by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
By Saeed Naqvi,
Does the stunning victory of a 28-year-old Latino bartender in New York this week over a 10-term Democratic lawmaker bear any resemblance to AAPs victory under a political novice, Arvind Kejriwal in February 2015? He thrashed Narendra Modis resurgent BJP and a Congress Chief Minister entering her fourth term. Of course, there are a thousand differences in detail but these are dwarfed by a basic similarity — popular resentment with establishments everywhere. It is a wave sweeping all electoral democracies across the globe. I have just seen the toppling of the Italian ruling class in Rome. Wherever they can, establishments are fighting back tooth and nail. Kejriwals endless travails are part of this counterpunch.
The winner in New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was, in her last job, mixing cocktails in a Manhattan bar, sometimes on 18-hour shifts to help avoid foreclosure of her mother’s property. But more meaningful for her career was her stint as Bernie Sanders’ campaigner during the 2016 election. Little wonder she stands on a similar, leftist platform, demanding universal health care, ending tuition fees at public colleges and abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Still recovering from the shock defeat happens to be Joe Cowley for whom the Democratic Party had built many castles in the air. The same party had dug its heels in so firmly for Hillary Clinton as the Presidential candidate that every argument pointing to Bernie Sanders’ chances of victory over Trump were discarded.
I was in Washington for the campaign, surrounded by Clinton enthusiasts who would not answer a straightforward question:
“Popular disgust with the Washington establishment was unmistakable. Given this reality, by what logic do you see Clinton as a winner: she is the very epitome of the Washington establishment.”
Alexandria’s victory places her in line as the youngest woman in Congress after the November elections. This could well be the thin end of the wedge, gradually opening up spaces for younger and more radical candidates.
Considering that Trumpism too is consolidating itself on white working and middle class grievances, the divisions in American society may become more shrill. Once they rise to a crescendo, the clashing of Cymbals will be deafening even though the talk of a civil war is rank exaggeration.
A considerable segment of the Democratic Party, which refrained from radicalism during the 2016 campaign, appears to have sensed the ground realities, almost anticipating the New York result. Democrats like Cory Booker, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren signed onto Bernie Sanders bill for universal Health Care, something they had avoided two years ago when Sanders first introduced the Bill. The platform is picking up.
The New York outcome has clearly set the cat among the pigeons in establishment circles and not just in the US. Another resounding punch will be administered on the establishment’s chin when Andrez Manuel Lopez Obrador nicknamed AMLO, almost as far Left as the late Chavez in Venezuela, triumphs in the Mexican elections on Sunday. The sharp anti-US edge to this result can safely be attributed to Trump’s open disdain for the southern neighbour.
A Bloomberg banner headline reads: “Listen, Trump: Firebrand Lopez Obrador Set to Win Landslide in Mexico.”
There is, however, a welcoming warmth to this turn in world affairs in progressive circles in Europe, not the least of it in the higher echelons of Britain’s Labour Party.
Last week I attended a meeting in support of Democracy and Human Rights in Mexico organised in the House of Commons by Laura Alvarez Corbyn, the Labour leader’s Mexican wife. Jeremy Corbyn sat through the meeting, signalling his support for progressive causes.
Is the Democratic Party in the US learning lessons from real life? Until the New York result there was no evidence of any change of heart in the party’s higher reaches. In fact, a year ago, a Fox News poll establishing Bernie Sanders’ exceptional popularity was largely ignored. The poll showed Sanders a +28 rating above all US politicians on both ends of the political spectrum. Trust The Guardian, London, being the only newspaper to pick up the issue. The paper’s Trevor Timm wrote:
“One would think with numbers like that, Democratic politicians would be falling all over themselves to be associated with Sanders, especially considering the party as a whole is more unpopular than the Republicans and even Donald Trump right now. Yet instead of embracing his message, the Establishment wing of the party continues to resist him at almost every turn, and they seem insistent that they don’t have to change their ways to gain back the support of huge swathes of the country.”
On current showing, the British Establishment demonstrates greater suppleness. A few months ago The Economist welcomed Corbyn, a socialist in the Michael Foot mould, as Britain’s next Prime Minister. That the Economist, a pillar of the Western establishment, should acquiesce in Corbyn’s impending Premiership could not have been honeyed music to Blairites in the Labour party like Lord Peter Mandelson who is committed to “undermining Corbyn”. This kind of cussedness is counterproductive and this becomes clear when a Labour back bencher retorts:
“Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister implementing policies that actually benefit the people terrifies the Establishment. It is no surprise that Mandelson has found space in his busy schedule on an Oligarch’s Yacht to attempt to undermine Jeremy.”
(A senior commentator on political and diplomatic affairs, Saeed Naqvi can be reached on saeednaqvi@hotmail.com. The views expressed are personal.)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
By Amulya Ganguli,
Even as various formulas are being worked out by the opposition at the national level for taking on the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2019, including forming alliances which may not be the same in every state, the first test as to whether such khichdi or hodge-podge groups can be politically effective will be the lifespan of the Janata Dal (Secular)-Congress government in Karnataka.
If it fails to survive at least till the next general election, then all the hopes of the non-BJP parties coming together against the BJP will evaporate. It is unfortunate for those planning a confrontation with the BJP that the current signs about the longevity of the H.D. Kumaraswamy government in Karnataka are not very reassuring.
Having been uncharacteristically magnanimous about letting Kumaraswamy of the JD-S become the Chief Minister although he is the junior partner in the coalition, the Congress now appears unable to accept the reality of its No. 2 position despite winning 78 seats in the 224-member assembly to the JD-S’s 37.
Hence, the current differences between the two parties over the presentation of a full budget, which is what the Chief Minister wants, apparently to leave his personal stamp on the fiscal policy. The Congress, however, objects to it since the former Chief Minister, Siddaramaiah, had presented the state’s budget earlier and evidently doesn’t want his plans to be summarily brushed aside.
It is also no secret that relations between the present and former chief ministers have not been cordial ever since Siddaramaiah crossed over from the JD-S to the Congress on realising that Kumaraswamy was the former Prime Minister H.D. Deve Gowda’s choice as his successor in the party.
Since there have been tussles between the two parties over ministerial berths as well, it is not surprising that Bengaluru was rife not long ago with rumours about the BJP toppling the Kumaraswamy government. It goes without saying that any impression about the instability of the ruling alliance will enable the BJP to mock the national opposition’s efforts to combine against it.
As it is, ever since the Janata Party’s collapse in the late 1970s, the idea has gained ground about the inherent fragility of coalitions at the national level although they have been quite successful in states like Kerala and earlier in West Bengal. In New Delhi, however, neither the Janata Party of Morarji Desai, Charan Singh and Jagjivan Ram of 1977, nor the Janata Dal of V.P. Singh, Devi Lal and Chandrashekhar of 1989, could last for any length of time
The machinations of the Congress were one reason for the short lifespan of these combines. It was the same in the 1990s when the Congress brought down the H.D. Deve Gowda government at the Centre and paved the way after I.K. Gujral’s brief interregnum for the BJP to come to power.
Perhaps the time has come for the Congress to show that it has got over its self-perception of being the natural party of governance in Lutyens Delhi and let others also have their days in the sun. Whether or not such a change in the party’s outlook has taken place will become clear by its role in Karnataka.
It is a test of leadership not only for the Congress as an organisation, but also for Rahul Gandhi, who has to show that he is not like his grandmother, Indira, or uncle, Sanjay, who conspired to seal the Janata Party’s fate in 1979, or like his father, Rajiv, who pulled the rug from under V.P. Singh’s feet with Chandrashekhar’s help in 1990.
Since by his own admission, he aspires to be the Prime Minister if the Congress wins a sizeable number of seats, he has first to show his capability of controlling his notoriously fractious party and then of accommodating his allies. As far as groupism is concerned, Karnataka presents less of a challenge to the Congress president than, say, Madhya Pradesh where the number of heavyweights in the party is larger — Kamal Nath, Digvijay Singh, Jyotiraditya Scindia — but Rahul’s success or failure in Karnataka will send the required message to the other states as well.
If he can ensure a measure of calm in Karnataka, it will signal his arrival as a person who has it in him to lead the 133-year-old Grand Old Party although it is known to be well beyond its prime at the moment. Unlike Madhya Pradesh or Rajasthan, where the Congress has been out of power for a decade and a half and, therefore, is in a chastened frame of mind, Karnataka is different because it was in power on its own till recently and is now in office with an ally. The attitudes and ambitions of the local Congress leaders are more assertive as a result.
The challenge for Rahul, therefore, will be greater than what he has faced so far. Moreover, it will serve no worthwhile purpose for him to depend on Sonia Gandhi to make any of the restive members fall in line. He has to demonstrate that he alone is at the helm. However, Rahul’s task will be more difficult than either what Sonia Gandhi experienced when the Congress unexpectedly won the 2004 election or what Rajiv Gandhi faced when he became the Prime Minister after Indira’s assassination in 1984.
(Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at amulyaganguli@gmail.com)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
New Delhi : The Congress on Thursday accused the Modi government of using the 2016 surgical strike carried out in Pakistan as “political fodder” to gain votes and listed many similar strikes done in the last two decades to assert this was not the first action of its kind.
Congress leader Randeep Singh Surjewala’s comments came a day after the release of the video footage of the Indian Army’s surgical strikes in September 2016 when troops crossed the Line of Control (LoC) to attack terror hubs in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
Surjewala told reporters that BJP President Amit Shah had “dishonoured” the 70-year-long history of bravery and sacrifice of the armed forces by making a “disgraceful statement” on October 7, 2016 that the “Indian Army had crossed the LoC for the first time in 68 years”.
Stressing that Congress President Rahul Gandhi and her predecessor Sonia Gandhi supported the armed forces and the government in the 2016 action, Surjewala said the Army had conducted strategic surgical strikes “with utmost precision and effective penetration” at different times in the last two decades.
He listed eight “surgical strikes” conducted prior to 2016.
“We are proud that our forces successfully conducted multiple surgical strikes over the last two decades, particularly post 2000 — January 21, 2000 (Nadala Enclave, across Neelam river); September 18, 2003 (Baroh Sector, Poonch); June 19, 2008 (Bhattal Sector, Poonch); August 30 to September 1, 2011 (Sharda Sector, across Neelam river Valley in Kel); January 6, 2013 (Sawan Patra Checkpost); July 27 to 28, 2013 (Nazapir Sector); August 6, 2013 (Neelam Valley); January 14, 2014; September 28 to 29, 2016.”
He said the Modi government sought credit for the sacrifices of the soldiers but had “utterly failed” to provide the direction, vision and policy for dealing with Pakistan and checkmating Pakistan-sponsored terrorism.
“No wonder the apathy and incapacity of the Modi government has resulted in the sacrifice of 146 soldiers, more than 1,600 ceasefire violations by Pakistan and 79 terrorist attacks post September 2016,” Surjewala said.
“Doublespeak of the Modi government and the BJP’s stand is reflected in the stepmotherly treatment of our armed forces, both in terms of providing for security apparatus as also in slashing their budgetary allocation.”
Surjewala alleged that Army Vice Chief Sarath Chand was “forced” to say that 68 per cent of all equipment was vintage.
“On account of budgetary cuts, procurement from ordinance factory is being reduced from 94 per cent to 50 per cent, which will force our soldiers to buy uniforms, combat dress, belts and shoes on their own.”
Surjewala said the report of the Parliamentary Committee on Defence highlighted lack of money for emergency purchases by Armed Forces after the Uri terror attack, the surgical strike and the Doklam standoff with China.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
Kolkata : BJP president Amit Shah on Wednesday said the country’s partition could have been avoided had Congress not made the mistake of “censoring” national song “Vande Mataram” as part of its appeasement policy.
“Had the Congress not made the mistake of censoring the national song Vande Mataram to just stanzas instead of the whole song, we could have stopped India from getting divided,” Shah said here.
He was delivering the first Bankim Chandra Chattapadhyay Memorial Lecture organised by Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation on the occasion of the Bengali writer’s birthday.
“Historians blame the Khilafat movement or the Muslim League’s two-nation theory for India’s partition. But I am sure that the appeasement politics that Congress introduced by censoring Vande Mataram as a national anthem led to the country’s partition in the long run,” he said.
Some intellectuals of Bengal, including fiction writer Buddhadeb Guha, Bankim Chandra’s biographer Amitrasudan Bhattacharya, professor Purabi Roy and state Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chief Dilip Ghosh, were present at the event in a city auditorium.
Shah hailed Chattapadhyay, the author of Vande Mataram, as someone who ushered in the renaissance of India’s cultural ethos and described Vande Mataram as a manifestation of the country’s century-old tradition of nationalism.
“Vande Mataram is a manifestation of our century-old tradition of nationalism. India is not a geo-political nation, it is a geo-cultural nation. The definition of India’s nationalism is not narrow,” said Shah, who is on a two-day tour of Bengal.
“Vande Mataram was never related to a particular religion or religious belief. The song does not criticise or ridicule any community. It attempts to connect the nation with its people and manifests the tradition and culture of the region where it was produced. So bringing religion into Vande Mataram was a big mistake,” he pointed out.
However, the BJP President claimed that with the saffron outfit’s ascendency to power, the situation in the country has changed.
Referring to Bharatiya Jana Sangh founder Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, who served as the Minister for Industry and Supply under the Jawaharlal Nehru government before quitting the Congress, Shah said Mookherjee decided to form Jana Sangh as he found the policies of Independent India to be heavily influenced by western culture.
He knew that leaving the Congress would eradicate his chance to win another election for a long time as the Congress, at that point, was heavily banking upon its contribution to India’s freedom movement and no other political party had any chance to come to power.
“But still he formed Jana Sangh because he found that the new policies formed under the Congress regime was heavily influenced by western culture and lacked the fragrance of India’s culture and heritage. They did not have any connect with the country’s culture, tradition or fundamental ideas,” Shah said.
“No matter how much we may grow, we can’t abandon our roots. If any society loses its connection with the root, it would certainly fail,” he added.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | News, Politics
Sundhanshu Trivedi
New Delhi : The BJP on Monday accused the Congress of playing politics over the term Hindu, saying it symbolised its ignorance.
“Digvijaya Singh has used Hindu word in last couple of days for number of times. He has also said that there is no Hindu word,” Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Sundhanshu Trivedi told media at a press conference here.
Firing salvos at Congress President Rahul Gandhi, the BJP leader asked, “When there is no Hindu word, then how did Randeep Singh Surjewala call you a ‘janeudhari’ Hindu?”
“How many times your party will change its stand? On one hand in Kerala your party workers organise beef party and on other they convert into a ‘janeudhari’ Hindu,” he said.
“The manner their party leaders are speaking not only signifies their ignorance but also a deep rooted conspiracy,” he said.
Slamming Digvijaya Singh, Trivedi said, “He is such a learned leader that he can see ‘ji’ in Osama Bin Laden, he sees ‘Saheb’ in Hafiz Saeed and a peace loving person in Zakir Naik. This understanding of Singh and his party is exposed now.
“I want to give facts on Hindu to Singh. He should read page 72-73 of the Discovery of India written by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. Where he said that this world came into practice after 10th century and it was indicated towards by and large those who are living in this Indian subcontinent denoting their culture.”
“Rahul Gandhi should say whether he is comfortable with the definition of Hindu given by his great grandfather or with Singh?” he asked.
—IANS
