Random musings

Subprime crisis

2009-03-18T23:25:00.001+05:30

There has been lot of talk of subprime crisis in the print media and television these days.The whole financial tsunami that has engulfed Lehman Brothers so far has been blamed on this subprime crisis. So what really is this subprime crisis?

Every citizen of the US gets a unique identification number called 'Social Security Number'.Residents of the US who are citizens of other countries who get paid from some organization also get a social security number.It is not possible to open a new bank account or apply for a credit card without this social security number.Whatever repayment is made by the individual is also linked with his/her social security number.Based on the loan and credit card repayment history of every individual, credit history is built for him/her.Three institutions in the US have quantified the loan repayment history of every individual in terms of a numerical entity, called 'Credit Score' of the individual.These credit rating agencies collect the data related to repayment history of every individual and update the credit score.Higher the credit score, the more credibility the individual has in terms of loan repayment ability.

The individuals with a credit score of 720+ are called 'Prime borrowers' and those with lower credit score are called 'Subprime borrowers'. Prime borrowers get all the loans (mortgage, vehicle loan etc.) at lower rates of interest.This is so because by virtue of their higher credit score,the prime borrowers have established themselves as more credible and trustworthy borrowers and pose lowest risk of default to the institution issuing loan.

Till the year 2000, it was very difficult, if not impossible for subprime borrowers to get mortgage from the banks.However as a response to the dot com crash of 2000-01,the Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan lowered the interest rates aggressively.By 2002, the interest rates on savings bank accounts were brought down to historic low of just over 1%. Lowering the interest rates is one of the remedies tried by the Federal Reserve or equivalent banks across the world to overcome recession.The logic behind lowering the interest rates is that lower interest rates would attract more potential investors to invest in businesses.This process is likely to create more jobs in the long run and boost up demand in the market due to increased buying capacity.This would help the economy recover from recession.

By the year 2003,banks had lot of money they could lend to.One of the ways banks came up with in order to distribute excessive money in the loan market was subprime lending.Till early 2000s, banks were very scrupulous when it came to granting loans and they made sure that the proposed borrower had enough credibility and repayment ability before the loan was granted.However as banks were looking for the ways to dispose off the extra money, they were more willing to grant the loan to even subprime borrowers.Things such as credit score, credibility of the borrower, paper work etc. were not given as much importance as they deserved.By 2005,banks granted NINJA (No Income No Job No Asset) loan of up to $100,000 without creating much fuss.Normally when borrowers repay the loan EMI, they repay the interest as well as part of the capital.However banks extended concessions of having to repay only interest for the first two years.

Of course banks ran a risk of losing money by granting loans to subprime borrowers. However they did not worry about it because they expected the number of defaults to be quite low.Moreover one basic assumption of rising prices of homes was also made for granting such loans.The idea was even if a few borrowers default on repayment, banks could always attach their homes and resell them in auction.As prices of homes was bound to increase, the banks could more than recover their money lent to subprime borrowers.

Later investment banks such as Lehman Brothers introduced a new type of derivatives, 'Collateralized Debt Obligations' (CDO). In this concept,Lehman bought the entire loan from the local banks that issued it.Local banks granted loan of say $100,000 and the borrower was supposed to repay it back in EMI of about $600 for next 20 or 30 years.But as Lehman bought the entire loan from local banks, the banks could recover their money immediately rather than having to wait till 2025 or 2035.Local banks could lend the same money to new borrowers.As Lehman Brothers bought the entire loan from the local banks,the EMI repaid by the borrowers was supposed to be forwarded to it from the local banks.However the local banks could also keep their commission from the EMI that they got from the borrowers.

Lehman Brothers would divide the loan bought from the local banks into equal parts, called Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs).For example the loan of $100,000 bought from local bank would then get divided into 1000 equal parts with face value $100 each.Lehman introduced these parts in the share market and common investors would buy these parts just like any other mutual fund unit.Again the basic assumption involved was prices of homes was bound to increase,thereby causing increase in market value of the units.

What was Lehman's profit in this transaction?Again the assumption of ever-increasing prices of the houses was involved.Even if a few borrowers default on loan repayment, local banks would attach their homes and sell them off in auction.As their prices are likely to go on increasing, house that cost $100,000 two years back is likely to cause $150,000 today and by auctioning it off, Lehman was likely to more than recover its money.

Many times,borrowers also found that their house was worth more than it was when they bought it.So they refinanced the house at higher price from local banks, which was again translated into CDOs through Lehman Brothers.

This was a very lucrative deal for the local banks.They could recover entire money immediately and moreover earn some commission on the EMI.So local banks did not bother too much about who was demanding loan.They started issuing loans to anybody and everybody who demanded it.This shows the greed of the local bankers.

This met with inevitable consequences.The people who were not capable of repaying the loans in the first place were granted loans.When they were unable to repay the loan back,local banks started auctioning their houses in the auction market.Initially prices of the houses were indeed higher.But as thousands of houses were brought in the auction market,according to the law of demand and supply,the prices of houses fell.

Concomitant was the problem of 'underwater' mortgages. As mentioned above, many times borrowers refinanced their houses at higher price.Now suppose initially the house was worth $100,000.They refinanced it to $200,000. Due to fall in the prices, if the house is now worth only $150,000 the borrower would owe $200,000 for a property that is worth just $150,000. This phenomenon is called 'Underwater mortgage'.Some home owners let go of their homes due to the underwater problem and returned to apartments.Of course this was low in number as compared to foreclosures.

Next step in the chain was inevitable fall in the market value of CDOs that Lehman Brothers issued.As the CDOs met with precipitate fall,investors who invested in these CDOs started returning their CDOs to the Lehman Brothers in great numbers.As Lehman Brothers did not have enough liquidity in order to meet these obligations, it had no option but to declare bankruptcy.

Lehman had insured the CDOs from American Insurance Group (AIG).The idea was in case investors faced losses in the investment, the AIG should compensate that.This is called 'Credit Default Swap'. Claims in huge numbers were filed,which AIG was in no position to fulfill.So the AIG also had to file for bankruptcy.

Lehman Brothers used to invest in Indian stock market through Foreign Institutional Investors.Before Lehman went bankrupt, it tried to scramble money from every quarter it could.One of the ways was to withdraw from Indian stock markets.This reflected in the fall in Indian stock market.

The subprime crisis caused huge slump in the American housing industry.As housing is one of the most fundamental needs,when people were not sure their house would stay or go, naturally they were less inclined to purchase other things.Demand in malls,car market and all the different sectors reduced and the slump in the housing sector spread to other areas fast.

Automobile companies in the US already face tough competition from their Japanese and Korean counterparts and profit margin in their business is already very low.In the changed circumstances,people bought less new cars and these companies got in trouble. Ford and General Motors had to request bailout money from the Government.

As Indian IT companies have clients in the US, as their clients were in trouble, number of orders being received by Indian IT companies also reduced.As a result, Indian IT companies also faced the heat.

As a result,what started as one off random incident went on to acquire gigantic proportions and affected the whole world.

War is not the solution

2006-08-24T09:11:00.000+05:30

Today newspapers in Mumbai carried the news that a suspected Pakistani terrorist was killed in an encounter in Mumbai.Quite possibly he intended to cause mayhem during the Ganesha festival to be held soon.If that be the case,his death warrants no tear to be shed.This should not come as a surprise to a nation that has been at the receiving end of cross border terrorism for last quarter of a century.This is just the continuation of the proxy war waged by Pakistan in order to bleed India through 'thousand cuts'.

The situation looks rather gloomy.Our hands are severely constrained and unfortunately we do not have too much space to manoeuvre. We have to restrict our movements within a restricted space subject to a number of constrains.

BJP president Rajnath Singh has demanded that India attack terrorists' camps across the border in order to settle this issue once and for all.Many fellow citizens also feel the same.However I firmly believe that such an attack would prove counterproductive and will aggravate the crisis rather than settling it.At any cost, India should resist the temptation of attacking Pakistan.In this article, I will make my position clear on the issue.

Firstly, Pakistan is a nuclear armed country.In the proposed war,if Pakistan launches a nuclear attack against any of our important cities such as Mumbai or Delhi, we will lose millions of our citizens. Moreover such an attack would deal a crippling blow to our economy and it would take decades to recover from the losses.All the progress made so far will be nullified in a matter of minutes.When war with Pakistan looked inevitable in the aftermath of the attack on the parliament in December 2001 and the attack on the army camp in Kaluchak in May 2002,a number of foreign dignitaries rushed to the subcontinent in order to try to defuse the crisis.News appeared in newspapers back then that US Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Secretary of State Jack Straw brought a stern message from Islamabad that Pakistan would unleash a storm in case India attacked.Nuclear attack by Pakistan is a matter of certainty in case war breaks out in the subcontinent.It is also equally clear that we will also retaliate and wipe out the existence of their important cities such as Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad or perhaps of the whole country.However nuclear war does not result in victory to any side.Both sides lose in the nuclear war.Any expert strategist tries to minimize his losses while maximizing losses of the enemy in any war.Under these circumstances, is it advisable for us to attack Pakistan?

Now for the sake of the argument,let us assume that the proposed war against Pakistan will be confined to conventional war and it will not degenerate into nuclear war. Bush administration conferred the status of 'Major Non Nato Ally' on Pakistan in 2004.So it is very likely that US will rush to Pakistan's rescue.Over the years, China also strengthened Pakistan and helped make it what it is today.The Chinese leaders were sure that India alone had the potential of becoming their competitor on their way to the status of a regional superpower.They also knew that a strong Pakistan would create endless headache to India and India will have to spend lot of time and energy just to tackle that.If we have a look at the history during last 25 years, we can see that Chinese strategy worked to our peril.There is, therefore, every possibility of China helping Pakistan.In addition, we should also prepare ourselves to confront the scenario of Islamic states like Saudi Arabia coming to Pakistan's help.In 1971, India helped Bangladesh to emerge as an independent country despite the opposition of more than 2/3rd countries in the world.We also played a major role in the independence of Indonesia.Still these two countries did not support India even once on Kashmir issue.Only Muslim majority country that ever supported India on Kashmir issue was Saddam Hussein's Iraq.It is very likely that Muslim countries will support Pakistan no matter how cordial relations we have with them.If they do not come out openly in support of Pakistan, oil rich states of the Gulf region can catch India in the bottleneck by stopping the supply of the crude oil.

Now let us make one more assumption for the sake of it.Let us assume that the proposed India-Pakistan war will be fought without any interference from any outside power.After the parliament attack of December 2001,NDTV broadcast a discussion in which leading defense analysts such as Uday Bhaskar participated.The discussion revealed that the strategic superiority ratio between India and Pakistan in December 2001 was about 1.3 to 1.4. That means India is 1.3 to 1.4 times stronger than Pakistan in terms of military strength.Is it enough to give a knockout blow to Pakistan?Does not seem to be. Had it been at least 2.5 to 3 times stronger,it would have been enough to defeat Pakistan decisively.But with the ratio 1.3 to 1.4,it does not seem to be.Further,we must take into account the fact that we cannot mobilize all our strength against Pakistan as not a small portion of our army is deployed on the border with China.Further Pakistan will also get help from rogue elements like JeM and LeT, which might not have been considered in the calculation of strategic superiority ratio between India and Pakistan.It is very likely that the proposed war against Pakistan may not turn out to be as easy as some of us might want to believe.

In our series of assumptions,let us make third assumption that India comprehensively defeats Pakistan.Still the question 'what next' remains unanswered. It is a lesson from the history that no outside power can subjugate indigenous population against their wishes under military might.After decisive Indian victory, our army will have to remain engaged in Pakistan and it does not take too much expertise to see that the people of Pakistan will never approve of the presence of our army.

In the Second World War,the Russians turned the tide against Germany.They displayed exemplary valor, determination and courage and snatched victory from the jaws of defeat.Nobody can doubt the will power and tenacity of the Russian army.Still the very same Russian army met its waterloo in Afghanistan. Why?Because people of Afghanistan did not approve of the presence of Russians in their country.Same Russian army had to retreat from tiny Chechenya. It should be noted that Russia is 5 times as large as India even after the disintegration of USSR in 1991 while Chechenya is only as large as Delhi city in terms of area and smaller than any district of Maharashtra in terms of population.Still the mighty Russians had to bite dust in Chechenya.The reason was Chechens did not approve of what they construed 'Russian occupation'. We all can see the plight of the mighty American forces in Iraq. The reason is Iraqi people do not approve of US presence in their country.We have no reason to believe that Indian army will meet any other fate in Pakistan.

Even after Indian army returns, question 'what next' still remains.In the present scenario, war cannot last for more than a month.Pakistan is a country of 150 million people.Total casualties in second world war that lasted for six years was no more than 80 million.So we simply cannot eliminate entire population of 150 million in a war that cannot last more than a month.Of course I do not mean to say that all people in Pakistan support terrorists.Not by a long shot.But after was with India, even people who were peace-loving in the past will fall easy prey to the vicious propaganda of terrorist organizations such as JeM and LeT.Our headache will increase manifold after the futile exercise of war.Even after our army returns from Pakistan, it is anybody's guess that terrorist activities such as bomb blasts will increase as Pakistan is our next door neighbor. Perhaps America can insulate herself from terrorists in Iraq because of sheer distance involved but that is certainly not the case in India.

So my point is it is preposterous even to believe that we can eliminate terrorists by going to war with Pakistan.In fact, the problems will compound because of war.And so many assumptions are involved in this logic,namely the war will be a conventional war and not a nuclear war,the war will be fought without involvement of any outside power and India will win the war decisively.The reality is certainly going to be more difficult than our simplified assumptions.Still we simply cannot eliminate terrorists from Pakistan.

So what I believe is what we need to do is to concentrate on the land that is firmly within our control, namely the Indian territory.No outsider can even think of entering surreptitiously with the intention of carrying out terrorist and subversive activities.All the sleeper cells of terrorists on Indian territory should be stamped out without any mercy.The government machinery should move fast, tough laws should be enacted and all enemies of the state, whether insiders or outsiders should be sent to gallows immediately.It is matter of grave shame and distress that our government has been unable to hang the mastermind of the Parliament attack even after almost 5 years.This should change fast.All must remember that the laws are meant for protecting the innocent citizens of the country.If any terrorist seems to take disadvantage of the very same laws for his own advantage, laws should be immediately changed.

About Hiroshima bombing

2006-08-12T07:15:00.000+05:30

Second world war is one of the subjects of my passion.Presence of strong leaders such as Stalin,Hitler and Churchill and stories of great wars at Stalingrad, Kursk, the siege of Leningrad,London bombings and retreat from Dunkirk have all interested me a lot right from my school days.Whenever I happen to discuss the second world war with my fellow students of this great saga of valor and sacrifice, I find that Indians invariably oppose the Hiroshima bombing.However I support President Harry Truman's decision of bombing Hiroshima.Let me explain the reasons.

Japan got involved in the second world war by attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7,1941.Extreme belligerence and endless thirst of supremacy in the Pacific were the only two reasons behind the Pearl Harbor attack.During first world war, Japan fought along with allies against Germany.In the period prior to 1941, there was no dispute between US and Japan.

The war between US and Japan lasted 44 months, between December 1941 and August 1945.Total American casualty in the war was 405,500 . US President Harry Truman had a sacrosanct duty to protect the lives of American citizens.While war against Japan was going on, he was not obliged to even think of the lives of Japanese people.American lives were more precious to him than Japanese lives.

It was a fact that fall of Japan was inevitable and just a matter of time.One of the options being considered was invasion of Japan.Japanese, being tenacious warriors could have inflicted a heavy damage on American forces in the case of land invasion of Japan.Japanese warriors are known to fight till the last drop of blood and the last breath.Being the president of US, it was Harry Truman's responsibility to protect American lives.

US conducted first nuclear test on July 16,1945.Till the end of July, the ceasefire between Japan and Russia was being strictly adhered to.On July 28,1945, US conveyed the message to the government of Japan through US embassy in Moscow to immediately surrender or be prepared to pay 'unacceptably high price'.Between August 1 and August 5,1945, thousands of leaflets were dropped in all major Japanese cities, calling upon the government of Japan to surrender. The leaflets were printed both in English and Japanese.However Japanese government remained adamant and refused to budge.

Many people say that it was wrong on the part of US government to punish the civilian population of Japan for the mistake of Japanese government.However my counter-argument to that is why should President Harry Truman have punished American citizens for the mistake of Japanese government?If it is wrong to punish Japanese citizens for the mistakes of Japanese government, it was even more wrong to punish American citizens for the mistake of Japanese government.Let us not forget that American soldiers were as much US citizens as President Truman was.Let us not forget that President Truman's responsibility was also to protect the lives of American soldiers as they were also the citizens of US.

Inspite of all warnings,if the Japanese government refused to pay heed, it was not the fault of the US.Legally US government was not obliged even to warn Japanese government of imminent 'catastrophic attack'. Under these circumstances how can one expect the US government to precisely tell the Japanese government what was meant by 'catastrophic attack' and 'unacceptably high price'?

Who started the war in the first place?Americans did not start it.If Churchill could say 'it was up to Hitler to start the war but it will be up to us to stop the war' , why couldn't President Truman tell the same to Japanese?If you provoke lion in the first place,you should not complain if the lion comes and eats you.Obdurate Japanese government left no option open to President Harry Truman.

I have been staying in the US for last four years.I know well that US government and media cares for the lives of American citizens.I remember of having seen one news on CNN that really made me appreciate Americans.Once a 14 years old girl went missing in the state of Mississippi in suspicious circumstances.After that, state governor was called on CNN through satellite and questions were asked about the investigation process. Can we ever imagine such thing happening in India?The bottomline is that US government and media care for American citizens.As more than 400,000 Americans were killed in the war, we can imagine that the pressure would have mounted on President Truman to find a solution to the problem once and for all.

As a result, I support Hiroshima bombing.I firmly believe that it was the obduracy of the Japanese government that forced the hand of President Truman to push the nuclear button.

Thirty years of emergency

2005-06-26T05:34:00.000+05:30

Politics has completed a full circle during last thirty years since Indira Gandhi imposed emergency in the country.Those who vehemently opposed emergency thirty years back are sharing power with the party that imposed emergency while some of the villains of emergency are associated with the party that opposed emergency tooth and nail.

After Indira Gandhi's emphatic victory in 1971 elections, attention of the people was focussed primarily on the events in neighbouring east wing of Pakistan.Military crackdown on Bangladesh drove millions of refugees into India.Thousands were massacred in Bangladesh.War with Pakistan was becoming a certainty day by day.In the war that followed nine months later, India handed a thrashing defeat to Pakistan and a new nation, Bangladesh was created.Indira's popularity touched new heights.However as Inder Malhotra said in his biography of Indira Gandhi,after reaching the zenith of her popularity, she had nowhere to go except down.

The moment Indira was compared with Goddess Durga, expectations of the people also rose.It was not unnatural for people to expect her to find a magic wand to solve their problems.Afterall Garibi Hatao was her slogan and moreover they had a strong leader who marched India into victory in the battlefield.

But it was not going to be that way.Coffers in the country were emptied to feed the refugees from Bangladesh.Exacerbating the things came the famine of 1972.Prices of the essential commodities skyrocketed.As Gandhiji said, food is like God for a hungry person.When it became scarce,feeling of national pride evolved after Bangladesh victory no longer offered a panacea to his day to day problems.When rise in popularity of any leader is steep,fall takes place equally or even more speedily.Had the war of 1971 not taken place and Indira's popularity not touched the skies, perhaps discontent against her rule would not have spread so fast.People were simply not prepared to accept that the leader who was so strong and popular was not able to deliver the goods, may be because of some factors beyond her control.War in the middle east in 1973 further worsened the things.There was steep hike in the prices of petroleum products and subsequently hike in the prices of essential commodities.Of course Indira was not responsible for this.But expectations from a leader start mounting and if he/she is unable to fulfill them,public mood does not listen to any explanations.The inevitable result is fall in the popularity of the leader.

In a leader written to Indira during the split in the Congress in 1969,the President of the Congress party, S.Nijalingappa prophetically accused Indira of growing cult of sycophants around her and 'loyalty to her being the only criterion for judging anybody's worth'.Supporters of Indira like Mohan Kumarmangalam openly declared in parliament that the government desired 'Committed bureacracy'.And what meant by being committed had got nothing to do with the interests of the common people and the country.What it meant was personal loyalty to the Prime Minister.One most disturbing extension of 'Committed Bureacracy' was Indira's attempts to install 'Committed Judiciary'.

In 1972,the Supreme Court of India discussed a case involving the amendment to the constitution made by Indira Gandhi's government.Chief Justice Mr.S.M.Sikri and three other senior judges in the Supreme Court ruled against the government.The seniormost judge who ruled in Indira's favor was Mr.Justice Anil Narain Ray, who ranked fourth in the ladder after Chief Justice Mr. Sikri.In 1973, Chief Justice Sikri retired and next chief justice was to be appointed in his place.First Prime Minister of India,Pandit Nehru developed a healthy precedent of appointing the seniormost judge as the chief justice of the Supreme Court.The constitution invests the powers of appointing the chief justice in the central government.However Nehru,who was a true democrat to the core personally saw to it that no room should be left for undue interrference of the government in the matters pertaining to the judiciary.But when Sikri's successor was to be appointed, Indira's government sidelined the three senior judges who ruled against the government and appointed Justice Ray as the chief justice of India.This way, Indira tried to stiffle with the independence of judiciary,a cornerstone of any democracy.The implications of this interferance with the judiciary will become clear soon.

Apart from undue interferance in the judiciary, Indira flouted all the rules and regulations to allow her son Sanjay to help him set up factory to manufacture Maruti cars.Though Sanjay had no proven talents to run an ambitious business,he was granted a piece of land at throw-away price near Gurgaon in Hariyana.Chief Minister of Hariyana Mr.Bansi Lal played a leading role in this suspicious deal.

Veteran freedom fighter, Jaiprakash Narayan, who was in political hibernation for so many years since independence was thoroughly disappointed with the way things were going and rampant corruption in the country.He gave a call for 'Nav Nirman' or creation of new political order.The movement started from his home state, Bihar.Some of the prominent faces during the Nav Nirman movement were Laloo Prasad Yadav,Shard Yadav, George Fernandes,Nitish Kumar and Jainarayan Prasad Nishad.At the same time, students in Gujarat launched a movement against corruption in admissions to colleges, which soon took a form of movement against the Congress government headed by Chimanbhai Patel.

The atmosphere in the country was electrified.In may 1974, socialist leader George Fernandes launched strike of Railway employees.Indira's government came down heavily against striking employees. Many of the striking railway employees were thrown out of the quarters they were living in.Many were arrested.Perhaps these actions were necessary to ensure proper functioning of railways, arteries of India.However in the changed atmosphere, everything Indira did was frowned upon by people.Indira deserves accolades for cracking the strike boldly but people started seeing wrong in everything Indira did, not without any reason.Another event that temporarily raised national tempers was Pokhran nuclear tests of 1974.However Indira's arrogance of power,neopotism, cult of sycophancy she encouraged and cultivated,widespread corruption and failure to arrest skyrocketing prices were far more influential factors in deciding the public mood than the nuclear tests.

During the 1971 elections, Indira won from Rae Bareilly parliamentary constituency from Uttar Pradesh against socialist party leader Raj Narayan.He challenged her election to the high court on the grounds that she adopted unfair and foul means to get elected.The case was discussed in Allahabad High Court under Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha.On June 12,1975, Justice Sinha gave his verdict.Out of 52 charges levelled against Indira,he acquitted her from 50 but held her responsible for two charges.The two charges were comparitively frivolous.First charge was Indira addressed an election rally from a dais, the height of which was more than that allowed in the election laws.The second charge was Indira appointed one government employee, Yashpal Kapoor to campaign for her.Laws forbid the government employeed from either contesting the elections or campaigning for other candidates.Actually Kapoor had resigned from the serivce but started campaigning for Indira before his resignation was accepted.So from the point of view of law,Kapoor campaigned for Indira when he was Government employee.Mr.Justice Sinha held Indira responsible for these two charges and declared her election null and void and banned her from contesting the election for six years.The judgement was to come to effect from June 26.These two charges were absolutely frivolous.The Times described it as 'firing the Prime Minister for a traffic ticket'.However in terms of law,her election was null and void.

Demand for her resignation was raised from all the corners of the country.If Indira really felt that she was not guilty,she should have resigned first, handed over reins to somebody she trusted, challenged the verdict in the supreme court and return to Prime Ministership after winning the case in the Supreme Court.However power absolutely blinded her and she was no longer ready to part with it even for a short time.Moreover because of the cult of sycophancy she created around her, she knew it for sure that people were loyal to her only because of her power.If she was no longer in power,the successor would not make his way for her even after winning the case in the Supreme Court.She was simply not ready to trust anyone and not let the power slip off her hand.

Her son Sanjay brought people to her residence in Delhi from nearby states like Hariyana and Uttar Pradesh.It was projected as if big rallies were held in support of Indira.He wanted the rallies to be given coverage on the government run television and radio.He 'ordered' minister for information and broadcasting, Inder Kumar Gujral to do so.Gujral, an upright man refused to obey the orders issued by Prime Minsiter's son who did not hold any constitutional post.As a result,Gujral was replaced by Vidya Charan Shukla.

Indira challenged the verdict of Allahabad high court into the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the judgement but on the condition that Indira would not speak in the parliament nor vote in the parliament on any occasion nor accept salary as a member of parliament.Of course it was impossible for the Prime Minister not to speak or vote in the parliament.Afterall Prime Minister is the leader of the Parliament.How can she refrain from speaking in the house?Moreover the stay was given by the supreme court, which was victim of her attempts of building 'Committed Judiciary'.People were not ready to believe this farce.Demand for her resignation was raised loud.

On June 25,1975, Jai Prakash Narayan held a rally in Delhi and openly demanded resignation of Indira.He also declared that removing her was the only way to save the country.He also asked the military and the police not to obey the unconstitutional orders given by Indira's government.

The same night,Indira's childhood friend and Chief Minister of West Bengal, Siddhartha Shankar Roy met with her in Delhi.Roy is the grandson of Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das, a great statesman and a close associate of Indira's grandfather, Motilal Nehru.Roy is a Barrister and an expert on the constitution of India.He suggested Indira to impose emergency on the grounds of internal troubles.Of course there were internal troubles but they were not the troubles against the country but troubles against Indira.Perhaps we cannot justify Jai Prakash Narayan for his appeal to the armed forces not to obey the orders of Indira.If it was so,she could have just arrested Narayan and brought him to justice.Imposition of emergency was not at all the solution.

According to the constitution,the recommendation of imposing the emergency should be endorsed by the union cabinet and it should be referred to the President.However Indira alone went to meet with the President and asked him to sign the recommendation though it did not have endorsement of the union cabinet.President, Fakruddin Ali Ahmed was also 'committed' and he promptly signed the document.

Emergency was imposed in the country in the early hours of June 26,1975.Leaders of opposition like Morarji Desai,Jai Prakash Narayan,Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Balraj Madhok,Raj Narayan, Charan Singh and Lal Krishna Advani were arrested and sent to unknown destination.Censorship was imposed on the press.Electric supply to the presses of the leading newspapers was cut-off.As a result,newspapers could not publish editorials on June 26,1975 and that column was left blank.

In the early morning of June 26,Indira called cabinet meeting at her residence.Union cabinet members were under the impression that Indira would announce her resignation at the meeting.However they were taken aback to hear the decision of imposition of emergency.Defence minister Mr.Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Mr. Yashwantrao Chavan were shocked.However they did not speak anything against it,following the tradition of the congress party of not speaking anything against the leader.

Emergency continued in the country for 19 months.There were some positive aspects of emergency like imposition of more discipline in the society and government offices,crackdown on smugglers and black marketers and all.However human rights violations were enormous.Close to 140,000 people were arrested under notorious 'Maintenance of Internal Security Act' (MISA). Close to one million people were forcibly sterilized.There were cases of forcible sterilizations of unmarried men or newly married men without having a child.There were cases of forcible sterilizations of people coming out of theaters or railway stations or bus stops.A bus full of intellectuals going to attend a conference in Chandigarh was forcibly diverted to sterlization center and all the passengers were forcibly sterilized.In the name of beautification of cities,slums were indiscriminately demolished without giving time to the inhabitants to leave.Entire slum in Turkman Gate area of Delhi was demolished. Some people were injured in the operation.Some old houses in 'Vishwanath Galli' area of Varanasi were demolished for beautification of the city.Some of the houses had been there for five centuries and even Aurangzeb's rule had not touched them.

The reign of terror prevailed mainly in North India due to its proximity to Delhi.Sanjay Gandhi acted as an extra-constitutional authority.Strict censorship continued on the press throughout the period of emergency.All the newspapers and magazines were forced to toe the line of the government.In an interview to India Today in 1976,Sanjay Gandhi shamelessly declared that there would be no elections in the country for another 25 years.

In 1976,Indira Gandhi made 42nd amendment to the constitution.It was a quite extensive amendment but one of the points was office of Prime Minister was taken out of judicial scrutiny of any form.Of course it was meant to save her from the threat of facing disqualification.With her rude majority and moreover when few opposition members were present in the parliament because many were imprisoned, Indira tried to play with the constitution to serve her selfish aims.

However people realized the true face of emergency.They did not speak out in open due to the threat of being arrested but mouth to mouth publicity against emergency spread throughout the country.

Indira obtained the report of Intelligence Bureau, which reported to her that the Congress party would win if the elections were held soon.The reason why the IB gave this report was nobody was ready to openly say a word against emergency nor was anybody ready to speak about that to a stranger.Who knowns whether the stranger asking for opinion about emergency is a police in civilian clothes?Who would like to go to jail for speaking against emergency?

In January 1977,the Lok Sabha was dissolved and elections were called for in March 1977.Indira wanted to validate her draconian dictatorship through ballot box as she was confident of victory.However as the results started pouring in,Indian people displayed to the world the victory of democracy and will of the free people.Indira Gandhi herself lost from Rae Bareilly.Sanjay Gandhi lost from Amethi.Law minister H.R.Gokhale lost from Mumbai.In the whole Hindi heartland states of Hariyana,Himachal Pradesh,Delhi,Uttar Pradesh,Bihar,Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, the Congress party won just two seats.Indira's Congress party was able to maintain a respectable tally of 154 seats out of 545 in the Lok Sabha, thanks to the southern states of Andhra Pradesh,Karnataka and Kerala.In March 1977, Morarji Desai was sworn in as the first non congress Prime Minister of India.

The Janata party of Morarji Desai gave slogan 'Apat kal ke char chor(Four theives of emergency): Sanjay Gandhi,Prakash Chandra Sethi,Bansi Lal and Vidya Charan Shukla'.

Now let us see the future of these four thieves.Sanjay Gandhi died in 1980.However his widow, Menaka fell out with Indira Gandhi in 1982 and formed her own party 'Rashtriya Sanjay Vichar Manch' to 'spread' the 'thoughts' of Sanjay Gandhi.Later she joined Janata Party, then Janata Dal, Janata Dal(S), went back to Janata Dal.She won parliamentary elections of 1998 and 1999 as independent candidate from Pilibhit constituency.She formed a small outfit of her own, Shakti Dal.On the eve of 2004 parliamentary elections, Menaka and her son Varun joined BJP.The lady who wanted to 'spread' the 'thoughts' of Sanjay Gandhi is now a BJP member of parliament from Pilibhit.

Home Minister during emergency,Prakash Chandra Sethi died in 1995.

Bansi Lal,who was chief minister of Hariyana before 1975 flouted all government laws and awarded a piece of land to Sanjay for his Maruti car factory, as stated earlier.For this favor, Bansi Lal was made defense minister.He continued with the Congress party till early 1990s.In 1996, his regional party, Hariyana Vikas Party won the assembly elections in the state in alliance with the BJP.He remained chief minister of the state for next three years.Another thief of emergency was with the BJP for over three years.Now Bansi Lal is back in Congress.

Vidya Charan Shukla,another thief of emergency,was with the Congress party till 1989.He joined V.P.Singh's Janata Dal and won 1989 elections.In the 1990 split in Janata Dal he joined Chandrashekhar's JD(S) and became foreign minister.On the eve of 1991 elections, he rejoined Congress.He was minister during the regime of P.V.Narsinha Rao.In 2004,he joined BJP and unsuccessfully contested parliamentary elections of 2004 against Ajit Jogi from Mahasamand seat.Another thief of emergency was with the BJP.

Jagmohan was the deputy governor of Delhi during emergency.He was in charge of infamous 'Turkaman Gate' operation.However later on he went on to do good things as a governor of Jammu and Kashmir.He won New Delhi seat as a BJP candidate in 1996,1998 and 1999 elections and served as a minister in Vajpayee government.However he was 'tainted' during emergency and even now he holds the view that Sanjay Gandhi was good.He was a BJP member of parliament for 8 years.

Thus many of those who played a notorious role in emergency are or were with the BJP.

Now let us see what opponents of democracy are doing now.

The DMK,which opposed emergency is enjoying power with the Congress party at the center since 2004.Of course the DMK allied with the Congress in just 5 years since imposition of emergency.Since 1984,the party did not ally with the Congress but now it is back to the Congress fold.

Lalu Prasad Yadav was arrested under MISA during emergency.In fact that was the reason why he named his first daughter 'Misabharati'.Lalu took active part in Jay Prakash Narayan's movement.Now he is the minister in the Congress led coalition government.

Ramvilas Paswan was also arrested during emergency.He is minister in the Congress led government now.

Those who opposed emergency tooth and nail like George Fernandes,Sharad Yadav and Nitish Kumar are with the BJP.But it is to be noted that they kept on opposing the BJP for all these years.

Thus history has finished full circle with some of the opponents of emergency are sharing power with the Congress and some of the 'tainted' people during emergency are or were with the BJP sometime.

Advani's statement on Jinnah

2005-06-09T10:15:00.003+05:30

During his visit to Pakistan, BJP president Lal Krishna Advani made a controversial statement that the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah was secular.Predictably it gave birth to a storm in the Sangh parivar on an unprecedented scale.VHP general secretary, Praveenbhai Togadiya dubbed Advani a 'traitor'.Demands were raised for Advani's resignation if he continued to stick to his position.As a result,he had to write his letter of resignation from Karachi.

Support to Advani came from among the leaders of the BJP.Former Prime Minister Vajpayee and senior leader Jaswant Singh also said that Jinnah was indeed secular.JD(U) leader Sharad Yadav and George Fernandes also supported Advani on his statement.

In my post on June 7,2005, I have posted my views on whether Jinnah was really secular.More professional views from the point of view of a journalist can be found here , in which Kanchan Gupta has given many reasons why Jinnah was not secular.

If reports in the Indian Express are true link ,Advani's utterances on Jinnah was a well thought out strategy to malign Pandit Nehru and put the Congress party on the backfoot.The report says that Advani wants to hold Nehru responsible for the partition.The report says:'it is a well-known fact that Mahatma Gandhi and RSS were opposed to creation of Pakistan since the very beginning and Nehru was against making Jinnah the Prime Minister of India and the country faced the pangs of partition'.

Partition of India is a bitter historic truth.Thousands of people were killed in the riots and thousands were displaced from their homeland. India has come a long way since then. Through perseverance and hard work, and as some people allege through foul means,the refugees in 1947 and their offspring are one of the wealthiest communities in India.Ulhasnagar,a small town near Mumbai bears a testimony to that.Many of those who were displaced during partition made it big in their respective fields.Two of them, Manmohan Singh and Inder Kumar Gujral went on to become the Prime Minister of the country.Advani himself,who was displaced during partition made it to the post of Deputy Prime Minister.Some of the prominent names in the list include Vijay Kumar Malhotra,Amartya Sen,K.R.Malkani,Raj Kapoor and Sunil Dutt.In short,the Punjabi and Sindhi communities, which suffered a lot at the time of partition have not only undone the wrong done to them by the destiny, but also made bigger achievements than those who were not affected during partition in many cases.

Under these circumstances and when the partition of India cannot be easily undone,Advani's statement was not only unnecessary but also superfluous.

In India of 2005,wherein people who actually witnessed and suffered partition are in their late 70s or early 80s and their offspring who were born and brought up in independent India and who just heard the horrific tales of partition from their parents and grandparents and may be through TV serials like 'Tamas',determining who was responsible for partition can at the most be a topic of intelligent discussion but it is unlikely to appeal to the senses of people,as it might have done five decades back.

One point made in the report in the Indian Express is that Nehru opposed Jinnah as a Prime Minister of India.In fact, it was suggestion of Gandhi to make Jinnah Prime Minister and all the ministers Muslims in order to prevent partition.If Jinnah had won the mandate of the people and rightfully claimed Prime Ministership,it was perfectly acceptable.However making him Prime Minister to avoid partition is nothing but appeasement of Muslims,something Sangh Parivar always blames Gandhi for.If Nehru opposed Jinnah's being Prime Minister,nothing is wrong in that.Therefore, if Advani is out to make an issue of this and claim that Nehru was responsible for the partition,it is not going to carry the day.

In fact,at this time it is irrelevant to discuss who was responsible for partition, when partition itself took place almost six decades back.Much has been said and written about it and it cannot be an issue in elections at all.Imagine Tony Blair's labour party making an issue of Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement of Hitler and not being able to prevent second world war in the elections of 2005.Or imagine George W.Bush's republican party making an issue of Franklin D.Roosevelt's failure to avoid Pearl Harbour in the elections of 2004.Does it make sense?

So one is forced to draw the conclusion that Advani made the statement on Jinnah just in order to appease Muslims.When BJP was in opposition,it made a big issue of Muslim appeasement by the Congress party.Atal Bihari Vajpayee said in Lok Sabha in 1972, while participating in debate on riots in Bhiwandi,'Ab Hindu Maar Nahi Khayega'.Recognition of and establishment of close ties with Israel was one of the demands of Jan Sangh.But when the party came to power,it joined the so called 'secular' bandwagon and started appeasing Muslims even more than the Congress.If you require one evidence to prove that,the fact that Imam of Jama Masjid in Delhi issued a 'fatwa' and asked Muslims to vote for the BJP in 2004 elections is enough.It was the same BJP that ridiculed V.P.Singh's Janata Dal when Imam issued similar fatwa to vote in favour of the Janata Dal.

Statement of Advani on Jinnah is just a next chapter in the same story.Its endorsement by Vajpayee and Jaswant Singh is a sub chapter.However in the process,terrible,perhaps irreversible damage has been done to the traditional voters of the BJP. Now BJP will not get active support of the RSS and VHP in the elections as it did over the years.Only time will tell how many Muslim votes BJP is able to garner in its new incarnation but the fact remains that Advani et al. have betrayed the cause they have stood for so long and history will never forgive them.

Advani's statement on Jinnah

2005-06-07T19:19:00.001+05:30

After his controversial statement on Jinnah and Babri demolition, Advani lost all the respect he commanded for all these years.Advani's shower of praise on Jinnah is an excellent example of how considering partial facts could lead to disastrous conclusions.As long as Jinnah was in the Congress party, he was indeed secular.He was indeed a champion of Hindu-Muslim unity, as Sarojini Naidu said.But what happened after that?

In 1940,when Muslim League demanded creation of Pakistan,secular character of Jinnah was a thing of the past.His two-nation theory was totally inconsistent with lofty ideals such as secularism and Hindu-Muslim unity.How can a 'secular' person ask for vivisection of the country in the name of religion?

When demand for Pakistan was not being fulfilled, Jinnah gave call for 'direct action' in 1946. Thousands of Hindus were killed in Calcutta and other parts of the country. If Jinnah was indeed a secular anymore, he would have at least condemned the killings.Did he do that?What did he do to stop killing of Hindus in Punjab and Bengal?Did he ever issue a single statement of condemnation?Displacement of Hindus from Pakistan to India also continued when Jinnah became President of Pakistan in August 1947.What did he do to stop that?Nothing.

Jinnah was not averse to adopting any means to make his dream of Pakistan come true.A leader of Muslim League, Feroz Shah Noon claimed that the Muslim League will go to any extent and even do such things that would put Chengiz Khan to shame to realize the dream of Pakistan.In fact Muslim League did such things. Though technically Jinnah did not say this,we have a reason to believe that Noon's statement had Jinnah's backing.Otherwise why did Jinnah refrain from taking any action against him?

If a scene shown in the movie 'Gandhi' is true, Jinnah posed a difficult question to Gandhi and the leadership of the Congress.What do you want?Partition of the country or civil war?Can a person who does this be genuinely secular?

For all these years,policy of Government of India on Kashmir has been that since India is a secular country,any territory, irrespective of its religious composition can be very much a part of India.Nothing is wrong in that.However, when thugs backed by Pakistan army, along with number of active members of Pakistan military attacked Kashmir in October 1947,in order to annex it, Jinnah was very much at the helm.What did he do to prevent the attack?Jinnah's Pakistan wanted to annex Kashmir just because majority of people of Kashmir were Muslims.Can a leader who does this be called 'secular'?

It is one thing to say that he wanted Pakistan to remain secular and totally different to actually practice it. Jinnah never practiced it and therefore, he does not deserve any praise on that count.

Instead of considering the whole picture, it is totally disappointing to learn that Advani chose to ponder on the life of Jinnah when he was in the Congress and some statements made by him, which he never meant to follow in letter and spirit.

For all these years,BJP has been accusing the Congress party of appeasing the Muslims.But notably no Congress leader ever showered praise on Jinnah the way Advani did and Vajpayee endorsed.Mr.Advani and Mr.Vajpayee,you have been fooling the Hindus for long by showing them false dreams. You fooled all of us for long into believing that once you come to power, terrorism in the country will be dealt with firmly and Kashmiri Pundits will return to their homes in Kashmir valley.Forget about the return of Kashmiri Pundits to their homes but Mr.Advani and Vajpayee, you didn't visit the camps of displaced Kashmiri Pundits even once during your stint in power. You fooled us into believing that your tenure will end appeasement of Muslims.Far from that, you made Haj pilgrimage totally free and that too in planes, while Amarnath pilgrims were massacred in cold blood on a number of occasions. Mr. Advani and Vajpayee, you fooled us into believing that security of India will be strengthened during your tenure.When you were in opposition, you shouted from the rooftops on Purulia arms dropping.But when you were in power, you set the accused free.There are hundreds of examples of your betrayal of the cause of Hindus. You just wanted to remain in power by hook or crook, without solving a single issue hauting us for long.Therefore you allied with people like Jaylalitha,Mamta Banerjee,Karunanidhi,Bansi Lal,Om Prakash Chautala,Mayawati, Sukh Ram and Ajit Singh, who had nothing in common with your ideology.Had the electorate not confined you below 200 seats in 2004 elections, I am very sure that you would have gone on to make new 'friends' like Mulayam Singh Yadav, who was responsible for killing of Kar Sevaks on October 30 and November 2, 1990 and Uttaranchal activists at Muzzafarnager on October 2, 1994 and whom once you called
'Maulana Mulayam Singh Yadav'.

Mr.Advani,first by making your statement about Jinnah you have betrayed 90 Crore Hindus in the country.You have insulted thousands of Hindus killed during riots at the time of partition.Mr. Vajpayee you joined Advani by endorsing his statement.

Mr.Advani and Vajpayee, depart, we say. Let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.You have been occupying the leadership for much longer than what you deserve. Your business of fooling the people cannot continue indefinitely.Mr. Togadiya is right. You are traitors.You have done which nobody else could do including leaders of Congress and Communist parties.

NDA's boycott of parliament

2005-05-14T08:46:00.000+05:30

Change of governments after every some years is a sign of mature democracy.Unless people change the governments,the rules tend to take the people for granted and they tend to form an attitude that they would win the elections no matter what they do. This attitude is likely to have adverse impact on the socio-economic progress of any country,more especially the developing country like India.In such a country where a significant part of population does not have access to even basic necessities like water, power,education,emplyment and roads, a sword of Damocles should be kept hanging on the rulers all the time, constantly reminding them to work or else face the wrath of the electorate. One might want to call this 'negative pressure' on the rulers to bring about development but as long as it works, nobody should grudge about it.So change of government after every some years is a sign of a mature democracy.

On the one hand, in India, we have states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala, where electorate votes overwhelmingly in favour of one party in one election and reduces the same party to shambles in the following election.When they get a chance to exercise their franchise five more years down the line, they do not exhibit even a miniscule sense of compuction and bring the very same party to power, which they decisively voted against only five years back. On the other hand, we have West Bengal where the Communist parties have not been defeated once since 1977.Even in Maharashtra, Congress party was firmly in saddle between 1960 and 1995, a span of 35 years. We need to find a golden mean out of these two extremities.We should bring about change of guard after every, say two elections.

From that point of view, defeat of the BJP led NDA in the elections to the 14th Lok Sabha, was a positive development, that should not raise too many eye-brows.

If we analyze the performance of the BJP as an opposition party over last one year, we can say that it has been dismal.

Firstly, the UPA government headed by Manmohan Singh depends on the communist parties for its very survival. When NDA was in power, the BJP had to keep issues like Ram Mandir, Article 370 and Uniform Civil Code in backburner. BJP was subjected to lot of criticism because of that.But let's see what is happening now.For all these years, the communist parties dubbed the congress 'Party of Capitalists'.When Manmohan Singh and P.V.Narsinha Rao first introduced era of liberalization and economic reforms in 1991,these very communists were die-hard opponents not only of the economic reforms but also of Manmohan Singh, who introduced them.

On July 27,1993, Somnath Chaterjee said in the Lok Sabha, during debate on the motion of No-confidence against the Congress government headed by Mr.P.V.Narsinha Rao:

"The history of the Congress rule in this country is the history of the betrayal of the common people. It is a history of exploitation and the history of surrender to forces of divisiveness and fundamentalism. The history of the Congress rule in the country is the history of poverty,, history of illiteracy, history of unemployment and malnutrition. And last but not the least, the direct result of the Congress rule over all these years is the corrosion of our body politic for all pervading "

In the same speech, he went of launching attack on the economic policies of the Congress government by saying:

"We had a lot of peroration from Shri P. chidambaram on economic policy. But the common people of this country are not interested in your semantics. They are not interested in your peroration only. They want results. If the people of this country had accepted your economic policy, our oppositic would be of no avail. But the question is. do they accpet your policy. This is how you delude yourselves. I hoope Dr. manmohan Singh will participate in this debate ad please, aprt from your usual quota, you give us something new on this. "

(Reference: Lok Sabha Debates Archive )

Close to 12 years down the line, same Somnath Chaterjee is holding the post of Speaker of Lok Sabha wherein same Manmohan Singh is the Prime Minister, same P.Chidambaram is the Finance Minister, same Congress party, which 'betrayed the common people for so long' is the largest constituent of the ruling coalition and moreover the same party to which Mr. Chaterjee belongs is supporting that coalition.

If we go through the archives of debates in the Lok Sabha during last 53 years, we would find plethora of evidences of scathing attack lanuched by the commmunists on the Congress party. But when the very same communists are supporting the Congress party, are they not putting their long standing policy in abeyance?Are they not compromising their 'core ideology'?If BJP was subjected to flood of criticism for compromising their 'core ideology', now the communists also deserve the same. I am sure the BJP could focus on this point effectively in and out of the parliament.Have they done it?Answer is not difficult.It is 'NO'.

Secondly the BJP raised the point of 'tainted ministers'.In a parliamentary democracy, any member of Parliament can serve as minister so long as he/she enjoys the confidence of the house and pleasure of the President (read Prime Minsiter).So no ,,matter how much clamour the BJP makes and shouts from the rooftops, their point is not going to carry the day nor the confidence of the people. If they wanted to target Laloo Yadav, they could have raised the sorry state of affairs in Bihar, which Laloo ruled single handedly de-jure or de-facto.If you need a single evidence of the bottomless abyss Bihar was heading for under Laloo's rule, read Patna high court's verdict in a case in 1999.I do not have the exact details of the case or date of verdict or any other detailed information. But from what I read in newspapers, the Patna High Court observed :" There are only two options left for law abiding citizens in Bihar. One is to commit suicide and the second is to leave the state". BJP could have raised this point effectively in and out of parliament to catch attention of the people instead of focussing on Laloo's being 'tained'.

Thirdly, the BJP failed to make an issue of the disregard to democratic norms being shown by the Congress party since coming to power last year.Congress removed governors having RSS background.Actually governor is a constitutional post and any governor cannot be removed from his/her post arbitrarily.The only grounds for removal of a state governor could be failure to safeguard the constitution or failure to discharge the duties.On these two counts, governor of Goa, Mr. S.C.Jamir and governor of Jharkhand, Mr. Syed Sibtey Razi were fit cases of dismissal.But the BJP was too preoccupied with managing its sore relations with the RSS to effectivel make an issue of this important point.

Fourthly,the BJP could make an issue of the presence of the DMK in the government and the UPA.In 1997, Congress party withdrew support to United Front government headed by Mr. Inder Kumar Gujral on the issue of presence of DMK ministers in the government.This thrust mid-term elections on unwilling and unprepared nation.But in 2004, Congress allied with the DMK and contested the elections together in Tamil Nadu. Now the DMK is an important constituent of the UPA. If it was so, why did the Congress party demand removal of DMK ministers from Gujral government?Or why did the DMK show inflexible attitude on the issue?Neither the Congress nor the DMK has furnished any explanation. Somebody might say that the commission of enquiry headed by Justice Milap Chand Jain held DMK responsible for spread of LTTE in Tamil Nadu in its interim report but exonerated it in its final report. If it was so, could the Congress party not wait till the final report of Jain commission was out?Why did they force mid-term elections on the country?Now why did the DMK ally with the Congress?Both the Congress and the DMK owe an explanation to the nation. When they have not provided it, the BJP could have made an effective issue of this.But they did not do so.

The responsibilites of an effective opposition is to bring to light, acts of omission and commission of the government.BJP has miserably failed on that count.For last one year, we have seen that the BJP did not allow the house to function for a long time.Now they have boycotted the proceedings of the parliament.If they had genuine complaints about high handed behavior of the government, they should have raised the issue inside the parliament or launched demonstrations to create awareness among people.Boycotting the house is not at all the solution to this.

Electorate judge both the ruling and opposition parties on their performance.Parformance of opposition party is as important as performance of the ruling party.A party that cannot discharge its responsibilites as a responsible opposition is not fit for occupying the treasury benches.

After analyzing all this, one is forced to draw the conclusion that the BJP's boycott of the parliament has more to do with troubles in its organization after some plain speaking done by RSS chief K.Sudarshan and other leaders known to have proclivity towards RSS. Recently Uma Bharati declared that she would fight against her own people 'much the same way Arjun did in Mahabharata'.Perhaps the BJP feels that lid could be put on these troubles if attention is diverted.

The BJP should introspect its own performance as opposition and try to gain the ground lost in last year's elections.