How Nitish's pragmatic politics beat brand Modi in Bihar

220px-Nitish_Kumar

In the recently concluded bye-election in Bihar, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) won only four out of the 10 seats that went to the polls. The alliance of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Janata Dal United (JD(U)) and Indian National Congress won six seats.
It was widely expected that BJP would do well in these polls given that in the Lok Sabha elections along with Ram Vilas Paswan’s Lok Janshakti Party(LJP) it had won 28 out of the 40 Lok Sabha seats in the state. The LJP won six out of the 28 seats.
In the aftermath of this débâcle a lot of analysis has been put out on why the BJP lost. Some analysts pointed out that the Modi magic did not work in the same way during the bye-poll as it did during the Lok Sabha polls, a few months back. Some others said that Modi did not manage these polls on his own and it was the Bihar unit of the party that managed the polls, and hence the BJP+LJP combine lost.
As veteran political journalist Ajoy Bose writes in The Economic Times “
Narendra Modi’s spectacular triumph in the Lok Sabha polls three months ago may not signal a tectonic shift in Indian politics as many political pundits predicted. Nor does the BJP seem poised to become the predominant party in the country despite forming the first single-party majority government in New Delhi after three decades.” Still others have said that people tend to vote differently in Lok Sabha and state assembly elections.
The trouble is none of these analysts have bothered to look at the voting pattern. If they had done that, they would have known that there is just one reason behind the BJP not doing well in Bihar and that is the “first past the post system”.
In the Indian political system, the candidate who wins the most number of votes wins the election, even though a major part of the electorate maybe against him. It is not the perfect way to elect leaders, but that is what we have got.
Election commission data shows that in the Lok Sabha elections, the BJP+LJP combine had got 35.8% of the votes polled. The RJD and the Congress had an alliance during the Lok Sabha polls. The JD(U) had fought the polls on its own. The RJD got 20.1%, the Congress got 8.4% and the JD(U) got 15.8% of the votes polled. In total, this amounted to 44.3% of the total votes polled.
So RJD+Congress+JD(U) got more votes than BJP+LJP. Nevertheless, since RJD+ Congress and JD(U) were not in alliance, these votes did not translate into Lok Sabha seats.
Now what happened in the recent bye-election? Data from the election commission shows that the RJD+Congress+JD(U) got 45.6% of the total votes polled. The BJP+LJP got 37.9% of the votes polled. Given that, this time JD(U) was not fighting the elections separately, the votes polled translated into assembly seats as well, unlike the Lok Sabha polls.
Further, the vote percentages have not changed majorly since the Lok Sabha elections, as a lot of analysis seems to suggest. In fact, the vote share of both the RJD+Congress+JD(U)alliance and the BJP+LJP has improved marginally at the cost of other parties.
The BJP+LJP combine lost simply because Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar decided to come together. What it tells us very clearly is that in the first past the post system, tactical political alliances can clearly neutralize the impact of brand Modi. Both Nitish and Lalu realised this the second time around and came together to form an alliance, despite having been sworn political enemies for nearly two decades.
In fact, early in his political career Nitish had decided to be pragmatic about his politics. Sankarshan Thakur descirbes a very interesting incident in the
Single Man: The Life & Times of Nitish Kumar of Bihar. This incident happened sometime in the late 1970s, after the Emergency had been lifted.
Karpuri Thakur became the Chief Minister of Bihar in December 1977. Nitish quickly became disillusioned with this government. As Sankarshan Thakur writes “He thought it had betrayed the promise of the JP movement, strayed from Lohia…He had turned a critic and went about addressing seminars and meetings on how and why this was not the dispensation he had fought for.”
One day, while at the India Coffee House, a scrap at another table, got Niish going. As Thakur writes “He banged the table with his fist and announced: ‘
Satta prapt karoonga, by hook or by crook, lekin satta leke acha kaam karoonga.’ (I shall get power, by hook or by crook, but once I have got power I will do good work.”
Nitish became the Chief Minister of Bihar nearly three decades later in 2005. And for the first half of his political career, he propped up Lalu Prasad Yadav even though he knew that Lalu wasn’t fit to govern. Thakur puts this question to Nitish in the
Single Man: “Why did you promote Laloo Yadav so actively in your early years?” he asked.
And surprisingly, Nitish gave an honest answer. As Thakur writes “’But where was there ever even the question of promoting Laloo Yadav?’ he mumbled…’We always knew what quality of man he was, utterly unfit to govern, totally lacking vision or focus.”
So why then did Nitish decide to support him? “’There wasn’t any other choice at that time,’ Nitish countered…’We came from a certain kind of politics. Backward communities had to be given prime space and Laloo belonged to the most powerful section of Backwards, politically and numerically.” And thus Nitish ended up supporting Lalu for nearly the first two decades of his political career.
Nitish finally decided to go on his own at the
Kurmi Chetna Rally [Nitish belongs to the Kurmi caste] in February 1994. At this rally he roared “Bheekh nahin hissedari chahiye..Jo sarkar hamare hiton ko nazarandaz karti hai who sarkar satta mein reh nahi sakti (We seek our rightful share, not charity, a government that ignores our interests cannot be allowed to remain in power).”
Nevertheless, Nitish had to wait for 11 more years to finally come to power in Bihar. An
d this finally happened after he entered into a pragmatic alliance with the “communal” Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) (As most of the other parties tend to look at the BJP). After more than eight years, Nitish decided to break this alliance once it was more or less clear that Narendra Modi would be BJP’s prime ministerial candidate.
Given this background, it is not surprising that Nitish decided to ally with Lalu even though he thought that Lalu was “utterly unfit to govern”. It was a pragmatic decision to get power
by hook or by crook, as Nitish put it many years back.
This pragmatism worked in the recent bye-election. Now Nitish is trying to build an even more formidable alliance by getting the left parties together as well. And this alliance, if it comes together, will be even more difficult to beat, the brand Modi notwithstanding.

The article was published on www.Firstpost.com on August 26, 2014 

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

How Nitish's pragmatic politics beat brand Modi in Bihar

220px-Nitish_Kumar

In the recently concluded bye-election in Bihar, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) won only four out of the 10 seats that went to the polls. The alliance of Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Janata Dal United (JD(U)) and Indian National Congress won six seats.
It was widely expected that BJP would do well in these polls given that in the Lok Sabha elections along with Ram Vilas Paswan’s Lok Janshakti Party(LJP) it had won 28 out of the 40 Lok Sabha seats in the state. The LJP won six out of the 28 seats.
In the aftermath of this débâcle a lot of analysis has been put out on why the BJP lost. Some analysts pointed out that the Modi magic did not work in the same way during the bye-poll as it did during the Lok Sabha polls, a few months back. Some others said that Modi did not manage these polls on his own and it was the Bihar unit of the party that managed the polls, and hence the BJP+LJP combine lost.
As veteran political journalist Ajoy Bose writes in The Economic Times “
Narendra Modi’s spectacular triumph in the Lok Sabha polls three months ago may not signal a tectonic shift in Indian politics as many political pundits predicted. Nor does the BJP seem poised to become the predominant party in the country despite forming the first single-party majority government in New Delhi after three decades.” Still others have said that people tend to vote differently in Lok Sabha and state assembly elections.
The trouble is none of these analysts have bothered to look at the voting pattern. If they had done that, they would have known that there is just one reason behind the BJP not doing well in Bihar and that is the “first past the post system”.
In the Indian political system, the candidate who wins the most number of votes wins the election, even though a major part of the electorate maybe against him. It is not the perfect way to elect leaders, but that is what we have got.
Election commission data shows that in the Lok Sabha elections, the BJP+LJP combine had got 35.8% of the votes polled. The RJD and the Congress had an alliance during the Lok Sabha polls. The JD(U) had fought the polls on its own. The RJD got 20.1%, the Congress got 8.4% and the JD(U) got 15.8% of the votes polled. In total, this amounted to 44.3% of the total votes polled.
So RJD+Congress+JD(U) got more votes than BJP+LJP. Nevertheless, since RJD+ Congress and JD(U) were not in alliance, these votes did not translate into Lok Sabha seats.
Now what happened in the recent bye-election? Data from the election commission shows that the RJD+Congress+JD(U) got 45.6% of the total votes polled. The BJP+LJP got 37.9% of the votes polled. Given that, this time JD(U) was not fighting the elections separately, the votes polled translated into assembly seats as well, unlike the Lok Sabha polls.
Further, the vote percentages have not changed majorly since the Lok Sabha elections, as a lot of analysis seems to suggest. In fact, the vote share of both the RJD+Congress+JD(U)alliance and the BJP+LJP has improved marginally at the cost of other parties.
The BJP+LJP combine lost simply because Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar decided to come together. What it tells us very clearly is that in the first past the post system, tactical political alliances can clearly neutralize the impact of brand Modi. Both Nitish and Lalu realised this the second time around and came together to form an alliance, despite having been sworn political enemies for nearly two decades.
In fact, early in his political career Nitish had decided to be pragmatic about his politics. Sankarshan Thakur descirbes a very interesting incident in the
Single Man: The Life & Times of Nitish Kumar of Bihar. This incident happened sometime in the late 1970s, after the Emergency had been lifted.
Karpuri Thakur became the Chief Minister of Bihar in December 1977. Nitish quickly became disillusioned with this government. As Sankarshan Thakur writes “He thought it had betrayed the promise of the JP movement, strayed from Lohia…He had turned a critic and went about addressing seminars and meetings on how and why this was not the dispensation he had fought for.”
One day, while at the India Coffee House, a scrap at another table, got Niish going. As Thakur writes “He banged the table with his fist and announced: ‘
Satta prapt karoonga, by hook or by crook, lekin satta leke acha kaam karoonga.’ (I shall get power, by hook or by crook, but once I have got power I will do good work.”
Nitish became the Chief Minister of Bihar nearly three decades later in 2005. And for the first half of his political career, he propped up Lalu Prasad Yadav even though he knew that Lalu wasn’t fit to govern. Thakur puts this question to Nitish in the
Single Man: “Why did you promote Laloo Yadav so actively in your early years?” he asked.
And surprisingly, Nitish gave an honest answer. As Thakur writes “’But where was there ever even the question of promoting Laloo Yadav?’ he mumbled…’We always knew what quality of man he was, utterly unfit to govern, totally lacking vision or focus.”
So why then did Nitish decide to support him? “’There wasn’t any other choice at that time,’ Nitish countered…’We came from a certain kind of politics. Backward communities had to be given prime space and Laloo belonged to the most powerful section of Backwards, politically and numerically.” And thus Nitish ended up supporting Lalu for nearly the first two decades of his political career.
Nitish finally decided to go on his own at the
Kurmi Chetna Rally [Nitish belongs to the Kurmi caste] in February 1994. At this rally he roared “Bheekh nahin hissedari chahiye..Jo sarkar hamare hiton ko nazarandaz karti hai who sarkar satta mein reh nahi sakti (We seek our rightful share, not charity, a government that ignores our interests cannot be allowed to remain in power).”
Nevertheless, Nitish had to wait for 11 more years to finally come to power in Bihar. An
d this finally happened after he entered into a pragmatic alliance with the “communal” Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) (As most of the other parties tend to look at the BJP). After more than eight years, Nitish decided to break this alliance once it was more or less clear that Narendra Modi would be BJP’s prime ministerial candidate.
Given this background, it is not surprising that Nitish decided to ally with Lalu even though he thought that Lalu was “utterly unfit to govern”. It was a pragmatic decision to get power
by hook or by crook, as Nitish put it many years back.
This pragmatism worked in the recent bye-election. Now Nitish is trying to build an even more formidable alliance by getting the left parties together as well. And this alliance, if it comes together, will be even more difficult to beat, the brand Modi notwithstanding.

The article was published on www.Firstpost.com on August 26, 2014 

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

In defence of Smriti Irani: Why Madhu and Maken are wrong

 smriti-irani

Vivek Kaul

So Smriti Irani cannot make for a good human resources development minister because she is not a graduate.
Or so we have been told by the likes of Madhu Kishwar and Ajay Maken.
In short, people who have degrees make for better politicians is the conclusion being drawn. But is that really the case?
Let’s take the case of a certain Lalu Prasad Yadav, who was the defacto Chief Minister of Bihar for more than 15 years. Lalu has a Bachelor of Laws and a Master in Political Science. How did his degrees make any difference?
During his rule Bihar went from bad to worse. In fact, when Lalu was questioned about the lack of development in the state, he was very open about admitting that development did not lead to votes.
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.’”
Interestingly, between 1997 and 2005, Rs 9,600 crore was allocated by the Ministry of Rural Development to Bihar. Around Rs 2,200 crore was not drawn. Of the amount that was drawn only 64% was spent.
During Lalu’s rule Bihar went from bad to worse and a whole generation lost out on progress. But yes, Lalu had two degrees.
Let’s take an even better example of former prime minister Dr Manmohan Singh, a PhD from the University of Oxford. Now compare his degree to the mess that we have ended up with under him. Interestingly, most of our politicians who have a degree, tend to have a degree in law. How does that help in anything other than running the law ministry or the ministry of corporate affairs or other similar ministries? And that is assuming that having studied law, the politician understands its intricacies (not every lawyer has the same command on the subject like Arun Jaitley does).
If we take this argument further, what it means is that to become a minister an individual should be an expert in that particular area. So, a finance minister should either be an economist or a finance professional. Arun Jaitley is neither. A defence minister should have experience in the area of defence. So, doesn’t that make General V K Singh an excellent choice for being the defence minister?
Further, in order to get an individual with the right experience or a degree to head a ministry, one would be looking at technocrats all the time. So, then why bother about electing MPs at all?
This would mean moving onto a more American form of government where the President is elected by the people and is allowed to choose his team, a lot of whom are technocrats who have the required experience.
Given this, insisting that a minister have a degree, doesn’t make much sense in the present system of government that we have.
That’s the general part of the argument. Then there is also the specific part regarding Smriti Irani and Congress’ criticism of her lack of a degree. To her credit Irani is a successful professional, who has risen on her own, in a very competitive television industry.
Also, what one needs as a minister is the ability to administer. Whether she has that or not, we will come to know in the time to come.
The Congress party is in no position to criticize her. One of their foremost leaders Rajiv Gandhi, never completed any degree after leaving the Doon School. He was the prime minister of the country. His mother Indira, never completed her degree at Oxford. Their current leader Sonia Gandhi’s educational qualifications are also nothing to write home about. So, they really are not in a position to criticise Irani. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black.
To make a totally different comparison, all the Ivy League MBAs, PhDs in Maths and Physics who worked on the Wall Street, created a major part of the financial crises that the world is currently going through.
To conclude, there is not much of a link between having a degree and having the ability to govern. Look at the mess Kapil Sibal, who held the human resources development ministry between May 2009 and October 2012, made in the education sector. He had got his LLM degree from the Harvard Law School.

 The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on May 28, 2014

(Vivek Kaul is a writer. 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) 
 

Indian politics and its Lalu Prasad Yadav syndrome

009_lalu_prasad_yadav
 
Vivek Kaul
During his heydays in the 1990s and the early 2000s, Lalu Prasad Yadav never organised political rallies.
He organised 
Railas.
These were very big political rallies held at the Gandhi maidan in Patna. And they were deemed to be so big by Lalu that the feminine sounding word ‘rally’ proved inadequate to describe them.
Hence a new word 
Raila was coined.
But time passed and the world went around, and in the end the old adage ‘you can’t fool all the people all the time’, came true in case of Lalu as well.
These days Lalu is a minor player both at the state and the central level. Given this, every few months you can hear him saying nice things about Sonia Gandhi, whenever the opposition parties choose to attack her.
A couple of days earlier Lalu went back to his favourite method of political engagement. He organised a 
parivartan (change) rally in Patna (and not a Raila). News reports suggest that Lalu hired thirteen trains to ferry his supporters to Patna for the rally.
This is a huge change from the usual. In the Bihar, that this writer grew up in, a rally would mean an open invitation to the supporters of Lalu to board any train that they wanted to.
Also like any good father would, Lalu used the occasion of the 
parivartan rally to soft launch his sons Tej Pratap and Tejashwi into big-time politics. Tej Pratap is a BA drop out and Tejashwi was a budding cricketer who played one Ranji trophy match for Jharkhand in November 2009. He was also a part of the Delhi Daredevils IPL team, warming his bum on the bench for a few seasons.
It is interesting if we compare this launch with that of Lalu’s own launch into serious politics which happened in the early 1970s. Lalu had quit student politics in 1970, after he lost 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 a general secretary of the PUSU for three years.
As Sankarshan Thakur 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 trouble of course was that Lalu was no longer a student. He was an employee of the Patna Veterinary College by then. But then those were the seventies and the state was Bihar, so not being a student was a small problem that could be 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.”
And this set up Lalu for the big league as the agitation launched by Jai Prakash Narayan, against Indira Gandhi, gathered speed. The next year i.e. 1974, the agitation against Indira Gandhi 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.
But the fact of the matter remains that he if he wasn’t asked to contest the 1973 PUSU elections, Lalu might have never returned to politics and probably retired by now from the Patna Veterinary College.
Lalu was lucky because he was at the right place at the right time. His sons are lucky because they are his sons. The next generation of politicians(even those who are not a part of electoral politics) is always luckier to that extent. They already have a base that has been built to work from.
But the question does the next generation respect this base because of which they get lucky? And they answer seems to be no, as a spate of recent examples show. Robert Vadra, with his land dealings in Haryana and Rajasthan, has been a huge embarrassment for Sonia Gandhi, her son Rahul and the Congress Party.
Sharad Pawar had to recently come to the rescue of his nephew Ajit, after he made insensitive comments in drought hit Maharashtra. Mamata Banerjee’s IIPM educated nephew Abhishek stands accused of running Ponzi schemes in West Bengal. News reports suggest that UP Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav has been spending a lot of time trying to settle ‘who gets the government contract’ dispute between his step brother Prateek and his first cousins. Pawan Bansal, had to recently quit as the Union Railway Minister after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) caught his nephew Vijay Singla for running a jobs for bribes racket in the Indian Railways.
And there are examples from the past as well. Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s spotless reputation as the Prime Minister of the country was marred by the dealings of his foster son-in-law Ranjan Bhattacharya. J Jayalalithaa’s weakness for her foster son V Sudhakaran tarred her reputation. The late Pramod Mahajan’s son Rahul was and continues to be an embarrassment.
The late Prime Minister PV Narsimha Rao’s son Prabhakar was accused of being involved in the urea scam in the 1990s. If we go back a little further, Moraji Desai, the fourth prime minister of India, had to deal with allegations of graft against his son Kanti Desai. Kanti Desai had allegedly collected Rs 80 lakh for party funds misusing his position as the PM’s son. Raj Narain a minister in Desai’s cabinet, even came up with the slogan “
Hamse kya parda haiKantike haath mein garda hai (Why hide it from us, Kanti’s hands are muddied).”
Jagjivan Ram could have become the first dalit Prime Minister of independent India if he hadn’t been embarrassed by his son, Suresh Ram. Nude pictures of Suresh were published in a magazine called Surya, which was edited by Maneka Gandhi. The pictures showed him in a compromising position with a 21 year old student of Satyawati College, Delhi University, called Sushma Chaudhury, who he eventually married (On a slightly different note Suresh’s sister Meira Kumar is the speaker of the current Lok Sabha). “If the Kamasutra has 64 poses of making love, this one certainly had 10,” wrote Khuswant Singh in a later column, with regard to these pictures.
As veteran journalist and editor Inder Malhotra has been quoted as saying “In fact, in many ways Suresh Ram tried to emulate Sanjay Gandhi and received the same shelter from his father which Sanjay got from her mother. It was a game of one-upmanship.”
And Sanjay Gandhi, among all the sons, daughters and relatives of politicians, was the biggest embarrassment of them all. His dictatorial ways ensured that the Congress party was thrown out of power for the first time since independence in 1977 (For a detailed study on this Vinod Mehta’s The Sanjay Story is an excellent read). Indira Gandhi who was known to be very stern otherwise continued to be a mother when it came to Sanjay.
The broader point is that the politicians’ weakness and love for their progeny (or even other close relatives) puts them in embarrassing situations. At times, the progeny are acting as fronts for the shenanigans that the politicians indulge in and at times they are on their own. But in either condition there is a cost that is to be paid for.
A major reason that Lalu Prasad Yadav finally lost in Bihar was because of the shenanigans that his 
saalas (brothers in law) Sadhu Yadav and Subhash Yadav, indulged in. They had the political patronage of Rabri Devi, who was the Chief Minister of Bihar. News reports coming out now suggest that Lalu’s two sons are also not the best of buddies. And this can’t be good news for Lalu Yadav whose political fortunes have taken a huge beating since 2005.
All the politicians who promote their progeny in politics and allied areas, need to thank Indira Gandhi. If it wasn’t for her, politics in India would have never become a family owned business. As historian Ramachandra Guha said in a lecture titled 
Verdicts on Nehru: The Rise and Fall of a Reputation (Second V. K. R. V. Rao Memorial Lecture, Institute of Social and Economic Change, Bangalore, 20 January 2005) “After Nehru the Congress chose Lal Bahadur Shastri to become Prime Minister, a post on which he quickly stamped his authority. Mrs (Indira) Gandhi herself may never have become Prime Minister had not Shastri died unexpectedly. She was chosen by the Congress bosses as a compromise candidate who (they thought) would do their bidding. But once in office Mrs Gandhi converted the Indian National Congress into a family business. She first brought in her son Sanjay and, after his death, his brother Rajiv. In each case, it was made clear that the son would succeed Mrs Gandhi as head of Congress and head of Government. Thus, the ‘Nehru-Gandhi dynasty’ should properly be known as the ‘(Indira) Gandhi’ dynasty.”
India is still paying the costs of this monstrous mistake as almost all politicians now want to pass on the baton to their progeny and other relatives close to them. Professor Pulin Garg of Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad used to say with regard to family owned businesses in India “
Haweli ki umar saath saal ( a family owned business lasts for 60 years).” It will be interesting to see how long political hawelis last on an average? That will be a big determinant of which way India goes in the decades to come.
The article originally appeared on www.firstpost.com on May 17,2013

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