There is one snag with PBM’s analysis though. Perhaps the OpEd was written before the recent spate of Opinion Polls but PBM fails to see a sliver of opportunity that is starting to open up within this opinion mass of doom and gloom.

Discounting the mandatory reference to 2002 and allies, PBM’s analysis on Narendra Modi misses the point on mass communication that has already happened albeit by default. The two Opinion polls – CNN-IBN and STAR-ABP confirm what was revealed earlier by the India Today Poll. The mainstream media and Narendra Modi’s detractors across the political spectrum have done the job for him building up a national profile by drawing him into campaigns where he had not even set foot – the recent Delhi MCD polls and the UP Polls are good examples of this.

Opinion Polls can be treacherous in a country like India and PBM is right, an effective mass campaign will have to go beyond the electronic medium and Urban India. Perhaps we will have to wait till after the 2012 Gujarat polls to see that.

It is interesting nevertheless to note  that, barring the customary objections, PBM is half convinced that the only mass leader with even half of a chance to get the BJP out of its rut is Narendra Modi.

How the BJP chooses to conduct its internal affairs is a matter between it and its members. To those of us on the outside and sympathetic to its cause, the opaqueness of this conduct is of mild curiosity most of the time but of late it has turned into a matter of acute concern.

It would be redundant to recount all of the episodes and reasons, it would also be speculative given the backroom intrigue surrounding most of them.

But it is in order to point out where the concern mainly arises from:

#1 – The manner in which the BJP has emulated the Congress in turning “failure” into a resume enhancer. This is not the first time it was sought to be argued that choice of Organizational Leadership was divorced from success or failure in elections.

#2 – The manner in which the BJP has further emulated the Congress in scapegoating regional leaders

#3 – The manner in which the BJP and some in the Sangh look to the Communists as a role model for touting the flawed idea of collective leadership as an excuse to either undermine mass leadership or to pass the buck on accountability.

All of the above have in varying degrees contributed to the drift in BJP since the loss in 2004.

Nitin Gadkari’s elevation as BJP President brought the promise of a refreshing change. To some degree that did happen. For the first time you had a BJP leader on television in Delhi who didnt sound angry or outraged all the time. It is hard not to like Gadkari given his disarming humor and relaxed demeanor.  He also brought a sense of energy to campaigns.

But a dispassionate appraisal of the Gadkari term would reveal 3 marked failings:

#1 - Failure to chart a clear path to power in Delhi - BJP has failed to recover ground it previously held in with the exception of Goa. It has not broken any new ground with the exception of the odd bypoll win in Telangana.

#2 – Failure to make bold moves - BJP continues to take muddled positions on most issues with a reactive stance. In states where it has attempted a recovery it has failed to project new credible leadership while it its attempt to recycle old faces has fallen flat.

#3 – Failure to a create a positive “for wave” - Far too much energy and time has been spent on scams, expressing anger and outrage rather than on creating a positive wave “for the BJP”.

The BJP in Delhi has come to be a party of “scam chasers” much like Accident Lawyers in the West who are “Ambulance Chasers”. The “anger” constituency has far too many claimants. And “anger against Congress” is an opportunity with diminishing returns. There is a fatigue factor from frequent superlative claims of scams where the only visible impact is disruption in Parliament and a circuitous Legal Process that barely lends itself to political one-upmanship.

A second term for Mr.Gadkari may have its merits (see discussion below on weak party system) but the opaqueness of the process of decision making and the backroom intrigue surrounding it leaves us no more enlightened on how he or the BJP proposes to address the above three marked failings.

Making this opaqueness worse are the juvenile political games being played in the media. How the BJP proposes to manage its affairs is its business, but this backroom intrigue is clearly not helping it keep our sympathies or earn new sympathies.

One doesn’t have to look too far to extrapolate on what happens to a Party that is unable to reconcile mass politics with dogmatic loyalties to a clique. Those who look to the Communists as a role model on how to run the organization must realize a fate not much unlike the Communists will likely befall them.

A far more relevant role model for the BJP is the “weak party” system that is predominant in western democracies where concentration of power is  federated across regional leaders within a political party and where the national organ of the political party plays largely a secondary role of campaign coordination and funding.

In such a “weak party system” it doesnt really matter who the National President for the Party Organization. A key aspect of that model though is  the Institutionalized Mechanism by which all the regional power centers and the national organ coalesce around a Mass Leader ahead of an election once chosen.  While the process of federating power has been underway in the BJP for sometime it is clear that its core DNA is still at odds with the imperatives of mass politics.

The sooner the BJP reconciles this contradiction and comes to terms with the imperatives of Mass Politics within a “Weak Party” system the better prepared it will be for 2014 or whenever the next General Election may be.

A heinous crime took place in Gulbarg Society in the suburbs of Ahmedabad in Gujarat in February 2002 during the post-Godhra violence. Justice for that crime, that saw former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri falling prey to mob violence, has to be about bringing to book those within that mob. Unfortunately, justice for the real crimes of Gulbarg has been sidetracked by a parallel pursuit for a criminal conspiracy behind the mob violence. The pursuit of that criminal conspiracy has been muddied further by the politics injected into it, making it a high-stakes game of ‘politics by litigation’. This has since left far behind the prosecution of the perpetrators of the crimes of Gulbarg.

The process of justice for the 2002 violence was politicised from the start, with Supreme Court interventions coming as early as 2003. Setting aside all arguments and counter-arguments including misgivings about extraordinary judicial activism, everyone had accepted in good faith that the process set about by the Supreme Court, through the Special Investigation Team constituted by it, was to be the final word on the complaint filed by Ehsan Jafri’s Zakia Jafri alleging a conspiracy.

This process, steered by the Supreme Court-appointed SIT with former CBI Director CK Raghavan at its helm, has since brought closure to a number of cases at varying stages of trial, conviction and sentencing. Having expressed dissatisfaction with the previous agencies, it is incumbent upon those who sought this extraordinary Supreme Court intervention to stand by the SIT and to accept fully its report.

The SIT has delivered an exhaustive 25,000-page closure report on the most high profile of complaints to emerge from the game of ‘politics by litigation’. In that closure report the SIT has conclusively established that neither was there any political conspiracy at the highest levels of Government to allow the 2002 violence nor was there any wilful negligence on the part of Gujarat’s Chief Minister, Mr Narendra Modi.

The SIT did not arrive at this conclusion by merely going through the Chief Minister’s replies during its interrogation of him. Instead, it has based its observations on a comprehensive body of evidence that it put together which it further put to extensive scrutiny.

A lawyer appointed by the Supreme Court to look into the evidence and provide opinion has further validated that evidence, by agreeing with the SIT’s conclusions on all most all counts barring one. The amicus curiae’s opinion that there may be possible grounds for prosecution of the Chief Minister has been analysed threadbare in media reports to highlight its many infirmities and speculations.

Be that as it may, the SIT’s final closure report deals with this divergent opinion as well in an exhaustive manner. It calls out every single observation by theamicus curiae. It further puts to logical test every one of the observations, to highlight those that are not supported by facts or laws, to finally conclude that theamicus curiae has erred by relying solely on the fabricated claims of a delinquent police officer with a dubious record. The SIT then finally recommends that there is no case to be made against the Mr Modi.

The SIT has prepared this final closure report after the ‘conspiracy’ theory surrounding the Gulbarg Society case was investigated and re-investigated by it and also after that re-investigation was reviewed independently by the amicus curiae under the supervision of the Supreme Court at every stage. This level of scrutiny of a sitting Chief Minister is unprecedented and extraordinary by the justice standards of any mature democracy.

Hence, it is outrageous to see shallow commentary emerging from the editorial desks of various English-language newspapers and news media outlets. They have not only accused the SIT of lazy logic but have also insinuated unprofessionalism on the part of Mr Raghavan, and even stooped so far as to launch personal attacks on his family. The bottom line here is that the SIT lead by Mr Raghavan has set the gold standard for how a highly-politicised charge of conspiracy theory must be investigated in an environment of high political stakes. The thorough and complete nature of this investigation cannot be cast aside just because its outcome is contrary to what was desired by some. Having demanded this process of the Supreme Court, the NGO activists, their media collaborators and their sponsors in the Congress have no choice but to accept this outcome, howsoever adverse it may be to their political goals.

The SIT was not appointed by Mr  Modi. It was appointed by the Supreme Court. The multiple investigations and reviews were not ordered by Mr Modi. They were ordered by the Supreme Court. This was the process sought by the activists and influenced by a lawyer with well-known sympathies for the activists. Thus, for the activists to now disown the process just because the outcome was not what they had hoped for all along is both bogus and dishonest.

While the investigation into the  crimes commited in Gulbarg must go on undistracted and unhindered, one hopes that Ms Jafri and her family accept the reality that there was no political conspiracy leading to the violence in Gulbarg. They must focus their efforts on finding the real perpetrators of the Gulbarg violence rather than become political pawns in the agenda advanced by activists and their  political masters in the Congress.

To those in the media who have been dishing out constipated editorials on the SIT report, their inability to digest the  report is fully understandable. This is the end of the road for those who have been seeking a conspiracy theory behind the riots. This outcome was the result of a process that could not have been any more independent or non-partisan, having been steered and supervised by the highest court of the country going far beyond what the Constitution explicitly provided for.

To those who still cannot find closure from this outcome, one can only say that their faith in the Indian Republic is suspect.

Also read on the same topic of Restoring Trust to our Public Discourse:

Why “restoring trust” must become the overarching theme of the political narrative

Column in Rediff August 2011 on reforms

Parliament is due to mark the 60th anniversary of its first sitting in 1952. Interestingly, Parliament also had a distinguished visitor in 1952 when it was addressed by Mrs Franklin D Roosevelt. Her remarks reported by the Milwaukee Journal back in 1952 are as much relevant today as we look forward to the role this institution shall play in the future of our great nation. To quote Eleanor Roosevelt:

‘Democracies who take their freedoms too much for granted sometimes lose them.’

‘We forget that we must work for those things we hold dear.’

As I set about to pen this column, I was seized of the request on how can Parliament make India [ Images ] Great. At the outset I must disagree with other columnists who I am afraid have taken a rather dim and cynical view.

I for one believe that we are a Great Nation. We are a democracy in progress. We are a Republic in its adolescence. We may have wide disparities in income or otherwise. But none of that in any way diminishes the fact that we are a Great Nation.

We are a Great Nation because we survived as a civilisation for over 4,000 years even as others perished. We are a Great Nation also because we as a people have outlasted all those who sought to imperialise us.

The history of our nation may not always have charted a linear trajectory to greatness. But that must not distract us from recognising that we as a nation continue to find new and innovative ways to reconcile contradictions, transcend fault-lines thus avoiding the pitfalls of so many of our neighbours.

So heeding Eleanor Roosevelt’s remarks from 60 years ago to Parliament let us recognise that we must not take for granted those things we hold dear and we must work for them.

The greatness of our nation over the centuries arises from an innate sense of justice rooted in the ancient Indian idea of Dharma. My good friend Nitin Pai from The Takshashila Institution raises an important point that the motto for our Constitution should not have been ‘Satyameva Jayate’, but instead should have been ‘Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitah’.

During the Constituent Assembly debates the makers of our Constitution like Dr S Radhakrishnan foresaw the need for that innate sense of justice flowing from Dharma to be reflected in the spirit of the Constitution if not in its words.

The Constitution makers imagined the Parliament of India to be the supreme institution in our system of government. They envisaged a division of power with ultimate accountability to the people through the elected representatives of the Lok Sabha.

Thus, the Parliament of India was not just the custodian of the interests of the people of India, but it was also envisaged to be the vanguard of Dharma that holds the fabric of our nation together by its actions.

Today, the Parliament of India may appear to be a raucous madhouse at times, its sheen diminished by the actions of those within and by the words of those from the outside. Today, Parliament may also appear to be lacking in credibility when viewed through the prism of the politics of the moment.

Its actions at times may appear to be contradictory to both the original intent of the Constitution and the spirit of Dharma. Its agenda at times may appear to be swayed by a value system that is motivated by alien political ideologies working against the spirit of Dharma.

Nevertheless, Parliament has distinguished itself with a sense of rule of law to rise to the occasion whenever it was put to the test by our democratic experiment. Let us not forget we are an adolescent Republic and a democracy that is still a work in progress.

The wide disparities across our nation have created a deep trust deficit between people and politicians, between political parties and between various identity based groups and across many of our public institutions.

The solution to bridging this trust deficit does not lie in further fostering grievances and victimhood by seeking refuge in alien political ideologies that widen fault-lines while exacerbating the trust deficit.

Instead the solution lies in rediscovering that spirit of Dharma so we can restore trust to our public transactions and trust in our public institutions. There is no other project of greater national interest for the next decade and beyond, than the national project to restore trust by rediscovering the spirit of Dharma.

The Indian Parliament being at the head of all of our public institutions has the greatest responsibility towards this national project.

As our Parliamentarians sit down to mark the 60th anniversary I fully expect that there will be empty platitudes in words and much cynicism in many hearts. But a small beginning must be made somewhere towards this national project to restore trust.

So even if one member of Parliament manages to resolve himself or herself within his or her mind on a commitment towards this national project it would be a start.

A commitment from our Parliamentarians to rediscover the spirit of Dharma in our laws and transactions would go miles towards keeping the hope alive that we as a great nation will continue to survive and thrive

It is one thing to say that “I have a shut mind” and “no amount of evidence” will change my opinion to damn the SIT’s investigation.

It is quite another for Pundits across the Editorial Desks in Indian Express, Times of India and E.T. Bureau to bloggers in News Blog sites like First Post, to fault the SIT’s report with shallow commentary.

#1 – On the issue of SIT’s comments that  ”alleged remarks even if made” would not constitute an criminal offence

The Pundits have chosen to conveniently ignore that the:

- The SIT makes the comment after exhaustively and conclusively establishing that the “alleged remarks” were never made

- The SIT goes on further indulge the Amicus Curiae to make the above comment in the specific context of the specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code using which it was sought to be argued  by the Amicus Curiae that there are grounds for prosecution. The SIT further goes on to expand why the mere utterance of alleged words cannot be an offence for it has to be shown that the alleged words were actually carried through in Administrative orders and through Political and Executive actions.

The Pundits also conveniently ignore that the SIT is not investigating Administrative Lapses or Political Conduct but is investigating allegations of Criminal Conspiracy.

#2 – On alleged inconsistencies on post riot speeches

Post Riot Speeches in September are not material to allegations of “Criminal Conspiracy” prior to the Riots. It is silly that these should be used to trash the SIT’s findings on the absence of a criminal conspiracy.

#3 – On alleged inconsistencies on interpretation of Late Mr. Jaffri’s actions

Once again the different interpretations of Late Mr. Jaffri’s actions (that too many years after the fact) are irrelevant and not material whether or not there was a Criminal Conspiracy to foment riots.

Underlying all of this shallow commentary and lazy editorializing is the stark reality that there is no closure in the SIT report to some because this was never about Justice for the real crimes of Gulbarg but about seeking Political Retribution through a Criminal Prosecution by Imagining a Conspiracy.

As has been argued several times by this blogger before, Judgement on the Administrative and Political Actions of any Government during a Riot has to be through the Court of Public Opinion and elections are the only mechanism to achieving it.

It is time they stopped deluding themselves that they can achieve through the legal system what they desire politically.

It is also high time they stopped misguiding the victims for Justice for the Real Crimes of Gulbarg has been sidetracked by this politically motivated pursuit of a non-existent Criminal Conspiracy.

The Criminal Conspiracy has been investigated and re-investigated twice by the SIT, reviewed once by the Amicus Curiae and re-investigated and re-viewed by the SIT. The 25,000 odd pages stand testimony to this fact.

This is the end of the road for those seeking a conspiracy theory.

It is over !

It then goes on to not just factually establish the truth but also gives the fullest benefit of doubt to conclude there is no legal case against Narendra Modi.

The following final, final conclusions also establish the question of political or moral culpability as is routinely made by some (SIT Final Closure report – Part 6 Pages 459 to 541, Page 64 onwards)

the thrust of CM’s speech everywhere was that the incident was heinous, organised and that the culprits would be brought to strictest punishment.. . . .

it is not the case that the Chief Minister made any assertion concerning- the obligation of any religious community to do such acts, as are likely to cause disharmony. He did not make any appeal to Hindus or Muslims to take up arms against each other.’

it is reasonably concluded that no utterances on part of Shri Narendra Modi could ‘be attributed suggestive to any intended promotion of hatred ill-will etc.. amongst religious groups

Then finally this

the Learned Amicus Curiae has agreed with the various recommendations made by the SIT on the different issues inquired into /investigated by the SIT.

However, the Ld. Amicus Curiae is of the view that, at this prima facie stage offences u/s 153A(I )(a)& (b), 1536 (I 166 and 505 (2) IPC are made out against Shri Narendra regarding the statement made by him in the meeting.

In this connection, as discussed, above SIT is of the view that the offences under the aforesaid, sections of law are not made out against Shri Narendra Modi.

In the light of the aforesaid facts, a closure report is being submitted for favour of perusal and orders.

This comprehensively, factually brings closure to both the legal and moral case against Narendra Modi that has sought to be made out.

Background reading material

 October 1949 edition of the Sunday Indian Express on Sardar Patel’s efforts to integrate states and provinces. 

12th January 2010 OpEd in The Pioneer on why India needs a NCTC

The proposed National Center for Counter-terrorism is as much a casualty of politics as it is a casualty of the singular failure of the Central Government – the inability to negotiate interests across stakeholders to forge a consensus. It is bizarre that anyone in the UPA seriously thought that the mere mechanical act of circulating a memo would produce a consensus on the NCTC. It perhaps is a reflection of the deep cynicism underlying the political inertia within the UPA, which it went about the mechanical act of holding a discussion on NCTC knowing fully well a breakthrough was unlikely.

Who in their right mind would expect a forum that is about more talking than any listening to produce a consensus of any sorts ?

While it is true that there is little political interest within the UPA to pursue a consensus it is also true that the UPA lacks leaders who can actually negotiate and produce a consensus. The current impasse between the non-UPA ruled states and the UPA ruled Center calls for perhaps something more than a patient negotiator. It calls for a unique set of skills combined within a persona that inspires trust, awe and confidence.

Integrating the many Princely states and provinces into the Indian Republic was perhaps the most complex consensus building act in the political history of Modern India. Unlike the writing of the Constitution, consensus in which to large effect was accomplished thanks to the legislative majority enjoyed the Congress Party in the Constituent Assembly, the integration of the provinces was a different ball game. It involved negotiating a diversity of interests across a plurality of stakeholders. With a variety of instruments at his disposal, ranging from pressure and diplomacy Sardar Patel’s welding together a Federation to be governed by the Republic holds many lessons for the current impasse between the states and the Center.

While Patel’s appeal to national interest in bringing around the Princely states is well understood of particular interest is a statement made by him in the Constituent Assembly in October of 1949. The Sunday Indian Express in its edition of October 13^th 1949 carried the statement at length.  In that statement it is noteworthy that Patel went on to reinforce the case for integration by not just limiting himself to the political and moral aspects but more specifically the economic benefits ranging from improved tax revenues to a massive boost to the treasury. The unique skills employed by Patel in this task become clear in the same statement as he sought to make a case to the Constituent Assembly to accept the terms negotiated by him with the states and provinces.

From NCTC to GST and from economic reforms to targeted subsidies/entitlements the political need of the present times is Leadership in Patel’s mold that can engage, negotiate, build trust and confidence where possible, awe and overwhelm when necessary.

Much has been made of Acceptability as the defining trait for triangulating on a future alternative to the Congress lead UPA. The reality of this much touted “Acceptability” is that it gets us the exact opposite of what the current impasse demands. It will give us the least common denominator of all insecurities. It will produce an alternative that is least threatening to status quo. Such an alternative will have practically no political capital to spend on altering status quo.

The minimum common path of “Acceptability” will not get us where we need to go to bring about the kind of reforms we urgently need. To get there, we will have to choose a path that is unpleasant to many. We will have to first make a clear and decisive choice for without such a clear mandate, there will be no political capital to expend on complex issues. This is a necessary precondition but barely sufficient as the UPA’s second term has shown conclusively. The political capital earned from a clear if not decisive verdict in 2009 has been frittered away by a timid leadership within the UPA incapable of communicating with the nation at large to push across a complex agenda.

From the manner in which the UPA has also allowed itself to be steamrolled by apolitical actors ranging from NAC Left Liberals to Lokpal activists there is yet another dimension to the leadership choice that needs to be made. It has to be a choice that is not easily overawed by pressure from vocal special interests.  Few politicians have mastered the art of turning an adverse political climate into an advantage by staking it all on an issue, turning it into a personal referendum. Those leaders who’s appeal is largely sectarian, try to get by making it about identity victimhood as we have routinely seen with caste based parties or linguistic/sub-regional identity parties. The more effective of these leaders are those who have been able to turn an issue around into a personal referendum by appealing to an entire state’s identity. Little wonder that it is these leaders who have stood up to the pressure from vocal special interests far more effectively than others.

The current impasse between the states and center is partly the result of this dynamic. Mass leaders at the state level are pushing their agenda by expending well-earned political capital, turning key issues into a personal referendum while simultaneously appealing to a statewide identity to push their case. A government stripped of mass leaders of any consequence has thus been clueless about dealing with them. The way out of this impasse lies in a Mass Leader at the national level who is capable of exercising similar leverage albeit at the national level to bring around the states. Someone who can appeal to a national identity, carry its weight to the negotiation table to accommodate legitimate interests on his or her terms while at the same time overwhelming the unreasonable ones into submission with the weight of that same political capital.

The path to consensus on critical issues of national interest lies not in the timid pursuit of “acceptability” but in a bold return to mass politics as was once attempted by Sardar Patel.  In this lies the difference between an “acceptable leadership” that is incapable of delivering on anything tangible and a “mass leadership” with the ability to push through and deliver on a complex agenda.

Part 1 – Published 29th April 2012

Part 2 – Published 6th May 2012

Find excerpts from this OpEd series below. Offstumped will be offline over the next two weeks.

Nehru on why a directly elected President was not desirable

“there is such a thing as too much of a democratic procedure …. we have a wide scale wasting of the time, we might have no time left for doing anything else except preparing for the elections and having elections …. I am quite convinced in my mind that if we try to adopt that here (American Presidential Government), we shall prevent the development of any ministerial form of Government and we shall waste tremendous amount of time and energy …. I think that having that type of election for our President would be a bad thing for us”

“The Central Legislature may, and probably will be dominated, say, by one party or group which will form the ministry. If that group elects the President, inevitably they will tend to choose a person of their own party. He will then be even more a dummy than otherwise. The President and the ministry will represent exactly the same thing”

“I am not prepared to believe that adult franchise is absolutely essential …when the members of the Assembly themselves are being elected by the votes of millions where is the necessity for electing the President by adult franchise ? …. If you want to elect the President by adult franchise, then this would mean that we will have to waste much of our time in holding (Presidential) elections and we will not be able to act according to our new Constitution”

Ambedkar on why a Ministerial form of government was more desirable over a Presidential form of government

According to Ambedkar a democratic executive musts satisfy two conditions – (1) It must be a stable executive and (2) it must be a responsible executive. As Ambedkar saw it at the time of the drafting of the Constitution it was not possible to devise a system that could ensure both in equal degree. The design choice to be made was really one of a compromise between systems which can give you more stability but less responsibility and systems which give you more responsibility but less stability.

The American and the Swiss systems according to Ambedkar gave more stability but less responsibility. The British system on the other hand Ambedkar felt gave more responsibility but less stability. Recognizing that the American Executive was not dependent for its existence upon a majority in the U.S. Congress, Ambedkar saw greater merit in the British system which meant dependence on a majority in Parliament. This merit according to Ambedkar arose from the fact that a non-Parliamentary Executive being independent of parliament tends to be less responsible to the Legislature.

The other area of problem according to Ambedkar was the periodic nature of assessment of the responsibility of the Executive by the people once in four years. Ambedkar on the other hand showed a strong preference for assessment of responsibility of the Executive that was both daily and periodic. The daily assessment according to him would be done by Members of Parliament, through questions, Resolutions, No-confidence motions, Adjournment motions and Debates on Addresses while the Periodic assessment would be done by the Electorate at the time of elections.

The Daily assessment of responsibility which is not available under the American system Ambedkar argued was far more effective than the periodic assessment and far more necessary in a country like India.

Sixty years on Ambedkar’s design intent has far from been realized for we neither have a stable government thanks to a fragmented legislature nor do we have a responsible government thanks to the Congress’ precedent of propping up a Prime Minister with no real political power.

Also read:

Tharoor on rekindling the Presidential form of government debate

The idea of a Constitutionally Adversarial President

(NOTE: Offstumped will be offline next few weeks)

On Shale reserves, fracking and Energy Independence

A hot political debate in Argentina over the past few days has been on the Argentinian government’s decision to nationalize a Spanish owned Oil Producer. The move comes after that Oil Company had doubled its estimate of shale oil reserves in Argentina putting it only behind China and the United States. The Argentinian debate is not a lone exception. Writing in the Financial Times, Sylvia Pfeifer argues that Shale could bring Energy Independence to many nations freeing them from a reliance on imports. Drawing a parallel with the sentiment in the 1950s on how Atomic Power was viewed with the same promise Sylvia Pfeifer makes a poignant observation on how the debate on Shale reserves is recasting geopolitics and influencing national investment decisions.

On Solar and Renweables

Since 2009 the number of commercial and residential installations that generated solar power grew by 75%.  In the United States alone distributed power generation using solar is estimated to be at least a thirty billion dollar market over the next 15 years. Taking the lead on Energy Independence,  the U.S. Department of Defense is looking at Solar taking a 5% slice of its multibillion dollar spend on renewable sources of energy for its non-combat facilities. Major American cities like Los Angeles are also undertaking massive city wide initiatives with electric vehicles in mind.

On the political contrast in India on setting an agenda for Energy Independence

The contrast could not have been starker between Gujarat that has become the mainstay of sorts for the BJP and Andhra Pradesh which is the mainstay for the Congress. Where Gujarat is looking at a power surplus Andhra is not just suffering serious shortage but has had a steep hike in tariffs making it a double whammy on Entrepreneurs in that state.

Towards a political roadmap for Energy Independence

We are no closer to making Energy Independence a potent political issue for the Congress and its extended ecosystem of Left Liberal NGOs and activists inside and outside the media has been successful in labeling any debate on investing for the future as being elitist and anti-poor.

In a political climate where polemics of the past dominate the political discourse in the present even the worst of Narendra Modi’s critics will have to grudgingly admit that he is setting the agenda for the future on Energy unmindful of such labeling.

Also read:

Solar Farm Project

Solar Canal Project

Hydrocarbons in Sir Creek – Ashok Malik and Myra Mcdonald

The images of Bangaru Lakshman’s awkward handling of hard cash on national television have made him an unfair example to tout. To Mr. Lakshman’s credit he took the trial by media in stride without making it about Dalit victimhood.

But 10 years later the Lakshman sentencing by a lower court in Delhi says much about how broken and flawed our Justice system can be coonsidering that in the same Court system the moral axis was reversed in the Cash for Votes sting case with the whistleblowers being tried as the guilty parties while the alleged beneficiaries walk scott free. From the Abhishek Singhvi CD episode to these two starkly contrasting sting cases what we see is a vitiated political atmosphere in Delhi that has left the lower court system politically compromised.

There is Justice in Bangaru Lakshman’s conviction for he acted without the ethical Judgment expected of a National Party President. There is however no Justice in this 4 year sentence for it inflicts more injury on Bangaru Lakshman than Bangaru Lakshman ever inflicted. In fact Bangaru Lakshman inflicted no injury at all on anyone in this fictitious crime while paying a steep personal price for 10 years and rightly so.

Today Bangaru Lakshman is friendless but that may also be because he dared to go where no BJP President ever went with these remarks in 2000:

BJP must rework its axis with Muslims

The episode also says much of what the BJP has become in Delhi with its culture of foisting Party Presidents from nowhere (the current incumbent included) and the manner in which it gets animated against the Congress whenever a scandal makes news. The BJP may be right that the conviction is Mr. Lakshman’s personal matter but it says much that it cannot speak out on the travesty that his 4 year Sentence is.

On a personal note I met Bangaru Lakshman once, while being familiar with his role in local politics growing up around Hyderabad. His rise to Party President was a surprise given an otherwise lackluster political career but his inaugural speech in August of 2000 in Nagpur showed much promise – a Dalit at the helm of BJP who dared to challenge conventional wisdom on engaging the Muslim community.

“The BJP has not yet become the preferred party of governance in the eyes of the people,” Laxman, who took over as the Bharatiya Janata Party’s first Dalit president today, said in his presidential address to the National Council which began its two-day session here.

Emphasising the need for reworking the relationship between the party and Muslims in the country, he said “the party has not made sustained efforts to reach out to Indian Muslims in a bid to weaken the influence on their minds of the sustained negative propaganda of our adversaries.”

Lakshman said, “We have somehow taken it for granted that our party will not receive any significant support from them. This preconceived approach has not helped our party either. We cannot afford to allow this situation to continue. If we do so, we shall be hurting our own future prospects and Muslims will continue to be used as vote banks by our adversaries.”

Bangaru Lakshman’s fall hence was a huge personal disappointment as well.