lessons from paramakudi for telangana

does anyone seriously believe that the telangana agitators now pleading/begging/cringing before the congress brass in delhi are liberators? do they seem to be upholding telangani self-respect? or that they care about decentralization?

their actions disprove all three claims.

why do all those valiant 'revolutionaries' from telangana seem like so many unctuous petitioners outside a high powered public official's office? because they are exactly that: petitioners seeking recognition.

this is no revolution. it's something that has happened many times in the past, across many regions.

every major state in india has 100-300 castes. at the top of this pyramid are around 10 castes, on an average, who are always over-represented in the houses of legislature, judiciary, bureaucracy, media, education and academia, industry, trade, cinema etc. their presence in all those fields helps them dominate the field of culture and ideas too. all the rest are under-represented in all fields.

in the north, castes identified with the top three varnas are a natural part of the top layer of the pyramid. other castes like the kayasths, khatris, jats etc had to fight for a place in those top ten. and colonialism helped them, through building more democratic public institutions and providing them employment in the bureaucracy and the army. after independence, a few more upper obc castes joined the empty spots in the top ten, and are still trying to consolidate their position. though they've managed to increase their presence in houses of legislature, they haven't been able to make much strides in other fields. meaning: they're under-represented in all other fields associated with wealth and power and hence still sound very subaltern. the continuing hold of the yadavs and nitish kumar on large sections of people in those states is proof of this.

outside the north, or u.p-bihar specifically, the top three varnas are sparsely distributed, so it's the shudras who form a overwhelming majority of the top ten. the three states where the british had presidency towns, witnessed a quicker spread of education among the shudras which led to the first major non-brahmin assertion movements. the top ten spots were quickly filled in tamil nadu by the time the dmk first assumed power, the marathas, kunbis and other associated peasant castes who form more than one third of the population in maharashtra also managed to fill all spots in that state.

this process was as fast in some princely states like mysore and baroda etc, but much slower in hyderabad state. so slow that it is happening only now in telangana, one century late. almost.

the rise of all those shudra castes-- from jats to gounders to nadars to ezhavas to kammas to vokkaligas to yadavs -- were revolutionary movements too. but they failed to fulfill their promises because the pyramid democratized itself a little at the top, partly in response to their struggles, co-opted them, and managed to retain its character. moreover, it had managed to increase the number of loyal defenders guarding it, more sentries to pour hot oil on those wishing to ascend to the top, or even bring down the pyramid.

now this process of efforts to expand the top layer of the pyramid, to create the top ten spots, is happening in telangana. the elite in telangana, which was only brahmins, reddies and velamas for too long (the muslims having been dislodged by 'independence'), wants to consolidate its own position, expand its influence outside politics, agriculture and government. even in those three fields it feels severely constrained by the stronger position of the much advanced andhra elite. so it's come around to  making a little space for a new set of aspirants among the obcs-- the goudas, munnuru kapus, yadavs especially-- who had risen since the emergence of the telugu desam, so that they could help in its struggle with the andhra elite.

more than a year ago, someone had asked me: why do you oppose this process? if it accommodates a new set of players, even if very few, at the top, doesn't it mean one more progressive step towards democratization of society?

that's the problem with the pyramid. it seems to be expanding its top layer a little, but that's always an illusion. it's only responding to changes in population growth, which has been higher in the last one century than any other time in history.

one reason why i want andhra pradesh to remain united: it'll keep the elites of all regions, and new aspirants,  always engaged in a struggle with each other. that would open up more cracks in the pyramid.

but the major reason is that the assertion movements of ambitious shudra castes until now have only meant the rise of those castes, a strengthening of the elite and the caste order. caste assertion movements have been anti-caste only in initial stages and have inevitably become caste-reinforcing movements.

and the expansion of the elite club has also, inevitably, meant more atrocities on the dalits, adivasis and the religious minorities.

paramakudi has strengthened my convictions.     

right to overrule

The "Right to Food Campaign" is an informal network of organisations and individuals committed to the realisation of the right to food in India. We consider that everyone has a fundamental right to be free from hunger and undernutrition. Realising this right requires not only equitable and sustainable food systems, but also entitlements relating to livelihood security such as the right to work, land reform and social security. We consider that the primary responsibility for guaranteeing these entitlements rests with the state. Lack of financial resources cannot be accepted as an excuse for abdicating this responsibility. In the present context, where people's basic needs are not a political priority, state intervention itself depends on effective popular organisation. We are committed to fostering this process through all democratic means. [emphasis mine]

that's the foundation statement of the right to food campaign.please check the highlighted line again: don't our elections produce 'popular' governments? if elected governments don't represent 'popular' organisations, who does?

the barely concealed contempt for india's politics, democracy and the ordinary indian who considers himself a participant in both can also be noticed in the dazzling rhetoric of other 'right to..' campaigners. indian politics can't handle this serious stuff, so here's what the indian state, through its 'civil', hence neutral and untainted by the filth of politics, bureaucracy needs to do to deliver these 'rights'. in effect, what the campaigners want the state to do is to overrule the the 'politics' of the elected government.   

and they've been succeeding. the nac is filled with these campaigners, and the nac, of course, talks to sonia gandhi more often than the elected government does. and why does the elected government have to consult with sonia gandhi? because sonia gandhi is the party. if she didn't nominate every one of the 'elected' lawmakers (down to panchayat sarpanches and even ward members, sometimes) and if her endorsement wasn't required for the 'election' of the lowliest official in her party across the country, you could have said: the congress is bigger than sonia gandhi.

---------------------

that was a draft i had worked on 7 months ago. a couple of days ago, i see that sonia gandhi is not just congress party, or the government. she is god. food and consumer affairs minister k.v.thomas says:

“The draft Bill is ready now. I don’t say it is in line with NAC or not. But it is in line with what is in the mind of Madam Sonia Gandhi,” he said.
“The principle of Sonia Gandhi is that every citizen of the country should get legal cover toward a certain quantity of nutritious food, not simply foodgrains,” he shared.

in the 7 months since i started on this post, the priests of civil society have moved much closer to god, through the lokpal coup d'etat, pushing parliament into more 'ineffectiveness'. this current move shows utter contempt for not just parliament, elected through popular vote, but also ignores totally a majority of those who participate in the popular vote-- cultivators and workers. one wonders if god, while nodding her assent to all the sanctimonious mumbo-jumbo her civil society priests were chanting before her, had thought even a little about the answers they didn't have?

* who shall pay for the increased procurement? the fci procures, and if it pays a higher msp to the farmer, the govt will have to dole out a greater amount by way of subsidies to the pds. in balancing these two actions, will the farmer always not get paid less to keep the subsidies lower? or will the msp not be a function of the pds prices, always? should cultivators and workers continue to pay with stagnation and death for the food security of the urban middle classes?
* wheat and rice, the brahmin grains, will drive this increased procurement, as always. what about the farmers who produce less brahminical cereals like jowar, bajra etc?
* will surpluses continue to be procured from 3-4 states? wouldn't that destroy any incentive for food security in the majority of states, like it has done in all these years?
* shouldn't food security be a concern of the states, primarily, regions within the states, and districts within regions and blocks within districts and villages within blocks to be more meaningful?
* rice is a water-guzzler and has taken away a much needed resource from millions and millions of ordinary citizens, especially in northwest india, a region which never produced rice in much quantity before the so-called green revolution.. who will pay for this water, which means thirst, hardship, lack of basic sanitation.. dry toilets and again stagnation, caste and much more?
* there is increased competition among many states to build costly but ineffective irrigation systems to tap water to grow rice and other such crops.. who will pay for all the bad blood among states and regions? for the ecological disasters and the adivasi displacements? does india need more rice, at such heavy costs?

questions. one can think of many more questions, but the priests know better, i guess.  

the price of magical solutions

he's mostly been moonlighting as a politician, and not even for a very long period. until one year or so ago, he was a full-time businessman, or robber baron (as some critics would call him). look what he has to say to the 125 year old congress:

Jagan openly mocked at the Congress and the state government in Andhra Pradesh. “I am doing Congress a favour by asking my supporters (MLAs) not to resign. Had I wanted, I could have done it a long time ago. I am a gentleman. So I am doing a favour to the Congress party.” He did not mince any words in making his intentions clear.

for the first time in its long history, the congress must be feeling very sorry that it is in power in andhra pradesh. i don't think such a situation had ever risen in any other state, for that matter, in the past. given a chance, it'd rather be in the opposition benches again, i think, stoke wild aspirations and make vague promises about a new state, and win elections as it did in 2004. yes, given a chance, it'd definitely like to go back to 2004. given a chance, i think, it'd prefer to roll over and die now. but it seems like jagan and many others wouldn't give it even that chance.

dangling 'magical solutions' before the masses could ensure some temporary successes -- you tell jobseekers telangana would give you jobs, you tell farmers telangana would give you water, you tell the poor telangana would bring you wealth, you tell everyone telangana would bring you everything-- like an election or two. but when the masses come to collect, you can't tell them that there are no magical solutions. that you'd been fooling them all along.

the congress can't choose the srikrishna committee's best option, united andhra pradesh, and garner winning votes in telangana for some time. it can't choose the second best option, bifurcation, and hope to survive in coastal andhra and rayalaseema. but how did the congress manage to so dexterously antagonise people of all regions? even now, it's not the anger of the people it's worried about, it's the displeasure of the dominant caste groups in the state that worries it. 

i am not predicting that the congress would die in andhra pradesh. only that congressmen would disappear in droves into jagan's mob, or the trs for a while or... the survival of the congress until now has always depended on how happy it could keep the dominant castes in the state, distributing power and pelf evenly between regions, more or less. so the dominant castes in andhra were okay with telangana as long as it remained an election promise, but when the dominant castes in telangana saw in this promise an opportunity to corner all power over the economic 'engine' of the state, hyderabad, the entente between both groups started getting weaker. but i think the weakening of the alliance between the dominant groups in the state is temporary: they've many common social and economic interests. but what has suffered more grievous damage is the congress's reputation as an arbiter, a keeper of peace and balance, among these groups. the telugu desam, 25 years ago, had won the confidence of at least one group among these castes and managed to also groom leaders from among a sizeable section of the backward castes. the tdp too would suffer now because, as the srikrishna committee has observed, 3-4 large backward castes are also seeking a firmer place among the dominant groups. 

what was the telangana movement all about? it was, like i always said, about power-sharing. not about neglect, or poverty, or discrimination or colonization. certainly not about the people.

until delhi dies

one after another stooge gets out of the a.p.congress legislators meeting, beams at the cameras and tells you that they've unanimously decided that sonia gandhi should make the decision. any stray reporter making hesitant comments (hesitant because most reporters too seem to have come to accept this farce as natural and 'democratic'; some 'working' journalists' leaders have often been waxing eloquently on the wisdom of the 'high command' on talk shows) about discussions and debates and elections is brushed off with: we've discussed and passed a resolution, unanimously, that we shall abide by sonia gandhi's decision-- why isn't that democracy?'

why indeed. it's what they do at khap panchayats: let the elders decide. but the elders at khap panchayats are not elected, voted into wisdom. they just grow old and collect a lot of ignorance, hate and malice in their souls and ultimately qualify for wise panch-hood. but to become 'high command' in the congress, you don't even need to grow old.

that was a few days ago. now, nearly half the congress legislators in the state are in delhi, lobbying for posts in the new cabinet. like sons in a traditional hindu family, these folks will never grow into adults until their father, or delhi, dies.

listen

listen to a lobbyist talk casually, protectively about how 'She has to follow what she’s father says, no' (sic). that's how close she's to 'kani'. listen to a journalist promise a lobbyist that 'they promised me that Azad will speak to her'.

thanks harini, for posting all those transcripts and tapes.that's how power is done in delhi, that's how the all-knowing, most wise, all powerful 'high command' congressmen in a.p., keep talking about like they were talking of god's baap listens to the troubles of the aam aadmi through its network of naradas in the media and 'civil society' and niras in business and industry. and that's how kcr and other separatist politicians have to reach delhi. grovel before the right narada or nira. so they in turn would have 'long chats' with 'ghulams' or 'patels' and implore the 'high command' to listen to the 'democratic' demands of the people of telangana.

listen to them dishing out high offices now, listen to them carving up or not carving up the people tomorrow, as casually.

congress mp accuses congressmen of stoking riots in hyderabad

madhu yaskhi, congress mp from nizamabad, says congressmen from andhra-rayalaseema are behind the communal disturbances, which started last saturday, in the old city of hyderabad. why? the instigators, according to yaskhi, wish to displace the congress chief minister, and to portray the separatist agitation in a bad light. how did the riots start?

they started on saturday when some sections from a huge procession of hindu 'devotees' tried to 'replace green flags with saffron ones' while passing through muslim neighbourhoods. the sangh parivar was very obviously a part of whatever happened on saturday. that incident, and whatever other organized, as the police say, incidents of violence it has triggered since saturday: who, apart from the usual suspects like the parivar, thought up all the muky stratagems, and orchestrated the unfolding of all those incidents? are congressmen among the plotters and instigators?

since the late 70s, congressmen, of one faction or the other, have always needed riots in hyderabad to help them catch their 'high command's' attention. to displace this leader or that, and promote this dissident or that. this happened between 1978-82, when the city was rocked by long periods of riots and chief ministers had to be replaced every 18 months or so, and most notably in 1990 when y.s.rajashekhar reddy, a kind of permanent dissident then, reportedly played a big part in stoking riots so that chenna reddy, the chief minister, could be dislodged.

so both the hindu parties, the congress and the parivar could be involved. and as madhu yaskhi says, it could be congressmen from rayalaseema-andhra who are involved. and it could also be congressmen from telangana. muslims were attacked and their homes burnt down in a village in nizamabad a few weeks ago for refusing to join a separatists' rally. that village falls in yaskhi's own constituency: he doesn't seem to have too many ideas about who beat up the villagers and burnt their homes in his own constituency, but seems quite sure about what's happening in hyderabad.

the majlis, the most popular party in the old city of hyderabad, hasn't been too keen on the idea of a separate telangana. and muslims and the rest of the population in hyderabad haven't been half as enthusiastic as people in a few select districts in north telangana.

so, are the riots tied to the ongoing agitation for telangana? or to internal power struggles in the congress? if the choice is limited to those two options, i'd go for the second option, but i wouldn't rule out the first option totally. nobody knows for sure how the congress functions, or how congressmen function. madhu yaskhi himself is a very good illustration of how impossible it is to understand how the congress functions. a lawyer who worked with indian immigrants in the u.s., for nearly two decades, he suddenly landed the congress ticket for the nizamabad lok sabha constituency in the 2004 general elections, scoring over several very senior aspirants. how? well, he had money to spend, his detractors in the congress say.

the congress can't explain now why it took up the 'cause' of telangana in 1969, or why it dumped it in 1970. or why it took it up again 1999 and why it dumped it again in 2009. but madhu yaskhi jumps to definite conclusions, and makes definite accusations against his own partymen, barely two days after the disturbances started: could someone in the congress please explain what's happening, at least now? or ask its members to control their irresponsible urge to score points on every kind of occasion?

more trust in delhi than in your own people?

t.g.venkatesh, of the rayalaseema hakkula aikya vedika (roughly, united rayalaseema forum for rights) and a congress mla in the andhra pradesh assembly, writes:

The panel is not meant for just examining the demand of Telangana State but the issue of Samaikhyandhra too. But the Telangana Rashtra Samithi leaders and votaries of Telangana are hellbent on forming Telangana in the format of their choice, notwithstanding any amount of damage caused to other most backward areas like Rayalaseema and North Andhra.

The blind support by K Chandrasekhar Rao for Telangana reminds one of the proverbial evil intention of a cunning man over sharing a milch animal with his brother. The cunning man wanted the portion of the animal that gives milk and manure while offering the head portion that required continuous feeding to his innocent brother.

Mr Chandrasekhar Rao is well aware that 50 percent of the State income comes from Hyderabad, 20 percent from the rest of Telangana and 30 per cent from Andhra-Rayalaseema. Since Hyderabad is the commonwealth of Telugus, the income is utilised to take care of the needs of all 22 districts.

Chandrasekhar Rao wants to grab the creamy part and dump Rayalaseema and North Andhra to their fate. The people of the two most backward regions are frightened at the developments.

Their per capita income, employment potential, industrialisation, irrigation facilities, health and road infrastrucutre indices are among the lowest.The Telangana debate should begin with the fate of two orphans.

Even Mr Chandrasekhar Rao and his troupe should find a solution to the orphan areas before staking a claim to Telangana.

it's quite clear that neither the congress chief sonia gandhi, nor her cabal of shady advisors, had thought about the people of rayalaseema and north andhra on december 9th, 2009, when they announced that the process of formation of telangana state 'will be initiated'. it's also more clear that the political leaders of rayalaseema and north andhra had bothered even less about the people of those two regions.

even though the 'aikya vedika' was formed nearly half a decade ago, its leaders had mostly focussed on engaging in scoring points in televised 'which-region-is-more-backward' debates with the telangana separatists than in meaningful engagement with the people of the region to make them aware about the issue of the division of andhra pradesh and its implications for rayalaseema. they remained mostly a congress managed puppet outfit, whose sole purpose was to ensure that the trs didn't steal all the television time.

now, mr.venkatesh makes a poignant case for rayalaseema, and also north andhra. as he says, in many aspects, both regions are actually more backward than telangana. but what were you thinking mr.venkatesh, all through the last 5-6 years until december, 9, 2009, when you put so much more trust in delhi than in your own people?

mamata shall outdo laloo?

Malda, May 24: Expectations are running high in Malda with Mamata Banerjee taking charge of Rail Bhavan.

From newly elected Congress MP Mausam Noor to the merchant chamber of commerce — everybody has drawn up a list of demands for Mamata, especially since the Trinamul Congress chief is known to have shared a rapport with A.B.A. Ghani Khan Chowdhury.

Mausam, Ghani Khan’s niece, will demand a Rajdhani from “Mamatadi”, a pair of superfast trains between Calcutta and Siliguri via Malda, besides introduction of electric trains in the division. “I am very happy that Mamatadi has become the railway minister. The neglected Malda division will definitely get a better deal. We want a Rajdhani and a pair of superfast trains, connecting Siliguri to Calcutta via Malda. We also want electric trains,” she said. In Malda division, trains run on diesel.

in the eighties, when ghani khan chowdhury was the minister for railways, wags in the press used to remark that the name 'indian railways' was a misnomer, because all the action seemed to happen in malda and and bengal. in the nineties, jaffer sharief, ram vilas paswan, nitish kumar and laloo yadav- all tried to follow his outstanding example of never looking beyond one's own family, village, district and state while ruling the railways.

now, it looks like mamata banerjee plans to outdo all of them- flagging off new trains in her home state just a couple of weeks after assuming office, promising relief to supporters and even checking the menus on trains to see that they're bengali enough. does one have to wait for the railway budget to realize that there'd be nothing in it for people living beyond mamata's fiefdom?

the railways is just one large business among many that the central government in delhi owns- i wouldn't say manages, governs etc., because that'd indicate an objective, professional approach to managing the affairs of those businesses. the people who seek and are offered these top posts run, and are allowed to run, these businesses like shopkeepers who are given charge of their rivals' businesses, temporarily. they run down these business in the process of running them for their own special interests- the larger public interest be damned.

one reason, actually two reasons, why no national party wants the government to withdraw from these businesses and get down to the serious business of governance is that these businesses help ruling parties to 1) build and foster patronage networks across states and 2) make a lot of money.

if public sector businesses are one way of achieving those two objectives, ministries that oversee and regulate industries are another, more subtle and unobtrusive way. why do so many contenders for ministerial posts want information technology and communications, chemicals and steel, petroleum and surface transport etc?

and why does no one want women and child welfare etc? or education without higher education? if control over the health ministry didn't mean control over large government hospitals like aiims, or over countless corporate hospitals and colleges- who'd want it?

the mughals were better

320 years ago, aurangzeb laid siege to golkonda and waited for nine long months to reclaim his divine right to determine everyone's rights in telangana. for the last four days, senior congress leaders from telangana have been camping in delhi, waiting for sonia gandhi, congress president, to grant them an audience. no, not to renegotiate with her and bring back at least some of the sovereignty that aurangzeb had spirited away but to reassure her of their undying loyalty if she grants statehood to telangana. for the people, obviously, it wouldn't mean much- definitely not what abul hasan qutb shah had staked his life for. it wouldn't mean more freedom to decide the course of their own lives. but for the courtiers, of course, it would mean license. an exclusive concession over telangana. in the good old days, most successful politicians were very good at this kind of behind the scenes intrigue, skullduggery...obsequiousness..abul hasan was one of the rare exceptions. so, aurangzeb respected him enough to come knocking at his door to seek his audience. and it also looks like aurangzeb respected people's sovereignty more- he knew he'd have to wage war to grab it.

the puke that india throws up

ntr used to say: kendramu oka mithya. that was badly translated by the english language press as: the centre is a myth. but the phrase speaks, despite the translation, you'll agree. if imperial london was an ugly idea, an everyday lesson in humiliation, so in many ways is delhi. perhaps, more ways.

he spent most of the last twenty five years in america, but he managed to buy a congress party ticket (for a price of rs.2 crores, the rumour goes) and win (by spending some rs.7 crores, the rumour goes) from the nizamabad lok sabha constituency in 2004. now he is actively engaged in trying to secure the support of sonia gandhi, who (i don't wish to press this point, but it needs to be made) was born and raised in italy, for the dismemberment of the state of andhra pradesh.

i've lived all my life (which is considerably more than twenty five years) in india but i still find it hard to digest some of the puke that it throws up every day.

gossipy debate

i've more drafts than posts in my dashboard - so i've decided to publish this slightly old draft even though i haven't said half of what i intended to say through it. my hope - publishing it might get me interested in the subject again.

an article in The Financial Express reviews three years of UPA rule:

At the same time, I have yet to see the senior minister or his compatriots in the National Advisory Council (NAC), or even the keepers of the Marxist faith to which he has professed sudden allegiance, come up with a coherent development strategy that will secure the welfare of the aam admi. Because, as West Bengal after three decades and China since 1978 have demonstrated in different ways, there is no simple alternative strategy or a short-cut that can address the trade-off between growth and equity. Rapid growth remains the necessary condition for reducing poverty and improving the aam aadmi’s condition.

the writer is being unfair to mr.aiyer - he actually does have a development policy. let's look at the relevant parts of his now famous speech to the cii:

In these circumstances, when a proposal came before the government to spend Rs 648 crore on the Gram Nyaya department, we were solemnly informed by one of the most influential ministers in the government to remember that we are a poor country. I was delighted when the next day he was with me in a group of ministers and I reminded him of his remark and said in that case can we stop spending the Rs 7000 crore on the Commonwealth Games and he said, “No, no, that is an international commitment and a matter of national pride.” This national pride will of course blow up if you spend Rs 7000 crore on the Commonwealth Games. We will be on the cover of Time and Newsweek.

isn't that interesting? the 1982 asian games were promoted by the gandhi family fan club in the congress, which means most of the congress, as a shining example of india's national pride and their 'success' was offered as incontrovertible proof that the then heir apparent, rajiv gandhi, who was the prime driving force behind the decision to hold the games, had what it takes to be the leader of a nearly hundred year old party. and mr.aiyer had shortly after that inveigled his way into rajiv ('hope of the nation') gandhi's innermost circle of 'smart friends and aides'. even though he was still a member of the indian foreign service. so why does mr.aiyer inveigh against wasteful expenditure now? here's the answer:

I was always something of a leftist. But I became a complete Marxist only after the economic reforms. Because I see the extent to which the most important conception of Marx — that the relationship of any given class with the means of production determines the superstructure — holds.

he's a chamcha, just as narendra modi's guru is indira gandhi more than golwalkar. he was always something of a gandhi loyalist. but he became a full blown chamcha much before rajiv gandhi's death. because that's the family which determines the superstructure of the congress, more than anything else. that's what the congress had steadily become over the years, and completely so since the advent of the indira gandhi reign. so it was okay when rajiv gandhi chanted the technology+growth mantra twenty years ago, even though the marxists, those righteous pals of mr.aiyer's, had opposed the introduction of even computers in banks and in government for a good decade or so, around the same period. and now that the current head of the family, aiyer's new master, feels a vaam-panthi posture is vital to dissociate the party, and more importantly, the family, from all things that spell narasimha rao, except, of course, from whatever gratuitous credit that comes its way because of the economic upturn engendered by policy initiatives undertaken during that usurper's era, mr.aiyer suddenly finds that he too had always travelled along the same road as the marxists. going back to the article:

Three years of UPA rule is testimony to this ongoing tussle between two schools within the Congress. This is also well in keeping with the party’s traditions. One school subscribes to high GDP growth. But, as I argued in this column a fortnight ago, this has to be supplemented with an expanded coverage and better delivery of public goods and services through administrative reforms. The other school seems to believe that growth-inducing policies per se are inimical to the interests of the poor. Therefore, they focus their entire attention on increasing public spending on welfare or so-called poverty reduction measures. The underlying logic (sic) of this school is that if by some means purchasing power can be put in the hands of the aam admi, the demand impetus so created will induce the needed supply response and generate growth.

analysts attach too much significance to whatever the congress does, attribute non-existent lines of thinking, leanings etc., to whatever congressmen do. the congress, right from the ward level, hasn't had a proper election within its organisation in the last forty years or so - if the party itself doesn't care for what its members have to say, and if the partymen themselves have long given up their right to expression, why do the pundits care? i find it very amusing that mr.aiyer's speech is being quoted in the media and the blogworld as proof of conscious dissent, of the existence of two schools of thought etc., within the congress. who's mr.aiyer dissenting against anyway? his prime minister? well, he's in good company because the prime minister himself seems to disagree with what his government is doing - helping the rich (according to him). in all the over-analysis of both these statements, and of all 'assertions' of congressmen, the critical lesson that is often missed is that none of them indicate any dissent against the house of gandhi. congressmen make those statements because they are allowed to make them. like all good courtiers, they can sense the mood of the ruling family. and the mood of the family has swung leftwards, in the last few years, as a reaction to the short reign of the modern day sher shah i had referred to earlier.

i am dredging up an old bugbear? dragging in the family into a debate on critical national issues? let's see what a wise man, dr.subroto roy, who claims to have authored the script for india's liberalisatiom program at rajiv gandhi's behest has to say on this issue:

All such questions would be ones of feminine gossip or TV-soap operas in case of any ordinary woman but assume political significance for Indians because of the inordinate impact she, her father, her sons and their widows have had on India’s modern history. Why all of India’s national-level politics have acquired a gossipy joint-family tone about them is because she projected onto them no high and universally known political principles whatsoever, but merely her own personal experiences and desire for popularity.

he is talking about indira gandhi and her family. she projected onto them no high and universally known political principles whatsoever, but merely her own personal experiences and desire for popularity. replace the word she with they and you could be talking about any political party in the country. or at least, most political parties. that's what the family has done to one institution, political parties, that is required to play one of the most important roles in the functioning of our democracy. any democracy.