The ritual
It was a grand photo-op. All the usual suspects – read party honchos – graced a dais beaming at the cameras. They made nice, and for politicians, short, speeches, complimented each other and the party, and held aloft a slim booklet.
That booklet contained all the expected homilies: controlling prices, holding down deficits, added resources for education and health, ensuring food security, creating humongous number of jobs in a short period, spurring economic growth to reach the coveted rate of 8 per cent (the new double digit rate) and strengthening India’s creaky and crumbling infrastructure with new-age fixes such as optic fibre network, bullet trains and so on. And above all, an India free from corruption, basking in good governance.
Social issues figured prominently: gender justice through women’s empowerment and security, uplift of the poorest, concern for the minorities.
The scene was repeated twice in the last two weeks: on March 26, when the Indian National Congress released its manifesto (which invariably uses the full party name) and on April 7, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) followed suit. In between, other parties large and small did likewise, but in view of the limited success they were likely to enjoy at the hustings, their declarations of intent read more like cries in the wilderness and were treated as such by the nightly discussants and the daily columnists.
But not so those of the two main parties. One of them would be the mainstay of the ruling coalition and the other that of the opposition in just over a month. So they were analysed and dissected, possibly more thoroughly than they deserved.
Similarities between the two were not accidental, nor due to plagiarism (a charge quickly levelled by rival spokespersons), because they addressed the same on-ground situation. It is no rocket science that these commitments of both the parties are the required least common denominator. Neither party spelt out how it would go about fulfilling those commitments, because that was the task of specific plans and budgets they would present when in power. These were roadmaps, not to be seen in isolation but in conjunction with their leaders’ various pronouncements in the on-going campaigns. That is not an unacceptable proposition.
There were differences, to be sure: the Congress defended its record and promised more of the same, rights and entitlements. The BJP stressed good governance, participation and self-help, while slipping in guarded allusions to the Ram temple and Article 370. Political formations need to protect their brand equity even (or rather, especially) in attack mode.
That vision thing
Although rare, sometimes good ideas are tucked away even in partisan platforms, with the potential to be visionary game changers. I could detect four of these in the present editions.
First, BJP’s integrative approach to the Himalayas. It said that the mountains which give us our geographical shape and our climate are seen piecemeal and thus suffer neglect and deterioration, perhaps prompted by the Uttarakhand disaster last year. One hopes that this leads to a scientific, environmentally sound and systematic exploration of the immense water and hydropower potential, as also efforts to restore the fragile ecological balance.
The BJP also proposed to develop coastal areas and ports, calling it rather evocatively Sagarmala (trust the party of orators to coin such terms!) India’s 7,000 km shoreline is one of its least used resources. This is especially relevant in the era of global trade. India’s achieved its early glory from its maritime might and reach to distant markets, both to the west and the east. The project implies components such as hinterland development, connectivity and export-oriented enterprises.
Mr Narendra Modi had talked of a bullet train network in his February 27 address to business and finance professionals. The BJP manifesto incorporates that as the Diamond quadrilateral. The Congress promises to link all million-plus cities with such a network. This is an acknowledgment of the success of two large infrastructure drives in the last 25 years. Project Unigauge promoted of the Narasimha Rao government has nearly converted the entire 65,000 km network of Indian railways into broad gauge. It enormously improved connectivity for easier and smoother movement of goods and people. It was implemented in mostly backward, relatively remote areas, which obviously thirsted for the high investment. Its absorption led to substantial multiplier effects, causing a degree of hitherto unseen prosperity. That story was repeated a decade later by the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government under its golden quadrilateral and east-west corridor project to link the metros with four-lane highways. The new initiative is thus a logical extension of a proven concept.
Finally and most importantly, both parties propose priorities to less water-intensive, more efficient agriculture in their to-do lists. More crop per drop is not a mere catchy slogan, but the most urgent need of our times. One kg of rice needs 6,000 litres of water to grow in India. We also use prodigious quantities of water to grow wheat and sugarcane. What can be more pressing than a concern to preserve our most precious and at risk resource and improve its productivity?
Relevance?
Parsing the manifestos makes good television and news columns – for a few days, anyway. The delay in the release of the BJP manifesto attracted a good deal attention – of the commentariat, but not of the voters. They seemed not especially bothered, if they were at all concerned, about the manifestos in the first place. Leaders have carpet-bombed the country with rallies and the media coverage has been so extensive that there is virtually no other news in sight or print. Pre-election opinion polls have shown remarkable convergence in identifying voter concerns and preferences (see “And the election goes to...,” Business Standard, March 25, 2014).
That begs the question: how relevant are these declarations? Indeed, the BJP had its best electoral performance until now in 1999, when it went to the polls without a manifesto, but only the National Democratic Alliance’s National Agenda for Governance. Even in the United States, where the two parties adopt their elaborate platforms in the nominating conventions, nationally televised debates are far more effective in communicating the parties’ visions and views. Our pundits, who believe that manifestos must be engraved-in-stone pure ideology, might want to know that these are in fact carefully crafted compromises among competing views within the party.
When people vote, they have certain expectations, whether informed by formal declarations of the contestants or otherwise. The real test for those staking their future on the voting exercise is how well they have anticipated and interpreted the mandate they are likely to receive and whether they are prepared for it. Manifestos reduced to rituals are of little relevance in meeting on-ground challenges.
