OBAMA IN CAIRO

The Speech Obama delivered at the Grand Hall of Cairo University in Cairo, was on 4th June was noted all over the world by almost all sections of the people. Of course there were some skeptics. Apart from the professional skeptics it was welcomed by all. It can be said without doubt that it would help America to regain its lost position among the Arab world to some extent. Obama successfully conveyed the message that this regime is very different from the Bush regime. And he looked at things in a totally different light. Not only that, he also left enough hints that he was ready to do a lot more to improve the Middle East situation.
Obamaa’s speech was simple and elegant and seemed to come from the bottom of his heart. There was no trace of malice and hated or big-brotherly attitude. He did not employ any rhetoric or flowery language either. He touched upon almost all the serious issues such as the Middle East crisis, the Iranian bomb, terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq. He was calm and quite and a tone of reconciliation permeated his whole speech. Evidently, he knew what he was talking about and made his points clearly but firmly. Never did he sound aggressive or arrogant. But obviously he was self-confident. He did not sound self righteous even when he differed with others. He did not point an accusing finger at his predecessor, Bush either. No wonder the daily Al-Masry Al-Youm greeted him as the “Obama the Awaited”.
Many, who are genuinely concerned about the issues that tear apart the people all over the world, welcomed the speech. Obama’s predecessor Bush had alienated a large section of people, not only Muslims but also others with his talks about ‘crusades’, ‘axis of evils’, ‘war on terror’, ‘evil regimes’ so on and so forth. The kind of inhuman treatment meted out to the prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay brought to light by intrepid journalists had ignited hatred against America as never before. He did not use the word ‘terrorism’ even once. Instead he used “violent extremism”. It could be mere neologism, but it did touch the right cords. They were relieved to hear Obama’s words of reconciliation. No one thinks that Obama is going to translate his words into deeds immediately. It could take decades of hard work. The task of reconstruction is difficult and requires large amount of perseverance and patience on the part of the players. As Obama himself said one has to learn from what had happened in the past and move ahead forgetting and forgiving the earlier players.
Obama said that it was high time both the Muslims and the US changed their perceptions about each other. If the Muslims keep looking at the US with suspicion ad mistrust and the US keep looking at the Muslims with suspicion there cannot be an end to the conflicts in the world. He admitted that the US had committed many mistakes in the past. He said, “In the middle of the cold war, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government”.
Obama said he did not know what everyone wanted or what is good for everyone. However, America believes in certain values shared by the people all over the world. He said, “America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, but I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed, confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice, government that is transparent, the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments- provided they govern with respect for their people”.
He made it clear in few words that it was the September 11 attack in 2001, on the twin towers in the US that made many Americans dislike Muslims. However, he is determined to change the attitude of his people towards the Muslims. He said he had come to Cairo seeking a fresh start to everything. “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect”.
Obama said that Islam had made important contributions to the world in general sand especially to America. He said “They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel prizes, built out tallest buildings, and lit the Olympic Torch”. According to him the relationship between America and Islam “must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t”. He went on to say that, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against the negative stereotypes of Islam”.
The most serious threat to the world peace today is that of terrorism. If it is not addressed soon many more precious lives would be lost all over the world. He did not use the word ‘terrorism’; he used the expression “violent extremism” instead. As he sees it, it is the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda that pose the greatest of the threats to the world today. He said one should not forget the fact that 3000 precious, innocent lives were lost in the attacks on the twin towers. So America is at present engaged in a war with the al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. He said, “Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths rejects: the killing of innocent men, women and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people”. He went on to say, “None of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths- me than any other they have killed Muslims. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism-it is an important part of promoting peace.” Referring to Iraq, he said that the military intervention was a serious mistake, without saying that explicitly. He said it was a war of choice. However, he also said that the people of Iraq were better off today without Saddam Hussein. He said, “I also believe events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve problems whenever possible”.
Obama also referred to the Arab Israeli conflict. He said Israelis had the right to exist. He requested the Arabs to admit it. He added that the Palestinians also had the same right. The only solution to the Arab-Palestinian issue is to create two countries, homelands as Obama put it. “That is in Israel’s interest, America’s interest and the world’s interest”. He said that the construction of settlements in the west Bank by Israel was wrong. The Arabs should take the trouble to “help Palestinians to develop institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past”. Stating that the Hamas enjoyed support of the Palestinian people, he said that they had an important role to play to unify the Palestinian people. He urged them to renounce violence and to recognize Israel’s right to exist. During the election campaign he had said that Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel. And it had angered many at that time. But in Cairo he said “When Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as inn the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer”
Expressing his serious concerns over the proliferation of nuclear weapons, Obama said that the world had to do everything to prevent a catastrophe of gigantic proportion. He described Iran as a country which defines itself as the only one who opposes the US the only super power left after the collapse of the USSR. He admitted that it was wrong on the part of the US to topple a democratically elected government in Iran. But he does not look at Iran in the same light. He wants Iran also to forget about what happened years back and assess the present world situation. According to him “The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build”. Saying that nuclear proliferation is a serious issue he urged everyone to do everything possible to stop the spread of the nuclear technology to irresponsible countries. He made it clear that he is not against the peaceful applications of the nuclear technologies.
Obama also talked about the religious freedom. Everyone has the right to practice the religion one likes No one can compel anyone to practice a particular religion. He said Islam always tolerated other religions. However, “Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejections of another’s”, that should not happen, he cautioned. According to him, “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together”.
One can pick holes in his speech. One can say that his words are sugar coated and hollow and that they are not to be taken seriously. One can say that he would disown his words soon.
Let us hope that he meant what he said and would strive to achieve his declared goals.

ELECTION VIOLENCE IN IRAN

Iran has said that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would assume office by the end of August. The Guardians Council had earlier declared that there would not be another election. Abbasali Kadkhodai, a spokesman of the Guardian Council said, “In the recent presidential election we witnessed no major fraud or breech. Therefore, there is no possibility of an annulment taking place”.
The post poll protests and violence in Iran has been going on unabated.. Almost all the world leaders have expressed their concerns. And Iran’s reactions have been along the lines of an authoritarian state. Not only Ahmadinejad but also others, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme religious leader, who wields immense power in the affairs of Iran, has been saying that all the protests are created by the “enemies of the state”, meaning the Western governments especially Britain and the US. As of now 17 people have lost their lives and hundred injured according to the state authorities. This seems to be the biggest upheaval in Tehran after the Islamic Revolution thirty years ago.
In Iran, elections are to be approved by the Guardians Council which has 12 members. All the members are clerics and supporters of the Ayatollah. One wonders how anyone can call an election democratic if the results are to be approved by a religious body that is not elected by the people. However, when the Ayathollah ordered an inquiry into the allegations of rigging everyone heaved a sigh of relief. He described the election as ‘a divine assessment’. He ordered the inquiry after Mousavi wrote a letter to the Council. Mousai also met the Ayatolah to apprise him of the situation.
Mohamud Ahmadinejad, who has been re-elected, said that “The protestors are like football fans whose favourite team has lost in a final game”. Iranian authorities accused outside forces of conspiring to overthrow the Islamic state. It asked the ambassadors of the western nations to tell their governments to behave and not to interfere in the internal affairs of Iran. The Police arrested hundred of protestors.
Khamenei said on 19 June 2009, during Friday prayers,that no election fraud had taken place. He added, “Some of our enemies in different parts of world intended to depict this absolute victory, this definite victory, as a doubtful victory”. He also issued a warning, saying that the leaders who indulge in violence would responsible for “blood, violence and chaos”. He was speaking at the Tehran University. The guardians Council agreed that it had received 646 complaints. It also acknowledged that something had gone wrong in the election. However, it had not affected the outcome of the elections it added.
Iran has expelled a BBC correspondent and arrested a British- Greek journalist.

INDIAN INITIATIVES IN NEPAL

IT is heartening to note that Nepal is serious about drafting a Democratic Constitution for the country. And it has asked India to help it draft it. Nepal’s Foreign Minister Sujata Koirala said, while seeking India’s help to carry on with the Peace process, that her government attaches at most priority to drafting a Constitution for the country. She said, “We need India’s cooperation and support to move the peace process forward. The Nepal Government wants to strengthen bilateral relations with neighbouring countries, especially India”. The President of Nepal Mr. Ram Baran yadav also urged the government to devote its energies to preparing a Constitution.
India’s Foreign Secretary Mr. Sivasankar Menon is visiting Kathmandu to lend a helping hand to the tottering Nepali government to stabilize and undertake the drafting of a Democratic Constitution by the end of next year. Nepal and India has agreed to find out a bilateral mechanism to resolve the border issues between the two countries. Nepal has to finish the draft by 27 May 2010, as the term of the present interim government, formed for the job, ends by that time. However, it is fraught with many problems as the Maoists have refused to join the government and is busy with protest marches and other intimidating tactics. Constitution may be said to express the spirit of a country. It is an expression of readiness of the people to accept the rule of law. It tells how the people want to be ruled and the kind of life it want to live. The Constitution lays down the structure of the legislature where the laws are made after prolonged deliberations by the members elected by the people. The constitution also defines the various organs of the State and their duties and responsibilities. It also may spell out the duties responsibilities of the citizens also. It is the Constituent Assembly that drafts the Constitution.
The nature of the present Constituent Assembly of Nepal is not that good. The former interim government of Mr. Prachanda, the Maoist leader, resigned on 4 May when its order to sack the Army Chief was stalled by the President. Though Madhav Kumar Nepal who formed a coalition government comprising 22 arties he has not been able to persuade Mr. Prachanda to join the government. Madhav Kumar has to reconcile many diverse views, which itself is a Himalayan task, before the constitution is drafted. As Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister and an important member in the Constituent Assembly put it then, “This cannot be done by the wisest f lawyers sitting together in conclave, it cannot be done by small committees trying to balance interests and calling that constitution-making; it can never be done under the shadow of an external authority. It can only be done effectively when the political and psychological conditions are present, and the urge and sanctions come from the masses”.
Writing a Constitution is not enough. It should work the way it is expected to work. And it is the duty of all sections of the people to see to it that it does work. If it remains merely as a thick dome containing the ‘laws’ of the state it is useless. The various institutions and the rules envisaged in the constitution must not remain static. They must evolve in time .Otherwise it would not be able to take care of the political system or the people. Just as a living organism grows and develops in time, a constitution should also live and develop if it is to be effective.
Speaking in the constituent assembly of India on 17 October 1949, J.B.Kripalani said, “I want this house to remember that what we have enunciated are not merely legal, constitutional, and formal principles, but moral principles; and moral principles have got to be lived in life. They have to be lived, whether it is in private life or it is in public life of an administrator. They have to be lived throughout. These things we have to remember if our Constitution is to succeed”.
These sound observations are applicable not only in the case of India but that of any country that wishes to have a constitution that can take care of the interest of a nation and her people.

ELECTION IN IRAN 2009

No one had imagined that the out come of the Presidential election in Iran would become such a huge national crisis. The election process itself passed off more or less peacefully with out much disturbance. About 85% were reported to have cast their votes. However, when the results came out on Saturday and the incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared elected again with 62.63% of the votes all hell broke out.
(The general election in India provides a good contrast to this. Here the UPA came back to power with a better mandate to rule. The NDA admitted defeat with grace and offered to cooperate with the new government.)
The hardliner Ahmadinejad scored 62.63% of the votes pushing the reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi who could score just 33.75% only. Mousavi refused to accept defeat denouncing the election results as ‘treason’. Claiming to be the real victor, he declared “I’m warning that I won’t surrender to this manipulation”. His supporters numbering thousands gathered in Tehran shouting “Down with the dictator” and pelting stones at the police. Mousavi said that he would expose the dangerous secretive nature of the Iranian administration.
Israel also expressed serious concern about the election results. The Israeli leader Sivan Shalon said “The US and the free world must reevaluate the policy of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions”. Israel has been trying to link the Iranian nuclear issue with the West Bank issue. This crisis has given Israel a serious bargaining position. Fawzi Barhoum, the spokesman of the Hamas said that the victory of Nejad is a sign of Iran’s ability to take of its people’s interests. He urged the international community to change their attitude to Tehran. The victory of Ahmahadinejad has disappointed not only a section of Iranians but the western nations who were looking forward to working with a person who understands the concerns of the West. Barak Obama the US President, made it clear that he would not interfere in the internal affairs of Iran while expressing his “deep concerns”. He said "I have said before that I have deep concerns about the election. And I think that the world has deep concerns about the election,"
Hans-Gert Pottering, President of the European Parliament said while expressing his concern, “The use of force is never a solution. The authorities' response to citizens' protests must be always measured and never disproportionate. Iranian citizens must be able to achieve their democratic aspirations through peaceful means. Freedom of expression and the freedom to demonstrate are part of the core individual rights that the European Union endorses and promotes”.
Ahmahadinejad on Saturday appeared on the state television and claimed that his victory over Mousavi was fair and true. He said “The election was completely free. And it is a great victory”. He said the election results reflected his government’s “honesty and service to the people”.
Violence spread across the country and the security personnel had to resort to firing tear gas shells to disperse the mobs who burned police vehicles and shouted “Down with the dictator”. Mousavi urged his supporters to remain calm.
Ayatollah Ali Khameini the person who holds the real authority in Iran has asked the Guardians Council, the office that handles election issues and the Interior Ministry to examine the allegations of rigging.
One has to wait and watch what the Ministry and the Council do to tackle the street violence and win the confidence of the people. Even if he is allowed to rule the country for the next five years it would not be easy for Ahmadinejad to carry conviction with the people if he does not address his rival’s concerns. He cannot act unilaterally, ignoring his opponents and claiming the majority support. India must tread cautiously and should react brazenly supporting any one of the contenders. However, we must see to it that democracy is not discredited or the genuine voice of the people goes unheeded.

STATEHOOD FOR PALESTINE?

At last the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has conceded the idea of a separate state for the Palestine people. He said the other day, “If we receive this guarantee for demilitarization and the security arrangements required by Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize the Israel as the nation of the Jewish people, we will be prepared for a true peace agreement and to reach a solution of a demilitarised Palestinian State alongside the Jewish state”.
However, the so called State of Palestine would not have military or control over the airspace, though it could have a flag and an anthem of its own.
The Israelis have consistently refused to let the Palestinian to have a state of their own. And it is obvious that Netanyahu conceded the demand for a separate state for the Palestinians under severe pressure form the Obama administration.
Netanyahu, however, refused to stop the construction of Jewish settlements that is under way in the West Bank. He has promised not to make any new construction or appropriate the Palestinian land. The present neo-conservative government of Israel does not enjoy the wide support of the western world.
Of course Obama had sympathized with the plight of the Palestinians even before he became the President. But during the election campaign Obama had surprised many people when he opined that Jerusalem should be the capital of the Jewish state. After he became the President he appointed Rahm Emanuel, who has always taken a pro Israeli stand, as the new Chief of Staff. Obama’s “Special envoy for the Middle East Peace” Mr. Dennis Ross is also a pro-Israeli person.
However, the U.S Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and the U.S Vice President Mr. Joe Biden have warned Israel to mend its ways. Both of them asked Israel to stop building new settlements in the West bank.
There have been reports of attempts of creation of a ‘demilitarised Palestinian State’. As per the new initiative those Palestinians who have left the area earlier would not be allowed to return. Instead Israel and the U.S would see to it that they are given citizenships in the third countries.
When Netanyahu visited America recently he tired his best to link the issue of the Iranian bomb with the Palestine issue. He sought to justify Israeli’s military actions citing the nuclear threat form Iran. The Americans however did not agree with this Israeli perception. Obama even sent the CIA Chief to Israel, before Netanyahu visited the US, asking the government not to make a hue ad cry about Iran’s nuclear policy. The US promised to keep the security concerns of Israel while dealing with Iran. According to Obama if the Israelis helped solve the Palestinian problems it would help Obama to deal with the potential Iranian threat.
Meanwhile the United Nations has severely criticized the Israeli Defense Forces for its attacks on the UN institutions and grave human rights violations. In fact the inquiry was ordered to look into the alleged attacks on the United Nations institutions and their staff. According to the board of inquiry 53 UN installations had been attacked by the Israeli forces. About 40 Palestinians who had taken shelter in the Jabaila School run by the UN, had been killed. The board has suggested that the UN should enquire into the allegations of human right violations.
If the Israeli administration does not act soon to solve the Palestinian issue the West Asia would bleed for many years to come.

ON CORRUPTION

Once upon a time people looked down upon somebody charged with corruption. Then it was a matter of shame. But no more. Being accused of some crime is now regarded as something of a feat that only a few can achieve. Before Mahatma Gandhi’s arrival people who had served a prison term were afraid and ashamed of being identified by the people. Gandhiji made getting arrested a mater of honour. These days almost everyone, especially the politicians, vie with each other to court arrest. The fact that Gandhiji was trying to make people bold enough to fight against corruption and injustice is now forgotten. Today what matters most seems to be not why a person was sent to jail but whether one has served a sentence or not. Today when a person comes out of prison, usually one does sooner or later, he is looked upon as a hero of sorts. Even as he serves the term he is accorded VIP treatment provided one has the right connection
Corruption has become an epidemic all over the world today. Both the print and visual media are full of reports of corruption. It seems that corruption is something that is found across the board. In spite of the spread of corruption and in spite of the media exposure there is no fall in the number of instances of corruption.
The most important reason for this is the fact that the authorities supposed to keep an eye on the perpetrators turn a Nelson’s eye when the media talks about such instances. In India we have had a prime minister who said, upon being told about the corrupt practices of some of the ministers, that corruption is no more news and that it is not an issue that worries people much.
However, the fact is that people have always been worried about corruption all over the world. Corruption has always been a basic issue all over the world both ancient and modern. And men of vision and determination have always fought the corrupt elements in society and in government tooth and nail. And they have had much success also in spite of many losses. Although no one has been able to root out the cancer of corruption, the honest officials of the sate have been able to come out with effective methods and to keep it under control. If corruption is not checked, if not wiped out completely, a society would fall apart like house of cards.
No society or country is especially prone to corruption. All countries are. Honest rulers with courage and determination take the bull of corruption by horns and make legislative measures to end it. Indeed the corrupt elements are resourceful and resilient enough to get around the laws sooner or later. Only an ever vigilant administration can keep the corrupt elements at bay.
The media has and it must play a major role in the fight against corruption. Media men must be on the alert all the time to identify the corrupt elements that are out to rip the country apart for their benefit. They must be meticulous in collecting detailed data and disseminating it. Merely getting the information across to the people is not enough, especially in a country like India. Men in the media can also suggest the means and ways to bring the corrupt elements to book as quickly and effectively as possible. Unless the men in media do not suggest the means and methods to control corruption, spreading the news of corruption can have adverse impact on the readers. Such reports would remain as the ‘gutter inspector’s report’ as Gandhiji called Mayo’s book, and make the people cynics.

CRISIS IN NEPAL

The dust, the Maoist Prime Minister of Nepal Mr. Prachanda’s resignation had raised has settled to some extent for the time being with the swearing in of a new cabinet headed by Mr. Madhav Kumar Nepal. The immediate provocation for Prahcnda to resign was the reinstatement of the Army Chief General Rukmangad Katawal by the President Ram Baran Yadav within hours of his dismissal by the government headed by Mr.Prachanda.
Trouble was brewing in Nepal since Mr. Prachanda, the Maoist leader who had given lots of trouble to the last Monarch King Gyanendra, became the Prime Minister of the country last year. There was a lot of bad blood between the president and the Minister. Being a protégé of the King Gyanendra Ram Baran always looked at Prachanda’s action with suspicion. Whenever he got a chance, the President hit out at the Maoist leader who found himself as the Prime Minister of Nepal last year.
Mr. Prachanda said that the action of the President amounted to an attack on the infant democracy in Nepal. The President had not right to interfere in the actions of the elected Prim Minister of the country, he said. Prachanda termed the actions of the President “unconstitutional and undemocratic”. However, the President said that the dismissal of the Army Chief was unjustifiable as it did not meet the constitutional requirments.
It is to be noted that the government of Mr. Prachanda had been reduced to a minority with the withdrawal of support by the CPN-UML. They were not in favour of Mr. Katawal’s removal. Mr. Prachanda had not taken his partners such as CPN-UML, the Nepal Sadbhavana Party and the Madhesi Janadhikar forum into confidence before ordering the dismissal of the Army Chief.
Mr.Prachanda charged many national and international reactionary forces- he did not name any though -with hatching a conspiracy to destabilize his that government that had tooth and nail to abolish the 240-year-old monarchial administration in Nepal.
Although Mr. Pranab Mukherjee, the External Affairs Minister of India said that the political discord in Nepal was an ‘internal issue’ of Nepal, Mr. Prachanda said that there was a ‘crisis of confidence’ between his party and the Indian Government. He said that India had supported Ram Baran Yadav, the Nepalese President, in ‘his extra-constitutional’ action of dismissing the democratically elected government. He also said that Nepal and India are conspiring to bring the discredited monarchy back. However, he has said that he would do all he can to salvage the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that sought to reconcile the different perceptions of the Communist Party of Nepal and the other parties.
Mr.Bhattarai, who is next only to Mr. Prachanda, minced no words when he said that the Indian government did support the President and the Army Chief in their unconstitutional move against the Maoist government.
Officials in the External Affairs Ministry of India dismissed these allegations as false. However, they expressed happiness over Mr.Prcahanda’s remarks that he remained committed to the multi party political process. It is reported that Mr.Rakesh Sood, the Indian ambassador to Nepal had met Mr. Prachanda and tried to persuade him not to dismiss the Army Chief as he had only months in office. Not only that, that he had not taken his coalition partners into confidence became clear when CPN-UML withdrew support to the Maoist government. Not only that the question of integrating the Maoist rebels into the Nepalese Army is being discussed by the parliamentary committee.
Our relationship with Nepal has always been cordial both during the period of monarchy and after. India had played an important part in heralding democracy in Nepal. India had helped Nepal during its transition from Monarchy to Democracy. It was India that brought all the political parties in Nepal to the negotiation table to bring about a consensus among them. It must have endeared us to the people of Nepal. India must see to it that a government that is ill disposed to her does not come to power in Nepal. The fact that the Nepalese Prime Minister Mr.Prachanda’s first visit was to China not to India is to be kept in mind .Of course, Mr. Prachanda clarified later that he went to China first as he had been invited by the Chinese government to attend the closing ceremony of the Olympics. He added that his first official visit was to India.

MEIRA KUMAR; KARIA MUNDA..........

Meira Kumar, one of the senior Congress leaders was sworn in as the speaker of the 15th Lok Sabha on 3 June 2009. She was the unanimous choice of the ruling UPA and the Opposition NDA. She is the daughter of the Congress leader and the Deputy Prime Minister, late Mr. Jaggivan Ram. She had earlier left the Congress party due to differences with Sonia Gandhi the UPA Chairperson. However, she later returned to the fold. She is the first woman speaker of the country.
The 64 year old leader form Bihar is the first woman speaker of the country. It was the UPA Chairperson Sonia Gandhi who proposed her name. Mr.Pranab Mukherji, the Finance Minister seconded it. Mrs. Mrs. Meira Kumar has been an IAF officer. She quit her diplomatic post and joined the Congress Party in 1985. She has been elected to the Lok Sabha five times. She was a Minister in late Mr.Narasimha Rao’s cabinet. She was the Social Welfare Minister in the last UPA government also.
Assuming charge as the Speaker Meira Kumar said that it was a gift to the women of India. She also vowed to uphold the dignity of the house as best as she could. She also said that she would do everything she could to see the Women’s Reservation Bill that promised 33% reservation for women through the Parliament.
The Deputy Speaker is the BJP leader Mr. Kariya Munda He had been elected to the Lok Sabha six times. He has served as a minister in Mr. Morarji Desai and Vajpayee cabinet. Karia Munda the Adivasi leader from Jharkhand.
With this both the Congress and the BJP have outwitted the Mrs. Mayavati who always claimed to be the sole leader of the Dalits. The recent elections to the Lok Sabha had already dashed her hope of becoming the first Dalit Prime Minister of India at least for the time being. Mayavati’s Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) that rules Uttar Pradesh could win only 20 seats. Everyone had expected it to win around 50 seats considering her great victory in the assembly elections in 2007.
Pundits had attributed her victory in 2007 to her ‘social engineering’. Till then she used to say that she was the leader of the Dalits. But at the time of the election she declared that she had nothing against the ‘Manuvadis’, i.e. the Brahmins. And she promised to provide jobs and reservations for the Brahmins who were economically backward. In the Lok Sabha election also Mayavati had given 29 seats to the upper castes. Out of it 20 were Brahmins.
Although the BSP was able to improve its position by one (it had 19 seats last time), it could not perform as expected. The main reason could be the absence of a common enemy for the voters. In 2007 almost all sections of people were disappointed by the Samajvadi Party and its leader Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav. The BJP had nothing of a chance. So Mayavati was able to unite the Dalits, the Extremely Backward Castes, poor Muslims and the Brahmins.
In 2009 the people had no common enemy to focus on. So the different castes moved apart and some of them voted for the Congress. This alone could explain the improvement the Congress exhibited. In 2004 the Congress had just nine seats. This time it won 21 seats. The much talked about concepts such as Sarvajan Samaj and the Dalit- Brahmin brotherhood failed to bring voters to the BSP’s fold.
Her performance as the Chief Minister of the state has been very disappointing. She has not kept any of the promises she had made to the backward castes and the Muslims during the 2007 election. It is not at all surprising that the Muslims drifted back to the Congress. Even the Brahmins seem to have drifted away from Mayavati.
Now that both the Congress and the BJP have checkmated Mayavati’s Dalit politics, she will have to chart out future course very carefully if she wishes to retain power in the state in the next election in Utter Pradesh.