#Electoral history of Atal Bihari Vajpayee

[webmastersanjeet]

The Emergency in India: A Dark Chapter in Indian Democracy

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi announced the Emergency in India on June 25, 1975, and it lasted until March 21, 1977. It was one of the most contentious and difficult times in the country's post-independence history. India's democratic fabric was severely impacted during this 21-month period by the suspension of constitutional rights, massive political repression, and press control.

Background and Causes

The June 12, 1975, ruling of the Allahabad High Court, which found Indira Gandhi guilty of electoral malpractices and ruled her election to the Lok Sabha illegal, served as the immediate impetus for the Emergency. Gandhi convinced President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to issue a state of emergency, saying internal disturbances, in response to growing political pressure and the threat of losing power. Still, the Emergency had deeper origins. Social trouble economic hardships, and political instability characterized the early 1970s. Widespread discontent has been exacerbated by food shortages, unemployment, and inflation. Massive demonstrations and strikes were orchestrated by the opposition, led by figures like Jayaprakash Narayan, who demanded that Gandhi step down and that structural changes be made.

Key Features of the Emergency

Suspension of Fundamental Rights: The Indian Constitution's fundamental rights were suspended as a result of the declaration of emergency. In effect, the rights guaranteed by Articles 14 (equality), 21 (life and personal liberty), and 22 (protection from arbitrary arrests) were repealed. The Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) allowed for the arrest of political opponents, activists, and dissenters without the need for a trial.

Censorship and Media Control: The freedom of the press was drastically reduced. Newspapers had to get official permission before printing anything, which resulted in extensive censorship. Reputable editors and journalists were arrested, and government-opposing media outlets were closed down.

Political Repression: Countless opposition leaders and activists found themselves behind jail. Prominent people include Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Morarji Desai, and Jayaprakash Narayan were among them. There were harsh crackdowns on political organizations, particularly those that opposed the Congress party.

Forced Sterilizations: The implementation of a contentious and harsh population control program was led by Sanjay Gandhi, the son of Indira Gandhi. Sterilization was forced onto millions of men and women, resulting in massive violations of human rights and public indignation.

Amendments to the Constitution: In an effort to bolster its authority, the administration approved a number of constitutional modifications. The 42nd Amendment, sometimes referred to as the "Mini-Constitution," significantly altered the Constitution by strengthening the executive's power and limiting the judiciary's.

Impact and Legacy

The Emergency had a significant impact on India's democratic institutions and political climate.

.

Erosion of Democratic Norms: During this time, democratic institutions and norms were undermined and there was an unparalleled concentration of power. There was a lot of pressure and influence on the court, which has historically served as a safeguard against executive overreach.

Public Disillusionment: The Indian population was affected by the Emergency in a significant way. There was a general lack of trust in Indira Gandhi's leadership and the Congress party as a result of the arbitrary arrests, violations of human rights, and repression of dissent.

Political Realignment: Following the end of the Emergency, Indira Gandhi and the Congress party suffered a crushing defeat in the 1977 national elections. The first non-Congress government in Indian history was brought to power by a group of opposition parties known as the Janata Party.

Legal and Constitutional Safeguards: The Emergency forced later administrations to implement constitutional and legal protections to stop the occurrence of another authoritarian era. In order to uphold and strengthen democratic institutions and civil freedoms, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 was passed.

The Indian Emergency continues to serve as an alarming indication of the weakness of democratic institutions and dangers associated with unchecked presidential authority. It underlines how crucial it is to remain vigilant in defending democratic values, the rule of law, and civil freedoms. The lessons learnt during the Emergency era are vital for maintaining and fortifying India's democratic fabric as the nation navigates its democratic journey.

[ghosh007]

Honoring a Stalwart: Lal Krishna Advani Receives Bharat Ratna

In a momentous announcement, the Indian government has decided to confer the prestigious Bharat Ratna upon Senior BJP Leader Lal Krishna Advani. This honor comes amidst the nation's jubilation following the consecration of the Ram temple in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his delight in sharing the news, acknowledging Advani's monumental contribution to India's development. As the man behind the Ram Janambhoomi movement, Advani's role has been pivotal in shaping India's political landscape.

Advani's journey, spanning nearly a century, embodies dedication and selfless service to the nation. Born in Karachi in 1927, his early years were marked by the turbulence of India's partition. Despite the upheaval, Advani's commitment to a more secular India remained steadfast. His association with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) from a young age instilled in him the motto 'idam-na-mama' - 'This life is not mine, my life is for my nation'.

As BJP Chief in 1989, Advani spearheaded the party's Mandir pledge, setting the stage for his iconic 'Rath Yatra' in 1990. This journey from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh galvanized support for the construction of the Ram temple and reshaped Indian politics. The BJP's electoral fortunes surged under Advani's leadership, culminating in significant gains in the 1996 elections. This marked a watershed moment in Indian democracy, with the BJP emerging as the single largest party in the Lok Sabha.

Advani's parliamentary career, spanning nearly three decades, saw him hold key positions in the government, including Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister during Atal Bihari Vajpayee's tenure. His leadership played a pivotal role in advancing the party's ideology and agenda.

Acknowledging the honor bestowed upon him, Advani emphasized that the Bharat Ratna is not just a personal accolade but a recognition of the ideals and principles he has espoused throughout his life. His unwavering commitment to the nation has been the guiding force behind his actions, from grassroots activism to serving at the highest echelons of government.

Prime Minister Modi hailed Advani's contribution as exemplary, noting his tireless efforts in championing the ethos of 'nation first'. In bestowing the Bharat Ratna upon Advani, the government not only honors his individual achievements but also pays tribute to the millions of BJP workers and leaders who have tirelessly worked towards advancing the party's ideologies.

Advani's journey is a testament to the resilience and fortitude of India's political landscape. From the tumultuous days of partition to the present, he has remained steadfast in his commitment to serving the nation. His leadership has inspired generations of Indians and left an indelible mark on the country's political history.

In conclusion, Lal Krishna Advani's elevation to the ranks of Bharat Ratna is a fitting tribute to his unparalleled contribution to Indian politics. His life story serves as a beacon of hope and inspiration, reminding us of the power of dedication, integrity, and unwavering commitment to the nation. As India celebrates this momentous occasion, it honors not just one man but the enduring spirit of service and sacrifice that defines the nation.

[kalyan-gullapalli]

Post # 128

Bharat's Ratna...

If Pamulaparthi Venkata Narasimha Rao were alive today, he would be 99 years old. On 28th June, 2021, he would have turned 100. So this year, the Telangana government is celebrating his birth centenary year. Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao led the bandwagon of people demanding Bharat Ratna for PV (as he was fondly known), with BJP leader Subramaniam Swamy supporting this demand. Reports appear that Dr. Manmohan Singh wanted to give him a Bharat Ratna when he was Prime Minister.

Glowing tributes flew from all and sundry, even from Congress, whose party he belonged to, and who conveniently chose to ignore him since 1996, when he stepped down as PM.

No matter how significant PV Narasimha Rao's life was before 1996, it probably must have been hell since then, till 2004, when he died of a heart attack. First of all, he got no credit from his own Congress party for the path-breaking economic reforms he instituted and pulled the country out of the deep shit it had been pushed into by former governments and their policies. Dr. Manmohan Singh, instead, got all the credit.

Next, he was blamed for the party's 1996 electoral defeat, dumped and replaced by Sitaram Kesari. He was excluded from every Congress Working Committee meeting since.

To rub salt on wounds, he was charged with many corruption cases, some of them by his own party colleagues. He supposedly went through a very bad phase financially and had to sell his Banjara Hills house in Hyderabad to pay for his lawyers.

When he died, while undergoing treatment in AIIMS, his family requested that being a former PM, he should be cremated and his remains buried in Delhi. But Sonia Gandhi and her cronies didn't even allow his body to enter the AICC building in Delhi. That's when Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Rajasekhar Reddy intervened, flew the body back to Hyderabad, and had it cremated with state honors.

But why was PV, a freedom fighter before Indian independence, a career Congress-man, an Indira Gandhi loyalist even in Emergency days, a State Chief Minister, a cabinet minister with Foreign and Home ministries and an ex-Prime Minister, treated with such disdain in his last few years? And now, why this drama about a Bharat Ratna? Therein lies a tale...

In 1991, PV Narasimha Rao had practically retired from politics. He had by then, seen it all, done it all. Renowned as a scholar - he was fluent in 17 languages - and known to be indecisive - a requisite for survival in the Indian National Congress in those Indira days - he was cooling his heels, when Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated, in the midst of electoral polling.

Congress emerged as the largest party in those elections, but didn't have majority. Sonia didn't want to enter politics just as yet. So PV was persuaded to head a minority government, simply because he was deemed harmless, and asked to lead a nation rocked by the worst economic crisis in its history - the country was bankrupt and had to pledge 68 tonnes of gold in return for aid from IMF, and was grappling with political uncertainty - this was the third government in as many years.

To put it mildly, to survive 5 years - 5 eventful years - and produce the results that he did, was nothing short of miraculous. If a Prime Minister's performance is to be measured by the difference he made to the country while in office, PV Narasimha Rao was probably the most significant Prime Minister India has ever had.

1. Economic reforms:

PV Narasimha Rao was the true father of Indian economic reforms. He brought in a technocrat - Dr. Manmohan Singh as the Finance Minister of India, and backed him 100% to implement necessary reforms. He himself headed the Commerce and Industries ministry to dismantle the socialist policies of the License Raj. His ability to steer unconventional, unpopular reforms through opposition, while heading a minotity government gave him the title Chanakya of Indian politics. Dr. Manmohan Singh says PV was "his friend, philosopher and guide".

2. Nuclear testing:

Today, the world credits Atal Bihari Vajpayee government for India's nuclear testing programme, which culminated in the Pokhran tests of 1998. However, the tests were actually planned in 1995, during PV's term in office. They were dropped under American pressure when the US intelligence got the whiff of it. In 1996, when PV stepped down and Vajpayee became PM, PV met Vajpayee and updated him on the progress of the nuclear programme. Vajpayee said later, "Rao told me that the bomb was ready. I only exploded it." APJ Abdul Kalam described PV Narasimha Rao as a "patriotic statesman who believed that the nation is bigger than the political system". 

3. Foreign policy:

He decided in 1992 to bring into the open India's relations with Israel, which had been kept covertly active for a few years during his tenure as a Foreign Minister, and permitted Israel to open an embassy in New Delhi. Today, Israel is one of India's best friends.

He ordered the intelligence community in 1992 to start a systematic drive to draw the international community's attention to Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism in India and not to be discouraged by US efforts to undermine the exercise.

Rao launched the Look East foreign policy, which brought India closer to ASEAN. Subsequent governments have pursued this policy as well. Today, Narendra Modi is a strong advocate and practitioner of this policy.

He decided to maintain a distance from the Dalai Lama in order to placate Beijing, and made successful overtures to Tehran. These policies paid rich dividends for India in 1994, when Benazir Bhutto's efforts to have a resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva on the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir failed, with opposition by China and Iran.

4. Crisis management:

After the 1993 Bombay blasts, PV personally visited Bombay and after seeing evidence of Pakistani involvement in the blasts, invited the intelligence agencies of the US, UK and other West European countries to examine the facts for themselves.

It was during his term that terrorism in Punjab was finally defeated.

He also directed negotiations to secure the release of Doraiswamy, an Indian Oil executive, from Kashmiri terrorists who kidnapped him, and Liviu Radu, a Romanian diplomat posted in New Delhi in October 1991, who was kidnapped by Sikh terrorists.

He also brought the occupation of the Hazratbal holy shrine in Jammu and Kashmir by terrorists in October 1993 to an end without damage to the shrine.

In 1993, a strong earthquake in Latur, Maharashtra killed nearly 10,000 people and displaced hundreds of thousands. PV Narasimha Rao was applauded for using modern technology and resources to organise major relief operations.

Okay. By now, I am convinced he has done enough to have become a high-performance Prime Minister, despite his inaction during the Babri Masjid demolition and the pan-India rioting that happened after that. But why the disdain, especially from within his own party?

Some commentators say that his shabby treatment largely owed to the fact that, in the dusk of his career, he refused to serve as a seat-warmer to the next generation of Gandhis. Once he became the PM, this previously indecisive, harmless, grand old man acted like the buck stopped with him. He stopped visiting Sonia Gandhi regularly, which she resented. In him, the Gandhi family detected a rival power centre that could diminish their centrality to the party and its fortunes.

Some others say that Sonia Gandhi was unhappy with the pace at which Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case was progressing. A few others say that Congress ‘punished’ Rao for his failure to safeguard the Babri Masjid and jeopardise the party’s long-nurtured Muslim vote bank.

Whatever be the real inside story, I feel compelled to reproduce the most glowing tribute to PV Narasimha Rao I read in the past few days.

“Rao is to India what founding fathers Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson are to the United States; Friedrich List to Germany; Hayato Ikeda to Japan; Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee and Albert Winsemius to Singapore; and Deng Xiaoping to China.”

In my book, Pamulaparthi Venkata Narasimha Rao is 100% a Bharat Ratna - a Jewel of India.

[realtimeslive]

UN chief fondly recalls association with Vajpayee

UN chief fondly recalls association with Vajpayee

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has condoled the death of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and fondly recalled his association with the former Indian prime minister.

Vajpayee, one of India’s most charismatic leaders and inspirational orators, died on August 16 at the age of 93 in New Delhi.

“@UN Secretary General @antonioguterres visits @IndiaUNNewYork to record condolences & recall fondly…

[u4u-voice]

Notification for first phase of Lok Sabha polls issued

NEW DELHI: Notification for the first phase of the Lok Sabha elections was issued on Monday, setting in motion the high-voltage electoral battle where the BJP seeks to return to power amid opposition’s efforts to present a united fight to unseat it. Polling would be held in 91 parliamentary constituencies spread across 20 states on April 11 under the first of the seven-phase general elections. The Election Commission Monday issued a notification signed by President Ram Nath Kovind for the first phase of the election. With the issuance of the notification, the nomination process has begun which would continue till March 25. Scrutiny of the nomination papers will be held on March 26 and the last days of withdrawing nominations is March 28. By the evening of March 28, a clear picture on the number of candidates in each of the 91 constituencies will emerge. All parliamentary constituencies in 10 states and Union Territories will go for polling in the first phase. These include, Andhra Pradesh (25 seats), Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya (two seats each), Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Andaman and Nicobar and Lakshadweep (one seat each), Telangana (17 seats) and Uttarakhand (five seats). Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal will see polling in all the seven phases. In the first phase, eight west UP constituencies, two in West Bengal and four in Bihar will go for polls. UP has 80 seats, while West Bengal and Bihar have 42 and 40 Lok Sabha seats respectively. The Jammu and Baramulla seats in Jammu and Kashmir will also go for polling in the first phase. The election will pit the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance against mostly different opposition groupings in various states, including of Congress, the Left and regional forces who are continuing to work out a grand alliance to minimise a division of votes against the saffron party. The BJP has worked out a seat-sharing formula with some new allies and several old partners, by even making concessions in states such as Bihar. However, opposition parties are yet to do so in several states. While the NDA hopes to make history by coming back to power for a second full term, the Opposition wants to unseat the Modi dispensation by raising questions on its performance on a host of issues, including economic growth, unemployment, corruption and social harmony. Atal Bihari Vajpayee had led the NDA to back-to-back wins in 1998 and 1999 general elections but he was at the helm for only one full term. The BJP, which lost three state polls last year, believes its Lok Sabha campaign is back on track following decisions such as 10 per cent quota for the general category poor, money transfer to farmers and a populist budget. What has injected further confidence into the NDA fold is the fronting of the nationalist plank in the poll campaign after the Indian Air Force’s strikes on terrorist camps in Pakistan following the Pulwama terror attack in which 40 CRPF personnel were killed. Modi has launched an aggressive campaign accusing the opposition of coming together for the sole purpose of removing him from power, when he is working to “remove poverty, corruption and terrorism”. He had led the NDA to a sweeping victory in 2014 as it won 336 seats, reducing then incumbent Congress to its lowest total of 44 seats. (AGENCIES) Read the full article

[vsplusonline]

Opposition sees a deal in release of Farooq, Omar Abdullah

New Post has been published on https://apzweb.com/opposition-sees-a-deal-in-release-of-farooq-omar-abdullah/

Opposition sees a deal in release of Farooq, Omar Abdullah

NEW DELHI: The release of National Conference (NC) leaders Farooq and Omar Abdullah in quick succession has led to whispers among some opposition leaders about a possible deal with the Centre, although many of them have formally welcomed their release.

“We have no idea what all transpired before the release of the Abdullahs. But we won’t be surprised if they now gradually shift their main political discourse, from the opposition to the abrogation of Article 370 to demand for restoration of statehood to J&K and domicile clause as conditions for assembly polls, something that suits Delhi as well,” a senior opposition leader told ET on condition of anonymity.

While the authorities gave old age as the reason for the release of Farooq Abdullah, 82, on March 13, in his son Omar’s case it cited the Covid-19 outbreak. Much of the talk stems from the Abdullah family’s history of striking tactical understanding with the government of the day in Delhi, including the Indira-Sheikh Accord of 1975, the manner Farooq, after having left India to live abroad when militancy started in J&K, was made to join the J&K assembly election conducted by the Narasimha Rao regime and the way the NC pragmatically co-existed with the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government.

Another opposition leader said, “Clearly, the Centre and BJP want a multi-cornered contest in the Valley during the next J&K assembly polls. There appears to be a deft carrot-and-stick policy by using Apni Party (recently launched third front) and other cards. The NC seems to have fallen for the bait. Now, watch out PDP other smaller outfits!”

Omar Abdullah, on his part, made an appeal for Mufti’s appeal after he was released, among other comments on Twitter, including on the fitness routine he had evolved during the detention period.

Opposition leaders also pointed to what they termed potentially significant events preceding the arrest and release of the Abdullahs. For instance, just three days before they were arrested on August 5 last year, the Abdullahs had a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. And on July 31, the media had reported that Farooq Abdullah was grilled by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the alleged Rs 113 crore scam in the J&K Cricket Association which the CBI was also probing.

Within days of their arrest, they (and others including Mufti) were booked under the stringent Public Safety Act (PSA). In between, the Centre “encouraged” talks among assorted smaller parties of J&K to form a Third Front – now named Apni Party, led by ex-PDP leader Altaf Bukhari – which was seen as aimed at weakening the NC’s traditional hold in the Valley, where the PDP had emerged in some parts and the Congress now only has a few fading patches.

By early February came reports of former RAW chief AS Dulat holding a discreet “courtesy meeting” with detained Farooq, after permission from the Union home ministry. Later, NC central secretary Rattan Lal Gupta wrote to the chief elector officer stating that the NC was “a strong votary of democratic process” and also wished to participate in the second phase of the panchayat polls, provided the “roadblock” (detention of Abdullahs and others) was removed.

Many opposition parties noted that the NC’s letter to the CEO not only did not make a demand for reversal of abrogation of Article 370 as a condition for joining panchayat polls but the party also shifted from its stand of boycotting the first phase of the polls. With the NC taking the lead, other opposition parties too were forced to follow suit, although the polls were later postponed. Many leaders are now waiting to see whether authorities will take steps to release others as well, including Mufti, Shah Faesal and Sajad Lone.

if(geolocation && geolocation != 5 && (typeof skip == 'undefined' || typeof skip.fbevents == 'undefined')) !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function()n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments); if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)(window, document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '338698809636220'); fbq('track', 'PageView');

Source link

[todaybharatnews]

via Today Bharat He was a man of moderation in a fraternity of jingoistic nationalists; a peace visionary in a region riven by religious animosity; and a man who believed in India's destiny and was ready to fight for it. Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (93), who died on Thursday, will go down in history as a person who tried to end years of hostility with Pakistan and put development on the front burner of the country's political agenda. He was also the first non-Congress Prime Minister to complete a full five-year term. Even though he lived the last 13 years of his life in virtual isolation, dogged by debilitating illnesses and bedridden, he has left an enduring legacy for the nation and the region where he was much loved and respected across the political spectrum and national boundaries, including in Pakistan. In the tumultuous period he presided over the destiny of the world's largest democracy, Vajpayee stunned the world by making India a declared nuclear state and then almost went to war with Pakistan before making peace with it in the most dramatic fashion. In the process, his popularity came to match that of Indira Gandhi, a woman he admired for her guts even as he hated her politics. He also became the best-known national leader after Indira Gandhi and her father Jawaharlal Nehru. After despairing for years that he would never become Prime Minister and was destined to remain an opposition leader all his life, he achieved his goal, but only for 13 days, from May 16-28, 1996, after his deputy, L.K. Advani, chose not to contest elections that year. His second term came on March 19, 1998, and lasted 13 months, a period during which India stunned the world by undertaking a series of nuclear tests that invited global reproach and sanctions. Although his tenure again proved short-lived, his and his government's enhanced stature following the world-defying blasts enabled him to return as Prime Minister for the third time on October 13, 1999, a tenure that lasted a full five-year term. When finally he stepped down in May 2004, after an election that he was given to believe he would win, it marked the end of a long and eventful political career spanning six decades. Vajpayee had gone into these elections riding a personality cult that projected him as a man who had brought glory to the nation in unprecedented ways. The BJP's election strategy rested on seeking a renewed mandate over three broad pillars of achievement that the government claimed -- political stability in spite of the pulls and pressures of running a multi-party coalition; a "shining" economy that saw a dizzying 10.4 percent growth in the last quarter of the previous year; and peace with Pakistan that changed the way the two countries looked at each other for over 50 years. The results of the elections could not have come as a greater shock to a man who was hailed for his achievements and who was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 influential men of the decade. Success didn't come easily to the charismatic politician, who was born on Christmas Day in 1924 in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, into a family of moderate means. His father was a school teacher and Vajpayee would later recall his early brush with poverty. He did his Masters in Political Science, studying at the Victoria College in Gwalior and at the DAV College in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, where he first contested, and lost, elections. He began his professional career as a journalist, working with Rashtradharma, a Hindi monthly, Panchjanya, a Hindi weekly, and two Hindi dailies, Swadesh and Veer Arjun. By then he had firmly embraced the ideals of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). But even as he struggled to win electoral battles, his command over Hindi, the lingua franca of the North Indian masses, his conciliatory politics and his riveting oratory brought him into public limelight. His first entry into Parliament was in 1962 through the Rajya Sabha, the upper house. It was only in 1971 that he won a Lok Sabha election. He was elected to the lower house seven times and to the Rajya Sabha twice. Vajpayee spent months in prison when Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency rule in June 1975 and put her political opponents in jail. When the Janata Party took office in 1977, dethroning the Congress for the first time, he became the foreign minister. The lowest point in his career came when he lost the 1984 Lok Sabha polls, that too from his birthplace Gwalior, after Rajiv Gandhi won an overwhelming majority following his mother Indira Gandhi's assassination. And the BJP he led ended up with just two seats in the 545-member Lok Sabha, in what looked like the end of the road for the right-wing party. In no time, Vajpayee was replaced and "eclipsed" by his long-time friend L.K. Advani. Although they were the best of friends publicly, Vajpayee never fully agreed with Advani's and the assorted Hindu nationalist groups' strident advocacy of Hindutva, an ideology ranged against the idea of secular India. Often described as the right man in the wrong party, there were also those who belittled him as a moderate "mask" to a hardline Hindu nationalist ideology. Often he found his convictions and value systems at odds with the party, but the bachelor-politician never went against it. It was precisely this persona of Vajpayee -- one merged in Hindutva ideology yet seemingly not wholly willing to bow to it -- that won him admirers cutting across the political spectrum. It was this trait that made him the Prime Minister when the BJP's allies concluded they needed a moderate to steer a hardliner, pro-Hindu party. He brought into governance measures that created for India a distinct international status on the diplomatic and economic fronts. In his third prime ministerial stint, Vajpayee launched a widely acclaimed diplomatic initiative by starting a bus service between New Delhi and Pakistan's Lahore city. Its inaugural run in February 1999 carried Vajpayee and was welcomed on the border by his Pakistan counterpart Nawaz Sharif. It was suspended only after the 2001 terror attack on the Indian Parliament that nearly led to a war between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. The freeze between the two countries, including an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation on the border for nearly a year, was finally cracked in the spring of 2003 when Vajpayee, while in Kashmir, extended a "hand of friendship" to Pakistan. That led to the historic summit in January 2004 with then President Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad -- a remarkable U-turn after the failed summit in Agra of 2001. Despite the two men being so far apart in every way, Musharraf developed a strong liking for the Indian leader. His unfinished task, one that he would probably rue, would be the peace process with Pakistan that he had vowed to pursue to its logical conclusion and a resolution of the Kashmir dispute. He was not known as "Atal-Ji", a name that translates into firmness, for nothing. He could go against the grain of his party if he saw it deviate from its path. When Hindu hardliners celebrated the destruction of the 16th century Babri Mosque at Ayodhya, he was full of personal remorse for the apocalyptic action and called it -- in a landmark interview to IANS -- the "worst miscalculation" and a "misadventure". He even despaired that "moderates have no place -- who is going to listen to the voice of sanity? In his full five-year term, he successively carried forward India's economic reforms programme with initiatives to improve infrastructure, including flagging off a massive national highway project that has become associated with his vision, went for massive privatisation of unviable state undertakings despite opposition from even within his own party. While his personal image remained unsullied despite his long innings in the murky politics of this country, his judgment was found wanting when his government was rocked by an arms bribery scandal that sought to expose alleged payoffs to some senior members of his cabinet. His failure to speak up when members of his party and its sister organisations, who are accused of killing more than 1,000 Muslims in Gujarat, was questioned by the liberal fraternity who wondered aloud about his secular proclamations. He wanted then Chief Minister -- now Prime Minister, Narendra Modi -- to take responsibility for the riots and quit but was prevailed upon by others not to press his decision. A day before his party lost power, Vajpayee was quoted as saying in a television interview that if and when he stepped down he would like to devote his time to writing and poetry. But fate ruled otherwise. The man who once rued that "I have waited too long to be Prime Minister" found his last days in a world far removed from the adulation and attention -- though across the nation people prayed for his well-being -- surrounded only by caregivers and close family whom he even failed to recognise.nbsp;

[malalawnews]

Neither fear nor vanity prompted Sonia to decline office

File photo of Sonia Gandhi

Today, as Sonia Gandhi prepares to step down as INC president, the least her countrymen owe is an acknowledgement that her “Qurbani” was not an impulsive gesture. It was her sense of patriotism

The story of Sonia Gandhi has not quite been a fairytale. But then fairytales are predictable and sometimes monotonous. In real life, there is no such thing as “Happily Ever After”.

On December 9, 2017 she would be 71 years old and on the threshold of yet another momentous turning point in her life. After 19 unbroken years as the President of the oldest political party of the world’s largest democracy, she would be voluntarily stepping down and handing over the baton to her successor.

At a personal level, she will undoubtedly be overwhelmed by a wave of indescribably complex and profound emotions as she looks back at her two decades at the helm of the Congress party – and at the three decades before that, starting from the day she became the wife of Rajiv Gandhi and the daughter-in-law of Indira Gandhi back in 1968.

The fairytale script of her idyllic existence was shattered for the first time on that fateful morning of October 31, 1984, when she cradled her mother-in-law’s blood-drenched body on her lap on the way to the hospital.

The second devastating calamity that snuffed out all hopes of a happily-ever-after ending to her personal life story took place less than seven years later, on May 21, 1991, when her husband’s body was brought back from Sriperumbudur, 2000 kilometers away. Sonia Gandhi was suddenly adrift and bereft, with only a 21-year-old son and 19-year-old daughter to cling to in grief-stricken emptiness.

Nobody really knows what nightmares and traumas she went through over the next few years or how she groomed and guided her children during those difficult times.

But there is a saying that “something devastating can always be transformed into something remarkable, if you choose to find that one positive in a nest of negatives”.

So it was with Sonia Gandhi. For six years she chose to stay away from politics and rebuffed offers of a leadership role in the party. Then in 1997, at the age of 51, she took a momentous decision that would have far-reaching ramifications for the Congress Party, for herself and her own family members and indeed for the history of modern India.

Sonia Gandhi enrolled as a primary member of the party at its Calcutta Plenary Session and, a year later in 1998, was elected President of the Congress Party amidst controversy over the party’s electoral defeat under Sitaram Kesri.

In 1999, with the installation of a BJP-led government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Sonia Gandhi was elected the Leader of the Opposition of the 13th Lok Sabha. After five years on the Opposition benches, she led the party to power in 2004, with the support of a United Progressive Alliance coalition of ten Centre-Left parties.

Then came May 18, 2004, and one of the most poignant episodes in the annals of Indian politics. It was an utterly un-expected “Qurbani Mom-ent”, when the nation and the world watched with amazement as Sonia Gandhi declined to become Prime Minister of India.

The elections were over, Vajpayee’s BJP had been defeated and the Congress-led UPA was poised to form a coalition government. Sonia Gandhi had been widely expected to become the country’s second woman Prime Minister, and the formalities of being duly chosen by the party’s working committee had been completed.

But she stunned her supporters and adversaries alike by declining to take up the post. She told her newly-elected party MPs, many of whom were weeping in disbelief and disappointment: “The post of prime minister has not been my aim. I was always certain that, if ever I found myself in the position I am in today, I would follow my inner voice. I humbly decline the post.”

Her announcement triggered clamorous scenes with cries and entreaties that she should change her mind. Her response was firm: “I request that you accept my decision. I cannot reconsider. It is my inner voice, my conscience. My responsibility at this critical time is to provide India with a secular government that is strong and stable”.

Political analysts and adversaries have viewed this in various ways, each according to his or her perceptions and political predilections. Some have described it as a sublime sacrifice, rare in public life. Others have tried to seek hidden motives or lack of self-confidence.

Most have preferred to underplay the significance of the decision or to gloss over the episode entirely, erasing it from public memory as it were. But history could well judge it as an act of courage, not cowardice. It provided a glimpse of Sonia Gandhi’s character. The “inner voice” that influenced her decision was her conscience, her sense of duty.

Sometimes in life, you do things you don’t want to. Sometimes you sacrifice, sometimes you compromise. Sometimes you let go and sometimes you fight. It’s all about deciding what’s worth losing and what’s worth keeping.

As learned philosophers have told us, it is not hard to decide what you want your life to be about. What is hard, is figuring out what you are willing to give up, in order to do things you really care about.

Today, as she prepares to step down as President of the Congress party, the very least her countrymen owe is an acknowledgement that her “Qurbani” was not an impulsive gesture born out of fear or vanity. It was her sense of patriotism, deeply instilled political education imparted by her husband Rajiv Gandhi and above all her mother-in-law Indira Gandhi. Sonia Gandhi instinctively knew what was worth losing and what was worth keeping. She had figured out what she was willing to give up, so that she could do the things she really cared about the most. That is what half a century of breathing the spirit of India teaches you.

Article first published in the National Herald, a newspaper founded by the first prime minister of the world’s largest democracy:

https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/neither-fear-nor-vanity-prompted-sonia-to-decline-office

[optimisticprincepainter]

Notwithstanding Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath’s assurance about the security of the Taj Mahal, few will be able to say with certainty that the threat to the monument has disappeared. Similar guarantees were given by another UP chief minister belonging to the Bharatiya Janata Party, Kalyan Singh, about the safety of the Babri Masjid. But he could not keep the promise. The 16th century mosque, which was described as an ‘ocular provocation’ by Lal Kishenchand Advani — now in retirement but then riding high as a fiery Hindutva warrior — was brought down by a saffron mob in his presence 25 years ago. The Taj, too, has been castigated as a ‘blot’ on India’s heritage by a BJP legislator while others from his party have been dubbing the Mughals as traitors, rapists, murderers, exploiters and destroyers of Hindu temples. Given the growing animus against the Mughals in the Sangh Parivar (which wasn’t there in, say, Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s time), only a brave person will be ready to bet that no harm will ever be done by Hindutva storm-troopers to the world famous 17th century mausoleum which, according to BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, was built on stolen property. Not only that, the saffron brigrade claims that the final resting place of Emperor Shah Jahan and his wife Mumtaz Mahal was a Shiva temple. Foreign experts were once called to look under the Babri Masjid to see if it was built on a destroyed temple. It will not be surprising if a similar demand about the Taj is made by the Hindutva camp on the plea of resolving the tomb-temple controversy. It is obvious that the longer the BJP stays in power, the antagonism and hostility towards the Mughals will persist in the saffron ranks and tend to intensify, thereby posing an incipient danger to the Taj since there will always be some hotheads who will take it upon themselves at least to damage if not destroy it. It is also obvious that no amount of security will be able to save it just as the Babri Masjid could not be saved. The BJP will no doubt express regret over any attack on the Taj, just as it did after the Babri Masjid demolition. But the deed would have been done and, in course of time, the people of India, and the rest of the world, will come to accept the inevitable as in the case of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas or of the countless historical artifacts in Syria and Iraq by Islamic State fanatics. Arguably, an electoral impact on the BJP of a similar targeting of the Taj by fanatics will not be of such a dimension as to put it out of business. The last scene in the 1953 version of the movie, ,em>The War of the Worlds, based on H G Wells’ famous story about the invasion of Earth by Martians, showed a broken Taj. It is not known whether India is heading in that direction, but a look at some of the typical tactics of the saffron brotherhood is instructive. They comprise the gradual building up of a momentum towards the achievement of a desired objective, not by the main party at first, but by secondary outfits or by stray individuals or mavericks, till a stage is reached when what they have been saying acquires a certain inevitability. The run-up to the destruction of the Babri Masjid started with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad raising the demand for the ‘liberation’ of Lord Ram’s birthplace in 1985 a year after the BJP was reduced to two seats in the Lok Sabha. The connection between the BJP’s political woes and the Parivar’s outburst of devotion for Lord Ram is obvious. The BJP took up the issue in 1989 and the rest is history including the claim that the Ram Janmabhoomi issue has been there for centuries although it did not feature in any of the Jan Sangh’s or the BJP’s manifestos earlier. In the case of the Taj, the issue was raised by UP MLA Sangeet Som and has since been followed up by, among others, Subramanian Swamy and an affiliate of the RSS, the Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Samiti which wants that either namaaz be banned or that prayers by Hindus be allowed. A petition has also been filed in an Agra court, demanding that the Taj be declared a temple. For the moment, all this is low key, with the BJP governments at the Centre and in UP pretending that their focus is only on sabka saath, sabka vikas. But the pitch is being prepared. The Rediff.com : 10th. Dec,17(Amulya Ganguli)

IS OUR TAJ MAHAL SAFE ? Notwithstanding Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath's assurance about the security of the Taj Mahal, few will be able to say with certainty that the threat to the monument has disappeared.

[wionews]

Who will be India's new president?

BJP is in the striking distance of getting a president elected who will hail completely from a non-Congress stock. For the first time in post-independent India, BJP will be electing a president without any help from parties who are ideologically opposed to it. 

So, it brings us to the question as what the presidential candidate would look like? The history proves that largely, presidential candidates bore the will of the prime minister or the one who controlled the lever of power, which in the case of the UPA government in both its phases was Congress President Sonia Gandhi. 

The early years of the republic saw the office of the president being occupied by those who led India's freedom struggle; they were held in high esteem by the Congress party.

The list of the ‘firsts’ includes Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Dr. Zakir Hussain. Dr. Prasad was a volunteer with Gandhi during Champaran movement in 1916. Despite differences of opinion between Nehru and Rajendra Babu, representing the Left and Right ideas respectively, the two leaders co-existed. Their mutual respect was born out of their shared struggle. Each acknowledged the significance and contribution of the other. 

Radhakrishnan who went on to become the president in 1962 was an educationist and a politician in shadows. He became vice president of the country in 1952 but wasn’t overtly part of the freedom struggle or the Congress Party. He was an educationist whose birthday is celebrated as Teacher’s day in India. Dr. Zakir Hussain too was an educationist and co-founder of the Jamia Millia Islamia University. He served as the second vice president of India. Their election, more than anything else, reflects a Congress party increasingly being dominated by Nehru in the post-1950s.

Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad shamed the country by signing the proclamation of the emergency, demonstrating his commitment towards an individual rather than the Indian republic.

  ×

Rajendra Prasad, Radhakrishnan,  Zakir Hussain constituted the compatriots, achievers, authors and visionaries of the new Indian republic. They were first amongst the equals.

Post-1969 all the presidents, including KR Narayanan came from active Congress stable. Most of them had the opportunity to interact with MK Gandhi, and subsequently, make a smooth transition to various spheres of government at the centre and states after 1952. 

All of them were minted in the Congress tradition and were aware of the rise of Indira Gandhi in the political ecosystem. Also, they were insiders who served as the Members of Parliament, ministers and chief ministers under Nehru, Shastri and Indira Gandhi when they were the prime minister. But for the selection to high office, loyalty became an important parameter.   VV Giri became the president, defeating the official candidate of the Congress, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy when Indira Gandhi called for a conscience vote opposed to the "syndicate" in the party. 

All the former presidents, including Shankar Dayal Sharma were dyed-in-the-wool Congressmen. Even KR Narayanan, a Foreign Service officer got his break from India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on Harold Laski’s letter. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad shamed the country by signing the proclamation of the emergency, demonstrating his commitment towards an individual rather than the Indian republic. Zail Singh openly sang peons for Indira Gandhi, though Singh eventually fell out with her son Rajiv Gandhi. Both of them, however, professed loyalty towards Indira Gandhi.

Vipakash kee Sarkar mein bhi Congress ka hee raj hota hai.

  ×

Congressmen became the Union president even when the power in the center happened to be in the hands of non-Congress parties. For instance, when Janata Party came to power in 1977, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy was elected unopposed as the president. Morarji Desai was the prime minister and, ironically, both were ex-Congressmen.  It led to the famous saying: "Vipakash kee Sarkar mein bhi Congress ka hee raj hota hai.”

It didn’t matter much in 1977 but did become an issue in 2002 when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was interested in getting a prominent Congress man Krishan Kant elected as the president but couldn’t owing to the opposition from hardliners in his party.

It is in this backdrop Prime Minister Narendra Modi will nominate BJP’s candidate who will truly belong to his ecosystem. An emaciated Congress in 1991 was able to elect Shankar Dayal Sharma as the president who Sonia Gandhi wanted to become the prime minister after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. He declined, and PV Narasimha Rao got the opportunity to become one. A year later Sharma went on to become the president.

Pratibha Patil was a result of a larger alliance built by Congress to push a non-controversial Congress candidate on the basis of loyalty and gender.

  ×

Lastly, APJ Kalam went on to become the president though BJP did not have the number in the electoral college but succeeded because of the Congress support. The Congress High Command supported Kalam because it didn’t want to go with the Left-supported candidature of Captain Lakshmi Sehgal. On the other hand, Pratibha Patil was a result of a larger alliance built by Congress to push a non-controversial Congress candidate on the basis of loyalty and gender. It would be noteworthy that even Left had its say in the election of the vice president when Hamid Ansari occupied the office. 

The last of them is current president Dr Pranab Mukherji who became the president out of his will and his ability to influence players across the political spectrum. 

This brings us back again to the question on the type of person Narendra Modi would like to ascend to Raisina Hill? To put it simply, he will be a person of complete non-Congress stock. He or she would have either worked with or through the ranks of the RSS. The person’s ideological loyalty to the RSS-BJP will be unquestioned. Such a president would showcase the autonomy of the government in electing their own man. 

Despite short of numbers, the Congress lately was able to elect presidents of its choosing because it dominated the ideological ecosystem of the country. The only compromise that the Congress party made was that for the position of the vice president because it required the support of the Left to survive in 2007. 

The issue is whether BJP would fall into the trap of sectional representation like South, tribal, gender or Dalit categories? Though the Congress never overtly acknowledged but partook the claim to have nominated the first Dalit as the President in KR Narayanan. Sonia Gandhi got lackluster Pratibha Patel as the president for the reason she is a woman. Vajpayee had to make do with Kalam because Congress couldn’t say no to a candidate of minority dispensation. His name was suggested by Mulayam Singh Yadav and brokered by V. Naidu.

In 2017, none of the above-mentioned constraints exist for BJP. Once the party is done deliberating with other political parties, it is expected to announce one of their own as the presidential candidate. The BJP-nominated candidate would share the party's cultural and ideological ecosystem in complete opposition to the Left-Congress imagination of the Indian landscape. Whether it comes in the shape of Sushma Swaraj, Sumitra Mahajan, Draupadi Murmu, the person will owe his nomination to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He will bear Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s signature who in Vajpayee’s absence has become the ‘pratham purush’ or the first man of the government, party and ideology. 

So, let’s wait for the name.

]]>

[timetonews-blog]

Smriti Irani Writes: A Birthright to Rule – No More !!!

As ivory towers go; a belief in ones’ god given right to rule is one that has been broken down piece by piece by the electorate in the recently conducted elections of Uttar Pradesh. The Bharatiya Janata Party in its present incarnation drawing inspiration from the teachings of ‘Ekatma Manav-vaad’ of Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya has been the biggest beneficiary of this desirable transformation in the Indian Political Landscape.

From the year 1980 Sh. Atal Bihari Vajpayee in his Presidential address in the first National Executive of the BJP in Mumbai held out the hope of a credible political opposition based on ideologically driven politics when he said “Andhera Chhatega Kamal Khilegaa” to the clarion call given by Sh. Narendra Modi in 2013-14 for a “Congress Mukt Bharat” we have seen many ups and downs in our political journey. But the one thing that has been the hallmark of the BJP’s brand of politics is a fierce loyalty towards ideology and a very clear and cogent stand that talent shall always upstage blood lines. This is the reason that the BJP has been able to produce stalwarts in the political landscape of India even though it has been in opposition for a large part of its political journey. Be it the dynamic persona of Atalji and Advaniji in the 1980s through to the first years of the new millennia or the towering persona of Sh. Narendra Modi and Sh. Amit Shah in the last few years, the thread that runs common amongst all these individuals is that they do not possess the “benefit” of any political lineage or dynasty. They are men who have made their mark in the political landscape and history of our great nation by sheer hard work and capability to take people along.

In India, we have seen the downfall of many a political dynasty; be it the formidable Rajeshekhar Reddy, the Gogois in Assam or the Chautalas in Haryana. The Indian electorate which has a large proportion of young voters does not feel beholden to the erstwhile “ruling dynasties”.

One could say that the watershed moment in Indian electoral politics came in 1991 when with opening up of the economy the Indian populace was brought face to face with the burgeoning changes that were taking place across the world. Then came the private sector investment in News Television which brought about a change of epic proportions in the life of politicians. We bid goodbye to the age of politicians who deigned it appropriate to interact with electorate around election time or at a time and place of their choosing. 24 hours news meant politics and politicians were expected to be “on call” 24x7. Gradually, we also saw the social media platforms growing, and over the years becoming the preferred mode of interaction with the electorate. This development also meant that the “mai baap” veneration that “old style” politicians were used to became a thing of the past. This transformation has been ingrained by certain individual politicians and political organizations while others are grudgingly coming to terms with the need to ingrain this truth of political discourse as part of their SOP. Political outfits and individuals who have not made this requisite change have been or are in the process of being relegated to oblivion of political irrelevance.

It is not surprising that the maximum damage has been suffered by political dynasties as they have not been able to cope with this change in voter sentiment, the new India which does not feel it owes its existence to certain families to ensure their political relevance.

When in the prelude to the 2014 Lok Sabha elections a rather garrulous spokesperson of the INC referred to the present Prime Minister as a “Chaiwala” it was not just an example of the downfall of our political discourse but also blatantly points to the sense of entitlement that goes at the very root of politics based not on ideology but on kowtowing before a dynasty. The people of the country, however, chose to only remember the immense work done by Sh. Narendra Modi as the Chief Minister of Gujarat and gave the BJP led NDA a historic mandate in 2014. The electorate ensured the politicians know that their preferences lay with merit not scions of a dynasty and replied with a resounding electoral defeat of the Congress that has become a synonym for one family.

Resting on past laurels and basking in reflected glory of past generation(s) is not something that the young voter would stand for, this is important since approximately 65% of the voters are in age group of 18-35. This huge chunk of our demography has not seen or experienced the horrors of colonial rule first hand and as such any attempt at garnering a vote in the name of one’s ancestors who were part of the Independence movement does not cut ice with gen next. The electorate today is also looking for active participation of its prospective representative(s) on issues that confront them every day. A serious political activist cannot be seen to be engaging in issues in fits and starts. The sudden sputtering into a life of an old motor that again goes into a periodic stupor is not what the electorate wants its elected representative to imitate.

We as political activists and workers have a responsibility to not only engage with the electorate on a regular basis but also engage for them, be their voice in the Parliament and in the legislature. It is essential that we do not place our self-interest above national interest. When the Parliament was not allowed to function because the trial Court in Delhi summoned the Gandhis, a charade of vendetta politics was raised. When the personal interest of a family is put above the interest of the nation the electorate does not take it in its stride because it sees through the political stunt and realizes that it is yet again the manifestation of an age-old system seeking to make a comeback.

But what of people who were blessed to be constituents of the prestigious Amethi which since 2004 held the enviable position of being the Lok Sabha Constituency of the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family; the family that was for all intents and purposes running the government at the Centre by proxy. The same faith was reposed in 2009, from 2012 the Congress and the Samajwadi Party were hand in hand in the Centre and there was again hope that with even the state government on the same side as their elected representative the wheels of development would finally move in the non-descript lanes and by-lanes of this dusty collection of hamlets. However, for the electorate of Amethi and for the rest of Uttar Pradesh the period from 2012 till 2014 proved to be one of the immense disappointments. The Central Government and the State Government had their political interest aligned together and it was expected that the scions of two illustrious political dynasties would collectively find within themselves the ability to meet the expectations and aspirations of the State and their respective constituency. Alas! This was not to be.

During my consecutive visits to Amethi, I was simply appalled as I witnessed miles and miles of misery! Yet, the people were grateful for that 30 km long one-lane tract of bricked road which connects their village to a pockmarked main road. Even in misery, there was optimism about a better future. But when the elected representative seeks to sell the same dream over and over again the electorate decides to teach the said haloed representative a lesson in humility. This lesson came in form of the results of the just concluded assembly election results in Uttar Pradesh.

The Bharatiya Janata Party fighting under the leadership of the dynamic Prime Minister - a man who humbly presents himself as our Nation’s ‘Pradhan Sevak’ struck a chord with the aspirations and ambitions of the burgeoning millions. The political opposition tried to harp on old familial relations but the electorate let them know that the time of the dynasties without any perceptible work on the ground is well and truly over.

It is imperative for us to realize that being a member of a political dynasty is not just a privilege but an added responsibility, the electorate would be measuring the scions not on their surnames but on their actual performance, in some cases the omissions and commissions of the past generations would also be like a dead weight around them. The sun seems to have set on the son(s) and/or daughter(s) of the dynasties.

(Smriti Zubin Irani is a Member of Parliament, being nominated to the Rajya Sabha from the state of Gujarat. She is the current Minister of Textiles in the Government of India.)

This article is first published on Narendra Modi ji’s website. 

[realtimeslive]

PM Shinzo Abe remembers Vajpayee as 'good friend of Japan'

PM Shinzo Abe remembers Vajpayee as ‘good friend of Japan’

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has condoled the demise of former Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and described him as a “good friend of Japan”.

“I am deeply saddened to learn the demise of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee,” Abe said in a message, which was shared by External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar on Twitter.

Remembering Vajpayee’s visit to

[realtimeslive]

Rly workers' unions pay homage to former prime minister Vajpayee

Rly workers’ unions pay homage to former prime minister Vajpayee

Railway workers today paid homage to former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was once the president of a station masters’ union, and recalled the saffron leader’s dedication to the workers’ movement.

Thousands of mourners from across the country gathered outside the BJP headquarters here and hundreds lined up inside to pay their respects as the veteran poet-politician’s cortege left…

[realtimeslive]

India-US bilateral relationship continues to benefit from Vajpayee's vision: Pompeo

India-US bilateral relationship continues to benefit from Vajpayee’s vision: Pompeo

Atal Bihari Vajpayee recognised early on that the US-India partnership would contribute to the world’s economic prosperity and security and the two democracies continue to benefit from his vision, US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo has said while condoling the death of the former Prime Minister.

Vajpayee, one of India’s most charismatic leaders and inspirational orators, died yesterday at…

[wionews]

Who will be India's new president?

BJP is in the striking distance of getting a president elected who will hail completely from a non-Congress stock. For the first time in post-independent India, BJP will be electing a president without any help from parties who are ideologically opposed to it. 

So, it brings us to the question as what the presidential candidate would look like? The history proves that largely, presidential candidates bore the will of the prime minister or the one who controlled the lever of power, which in the case of the UPA government in both its phases was Congress President Sonia Gandhi. 

The early years of the republic saw the office of the president being occupied by those who led India's freedom struggle; they were held in high esteem by the Congress party.

The list of the ‘firsts’ includes Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and Dr. Zakir Hussain. Dr. Prasad was a volunteer with Gandhi during Champaran movement in 1916. Despite differences of opinion between Nehru and Rajendra Babu, representing the Left and Right ideas respectively, the two leaders co-existed. Their mutual respect was born out of their shared struggle. Each acknowledged the significance and contribution of the other. 

Radhakrishnan who went on to become the president in 1962 was an educationist and a politician in shadows. He became vice president of the country in 1952 but wasn’t overtly part of the freedom struggle or the Congress Party. He was an educationist whose birthday is celebrated as Teacher’s day in India. Dr. Zakir Hussain too was an educationist and co-founder of the Jamia Millia Islamia University. He served as the second vice president of India. Their election, more than anything else, reflects a Congress party increasingly being dominated by Nehru in the post-1950s.

Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad shamed the country by signing the proclamation of the emergency, demonstrating his commitment towards an individual rather than the Indian republic.

  ×

Rajendra Prasad, Radhakrishnan,  Zakir Hussain constituted the compatriots, achievers, authors and visionaries of the new Indian republic. They were first amongst the equals.

Post-1969 all the presidents, including KR Narayanan came from active Congress stable. Most of them had the opportunity to interact with MK Gandhi, and subsequently, make a smooth transition to various spheres of government at the centre and states after 1952. 

All of them were minted in the Congress tradition and were aware of the rise of Indira Gandhi in the political ecosystem. Also, they were insiders who served as the Members of Parliament, ministers and chief ministers under Nehru, Shastri and Indira Gandhi when they were the prime minister. But for the selection to high office, loyalty became an important parameter.   VV Giri became the president, defeating the official candidate of the Congress, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy when Indira Gandhi called for a conscience vote opposed to the "syndicate" in the party. 

All the former presidents, including Shankar Dayal Sharma were dyed-in-the-wool Congressmen. Even KR Narayanan, a Foreign Service officer got his break from India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru on Harold Laski’s letter. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad shamed the country by signing the proclamation of the emergency, demonstrating his commitment towards an individual rather than the Indian republic. Zail Singh openly sang peons for Indira Gandhi, though Singh eventually fell out with her son Rajiv Gandhi. Both of them, however, professed loyalty towards Indira Gandhi.

Vipakash kee Sarkar mein bhi Congress ka hee raj hota hai.

  ×

Congressmen became the Union president even when the power in the center happened to be in the hands of non-Congress parties. For instance, when Janata Party came to power in 1977, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy was elected unopposed as the president. Morarji Desai was the prime minister and, ironically, both were ex-Congressmen.  It led to the famous saying: "Vipakash kee Sarkar mein bhi Congress ka hee raj hota hai.”

It didn’t matter much in 1977 but did become an issue in 2002 when Atal Bihari Vajpayee was interested in getting a prominent Congress man Krishan Kant elected as the president but couldn’t owing to the opposition from hardliners in his party.

It is in this backdrop Prime Minister Narendra Modi will nominate BJP’s candidate who will truly belong to his ecosystem. An emaciated Congress in 1991 was able to elect Shankar Dayal Sharma as the president who Sonia Gandhi wanted to become the prime minister after Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. He declined, and PV Narasimha Rao got the opportunity to become one. A year later Sharma went on to become the president.

Pratibha Patil was a result of a larger alliance built by Congress to push a non-controversial Congress candidate on the basis of loyalty and gender.

  ×

Lastly, APJ Kalam went on to become the president though BJP did not have the number in the electoral college but succeeded because of the Congress support. The Congress High Command supported Kalam because it didn’t want to go with the Left-supported candidature of Captain Lakshmi Sehgal. On the other hand, Pratibha Patil was a result of a larger alliance built by Congress to push a non-controversial Congress candidate on the basis of loyalty and gender. It would be noteworthy that even Left had its say in the election of the vice president when Hamid Ansari occupied the office. 

The last of them is current president Dr Pranab Mukherji who became the president out of his will and his ability to influence players across the political spectrum. 

This brings us back again to the question on the type of person Narendra Modi would like to ascend to Raisina Hill? To put it simply, he will be a person of complete non-Congress stock. He or she would have either worked with or through the ranks of the RSS. The person’s ideological loyalty to the RSS-BJP will be unquestioned. Such a president would showcase the autonomy of the government in electing their own man. 

Despite short of numbers, the Congress lately was able to elect presidents of its choosing because it dominated the ideological ecosystem of the country. The only compromise that the Congress party made was that for the position of the vice president because it required the support of the Left to survive in 2007. 

The issue is whether BJP would fall into the trap of sectional representation like South, tribal, gender or Dalit categories? Though the Congress never overtly acknowledged but partook the claim to have nominated the first Dalit as the President in KR Narayanan. Sonia Gandhi got lackluster Pratibha Patel as the president for the reason she is a woman. Vajpayee had to make do with Kalam because Congress couldn’t say no to a candidate of minority dispensation. His name was suggested by Mulayam Singh Yadav and brokered by V. Naidu.

In 2017, none of the above-mentioned constraints exist for BJP. Once the party is done deliberating with other political parties, it is expected to announce one of their own as the presidential candidate. The BJP-nominated candidate would share the party's cultural and ideological ecosystem in complete opposition to the Left-Congress imagination of the Indian landscape. Whether it comes in the shape of Sushma Swaraj, Sumitra Mahajan, Draupadi Murmu, the person will owe his nomination to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He will bear Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s signature who in Vajpayee’s absence has become the ‘pratham purush’ or the first man of the government, party and ideology. 

So, let’s wait for the name.

]]>