(The Political Line newsletter is India’s political landscape explained every week by Varghese K. George, senior editor at The Hindu . You can subscribe here to get the newsletter in your inbox every Friday.)
Minimum Support Price, aka freebies
Prime Minister Narendra Modi made disapproving remarks on ‘freebie culture’ and ‘shortcuts’ that politicians use to win votes, twice within a week, in Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh.
He himself can be accused of using shortcuts to win votes, but the Prime Minister has raised a valid question. There is a need for differentiation between cynical populism and empowering welfarism, and Mr. Modi himself must lead a debate on it, as our editorial points out.
Can we actually make a distinction between good welfare and bad welfare? Two experts discuss the question here, and they agree that it is contextual.
I had argued earlier that politicians have come to a conclusion that providing jobs has become difficult if not impossible due to the rapid changes in our production models. In democracies, they negotiate with the voters on a minimum welfare package in exchange of support.
Federalism Tract
Rituals of governance
In a bulletin ahead of the monsoon session, the parliament secretariat reminded members that they should not use the premises for “demonstration, dharna, strike, fast or for the purpose of performing any religious ceremony.”
This was a routine reminder that goes out before every session, but the question of religious ceremony is curious as only a few days earlier, a religious ritual accompanied the unveiling of the national emblem atop the new Parliament building that is under construction.
In December 2020, Mr. Modi had presided over the groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of the new building, complete with Hindu rituals.
Opposition parties questioned the propriety of the event and the PM’s role in it, on at least three counts. One, Parliament is the legislature and the Prime Minister is head of the government and part of the executive. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha should have been in the lead roles for the event. Two, all political parties should have been invited. Three, a religious ritual undermined the secular nature of the Indian state.
While the first two points are evident, the secularism point is a bit complicated. In Tamil Nadu, where the storied atheism of Dravidian politics is supposedly a determinant of government action, “nearly all ground-breaking ceremonies for construction of new government buildings follow Hindu rituals. Even after the DMK came to power, some Ministers and the Chief Minister’s son, Udhayanidhi Stalin, a legislator, have participated in ceremonies conducted by Hindu priests at government functions.” This is despite government orders and even a HC directive to the contrary.
An MP of the ruling party stopped Hindu rituals at a government event recently, and the BJP has questioned his conduct.
Kejriwal for federalism!
Thumbs down: L-G Vinai Kumar Saxena (right) has advised Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal not to attend the event. file Photo PTI | Photo Credit: -
Arvind Kejriwal’s emergence as a politician was founded on a campaign for power to the people. Decentralisation in his plans meant that mohalla sabhas, or local councils, would decide everything about governance. That was before he came to power. As Chief Minister of Delhi since 2015, he has been a different person, following the playbook other CMs practise — total centralisation of power, brooking no dissent, never taking questions from anyone and certainly not from journalists. He supported the disbanding of the State of Jammu and Kashmir by the Centre in 2019. But whenever it is convenient for him, Mr. Kejriwal reminds the Centre of federalism.
The Centre’s refusal of permission for him to travel to Singapore, for example, turned out to be an occasion for Mr. Kejriwal and his party to remember the norms of federalism.
The Delhi LG thinks that the conference that Mr. Kejriwal was planning to attend in Singapore was for mayors, and the themes of the conference were not for chief ministers. It is clear that the BJP wanted to deny Mr. Kejriwal an opportunity to grandstand abroad. Bad faith all the way.
Hindi in the south, English in the north
P.T. Usha.
The nomination of athlete P.T. Usha to the Rajya Sabha is part of the BJP’s continuing efforts to expand its foothold in Kerala. Mr. Modi has in the past inducted Malayalam actor Suresh Gopi into the Upper House. Though the BJP has not made any immediate electoral gains in Kerala, its approval rating among the Malayalis is certainly on the rise. Ms. Usha took the oath in Hindi, and this must have warmed the cockles of many Hindutva hearts.
Two sisters from Arunachal Pradesh singing a Tamil patriotic song written by the great Tamil poet and freedom fighter Subramania Bharati, which was retweeted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has caused some social media excitement. “I am delighted and proud to see this. Kudos to these shining stars of our Yuva Shakti from Arunachal Pradesh for furthering the spirit of ‘Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat’ by singing in Tamil,” the PM posted in English and Tamil. You can watch the outstanding singing also here:
Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel tries to blend his regional identity politics with English aspiration. At his “Bhent Mulaqat (Meet or Greet)” programme, he asks school students a few questions in Chhattisgarhi language and the latter reply in English. “The children who feature in these interactions are the students of Swami Atmanand Government English Medium Schools (SAGES) that the government pitches as a major highlight of a ‘pro-people’ image it is attempting to build.”
Meanwhile, in Rajasthan, “the gradual conversion of the existing Hindi medium government schools into English medium has spelt trouble for students. Protests have erupted across the State over the admission process which involves ‘forcible shifting’ of students.”
What I am reading…
I just finished Violent Fraternity: Indian Political Thought in the Global Age by Shruti Kapila. If you are interested in history or political philosophy, you will find this book outstandingly original. This book resets the historiography of the Indian national movement. For one, it questions the notion that the principle of non-violence guided and shaped India’s national movement. You may read the review here, and listen to an interview with the author. An abridged version of the interview may be read here.
