REVERSE FEDERALISM

The constitution professes our polity to be federal whereas in reality it was at best quasi-federal for a long time in a sense that the centre was too strong for the states. Post 1990 ,there has been a continual dilution of the status - so much so that now it seems to be a case of reverse federalism - in that the regional outfits are king makers. The situation has come about primarily on account of the national parties sticking mostly to vote bank politics and simultaneous strengthening of the regions economically on account of liberalisation.
It is a dangerous positon to be in since the polity becomes centrifugal rather than centripetal as it was designed.Not that a fragmented polity translates into a fragmented India but it sure does imapact the growth adversely.In situations such as these , the nation has to make do with creations like the common minimum programme-which can at best ensure incremental growth( as the nomenclature suggests ).Whereas in an ideal federal state there should be a possibility for a maximum common programme too wherein the government tries to realise cumulatively all that has be promised by the coalition partners. India should come up with national coalition(s) led by national party(ies) with regional outfits as junior partners on the basis of both a common maximum programme ( about what needs to be done ) as also a common minimum agenda (about what "not" to do-viz.Keeping Art. 370, Ram Temple issue etc. away ).Only then can we be a healthy federation.

NO REAL ANATHEMAS AT THE CENTRE

Barring the irreconcilbility of the Congress & the BJP and BJP & the Left there are no real anathemas at the centre: SP-BSP; AIADMK-DMK;JD(U)-RJD and the rest can go to either of the three major coalition blocks- UPA; NDA or the third front or at least two of the fronts ( Viz.TDP, BJD etc ) without any compunction. This may be a bit unpalatable to the western observers - esp. those with a two party system.However, there is nothing immoral about it-just as the Congress and BJP agree on many international / foreign policy issues without necessarily forming a national government , the regional parties too can share / switch platforms at the centre in the name of national issues ( viz. secularism ) while fighting it out against the same parties in the states.The situation will continue till the space for the third and poosibly the fourth pan national parties gets filled up . It could be the expansion of te Left (perhaps by bringing in Naxalites into the mainstream ) and /or a pan India Muslim party or some such thing.Till such time the Indian political scene will remain somewhat like shooting a Hindi film - without a too structured script or no script at all. Just leave your brains behind and see for yourself that it works.

SHIFTING BLAME ONTO PAST LEADERS IN POOR TASTE

Both Congress and BJP have found an ingenuous way ( albeit in bad taste) to get around issues which were proving to be an albatross around their neck. Whereas the Congress has shifted the blame for inaction in the Babri Masjid demolition upon Narasimha Rao (Digvijay Singh admitted that it was a mistake) BJP tried to pass on the buck for the Kandahar highjack and release of terrorists fiasco onto Atal Bihari. Logically, they are correct - for, Narasimha Rao and Atal were the respective PM's during these cases but what is in poor taste is that all these years both the parties attempted to skirt these - only now when Narasimha Rao is no more and Atal Bihari has reti red from politics that these parties have tried to use them as scapegoats. Goes on to show that there is little to choose between the two major parties not merely in all major policies but also in approach to uncomfortable questions.

ALLIANCES , CROSS -ALLIANCES OR JUGAAD ?

The alliance era has sprung some very interesting scenarios.Those who had hoped that the two blocks of alliances would stabilise - as a prelude to the two party system- are most likely to be dissapointed with the three emerging amorphous blocks of alliances . This is a healthy sign for Indian Democracy as the two other alliances were much of the same thing ( Including many common players ) - in that they had practically the same approach to all major issues.However , there is still a long way to go before it can be called a robust state. It has to do with two factors - nature of alliances and the timing of their formation. In both the alliances, barring the core parties ( Cong and BJP ) and the anathemas (viz. SP& BSP; AIDMK & DMK) all the other players are floaters. Besides , they are both post poll creations whereby seat arithematic is the glue - irrespectie of the idelogical differences . In a sense , it is like all other Indian things - reactive ; whereas had they been pre- poll , the basis would 've been ideology or common agenda.In that case,the alliance would 've been active,even pro-active. The fact of the matter is that if the alliance /coming together is pre-poll , it helps to achieve certain goals( as in the case of Janata party in 1977 ) whereas if it is post poll -on the basis of seat tally , it helps to survive on the basis of proven ground strength. However, the negative fallout is that the growth is at best incremental , by entities such as common minimum programme. Ideally, there should be both a pre-poll as well as post poll alliance- the former should be based on a common agenda- only the relative emphasis should be finetuned post poll on the basis of seats won. In any scenario such as the current one where the alliances are among too unequal partners - it 'll lead to aberrations wherein the regional satraps start harbouring national ambitions and the situation will invariably remain fluid.The way outwill once again be typically Indian -Jugaad.However, the only point to be noted is that Jugaad can at best produce a functional entity, never a superior one.

NEGATIVE INDIAN DEMOCRACY

Indian Democracy is in most parts negative - a fact reflected during elections.All major parties debate negatively- trying to justify their own negative acts in the light of similar negative acts committed by the opponents ; most minority vote banks act negatively - against a particular candidate/ party rather than in favour ; almost all the parties select candidates with negative track records - on the pretext of winnability ; and ,on assuming office, most parties have a negative agenda - of discontinuing / co-opting even the good programmes of the previous government ; witchhunting the opposition leaders etc. - amid all this negativity we must be really naive to expect positive outcomes from our democracy.The need of the hour is to counter negativity of all the aspects- choice of candidates , debates agenda of office et al.

Akhand Pratap Singh & Indrajeet Patel-interesting case studies

The cases of Indrajeet Patel and Akhand Pratap Singh during the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections respectively makes for interesting study.In both these, the corresponding parties(BJP and Congress ) scored muliple points in one shot.Indrajeet,a one time Arjun acolyte is the Congress candidate from Sidhi against Veena Singh (Arjun Singh's daughter who was denied ticket and is contesting as an independent). Unconfirmed reports say say that Arjun Singh had sought ticket for Veena Singh from Satna and Ajay Singh from Sidhi- the party denied both and instead gave the ticket to Indrajeet. In this scenario Patel's defeat is a foregone conclusion. Thus in this gambit Congress High Command has put Arjun Singh in his place(he has been a thorn in the flesh for a while), stymied his dynastic ambitions and cut his staunch supporter to size. A victory of sorts for the party managers at the cost of losing at most one seat,if a t all.
As for Akhand Pratap,a one time Congressman and later an Uma lieutenant rose to be a minister in the BJP regime. - a fact unpalatable to the cadre of BJP. Hence he never quite became an insider;and in the post Uma scenario his position became even more tenous ; on top of it, he tried to take on the some of the biggest political managers of BJP.Consequently,he had to face a triple whammy - Akhand was made to stand against Uma Bha rti while the pa rty workers were informally directed to vote for Yadvendra Singh, the Congress candidate. As a result, Akhand lost his deposit while Uma Bharti was defeated thus killing two birds in one stone. Subsequently, Akhand was unceremoniusly expelled from the party.A case study in the craft of politics.

SHIVRAJ SINGH'S SUGGESTIONS UNTENABLE

Shivraj Singh has come with two suggestions towards electoral reforms- that CM & PM should be elected directly and Lok Sabha & Assembly elections should be held simultaneously. Both suggestions are untenable - the objection to directly electing CM/ PM is that ours is not a presidential form of government - in any case politics is a collective activity and CM /PM can at best be more equal among equals . Individualistic polity may work to some extent in developed economies-in a developing state such as ours too strong a CM may do more harm than good. Of course,that is not to say that there should be a weak CM but instead we need a bunch of strong leaders with CM being the strongest if we wish to have quitable growth.
The idea of holding Lok Sabha and Assembly elections simultaneously (on the plea that development process gets hindered on account of frequent elections) too is impractical; as it is ,it is difficult toinform/ educate the Indian voter about the difference in the nature of issues in the LS & assembly ele ctions - if they're held simultaneously,it'll further confound the confusion.