Barring a last-minute upset as the final ballot papers are counted, Israelis have made their verdict clear: Netanyahu’s time is up.

In April’s inconclusive election, which led to this re-run, Netanyahu’s Likud party tied with its main opponent in the Blue and White party, led by retired general Benny Gantz. This time Gantz appears to have nudged ahead, with 33 seats to Netanyahu’s 31 in the 120-member parliament. Both parties fared worse than they did in April, when they each secured 35 seats.

But much more significantly, Netanyahu appears to have fallen short of the 61-seat majority he needs to form yet another far-right government comprising settler and religious parties.

His failure is all the more glaring, given that he conducted by far the ugliest – and most reckless – campaign in Israeli history. That was because the stakes were sky-high.

Only a government of the far-right – one entirely beholden to Netanyahu – could be relied on to pass legislation guaranteeing him immunity from a legal process due to begin next month. Without it, he is likely to be indicted on multiple charges of fraud and breach of trust.

So desperate was Netanyahu to avoid that fate, according to reports published in the Israeli media on election day, that he was only a hair’s breadth away from launching a war on Gaza last week as a way to postpone the election.

Israel’s chief law officer, attorney general Avichai Mendelblit, stepped in to halt the attack when he discovered the security cabinet had approved it only after Netanyahu concealed the army command’s major reservations.

Netanyahu also tried to bribe right-wing voters by promising last week that he would annex much of the West Bank immediately after the election – a stunt that blatantly violated campaigning laws, according to Mendelblit.

Facebook was forced to shut down Netanyahu’s page on two occasions for hate speech – in one case after it sent out a message that “Arabs want to annihilate us all – women, children and men”. That sentiment appeared to include the 20 per cent of the Israeli population who are Palestinian citizens.

Netanyahu incited against the country’s Palestinian minority in other ways, not least by constantly suggesting that their votes constituted fraud and that they were trying to “steal the election”.

He even tried to force through a law allowing his Likud party activists to film in Arab polling stations – as they covertly did in April’s election – in an unconcealed attempt at voter intimidation.

The move appeared to have backfired, with Palestinian citizens turning out in larger numbers than they did in April.

US President Donald Trump, meanwhile, intervened on Netanyahu’s behalf by announcing the possibility of a defence pact requiring the US to come to Israel’s aid in the event of a regional confrontation.

None of it helped.

Netanayhu’s only hope of political survival – and possible avoidance of jail time – depends on his working the political magic he is famed for.
That may prove a tall order. To pass the 61-seat threshold, he must persuade Avigdor Lieberman and his ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party to support him.

Netanyahu and Lieberman, who is a settler, are normally ideological allies. But these are not normal times. Netanyahu had to restage the election this week after Lieberman, sensing the prime minister’s weakness, refused in April to sit alongside religious parties in a Netanyahu-led government.

Netanyahu might try to lure the fickle Lieberman back with an irresistible offer, such as the two of them rotating the prime ministership.
But Lieberman risks huge public opprobrium if, after putting the country through a deeply unpopular re-run election, he now does what he refused on principle to do five months ago.

Lieberman increased his party’s number of seats to eight by insisting that he is the champion of the secular Israeli public.

Most importantly for Lieberman, he finds himself once again in the role of kingmaker. It is almost certain he will shape the character of the next government. And whoever he anoints as prime minister will be indebted to him.

The deadlock that blocked the formation of a government in April still stands. Israel faces the likelihood of weeks of frantic horse-trading and even the possibility of a third election.

Nonetheless, from the perspective of Palestinians – whether those under occupation or those living in Israel as third-class citizens – the next Israeli government is going to be a hardline right one.

On paper, Gantz is best placed to form a government of what is preposterously labelled the “centre-left”. But given that its backbone will comprise Blue and White, led by a bevy of hawkish generals, and Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu, it would, in practice, be nearly as right wing as Netanyahu’s.

Gantz even accused Netanyahu of stealing his idea in announcing last week that he would annex large parts of the West Bank.

The difficulty is that such a coalition would depend on the support of the 13 Joint List legislators representing Israel’s large Palestinian minority. That is something Lieberman has rejected out of hand, calling the idea “absurd” early on Wednesday as results were filtering in. Gantz appears only a little more accommodating.

The solution could be a national unity government comprising much of the right: Gantz’s Blue and White teamed up with Likud and Lieberman. Both Gantz and Lieberman indicated that was their preferred choice on Wednesday.

The question then would be whether Netanyahu can worm his way into such a government, or whether Gantz demands his ousting as a price for Likud’s inclusion.

Netanyahu’s hand in such circumstances would not be strong, especially if he is immersed in a protracted legal battle on corruption charges. There are already rumblings of an uprising in Likud to depose him.

One interesting outcome of a unity government is that it could provoke a constitutional crisis by making the Joint List, the third-largest party, the official opposition. That is the same Joint List described by Netanyahu as a “dangerous anti-Zionist” party.

Ayman Odeh would become the first leader of the Palestinian minority to attend regular briefings by the prime minister and security chiefs.

Netanyahu will continue as caretaker prime minister for several more weeks – until a new government is formed. If he stays true to form, there is plenty of mischief he can instigate in the meantime.

A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post Israelis have shown Netanyahu the door. Can he inflict more damage before he exits? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: Deccan Chronicle

Patna: Bihar’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) – part of the coalition government in the state –is no longer comfortable with Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, who is also the president of Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)]. The saffron party has started directly targeting him and his agenda in public to embarrass him and damage his image ahead of the 2020 state Assembly polls.

Experts believe that this is a part of BJP’s well-planned strategy to project itself as more suitable for the top post – chief minister – in the state.
“Nitish Kumar has occupied the chief minister’s chair for quite a long time. As votes are now garnered for the NDA in the name of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he should vacate the CM’s chair for the BJP,” senior BJP leader Sanjay Paswan recently said.

Similar demand was put forth by BJP MLC Sachidanand Rai soon after Lok Sabha polls this year.

By demanding the chief minister post for the BJP, Paswan, who is a BJP MLC and is considered close to RSS, seems to have sent a political message – “Nitish magic”, which might have worked in the previous elections, appears to have been faded now.

“Nitish Kumar should play national politics in Delhi and hand over the state power-politics to senior BJP leader and Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi,” Paswan said.

Several BJP leaders have privately said that the ‘Nitish factor’ is not visible any more in the state. JD-U itself is banking heavily on the ‘Modi factor’, as Nitish Kumar, too, had promoted ‘brand Modi’ during 2019 Lok Sabha polls. “It benefited JD-U that won 16 of the 17 seats contested this time as an ally of BJP, unlike 2014 polls when it had won only two of the 30 seats contested in Bihar by itself,” a BJP leader said.

A BJP leader told NewsClick that Nitish Kumar’s popularity has declined; he is no longer a reliable face. His claim of ‘sushahan’ (good governance) has been punctured on account of collapse of the law and order in the state and his political credibility is at an all-time low, said the leader.

“BJP cannot trust him, nor the opposition Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). Nitish Kumar’s political credibility was badly damaged after he dumped RJD and once again joined hands with the BJP to form the government in July 2017. He is with us, but opposes [abrogation of] Article 370, Triple Talaq and NRC,” said the BJP leader while speaking to NewsClick.

Giriraj Singh, a vocal champion of Hindutva politics, has publicly attacked JD-U and Nitish Kumar for opposing abrogation of Article 370,Triple Talaq and NRC. He also questioned Nitish Kumar on Monday for his statement that the mineral-rich Jharkhand, ruled by BJP, has failed to achieve desired development.

A fortnight after Lok Sabha polls, supporters of Singh, who had won from the Begusarai seat, raised slogans – demanding that he be the next chief minister of Bihar. It was alarming for the present CM ahead of next year state Assembly polls.

Additionally, what has hurt BJP is that JD-U will be contesting Jharkhand Assembly polls against the BJP and the party has already started targeting the saffron party. JD-U is also contesting Assembly polls in Haryana and in Delhi alone – which has not gone down well with the national leadership of the BJP.

On the other hand, JD-U leaders have strongly reacted to Paswan’s statement, saying that the CM did not need a certificate from Paswan. “Nitish Kumar is the chief minister and he will remain so after the 2020 polls. There is no vacancy. He enjoys support and blessings of the people. It is known to all,” claimed JD-U leader Nikhil Mandal.

JD-U spokesperson Sanjay Singh told NewsClick here that there is no alternative to Nitish Kumar. “BJP had tasted humiliating defeat in 2015 Bihar Assembly polls by contesting without Nitish Kumar. People have faith in the CM to deliver on promises made to them, unlike others,” he said.

The tussle between the two ruling parties was visibly fuelled in July when the BJP leaders including MLAs opposed the Nitish Kumar government’s order to gather detailed information on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leaders and its subsidiary outfits.

It was reported earlier that the special branch of Bihar police was directed to gather detailed information about the state functionaries of the RSS and its 18 subsidiary outfits including Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal. This letter was issued by the special branch on May 28, two days before the swearing in of the Narendra Modi Cabinet. BJP leaders had expressed surprise over the order and had opposed this action.

However, in May, JD(U) had refused to join the Union Cabinet for being offered just symbolic representation. After being left high and dry by the top BJP leadership, Nitish Kumar had expanded his cabinet by inducting eight ministers from his party while not including any BJP leader. He later claimed that the BJP was offered a few positions on which the party was expected to take a decision later.

In the past three months, a few senior BJP leaders have questioned Nitish Kumar over deteriorating law and order situation in the state and had embarrassed him by pointing to the failure of the government in connection with the death of over 150 children reportedly from Acute Encephalitis Syndrome (AES) in Muzaffarpur.

In this backdrop, it is widely being discussed in the political circles that the BJP has had enough of Nitish Kumar. BJP leaders also claim that the party is stronger in the state and enjoys overwhelming support from the upper castes, OBCs and EBCs that were once loyal to Nitish Kumar.

According to political experts, BJP had used the ‘brand Nitish’ to fight against RJD since the mid-1990s till early 2000s.The BJP had projected a clean image of Nitish Kumar as a suitable face for the post of the chief minister in the 2005 Assembly polls and it had clicked.

It has become a thing of past now, and the saffron party seems eager to promote its own chief ministerial face during the upcoming elections.

Courtesy: News Click

The post Operation 2020: BJP Eyeing Riddance of CM Nitish Kumar? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This means that a single officer was transferred multiple times in two years. These states had the most transfers across India, said the report by Common Cause, a nonprofit.

Although the number of DIGs and SSPs prematurely transferred in 22 states across India reduced from 37% in 2007 to 13% in 2016, the report found a seeming “direct relationship between elections and transfers”, as transfers increased significantly during election years, hinting at substantial political interference.

The situation is not unique to these two states, however, as a 2018 report by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), a New Delhi-based human rights advocacy, showed. Of 36 states and union territories (UTs) across the country, none had fully complied with police reforms ordered by the Supreme Court (SC) in 2006 with the aim to curb political interference in the Indian police force and raise public accountability.

In 2006, following a petition by Prakash Singh, former director general of Uttar Pradesh (UP) Police and chief of the Border Security Force, the SC had ordered all states to implement six reform measures: to set up a State Security Commission (SSC) to lay down broad policy guidelines and directions for the state police to operate without political interference; mandate a minimum tenure for heads of police; separate the law and order-enforcement units from the investigation units, establish a police-run board to determine transfers and postings; and set up a complaints cell in every district to foster public trust in the police.

But in April 2018, the CHRI found that:
 

• No state/UT had fully implemented any of the six directives; 27 had tried to set up a State Security Commission but had omitted several important guidelines, and 17 had introduced the reform to separate law and order from investigation units. 
• Only one state (Nagaland) had introduced a minimum two-year tenure for its director general of police (DGP). But more states (six) had introduced this for their inspector general of police (IGP). These included: Odisha, Nagaland, Manipur, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh.
• Although 27 states/UTs had introduced the police establishment board (PEB) to determine transfers and postings, and 24 had set up a police complaints cell to cultivate public trust, only one state each (Arunachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh respectively) had fully followed the guidelines. 

Little has changed since the publication of the report in 2018, as the Common Cause report shows.

Across 22 states, 25% of SSPs and DIGs transferred between 2007 and 2016 were transferred in less than two years.

Transfers increased significantly during election years in several states, most notably in Rajasthan, where 98% of SSPs and DIGs were transferred in 2013. In Haryana, 32% were transferred in 2013, and in Jharkhand, 28% to 53% were transferred during all election years, the report says.

Even in states in which the incumbent party remained in power, transfers were more numerous than average. In Gujarat in 2012, an election year, transfers of DIGs and SSPs increased to 80.6%, up from 23.7% in 2008. In 2013, an election year for Chhattisgarh, transfers increased to 63.5% from 36% in 2012.

“The crux of this [police reforms] is that there is just no political will to bring in checks and balances–not much has changed since our report,” Devika Prasad, coordinator of the Police Reforms Programme at CHRI, told IndiaSpend. “The problem is that the executive sees it [police reforms] as a lessening of power. But that’s not the democratic way.”

The police must strike a balance between being the agency of law-enforcement as well as accountable to the wider public, the Common Cause report emphasised. And, as democratically elected representatives, the executive must monitor the overall functioning of the police, the CHRI report said, adding, however, that the police must be independent in its quotidian functions, especially relating to administration (promotions, transfers, postings, etc.) and law-enforcement (when/whom to investigate, arrest, search, etc.).

How states can protect police independence

The Model Police Act
Shortly after the SC judgement in 2006, the Model Police Act was drafted to help states incorporate the reforms as directed. By 2018, 11 states and Delhi were yet to implement a Police Act, the report said; their legislations had either not been drafted or had been drafted and tabled in the legislature without any progress.

“Only 17 states in India have passed police legislation, but they are yet to take the Model Police Act in full,” Prasad added. “They’re not bound to use the Model Police Act but they’ve taken short-cuts and what they’ve done is actually regressive, they’re moving backwards instead of forward.”

“The legislation is mainly to alleviate the executive’s powers of appointment,” Julio Ribeiro, former commissioner of police in Mumbai, told
IndiaSpend. “That’s the main problem. But the government has found many ways to get around this. In fact, politicians have strengthened their influence on the police. What I could do 30 years ago as commissioner, the present commissioner can’t do. I know of officers who left the force because they got sidelined. So, what’s the point?”

The Maharashtra governor approved the Maharashtra Police (Amendment) Bill in July 2014 in a hurried manner, despite significant concerns being expressed by former commissioners such as Julio Ribeiro and Satish Sawhney regarding its violation of the principles of police leadership and discipline. NGOs such as CHRI and Police Reforms Watch had also warned that the bill was undemocratic and had serious shortcomings.

State Security Commissions
About 42 years ago, in 1977, the Janata Party government had set up a National Police Commission (NPC) to study the contemporary requirements of the police force. In its report, the NPC had included the setting up of a State Security Commission to ensure that the government in power would not gratuitously interfere in police affairs.

In 2006, the SC ruled that this commission must include the leader of the opposition, independent members selected via an independent panel, a retired judge nominated by the chief justice of the respective high court, and publish an annual report.

However, as of August 2019, not a single state has fully complied with this directive though 27 have partially set up the commission, Prasad said.
For example, in six states–Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Punjab and Tripura–the commission does not include a state opposition leader. In three–Bihar, Karnataka and Punjab–no independent members are allowed. Further, 18 states do not allow for the independent selection of the commission’s independent members, while in 20 states the commission is not mandated to submit an annual report.

“The states implement it whenever it suits them, and wherever it doesn’t suit them, they do not. The crux [of the commission] is to depoliticise the police. But the government continues to exert its influence. The police has become the handmaiden of the party in power,” Ribeiro said.

Minimum two-year tenure for police chiefs
One state, Nagaland, fully complied with the second directive to ensure that the DGP, chosen by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) from a group of three senior offices, remains posted for a minimum tenure of two years. The DGP’s removal must be based on specific grounds, the SC ruling had mandated.

“Fixed tenure is good because it allows officers to develop and implement their vision,” M N Singh, former commissioner of Mumbai Police, told IndiaSpend. “Someone working only for six months is like a person getting on at a train station and getting off at the next. Abrupt transfers, postings and high-handed moves politicise the police and interfere with its functioning.”

But in attempting to implement this reform, several states had failed to follow some of the SC guidelines.

For example, 23 states, as of 2018, had omitted UPSC shortlists for the DGP’s appointment, placing all relevant authority in the state government’s hands, and 16 states had allowed vague grounds such as “in the public interest” or “on other administrative grounds” for the DGP’s removal.

This is liable to serve ulterior political purposes, CHRI observed.

In comparison, more states (six) had fully implemented the third directive mandating a minimum tenure of two years for the post of IGP with provisions for removal only based on specific grounds–Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha.

Other states had partially sought to implement the reform. Of these, five provide a one-year tenure to officers of this rank. Meanwhile, 16 states had introduced “vague” grounds for the termination of an IGP’s appointment, which CHRI deemed non-compliant, namely Assam, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh.

Five states–Goa, Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, and West Bengal–and Delhi and the union territories do not mention any basis for removal, placing the matter entirely at the discretion of state governments.

“Minimum tenure is good,” Ribeiro said, “but only if you appoint the correct people. It’s not beneficial if you appoint the wrong people,” he said, highlighting the need to eliminate political influence over appointments.

“The selection of officers by independent committees/commissions where leader of opposition is also a member will ensure postings based on merit rather than the selection of those aligned to the ruling party,” Meeran Borwankar, former director general of the Bureau of Police Research and Development, told IndiaSpend.

Separating law and order from investigations
While 17 states/UTs had made provisions for the separation of units for law and order enforcement and investigation, only Mizoram introduced legislation enabling investigation unit officers to specialise, work with job security, and work elsewhere with the DGP’s explicit permission. These states had special investigation units at police stations for certain offences or geographical areas.

“We should create specialised groups to investigate specialised crime such as trafficking, cyber-crime, etc. which not all police officers are equipped to deal with,” former commissioner Singh said. However, Singh warned against a complete division, saying it is neither feasible nor desirable. “It has been tried in Mumbai, but it hasn’t worked.”

Police Establishment Boards
In this directive, the state is supposed to set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) comprising the DGP and four other officers, to decide and recommend all promotions, transfers and postings to the state government and to review police functioning. The SC had also envisioned this board to be a forum of appeal for officers above the rank of deputy superintendent of police who may bear grievances with their transfers or postings.

Although all states had followed the fifth directive by setting up PEBs on paper, 27 states remained non-compliant as they did not adhere to all the criteria of the directive. The PEB plays the role of an appeal forum in only 10 states, and reviews the function of the police in only six, the CHRI report said.

Arunachal Pradesh is the only state to have complied on all the criteria of the directive, the report said.

The threat of transfers or suspension was recognised as a primary tool of political interference in a National Police Commission report as far back as 1979.

Forty years later, in January 2019, the Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Kerala state government allegedly removed the deputy inspector general of police, Chaithra Teresa John, after she raided their office to find people accused of stone-pelting at a local police station, shifting her to the post of superintendent of police (women’s cell).

“This is why fixed tenure is important,” former commissioner Singh said. “It will prevent such removals and transfers.”

Nine in 10 police persons in Uttar Pradesh said they felt stressed due to political interference, a study in 2015 showed, while another study in 2014 found that job insecurity due to the risk of being “suspended at any time” is a major source of stress and results in many police officials seeking other jobs.

“Transfers, postings, training and discipline must be in the hands of the police chiefs, not the government–laws, formulation of the budget, development of infrastructure and so on, can come from the government,” Singh said. 

Police complaints cells
So far, only Andhra Pradesh has fully followed the sixth directive, setting up a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at the state and district levels to address public complaints against police officers.

In 16 states, the independent recommendations of the PCA are subject to the review of the state government despite the SC order demanding otherwise.

Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Odisha, Himachal Pradesh, and Delhi are yet to set up any PCAs at any level, as per the report.

In July 2018, about 29% of Indians said they placed a lot of trust in a senior police officer, 23% placed this trust in a local police officer, and 16% in traffic police, according to a Common Cause-CSDS survey in 2018. In comparison, 54% Indians have high amounts of trust in the army, followed by the judiciary at 31%.

However, there are significant concerns regarding the implementation of the PCA.

“In Maharashtra, it [Police Complaints Authority] is a disaster. Basically, if you keep appointing people who are going to do your bidding, then you are implementing the reforms only in name, although the truth is you’re doing nothing of the sort,” Ribeiro said.

Reform from within
Singh recommended that the police also be made more accountable to the public, in addition to the legislature and judiciary. “The service provided to complainants would improve significantly if the police and the public directly interact,” he said.

Much can be done from within the police force, aside from the state government, Prasad said, “The police leadership can change things substantially.”

For a direct say in policing matters, Singh suggested that citizen committees be set up in each district to regularly meet with police officers and provide them with feedback. “For example, England already has a ‘neighbourhood watch’ system whereby public stakeholders and police can frequently be in close communication,” he said.

In fact, several reforms can be undertaken at the level of the police leadership, Singh pointed out. He cited the example of retired Indian police officer and civil servant Julio Ribeiro who served as Mumbai Police commissioner from 1982 to 1985. “To alleviate political interference, Ribeiro placed the decision of appointing station officers with the police leadership, guaranteeing the station officers a minimum tenure of two years, completely eliminating any politicians’ say–and he instituted this formally into the rules,” Singh said, adding, “Not all police reforms need to come from the government.”

However, present-day politics may make reforms at the leadership level unfeasible or meaningless, some experts said.

“In my days, such reforms at the leadership level were possible,” Ribeiro said. “Now, I feel sorry for the present incumbents because their hands are tied. Although there are many good officers wanting to better serve the public, politicians still have the last laugh.” Even to remove an officer who had many complaints against him, one of the members in the police leadership had to write to the government seeking permission, he recounted an incident.

Ribeiro said public pressure alone can force the government to ensure police reform. “The people have to pressure the government to ensure that they appoint the correct person who are going to look after their interests. This is what activists should go about doing–whip up public support against wrong appointments, because all political parties only bother when they are threatened with the prospect of losing votes,” he said.

(Mehta is an intern with IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend

The post Police Transfers Jump In Election Years, New Report Finds appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A few days before the first phase of Lok Sabha elections, Samajwadi Party (SP) President Akhilesh Yadav and Bahujan Samaj Party President (BSP), Mayawati had announced their electoral alliance in Lucknow. This alliance was termed as a long-term contender and a potential winner! But a few days after the election results were declared, Mayawati announced in Delhi that the BSP is withdrawing from the alliance. She also declared that the BSP will be contesting the by-elections alone. Senior journalist Urmilesh discusses the possible reasons behind this breakup.

Courtesy: News Click

The post Real Reason Behind SP-BSP Breakup appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Nigeria is preparing for its general election. But will it be credible? Nigerian voters are well aware that the elections will not be won solely by votes or popular consensus. There are several other variables that influence election results.

President Muhammadu Buhari attends a campaign rally ahead of the 16 February elections. EPA-EFE/Stringer

These include the incumbent’s control of state security apparatuses, grassroots structures, and control of institutions such as market traders associations, and the National Union for Road Transport Workers.

The road transport workers’ union, which acts as a canopy for bus drivers, conductors, and motor park touts in Southwestern Nigeria, has a history of providing foot soldiers for employment as election thugs with skills in ballot box snatching and voter intimidation tactics.
In addition, the possibility that the election could be rigged cannot be ignored.

Questions around the credibility of elections in post-independence Nigeria can be traced as far back as the “First Republic” which lasted from 1960 – 1966. After allegations of massive rigging in the 1965 elections the country’s western region was engulfed in the infamous “Operation Wet-ie” riots.

The riots pitted rival political groups against each other leading to Nigeria’s first military coup in 1966. From then on the country experienced a series of coups. Between 1966 and 1999, when the country made a decisive break with military politics, Nigeria experienced eight military coups. In that same time period three general elections were conducted.
 

Tumultuous past

The years outside of military rule were comparatively brief and arguably overshadowed by the spectre of the military. When elections did happen they were plagued by strong allegations of electoral fraud. Since 1999, when the country broke with military rule, five elections have been conducted all of which have been tainted by controversy.

It’s clear to see that Nigeria has survived a tumultuous political history. Going into this next election, questions still remain about the credibility of the country’s electoral system, and the viability of it’s governance structures. Looking back things have often gone wrong, but are there instances where things have worked out well for the electorate?

I would argue that there have at least two instances when voters got what they asked for. One is the June 1993 presidential election, which is considered to have been relatively free and fair in its conduct, its eventual annulment notwithstanding. Another is the presidential election of May 2015 when the incumbent Goodluck Jonathan, gracefully accepted defeat by conceding to President Muhammadu Buhari.
Yet I still feel that Nigeria’s electoral system needs a complete overhaul if it’s to perform its functions with as little external interference as possible.

Shadow of military rule

The country has been ruled by military administrators more than it has by democratically elected leaders. For 29 years of Nigeria’s independent history military dictators have had a grip on its leadership. This is compared to just 20 years of democracy. The result has been that electoral rigging and malpractice are rife within Nigeria’s electoral process.

Since 1999, Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari, both of whom were previously military dictators spent a combined 12 years in power. President Buhari is now seeking a second term. As a result, there are still those who argue that the country’s transition from military rule to democracy is not quite complete.

The executive arm, for example, still maintains certain authoritarian characteristics that are reminiscent of the military era. One of these is the use of the armed forces to manipulate election processes. For instance, during the recent gubernatorial elections in Ekiti and Osun states voter intimidation by the security forces was rife. This was done to scare away opposition voters and give the ruling All Progressives Congress an edge.

The electoral commission

Another factor to consider is the supposed independence and impartiality of the Independent National Electoral Commission which is in charge of running the elections. Critics point to the fact that the commission chairperson and others in the commission are nominated by the president. This calls into question the credibility of the entire electoral commission.

Further, Buhari has just appointed Amina Zakari as the new collation officer. Zakari will oversee the committee responsible for the national collation centre from where results of the presidential election will be announced. But Zakari has been alleged to have a family relationship with the president. This has raised suspicion within opposition circles that the government intends to rig the polls.

To make matters worse, the behaviour of the electoral commission in previous elections hasn’t always been above reproach. This has lent credence to the criticisms bout the body’s impartiality. In the run up to the 2007 general for example, the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had no power to disqualify candidates in the eleventh hour as it had purported to do in the case of opposition candidate Atiku Abubakar.

The opaque nature in which recent gubernatorial elections have been held has also added to the fears of a rigged presidential poll. The September 2018 gubernatorial election in Osun, for example, was panned by election observers as being riddled with voting irregularities like voter harassment, and interference by “inappropriate persons”. These irregularities were reinforced by the high number of security officers deployed to the state during the election period.

The involvement of the security apparatus in tilting this tightly contested election in favour of the ruling All Progressives Congress is considered to be an indicator of how things could pan out in the general election.

Role of outsiders

Observers like the European Union and the US also exert a measure of influence on Nigerian elections. By ramping up the rhetoric on the importance of free and fair elections they play into the hands of the opposition who have historically appealed to foreign powers to umpire the electoral process.

Incumbent governments, on the other hand, have typically been on the other side of the argument. Nigerian governments have often cited what they call the “neo-imperialism” of countries like the UK and the US and decried their interference in Nigeria’s sovereignty. This resistance to foreign interference was most recently evidenced in comments made by Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, who threatened foreign observers with death if they engaged with local politicians.

Former president Goodluck Jonathan also trotted out the “foreign interference” trope when he claimed in his recently published memoir that the US played a hand in ensuring that he lost the 2015 election.

And a few weeks ago the ruling All Progressives Congress joined the bandwagon when they issued a statement telling the EU to not undermine Nigeria’s sovereignty.

Not all grim

Despite all of the above, it’s not all grim. There are some positive precedents that can be built on.

For example, despite predictions that there would election violence during the 2015 poll, Jonathan did the honourable thing by conceding defeat to Buhari.

His concession reinforced the notion that elections need not be a “do or die” affair. This peaceful transition after just one presidential term in office also set a positive trend for elections across Africa.

But with the slim margin between the incumbent, Buhari, and his main contender Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party – this narrative might need to be reinforced when Nigeria goes to the polls again on February 16.
 

Ini Dele-Adedeji, Teaching Fellow, Politics & Development Studies, SOAS, University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Nigeria has a history of dodgy elections: will it be different this time? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
Image used for representational purpose only.

New Delhi: MLAs from 11 states spent more than 50 per cent of their expenditure limit during polls, while those from Kerala topped the chart with spending of 70.14 per cent of the cap, according to a report.
 
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW) analysed election expenditure and vote share of 4,087 out of 4,120 sitting MLAs in 11 states.

Analysis on the basis of election expenditure                                                                                               

 
“MLAs from 11 states namely Kerala, Tripura, Gujarat, Uttarakhand, Mizoram, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Assam and Bihar have spent more than 50 per cent of the expenditure limit,” ADR said in the report.
 
Analysis of election expenditure for Meghalaya and Karnataka has not been included as the data was not available, the report said.
 
Among state wise percentage of expense limit reached by MLAs, Kerala topped the list with 70.14 per cent followed by Gujarat 58.7 per cent and Uttarakhand 57.8 per cent, ADR said.

 
Analysis on the basis of election expenditure showed that Kerala MLAs spent an average Rs 19.64 lakh each, while those from Gujarat spent Rs 16.45 lakh each and Uttarakhand Rs 16.19 lakh each.
 
In 2014, the Election Commission of India revised the election expenditure limit for candidates contesting for Lok /Rajya Sabha and assembly elections. For larger states, the limit for assembly elections was revised from Rs 16 lakh to Rs 28 lakh, whereas for small states, it was increased from Rs 8 lakh to Rs 20 lakh.
 
Among states which have gone for elections in the last five years (2013-2018), it has been observed that maximum amount of expenditure by MLAs has been done for vehicles used for the campaign.

 
They have spent only 5 per cent on campaigning through print and electronic media, the report said.
 
On vote share, the report said none of political parties/ alliances forming the government has won with more than 55 per cent of vote share.
 
Arunachal Pradesh has the highest vote share at 53.1 per cent while Jharkhand has the lowest at 31.2 per cent.
 
Besides Arunachal Pradesh, there are four states- Gujarat, Tripura, Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh, where the political parties/ alliances of parties forming the government have won with more than 50 per cent of vote share.
 
Out of 1,356 MLAs with declared criminal cases, 128 have declared cases related to electoral malpractices such as bribery, undue influence or personation at an election, illegal payments in connection with elections among others.
 
“Bihar has the highest number of MLAs at 38 who have declared cases related to electoral malpractices, followed by 20 MLAs from Karnataka and 18 from Uttar Pradesh,” the ADR report stated.
 
The report further said that 95 (74 per cent) out these 128 MLAs have won with more than 40 per cent of vote share.
 
The complete state-wise analysis of election expenditure and vote share can be viewed on their website.
 

The post Kerala MLAs top in election expenditure, spend 70.14% of expense limit appeared first on SabrangIndia.

      

As Dalits Plant Flag of Self-Respect under Mevani Leadership, Families Get Back land promised since 1970s: Gujarat
The Battle for the Dalit Base:  From the fields of Gujarat to the floor of Parliament

Its election year in Gujarat and the Dalits though numerically strong like Bengal have a seven per cent vote. Its also the month that NDA II under Modi is likely to install Ram Nath Kovind, a Dalit to the high office of President. In this context and political atmosphere, the Azaadi kooch yatra commemorating one year of the shameful Una public flogging of 5 Dalits assumed great significance. Jignesh Mevani, the lawyer-leader of the Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manch who led this yatra, planted the flag of self-respect on the land at Lavara in Banaskantha, land promised  to Dalit families since the 1970s.

“If your chest is actually 56 inches, Modiji, then remove the dabang (strongmen)…. If you don’t, your BJP will be finished here…. Your Hindu nationalism is a fraud and it is our duty to expose those who kill peasants, workers and youths in the name of the cow,” Mevani told the cheering crowd at Lavara.

Sabrangindia had been among the first to focus on the land campaign led by Mevani over the years. “Land to the Dalit Tiller, not to Tycoons is our Mission: Jignesh Mevani” was a detailed interview with him on the issue (December 2016).

Keeping Mevani company on July 18, were Kantibhai Solanki, who was supposed to have been given possession of the land in the 1970s, and Dalpat Bhatia, who had taken up the cause of the Dalits in Lavara, a village in Gujarat’s Banaskantha district, 200km from Gandhinagar. Last Saturday, July 15, , Mevani, a 36-year-old lawyer, had issued an ultimatum that if the plots allotted to seven Dalits in Lavara in the 1970s under the Gujarat land ceiling law were not restored, 10,000 protesters would block the highway to Dhanera that branches out to Kandla Port and Rajasthan.
Clearly nervous with the agitation, on July 18, the district administration had restored the plots to two Dalits, one of who was Kantibhai. Today’s “takeover” would have largely been a token gesture devoid of tension but for one factor: Kantibhai complained that he was threatened by Kalusinh Vaghela, from whom the land was taken.

Vaghela belongs to the landed Darbar caste, categorised as part of the Other Backward Classes, while Kantibhai is a Dalit. The latent friction between the two – which need not mean they are openly hostile to each other – represents an undercurrent now at play in Gujarat and some northern Indian states.

As the symbolic march to claim back the promised land took place Mevani received a chit from the police present, in warning. Watched closely by about 2,000 Dalits, communists and Muslims, Mevani read the piece of paper that told him not to carry out a symbolic takeover of the land by planting blue Ambedkarite flags. Mevani, a fiery leader, did so anyway, after limiting the number of those who accompanied him to the plot. A large police force kept watch as Mevani marched through the freshly tilled soil in driving rain and hoisted an indigo blue flag featuring the Ashok Chakra and sporting the words “Jai Bhim”.

An FIR was also lodged against the threats received by the Dalit family prior to the protest event. The FIR was filed at Dhanera where around 2,500 people had gathered at the conclusion of Azadi Kooch, a march to commemorate one year of Una flogging incident. It was after this that the Dalits and rights activists led by Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manch leader Jignesh Mewani reached Lavara village, 12 km away, and planted blue flags on the 18-acre land.

“The district administration decided to start the process of returning the land a day before we were planning to forcibly take possession of the land. We take it as a positive sign and now we will make sure that this happens all over Gujarat. On August 15, we will gather at Soneth village in Banaskantha and ensure that Dalits there get their land back,” said Mewani. “We also give the state administration time till December 6, which is Babasaheb Ambedkar’s death anniversary, to make sure that land allotment for Dalits takes place. If not then over 50,000 Dalits will congregate and forcibly take possession of the land,” he added.

The Dalits call it a battle for self-respect – and Mevani is part of a new breed of leaders tapping into the discontent that is also fuelled by rising aspirations. If Mevani makes inroads into the state’s consciousness, a casualty could be the broader “Hindu umbrella” that the Sangh parivar and Narendra Modi are seeking to unfurl.

It was only after the sustained protests under Mevani that these land claims were met. For years, the battle has been within the Courts in Gujarat but there have been no positive gains for Dalits despite Court orders in their favour.

Speaking to the media, Solankibhai, who got the land back, said: “My father had fought for this land since the 1970s. The Darbars wouldn’t part with it. Now we are better off and my brother is a postman. We are not ignorant of our rights. Last year, I complained to the tehsildar. Not a single official came until Jigneshbhai’s Azadi Kooch started. Yesterday the tehsildar came, made us sign some paper and gave us possession of the land. Kalubhai challenged me that he would never allow me to farm here.” Before this moment of empowerment, the Solankis were mere sharecroppers on the same land, growing jowar and bajra and giving Vaghela a fourth of the produce as rent.

Dalits are the most populous in this village, with about 100 households, followed by the dominant Darbars who have 80 families.

The Vaghela household, spread over more than an acre in several concrete dwellings, overlooks the fields. A worker loading grain in Vaghela’s godown said he wasn’t home.Kalusinh’s brother Brahmarsinh Vaghela, a former sarpanch, said: “Yes, my brother held the land but the Dalits were the sharecroppers. There is no question of any conflict. But it is sad that the police had to come to our village for the first time in my memory. There has never been any caste clash here.”

What makes Mevani strike a chord with young Dalits? Vipul Parmar, a computer operator who was part of the land takeover, said: “I had not heard of Jigneshbhai until a week back and was attracted by the posts on social media. He seems to be the only leader in Gujarat who is talking about the Dalits. I am in this land movement not because I want to do farming but because it is about self-respect. Even if Ram Nath Kovind (the NDA candidate) becomes President and comes here, the Thakurs will make him sit in a corner. Dalits who watch the news now know that the BJP is a Manuvadi party that silently hates us and makes us clash with Muslims.”

For Lakshmiben Maharia who came all the way from Ahmedabad to support the Azadi Kooch march it was the gender issue that found resonance. “I joined Jigneshbhai when he came to our village and explained that wearing a ghunghat (veil) is outdated and an unhealthy tradition. Despite anger from elders, all of us women stopped wearing the ghunghat. Land is important but we educate families with drunkard husbands (despite prohibition in the state) not to waste money they will gain from land on liquor. We won’t allow any man from our community to beat his wife if he is drunk.”
The agitation will not end here. In Banaskantha’s Sonheth village, Mevani has announced an agitation to help 63 Dalit families whose allotted land has been under the occupation of of dominant castes. There is some potential for conflict as claims and counter-claims ensue.

Related Articles:

1. If the Cow is Your Mother, You Bury Her: Gujarat Dalits Cry Liberation
2.  The Nation Does Not Need the Gujarat Model: Jignesh Mevani

The post Dalits Claim Back ‘Promised Land’ under Mevani’s Leadership: Gujarat appeared first on SabrangIndia.

महाराष्ट्र के नगरपालिका चुनावों में निर्दलीय उम्मीदवारों ने भाजपा उम्मीदवारों से ज्यादा वोट हासिल किए हैं। भारतीय जनता पार्टी की 851 सीटों ( कुल सीट 3,706) की तुलना में उन्होंने ज्यादा सीटें जीती हैं। कांग्रेस-एनसीपी की कुल सीटों को मिला दिया जाए तो ये बीजेपी और शिवसेना की कुल सीटों से 84 ही पीछे हैं।

पाठकों को भरमाने वाले मीडिया हाइप के बावजूद हाल में हुए महाराष्ट्र नगरपालिका चुनावों में भाजपा को वैसी जीत नहीं मिली, जैसी उम्मीद जताई जा रही थी। इन चुनावों के असली विजेता निर्दलीय उम्मीदवार रहे हैं। नगर पालिका परिषदों की 3706 सीटों पर चुनाव हुए थे। इनमें 864 सीटें निर्दलीय उम्मीदवारों के खाते में गई हैं। बीजेपी की सीटों की संख्या 851 है। 

भारतीय जनता पार्टी को निश्चित तौर पर सबसे ज्यादा सीटें मिली हैं और उसने 851 सीटों पर जीत हासिल की है। लेकिन निर्दलियों या स्वतंत्र उम्मीदवारों की सीटें उनसे ज्यादा है। कांग्रेस 643 और एनसीपी ने 638 सीटें जीतने में कामयाब रही। कांग्रेस-एनसीपी भाजपा-शिवसेना की कुल सीटों से 84 सीटें ही पीछे हैं। शिव सेना ने 514 सीटों पर जीत हासिल करने में कामयाबी हासिल की है। राज्य की कुल नगरपालिका परिषदों में भाजपा ने 52 परिषदों में मेयर या अध्यक्ष का पद जीता है। निर्दलीयों को इन पदों पर 28 जगहों पर कामयाबी मिली है। जबकि शिवसेना, कांग्रेस और एनसीपी ने क्रमशः 23, 19 और 16 अध्यक्ष या मेयर के पद जीते हैं।

चुनाव नतीजों को विस्तार से देखा जाए तो आपको पता चला जाएगा  कि भाजपा को नोटबंदी से होने वाले जिस फायदे का प्रचार किया जा रहा था, वह बिल्कुल गलत साबित हुआ है। टीम मोदी, खुद मोदी और उनके मंत्रियों ने सोशल मीडिया पर जो हाइप बनाया था वह बिल्कुल धड़ाम साबित हुआ।
जीत के आंकड़ों को देखेंगे तो पाएंगे कि इन चुनावों के असली विजेता निर्दलीय हैं। चुनावी भाषा में जिन्हें ‘अन्य’ कहा जाता है वैसे कई संगठनों को जीत मिली है। मसलन काकू नाना अघाड़ी, स्थानिक अघाड़ी, शाहू विकास अघाड़ी, युवा क्रांति अघाड़ी। असद्द्दीन ओवैसी की ऑल इंडिया मजलिस-ए-इत्तेहादुल मुसलमिन (एआईएमआईएम) ने शहादा नंदुरबार और बीड में कुछ सीटें जीत कर अपनी स्थिति मजबूत की है। शुरुआती रिपोर्टों के मिलने तक एआईएमआईएम ने उत्तरी महाराष्ट्र के धुले के नजदीक शाहादा में 4 सीटें जीती थीं। बीड में भी इसने 10 सीटें जीत ली थीं। एआईएमआईएम ने बुलढाणा के परिषद चुनावों में 2 सीटें जीती हैं। मलकापुर की 6 सीटों पर पार्टी को कामयाबी मिली है। हैदराबाद स्थित विवादास्पद पार्टी एआईएमआईएम इससे पहले नांदेड़ और औरंगाबाद में निगम परिषदों के चुनाव जीत चुकी है। पार्टी ने 2014 में महाराष्ट्र विधानसभा चुनावों में भी जीत हासिल की है।

शहादा नगर पालिका में 27 सीटें हैं, जहां एनसीपी ने 1 सीट जीती है। इसकी तुलना में एआईएमआईएम को 4 सीटें मिली है। शहादा निगम परिषद के अध्यक्ष पद के चुनाव में इसके पार्षदों की भूमिका अहम होगी। यहां कांग्रेस को 11 सीटें मिली हैं। बीजेपी को 10 और एनसीपी को 1 सीट जीतने में कामयाबी हासिल हुई है। ऐसे में शहादा निगम परिषद के अध्यक्ष के चुनाव में एआईएमआईएम के पार्षदों की जीत बेहद अहम हो जाती है।   

निगम परिषद के चुनावों में जम कर धांधली और भ्रष्टाचार की भी खबरें हैं। अगर ठीक से जांच की जाए तो ऐसे कई मामले सामने आएंगे। महाराष्ट्र में खासी प्रसार संख्या वाले अखबार लोकसत्ता के मुताबिक स्थनीय स्तरों पर भाजपा ने लोगों को 500 और 1000 के पुराने नोटों को बदलने में वोटरों को खासी मदद दी। निगम परिषदों ने अपनी तिजोरी भी भरी और वोटरों को भी खुश रखा। पार्टियों ने गैर सरकारी संगठनों की सेवाओं का इस्तेमाल वोटरों को टैक्स अदायगी की रसीदें मुफ्त में देने में कया। एक पार्टी के एक सीनियर लीडर ने नाम न छापने की शर्त पर लोकसत्ता को बताया कि इस तरह की छूटों से राजनीतिक दलों को वोटरों का खासा समर्थन मिला।

महाराष्ट्र नवनिर्माण सेना के प्रमुख राज ठाकरे ने कहा कि स्थानीय निकाय चुनावों में नोटबंदी नहीं बल्कि पुराने नोटों की जीत हुई है।

महज दस-बारह दिन पहले यानी नोटबंदी के बाद मुंबई के बाहरी इलाके पनवेल में एपीएमसी पनवेल के चुनाव में सत्ताधारी बीजेपी को 17 सीटों का नुकसान उठाना पड़ा। यहां पीजेंट्स एंड वर्कर्स पार्टी (पीडब्ल्यूपी) को 15 सीटें जीतने में कामयाबी मिली। कांग्रेस और शिवसेना को एक-एक सीट मिली। एपीएमसी में कांग्रेस को 25 साल बाद कोई सीट मिली। भाजपा पनवेल एपीएमसी चुनावों में सभी 17 सीटें हार गई। इससे इस बात को बल मिला कि प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी के नोटबंदी के फैसले से आम लोगों को हुई दिक्कतों को खासी तीखी प्रतिक्रया हुई है। लोगों ने एपीएमसी में बीजेपी को इसका मजा चखा दिया।

मीडिया के एक वर्ग ने टिप्पणी की- एपीएमसी की सभी 17 सीटों पर बीजेपी का हारना उसके लिए भारी झटका है। यहां पीडब्ल्यूपी, शिवसेना और कांग्रेस ने मिल कर चुनाव लड़ा था और गठबंधन का यह फैसला उसके पक्ष में गया। पीडब्ल्यूपी को 15 सीटें मिली जबकि शिवसेना और कांग्रेस ने एक-एक सीट जीती। आम आदमी पार्टी की राष्ट्रीय कार्यकारिणी सदस्य प्रीति शर्मा मेनन ने पीडब्ल्यूपी की इस जीत पर ट्वीट किया- पनवेल एपीएमसी चुनाव में बीजेपी सभी 17 सीटें हार गई। यही व्यापारी पहले बीजेपी का वोट बैंक हुआ करते थे। यानी अंत की शुरुआत हो गई।

The post निर्दलीय हैं महाराष्ट्र में स्थानीय निकाय चुनावों के असली विजेता appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The table was meant for the sarpanch. But just a few weeks after Shalubai Kasbe, then 44, was elected to the five-year post in 2011, the young men of Wagholi village lugged a huge bust of Chhatrapati Shivaji into the panchayat office. This, they decided, could only be placed on that very table.

And so the elected sarpanch of this village in Osmanabad district, a Dalit woman, sat on a chair without a table for all five years of her tenure. To sign official panchayat papers – the only symbol of authority conceded to her by the dominant castes – she sat where any other villager would.  Across the table from the clerk handling the office registers.

When Satish Khadke, the man who would be her ‘deputy’, asked Shalubai to contest the sarpanch post in 2010, her husband and two sons demurred. They knew she would have no say in running the panchayat, but only the symbolic power of signing papers, including contracts for development work. In the real world, Khadke himself would hold the reins, put those papers up for clearance.  It did not help that Shalubai was illiterate, and had only just learned to sign her name.

Shalubai signing papers at the clerk's table in the gram panchayat office (left) and hoisting the flag on Republic Day (right; photo courtesy: Wagholi gram panchayat)

Yet, it was an offer she could not refuse. Khadke, an upper caste Maratha, was one of the landowners this agricultural labourer depended on for work in this village of 1,746 people.
Did becoming sarpanch bring any change in Shalubai’s life? Did it help her Dalit community, the Mangs?

It did, in many ways. A photograph of Annabhau Sathe, the renowned writer, folk poet and social reformer of the Mang caste, now hangs in the panchayat office. A young man, a political party worker from the community, put it up after Shalubai became sarpanch.

The photo of Annabhau Sathe (extreme right), social reformer from the Mang community, found a place in the panchayat office alongside photographs of Subhash Chandra Bose, Jyotiba Phule, Bhagat Singh, Lokmanya Tilak and Savitribai Phule

Before her election, the Mangs could not publicly celebrate the birth anniversary of their revered leader. Now, every August 1st, they take out a procession through Wagholi’s streets – but only after having fought for it. In the first year, when they gathered in the village street, upper caste men forced them to abandon the procession. The following year, Shalubai enlisted the signatures of 20 Mang women on a petition and presented it to the police patil (a quasi-judicial principal official of the village), requesting protection. This time, a police van accompanied them. The upper caste men again tried to break up the gathering – but the cops were a deterrent. Since then, no one has tried to oppose the procession.

From the panchayat office, Shalubai takes us to the small Shiva temple beyond the village square. “Earlier, our community had to pray from outside. But after my election, some of the panchayat members together prayed at every temple in the village. I stood outside, but they ushered me in. Being the sarpanch brought me that honour,” she says.

At extreme left is Shalubai, among other women at her first gram sabha meeting as sarpanch in the big Maruti temple (Photo courtesy: Wagholi gram panchayat)

Once Shalubai was allowed to enter the temple, others from her community followed. The Mangs now also hold a saptaha (a fortnight of discourse and prayer) in the modest Shiva temple.  The upper castes have their own saptaha in the more ostentatious Maruti temple. The gram sabha (village assembly) is also held in the Maruti temple because the panchayat office cannot accommodate everyone. As the sarpanch with the power to sign papers, Shalubai too attended the sabhas in the temple.

The changes though are clearly limited: the Mangs and the Mahars of the village continue to live separately, in Wagholi’s Dalit colony. Shalubai’s tiny home is at the end of the street in this colony. Its roof and four walls are made of corrugated tin sheets. It has two doors but not a single window. Within those walls are all the family’s possessions: clothes on a string, a single bed, a television atop a small cupboard, a gas cylinder and two-burner stove on the floor, a metal rack for utensils and provisions, and a few large tins for storing grain. The house is crammed with her extended family, eager to tell their stories.

Shalubai with her husband Rajendra Kasbe inside their tin-sheet home; her older sister looks on

“We built this house just after I became sarpanch,” says Shalubai. “The old mud and brick structure collapsed one day. The sharp edge of the tin roof gashed my husband’s thigh and he needed several stitches.

“But we haven’t got a proper house even now.  You get one only if you are BPL [below poverty line]. We have no land, property, farm, or cattle – but we are not BPL.” Her honorarium as sarpanch was just Rs. 600 per month. “How can one manage on that?”
From 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Shalubai worked in the panchayat office and after that in the fields like any other agricultural labourer. Women here get Rs. 150 a day for shelling soybean or weeding the fields. Men get twice that for digging, ploughing and sowing.

Weeding a field of soyabean plants

Shalubai’s older son Sachin, 29, who has two children and has studied up to Class 12, says it was impossible for his mother to run the affairs of the village as sarpanch. She tried though – and was accessible to her community members for signatures on their documents at any time, unlike her upper caste predecessors.

 “The Marathas rule us,”  Sachin says. “They will not allow us to prosper. They are in a majority and control everything.” Opposing them would be asking for trouble. “They will bar us from the fields and block us from any other work.”

Shalubai interrupts her son. “What is the use of confronting them? They own the lands we work on. They are okay with me because I gave them no trouble for five years.”

Deputy sarpanch Khadke, a landowner and qualified engineer, isn’t too sympathetic. “It is very difficult to explain things to illiterate women,” he says. “And even if they learn to read and write, it is not the same as being educated.”

Shalubai had hoped her sons would get stable jobs after she became sarpanch. That didn’t happen, and Sachin continued to work as an agricultural labourer during her tenure.

Shalubai was elected under the 73rd amendment (to the Constitution, related to Panchayati Raj) in the reserved category. She completed her term in November 2015.  She had to spend her own money to get elected and hosted meals and even sold the family’s lone buffalo to finance her campaign. “My own sister demanded a new saree to vote for me,” she says, pointing to a smirking older sibling with some annoyance.

“The people in the village won't let me come up. All the ‘big people’ [upper castes] only let their own kind enjoy prosperity and make money. We are all maagasvargi [backward] people. Protest and they’ll say: ‘We will throw you out of the village’. And where will we go then? So we shut up.”
Still, Shaluabi says she will always cherish the honour of having been the sarpanch. In practical terms though, the family’s life did not change much. They remain poor, landless and living on the edge of the village and dominant social groups.

Outside the Wagholi gram panchayat office, Shalubai stands in front of a statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji 

All other photos: Namita Waikar.

Postscript: Shalubai’s husband Rajendra Kasbe had a malignant tumour for which the family sought treatment at multiple hospitals. To cover these costs, they borrowed a substantial sum from a local moneylender and smaller amounts from neighbours. He died in April 2016. Soon after, Shalubai’s two sons virtually abandoned her. She now lives alone, and is constantly harassed about the debt by her neighbours. The moneylender is insisting she hand over her tiny house or work as a bonded labourer to repay the loan. 
Thanks to Bharat Patil,  formerly with ABP Mazha, for his help reporting this story.

 

Namita Waikar is a writer, translator and the managing editor of PARI. She is a partner in a chemistry databases firm, and has worked as a biochemist and a software project manager You can contact the author here: @NamitaWaikar

This article was originally published in the People's Archive of Rural India

The post When Shalubai won the chair, but lost the table appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Despite the uncritical media hype that gives the reader a blinkered view of the poll outcome in  the recently conducted local Nagarpalika elections in the Maharashtra, it is not the BJP that is the real winner, but Independents who have garnered the highest number of seats at 864 out of a total of the 3706 seats contested, and won.

While the Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) has certainly garnered the second highest number of seats at 851, the Congress with 643 seats and the NCP with 638 lag behind the BJP and Shiv Sena only by 84 total seats. The Shiv Sena has won 514 seats. Of the total municipal councils in the state, however, the BJP has captured the mayoral/president post in 52 councils; Independents have won in 28 while the Shiv Sena, Congress and NCP have won in 23, 19 and 16 councils respectively.

These results (detailed below) in no way show a BJP sweep nor an endorsement for de-monetization, regardless of the social media hype generated by team Modi, the prime minister and his ministers.

In fact the real winners in these polls appear clearly to be the ‘Others’ that include outfits like the Kaku Nana Aghadi, Sthanik Vikas Aghadi, Shahu Vikas Aghadi and Yuva Kranti Aghadi. Asaduddin Owaisi's All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) has also consolidated some of its support base in Maharashtra by winning some seats in Shahada, Nanurdbar district and Beed where counting of votes is still underway.According to the preliminary reports, the AIMIM has won 04 seats in Shahada – a small town near Dhule in North Maharashtra.Preliminary reports also said that the AIMIM has won 10 seats in Beed district. The AIMIM has also won 02 seats in Buldana civic polls. In Malkapur, the AMIM won elections in 06 wards. The controversial AIMIM, a party based in Hyderabad, had earlier won civic elections in Nanded and Aurangabad. The party also won two seats in 2014 Maharashtra assembly polls. Shahada Nagar Palika has a total of 27 seats. Here the Congress has won on 11 seats, BJP on 10 seats and the NCP has won 01 seat. Against this number, the AIMIM with 04 seats will play important role in electing the president in the Shahada Municipal Council.

In what is likely to additionally unfold as a major controversy, and emerge, if properly investigated, into an outrightly illegal or corrupt poll practice, the mass circulation Loksatta reported that at the local level, the ruling BJP, by giving allegedly irregular concessions for recovery of older Rs500 and Rs 1,000 notes by municipal councils from voters, ensured that these bodies got their coffers filled and that simultaneously the voters were kept in good grace. Using the services of non-governmental organisations, recipts of taxes paid were given freely to voters ensuring that this cycle, however irregular, was complete. A senior leader of the party reportedly told the newspaper in confidence (requesting anonymity) that it was these concessions that worked for the party.

Raj Thackeray, chief of the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena has been quoted as saying that the ‘victory of the BJP in the local polls is not the victory of de-monetization but the victory of old notes!!” Whatever that means!

Besides, barely ten days ago, on November 17,  in local body elections in Panvel on the outskirts of Mumbai, held soon after de-monetization, the APMC Panvel cost the ruling BJP all 17 seats. The Peasants and Workers Party (PWP) won 15 seats, while Congress and Shiv Sena registered victory on one seat each in the Panvel APMC polls. Notably, Congress won an APMC seat after 25 years. The Panvel APMC election results were announced on November 14. With the BJP losing all 17 seats in the Panvel APMC polls, questions were then raised whether the demonetisation move by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the inconvenience to common man followed by the sudden decision didn’t go down well for the BJP.

At that time, sections of the meda had commented, “In a blow for the BJP, the saffron party faced defeat on all the 17 seats of the APMC polls. PWP, Shiv Sena and Congress contested election making an alliance and it worked out too. While the PWP bagged 15 seats, Shiv Sena and Congress won one seat each. “BJP lost all 17 seats in Panvel APMC election. These traders used to be their votes bank. Beginning of the end,” tweeted Preeti Sharma Menon, National Executive Member of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP).”

In Gujarat local body elections held a few days back, results of which came in today, the ruling BJP has recorded its continuing popularity. Days ago it had lost to the Congress in the Unjha local council, however.

Results of the Nagarpalika Polls, from Lokmat

The post Who is the Real Winner in the Maharashtra Local Body Polls? appeared first on SabrangIndia.