Modi needs Rahul

narendra_modi
Rahul Gandhi is back. Back from his 57 day foreign sojourn, during which, if Congress leaders are to be believed, he was thinking about how to revive the Congress party.
And now that he is back he has come out all guns blazing against the Narendra Modi government. The Gandhi family scion has blamed the Modi government for being very close to the corporates and not being worried about the farmers. In a speech in the Lok Sabha yesterday he accused the government of being a “
suit, boot ki sarkar.”
For the time that Rahul was not in the country, several leaders of the Bhartiya Janata Party(BJP) took potshots at his absence. Amit Shah, the president of the BJP, had recently said at the two day National Conclave of the party in Bangalore that: “Instead of raising non-issues and fictional issues, they[the Congress party] should find out where their leader is.”
After Rahul returned to India, Sambit Patra,
a BJP spokesperson said: “He (Rahul) is confused. He does not know what he wants to do with his life, whether he wants to continue in politics. He has to answer to the people.”
Such statements are a part of the broad strategy of BJP of talking about a Congress mukt Bharat (an India without the Congress party). “Congress Mukt Bharat is not merely a slogan, but the determination of the people of India,” Narendra Modi said in January 2014, when the campaigning for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections had started. Since then, many leaders of the Bhartiya Janata Party(BJP) have used this slogan on many occasions.
Nevertheless, a slightly strong Congress party might work to the advantage of the BJP. And a
Congress mukt Bharat may not necessarily be good for the party. Why do I say that? Take a look at what happened in the recent elections to the Delhi assembly.
The BJP got 32.2% of the votes polled. This was marginally lower than the 33.07% of the votes that the party had polled in the assembly elections held in December 2013. The Congress had polled 24.55% of the votes in December 2013. This collapsed to 9.7% in the recent elections. The gainer was the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The vote-share of the party jumped from 29.49% to 54.3%, helping the party win 67 out of the seventy seats in the assembly.
What this clearly tells us is that the entire collapse in the vote for the Congress moved to the AAP. This in a way ensured that the anti-BJP vote did not get divided and helped AAP win almost 100% of the seats in the assembly. If the Congress vote hadn’t collapsed as much as it did, it would clearly helped the BJP win more seats in the Delhi assembly. Hence, a stronger Congress would have helped the BJP in Delhi.
Now, along with this let’s look
at an interesting piece of analysis on the 2014 Lok Sabha elections carried out by Neelanjan Sircar, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at CASI at the University of Pennsylvania. In his analysis Sircar found that: “Consider the constituencies in which the BJP and Congress were the top two vote getters; there were 189 such constituencies, and the BJP won 166 of them for a whopping strike rate of 88 percent. By contrast, the BJP’s strike rate was even (49 percent) in the remainder of the constituencies it contested.”
What this clearly tell us is that when it’s on a one on one with the Congress, the BJP does well. But the same cannot be said of a situation where there is a multi-party contest. In a multi-party contest, a strong Congress party can help in dividing the anti-BJP votes. While this may not matter in the bigger states like Rajasthan, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, and smaller ones like Chattisgarh and Himachal Pradesh, where there is a direct contest between the BJP and the Congress, it matters in many other states like Bihar, West Bengal, Tamil Nadu and Assam, where the electoral contest is multi-party.
In fact, in the first past the post system (an electoral system where the candidate winning the most votes wins, even though there might be more votes against him in total) that India has, a divided opposition can really help the ruling party. And for that divided opposition to become a reality, the Congress party needs to be on a slightly stronger wicket than it currently is.
This rule comes with a corollary. The BJP has to hope that the Congress does not come together with other opposition parties like it did in Bihar in August 2014, when bye-elections to 10 assembly seats were held. The vote percentage of the BJP plus the Lok Janshakti Party was at 37.9%. The vote percentage of Rashtriya Janata Dal plus Janata Dal (United) plus the Congress party came in at 45.6%. So, all said and done, the anti-Modi vote does remain strong. And it can create huge problems for the BJP.
But the other parties coming together is not a possibility in every state. Take the case of West Bengal where the Trinamool Congress and the Left Front are unlikely to come together for the assembly elections scheduled in 2016. A weak Congress party will mean that its votes will move to the Trinmool Congress and that can’t be good for the BJP.
The BJP cannot be expected to form the government in West Bengal. But in the 2014 assembly elections it got 17% of the votes polled. Given this, the party can expect to win more than a few seats in the state assembly.
Further, the assembly elections in Bihar are due later this year. It is important that the BJP does well in the state given that it elects 16 members to the Rajya Sabha. West Bengal also elects 16 members to the Rajya Sabha.
The BJP currently has only 47 members in the Rajya Sabha and hence can be held to ransom by the opposition parties in the upper house, whenever it wants to pass any important legislation. The Land Acquisition Bill is an excellent example of the same.
In order to increase the number of members in Rajya Sabha the party needs to do well in the state assembly elections scheduled over the next few years. And for that to happen, the BJP needs a stronger Congress party. In short, Modi needs Rahul.

The column originally appeared on The Daily Reckoning on April 21, 2015

India growing faster than China is like saying Bihar’s growth quicker than Gujarat

chinaVivek Kaul

The ministry of statistics and programme implementation released the GDP growth forecast for the current financial year a few days back. It expects the Indian economy to grow by 7.4% during the course of the year.
This is significantly higher than the GDP growth of 5.5% forecast by the RBI. The ministry has moved on to a new method of calculating the GDP, which has led to this massive jump. In fact, in late January, the GDP growth for the last financial year (2013-2014) was revised to 6.9% using this new method. The GDP growth as per the old method had been at 5%.
Explaining this jump in growth, a
Crisil Research note points out: “The Central Statistical Office’s explanation for the upward revision in GDP for previous fiscal is premised on improved efficiency. For instance, the manufacturing sector is generating more value-added from the same level of input. This has led to faster growth in manufacturing GDP which is a measure of the value added.”
The jury though is still out on the possible explanation for this jump in economic growth. The high frequency data doesn’t explain this jump. Car sales remain muted. Tax collections have seen slow growth. Corporate profitability isn’t anything to write about. The number of stalled projects continues to remain huge. Exports are on a decline.
Also, it is worth remembering that the numbers highlighted above are real numbers, unlike the GDP which is a theoretical construct.
Nevertheless, the 7.4% GDP growth number has got the media going. Several news reports have compared India to China and said that India is now growing faster than or as fast as China. Here is a
PTI news report which says: “Indian economy will grow by 7.4 per cent this fiscal, outpacing China to become the world’s fastest growing economy, after a revision in the method of calculations.”
Another news report in the Wall Street Journal says: “India expects its economy to grow at 7.4% in the current fiscal year, a growth rate that rivals China’s, reflecting a strengthening recovery but also a recent radical revision in the way the country calculates its gross domestic product.”
It also needs to be pointed out here that for the period October to December 2014, the Indian economy grew by 7.5% as per the new method of calculating GDP. During the same period the Chinese economy grew by 7.3%, in comparison to the same period in 2013.
While technically there is nothing wrong with saying India is growing faster or as fast as China, we also need to keep in mind what base are we talking about. India’s GDP last year was $1.87 trillion. On this base it is expected to grow by 7.4%. China’s GDP last year was almost five times larger at $9.24 trillion. So China has a significant larger GDP than that of India. Even if the Chinese GDP grows by 1.5% it would be adding as much to economic output as India would at 7.4%.
Given this, comparing Indian growth with Chinese growth just doesn’t make any sense. Further, if we look at the GDP growth data provided by World Bank since 1980, it throws up interesting results. Only four times between 1980 and 2013, has the Indian GDP growth been faster than that of China.
Two of those years were 1989 and 1990 when China was probably facing the after effects of the failed Tienanmen Square revolution. In 1981, China grew by 5.2% and India by 6%. The only other year when the Indian growth was faster than that of China was 1999, when the Indian economy grew by 8.8% and the Chinese economy grew by 7.8%. This was when the dotcom bubble was at its peak.
In fact, in 17 years during the period under consideration the Chinese economy has seen double digit growth rates. On the other hand the Indian economy has grown by greater than 10% only once since 1980. This was in 2010 when it grew by 10.3%. The Chinese managed to beat us even then by growing by 10.4%.
Over the years, the Chinese economy has been growing faster than that of India on a much higher base. This has increased the gap between the GDP of the two countries.
In short, saying that the Indian economy is growing faster than China is like saying that Bihar is growing faster than India or to be more specific faster than Gujarat. The gross state domestic product for Gujarat in 2012-13(the latest data that is available and at 2004-05 constant prices) was at Rs 4,27,219 crore. It had grown at a rate of 7.96% in comparison to 2011-12.
Now compare this to Bihar, where the gross state domestic product had grown by 10.73% in 2012-13, which was higher than the GDP growth rate of Gujarat. In fact, between 2006-07 and 2012-13, the economic growth rate of Bihar was higher than that of Gujarat, on five out of the total seven occasions.
But the question is on what base? In 2012-2013, the gross state domestic product of Bihar stood at Rs 1,58,971 crore. As mentioned earlier the gross state domestic product of Gujarat was at Rs 4,27,219 crore or nearly 2.7 times. It is important to further point out that Gujarat has a population of 6.27 crore people and the population of Bihar is 9.9 crore. Hence, Bihar has been sharing a significantly lower GDP with a larger number of people.
So, the point here is that Bihar (like India) is growing on a lower base. Hence, saying that it is growing faster than Gujarat, which is 2.7 times bigger in economic terms and has a smaller population, doesn’t make much sense.
The same logic holds when we compare the Indian GDP growth to that of China. Like Bihar’s economy has a long way to catch up to that of Gujarat, the same stands true of India’s economy when compared to that of China.

The column originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on Feb 12, 2015

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He tweets @kaul_vivek) 

Lalu Prasad Yadav: The man whose luck finally ran out

009_lalu_prasad_yadavVivek Kaul  
Sometime in the early 1990s, in Ranchi, the city I was born and brought up in, one day in the late evening in the month of May, there was a power cut. Ranchi, in those days, saw an innumerable number of power cuts (or load shedding as it was officially called) during the course of any day.
But this was a special power cut. It lasted for nearly two weeks (my sister says it was 10 days). Yes, you read it right, a city of nearly a million people during peak summer was plunged into darkness and did not have any power for two weeks at a stretch.
The reason offered was that strong winds had ripped out some electric poles which carried power to the city from the nearest thermal power generating station at Patratu (around 40kms from the city). And this would take time to repair.
It need not be said that no one bought this explanation. Where does it take two weeks to repair a few electric poles, was an oft asked question? And more than that, the city regularly bore the wrath of cyclones and barely any electric poles were ripped out even during a cyclone.
The conspiracy theory was that Lalu Prasad Yadav, who was the Chief Minister of Bihar, had cut off power to Ranchi, so that power could be supplied to Patna, the capital of Bihar. Ranchi, now the capital of Jharkhand, was then a part of Bihar.
This is my enduring memory of the rule of Lalu Prasad Yadav as the Chief Minister of Bihar. It symbolises the darkness that encapsulated Bihar in the 15 long years that Lalu ruled it. He ruled the state directly between 1990 and 1997 and then indirectly through his wife Rabri Devi, who was the Chief Minister between 1997 and 2005.
It was a time when everything came to a standstill. Economic and social development took a back-seat. The kidnapping industry in and around Patna (rumored to be run by Lalu’s brothers-in-law) really progressed (the children of any doctor in Patna, who had a thriving private practice were a prospective target). 
Pakadua shaadis(forced weddings)in which a prospective bridegroom was kidnapped and then forcefully married off to a girl, because the bride’s father could not afford to pay the dowry, were at their peak. And anybody and everybody, who could leave the state, actually did.
But despite all this Lalu Yadav managed to survive and stay relevant for a period of close to 20 years, first as the Chief Minister of Bihar and then as the Minister of Railways. Luck had an important part to play, right from the very beginning.
Lalu Yadav’s entry into serious politics happened in the early 1970s. This after he had quit students politics in 1970, after losing the election for the post of the President of the Patna University Students Union (PUSU) to a Congress candidate. Before losing this election, Lalu had been the general secretary of the PUSU for three years.
Sankarshan Thakur, a man who has closely followed the rise and fall of Lalu, writes in 
Subaltern Sahib: Bihar and the Making of Lalu Yadav, “On the eve of elections of Patna University Students Union (PUSU) in 1973 non-Congress student bodies had again come together, if only for their limited purpose of ousting the Congress. But they needed a credible and energetic backward candidate to head the union. Lalu Yadav was sent for.”
The only problem here was that Lalu was no longer a student, but an employee of the Patna Veterinary College by then. But this was a small problem, which could be easily fixed.
As Thakur writes “Assured that the caste arithmetic was loaded against the Congress union, Lalu readily agreed to contest. He quietly buried his job at the Patna Veterinary College and got a backdated admission into the Patna Law College. He stood for elections and won. The non-Congress coalition in fact swept the polls.”
This victory in 1973 set up Lalu for the big league. This was also the year that Lalu married Rabri Devi. The marriage proved very lucky for Lalu. It was around this time that veteran leader Jai Prakash Narayan launched an agitation against the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her high handed ways. In 1974, the agitation against Gandhi gained speed and spread throughout the country.
As Thakur writes, “An agitation committee was formed, the Bihar Chatra Sangharsh Samiti to co-ordinate the activities of various unions and Lalu Yadav as president of PUSU was chosen its chief.” These events catapulted Lalu Yadav into the big league from which he never looked back. He became a member of the Lok Sabha in 1977 at a very young age of 29. He became the Chief Minister of Bihar in 1990.
Historians often ask counterfactual or ‘what if’ questions to figure out how history could have evolved differently. In Lalu’s case, the big ‘what if’ question is what would have happened if Lalu had not come back to politics in 1973? While the implications it would have had on the politics and economics of Bihar is difficult to judge, given that other politicians who would have taken his place, could have been as bad as he turned out to be. Nevertheless, it would be safe to say that Lalu Yadav would have retired by now from his job at the Patna Veterinary College. His family would have had a remarkably lower middle class existence and the weddings of his daughters (starting with the eldest Misa) would have been nowhere as grand as as they were.
Lalu took over as the Chief Minister of Bihar in 1990. One of the first news reports that I remember reading about him was about the fact that he lived with his brother, who was a peon at the Patna Veterinary College. Soon he moved to 1, Anne Marg, in Patna, the official residence of the Chief Minister of Bihar, and things changed dramatically.
Whatever little governance Bihar had completely collapsed (as is clear from the two week powercut that I talked about earlier). At the time when other states were growing, Bihar’s economy actually became smaller. s Ruchir Sharma writes in 
Breakout Nations – In Pursuit of the Next Economic Miracles , “Bihar was the only Indian state that not only sat out India’s first growth spurt but also saw its economy shrink (by 9 percent) between 1980 and 2003.”
This wasn’t surprising given that the thriving kidnapping mafia in the state ensured that most people who could invest money in creating small businesses which drive economic growth, chose to leave the state.
Lalu and his wife Rabri ruled for the major portion of the period between 1980 and 2003. Economic development was nowhere on the agenda of Lalu and on several occasions when questioned about the lack of economic development in the state, he replied that economic development does not get votes. And he was proven right more than a few times.
In fact, such was Lalu’s lack of belief in development that even money allocated to the state government by the Central government remained unspent. As Santhosh Mathew and Mick Moore write in a research paper titled 
State Incapacity by Design: Understanding the Bihar Story, “Despite the poverty of the state, the governments led by Lalu Prasad signally failed to spend the money actually available to them: ‘…Bihar has the country’s lowest utilisation rate for centrally funded programs, and it is estimated that the state forfeited one-fifth of central plan assistance during 1997–2000.’”
Between 1997 and 2005, the Ministry of Rural Development allocated Rs 9,600 crore. Of this, nearly Rs 2,200 crore was not drawn. And of the money received only 64 percent was spent. Similarly, money allocated from other programmes was also not spent.
Lalu survived by building a potent combination of MY (Muslim + Yadav) voters. The Yadavs are the single largest caste in Bihar and form around 11.7% of the population. Muslims form 16-17% of the population in Bihar which is much more than 9.9% nationally. The MY formula was the main reason behind Lalu winning successive elections despite the governance in Bihar almost coming to a standstill.
Such was his faith in the MY voters that Lalu did not even promise development, like most politicians tend to do. As Mathew and Moore write: “He finessed this problem…by departing from the normal practices of Indian electoral politics and not vigorously promising ‘development’. For example, if during his many trips to villages he was asked to provide better roads, he would tend to question whether roads were really of much benefit to ordinary villagers, and suggest that the real beneficiaries would be contractors and the wealthy, powerful people who had cars. He typically required a large escort of senior public officials on these visits, and would require them to line up dutifully and humbly on display while he himself was doing his best to behave like a villager. He might gesture at this line-up and ask ‘Do you really want a road so that people like this can speed through your village in their big cars?’”
Lalu also played the US versus THEM card very well. “One of the reasons for his extended dominance was that Lalu Prasad Yadav used both rhetoric and policy continuously to maintain a mood of confrontation with the upper caste ‘enemy’, and so keep his electoral base mobilised. An important component of the strategy of confrontation was to avoid appointing members of upper castes to government jobs. New appointments were instead reserved largely for members of the communities in the dominant electoral coalition,” write Mathew and Moore.
Meanwhile he was also making money from what came to be known as the “fodder scam”. This scam started as a small scale scam where government employees fudged expense bills in the state’s animal husbandry department. Since there was easy money to be made politicians ultimately got involved. Jagannath Mishra, who was the Chief Minister before Lalu took over, made money out of the fodder scam and when Lalu took over he simply had to maintain the status quo. So in that sense, Lalu did not have to figure out any formula for making money. He just needed to continue where Mishra had left.
In 1996, the press caught on to what was happening in the animal husbandry department and Lalu had to finally quit in 1997. But he successfully managed to install his largely illiterate wife Rabri Devi as chief minister. I remember in one of the first television interviews that Rabri gave, Lalu kept prompting her from behind the camera.
But all this did not matter because Lalu’s MY formula just couldn’t go wrong. Such was his faith in the formula that he even quipped “
jab tak rahega samose main aaloo, tab tak rahega Bihar main Lalu.” Even though Lalu Yadav successfully wooed the Muslims, when it came to distributing goodies he concentrated on the upper caste Muslims i.e. the ashrafs.
Manjur Ali studies this phenomenon in a research paper titled 
Politics of ‘Pasmanda’ Muslims : A Case Study of BiharAs he writes “Lalu Prasad Yadav in the name of M-Y (Muslim-Yadav) alliance has promoted the FM-Y (Forward Muslim-Yadav) alliance, where major benefits were cornered by Ashraf Muslims in the name of the community… Unemployment, poverty and apathy of the state towards their problems were never raised by the Bihar Ashraf political elites ..The RJD made fourteen Muslims MLCs, out of which twelve were upper-caste Muslims. Again, there were seven appointments made for the post of Vice Chancellor, all from upper castes. Similarly, appointment to government posts like teachers, posts in the police department and in minority institutions were allotted to the sharif people. In turn, Lalu received blessings from religious leaders belonging to the upper castes for his electoral victory.”
The backward class Muslims are referred to as the 
pasmandas. They are essentially dalits who have converted to Islam.
In 
pasmandas Nitish Kumar found a chink in Lalu’s armour and he gradually started making them realise that Lalu Yadav had given them a raw deal. On October 8, 2005, seven pasmanda political parties issued a clarion call to defeat Lalu Yadav’s Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) in the state assembly elections. Slogans like ‘Vote hamara fatwa tumhara, nahi chalega’ (your dictate on our vote will not work) and ‘jo pasmanda ki baat karega, wahi Bihar pe raaj karega’ (those who concede the demand of Pasmanda will rule Bihar) became the order of the day.
This split in the Muslim vote along with other caste alliances that had been built, helped Nitish Kumar become the Chief Minister of Bihar in November 2005.
Lalu Yadav meanwhile continued to be relevant by getting close to Sonia Gandhi who used him to meet her own political ends. As Rasheed Kidwai writes in 
Sonia – A Biography “Through 2004-2010, Sonia had identified key people to hold every loose plank on the UPA cart tight….She also had Rashtriya Janta Dal chief Lalu Yadav rein in the Nationalist Congress Party boss Sharad Pawar, and the late Vishwanath Pratap Singh, to keep linkages with the DMK smooth.”
This helped Lalu stay politically relevant in Delhi till 2009, even though he was on a weak footing in Bihar. In the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, Lalu’s party just won 4 seats. The new caste alliance of 
pasmandas mahadalits + extremely backward classes (primarily the non yadav backward classes) that Nitish Kumar had built, along with the upper caste votes that came because of his alliance with the BJP, proved to be too hot for Lalu to handle. The moral of the story was that if you live by caste politics, you ultimately die by it as well.
Finally, the law caught up with Lalu for his shenanigans in the fodder scam. He has now been sent to jail and stripped of his Lok Sabha membership. Hopefully, this is the last we are seeing of Lalu Yadav as a politician. Politicians like him need to be confined to the dustbins of history.
Let me conclude with the oft used English phrase “earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust”. May the political being in Lalu Yadav rest in peace.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on October 4, 2013

 (Vivek Kaul is a writer. He tweets @kaul_vivek) 
 

Cong trying to do a Romney in Gujarat by attacking Modi


Vivek Kaul

The Congress campaign in Gujarat is getting desperate. Sample this.
“When it comes to GDP growth, Gujarat is lagging behind states like Bihar, Odhisa and Chhattishgarh,” the Union Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma said while addressing a public meeting in Gandhinagar. “Narendra Modi says Gujarat is most progressive, but if you have been to other states, Bihar, Odisha and Chattisgarh are much ahead,” he added.
When Indian politicians start using terms like Gross Domestic Product growth with voters you know that they don’t have much else to talk about.
Data from the planning commission shows that the state gross domestic product (GDP) at current prices (which does not adjust for inflation) of Bihar, Odisha and Chattisgarh grew at the rates of 20.4%, 16% and 15.3% in 2011-2012.
In comparison Gujarat grew at 15.8%. So the economic growth (which is what the state GDP measures) of Bihar and Odisha was faster than that of Gujarat. But Gujarat grew faster than Chattisgarh.
But as the old saying goes we should be comparing Apples with Apples and not Apples with Oranges. And to add to that as one of my teachers used to say “percentages should be used carefully lest we draw the wrong conclusions”.
Let me deviate a little and give an example to explain what I am basically trying to say.  Let us say you earn Rs 10,000 a month and your income jumps to Rs 20,000 a month, a gain of 100%. On the other hand let’s say you earn Rs 1 lakh a month and your income jumps to Rs 1.3 lakh a month, or a gain of 30%.
So even though the percentage gain in the first case is more, the absolute gain is more in the second case. Hence, when we are talking percentages it is important to keep the base number in mind. So Bihar did grow faster than Gujarat but it was because of what economists like to call the “base effect”.
Gujarat’s state GDP in 2010-2011 was Rs 5,13,173 crore. It went up by 15.8% to Rs 5,94,369 crore in 2011-2012. In comparison Bihar’s GDP for 2010-2011 was Rs 2,17,814 crore. And it grew by 20.4% to Rs 2,62,230 crore in 2011-2012.
The point being Bihar is growing on a lower base and that’s why the percentage growth is higher. The same argument holds for Odisha as well.
The other point that comes here is the population of the state. Bihar’s state GDP went up by Rs 44,416 crore to Rs 2,62,230 crore. This gain of Rs 44,416 crore was spread across a population of 10.38 crore people. This implies a gain of Rs 4,279 per individual who lived in Bihar.
Now let’s do the same calculation for the state of Gujarat. The GDP of the state went up by Rs 81,196 crore to Rs 5,94,369 crore. This gain of Rs 81,196 crore was spread across a population of Gujarat is 6.04 crore as per the 2011 census. Hence, this implies a gain Rs 13,447 per individual who lives in Gujarat.
This basically means that the growth in Gujarat at an individual level was three times that of Bihar in 2011-2012. Hence, Sharma’s argument that Bihar grew faster than Gujarat doesn’t really work.
And Sharma is not the only one attacking Modi. Ajay Maken, the youngest minister in the Union Cabinet alleged at a rally that the ruling BJP government was neck-deep in corruption in the name of development. Well that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. As has been proven time and over the last few years, India hasn’t seen a more corrupt government than the current UPA government ruling the country.
Mani Shankar Aiyer, a former minister in the UPA government, called Modi Ravana and asatya ka saudagar. He also called him a paani purush. Congress Rajya Sabha MP Hussain Dalwai, said “Modi is just a mouse before Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel”.
Bharat Solanki, Union Minister for Drinking Water and Sanitation, decided to beat all the abuses being hurled at Modi and termed him as “Nathuram Godse” and alleged that “under the BJP rule in Gandhi’s Gujarat not truth but lies carry more currency”.
Elections campaigns can get nasty. But the Congress doesn’t seem to have learned from its 2007 blunder when Sonia Gandhi called Modi a “maut ka saudagar”. While it might have sounded like a brilliant turn of phrase to the Congress speechwriter who wrote Sonia’s speech, it clearly backfired on the party.
The issue here is what does the Congress attack Narendra Modi with? Economic development as I showed above is healthy in Gujarat. It is one of the few states in the country which has a power surplus. The roads are ‘just’ fine and the cities are largely clean. Modi doesn’t really have any big corruption charges against him unlike the Congress government as well as the party.
So what do you do in a situation like this? You get personal and attack on Modi’s big blip, the 2002 riots in the state, and hope that it creates enough fear in the minds of the voter and he decides to vote for the Congress.
But does the issue really matter to the major portion of the voters in Gujarat? The answer is no. As Aakar Patel, a known Modi baiter, recently wrote in the Open magazine “Gujaratis like to think they are great national­ists. It doesn’t occur to them that India suffers every time they triumphantly keep memories of the massacre alive, by backing the man first unwilling or unable to stop it, now too incom­petent to prosecute its participants. They are voting Caesar(i.e. Modi) back to power.”
Hence, Congress’ negative campaign isn’t really going to work. In fact, it might work in  favour of Modi, who will continue to espouse the cause of Gujarati Asmita and portray himself as a lone gladiator taking on the Congress baddies.
Also negative campaigns do not really work. Take the case of the recent Presidential elections in the United States. Romney’s attacks on Obama got too personal towards the end of the campaign. Donald Trump, a Romney supporter, wanted to see the college records of Obama. The insinuation here was that Obama may got into college in America as a foreign exchange student from Indonesia.  Trump also wanted access to Obama’s passport. The insinuation here was that would allow him (i.e Trump) to prove something Muslim about Obama.
As marketing guru Al Ries told me in a recent interview on Firstpost “Mitt Romney spent most of his time attacking Barack Obama. That’s the wrong strategy. What a politician needs to do is to offer a positive concept first and then point out that his or her opponent lacks this concept.”
Some of the biggest state elections in India have seen winning parties run extremely positive campaigns. Akhilesh Yadav ran the umeed ki cycle campaign in Uttar Pradesh and Mamata Banerjee ran the poriborton campaign in West Bengal.  While they are busy making a mess of the states after coming to power, but then that is a different issue all together.
In comparison. the Congress party doesn’t really have any strategy in place when it comes to taking on Narendra Modi. And what it is doing clearly won’t work.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on November 12, 2012.
(Vivek Kaul is a writer.  He can be reached at [email protected])