Dilemma of a Hosteller

Being the white-collar child of a blue-collar parents means being the hinge on the door between two ways of life. With one foot in the working-class, the other in the middle class, people like me are Straddlers, at home in neither world, living in a limbo. My family wasn't interested in lucid, meaningful movies and, and I wasn't in their daily dose of TV sops and mindless chatters. My discourse about global current affairs often were more receptive to the walls than to it's owners.
What drove me to detest, what i adored closely in my heart? Born a villager, I never once felt completely at home among the naive and anti-intellectual crowd of my neighbourhood in deepest hinterlands. It was only after a lot of time that I was able to completely fit among the preppies and urbanities of a metropolitan, having spent my childhood and college days in a "virtual city" sort of place far away from the screeching noises of cities - Boarding Schools. Surrounded by lush green pastures and the serenity of nature, my morning was welcomed by the day's first sunrays kissing the face; while on the morning jogs. My study hours was spent with the birds singing in the backyard. I would spend the evenings playing football with clean breeze all at the disposal. This, in contrast to the endless chatter and obscurity of the city. But the education and facilities, all made us feel like living in a small city of ours. It was as though living in the countryside, but availing the resources of the city. Modi in his vision for India would later coin the term "rurban" for this kind of adjustment. But in a true sense, it did not completely satisfy the definition of "rurban". It was a completely different experience with many paradoxes. The hostel was an amalgamation of children from varied backgrounds, region, religion and culture; all sharing the same roof. Each dissipating his life's travesties to the other, simultaneously absorbing others. It was one of a kind of itself. But even then, due to obvious reasons, I was always drawn towards the cosmopolitan life, right from my tender age.
While I would struggle to fit among both the worlds, now that I look back, it wasn't a rough ride. Others who are the first in their families to attend a hostel shall tell you the same thing : It renders you unrecognisable to the very people who launch you into the world. The ideas and values absorbed in convent schooling challenge the orthodoxy of rural life, that even in the 21st century are rooted deep in peoples lives.When we have any activity or conversation, it's often a kind of work our parents have never heard of. But people like us never actually completely feel the office as a sanctuary, atleast during the initial stages. In the corporate world, where the rules are based on notions foreign to the working business middle-class, a straddler is not always comfortable. Social class is very much prevalent in the urban life, eventhough nobody likes to admit it. From an early age, middle-class people learn to get along, using diplomacy, nuance, and politics to grab the upper echelons of the corporate ladder.
But middle class families from a village are nowhere similar to that of their counterparts from the metros. Our city siblings with college degrees have lived their lives with what the French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu calls 'cultural capital'. Growing up in educated environment, they learn about stock markets, Angelina-Brad marriage. In a home with cultural capital, there are weighted networks; someone always has an aunt or buddy with the inside track for an internship or some entry-level job, in the corporate world. Dinner table talk that day could involve international scenarios, Bollywood, Football, the morbid as well as exciting times of the corporate world. Upper-class city kids grow up with a kind of entitlement that they would carry out throughout their lives. This 'belongingness' is not just related to having material means, it also has to do with learning and possessing confidence in your place in the world. Such early exposure and direct access to culture in the house in more organic means of appropriating cultural capital. Those of us possessing 'ill-gotten culture' assimilate it, but never truely become a part of it, until the wheels of time makes us settle in the cities. Something is always a little off about us, back in the countryside-home among the family. Like an engine with imprecise timing.      

Fall of India's Left-Parties

“Who is a Communist? Someone who reads Marx & Lenin. How about an anti-Communist? Someone who understands Marx & Lenin.” - Reagan

The espousal of socialism as the Congress goal was most difficult to achieve. Nehru was opposed in this by the right-wing Congressmen Sardar Patel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad and Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari. Nehru had the support of the left-wing Congressmen Maulana Azad and Subhas Chandra Bose. The trio combined to oust Dr. Prasad as Congress President in 1936. Nehru was elected in his place and held the presidency for two years (1936–37). Nehru was then succeeded by his socialist colleagues Bose (1938–39) and Azad (1940–46). After the fall of Bose from the mainstream of Indian politics (due to his support of violence in driving the British out of India), the power struggle between the socialists and conservatives balanced out. However, Sardar Patel died in 1950, leaving Nehru as the sole remaining iconic national leader, and soon the situation became such that Nehru was able to implement many of his basic policies without hindrance. The conservative right-wing of the Congress (composed of India's upper class elites) would continue opposing the socialists until the great schism in 1969. Nehru's daughter, Indira Gandhi, was able to fulfill her father's dream by the 42nd amendment (1976) of the Indian constitution by which India officially became "socialist" and "secular".

Revolutions, famously, are devoured by their children. It was characteristic of Indian socialists that they waited until senility to gobble up the caste-and-community insurrection conceived by Dr Ram Manohar Lohia in the 1950s and 1960s. There will be many stories within and around the 2014 general elections. A principal occurrence will be the earthquake that swallows the socialists. Its epicenter will be Bihar, but the perimeter of devastation will extend across Uttar Pradesh. 

The last three heirs of Lohia, Nitish Kumar, Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav surely know in their hearts what their minds might refuse to admit. The party’s over. Ever since they first sipped power at the fountain of coalitions in 1967, one fact has been transparently clear. Indian socialists have always been far better at politics than government. Such talent should not be underestimated in a democracy. It is difficult enough to win elections even after delivering on the promise of incremental prosperity. To do so through sheer emotional arithmetic is genius. 

Since that high point of emotion in 1989, when temple, mosque and caste dominated the debate, Lohia’s children have ruled Bihar with a tenacity that remains a formidable tribute to their rhetorical craft. 

Their formula began to seem infallible: the Chief Minister’s loyal castes were rewarded with a stake in power, allies were kept onside with marginal benefits, and the vital Muslim vote was patched on with a debilitating concoction of illusion and fear. Muslims got prayer and tokenism; jobs went to others. Religion became the opium of the people. 

Nitish Kumar’s brief encounter with glory had little to do with the quality of governance. He was the much-needed relief vessel after the Lalu shipwreck. His years in power were primarily consumed by a relentless search of sub-castes to knead into a political dividend. It was vote bank politics, but with rural banks, a low capital base and insufficient transactions. As a long-term business model, it offered little chance of success. Now that Nitish Kumar has run out of time and ideas, the alibi game has begun. It won’t work. 

His problem was compounded by the disability that Indian socialism, like its cousins across the globe, simply did not have the legs to stride into the 21st century. Nor did its leaders possess the imagination to re-invent their philosophy, and adjust dogma to new demands. Its office-bearers became its pall-bearers. 

Today’s voter is sick to the stomach of deceptive jargon. Politics, unfortunately, has become a malevolent word. Indians want jobs, security and empowerment through economic growth. They are equally tired of the misuse of secularism to justify corruption, dynasty and piteously weak administration. In any case, when the opening sentence of a book on Narendra Modi’s views states that secularism is the equality of all faiths before the law, when he avers in his speeches that the only religion of a politician is the Constitution of India, there is not much left to discuss apart from riots. Voters then compare facts. They know that a former Gujarat minister is in jail, while no one has been punished for the Sikh massacres of 1984 or the vicious Mumbai riots of 1992-93. 

This is why Ram Vilas Paswan, who left the BJP coalition a decade ago over riots, will become a partner in 2014 and address a rally alongside Modi in Bihar. This is why America’s ambassador Nancy Powell goes with conciliatory flowers to Ahmedabad. This is why BJP is picking up new allies each week. Once Bihar changes, you might say, there is nothing left to change. 

The long-term consequences are significant. For four decades, Indian socialists have denied BJP primacy in the crucial Ganga-Jamuna belt. BJP was successful in displacing socialists in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan (Lohia’s home province), but could never quite get their act together in UP and Bihar. The party touched nadir when two years ago Mulayam Singh Yadav won UP by unprecedented margins, and Nitish Kumar chose this psychological moment to distance himself from BJP, and start a flirtation with Congress. Today, instead of being wooed, Nitish has been isolated. And Lalu Yadav, who was so certain about his own resurrection and Paswan’s subservience that he began issuing ultimatums, has been hit by a thunderbolt from blue skies. 

Sixty five years of an independent India is a story of lost opportunities. Countries with far meagre resources and much difficult circumstances have marched ahead of us. The deadly duo of Socialism and minorityism meshed in a milieu of rank opportunism which constitutes the true essence of centre of left politics in India has rendered the national edifice hollow.

While competitive minorityism of the kind where Parties do not hesitate in espousing the cases of terrorists to outdo each other has deepened the religious divide, born again socialism has bled the economy dry- squandering spectacularly the gains which six years of NDA rule had made after decades of stagnation under Nehruvian socialism. But all the sins of Leftist Politics do not deter the commentators from this camp to assume a tone of self righteousness and hold forth on the “vacuity” of Right Wing Politics and “lack of vision” of Right Wingers.

Hasan Suroor, in his latest article “Indian Right is Agenda Lite” paints a picture of an intellectually challenged Right Wing (mainly BJP and Modi politics), which incidentally has a better record of governance than it’s Left counterparts. But just as his understanding of Right’s contentiousness with minorityism is marred by misgivings and prejudices, so is his general understanding of Right wing intellectualism and the depth of its roots.

I would not like to elaborate much on the “minorityism” part for two reasons. One, because a lot has already been said by better writers and second because Suroor himself concedes, albeit grudgingly, that Right has a case when “it condemns the ‘pseudo-secularism’ and ‘minorityism’ of Congress and the Left, with some justification…”

The scope of an article like this does not allow sufficient elaboration of issues such as devolvement of power, federal balance, social security, subsidies, minority welfare etc. etc. in the Right wing discourse over which Suroor seeks elucidation from Right wing ideologues. It will be naive, however, to assume that there isn’t sufficient elaboration of the issues by Right wingers. As such, I would like to limit myself to the lack of “eminences” among Right wing intellectuals as alleged by Suroor, and his accusations of a dearth of “respectable well-funded Indian right-wing think tank(s) … or high-brow journal(s) or newspaper(s)” articulating Rightist positions. Rather than celebrate the situation, one would have hoped Suroor to see, if he could beyond his prejudices, the scandal behind it.

At the outset, I will concede that there is a lack of “well funded” Right Wing think tanks, something which Indian Right should take up as a task of immediate importance. Now coming to the “eminences”, Arun Shourie has brilliantly exposed the farce of Suroor’s “respectable intellectuals”.

How their “eminence’” is manufactured; how it is a cabal of like minded people (Leftists who have made quite an enterprise out of state funding and doles) forming an incestuous mutual admiration club; how they have hijacked institutions and media; how they go about tarnishing the images of scholars and intellectuals who wouldn’t kow-tow their line. No surprise then that a formidable scholar like Prof Shivaji Singh remains an obscure figure because he taught at Gorakhpur University and not JNU or a Bank employee Shrikant Talageri, unknown beyond the pale of Voice of India readers, who would otherwise be a toast of intellectual circles if it was not for the suppression of diverging views by establishment intellectuals.

For all of Suroor’s babel over the lack of intellectual roots in Indian Right, it is in fact Indian Left which has a much recent history. It is necessary to understand the difference between Leftist presence in India and the crystallisation of an indigenous Indian Left, howsoever tentative the idea might be. Left in India for long remained a forward post of Comintern with no intellectual rigour to show off its own. It was simply acting as a forward post receiving instructions from masters in Moscow and London until Indian Leftists (both card holding and the pink communists in Congress) under the aegis of a benignly disposed Nehru cobbled up a semblance of Indian Left.

Even then, no Nehruvian or Leftist intellectual has come up with the originality of thought to match that of Tilak, Savarkar, Pal or Aurobindo. Post independence intellectual scene has only meant strangling the voices of Right stalwarts such as Sita Ram Goel and Ram Swarup by maintaining a deafening silence about them or slandering people like Arun Shourie who were difficult to ignore. I am reminded about an incident narrated by Prafull Goradia, one of the most sober Right voices, about an editor of a leading daily who had made it clear to his entire editorial team that he would not tolerate any stuff in his newspaper including innocuous letters to editor by “this communal bigot”.

Further, in the neo colonial Leftist view of “intellectualism” which relies heavily on western approval, for Indian Right to get any recognition from its Leftist counterparts, not that it should bother, is still difficult. Indian Right isn’t German Right which will find latent sympathies in common Christian values with its French counterparts, for example. Unlike Left internationalism, Pan Islamism or transnational Christian brotherhood, Indian Right is unique to India and given its peculiarity can expect zero sympathy or enthusiasm from others.

The western liberals, so far as their fleeting interest in Indian Right is concerned, have their views coloured by a downright hostile Indian media- their only window for information. So if Mr Suroor was waiting for Indian Right Wingers to get invitations in seminars at Western Universities or six column op-ed space in Western newspapers for bestowing “eminence’ upon them, it was quite unlikely to come. But this does not mean Indian Right is inconsequential as an idea or that it lacks force, it is only that its relevance lies in India alone.

Further, even if we have heard a little less from Indian Right and find the intellectual scene dominated by Left, things are going to change rapidly with the advent of new age media which does not allow the control of information and opinions as in the old game. However it is doubtful that the new intellectual Indian Right will still be able to impress Mr Suroor and his likes. That is not just because Mr Suroor and Left want their own terms of intellectual reference but also because Indian Left, ever so eager to push itself into a more centrist spot of late, is actually dogmatic in its approach. It is given to certitudes like “we know what happened in Gujarat”. They remain contemptuously oblivious to the findings of Justice Nanavati or the apex Court, believing only their own versions.

As in the past, with whatever resources at its disposal, Indian Right will continue waging its intellectual battles but not to satisfy either Mr Suroor or the Leftist standards. It will continue to appeal to the vast populace of India and its long cherished sense of “Bharatiyata”. And as Mr Suroor has acknowledged it in the beginning of his piece itself, Right is gaining and gaining handsomely in Modi’s rise. And this, not the ivory towers of Leftist intellectuals, is where it counts most.
The subtraction of Hindutva from Hinduism has proved impossible for the defenders of secularism to make, since their arguments remain at an abstract level without an analysis of the historical construction of Hinduism itself.

Out of the agony that most progressive forces in the country are feeling about the results of the Gujarat elections have come many analyses, many musings about what lies ahead.


However, we should also be ready to admit that something may be wrong with Nehruvian-Gandhian secularism or at least with the way secularism has been projected as an ideal. Editorial and analytical discussions following the elections have shown a kind of desperation on the part of most defenders of secularism. The following decades will see "a frontal attack on the concept of secularism", writes K. K. Katyal (The Hindu, December 30); but he does not acknowledge that the frontal attack has been going on for some time or attempt to evaluate the successes of varying strategies of dealing with it. Dipankar Gupta, in turn, writing in the Economic and Political Weekly (November 16), calls for an "intolerant secularism," meaning that the state must be ready to forthrightly enforce the rights of citizens against violence and terror, regardless of the religious rhetoric used to justify this. But without any suggestion as to how to convince or pressure the state to do so, this remains a pious hope.

The dominant Left analysis today of the growth of violent Hindutva and other forces of religious nationalism attributes it to capitalism and globalisation. This is also a council of despair because it does not analyse why some capitalist and globalised countries are significantly more tolerant and non-violent than others; it thus prescribes no action other than to fight globalisation and capitalism. The distinction that Marxists had once made between advanced and backward capitalism, or democratic capitalism and fascism, has almost vanished. Thus, Father Nathan can lament in The Hindu open pages (December 31) that "the voice of reason is powerless against the myth" projected by the Hindutva forces — the powerlessness is itself a demonstration of desperation. His talk of building as an alternative "people's movements on people's issues" does not suggest what these movements might be. The Left parties which have in the past built such movements have been conspicuously unsuccessful in recent years; the strongest mass movements, those of farmers and Dalits, have been outside the Left framework, while the most decisive political steps on Dalit issues have been taken by a Congress leader who is a liberal of the Amartya Sen type.

Secularism, meaning simply the neutrality of the state towards religious communities, may well be necessary in today's plural society — but it still requires a foundation, a moral vision to make such a state possible. The theoretical attack on the Left-Gandhian-Nehruvian version of secularism has been a strong one. It has come not from the virulent Hindutva crowd but from leading, sophisticated intellectuals such as Ashish Nandy, Partha Chatterjee and others. Their argument has been that the concept of secularism has been "western" (i.e. European, Christian-influenced) in the way it presumes the possibility of separating religion from politics. They argue that, in contrast, religion has been so intertwined with all aspects of life in India that this is impossible (or, as Lata Mani has poetically put it, "is a dewdrop sacred or secular?"). Their alternative is to argue that Indian tradition was inherently tolerant, that it is rather the modernising state, homogenising and interventionist, requiring a monolithic "national culture" to back it up, which has been the root cause of the rise of the various forms of violence and growing alienation of religious groups seen in India today. Mr. Nandy and Mr. Chatterjee differ in various ways, and neither would like to have his position identified with that of the Hindutva ideologues. Yet, since neither says anything concrete about Islamic tolerance, we are left with the position that it is above all Hinduism that is tolerant. The progressives want to say that Hinduism is not Hindutva; the Hindutva people say that they are the same. But the subtraction of Hindutva from Hinduism has proved impossible for the defenders of secularism to make, since their arguments remain at an abstract level without an analysis of the historical construction of Hinduism itself.

Hinduism is tolerant, Islam is not; the Congress and Left who proclaim secularism are ignoring the cultural and historical realities of India and so are "pseudo-secularists." Unless these theses can be dealt with at a theoretical and ideological level, it seems to me to be very difficult to deal practically with the Hindutva ideological challenge.
In India, communism is plain "Anti-Hinduism" . There is no doubt about this. For instance, while they maintain that their aim is to remove "social and class barriers, including religious" , only Hindu class divide is highlighted; neglecting the same among the Muslim population. Also the CPI had formed government in Kerala, along with the support of Extreme right Muslim parties. But in the veil of 'secularism' , the left parties attack the centre-left, moderate BJP as "communal".  This becomes quite clear on examination of self- declared leftist attempts to malign India and it's history that has only been the attack on Hindu lifestyle and it's ancient history, completely erasing the parts of Indian history; wherein Hindus were treated with utmost disdain and infidelity, under the "Muslim raiders". 



The left-leaning academics of this kind have unfortunately dominated the intellectual discourse of the country since Independence. Through their control of the academic institutions and policy-making bodies, they have ensured that India remains struck in the corrosive self-negating worldview inculcated and nurtured during the colonial times. They have obstructed the path of India recovering pride in herself, her people and her civilisational heritage; and thus, they have kept India from seriously applying herself to the task of nation-building. But, though it may be possible to stop the progress of history for a while, history cannot be kept in abeyance for all times. The people of India have been kept waiting for nearly seven decades; the time has now come for India to break free and begin moving confidently towards her destiny.
If the Left had remained truely secular, instead of continuously attacking Hindu tradition and religion solely, the young people frustration and trolling in social media might not be as unprecedented as today. For instance, they all talk against Hindutva in the disguise of secularism; often criticising Hindu gods and spiritual books. But they then politically allign with minority-based parties such as IUML and AIML. In Tamil Nadu too, the "aetheist" Karunanidhi went berserk on Hindu lords, but during elections, contrary to the secular beliefs; alligned with small Christian and Muslim parties.
Now that the left seems to have been maneuvered out of a possible post-poll third front, it may well be time for CPM and CPI to take stock of its politics. Too often their energies have been spent in cobbling up alliances and fronts at national and state levels, with little progress to show as far as their growth is concerned. They observe from the sidelines as every new political trend and idea, such as the Aam Aadmi Party, that could potentially be theirs is taken up successfully by others.

The backward classes movement, dalit upsurgence, and now the middle class renaissance campaigning for good governance and against corruption – these should have had their origins in the left or at least received their grassroots support.

The left typically starts by ignoring new ideas that spring up. Then it employs its formidable Marxist sledgehammer analysis to dismiss them. And finally when the ideas solidify into a political base the left looks for a tie up but by then the ideas have run their course.

The left was out of the Anna Hazare movement. The CPI was lukewarm toward the idea of Lokpal since the party sought to protect government employees who could be nominally part of a trade union base.

Prakash Karat has said he would like to wait and watch what positions AAP takes. Many leftist commentators have argued that AAP doesn't go far enough, or, in other words, is not Marxist enough. For instance, they critique AAP’s vision document saying it is not against private education, merely for upgrading public education. They say corruption is only an outcome of crony capitalism and it is capitalism that has to be opposed.

Karat cites a recent CII talk in which Kejriwal declared he was not against capitalism. But CPM's own leaders including the venerable Jyoti Basu had said that several times. In the party's perspective, the Indian revolution will be democratic and therefore include much of the population. It will unleash dormant productive forces (which will initially have to be capitalism, according to Marxian theory) and empower vast sections. CPM's ideologues had in the past couched Basu pitches for investment in such Marxian terms.

Without using Marxian jargon, AAP has successfully hit targets that the Indian left has traditionally claimed to be its bugbears. The left has missed the public eye when it comes to needling Ambani. Karat has said in an article in the party organ People’s Democracy that gas pricing is an issue that left MPs have consistently raised in Parliament. He may be correct. But it took the energy of a police case by an elected AAP-led government to bring the issue into sharp focus. It would be unthinkable for a left front state government to do something as daring and innovative as Kejriwal's move.

It's perhaps the organizational culture of CPI, CPM that doesn't allow new ways of political messaging or even attract new talent. Karat and Sitaram Yechury are significant exceptions to the general trend of idealistic youths not finding traditional left organizations attractive. In the 60s and 70s, many of these youths became Naxalites. Later the promise of direct action and the possibility of delivering tangible and immediate benefits to people drew them into NGO work. Karat, in an early tract as a CPM ideologue, had sneered at NGOs. He found them harmful and hurdles to the left’s progress.

These amorphous, non-organization youths driven by passion and idealism, however, have always been at the forefront of gamechanging social movements in India. Schooled in the NGO world, these activists know how to play the media and the political world. They are now flocking to AAP and similar parties and movements.

But things weren't supposed to be like this. The Soviet Union was crashing down and the Soviet bloc had vanished when Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury were inducted into the politbureau of CPM in Chennai more than 20 years back. At that time, many thought these two may crack the Indian puzzle -- the question of why a nation with a majority of its population crushed by poverty had little room for genuine leftist politics. They may have the breadth of vision and knowledge to come up with creative ideas, it was hoped.

But two decades later, CPM, led by these two, is a pale shadow of its original self. Economic growth has made a dent on poverty in India and the middle class is no more sympathetic to leftist politics unlike in the past. Karat's major political initiatives, drawn from Leninist classics, have largely been failures.

And the left, led by Karat, sits outside and watches as yet another churning is happening, which could provide political space for regular middle class folks and professionals
When a Right winger argues on his principle, he is called a fanatic, when a Left-liberal argues on his principle, he is called principled 

The Curious Case of Vadra

Vadra met Priyanka Gandhi when she was aged 13 and they married in 1997. The couple have two children: a son Raihan and daughter Miraya. Vadra has a keen interest in fitness.
Vadra was estranged from his father, who had "expressed displeasure" with his marriage to Priyanka. Robert Vadra issued a public notice in 2001 stating that his father Rajendra and brother Richard, were "duping" people by promising jobs at the Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee and other favours. Rajendra later threatened to file a defamation suit against his son.
Rajendra Vadra, father of Robert Vadra was found dead at a guest house in Yusuf Sarai area of New Delhi in 2009. His elder brother Richard committed suicide in 2003 and Michelle, his sister, died in a car accident in 2001.
Rents from DLF Limited for purchase of land, India's largest real estate conglomerate.
Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd (owned by Vadra and his mother Maureen Vadra), is a partner in a firm that owns Hilton Garden Inn in the South Delhi business district Saket. DLF Hotel Holdings is another partner in this firm.
North India IT Parks Pvt Ltd
Real Earth Estates Pvt Ltd
Sky Light Realty Pvt Ltd.
VVIP Status Controversy
Vadra has been exempted from frisking at airports when travelling with other SPG protectees. The list of such VIPs was compiled and forwarded to the authorities concerned by the Government of India on 26 September 2005. Others on the list include the President, the Prime Minister, former Presidents and PMs and SPG protectees. This move has come under scrutiny since more important entities on the warrant of precedence. BCAS Commissioner S. R. Mehra declined comment.
According to an RTI reply given to a group called RTI Anonymous in March this year, P. Chidambaram’s Office gave Vadra this exemption because he is a Special Case. The reply had this to say: Shri Robert Vadra has been granted exemption from pre-embarkation security checks at all civil airports in the country on the recommendation of this ministry as a special case as he is married to a SPG protectee, i.e. Smt Priyanka Vadra, in consultation with central security agencies.  His "SPG protectee" wife, however, does not enjoy this VIP status. This happened despite his bodyguard being caught with a pistol inside the Parliament.
Vadra-DLF Controversy
In October 2012, Arvind Kejriwal accused Vadra of taking an interest-free loan of 65 crores and heavy bargains on land from DLF Limited in exchange for political favors. DLF responded that it had dealt with Vadra as a private entrepreneur, that the loan was Business Advance which was given, as per practice of trade, to make payments for land purchased from Vadra, that the company did not sell him land at a throwaway price, and that no quid pro quo took place.
His Facebook comment “Mango people in a banana republic" that was later deleted, had become widespread punch line for the news reporters and the public to talk about.
On Monday, 8 October 2012, his Facebook account was shut, days after a controversy broke out over his business deals with realty major DLF. Civil society activist Arvind Kejriwal had raised questions over the rise in his fortune. In his account on Twitter, Kejriwal tweeted, “Evidence pouring in from mango men from across the country. Mango men would prove to be nemesis for the powerful."
Numerous reports have questioned veracity of balance-sheets of Vadra-owned companies, which claim to have received an overdraft of 7.94 crores from Corporation Bank. Corporation Bank has now denied ever providing an overdraft facility to that amount.
In response to the alleged DLF-Vadra controversy, the entire Congress came out to defend Vadra.  After a few days when another controversy about the alleged financial irregularaties in an NGO run by congressman and then-law minister Salman Khurshid broke out, Rajdeep Sardesai had tweeted:
"Irony: when law min in dock, no UPA minister there to defend him. When Vadra in dock, cabinet ministers line up to defend."
Note: -Sanjay Gandhi, the "pioneer" behind Maruti 800 , was arrested and jailed for destroying all the prints of a movie that satirized him. The film is “Kissa Kursi Ka”

Modi and Obama

Last year, Narendra Modi chanted ‘Yes we can!’ at a massive rally in Hyderabad. Immediately the mainstream and social media erupted with expected faux outrage! This fascist dictator is also a plagiarist! Exile him! Amid the din, no one in the hardworking media bothered to point out that Obama himself lifted the slogan verbatim from the famous Hispanic American Cesar Chavez who coined Sí, se puede (Yes we can) in the seventies while unionizing farm workers in California. But plebeian tasks like fact-checking are beneath our news reporters and hence this trinket of trivia lay undiscovered. Thankfully no one has accused Modi yet of plagiarizing from Marc Antony for starting his speeches with “Mitron”. But of course imitation is nothing new in politics. What the frothing, anonymous Twitter handles may not realize but both Obama and Modi do, is that ideas for political rhetoric are not limited by geography. What worked for Cesar Chavez in California and for Obama in Springfield can very well work for Modi in Hyderabad.

Modi fans have used such similarities between the two to extrapolate and claim that Modi is the Indian Obama. Some of the more hardcore fans have announced that Obama is the American Modi. But do such claims have merit? Yes and no. The biggest difference between the alleged communist Muslim dictator from America and the supposed fascist Hindu tyrant from India is the political baggage each carried at the beginning of their campaigns. Modi had enough baggage to cause a traffic jam in space. But Obama was the quintessential light traveller. With no achievements or failures to constrain him, he arrived with only promises and hope wrapped in a cozy blanket of smooth oratory. Lack of any accusations of orchestrating riots obviously helped. On the other hand Modi, burdened by his considerable history, spent sizeable time convincing himself that if he never talks about 2002 then perhaps people will think it never happened. 

The other main difference between the two is their support base. The Democratic Party represents what in India is the much-maligned left liberal space. Obama’s campaign was powered by galvanizing the various minority groups like African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians along with the trade unions. But before Sanjay Jha announces this as conclusive proof of Rahul Gandhi being the Indian Obama, an important caveat should be issued. Obama didn’t start writing rap lyrics, insist on wearing sombreros and eat out at the Panda Express to garner support from these groups. His pandering to minorities was much more sophisticated and subtle, something which the Congress scion can learn from. On his opposing end was the Republican core base – the big businesses, evangelical Christian groups and the majority of Anglo-Saxon America. In India that is code for Ambani/Adani, RSS and the Hindu majority. But before Internet Hindus start unfollowing Obama on Twitter, do note that there is one crucial similarity between him and Modi. That is Yuva Josh! (Currently trademarked by INC) Both Obama and Modi successfully cracked the mysterious code of how to fire up the current generation’s imagination without resorting to participating in reality shows or building mobile Apps. This singular achievement has placed them miles ahead of their nearest competitors.

The similarities don’t end there. Both Obama and Modi are unlikely leaders of their parties. During the no-holds barred Clinton-Obama primary fight, Bill Clinton famously remarked that a guy who would have brought them coffee a few years ago is dreaming of becoming the president. It wouldn’t be a stretch of imagination to assume similar feelings among the entrenched BJP leadership in Delhi about this chai-wallah from Gujarat. Both amply returned the favour by keeping the party bigwigs as far as possible from the core campaigning team. The ‘galti se mistake ho gaya’ type internal sabotage by ‘well-meaning’ party colleagues has derailed many a promising careers. Obama kept his core team restricted to the people from his Chicago days while Modi most probably asked Amit Shah to clone himself ten times. And finally both campaigned drawing extensively from their talent for rhetoric. Here none of their opponents came even close to matching their ability to simultaneously rouse an audience and also give coronary attacks to their opponents. Most campaigns rallies in 2008 and 2014 have ended with swelled up tears, rushes of adrenaline and Twitter going crazy.

When it comes to the relationship with the media, there are some parallels too. While it is true that Modi has received a rough deal especially from the English media, it is more like a day at the spa when compared to how Fox News portrays Obama. The vicious propaganda has been so effective that a part of America is convinced that Obama is a Kenya-born closet Muslim communist who is out to kill off all the old people & change the national dish from apple pie to hummus. Comparatively Modi is mildly portrayed as an amateur genocide enthusiast who abandons wives in his spare time. But unlike Modi, Obama does have news channels like MSNBC backing him to the hilt, fighting the viciousness word for word. With no such luxury, Modi has had to outsource his fight to countless and faceless IT engineers with time to kill on Twitter. In the end, both of them have strongly fought attempts by sections of the media to demonize them and have enhanced their following in the process.

If Modi takes office next month, Obama will have to abandon his highly successful “Throw-them-a-grand-dinner-and-they-will-be-happy” India policy. Modi should surely realize that a resurgent Russia, a weak EU and an ominous China are making the US increasingly insecure. An interesting by-product of these historic Lok Sabha elections would be this looming possible encounter between two self-made men with similar life stories. It is impossible to predict who would trump the other

Judge over-rulings

Justice Kabir assumed the office of acting Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court on January 11, 2005. His father, Jehangir Kabir was a leading Congress politician and trade union leader from West Bengal
 in January 1977, M.H. Beg, who was junior to H. R. Khanna, was appointed Chief Justice of India by the Indira Gandhi government. This was against legal tradition, though it had started with A. N. Ray's appointment. This impingement into the independence of the judiciary was widely protested; subsequent law ministers, particularly Shanti Bhushan, initiated a series of measures to bring judicial appointments within the power of the Chief Justice, and not the executive

Justice Kabir assumed the office of acting Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court on January 11, 2005. His father, Jehangir Kabir was a leading Congress politician and trade union leader from West Bengal
 in January 1977, M.H. Beg, who was junior to H. R. Khanna, was appointed Chief Justice of India by the Indira Gandhi government. This was against legal tradition, though it had started with A. N. Ray's appointment. This impingement into the independence of the judiciary was widely protested; subsequent law ministers, particularly Shanti Bhushan, initiated a series of measures to bring judicial appointments within the power of the Chief Justice, and not the executive
"I am proud to be an Indian. India is the only country where a member of the minority Parsi community with a population of 1,67,000, like myself, can aspire to attain the post of the Chief Justice of India. These things do not happen in our neighbouring countries."
Chief Justice Kapadia speaking at the Independence Day celebrations in the Supreme Court.
"Right to life, we have said, includes environmental protection, right to live with dignity. Now we have included right to sleep, where are we going? It is not a criticism. Is it capable of being enforced? When you expand the right, the judge must explore the enforceability."
Chief Justice Kapadia during a lecture on "Jurisprudence of Constitutional Structure"
Primary among these was the imposition of the state of emergency by Indira Gandhi in 1975, and the subsequent attempt to suppress her prosecution through the 39th Amendment. When the Kesavananda case was decided, the underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly was perceived to be unprecedented. However, the passage of the 39th Amendment proved that in fact this apprehension was well-founded. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th amendment and paved the way for restoration of Indian democracy
On 26 April 1973, Justice Ajit Nath Ray, who was among the dissenters, was promoted to Chief Justice of India superseding three senior Judges, Shelat, Grover and Hegde, which was unprecedented in Indian legal history. Advocate C.K. Daphtary termed the incident as "the blackest day in the history of democracy
Forbes described Rai as being among that rare breed of civil servants who know how to get work done in the government. A former colleague says Rai has an uncanny ability to cut through red tape. He was appointed as Comptroller and Auditor General of India with the backing of finance minister P. Chidambaram. But he has served up uncomfortable audit reports that have pinned many government departments beyond the baseline. He has consistently hit the headlines for his unforgiving audits, ranging from the scathing report on the shoddy preparation for the Commonwealth Games to the latest on spectrum allocations for second generation (2G) telecom services. Along with a vibrant media, an activist Supreme Court and an increasingly vociferous civil society, his supporters say, Rai has made his office into a powerful force for accountability and transparency in modern India. However , post his retirement and on closer scrutiny it appears that he ended up exceeding his constitutional mandate as CAG of India. The Joint Parliamentary Committee set up by the Indian parliament to look into the allocation of spectrum and the notional loss imputed by the CAG has held "On the question of auditing Government policy, the C&AG clarified during evidence: “We are very clear. We do not question the Government (policy).” However, while communicating the decision regarding conduct of audit of grant of licences and spectrum, the then DG Audit,P&T in his letter dated 18 November, 2009 to the Department of Telecommunications had stated:“The aspects of policy, decisions taken, selection and rejection criteria of applicants for licences,process of issue of licences to the selected operators, policy and procedure adopted for allocationof 2G spectrum, logic and reasons behind the policies in these matters will also be included in the examination”. The matter was referred by the Department of Telecommunications to the Ministry of Law and Justice. The view of the Ministry of Law and Justice was: “CAG Act, 1971nowhere provides that he has any duty or power to question the wisdom of the policy/law makers as policy decision may involve trial and error theory. CAG, CVC and other watchdog no doubt play a very significant role in any democracy but they being constitutional/statutory functionaries cannot exceed the role assigned to them under the Constitution/law. Even the Courts refrain to question wisdom of Government in policy matters unless the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide”. The opinion of the Ministry of Law and Justice was communicated to the C&AG Office by the Secretary, Department of Telecommunications on 7 September, 2010. It is surprising that despite the clarification by the Ministry of Law and Justice, the audit of the policy and calculation of loss thereon was carried out unhindered. In this context, the Opinion of the Supreme Court of India dated 27 September, 2012 in response to the reference made by the President of India conclusively hit the nail on the head: “Alienation of natural resources is a policy decision, and the means adopted for the same are thus, Executive prerogatives.” In a democratic framework every organ of the Government is expected to exercise maximum caution and restraint not to trespass the boundaries already drawn up. The Committee would, therefore, like to uphold the prerogative of the Government in a Welfare State to formulate policies which should under no circumstance be subjected to audit or calculation of loss." His controversial tenure can at best be described as an attempt "to push the envelope too far. " All private-public partnerships (PPPs), Panchayti Raj Institutions and societies getting government funds should come within the ambit of the CAG. The PPP model has become a favourite mode of executing big infrastructure projects worth millions of rupees and these projects are not audited by the CAG.Now, 60 percent of government spending does not come under the scrutiny of the CAG. That is a huge amount and not accounted. When most of the indian politicians were opposing his activities, even at that time he did his duty very perfectly and aggressively. He is widely credited for the report on issue of Licences and Allocation of 2G Spectrum by United Progeressive Alliance, UPA government which resulted in a huge controversy in India. The report estimated that there was a presumptive loss of INR1766.45 billion (US$29 billion). In a chargesheet filed on 2 April 2011 by the investigating agency Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the agency pegged the loss at INR309845.5 million (US$5.2 billion) On 2 February 2012 the Supreme Court of India on a public interest litigation (PIL) declared allotment of spectrum as "unconstitutional and arbitrary" and quashed all the 122 licenses issued in 2008 during tenure of A. Raja (then minister for communications & IT in UPA government) the main accused. The court further said that A. Raja "wanted to favour some companies at the cost of the public exchequer" and "virtually gifted away important national asset".However, the Presumptive Revenue loss calculation has never been established and has at best remained a conjecture .On 3 August 2012 when according to the directions of the Supreme Court, Govt of India revised the spectrum price to Rs 140 billion as reserve price for 2G spectrum and decided to sell airwaves in Delhi, Mumbai, Karnataka and Rajasthan for 1800 MHz band, and pan India for the 800 MHz band the response was poor to say the least . The Government then announced that it would auction the unsold spectrum in the 1800 MHz band from the 2012 spectrum auction, immediately after the first round, which began on 11 March, got over to comply with a Supreme Court order. The government also reduced the reserve price for 1800 MHz by 30% and for 800 MHz by 50% from the 2012 spectrum auction.Response to the 2013 spectrum auction was also very poor. While there were no bidders for spectrum in 1800 MHz and 900 MHz bands, MTS India was the only bidder for airwaves in 800 MHz band. Airtel and Idea were reluctant to participate in the spectrum auction for due to steep pricing of the auction. The main criticism to the report now emerging is that the CAG exceeded its constitutional mandate as it attempted in a sense to change the policy of the Government of India which at that point was to promote telecom growth and not revenue maximisation by arguing that spectrum could only be sold by auction and creating figures for Presumtive losses around it .However,the Honble Supreme Court Of India in the Presidential Reference (2012) has upheld the right of the Government to frame policy and said "The norm of “common good” has to be understood and appreciated in a holistic manner. It is obvious that the manner in which the common good is best subserved is not a matter that can be measured by any constitutional yardstick - it would depend on the economic and political philosophy of the government. Revenue maximization is not the only way in which the common good can be subserved. Where revenue maximization is the object of a policy, being considered qua that resource at that point of time to be the best way to subserve the common good, auction would be one of the preferable methods, though not the only method. Where revenue maximization is not the object of a policy of distribution, the question of auction would not arise. Revenue considerations may assume secondary consideration to developmental considerations.
This righteous officer was replaced by Shashi Kant Sharma.A person with a dubious trackrecord that shows hints of allegiance to the ruling Congress led UPA.His choice caused deep misgivings about the continued independence of the CAG and the motivations of a government that has been repeatedly chastised by the Supreme Court for failing to respect the autonomy of independent institutions. Prashant Bhushan questioned the selection of former Defence Secretary saying that there was conflict of interest in this appointment as CAG. The Government was accused of having deliberately selected a person to render CAG toothless to help the Reliance audit of the Krishna-Godavari Basin. Shashi Kant Sharma remained in important positions in the defence ministry for the entire ten year period of the two UPA Governments. The manner in which his appointment had been made adversely was thought of to possibly affect the perception of impartiality that is necessary for an independent constitutional office-holder

"I am proud to be an Indian. India is the only country where a member of the minority Parsi community with a population of 1,67,000, like myself, can aspire to attain the post of the Chief Justice of India. These things do not happen in our neighbouring countries." Chief Justice Kapadia speaking at the Independence Day celebrations in the Supreme Court.
"Right to life, we have said, includes environmental protection, right to live with dignity. Now we have included right to sleep, where are we going? It is not a criticism. Is it capable of being enforced? When you expand the right, the judge must explore the enforceability."  Chief Justice Kapadia during a lecture on "Jurisprudence of Constitutional Structure"
Primary among these was the imposition of the state of emergency by Indira Gandhi in 1975, and the subsequent attempt to suppress her prosecution through the 39th Amendment. When the Kesavananda case was decided, the underlying apprehension of the majority bench that elected representatives could not be trusted to act responsibly was perceived to be unprecedented. However, the passage of the 39th Amendment proved that in fact this apprehension was well-founded. In Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court used the basic structure doctrine to strike down the 39th amendment and paved the way for restoration of Indian democracy
On 26 April 1973, Justice Ajit Nath Ray, who was among the dissenters, was promoted to Chief Justice of India superseding three senior Judges, Shelat, Grover and Hegde, which was unprecedented in Indian legal history. Advocate C.K. Daphtary termed the incident as "the blackest day in the history of democracy
The recent most notable case is of Justice Katju.A retired supreme court judge, who has been appointed chairman of PCI by the UPA. Unsurprisingly, has taken a hard-stance against BJP and Modi in particular. This amounts to gross violation of work and moral ethics. Notable for saying that 90% of Indians are fools; this is the same guy who went all out in defence of Sanjay Dutt, based solely on his celebrity status; even though the SC had found him guilty(Note: Sanjay Dutt, along with his family-mother,father and sister are candidates of INC.The same INC that gains praises from this 'supposed to be neutral' Katju.For this he has been the eye-candy of the media, not to adore; but as a punching bag with all the controversies he seems to carry.Most notably was when Madhu Trehan took it out on Katju in a episode on the online news channel Newslaundry. The whole tirade began with Katju's article
This was followed by a well asserted backlash by Jaitley.
And then it was followed by interviews to all the MSM.
If you have not been reading Media Crooks, you have been missing one of the sanest, most incisive commentator on Indian current affairs you could ever find anywhere — mainstream media, social media, off-line, online, wherever. I am an unabashed admirer of Media Crooks. I am a fan.
Media Crooks sets the gold standard that very few observers are capable of achieving. Take his expert fisking today (link provided below) of Mr Katju, an ex-judge of the supreme court of India who writes a lot of politically motivated stuff and is often in the media spotlight. Katju deserves to be taken to the cleaners and MC does it with aplomb and ruthless precision.
Here’s an extended excerpt:
Despite being a judge who would be expected to care for facts JK [Justice Katju] still chose to peddle fake and unverified numbers of Muslims killed in Gujarat 2002 in his article. And, of course, he makes readers believe only Muslims were killed and not Hindus. If this is not political tinkering, what is? On February 18 in a chat with Rahul Kanwal and Meenakshi Lekhi on Headlines Today JK used more spurious nonsense to defend himself. He cited women’s bellies being slashed and ripped and burnt. This gory tale doesn’t come from anywhere but appears to be from Arundhati Roy’s wonder world of fiction. I had quoted the whole fake story of Suzy Roy in “SC exposes media’s clean shit” after the SC didn’t accept Zakia Jafri’s petition against Modi. For her bogus story in Outlook magazine, Arundhati had apologised but JK uses similar stories without an iota of evidence. Is he fit to be the PCI chairman? When told that Modi has been elected by people, JK nonchalantly says “we all know how elections are won”. Is he suggesting all elections in India are also spurious or is it only when it comes to Modi? The only major case of election-fraud in a court is not related to Modi but to P. Chidambaram.
In addition to the bellies-ripped story, JK also cites the killing of Ehsan Jafri as a planned attack. It took Meenakshi Lekhi to point out to him that leading the killers of Jafri was not a BJP man but a Congress MLA called Meghsingh Chaudhary . . .
I doubt anyone in the media or any observer would deny that the campaign against Modi was the biggest witch-hunt in India. The hunters who participated benefited financially, in position and in influence. There is no reason not to criticise Modi but it is the proportions and usage of spurious information and analogies that make JK look more like Teesta Setalvad or Mallika Sarabhai. . . In his interview with TimesNow Jaitley mentioned how as Law Minister he had experienced senior judges on the verge of retirement clamouring for post-retirement postings. He also mentioned that some judgements just around the pre-retirement phase could be affected by such lust. With his open political campaign that is intended to benefit the Congress party, JK now has people wondering about the conduct and motives of judges themselves. By his conduct and utterances JK has pushed people into wondering if judges are above political persuasions when they are in office. This is the dangerous lump on the breast that cannot be ignored. In my previous post I have not attributed any motives to JK’s biased, prejudiced and spurious articles and nor have any of his critics in the current episode.
. . .
. . . In my earlier post on this topic I had wrongly mentioned JK has an opinion on everything under Pluto. No Mr. JK, it seems your favourite planet is Uranus.
For all the corruption and scams that the Congress has been mired in, JK doesn’t have much to say about it. His conduct and frequent outbursts and outrage does make one worry about the conduct of our judges. In recent times SC judges have received postings on various statutory bodies immediately on retirement. There isn’t any cooling period post retirement anymore. Meenakshi Lekhi pointed another important aspect of JK’s behaviour and political persuasions. With so much of bias and prejudice against the BJP, particularly Narendra Modi, how can a member of this party who has a complaint to be heard by the PCI chairman ever expect him to be fair and impartial? This alone is good enough reason for JK to resign or to be sacked. The awful truth also is that without the “justice” tag, without the “PCI Chairman” tag and most of all, without the “anti-Modi” tag JK wouldn’t be allowed to write in the media. Not just writing, being anti-Modi is like a license to write with spurious analogies and information. This time everyone called JK’s bluff. It looks like the cats may survive their nine lives but spuriousity certainly killed the Katju.

Katju's lies

The fallen Elephant

Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, 62, and his party the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), once considered the frontrunner among the regional political forces in the country, is witnessing its own downfall.

Mahanta burst on the political scene with a dozen young student leaders of the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) at a time when Assam was in the grip of a widespread anti-foreigner agitation. The 1980s saw a series of bandhs with people on the streets, and their demand was “Assam for the Assamese”. Assam was paralyzed. Finally, the Centre had to give in to the demands, and the historic Assam Accord was signed in 1985.

Such was the support for Mahanta that he created history by being the only person in India to become a chief minister directly from a student leader without any political experience in between. The people of Assam put their faith in his AGP, whose symbol is the elephant. But the fame, the trust and the success all saw a gradual slide.

The AGP miserably failed to meet the expectations of the people of Assam. The state that boasts rich natural resources witnessed a downspin of economy, unemployment was glaring, and government jobs were not paid on time. Adding to it was the horror of the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). A spell of insurgency and counterinsurgency started and the poor people were caught in between.

Assam felt highly let down by Mahanta and his comrades. The Congress returned to power under the leadership of the veteran Hiteshwar Saikia, the man considered instrumental in breaking the back of militancy in Assam. But anti-incumbency was setting in and Assam was still not out of the romanticism of Assamese nationalist politics of the AGP. It favoured Mahanta and his call to strengthen the regional political force. Eventually, Mahanta became chief minister for a second time in 1996, and Assam kept its fingers crossed.

This time, however, the slide was even more deadly. Between 1998 and 2001, Assam witnessed the ugliest chapter of its political history. Violence became the order of the day, unidentified gunmen would knock on the doors of the families of ULFA and former ULFA rebels, and kill them in cold blood by night. These were known as secret killings in Assam. A 2007 inquiry report which was tabled in the state legislative assembly had questioned Mahanta’s role in all this. The people of Assam were frustrated, and in 2001, the Congress was brought back to power under the leadership of Tarun Gogoi. 

Every subsequent poll, from civic polls to Lok Sabha, the AGP has only seen decline in the number of seats everywhere. Its only alliance partner, the BJP, rode on its back in Assam, with both the parties contesting polls on their own in 2011. The AGP could only manage to win 10 seats out of 126 in the state legislative assembly. The AGP’s series of electoral failures ensured that anti-Congress votes in Assam became divided. 

The AGP’s anti-foreigner plank still remains, as the alleged illegal influx from Bangladesh is still the mainstay of political discourse in the tea rich state. But the AGP’s is the feeblest voice in this discourse. The vacuum created by the AGP’s incompetence to live up to its cause of origin resulted in sharp division of votes in Assam, which has in a way helped the Congress secure more votes beyond its traditional tea worker and Muslim settler vote banks. Perfume baron and minority leader Maulana Badruddin Ajmal and his party, the All India United democratic Front (AIUDF), is now the main opposition and has won the support of the Bengali Muslim settlers in Assam. The BJP has the hardliner Hindu votes as well as a larger section of Assamese voters who still believe in Assamese nationalism since the saffron party became vocal on the illegal Bangladeshi issue, taking away the initiative from the AGP.

This was the time that the AGP should have taken drastic steps, brought new faces at the helm of things. But Mahanta did not give up, even as it sparked dissidence and this call for a change in leadership has just become louder from then on.

Former minister and colleague from the days of the Assam agitation, Atul Bora, left to join the BJP. State BJP president and former MP Sarbananda Sonowal was himself a firebrand leader of the AGP who left the party after the debacle in the 2011 Assembly polls. Apurba Bhattacharjee, former party president Chandramohan Patowary also joined the BJP and is contesting the upcoming Lok Sabha polls on a BJP ticket. Yet Mahanta did not give up, and the two time chief minister of Assam still does not acknowledge the leadership crisis in the party. 

Right now, ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, the AGP is a dilapidated party, and Mahanta a vanquished leader. Perhaps his party , which plans to contest all 14 Lok Sabha seats in Assam, might find it very difficult even to hold on to the only seat – Tezpur – that it had last time.

At the fag end of his political career, Mahanta will perhaps be the last man to leave the party or step down as its president. Assam does not rely on Mahanta’s laurels any more. Perhaps it is high time that the leader takes a back seat. For the past few elections, riding on Gogoi's good governance, congress is claiming huge gains. Accordin 2 NDTV projections, it is set 2 make clean sweep in the upcoming LS elections, even with so much of anti-congress sentiments around the country, since Muslims in Assam did'nt really have another option.