The Art of the Deal… or the Death of Diplomacy?

By Harikrishnan S.

https://english.mathrubhumi.com/columns/trump-zelenskyy-death-of-diplomacy-1.10391338

In the annals of diplomatic theatre, seldom has there been a spectacle as unseemly as the recent Oval Office confrontation involving President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.  What was ostensibly a meeting to solidify a minerals agreement and discuss the ongoing conflict with Russia devolved into a public spectacle of recrimination and diplomatic malpractice.

The Unraveling of Diplomacy

The meeting began with a semblance of cordiality but quickly slumped into a contentious exchange that underscored deep-seated tensions.  President Trump, known for his unfiltered rhetoric, accused Zelenskyy of "gambling with World War III," a statement that not only exaggerated the stakes, but revealed an almost pathetic lack of nuanced understanding of the geopolitical landscape.  Vice President Vance escalated the confrontation by accusing Zelenskyy of organising "publicity tours" and disrespecting the U.S. administration.  Not one to be outdone in the sycophancy sweepstakes and determined to prove his fealty, he then questioned Zelenskyy's commitment to peace, insinuating that the Ukrainian leader was more interested in media appearances than in genuine diplomatic efforts.  President Zelenskyy maintained his composure, with the patience of a man accustomed to explaining the obvious to the wilfully obtuse, and challenged Vance's understanding of diplomacy.  He highlighted Russia's history of violating ceasefire agreements, implicitly questioning the efficacy of the U.S. administration's approach to negotiations with Moscow.

The meeting culminated without any agreement, and a planned press conference was abruptly cancelled, leaving the international community in a state of bewilderment.  This public display of discord has raised concerns about the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and the broader implications for global diplomatic efforts.

European Solidarity in the Face of American Abdication

In the aftermath of the Oval Office confrontation, European leaders have rallied in support of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, underscoring a collective commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and a burgeoning rift with the United States.  

French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor
Olaf Scholz, among others, have reaffirmed their unwavering support for Ukraine's struggle against Russian aggression.  European Union leaders Ursula von der Leyen and Antonio Costa assured Zelenskyy that he was "never alone" in his fight for Ukraine's sovereignty.  In a significant display of solidarity, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer hosted Zelenskyy in London, offering a royal welcome that included an official audience with King Charles, a gesture not only reinforces the UK's support for Ukraine but also highlights the growing chasm between the United States and its traditional allies.  The conspicuous absence of American leadership in this context has raised alarms about the reliability of the U.S. as a partner in upholding the international order.  European leaders are now confronted with the challenge of potentially losing U.S. support and must evaluate if Europe can independently sustain aid to Ukraine.  The upcoming defence summit in London and subsequent EU meetings will be critical in determining Europe's strategy to support Ukraine amidst shifting alliances.  This collective European stance not only underscores the continent's commitment to democratic principles but it also signals a potential realignment in global power dynamics, where Europe seems poised to take a more assertive role in defending liberal democratic values.

The Russian and Chinese Vantage Points

From the Kremlin's vantage point, the Oval Office debacle between President Trump and President Zelenskyy was nothing short of a geopolitical windfall. The public fracturing of U.S.-Ukraine relations served to embolden Russian ambitions, providing a propaganda coup that underscored the narrative of Western disarray. Russian officials and state media have seized the opportunity to delegitimise Ukrainian leadership further and sow discord among NATO allies. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the Security Council, gleefully remarked that the "insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office," expressing support for Trump's stance. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova echoed this sentiment, accusing Zelenskyy of "ugly and boorish behaviour."

China, ever the astute observer, likely views this episode as a confirmation of its strategic calculus regarding the decline of Western cohesion.

 

Beijing's ambitions on the global stage are undoubtedly bolstered by the evident fissures within the Western alliance, providing a broader avenue for expanding its influence in Eurasia and beyond. The erosion of U.S. diplomatic credibility offers China a pretext to advance its narrative of a multipolar world order, one where American hegemony is but a relic of the past.

In essence, the Oval Office confrontation has not only strained U.S.-Ukraine relations but also invigorated rival powers, challenging the stability of the current international order.

A Watershed Moment in Global Affairs

The Oval Office confrontation between President Trump and President Zelenskyy may well be remembered as a pivotal juncture in the reconfiguration of global power dynamics. The United States' retreat into a posture of isolationism and transactional diplomacy under the current administration has precipitated a vacuum that other powers are eager to fill. This shift has been characterised by a departure from traditional alliances and a focus on unilateral actions, reflecting a broader trend in U.S. foreign policy.

In response, Europe has begun to assume a more assertive role in defending liberal democratic values, signalling a potential realignment wherein the European Union emerges as a principal actor on the world stage, independent of American tutelage, and underscoring the continent's commitment to democratic principles.  This collective European stance signifies a potential shift in global power dynamics.

As the U.S. recedes from its position of moral leadership, the mantle is passed, perhaps reluctantly, to those willing to uphold the tenets of international cooperation and human dignity. Whether this marks the inception of a new world order or a descent into geopolitical entropy remains to be seen. However, the events that transpired serve as a stark reminder that the edifice of global stability is only as strong as the principles upon which it is built.

(The author is an independent political analyst and can be contacted at hari@healthcombine.com)

United They Stand, Divided They Fall: INDIA Alliance’s Litmus Test in Delhi

United They Stand, Divided They Fall: INDIA Alliance’s Litmus Test in Delhi

As India's political landscape braces for the Delhi Assembly elections, the future of the Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance (INDIA) hangs in a delicate balance, emblematic of broader challenges to the nation's democratic ethos. Formed to challenge the Bharatiya Janata Party's commanding grip on national politics, the INDIA alliance is currently mired in internal discord, strategic missteps, and a lack of unified vision, which could have profound implications not just for electoral outcomes but for the very idea of India as a secular, pluralistic democracy.

 

The INDIA alliance, comprising parties like the Congress, the AAP, the TMC, the SP, and the Shiv Sena (UBT), was heralded as a beacon of hope for those advocating for a diverse, inclusive India. The BJP’s consolidation of power has coincided with an erosion of these values, with the normalisation of communal divisions, the centralisation of authority, and the weakening of democratic institutions as signs of a deeper malaise afflicting Indian democracy. While it was envisioned as a bulwark against these trends, the INDIA alliance's unity is visibly fracturing, particularly evident in the Delhi elections where the Congress's reluctance to fully back AAP showcases a prioritisation of local rivalries over national objectives. Parties like the TMC and the SP, which do not have direct stakes in Delhi, have extended their support to AAP as part of a calculated effort to consolidate anti-BJP votes. This discord is not merely tactical; it symbolizes the deeper challenges of aligning diverse regional interests under a single banner to counter the BJP's monolithic narrative centred around Narendra Modi's leadership.  Moreover, Congress's leadership has been criticized for lacking strategic vision and organisational cohesion. Internal factionalism, combined with the absence of a clear, charismatic leader, has left the party struggling to assert itself as the anchor of the INDIA alliance. This has led to perceptions of the coalition as a disjointed group of regional parties rather than a credible national alternative to the BJP juggernaut.

 

The BJP's Dominance and Strategic Foresight

What enables the BJP's confidence in long-term dominance, as articulated by leaders like Amit Shah, is not just institutional manipulation but a nuanced understanding of political strategy. The BJP has effectively reshaped India's political discourse through relentless narrative control; ironically, using every critique from the opposition as an opportunity to further its own agenda. The party's ability to anticipate, absorb, and re-purpose opposition narratives (as seen with the appropriation of the Constitution protection narrative) showcases a political agility that the INDIA alliance currently lacks. It has used polarisation tactics and micro-targeted campaigns to create divisions among opposition supporters. By co-opting narratives and appropriating key issues, the BJP has managed to stay ahead of its rivals. While, by projecting every election as a referendum on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership, they have managed to draw focus on the opposition’s inability to present a united and stable alternative, thereby reinforcing the Modi-versus-who narrative - a psychological framing that the BJP has exploited with remarkable success. Their strategy extends beyond mere electoral victories; it's about redefining what it means to be Indian, often sidelining the multicultural, secular fabric in favour of a more homogeneous cultural narrative. This strategy has been bolstered by their long-term planning, including not just strategically managing opposition through both confrontation and co-optation, but potentially even gerrymandering through constituency delimitation - this is evident from the re-districting and changes made to the number of assembly seats in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370 and reorganisation of the region. The Delimitation Commission increased the number of assembly seats in the Jammu region (which has a Hindu-majority population) and reduced them in the Kashmir Valley (which has a Muslim-majority population).   

 

The Opposition's Reactive Stance

 

The INDIA alliance has been largely reactive without a coherent, long-term strategy to challenge the BJP's vision. Despite occasional successes like the Congress's campaign on protecting the Constitution during the 2024 elections, the opposition struggles to present a vision that resonates nationally. While valid, the INDIA alliance's criticism of BJP's policies often lacks the depth or breadth to form an alternative social vision that could genuinely contest the BJP's layered approach to different state dynamics. For them to remain relevant, they have several pressing concerns that need to be addressed:

 

·       The alliance must transcend local rivalries; the Delhi scenario is a stark reminder that without unity, the fight against BJP's centralisation becomes futile, and therefore internal reconciliation is key.  

·       The opposition needs to go beyond reactive politics. They must articulate a vision for India that not just questions but also constructs, offering policies on employment, social justice, and communal harmony that appeal to a broad spectrum of voters.

·       Learning from the BJP's playbook, they must anticipate political moves rather than merely responding to them. This includes understanding the micro-dynamics of caste, religion, and regionalism that the BJP so adeptly navigates.

·       The BJP's success is partly due to its robust organizational structure. The INDIA alliance needs to bolster its grassroots presence and leverage technology and data as effectively as its adversary.

 

The trajectory of the INDIA alliance is more than just a political contest; it's a battle for India's soul. The BJP's dominance risks entrenching a majoritarian governance model, potentially eroding the secular, democratic values enshrined in the Constitution. The opposition's failure to unite and offer a viable alternative could lead to a further normalisation of communal division, weakening the democratic institutions that have historically upheld India's pluralistic identity.

 

The Delhi elections serve as a crucial test for the INDIA alliance. A failure to present a united front might not only result in an electoral loss but could also signify a deeper capitulation to a singular national narrative over the diverse, inclusive one that has defined India. As the nation stands at this crossroads, the opposition’s capacity to regroup, strategize, and inspire with a new vision for India will determine whether the country can reaffirm its commitment to democracy, diversity, and secularism or drift further towards a centralised, majoritarian state. The future of the INDIA alliance, thus, is inexorably linked to the future of India itself, where the stakes are nothing less than the preservation of its democratic fabric.

India-US Relations: Continuity, Change, and Challenges in Trump's Second Term

India-US Relations: Continuity, Change, and Challenges in Trump's Second Term

By Harikrishnan S.

 As Donald Trump prepares to take office for his second term on January 20th, the trajectory of India-U.S. relations stands at a crossroads of continuity and transformation. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has framed this bilateral relationship through the lens of friendship and strategic partnership, fostering a sense of optimism within India. Yet, beneath this positive rhetoric lies a multifaceted interplay of economic, security, and geopolitical interests that shape the true nature of these ties.

Trade

Trump’s first term was characterized by significant trade tensions, driven by the administration’s focus on reducing trade deficits and demanding greater reciprocity in trade relations. India found itself at the receiving end of U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminium and was stripped of its preferential trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). And, in all likelihood, as Trump embarks on his second term, a similar transactional approach to trade is likely to continue. However, there could be room for a strategic recalibration. India may respond by lowering certain tariffs to attract more investment from the United States, particularly in the manufacturing sector, as it ostensibly seeks to position itself as a viable alternative to China in global supply chains. Nevertheless, persistent disagreements over tariffs and market access could remain quite a stumbling block and could potentially hamper efforts at expanding bilateral trade. Finding a balance between protecting domestic industries and fostering a more cooperative trade partnership with the United States, therefore, will be challenging.

Investment

Both countries recognize the mutual benefits of increased investment, and with Trump clearly prioritising job creation within the U.S., his administration may encourage American companies to expand their operations in India, to leverage its cost-effective labour market and growing consumer base. Indian businesses seeking to invest in the United States could potentially benefit from reduced regulatory barriers, fostering a more favourable environment for cross-border investment. This two-way flow of investments would have the potential to strengthen economic ties between the two nations, creating jobs, boosting trade, and enhancing shared prosperity. Addressing structural challenges and streamlining policies could ensure that both countries can capitalize on these opportunities and thereby deepen their economic partnership.

 

Defence

In Trump’s first term, we did see India and the United States make notable progress in defence cooperation, highlighted by the signing of key agreements like the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA), which significantly improved military interoperability between the two nations. India’s growing strategic importance in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly as a potential counterbalance to China’s expanding influence, is likely to sustain and even strengthen this momentum. As both nations share common security interests in maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific, further collaboration in defence technology, joint military exercises, and intelligence sharing could become the feature of their partnership under Trump’s second term. A continued focus on defence ties would underscore the pivotal role of security in shaping a broader India-U.S. relationship.

Counter-terrorism

Shared concerns about terrorism, especially from South Asia, will remain the mainstay of India-U.S. cooperation. Trump’s idea of “peace through strength,” which emphasizes a firm stance on security threats, aligns closely with India’s objectives of combating terrorism, especially in pressuring Pakistan into taking concrete action against terror networks operating from within its borders. This convergence of priorities creates a strong foundation for further collaborative efforts, including intelligence sharing, counter-terrorism strategies, and coordinated diplomatic pressure on nations harbouring terrorist groups. Working together to address these threats would bolster regional stability and enhance mutual security interests for both countries.

Quad and Regional Stability

The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), comprising the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia, experienced a significant revival during Trump’s first term, engendering a renewed focus on regional security and strategic cooperation. The Quad did emerge as a cornerstone of efforts to counterbalance China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region. And, under a second Trump administration, it is expected to maintain its strategic importance, with a continued emphasis on advancing a robust Indo-Pacific strategy.

This could involve deeper collaboration on defence, maritime security, and infrastructure development to promote a free, open, and rules-based order in the region. The Quad’s role in addressing shared challenges such as supply chain resilience, cybersecurity, and regional stability would also likely expand, and solidify its position as a critical element of the United States’ foreign policy in Asia.

H1B Visas

Trump’s first term saw his administration’s restrictive policies on H-1B visas that posed challenges for Indian IT professionals, who constitute a significant portion of these visa holders. These measures, aimed at prioritising American workers, did create tensions in India-U.S. relations, given the vital role of Indian talent in the U.S. technology sector. A further tightening of H-1B policies during this second term could exacerbate these strains. However, the broader economic partnership between the two nations, particularly in areas like manufacturing, defence, and investments, might help offset the friction caused by visa restrictions. Striking a balance between domestic priorities and the mutual benefits of skilled workforce mobility would be key to ensuring that this issue does not snowball into overshadowing the overall strategic relationship.

 

The Indian-American community is a growing and politically influential group in the United States, and it could play a pivotal role in shaping policies that strengthen ties between the two nations. Trump’s evident rapport with Prime Minister Modi, demonstrated through events like “Howdy Modi” and “Namaste Trump,” may further contribute to fostering favourable policies, particularly in areas like trade and immigration. While contentious issues like H-1B visa restrictions remain, the advocacy of the Indian-American community could influence a more balanced and mutually beneficial approach, enhancing cooperation across sectors.

Geopolitical and Strategic Significance

India’s role in international forums like the G20 could gain greater prominence with strong backing from the United States, especially if Trump’s administration continues its efforts to counter China’s growing global influence. With U.S. support, India could advocate for reforms in global institutions, push for equitable economic policies, and strengthen its leadership on issues like climate change, digital economy, and sustainable development.

India's strategic location and its own border tensions with China position it as a vital ally for the U.S. in maintaining a balance of power in Asia. A second Trump administration would likely seek to deepen this partnership, leveraging India’s role to strategically counter China’s influence in the region. However, India’s participation in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) adds a layer of complexity to its relationship with the U.S. Within BRICS, India shares a platform with China and Russia, two nations often at odds with American interests. While BRICS primarily aims to challenge Western dominance in global affairs, India has been careful to distance itself from any overtly anti-U.S. sentiment that occasionally emerges from within the group. India’s cautious stance on BRICS expansion and its resistance to China-led initiatives like a BRICS currency reflects this nuanced approach.  While BRICS provides India with economic benefits, and opportunities for trade, investment, and cooperation that complement its broader foreign policy goals, moves within BRICS that challenge U.S. dominance, such as efforts toward de-dollarization led by China, could raise strategic concerns in Washington. The Indian approach aligns with its goal of maintaining strategic autonomy, avoiding rigid alignment with any bloc. However, this difficult balancing act can occasionally create friction with the U.S., especially on issues like the Ukraine conflict or global governance reforms. Balancing these dynamics will be critical for India as it seeks to sustain its relationships with both the U.S. and its BRICS partners.

Despite all these challenges, the India-U.S. relationship does look likely to remain pragmatic and interest-driven. Both nations recognize the value of cooperation in areas such as defence, technology, and regional stability, while, at the same time, working to address tensions arising from differing economic and geopolitical priorities. As India seeks to maintain its strategic autonomy and the U.S. focuses on countering China, their partnership will continue to evolve, marked by collaboration in key areas and careful navigation of inherent complexities.

The Constrained Genius

 https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/manmohan-singh-the-constrained-genius/3701578/

Manmohan Singh – The Constrained Genius

Born on September 26, 1932, Singh's journey from an academic economist to becoming India's Prime Minister was marked by significant achievements, and some notable controversies too.

As Dr Manmohan Singh, went gently into the good night at the age of 92, he leaves behind a complex legacy as both an economist and a statesman who played pivotal roles in shaping India’s economic landscape. Born on September 26, 1932, Singh’s journey from an academic economist to becoming India’s Prime Minister was marked by significant achievements, and some notable controversies too.

Manmohan Singh’s most celebrated contribution to India was his role in the 1991 economic liberalisation. As Finance Minister under Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao, he was the chief architect behind the reforms that ended what was known as the ‘license raj’, brought down import tariffs, and opened the Indian economy to global markets, setting the stage for India’s economic growth spurt in the subsequent decades. His policies were not merely about economic deregulation but they were also aimed at integrating India into the global economy, which he did with a blend of brilliance and humility, often described as speaking less and achieving more.  During his tenure as Prime Minister for a decade from 2004, Singh’s government continued this legacy. His administration introduced landmark social welfare initiatives like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which aimed at alleviating rural poverty by ensuring 100 days of employment per year to rural households, and the Right to Education Act, which made education a fundamental right for children aged 6 to 14. His government also navigated the 2008 global financial crisis with relatively little damage to the Indian economy, showcasing his capability to manage crises with stability.

He championed the Right to Information Act, a landmark initiative aimed at fostering transparency and empowering citizens. Ironically, this commitment to openness also unveiled several corruption allegations that his government had to face during its second term, highlighting the complex interplay between accountability and political challenges. 

Singh’s foreign policy, particularly the India-US Civil Nuclear Agreement, was a significant diplomatic achievement.  It marked a new era in India’s foreign relations and opened up avenues for civilian nuclear cooperation. His diplomatic finesse was often praised for maintaining India’s strategic autonomy while forging stronger international relations.

In spite of these significant accomplishments, Manmohan Singh’s tenure was, in a way, marred by perceptions of his being a “puppet” of the Nehru-Gandhi family, particularly due to Sonia Gandhi’s role within the Congress party as its president. Many of his critics argued that her office worked as a dual power centre that diluted his authority, leading to policy paralysis, as was especially evident during the second term of the United Progressive Alliance. This perception was buttressed by books from former aides like Sanjaya Baru, who highlighted the constraints under which the Prime Minister operated.  In his book, “The Accidental Prime Minister – The Making and Unmaking of Manmohan Singh, Mr Baru quotes Singh as explaining to him that, “There cannot be two centres of power. That creates confusion. I have to accept that the party president is the centre of power. The government is answerable to the party.”  This dynamic, he claims, did severely limit Singh’s autonomy in decision-making.

A series of scams, including the 2G spectrum scandal, Commonwealth Games corruption, and coal block allocations, further dented his image, giving fuel to a narrative of corruption and ineptitude under his watch. The opposition, headed by the BJP, managed to effectively leverage print, television, and social media to megaphone these allegations, bolstered by till-then-unheard-of fantastic figures churned out by the then Comptroller and Auditor General, Vinod Rai. Notably, Rai, who rose to prominence during this turbulent period, later enjoyed multiple high-profile positions during the NDA’s rule following the ouster of Singh’s government in the 2014 general elections.

Since Manmohan’s departure from power, the narrative around the Indian economy and its health has shifted. Under subsequent NDA rule, the economy has seen periods of high volatility, often driven by anomalous headline-grabbing policy decisions rather than the steady, reform-driven approach that Singh embodied. His era was characterized by robust GDP growth, averaging around 8.5% for most of his tenure (notably, without any allegations of data suppression or manipulation), but post-Singh, India has faced criticisms for economic policy decisions that seem more reactive to political cycles than to long-term economic strategy. The Indian Rupee has depreciated significantly, reaching an all-time low, which has sparked debates on economic management, inflation control, and export competitiveness. This shift from a time of economic reform and stability to one where the economy is often discussed in terms of immediate political gains or losses reflects a departure from the disciplined economic governance Manmohan Singh was known for. The economic policies under subsequent governments have faced criticism for lacking the depth and foresight that characterised Singh’s approach, leading to, what has become, a less predictable economic landscape.

Manmohan Singh’s legacy will remain one of profound economic transformation juxtaposed with political controversies. His tenure saw India emerge as a significant player in global economics, yet it ended with criticisms over governance and autonomy. His death marks the end of an era where economic policy was driven by a statesman known for his intellect and integrity, and a somewhat silent yet impactful leadership style. His contributions to the Indian economy can never be undermined and will be long remembered, even as the country navigates new economic realities in his absence.

 https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/the-leadership-vacuum-in-congress-a-crisis-india-cannot-afford/3697226/

The Leadership Vacuum in Congress: A Crisis India Cannot Afford

Under Modi's rule, India faces a decline in economic, social, and democratic health, with BJP's dominance partly due to the Congress Party's leadership crisis and the weakening of opposition.

India finds itself at a critical juncture. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s rule, the country has experienced a worrying decline across multiple parameters – economic, social, and geopolitical. The economy is often run on optics and newspaper headlines, masking deeper structural problems. Democratic institutions have been systematically undermined, eroding the nation’s foundational ethos as a vibrant democracy. Yet, the ruling BJP’s dominance is not just a reflection of its own strengths – it is equally a product of the glaring vacuum in the opposition, most notably the Congress Party’s leadership crisis.

A Toothless Opposition

For a democracy to thrive, a robust opposition is essential. The Congress Party, historically the backbone of India’s political system, is uniquely positioned to challenge the BJP, given its national footprint and legacy. However, its current leadership, headed by Rahul Gandhi, has repeatedly failed to inspire confidence or deliver results. Under his stewardship, the party has faced three consecutive general election defeats (by humongous margins) and numerous state-level setbacks. Constituencies and states once considered bastions of Congress have been lost, eroding the party’s credibility as a viable alternative.

The question of “if not Modi, then who?” gains traction largely because of Rahul Gandhi’s perceived incompetence. His inability to articulate a coherent vision for the nation, coupled with a lack of political acumen, has rendered him an easy target for the BJP’s relentless propaganda machine. To many, he symbolises everything that is wrong with the Congress – a party mired in complacency and nepotism, unable to adapt to the rapidly changing political landscape. 

In a democracy, a political leader is only as good as their ability to win elections. On that front, Rahul has been a failure of epic proportions – his trajectory has headed decisively south (pun intended), and he insists on dragging the party down with him!

A Hollow Spectacle!

Prime Minister Modi’s governance style has been characterised by grandstanding and populism, often devoid of substantive policy outcomes. His promises of economic transformation have largely failed to materialize, with key sectors like manufacturing and agriculture struggling. Foreign policy, once a strength for India, has been reduced to photo ops and performative diplomacy. Domestically, social cohesion has been undermined by divisive politics and democratic institutions have been hollowed out under the weight of centralised power.

Yet, Modi remains electorally invincible. This is not because of his achievements but because the opposition has failed to present a credible alternative. His “strongman” image thrives in the absence of a leader capable of challenging his narrative. The Congress leadership, particularly Rahul Gandhi, has inadvertently enabled this dominance by failing to connect with the voters, or craft a compelling narrative, or even organise a strong grassroots movement.

The Stakes for India

The consequences of this leadership vacuum are dire. The BJP’s unchecked power has led to a concentration of wealth and influence in the hands of a few, pushing the nation closer to an oligarchy. Critical issues such as unemployment, inflation, and declining educational standards are swept under the carpet in favour of polarising debates that serve the ruling party’s agenda. In foreign relations, India’s standing has diminished, with neighbouring countries increasingly aligning with rival powers.

The Congress Party remains the only opposition force with the infrastructure and legacy to challenge the BJP on a national scale. Regional parties, while influential in their own domains, lack the reach and resources to take on the BJP’s electoral machinery.

However, the fact remains that for the Congress party to fulfil this role, it must first address the elephant in the room – its leadership crisis.

·        The Congress must recognise that Rahul Gandhi, regardless of any good intentions he may possess, has failed to resonate with the electorate.

·        A leadership change, prioritising merit over dynasty, is not just essential, it seems vital for the party’s very survival. The Congress party desperately needs a leader who can inspire confidence, build alliances, and connect with voters at the grassroots level.

·        The Congress must rebuild its organisational structure, empowering local leaders and decentralising decision-making. A strong, united front at the state level is critical to challenging the BJP’s dominance.

·        The party must articulate a clear, alternative vision for India – one that addresses economic disparities, restores democratic institutions, and promotes social harmony. Vague rhetoric will not suffice; what is  needed and what the electorate demands are specific, actionable plans.

·        Given the BJP’s electoral might, the Congress must work with regional parties to form a united opposition. Collaborative strategies, rather than internal rivalries, are key to countering the BJP juggernaut.

India’s current trajectory – marked by economic stagnation, social discord, and democratic backsliding – is unsustainable. While the BJP bears significant responsibility for this state of affairs, the Congress Party’s leadership crisis is equally to blame. In the absence of a strong opposition, the BJP has been allowed to consolidate power and steer the nation away from its democratic ideals.

For India’s sake, it is imperative that the Congress rises to the occasion. It must recognise the scale of the crisis and undertake bold reforms to reclaim its position as the principal opposition force. The stakes are not just political but existential, not only for them but for the nation’s future itself. Without a credible alternative to Modi’s BJP, India risks losing the essence of what once made it a thriving, pluralistic democracy.

കോൺഗ്രസ്സിന്റെ ധർമ്മസങ്കടം!

കോൺഗ്രസ്സ് പാർട്ടിക്ക്‌ നിലനിൽപ്പ് വേണമെങ്കിൽ ആദ്യം വേണ്ടത് ഖദർ മുണ്ടിനടിയിൽ കാക്കി നിക്കറിട്ടു കറങ്ങുന്നവരെ പാർട്ടിയിൽ നിന്ന്‌ പുറത്താക്കുകയാണ്.  ഇതങ്ങു മുകളിൽ നിന്ന്‌ താഴെവരെ ചെയ്തില്ലെങ്കിൽ പാർട്ടിയ്ക്ക് കേരളത്തിലെന്നല്ല, രാജ്യത്തു തന്നെ നിലനിൽക്കാനാവില്ല.  കേന്ദ്രത്തിലും, മറ്റ് സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളിലും (പ്രത്യേകിച്ച് കേരളത്തിലും) കോൺഗ്രസ്സിന്റെ ഇലക്ഷൻ പ്രചരണവും, തന്ത്രങ്ങളും വളരെ കാലഹരണപ്പെട്ടവയാണ്.  ഓരോ ഇലക്ഷൻ തോൽവിയ്ക്കു ശേഷവും "പാർട്ടിക്കുള്ളിൽ അഴിച്ചുപണി വേണം" എന്ന സ്ഥിരം പല്ലവി ആവർത്തിക്കുകയല്ലാതെ ഇന്നേവരെ ഒരഴിച്ചുപണിയും (കേന്ദ്രത്തിലോ സംസ്ഥാനങ്ങളിലോ) നടത്തുന്നത് കാണാൻ കഴിഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല.  ഇലക്ഷൻ ഒരു യുദ്ധം തന്നെയാണ്.  അതു ജയിക്കാൻ എന്തിലുമുപരി ഇച്ഛാശക്തി വേണം.  ബി ജെ പി മാറി മാറി ഇലക്ഷനുകൾ ജയിക്കുന്നതിനും, കോൺഗ്രസ്സ്‌ മാറി മാറി അവ തോൽക്കുന്നതിനും ഏറ്റവും പ്രധാന കാരണം ഇത് തന്നെയാണ്; ബി ജെ പി-ക്കതുണ്ട്, ഇപ്പോഴത്തെ കോൺഗ്രസ്സിനതില്ല!  രണ്ട് പാർട്ടികളും ഇലക്ഷനെ നേരിടുന്ന രീതി നോക്കിയാൽത്തന്നെ ഇത് മനസ്സിലാകും.

കഴിഞ്ഞ ലോക് സഭ ഇലക്ഷൻ തന്നെ ഉദാഹരണമായെടുക്കാം.  രാഹുൽ ഗാന്ധി കാര്യമായി പാർലമെൻറിൽ സംസാരിച്ചു തുടങ്ങിയത് ഇലക്ഷന് മൂന്നോ നാലോ മാസം മുൻപ് മാത്രമാണ്.  ബി ജെ പി നല്ല ഭൂരിപക്ഷത്തിൽ ജയിച്ച്‌ ഭരിച്ചുകൊണ്ടിരുന്ന പാർട്ടിയാണ്.  നരേന്ദ്ര മോദിയുടെ കഴിവുകേടും,വിവരമില്ലായ്മയും, അല്പത്തരവും കൊണ്ട് നിറഞ്ഞുനിന്ന അഞ്ചു വർഷങ്ങളാണവർ ഭരിച്ചത്.  ജനങ്ങൾക്ക് കടുത്ത ദുരിതങ്ങൾ മാത്രം സമ്മാനിച്ച നോട്ടു റദ്ദാക്കലും, ജി എസ് ടി-യുടെ അശ്ലീലപ്പതിപ്പും പോലെയുള്ള  വൃത്തികെട്ട, കോമാളി ഭരണപരിഷ്കാരങ്ങൾ കൊണ്ട് ജനങ്ങളെ നട്ടം തിരിച്ച അഞ്ചു വർഷങ്ങൾ!  എന്നിട്ടീ തുഗ്ലക്ക് പരിഷ്‌കാരങ്ങൾ മാത്രമെടുത്തു കാണിക്കാനുണ്ടായിരുന്ന ബി ജെ പി-ക്കെതിരെ കോൺഗ്രസ്സിനെന്തു നേടാൻ കഴിഞ്ഞു, 2014-നേക്കാൾ ഭീമമായ, അതിനേക്കാൾ നാണംകെട്ട തോൽവിയല്ലാതെ?  ഈ തോൽ‌വിയിൽ നിന്നീ പാർട്ടി എന്ത് പഠിച്ചു?  തോറ്റയുടനേ രാഹുൽ രാജി വയ്ക്കുമെന്നു പറയുന്നു; സോണിയയും, പ്രിയങ്കയും അങ്ങേരെ പൊക്കിപ്പറയുന്നു (ചിന്താവിഷ്ടയായ ശ്യാമള എന്ന ചിത്രത്തിൽ ശ്രീനിവാസൻ അവതരിപ്പിക്കുന്ന കഥാപാത്രം സ്വന്തം മക്കളെക്കൊണ്ട് "അയ്യൊ അച്ഛാ പോകല്ലേ, അയ്യോ അച്ഛാ പോകല്ലേ" എന്ന് പറയിപ്പിക്കുന്ന രംഗമാണോർമ്മ വന്നത്!)  ഒരു കൊല്ലം കഴിഞ്ഞും പുതിയൊരു പ്രസിഡൻറിനെ തിരഞ്ഞെടുക്കുവാനോ, എന്തെങ്കിലും ഒരു വ്യത്യാസം ചിന്തകളിലോ, പ്രവൃത്തികളിലോ, വീക്ഷണത്തിലോ, കാഴ്ചപ്പാടിലോ കൊണ്ടുവരാനോ ആകാതെ വെറും നപുംസകങ്ങളായി തുടരുന്നതല്ലാതെ രാഹുൽ ഗാന്ധി മുതൽ ഇങ്ങു താഴേതട്ടിലുള്ള കോൺഗ്രസ്സ് പ്രവർത്തകൻവരെ എന്ത് ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്?  ആലോചിക്കേണ്ട സമയം എന്നേ അതിക്രമിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു!

കേന്ദ്രത്തിലായാലും, കേരളത്തിലായാലും കോൺഗ്രസ്സ് നേരിടുന്നത് പ്രധാന എതിരാളികളുടെ ഡാറ്റ-ഡ്രിവണ്‍ ഇലക്ഷൻ ക്യാമ്പെയ്‌നുകളെയാണ്.  ഇലക്ഷനുകളിലെ കളി മാറിയതറിയാതെ, ഇപ്പോഴും പഴയ അഴകൊഴമ്പൻ ഇമോഷൻ-ഡ്രിവണ്‍ കാമ്പെയ്‌നുകളുമായി എതിരാളിയെ തോല്പിക്കാൻ പറ്റുമെന്ന് ചിന്തിക്കുന്നത് ശുദ്ധ വിവരക്കേടാണെന്നു മാത്രമല്ല, കോൺഗ്രസ്സ് തോറ്റു തുന്നം പാടിക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നതിന്റെ പ്രധാന കാരണവും അതാണ്.  അമിത് ഷാ വിജയിക്കുന്നത് അയാൾക്കോ മോദിക്കോ ഇക്കാര്യത്തിൽ യാതൊരു വിവരവുമില്ലെന്നുള്ളത് മനസ്സിലാക്കി, ആ ജോലി ഡാറ്റ  അനാലിസിസും, സൈക്കോമെട്രിക് അനാലിസിസും അറിയാവുന്ന, വിവരമുള്ള പ്രൊഫഷണലുകളെ (കമ്പനികളെ) ഏല്പിക്കുന്നിടത്താണ്.  എവിടെ, എങ്ങനെ, ഏതു രീതിയിൽ ഇലക്ഷൻ പ്രചരണം നടത്തണമെന്നുള്ളത് വളരെ കൃത്യമായി കണ്ടുപിടിക്കാനവർക്കു കഴിയും.  ബി ജെ പി-യുടെ സൈബർ സെല്ലിനെ നോക്കി ചിരിക്കുമ്പോൾ, അവരാണ് തങ്ങളുടെ ആണിക്കല്ലിളക്കിക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നതെന്നു കോൺഗ്രസ്സ് നേതാക്കളാരും (ചോട്ടാ/ബഡാ) മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നില്ല!

കോൺഗ്രസ്സ് പാർട്ടി (കേന്ദ്രത്തിലായാലും, സംസ്ഥാനത്തിലായാലും) മനസ്സിലാക്കേണ്ടത് അവരിപ്പോളോടിക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നത്, ശ്രദ്ധിച്ചില്ലെങ്കിൽ, അവരുടെ അവസാന റൌണ്ട് ആയേക്കാമെന്നുള്ള ഭീകര സത്യമാണ്.  2024 ഇലക്ഷനിൽ ഇതുവരെ കാണിച്ച അഭ്യാസങ്ങളുമായി രാഹുൽ ഗാന്ധിയെ മുന്നിൽ നിർത്തി അവരിറങ്ങുകയാണെങ്കിൽ ഏറ്റവും നാണംകെട്ട രീതിയിൽ അവർ വീണ്ടും പരാജയപ്പെടുമെന്ന് മാത്രമല്ല, അടുത്ത രണ്ടര/മൂന്ന് ദശാബ്ദങ്ങളിലേയ്ക്ക് അവർക്കാ വീണ കുഴിയിൽ നിന്നെഴുന്നൽക്കാൻ കഴിയില്ല.  ഇതതിശയോക്തിയാണെന്നാർക്കെങ്കിലും തോന്നുന്നുണ്ടെങ്കിൽ അമിത് ഷായുടെ പ്രായം ഒന്നോർക്കുന്നതു നന്നായിരിക്കും; 55!

കേരളത്തിലെ സ്ഥിതിയും ഒട്ടും വ്യത്യസ്തമല്ല.  പിണറായി വിജയനും മോദി-ഷാ-യുമായി വളരെ പ്രകടമായ സമാനതകളുണ്ട്.  കേന്ദ്ര രാഷ്ട്രീയത്തിൽ ബി ജെ പി-യ്ക്കുള്ള ഐടി സെല്ലുപോലെ ഇങ്ങു കൊച്ചു കേരളത്തിൽ സി പി എമ്മിനുമുണ്ട് ശമ്പളം പറ്റുന്ന കാര്യക്ഷമമായൊരു ഐടി ട്രോൾ സൈന്യവും, അവരുടെ പ്രചരണം നിയന്ത്രിക്കുന്നൊരു പ്രൊഫഷണൽ ടീമും.  അതിനെ രമേശ് ചെന്നിത്തല കുവൈറ്റിലേയ്ക്ക് ഇല്ലാത്ത-ഉസ്മാനെ വിളിച്ചു തോല്പിക്കാൻ ശ്രമിച്ചാൽ സ്വയം കോമാളിയാവുകയേ ഉള്ളു.  എതിരാളിയുടെ അഴിമതികളെയും, കഴിവുകേടുകളെയും (അതിഷ്ടം പോലെയുണ്ട്) തുറന്നു കാട്ടാനും, അതു ജനങ്ങൾക്ക് മുന്നിലെത്തിക്കാനും സാധിക്കണം.  സ്വയം അതിനു കഴിഞ്ഞില്ലെങ്കിൽ, കഴിവുള്ളവരെ ഏൽപ്പിക്കണം; അല്ലാതെ സ്വയം കോമാളിയാകുന്ന പരിപാടികൾ കാണിക്കുകയില്ല വേണ്ടത്.  സ്വന്തം പാർട്ടിയുടെ തലപ്പത്തു തന്നെ അതിനുള്ള ഏറ്റവും വലിയ ഉദാഹരണമുണ്ട്. 2014-ലെ ഇലക്ഷന് തൊട്ടു മുൻപ് രാഹുൽ ഗാന്ധി അന്ന് ടൈംസ് നൗ-ലുണ്ടായിരുന്ന ആർനബ് ഗോസ്വാമിയ്ക്ക്‌ യാതൊരാവശ്യവുമില്ലാതെ കൊടുത്ത ഒരു ഇന്റർവ്യൂ ആണ് പുള്ളിയ്ക്കു പപ്പു എന്ന ഓമനപ്പേര് നേടിക്കൊടുത്തത്.  വേലിയിൽ കിടന്ന പാമ്പിനെയെടുത്തു പറയാൻ കൊള്ളാത്തിടത്ത്  വച്ചപോലെയുള്ള ആ അഭ്യാസത്തിനു ശേഷം രാഹുലിനെ ഒരു വെറും കോമാളിയായാണ് രാജ്യത്തൊരുപാടുപേർ കാണുന്നത്, ഇന്നും!  അതേ മണ്ടത്തരം സംസ്ഥാനത്തെ കോൺഗ്രസ്സ് നേതാക്കൾ കാണിച്ചാൽ, അതേ അനുഭവം തന്നെ അവർക്കുമുണ്ടാകും.  ചെന്നിത്തലയെ പ്രതിപക്ഷ നേതാവെന്നതിനേക്കാളുപരി ഒരു കോമാളിയായി നാട്ടുകാരിൽ പലരും കണ്ടുതുടങ്ങിയിട്ടുണ്ടെങ്കിൽ അതിനുത്തരവാദി ചെന്നിത്തല മാത്രമാണ്.  കേന്ദ്രത്തിലായാലും, കേരളത്തിലായാലും ഇച്ഛാശക്തിയുള്ളതും, വിവേകമുള്ളതും, സർവ്വോപരി നൂതനമായി ചിന്തിക്കുവാനും, നൂതന ആശയങ്ങൾ ചർച്ച ചെയ്യുവാനും, അവ പ്രാവർത്തികമാക്കുവാനും കഴിവും ദീർഘവീക്ഷണവുമുള്ള നേതൃത്വത്തിന് മാത്രമേ കോൺഗ്രസ്സിനെ ഇപ്പോൾ വീണുകിടക്കുന്ന വാരിക്കുഴിയിൽനിന്ന് വലിച്ചു കയറ്റാൻ പറ്റൂ.  രാഹുലോ, രമേശോ അതിന് പ്രാപ്തരാണെന്നെനിക്ക് തോന്നുന്നില്ല!

Covid-19 crisis: Lockdown, as a strategy to control the pandemic, has proven to be neither good nor bad

Financial Express June 10, 2020

Co-authored with Prof Lekha Chakraborty, NIPFP

https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/covid-19-crisis-lockdown-as-a-strategy-to-control-the-pandemic-has-proven-to-be-neither-good-nor-bad/1986615/

As predictable as it can be, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the lockdown at 8:00 PM on March 24, 2020, giving the country and its 1.3 billion people all of four hours to get ready, evoking memories of the demonetisation announcement and the midnight launch of GST. This was done by invoking the National Disaster Management Act, 2005.

While many analysts lauded the communication strategy of the leader ‘directly’ speaking to the people as political decisiveness, our contention in this column is that it was a clear case of using ‘command and control’ strategy instead of cooperative federalism, which the government was taking pains to highlight that it believed in. The manner in which we are getting out of the lockdown, with an ad hoc and arbitrary exit strategy, at a time when the number of Covid-19 cases has seen a mountainous surge (almost every other day previous records are being broken), shows a clear lack of planning, and sadly reeks of cluelessness.

While the intent of the lockdown was ‘to flatten the curve’ and control the spread of the pandemic, almost irreversible economic disruption resulted in many sectors, and a mounting humanitarian crisis through the exodus of migrant labour is staring at us with all its severity. Empirical evidence shows that on March 24 the number of confirmed cases stood at 564, with a recorded death toll of 10. India has broken into the list of top-10 most affected countries in terms of Covid-19 positive cases.

To put things in perspective, official statistics reveal that as of June 9 the outbreak of Covid-19 had been confirmed in 215 countries, and we, along with the US, Brazil, Russia, Spain, the UK, Italy, France and Germany, are among the most severely affected. As of June 9, the virus had infected 266,598 people in India, and the mortality had risen to 7,466.

Lockdown, as a strategy to control the pandemic, has proven to be neither good nor bad. From the Indian perspective, ideally, it would have been effective had this period been used for improving the healthcare infrastructure or at least boosting up the public health budget to deal with the imminent crisis. Constitutionally, even though public health is a state subject, in the Seventh Schedule (it defines allocation of powers and functions between the Centre and states), entries 28 and 81 in the Union List deal with “port quarantine, including hospitals connected therewith,” and “inter-state migration and inter-state quarantine,” respectively. The intergovernmental framework is thus crucial in dealing with the pandemic through policy coordination and fiscal transfers, especially when states are doing the heavy lifting to control the pandemic, despite their constrained fiscal space.

In an ideal world, the fiscal decentralisation at the local level—the principle of subsidiarity—would have been the effective policy mechanism, meaning the decision-making processes in a crisis being carried out at the level of the government closest to the people. But, in India, the Covid-19 policy response has been highly centralised. Although there have been a few online meetings between CMs and the PM, they have not been effective as almost all decisions have been taken unilaterally. Even the decision to go ahead with the lockdown was not discussed in the PM’s videoconference with CMs. Also, in spite of early warning from the WHO in January, India’s response, with the closure of international borders and ports entry, was woefully late, quite obviously to make way for the Namaste Trump event to take place, and cater to some of the government’s ‘more urgent’ political considerations.

Now, we are staring at a dual crisis—a public health crisis and an economic crisis, through irreparable disruptions in supply chains. The pandemic hit the Indian economy when it was on a significant slowdown mode. The announced fiscal and monetary package of Rs 20 lakh crore has been largely for infusing liquidity into the system for an economic revival, in long-term reform-oriented tranches. These tranches appear more or less ‘business as usual’ rather than an ‘emergency pandemic package’. Interestingly, most analysts have identified the actual Covid-19 response package as being only 1% of GDP or thereabouts, and not 10% as announced by the government.

The trade-off between ‘life’ and ‘livelihood’, and the government’s appalling apathy in dealing with the plight of migrant labourers, is rapidly burgeoning into a humanitarian crisis of mammoth proportions, with the increasing number of hunger deaths. The lack of authentic data on Covid-19 positive cases and the mortality is another area of concern. The recent data from cremation and burial grounds in Delhi contradicts the official Covid-19 mortality statistics by being almost four times higher than the official figure. This makes one wonder whether there is gross underreporting of data, both at the central and state levels. The lack of preparedness for aggressive testing, treating and quarantining—asymptomatic and symptomatic tests—during the prolonged lockdown provokes dismay, to say the least; this, in spite of the WHO’s clarion call to ‘test, test, test’.

South Korea has been regarded as a benchmark on this front, and its success in containing the pandemic is largely due to the aggressive testing strategy. Interestingly, the epicentre of the pandemic has shifted from China to G7 countries, and now to Brazil and India.

Needless to say, these are politically challenging times for the government, and the diversion of focus from the pandemic to policies towards tackling external aggression (this time, from China) could prove costly. We are tackling a pandemic, and the projected skill-sets and carefully created image and characteristics of a leader would not help in dealing with it. For that, we need strong ‘institutions’ and ‘policy certainty’. But, for the moment, all that one can infer is—as a country, the policy that came directly from the central government has been far from adequate. While there have been some bright spots, the successes have been exclusively at the level of states. One can only hope that the Centre scales up its policy responses and intensifies its efforts at mitigating, and providing relief to, this human and economic catastrophe, before it gets too late.

The Political Economy of Lockdown in India

The Levy Economics Institute Blog - June 2, 2020

Link to Report on the Levy Blog

by Harikrishnan S. and Lekha Chakraborty 

As predictable as it can be, the Indian Prime Minister announced lockdown at 8 PM on March 24th 2020, giving the country and its 1.3 billion people all of four hours to get ready, evoking memories of the demonetisation announcement and the midnight launch of the GST! This was done by invoking the National Disaster Management Act of 2005. While many analysts lauded the communication strategy of the leader “directly” speaking to the people as political decisiveness, our contention is that it was a clear case of using a “command and control” strategy instead of co-operative federalism, which the government had been taking pains to highlight that it believed in. The manner in which we are getting out of the lockdown, with an ad hoc and arbitrary exit strategy, at a time when the number of COVID cases reported daily has seen a mountainous surge (almost every other day previous records are being broken), shows a clear lack of any sort of planning and sadly reeks of cluelessness.

While the obvious intent of the lockdown policy was “to flatten the curve” and control the spread of the pandemic, almost irreversible economic disruption has resulted in many sectors and a mounting humanitarian crisis through the unprecedented exodus of migrant labour is staring at us with all its severity. The empirical evidence shows that on March 24th 2020, the day the lockdown was implemented, the number of confirmed COVID19 cases stood at 564, with a recorded death toll of 10. While we write this, India has broken into the list of the top 10 most affected countries in the world in terms of COVID positive cases. To put things in perspective, the official statistics reveal that as of May 29th 2020, the outbreak of COVID19 had been confirmed in approximately 210 countries, and we, along with the US, Brazil, Russia, Spain, the UK, Italy, France, and Germany, are among the most severely affected. As of May 29th 2020, the virus had infected 165,799 people in India, and the mortality had risen to 4903.

Lockdown, as a strategy to control the coronavirus pandemic, has proven to be neither good nor bad. From the Indian perspective, ideally, it would have been effective had this period been used for improving the healthcare infrastructure, or at least boosting up the public health budget to deal with the imminent crisis. Constitutionally, even though public health is a state subject, in the seventh schedule (that specifically defines allocation of powers and functions between centre and states),entries 28 and 81 in the Union List deal with “port quarantine, including hospitals connected therewith,” and “inter-state migration and inter-state quarantine,” respectively. The intergovernmental framework is thus crucial in dealing with the pandemic through policy coordination and fiscal transfers, especially when the states are doing the heavy lifting to control the pandemic, despite their constrained fiscal space.

In an ideal world, the fiscal decentralisation at the local level—the principle of subsidiarity—would have been the effective policy mechanism, meaning the decision making processes in a crisis being carried out at the level of government closest to the people. But in India, the COVID policy response has been highly centralised. Although there have been a few online meetings between Chief Ministers and the Prime Minister, they have not been effective, as almost all decisions have been taken unilaterally, without consultations. Even the decision to go ahead with the curfew and lockdown was not discussed in the Prime Minister’s video conference with various Chief Ministers on March 20th 2020. Another very vital point that should not be missed is that in spite of the early warning from the WHO about the pandemic in January 2020, India’s response, with the closure of its international borders and ports of entry, was woefully late, quite obviously to make way for the Namaste Trump event to take place, and cater to some of the governments “more urgent” political considerations.

With economic activity almost ground to a standstill, the lockdown, even though it was a relevant policy response to deal with the pandemic, has had to be extended indiscriminately for a longer haul, due to the lack of preparedness to exit or a clear-cut exit plan. This, in effect, has created a dual crisis to respond to: a public health crisis and an economic crisis, through irreparable disruptions in supply chains. The corona pandemic hit the Indian economy when it was on a significant slowdown mode. The announced fiscal and monetary policy packages of 20 lakhs crores—which the government claimed to be around 10 percent of GDP—has been largely for infusing liquidity into the system for an economic revival, in long-term reform-oriented tranches. These tranches of COVID policy response appeared to be more or less “business as usual” rather than an “emergency pandemic package.. Interestingly enough, most analysts have identified the actual COVID response package as being only 1 percent of GDP or thereabouts, and not the 10 percent as announced by the government.

The trade-off between “life” and “livelihood,” and the government’s appalling apathy in dealing with the plight of migrant labourers, is rapidly burgeoning into a humanitarian crisis of mammoth proportions, with the increasing number of hunger deaths. The lack of authentic data on COVID positive cases and mortality is another area of concern. The recent data from cremation and burial grounds in Delhi contradicts the official COVID-19 mortality statistics by being almost four times higher than the official figure. This makes one wonder whether there is gross underreporting of data, both at the level of the states and at the national level. The lack of preparedness for aggressive testing, treating, and quarantining—asymptomatic and symptomatic tests—across India during the prolonged lockdown provokes dismay, to say the least; this, in spite of the WHO’s clarion call to “test, test, test.” South Korea has been regarded as a benchmark on this front, and their success in containing the pandemic is largely due to the aggressive testing strategy that they adopted.

Interestingly, the epicentre of the pandemic has shifted from China to G7 countries, and now to Brazil. India has broken into the top 10 despite the lockdown and its five extensions, and now the proposed Unlock 1, in the midst of exponentially rising case numbers, with various experts predicting that the cases are likely to peak in June-July!

Needless to say, these are politically challenging times for the government, and the diversion of focus from the virus pandemic to policies towards tackling external aggression (this time from China) could prove costly. We are tackling a pandemic, and the projected skill sets and carefully created image and characteristics of a leader would not help in dealing with it. For that we need strong “institutions” and “policy certainty.” But, for the moment, all that one can infer is, as a country, the policy that came directly from the central government for dealing with this dual crisis that we are facing—the public health crisis and the economic crisis—has been far from adequate. While there have been some bright spots in what has been largely a bleak picture, in the way the pandemic has been tackled in the country, the successes have been exclusively at the level of the states. One can only hope that the centre scales up its policy responses and intensifies its efforts at mitigating, and providing relief to, this appalling human and economic catastrophe, before it gets too late!

(The authors are, respectively, an independent political analyst and professor, NIPFP.)

Poetry Reading YouTube Playlist - Harikrishnan S.

                                                          Poetry Reading on YouTube

Old Wine in a New Bottle Won't Sell Anymore!

I feel Rahul Gandhi, at this point in time, is the main bottleneck in the Congress party. If the party has to come up in some way, from the utter doldrums they it is in, he and his family will have to step down and make way for more efficient leadership. No amount of playing the good boy, or hugging for that matter, is gonna help him or his party in anyway. The sooner he realises that, the better for him and the Congress party. His ineptitude had a massive role to play in the utter drubbing the Congress got at the hands of the BJP in 2014, and even more so in 2019. And the whole strategy of projecting this “good-boy-who-forgives (and hugs to boot)” image would not work against street smart hustlers like the Modi-Shah combine! What the Congress party needs is decisive, proven, overtly powerful leadership that takes visibly tough decisions. While Shashi Tharoor and Chidambaram are too elitist to make any sort of impact, I feel someone like Capt Amarinder Singh would fit the bill perfectly. But it should be a collective decision to project him as their PM candidate for 2024, and it takes vision, which Rahul lacks, and pathetically so! No amount of denial will help a party that is virtually on its deathbed, and the fact that the Nehru/Gandhi family is holding it there will have to be acknowledged!

Excuses like Rahul and his “pan India reach” (seriously?!) simply will not hold water or serve any purpose other than making him feel good, and thereby dousing any chances that he might have to come up in the future. Well, he could not hold on to his own seat (which is supposed to be a Congress stronghold) and is still an MP only because he chose to contest from the safety of Wayanad also! His announcement that he was stepping down immediately post the drubbing his party got in the 2019 elections made me think that he might have learned something from the defeat. But, as it turned out, it was just the usual drama that he chooses to engage in every time they lose. And the other excuse about “party seniors not allowing him (or his mom or his sister) to step down” is plain balderdash. The fact of the matter is that they simply will not step down, and, as long as they cling on there, the party has no future whatsoever. They are fully responsible for the total mess that the country is in right now. The rot in the Congress party started with Indira Gandhi; she institutionalised corruption and turned the party into a family run business more than anything else! Her son, Rajiv, took the rot a step further by giving ground to the BJP to build its politics of hatred on with his brand of shameless appeasement politics and the subsequent Silanyas drama! Priyanka at least is a spontaneous speaker who has charisma, but she carries the dirty baggage of a douchebag of a husband! Rahul introduced himself to us Indians as an absolute idiot, with his utterly foolish interviews and speeches. And for him to outgrow that image that he created for himself is not just going to be a herculean task but pretty much impossible, because however much he tries to cover his “Pappu” image (with all the good boy drama and laboured efforts to project himself as an intellectual) it will keep shining from within, and the number of Indians who take him seriously are few and far between!

The congress said, immediately post the pasting that they got at the hands of the BJP in the 2019 elections, that they will have to reinvent itself - I think it was Shashi Tharoor who said that. If by reinventing what they meant was pouring the old wine into a new bottle and trying to pass it off as Single Malt, then they are simply out of the game completely, which, at the moment, they seem to be! The Congress, at this point in time, will remain a dead horse as long as they have the bro-sis-mom trio guiding them from one tunnel to the other, with no sign of any light at the end of any one of them!!!