Presidential poll: How NDA lost the plot

Saswat Panigrahi

The NDA is a divided house over their choice on presidential candidate.

Both Shiv Sena and JD (U) have declared to back UPA nominee Pranab Mukherjee in the race to Raisina Hill.

The BJP, on the other hand, has decided to back former speaker Purno Agitok Sangma for president. Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), another NDA constituent has chosen to stand by BJP’s presidential choice.

New NDA entrant Janata Party went a step ahead with Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy declaring that “Sangma will emerge victorious”. In fact Swamy is being credited for building an NDA-Sangma alliance.

JMM, which runs a coalition with the BJP in Jharkhand could not but support Sangma in the milieu of his tribal origin.

This is not to dispute that UPA’s presidential candidate Pranab Mukherjee is a tall leader with vast experience in government and Parliament. Moreover, he has a clear edge in the electoral college.

But, in a presidential election, broad consensus could only emerge on an apolitical candidate. Mukherjee is an old Congress man and his candidature was declared by none other than Congress president and UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi. Had BJP supported Mukherjee in the presidential race, the party would have to bear the brunt of siding with the Congress-led UPA.

Well, BJP’s decision to shoot down the consensus call on Mukherjee’s candidature by throwing its weight behind Sangma makes some political sense. At least, by doing so the saffron party has underscored its credentials as an opposition party.

But BJP’s support to Sangma was a delayed decision. Indeed, Sangma was part BJP’s plan B.

First, the saffron party had jumped the gun and rushed to own up former president APJ Abdul Kalam in the race for Rashtrapati Bhavan. That was BJP’s plan-A. When Kalam refused to enter the fray, the BJP looked at plan-B.

After all, Sangma was not originally a BJP candidate. He was a preferred choice of BJD supremo Naveen Patnaik and AIDMK patron Jayalalithaa.BJP’s decision to support Sangma has something to do with the 2014 general elections. Party insiders say BJP veteran LK Advani sees Sangma’s candidature as a means to re-cultivate ex-NDA allies BJD and AIDMK, whose support he feels “vital” for the 2014 elections.

Also, it was Advani who encouraged Jaswant Singh to campaign for the vice-presidency, though majority in the party didn’t bother to take it seriously.

The problem was in the whole event. The saffron party didn’t do its homework before making the move and thereby created a mess. But who is to be blamed for the Presidential poll mess in the BJP? Is it the individual leadership or the collective leadership or both?

Now, it is almost clear that the party is not in a fighting mode in this presidential election.

The presidential poll has once again brought the faultiness in the BJP and the NDA to the fore. It is an irony that the principal opposition party of the country could not come out with a candidate of its own. Finally, it had to settle with a presidential candidate imported from the UPA ranks.

The presidential contest this time is a token one amidst clear indications that Pranab Mukherjee is all set to make it to the Rashtrapati Bhavan. In the end, neither BJP nor Sangma would gain anything.

BJD after Naveen-Pyari divorce

Saswat Panigrahi

It was a case of ambition going astray. After his May 29 failed coup to dislodge Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik , it was natural that only reprisal awaited Pyari Mohan Mohapatra. Patnaik generally known for his dithering decisions, for a change took no time in suspending his ‘advisor’.

Today, Mohapatra, who once virtually ruled the state de-facto, is a forlorn man with his so called supporters deserting him like a flock of birds returning home to Patnaik`s camp. Such has been the anger against his ‘audacity’ that people have been openly demanding more stringent action against Mohapatra. Meanwhile, Patnaik is busy trying to purge all the Mohapatra loyalists from his party Biju Janata Dal (BJD).

‘Beimaan’ (traitor) was the word Patnaik used for Mohapatra after the failed coup attempt.

Even as the BJD copes with a post-Pyari chapter, the party stands dazed in Odisha, gripped by a fear of another attempt at dislodging the government. Patnaik is seemingly haunted by the fear of the unknown despite a huge sympathy wave in his favour, largely fuelled by the foolish attempt by Mohapatra to topple him from the hot seat when he was away in UK – incidentally this was Naveen’s first visit abroad in 12 years.

A taste of own medicine

It all started one hot and humid evening when some 30 BJD MLAs, including four senior ministers suddenly flocked to Mohapatra`s A/111, Sahid Nagar residence on May 29. The legislators were asked to put their signatures on paper to choose him as the new leader of the BJD Legislature Party.

Mohapatra had reportedly sought an appointment with the Governor for the next day to stake claim to form the government. But Mohapatra’s plan came be a cropper as he failed to muster the desired numbers to topple the government in Odisha.

On hearing the news, a stunned and panic-stricken Naveen Patnaik made a dash back to Bhubaneswar by cutting shot his London trip and suspended the coup plotter and Mohapatra finally got a taste of his own medicine.

Naveen shoots a sharp shooter

Naveen took no time in denouncing Pyari Mohan Mohapatra as a ‘back stabber’. But let’s not forget that Mohapatra has a history of demolishing his political opponents by pursuing dirty politics, without batting an eyelid.

In the year 2000 Naveen Patnaik sacked BJD founder Bijoy Mohapatra from the party on the advice of Pyari Mohan. Two years later, Naveen withdrew another BJD founder Dilip Ray first from the federal government and subsequently axed him from the party under Pyari Mohan’s influence.

Between October 2008 and March 2009, Pyari Mohan launched a covert operation to convert BJP’s organisational base into BJD’s organisational structure. He ensured that all BJP units in saffron strongholds of the state either transfer their loyalty to BJD or be closed by employing resourceful measures. Observers have not forgotten Mohapatra’s meticulously planned move to dump the saffron party just ahead of the 2009 polls after over a decade-long coalition.

In his twelve-year-long regime, Naveen Patnaik sacked as many as 26 ministers, thanks to Mohapatra.

Naveen’s ex-Man Friday

Pyari Mohan Mohapatra (Pyari babu, Pyari, PM or Uncle as he is popularly known as) is a career bureaucrat, who served as the principal secretary to then chief minister Biju Patnaik between 1990 and 1994.

A 1963-batch former IAS officer, Mohapatra entered politics in 1999, when he joined the BJD as a primary member, two years after the party was formed. Soon he became Naveen’s Man Friday. Patnaik started consulting Mohapatra over every matter of politics and governance.

In 2004, Patnaik sent Mohapatra to the Rajya Sabha on a BJD ticket. By that time Mohapatra had acquired a larger-than-life stature in the party and in the government.

Though he held no important party post, Mohapatra was the first among the equals. He used to decide how the party and government must run. Such was his importance and clout that ministers and bureaucrats used to make a beeline to seek his instructions. Without his nod nothing could move in the BJD or in Odisha. Mohapatra started a unique system of governance in which ministers used to report to secretaries (IAS officers). In fact there was a joke doing rounds in the state - ‘PM’ is in charge of the state, not the CM. 

How the romance went cold?

However, for a while now the Naveen-Pyari romance had gone cold. A crack in their relationship surfaced when Naveen declared the candidature of Pyari’s bête noir Ranendra Pratap Swain for Athgarh Assembly by-poll in February this year. Remember, Swain was disqualified during the 2009 Assembly polls following non-submission of his ‘original’ party ticket. It was Mohapatra, who played a key role in the events that led to Swain’s disqualification.

Naveen snubbed Mohapatra again when he campaigned alone in the Panchayat polls in February.

The split between the two leaders widened further when Patnaik announced the names of three Rajya Sabha candidates in March without consulting Mohapatra.

Finally, their bond ended with a failed coup bid by Mohapatra followed by his suspension.

A vulnerable BJD

Naveen Patnaik’s government might have survived for now. But this is the beginning of a grand battle ahead.

Another political landmine is waiting to explode, when Patnaik will reshuffle his cabinet and axe a few other ministers loyal to Pyari.

It is a fact that a sizable number of BJD MLAs are Pyari Mohan’s own men. While Mohapatra is waiting for an opportunity to strike back, Patnaik may be taking the risk of considering his foes as his friends.

It is no secret that Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik hardly interacts with his MLAs. So Mohapatra is not wrong when he says that the CM can’t even recall the names of his own MLAs. In such a situation, can Naveen maintain his grip over the party and the government?

According to a senior political commentator Pratap Mohanty, “BJD was not created by Naveen Patnaik or Pyari Mohan. It was Bijoy Mohapatra who did it. Both Naveen and Pyari tried to appropriate the party. While Pyari has failed, Naveen is becoming weak by the day.”

There is no doubt that the Naveen-Pyari fight has left the BJD vulnerable. With a mission to split the party having failed, now Mohapatra will either launch his own party or join the Congress. In both the cases he will certainly eat into BJD’s support base.

Also, Pyari’s inevitable exit from the BJD might lead to some new political equations. However, this may not be much of an advantage for the BJD.

With Patnaik’s clean image blown to pieces by a series of scams lately, come 2014 BJD will face the battle of its lifetime. Will the party survive or simply wither away?

Faultlines in J&K interlocutors’ report

Saswat Panigrahi

The much awaited report by a three-member interlocutors’ panel on Jammu and Kashmir - appointed by the Union Home Ministry - is out in the public domain. The report titled ‘A New Compact with the People of Jammu and Kashmir’ claims to have suggested a “roadmap” to address the vexed Kashmir issue.

The interlocutors’ panel - journalist Dilip Padgaonkar, academic Radha Kumar and former civil servant MM Ansari - in its 176-page-long report has recommended reviewing of all central Acts and Articles of Indian Constitution, extended to Jammu and Kashmir after the 1952 Delhi agreement. This has once again brought the complex web of Kashmir issue to the fore.

Before commenting on the interlocutors’ report, let us flip through the pages of history.

Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state, which was acceded to India by the virtue of a constitutional document called Instrument of Accession under the Indian Independence Act, 1947.

Maharaja Hari Singh, then supreme ruler of Jammu and Kashmir and the sole designated authority of the state signed the Instrument of Succession on October 26, 1947.

It reads, “I Sri Hari Singh, ruler of Jammu and Kashmir state in the exercise of my sovereignty in and over my said state do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession....The terms of this Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or of Indian Independence Act, 1947...I hereby declare that I execute this instrument on behalf of the state and that any reference in this instrument to me or the ruler of the state is to be considered as including reference to my heirs and successors.”

The Instrument of Accession made it clear that there was no dispute in acceding Jammu and Kashmir into India. But, historic blunders were committed by the then interim government. 

Though the format of Instrument of Accession applied to Jammu and Kashmir was the same as was executed for other princely states, then interim Indian government led by Jawaharlal Nehru agreed that “final decision” with regard to the accession would be ratified by the Constituent Assembly of Jammu & Kashmir. In the intervening period “a temporary provision” was made in the Constitution of India.

Article 370 was created in the Indian Constitution to give a “special status” to Jammu and Kashmir. As per that status, except for three subjects - Defence, Foreign Affairs and Communications - the Centre needs the concurrence of Jammu and Kashmir govt to apply all other laws.

Separate constitution and separate flag for Jammu and Kashmir are the by-products of Article 370. The article which was introduced in the Indian Constitution as a “temporary statute” has become a permanent problem. It stands as a stumbling block between Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of India. The article gave birth to the idea of autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir.

The interlocutors’ report advocates further strengthening of Article 370 to ensure "meaningful autonomy" for the state. It suggests upgrading the article from a “temporary provision” to a “special provision”.

I see a glaring blunder in the report – it weakens India’s position on Kashmir by repeatedly referring to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) as Pakistan-administered Kashmir (PaK).

It may be recalled that soon after the division of India, newly formed Pakistan intruded into Kashmir and illegally occupied a large stretch of area - known as Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK). PoK belongs to the state of Jammu and Kashmir and as per the Instrument of Succession it is very much a part of India. The 1994 resolution of the Indian Parliament acknowledges PoK as an integral part of India. However, the interlocutors failed to recognise these historic realities.The report also offers no solution to the ongoing insurgency in J&K. Instead, it suggests a dilution of anti-terrorism steps.

The report recommends a review of Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) imposed in Kashmir. It suggests amending the Public Safety Act (PSA). Both the acts give sweeping powers to the armed forces for ensuring security and fighting the terrorists. In addition, the interlocutors’ report advocates decreasing the presence of security forces from the state.

They have gone on to suggest the recreating of the offices of "Wazir-e-Azam"(Prime Minister of the Province) and "Sadar-e-Riyasat (President of the Province)" in place of Chief Minister and Governor respectively, something which will be unacceptable to most people in India.

The report is, thus, filled with controversial fault lines. Besides, the interlocutors have abysmally failed to offer any solution to the vexed Kashmir issue - the very purpose for which it was set up.