadav who proposed seat sharing beyond their respective states.
The reason given by senior Congress leaders was that it is the only party, which has a pan Indian presence, where as all the other UPA partners, are confined to their respective states. Sharing seats with them, according to the Congress will hamper its own chances to emerge as the clear winner. Charged up with the victory in Rajasthan and Delhi Assembly elections, coupled with their euphoria over completing the controversial nuclear deal, it is not surprising that the Congress nurtured such illusions. On the other hand, the principal opposition party, the BJP was already in a mode of self destruction even before the election schedule was announced, which might have helped to increase the confidence level in Congress. After the same CWC meeting, a senior Congress leader said that the Congress was even ready to play a “destructive role“ if the situation demands.
Followed by this CWC decision, Congress started seat-sharing negotiations with the Samajwadi Party, which was designed to fail. Congress successfully forced the Samajwadi Party to walk out of seat sharing negotiations and then came out in public its plan to contest in 70 seats. Then came Bihar. Congress took in the disgruntled RJD MP Sadhu Yadav to its fold. Replying to a media query in the presence of Union Power Minister Susheel Kumar Shinde, Sadhu Yadav confirmed that he would be contesting on Congress ticket. Until then Lalu and Paswan were playing one-upmanship among themselves over seat sharing. It is natural for Congress, which lost its traditional base to RJD and JD(U) in Bihar and to SP and BSP in Uttar Pradesh to try and regain space not by endearing the masses but endearing leaders such as Sadhu Yadav. This worked as an eye opener for both Lalu and Paswan. Immediately they sealed the deal leaving just 3 seats for Congress. The Congress in return announced that it would contest all the 37 seats.
In the least ten days, the coming together of BSP, AIADMK, BJD, TDP, JD (S) together with the Left parties has now forced the Congress to strike a deal with the NCP in Maharashtra. Thus, from 29 January to 21 March this year, the Congress has played a really destructive role in splintering the UPA in North India. In a multi-cornered contest, it can be predicted that in these two states, the ruling parties would fare better. In effect the UPA partners are implementing the decision of the Congress CWC decision to contest alone in all major states.
There is an added dimension to the Bihar fiasco. In Bihar the ruling NDA government has still more than two years of its tenure. It is doubtful to expect the lead partner JD (U) to join hands with the Non Congress Secular Alternative that is emerging. In such a situation, Lalu and Paswan might decide to come out of the UPA to seize the opportunity within their state by trying to forge an opposition to both the UPA and the NDA. Therefore, the Congress has managed to dismantle the UPA on its own, establishing it as a failed leader of a coalition.
K. Veeraiah
India News Network, New Delhi
The undoing of UPA in the Gangetic belt is almost complete with the latest developments in Bihar. As per newspaper reports, the differences between Congress and RJD over allotting a fourth parliamentary seat in Bihar led to the curtains falling on UPA in the state. In UP too, the coalition is in trouble for similar reasons. The differences between Congress and SP over four or five seats created rift with both the parties now deciding to contest in maximum number of seats on their own. Thus the Congress has decided to contest 37 seats in Bihar and 70 seats in UP. Both states together constitute 120 seats, which is 22 percent of the total parliamentary seats. It should be remembered that in the 14th Lok Sabha, the Congress had just had won just 3 seats in Bihar, while the RJD had won 22. In UP, it had won 6 while the SP won 35.
But, the main problem lies somewhere else. One can say that the seeds for the current undoing were laid in its political resolution adopted at the time of the Congress Plenary held at Hyderabad in January 2006. In the resolution adopted there, Congress expressed its willingness to fight the next general elections on its own. Speaking in support of the resolution the Congress General Secretary Amibka Soni explained the reasoning behind it. She said that the Congress wants to come back to power on its own free from the shackles of coalition partners. It is to be noted, around then the conflict between the Left and Congress over the Indo-US nuclear deal reached its peak. If we look at the deliberations of Congress Working Committee held on 29th January 2009 in Delhi, the picture would be clearer. After the meeting, the General Secretary Janardhan Dwivedi said, “The Congress will seek votes on its own, except in states where it is in alliance." He also briefed media that the CWC prefers post-poll alliance with like-minded parties instead of forging any national alliance during the elections. With this clear statement, Congress sent signals to Shard Pawar, Mulayam Singh and Lalu Prasad Yadav who proposed seat sharing beyond their respective states.
The reason given by senior Congress leaders was that it is the only party, which has a pan Indian presence, where as all the other UPA partners, are confined to their respective states. Sharing seats with them, according to the Congress will hamper its own chances to emerge as the clear winner. Charged up with the victory in Rajasthan and Delhi Assembly elections, coupled with their euphoria over completing the controversial nuclear deal, it is not surprising that the Congress nurtured such illusions. On the other hand, the principal opposition party, the BJP was already in a mode of self destruction even before the election schedule was announced, which might have helped to increase the confidence level in Congress. After the same CWC meeting, a senior Congress leader said that the Congress was even ready to play a “destructive role“ if the situation demands.
Followed by this CWC decision, Congress started seat-sharing negotiations with the Samajwadi Party, which was designed to fail. Congress successfully forced the Samajwadi Party to walk out of seat sharing negotiations and then came out in public its plan to contest in 70 seats. Then came Bihar. Congress took in the disgruntled RJD MP Sadhu Yadav to its fold. Replying to a media query in the presence of Union Power Minister Susheel Kumar Shinde, Sadhu Yadav confirmed that he would be contesting on Congress ticket. Until then Lalu and Paswan were playing one-upmanship among themselves over seat sharing. It is natural for Congress, which lost its traditional base to RJD and JD(U) in Bihar and to SP and BSP in Uttar Pradesh to try and regain space not by endearing the masses but endearing leaders such as Sadhu Yadav. This worked as an eye opener for both Lalu and Paswan. Immediately they sealed the deal leaving just 3 seats for Congress. The Congress in return announced that it would contest all the 37 seats.
In the least ten days, the coming together of BSP, AIADMK, BJD, TDP, JD (S) together with the Left parties has now forced the Congress to strike a deal with the NCP in Maharashtra. Thus, from 29 January to 21 March this year, the Congress has played a really destructive role in splintering the UPA in North India. In a multi-cornered contest, it can be predicted that in these two states, the ruling parties would fare better. In effect the UPA partners are implementing the decision of the Congress CWC decision to contest alone in all major states.
There is an added dimension to the Bihar fiasco. In Bihar the ruling NDA government has still more than two years of its tenure. It is doubtful to expect the lead partner JD (U) to join hands with the Non Congress Secular Alternative that is emerging. In such a situation, Lalu and Paswan might decide to come out of the UPA to seize the opportunity within their state by trying to forge an opposition to both the UPA and the NDA. Therefore, the Congress has managed to dismantle the UPA on its own, establishing it as a failed leader of a coalition.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Orissa Undercuts BJP's Claim over Delhi
Orissa Undercuts BJP’s Claim to Delhi
K.Veeraiah
The developments taking place with jet speed in Orissa undercutting the BJP’s claims over coming back to power in Delhi. And also these developments cleared decks for BJD to join hands with Left parties in Orissa and also to be part of non-Congress, non-BJP alternative under formation. In multiple ways the Orissa developments are important in the current context.
Navin Patnaik’s BJD is the long standing ally of BJP only next to its traditional ally Shiv Sena. The alliance of BJD and BJP began cracking in the wake of Kandhamal violence. Navin Patnayak has to face even censure from Central Government and also from Supreme Court over his inability in protecting the minorities of the state. He tried to reign the Saffran brigade which is fore front in attacking minorities. These attacks went uninterruptedly for more than two years. Particularly in consequent to killing of Swami by Naxalites, saffron brigade found an opportunity to prove their hegemony over minorities. These developments drew flack from all over the country and BJD government in dock since then. The current breaking of alliance with BJP will be a major step in instilling confidence among the Christian minorities of the state.
Another important aspect of this falling out is in numbers. Orissa sends 21 MPs to Lok Sabha. Currently except three, all MPs form part of NDA’s kitty. Current developments are a big jolt L.K.Advani, Prime Ministerial candidate of NDA personally. BJP 7 out of 9 where as BJP got 11 out of 12. Now BJP stands to loose in numbers as it will be contesting on its own. Even if it wins its earlier number ( 7) which is unlikely, NDA’s kitty will be reduced by 11 automatically. This will thwart BJP’s claim to power in Delhi in the current elections.
One more important aspect of this de-merger of alliance is the timing. These developments took place at a time when NDA’s lead partner BJP seriously locked up in seat sharing negotiations with other partners Shiv Sena, in Maharashtra and JD(U) in Bihar. So far BJP could complete the seat sharing agreement successfully only with AGP of Assam. In Maharashtra and Bihar consists of 88 Lok Sabha seats, BJP is minor partner. As per the news reports , in Bihar, BJP will be satisfied with 16 seats. The Maharashtra sharing out come is yet to see the light. With the BJD parting ways, other regional satraps will also muscle down BJP and forcing it to reduce their claim over number. If BJP did not falls in line, the existence of NDA will be at a stake. If BJP wants to keep NDA together, it has to bow down in front of JD(U) and Shiv Sena. In either case, the prospects for increase in current numbers in both states is a distant dream for BJP with out which it can’t think of sitting on the Delhi thrown. In Maharashtra BJP already tasted the ire of Shiv Sena when Its octogenarian chief of Shiv Sena refused a request to meet BJP prime ministerial candidate.
The last but not least aspect of current developments in Orissa is that this brings non-Congress secular forces on to single platform there by strengthening the secular forces and unleashing the new ear in the state politics. Navin Patnayak, after announcing in Bhubneswhar on Satuday night that his truck with BJP is over, immediately contacted CPI(M) leaders Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury in Delhi. He also invited Yechury to Bhubaneswhar to work out on the future course of action.
K.Veeraiah
The developments taking place with jet speed in Orissa undercutting the BJP’s claims over coming back to power in Delhi. And also these developments cleared decks for BJD to join hands with Left parties in Orissa and also to be part of non-Congress, non-BJP alternative under formation. In multiple ways the Orissa developments are important in the current context.
Navin Patnaik’s BJD is the long standing ally of BJP only next to its traditional ally Shiv Sena. The alliance of BJD and BJP began cracking in the wake of Kandhamal violence. Navin Patnayak has to face even censure from Central Government and also from Supreme Court over his inability in protecting the minorities of the state. He tried to reign the Saffran brigade which is fore front in attacking minorities. These attacks went uninterruptedly for more than two years. Particularly in consequent to killing of Swami by Naxalites, saffron brigade found an opportunity to prove their hegemony over minorities. These developments drew flack from all over the country and BJD government in dock since then. The current breaking of alliance with BJP will be a major step in instilling confidence among the Christian minorities of the state.
Another important aspect of this falling out is in numbers. Orissa sends 21 MPs to Lok Sabha. Currently except three, all MPs form part of NDA’s kitty. Current developments are a big jolt L.K.Advani, Prime Ministerial candidate of NDA personally. BJP 7 out of 9 where as BJP got 11 out of 12. Now BJP stands to loose in numbers as it will be contesting on its own. Even if it wins its earlier number ( 7) which is unlikely, NDA’s kitty will be reduced by 11 automatically. This will thwart BJP’s claim to power in Delhi in the current elections.
One more important aspect of this de-merger of alliance is the timing. These developments took place at a time when NDA’s lead partner BJP seriously locked up in seat sharing negotiations with other partners Shiv Sena, in Maharashtra and JD(U) in Bihar. So far BJP could complete the seat sharing agreement successfully only with AGP of Assam. In Maharashtra and Bihar consists of 88 Lok Sabha seats, BJP is minor partner. As per the news reports , in Bihar, BJP will be satisfied with 16 seats. The Maharashtra sharing out come is yet to see the light. With the BJD parting ways, other regional satraps will also muscle down BJP and forcing it to reduce their claim over number. If BJP did not falls in line, the existence of NDA will be at a stake. If BJP wants to keep NDA together, it has to bow down in front of JD(U) and Shiv Sena. In either case, the prospects for increase in current numbers in both states is a distant dream for BJP with out which it can’t think of sitting on the Delhi thrown. In Maharashtra BJP already tasted the ire of Shiv Sena when Its octogenarian chief of Shiv Sena refused a request to meet BJP prime ministerial candidate.
The last but not least aspect of current developments in Orissa is that this brings non-Congress secular forces on to single platform there by strengthening the secular forces and unleashing the new ear in the state politics. Navin Patnayak, after announcing in Bhubneswhar on Satuday night that his truck with BJP is over, immediately contacted CPI(M) leaders Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury in Delhi. He also invited Yechury to Bhubaneswhar to work out on the future course of action.
Orissa Undercuts BJP's Claim over Delhi
Orissa Undercuts BJP’s Claim to Delhi
K.Veeraiah
The developments taking place with jet speed in Orissa undercutting the BJP’s claims over coming back to power in Delhi. And also these developments cleared decks for BJD to join hands with Left parties in Orissa and also to be part of non-Congress, non-BJP alternative under formation. In multiple ways the Orissa developments are important in the current context.
Navin Patnaik’s BJD is the long standing ally of BJP only next to its traditional ally Shiv Sena. The alliance of BJD and BJP began cracking in the wake of Kandhamal violence. Navin Patnayak has to face even censure from Central Government and also from Supreme Court over his inability in protecting the minorities of the state. He tried to reign the Saffran brigade which is fore front in attacking minorities. These attacks went uninterruptedly for more than two years. Particularly in consequent to killing of Swami by Naxalites, saffron brigade found an opportunity to prove their hegemony over minorities. These developments drew flack from all over the country and BJD government in dock since then. The current breaking of alliance with BJP will be a major step in instilling confidence among the Christian minorities of the state.
Another important aspect of this falling out is in numbers. Orissa sends 21 MPs to Lok Sabha. Currently except three, all MPs form part of NDA’s kitty. Current developments are a big jolt L.K.Advani, Prime Ministerial candidate of NDA personally. BJP 7 out of 9 where as BJP got 11 out of 12. Now BJP stands to loose in numbers as it will be contesting on its own. Even if it wins its earlier number ( 7) which is unlikely, NDA’s kitty will be reduced by 11 automatically. This will thwart BJP’s claim to power in Delhi in the current elections.
One more important aspect of this de-merger of alliance is the timing. These developments took place at a time when NDA’s lead partner BJP seriously locked up in seat sharing negotiations with other partners Shiv Sena, in Maharashtra and JD(U) in Bihar. So far BJP could complete the seat sharing agreement successfully only with AGP of Assam. In Maharashtra and Bihar consists of 88 Lok Sabha seats, BJP is minor partner. As per the news reports , in Bihar, BJP will be satisfied with 16 seats. The Maharashtra sharing out come is yet to see the light. With the BJD parting ways, other regional satraps will also muscle down BJP and forcing it to reduce their claim over number. If BJP did not falls in line, the existence of NDA will be at a stake. If BJP wants to keep NDA together, it has to bow down in front of JD(U) and Shiv Sena. In either case, the prospects for increase in current numbers in both states is a distant dream for BJP with out which it can’t think of sitting on the Delhi thrown. In Maharashtra BJP already tasted the ire of Shiv Sena when Its octogenarian chief of Shiv Sena refused a request to meet BJP prime ministerial candidate.
The last but not least aspect of current developments in Orissa is that this brings non-Congress secular forces on to single platform there by strengthening the secular forces and unleashing the new ear in the state politics. Navin Patnayak, after announcing in Bhubneswhar on Satuday night that his truck with BJP is over, immediately contacted CPI(M) leaders Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury in Delhi. He also invited Yechury to Bhubaneswhar to work out on the future course of action.
K.Veeraiah
The developments taking place with jet speed in Orissa undercutting the BJP’s claims over coming back to power in Delhi. And also these developments cleared decks for BJD to join hands with Left parties in Orissa and also to be part of non-Congress, non-BJP alternative under formation. In multiple ways the Orissa developments are important in the current context.
Navin Patnaik’s BJD is the long standing ally of BJP only next to its traditional ally Shiv Sena. The alliance of BJD and BJP began cracking in the wake of Kandhamal violence. Navin Patnayak has to face even censure from Central Government and also from Supreme Court over his inability in protecting the minorities of the state. He tried to reign the Saffran brigade which is fore front in attacking minorities. These attacks went uninterruptedly for more than two years. Particularly in consequent to killing of Swami by Naxalites, saffron brigade found an opportunity to prove their hegemony over minorities. These developments drew flack from all over the country and BJD government in dock since then. The current breaking of alliance with BJP will be a major step in instilling confidence among the Christian minorities of the state.
Another important aspect of this falling out is in numbers. Orissa sends 21 MPs to Lok Sabha. Currently except three, all MPs form part of NDA’s kitty. Current developments are a big jolt L.K.Advani, Prime Ministerial candidate of NDA personally. BJP 7 out of 9 where as BJP got 11 out of 12. Now BJP stands to loose in numbers as it will be contesting on its own. Even if it wins its earlier number ( 7) which is unlikely, NDA’s kitty will be reduced by 11 automatically. This will thwart BJP’s claim to power in Delhi in the current elections.
One more important aspect of this de-merger of alliance is the timing. These developments took place at a time when NDA’s lead partner BJP seriously locked up in seat sharing negotiations with other partners Shiv Sena, in Maharashtra and JD(U) in Bihar. So far BJP could complete the seat sharing agreement successfully only with AGP of Assam. In Maharashtra and Bihar consists of 88 Lok Sabha seats, BJP is minor partner. As per the news reports , in Bihar, BJP will be satisfied with 16 seats. The Maharashtra sharing out come is yet to see the light. With the BJD parting ways, other regional satraps will also muscle down BJP and forcing it to reduce their claim over number. If BJP did not falls in line, the existence of NDA will be at a stake. If BJP wants to keep NDA together, it has to bow down in front of JD(U) and Shiv Sena. In either case, the prospects for increase in current numbers in both states is a distant dream for BJP with out which it can’t think of sitting on the Delhi thrown. In Maharashtra BJP already tasted the ire of Shiv Sena when Its octogenarian chief of Shiv Sena refused a request to meet BJP prime ministerial candidate.
The last but not least aspect of current developments in Orissa is that this brings non-Congress secular forces on to single platform there by strengthening the secular forces and unleashing the new ear in the state politics. Navin Patnayak, after announcing in Bhubneswhar on Satuday night that his truck with BJP is over, immediately contacted CPI(M) leaders Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury in Delhi. He also invited Yechury to Bhubaneswhar to work out on the future course of action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
