How Many seats Narendra Modi can bring for BJP??

Narendra Modi has been anointed as BJP’s pm candidate for the 2014 lok sabha elections. After the elevation, the biggest question is what will be the impact of Narendra Modi in upcoming loksabha election. As Modi is being projected as the leader of youth and development, lets look at the scenario what modi can bring for BJP-

Looking at the opinions polls conducted by media groups and analyzing India’s 29 states promise the BJP and the NDA a bit of substantial increase in parliamentary seats outside northern and western India. BJP already has an optimum share of seats in its core strongholds like Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Gujarat and Goa. So, even if there’s a huge jump in the BJP’s percentage vote share in these states, the increase in its seats, if any, will not shoot up. BJP can gain in the north and west states. In the east of bihar and Jharkhand, south of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, the BJP has a negligible presence.

 

It is often said that the way for delhi passes from UP. So UP is going to be a big catchment for BJP, where BJP can triple the no of seats. Bihar will be crucial, after breaking up with JDU, BJP might increase the no of seats.

Therefore, Modi is going to get more seats than Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998 of 183 seats. It leaves him 60-70 seats short for government formation. But for Modi, the prospect of attracting allies is far drabber than it was for Vajpayee in 1998.

So, how modi will form government by getting 220-225 seats, and leaving no choice for the alliance to join. It’s a carefully played gamble: sarsanghchalak Mohan Bhagwat chose to micromanage the BJP as never before to ensure Modi’s elevation. The hype, of course, is to maximise returns through sheer propaganda.

As with their ideological goals, the parivar’s Modi gamble is also backed by long-term calculation. Their purpose in diluting the Hindutva agenda in the 1996-2004 period, by postponing Ayo­dhya, Article 370 and the uniform civil code, was to fashion the BJP as a party of governance, making it the default option in terms of governance. Now it’s time to superpose  Hindu nationalism or the RSS’s majoritarian worldview firmly and indelibly on the BJP’s governance and development agenda. If, to achieve this, the RSS has to live with a 1996 type of interregnum, albeit with an unapologetic Hindutva worldview driving the nat­ional discourse this time, before a completely Hindutva dominated NDA-II is able to govern India, so be it.

A few days back, some senior RSS pracharaks heading a front organization of the parivar gleefully told this columnist how the default urban Hindu youth of today— tech-savvy, educated, and with global aspirations—though he may not belong to any saffron organization, is likely to be temple-going, Pakistan-loathing and wary of Muslims, more so than the previous urban generations. This, they said, was owing to the mahaul (ambience) of debate they have created. Narendra bhai, they claimed, excites the imagination and aspirations of this generation- enlightening them and merging their good will would mean constructing a long-term asset. I still have my reservations about this characterization being universally true for the new urban middle-class generation. I doubt if the modern educated Dalit Hindu in Uttar Pradesh, for instance, would share this trait.

Let’s have a look on the calculation of upcoming Lok-Sabha elections-

North-

In eight states of 154 seats, BJP-NDA can pick up 71 seats. Uttar Pradesh, where Modi’s right-hand-man Amit Shah is in charge, is getting triple number of seats of 2009.

Jammu and Kashmir-

Jammu’s Politics is more influences by local issues rather than national issues. In 2008 BJP won seats cause of amaranth land agitation but that was optimum, in 2014 BJP can win seats cause of LOC cease fire and early beheaded of indian army that can bring maximum of three seats.

 Himanchal Pradesh-

Mood of the votes here is more dominated by state leaders. BJP and Modi may not impact there in HP.

Uttar Pradesh-

Modi’s Magic is definitely going to work here. Modi infuencive power has impacted the youth of higher middle and working class. BJP is surely going to win more than 30 seats in the state. Triple what BJP got in 2009.

Madhya Pradesh-

Modi have a good relation with party worker in MP. So, Modi factor will impact in the state. If BJP comes back to power in MP, it will boost the party worker there, can BJP can get optimum no of seats.

Uttrakhand-

Modi is definitely a motivating factor for the ground level worker. Modi can a factor but in the state muslim vote also be a factor. Noone is going to make a clean sweep in the state.

Delhi -

Modi will be a factor in the state, but AAP is going to cut the votes of BJP. But all polls suggest BJP going to maximum seats in the state.

Punjab-

In Punjab, Modi factor will work to the advantage of the Akali- BJP alliance. The Punjab urban hindu always rallied behind the idea of strong central leadership, this time they have MODI.

Haryana-

BJP is completely out of the mainstream politics of the state. But modi’s recent rallies saw huge numbers of mass can get some seats for Modi.

    States                      Total LS seats          In 2009                    In 2014

J&K	6	0	<3
H.P	4	3	2
U.P	80	10	>30
M.P	29	16	>20
Uttarakhand	5	0	3
Delhi	7	0	>2
Punjab	13	1	10(BJP+SAD)
Haryana	10	0	4(BJP+INLD)

West-

In four states, of 101 seats the BJP-NDA can pick up above 60 seats. In Gujarat, the room for improvement is limited.

Maharashtra-

Narendra Modi’s elevation as pm candidate will have impact in the state. He magic is going to work on the mumbai and pune’s urban elite and higher middle class.

Gujrat-

His popularity in increasing day by day in Gujrat. The no of seats is surely going to increase, it may be a repeat of 1999 elections when BJP won 20 seats.

Rajasthan-

Assembly election in Rajasthan will play a important role. BJP is surely going to increase its number of seats in the state, but does not guarantee of 20 which congress won in 2009. But Vasundraraje and Modi factor is going to work.

Goa-

The staunch support base of the BJP is definitely going to be a important factor in Goa. The UPA’s performance have pushed them to a mindset where they think, if not UPA, then who??

State	Total LS seats	In 2009	In 2014
Maharashtra	48	9	25 (BJP+SS)
Rajasthan	25	4	>12
Gujrat	26	15	18
Goa	2	1	2

South-

Of the four prominent states of 129 seats, BJP might get slightly above then 30, What it will lose in Karnataka due to its diminution, it’s likely to make up in Andhra Pradesh.

Karnataka-

If Modi take yediyuruppa on his side, It would go well with the electorate. Modi completely connected with the youth of the state, who finds modi as a visinory leader. Youth of Karnataka now see modi without a baggage of 2002.

 Tamil Naidu-

The BJP has been building organizational structure in the state, which may play out in the 2014 elections. The modi factor will connect with the IT crowd of tamil naidu which who would like to believe that 2002 is a matter of history now. Though Jayalalitha may have a soft corner for modi, it might to tough to go with BJP.

Andhra Pradesh-

One can’t rule out modi’s connect with the youth of the A.P. BJP has now been able to get more than two seats. But with Telangana dominating the discourse, BJP might get more seats in the state.

Kerala-

A section of the upper caste hindus and Ezhavas are unhappy with the present UDF government and congress at the center for appeasing minorities. The constituencies are watch out for where BJP came in a close third.  Since, UPA unlikely to come at the center, a small consolidated hindu might vote in favor of BJP.

State	No. of LS seats	In 2009	In 2014
Karnataka	28	19	<19
Tamil Naidu	39	0	<3
Andhra Pradesh	42	0	<10
Kerala	20	0	<4

East-

Of the 13 states of 153 seats, NDA can at best hope to pick up some 50 seats. On its own, BJP is surely going to gain but as the JD(U) has some seats already.

Bihar-

The BJP and JDU will be contesting separately for the first time in the state. Both Cast and Community will play a major role. While upper caste will veer towards BJP, others may not. But BJP will gain some seats.

Jharkhand-

With the formidable presence of outfits like JVM, JMM and ASJU, BJP appears unlikely to gain seats in Jharkhand.

Chhatisgarh-

Narendra Modi will make an impact for the rural population of the state. Raman’s singh good performance will also engage the voter and BJP can gain some seats.

Orissa-

The BJP’spresence has gown down since 2008. When Naveen Patnaik snabbed ties with it. The party has 34 MLAs in 2004, seven in 2009. It has no MP. BJP’s projection Narendra Modi is likely to improve if he visits Orissa. Patnaik also has not distances himself from modi and is going to maximize any possible BJP gain with modi at the helm.

State	No of LS Seats	In 2009	In 2014
Bihar	40	12	>15
Jharkhand	14	8	8
Chhatisgarh	11	10	>10
Orissa	21	0	4
West bengal	42	1	0
Assam	14	4	5
Arunachal Pradesh	2	0	1
Sikkim	1	0	0
Meghalaya	2	0	0
Nagaland	1	0	0
Manipur	2	0	0
Tripura	2	0	0
Mizoram	1	0	0

With all the seats, BJP can bring 210-220 seats in the upcoming Lok sabha elections. But that will not be enough. For making government BJP have to attract the alliance. But still it will be many turn ups and down before the election.

Three Blunders of Nehru that India still regrets-

Jawaharlal Nehru was the first Prime Minister of India. He became the prime minister of the country when it was the most needed. He has floated the country through many tough situation by some of his intelligent decision but there were some decision that India is regretting and going to regret for a long time.

The Kashmir agreement (1947)

Before 1947, India was ruled by Britain that time there were some states directly under British control, while some were princely states which were permitted to be autonomous till they paid taxes to the British. At the time of partition, the British organized the Instrument of Accession and gave a choice to these princely states to join the territory of their choice, either India or Pakistan. Kashmir had a majority Muslim population, ruled by Hari Singh. The British wanted Hari Singh to accede to Pakistan but the Raja wanted to remain independent.

In the meantime, there were tribal incursions to Kashmir from Pakistan and the Raja decided to sign the Instrument of Accesion in favour India. But Louis Mountbatten, added an additional sentence in the Instrument of Accesion particularly for Kashmir, which now said that people of Kashmir will in future decide whether to choose India, or Pakistan.

By this time, Kashmir was already occupied by invading tribals. India fought back the tribals and chased the Pathans as far as upto Muzaffarbad. India should have used the legality of Instrument of Accession to fight for Kashmir. Instead, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru prematurely promised the UN that a referendum will be held in which Kashmiris can vote and decide their future. It was one of the major blunder committed in independent India which is still the major bone of argument between India and Pakistan.

Linguistic division of India

The worst thing happened during nehru’s working period was the linguistic division. Although Nehru was not responsible for the linguistic division but unfortunately it occurred under his regimen. Potti Sreeramulu had taken to hunger strike demanding a separate state for telugu-speaking population. Rajendra Prasad and Vallabhbhai Patel had warned Nehru of the implication of division on the basis of language, but Sreeramulu's death led Nehru to declare the formation of Andhra Pradesh.  What followed is confusion and hatred for other linguistic groups.

The demand for the formation of a separate state of Telangana, Shiv Sena's agenda to reserve Maharashtra only for the "Marathi Manus", dispute over the distribution of the Yamuna between Punjab, Haryana and Delhi are a few after effects.

Perhaps this has positive economic aspects, but the fact that regional identity is bigger than the National identity is a major threat to India.

The india-China war (1962)

Dalai Nama in 1959 crossed the McMahon Line into India and was granted political sanctuary. Indian border police began to construct check posts along the McMahon Line, and moved border patrols forward toward the frontier of Tibet as per Nehru's "Forward policy". This resulted in two clashes in 1959.

Several senior Indian Army officers considered the "forward policy" as militarily unwise, on the grounds that the Indian Army was neither logistically nor ready to deal with Chinese military power in the borders. Nehru manipulated that the Chinese would not stand up against an India backed by both the United States and Russia, ignored the advice of the officers. By the end of 1961, Nehru had sent enough Indian Army troops into Aksai Chin to establish about 43 posts on the Ladakh frontier claimed by China. Chinese combat power was organized around an Army with a strength of approximately 4,500 officers and 38,400 soldiers and  had gained extensive experience in both mountain and cold weather warfare due the Korean war.

Nehru sustained to overlook the advice of his generals about the army's poor state of readiness; he also continued to adopt that China would not or could not assert herself against India. The Cuban missile crisis gave China the perfect time to attack. The serious fighting of the 1962 China-India Border War extended from October 10, 1962, until November 20, 1962. As soon as the Cuban crisis ended at the end of October, Chinese army pulled back as US threatened to use Nuclear weapons on China.

Does Indian Army meant to die??

Kaun yaad rakhta hai siyah waqt ke saathyion ko kabhi;

Log to subah hotey hi chirag bujha dete hain 

It may have been restrained as a generic ‘sher’ but right now, seems suitable for the Indian army  (or even police personnel) who do their duty, so that the mighty political class of this country especially can sleep in peace (the common man is not important, of course).  

If we have faith in a certain Mr Bhim Singh, who happens to be Bihar's rural works and Panchayati Raj minister, jawans of the Indian army, who die at the border fighting the enemy, are meant to die that way. So that certain people like Mr Singh can sleep in peace.

What’s such a big deal about the demise of jawans at LOC, it’s the call of their profession, isn’t it, Mr Bhim Singh? A professional peril, as you suggested, Mr Singh?

They are just doing their job that they are paid for, just as doctors are meant to treat patients, lawyers are meant to fight cases, and salesmen are supposed to sell, isn’t it, Mr Singh?

What about politicians? And especially the obnoxious ones, Mr Singh? What is their job, have you ever wondered?

“People join army or police for sahadat (martyrdom),” — this is what you had said when the bodies of four soldiers of the Bihar Regiment killed by Pakistan army in Poonch sector in Jammu and Kashmir on August 6, arrived in Patna, in response to a question on why JD (U) ministers were not present to receive the bodies.

And you had added a couple of more nasty statements to display your cruel and awful attitude towards jawans.

India’s politicians are some of the most despicable people ever born and the misfortune of the country is that the voters, who go out to vote in the hope of electing a new, different political representative every time, don’t really have a choice.

And so, we’ve people like Bhim Singh representing us from almost every part of the country.

Bhim Singh is not a solitary instance of irresponsible public servants wondering aloud the despicable thoughts they anchorage for the common people they are meant to ‘serve’. Neither is his insolence an exception.

Political class, generally, reserves only gross scorn for the common Indian, evident in the way they exploit the country’s resources only for their own personal benefit.

And more ‘chhut bhaiyya’ the politician, the worse is the effrontery. That’s a term in the Hindi belt reserved for the small-time political lackey who hangs around the bigger stalwarts but sports insolence fit for a king.

Where does this insolence topped with a sense of invincibility come from?

Possibly, from the statistic that these guys have cumulative so much wealth and power that they know they can buy anything, including immunity against downright disregard of those who keep peace at the borders to ensure that the rest of the country can go about its job in safety.

How would they know? After all, they are well-protected with an overwhelming percentage of our police force on VIP duty.

And we are not even getting into the lethargy shown by the central government over and again on the killing of our policemen and para-military personnel on the border and in insurgency-hit areas within the country. Remember April 2010 when 75 CRPF men were killed in the deadliest Maoist attack in Dantewada in Chhattisgarh?

I also have a objection against those activists, who have the power of vocal chords and platforms to be heard for not raising any voice against this lethargy, especially against our army. They always have many opinions on several other issues, including human rights of the people who are convicted criminals.

The obnoxious attitude towards our army is just not in order. A career in the armed forces does not hold charm for most young Indians like it used to earlier – as of late last year, there was a shortfall of nearly 10,000 officers in the army alone – but at least, we can show respect for people who ensure that we go about our daily lives in peace.

Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar was instant in getting Bhim Singh to ask for forgiveness for his effrontery, and even the opposition has bayed for his blood since then, but I want to hand you a gun, Mr Singh, and send you to the border for an indefinite period. You will then learn what it is to do a job fairly. And to admiration those who do theirs, even when faced with death.

The Reason for creation of Telangana, political or social???

Congress-Led UPA ruling coalition approves formation of new state Telangana by dividing Andhra Pradesh. But what took it so long to approve Telangana as 29^th state as telangana state demand was from 1948. The formation of telangana has raised many question.  Does small states guarantee of good governance??? Or Congress looking for political advantage by formation of telangana?

Subsequent to integration of 550 princely dominions into the Indian Union in 1956, languages was chosen as the basis on which the new states were formed. Only exception was Hindi the heartland which was so massive that it was considered sensible to create several states.

The reason behind the formation of linguistic states was the belief that language is the basis of culture. If same language was spoken over a state it meant that it represented identical culture. But it was a faulty belief to start with. In fact, Andhra Pradesh was the first state that was created on a linguistic basis. In fact, Andhra Pradesh was the first state that was formed on a linguistic basis. The state was formed against the wishes of the people of Telangana. People of Telangana never wanted the region to be merged with the Andhra state (formed in 1953 after separation from Madras state) as they felt that Andhra's culture was different from Telangana.

This was the basic difference between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and why people of Telangana wanted their state?? Now lets focus on Will congress get political advantage from formation of telangana.

Kiran Kumar Reddy is a devoted Congressman and was chosen by Congress president Sonia Gandhi to be the chief minister of the state in the aftermath of a soaring YSR Reddy. But history is not on his sided. His ministers and MLAs are resigning but that’s not an issue here. As 29th state of the Indian Union comes into presence in the next few months, he should replicate on the historicity of the formation of the 26th, 27th & 28th states of the Indian Union – Chhattisgarh out of Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand out of Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand out of Bihar.

It is quite fascinating that none of the three chief ministers who controlled over the parent state – Digvijaya Singh in Madhya Pradesh, Rajnath Singh in Uttar Pradesh and Rabri Devi in Bihar retuned to power after the split of their states. But all of three lose election when elections were in respective state.

In Andhra Pradesh, both lok sabha and state assembly elections will coincide in april-may 2014. Kiran Kumar Reddy will require simply more luck or hard work of party workers to return to power. What is sure for now, is that he is intended to the have history recurrence for him as did for the three above cited chief ministers. But he knows that if he keeps party high command in good humor, he can still have a good career in the party even if the game is lost out for him in the home state.

Equally fascinating is to know that those who created history by being the chief minister of these three new found states Ajit Jogi in Chhatisgarh, Nityanand Swami in Uttrakhand and Babulal Marandi in Jharkhand also did not return to power.

Congress won maximum number of seats from Andhra Pradesh in 2009 lok sabha elections. Now after the formation of Telagana, Andhra Pradesh will  have 25 seats out of 42 and rest 17 will be in Telangana. In this 17, Congress is ruling in 12 seats of course cause of YSR reddy. Like the past formation os state BJP leadership of 2000, the Congress high command has good solid reasons to formTelangana. The party has cut its losses, which it would have otherwise grievously suffered if it had not spitted Andhra. The party may still loose badly in the 25 parliamentary seats of the parent state Andhra Pradesh, but could gain ominously in the 17 seats of the Telangana region, as after the formation of Telangana (TRS) will not have any political issue so most probably TRS will merge with Congress.

Now look at the development story, Does small states a guarantee of good governance?? I will go into facts for this question. Between 2004-05 to 2011-12, the annual growth rate of the mother-daughter states.

Bihar-11

Jharkhand- 6

Madhya Pradesh -9

Chhatisgarh- 9

Uttar Pradesh- 7

Uttrakhand – 16

Obviously its always easy to handle a small state rather than a large one. But for good governance, states required a good leader with good administrative capability and bill to rule the state towards development. As Bihar is not a small state, but still working better than Jharkhand.

The formation of Telangana was inevitable. The upcoming 2014 elections in Telangana, both parliamentary and assembly could just be the way for Congress.  It is now time to explore a Second Republic with numerous smaller states based on their economic sustainability. 

Why landmark verdict of SC is even not sufficient??

The latest verdict of Supreme Court should be warm welcomed as a initiative towards cleaning up the electoral system.  SC has ruled out that all convicted parliamentary leaders and legislators will be disqualified from holding public office with immediate effect. But, unsurprisingly, parties are gearing up to encounter the ruling on the baseless ground that the ruling interferes with the elected procedure to the extent that it narrows down the list of nominees that parties can pick to contest elections.

Politicians are the icon of the society. They represents the nation or state for the society. They should not have a criminal past or present. But in india, the facts may shock many of us. Out of 543 loksabha seats 162 members of Parliament have criminal charges against them. Seventy-six of them face serious charges comprising murder and rape. The scenario is even worse in state legislative assemblies and councils. According to election watchdogs Association for Democratic Reforms and National Election Watch (NEW), of the 4,896 lawmakers—members of Parliament and legislators—who voted for the presidential election last year, 1,448 faced criminal charges. In their affidavits before the Election Commission earlier, 641 had cited serious charges such as kidnapping, extortion, murder and rape.

Politics and crime should be sea distance, and courts would not be intervening to curb criminals from becoming politicians and vice versa. But let’s face the truth. Politics in our country is much more multifarious. It does not render itself easily to idealistic propositions. Courts may be successful in keeping criminals out of representative institutions, but they cannot keep them out of politics. At the ground level reality where politics plays out rough and dirty, both worlds have a synergetic existence.

In our country, political parties need criminals as much the criminals need the former. At the ground level, inclusion of political impact and power takes place through violence. Politics is truly violent and bloodthirsty in villages of our country. We know of the fights between the Congress cadre  and left in Kerala stretching for generations, between the Trinamool Congress and the left in West Bengal, Congress and political rivals in some states and betwen Sangh Parivar elements and the Congress in others. Uttar Pradesh and Bihar are the top in list who made their name for nonterminating violence. There’s simply no sense in pointing out any special party or state. The fact is such violence is inherent to our political culture.

India needs a complete change up in its electoral politics. It drives even without saying. Since the political class won’t wield the broom to clean its own mess, the effort has to come from the courts. The Supreme Court’s verdict on convicted lawmakers is laudable indeed. The only question arises is why it took so long, this judgment should have come just after the independence.

The primitive nature of our politics at the ground level is the reason parties either outsource toughs and ensure safeguard for themselves while being in power, or they promote them in-house. Now, if political violence is a actual crime, I don’t think any party can claim to be free of violence or criminal party. That being the case, does the Supreme Court landmark verdict really sufficient? The association between politicians and criminals will be continue in spite of this. The benefit for the parties is they can plead helplessness when goons seek party tickets. But they will need to reimburse in other ways.

Interestingly, the ruling court gave a reprieve to existing parliamentarians and legislators from having to step down even if they have been convicted of serious crimes – so long as they have proffered appeals.

The judges ruled:

“Sitting members of Parliament and State Legislature who have already been convicted for any of the offences mentioned in…  Section 8 of the Act and who have filed appeals or revisions which are pending and are accordingly saved from the disqualifications… should not, in our considered opinion, be affected by the declaration now made by us  in this judgment.”

The ultimate test of the efficiency of “landmark verdict” is whether it will advance the project to clean up the electoral system.  On that count, however, there is cause for looking the ruling with some sobriety. That enterprise requires  a more broadbased reform of electoral laws, which today puts those with influence power and money power’ at a distinct benefit, comes at election time.

The court’s judgment is a enjoyable step for a good electoral system but needed a  lot more verdicts from SC for a crime free political system. Don’t be astonished if political parties find a way.