A Critical Analysis : Will Modi lead to a height or doom ?

A Critical Analysis  : Will Modi lead to a height or doom ?

Modi claims his Gujarat development model is “Inclusive” while his critics reject it as “pro-corporate and anti- poor”, “pro-elite and anti farmer” as well as “majoritarian and anti minorities”, I will be looking closely at how the hitherto excluded or marginalized populations – small farmers, tribals, Dalits, Muslims, Christians – view it.  Has it facilitated inclusion and upward mobility for them or are they being further marginalized?

The man leading polls to become India's next prime minister may finally be outrunning his past.

When thousands of terrified Muslims fled their homes during religious riots in the state of Gujarat in 2002, the state's Hindu-nationalist chief minister opposed setting up relief camps, saying these would be "child-making factories."

Mr. Modi has sought to distance himself from religious politics. Facing off against Rahul Gandhi, the 43-year-old scion of India's powerful Nehru-Gandhi political clan, whose Congress party has governed India since 2004, Mr. Modi has positioned himself as a champion of economic development and no-nonsense government. He cites growth and industrialization under his leadership in Gujarat and says all of India will enjoy the same if he becomes premier.

Opinion polls show the BJP well ahead of Congress, its main rival. A survey by the Pew Research Center found that 63% of respondents want a BJP-led government, while just 19% favor Congress.

Mr. Modi's critics say his hard-line affiliations make him unfit to lead a large, profoundly diverse country such as India. Hindus make up 80% of India's population and Muslims 13%.

India's 815 million eligible voters are going to the polls at a time of growing national dissatisfaction. To many, corruption seems to have penetrated public life at all levels. The economy, rocket-powered not long ago, has slowed. The rupee tumbled more than 20% last summer, and inflation is now 8%. Since a fatal gang rape in 2012, India has become known around the world as a dangerous place for women. Indians worry about an assertive China next door, and many feel their country has lost influence on the world stage.

Today, angling for India's highest elected office, Mr. Modi is focusing firmly on good governance and economic revival while avoiding sectarian rhetoric. A line he repeats often is, "India's government has only one religion: nation first, India first. And only one holy book: the constitution."

Mr. Modi's campaign, however, seems to be more about the man himself. In speeches, he says that because he is single and childless, he has no reason to be corrupt. Alluding to his boyhood chores at his father's snack stand, Mr. Modi frames the contest against the Congress party's Mr. Gandhi—the son, grandson and great-grandson of past prime ministers—as one between a tea seller and a prince.

Mr. Modi's admirers speak of him as a larger-than-life figure, and he hasn't tried hard to deter them. At a January rally, he said it would take a man with a "56-inch chest" to turn another Indian state into a success like Gujarat.

In 2003, Pramod Mahajan was appointed chairman of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s central campaign committee for the next year’s Lok Sabha elections. Mahajan—known for his organisational skills and his fondness for the company of wealthy industrialists—was appointed against the backdrop of an Indian economy that was growing at a rate of close to 8 percent. Buoyed by the upbeat economic mood, Mahajan, with the approval of his party leadership, assembled an expensive marketing campaign, “India Shining”, which celebrated the Indian growth story in a series of high-gloss television and newspaper advertisements. In the months before the election, the government spent more than Rs 100 crore selling the idea of an economically vibrant India to its own people, even as, according to the World Bank, close to 75 percent of the country lived on less than Rs 100 per day.

After the election, which the BJP had been widely favoured to win, Mahajan’s campaign bore the brunt of the blame for the party’s defeat. The BJP’s upbeat narrative of inclusive growth, it was said, conflicted too starkly with the below-subsistence reality of the majority of Indians. While the country was witnessing unprecedented growth, as has been the case during other periods of economic expansion—under both the Congress and the BJP—the most significant beneficiaries of that growth were a small proportion of upper- and middle-class Indians, with the overwhelming gains accumulating to the super-rich. While Mahajan might have mistakenly seen the signs of broad prosperity in the gains of a small minority, what was more surprising was that the senior leadership of the BJP had gone along with extravagant notions of a “shining” Indian economy. Given the exuberance of the campaign, it is plausible that they, too, might have gotten carried away by the seductive shimmer of growth visible amongst the select few who populate the party’s inner circle and its social periphery.

There is no doubt that, over the past few years, Modi has come to be seen as a poster boy for development-oriented governance. Gujarat, which he has run for the last 11 years, is one of India’s fastest-growing states, and Modi has been immensely successful in building a narrative that establishes his no-nonsense attitude toward governance and policy as the main reason for Gujarat’s consistent growth. To the dismay of his critics, a section of voters now hails him as a strongman with the will and wisdom to reduce corruption and deliver growth. The man once viewed only as a communal polariser has found his biggest support among major industrialists, who cherish his decisiveness even if it carries authoritarian undertones. His second rung of supporters is made up of smaller businessmen, petty traders and shopkeepers, long the BJP’s traditional constituency. In addition to these two groups, there are the increasing number of young corporate professionals from the middle classes, who aspire to move up the income ladder and see Modi as a promoter of business and efficiency. This last group has been particularly vocal in their support of Modi, and the intensity of their cries for his ascension often presents the impression that the BJP has vastly expanded its voter base. But for all their energy, this group too represents a very small proportion of India’s population; these young aspirants often come from the same upper castes that have long been the BJP’s base.

While Modi’s admirers strongly believe that his appeal will spread across lines of caste and class, right now his most ardent support comes from this same small cross-section of upper-caste Hindus, who wield a disproportionate influence within the BJP and the RSS. The party is certain in 2004 that an aspirational message would expand its voter base, but in hindsight, they seem to have been carried away by the fervour within their own ranks. Ironically, this time they may do so behind a candidate whose own origins are not upper-caste, which might otherwise have heralded a shift away from the parochial outlook to which the party has often been prone.

During the last Lok shaba poll, 714 million Indians were eligible to vote, and 8,070 candidates stood for office. In principle, any one of those candidates, if elected, could have become prime minister. In the five years since, the number of eligible voters has increased by nearly a hundred million—roughly the entire population of Mexico. Given the overwhelming complexity of such a massive exercise, commentators naturally use certain filters to distil their analysis. Among the most popular is the direct comparison of individual leaders, which frames elections as a face-off between the declared or likely prime ministerial candidates of the major political parties.

This year’s contest features two lightning rods, and commentators are pitting them against each other with renewed vigour. Both prime ministerial hopefuls are seen to have serious and divergent flaws: Rahul Gandhi invites ridicule as the face of dynastic incompetence, while Narendra Modi invokes fear as the symbol of Hindu majoritarian intolerance. Last month, an NDTV poll of over 200,000 respondents found that the preeminent concern about Gandhi becoming the next prime minister was continued corruption; with Modi, it was increased Hindu–Muslim tensions. Analysts argue that the highly charged “Gandhi or Modi?” question—a central debate on dinnertime news shows—has polarised voters. The historian Ramachandra Guha even called 2014 “the first individual-driven election” since the heyday of Indira Gandhi.

The choice of a frontman also matters to the party rank and file, the workers who are the connective tissues between candidates and ordinary voters. Modi’s popularity with the BJP cadre at party conclaves, and also in assembly election campaigns in 2012 and 2013, was crucial in vaulting him over other successful BJP chief ministers. This implies that despite being wary of Modi’s limitations as a manager of coalitions, BJP leaders recognise the electoral value of a “presidential” candidate who inspires grassroots workers. While it is true that local political conditions are more important to election outcomes than a top candidate’s popularity, the two may be indirectly connected through the canvassing efforts of especially motivated party workers, especially since, as CSDS data has consistently shown, half of all Indian voters are visited by at least one party worker during Lok Sabha campaigns.

Modi’s campaign strategy has shown signs of a similar centralisation of control. He has invested effort and money into crafting an image of presidential authority, with a campaign that trumpets self-reliance (tea vendor to chief executive) and physical vigour (the vikas purush with a chhappan-inch chest). These ideas have been disseminated via elaborate campaign rallies orchestrated by expensive public relations firms. As part of his effort to build a cult of personality, Modi has also willingly incurred the anger of elites within the BJP and the larger Sangh Parivar, as was recently illustrated when RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat discouraged his cadre from chanting Modi’s name at rallies.

Modi’s ability to bypass his party may reflect broader shifts within the Indian electorate that could facilitate increasingly prime minister–oriented campaigns. Literacy has steadily increased, from 65 percent in 2001 to 74 percent in 2011. The percentage of Indians who never read the newspaper declined from 62 to 53 percent between 1999 and 2009, according to national election surveys by the CSDS. Mobile phone penetration is also expanding, providing new (if not always reliable) ways of communicating with voters.

Yet the pace of inclusive development has been slow, and levels of deprivation remain exceedingly high. Poverty and illiteracy hardly make voters unsophisticated, but they do render citizens less accessible to centralised, media-driven campaigns. They may also limit a voter’s political horizons. The political scientist Pradeep Chhibber found that in India, the poorer the voters are, the less likely they are to believe that the central government has an impact on their lives. By extension, poorer voters may pay less attention to a party’s choice of prime ministerial candidate than more privileged ones.

Over the long term, improvements in education and technological access will allow top-down campaigns to more easily reach the Indian electorate. This does not mean Indian elections will focus entirely on parties’ choices of prime ministerial candidates, but it could lead to the increased importance of those choices relative to other factors. However, given our sluggish record of human development, only equally incremental conclusions about shifts in the political landscape are defensible. For now, we must remain wary of constructing presidential yardsticks to measure the worth of prime ministerial aspirants.  

Modi, 63, is currrently the frontrunner, with surveys repeatedly placing him ahead of 43-year-old Rahul Gandhi, the scion of India's first political family and candidate for the incumbents, the venerable Congress party.

The battle between the two draws sharp lines across the Indian political landscape. Modi is proud to call himself a "Hindu nationalist" and appears to favour radical reform of the country's flagging economy. Gandhi holds true to the leftwing economics and belief in religious pluralism that is the legacy of his great grandfather, Jawarharlal Nehru, the country's first prime minister.

The BJP believes Modi, one of the most polarising figures to walk the Indian political stage for many years, can lead it to a landslide victory, despite opposition claims that he is a demagogue and a "hatemonger". After a false start in 1996, the party won real power for the first time two years later, but lost the 2004 elections. Now BJP strategists believe they have an opportunity to end the long decades of Congress dominance for good – and with it the power of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty. Insider v outsider, dynast v working-class boy made good, suspected sectarian v secularist: this electoral battle has it all. Some analysts talk of the most significant contest since India won its independence from Britain in 1947.

But there are many criticisms too. Both Modi's claims of economic achievement and his cosiness with India's so-called "croney capitalists" are frequently questioned. Many say growth in Gujarat is no greater than that in several other states in India and is considerably less well-distributed. Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate economist, has said the state's social and economic progress is poor. Others claim that keeping growth at healthy levels in Gujarat, a mid-sized state with a strong tradition of trade and a better infrastructure than much of the country, is easier than elsewhere. The chief minister's executive ability is not a result of administrative skill, some argue , but of deep, aggressively authoritarian instincts. In Gujarat, journalists in Ahmedabad say, simple intimidation has reduced the press corps to cowed servility. Modi is not a man who patiently builds consensus. He does not, it appears, like to be challenged.

But it is not economics, nor even his alleged dictatorial tendencies, that makes Modi such a polarising figure. It is violence, and specifically an outbreak of rioting in Gujarat in 2002 triggered by the deaths of 59 Hindu pilgrims after their train was torched in a largely Muslim town. Of the thousand or more killed and hundreds of thousands forced out of their homes in the chaos that followed, most were Muslims.

There are many reasons for this. India has long been prone to periodic bouts of communal violence, and political opponents, cynically or otherwise, repeatedly cite the 2002 rioting to highlight the threat of sectarian conflict if Modi wins the coming elections. Though Modi has not been convicted, they point out, associates have been sent to prison for their role in the violence. There are also many ordinary Indians, and not just India's Muslim minority, who are deeply committed to a tolerant, pluralist, progressive vision of India and who believe Modi would divide and damage their country.

Christophe Jaffrelot, a political scientist who specialises in extremism in south Asia, says Modi has effectively "emancipated himself" from the RSS high command, who traditionally outrank even senior BJP figures. Yet, he adds, Modi may well "do anyway what the RSS has wanted to do for decades because he is perfectly in tune with their ideology."

With the Congress Party-led coalition facing wide criticism for corruption and ineffectiveness, Modi’s chances look good. But he will also have to overcome opposition within his own party. During a decade as chief minister, he has earned quite a few enemies. “He believes that if you really want to do certain things, you cannot waste time in discussions and compromising,” says Ghanshyam Shah, a political scientist in Ahmedabad. Those who challenged him, including ministers in his own cabinet, were shut out, and Modi refused to allow them to stand for election on BJP tickets. One faction split off into a new party; another group defected to the opposition. By the end of 2006, Modi had effectively replaced the entire political leadership of the state with those loyal to him. “In Gujarat, the BJP became Modi – one voice,” says Shah. “Anyone who had a different voice had no place within the party.” That approach has left Modi alienated within his own party, but he’ll need the BJP machinery to actually run a national campaign. Even if he doesn’t become prime minister, Modi offers a glimpse of what India might be like if it became, as some of its critics wish, a little more like China. He represents a new kind of Indian politician — democratically elected but authoritarian in style and spirit. “The future belongs to that kind of politics,” voice of many.

Has India become so desperate for rapid economic growth, so blinded by the promise of prosperity? It seems that, in the race towards higher GDP, the majority of India is willing to inject itself with the steroids of bigotry or ruthlessness. Ethics be damned.

I am sure BJP is B team of Congress when it comes to corruption, looting, raping and cheating the people. Look at Modi. His minister Maya Kodani is in jail with life imprisonment. His right hand Amit Shah is out of jail on bail. Gun toting Congress goon Vittal Rathadia was given MP seat by Modi in the recent by-election. CAG indicted Modi with 15000 crore looting. BJP is extremely good in creating fake propaganda. They wanted to build Ram Temple. They could demolish the masjid when they were in opposition. But, they did not build the temple when they were in power both at center and state. When BJP was branded a rogue party, they projected Vajpayeeji as a 'good person in bad company'. Cheated the people and came to power. When they were failing, they created a hype called 'Efficient Vajpayee'. That did not work. They created 'India Shines'. That did not work. Now, they have come up with brand Modi. They have spent thousands of crores to build his image with the help of international PR agencies funded by corporate houses. But, what happened to the fake propaganda of 'Efficient Vajpayee' and 'India Shines' will surely happen to 'Brand Modi'. BJP will disintegrate after 2014 elections. Congress will loose its national relevance.People are desperate for an honest and clean politics. God save India !

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra,

Sambalpur, Odisha

Politics : A money game, 1- 15 , May 2014, Just In Print

Politics: A money game

In India, the news may not come as a surprise to many: that you have to be rich to be a successful politician. Or you could enhance your wealth a whopping 1000 fold from the time you join the ruling caucus till its mandatory five year term ends. Two events did the rounds very recently to endorse the fact that the heady mix of crime, money and politics is here to stay in the Indian political canvas.

Now, in 2014, corruption is the greatest challenge Indian democracy faces. “The fact that it has penetrated India's entire political fabric has troubling implications for any democracy,” Kugelman said. “This is not to say democracies aren't corrupt; rare is the democracy that doesn't suffer from it. Yet India's scandals seem to be so much bigger – involving more money and abuses of power – than seems the norm. Such corruption helps explain why politicians are so unpopular in India, and in the long term – if not addressed – this systemic corruption could imperil the social contract between people and state that is meant to embody democracy.”

The  elections in India have confirmed the fact that in India we have a socalled 'democratic' system that truly allows people to replace one set of rulers by another. But is it a sign of true democracy?

The political system that exsits in India is not democracy. It can be called 'richocracy', i.e. the rule by the rich. When the affairs of the state are decided by political parties that are funded and controlled by the very rich, who are a small minority, when the institutions of the country such as the courts are dominated by the very wealthy class, such a system is not democracy.

How can you have true democracy when the the majority of Indians who live in the rural areas live in poverty? They have no electricity, no clean drinking water and no good schools? The fact that the traders, and the middle classes, who live in big cities, and who constitute a minority of the one billion Indian people, enjoy wealth and have good schools does not prove that we have true democracy.

No one bothers to inquire how these people get rich after they win the elections; officially they just have moderate salaries. It’s a family business now, heir to the thrones of these politicians succeed them. You will see political families ruling people and they vote for them. Democracy is chaos in India.

The effects of money in politics are topics of heated debate in media and political circles in most liberal democracies. 

How much does it cost to run a political party? If you go by the audited balance sheet of the Congress for 2009-10 (the latest available), the answer is Rs 525.97 crore. This is a party with several million workers, offices in every one of our 35 states and union territories (UTs) and which fights an average of seven assembly elections each year. The audited balance sheet of India’s second largest party, the BJP, is equally modest. Its annual expenditure for 2009-10: Rs 261.74 crore.

In the five recent state assembly elections, the Congress and the BJP together fielded over one thousand candidates. According to the Election Commission’s unofficial estimates, the average campaign expenditure of a candidate is between Rs 2.5 crore and Rs 5 crore for an assembly constituency (official EC cap: Rs 25 lakh) and between Rs 5 and Rs 20 crore for a Lok Sabha constituency (official EC cap: Rs 40 lakh).

 Hawala system is an alternative money remittance system primarily practiced in South Asia, Middle East and North Africa. This informal fund transfer system is also addressed as Hundi and it operates via a large network of brokers, also known as ‘Hawaladars’. The origin of the Hawala system remains in classic laws of Islamic religion. In general the basic Hawala transactions take place by transferring money without actually moving it. It has emerged as a popular process of money laundering, a method through which the black money earned from illegal sources are converted into white money. This process has no doubt grown into popularity amongst the corrupted cult of politicians and business men in India and abroad. In short Hawala meaning is an undercover alternative banking method for global money transaction that is primarily based on trust. NGO’s and Trusts are being used as safest method to do Hawala Transactions.Since money received by these organizations is tax free and no investigation is done.

Unfortunately, in India many of the eminent politicians and business tycoons use the same means to transfer lump sum to their foreign accounts. The Hawala transaction is quite straight forward and convenient for those who are aware of it. In fact it is a centuries’ long practice that seem to remain in popularity in future.

Politicians in India earn large sums of money from illegal sources and the black money is neither recorded nor taxed by the government. Since this is risky to invest the money inside the country, they resort to the Hawala system to transfer it to some safe haven. Thus Hawala method is the best suited process for the corrupted political cult to siphon the country’s funds to foreign countries. Most of their much speculated secret Swiss bank accounts are funded by money laundered through the Hawala channels.

Of late our Indian democracy being throttled to slow death by the stinking corrupt politicians. Whole India is facing this sort of undue advantage by these political bosses and they dictate who runs the administrations as well as policies of governance.

If we take a look at the number of wealthy candidates contesting elections and lure the voters it is clearly visible that Indian Politics has stooped so low to the money & muscle power. Most of the elected representatives of state assemblies and central parliamentary itself a fine example of how the money power dominates the governance. Root cause for additional corruption of course and the lust for money grows day by day to remain in power. 

The way cash directs the course of politics and its display and use mark strength of the support base of a politician or his group, then it is the clear sign of death of democracy. 

A combination of wealth and political power can be awesome and it can help keep a distance between the ruler class and the ruled which is anathema to the concept of participatory democracy. But when currency notes win votes, one has to forcibly accept this negative development. This, in fact, has become more a rule, less an exception.

There was a time when the country was aghast at the fact that businessmen directed policy and if not, they secured licences by corrupt practices. Businessmen were seen as a corrupting influence and industrial groups' names were used in the public speeches as pejorative expressions.

Then, with liberalisation, when business became respectable, they began to talk about what they wanted and it was limited to policy suggestions via their lobbies like the Confederation of Indian Industry, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the Indian Merchants' Chamber.

 The political class, which promotes dynasties, has wealth to invest in politics to make more of it, have subverted democracy. But we in the country only talk of the 'demand for leadership change by dissidents' and ignore the basis.

The other side of our Indian Politics is dynastic rule where the existing politicians wants to promote their wards, kith and kin in Politics as well as sharing the power. Almost all over the nation irrespective of states we can see this dracula of dynastic rule emerging in the past 2 decades.

Unless and otherwise educated youth, professionals and persons of eminient character enter politics we will not see the change in our governance. 

 It is a human story, but it's also a political story that speaks volumes about our democratic system. It's a story that can be multiplied innumerable times at every level of public life across the nation where, alas, bribery—either explicit or implicit—remains far too common. 

Less harmful than outright corruption, but also insidious, is how quickly public servants will leap at the chance to make more money working for the other side—as lobbyists who pester their former colleagues on behalf of wealthy interests. 

What's the solution here? Well, tougher rules to keep lobbyists away from politicians would be helpful, and—of course—public financing of campaigns could make a big difference. But consideration should also be given to raising the pay of public officials at all levels, so they can afford a reasonable standard of living while they serve their fellow citizens. 

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra,

Sambalpur, Odisha

Corporate Control Over Media , 1-15, April 2014 , Just In Print

The state of India’s press – which played such a pivotal role during the fight for Independence from the British – is now at a crossroads. While the sector has grown rapidly following economic liberalization, it is also struggling with unique constraints on its freedom. These include censorship of the new electronic media and undue influence yielded by corporations.

While the constitution does not explicitly mention the word "press," it does provide for "the right to freedom of speech and expression" (Article 19(1) a). This right is subject to restrictions, however, for a variety of reasons, including "sovereignty and integrity of India,” “friendly relations with foreign States” and “preserving decency.”

For the first half-century after its independence, media control by the state in India was a major constraint on press freedom. With the liberalization of the economy starting in the 1990s, however, private control of media has burgeoned, leading to increasing independence and greater scrutiny of government. At the same time, self-proclaimed media barons have emerged who have control over the media outlets because they own them. This has been the cause of great concern for those who have been watching the media over the years.

This closeness between the media and corporate India leads to a deplorable confusion of priorities. Instead of media houses relying on advertisers to fund quality journalism, the relationship becomes insidiously reversed. Advertisers and corporate units begin to rely on news outlets to further their interests. In 2003, Bennett Coleman Company Limited (publishers of the Times of India and the Economic Times, among other publications) started a “paid content” service, which enabled them to charge advertisers for coverage of product launches or celebrity-related events. In the run-up to the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, the more clearly illegal practice of “paid news” emerged and became widespread.

The behind-the-scenes influence of corporate and vested interests was made particularly apparent by the leaking of tapes recording conversations between Niira Radia, a powerful lobbyist with clients such as the Tata group and Reliance Industries, and a variety of business men, politicians, and journalists. They revealed what had long been an open secret: the collusion and uncomfortable closeness among corporate units, politicians and journalists, a world in which the line between politics and business, public relations and news, is increasingly blurred.

The scandal of the Nira Radia in which a businesswoman was found to be using reporters, among others, to lobby for policy goals – revealed a new threat. It is a “the unholy nexus between big businessmen, powerful politicians, manipulative lobbyists and influential journalists.”

 That many media companies argue in favour of relaxed legislation with regard to media consolidation is not surprising, when one considers the difficulties of breaking even, let alone making money, in the business. From a business point of view, media consolidation has undeniable advantages. It allows for economies of scale, which enable media companies to absorb the costs of content and distribution over a large volume of revenue. This in turn allows companies to invest in better resources such as talent or technical equipment. In a competitive market, small media companies have a very hard time surviving. Consolidation makes a lot of economic sense and can even, to some extent, translate into improvements in quality.

Some nations can influence and control their media greatly. In addition, powerful corporations are becoming major influences on mainstream media. In some places major multinational corporations own media stations and outlets. Moreover, even as numbers of media outlets increase, the ownership is becoming ever more concentrated as mega mergers take hold. At the same time, vertical integration gives the big players even more avenues to cross-sell and cross-market their products for even more amazing profits. An effect of this though is a reduction in diversity and depth of content that the public can get, while increasing the political and economic power of corporations and advertisers. An informed population is crucial element to a functioning democracy.

As advertising becomes more important for businesses, larger companies are able to spend more and more on sophisticated ways to make us buy their products. Advertisers also exert direct and indirect influence on the media companies and their content in order to foster moods and cultures where consumers are more likely to buy their products. As a consequence, dumbing down of content is not uncommon. Media companies sell consumers to their customers, the advertisers, who bring in the money that allows media companies to survive.

When someone speaks of media manipulation, they can mean both manipulation by the media and manipulation of the media (by business lobbies/politicians/self-serving interest groups etc.) Manipulation of the media does not require that every last media source goes along with it. It comes down to which media outlets are given cultural authority, and by whom and for what reason. It's never a simple matter of taking sides. These big media organizations end up being a public relation mechanism for the big Corporations and their boards of directors are connected with a plethora of other major global corporations and elite interests.

Haven't these strategies been in existence for a very long time? Most of them were developed during the sustained European colonialism of over 500 years and refined through the hapless participation of their conquered subjects. Yes, modern technological advances have enabled these strategies to be put in place with much more widespread impact. Though it would seem that some of the world is waking up from their prolonged sleep!

Who owns the mass media in India? That is a rather difficult question to answer. There are many media organisations in the country that are owned and controlled by a wide variety of entities including corporate bodies, societies and trusts, and individuals. Information about such organisations and people is scattered, incomplete, and dated, thereby making it rather difficult to collate such information leave alone analyse it. Nevertheless, a few salient aspects about media ownership stand out from the inadequate information that is available.

Political parties and persons with political affiliation own/control increasing sections of the media in India.

 The promoters and controllers of media groups have traditionally held interests in many other business interests and continue to do so, often using their media outlets to further these. There are a few instances of promoters who have used the profits from their media operations to diversify into other (unrelated) businesses.

 The growing corporatization of the Indian media is manifest in the manner in which large industrial conglomerates are acquiring direct and indirect interest in media groups. There is also a growing convergence between creators/producers of media content and those who distribute/disseminate the content.

The Indian media market differs from those of developed countries in several ways. For one, India is a developing country and all segments of the media industry (including print ) are still growing unlike in developed countries. The media market in India remains highly fragmented, due to the large number of languages and the sheer size of the country.

Despite these impressive numbers of publications, radio stations and television channels, the mass media in India is possibly dominated by less than a hundred large groups or conglomerates, which exercise considerable influence on what is read, heard, and watched. One example will illustrate this contention. Delhi is the only urban area in the world with 16 English daily newspapers; the top three publications, the Times of India, the Hindustan Times, and the Economic Times, would account for over three-fourths of the total market for all English dailies.

Debates on media ownership are almost as old as the nation itself. The country’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and his Defence Minister V.K. Krishna Menon would castigate the “jute press” in a clear reference to BCCL which was then controlled by the Sahu-Jain group which also controlled New Central Jute Mills. Then came references to the “steel press”. The Tata group, which has a substantial presence in the steel industry, used to be a part-owner of the company that publishes the once-influential The Statesman. Ramnath Goenka, who used to head the Indian Express group, made an aborted attempt in the 1960s to control the Indian Iron and Steel Company (IISCO). What was being clearly suggested by politicians was that particular family-owned groups would use their news companies to lobby for their other business interests.

According to research conducted by Dilip Mandal and R. Anuradha, that has been published in Media Ethics (Oxford University Press, 2011), the boards of directors of a number of media companies now include (or have included in the past) representatives of big corporate entities that are advertisers. The board of Jagran Publications has had the managing director (MD) of Pantaloon Retail, Kishore Biyani, McDonald India’s MD Vikram Bakshi, and leather-maker Mirza International’s MD Rashid Mirza; besides the CEO of media consulting firm Lodestar Universal India, Shashidhar Sinha, and the chairman of the real estate firm JLL Meghraj, Anuj Puri. The board of directors of HT Media, publishers of Hindustan Times and Hindustan, has included the former chairman of Ernst & Young K. N. Memani and the chairman of ITC Ltd Y C Deveshwar. Joint MD of Bharti Enterprise Rajan Bharti and MD of Anika International Anil Vig are a part of the TV Today’s Board of Directors. The board of directors of DB Corp (that publishes Dainik Bhaskar) includes the head of Piramal Enterprises Group, Ajay Piramal, the MD of Warburg Pincus, Nitin Malhan, and the executive chairman of advertising firm Ogilvy & Mather, Piyush Pandey. NDTV’s Board of Directors has Pramod Bhasin, President & CEO of the country’s biggest BPO company GenPact as a member of its board of directors.

Media companies tend to have a variety of professionals on their boards, such as investment bankers, venture capitalists, chartered accountants, corporate lawyers, and CEOs of big companies. Professional journalists, ironically, rarely figure. As a result, those at the top of the decision-making hierarchy are those for whom the bottom-line, not the by-line, is most important.

Media companies that own the leading Hindi and English news  channels -- NDTV, TV18 and TVToday -- initially forayed into broadcasting when Doordarshan commissioned them to produce current affairs and then news bulletins.

Such commissions for weekly and then daily capsule enabled these small companies to grow as they gradually invested in infrastructure and in a national network of reporters. All this came in handy when, following the de-regulation of news broadcasting in year 2000, these firms ventured out on their own.

A less explored dynamic of the corporatisation of the media, and particularly of broadcast news is financialisation, i.e., a process whereby financial markets and financial institutions gain greater influence in the operation of a company. To understand the nature of financialisation underway in a media company, different sets of inter-related measures can be used. The first measure is the capital structure of the company, since it provides its first contact with the financial system. The second involves tracking developments within the company during and after its listing in the stock market. Although these two measures of financialisation form the subject of analysis here, other measures include the nature and levels of financial indebtedness of a news broadcaster, the ways in which the membership of the board of directors of a news broadcaster are interlocked with those of financial entities; and, the non-news corporate practices of a broadcaster and their holding company, especially the creation of purely financial subsidiaries.

The political system in India is close in spirit to the model of liberal democracy. In the constitution of India the power of the legislature, executive and judiciary have been thoroughly demarcated. The party system in operation is a competitive one with flexibility of roles of government and opposition. There is also freedom of the press, of criticism and of assembly.

Indian democracy has always attracted attention worldwide and has made scholars to ponder over the secret of its success amidst considerable odds. In India diversity is almost everywhere and it is not a developed nation. The problems of poverty and inequality in distribution of income have been constant irritants. Nevertheless, till today democracy has survived in the country. The role of media in India, the largest democracy of the world is different from merely disseminating information and entertainment. Educating the masses for their social upliftment needs to be in its ambit as well. In a country where there is large scale poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment media has a responsibility towards developmental journalism. It has a role to play behind formation of public opinion which can force the political parties to address the core issues haunting the country's progress. However, public opinion can be manipulated by vested interests to serve their own goals .Media can conceal facts and project doctored ideas to influence the electorate and thereby the voting outcome. Values like objectivity and truthfulness in presentation of news and ideas can be totally done away with.

In India public service broadcasting was given much importance after independence. It was used as a weapon of social change. AIR (All India Radio) and Doordarshan, the public service broadcasters in the country had the responsibility of providing educational programs apart from information and entertainment. However, it needs to be taken note of that the public service broadcasting system in the country was closely identified with the state. A monopolistic media structure under state control has the threat of becoming the mouthpiece of the ruling elite. The scenario was bound to change with the opening up of Indian economy in a bid to integrate with the global system. It signalled the emergence of a competitive market in the field of media with public service broadcasters getting challenges from private entities. This, however, had the seeds of a new problem of ownership.

Ownership pattern of media across the globe and in India is a cause for concern. There are big corporate houses who own newspapers and television networks. A higher concentration of ownership increases the risk of captured media . Media independence in such a scenario gives way to safeguarding the interest of the owners who may not serve social responsibilities. The space for plurality of ideas is eroded sending ominous signals for democracy. In many democratic countries media ownership has reached dangerous levels of concentration. He has cited the examples of News Corporation's (owned by Rupert Murdoch) 37 % share in United Kingdom's national newspaper circulation and Silvio Berlusconi's ownership of top three commercial television channels, three pay TV channels and various newspapers and magazine in Italy which act as his political mouthpieces.  Transnational powerful media organizations are in operation in India post liberalisation. These are big multinational corporations who own a chunk of the mass media market ranging from newspapers, television, radio, book publishing to music industry. Five of world’s largest media conglomerates include General Electric, Walt Disney, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom and CBS. In India there are big players like the Times Group and ABP who rule the roost in the media arena. In a bid to open up the Indian market 26% foreign direct investment has been allowed in news publication and 74% has been allowed in non news segments by the Government. 100% foreign direct investment is available in the film industry. 100% FDI is also allowed in television software production subject to certain government norms. Cable networks and FM Radio networks have FDI limits of 49% and 20% respectively (FICCI and PwC,2006).Research undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers has shown the FDI investment trend across mass media in India. Virgin Media Asia has a holding in HT media's foray into FM radio. Financial Times (Pearson Group) has an arrangement with Business Standard; AmericorpVentures, Mauritius has a stake in Nimbus Communications which deal in television and films and Reuters UK has equity sharing with Times Global Broadcasting, the Indian entity. Therefore, across mass media options have opened up for availability of transnational homogeneous content. The growth of media conglomerates and their powerful presence has raised fears of manipulation of ideas by a powerful few detrimental to the democratic fabric. The corporate giants have also engaged in severe competition among themselves dishing out news and content which is primarily dominated by sensationalization, sleaze and glitz to capture wider markets. The disturbing trend that has emerged in the present media scenario is the use of media in the battle between rival political groups (Coronel, 2003). In fact, this new phenomenon is in operation in India with newspapers and news channels taking sides while presenting facts. The same event can be presented in two contrasting manners in two newspapers or two television channels. Coronel argues that promotion of hate speech in place of constructive debate and creating an atmosphere of suspicion rather than social trust has the danger of making people cynic about the democratic setup leading to its breakdown.

While discussing the dangers associated with the developments in media it needs to be said that media in India has also undertaken roles which have strengthened democracy. The media as a watchdog of the democratic system has unearthed its various shortcomings. Investigative reporting in print and television media has helped in exposing large scale corruptions which have robbed the nation. The Commonwealth Games Scam, the Adarsh Housing Society Scam, Cash for Vote Scam and the Bofors Scam are the highpoints of the Indian media. Across newspapers and television channels voices have been raised when the bureaucracy, judiciary or other public functionary have crossed the laxman rekha. There have also been initiatives to promote community media for the citizens to air their concerns. This is a significant leap towards alternative media usage which is distant from the dominant structure. Here the importance lies more in participatory communication right from the grassroots rather than communication which flows top down. Various television channels have also given the space for ordinary citizens to air their views in the form of citizen journalists thereby promoting democratic participation. Newspapers have educated the masses by informing them of the developments in the field of science and technology. They have also expressed strong views against prejudices which harm the society. Much developmental news has also been aired through the medium of radio. Its comparative low cost and wide acceptance among poorer sections have made it a potent tool for expressing ideas beneficial to the public.

Internet, a relatively newer entrant in the field of mass media, has proved to be more democratic than newspaper and television. Internet has provided the opportunity for citizens who are conversant with the medium to express their views about a number of issues. In many cases groups have been formed by likeminded people who discuss and debate over a number of decisions on the part of the government and seek new ideas for way ahead. The power of the internet can be easily judged from the developments in Egypt in recent times. Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter were used to garner support against the regime of President Hosni Mubarak (Kuwait Times, 2010). Internet has been used by various public service organizations and N.G.Os to inform people about their objectives and also to make them aware of various initiatives on the part of the government as well as non government organisations for social upliftment. In internet the barrier to communication is minimal which helps in the formation of a participative environment. There is also greater empowerment of the users through higher level of interactivity and flexibility in choice of media outlets. The potential of the medium lies in its ability to be more personalized by offering user-created content . 

Nevertheless, there is the threat of advertising revenues influencing media outputs. Those who control considerable wealth have the opportunity to sway public opinion in their favour with the help of mass media. In the 2G scam the Radia Tapes controversy brought in focus the journalist, politician and industrial conglomerate nexus. Developments like these are a threat to democracy and undermine the media fraternity. Advertisements in newspapers, television, radio and at times the internet have become a part of the present election campaigns. Candidates with better funds have the edge over others in being voted to office because they can buy newspaper space and considerable air time.

The real challenges that lie ahead for the media in India are to ensure that growing concentration of ownership in an oligopolistic market does not lead to loss of heterogeneity and plurality. In the absence of cross-media restrictions and with government policies contributing to further corporatization, especially with respect to the television medium, diversity of news flows could be adversely affected contributing to the continuing privatization and commodification of information instead of making it more of a “public good”.

So long as the media are in corporate hands, the task of social change will be vastly more difficult, if not impossible, across the board. This is why, in the end, media reform is inexorably intertwined with broader social and political reform. They rise or fall together.

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra,

Sambalpur,Odisha

Caste system and Politics go hand in hand , 16 - 31 March, Just In Print

Elections in India are fought with an eye on getting votes on the caste system which has its roots firmly fixed in the Indian social order.

Elections in India are fought with an eye on getting votes on the caste system which has its roots firmly fixed in the Indian social order. Side by side with caste system the question of reservations has become a major attraction for creating a vote bank during elections.

Political power, economic prosperity and social status were the exclusive privilege of the upper castes. This peculiar discriminatory caste system in India led to the growth of only a section of the society dominating the rest of the populace by depriving them of economic opportunities and equal privileges.

This led to the lack of unity among the Hindus who were divided into the Harijans, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes and depressed Classes. All these sections of the Hindu society attribute the existence of their poverty to their exploitation by the upper castes that deprived them of equal opportunities in pursuing education and engaging in professions of their choice.

A law was passed to preserve the rights granted to the Scheduled Castes and also to remove the notorious custom of untouchability. Thus the caste factor became an important item of political agenda.

Reservations were introduced for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes to protect their in­terests. Seats were reserved in. educational in­stitutions and in job opportunities.

Reservation in educational institutions became essential as the Scheduled caste people had been deprived of the right of acquiring knowledge and education since long and it would be impossible for them to compete with the upper classes. Moreover, re­served constituencies were formulated to grant them adequate representation in political setup.

Article 334 of the Constitution makes a provision for the reservation of seats for Sched­uled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and nomina­tion of Anglo-Indians for a period of fifty years from the commencement of the Constitution. Thus, caste-based politics have become an integral part of the Indian polity.

The reservation policy is seriously resented by the upper caste Hindus. The caste system is responsible for social stratification and class distinctions. Caste-based politics cannot be wiped out due to peculiar social structure of India. Reservations, which is known as “Protective discrimination” is termed as ‘Reverse Discrimination’ by the upper Caste Hindus.

It is a shame that our politicians play such dirty games to ensure that their vote-banks remain intact. This new bill if passed will override Article 335 of the Constitution that says that the claims of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes have to be balanced with maintaining efficiency in administration. It was based on this that the Supreme Court overruled Mayawati’s attempts to bring in such a rule in Uttar Pradesh.

In a country like India, where economic disparities are large, the government should ideally take steps to help the economically disadvantaged. With improvements in technology and better identification of the needs of citizens through Aadhar and other schemes, the government can definitely do a better job at identifying and helping the economically disadvantaged (of all castes and creed) climb up the socio-economic ladder. We as citizens should also do our duties and be moral and not run for fake caste and income certificates. The enlightened youth of our country should take a pledge that they will not misuse the benefits given to them. It is only when we grow above such petty caste based issues that India can progress and develop on all fronts.

Now a very interesting question that has been posed is that when caste acts as a political faction and votes are caste in favour of a particular candidate on caste basis even then caste retain its character as a caste of becomes a political faction, thereby defying caste traditions.

Such a deep impact of caste on politics does not appear to be very healthy. If an unholy alliance between caste and politics continues then, it is feared that at one stage, security of state even might be in danger. G.S. Ghurye has rightly observed that, "Unholy alliance of caste and politics will surely jeopardies not only the peace but even the security of the country."

It is therefore; very essential that such an unholy alliance between caste and politics should be brought to an end as early as possible. It is however, fully well realised that only legal provisions will not serve the purpose. For this the psychology and thinking ₀f masses will have to be changed.

The people will have to realise that the caste must be sacrificed for the sake of purity in administration and nepotism is to be wiped out both for national interests and security.

Time has come to question these deceptive political parties and leaders, whether the triumph of their parties is realistic or not? Lot of caste based political parties sprung to life across the length and breadth of independent India. No state has been vulnerable to this practice. Caste based political parties have initiated a brutal process of concentrating on the large vote bank of a particular caste. It’s disgraceful for every contender to the Parliament to claim their victory as a rational and satisfying to every voter in their constituency. Why are political parties trying to bank on support base of a particular caste? What made the political parties to opt candidates based on the caste?

Though Indian National Congress succeeded in keeping all the sections of the community under its umbrella for a couple of decades, by early 70’s caste based politics have sprung to life. From then on we have seen a vital change in the way the political parties approached the Indian voter. A particular section of the society when deprived of the progress and government aid, are left with not much choice other than to choose a candidate from their lot who can raise their issues at the national level. Most of the political parties during 80’s and 90’s succeeded in representing their section and decipher their tribulations. Almost all the sections considered to be backward have succeeded in drawing the attention of the ruling party to unravel their concerns. This is truly a positive sign to the political arena. But with time political parties got side tracked from their actual motto and started to indulge themselves in cheap political tricks.

Now the political situation in the country is very grim. If we analyze the manifestos of political parties in 2009 general elections, the agenda revolved around wooing the various sections of the society. Looks like this general election have witnessed more number of caste based political parties than the previous ones. We have also witnessed political leaders making inflammatory statements in open meetings. The election commission has succeeded in arresting the political parties from crossing limits to some extent but it could not wipe them out completely. Caste based politics are surely a negative phenomenon to the Indian political arena. Political parties and leaders should understand that caste based politics might act as a hindrance to the nations development.

One irony of Indian politics is that its modern secular democracy has enhanced rather than reduced the political salience of traditional forms of social identity such as caste. Part of the explanation for this development is that India's political parties have found the caste-based selection of candidates and appeals to the caste-based interests of the Indian electorate to be an effective way to win popular support. More fundamental has been the economic development and social mobility of those groups officially designated as Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes. Accounting for 52 and 15 percent of the population, respectively, the Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes, or Dalits as they prefer to be called, constitute a diverse range of middle, lower, and outcaste groups who have come to wield substantial power in most states. Indeed, one of the dramas of modern Indian politics has been the Backward Classes and Dalits' jettisoning of their political subordination to upper castes and their assertion of their own interests.

The Backward Classes are such a substantial constituency that almost all parties vie for their support. For instance, the Congress (I) in Maharashtra has long relied on Backward Classes' backing for its political success. The 1990s have seen a growing number of cases where parties, relying primarily on Backward Classes' support, often in alliance with Dalits and Muslims, catapult to power in India's states. Janata Dal governments in Bihar and Karnataka are excellent examples of this strategy. An especially important development is the success of the Samajwadi Party, which under the leadership of Mulayam Singh Yadav won the 1993 assembly elections in India's most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, relying almost exclusively on Backward Classes and Muslim support in a coalition with the Dalit-supported BSP.

Though casteism in traditional sense in weakening in India, though the leader of our country have proclaimed time and again the caste is menace to our national life, caste plays an important role in Indian Politics. Adult franchise and Panchayati raj have given new opportunities to castes. Numerically large castes have become important pressure groups in local as well as state politics.

Unfortunately, in this country elections are fought and won on the basis of caste. Candidates contesting elections seek support from their castes. These leaders, thus elected maintain casteism even after election by showing special treatment to their caste members.  Political Parties in India sponsor candidates having social base, which is nothing but the numerical strength of a caste of candidate in the constituency.

Leaders at the village level cultivate ministers for privileges and for a variety of favor. The ministers in turn need the help of village leaders during elections. It seems tot be accepted principle that, in the state cabinet at nay rate, each major caste should have a minister. This principle is in the village Panchayat as well. Voting very often son caste basis. The local politics in village is dominated by caste. Each caste wants to get maximum power in the village set up. The groupism in rural politics is centered around mostly on castes and to some extent on class and other factors.

In Karnataka state politics there is rivalry between Okkaligas and Lingayats, the two leading present castes. In Andhra Pradesh the chief contesting castes are Reddies and Kamas, in Bihar, Bhumidars, Kayasth and Rajput.

Dravida Munnetra Kazngam (D.M.K) had arises as a non-Brahmin party of break the Brahmin cal dominance in Tamilnadu state politics. At present D.M.K and A.D.M.K are two non-Brahmin political parties in Tamilnadu and both the parties are in politically advantageous position in comparison with other political parties such as Congress and Communist in that state.

The highest expression of caste based politics is found in Bihar and U.P. is even today. The traditional caste rivalry between the Rajput, Kayastha and Bhumindar is found today among the political parties in Bihar.

Caste cannot be criterion to help the backward classes to come up because it is astrictive and because it helps powerful members of the castes to exploit the concessions for their benefits. Any attempt to exclude the advanced backward caste from backward castes appears impossible, because the advanced backward castes will desire to be in the list; as they are politically powerful their claim cannot be laid aside by any democratic government.

Although the politics in India cannot be explained entirely in terms of caste, caste is an important element in the politics. The caste influences political activity from Panchayat right up to Parliament. While the Caste System is breaking down in social and cultural fields; conflicts between castes are intensified by party politics.

The Supreme Court had tried in the earnest sense to provide reservations only to those backward classes who are in need of it by eliminating the so-called creamy layer from the privilege of enjoying reservation. But on the other hand, all other communities other than Scheduled Castes. Tribes and Backward classes are trying to procure the same privilege under the label of other backward classes (OBCs).

Thus people belonging to various castes and sub-castes in India are trying to inter into the arena of reservations. So the politics of reserva­tions in ending discrimination or perpetuating dis­crimination due to various trends in recent times cannot be definitely determined.

Let us think clearly and hope that the purpose of reservations will be ultimately to extend reservations only to uplift the really backward classes irrespective of caste or creed and to establish a secular, casteless, socialist and egalitarian society.

Siddhartha Shankar Mishra,

Sambalpur, Odisha