Pathankot attack: Mr Modi is no PM, his party has failed India

We can only hope that the inept handling of the Pathankot terror attack is the worst breach of national security and dignity that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his BJP can inflict on the nation. However, the progressive scale of ineptitude that has been on display doesn't give much hope.

For too long, it was not clear if all the terrorists had been taken out.Indian Express reported there was a blast even while defence minister Manohar Parrikar arrived at the base.

Before that:

o    The finance minister got into the act saying the siege was over; his statement was followed by reports of more gunfire.

o    The home minister put out a tweet announcing the end of the attack and then deleted it.

o    The prime minister was purveying wisdom on yoga and Hinduism.

o    The defence minister was in Goa, meddling in its seaside politics.

Maybe the terrorists died laughing?

With the BJP, garish spectacle triumphs over quiet diplomacy. In February 1999, Atal Bihari Vajpayee took a bus to Lahore with the famous Bollywood actor Dev Anand in tow and signed the Lahore Declaration. In May that year, India faced the Kargil war. With Modi, the Pathankot terror attack came just a few days after his PR stopover in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media appeared clueless, reporting every leak from the multiple agencies in charge, sowing confusion all around.Television news simply passed off everything as breaking news. The more "intrepid", not wanting to dig and delve into the hard story, went after the human angle: interviewing grieving relatives of the soldiers who were killed, calling them "bravehearts" like medieval Scots and "martyrs" like Islamic fundamentalists.

The newspapers were no better: they simply bought whatever line the government put out and played up the sentimental angle of sacrifice for the nation.

In the event, the social media, some uncompromising publications like The Hindu and The Telegraph and a number of hardnosed commentators nailed the truth. Many questioned the national security adviser's decision to deploy the Defence Security Corps (DSCs) comprising retired soldiers to assist the National Security Guard at Pathankot. There was widespread derision of Mr Modi's preoccupation with yoga and Hindu temples and the now-familiar loose-lipped syndrome of his ministers.

Mr Modi and his party have failed every test of serious governance so far. Remember: climate doesn't change, people grow older. Or, Ganesha's elephant head is proof there were plastic surgeons in those ancient days. Or, India can never abuse nature: earth is our mother; moon is our "mama", echoing a popular Bollywood song of the 1950s.

This government is also demonstrably incompetent. Never mind Pathankot, even in Parliament, where it commands a majority in the lower house, Mr Modi has been unable to get anything done. Plus, he has suffered significant political defeats in Delhi and Bihar. Now there's virtually no hope the BJP can win a majority in the upper house through 2019.

As such, the first-ever majority government since the 1980s finds itself stymied.

Mr Modi's belligerence swayed many away from their normal predilections to vote for him in 2014; hence, the majority. Cocky in victory, he denied Leader of Opposition status to Sonia Gandhi, president of the Indian National Congress. As such, his no-holds-barred approach permitted no negotiation and compromise with the opposition, a sine qua non of democracy.

In just 18 months, he has shown he is simply not prime ministerial material. Never mind his own obvious shortcomings, including gaffes about the flag in Japan and the national anthem in Russia, his cabinet is a distressingly low on intellect and ethics.

The much-admired campaign in 2014 beguiled the electorate: there was dog-whistle rhetoric about Hindutva; a slanderous paid media campaign against a government that delivered a decade of unprecedented prosperity and social welfare; a quixotic promise of a golden age.  

There's one more thing in play: during the 2008 Mumbai terror attack, Mr Modi, then Gujarat chief minister, showed up outside the Oberoi Hotel to castigate the government as soft and directionless. This was while security forces were still battling the terrorists.  In stark contrast, there has been no politicking by the opposition in the matter of Pathankot.

Mr Modi's future suddenly seems to be limited. The narrative of good governance is shown up as "a tale told by idiots, who strut and fret their hour upon the stage, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

(An edited version of this post will appear in Dailyo.in, January 2016.)

Confusion Now Hath Made His Masterpiece

We can only hope that the inept handling of the Pathankot terror attack is the worst breach of national security and dignity that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his BJP can inflict on the nation. However, the progressive scale of ineptitude that has been on display doesn’t give much hope.

For too long, it was not clear if all the terrorists had been taken out. Indian Express reported there was a blast even while defense minister Parrikar arrived at the base. Before that:

• The finance minister got into the act saying the siege was over; his statement was followed by reports of more gunfire.
• The home minister put out a tweet announcing the end of the attack and then deleted it.
• The prime minister was purveying wisdom on yoga and Hinduism.
• The defense minister was in Goa, meddling in its seaside politics.

Maybe the terrorists died laughing?

With the BJP, garish spectacle triumphs over quiet diplomacy. In February 1999, Atal Behari Vajpayee took a bus to Lahore with the famous Bollywood actor Dev Anand in tow and signed the Lahore Declaration. In May that year, India faced the Kargil war. With Modi, the Pathankot terror attack came just a few days after his PR stopover in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media appeared clueless. It reported every leak from the multiple agencies in charge, sowing confusion all around.Television news, now bigger and better than in 1999, simply passed off everything as breaking news. The more “intrepid,”not wanting to dig and delve into the hard story, went after the human angle: interviewing grieving relatives of the soldiers who were killed, calling them “bravehearts” like medieval Scots and “martyrs” like Islamic fundamentalists.

The newspapers were no better: they simply bought whatever line the government put out and played up the sentimental angle of sacrifice for the nation. They could not or would not distinguish between reports on the ground from the disinformation being put out by government sources.

In the event, the social media, some uncompromising publications like The Hindu and The Telegraph and a number of hardnosed commentators nailed the truth. Many questioned the national security adviser’s decision to deploy the Defense Security Corps comprised of retired soldiers to assist the National Security Guard at Pathankot. There was widespread derision of Mr Modi’s preoccupation with yoga and Hindu temples.

Mr Modi and his party have failed every test or serious governance so far. Remember: climate doesn’t change, people grow older.  Or Ganesha’s elephant head is proof there were plastic surgeons in those ancient days. Or India can never abuse nature:earth is our mother; moon is our “mama” (mother’s brother), echoing a popular Bollywood song of the 1950s.

This government is also demonstrably incompetent. Never mind Pathankot, even in Parliament, where it commands a majority in the lower house, Mr Modi has been unable to get anything done.Plus he suffered significant political defeats in Delhi and Bihar.Now there’s virtually no hope the BJP can win a majority in the upper house through 2019. As such, the first-ever majority government since the 1980s finds itself stymied.

Mr Modi’sbelligerence swayed many away from their normal predilections to vote for him in 2014; hence the majority. Cocky in victory, he denied Leader of Opposition status to Sonia Gandhi, president of the Indian National Congress. As such, his no-holds-barred approach permitted no negotiation and compromise with the opposition, a sine qua non in a democracy.

In just 18 months, he has shown he is simply not prime ministerial material. Never mind his obvious shortcomings, including gaffes about the flag in Japan and the national anthem in Russia, his cabinet is a distressingly low on intellect and ethics.

The much-admired campaign in 2014 beguiled the electorate: there was dog-whistle rhetoric about Hindutva; a slanderous paid media campaign against a government that delivered a decade of unprecedented prosperity and social welfare; a quixotic promise of a golden age. 

There’s one more thing in play: during the 2008 Bombay terror attack, Mr Modi, then Gujarat chief minister, showed up outside the Oberoi Hotel to castigate the government as soft and directionless. This was while security forces were still battling the terrorists.  In stark contrast, there has been no dissenting opposition voice in the matter of Pathankot.

Mr Modi’s future suddenly seems to be limited. The narrative of good governance is shown up as“a tale told by idiots, who strut and fret their hour upon the stage, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” 

(An edited version of this post will appear in DailyO.in, January 2016.)

US Presidential Election: The rise of a millennial left?

Bernie Sanders is the first avowedly socialist presidential candidate in American politics. Whether or not he wins the Democratic Party’s nomination and goes on to become President, his emergence signals a major ideological change in global politics. The credible challenge he has mounted on the global stage has hastened the end of the fraying Reagan-Thatcher model of laissez-faire economics. The main reason free-market economics came under a cloud was because it spawned the Washington Consensus, a set of policy prescriptions proffered to developing countries by Western politicians, government officials, scholars and executives of multinational corporations and multilateral institutions.

The prescriptions were actually very sensible but not the inflexible approach of those pushing them. The Washington Consensus stirred opposition from the Left-dominated bureaucracy and academies in developing countries, especially India, and around the world. It was disparaged as “neoliberalism” and “market fundamentalism.”

Early protests were led in the US during the mid-1990s by a coalition of NGOs, labor unions, student groups and assorted pacifists and anarchists. They initially targeted meetings of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), a group of Pacific Rim countries that advocated free trade in the region. Fast forward to 1999, similar protests rocked the ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle. These were on a much larger scale and immediately drew global attention.

From what came to be known as “The Battle of Seattle” to the Occupy Movement seemed a logical extension of the activism against globalization. The 2008 global economic meltdown that led to the bailout of large transnational banks was the spark that lit the fire. Starting out of New York City in September 2011, the Occupy protest spread to 951 cities in 82 countries. Its method was simply to take over chunks of real estate in vital areas of major cities, much like the Arab Spring protesters. A similar “Indignants” movement erupted in Spain that October to challenge the government’s “austerity measures” including welfare cuts, joblessness and changes in labor laws. The Indignants movement counted for nearly seven million participants.

The scope of the protests grew to encompass not just “neoliberal” policies and multi-national corporations but the entire phenomenon of globalization and targeted capitalism itself.  Pointing to the growing economic disparities in the world, the demonstrators used a catchy slogan: “We are the 99 %!” This was reinforced by a report issued in October 2011 by the US Congressional Budget Office which said, among other things, that the income of the top one per cent of the population grew 275 per cent in the three decades since the late 1970s. The slogan was instantly popular; that’s because concerns about the distribution of wealth go back a long way to the late 19^th century to Vilfredo Pareto, the Italian economist who established the 80-20 principle based on his observation that 80 per cent of Italy’s land was by 20 per cent of the population.

For example, in the US, distribution of wealth was fairly stable from the 1940s through 1980, income gains remained roughly the same; after that the gap widened to where today the income of the top one per cent shows 200 per cent growth whereas the bottom 20 per cent report just a 48 per cent increase. Worse, the middle 60 per cent have to be satisfied with just a 40 per cent growth in income.

What research could likely show in understanding the Sanders phenomenon is that the middle 60 per cent, solid supporters of the status quo, have taken a beating in the globalized economy and bought into the 99% slogan. These are level-headed, middle-class people, the bedrock of support for the “American way of life.” Clearly, they won’t buy into the maddening Donald Trump war cry of “making America great again” that appeals largely to the working class. Looking for “change they can believe in,” an aspiration Barack Obama gifted voters; they seem unmoved by Hillary Clinton’s experience and worried by her ties to multinational companies and Wall Street.

This unrest seems only to grow. Just in the past week, France has been rocked by “Nuit Debout” (Standing Night), a massive protest against the Hollande government’s proposal to amend labor laws and promote business-friendly hire-and-fire practices. Echoing the Occupy movement, the French demonstrations have spread to nearly 30 cities involving anywhere from 400,000 to a million people. Already, with the debut of the hash tag #nuitdebout and a television link, TV Debout, live from the Place de la Republique, which the protesters have occupied for over a week, the message has broadened in scope to include a revolt against capitalism.

In mainstream as well as digital media, you can sense a sharp Left turn. The difference is there is no Soviet Union, the orthodoxy; only a growing indignation against inequality, the demonization of the corporate world and a steadfast belief that capitalism is an exploitative system. The current mood is eloquently captured by the slogan of Spain’s Indignants: “We are not goods in the hands of politicians and bankers.”

Into this souped-up ambience of protest, enter 75-year-old Bernie Sanders, junior US senator from Vermont. Three things are noteworthy about his ascent to highs never before allowed to professed socialists: one, in all the primaries so far, he has claimed more than 70 per cent of the vote of voters between the ages of 19 and 35; two, his emergence is every bit as radical as that of Obama, the first black presidents; at 75, he is five years older than Ronald Reagan when he was elected; he is the first Jewish candidate. Is it any wonder that he’s giving Hillary Clinton nightmares: first woman president pales in comparison to Sanders’ firsts? The third feature is that the platform on which Sanders is articulating a socialist message is unprecedented. It is simply the biggest, most prominent, most widely recognized in the world: the US presidential election campaign.

(An edited version of this post will appear in http://http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com, April 8, 2016.)