Round The World

New Delhi, 24 January 2025

Trump’s Swearing-In

INDIA’S PARTICIPATION

By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri

(Prof. NIIS Group of Institutions) 

Donald John Trump resumed office of the American President for the second term after a gap of four years. He became the 47^th President of the United States. There is a good deal of discussion across the world, certainly in India about the nature of the swearing-in ceremony and the participation of various countries. The media is full of who’s who among the attendees, especially who attended and who did not or could not. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is considered to be a close friend of Donald Trump, was conspicuous by his absence. Critics, admirers and a section of media are raising a hullaballoo about Modi being ‘ignored’ by the swearing-in ceremony team of Donald Trump. 

In the 248 years of American political history, the convention has been to invite junior ministers or diplomats not the Heads of Governments or States to the inauguration of American Presidents. Trump, as per his wont, broke the tradition and invited a few Heads of Governments and politicians mainly from the right-wing of the ideological spectrum. He also invited some of his rivals, notably Xi Jinping of China. On both counts – right-wing as well as breaking the tradition – Modi was an obvious candidate to be in the Capitol Hill. 

The notable politicians included Argentinean Prime Minister Javier Milali, a close ally of Trump, Viktor Orban, President of Hungary, an admirer of Trump, Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, a right-wing politician, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain, a right-winger, Eric Zemmour, President of France’s Nationalist Reconquete Party, a hardcore rightist, Nigel Farage, leader of the UK-Anti Immigration Reform Party, a ultra-nationalist. Australia and Japan were represented by their Foreign Ministers, as was India and China by its Vice-President Han Zheng. 

As anticipated, there was a big band of business houses present in the Capitol Hill. In addition to obvious names like Sunder Pichai, Mark Zukerberg, Elon Musk (member of Trump’s team), there were a number of businessmen from India or of Indian origin. To name a few, Ashish Jain of a Pune-based real estate called Kundan Space, Kalpesh Mehta, a partner in Trump Towers Project, Pankaj Bansal, M3M Developers and of course, Mukesh and Nita Ambani flew from India to be a part of the ceremony. 

Why was Modi left out? Was it a deliberate omission by the Trump Administration? It could certainly not be an oversight. There could be two possible interpretations of Modi’s absence from the grand international event. One, in case of India, Trump team stuck to the tradition and did not invite Modi as the Head of Govt of India. This perspective flies in the face as Modi is supposed to be close to Donald Trump. He had openly declared support, in a departure from Indian political tradition, for Donald Trump in 2020 presidential elections. 

The US Ambassador Eric Garcetti asserted that the inter-personal bond between Modi and Trump is amazingly close. He said in an interview about the inauguration, “I think it would be more meaningful for Prime Minister Modi to meet President Trump one-to-one than being a part of very large crowd”. He also hinted that an invitation for Prime Minister Modi from White House is coming pretty soon. 

The second interpretation is that Modi was purposefully not invited to the inaugural ceremony. This point of view merits introspection and investigation as India-America relations are becoming closer or rather should be stronger in view of the emerging geo-political scenario in the Asia Pacific. If we stick to the theory of Modi being ignored, it is in order that the reasons for such eventuality should be identified. 

To my mind, three possible reasons pop-up; these are, India’s strategic autonomy, New Delhi trashing American agencies on democracy rating etc and its turbulent bilateralism with Canada in recent times. Let us elaborate on these points as it is time for reality check irrespective of Modi’s absence from the ceremony and in view of ascendency of Trump to the high table. 

Some of us have been arguing that strategic autonomy, a reformulation of non-alignment, or a euphemism for multi-alignment is not a tenable position in an inter-dependent world. Any country big or small can ill-afford strategic autonomy. Big powers will not appreciate or accept such positions. Certainly, not Donald Trump who likes to have friends and enemies. His team, from his last term, has openly declared China as a strategic rival, but has not said clearly that India is a friend like Washington treats Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada and a few other countries. New Delhi is paying a heavy price with its defence purchases to build its deterrence in the name of strategic autonomy. A poor country like India, this is absolutely inadvisable. 

Interestingly, New Delhi is being paid in its own coin, so to say, as other countries, certainly its neighbours are balancing their relations between Beijing and New Delhi perhaps in the name of strategic autonomy. Take the case of Nepal, which has been the closest ally of India, Sri Lanka, again the closest to India, Bangladesh, which is balancing India with Pakistan, and Maldives. Pakistan has walked into the Chinese sphere of influence and has almost become a satellite state. Can New Delhi blame the smaller neighbours when it has been doing the same with USA and former USSR, and now with USA (Quad) on one hand and China and Russia on the other (BRICS, SCO)? 

Following the concept of strategic autonomy, India also has erroneously started behaving as a big power. New Delhi becoming the fifth largest economy in terms of GDP has perhaps given that premature confidence. Politicians in power are overstating this fact for political purposes. Yet, it is important to realise that India has not arrived at the world stage. A slice of statistics should dispel that misconception. 

In terms of per capita GDP, India is 142^nd in the ranking. The growth rate, which was 7.8 per cent between 2004 to 2014, has come down to 5.8 per cent. This is not enough to be a developed country and a world power by 2047. Is India the fastest growing economy? Yes, it is, but it has been the second fastest for over 20 years. As the Chinese economy, which was the fastest slowed down, India became number one. In actual fact, Indian economy has not galloped as it is claimed. 

On relations with Canada, American government will be very sensitive as they consider it to be their backyard. In fact, Trump, in his inimitable style, has suggested that Canada should become the 51^st state of USA. Justin Trudeau who was sparring with Indian leadership has gone. The other party, namely Modi may have also come under the scanner of Trump. This is allied with New Delhi consistently trashing American agencies on their comments on Indian governance and democracy etc. Trump himself was the target of American media, yet he did not go after them. 

To conclude, Modi being left out of Capitol Hill during inauguration may be a trivial political issue. But this important event should prompt Indian current leadership to rethink on some of the points referred here. Self-introspection and course-correction are necessary for democracy and good governance. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 20 January 2025

Reinvigorate Planning

INDIA NEEDS NEW ECONOMY

By Shivaji Sarkar 

The Union Budget is to be presented after ten days and Indians eagerly await a miracle. They have been hoping for one, but it hasn’t happened since long. Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s faith in Manmohanomics is leading to free-flow exploitation through tax on taxes and inflation choking the growth. 

India must learn from the economic vision of the first decade after Independence, bubbling with many aspirations. Some were fulfilled with the Five-Year-Plans, power projects, new roads, new industries, Indian Institutes of Technology, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, hosts of agriculture and other institutes and giant public sector units (PSU). It was a vision of the galaxy of leaders led by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. 

Along with the vision came a host of rights-based labour law reforms for large number of sectors. The PSUs and the government sectors emerged as. But these have unfortunately been nullified mostly in the past few years. The founders’ visionary approach led the country to a rise of 18 percent growth in income, says the International Monetary Fund, against an envisaged growth of 11-12 percent. 

During the First Plan period, national income was expected to rise by 11–12 per cent; the actual increase was over 18 per cent, despite a shortfall in Plan outlays. The success of the First Plan, under conditions of economic and financial stability, prompted more ambitious goals and a bolder approach in formulating the Second Plan, the IMF adds. 

This raises a fundamental issue why since 1991’s so-called liberalisation and end of licence-permit raj, India’s progress has been sluggish or at best tilted towards the corporate, ignoring the welfare of the masses. With loss of “concessions and incentivisation”, investments in real terms had been peanuts or largely a government responsibility. The common man was only a peg, if not a pawn. 

Industries did not invest much from their profits. They emptied bank coffers and took the robust system into an abyss of unprecedented non-performing assets (NPA). It meant they did not repay the loans. Many fled the country and others preferred write-offs.The budget expressed concern but never penalised them. People suffered with job losses, which the corporate did not create or inflicted on them with closures of the PSUs helping create monopolies without responsibility. 

Of late a new phenomenon has developed. Many large corporate, having stacks of funds, shy away from investment. Their apprehension is not unfounded. In private, the owners confide that they fear if they invest and grow, some predators among them would force merger or takeover their thriving units. The budget,which is now the only instrument to check, lacks the capability to deal with the disastrous situation. It’s disastrous because it thaws investment and progress of a country that is being subsidised with government doles in all sectors where the corporate failed – jobs to welfare – MGNREGA to free food dole, continuous subsidies for preferred DAP-type fertilisers, while farmers wait for remunerative prices and market system. 

Even foreign funding is plummeting, and foreign portfolio investments are witnessing faster flight. After a robust 2023, foreign investors significantly scaled back their investments in Indian equities in 2024, with net inflows amounting to over Rs 5,000 crore. Foreign portfolio investment (FPI) inflows decline 99 per cent in 2024 to ₹2026 cr from ₹1.71 lakh crore in 2023.31. In October alone FPIs withdrew Rs 22,194 crore from Indian equities, driven by expectations of a weak earnings season. 

No wonder that India’s growth plummets to two-year-low to 5.4 percent and the annual 2024-25 growth being continuously revised from over 7 percent to 6.6, 6.5 and now the industry body FICCI estimates 6.4 percent. It speaks volumes for those who had been critical of the remarkable Plan process and India’s early growth statistics. 

Deficit financing has become a bane. Largest doses of taxes, tolls, fees, and other charges keeps the rot under continuous pressure of penury and lack of purchasing power. The government’s new National Education Policy (NEP), implemented without social discussion, calls for a deep review.The share of allocations to the National Health Mission (NHM) decreased from 1.2 percent in 2019-20 to 0.74 percent in the current budget denying 40 percent women of medicines. 

While government funding in education has not been increasing, it has dumped on the people a system that keeps children bound to the educational system to cover up the inability of providing jobs or delay the arrivals of unemployed into the job market. The 4-year-BA/BSc is a mess as even after four years proper syllabus could not be tailored. There is an unheard of 3-year-preparatory nursery. It dumps each parent with additional expenses of Rs 3 lakh per child in higher and nursery classes – higher education has now 4.33 crore students and nursery one crore. 

Similar is the additional expenses of the state per year for delaying their arrival in job markets. While the need was to cut education term to at best 14 years till post-graduation, it is now extended literally over 17 years, officially 16 years. The nation is wasting a huge sum for no gain, and it does not look concerned. 

The BJP used to have a vision, including concern for the antyodaya, the last man. It needs to revive that as well as its liberalised views of the economy that have got stuck in selected corporate welfare and not its commitment to a wider swadeshi, Make in India,which is not “Made in India” that was pride for India till early 1980s. That alone would be a job giver as even the IT sector is thawing. 

But the average Indian does not need those estimates to spell out the slowdown: a rise in retail-loan defaults, even as personal loan growth has almost halved from a year ago; continued gloomy news on how consumer spending is sputtering; a wash-out year for entry-level cars; and the steady and intense pinch of household inflation. The writing is on the wall, for those who choose to read it. 

The country needs to strengthen its reviewing and planning process. The growth is not a responsibility of the finance ministry, which at best is the finance, not economic, manager. There is concern for discussing this situation. India needs to redo its economics junking Manmohanomics, which has only led to this disastrous situation. 

It’s not an easy path but not that difficult either. All heads need to come together to lead the country to prosperity starting with the new financial year but continuing till it becomes a global leader as it was during the Mughal era and before. Still sparks are there and with course correction, none can prevent India emerging as the world’s most vibrant economy.---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 16 January 2025

DELHI, ISLAMABAD AND KABUL

By Inder Jit         

(Released on 6 August 1985) 

India's quiet efforts to defuse the situation in Afghanistan and help find a political solution to the continuing imbroglio may well open a new chapter in the relations between New Delhi and Islamabad and in the history of our troubled sub-continent. It has already earned Mr Rajiv Gandhi an appreciative "thank you" from Islamabad. This happened when Pakistan's Foreign Secretary, Mr Niaz Naik, accompanied by Mr Abdul Sattar and Dr Humayun Khan, called on the Prime Minister and had a frank, cordial and useful half hour with him. Mr Gandhi had taken up the Afghan issue with Mr M. Gorbachyov during his visit to Moscow and, as recorded in my column of June 5 last (PM's talk with Gorbachyov), candidly conveyed to the Soviet leader India's deep interest in an early solution of the Afghanistan problem, which has brought cold war to India's doorstep and forced an arms race upon it vis-a-vis Pakistan. Mr Gandhi also told him that the arms race was constraining India to divert scarce resources from development to defence and reportedly said: "All our hopes for a better life hinge on peace."

Fortunately, Mr Gorbachyov, too, is keen on giving top priority to providing his people a better deal -- by delivering the long-promised goods. (Remember, Mr Gandhi told Indian journalists at Frunze: "Surprisingly, I feel that what he is trying to do in the Soviet Union is not very different from what we are trying to do in India.") In contrast to his predecessors, the new Soviet leader seems inclined to seek an early political solution of the Afghanistan problem than digging in militarily, which creates its own problems inside Afghanistan and at home and abroad. (The Soviet forces in Afghanistan reportedly number 1,30,000 men. These forces have control mainly over Kabul and other principal cities. More than half the rural areas are said to be under the insurgents.) In fact, Mr Gorbachyov, it is now learnt, told Mr Gandhi that he was also in favour of a political solution of the Afghanistan problem. But he was not sure if the United States, too, wanted a political solution. Washington, in his view, seemed more interested in getting the Soviets bogged down in Afghanistan and in bleeding them white.

The Prime Minister's talk with the Soviet leader held out hope. Of significance in this context was his reply in Frunze to a question on the prospect of a political solution. Said he: "I think much depends upon the United States and Pakistan..." Mr Gandhi, therefore, broached the subject with President Reagan in Washington and conveyed to the US leaders Moscow's inclination to seek a political solution -- and its perception of the American outlook. Washington is understood to have assured Mr Gandhi that it was not interested in bleeding the Soviets white. However, it feared that the Soviets had no intention of leaving Afghanistan. When Mr Gandhi reaffirmed what Mr Gorbachyov had told him, President Reagan and his advisers, I learn, assured India's Prime Minister that they genuinely wanted a political solution which was fair and honourable to all sides and ensured the independence and integrity of Afghanistan. The response was clearly positive. Mr Gandhi, thereupon, sent Mr Romesh Bhandari, Foreign Secretary, from Washington straight to Moscow so as to get the message across at the earliest.

Moscow, I am told, was pleased to get the signal. But its response this time, according to a top source, was "not as warm." True, it wants a political solution. However, it is not easy to give up a territory about which one has dreamt dreams for centuries – and which holds out promise of realising another dreams access to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. Opinion nevertheless appears, broadly agreed among the two super powers on three points. First, a clear accord between Kabul and Islamabad on non-interference and non-intervention. Second, a clear undertaking by both the United States and the Soviet Union recognising the independence and integrity of Afghanistan and agreeing not to interfere or intervene in its internal affairs. Third, return of the refugees, who total some 3 million, to Afghanistan. Point four of Geneva Four is also acceptable in principle. The Soviet Union is agreeable to the withdrawal of its forces from Afghanistan. But no time frame has been mentioned. Meanwhile, Kabul (and surely Moscow) also wants an end to Chinese and Iranian interference.

Islamabad has also conveyed to Mr Gandhi its keen interest in a political solution of the Afghanistan problem. Pakistan's point deserves to be easily taken now that it conforms to India's own approach and interest. Jawaharlal Nehru was of the firm view that India's security frontier lies along the river Oxus, not Khyber Pass -- and hence his initiative in enrolling Afghanistan as a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement. India has thus a strong, vested interest in an early solution of the Afghanistan problem. This is all the more so since there is little likelihood of Washington stopping its arms supplies to Pakistan as long as the Soviets continue to be in occupation of Afghanistan, no matter how hard we try and how loud we protest. The US goes by its own perception of its geo-political and strategic interests. Not surprisingly, therefore, Mr Gandhi almost drew a blank on this vital subject, notwithstanding all the nice words and the great success of the Prime Minister's visit and the Indian Mela. In fact, Washington has since announced its next package of military and other aid totalling $ 4 billion. A solution of the Afghan problem alone will bring an end to American arms for Pakistan.

Expectedly, Pakistan also pressed for a no-war pact or, for that matter, a treaty of peace and friendship during last week's talks. Many experts in New Delhi believe that Islamabad's offer of a non-aggression pact is designed mainly to convince the US Congress that Pakistan is peace-loving and deservesmilitary assistance. Yet, this is not necessarily so, as shown by experience over the past five years and more. Pakistan has continued to get military aid as a frontline State in terms of the US "strategic consensus" -- and has been promised more. What then is Pakistan's interest in seeking a no-war pact? Islamabad, it appears, wants a no-war pact essentially as an assurance against India joining hands with the Soviet Union in a "nutcracker operation" against Pakistan. New Delhi, however, sees no reason why it should oblige Islamabad so long as it continues to thrust an arms race on it and also pursues policies inimical to India, as reflected in its nuclear programme and its continued aid to terrorists in Punjab. New Delhi also regrets that Pakistan has done little to implement the Simla Accord, whose 13th anniversary was celebrated enthusiastically in New Delhi on July 2 last.

Pakistan has sought to allay India's strong misgivings in regard to its nuclear programme. It has put forward five alternatives for assuring India - signing the NPT, full-scope safeguards, a nuclear free zone, bilateral inspection or bilateral declaration. But none of the five formula meet India's basic objections. As the Prime Minister told the NBC of America the other day: "Pakistan's offer of on-site inspection of its nuclear facilities is flawed as it does not cover the enriched uranium Islamabad has already produced... We wonder where this enriched uraniumgoing".Mutual inspection has never worked. A country can always conceal what it wishes to. In Pakistan’s case, even the total budget for its nuclear programme is not known. Again, “hard evidence” available with India shows that Pakistan continues to help and trained terrorists from India even though Mr. Niaz Naik complimented Mr. Gandhi for showing statesmanship in resolving the Punjab problem. One top source said; “We confronted them with facts and the last meeting … Islamabad is little more cautious now. It train terrorists in small groups and away from the border, unlike in the past.”

Under the Simla Agreement, both sides, for instance, agreed to restore normalcy and, among both singer agreed to restore economic and trade relations, communications as well as cultural exchanges. Yet, India has been singled out for a ban on trade in the private sector. Pakistan's explanation that its trade balance with India is adverse is not correct. Latest statistics show that since Gen Zia took over the balance of trade is in Pakistan's favour. Why is Pakistan against greater communication and travel facilities? New Delhi can get in touch with Islamabad on telephone only via London. Why does it not open the Khokrapar-Munabo check post as provided for in the 1974 visa agreement? Pakistanis in Karachi wanting to visit Gujarat in India or vice versa have to travel 2,000 km instead of a mere 200 km. Why does Pakistan not agree to India's repeated proposal for ending police reporting, which causes no end of harassment? Why does Pakistan not respond to India's proposal for even a limited cultural agreement -- and for greater flow of newspapers? The proposal for a cultural agreement has been hanging fire since June 1983

Something continues to be basically wrong somewhere. What is worse, New Delhi's dealings with Islamabad at the top level continue to suffer from a credibility gap. A week or so prior to the visit of Mr Niaz Naik to New Delhi for talks with Mr Romesh Bhandari for a no-war pact or treaty of peace and friendship, Pakistan's Foreign Minister was in Washington finalising the latest arms deal! President Zia has again talked of the Kashmir issue and the need to ascertain the wishes of the people. Undoubtedly, Islamabad has its own perceptions, grievances and concerns. But so has New Delhi. Fortunately, both sides have agreed to look into each others "concerns" and find ways and means of relieving them. In the final analysis, mutual suspicions and distrust cannot be wished away. Bridges of confidence and faith take time to build. Regular and frequent contacts between the two countries should help. New Delhi, for its part, would be happy to sign a positive treaty of peace and friendship with Pakistan as against a negative no-war pact. But it also strongly feels that such a treaty should be the culmination of close and friendly relations, not their beginning. What is clearly needed are some positive signs -- and a genuine change of heart! ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Political Diary

New Delhi, 14 January 2025

Crumbling India

END OF UNITY?

By Poonam I Kaushish 

Circa 2025 it seems will soon bid adieu to messy multi-Party coalitions as India bloc formed with much fanfare by 27 Opposition Parties bandying together in last-minute patchwork of short-term calculations and compulsions, egos and ambitions, lacking a stitched-together theme  against a dominant BJP in July last year seems to be crumbling. Today, Parties are either drifting, criticizing partners in State elections, at loggerheads thereby widening the internal rift and writing obituaries of the bloc. 

First of the bloc to fire a salvo was RJD’s Tejashvi Yadav who stated India was floated by regional satraps as an anti-BJP front only for Lok Sabha elections. Surprising, as RJD has been Congress steadfast ally since 1990’s. An ominous signal for Congress on seat-sharing ahead of Assembly elections October. 

NC’s Omar Abdullah followed by raising questions on clarity regarding leadership, tussles, relevance of grouping, co-ordination among allies, agenda and future strategy. “Whether this alliance will continue is unclear. Do not take leadership for granted”, said he. Thereby making public deepening chill in Congress-NC ties post fighting Assembly elections together. 

Now, Delhi election has brought to the fore inherent contradictions within India as Kejriwal’s AAP as made plain it will fight BJP sans Lok Sabha ally Congress.  Already, Mamta’s TMC, Akhilesh’s SP and Thackeray’s SS have thrown their symbolic weight behind AAP. 

Complicating matters Thackeray castigated Congress for not standing by allies announcing it will fight upcoming local polls including cash cow BMC solo. True this is not unexpected as MVA was an unnatural alliance between Pawar’s NCP, Gandhi’s Congress and Thackeray’s SS with no common ideological ground among them. 

Having performed disastrously in Assembly polls there is no incentive to stick together. Worse, each is competitive and suspicious of the other, blaming each other for the poor show, rather than introspect why voters rejected them.  Moreover, NCP and SS face an existential threat from their rival factions firmly ensconced in power both may recalibrate their thinking and smoke the peace pipe with BJP. 

Plainly, the central problem with India is Congress. The fulcrum is weak but behaves like Emperor With No Clothes. Notwithstanding, Lok Sabha results saw it doubling its tally to 99 giving it an appearance of coherence. But that impression proved short-lived. Dispelled by setbacks the Party’s abysmal performance in Haryana and Maharashtra losing to BJP.

However, it continuous to be happy in the fallacious belief that it directly fights the Hindutva Brigade in about 250 Lok Sabha seats hence no anti-BJP mobilisation can be possible without it. Today its arrogance stems from the belief that there can be no Opposition unity without it due to its national footprints. But it fails to command respect of regional allies as its hauteur isn’t matched by performance. It did well in Lok Sabha polls but that was in comparison to its own unchecked waning, plus its regional partners contributed to its tally.

Alongside, it ignores three harsh realities: It struggles to keep its house in order with rebellion brewing across States. Two, refusal to accommodate AAP and SP in Haryana and Maharashtra.  Three, its poll arithmetic does not add up as seen in its rout in both States. Example, its sharp attack in Delhi calling Kejriwal “anti-national and Farjiwal,” thereby alienating not only AAP but also others who see Kejriwal as the best bet for defeating BJP.   

Fissures in the bloc were apparent during Parliament’s winter session when SP flexed muscles and distanced itself from joining Congress in raising ‘Adani issue.’ An unfazed Congress refused to see the red flag preferring to drive its agenda rather than build consensus among allies. 

This has made Parties not only wary but they question Congress’s ability to lead. Made worse, by TMC staking claim to head the bloc. In fact, most regional outfits would prefer a diminished  Congress as it would reduce its bargaining power in upcoming State polls in Bihar this year, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Assam and Puducherry 2026. 

Consequently, Congress is both the basis and barrier for Opposition unity. Unless it sheds its arrogance, subsumes itself and takes initiative to open talks with regional bosses and starts conceding political space, even grudgingly, there is no way unity talks will fructify. The goal to defeat BJP and dethrone Modi is clear but the way is strewn with inflated egos, baggage and negativity. 

Now, as Delhi election approach with TMC-SP throwing their (symbolic) weight behind AAP and Congress takes on AAP which is fighting off BJP’s challenge, India faces an existential question that is raised both within it and outside: What remains of it? Should it even continue to exist? 

Additionally, majority of regional Parties were born on anti-Congress ideology or branched out as they were not allowed to grow under the First Family, Mamata and Pawar. Having developed their own identity and enjoying political independence they are unlikely to help Congress get foothold in their fiefdom. They know what happens once Congress crossed 100 seats and assumed UPA leadership 2004-14. 

Said a regional satrap, “We are more comfortable fighting BJP in our home front and are not interested in having strong Congress in Delhi which is of no help to us in our State level fights.  Also, it is one thing to win a State election and another for a regional leader to lead a disparate Opposition to victory against BJP at national level.” 

Hence the bloc fails to recognize a coalition cannot just be woven around an anti-Modi theme. It needs a vibrant script. Even as it underlines ‘inclusive’ in its name, Modi has usurped it by succeeding in drawing a parallel with politics of appeasement. Besides, post BJP’s victory in Haryana and Maharashtra draw attention to challenges Opposition faces rather than those it is likely to pose to BJP. 

Additionally, India’s backbone are regional Parties and their fight against BJP is also a fight against a domineering Centre. Towards that end, AAP in Delhi and Punjab, RJD in Bihar, TMC in Bengal have taken a leaf out of Modi’s vikas, inclusiveness  and soft Hindutva with Congress barely in the reckoning. 

In the absence of a larger conviction or binding commitment, India may not withstand the strains of hardheaded politics. Even if it dies, however, the space that it occupies will arguably continue to exist.

Undoubtedly BJP’s dominance is the primary pole of polity which shapes and structures the political terrain and contest. Yet, a national alternative to it remains a democratic imperative. But for it to be enduring and persuasive, it will need its main pole, Congress, to be bigger and stronger. Or more generous and humble if it has to get anti-BJP Parties to come together and pool their strengths, not on the basis of short-term convenience, but to tell a thought-through and shared story. That, from the evidence so far, is hardly evident.

In the ultimate, it remains to be seen if Opposition can strike the right balance of being popular and taking care of popular interest with a long term vision, not just anti-BJP.  Either way it is good for India’s democracy to have more regional satraps finally coming into their own. Remember, the business of shaping Bharat is not a matter of arithmetic but of politics. Can India hold? ----- INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)