The Anti-Incumbency Inherent in the Constitution!

ROOT causing Congress party's decimation in the recent State Assembly elections, especially in Delhi, and a similar decimation of the BJP in Karnataka earlier this year, one can find that quite a lot of blame of lacklustre performance at the State level is being attributed to the lacklustre performance of the ruling party at the Center. Said in other words, people heard lauding Congress' good governance under Sheila Dikshit in Delhi last 15 years are attributing this December election defeat to the poor governance by Congress at the Center.

This blaming scheme probably has its roots in the Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, which distributes such subjects of governance to the Center that had rather been in State control so that a performance or failure of a State government can clearly be attributed to the State government alone. This arrangement of subjects - while it gives more control to those that run the Central government - creates a confusion among voters while assessing the performance or failure of their incumbent State ruling party, thereby rendering them clueless about which party their vote must go in current elections.

Whether this confusion is the genius of the Constitution or of the people that reserve the right to remove such confusion is an easy question to answer. Its the people, who hold the right to amend the Constitution - the legislators, that need to act and amend the Schedule-7 so as to re-arrange subjects of governance between the State and the Center. These people include elected members of State assemblies apart from MPs, for according to Art 368 an amendment to Schedule-7 needs approval from more than half of the State assemblies.

Now, in the interest of those political parties that have aspirations at both State and Central level politics I believe there is value in picking up this cause of an amendment to the 7th Schedule that is also long pending. There are some parties like the BJP, of course, that would like to keep the 7th schedule that way, what with the manufactured image of some of their larger than thou candidates whose projected national image is expected to win them State elections also. But is it really going to help once they gain Central power and continue to be subject to the same Constitution that is bound to pull them down, eventually?

Isn't it time we realized why people get bored of incumbent political parties even if, for a moment, we assume those parties were doing the right things? Isn't it time we saw the anti-incumbency inherent in our Constitution?

Tall Statutes, Taller Statues and Dark Shadows!

ALTHOUGH the author of this article appears to uphold the consideration promised in return to the original surrender made by the princes, and it deserves its respect, it may be important to ponder as to why there must have been such a surrender in the first place. 

With all their valor and revering subjects in their respective States, why did those princely States end up surrendering such huge amounts of money and property to a Union they were so reluctant to join in the first place? Given that affiliation and inclusion to either the Indian or the Pakistani republics was optional to these princely States, their inclusion amid heated expressions of reluctance must have been a coercion if not a conquer. In such a case what value does The Union hold to the people who belonged to these princely States and what reverence can be expected from them towards the Indian Union which upon a simple amendment to its constitution in 1971 repealed all the payments promised to the people of the dissolved princely States?

It is also questionable had these princely States not submitted and not reluctantly got coerced into The Union, would they have been in as poor state of existence as now? The Hyderabad princely State and its people, for instance, are having a bitter experience in the Indian Union now where their homeland - Andhra Pradesh - is being split in two much against popular demands against such division. Can we now pat Sardar Patel's back posthumously or our own backs for this abuse of centralized political power in inflicting pain to the Telugu people of Andhra by The Union? Did all the people who subscribed to this union in 1950 deserve this? Dont we need some time to slow down and think about a re-writing of such a constitution that lets someone to care so little for the very people of this union?

Isn't it even higher levels of stupidity to let national parties like the BJP and the INC to make this topic a bait to fish for popular votes in upcoming elections? Isn't it stupid to take sides of either of these parties (and their philosophies too) and thereby appear to support such continued acts of brutal coercion, division and undemocratic rule?

This statement by the author though summarizes to some extent the right spirit for us to derive from this piece of history bearing very well in current context:

In the end, the abolition of Privy Purses will remain one of the most shameful events in our constitutional history. The nation saved Rs.4 crore annually but lost its honour. It is equally regrettable that neither the Janata Party in 1977 nor any subsequent non-Congress government did anything to redeem Patel’s pledge. What purpose will, then, be served by spending Rs.2,500 crore to build the tallest statue in his memory?

What's there in The Manifest Manifesto

In these days when everyone is throwing his hat in the manifesto ring, I took a look at manifestos floated by some renowned political parties and here's my summary of what one could gather from them and how one can use them as a scale to measure the respective party's political validity in one's constituency. Especially in LA elections during May 2013.

So here is my take on a common man's thumb-rule to reading Political Manifestos:

1. If the manifesto is not in the people's language, junk it and the party. Even if it is a google translation!
2. If the manifesto speaks more in Crores of Rupees than Crores of People, that manifesto is a pack of lies. So is the party too.
3. If the manifesto uses ongoing projects to pat its own back then this party doesn't have a real vision of its own, thereby redundant and potentially unqualified. Escapist.
4. If the manifesto is overly creative, yet fails to touch upon seething local public issues, that manifesto is Elitist, and reflects a party that just doesn't care, but seeks power nevertheless. Junk it regardless of how qualified its candidates could be.
5. If a manifesto echoes your concerns and describes a way it would address your problems, and those of your neighbor, and those of their neighbors, and theirs, that is a manifesto to pick, and vote.

Point #2 above is of special importance because such manifestos that speak about expenditures talk about action under the Executive pillar of our polity. But an election is a time when we elect Legislators who are supposed to make, remove and amend laws in order to protect and serve their people. A party that fails to represent its legislative roadmap is determined to fail on its executive roadmap too. So one can rest assured of not getting those kilograms of rice for One Rupee!!

Point #3 shows how some parties are politically unqualified because they cant even be creative in dreaming projects in the manifesto either because their party's philosophy precludes that or they simply lack the vision to dream. These parties are escapist and inept.

Point #4 shows how some other parties are politically unqualified because of the divine apathy they seem to show towards local public issues that are burning down welfare in local societies. These parties prefer to create a new parallel dimension in public life that is numb to real social issues viz drinking water shortage & excessive waste generation and walk that dimension attracting like-minded numb souls.

These points express how important a democratic process it is to analyze manifestos of parties before deciding upon one's final choice. A manifesto has hitherto been reduced to a grand gala release function akin to other political meravaniges (processions) thereby sidelining the importance people need to attach to these manifestos that are manifestations of the future.

Now, who can come up with a manifesto like the point #5 above? It can only be those parties that have bloomed from among the people in that society, not instead those parties that claim to be national. These local parties see national interest through the lens of local interests while the parties presenting the junk manifestos have just held the scope other way round and see local interests being limited, not achieved, by national interests!


Come May 2013: Vote Local. Vote You.