இது குறித்து பா.ம.க. நிறுவனர் டாக்டர் ராமதாஸ் வெளியிட்டுள்ள அறிக்கையில் கூறியிருப்பதாவது:-

“ஆளும் கட்சியினர் தாங்கள் குவித்திருந்த கோடிகளில் சில கோடி ரூபாய்களையும், தேர்தல் விதிகளை மீறி; ஆணையத்தின் கண்ணில் மண்ணைத் தூவிவிட்டு அரசாங்க பணத்தையே செலவிட்டு வசதிகள் செய்திட சில கோடி ரூபாய்களை செலவழித்ததும் போதாமல்; அடிப்பதுபோல் அடி, நாங்கள் அழுவதுபோல் அழுது எங்கள் காரியத்தை சாதித்துக்கொள்கிறோம் என்ற சூழ்ச்சியில் ஈடுபட்டும் – வாக்காளர்களுக்கு நூறு ரூபாய் முதல் ஐநூறு ரூபாய் வரை வழங்கியும் இந்த வெற்றியை பெற முடிந்தது என்ற உண்மை, வாக்களித்தவர்களுக்கும், வெற்றி பெற்றவர்களுக்கும், அவர்களை வாழ்த்துகிறவர்களுக்கும் நன்றாகவே தெரியும்.” – சில ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்பு நடைபெற்ற இடைத்தேர்தலில் அப்போது எதிர்க்கட்சியாக இருந்த தி.மு.க. தோல்வியடைந்தபோது, அதன் தலைவர் தெரிவித்த கருத்துகள் தான் இவை.

இப்போது மக்களவைத் தேர்தலில் தி.மு.க. அடைந்திருக்கும் வெற்றிக்கு, அதிலும் குறிப்பாக பா.ம.க. போட்டியிட்ட தொகுதிகளில் தி.மு.க. அதிக “விலை கொடுத்து” வாங்கியிருக்கும் வெற்றிக்கு அவர் அன்று சொன்ன வார்த்தைகள் அப்படியே பொருந்தும். இந்த தேர்தலில் ஜனநாயகம் தோற்றிருக்கிறது; பணநாயகம் வென்றிருக்கிறது. வேறு யார் வெற்றி பெற்றாலும் பரவாயில்லை – பா.ம.க. வேட்பாளர்களை மட்டும் இந்த தேர்தலில் தோற்கடிக்க வேண்டும்; எதை வேண்டுமானாலும் செய்து இந்த காரியத்தை கச்சிதமாக முடிக்க வேண்டும் என்ற கட்டளையுடன் பா.ம.க. போட்டியிட்ட தொகுதிகளில் அமைச்சர்களும், ஆளும் கட்சியின் முக்கிய பிரமுகர்களும் பண மூட்டைகளுடன் களமிறக்கப்பட்டனர்.

தமிழகத்தில் உள்ள 39 தொகுதிகளிலும் சராசரியாக 72 விழுக்காடு வாக்குகள் பதிவாகியிருப்பதாக அதிகாரப்பூர்வமாக அறிவிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. இவற்றில் ஏறக்குறைய பாதி தொகுதிகளில் 70 விழுக்காட்டிற்கும் குறைவாக வாக்குகள் பதிவாகியிருக்கிறது. சில தொகுதிகளில் 75 விழுக்காட்டிற்கும் அதிகமாக வாக்குகள் பதிவாகியிருக்கிறது.

அப்படி 75 விழுக்காட்டிற்கும் அதிகமாக வாக்குகள் பதிவான தொகுதிகளில் பா.ம.க. போட்டியிட்ட 5 தொகுதிகள் உள்ளன என்பதிலிருந்து பா.ம.க.வை எந்த அளவுக்கு குறிவைத்து வீழ்த்துவதற்கான வி௯கத்தை வகுத்து, கோடிகளை கொட்டியும், அதிகார துஷ்பிரயோகம் செய்தும் ஆளும் கட்சியினர் செயல்பட்டிருக்கிறார்கள் என்பதை புரிந்துகொள்ளலாம். பா.ம.க. போட்டியிட்ட தொகுதிகளில் பணம் கொடுத்தார்கள் என்று சொல்லுவது மிகச் சாதாரணம். பணத்தை அள்ளி வீசி விதைத்திருக்கிறார்கள் – விதைத்த அளவுக்கு அறுவடை செய்திருக்கிறார்கள் என்றுதான் சொல்ல வேண்டும். நடுநிலையாக இருக்க வேண்டிய காவல்துறையினரும், அரசு அலுவலர்களும் தி.மு.க.வினருக்கு துணை போயிருக்கிறார்கள். ஒரு வாக்குச்சாவடிக்கு குறைந்தது 50 கள்ள வாக்குகளை பதிவு செய்ய வேண்டும் என்று கட்டளையிடப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. ஆளும் கட்சி தான் வெற்றி பெறப்போகிறது என்ற ஒரு பரப்புரை இந்த தொகுதிகளில் காவல்துறையினராலும், அரசு அலுவலர்களாலும் திட்டமிட்டு செய்யப்பட்டிருக்கிறது.

கள்ள வாக்குகளை பதிவு செய்வதற்கான முன்னோடியாகவே இத்தகைய பரப்புரை முன்கூட்டியே நடத்தப்பட்டிருக்கிறது என்று உணர முடிகிறது. இப்படியெல்லாம் முறைகேடுகளை செய்து ஆளுங்கட்சியினர் தட்டிப் பறித்துள்ள இந்த வெற்றி உண்மையானதல்ல. அதிக விலை கொடுத்து வாங்கப்பட்ட இந்த வெற்றி நிலையானதும் அல்ல. வாழ்க்கை ஒரு சக்கரம். இன்று மேலே இருப்பது நாளை கீழே இறங்கித்தான் ஆக வேண்டும். பல்வேறு முறைகேடுகளை செய்து ஆளும் கட்சி பணபலத்தால் பெற்றுள்ள இந்த வெற்றியினால் ஏற்பட்டுள்ள தற்காலிக தோல்வியைக் கண்டு பா.ம.க.வினர் சோர்ந்துவிட மாட்டார்கள். நாளைய வெற்றிக்கு இதை படிகட்டுகளாக எடுத்துக்கொண்டு `பீனிக்ஸ்’ பறவையைப் போல பா.ம.க. அரசியலில் மீண்டும் எழும்; வெற்றிநடை போடும்.

இவ்வாறு அறிக்கையில் அவர் கூறியுள்ளார்.

Interestingly, he criticizes media. Is he not part of a media group as well?

It is just about 3 hours since the counting commenced reading the votes stored in the electronic chips of Electronic Voting Machines used across India. The leads for 510 of 543 parliament seats are already available.

The current tally is:

UPA – 228, NDA – 156, 3rd Front – 80, 4th Front – 30.

Thus, Mr. L K Advani’s PM ambitions have come to naught. Mr. Manmohan Singh will be Prime Minister of India for the second time running.

In Tamil Nadu, DMK and Congress are doing well, set to win about 27 seats. PMK which switched sides at the last moment to AIADMK camp has been routed.

We can expect to see Mr. Dayanidhi Maran, Mr. M K Azhagiri and Ms. Kanimozhi all from Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Mr. Karunanidhi’s family, as Central Ministers.

We might also see Mr. Rahul Gandhi as a minister with an important portfolio.

The new Government without Left Support should bring huge cheers to the stock markets and financial reforms can take big momentum.

Political masters who ruled our nation

Come with folded hands to every citizen

Ragging for votes to win the election

And resume their game of exploitation:

Parasites who never thought of people’s concern,

Suddenly swarm the entire nation

And promise voters everything under the sun.

Neither basic needs nor jobs and education

Engaged their minds while enjoying power and position

Peace and harmony, they shatter in cities and towns

Their crowded road shows, catchy songs and slogans

And filmy eloquence sway the mob’s emotions

Since ‘ helping the poor’ is their generous aim,

They offer liquor and money without shame

‘Business’ with contractors gets them bundles of notes

Openly they bribe the poor and demand votes.

Since they campaign on the basis of caste and creed

Character and morality, they do not need

When they talk of equal rights and democracy

They new generation goes through their hypocrisy

Rampant corruption, nepotism and defection

Have undermined people’s faith in election

Honest voters, with minds young, clean and fresh

Must remove these deadly thorns in our country’s flesh.

Contributed by M.G. Narasimha Murthy, Hyderabad to Kushwant Singh column in The Hindustan Times

Congress may be in alliance with DMK but the alliance might be fragile right and may get broken if AIADMK gets more seats than DMK and becomes vital for Congress to form a Government. BJP might be contesting elections with much less allies than Congress but they are also sending feelers to Chandrababu Naidu, Chiranjivi and the like.

AIADMK supremo J Jayalalitha has told NDTV that she is getting feelers from not only Congress but also from BJP.

See the video interview:

Let’s start with Pakistan and Afghanistan. As one looks at Pakistan today, one sees the spread and the rise of the Taliban. They’ve already controlled 11 per cent of the country. They’ve the capacity not just to carry out terrorist strikes in Lahore, but 10 miles from the Indian border. How concerned are you about this?

Yes, I think Pakistan has a serious problem with the growing strength of the Taliban and the other fundamentalist, extremist forces. But I think we should not exaggerate the threat to say that Pakistan is going to be taken over by the Taliban. I think that the Pakistani state and government will have to come to terms with this threat and they will have to try and tackle it. I don’t think everything is lost, all hope is lost.

Let me pick on something you said – that we mustn’t exaggerate it, we mustn’t believe that the whole of Pakistan could fall under the Taliban. Just three days ago, Ahmed Rashid, who arguably is the world’s authority on the Taliban, said in this very channel that it is not inconceivable that in a few months the Taliban could become a national movement. He said that what he initially thought. creeping Talibanisation had become galloping Talibanisation. He therefore thinks it’s possible that a time could come when the Taliban ends up as India’s western neighbour 25 miles from Amritsar.

I believe that if the civilian government in Pakistan is supported. The United States of America I think is sending out mixed signals. At times they say this government is fragile, they seem to be putting all their backing behind the Pakistan Army – I think that’s the wrong step. I think that the civilian government, the democratic system, must be supported fully, and I think history has shown that whenever religious groups and parties have contested elections, they’ve not done well. So I think the political forces, the democratic forces and the civil society in Pakistan can be geared to face this challenge.

This is very interesting. Let me ask you two quick questions. You’re first of all saying that the civilian government, which means in fact Asif Zardari’s government, is the best bulwark in Pakistan against..

And Prime Minister Gilani and whatever government is there. Bulwark means, they are the only ones who can tackle the situation. You cannot prop up the military again in Pakistan, as if the military alone can face the situation and only they can deal with the situation.

If after May 16 the Third Front is in power, then you are in a position to determine and influence Indian foreign policy. Would you find creative ways of strengthening the civilian government.

I think that there is no escape. We’ve the problem of terrorism emanating from Pakistan, we have the post-Mumbai situation, we must continue to press upon Pakistan to take firm action against these elements, and at the same time we’ll have to resume the dialogue with Pakistan, the composite dialogue with Pakistan. We must talk about other confidence building measures and we must understand that if you’re talking about fighting the Taliban, then it is in our national interest to see that the Pakistani state and the present government is able to take a firm stand against them.

So you’ve said two important things. One, you’d take steps to strengthen the civilian government to the extent to which India can.

We can’t strengthen. we are supportive of.

Supportive. And secondly, you’re also saying that the present standoff, whereby the present outgoing government has refused to carry out the peace process, will end when the Third Front comes to power.

No, no.the standoff came because of the Mumbai attack and we wanted the Pakistan government to take steps and I said that we’ve to continue on that track. But at the same time, I think steps must be taken for the resumption of the dialogue.

So you won’t make one the hostage of the other.

No.

You’d do both together.

Yes.

Push action on the Mumbai front but at the same time start talks.

Yes.

Let me ask you, how do you view Asif Zardari? Frequently in his interviews and speeches, he says very reassuring things.You think he is sincere or is it clever political rhetoric?

No, I think they are in a very difficult situation and I have no real, direct way to know what the role and the assessment that we have of President Asif Zardari. But I think in the present situation, any setback to the civilian government will be an overall setback in Pakistan and [it] will speed up a process of polarisation in Pakistani society, which will be very harmful.

So, if I read you correctly, what you are saying is, I think we’ve good reason to distrust him, we should actually believe what he says.

And we may be critical of the Pakistani government and the Pakistani President in whichever issue, but we would like the Pakistani people and society to work out and sort out their problems in a democratic fashion.

What about General Kayani? Because he is also a very important and critical player in the Pakistani situation. Earlier, both General Kapoor, our Army chief, and head of the NSA Mr. [M.K.] Narayanan, in this channel have said that they believe he is a professional soldier who won’t push his way into politics as many of his predecessors have done. Do you share that analysis?

Well, I’d like to put it in this context, that. you see that the Pakistani government and Army are facing a difficult situation because United States’ intervention in Pakistan and Afghanistan is widely disliked by the people in Pakistan. And the way they’re going about micro-managing affairs within Pakistan today is also resented largely by the Pakistani people. So I hope that the Pakistani army is able to stand up and take an independent position against pressures on them.

That’s your real concern about General Kayani, that he must have the capacity to stand up to American micro-management.

I’m talking about both the Army and the government.

I want very much to talk about the role America is playing in Afghanistan. But before I come to that, let me ask you one other thing. Both our Prime Minister recently and a couple of months ago former Pakistani Foreign Minister Mr. Kasuri revealed that India and Pakistan have made extensive progress on back channels. In fact, our Prime Minister said that they were very, very close to an agreement to sort out. when General Musharraf’s political problems came into the picture. If the Third Front were to form a government, would you be able to pick up from where they left off and take it forward?

When we were supporting this government, we had always told them that they must start with things which are doable – which are Sir Creek, Siachen — and also take up Kashmir. And we know that there were talks, there was progress, we know what Musharraf was saying and what Dr. Manmohan Singh was saying. But unfortunately the situation changed after that. But I think we should build on that when the new government comes.

Very interesting that you mentioned Siachen. Many people believe that in fact the reason why the government was not able to move forward on Siachen is because in effect the Indian Army had a veto. They wanted the Pakistanis to sign off., which the Pakistanis were reluctant to do. Would you be able to, if you come to power, to stand up to that?

The present government could not make progress. I know that.

Will you be able to?

Well, I can’t say. But we were of the clear opinion and we had told the Prime Minister you should try and go ahead and solve the problem.

And that’ll certainly be your intention if you come to power as well.

If it can be worked out, yes.

What about the second issue on which the two countries came very close to, the question of sorting out Kashmir? Progress was made around the concepts that weren’t thought of before: self-governance and joint determination. Can you pick up those pieces?

I think we should build on that.

It can be done.

Yes. yes.

And you’d be happy once again to trust the Pakistanis?

Well, we’ve always held that the key to solving most of our problems in the subcontinent, in South Asia, is to make progress in India-Pakistan relations. Unless we bring about a change in India-Pakistan relations, we cannot bring about peace and stability and prosperity in this region.

Presumably that means we’ve to break the mindset of distrust. You have to learn to trust.

Yes. yes.

And you would be.

And I think it would require not just the composite dialogue; we may have to initiate high-level political exchanges. So that people can talk and learn to understand each other’s problems and trust each other.

Whether you are in government or not, if the Third Front forms the Government, or is one of the influential mentors of the government, would you, Prakash Karat yourself , be prepared to take the initiative to push this forward? Perhaps by yourself going across and meeting Zardari.

I cannot say I can play such a role, but definitely our stand and our approach would be what I have just spelt out.

But you are not averse to playing such a role.

No. no. I am not in a position to say whether I could play such a role.

Let’s come to Afghanistan. The Americans have toyed with the concept of Good and Bad Taliban. They seem to believe that good Taliban can be co-opted into the Afghan regime and made to work with President Karzai in some way. Do you think that such a thing as good Taliban exists, or do you see.

Let me put two points at first. I think the situation in Pakistan is integrally connected with what’s happening in Afghanistan. So, in fact the situation in Pakistan cannot be settled or solved without the Afghanistan matter being settled. And I think President Obama has taken a major step which is in the wrong direction by stepping up troop involvement, the surge in Afghanistan. Because a U.S.-NATO occupation will help the Taliban. Afghanistan has a history and tradition of fighting foreign invaders and occupiers. And you are going to create a situation which will help the Taliban.

Well, this is your criticism of what President Obama is intending in his AfPak strategy. Very interesting, because through Richard Holbrooke, the Americans are trying hard to keep India informed, perhaps involved and maybe even supportive. If you come to power and Holbrooke comes to Delhi, inevitably he will, what are you going to say to him?

We’ll say two things to him: within Afghanistan, let many of these matters be sorted out by the people and the forces within Afghanistan. Let there be an intra-Afghan dialogue, so that there’ll be some national reconciliation. As for Good and Bad Taliban, I aim to put it differently – the Taliban consists of different streams of people. You’ve just seen how hundreds of people have died in aerial strikes. There are people who’ll join the Taliban if you kill hundreds of people, women and children. So you’ve to ensure. and that. it is a tribal society, bring everyone together, and try to create some situation where they can solve their problems themselves.

The second is the regional role in which India, instead of dealing with U.S.-NATO forces, we must get Russia, we must get the Central Asian republics, Iran, all of them involved for a regional understanding on how to tackle Afghanistan.

In other words, you’re going to attempt to completely unravel and undo the AfPak and put in its place a completely different strategy.

Well, I think the Americans, if they really are far-sighted, they’ll have to deal with Iran, because Iran can help a lot with Afghanistan.

To come back to something you talked about earlier, which is actually part of the AfPak strategy. you do believe that Pakistan has to fight the fight against Taliban internally, that the Pakistani Army and the Pakistani civilian government [have] to fight this fight. They often say, they will have a much easier time standing up to the Taliban if India were to reduce the number of troops on the border along the Line of Control? If not reduce, at least pull them back a little. Would you be more understanding of the fact.

Well, that’s what I said, when you’ve talks, when you start talking to Pakistan, the leadership. and saying in your dialogue bring in Afghanistan.They look at us in suspicion, what are we doing in Afghanistan? So, let us talk’s about it. Let them understand. We need to understand their concerns, and they’ll understand our concerns regarding Afghanistan.

You’re saying two very important things. First, you’re saying that you will go out of your way to assure the Pakistanis that Indian consulates in Afghanistan, which they see as a threat, are not a threat to them. And you do this by talking to them, by speaking to them and sharing with them the details that will reassure them. And the second thing, you’re saying that you are also prepared to talk to Pakistanis, about giving them assurance, that they can move the troops from the East to the West.

That I cannot say. Because I don’t know the details of what the plan is. But what I’m saying is that we should discuss the Afghanistan situation with them also.

In which you can also discuss about the situation on the border, so that they get an assurance that if they move the troops to fight the Taliban, they won’t be.

But India is also concerned about infiltration across the Line of Control even now. So I think all these matters will have to be discussed with them.

How much of a priority will this whole issue, AfPak if I may call it, or Pakistan, Afghanistan and Taliban, be to a Third Front government?

I think it will be important and we will shift the focus to the regional factor which I mentioned. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation must be brought in.

What you are indicating is a fairly marked shift in focus and a fairly marked shift in priority of the foreign policy under the UPA government.

Yes, that’s what we mean by getting back to the basics of an independent foreign policy.

I want to talk about the nature of relationship in any government that you form or any government that you influence, will have with America. But first, let me ask you directly about Barack Obama himself. Many people in the world and many people in India. admire him, respect him and see him as a sort of an ideal President. How do you, Prakash Karat, view Barack Obama? Are you enamoured of him, or are you wary and.

No, I think like the rest of the world we should really look to the Obama presidency with some expectation. That there’ll be a change, a marked change, from what we had earlier during the Bush administration. And I think it is paradoxical that in India, the Indian establishment, the present government, is viewing the Obama presidency with deep disquiet. There seems to be a mourning that President Bush is no more at the helm of affairs.

You don’t share that?

No, no, I think it has opened up a new opportunity, I see that India-U.S. relations can be developed at a new level now.

You just told me for one that the AfPak strategy Obama is following is going to be a problem for Pakistan, and presumably for India as a next-door neighbour. So there’s one area where the expectations have been presumably dashed.

No, despite such areas, I think that the Obama presidency will help India to reset our relationship in a better fashion than the type of relationship we had with the Bush administration.

In a sense, that was the central criticism you had of the outgoing Congress government?

Yes.

Not just after the nuclear deal was signed but even during the run-up to it. You really think the Manmohan Singh government was subservient to Washington? What steps will the government you influence upon take to correct that balance?

I think we’d engage with the United States and the new administration on a wide range of issues on which I think they will be open. now.because they have a new President.

What sort of issues are you talking about?

I’m talking about. Obama made a very big speech on nuclear disarmament, for example. I think that has not been noted here seriously. I think that gives us an opening to discuss about the nuclear cooperation agreement, the whole relationship with the United States, on a fresh footing.

You’re absolutely right. That major speech was made in Prague just about a month ago and recently the Assistant Secretary responsible for that subject, Rose, has said that she wants India, including other countries, to sign the NPT, and there is no doubt pressure will be on India also to sign the CTBT. If you were to be in the government, would you be willing to sign?

No. We’ll not be willing to sign the NPT or the CTBT but definitely if President Obama can come up with a timeframe for nuclear disarmament, which is what we’ve been demanding, India has been demanding, that is what the Rajiv Gandhi disarmament plan was about. I think then the whole framework will change. Let’s see if we can get them to talk about real nuclear disarmament.

Of course, he is committed to that in his talks with Medvedev, the Russian President, And he has plans to take the task much further, possibly reducing nuclear arsenals and . to just a 1,000. If he does that, that’s a big. If I can see, then, would the Third Front government be ready to sign the NPT and the CTBT?

No. I am saying that would be the basis for us to start talking about the whole issue.

The thing is, if you want to talk about the whole issue, but saying to him that CTBT and NPT is off the agenda, isn’t it contradictory?

No. no. no. We’ll talk about the NPT only if this timeframe is going to become a reality.

So, in all these areas, the onus is on him to open the door to give you an opportunity.

No, I am saying that he has opened up this issue. He has opened up the doors, you see.

Let’s come now to what for many is possibly a particular flashpoint between any government you form and Obama. The future of the India-U.S. nuclear deal. Before the election campaign began, you were committed to scrapping it. You actually said so many times. During the election campaign you stopped talking about scrapping, began talking about renegotiating.

Reworking it.

What’s your final position?

No, I think with a Democratic administration, Obama administration, we can talk about reworking this deal.

Which bits would you rework?

Well, I can’t go into the details, but the Hyde Act brought in certain provisions into the 123 Agreement, which were unacceptable for us.

But the problem is, if it is the Hyde Act that you have a problem with, then you are actually asking the Obama government to change American internal law, rather than the 123.

No, no, no. 123 [agreement] according to us is based on the Hyde Act.

You think he’d be willing to rework it? Or would that become.

That’s why I said, we look with expectation to President obama.

… If he is not willing to rework, and therefore to renegotiate, then would you accept the deal as done, or would you then scrap it?

I think that the understanding which was there with President Bush got this agreement through. I think there’ll be no serious problems with the new administration if we can get things reworked.

So if I understand you correctly, you are fairly hopeful that when you knock on his door, assuming you form the government, and say, Dear President Obama, we want to rework the deal, he will turn around and say, Yes Mr. Karat, walk in, I’m happy to sit and talk.

No, I think the Democratic administration will be prepared to at least open up and discuss what we want done.

Sure this is not the triumph of hope over experience.

Well, there was a special situation, I do not want to quite go into it, when the Manmohan Singh government and the Bush administration got this agreement through.

So you think now that we have a new administration with a new party and..

Well, there’ll be a new government and there’ll be a new administration, they don’t stick to the old dogmas.

So you do believe you could succeed and rework it.

Well, we’ll try.

Let me put this to you. What about the big issue of protectionism? One of the great fears is that as the American economic crisis continues and American employment stubbornly falls month after month, that Obama will become protectionist, particularly with regard business outsourcing to India, and.

We’ve a different take on that. Everybody says no protectionism. But we say, we’ve been saying this from the beginning, in India, we must have some intelligent protectionism. We’ve to protect Indian farmers. We’ve been fighting with this government not to surrender our rights, which will harm the farmers, for example. So we will review the WTO-related decisions and policies and we will go in for some protectionism in certain areas.

In other words, if you go in for protectionism of your own, you could hardly object to Obama’s protectionism.

There’ll be protectionism practised by various countries. It’s a reality and we have to see what type of protectionism is required which will be in the interest of our country and what we should not have.

It also suggests you will accept any protectionism from America, in terms of H1B visas.

No. we will have to negotiate that with them.

Let me end by putting a simple question. If the Left Front or the Third Front forms the government on May 16, a year later would you think the relationship with America would be better or would it be in the doldrums?

As I said, it’ll be reset and it’ll be on a better footing.

Will Indians be smiling or will they be saying Christ! What’s he done?

India as a whole will see America as a partner and a friend, but in a new light.

And would Obama be happy, or .

I don’t think he has gotten engaged with India so much yet.

Save for the “bring back Swiss money” and “nothing has been done for Lankan Tamils”, there were hardly any new issues of national importance discussed / debated by the political parties.

Congress and BJP as the two biggest national parties wanted to also dredge carefully in order to not antagonize any of the other regional / semi-national parties keeping an eye on post poll alliance possibilities.

I am surprised that even the Communists, who had withdrawn support to the UPA Government opposing the nuclear deal with the USA have not raised that issue much. Congress dug up a ten year old Kandhahar terrorist release and Gujarat riots while BJP racked up the more than twenty year old Bofors scandal again.

This what I read in an article by Niraj Sethi in Wall Street Journal online. (http://www.wsj.com)
X———-X———-X———-X———-X———-X———-X
In an election with no prevailing national issue or clear leader, India’s main political parties are thumbing through history books looking for an edge with voters, as the third stage of the world’s largest democratic election starts Thursday.

Both the country’s major parties have political baggage that offers fodder for rivals, though it’s unclear how the election’s outcome might be affected.

The incumbent National Congress party is fielding accusations that it is scrambling to get some of its decades-old scandals cleared from the courts before the vote ends.

For the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, a string of setbacks highlighting the right-wing party’s hard-line history — including a new investigation into star BJP campaigner Narendra Modi’s role in bloody riots in 2002 — could derail its hopes of coming to power.

India has had plenty of turbulence in the past year, from a rapidly slowing economy to a string of terrorist attacks culminating in November’s assault on Mumbai. But national campaigns recently have given short shrift to subjects voters might find topical; instead, they have focused on scandals of yesteryear.

The reason, analysts say, is that the two largest political parties have broadly similar platforms, and neither has a charismatic leader who excites voters. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress’s candidate for premier, is a soft-spoken 76-year-old. BJP leader L.K. Advani is 81. The election also has been dominated by regional parties and issues that have made it hard for the national parties to connect with voters on anything but emotive issues.

“These elections are not being fought on any policy platform at all,” says Seema Desai, a London-based Asia analyst for Eurasia Group. The scandals are “just going over old ground.”

On Monday, the country’s highest court ordered an investigation into the role of the BJP’s Mr. Modi, chief minister of Gujarat, in riots in 2002 that left 2,000 — mostly Muslims — dead in Gujarat. Congress, which has led the national governing coalition for the past five years, demanded that Mr. Modi resign as the state’s chief minister.

Mr. Modi declines to step down. “It’s a conspiracy against me,” Mr. Modi told the Web site of the Hindustan Times. In the past, he has denied any wrongdoing.

On Tuesday, the BJP retaliated, pouncing on news that the Central Bureau of Investigation, India’s equivalent of the FBI, cleared an Italian who had been the last remaining suspect in the Bofors scandal. Most of the main suspects in the scandal, which revolved around kickbacks Swedish arms maker Bofors allegedly paid the then-Congress government to secure a military contract in 1986, are dead.

The BJP’s Mr. Advani effectively accused the CBI of being manipulated by the government in power. “The entire role of the agency during the last five years … should be probed,” he said Tuesday. Last month, the CBI cleared a former government minister of allegations of instigating riots in 1984 in New Delhi that left about 3,000 Sikhs dead, sparking outrage among members of the Sikh community.

A Congress strategist said the government hadn’t pressured the CBI. A CBI spokesman declined to comment on the charges.

The investigation of Mr. Modi could prove the most damaging of the revisited issues because the state of Gujarat, home to 26 of India’s 545 parliamentary seats, goes to the polls Thursday, with several other districts nationwide, in the third of five voting days.

The BJP says it expects to win at least 20 Gujarat seats. Many expect Mr. Modi to be the party’s prime ministerial candidate in the next elections. His popularity banks on his record in Gujarat, where the economy has grown an average of 10% annually since he took power in 2001. But observers say his hard-line Hindu nationalist streak could unsettle voters.

The BJP’s Mr. Advani effectively accused the CBI of being manipulated by the government in power. “The entire role of the agency during the last five years … should be probed,” he said Tuesday. Last month, the CBI cleared a former government minister of allegations of instigating riots in 1984 in New Delhi that left about 3,000 Sikhs dead, sparking outrage among members of the Sikh community.

A Congress strategist said the government hadn’t pressured the CBI. A CBI spokesman declined to comment on the charges.

The investigation of Mr. Modi could prove the most damaging of the revisited issues because the state of Gujarat, home to 26 of India’s 545 parliamentary seats, goes to the polls Thursday, with several other districts nationwide, in the third of five voting days.

The BJP says it expects to win at least 20 Gujarat seats. Many expect Mr. Modi to be the party’s prime ministerial candidate in the next elections. His popularity banks on his record in Gujarat, where the economy has grown an average of 10% annually since he took power in 2001. But observers say his hard-line Hindu nationalist streak could unsettle voters.

—Vibhuti Agarwal contributed to this article. Write to Niraj Sheth at niraj.sheth@wsj.com
X———-X———-X———-X———-X———-X———-X

The private eye has now become a ‘must have’ tool of savvy political managers in the country.

For instance, the topmost leader of one of the two largest national political parties has hired a private detective agency to keep tabs on 10 party colleagues as well as a dozen from rival political camps that could be considered key players in the expected post-election numbers game.

“Our real task starts now after voting is over,” informs V.M. Pandit, a former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) official now heading the detective agency which bagged the assignment after making a formal presentation to the “party top brass”.

The agency has landed the “assignment” for a fee “over Rs 20 lakh”, according to well-informed sources.

About 20 “moles” have infiltrated the political parties concerned to alert the client about the “twists and turns ahead, compile dossiers on the political as well as private life of identified leaders, their aides and those who exert influence on them as well as their daily movement”.

The assignment began about two months ago.

“We have to keep our client one step ahead in this game”. Pandit’s agency, which has done political intelligence gathering during the last two general elections for “political parties”, says the present assignment is “the biggest and most challenging so far”.

For Election 2009, political parties big and small, as well as many national level leaders, have hired 15,000 detectives from about 200 private investigating agencies to snoop on rivals, dissidents within their own fold and newfound allies.

The going rate for hiring an “agent” for eight hours for “surface intelligence gathering” is about Rs.10,000-15,000, says retired inspector general of police (Punjab) C. Pal who too now heads a private detective agency. As much as 80 per cent of the demand from individuals is for this type of intelligence.

“Our men keep their eyes and ears open for plans of sabotaging political meetings and the common debate going on in a certain area. Information is collected, collated and then disseminated to the client.”

“More expensive is ‘intensive intelligence work’ which means cultivating people as sources of information, then dissecting, analysing and verifying it before giving it as feedback.

“The third type of requirement is for probing, infiltrating various political outfits and merging with them and then analysing intelligence gathered.”

Kunwar Vikram Singh, chairman, Association of Private Detectives of India, says: “Political intelligence has been used in this election as never before across political parties and politicians right from up north to down south of the country.”

Detective agencies, realising they could not cope on their own, decided to pool in their resources under an umbrella association. “Even then we were able to meet only 20 per cent of the requirement.”

These agencies plan to recruit 1,00,000 investigators to meet the anticipated demand over the next two years. According to Pandit, the demand is up by 25 per cent compared to other elections.

According to private investigators, national leaders and national parties want to “unearth the enemy within more than spying on political opponents from rival parties”.

At an individual level, politicians hire private investigators to gather ground level information about their constituency and voters.

It was on such an assignment that an investigator found that his client was losing popularity because the promised tubewell had yet to be installed in a village. While the candidate had sanctioned the money for it and was informed by his field supporters that the village now had a tubewell, it was far from the truth.

According to Vikram Singh, “This sort of booth level information and voter management system based on intelligence is unique to India”.

It was seven to eight years ago that he was approached by “a few young sitting MPs to gather ground level information about their constituency”. The MPs were advised by their “businessmen friends for whom my agency worked” to use private detectives for this purpose.

“Earlier our services were utilized mainly by private companies, the corporate sector and individuals interested in information before finalising matrimonial alliances or those wanting to spy on spouses and partners,” said Vikram Singh.

It did not take long for politicians to realise that information is power, more so when the compulsion of coalition politics can call for sleeping with the enemy.

Obviously the private eye is here to stay in the rough and tumble of Indian politics in which friends can stick a knife and foes can extend a hand of support depending on the need of the hour.

“Desh ki neta kaisa ho! “so and so” jaisa ho!” is that slogan. If you have few supporters for you, you can also have your name in this slogan. Once few people shout this slogan, public attention is on you and soon madness of the crowds will take over with few hundreds or even thousands shouting this slogan for you.

Read this report regarding the newest “Gandhi” brand – from the family that seems to have discarded the “Nehru brand”:

For hundreds of thousands of people in this largely rural swathe of north India, Rahul Gandhi is their prince.

Huge crowds wait for hours under a scorching sun to watch his motorcade and maybe catch a glimpse as he makes his way to file his nomination papers for the national election.

As his SUV slows to a crawl, mobs of supporters shower it with rose petals and try to peer through the tinted windows.

When he opens the door and steps onto the running board to wave, a roar rises across this dusty town, in an area where his family has long had its political base: “What should the leader of this country be like?” shouts one group. “Like Rahul Gandhi!” another group shouts back.

The boyish-looking 38-year-old, running for re-election to parliament, is the latest political incarnation of a dynasty that stretches back well over 60 years: his father, Rajiv Gandhi, was prime minister. So was his grandmother, Indira Gandhi. His mother, Sonia Gandhi, leads the Congress party, which heads the ruling coalition. His great-grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, was India’s first prime minister and the faithful lieutenant of independence leader Mahatma Gandhi (no relation).

It all adds up to a family that has run India for 37 of its 62 years of independence.

Now, as a monthlong national election unfolds, Rahul Gandhi has become a force in Indian politics and the buzz around him as the eventual candidate for the country’s top post has turned into a roar.

With just five years of political experience, he is not an obvious political star: He’s an awkward public speaker who has said little of substance about many key policy issues. He won a seat in Parliament by a landslide in 2004, only to flunk another test three years later, when the election campaign he headed in India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh, failed to win any gains for his party.

But he has the right last name — and in a country in thrall to celebrity and the ideals of family, he has become the party’s star campaigner, drawing huge crowds to a dizzying number of electioneering stops. On giant Congress party billboards, it’s Rahul — so well known that he’s commonly referred to by just his first name — who shares space with his mother and the prime minister.

It makes for good campaigning, but it highlights the dynastic quality of Indian politics, Congress’ opponents complain.

“This is a party where the top slot is reserved for a single family,” said Nalin Kohli, a spokesman for the main opposition, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party.

It’s a charge that Gandhi can’t ignore — and even he says it’s time for family dynasties to fade into political history. To that end, he’s encouraging young people who are not from powerful families to work for the Congress party.

“Just because I’m the outcome of a system doesn’t mean I cannot change the system,” he told a rare news conference.

But in the 2009 election, the big question is whether this Gandhi’s celebrity will translate into more votes.

He faces a global economic slowdown, which has shifted the focus from Congress’ main achievement, India’s rapid growth in the last few years. And the government has been criticized for its bungled handling of the Mumbai terror attack in November in which 166 people died.

The election results will be announced May 16, and polls indicate no party will get enough votes to rule except in a shaky coalition, possibly including dozens of parties.

Gandhi himself has remained vague about his future plans — never rejecting the idea outright of being prime minister but accusing the media of prematurely projecting him into the job.

To supporters who want him to play a more prominent role, he urges patience, saying leadership must be developed gradually.

A graduate of Rollins College in Florida and Cambridge University in England, he often looks uncomfortable when surrounded by crowds of poor villagers, but tells a crowd on a recent campaign stop: “I entered politics to help the poor. Irrespective of caste, religion and region, I will always work to empower the poor who are the real strength of the nation.”

His critics sniff at such talk. “The unfortunate fact is that we know remarkably little about him. He has said very little of consequence,” said political commentator Mahesh Rangarajan.

“It’s also important to remember that he’s the first person in this family in politics who has grown up in a security cocoon,” Rangarajan added.

That cocoon is the result of the tragedies that have beset the Gandhis.

Rahul was only 14 when his grandmother, Indira Gandhi, was shot to death in 1984 by her own bodyguards. His father, Rajiv Gandhi, was blown up by a Tamil suicide bomber in 1991.

The family stayed away from politics until 1998, when Rajiv Gandhi’s Italian-born widow, Sonia, reluctantly accepted the leadership of the Congress party. She was elected to parliament a year later.

Now her son and fellow lawmaker has to figure out where he goes next.

“The party would like him to be quick about it. The party would like him to, you know, wave the magic wand and get them votes, which has become the character of the Congress. People have got so used to the Nehru-Gandhi family getting them votes,” said political commentator Neerja Chowdhury.

“Rahul Gandhi is taking his time in discovering India, trying to work out his own role.”

The way it goes, the word “Gandhi” might one day become most hated word in India.

I am sorry to say this Mahatma! Please forgive me.

Is it really true?

1. Is sending external affairs ministry officials to Sri Lanka means doing everything?

2. Is sending the Indian External Affairs minister to Sri Lanka means doing everything?

3. Did the UPA Government exert continuous pressure on the Lankan Government to stop the offensive against Tamils?

4. Did the UPA government raise the matter in UN assembly and thereby bring more world attention to plight of innocent Tamils in Sri Lanka?

5. Did the UPA government threaten Sri Lankan Government with military action (leave alone taking military action, just threaten of military action)?

How can the Congress President “unconsciously” say that “the UPA Government did everything possible for Sri Lankan Tamils” when answer to all of the five questions above is a big NO?