Hear, hear!!

Siddharth Varadarajan, writing in The Hindu (via Churumuri)-

If Mr. Bachchan is guilty of overlooking mass violence today, it is because equally illustrious gentlemen, including some industrialists, did the same when they declared Mr. Modi prime ministerial material. For that matter, the actor himself has done this sort of thing before. In his movies, Mr. Bachchan was a crusader for the underdog. In real life, he is attracted to the kind of powerful men he once fought on the big screen. His fans have a right to feel cheated. Political parties, especially the Congress, do not have that right.

The party finds fault with him for representing Gujarat in the wake of 2002. But in 1984, barely weeks after the blood in the streets of Delhi had dried, the actor accepted a Congress ticket for Allahabad and got elected to Parliament. “As a brand ambassador does he endorse or condemn the mass murder in Gujarat?” Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari asked the other day, adding: “It is high time Amitabh Bachchan came out and said what his position on [the] Gujarat riots is.” Despite the party having ‘apologised’ for its role in the massacre of Sikhs following Indira Gandhi’s assassination, I doubt Mr. Tiwari or any other Congress spokesman will ever ask Mr. Bachchan what his position on the Delhi riots was or is.

The color of money

There is no nadir as far as Indian politics is concerned. It redefines the term every time it plays out. As is happening with the sudden enthusiasm for tracking “black money.” It’s people’s money “stashed” abroad which will be used to develop villages, the clown says. The party of thieves isn’t happy as they lost an opportunity to add another issue to their basket full of other rotten issues. The party of bandits has promised more plunder if it come to power. There may be a lot of disagreement between the clowns, thieves and bandits, but they all agree on one thing – more plunder.

A government has as much a moral right to tax as a rapist has to rape. But that doesn’t stop it from conjuring up myriad rules and regulations intended to smother everyone and keep them in check. As Ferris says, how can you rule over men if you don’t make them feel guilty? Both the Congress and CPM are taunting the BJP over FERA. If there was one act that put the fear of God into any honest businessman out there, it was FERA – the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Draconian it was called, and draconian it was. If you committed a “crime,” or the Enforcement Directorate thought you did, you went to jail till they investigated. All over the Indian government’s Silas Marner-esque attitude towards foreign currency. And these crooks want to bring it back, not that it isn’t already there in a more “benign” form.

These people speak of “money laundering,” hawala and “black money” as if its their personal money that is being moved around without their consent. No doubt some politicians, and bureaucrats, and even criminals might use these “facilities” but more often than not it is someone who has no intention of handing over his hard earned money to “virtuous” thieves. Then there is the bogey of terror financing, as if staging a terrorist act requires a billion dollars which means all movement of currency has to be tracked. Of course it has more to do with “tax” than with “terror.” Is it a coincidence that both words start with T? I have written about this previously – here and here. Also read this old Swami column on hawala, if you haven’t done so already. “The very word hawala is derived from an ancient Persian word for trust,” he writes. And tax?

If the intentions behind the great swindle are not yet clear, this report on an Economist debate should help. Why would someone have such an idea?

Let me give three reasons why I believe the rich should pay higher taxes. For the sake of concreteness, let us say that we are talking about introducing an 80% marginal tax rate on all annual incomes in excess of €1m, leaving the rest of the tax system unchanged. I believe that such a policy reform could and should be implemented immediately in countries such as the United States, the UK, France or Germany. I do not want to be too dogmatic about the exact numbers: it could be that the right policy should rather involve a 70% marginal rate in excess of €2m, or a 90% marginal rate in excess of €500,000. But you get the idea: we are talking about a major increase in top marginal rates (currently around 40%) applied to very, very high incomes (less than 0.5% of the population).

and

The main objective of raising marginal tax rates on the rich is not to raise additional tax revenue, but rather to keep top compensation under control and to curb the grabbing hand. In fact, the proposal that I am making – introducing a 80% marginal tax rate on all annual incomes in excess of €1m, leaving the rest of the tax system unchanged—would probably raise limited additional tax revenue. First because it would apply to only a small fraction of the population—less than 0.5%. [This is fortunate: in the current recession context, it would be pretty silly to raise tax on substantial fractions of the population]. Next because the main effect of this 80% marginal rate would probably be to reduce drastically the incentive to take away more than €1m from one’s company, so that the number of taxpayers in the €1m+ bracket would probably fall substantially. This is what happened during the 1932-1980 period, and available evidence suggests that this would actually a good thing. I.e. this would not correspond to a fall in real productive efforts and economic output, but rather to a redistribution of income flows.

Follow the whole debate here. Beyond “redistribution” and “give me my cut” there is the simple “you are too rich” reason. “Garibi hatao” is an impossibility. “Amiri bhagao” is much easier. That’s what Indira Gandhi and her kooky clan managed to do. And that’s what our new politicians have promised they will do. Taxation must be voluntary in nature, always. But in a “welfare state,” that’s asking for the moon.

An uncomfortable truth

Gujarat went to the polls last December (’07). And I tried to make sense of the situation in a few blog posts during Nov-Dec ’07. In the first post, I asked if Gujarat would elect Narendra Modi as CM again – I was not in a position to predict anything, yet. The Tehelka tapes appeared, and had disappointed, and the English media, barring a few exceptions and conflicting reports, were jumping around claiming he would lose; actually they wanted him to lose (so did I).

Then things started to get interesting. Sonia Gandhi proved that she was not a great politician, and Modi proved that he was. Television news channels aired debates held in various cities in Gujarat with extremely hostile audiences booing any anti-Modi statement, and Modi’s team used new media to great effect in his campaign. I looked at all that, and at various news reports and decided that the media has no clue whatsoever of what’s going to happen; they had all the information with them, and CNN-IBN had done a comprehensive pre-poll survey that suggested his victory, but I guess they didn’t want to see the writing on the wall. Modi is running away with the election, I said.

He did, and I wrote a “I told you so” post. All the newspapers – wise in hindsight, asked “What next for Modi?” So did I-

Now that he has won, this has set the cat among the pigeons as far as the Sangh Parivar (BJP, RSS, VHP) is concerned. Modi has surpassed them all in rhetoric and actions. He has scripted the election victory on the strength of his own charisma and work. People were voting for Modi and not the BJP. If he were to form a new party, the BJP would cease to exist in Gujarat. The top leadership of the party is living in a fools paradise if they think that they had something to do with the victory. Some wise men in the BJP did see the writing on the wall and have successfully stalled a power grab in the immediate future by coronating Advani as their Prime Ministerial candidate for the general elections. But it is difficult to say at this moment as to how long he can hold on to his post, for Modi is beginning to make an impact on people across the country who are tired of being ruled by octogenarian leaders who care not one whiff about the people, of corruption, of terrorism, and of casteist politics which manifests itself in government sanctioned racism (quota system). Soon, they will start asking if the Modi brand of politics is not the answer. So what if he is a little extreme. He does provide results, doesn’t he.

[…]

So what next? Will Modi move out of Gujarat sometime in the next decade? The answer is yes. And people are waiting for him. While it will help development and all that comes with it, this is a bad sign for liberty and freedom of expression. But since Indians don’t have these rights in the first place and don’t understand the meaning of these words either (government after government has successfully stripped them of these rights), people will welcome Modi with open hands. There are two sections of the society who will stand against him, as I said at the very beginning, and they are a strange combination – pseudo-secularists, and people who know what Moditva is really about. It is unfortunate that the first group is opportunistic and brain dead, while the second is either politically emasculated or simply disinterested.

—

Why am I digging out old stuff? Because of two items I had written about.

One, Advani’s hasty “coronation” to stall a “power grab.” All that has begun to unravel over the last few days with fist fights breaking out within the BJP with everyone from Rajnath Singh to Bhairon Singh Shekhawat being involved. I touched upon the Modi topic a few weeks back and had called Advani a “clown” – that was before all this. If Advani is the PM candidate, the BJP can forget the general elections is what I felt then, and I haven’t changed my opinion. Modi is the man for the job, I wrote-

But all this is based on the assumption that Advani will be the NDA Prime Ministerial candidate. I feel sorry saying this, but Advani is a clown. And he is too old. Further, he won’t enjoy the respect that Vajpayee did. If the BJP wants to grab power, there is only one person they have who is capable of doing it – Modi. If Advani voluntarily steps aside and announces Modi’s candidature, then they have a chance. The JDU will probably bail out – Nitish Kumar has to worry about the Muslim vote – but the others will stay on. Modi will do for the BJP what Palin did for the Republicans – he will polarize the vote, particularly in the cities. I doubt there is anyone in India who does not have a position on Modi. Some adore him; others hate him (I fall in the second category, but then I hate all politicians and political parties – the Congress particularly). Modi will have to work some magic to win, and he is no coalition man. That will cause some problems, but the prime-minister ship is no easy job.

[…]

If the BJP has any sense left, and if it is not afraid of Modi, it would immediately replace Advani with Modi.

Two, Modi himself. I don’t do crystal ball gazing, but predict based on the information I have – some of them come true, some of them don’t. When I talked of Modi aiming for bigger things within the next decade, I set the time limit because after that he would be old – not as old as Vajpayee or Advani, but old nonetheless. And I surely wasn’t expecting his name to come up for the 2009 general elections. But it has. And the BJP doesn’t like it. Neither does the Congress. Anil Ambani and Sunil Mittal, in the Vibrant Gujrat Summit, have said that Narendra Modi is “Prime Minister material”. They are right, that’s one uncomfortable truth. Congress Party spokesperson Manish Tiwari has this comment to offer-

“The captains of our industry should understand Gujarat’s reality properly before handing out character certificates to Mr Modi whose entire edifice rests on a huge pile of innocent dead bodies; Germany’s industrialists had also similarly got fascinated in 1933 by a fascist dictator called Hitler ~ now history bears witness to what had happened to Germany and the world.”

He’s right too. That’s another uncomfortable truth.

Real businessmen don’t lick the feet of politicians. Those who do, so that they can gain favors at their competitors’ expense, are not real businessmen – they are just glorified goons. When businessmen and politicians sleep together, we have what is referred to as a Corporatist State – crooked businessmen and crooked politicians “make” money at the expense of honest people and maintain discipline and markets at gunpoint. That’s what WW II Italy and Nazi Germany are great examples of – a cocktail of fascism and money.

Modi’s different however. “I won’t take bribes, I won’t let others either,” he’s known to say. But Lord Acton’s warning must never be forgotten-

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did not wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.

Optimism is hard when you look at 2009 and find that India will either have a Modi, or a Mayawati as PM. Whichever M becomes PM, the fact is both are some kind of fascists (I don’t like using that word, but that’s the truth). If America can elect a quasi-fascist personality as its President because he promised “change”, why can’t India? But then, elections are a few months away. And when a day is a long time in politics – a month is an eternity. Don’t hope too much, though.

Modi

Last year, immediately after the Gujarat elections, I wondered about how the BJP could come back to power at the center. Is there some event, I thought, that would change the game and bring them back (I am not spinning conspiracy theories here). My conclusion was a terrorist incident of immense magnitude, similar to the plots of so many books and films and television serials. In that sense, Bombay would have qualified but for the Jaipur, and Bangalore, and Ahmedabad blasts. Those events have shown that the BJP and the Congress are sailing in the same useless boat. The people are angry, but the BJP is not going to gain “because” of their position on terrorism. In 21st century India, ruling at the center means you need to stitch up good alliances. Vajpayee managed that and held the NDA together. But in 2004, Sonia Gandhi beat them at their own game; the BJP erred by letting go of the DMK.

I promised I would not indulge in predictions till March 2009, but the idea is too interesting to give up. Bombay will not have a significant effect on the national elections because it is a failure of the political class as a whole. So, discounting that factor, the 2009 parliamentary elections will end up in a hung assembly. I am unable to get into numbers here (too early for that, in any case I haven’t paid much attention to local news like I did during Gujarat), but both the NDA and the UPA are going to end up way short of the halfway mark, probably by about 50-60 seats each. The Left, Mayawati, the new anti-DMK formation in Tamil Nadu, the TDP, TRS and other minor parties are going end up in third place. The Third Front will rise again from the ashes. The only question is – who will support their government? Once that question is answered, its very easy to predict the new Prime Minister – Mayawati.

But all this is based on the assumption that Advani will be the NDA Prime Ministerial candidate. I feel sorry saying this, but Advani is a clown. And he is too old. Further, he won’t enjoy the respect that Vajpayee did. If the BJP wants to grab power, there is only one person they have who is capable of doing it – Modi. If Advani voluntarily steps aside and announces Modi’s candidature, then they have a chance. The JDU will probably bail out – Nitish Kumar has to worry about the Muslim vote – but the others will stay on. Modi will do for the BJP what Palin did for the Republicans – he will polarize the vote, particularly in the cities. I doubt there is anyone in India who does not have a position on Modi. Some adore him; others hate him (I fall in the second category, but then I hate all politicians and political parties – the Congress particularly). Modi will have to work some magic to win, and he is no coalition man. That will cause some problems, but the prime-minister ship is no easy job.

Regarding the Bombay attacks and the crisis of leadership shown by Indian politicians, John Elliott writes–

What is needed is leadership from the top, and that cannot happen with this government because of the dual-leadership role performed by Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, and Sonia Gandhi, the government’s de facto political leader. She does not have the stature and there is little point Singh trying because Gandhi’s courtiers will warn her that he is becoming too self-important and is challenging her role.

So what to do?

I have heard two extreme ideas this week.

One is to have a state of emergency or even military rule. That is surely unthinkable.

The other is that the country needs tough rule by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) led by its highly controversial Gujarat chief minister, Narendra Modi.

I wonder how long it will be before the failings of more acceptable politicians leads to Modi becoming prime minister?

If the BJP has any sense left, and if it is not afraid of Modi, it would immediately replace Advani with Modi.

India finds itself in the same position that the US did as regards the choice between Obama and McCain. Who would you rather have at the center – Mayawati propped up by the Left and either the Congress or the BJP, Advani dependent on a host of small parties that will demand their pound of flesh, MMS again, or Modi? No matter what the choice, things are only going downhill from here – all of them are as unprincipled as the next one and threaten liberty equally. What a choice.

Cho-speak

Cho Ramaswamy is a conservative Tamil editor-journalist, political commentator, advocate, actor and playwright who’s often seen on English news channels when issues relating to Tamil Nadu are debated. And this is a interview that Rediff did with him in 1997, the 50th year of India’s independence. Some quotes-

Communism and Capitalism
Q. Were you at any time influenced by Communism?
A. I have always been against Communism. In fact, one of the first series of articles which I wrote in Tuglaq 26 years back was titled ‘Moscow – our capital’ taking to task the then Indira Gandhi government for being subservient to Moscow. I have been against Communism because it is against the nature of man. A talented man cannot be asked to be satisfied with what a man totally devoid of talent is able to obtain from life. Communism makes machines of men.

Q. But what about social equality that is advocated by Communism?
A. There is no equality in nature. You cannot go against it. Have the Communists themselves been able to bring about the kind of equality in society? They have provided themselves and members of the Communist party with all comforts in Russia and in China. How then can you say that they have brought about equality?

Q. Capitalism has always been projected as anti-society and anti-poor because it widens the gap between members of society.
A. It is not anti-poor. When capitalism thrives, the poor get to be employed usefully and profitably.

Q. Why are our intellectuals against capitalism?
A. It is the other way around. Those who are against capitalism are supposed to be intellectuals. Those who advocate capitalism are supposed to be reactionaries and not intellectuals. A reactionary cannot be anything but an intellectual.

Undertrials
Q. We have so many undertrials in prisons in India.
A. So far I have not followed up on this. I feel sorry for that. These remand prisoners are kept with convicts. Is it right? These people who are yet to face a charge, a trial, yet to be convicted by a court are placed in the same cells with the convicts. There should be a separate arrangement for them. That could even be a multistoreyed apartment complex with all conveniences. It is totally unethical on the part of the State to keep them along with the convicts.

Secularism and BJP
Q. Why is it that all the other political parties see the BJP as a threat to the nation? They say the BJP is communal in outlook. At the same time they ally with casteist parties.
A. The other parties are casteist. As far as communalism is concerned, the BJP is not out to harm the Muslims. In my opinion, that is not the plan or idea of the party at all. The other parties perceive it (the BJP) as a common threat because if the other votes get split, in many northern states and probably in Karnataka, the BJP will be the largest vote getter. Not only the largest single party.

I would personally like the BJP to abandon this temple politics. It is not a very encouraging sight to see sadhus with huge big beards, holding tridents in their hands and asking you to vote for a particular party. It is not canvassing, it is threatening. The BJP should get rid of this association.

It might have helped them at a particular moment when V P Singh was trying to divide the BJP vote by promoting the Mandal concept. He succeeded to an extent, but it recoiled on him later.

At that particular time, the temple politics might have helped them but it is high time they gave it up. And I think the BJP leadership is aware of it, particularly Advani.

Q. Why are the so-called intellectuals and media anti-BJP?
A. Everyone is very much concerned about a secular image without understanding the concept of secularism. No editor would like to be called communal. The moment you support the BJP, you are branded communal. Secularism in India is defined as an anti-BJP stance. If you are anti-BJP, you are secular. You may hobnob with the Muslim League, still you are secular because you are opposed to the BJP.

Read the complete interview.