CRISIS IN KARNATAKA

Since coming to power, the whole record of the party has been a continuous battle within their own party. After the elections, to strengthen your position in numbers, they resorted to "Operation Lotus", mainly to win over independents and members of other parties and Mr Janardhan Reddy was responsible fror this operation. Media reports speak of crores of money being exchanged as well offers to Ministerial posts to win them over. After a few months, some dissidents within the party and curiously led by Janardhan Reddy and a few others sought a change in leadership and Mr Shettar was projected as a Chief Minster and the dismissal of some Ministers in the cabinet. A patch up job, prevented a collapse of the Govt. The allegations of corruption against several Ministers and then even against Mr Yeddyurappa then tarnished the image of the Govt. A few legislators including some independents who had joined the party in the recent past, revolted against Mr Yeddyurappa. Mr Yedyurappa's continuance became doubtful after the Lok Ayukth's report on illegal mining besides cases of denotification to give plots to some of his coteries and family. He was to be replaced but Mr Yeddyurappa arrogated to himself the position that he was the sole leader of the BJP in ther State and dictated on his successor and other posts both in the Govt and in the party. For some unknown reason, Mr Gadkari decided to concede his demands. Mr Sadananda Gowda rather than Mr Shettar was preferred by My Yeddyurappa as the next CM and the party acceded to his request. Mr yedyurappa thought that he would be able to get out his court allegations soon and return as the CM. But he faiuled as the SC ordered an investigation against him. But he didnt rest quiet and his cronies in the Govt did not cooperate with the CM and Mr Yeddyurappa continued his strategy of seeking a change in the leadership of the Govt. and projected Mr Shettar whom he had rejected earlier as the next CM. Mr Yeddyurappa and his followers for several months carried on their opposition to Mr Gowda and sought a change again.

The main point in this narration is to highlight the meglomaniacal qualities of Mr Yeddyurppa who would not allow anyone else to run the GOvt except someone who would act at his bidding. With strong support from Mr Gadkari, he continued to play his game of unsettling the Govt to get a CM who would be pliable and suit his personal agenda. If Mr Shettar who has a reputation of being a clean politician succeeds in being effective, then it wont be long before he seeks a change of leadership to get his own nominee as CM who would act according to his bidding..He has single handedly destroyed the crediblity of the BJP Govt and the fight of the party against corruption. He has managed to inject caste politics in Karnataka by assuming that the electorate are blind and foolish to  vote the party  back to power at the next elections. With his party also playing the caste card, the only way is to vote for a clean and efficient Govt and reject every MLA who has be charged with corruption and not be behind a Govt that is internally unstable and corrupt..

Bankruptcy in Leadership

The frank truth expressed by Mr Advani and Jaswant Singh should be taken positively as a constructive criticism of  the BJP party. leadership. With the RSS taking the role of playing a positive role in the party, they foisted Mr Nitin Gadkari as the party President. With the possible tussle for leadership among the younger lot and the advancing age of Mr Advani, the RSS decided to take charge. But in doing so, they possibly confused the ability to manage based on his business acumen  as against leading the party. He has proved to make several poor judgments of people and the State parties have assumed very strong positions which he has not been able to control with a heavy hand.and some BJP ruled States have not brought any credit to the party. In fact, the ground realities in these States does not auger well for the next elections in 2014. By foisting Gadkari for a second term matters have become worse. It is unfair to attribute Mr Advani's criticisms as coming from one who has taken it as personal affront. He has readily assumed a role of being a mentor rather than a candidate for PMship. Mr Jaswant Singh who is normally more reticent  was expelled and taken back for his speaking the truth.bluntly.

Let us analyse what ails the party. Maybe Mr Advani has accepted the roles of Ms Sushma Swaraj and Mr Jaitley as good orators who made their presence felt in both the Houses. Winning a point in a debate is not enough as an opposition leader. But  to participate in a discussion/debate and make their points relevant to bring about an effective change in any Bill has been totally absent. Some seeming contradictions in the positions of their parties on major issues has made it apparent that more often than not, they have no positive inputs and only lead the other members of the party to obstruct  and not allow the Houses to function. In an attempt to win some regional parties to the NDA at the next elections, they have taken stands to appease some of them and abandon their own stated policies on several issues that affect national interest. They have resorted to take on some personal attacks more seriously instead of trying to rectify the mistakes, if any. The party is therefore seen as one which has no clear policy on economic matters or defence or foreign matters which are key issues to evolve a national consensus. Their obstructive policy has caused a loss of confidence by the world at large on whether our country can face the serious situation in the world economy. The difficulties faced by the present Govt due to the pressures of a coalition, can equally affect them if they come back to power with the help of these regional parties some of whom have no clear policy other than building their own personal cult.

To give a few examples, the introduction of GST was very much a NDA proposal . Maybe there are differences of perception on some issues, but they need to be settled by consensus in national interest and not opposed for the sake of doing so. The Bill to allow petroleum prices to be based on market forces and not on Govt administered prices was the NDA's Bill. But they oppose every increase related to increase in world crude prices. The States governed by their own party  have the highest local taxes with mismanagement of their own finances. The NDA also had stated policies on FDI on retail, insurance etc but instead of arriving at a consensual Bill, to please one State Govt leader, they have given up their stated policy.

The warnings that Shri Advani and Mr Jaswant Singhis have made should be taken seriously and the party has to been seen as one that doesnt only score brownie points in debate by mere opposition to any thing that the Govt proposes and avoid discussion and debate but evolve a bipartisan solution in matters that affect the nation's economic destiny. If they fail to do this, they will be stuck with a very bad economic disastrous position and they will be unable if they come into power and solve these problems with some logical solutions. At the present, the party's position is weakened in Karnataka, maybe even in Gujarat and they have lost Uttarakand and Chattisgarh may follow. They cannot run a NDA Govt  purposefully with the support of the AIDMK in T.N and TMC in West Bengal alone.

The party should develop a strong think tank on such matters and take credit by having their opinions taken by the Govt in any Bill and establish their credibility to govern on their own at the next elections. They should aim to have a strong position in numbers and get a common policy statement for the Govt to be accepted by every party of the coalition. The party has two years to build its position to that of strength. Can they do it?

President of India

The Indian Constitution has provided for the election of a President of the Country. In the past we have had several eminent and respected persons holding this post with distinction and giving our Country great respect. Without taking names, the selection of candidates for the high post of President has over the years been reduced to a political appointment thanks to Mrs Gandhi's idea of having a pliable person with favourable political leanings. This has become a unfortunate trend and India is no longer respected for its President. The present incumbent is perhaps the best proof of having some one solely because she is a woman but with no other attribute other  than being favoured due to her political leanings.

Rightly, the debate on who should be our next President has become a serious topic for discussion. The move to evolve a consensus candidate is also very noteworthy.  It would be ideal if one can have an apolitical person of eminence without attaching meaningless attributes. The country should also establish a tradition of rising above considerations of North, South, East or West or the caste etc. Nor should we base our selection on success in business or scientific achievements. But the person should enjoy the respect not just in the country  but who can contribute to world thinking by his or her views representing the culture of our country. Ideally the person should also have some legal background or experience or some recognition abroad.

Someone who is apolitical with a respected lineage and who has had experience in foreign postings and also been associated as an adviser to a past President like Sri Gopal Krishna Gandhi comes to my mind. His role as  a Governor of a State where he maintained good relations with all political parties was also commendable.
However, we could anyone else with such similar attributes rather than a political animal!

Media and Freedom of speech

The Supreme Court is hearing  this important question on reporting by the media, and this  has invited many diverse reactions. While one extreme position is that the media should be free to write what they want, there is a strong feeling that some kind of self regulation or self censorship should be exercised by those responsible for the media in particular. The problem seems more applicable to the electronic media who are constantly  claiming to be the "first with the news" and are on for 24 hours!. What is important is not being first but being correct and right. Sensationalizing news on the basis of having got some inside information is not always what one wants to hear. The listener wants to hear the truth.and not a version or a partial truth. We have had a news channel claiming to have a copies of  reports which are yet confidential and in some cases the information has been only partly true. And these anchors do not believe in admitting if they were wrong except giving a weak apology when taken to the Court!

The other issue is the reporting of cases as they are being argued or presented in Courts as well as remarks made by Judges while hearing such arguments. Quite often it is premature to report matters that are yet to be heard in full and till the Court passes its  orders. We have some political parties with a direct line to these channels and within minutes of the news the spokesman is ready to give his reaction. The recent sensational news by one paper though sketchy and full of holes has had the editor justify their action by saying as is the usual song- "we stand by our correspondent ". Such news may give  temporary attention but if the news item is proved to be unsupported by solid evidence, then that channel or newspaper will lose their creditability.

The other important issue  is publication of news which can affect the security of the country like in defence matters or an interpretation on foreign affairs that can affect our diplomatic relations. Henry Denker in his book "Judge Spencer Dissents" makes this point about news channels who behave as though they can determine the foreign policy of the country. Most debates on such matters turn out to be of no consequence as the participants are chosen who have diametrically opposite views and the debate becomes  a shouting match and it is impossible to get a balanced view on any issue. On defence matters, one has to be careful not to create a panic situation but rather evolve a positive solution to the issue under discussion.

The question therefore is how can our media exercise some restraint and avoid sensationalizing any news. External censorship or control can be avoided if the media themselves frame guidelines. The Editors Guild had sent a team of five eminent journalists to Gujarat after the 2002 riots and had made several positive suggestions in their report. However, no one has taken serious note of these suggestions though the Guild now has a Chairman from the electronic media and there is also a body to monitor broadcast contents. Perhaps this question has been raised in the Supreme Court. to try and evolve guidelines which will be respected though not enforceable.

There is a very thin line between exercising one's freedom of speech but in the process affecting the freedom which is the right of others for their privacy or honour!

Whither India>

It has become a common for making any issue into a political drama. I am a layman and no expert on nuclear power nor an economist to understand fully the pros and cons of FDI in retail. But common people are being made to go on hunger strikes to protest against the nuclear power station in Kudankulam. Concerns on safety are appreciated but are this protesters being used by interested parties just to get more attention without being able to know what the safety measures taken are and what how their concerns should be met and solved. Who can they accept to address their concerns and are they in a position to understand the technicalities involved. While I do not blame those leading the movement, but I wish they did not resort to street protests by crowds who do not understand the technical issues involved other than a general opposition to nuclear power when we have power plants already operating safely. Besides, technology is always improving and better safety measure are in place.

As regards the question on FDI in retail. Here again the issues raised by those opposing are not based on any study. They have every right to ask for clarifications and even modifications to protect any intere3sts affected. The main opposition party the BJP seem ot have no logical or economic reasons supported by marketing studies to prove why they have changed their stand on this issue. Small traders have not lost out with the supermarkets already in operation. Better infrastructure, storage and prevention of wastage of food, better prices for farmers with no middlemen who today make a large profit at the expense of the farmer and the consumer will help the economy. Inflation can be controlled. FDI will bring in foreign investment and steady the dollar/rupee exchange rate. We certainly must take certain strong steps to prevent these Foreign investors from making unseemly profit or policies affecting our farmers/small producers and our consumers. THis can always be evolved with experience. In any case those States that do not want such outlets are free to ban them in their own State.

What I have expressed are a layman's view no doubt. But what confuses and hurts me is the blind opposition without giving ant tangible reasons and working against b national interests. The BJP are hoping to topple this Govt but I wonder how any will vote a NDA with the support of many regional parties which is the reason why no Govt can work with their dependence on such parties. What we need in case of any re election is a single party Govt where they do not depend on regional parties who do not have a national perspective. The manner in which the country's interests are being sacrificed for political gains is most unfortunate.

Power of the media

It is now a recognised fact that our media except for a few who yet preserve their principle of not sensationalising news and have reports properly investigated. most major newspapers use their freedom of expression to make news rather than analyse and give news with a proper perspective. The electronic media who are committed to give news round the clock, are forced to give news with a slant given by junior correspondents and in some instances , news given is a misreported or too premature conclusions are drawn. The incentive in these cases is to be' first with the news' whether correct or incorrect.

There has been a report by the Press Guild based on investigations by senior journalists after the 2002 riots in Gujarat who suggested that the media should exercise some self regulation or self censorship to ensure that the news reports do not appear without proper verification which could incite people to wrong conclusions and actions. Unfortunately one of the members of that team which submitted that report has gone on record that in the absence of such self censorship, there may a need for an external body to censor such instances and ensure that those channels or papers do not violate proper norms for news dissemination. THE HINDU is one of the papers which have its own ombudsman and who avoid any sensational news unless supported by adequate and credible investigation. With the Press Guild now presided over by younger news editors, the role of the Guild lacks credibility. Any attempt by the Govt to bring some order into the system is objected by the younger editors as restriction on their right of free expression. This freedom should be used with responsibility to protect others right to the same freedom.

To give a recent instance of the media's role and the power that it wields is the Anna movement on the fight against corruption. It should not be surprising that this cause would get universal support. They picked a non controversial and honest and sincere man as its leader and gave him the mantle of being another Gandhiji (which he himself declined to accept) . But the main force of the movement was provided by young, enthusiastic representatives of the Team who resorted to a confrontational approach on insisting on a draft prepared by them to be accepted in toto with no scope for discussion. This naturally invited a equally negative approach by the Govt team. Right through this stage, the media gave a fairly unconditional support and did not try to project a balanced view by giving both sides of the issue and the rule of the Constitution and the supremacy of the Parliament. With abuses and threats such as hunger fast, the movement became not a fight against corruption but against the Govt. Corruption is so rampant that it had to be fought without any distinction of political parties or persons. at the Centre or the States. And all along the media gave only the version of the Team and most electronic channels gave more than normal coverage and interviews with Team Anna members and did not give a balanced views on the matter. The movement largely drew its strength from the power of the media.

With the issue of the Lokpal Bill now rightly in the Parliament, credit must be given to Anna and his team for and raising this issue accepting the right of the Parliament to discuss all aspects of the Lokpal Bill in the Standing Committee before it is presented as a Bill to the Parliament in the winter session.

While the purpose of the movement was right and necessary and the matter was in the Parliament, some young over enthusiastic members of the Team launched an agitation without waiting for the Parliament's winter session. They resorted to taking a biased anti Govt or anti Congress stand and made the movement a political one. This raised objections from within their own ranks and many found themselves in disagreement with the new slant to the movement. The media finding this news worthy, found many other aspects about some of the members and their ethical conduct which would be contrary to their personal fight against corruption. These exposures did not come from any other source than their own colleagues or from sources which could not be attributed to the Govt. Yet the cry from Anna Hazare that there was a 'gang four' who were trying to split their group was really a gang from within and not from outside. When one gets into public eye as did some of the members of the team, they should have realised that the media will not avoid going into other personal details if that made news. So these members became the victims of the the "power of the media". This is not a new phenomena. Politicians, actors, sportsmen and other celebrities who get media attention are always subject to get the attention of the media even on adverse matters and this is the double edged sword that fame and popularity attracts.

It is high time, the Team who are self appointed and call themselves as representing 'civil society' do a rethink on their constitution and have creditworthy persons of high integrity and honest in thought and word and maybe a few other mature social activists and jurists, ex election commissioners, senior retired bureaucrats of proven ability etc. They should take up the other urgent issue especially relating to electoral reforms which should be the starting point to get the right people in the Parliament. These suggestions should not be taken to the streets but submitted to all the political parties and to organise a meeting to arrive at a consensual agreement. We should be able to get capable people to be elected to deal with complex matters such as finance, commerce, environment issues etc. Similarly, for other serious issues requiring reforms should also be taken up on a non partisan basis and based on an in depth study . In short, the movement should have wider representation of civil society including persons of varied expertise and should be a strong, apolitical body to provide the right inputs to the Govt irrespective of which party is in power. A confrontational stand is counter productive and undemocratic as adequate respect must be given to contrary views and efforts to convince or seek a consensus will result in an effective solution. In all this, it is the power of the media which can play a major role in providing the right news for all.