Tag Archives: elections

US Elections 2012

America’s Bollywood Style Election

Leave a comment

Elections have a way of reminding us that the gap between India and America is not quite as big as we sometimes perceive.  American Presidential candidates don’t wear white kurthas and Indian Parliamentary candidates don’t need to bother with primaries—but that is where the main differences end.  Both spend an unhealthy amount of time trying to out-demagogue their opponents, powerful vote banks grapple for influence, sloganeering is heavy while vision is frequently light, film stars have far more clout than they ought to, candidates will try to paint opponents as elitist, and in the end the outcome is determined by a few strategic geographic regions.

Stateside the mudslinging is starting to exaggerate itself to ludicrous extremes, looking almost like a Bollywood movie where party proxies trip over each other to get before cameras and pontificate, melodramatic speeches at the ready, lacking only background musical score.  What’s troubling about this scenario is that it leaves us with no sense of how either candidate will approach South Asian affairs over the next four years, at a time in which subcontinental politics are having an increasing effect on American domestic prosperity.  India has borne considerable collateral fire in the President’s attacks against his opponent, who, has not made much inroad in demonstrating he has a tangible India policy.

Continual belligerency has been the de-facto if not de-jure policy of Pakistan for well over a decade, and the cost to NATO of governments in Islamabad and Kabul being controlled by an ISI cadre, either overtly or through a parade of civilian paper tigers is immeasurable.  The Pakistan issue, directly linked to matters of nuclear security, Chinese military development and industrial espionage, terrorism and narco-trafficking, has unfortunately been lost in a fruitless, counterproductive election battle over outsourcing where emotion and rhetoric have outweighed reason and facts at every possible level.

In defense matters India, still a key player in geopolitical outcomes in Iran and Russia, has been slowly moving away from the Russian camp and showing increasing favor towards the United States and its major allies such as Israel and Great Britain.  This means not only billions of dollars in export orders and thousands of American jobs, now and for the future, but a major American foreign policy coup left unfulfilled during the cold war.  The fate of major geostrategic issues cannot be left to chance over sophomoric electioneering tactics.  That is truly un-presidential.

Each candidate and their respective party ought to take the high road, get beyond slogans and platitudes and do what the American people truly want them to do: outline a real vision for the future, inclusive of America’s key geo-strategic priorities around the world.  In the heat to win an election it is easy to remember that indifference or insensitive campaigning can do real harm to America’s important relationships overseas, who are becoming more intra-linked to American prosperity at home.

India-US Relations Blog

In South Asia, graft begets Terror

Leave a comment

What do elections in India have to do with terrorism? Plenty. These days, well-heeled candidates distribute “notes for votes”, passing out currency so as to entice electors into choosing them. While illegal in India’s absurdly restrictive electoral system (where a candidate for a parliamentary seat with more than five million voters breaks the law if he spends more than $30,000 on his election), why should counter-terrorism experts need to experience blood pressure rises at the fact that an estimated $ 800 million was handed out during the 2009 national elections in India to voters? More recently, last month more than $100 million in cash was seized from politicians in just the state of Tamil Nadu, where elections to the state legislature were due.

Most of the cash handed out by generous politicians is counterfeit. They get the currency from the same networks that operate the terror and narcotics syndicates. Apart from North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, the biggest counterfeiter in the world is Pakistan’s ISI, which uses its multiple contacts in India to circulate cash that has been printed for the purpose. India has, of course, made this easy by relying on the same source for printing its currency as Pakistan does for its own, thereby ensuring that the same inks and paper become available to the ISI as are used in printing India’s legal tender. The cash gets moved into India through multiple channels, a lot of it coming into the possession of politcal leaders, who protect the networks involved so as to be assured of their own supplies of counterfeit currency.

Small wonder that Hassan Ali, one of the world’s biggest money launderers, was residing safely in India for decades, even while moving out tens of billions of dollars, most into Swiss banks. Ali is now in jail, but powerful patrons at the Union Cabinet level are seeking to ensure that he avoid naming any but the “small fish” in his roster of clients. The reality is that a Union Cabinet Minister who is holding a powerful portfolio was a close friend of Ali’s closest associate, Kashinath Tapuriah, and frequently used to meet with him in Kolkata. Small wonder that nobody is holding his or her breath waiting for accountability.

India’s top politicians use “hawala” channels to spirit their money abroad, and protect these sources in their own interest. The problem is that most of the major “hawala” channels are run from out of Pakistan, and are staffed by those active in both narcotics and terrorism. By protecting such channels, high-level politicians in India are in effect protecting the votaries of Terror.

Which is where the U.S. can come in. President Barack Obama needs to appreciate that it is not enough that the Treasury Department discover and sanitize cash belonging to terror syndicates that are in US-based entities. The U.S. needs to be similarly active in the case of entities in South Asia as well. And because of its huge size and even greater scale of corruption, India tops the list. Thus far, politicians in power have cleverly defined illegal assets abroad as “tax evasion”, thereby freeing international financial agencies of the responsibility for identifying and eliminating them, something that would need to be done, were these assets correctly labeled. For the fact is that such assets are the proceeds of crime, and need to be defined as such. Why authorities in India are resisting this is because such a change would mean that banks abroad would be duty bound to reveal the names of their clients.

Some politicians in India park funds with relatives abroad, many of whom have foreign passports. There needs to be complete transparency on the assets and occupations of the relatives of key decision-makers in India, so that the public can be alerted if – for example – a high-school dropout who may be the sister of a prominent politician in India becomes a millionaire through paths that are obscure. More than the fact that such individuals are living high on the hog at the expense of the Indian taxpayer who has been cheated of his assets, the reality is that much of the cash sent abroad through “hawala” is tainted by association with narcotics and terror syndicates. What is needed is for the U.S. to publicly offer to assist South Asian states to identify funds that have been parked abroad as a consequence of graft. This would help the War on Terror as much or more as military hardware.

India-US Relations Blog

WikiLeaks and US-India Relations

1 Comment

Whatever else it says about the propriety of India’s political class, the latest tranche of WikiLeaks cables now being dispensed by The Hindu newspaper contains a sobering lesson for US-India relations. The revelations about the parliamentary chicanery surrounding the 2008 civilian nuclear accord, intended to be a launching pad for a new era of bilateral dynamism, can only reinforce lingering doubts in Washington about whether India’s political institutions are even capable of acting on the ubiquitous rhetoric one now hears about taking relations to a higher plane.

PhotoIt came as a shock to U.S. officials that the nuclear agreement, which garnered strong bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, provoked extraordinary melodrama on Raisina Hill.  As the Washington Post noted in amazement at the time, “if New Delhi’s politicians cannot find a way to say yes to such a clearly advantageous agreement with a natural ally, the next U.S. administration no doubt will think twice before trying anything like it.”  Of course, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh finally did manage to push the accord through the Indian parliament, but only after an extended and acrimonious debate. It was especially disconcerting that the debate devolved into an unprecedented parliamentary vote of confidence regarding a foreign policy issue. Singh’s narrowly-won victory was possible only through resort to some exceptional measures, including the furloughing from jail of members of parliament who had been convicted of murder and other serious crimes.

As part of the debate, the main opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, accused – in rather theatrical fashion – the Congress Party and its allies of paying hefty bribes in exchange for votes. A subsequent inquiry concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the claim. But now the WikiLeaks cables give renewed credence to the allegation. In a dispatch sent a few days before the crucial confidence vote, the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi noted that the Congress Party machine was “working overtime” to ensure victory, including assembling cash-filled war chests “lying around the house for use as pay-offs.” The cable reports that members of the Rashtriya Lok Dal, a small party based in Uttar Pradesh, had already agreed to trade their votes in exchange for $2.5 million bribes and that an unsuccessful attempt had been made to inveigle members of the Akali Dal, a small Punjab-based party. Kamal Nath, a Congress Party veteran then serving as Minister of Commerce & Industry, was described as “helping spread largesse.” According to the cable, a Congress Party insider told an Embassy official that “formerly [Nath] could only offer small planes as bribes” but “now he can pay for votes with jets.”

These are serious – albeit unverified – allegations that only add to the thickening taint of corruption now engulfing Prime Minister Singh’s government. Of course, log-rolling and intrigue are nothing new in Indian politics, and those implicated in the cables have denied their veracity. But to policymakers looking on in Washington, what must be most dismaying is that, in order to secure passage of an agreement so obviously favorable to India, the Congress Party had to engage in such extraordinary steps. Apparently, the “normal” rules of parliamentary bargaining do not apply to significant foreign policy issues involving the United States.  For those, the Congress Party has to up the ante – from small planes to jet aircraft.

The WikiLeaks cables also do nothing to strengthen the BJP’s credentials for principled leadership. During the debate over the agreement, Jaswant Singh insisted that the party’s opposition was not about tawdry partisanship but rather involved solemn issues of national sovereignty and military preparedness. But the opposite now appears true. In a March 2009 conversation with the U.S. chargé d’affaires, BJP supremo L.K. Advani connected the party’s stance to “domestic political developments then at play in India” and downplayed previous declarations that a future BJP government would “reexamine” the accord.

The WikiLeaks dispatches hardly inspire confidence in New Delhi’s credibility as a serious strategic partner.  Prime Minister Singh deserves kudos for the political resolve he displayed during the tumult over the nuclear agreement. But his victory was also pyrrhic, revealing just how isolated he is inside the corridors of power. And if there is any substance to the latest accusations of political shenanigans, his reputation for probity will be further dented. For their part, BJP grandees stand exposed as petty partisans rather than stalwart champions of the national interest.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize the Obama administration’s approach to bilateral relations. But the next time the Indian commentariat is tempted to indulge in the “Obama disses India” narrative, one might first inquire into New Delhi’s own capacity for far-sighted statesmanship.

India-US Relations Blog

The Voice of the Majority – 2 – Religion & Regime Stability?

4 Comments

In the first article of this series, the following was deemed self-evident:

  • The majority in every society or country expects its religion, its culture, and its belief systems to be respected and supported by its government.

A corollary of this self-evident fact is:

  • A regime that is seen, felt and recognized to be respectful and supportive of the majority religion tends in turn to be supported the majority of the people.

The events of the past 2-3 weeks demonstrate the truth of this corollary.

Does any one think Pakistan is richer than Egypt or Tunisia? Does anyone think that Pakistan provides its youth greater career opportunities than Egypt or Tunisia? Does any one think that Pakistan is less corrupt than Egypt? No.

Yet, we have not seen a single protest demonstration in Pakistan. And we have seen massive demonstrations in Tunisia and Egypt. The leader of Tunisia fled the country and his regime is in tatters. Yesterday, President Mubarak of Egypt announced his decision to step down in the face of huge protests in Cairo and Alexandria. Despite his 32-year reign, no one in Egypt has been willing to stand up in support of Mr. Mubarak. The Obama Administration and the Western European Governments have essentially dumped him.

The leaders of Tunisia and Egypt were and are secular men. They went out of their way to diminish the hold of religion on their people and they were ruthless against the proponents of the majority religion of their people. These leaders were the ones who created the education systems that educated the young men who have now risen against these leaders.

Look at the other regimes that seem to be trouble in the Middle East, Jordan, Bahrain, possibly Kuwait. These regimes, like Egypt & Tunisia, are generally secular; they have implemented western education systems and have discouraged overly strong influence of religion.

In each of these countries, the western educated segments are small and urban. The young “educated” people think of themselves as almost western and expect similar living standards. These “educated” youth are popular with American anchors who can interview them on American TV. They come across as just like young Americans or Europeans, young people who want the same things western young people want. It makes for lovely TV.

The Iranian students of 1978-1979 were just like these young people in Tunisia and Egypt. The Shah of Iran was like Ben-Ali of Tunisia and Mubarak of Egypt. He was dumped unceremoniously by his “bff” America and fled the country like Ben-Ali of Tunisia. Mubarak of Egypt seems made of sterner stuff and his fate is still unclear.

The Iranian Students that rioted in 2009 in Tehran were just like the Iranian Students of 1978-79, like Tunisian and Egyptian students we see today. But today’s Iranian regime is totally different. The Theocratic Regime in Iran has the support of the majority of Iranian people who are deeply conservative and religious. This is why the revolting Iranian students of 2009 received no support from the Iranian majority. This is why the Iranian regime could crush the revolt and tell the western world to bug off. And the Iranian regime won.

Today’s Pakistan is a basket case despite billions of dollars of U.S. aid. Actually Pakistan, a land with 170 million people, gets far less aid than does Egypt, a country of 80 million people. Yet, Pakistan has seen no riots about the price of bread, about the lack of jobs.

Is it because the Pakistani regime is as anti-secular as it can get? Is it because Pakistan’s religious establishment has a stake in supporting the regime, especially against American & European pressures? Is this why no American Anchor would dare to walk around Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar with a TV camera and crew to interview people in the streets? Is this lack of access to American TV another protective cover for the Pakistani regime?

President Mubarak’s Egyptian regime was a true loyal friend of America for 32 years. President Mubarak was the first to accept American Iraq, the first supporter of America’s War on Terror. President Obama chose Cairo, Egypt’s Capital, to deliver his major address to the world’s Muslims. Yet, the moment he became inconvenient, President Obama sent his envoy to Egypt to tell Mr. Mubarak to not seek an additional term.

In stark contrast, a U.S. Congressional delegation pleaded with Pakistan’s President Zardari to obtain a release of an American Diplomat who has been held in jail despite his diplomatic immunity. The Congressional delegation failed. And this is a Pakistani Government that is accused of being duplicitous and diverting American anti-terror aid to the Taleban, America’s enemies.

This is the difference between leaders/regimes that cultivate & placate the majority religion in their countries and leaders/regimes who scorn their majority religion under the banner of being “secular” and “modern”. Support of the majority gives the first set their power and immunity from America’s pressure. The second set! They get nothing from their majority because they gave the majority nothing.

How does this discussion relate to core India or US-India Relations? That is the topic for the next article.

Indian-Americans and U.S. Politics Blog

Is there merit in NRIs contesting elections in India?

2 Comments

The Indian Oversees Congress (IOC) has announced plans to field Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in the Punjab State Assembly elections next year. The party plans to field about 10 candidates on the Congress Party ticket next year according to IOC President Vikram Bajwa.

According to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 a person can contest elections if he is also an “elector for a Parliamentary constituency in India”. Or simply put, being a voter is the primary prerequisite for contesting elections in India. In a recent amendment to the 1951 Act, NRIs who have not acquired the citizenship of another country can now register as voters in India.*

This means that a non-resident India could contest elections in India at the local, state and federal levels if he is a registered voter. It would be a great opportunity for NRIs to participate and make a difference in the political process and policy-making of their country. Their international experience could be put to good use in improving governance and bringing new ideas to the administration of their states/country.

However, it might not be in the interest of the voters if the individual is required to reside in or cannot leave his host country for long stretches of time. It could affect the elected NRI’s parliamentary attendance and actual participation in debates and discussions on the floor of the House. Questions need to be raised if such a candidate would be attuned to the needs and interests of his constituents, and can serve them efficiently. Or will he be an arm-chair philosopher? Governance is a full-time responsibility, and if a representative cannot be present with and for his constituents at all times due to other work/ business obligations and financial constraints, it would be a big loss for the voters. (Would the travel expenses of the NRI, traveling to be with his constituents, be charged to the taxpayer?)

The IOC’s decision to field NRIs in Punjab is commendable, but it should be scrutinized if the purpose is to provide representation to the NRI community and its needs; or allow a distinguished member of a constituency to represent and give back to his community; or simply appease the NRI community with the purpose of acquiring more support and funds for the party? If the decision is about representing NRIs, then a different process of nominating such a member of the non-resident community to the Assembly or Parliament should also be considered. The Ministry of Oversees Indian Affairs has already been created with such a mandate to look into the concerns of the community.

The right to contest elections for NRIs could be an important event in the political evolution of India. But it first needs to go through the right process of deliberations. The opinions and interests of the voters, the intentions of the political parties and an objective analysis of what the NRI community can contribute to the governance of the country should be considered before allowing NRIs to contest elections in the country. The sentiment of participation if commendable, the practicality of it is suspect.

* An NRI can vote in an Indian election if he is present in the constituency where he is registered on the date of voting. Unlike earlier provisions that automatically removed a person’s name from the list if he were not living in India for a stretch of six months, the new bill will allow voters to stay away for more than six months and continue to exercise their vote.