AIR STRIKE: WHEN TRUTH IS SHORTCHANGED FOR VOTES

Let us get one thing clear. The demand for proof of the strike in Balakot is not because of lack of trust in the IAF. To the contrary, it is because of the total lack of credibility of the Modi government. Remember how it handled the surgical strikes, messing up the aftermath?

Let us get another thing clear. The demand for proof of the number of dead is not because of lack of trust in the IAF. To the contrary, it is the total lack of credibility of the Modi government . Remember, Amit Shah started the number race for votes by giving the figure of 250? The defence minister said something else. SS Ahluwalia said something else. Yeddyurappa something else. So, who is telling the truth and who is telling a lie? It is a matter of introspection for the BJP.

The BJP is fully aware that it is culpable on both counts. That is why it is spreading a canard that the opposition is denigrating the IAF. The IAF is not in the picture at all. The Modi government is. The BJP and the Modi government appear to be taking cover, cowering behind the IAF.

Ministers like Ravi Shankar Prasad and Prakash Javdekar, etc
are trying to come up with smart Alec answers like this: Did anybody ask for evidence about Osama's killing? Nonsense. Look how the Modi govt dealt with the surgical strikes in 2016, becoming a laughing stock in the process! Wasn't that a denigration of the armed forces? Of course, it was.

The BJP has a warped sense and definition of nationalism, integrity, respect and security. It is intent on using any or all of these aspects to further its personal, electoral cause. It is the master of whataboutery which unfortunately is lapped up and propagated by a significant section of the Indian media. Cannot blame the social media, because it is in the hands of the citizens of India who are left with no source of information other than the government. That is because the media has failed to perform its role as the gate-keeper to keep fake information from seeping in.

Look, how except the defence minister, every Tom, Dick and Harry in the Union cabinet is talking about the IAF strike! Look how the government did not spare even the IAF chief, using him to cover-up its irresponsible statements about the death figures. The foreign secretary already stands compromised, talking about deaths which even the IAF,which executed the strikes, refused to speculate about!

Look, how some channels went to town with 'proof' of the IAF strikes! They showed so-called satellite images in a 'before' and 'after' sequence to prove the attacks took place on the JeM buildings. They showed 'holes' on the roofs of the buildings and said the holes were made by the penetration technology that the Spice missiles have. Apparently they penetrate through the roof, go deep inside the building and then explode, thus "killing everyone inside". surprisingly, the channels could not explain how the bombs weighing thousands of kilos made a hole on the roof, went inside, exploded, destroyed everything but the roofs of the buildings!! Makes sense? Not to me.

One of the channels, enthusiastically talking about the hole theory, went on to add to the story: Referring to reports of some disturbed earth and trees which the foreign media said was the result of bombs falling on the ground, the channel reported: It is confirmed that the penetration missile, when it hits the ground, goes into the ground and explodes outward, creating a big crater. Aha! Is it to be understood, then, that in the case of brick and mortar buildings two or three floors tall, the penetration missile makes only a hole on the roof and ensures destruction of everything 'deep' inside except the roof and the building? But the same missile, in the case of hitting the ground, goes inside the earth and explodes outward, creating a crater, destroying everything around, including the point of entry into the ground! See how there is more confusion now?

Awaiting the next proof.

INDIA STRIKES: BAITING PAKISTAN TO REFORM OR RETALIATE?

India has to convince the international community that the Indian Air Force (IAF) foray into Pakistani territory in the pre-dawn hours of February 26 to drop bombs on a reported training camp of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) is not an act of political symbolism but a strategic act that came at the end of years of extreme provocation in the form of sponsored terrorism on Indian territory that spawned the Pulwama attack less than a fortnight ago.

Of course, the attack provides the much-needed succour to a section of war-mongering citizenry post-Pulwama. The clamour has certainly died down instantly, turning into a celebration of the proof of Indian might.

Pakistan, on the face of it, has limited options: It can realise that India is quite serious this time and try to wind up the terror outfits. Or, is can remain cussed and retaliate. Either way, its bluff stands called. Formally. That is the biggest import of India’s strike-back, notwithstanding the various issues involved.

What Pakistan does is yet unknown. But what are its limitations?

*Pak denied the 2016 surgical strikes. Today it comes up with a slightly better response: Gives photographic evidence of IAF payload which it claims was “dropped” by the IAF in their “haste”.

*Pak has four options. One, retaliate. The question is, what kind/level/degree of retaliation and penetration into India? India had surprise on its side. Pak will not have that.

*Two, play the victim to India’s “aggression” in front of the international community. How will anyone believe it without evidence? What evidence? Evidence in terms of those killed by the attack. That will mean accepting there were casualties. But that too is not enough. Because there will be questions: Who are these dead people Are they civilian Pakistanis? Are they not? Are they terrorists? Are they residents of a terror camp? After all, the IAF did precision bombing, not a general attack. That means there was something going on at the camp, isn’t it? So many questions. For the record, Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations, Major General Asif Ghafoor, in a series of tweets said the "Indian aircrafts intruded from Muzaffarabad sector in Azad Jammu and Kashmir", which falls across the Line of Control. He also downplayed the losses, saying no infrastructure was hit.

*Three, reach out to its current benefactor, China which has strenuously thwarted India’s attempts to declare Masood Azhar a global terrorist. It can reach out also to Saudi Arabia, but India, through the meeting between Modi and the visiting Crown Prince, may have come to an understanding about the options before India to avenge Pulwama. It can reach out also to the US, but President Trump has of late not been in any mood to tolerate Pak on the issue of harbouring terrorists. In 2018, he had cut American aid worth $1.3 billion. On top of it all, India has got an invite to the next OIC meeting which represents the who’s who of the Islamic nations of the world. In such a situation, who can Pakistan really turn to, to get moral support?

*Four, take action against JeM and give evidence to the international community.

*Five, it can do nothing and carry on as if nothing happened.

India, on the other hand, has to ensure that nothing happens that erodes the credibility of the military action. (That’s what happened with the surgical strikes of 2016 which were belittled by the political class in India for various reasons.)

How can that happen?

*One, India will have to provide concrete evidence of existence of the camp at Balakot. This is to silence the doubting Thomases. The New York Times in an early report already said: “Analysts and diplomats in New Delhi said the targets of the Indian airstrikes were unclear, as any terrorist groups operating along the border would have cleared out in recent days after Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India vowed retaliation over the Kashmir attack.” Does it mean that the Americans are skeptical?

*Two, the Indian response has escalated since 2016. The surgical strikes were a tactical response across the LoC; recalled how the DGMO briefed the media at that time. But the IAF strike is a strategic one. The foreign secretary briefed the media. The NSA oversaw the strike plan. The Prime Minister gave the formal green signal for the operation. During the 2016 strikes, India crossed the LoC.  What about this time? Foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale says the JeM camp was in Balakot.

*If Pakistan’s reaction is to retaliate, Indian reaction can only escalate further. What is the next step? And where will this stand-off end or lead to? India should have an answer. Primarily because, India, like Pakistan, is a nuclear-weapons state.

*The Indian foreign secretary’s statement does not say the IAF entered Pakistani territory. It merely says they entered Balakot. Which means, in actuality, India crossed not just the LoC, but the international border, and struck the ‘camp’ inside Pakistani territory. Balakot is in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.  Will that be the new normal? Will the attack be portrayed as an “attack on JeM camp” instead of saying the IAF entered Pak territory? Will it wash?

*The carefully worded Indian foreign secretary’s statement does not qualify Balakot’s demographic address. Is it inside PoK or Pakistan? Pakistan, on the other hand, does not say the IAF entered Pakistani territory, claiming instead that the intrusion was in PoK (Azad Jammu and Kashmir). Are both sides not really getting into the territory angle because of the obvious implications? Does it look like a measure of non-escalation?

*What else can it be, if India appears to be gallant in refraining from saying where Balakot really is and if Pakistan appears to be downplaying the incident by claiming it did ‘not’ happen in Pak territory but in PoK? Did India come up with a fantastic strategy which helped it hit two birds with one shot: The strike douses public war clamour and at the same time it is a ‘cheekily’ daring attack that may not result in a major military reprisal by Pakistan.

*Three, India will be ready to answer when asked: What is the overall objective? Is it against Pak supporting/sponsoring terrorist action in India? Or is it to target the heads of terror outfits hiding in Pakistan and plotting against India? Because, one is different from other – even though they are linked – in terms of operational strategies and bilateral and international ramifications.

*Four, India should come out with the evidence as early as possible to nip in the bud any attempt to politicize the attack for electoral gains.

*Five, India’s response to the international community post-strike will depend on one question: Does India need to justify its action, given that the international community, including the US and China, till date, has done really nothing to force Pakistan to remove terror outfits from its soil and refrain from sponsoring attacks on India. Even India’s ‘friends’, like Japan, Germany, France and UK, have not even provided lip service.

*Six, on the eve of the IAF strike, the growing pressure to remove Article 35(A) and 370 (SC is hearing the 35A question) made former JK chief minister Mehbooba Mufti take a strident line of warning that such a decision will alienate the Kashmiris from the mainland. Another former CM, Omar Abdullah, happened to support her, saying it was the reality on the ground in Kashmir. Now, after the IAF strike, how India straddles the two – the frosted bilaterals with Pakistan and internal rancor on Kashmir – will have far-reaching implications. Any incautious step or action can precipitate matters, internally in the Kashmir Valley. As it is, the anti-Kashmiri sentiment is being fomented by a fringe section in India.

Everybody has contributed to the muck in Karnataka

The BJP is playing the victim, blaming the Congress, and JDS, for the Karnataka imbroglio. It would. Because, siding the law – that the Single Largest Party should be invited to form the government in a hung-house situation like in Karnataka – benefits it. In Goa and Manipur, another law or convention benefited it so it rejected the SLP option. In the process, other political parties like the Congress and JDS, the Governor’s office in Karnataka and the Supreme Court have dragged themselves on to the scene. Each in its own world, each as concerned about democracy, the muck remaining unchallenged.

Where did the Supreme Court go with the Congress’s midnight Karnataka case?:

What did the SC achieve by allowing Yeddy to take oath as CM? There was no urgency. The tenure of the previous assembly ends only on May 28. There are still more days to go. The SC said the oath-taking and the formation of the government is subject to the final outcome of the case before it. Then why not defer oath-taking till Friday when the SC meets again to hear the case ? Obviously, the SC decision defies logic and adds to political suspense and waste of time. By such actions, the apex court is opening itself to prospects of criticism (to put it mildly and kindly). Lastly, what was the urgency of the SC to hear the case late at night, disturbing everyone, if it never wanted to defer the oath-taking of Yeddy?

What if Yeddy has only 104 letters of support to show the SC? Will the SC ask him to step down as CM?:

So, SC gets copies of letters of support to Yeddy. They must be 104 I assume. The point is, what will the SC do with this letter? Will it be satisfied that 104 makes BJP the SLP and so the Governor is right? Or will it wonder why the governor did not pursue other options like post-poll alliance of Congress and JDS? Would such a question throw both the judiciary and the constitutional office of the governor into the vortex of a crisis? Or, to avoid that, will the SC simply dismiss Yeddy from office and ask the governor to call the post-poll combo? Will not that lead to another constitutional crisis? So, what can the SC do? I am a lay person and I feel that the SC can only do one thing without disrespecting the Constitution: It should clarify the order of preference of the options before a governor in case of a hung assembly. Which party/formation shoudl the govzernor call first in such a situation? The three options are (i) SLP (ii) prepoll alliance (iii) postpoll alliance. To rank the options, the SC will have to decide what is the most important objective of the governor's action. Is it to install a grouping which the governor feels CAN MUSTER SUPPORT to pass the floor test? Or, is it to install a grouping which HAS the majority to pass the floor test? It is common sense that in the case of a hung assembly, the prime objective of the governor is to ensure that the party/grouping he/she invites to form the government HAS THE REQUISITE NUMBERS to pas the floor test. In which case, the SC can only rank the three options in this order: (i) pre-poll alliance (ii) post-poll alliance (iii) president's rule. It will then be the end of the road for the SLP. Which is fine. Of course, it goes against the spirit of the people's mandate. But if enforced, then the people too will know that a hung vote won't work. That will be good for democracy and important, it will no longer allow political parties to play bullies after the counting day. But then, at the end of it all, the SC did not have to (i) waste midnight oil to hear this case since it did not order anything dramatic, (ii) allow Yeddy to take oath and play havoc with the state's economy from the word go as he has already done with farmers' loans, (iii) given a direction to stop the resort politics and instead asked the legislators to be present in person at their respective party headquarters till the court settled the case. It simply did nothing.

Yeddy does not bother about the decorum of a cabinet quorum on day one as CM:

Yeddy as CM waives farmers' loans. How did he do that? He called a cabinet meeting. Who attended it? Only him. Why? Because there are no ministers. Is a quorum required? The secretariat manual does not talk of a quorum, but a tradition or convention is that majority of the ministers has to be present. (On February 10, a cabinet meeting of Kerala to take some major decisions was not held because only six of the 19 ministers was present.) What is the strength of the council of ministers in Karnataka? The Constitution (91st Amendment) Act, 2003, which limits the size of all ministries in India, stipulates that the strength of a council of ministers should not exceed 15 per cent of the total number of members in the Lok Sabha (in case of the central government) or the relevant state assembly. With 224 members, K'taka should have 33.6 ministers. Assuming half of them are cabinet rank, there should be 15. So, you see, the bullies are already at work.

Yeddy has to pass speaker test before floor test:

The dilemma before Yeddy in case BJP's persuaders buy 12 MLAs: The first test for him is the election of the speaker of the K'taka assembly.
He does not have the numbers, even if Governor Vala strangely thought so! In case, Yeddy has persuaded the MLAs and is desperate to have a BJP person as a speaker, he will have to show his hand -- that is the persuaded MLAs will have to vote for his choice for speaker.
But then, the Cong and JDS would know who the Judas' are. What if they counter-“purchase” the trust even some of them before the floor test?
Then Yeddy has a problem. Unless the BJP buys the "loyalty" and fealty of the 12 MLAs, Yeddy will have to choose between a BJP speaker or himself remaining as CM? Needs a debate on this.

What is the Congress game, if at all? Of course it wants power, even if it has to share it for JDS, even if for a couple of years.:

IF the Congress and JDS were so intent on stopping Yeddy from becoming CM, they should protect their MLAs from poaching by the BJP. They know they will fail in that exercise. So they do the next best thing: Midnight drama. Wasting the time of the people and the courts. What did they achieve, other than some media time? Nothing. If they were really sincere about forming the government with JDS, they could have filed a petition in the SC long before the results or on counting day, asking the court to clarify on what is the descending sequence of options a governor has to follow among (a) SLP, (b) pre-poll alliance and (c)post-poll alliance. The question was, since the post-poll alliance was considered as the option by two governors in the recent past, should it be taken as the prime precedent in case of a hung assembly. It is a legitimate issue that merits clarification from the court. Such a move would have tied the Governor's hands. He would have had no option but to forward the issue to the President. Now, does the Congress think the SC will revoke its own order to allow Yeddy to take oath? That is the problem: the Congress is never willing to learn and its default status is to stage dramas. In the end, what happened? The BJP bullies its way to another illegal hold over another state. Even now, the Congress-JDS hopes that the SC can dismiss Yeddy and ask the governor to call it to form the government.

In the end:

The political parties, the elected MLAs, their leaders, the governor, the Supreme Court -- all of them in the last two days have ignored a small entity -- the common citizen of Karnataka who stood in a queue and exercised his or her franchise to further the cause of Indian democracy. What will this citizen do?

BJP begins money-bag ops in Karnataka under Yeddy; Simple way to power

The BJP would like to abide by the law in the Karnataka case because the law benefits it this time. Unlike in Goa and Manipur, where it cared two hoots for constitutional proprieties and the law, it is the Single Largest Party here. 

The law is clear, however much the so-called legal minds may say to the contrary: The Governor has to call the SLP first. BJP wants that (note the tenor of Narendra Modi speech last night), so Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala, unlike his counterparts in the other states, will not have to go against any legal grain. 

If that happens, the first hurdle for BJP CM candidate BS Yeddyurappa is election of the speaker. What if the BJP's candidate is defeated by the joint opposition candidate? What an embarrassment! The opposition will deem it that the Yeddy govt is as good as defeated on the floor of the House! 

Once this is over, then it is up to Yeddy to manage to prove his majority on the floor of the House. That he can do only by "persuading" JDS or Cong MLAs to either abstain or resign. (This is where the ability of the two parties to protect their flock is tested.) Thus the strength of the House would be lowered to allow BJP to have a majority vote even with 104 MLAs. 

Thereafter, there will be 15 -20 bypolls, but that is another issue. 

The Cong-JDS combine would be defying logic and political maturity if they move courts to insist a post-poll alliance be given precedence over the SLP. The BJP did the same thing in 2008 when it fell short of majority; and in any case it is merely borrowing a leaf from the book of unethical politics that the Congress had authored long ago. The Congress and JD(Secular) will in the coming days cry foul, saying the BJP money-bagged their MLAs! In private, they don't really bother. It's the noise that matters. The Congress always knew it's priority was to (a) expose the BJP's desperation to come to power, (b) show the regional party bosses that it still can call political shots and (c) boost the morale of its workers after the defeat. That it has partly achieved. 

Coming back, the BJP govt, which will be in a minority, will never be able to get anything passed in the House. (At least until the bypolls are held and it manages a simple majority.) Even the Finance Bill. Then what happens? It will be a useless attempt to be in govt in such a case. If the BJP wins most of the bypoll seats, that is another matter. 

Then comes the issue of 2019. Being in the opposition gives the antithetical Cong and JDS enough reason to fight the polls in alliance in the state. That will harm the BJP's LS prospects without any doubt. (On the other hand, if the Cong and JDS form the government they will start fighting like cats and dogs within months, will not see eye to eye by 2019 -- which can benefit the BJP). But then, wouldn't the BJP want to wield the reins of power in the state in order to better "oversee" its electoral performance in the Lok Sabha elections? So, the ball is entirely in BJP's court. Phyrric victory by making Yeddy CM now or try to gain more LS seats in 2019? 

Just another thought: What if Yeddy is the BJP's sacrifical lamb? See, the BJP leadership has not much use for him any longer. He did his maximum, and it fell short. He has the silent anger about his son not being given a ticket. He is unhappy to be bandied about by a junior like Amit Shah. He can't deliver more in 2019. He is also getting old, quite old. How to get rid of him? Best way is to make him CM if the Governor invites himj. If he goes the Vajpayee way, so be it. But what if he, the fox he is, goes the PV way!!! 

There's no end to politics!!!!

Who’s The Next Chief Justice of India? Justice Ranjan Gogoi?

It is the last lap for the top five of the Supreme Court of India. Four of the five senior-most justices, including Chief Justice Dipak Misra, will retire before the end of this year. The others are Justices J Chelameshwar, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph.

Justice Ranjan Gogoi is the exception. He will see the new year in office. He is retiring only on November 17, 2019. At present, he is number three in the seniority list after the Chief Justice (retires on October 2) and Justice Chelameshwar (retires on June 22) and is technically in line to be the next Chief Justice of India. Senior number four Justice Lokur retires on December 30 and senior number 5 Justice Joseph on November 29.

The top four were in the news since this January when they publicly aired their grievance against the chief justice. There were subsequent, half-hearted attempts at reconciliation. The wedge was quite deep. It became evident when the Supreme Court constituted a constitution bench of five justices to hear the petition by two Congress MPs against the dismissal of the party’s impeachment petition against the chief justice. None of the seniormost four justices was named to the bench. Instead, the next five justices in the seniority list – from number six to number 10 --  were chosen. The seniormost of them, Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri, headed this bench.

Given the seemingly unending tussle within the court premises, there is some speculation over the name of the successor to Chief Justice Misra. By seniority, it is Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Those in the know say the tradition of following the seniority list will prevail.  They contend that there is now a precedent of justices airing their views in public, and any deviation from the said tradition might lead to another such public airing of dissent. That certainly does not bode well for the health of the top judiciary.

By the way, here is some interesting information about the next top 5 led by Justice Sikri. As stated above, they came together to be part of the constitution bench on the impeachment motion review petition. The other four are Justices Sharad Arvind Bobde, N V Ramana, Arun Kumar Mishra and Adarsh Kumar Goel,. The last of this list, Justice Goel, retires first, on July 6 this year. Sikri follows, on March 6, 2019. 

Of the remaining three in this list, Justice Bobde will be the seniormost, with a tenure till April 23, 2021. The next in the list is Justice Ramana who has time till August 26, 2022. He is followed by Justice Arun Mishra who retires on September 2, 2020. Thus, of these five justices, only Justice Bobde will be in service to succeed Justice Gogoi. The next in line for the chair is Justice Ramana.

A couple of words on Justice Gogoi, logically India’s next chief justice. He is said to be a sensible and sensitive judge. Rightly or wrongly, he invited scathing criticism from across the country for appearing in two separate benches which withheld death sentences to rapists whose brutally-attacked-and-raped victims eventually died of injuries.

Both cases were of September, 2016. Justices Gogoi, Prafulla Pant and Uday Lalit happened to be in both benches. One case was of a minor girl of Madhya Pradesh who was raped brutally and who died of injuries. The other was of a young girl from Kerala who was molested and attacked, thrown out of a train, raped on the tracks, hurt and left to die. She too succumbed to her injuries. Both were brutal cases attack and rape. In both cases, the trial court gave death sentence to the accused. In both cases, the concerned high courts upheld the sentence.

The Supreme Court bench, hearing the review petition in the minor girl’s case altered the conviction under section 302 (death for murder) but upheld life imprisonment for rape. (http://www.livelaw.in/rape-upholds-lifer-rape/)  In the Kerala case too, the bench came to a similar conclusion. In both cases, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused on the charge of murder. (http://www.livelaw.in/breaking-soumya-rape-murder-case-sc-acquits-govindachami-murder-charges-awards-life-term-rape/) Go through the judgments – they make for eyebrow-raising reading.

Experts from various fields questioned both judgments for stretching the benefit of doubt concept a bit far. Barely a year later, another bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Misra, upheld the death sentence for the rape and death of Nirbhaya. The justices said the aggravating circumstances clearly outweighed the mitigating circumstances and thus there was no question of converting the death sentence to a life term. Incidentally, Nirbhaya too had succumbed to her injuries. Of course, in the Nirbhaya case, some would say there was intense national pressure surrounding it. In the other two cases, some would also try to split hairs and quibble over whether the accused only wanted to rape and not murder the victim. How dumb! But that debate is for another day.

Rahul Gandhi Declares Himself The Challenger to Narendra Modi for 2019

Rahul Gandhi truly set the cat among the pigeons.

He did this at the peak of the campaign for the Karnataka assembly elections today, May 8, 2018.

It was a seemingly innocent, in the passing, remark that he would like to be the Prime Minister if the Congress emerged as the single largest party in 2019.

But it was anything but innocent. It was an intended remark, aimed at provoking intended responses.

First, it simply stopped the verbal wagon of Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his rallies in Karnataka. He had to react to what Rahul said.

Rahul had simply upped the campaign game. Modi’s by now routine speeches immediately took on a new sting aimed at dynasty politics of the Nehru-Gandhis. The BJP, simultaneously, erupted in a national reaction, ridiculing Rahul.  Rahul's statement stung? Suddenly RaGa was more important than Basava or Lingayat or Karnataka. He set the agenda, at least for today. 

Two, Rahul’s remark was the first, confident statement at power-grabbing by the Congress since its 2014 drubbing. How could a national party, reduced to a paltry 44 Lok Sabha seats, ever dream of returning to power?

The rhetoric gathered momentum as the years passed and the Congress began to lose state after state. It was about Congress losing a state; it was immaterial if the loss was because the BJP managed to come to power even with two seats. A loss is a loss.

A party reduced to handling four states in the whole of India – Karnataka, Punjab, Mizoram (elections due this December) and Puducherry – could not dream of beating the Modi juggernaut in 2019. That was the refrain in the BJP and its social media adherents.

Rahul swept aside this assertion with his remark. As president of the Congress, he meant to convey that it is the creed of a national party to behave, and be seen to behave, as a national party. And so, the party has no option but to dream big – like defeating the BJP and coming back to power to 2019.  It can get defeated in the process, no doubt. But it cannot stop dreaming big because of the worry of defeat. That is the “bane” of being a national party. Perhaps that was Rahul’s logic. Or something close to it. In this sense, it was aimed more at reviving the morale of the ordinary congressman than taking a swipe at Modi.

Three, Rahul declared himself the leader to square-off against Narendra Modi in 2019. Mother Sonia was also in Karnataka when the son made that statement. Is the transfer of power in the Congress deemed to be complete by this statement? Would the mother, and Rahul's detractors within the oldd guard of the party, say that he has come of age? We wouldn't know, would we!

Four, he did not wait for someone to anoint him the PM candidate. If that is over-confidence or a shrewd move, Rahul alone will know at this point of time. But the fact is, the equation for 2019 has simply undergone a change from today; Modi has a challenger. Till now, it was Modi who dictated the terms of challenge: He made Arvind Kejriwal a challenger by taking him on one-to-one; so what if the BJP was decimated in Delhi. He made Laloo his challenger by taking him on one-to-one; so what if the BJP was badly mauled in Bihar. This time, Rahul beat him to it by naming himself Modi’s challenger. It’s a perception game, politics is!

Five, he sought to show the Left parties their place in the current political spectrum; that is, nowhere. He was literally taunted for the last six or seven months, as CPM leader Sitaram Yechury grappled with his detractors inside the party on supporting the Congress against the BJP. Just imagine the temerity of this party! Wiped out from West Bengal and Tripura and the Lok Sabha except for Kerala, it still thinks it decides the politics of secularism versus fundamentalism! The CPM getting one or two seats in the 2019 is no solace for any non-BJP government. It simply does not matter.

In the last couple of months, the CPM watched by the sidelines as the regional political parties began maneouvres for testing political/alliance waters. Mamata Banerjee. Chandra Babu Naidu.  Naveen Patnaik. Lalu Prasad. Sharad Pawar. MK Stalin. K Chandrashekhara Rao. Omar Abdullah. Akhilesh Yadav. Mayawati. There were meeting in Delhi and other state capitals, keeping the political columnists busy. What is the outcome, nobody knows. Yet, Rahul’s remark seems incongruous, coming as it does at a time when the Congress ought to be begging for inclusion in the non-BJP front.

Rahul also sent a message to the regional parties. He revealed to them the basic truth: It is near impossible for a non-Congress, non-BJP alliance of regional parties – with or without the Left – to form a government in Delhi. At least, in 2019. Rahul did not mean to say that the BJP is bound to lose in 2019 and that all parties would have to support the Congress under his leadership. No. He merely reminded them of their current limitations: One, All of them are too divided to unite. (BSP and SP in UP could transfer votes thanks to both castes having a common “enemy”. Can one imagine Naidu and Jagan of YSRCP coming together? Or DMK and TTV of Amma’s ADMK? Laughable, isn’t it?) Two, their own interests will determine their need for either the BJP or the Congress. Three, there cannot be a situation where one of them can become the PM with either of the national parties supporting them.

Just see the reactions from the Left and the regional parties. All of them reacted along expected lines. Nobody really welcomed his statement. But nobody really flayed him either. Rahul’s statement makes it clear to them that if they ignore him and the Congress, they will then have to throw up a third contender, apart from Modi and Rahul, for 2019? Yeah?

The stakes in 2019 will be much higher than in 1977 or 1989. Neither the Congress nor the BJP – if weakened at the 2019 Hustings --  can afford to hand over the reins of power to an alliance and support it from outside. It is imperative for them to become the ruler. Period.  With 274 seats the BJP cannot remain content. With 48, the Congress cannot withdraw from the race. Seats are needed to form the government. But perception is needed for facing the elections in the first place. It is a do or die situation. And Rahul today cast the die for the Congress. Good, bad, or otherwise.

Indian Govt Note on Punishing Journos For Fake News is Silly

The government of India wants to stop spread of fake news. The Information and Broadcasting ministry on April 2 issued a circular laying down a protocol for dealing with fake news appearing in “various mediums (sic) including print and electronic media”. It details how it will punish accredited journalists found faking news –ranging from suspension of government accreditation to revocation.

The note is put up on the website of the Press Information Bureau (PIB) (http://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetail.aspx?PRID=1527361) that comes under the I&B ministry. It is a job-done-in-a-hurry. Not much thought, other than the intent to punish, or get back, at journalists, has perhaps gone into it.

*One, the title of the PIB press note is hilarious. It says the new guidelines are to “regulate” fake news – as in “good” fake news is ok, but “bad” fake news is not ok. Had this been a headline in a newspaper, the desk person’s head would have rolled by now. Is it that the I&B ministry has no intention of “fighting” or “banning’ or even “curbing” fake news? It is happy with merely “regulating” it? Like what? One fake news a day? Or two? Or three?

*Two, it talks of fake news as if the phrase is understood by one and all. What is the definition of fake news? Sometimes, where national security is concerned, the media intentionally withholds crucial facts or shifts attention to somewhere else. Or,  in case of a rape victim, it uses a fake name to identify the person – like ‘Nirbhaya’. It is technically fake, but is it fake news? No. You cannot have a new law or legislation or order about something without defining what that something is.  

*Three, the guidelines can come into force only when there is a complaint. Should the complaint be filed with the I&B ministry? The note does not elaborate. I am sure there is going to be a deluge of complaints in the coming days – after all the note does not say the complaints should not be fake!

*Four, either there are no digital media accredited journalists or it doesn’t matter if accredited journalists work also for the web because the note does not mention the new media at all. Strange, considering much of the so-called (in the absence of any definition in the note) fake news traverses through the web and social media.

*Five, the last para of the note is absolutely meaningless. “While examining the requests seeking accreditation…” it begins. Is it about new accreditation applications or re-accreditation requests from journalists whose accreditations were suspended, etc? Nobody knows.

These observations show how ad hoc, reactive and even non-serious the note is. Let me ask a simple question. What if a non-accredited journalist produces fake news? Will that journalist get a commendation letter or what? I certainly am not being flippant. Let me explain. Go to the PIB website and take a look at the number of accredited correspondents. I did that to save your time. Here are the details:

There are a total of 2264 accredited media persons. Four of them are cartoonists. There are 503 camerapersons. There are 76 officials belonging to PIB or Doordarshan or government media agencies and eight press officers. There are 92 technicians. That leaves 1578 journalists who are correspondents (1490 correspondents, 17 camerapersons-cum-correspondents, 1 founder editor and 70 long and distinguished journalists).

The reputation of the 1578 accredited journalists has been singed in public memory by simply identifying them as the only pool of journalists in India capable of producing fake news. But that is not the real issue. The real issue is that in a country, where there are over 80,000 print publications, over 400 news channels and hundreds of digital portals, employing millions of journalists in all, a mere 1578 of them are targeted. Obviously, the government has failed to see the big picture in this instance. Because it has traded the big picture for the narrow picture of controlling what the media writes about the government.  

The government’s reason for going this way is not difficult to understand. The Press is free in India despite frequent attempts by the government at the Centre or in the states to muzzle it or at best regulate it. Therefore, the millions of journalists are simply out of the government’s purview. The government, in its wisdom, seems to think it can exercise “power” over accredited journalists. Even if they are only a few. Journalists apply for accreditation for ease of access. That is all. They do not become lesser journalists if their accreditation is removed.  Their freedom is not compromised whether they are accredited or not. That is the point to be understood and reiterated.

Yes, there is fake news. Newsrooms across the country are seized of this problem. Editors have been brainstorming over this. Internal gate-keeping systems and other checks and balances, which have always guided us journalists, are monitored and modified to check this menace. The media has its own regulatory bodies which are seized of this matter. A matter that is an internal matter of the media.

Having said that, can I question the moral authority of the PIB or I&B ministry to issue the fake news guidelines? I merely point at just two instances.

Instance one. In December, 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi undertook an aerial survey of Chennai hit by flash floods. The PIB out a tweet in the form of a picture showing Modi looking out the craft’s window. For reasons best known to itself, the PIB inserted an edited and sharply focused picture of the floods to fit the rounded window through which the PM was shown looking down. It became the butt of ridicule on social media. The picture was hastily pulled down. Isn’t that faking news, even though the PIB will surely have what it feels is a justifiable reasoning?

Instance two.  In May, 2017, the PIB put out a release on its web-site listing the achievements of the Modi government on its completion of three years in office. The bureau became the butt of ridicule on social media because the article, highly critical of the government, was actually lifted from a daily newspaper. Isn’t that a fake news, even though the PIB will surely have what it feels is a justifiable explanation?  

What did somebody say about practising what one preaches?