The fate of a party, and a dynasty, in the balance

Sonia Gandhi accepts Congress Party's defeat as Rahul smiles on

As the results of the biggest democratic exercise in history began to flow on 16 May 2014, and it became undeniable that the Congress Party had been all but wiped out by the BJP’s Narendra Modi ‘Wave’, the ruling party’s first family – Sonia Gandhi, the party president and her son Rahul Gandhi, the vice president - walked out to accept defeat and face the media.

Rahul Gandhi chose to speak first. In a statement that was short and, it seemed, ad-libbed, he uttered four sentences.

“I would like to start by congratulating the new Government. They have been given the mandate by the people of our country, so I wish the new government all the best. On my part (a long pause and a shy smirk), Congress Party has done pretty badly. There’s a lot for us to think about and as the vice president of the party, I hold myself responsible for what has happened.”  At which point he smiled, rolled up his sleeves, and stood aside to allow his mother to speak.

For someone who headed the Congress campaign and was projected as prime ministerial material, this 30-second effort was deeply unimpressive. As was – in the consensus view of the pundits - his performance throughout the campaign. As his mother spoke, he smiled and winked. He came across as ‘irresponsible’, ‘immature’ and ‘out of sync’, according to the commentators.

No sooner had Sonia Gandhi finished reading out her statement, Rahul was whisked away by his ‘over-protective’ mother.

The Gandhis and the Congress Party are so entwined that it is difficult to imagine one surviving without the other.

This was the worst defeat ever suffered by Congress, India’s longest-enduring political party.

The Indian electorate reduced them to just 44 seats in the Lower House, hemorrhaging 162 seats. Congress does not even have the 10 per cent of the numbers required to qualify to put forward a Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament. Most of its ministers – Kapil Sibal, Ajay Maken, Sriprakash Jaishwal, Sachin Pilot, Farooq Abdullah - have gone.

While the mother-son duo won their own respective seats – Amethi and Rae Bareli – Congress did not manage to win a single seat except these two in India’s biggest state - Uttar Pradesh (UP sends 80 MPs to the parliament). The party has been wiped out in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Delhi, Goa, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and decimated in Karnataka, Chattisgarh, Maharashtra, Assam, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh. Congress leadership not only disappointed its cadre, supporters and voters but the party ministers and other senior leaders. Many insiders within the party blame the leadership for their dismal loss.

So is it the end of the road for the Gandhi family and, if so, what of the fate of the Congress Party without the dynasty which has so defined it?

Sonia Gandhi has been the president since 1998 and is likely near the end of her career, owing to her ill health. Rahul Gandhi’s disastrous campaign in these elections mean there are few who are likely to back him to take over the reins, at least not in the shorter term.

Priyanka Gandhi, his sister, while a promising prospect is, at the moment, not seen as a viable one. With little experience in party affairs, Priyanka’s role has always been limited to campaigning for her brother and mother during elections.

Naturally these are issues weighing heavily on the minds of the senior party leaders. Three days after being pushed out of most parts of the country, the party held its Congress Working Committee (CWC) meeting in New Delhi to discuss the debacle. Insiders told the media waiting outside that Sonia and Rahul had both offered their resignations, but these were not accepted.

Senior political columnist Tavleen Singh tweeted: “Did anyone believe the president and vice president of Indian National Congress private limited would be allowed to resign?”

The Gandhis and the Congress Party are so entwined that it is difficult to imagine one surviving without the other. History has witnessed it. Take the Gandhis out of Congress and the party will crumble.

After Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination in 1991, the party leaders - who had grown so dependent on the family since Independence – urged his Italian-born widow Sonia to take over the leadership. She chose to keep her distance at that time and instead PV Narshimha Rao (who went onto become India’s Prime Minister) became leader. But the Congress party soon crumbled post his tenure.

An exodus of the senior ranks compelled the party membership to return to Sonia Gandhi. In her, they saw someone who could save them from extinction. She ultimately relented, becoming the fifth member of  the family to hold the post (following Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi).

She fought her first election in 1999 and became Leader of Opposition in the Parliament. No one then imagined she could haul Congress back into the limelight. For the next five years, Sonia worked with the senior leaders, learnt to make political decisions, grappled with the nitty gritty.

In 2004, Sonia Gandhi took to the road and campaigned across the country reaching out to the ‘aam aadmi’ (common man), the demographic ignored by the rival National Demographic Alliance’s ‘India Shining’ campaign. Congress made an astounding comeback and went onto govern India for a decade. The matriarch had restored the flailing party.

Today it is Rahul Gandhi standing at the crossroads, the party’s destiny in his hands. He has made mistakes - some terrible ones. Implementing US-style primaries without knowing the names of the party cadre who have dedicated their entire lives for the Congress Party showcased his misplaced priorities.

Blaming the ‘corrupt government’ and ‘anti-incumbency’ factor, as he did through the campaign, is definitely far more convenient than owing up to one’s feeble leadership skills. Not recognising and acknowledging Narendra Modi as a formidable competition was another whopping blunder.

But not everything is lost. Still in his early 40s, he has almost two more decades of active professional life to look forward to. He needs to shed his moony  self to come across as a leader whom his cadre can rely on and look up to.

Rahul – who barely appeared to be in touch with his party members - needs to tour the vast country, get close to the Congress foot soldiers, work from the grassroots to restructure the party. With a rival as formidable as Narendra Modi, he needs to acknowledge that he cannot assume leadership as his birthright.

Rahul Gandhi needs to sit in the Opposition, not just for the sake of it, but to hold the ruling party accountable at every step. Becoming engaged, involved and accountable will not only bring him back to the fore but will also go a long way in reviving the spirits of his party.

Not very long ago, in January 2013, when Rahul Gandhi was anointed the Vice President of the party, in his maiden speech he declared: “Congress party is now my life, people of India are my life. I will fight for people of India and for this party. I will fight with everything that I have.”

For Rahul, perhaps it is time to revisit that commitment. It's time to rise to the challenge of resurrecting himself and his party. If he needs a model, he might recall that his mother fought the charismatic and popular Atal Behari Vajpayee and won.

First published: http://electionwatch.edu.au/india-2014/fate-party-and-dynasty-balance

For a change, On the Record!!!

I dont know how many of you were lucky enough or if i may add, interested enough to watch Manmohan Singh take on Opposition in the Parliament on July 29th. After his joint state at Sharm-Al-Sheikh, there was quite an uproar in India, with not just Opposition crying hoarse on "why did we mention Balochistan" but also some congressmen themselves raising a furore over Singh's statement. For once and for all, and if i may add, for a change too, Manmohan Singh stood up for his statement, (ofcourse backed by Madame Sonia) and gave a stunning speech in the Parliament.

I enjoyed the speech to the core. Its a must read for those interested in India's meetings with Pakistani leadership, Indian Parliamentary affairs and even current affairs. And for someone who hasnt been a great fan of our Prime Minister, I, am slowly liking him. The best retaliation are in bold. The best parts are in bold. And an early tip to read this blog: Do it only when you have time... its long. And interesting...

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Speech in the Parliament Reiterating India’s Stance Taken During NAM Summit at Sharm-Al-Sheikh in Delinking Talks From Terrorism While Dealing With Pakistan

Madam Speaker,

As I have said many times before, we cannot wish away the fact that Pakistan is our neighbour. We should be good neighbours. If we live in peace, as good neighbours do, both of us can focus our energies on the many problems – our abject poverty that confront millions and millions of people in South Asia. If there is cooperation between us, and not conflict, vast opportunities will open up for trade, travel and development that will create prosperity in both countries. It is, therefore, in our vital interest to make sincere efforts to live in peace with Pakistan. But despite the best of intentions, we cannot move forward if terrorist attacks launched from Pakistani soil continue to kill and injure our citizens, here and abroad. That is the national position. I stand by it. I have said time and again and I repeat it right now again: it is impossible for any government in India to work towards full normalisation of relations with Pakistan unless the Government of Pakistan fulfils, in letter and spirit, its commitment not to allow its territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India. This was a commitment made as my friend Shri Yashwant Sinha has mentioned to my distinguished predecessor Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and it has been repeated to me in every meeting I have had with the Pakistani leadership. The people of India expect these assurances to be honoured and this government recognizes that as the national consensus.

Madam Speaker,

The attack on Mumbai last November outraged our nation and cast a deep shadow over our relations with Pakistan. The reality and the horror of it were brought into Indian homes over three traumatic days that still haunt us. The people of India demand that this must never happen again. Over the past seven months, we followed a policy, using all effective bilateral and multilateral instruments at our command, to ensure that Pakistan acts, with credibility and sincerity, as we would expect of any civilised nation.

Soon after the attacks, the United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on the Lakshar-e-Taiba and its front organisations, including the Jamaat-ud-Dawa. It also imposed sanctions on four individuals connected with the organisation, including one of the masterminds behind the Mumbai attacks, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi.
We exercised great restraint under very difficult circumstances but made it clear that Pakistan must act. On 5th January 2009, we handed over to Pakistan the details of the links to Pakistan that were revealed by our investigators. Some action followed and Pakistan formally responded to us on two occasions regarding the progress of their own investigations — in February 2009 and then just two days before my departure for Paris and Sharm-el-Sheikh.
The latest dossier is a 34-page document that gives details of the planning and sequence of events, details of the investigations carried out by the special Federal Investigation Agency team of Pakistan, a copy of the FIR lodged and the details and photographs of the accused in custody and those declared as proclaimed offenders. It provides details of the communication networks used, financing of the operation and seizures made in Pakistan including maps, lifeboats, literature on navigational training, intelligence manuals, backpacks, etc.
The Pakistan dossier states that the investigation has established beyond doubt that LeT activists conspired, financed and executed the attacks. Five of the accused have been arrested, including Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Zarar Shah, and thirteen others have been declared proclaimed offenders. A charge sheet has since been filed against them under Pakistan’s Anti Terrorism Act and other relevant laws. We have been told that the investigations are nearly complete and that the trial will now proceed. We have also been asked for some further information. We will provide this shortly.
This is the first time that Pakistan has ever formally briefed us on the results of an investigation into a terrorist attack in India. It has never happened before and I repeat this is the first time. It is also the first time that they have admitted that their nationals and a terrorist organisation based in Pakistan carried out a ghastly terrorist act in India.
Madam Speaker,
The reality is that this is far more than the NDA government was ever able to extract from Pakistan during its entire tenure despite all their tall talk. They were never able to get Pakistan to admit what they have admitted now. So the UPA government needs no lessons from the opposition on how to conduct foreign affairs or secure our nation against terrorist threats.
But while noting the steps Pakistan has taken, I have to say that they do not go far enough. We hope that the trial will make quick progress and that exemplary punishment will be meted out to those who committed this horrific crime against humanity. We need evidence that action is being taken to outlaw, disarm and shut down the terrorist groups and their front organisations that still operate on Pakistani soil and which continue to pose a grave threat to our country.
Madam Speaker,
In the final analysis, the reality is that, despite all the friends we have, and we should have as many friends as Shri Mulayam Singh ji has said, when it comes to matters relating to our national security and defence, we will have to depend on ourselves. Self-help is the best help. There is no substitute to strengthening our defence capabilities, our internal security structures and our emergency response mechanisms. I wish to assure the House that the government is giving these matters the highest priority and attention.
Several important steps have been taken to modernise, rationalise and strengthen our defence, security and intelligence apparatus. A detailed plan to address internal security challenges is being implemented in a time-bound manner. The government is maintaining utmost vigil in the area of internal security. Measures have been taken to ensure enhanced information and intelligence sharing on a real time basis. A policy of zero-tolerance towards terrorism, from whatever source it originates, has been put in place.
In the area of defence, steps are under way to substantially improve our coastal and maritime security. Large acquisitions of major weapon systems and platforms have been approved for the modernisation of our Army, Navy and Air Force. There has been a special focus to improve the welfare of the Armed Forces personnel.
We will spare no effort and no expense to defend our nation against any threat to our sovereignty, unity and integrity. This is the sacred and bounden duty of any government of this great country.
Madam Speaker,
We do not dilute our positions or our resolve to defeat terrorism by talking to any country. Other major powers affected by Pakistan-based terrorism are also engaging with Pakistan. Unless we talk directly to Pakistan, we will have to rely on third parties to do so. That route, I submit to this August House, has very severe limitations as to its effectiveness, and for the longer term the involvement of foreign powers in South Asia is not something to our liking.
I say with strength and conviction that dialogue and engagement is the best way forward.
This has been the history of our relations with Pakistan over the last decade. Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee took a decision of political courage to visit Lahore in 1999. Then came Kargil and the hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane to Kandahar. Yet, he invited General Musharraf to Agra and again tried to make peace. The nation witnessed the terrible attack on Parliament in 2001. There followed an extremely difficult phase in our relationship. The armed forces of the two countries stood fully mobilised.


But, to his great credit, Shri Vajpayee was not deterred, as a statesman should not be. In 2004, he went to Islamabad, where a Joint Statement was issued that set out a vision for a cooperative relationship. I must remind the House that opposition parties supported these bold steps. I, for one, share Shri Vajpayee’s vision, and I have also felt his frustration in dealing with Pakistan.
In my meetings with President Zardari in Yekaterinburg and with Prime Minister Gilani in Sharm-el-Sheikh, I conveyed, in the strongest possible terms, our concerns and expectations. I conveyed to them the deep anger and hurt of the people of India due to the persistence of terrorist attacks in India.
I told them that the operations of all terrorist groups that threaten India must end permanently. I urged them to make no distinctions between different terrorist organisations. I said that it was not enough to say that Pakistan is itself a victim of terrorism. They must show the same political will and take the same strong and sustained action against terrorist groups operating on their eastern border as they now seem to be taking against groups on their western border.
Both President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani assured me that the Pakistan government was serious and that effective action would be taken against the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage.
Shri Yashwant Sinha asked me what had changed between my meeting with President Zardari and the meeting with Prime Minister Gilani. In between came the dossier which showed progress though not adequate progress. Shri Sinha also asked me do we trust Pakistan. Let me say that in the affairs of two neighbours we should recall what President Reagan once said – trust but verify. There is no other way unless we go to war.
I was told that Mumbai was the work of non-state actors. I said that this gave little satisfaction and that it was the duty of their government to ensure that such acts were not perpetrated from their territory. I told them that another attack of this kind will put an intolerable strain on our relationship and that they must take all possible measures to prevent a recurrence.
Madam Speaker,
After I returned from Sharm-el-Sheikh, I made a statement in Parliament, which clarified and elaborated not just the Joint Statement issued following my meeting with Prime Minister Gilani, but also what we discussed.
I wish to reiterate that the President and the Prime Minister of Pakistan know, after our recent meetings, that we can have a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan only if they fulfil their commitment, in letter and spirit, not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India. This message was repeated when the Foreign Ministers and Foreign Secretaries met.
I stand by what I have said in Parliament — that there has been no dilution of our position in this regard.
An interpretation has been sought to be given to the Joint Statement that we will continue to engage in a composite dialogue whether Pakistan takes action against terrorism or not. This is not correct. The Joint Statement emphasised that action on terrorism cannot be linked to dialogue. Pakistan knows very well that with terrorism being such a mortal and global threat, no civilised country can set terms and conditions for rooting it out. It is an absolute and compelling imperative that cannot be dependent on resumption of the composite dialogue. In the Joint Statement itself, the two sides have agreed to share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats.
Madam Speaker,
When I spoke to Prime Minister Gilani about terrorism from Pakistan, he mentioned to me that many Pakistanis thought that India meddled in Balochistan. I told him that we have no interest in destabilising Pakistan nor do we harbour any ill intent towards Pakistan. We believe that a stable, peaceful and prosperous Pakistan living in peace with its neighbours is in our own interest.
I told him then, and I say it here again, that we are not afraid of discussing any issue of concern between the two countries. If there are any misgivings, we are willing to discuss them and remove them.
I said to him that I had been told by the leadership of Pakistan several times that Indian Consulates in Afghanistan were involved in activities against Pakistan. This is totally false. We have had Consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad for 60 years. Our Consulates perform normal diplomatic functions and are assisting in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, where we have a large aid programme that is benefiting the common people of Afghanistan.
But we are willing to discuss all these issues because we know that we are doing nothing wrong. I told Prime Minister Gilani that our conduct is an open book. If Pakistan has any evidence, and they have not given me any and no dossier has been given, we are willing to look at it because we have nothing to hide.
Madam Speaker,
I believe that it is as much in Pakistan’s vital interest as it is in ours to make peace. Pakistan must defeat terrorism, before being consumed by it. I believe the current leadership there understands the need for action.
I was told by the parliamentarians who accompanied Prime Minister Gilani that there is now a political consensus in Pakistan against terrorism. That should strengthen the hands of its leaders in taking the hard decisions that will be needed to destroy terrorism and its sponsors in their country.
Madam Speaker,
Our objective, as I said at the outset, must be a permanent peace with Pakistan, where we are bound together by a shared future and a common prosperity.
I believe that there is a large constituency for peace in both countries. The majority of people in both countries want an honourable settlement of the problems between us that have festered far too long and want to set aside the animosities of the past. We know this, but in the past there have been hurdles in a consistent pursuit of this path. As a result, the enemies of peace have flourished. They want to make our alienation permanent, the distance between our two countries an unbridgeable divide. In the interests of our people, and in the interest of peace and prosperity of South Asia, we must not let this happen.
That is why I hope and pray that the leadership in Pakistan will have the strength and the courage to defeat those who want to destroy, not just peace between India and Pakistan, but the future of South Asia. As I have said before, if they show that strength and that courage, we will meet them more than half way.
There are uncertainties on the horizon, and I cannot predict the future in dealing with neighbours, two nuclear powers. We have to begin to trust each other, but not blindly, but trust and verify. People say that we have broken the national consensus. I refuse to believe that we have broken the national consensus.
For the present we have agreed that the Foreign Secretaries will meet as often as necessary and report to the two Foreign Ministers who will meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. The two Foreign Ministers have met even before the Joint Statement in Trieste. I met President Zardari in Russia. So in operational terms the effect of the Statement that the two Foreign Secretaries will meet as often as necessary followed by the Foreign Ministers is no more than what we are doing at present. Does it involve surrender or a sign of weakness?
As neighbours it is our obligation to keep our channels open. Look at what is happening in the world. The US and Iran have been sworn enemies for thirty years, and yet they feel compelled to enter into a dialogue. Unless we want to go to war with Pakistan, dialogue is the only way out. But we should do so on the basis of trust but verify.
- MN Singh, Prime Minister, India
And this is how it all began in Egypt. Here's the Joint Statement made by Singh and Gilani at the NAM Summit.

THE JOINT STATEMENT OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN

“The Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh and the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, met in Sharm-el-Sheikh on July 16, 2009.

The two prime ministers had a cordial and constructive meeting. They considered the entire gamut of bilateral relations with a view to charting the way forward in India-Pakistan relations. Both leaders agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries. Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and to cooperate with each other to this end.

Prime Minister Singh reiterated the need to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice. Prime Minister Gilani assured that Pakistan will do everything in its power in this regard. He said that Pakistan had provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence. Prime Minister Singh said that the dossier is being reviewed.

Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats.

Pak PM Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Baluchistan and other areas.

Both prime ministers recognized that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.

Prime Minister Singh reiterated India’s interest in a stable, democratic, Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Both leaders agreed that the real challenge is development and the elimination of poverty. Both leaders are resolved to eliminate those factors which prevent our countries from realizing their full potential. Both agreed to work to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence. Both leaders reaffirmed their intention to promote regional cooperation. Both foreign secretaries should meet as often as necessary and report to the two foreign ministers who will be meeting on the sidelines of the forthcoming UN General Assembly.”

So thats the end of it... or rather i should say the beginning of what lies ahead. As an afterthought, i feel i wish Manmohan Singh should have been equally confident and roaring when he was in front of Gilani and not just Advani. Had he been equally vocal and determined the way he was in front of the Opposition on the 29th, when he met Gilani on the 16th... perhaps such feeble statements (which even i can draft) wouldnt have come out. At the end of this drama, i feel Manmohan's defense of his joint statement was much more powerful than the joint statement itself. Perhaps a powerful, upto the point and hard hitting joint statement would have silenced all - Gilani and Advani alike.

Kudos to Democracy!!!

The black tip on my forefinger of the left hand makes me proud today. Indian citizens like me have shown how a collective effort can put people in their right place. I am indeed delighted that Indian citizens, only known for their poor manners and bad traffic sense, have proved to the politicians and the world at large that they have the brains to choose a government at the centre.

All the political pundits were crying hoarse about how its going to result in a hung parliament. The scouting for allies resembled like finding grooms for your daughter in Bihar. Anybody and everybody will do. It was shameful, dirty and cheap to say the least. But while Congress and BJP did all in their means and tried every trick in the book, the one who emerged the smartest was the Indian voter. The smart Indian voter knew that India cannot afford elections regularly. That India needs a stable government that can make changes over their full term. The same Indian voter also knew that giving a majority to a single political party would be the only thing that would end this dirty game of give and take that the coalition polictics is made up of.

I bow down to this Indian Voter. Its unbelievable the way Congress emerged as the single largest party with 206 seats. And the UPA alliance at 262 proved it, in just a matter of hours on May 16th, that Manmohan Singh will be the next Prime Minister. Good news. Though i am inno awe of Manmohan Singh. I feel he hardly talks. India is on its way to become one of the strongest economies and a power hub in years to come. We need a more vocal leader. And a person, who's personality strikes down not just allies but also your enemies. A Prime Minister, should be someone, who is not only witty like Winston Churchill but also a suave smart guy like Barack Obama. A Prime Minister should have a voice that is affirmative and assuring. Someone who can tell us, 'I am there for all of you'. Not a meek looking guy who's always watching his back. I find Sonia Gandhi more powerful than Manmohan Singh. Her body language shows that she's incharge. Her mannerisms prove her confidence and her concern. She doesnt look here and there everytime she's about to say something important. And believe it or not, her vocal chords too are stronger than that of Manmohan Singh. Looks like Sonia is the boss and Manmohan is her closest and the most powerful secretary.

I have nothing against the Congress party or the UPA. I am just putting my analysis of the guy who's India's Prime Minister. He lacks the machoism, good looks and a confident body language. I guess my favourite phrase 'there's nothing like an ideal man' holds true here. Only if the Prime Minister was a woman.... she would be all of it. But i dont want to turn this into a gender fight.

On the other hand, LK Advani, too wasnt a favourable choice. Infact, i liked the BJP manifesto much better than the UPA manifesto. I am not from the minority community, neither i am a farmer nor am i unemployed. So i am of no importance to the UPA. The BJP manifesto, on the other hand, had something for me. I am an educated, middle class, employed girl who dreams big and would like to see foreigners scout for Indian visas one day. BJP Manifesto promised that the tax exemption limit will be raised to 3 lakhs for women... and i loved that proposal. Another feature i liked was the Ladli Laxmi Yojna where a new born girl child is promised 1 lakh rupees by the time she turns 18. I really liked that. These were the real concrete measures to empower my gender. But unfortunately, LK Advani didnt look as a likeable Prime Minister either. He was too old. Today's youth hardly listen to their parents... forget grand parents. They want someone who belongs to their generation to make policies for them. Why would people chose LK Advani? So BJP, smart enough, to expose their second rung leaders... quickly came up with Narendra Modi's name. Now who would in their best senses talk about a megalomaniac, arrogant and eccentric Narendra Modi, who has been accused of butchering muslims in Gujarat? But BJP did. And i guess thats what can be attributed as the second best reason for NDA's loss. They thought people have forgotten Godhra and the riots that followed in Gujarat. Who can forget post godhra riots? Not us guys. We are too young to forget things that happened just 7 years ago.

Fortunately, NDA lost. Modi's hopes shattered of taking over from Advani. But i must say, Advani, even at 81, was extremely gracious enough to accept his defeat. He not only sent a message through Arun Jaitley that he congratulates Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, but also graciously offered to step down as the Leader of Opposition and morally took the responsibility of NDA's loss. That was in his most parliamentarian style. I appreciate that. On the other hand, there was Narendra Modi. Used to victories, Modi exposed how badly he handles losses. He remained cocooned in his bungalow. Gave strict instructions to security personnel that no one was to be allowed inside. Even media didnt get a chance to meet him and take his reaction. Perhaps Modi was too dumbfounded. And his ego didnt allow him to accept defeat graciously. So he took full 24 hours to recover and finally on his way to Delhi claimed 'there are no full stops in politics'. Right. Thank You Mr. Modi. Perhaps, Modi doesnt know how to be calm and gracious in defeat. He made an extraordinary attempt to give a broad smile as if nothing had happened. He behaved like everything was fine and he was on his way to congratulate UPA for their victory. Mr. Modi, its alrt to lose. Its alrt to accept your defeat. And its alrt to show how upset you are at NDA's loss. That would have seemed genuine. Your broad smile and arrogant optimism only turned off your sympathizers.

And i feel UPA would be smiling coyly in a corner after seeing Modi so hapless. They are on their way to form the next government and what seems from the news, is that more young faces will be inducted in the cabinet. That would really be a relief. I guess the biggest relief is not having Arjun Singh as part of the cabinet. He and his reservation politics have done no good either to the backward classes nor to the country. I hope some young guy like Sachin Pilot or Jyotiraditya Scindia is made the HRD minister. That would be nice. And Rahul Gandhi, true to his blood, is not likely to take up any post in the cabinet. When he knows he can be the Prime Minister, why would he be in a hurry to be part of the cabinet. He doesnt want to spoil his image or rather expose his working style by being a colleague when he knows that he can directly become their boss, in a few years. And not forgetting that even without a cabinet post, after Congress's stupendous success in these polls, Rahul Gandhi can wield enough power to have things his way in any department he wants.

So while Congress is on its way to form the next government, BJP is still thinking how to gather itself. I guess the reason why BJP lost and Congress won was because of the colour psychology. In the scorching heat, the saffron only hit your eyes and brains so badly that Congress's light blue was calm, refreshing change. Maybe they should look at colours the next time. But even as 2009 elections have drawn to close... the battle and preparations for 2014 have already begun. Rahul is aiming for the top most job next time around and BJP is determined to fight back and collect its reins to pull it off the next time.

I, at the end of all this tamasha, only hope that India's top political parties, keep in mind that the indian voter, is much smarter than they can think of. Kudos to Democracy!!!