Modi’s shift from Proactive to Reactive PM shatters billion dreams

                                                 (Sunset for Modi?)

The prime mover advantage in political narrative is shifting from Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the opposition parties.

The shift is set to gather momentum following the BJP’s debacle in Bihar polls that was preceded by drubbing in Delhi from rookie politician Arvind Kejriwal. The election results have delivered a decisive blow to Modi’s waning charisma and credibility.

Many a citizen would henceforth view with suspicion whatever good initiative that Mr. Modi takes in future. They would suspect it as a part of larger Hindutva agenda.  

Similarly, the Opposition would take credit for anything good that Mr. Modi does in any socio-economic domain. They would say something like this: Modi is doing this because we created public pressure for him to act. He is backtracking because… and so on and so forth. As this process gains momentum in the coming months, Mr. Modi would be seen as a reactive leader and not as a proactive leader.

Barring sound and fury, he failed to act as a proactive leader on all fronts except his hobbyhorse, #SwachhBharat (Clean India). And action in this domain has been more theatrical and not holistic. It has hardly changed the ground actuality.  India thus continues to stink.  

When electorate gave BJP the Lok Sabha mandate to govern well, then it was swayed by Mr. Modi’s perceived passion for growth and reforms. The public saw him as a proactive leader who would cut Gordian knot of hurdles to herald #AccheDin (Good Days) for all.

He failed to rise to the occasion perhaps because he trusts only very few colleagues, who in turn have created their own cliques of trusted advisors. The bane of Modi regime is the distrust for established institutional framework and outside professional talent.

 Mr. Modi is also indifferent towards well-meaning advice that flows from institutions, analysts and small fries at large. (http://bit.ly/1QwEHB9   http://bit.ly/1hDDzNy http://bit.ly/1HndNcM http://bit.ly/1JCBxEb )

Be it the attacks on churches, be it arrogance-inspired land ordinance, be it ghar wapsi (conversion of Christians and Muslims back to Hinduism), be it cow slaughter, be it beef tamasha, be it abusive tongue-lashing by certain BJP leaders, Mr. Modi’s initial response has always be stoic silence.

Take any case and make a Google search. Pop comes the headline that runs on these lines: Modi finally breaks his silence.

In each case, the Opposition and other opinion leaders goaded PM to break his silence. And he always spoke too late and too little, thereby consolidating his image as reactive leader, who drew comfort from great escape from domestic grind by flying abroad ostensibly to build India’s image.

With this background, consider reactive PM scenario with five hypothetical situations in point.

Take the case of farmers’ suicides and worsening agrarian crisis especially in drought hit areas. Mr. Modi has avoided healing touch at the ground level like an ignorant person distancing himself from HIV patient. Now when PM finally spares time from his foreign tours and visits families hit by suicides, Rahul Gandhi would take credit for it. And rightly so: Mr. Gandhi has been taunting Modi repeatedly on this issue.

Consider now PM’s truancy from Parliament. Mr. Modi is the leader of Lok Sabha. He is country’s CEO. And yet he is extremely frugal in sparing time to participate in discussions in Parliament on burning issues. As and when, he now improves his visibility in Parliament, the Opposition would take legitimate credit for bringing escapist PM on the line.

Take the case of population explosion, an issue that Modi has shunned like plague after becoming PM. His Government has categorically ruled out formulation of new population policy (NPP) to replace the one framed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government in 2000. This policy was unveiled to implement recommendations of  a committee constituted by National Development Council (NDC) during Narasimha Rao regime in the nineties.

Modi has not even-reconstituted the National Population Commission (NPC), which last met in October 2010. In that meeting chaired by his predecessor, NPC resolved that “population stabilisation should be accorded high priority and brought back into the political discourse at all levels. (And) the Chief Ministers should provide leadership to the promotion of small family norms.”

As and when Modi Government revives NPC or initiates a move to frame NPP, it would be viewed as handiwork of RSS.

The Opposition would promptly point out that RSS had recently demanded formulation of NPP taking into consideration the decline in share of Hindus’ in total population and rise in share of Muslims. RSS articulated its stance on demography with the situation in Assam.

As put by RSS’ resolution passed at its conference on 30^th October, Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal (ABKM) observed: “severe demographic changes brought forth by the analysis of the religious data of Census 2011 highlight the necessity of the review of population policy. Vast differences in growth rates of different religious groups, infiltration and conversion resulting in religious imbalance of the population-ratio, especially in border areas may emerge as a threat to the unity, integrity and cultural identity of the country.”

And Modi critics would not fail to articulate their attack by recalling his 2002 quotable jibe “hum paanch hamare pachees” (We five (husband plus 4 wives and our 25 Kids) directed against a community.  

Leave aside this sectarian angle, the country urgently needs a NPP to rein in population growth to avoid further erosion of benefits of economic growth through multiplication of population especially among the poor. As it is, the existing population is unsustainable from the standpoint of limited natural resources particularly land and water.

Consider now the case of PM-chaired National Integration Council (NIC), which last met in September 2013. Modi’s distrust for institutions is obvious here: He has not reconstituted NIC, leave aside the remote idea of convening it. Now as and when Modi convenes NIC, the media would jump to conclusion that it is being convened following incessant campaign against growing Intolerance. Award Wapsi and Tsunami of other protests.

Take now PM’s rhetoric on cooperative federalism and Team India. The credibility deficit is yawning in this arena. Mr. Modi has not cared to reconstitute Inter-State Council (ISC), whose half-yearly meetings he demanded as Gujarat CM. ISC, a constitutional entity, has not met for almost nine years.

He has also not constituted ISC Standing Committee (ISC-SC) which is chaired by Union Home Minister. 

Like his predecessor Dr. Manmohan Singh, Mr. Modi is keeping Maun Varat on recommendations of Commission on Centre-State Relations (CCSR) that submitted its seven-volume report in April 2010. 

Now as and when ISC is revived and meets, the Opposition would take credit for it. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s Chief Ministers’ Conclave on Cooperative Federalism would be cited as an instance of political pressure on Modi to respect federalism in letter and spirit.

We can consider more such instances of Mr. Modi’s failure to bank on institutions and established practices for good governance. When BJP licks the dust at the next Lok Sabha polls, Mr. Modi would have enough time to reflect over his failure to take the right decision at the right time.  

He might like to recall what almost every student learns in a good school: time and tide wait for none.

Caste Politics Turns leaders Blind to Unique Fair Deal for Poor

(Image Courtesy:National Commission for Scheduled Castes)


If a Chaiwala (tea seller) can become Prime Minister of the country, what stops a beggar from aspiring for the same coveted post?
The answer lies in the conspiracy of silence among all political parties on India’s most revolutionary socio-political reform mooted by late V.P. Singh in August 1990. He, as PM, mooted the reform as an add-on to the National Front Government’s decision to implement Mandal Commission Report (MCR).
The public thus knows Mr. Singh best as provider of 27% reservation of jobs in Central Government and central public enterprises (CPEs) for other backward classes (OBCs) in keeping with MCR.
Very few know that he pitched for two vital caste and religion-neutral reforms for the poor as a class without encountering any opposition. He could not implement the two ideas as his Government fell in November 1990 after withdrawal of support by certain parties.
Mr. Singh’s two crucial forgotten reform proposals are: Reservation of 40% of seats in Parliament and State Assemblies for the poor and fixation of 5-10% jobs quota for poor in the Central domain.  
Even Chief of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Mohan Bhagwat, has not mentioned this unfinished reforms agenda set by Mr. Singh.
Clarifying the decision to implement MCR in Rajya Sabha on 9th August 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “If 40 per cent of the people are below the poverty line, in the Rajya Sabha, Lok Sabha and Assemblies, we can reserve seats for the poor to that extent. In Rajya Sabha, in Lok Sabha and in the Assemblies, we can really speak for the poor to the extent. These will be the real social changes which history will expect of us.”
He continued: “If there is a consensus of the House, we from the Government side are ready to bring forward Constitutional Amendment Bill. It will necessitate constitutional change for which we do not have the majority. But certainly, with your support, we have made four changes. We can make the fifth one also which the coming generations will remember.”
Mr. Singh added: “Let us forget that the poor are begging for some crumbs. They have suffered it for thousands of years. Now they are fighting for their honour as a human being.”
Late Sita Ram Kesri, longtime Congress Party Treasurer and later its President, instantly welcomed Mr. Singh’s idea.
An MP then quipped: “What about the Leader of the Opposition?”
Mr. P. Shiv Shanker (Congress) replied: “I have thumped the table. What more do you want?
Mr. Singh later thanked the House for supporting the proposal. He stated: “I think it is very happy moment for me. It is one of the happiest moments. I did have to muster a lot of courage to say it.”
In October 1990, PM wrote a letter to leaders of all parties in both houses of Parliament, articulating his proposal to reserve 40% seats in all legislatures.
Noting that numerous initiatives to ameliorate the lot of poor have failed to significantly reduce poverty, Mr. Singh observed: “All this has pushed the poor further into a state of hopelessness and the feeling that they are not masters of their own destiny.”
Explaining the rationale for his reservation proposal, he wrote: “No more should we perpetuate the giver-taker relationship that has been institutionalized in our society where the poor are the mere “receivers” of certain State-funded “benefits” without having any real say in decision-making.”
He continued: “This would call for the realisation that the problem of poverty is not just one of economics alone, but it is, in truth, one of sharing of power in the political economy of the country. We should now think of a strategy and mechanism by which the poorest of the poor can reach out to the sanctum sanctorum of power where decisions affecting them are made.”
Concluding his soul-stirring letter, Mr. Singh stated: “This suggestion (40% seats reservation) was welcomed by several member of Parliament. We now have to debate this issue seriously and generate a consensus so as to make this idea a reality.” (See three-page text of the letter for more).
In another clarification on Mandal Commission report in Rajya Sabha on 27th August, 1990, Mr. Singh stated: “At the same time, the Government is equally concerned about the future of our Youth in general. In the Rajya Sabha, there was a suggestion from the Members to provide reservation for the poor over and above the reservation for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes, and I had said that we would sympathetically consider some reservation for the poor, irrespective of social groups. This was reiterated by the Finance Minister, Prof. Madhu Dandavateji in the intervention in
the Lok Sabha. We propose to provide an additional reservation of 5 per cent to 10 per cent for the poor, irrespective of social groups, entirely on the basis of appropriate economic criteria, after taking the sense of this august House.”
Does Prime Minister Narendra Modi have the gumption to take Mr. V.P. Singh’s caste-neutral agenda for making poor equal partners in decision-making and development?

Three-page Text of V.P. Singh's letter to leaders of all political parties

Loudmouths have Erred over PM’s 5-Star Activists Remark

                                                  (Edited Image-Courtesy: PIB)

The ruckus over Prime Minister Narendra Modi's observations as to whether public perceptions and five-star activists were driving court verdicts is an instance of dreaded shoot and scoot journalism. It is a classical case of half knowledge in action at certain TV news channels. 

There was nothing new in his comment that kept the Opposition and the mainstream media busy haranguing against PM for almost two days.  Mr. Modi merely paraphrased what different chief justices of India (CJIs), Supreme Court judges, high courts and other legal entities have stated over the years.

Mr. Modi’s predecessor, Dr. Manmohan Singh, had also voiced concern over certain aspects of judicial activism and public interest litigations (PILs). He had also done some plain-speaking on encroachment of the Executive turf by judicial activism in his speeches during his two tenures as Prime Minister. Did Loudmouths cry hoarse over Dr. Singh’s observations that would be elaborated later? 

Even the appellation ‘five star activists’ for foreign funded NGOs is an old hat. Mr. Modi has been using this term for more than a decade. He perhaps spun this label in London while addressing a meeting in London on 18th August 2003. 

Mr. Modi’s observations appear muted compared to what certain legal luminaries have stated boldly, honestly and emphatically to stem the growing rot within the judiciary. PM’s speech should have thus served as agenda for a serious debate on the nexus between judicial-NGO-media activism that has thrived largely due to governance-cum-legislative deficit. 

The critics distorted PM's balanced speech out of context. Why they overlooked judiciary’s loud introspection over judicial populism & corruption over the years?

The Loudmouths from the Opposition parties and the TV channels who accused Mr. Modi of the Contempt of the Court thus owe an apology to the nation for lowering the dignity of PM’s office and for vitiating public discourse. 

Before recalling mind-boggling observations made by eminent CJIs and other judges, we need to recapitulate what PM said while addressing the Joint Conference of Chief Justices of States and Chief Justices of High Courts on 5th April.

As the Government often does not issue the English translation of the text of PM’s speeches delivered in Hindi, we have to rely on news reports published by reputed dailies. 

According to a news report in one national daily, Modi said, “It is never too difficult to deliver justice within the boundaries of the law and Constitution. But it is very difficult to find the truth between perception and reality. It must be pondered over whether five-star activists are driving the judiciary today… if havoc is created to drive the judiciary. It has become difficult to deliver justice in an atmosphere of perception.”

Another national quoted PM as saying “The judiciary is not as fearless today as it used to be ten years back. Are five-star activists not driving the judiciary? Are they not attempting to do so? Judges fear what the reaction of five-star activists would be when they render justice as per law and as per Constitution.”

The same daily also quoted Mr. Modi as saying: “It is not difficult to dispense justice as per Constitution and law. But while doing so, judges must differentiate between perception (created by social activists) and fact.”

Turn now soul-stirring observations made by legal luminaries about the decay within the judiciary over the last 15 years. 

The issue of perception-driven verdict was aptly elaborated by the then CJI S.H. Kapadia in January 2012 while presiding over the Nani Palkhivala Memorial Trust Lecture.

Justice Kapadia reportedly observed: “Apart from independence from politics, the judiciary also needs independence from popular interest.” 

He averred: “If an order is not in favour of a particular group, then the judge faces a backlash. An atmosphere is created whereby pressure is exerted on the judge.”

Way back in July 1998, Press Council of India chairman and former Supreme Court judge P B Sawant expressed disquiet over the populism cult and corruption in the judiciary. 

Addressing the high court bar association in Nagpur, Justice Sawant said, “These two are very disturbing developments.” He said corruption was happening at “some place at all levels” and even if one or two judges were corrupt, it marred the image of the entire judiciary.

According to UNI report published by rediff.com, he stated that the populist trend among certain judges was more damaging than corruption. In the garb of judicial activism, things were done to humour the public opinion.

As put by the news report, “Justice Sawant said that instead of playing to the gallery, a judge should be ready to take the podium and ‘swim against the tide’. But in the garb of judicial activism, these judges were laying down wrong laws and precedents. He said populist judgments adversely affected the entire society.”

A wacky instance of such perception-driven verdict is Supreme Court’s ruling extending the definition of fundamental right to life to the right to sleep (in a public place) in February 2012.  This interpretation of the Constitution was done by a SC bench while ruling that Delhi Police had violated this right while acting against a sleeping crowd at Baba Ramdev’ Rally in Delhi under a suo-moto case. 

This led Justice Kapadia into doing some plain-speaking on judicial activism. In his lecture on ‘Jurisprudence of Constitutional Structure’ in August 2012, he stated that judges should not govern the country. They should not frame policies. They should apply “enforceability” test on the verdicts such defining right to sleep as a fundament right. 

He also reprimanded the civil society activists for questioning Parliament’s authority to frame laws and by draping themselves with “we the people” authority. 

Justice Kapadia is not the first CJI to articulate the need for judiciary exercising self restraint on judicial activism.

Way back in 1999, CJI Dr. A.S. Anand stated: “With a view to see that judicial activism does not become ‘judicial adventurism’ and lead a Judge going in pursuits of his own notions of justice, ignoring the limits of law, the bounds of his jurisdiction and the binding precedents, the courts must act with proper restraint and self-discipline.”

Inaugurating the golden Jubilee Celebrations of Rajasthan High Court, Justice Dr. Anand added: “The danger of the judiciary creating a multiplicity of rights without possibility of adequate enforcement is a real one. It must be guarded against. The judiciary should not become an institution of mere form bereft of substance.”

As put by Jusice Dr. Anand in his speech, which is available at Eastern Book Company’s website, “There are real limits to what the judicial process should attempt to accomplish and the judiciary should resist the temptation to cross those limits. The decisions of the courts should be within the zone of juridical legitimacy.”

According to a news report in a business daily published in March 2015, Madras High Court has ruled that judicial activism cannot encroach on other organs of democracy.

It is here also pertinent to quote a comprehensive analysis of judicial activism penned by ex-Solicitor-General of India T.R. Andhyarujina in the Hindu dated 6th August 2012.  

Listing several instances of the judiciary interfering in purely policy and routine governance issues, Mr Andhyarujina pointed out that the Supreme Court has made an order even in a military operation. 

He added: “In 1993, the Court issued orders on the conduct of military operations in Hazratbal, Kashmir where the military had as a matter of strategy restricted the food supplies to hostages. The Court ordered that the provision of food of 1,200 calorific value should be supplied to hostages.”

Commenting on this, an Army General wrote: “For the first time in history, a Court of Law was asked to pronounce judgment on the conduct of an ongoing military operation. Its verdict materially affected the course of operation.”

This shocking case might have perhaps rankled in Dr. Manmohan Singh’s mind in August 2006 when he identified one of the challenges faced by the society as: “the judiciary-executive relationships and the legislative tools that can be used to tackle the menace of terrorism while respecting human rights.”

Speaking at the Golden Jubilee of the Indian Law Institute, Dr. Singh also shared his unease about the quality of public debate. He observed: “In a functioning democracy like ours public debate is an important mechanism for facilitating the formulation of both laws and policies. They influence the interpretation of law and influence legislation.”

Inaugurating a conference of Chief Ministers and Chief Justices of High Courts on ‘Administration of Justice on Fast Track,’ in April 2007, Dr. Singh stated public interest litigations (PILs) have great utility in initiating corrective action but these cannot become vehicles for settling political scores. “We need standards and benchmarks for screening so that only genuine PILs with a justiciable cause of action based on judicially manageable standards are taken up. This will also ensure consistency in judicial pronouncements”. He suggested that the Supreme Court could take a lead in framing rules in this regard.

Inaugurating the Commonwealth Law Conference in February 2011, Dr. Singh said: “it has to be ensured that the nonnegotiable premise of the constitutional scheme – defined as the basic structure of the constitution is not subordinated to political impulses of the moment or to the will of transient majorities. Also while the power of judicial review must be used to enforce accountability, it must never be used to erode the legitimate role assigned to the other branches of government.”

As for appellation ‘fire star activists’, it aptly captures the spirit voluble NGOs who frequently fly abroad to attend lavish international conferences on environmental and human rights agenda as defined by the West. Some of them NGOs also finance the visits of journalists to conferences or sites to further their agenda in public discourse! 

All NGOs and civil society activists are not paragons of virtue. Many of them aggressively push narrow and distorted agenda to appease their foreign donors. They are averse to showing a holistic understanding of rights of one section versus rights of the other section and arriving at a balanced resolution of complex issues. They don’t factor in constitutional duties of the citizens in their agenda.  Above all, dubious NGOs are reluctant to making their operations 100 percent transparent and filing income tax returns. Some of the dubious ones circumvent black-listing by floating new NGOs.

With this ground reality, Loudmouths should introspect whether they are highly biased against Mr. Modi. They must make amends to improve the quality of public discourse which Dr. Singh considers as vital for ensuring transparency in decision-making process in the country.

When would Dr. Manmohan Singh shed his Modi phobia?

                                             Image Courtesy: PIB
The outgoing Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has been found wanting on many occasions. And he was found wanting too in his last address to the Nation that he delivered on 17th May 2014 before submitting his resignation to the President.
He today avoided mentioning Mr. Narendra Modi, who as Prime Ministerial candidate of BJP brought about a paradigm shift in the Indian polity. He lacked the courage to either acknowledge Mr. Modi’s achievement as a global marvel or to reiterate his outrageous perception about Mr. Modi as prospective Prime Minister.
On 3rd January 2014 at the televised national press conference, Dr. Singh had stated: “I have full confidence that the next Prime Minister will be from the UPA coalition, and that without discussing the merits of Mr. Narendra Modi, it will be disastrous for the country to have Shri Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister.” 
Answering a question on BJP’s allegation that he was the weakest PM, Dr. Singh had stated: “I do not believe that I have been a weak Prime Minister. That is for historians to judge. The BJP and its associates may say whatever they like. But if by “strong Prime Minister”, you mean that you preside over a mass massacre of innocent citizens on the streets of Ahmedabad, that is the measure of strength, I do not believe that sort of strength this country needs, least of all, in its Prime Minister.” (http://nareshminocha.com/index.php/polity/1613-pm-should-cast-off-modi-phobia-answer-his-failure-on-federalism)
By failing to make amends for his provocative allegations against Mr. Modi, he sounded hollow in his exit speech. He lacked conviction when he stated: “Today, as I prepare to lay down office, I am aware that well before the final judgment that we all await from the Almighty, there is judgment in the court of public opinion that all elected officials and governments are required to submit themselves to.”
He continued: “Fellow citizens, each one of us should respect the judgment that you have delivered. The just concluded elections have deepened the foundations of our democratic polity.”
Instead of pontificating to the public, Dr. Singh should have congratulated Mr. Modi and made amends for his “disastrous” comment, which was made not in the electoral heat but in a cool, intellectual ambience. He ought to have admitted that the electorate has given thumbs down to this remark. Had the PM done so, he would have respected the people’s verdict. He thus this time also failed to connect with the public.
The supporters of Dr. Singh would point out that he did congratulate Mr. Modi through the twitter. The tweet from PMO on the 16th May reads as: “Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh calls Shri Narendra Modi and congratulated him on his party's victory in the Lok Sabha elections.”
If a tweet can substitute what is said at a televised national event, then Dr. Singh could have very well delivered his listless, last address to the nation via the twitter, which is not accessed by majority of the electorate.
 By not forthrightly admitting that the public has proved him wrong, Dr. Singh has once again confirmed that he lacks statesmanship. (http://nareshminocha.com/index.php/polity/1177-public-expects-pm-to-rise-like-a-statesman-or-quit-naresh-minocha)
This reminds one of the famous quotes from the American author Dale Turner.   He once stated: “It is the highest form of self-respect to admit our errors and mistakes and make amends for them. To make a mistake is only an error in judgment, but to adhere to it when it is discovered shows infirmity of character.”
Dr. Singh infirmity is that he lacked intellectual honesty to stand up against what is wrong. He preferred to remain glued to the chair instead of risking his job by upholding his conviction.
Or, how does one explain his decision to acquiesce Rahul Gandhi’s diktat to increase in the ceiling on number of LPG cylinders to 12 from 9/family in January this year.
About two years back, Dr. Singh had strongly defended the Government’s decision to introduce the cap of 9 cylinders. Addressing the nation on 21st September 2012, PM had said: “Let me begin with the rise in diesel prices and the cap on LPG cylinders. We import almost 80% of our oil, and oil prices in the world market have increased sharply in the past four years. We did not pass on most of this price rise to you, so that we could protect you from hardship to the maximum extent possible. As a result, the subsidy on petroleum products has grown enormously.  It was Rs. 1 lakh 40 thousand crores last year.  If we had not acted, it would have been over Rs. 200,000 crores this year.”
He added: “Where would the money for this have come from? Money does not grow on trees. If we had not acted, it would have meant a higher fiscal deficit, that is, an unsustainable increase in government expenditure vis-a-vis government income. If unchecked, this would lead to a further steep rise in prices and a loss of confidence in our economy.”
Dr. Singh’s inability to uphold the stature of the chair he occupied not only led the public into losing confidence in his governance skills but also in his political leadership.
The verdict of scientifically minded historians and the Almighty on Dr. Singh’s prime ministership is unlikely to be different.