It is former prime minister Indira Gandhi’s 25th death anniversary on October 31. 

What was her legacy?

She was associated with events like the Emergency, which briefly made Gerald Ford head of the largest democracy in the world, and decades of militancy in Punjab.

Her policy of nationalising banks was mentioned as a reason why the Indian banking sector weathered the global financial crisis.

She also won a famous military victory in the 1971 war with Pakistan and ordered the Pokhran I nuclear tests three years later.

Going by columns and television discussions around her anniversary, it is safe to say it was contentious.

Over her career and beyond she was compared to a dumb doll, the goddess ‘Durga’, a lioness and Napolean.

Some called her, like Margaret Thatcher, the only man in her cabinet.

Richard Nixon described her as an “old witch”.

She herself played at being Joan of Arc as a child.

The more enthusiastic of her partymen coined the phrase “India is Indira and Indira is India”.

Its cadence has had a longer shelf life, if not the idea itself.

Twenty five years after her assassination, the Congress party in the ascendant, one news channel recounted her as India’s Indira.

Would it be accepted the other way around now?

Indira’s India is not an incredible idea given she was the second longest serving prime minister we had.

She was Prime Minister or minister for eighteen of her sixty six years. Not counting her other political roles.

I was four when she died and my memory of her is from Doordarshan films showing her unfurling the tricolour.

Much clearer is the memory as a seven-year-old, of waiting for hours behind wood barrricades with my mother to watch Rajiv Gandhi pass by.

What I remember is my mother’s patience and my disappointment when I couldn’t glimpse him as his convoy zipped by.

My mother did however, or so she said.

It was a Gandhi who was passing through that day and that seemed to be enough reason to wait however long, for a fleeting moment.

Was dynasty and its mystique, which she was accused of building, the most lasting contribution of Indira Gandhi?

Or is it too soon to assess her legacy?

The ruling Congress party-led alliance has won state polls in Maharashtra and Arunachal Pradesh and is set to form the government in Haryana.

Elections were held in the three states this month in polls seen as a major test for the Congress coalition after a strong victory in general elections in May.

The state poll results come at a time when a resurgent Congress, fresh from a victory at the centre, has begun to find footing as the single largest party.

However, analysts debating the outcome reflect more on the decline of the right-wing Hindu ideologue and a fractured opposition than a clear victory for the Congress.

The BJP has been struggling for some time to find an identity that would directly translate into votes. The BJP-Shiv Sena combine in Maharashtra failed to take advantage of the anti-incumbency factor.

Political pundits say it’s another example of the party’s failure to introspect post the Lok Sabha election.

Time alone will tell whether the ‘Marathi pride’ poll plank of Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena will help it strengthen as a mainstream party.

For now, the Congress-NCP coalition is set to come back on a promise of reforms and loan waivers for farmers.

Ashok Chavan is credited in his short time as chief minister with bringing back the party to power despite serious setbacks like the Mumbai attacks and a spate of farmer suicides plaguing the state.

In Haryana, the Congress fell short of the halfway mark, winning only 40 of 90 seats.

The results in the northern state have to some extent dampened celebrations for the Congress, which swept the polls in Arunachal Pradesh.

Poll experts say election results have put the Congress in a better place to implement reforms.

At the same time, this is also a clear call for the opposition to unite and find common ground in the months to come if they hope to stay in the running.

Nalini Sriharan is on hunger strike seeking an early release from jail. 

But she’s no ordinary prisoner.

Nalini is currently serving a life sentence for her role in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

Part of Nalini’s plea is that she does not expect to live long due to her deteriorating health after spending nearly two decades in prison.
 
Nalini, her husband and two others were sentenced to death for conspiring to assassinate Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.

But her sentence was commuted to life imprisonment at the pleading of Sonia Gandhi, head of the ruling Congress and widow of Rajiv, so that Nalini’s young daughter would not be orphaned.

Priyanka Gandhi met Nalini in jail last year and later said the meeting helped her come to terms with her father’s loss.

The Gandhi family appears to have made peace with Nalini.

Should the country also respond in kind?

Can her case be treated as punishment intended for reform rather than retribution?

On Sunday, media reports said Nalini had earned a post-graduate degree in computer applications, topping the course among jail inmates who appeared for the examination in Tamil Nadu.

The Tamil Nadu government has said it will decide on Nalini’s case after consulting the union government.

Should Nalini be released?

Or is her hunger strike an example of “blackmail” — which is how a TV news channel put it.

(PHOTO: Nalini [R] seen in a court in the southern Indian city of Chengalpattu in this June 15,1991 file photo)

When India’s ruling Congress party asked ministers and bureaucrats to cut down on needless expenses at a time of recession and deepening drought, many in the country had one question on their lips: will the austerity drive work?

Rahul Gandhi tried to set an example by travelling by train as an ordinary passenger. His mother, Sonia, abandoned her private army plane and flew economy class on a commercial flight for a party rally in Mumbai.

But there is still a great deal of scepticism among people. Some of the doubting was fuelled after the train Rahul was travelling in was pelted with stones. Experts said Rahul’s train trip was a security risk, which could cramp the austerity drive.

But it’s not just the security concerns alone. The austerity drive also drew ridicule following a controversy over two senior government ministers staying in luxury hotel suites priced at $1,000 and $1,500 a night until their official residences were ready.

Both ministers said they’d paid for their suites themselves, but stung by criticism amid the government’s austerity drive, they moved to more modest temporary homes.

However, it was too late to change the mind of ordinary Indians who over years of Nehruvian socialism had begun to associate Congress politicians as leaders in simple hand-spun cotton, or khadi, clothes who drove around in old-fashioned Ambassador cars.

Now, the question many are asking is: will the austerity drive last with election campaigns for Maharashtra and Haryana about to begin?

True, with the economy in trouble, the government is making an effort with the finance ministry appealing for fewer overseas trips and smaller entourages as well as a ban on conferences in luxury hotels.

But it isn’t easy: one minister protested he was “too tall” to fly economy while another said their positions demand they entertain in style.

So, will the government’s austerity drive last? The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) doesn’t think so. A BJP spokesman said it was just an “election gimmick” and they would go back to their usual ways once the state elections were over.

Will they?

He’s been called the “Quiet Revolutionary“. And India’s prime minister-in-waiting. But does Rahul Gandhi, a virtual novice in the rough and tumble of Indian politics, have what it takes for the country’s top job?

He didn’t exactly set the house on fire during his first five years in parliament. And until this election, Rahul’s only USP was that he belonged to India’s first family, the Nehru-Gandhi family which has given the country three prime ministers.

He’s only 39, and has no experience with complex subjects such as Pakistan or the economy.

But after the recent election, Rahul has emerged as a savvy politician, a grassroots activist with a finger on the pulse of the real India.

His strategy of not allying with any of the regional parties in northern India despite pressure from party officials paid off big time.

The Congress party’s decision to go it alone in northern India helped it more than double its seats in Uttar Pradesh.

Initially, based just on his political strategy for this election, there was much speculation over whether he would join the cabinet, and if he did what portfolio he’d get.

Eventually, Rahul wasn’t a part of the cabinet, but he’s still seen as the face of the Congress party from now on — and perhaps prime minister at some point in the future.

But isn’t there a danger he could be sidelined if he isn’t part of the federal cabinet?

Sure, he has age on his side and he can learn over the next five years. Besides, like his father, Rajiv, he appeals to millions of young voters in India.

But he’s not alone in that sense. He is part of a new generation of young parliamentarians like Sachin Pilot and Jyotiraditya Scindia who have a completely new perspective on politics.

So the question many in India are asking is: could Rahul Gandhi be overshadowed by other younger politicians who are in the cabinet?

With the wrangling for allies in earnest ahead of election results due Saturday, women leaders hold an inordinate amount of power in deciding who will form the new Indian government.

Women leaders have always had a role in the rough and tumble of Indian politics, from Sarojini Naidu and Annie Besant in the independence struggle to Indira Gandhi, the second woman in the world to become prime minister.

Women leaders are perhaps at the peak of their influence now, with Gandhi’s political heir regarded the most powerful of them all — indeed, the most powerful political leader in the country.

Congress chief Sonia Gandhi is credited with energising the party and leading it to a surprising victory in the 2004 election, and she looks to have the lead this time around too, according to exit polls.

Gandhi, once voted the world’s sixth most powerful woman by Forbes, walked away from the prime minister’s job in 2004, but her influence over party allies and even with the on-again off-again left is unquestionable.

Her influence though, doesn’t extend to Mayawati, the feisty and controversial leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party and chief minister of the potentially swing state of Uttar Pradesh, which sends a whopping 80 seats to the lower house.

Mayawati, hailed as queen of the lower-caste Dalits, is part of the Third Front, and a prime ministerial aspirant whose ambition mirrors her party’s elephant symbol.

Known for her lavish birthday celebrations and love for giant statues of herself, Mayawati’s massive following among lower caste Hindus, tribes and other backward classes is not to be trifled with.

At the other end of the spectrum is J. Jayalalithaa, a convent school-educated high-caste Hindu and leader of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam in the potentially swing state of Tamil Nadu.

The former film star, a part of the Third Front, has allied in the past with both the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party, and could be a kingmaker this time. A win for AIADMK would boost the prospects of the Third Front, and Jayalalithaa, who was once jailed on corruption charges, will be a vital pawnbroker.

As will Mamata Banerjee, leader of Trinamool Congress in left-ruled West Bengal state. With exit polls pointing to an erosion of support for the left, Banerjee — who drove Tata Motors’ Nano car project out of the state — is on a good wicket.

“The outcome of this endgame is linked to women,” political analyst Yogendra Yadav wrote in The Hindu newspaper.

Perhaps their examples will inspire more women to take the plunge into politics; there were only about 550 women candidates against more than 7,500 men candidates. Or are they not quite the role models we seek?

The countdown has begun in India. As political pundits peer into their tea leaves before the results of another marathon election, the question on everybody’s lips is: will the Gandhi magic work again?

Exit polls show the coalition led by Sonia Gandhi will fall short of an outright majority, but her Congress party has a slight edge over its rival, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
But then exit polls in India have been way off the mark in the past. Like the last election.

In the 2004 election, the Congress scored a shock victory over the BJP, which many said was a result of Sonia Gandhi’s tireless campaigning and, more importantly, the magic of the Gandhi name. Nobody, just about nobody, had expected the BJP to lose? Or the Congress to win. Not even the Congress itself.

But will Sonia Gandhi do it again this time? Will the Gandhi name work like a charm again? Nobody is willing to hazard a guess this time. Indian voters are known to throw up enormous surprises.

One of the biggest upsets in the history of post-colonial India was Indira Gandhi’s massive defeat in the 1977 election. Mrs Gandhi was considered so invincible that a slogan coined by one of her partymen — Indira is India, India is Indira — had become a household buzzword. She was almost like a Mother Goddess at the time.

And so not even the sharpest of political observers could have predicted 1977. Not even Mrs Gandhi herself.

Defying all expectations, angry Indian voters threw out Mrs Gandhi after she imposed a state of emergency when she clamped down on dissent and launched a sterilisation programme as a solution to the country’s population problem. It was the first time the Congress had tasted defeat in national elections since it began ruling the country after India’s independence from Britain in 1947.

But it wasn’t the last. Indira’s son, Rajiv, who came to power on a massive sympathy wave after her assassination in 1984, didn’t lead the Congress to a majority win in 1989. The Gandhi magic, it seems, had lost its sheen.

Five years ago, when India went to the polls everybody had written off the Congress as a spent force. Newspaper headlines screamed the party was over.

But Sonia Gandhi took the party and the campaign into her hands. Rajiv Gandhi’s widow travelled across the country relentlessly, reaching out to voters in her heavily-accented but fluent Hindi, peppering her speeches with emotional references to her family, especially her husband who was killed by a suicide bomber in 1991.

Her children, Rahul and Priyanka, also joined the fray, campaigning for their mother in Uttar Pradesh where they always got rapturous receptions.

And it paid off.

The party won a stunning victory and for a brief moment, it even seemed like a Gandhi would get the prime minister’s job again. Sonia Gandhi eventually turned down the prime minister’s post, but the country’s first family has remained firmly in the political spotlight since.

As the elections rolled around this time, Sonia and her son, Rahul, hit the campaign trail again with emotional references to the sacrifices made by the Nehru-Gandhi family, particularly Indira and Rajiv, who were both assassinated.

And again, both drew enormous crowds as they campaigned in the heat and dust of various parts of the country, with people walking or cycling for kilometres just to see them.

But will the Gandhi name work again this time? Or will India’s voters look beyond dynastic politics at other more basic issues such as water, electricity, food prices and housing?

If India’s faceless bookmakers are any guide, the ruling Congress party will probably scrape through the current election with Manmohan Singh the firm favourite to retain the prime ministership.

But then again…

When it comes to climate change, the environment and other weighty issues, what could the leaders of the world's biggest democracy possibly learn from the rural Indians who cobble together rickety cars out of scrap metal and old bits of wood?

One of India's best known businessmen says the improvised vehicles that carry crops and passengers along dusty village roads show how local people are often the best innovators, coming up with cheap and effective answers to tough problems.

Nandan Nilekani, co-founder of the technology company Infosys, thinks politicians would do well to remember the decentralized philosophy behind the "jugaad". Mechanics with little money and poor access to cheap parts use whatever is at hand to build them: water pumps replace normal engines; wooden blocks stand in for brakes and old planks of wood provide the floor.

"This 'car' is a brilliant improvisation, nailed together from whatever parts rural mechanics can get their hands on," Nilekani writes in a new book about the future of the world's second most populous country, "Imagining India". "Effective, innovative policies will depend on harnessing this ability of people at the local level to take charge and innovate.

"Our environment and energy solutions will have to rope in our tribal and village communities to be truly effective. I believe such approaches are uniquely suited to India, with its untapped pool of local, entrepreneurial and innovative talent."

Nilekani, often called the "Bill Gates of Bangalore", says India has come a long way since the historic days of 1947 when Britain's colonial rule ended. However, it must move further away from centralisation if it is to harness its economic potential.

While Nehru's "paternal, socialist state" that promised public sector wealth creation made sense at the time, few Indians believe in his policies now, Nilekani argues.

It is time, he says, for the country to move even further away from the old idea of "Mother India" looking after its one billion "children".

His book sets out a vision of a more equal and prosperous India where the state views the population as "human capital, not as a liability".

The new India would value entrepreneurs, improve its schools and universities, embrace globalisation and technology and build new infrastructure.  It would also accept English as a "language of aspiration" rather than a colonial relic.

The markets will play a crucial role in changing society, but politicians and the public sector must also do their bit, Nilekani says. Political parties have for too long exploited class, religion, caste or regional differences to make short-term gains at the expense of long-term planning, he adds.

"If you want to go beyond the politics of division to the politics of aspiration it will take some time because you will need a larger middle class," he told Reuters in an interview in London. "Markets and entrepreneurship are very important. They drive innovation, job creation. It is how people's standard of living goes up."

If India adopts the right measures it could see faster economic growth than China within a few years, helped by a huge pool of young working people, he adds.

"India is now going to have its demographic dividend in the next 30 years. China had its demographic dividend over the last 30 years," he told Reuters. "Being the only young country in an ageing world gives India some very special opportunities."

With polls suggesting that no party will secure an outright majority in this month's elections, Nilekani warns that future could be rocky.

"This election is momentous because there is no clear winner, no party that has a clear advantage," he says. "There is a risk of having instability."

However, like the humble "jugaad", the sheer scale of the election process and the effort that has gone into getting 700 million people to vote, is an immense source of pride for Nilekani.

"It is an extraordinarily uplifting moment," he says.

India’s bookies are still holding out on the Congress party scraping through a largely issueless election with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh the firm favourite to retain his post. They have given L.K. Advani, leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party, a 3-1 chance to win the top job.

But are the bookies, who operate below the radar, missing out on a possible late advance by BJP?

Shares rose 4 percent to their highest close on Tuesday on investor speculation that the BJP, seen as business-friendly, may have gained momentum in the final stages of a mammoth election.

Isn’t it a bit unusual that Dalal Street is betting on a BJP win while the bookmakers are sticking to the Congress?

Or is it just speculation in an election as muddled as this, with no real clear pattern?

The lack of any polls makes it even more difficult. Perhaps there will be some clarity once the exit polls begin rolling out after the final phase of voting ends on Wednesday.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is not contesting elections to the Lok Sabha, the lower and popular house of parliament.

This is for reasons of health and also because the constitution permits the prime minister to be a member of either of the two houses of parliament.

Like Singh, we have had prime ministers from the Rajya Sabha earlier but they sought to get elected to the lower house and succeeded easily.

As the de facto head of the government, the prime minister is expected to earn people’s approval directly.

Mayawati recently took a dig at Singh over the issue.

“This Manmohan Singh has not contested any public election…he was brought back door in Rajya Sabha and made prime minister,” the Bahujan Samaj Party chief said at an election rally.

“If Manmohan can become PM, why can’t an educated Dalit woman.”

This is possibly the first instance in Indian politics where the sitting prime minister has decided to stay away from the race.

But should India’s prime minister be a member of the Lok Sabha?

The opposition, after initially trying to make it a poll issue, now seems to have lost the plot.

The question keeps popping up on internet discussion boards.

FOR

– Those who support the idea of a prime minister from the lower house say that a popular vote marks acceptability by the people as compared to someone nominated to the Rajya Sabha.

– Such a person having earned the people’s mandate is seen as less susceptible to manipulation.

– A person’s performance as an MP is seen as a necessary test of his competence and claim to the top job.

– Some even suggest that a prime ministerial candidate should seek election with a pre-announced team, something like the shadow cabinet system in Britain.

AGAINST

– The most convincing argument against the idea is that the constitution puts no such caveat.

– The upper house is seen as a talent pool where competent candidates are sent after consideration. This compensates for impulsive behavior of voters which can sometimes make “good” candidates unelectable. For example, Manmohan Singh lost the 1999 Lok Sabha election from the posh South Delhi constituency.

– It is also felt that any prime minister would work according to the party’s ideology, membership of a house being irrelevant to his policies and performance.

– Moreover, the prime minister is in any case indirectly elected (by the party MPs), so the argument of his having greater acceptance may not cut much ice.

– Some feel that if the person is a representative of the majority party and competent then nothing else should count. Others say the proposal calls into question the very rationale of having an upper house, and therefore, needs to be fleshed out.

One comment on the online forum points to the question being a moral rather than a legal one.

There are two facts to bear in mind.

In the Westminster system of democracy, a prime minister from the upper house would be an anachronism.

Secondly, the constitution review commission recognised the lower house’s pre-eminence in its recommendation that the prime minister be directly elected by the house in the event of a hung poll verdict.

As for the practical aspect, the Congress is contesting around 400 seats in these elections, and finding a safe seat for a politician like Manmohan Singh, the sitting prime minister, should have been easy.

In March, opposition leader L.K. Advani raised the issue at an election rally.

“Singh will be more acceptable to the people of India if he decides to fight the elections and go to the Lok Sabha,” he said.

Did Advani have a valid point?