Prez poll threatens to split UPA

June 15, 2012

kalam


New Delhi, June 14: The ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA) on Thursday appeared headed for an internal confrontation over the next month’s presidential election as Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee declared that former president A P J Abdul Kalam would be her candidate for the top post.

Mamata announced that she will field Kalam if the Congress went ahead with the nomination of either Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee or Vice-President Hamid Ansari.

The stage for the confrontation was set early during the day when the Congress rejected the possibility of nominating Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, or accepting Kalam or former Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee as the UPA candidate. The three names were jointly proposed by Mamata and Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav on Wednesday.

Congress general secretary in-charge of media affairs Janardhan Dwivedi came out publicly rejecting the three names, and objected to the Trinamool Congress’s announcement on Wednesday that Mukherjee and Ansari were the Congress’ first and second choice candidates respectively.

The Congress leadership held a series of meetings during the day to deliberate on the party’s nominee, with party chief Sonia Gandhi separately confabulating senior leaders like Mukherjee, Union Home Minister P Chidambaram and Defence Minister A K Antony separately and then together in the party’s core group.

The party leadership also held consultations with other UPA allies like the NCP chief Sharad Pawar and senior DMK leader T R Baalu. Both of them pledged support to the candidate the Congress would choose. The UPA leaders were expected to meet on Friday morning, to decide on a nominee.

While the Congress leadership rejected the three names proposed by Mamata, it scrupulously avoided naming either Pranab or Ansari as likely candidates. Indeed, the party clarified that Sonia had not mentioned to the Trimanool Congress leader during their meeting on Wednesday that Pranab and Ansari were its probable candidates in that order.

All that Sonia had told Mamata was that these two names had figured during the party’s consultations with its UPA allies.

Curiously, in the midst of all these, CPI leader A B Bhardhan, who was among the first to favour a woman candidate for the 2007 presidential election, proposed during the day that the next president should be a dalit woman. He did not take any names, but speculations were that he could be having Lok Sabha Speaker Meira Kumar in mind.

And, with Mamata on a confrontation course, the Congress seemed intent on reaching out to the Left parties for support in the election. Mukherjee reportedly spoke over phone to former West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, who in 2008 was against the CPM leadership’s decision to withdraw support to the UPA-I government.

However, the CPM leadership in the national capital maintained silence, though it criticised the UPA’s handling of the presidential nomination.

But, Mamata was categorical about her choice. She asserted that she will contest the UPA choice with Kalam as her candidate, particularly if the Congress choice were to be either Mukherjee or Ansari. She met Mulayam late in the evening after throwing up a challenge to the Congress.

While Mulayam, who had earlier favoured a seasoned politician for the post of President, maintained silence, Mamata declared: “Kalam is our and Mulayam Singh Yadav's number one candidate. He will be the best candidate."

She will not be attending the Friday’s scheduled UPA meeting. But said she was not walking out of the UPA either. “As far as the Trinamool is concerned, we are in the UPA. We don’t want to topple the government. But if the Congress does not want us, it is left to them. The ball is in the Congress’ court.”

Mamata’s latest stand may be music to the ears of the opposition NDA and other parties like the Biju Janata Dal and the AIADMK. They may be willing to endorse Kalam.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 13,2020

Jan 13: For the first time in years, the government of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is playing defense. Protests have sprung up across the country against an amendment to India’s laws — which came into effect on Friday — that makes it easier for members of some religions to become citizens of India. The government claims this is simply an attempt to protect religious minorities in the Muslim-majority countries that border India; but protesters see it as the first step toward a formal repudiation of India’s constitutionally guaranteed secularism — and one that must be resisted.

Modi was re-elected prime minister last year with an enhanced majority; his hold over the country’s politics is absolute. The formal opposition is weak, discredited and disorganized. Yet, somehow, the anti-Citizenship Act protests have taken hold. No political party is behind them; they are generally arranged by student unions, neighborhood associations and the like.

Yet this aspect of their character is precisely what will worry Modi and his right-hand man, Home Minister Amit Shah. They know how to mock and delegitimize opposition parties with ruthless efficiency. Yet creating a narrative that paints large, flag-waving crowds as traitors is not quite that easy.

For that is how these protests look: large groups of young people, many carrying witty signs and the national flag. They meet and read the preamble to India’s Constitution, into which the promise of secularism was written in the 1970’s.

They carry photographs of the Constitution’s drafter, the Columbia University-trained economist and lawyer B. R. Ambedkar. These are not the mobs the government wanted. They hoped for angry Muslims rampaging through the streets of India’s cities, whom they could point to and say: “See? We must protect you from them.” But, in spite of sometimes brutal repression, the protests have largely been nonviolent.

One, in Shaheen Bagh in a Muslim-dominated sector of New Delhi, began simply as a set of local women in a square, armed with hot tea and blankets against the chill Delhi winter. It has now become the focal point of a very different sort of resistance than what the government expected. Nothing could cure the delusions of India’s Hindu middle class, trained to see India’s Muslims as dangerous threats, as effectively as a group of otherwise clearly apolitical women sipping sweet tea and sharing their fears and food with anyone who will listen.

Modi was re-elected less than a year ago; what could have changed in India since then? Not much, I suspect, in most places that voted for him and his party — particularly the vast rural hinterland of northern India. But urban India was also possibly never quite as content as electoral results suggested. India’s growth dipped below 5% in recent quarters; demand has crashed, and uncertainty about the future is widespread. Worse, the government’s response to the protests was clearly ill-judged. University campuses were attacked, in one case by the police and later by masked men almost certainly connected to the ruling party.

Protesters were harassed and detained with little cause. The courts seemed uninterested. And, slowly, anger began to grow on social media — not just on Twitter, but also on Instagram, previously the preserve of pretty bowls of salad. Instagram is the one social medium over which Modi’s party does not have a stranglehold; and it is where these protests, with their photogenic signs and flags, have found a natural home. As a result, people across urban India who would never previously have gone to a demonstration or a political rally have been slowly politicized.

India is, in fact, becoming more like a normal democracy. “Normal,” that is, for the 2020’s. Liberal democracies across the world are politically divided, often between more liberal urban centers and coasts, and angrier, “left-behind” hinterlands. Modi’s political secret was that he was that rare populist who could unite both the hopeful cities and the resentful countryside. Yet this once magic formula seems to have become ineffective. Five of India’s six largest cities are not ruled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in any case — the financial hub of Mumbai changed hands recently. The BJP has set its sights on winning state elections in Delhi in a few weeks. Which way the capital’s voters will go is uncertain. But that itself is revealing — last year, Modi swept all seven parliamentary seats in Delhi.

In the end, the Citizenship Amendment Act is now law, the BJP might manage to win Delhi, and the protests might die down as the days get unmanageably hot and state repression increases. But urban India has put Modi on notice. His days of being India’s unifier are over: From now on, like all the other populists, he will have to keep one eye on the streets of his country’s cities.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 16,2020

New Delhi, Mar 16: Reliance Group Chairman Anil Ambani has been summoned by the ED in connection with its money laundering probe against Yes Bank promoter Rana Kapoor and others, officials said on Monday.

They said Ambani was asked to depose at the Enforcement Directorate office in Mumbai on Monday as his group companies are among the big entities whose loans went bad after borrowing from the crisis-hit bank.

The officials said Ambani, 60, has sought exemption from appearance on some personal grounds and he may be issued a new date.

Ambani's group companies are stated to have taken loans of about Rs 12,800 crore from the bank that turned NPAs.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had said in a March 6 press conference that the Anil Ambani Group, Essel, ILFS, DHFL and Vodafone were among the stressed corporates Yes Bank had exposure to.

Officials said promoters of all the big companies who had taken large loans from the beleaguered bank which later turned bad are being summoned for questioning in the case to take investigation forward.

Ambani's statement will be recorded under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) upon deposition, they said.

Kapoor, 62, is at present in ED custody after he was arrested by the central probe agency early this month.

The ED has accused Kapoor, his family members and others of laundering "proceeds of crime" worth Rs 4,300 crore by receiving alleged kickbacks in lieu of extending big loans through their bank that later turned NPA.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 23,2020

Patna, Jan 23: "They should go wherever they want," Bihar Chief Minister and JDU supremo Nitish Kumar said on Thursday when asked of Prashant Kishor and Pavan Verma's repeated questions about the party's stand's on the newly enacted Citizenship Act.

"It is their personal decision. They should go wherever they want. We don't have an objection. Don't look at JDU in the context of statements by some people. JDU works with determination. We have a clear stand and don't have any confusion," the Chief Minister told reporters here.

"If they have something to tell, they should come and discuss it within the party. They should go wherever they want. They have my good wishes," he said.

JDU spokesperson and national general secretary Pavan Verma has questioned his party's alliance with the BJP in Delhi Assembly polls while Kishor has more than once made his differences with the party known on the issue of the amended Citizenship Act, and National Register of Citizens.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.