"He tells it like it is"

 

 (The cartoon is original from The New Yorker. The cartoonist is Paul Noth. All rights belong to Mr. Noth and to The New Yorker.) 

The Trump Presidency is living up to its billing and more. He did promise 'change,' didn't he? Despite Trump's Presidency 1.0 experience, people still are not ready to believe in what he is capable of. There is no way an American President will side with a Russian dictator! There is no way an American President would dump its Western ally in a war and change sides on a dime! There is no way an American President so openly asks the embittered country to sign their valuable minerals away, and that too, to the businesses associated with the President himself! And there is no way an American President openly threatens DEI initiatives, and voila! the DEI initiatives of corporate America just vanish! 

And all this happened in the first two months of the Trump administration! 

President Trump's maverick style of functioning has left commentators and pundits dizzy. The chutzpah of his Presidency was not entirely unexpected; it is still breathtaking nonetheless. For the last few decades, especially during the Reagan era, the American Presidency has devolved into a mixture of backroom dealings and front-end PR marketing/management. This approach was successful to an extent as well. The American President is portrayed not just the leader of his own country but of the entire world. He (and it has to be a 'he'!) is a leader of a 'Free world,' whatever that means. And he is the only one who can save the non-free world from being non-free! There is a huge difference between a 'world power' and a 'world leader'. In this increasingly multi-polar world, it is quite tough and in fact, counter-productive, to be a world leader. But I guess the PR campaign of being a 'world leader' was too good for its own good. The American President drank their own cool-aid too much. For example, President Obama, who was given the Nobel Peace Prize within a month of assuming his Presidency, started lecturing the rest of the world as if he was talking to kindergarten kids. If you notice his tone and his way of interactions as he progressed into his second term, President Obama became increasingly patronizing in his manners. Both Republicans and Democrats are the culprits of riding on a high horse, but Democrats always came out haughty, especially when dealing with non-Western and non-Muslim nations. Perhaps, while playing the role of a 'world leader', these Presidents lost touch with their own countrymen? Democrats undoubtedly did lost the sight and were caught completely flat-footed in the last election against the onslaught of Trump's campaign. 

President Trump upended the Presidential campaign customs by doing away with various campaign tactics and ushering the petty strategies like name calling and relying on theatrics. This maverick approach has worked for him two out of three times. He is now employing the same tactics in dealing with international geopolitics. For example, he straightaway asked Hamas to come to the table and release the hostages or face his wrath. And Hamas promptly obliged. Now, an argument can be made  that truce negotiations were already in play from the time of the Biden administration. Still, the reality is that during the Biden administration, the war continued to rage, while, a truce was signed even before the ink dried on Trump's inaugural invite cards. As if this sort of bravado was not enough, he doubled down and proposed a completely radical and rediculous 'solution' to the Gaza issue. The proposal is indeed laughable. But it's hard to know when Trump is bluffing. In any case, that laughable proposal put enough pressure on Hamas not to re-engage in stupidities. 

A similar situation is unfolding on the Ukraine front. The war has been raging for years already. During this time, no one ever talked about peace or a truce. The shenanigans at the White House that Trump and his deputy, Vance, unleashed may shockingly lead to peace on the Ukraine front. That does not mean the deal will benefit Ukraine. There are very few positive options for Ukraine in this situation. And despite not being an aggressor against Russia, they are likely to lose part of their country. Especially given the Trump administration  swiftly changing the course of action. From the Trump administration's perspective, they will not militarily support and fund the war on behalf of the EU. It could be a wise decision for US, at least in the short run. Not a great outcome for Ukraine but an outstanding result for Russia. 

 

On the tariff front, Trump is keeping his word. Overall, the tariffs do not help anyone. Having said that, the reality is, most of the middle-American populace did not benefit from the currently structured international trade. Manufacturing jobs have essentially vanished from the US, literally stolen by Chinese government by indirectly subsidizing manufacturing in China. The Americans are left with being consumers, funding Chinese economy and embolding Chinese military aggression. In such situation, a pushback was but natural. The so-called left-liberals of Democrats did not effectively address this issue with the populace. Moreover, the earlier establishment did not even attempt to hold China accountable for its actions. The Trump administration seems to radically change this situation by imposing a very high tariff against China and effectively positioning China as the country's numero-uno adversary. 

I am not arguing that all the steps taken by the Trump administration are logical. A good number of those decisions and steps sound crazy, and some of those decisions are certainly going to backfire spectacularly. The administration is still in the post-poll honeymoon period to worry too much about any sort of repercussions. The electoral pushback will happen in subsequent local elections. However, the alacrity with which the Trump administration is trying to fulfill the electoral promises assures that the world order will be rearranged. 

But the veneer of the American President being a cigar-chewing alien-fighting fighter pilot has taken a hit. The image of an over-the-top, unhinged, rambling, side-shifting President changing world order will stick around for a while. Good for us, Obama was just too nauseating. 

End Of The Road For Kejariwal?

 

The Delhi assembly elections concluded a couple of days ago, and the exit polls released yesterday indicated a stunning defeat for the Aam Aadmi Party. In recent years, exit polls have frequently provided inaccurate predictions. A notable example is the last Lok Sabha general elections, where it was widely assumed that the BJP would secure at least 320 seats, but the party ended up with only 240 seats, which was a significant disappointment. It is possible that the exit polls are also mispredicting the results of the Delhi assembly elections. Perhaps the exit polls are also mispredicting Delhi assembly results. 

As we keep a close eye on the election canvassing, we see some intriguing developments that could pose challenges for AAP. It’s important to note that both the party and Arvind Kejriwal have had a compelling rise, largely thanks to media coverage that painted them as champions of the common man. Kejriwal emerged as a figure of hope for many, a refreshing change in a political landscape often marred by corruption. He skillfully navigated the complexities of politics, gaining significant popularity along the way.

However, it seems Kejriwal may have misjudged the voters' perceptions. People are sharp and can see beyond the surface—many have sensed a shift from the idealism that once defined him to a more conventional, power-driven approach. Nonetheless, voters still showed their support during the assembly elections for several reasons. The Congress party’s tarnished reputation created a yearning for change, and the BJP wasn’t able to present a strong contender to challenge Kejriwal's position.

This situation opened a door for new possibilities. Voters were eager to embrace an innovative force, hoping for improvement. Unfortunately, rather than truly reading the room, Kejriwal may have let the adulation cloud his vision. While he certainly gained skills in political maneuvering, it’s crucial to remain grounded and connected to the people to sustain that trust and support. 

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has consistently struggled to gain support beyond voters in Delhi and Punjab. While the party had a remarkable victory in Punjab, successfully taking the state from the Congress party, this was the peak of its achievements. Since then, the AAP has suffered defeats in three consecutive Lok Sabha elections and has not won a single Lok Sabha seat in Delhi, since its inception. This lack of success indicates a growing maturity and perceptiveness among voters. 

The cantankerous nature of the party and of Kejriwal may have finally become tiresome for the voters. His current incredulous promises likely sound hollow, and the circus shows he orchestrated during his arrest for corruption may have turned voters against him. It could also simply be a case of anti-incumbency. Regardless of the reason, it is evident that Kejriwal is not receiving the responses he was once accustomed to. This has made him desperate for new antics, such as accusing the Haryana government of poisoning the water supply. However, even that allegation has failed to generate any significant controversy. It seems that even his supporters in the media have abandoned him. Although the BJP has struggled to establish a coherent strategy in its Delhi unit over the past decade, they are likely to gain more seats simply because Kejriwal's dramatic antics are losing their charm.

Losing power in Delhi is simply not an option for Kejriwal. Without control over Delhi, he would feel like a fish out of water. Losing this position would immediately strip him of the media platform he currently wields. Moreover, if he loses Delhi, funding will dwindle. It's important to note that Kejriwal has already faced significant challenges, having spent months in jail despite being the Chief Minister. If he were to lose his position now, his situation would be even more precarious. As AAP navigates the political landscape with virtually no foothold in the Lok Sabha and solely in control of Punjab, it finds itself at a crucial crossroads that could define its very existence. Will they rise to the occasion, or is an existential crisis on the horizon?

I still expect the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) to win the elections with a clear majority, despite the exit polls. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will also secure a substantial number of seats. As a result, the Delhi assembly will finally have a significant opposition presence. I feel positive about this outcome. It is about time that one of the most dishonest politicians and his disreputable party are shown their place. 

Mr. Manmohan Singh - Tale Of a 'Footnote'!

Recently, former Prime Minister of India, Shri Manmohan Singh, died of old age. Tributes poured in, hailing him as one of India's most extraordinary Prime Ministers. Albeit lower in the ranking than the Gandhi dynasty PMs! Mr. Singh, a Finance Minister in PM P.V. Narasimha Rao's government, is primarily credited for liberalizing India's economy in 1991. Fast forward a decade or so, and Mr. Singh was selected to be the Prime Minister of India in 2004 by his party's chief, Sonia Gandhi. Mr. Singh played that role for 10 years, presiding over some of the biggest scandals in post-independent India. Mr. Singh was not known to be loquacious, but he virtually turned mute in his second term. He refused to speak with the Press and forgot that it was his constitutional expectation to have a dialogue with his fellow citizens. Mr. Singh didn't even take the chance to call out his inept and corrupt ministers for their glaring incompetence and dishonesty. 

The country's economy stalled, and constant controversies completely paralyzed the decision-making in the government. It is hard to know why Mr. Singh did not take any steps to stop the scandals, fire the corrupt ministers, or attempt to make critical decisions. While his reputation as a noncorrupt PM remained unblemished, his reputation as a PM nose-dived. Mr. Singh's political masters refused to acknowledge the impact of Mr. Singh's meek leadership on India or the subsequent general election. The party got drubbing of historic proportion, and much of that blame lay at Mr. Singh's feet. After losing power, instead of graciously retiring, Mr. Singh remained an upper house member. Unsurprisingly, he continued to assail the next government on the key issues he would have championed in his days. 

Mr. Singh's political career is a story of prioritizing serving the Gandhi family above the country and presiding over some of the biggest scandals since India's independence. Back in 1991, a period when he did not directly serve Gandhi, he opened the Indian economy to the world. How much credit should we credit Mr. Singh for liberalization? Close reading of decision-making at that time will tell a different story. Mr. Singh did not want to or even championed liberalizing the economy. Multiple bad decisions successive Congress governments made in the past two decades finally caught up. India was about to face the harsh reality of economic pain and depredation. To stave off that scenario, Mr. Singh and his finance ministry decided to open up the Indian economy. It is worth noting that by design or sheer happenstance, Mr. Singh's tenure as a finance minister also saw some of the biggest financial scandals of those days. Presiding over scandals while continuing to showcase how he is the Saint of Uncorrupt is the game Mr. mastered during his term as the Prime Minister. We can argue that, during his period as PM of India, his absolute and utmost deference to Sonia Gandhi borders slave mentality. 

Mr. Singh did not understand that he expected to govern and serve the people of India. Instead, he thought that his priority was to serve Sonia Gandhi. At least by one account, he always said that 'there cannot be two power centers.' He was correct, but being PM meant he was to be the power center and not Sonia Gandhi. As his premiership descended into chaos, his legacy lurched from one scandal into another. But then, what else can be expected from a person who is 'selected' to be the PM? The people of India did not elect him; why would he worry about serving them? One glaring example that encapsulates his governance is his meekly surrendering his constitutional authority and responsibility to NAC -  National Advisory Committee- a non-elected, non-governmental, and non-constitutional authority run by Sonia Gandhi that essentially took decisions on behalf of the government. This sort of set-up was not only an affront to Indian democracy, but it was unconstitutional. Yet. Mr. Singh remained quiet. Maybe his sole hope lay in receiving a grand state farewell as he embarked on his next journey: something that eluded his former boss and our former PM, Mr. Narasimha Rao. 

Not many people get the opportunity to lead a country. Mr. Singh had that opportunity not once but twice. Instead of using his intelligence to improve the nation and benefit his fellow citizens, he leaves behind no meaningful legacy. History will not need to be kind to him; he will merely be a footnote!

The Fall of Assad's

The fall of the Assad regime in Syria was spectacular and unexpected. At least, regular schmucks like me did not see it coming. One reason is that they had been fighting the civil war successfully for more than a decade, and second, in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, Syria was not on anyone's radar. But how the regime crumbled showed how ephemeral these propped-up regimes are. It's hard to know who is propping them up and to what extent. But once that support evaporates, these regimes go poof! 

The general commentary on the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict veers between banal and stupid. There is outrage over the Palestinian deaths, denial over the crime Hamas perpetrated, and then pontification over how Israel cannot solve this problem through warfare. The reality is that the Oct 7 attack by Hamas is going alter the future and geography of the Middle East for the foreseeable future. The ball game has changed for good. It is no longer the old conflict of cat-and-mouse that Israeli forces played with Hamas and Hezbollah. It is no longer a conflict where the Israeli army attempts to minimize civilian casualties; all the while, Hamas/Hezbollah maximizes the casualties for more funding and PR. It is hard to figure out the approximate civilian casualties in Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria, but suffice it to say that it runs into tens of thousands of innocent lives. That's tens of thousands more than needed. And yet, Hamas is refusing to release the hostages, and none of the world powers or Arab powers can force Hamas's hand. And the innocents are paying a heavy price for that. 

In response, the Israeli army has decided to take a no-holds-barred approach. They not only became purposefully indiscriminate in unleashing violence, but they spread the theater much more expansive than anyone could probably have predicted. Israeli army first dismantled Hamas in Gaza and Palestine. Then they moved on to Hezbollah. For both of these terrorist organizations, Israelis not only went after their ground network but also picked the senior leadership apart - one by one. The fury was staggeringly violent, but the precision in killing both Hamas and Hezbollah leadership stood unprecedented. Then, the war theater expanded into Lebanon and Syria. In the meantime, Israel and the U.S. Navy started tightening bolts around Iran in the Gulf of Hormuz. It seems like both Israel and the U.S. are hell-bent on making Iran pay the ultimate price for the horrendous attacks of Oct 7. The current conflict is no longer a battle with proxies; those proxies are about to be eliminated. But this is about going after the sponsors who pretend to be warriors while sitting comfortably in their houses. 

Assads have been playing the proxy game of Iran for a long time. With Iran increasingly finding itself in a tight spot, the Assads were on thin ice already. The Assads thought they were being clever by also becoming a proxy of Russia. But with Russia embattled in Ukraine, Assad's hold on Syria was a lot more tenuous than what appeared. The U.S. stuck at this weak moment by covertly funding and providing for the rebels fighting against the Assads. The Israelis were also waiting to pounce once the rebels moved it. It was like a perfect storm, except Assads had no shelter to run to. 

What is next for Syria? It's hard to predict, especially since no one expected the last few weeks. However, it is doubtful that Syria will have a calm future. The rebels will not be able to govern. Being a rebel is without any responsibilities, while governing is only that. The U.S. and Israel are not going to let the region fall prey to Iran's influence again. The country will either be divided, officially, into smaller countries. Even if it's not official, the government will be 'governed by various rebel factions. Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq will try to gain some influence to shore up their borders. The U.S. and Israel will be watching the grounds like hawks. The state-sponsored violence of Assad's will subside, but the region will not be peaceful for a long, long time! 

The 'Un-rise' of Kamala!

The US elections recently concluded, not with the excitement that many expected but rather with a subdued outcome. There was considerable buzz surrounding Kamala Harris's candidacy. Although she was not initially seen as a strong contender against Trump, many self-proclaimed liberals had already declared her the future President of the United States. However, simply offering "thoughts and prayers" does not translate into votes, nor does a strong dislike for the opponent guarantee victory. Winning an election requires a concrete agenda and a clear vision, along with a well-defined plan to achieve it. All of this hinges on having a leader who is an effective communicator. A successful leader must understand the public's sentiments and possess the language skills necessary to resonate with the intended audience.

This is not to say that Trump possesses all of the qualities mentioned above. His vision is dark, filled with retribution and conflict, and often feels unattainable. Nonetheless, throughout his life, political career, and rise to the presidency the first time, as well as his overwhelming majority in the second election, he has always seemed improbable. In contrast to Kamala Harris, Trump presented an agenda, albeit a vulgar one. He did offer a vision. Most importantly, he expressed his thoughts assertively, even when he was politically incorrect or simply wrong.

Kamala Harris, on the other hand, frequently changed her stance on significant issues, adapting her positions depending on the crowd and the problem at hand. The agenda of Kamala Harris and her Democratic party primarily focused on ensuring that Trump was not elected. While fear can be an effective political tactic, it has its limits. Fear alone cannot conceal a lack of political acumen, charisma, a coherent agenda, and effective strategy. The rallies and messaging seemed so heavily focused on Trump that I wondered if the Democrats were inadvertently campaigning for him.

The American electorate is not yet ready to elect a woman as President of the country. There needs to be greater maturity when it comes to electing a candidate of color or one with foreign ancestry, especially if that ancestry is from just one generation ago. Unfortunately, American voters do not currently exhibit that level of maturity. 

We can discuss how unfortunate this is and explore potential solutions, but the fact remains that the Democratic Party did not adequately consider the implications of nominating a candidate with these qualities, leading to an expected resounding defeat. If Donald Trump is indeed a poor choice—and many believe he will prove to be—then it would be wiser to support a candidate who has a legitimate chance of winning rather than forcing a social agenda into political strategy. Ultimately, voters are likely choosing what they perceive as the lesser of two evils.

Overall, it’s a troubling situation for everyone, and the consequences will be felt by all.

Haryana Elections Surprise!

The Haryana elections have been a great surprise to the most. My predication was, BJP would lose by a small margin. They would win enough seats to hold their ground but need to win more to form the government. But BJP leadership and strategists had other plans! When they smelled defeat, they hunkered down and got busy making rapid changes. First, they removed the Chief Minister of more than 9 years and replaced him with a relatively new face. The easy transition between Chief Ministers starkly contrasts with dynastic, 'Jaagirdaari' types in-fighting in Congress whenever there is a change. Second, the BJP implemented a time-tested strategy of overhauling the existing power structure. In 2013, Shivraj Singh Chauhan, incumbent CM of Madhya Pradesh, did not give tickets to more than two-thirds of sitting MLAs. A bold strategy that paid spectacularly as he returned to power with an overwhelming majority- adding 22 more seats than his prior term. BJP similarly gave tickets to only a few sitting MLAs. This led to discontent in the ranks. There were rebellions and party changes. But the party and the leadership stayed put. What was there to lose anyway? Third and last, they made the election local - no longer the Modi election engine. Modi ji played his role and campaigned, but the state-level elections remained state-level. The door-to-door campaign and booth management have always been BJP's fortress, and it was on full display! 

However, the BJP's victory in the Haryana elections was not just a good showing but a historic win. In 2014, when BJP first won the majority, they secured 47 out of 90 seats. This time, when they were expected to face a massive defeat, the party held their ground and won 48 seats, their best-ever electoral showing in the state. The math behind this victory can be explained, but what about the voter sentiments that drove such a significant shift? What factors led to this landslide victory?

The Congress party and the other so-called opposition were riding high, understandably so, after sudden gains they achieved during the May general elections. However, they thought they won more seats because of issues they raised, which is not valid. They have yet to come up with better solutions than what the current dispensation has in place. They did not have any fresh ideas either. In the name of electoral strategy, all they had was scaremongering, rumor-mongering, and archaic ideas of social justice that the majority of the upward-moving Indians do not identify with. The scare tactics about the Indian Constitution being in danger did work to an extent. Still, incumbency played an equal or more role in giving a jolt to the BJP in the general elections. Unfortunately, Congress, one of the only main opposition parties in Haryana, stuck to the old formula. They raised false alarms over social justice and outsourced the outrage industry to a third party (the Wrestlers, in this case).

To make matters worse, they made critical mistakes in the caste equation. BJP has been constantly creating a new flank to oppose the dominant caste in every election. In Haryana, the BJP, in the past,  managed to unite the non-Jat castes. The Congress party attempted to counter this by adding Selja Kumari to the state leadership. But that backfired spectacularly since the former CM was in no mood to surrender his position of power. That impacted the voting pattern since the non-Jat voters may have decided to stick with the BJP. 

The last but essential development often overlooked is the Hindu vote bank consolidation. It has been happening regularly since 2014. The vote consolidation did happen in Haryana as well. There is no metric to calculate that since the Hindu votes do get divided along the caste lines. But constant disparaging of Hindu sentiments by the Congress and other Opposition parties has been building a silent wave of antipathy towards them. If the BJP plays the cards right, they are likely to win in the upcoming Maharashtra and Jharkhand elections. 

The Ripple Effects of General Elections

The current political situation in India is a fascinating puzzle, with the aftermath of the General Elections still unfolding. Not all critical political players have grasped the full implications of the results, and the election threw the wildest possible scenario. The opposition parties, after a long struggle, finally managed to land a punch on BJP's formidable election machinery. The disruptive force of the Modi factor in Indian politics has been a unique phenomenon. Since 2014, every election at every level in every corner of the country has become a referendum on Modi Ji.  The Opposition, at first, could not comprehend this unique situation, and then, they could not counter it effectively. The political discourse of Hindutva, coupled with rapid economic growth ushered by the Modi government, was a potent force.

The narrative took an unexpected turn when the Opposition, especially the Congress party, stumbled upon a counter-narrative - that the BJP is planning to change the Constitution and do away with the reservations. By sheer chance, this canary of lies hit the chord. Apart from this new election strategy, Modi Ji and BJP were already fighting apparent voter fatigue and anti-incumbency. The Opposition played the narrative that the Modi government plans to tinker with the Constitution, again and again, once the Opposition realized there was an audience for this story. This strategy was not a knock-out punch; it would never be one. However, it did bring the BJP down from the heady clouds. The seat drop, especially in Uttar Pradesh, will undoubtedly slow down the BJP's march shortly.  

But does that mean the halo of Modi ji has dimmed? I don't think so. His popularity is increasing. Modi Ji joined the hallowed chamber with only two occupants - our first PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, and then Indira Gandhi. These two Prime Ministers also continue to generate respect across the voting patterns. However, Shri Nehru's popularity has been waning lately, Smt. Indira Gandhi's popularity among the masses is still high. Similarly, Modi Ji continues to be widespread across the party lines. His clean image, work ethic, and ability to connect with the masses remain unparalleled in the current political situation. 

However, will that popularity translate into more and more votes? That is to be seen in some of the upcoming elections. BJP is grappling with 'grown-up' issues. Growing rapidly is fun, but maintaining the lead is a onerous task. The strategy needs to constantly be agile. And most importantly, the ideology also needs to constantly shift. No one can claim to be a true ideologue in politics. But BJP does hold on to its founding ideology to a large extent. And that's where they are likely to problems. The people that shouldn't be in the party are being added because they can potentially win the election. While the people who built the party or are core ideologues are being sidelined so the party can potentially win the elections. This is bound to happen for any political organization. I hope BJP sticks to the ideology and does not get carried away to win elections at any cost. I hope the party sticks with home-grown, in-house cadre instead of relying on 'imports'. I hope the party gives free hand to Yogi Adityanath and not fall prey to internal politicsl.  I am curious to see how the BJP manages this situation. 

They are still the best and, for most purposes, the only political party that works towards the development of the country. If the party mismanages this rapid rise and the issues it brings, then the country will pay the heavy price.