"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!