India is not a democracy. Governance by the will of the people, and its automatic corollary, accountability of the State’s representatives are a basic premise of democracy. In India, the State is not accountable to its constituents, the public. While there are many progressive and honest politicians/bureaucrats, the organizational structure of our government with its centralization, administration opacity and multiple overlapping functions allows corrupt officials to evade responsibility. Consequently, apart from voting once every five years (the vote, constantly devaluing in the face of population explosion), the citizen has no say in the governance and no institutionalized processes to safeguard against failure or mismanagement by the government representatives.

The status quo must change. The citizens in a democracy must be able to influence State policy (the part about our representatives “representing” us) and at the local level, the associated state machinery must be accountable to us and not some supervisor. While some of us may nod in affirmation in our living rooms, in the absence of a legislative framework, individuals cannot truly hold the state accountable. Individuals can’t; however, organized citizens can. History is replete with examples where the sheer force of public opinion overthrew repressive regimes, forced change of course, and enacted reformist legislation.

It is now past time that we the citizens of India organize and develop a counterweight to the State. At Swaraj Abhiyaan, we envision clearly defined channels of communication between the State and the individual, with transparency in the flow of information downward and accountability in moving consensus upwards. For instance, both the State and Central governments enact major laws without any input Continue Reading »

For years, it has been accepted that budgetary allocations would be largely for defense, internal security and industry. Allocations for the social sector have been declining for years , ever the structural adjustment programnes began in the nineties , with the government handing over more and more segments of the development sector to the private sector under the nominal guise of the public-private sector partnerships. This year’s budget therefore, at least in its pronouncement is a welcome break, though the old demons of the PP partnerships still remain in the infrastructure sector – and it is on the backbone of infrastructure that most social development – be it health or education or economic empowerment occurs.

Some of the salient areas where the social sector has been assisted include :

• The total allocation for the Rashtriya Mahila Kosh, which works towards credit support to poor women for innovative schemes, will be increased from Rs.100 crore to Rs.500 crore.

• Another highlight of the budget was that all services under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) will be made available to all children under the age of six by March 2012.

• The National Mission for Female Literacy will aim at reducing female illiteracy by half in three years.

The government’s increased expenditure on infrastructure, agriculture and urban development should boost growth and receipts, and new incentives for private investment in education, social security and energy security should provide an impetus to these sectors while strengthening India’s competitiveness. To ensure balanced and equitable development, the government has widely increased the allocations to social development schemes, which should also play a vital role in boosting rural development and demand.

Baits are being provided for NGOs and charities to be involved in environmental concerns, tax benefits being one. At the moment , a charitable purpose under the present provisions of section 2 (15) of the Income Tax Act, ‘charitable purpose’ includes relief of the poor, education, medical relief, and the ‘advancement of any other object of general public utility’… The budget proposes to provide the same tax treatment to trusts engaged in preserving and improving our environment (including watersheds, forests and wildlife) and preserving our monuments or places or objects of artistic or historic interest bringing these activities under the ambit of charity.

Of course, not every will be satisfied. As someone who is working with issues of children at risk, I cannot but remember that India has the world’s largest population of children, accounting for around 375 million of the country’s billion-strong people. But budgetary allocation for them has for years been pitiable at a meager 1.2 per cent of the Budget and this year does not appear to be too different.

However, the focus of this Budget and of the government is to use a combination of pragmatic, humane and bold policy making to create the economic foundation upon which we can build a progressive and prosperous nation in consonance with the concerns and aspirations of all sections of society and that certainly ought to be commended, but a certain sincerity of approach that is visible here, that one failed to see for instance in the Railway Budget, presented just days before.

The most preferred model of building infrastructure today has become the public –private partnership. It is almost as if the government has somewhat shamefacedly admitted that their attempts to create infrastructure of any kind has not kept pace with the demands of the growing population and its requirements. But since complete privatization is still considered taboo, the state attempts to keep a foothold under the guise of a partnership with the private sector. But the word partnership is more or less a sham as the government , intentionally or otherwise is really a sleeping partner, having more or less abdicated key decision making powers, even when there is a key public interest involved and the government has on occasion a stake as high as 49 percent in the company’s equity holding.

Witness Delhi’s current power woes. The electricity distribution companies have lost all control over the situation and the electricity situation is as bad or worse as when power was supplied by the government run Delhi Vidyut Board. The government is not doing any thing more than having “stock taking” meetings and the chief minister is wringing her hands more or less expressing her helplessness to do any thing in the matter. Now of course, we all know that the fundamental issue is a shortage of power and of course we know that Delhi produces less than 50 percent of its power requirements. We also know that power plants can not come up in a day or even in a year and there are limitations on how much any one can immediately do. But surely, the situation can be managed a lot more tidily ?

Electricity is not the only field. Take airports for instance. In most of the airports that are being modernized today, the government is a stakeholder along with the private developers. Yet here too, the government remains a sleeping partner, appearing to rubber stamp decisions made by the private players involved. The user development fees charged at airports were mostly rubber stamped by the ministry of civil aviation , even though a an industry body as respected as the IATA recently commented that the charging of fees in lieu of amenities that would only be provided in the future after the airport is fully modernized is unethical.

Then look at schools and hospitals. Again after acknowledging that the government has on its own been unable to provide quality education , it has roped in the private sector as a partner. Private institutions got land at throw away prices and a host of other exemptions, with the proviso that in lieu of this , the public=private partnership based institutions would offer concessions and facilities to the poorer sections of society.

Have we noted the inherent flaws in the PP model ? It is essential to take note of the fact that the private sector will only penetrate sectors that are fairly certain to be money-spinning. Private investment will be ready to move into communications), but the same eagerness will not be seen in the case of rural sanitation. The distinction between the public and private sectors is not primarily in terms of operational efficiency as is often maintained (favoring the latter, often considered to be self-evident too), but in the manner in which the two recognize public need and respond to it. From this perspective, the private sector ought to be only be the junior partner in PPP, and the public sector must retain considerable powers to intervene when the acknowledged service obligations are not being met. But will it happen ? Not likely in the near future, by the looks of it.

It is good to have iconoclasts in society at any given point of time. They make you think; challenge the status quo and generally make wake society of somnolence. In Bengal, people still remember with gratitude the contribution of people like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and the others who founded and ran the Brahma Samaj, which pulled Hindu society out of the clutches of obscurantism.

Later on, you had Mahatma Gandhi, who was so much of an iconoclast that at one point, he became an icon himself. Dr Ambedkar was another iconoclast who became an icon. His ubiquitous statues in a coat and tie and holding the constitution close to his chest are every where. In the South, Periyar was one iconoclast that I know of whose influence lasts to this day and doubtless there are others.

But unlike the worthies above, who became icons by default and their iconoclasm was one of reform and inclusion; today we have a different class of people. If there is a Mahatma Gandhi Road in practically every town, it was not because Gandhiji wrote it up in his will, or that Ambedkar issued a dictat instructing those statues be erected in every village in the country.

But today in Mayawati , we have an upside down icon ; some one who insists on demolishing the work that others have done – however incomplete that work might have been (yes, I am referring to recent references to Gandhiji’s efforts for the upliftment of Harijans( as Dalits were called then as mere natakbaji or theatrics. And then to round it up, while she is busy rubbishing the work that others have done, the only visible activity that she herself seems to have done is constructing and erecting her own statues all over Uttar Pradesh.

Mayawati seems to be under the illusion that one can become an icon simply by erecting statues and then issuing a dictat that they should be suitably garlanded and venerated on all important occasions – her birthday for instance. As far as I know, in the current Dalit calendar at least in Uttar Pradesh, there is no other day more important than Mayawati’s birthday. Lives can be lost if this day is not celebrated properly. An engineer in UP, \ M K Gupta was murdered , allegedly due to Gupta’s refusal to contribute to the fund collection drive before Chief Minister Mayawati’s birthday.

Reminds me of the story of Herod the Great, a king of Bibilcal times. He was a tyrant and hugely unpopular and he had no expectation that even one person would be there who would mourn his death. So as he neared death, he had several prominent subjects of his kingdom imprisoned, with instructions that at his death, they all ought to be executed en mass. That way, he reasoned, at least some mourning would take place and some tears would be shed at his death, even though, the tears would not be for his death.

Erecting statues of yourself and seeking sainthood through the backdoor is a bit like the instance of Herod… but of course they say that history repeats itself, so this must be it, even though she claims that she is in this game only because the BSP founder, the late Kanshi Ram had willed that alongside his statue, that of his protégé (Ms. Mayawati) should be built. And then you have to get the statue right. A statue of Mayawati had been removed from a prominent location by the authorities here barely 45 days after she unveiled it as she wanted a bigger statue of herself in its place. Apparently Mayawati was not happy with the quality of the sculpture, and so she had also expressed her displeasure over the fact that it was smaller than the statue of her political mentor Kanshi Ram. So the statue got smashed, well! In Mayawati, today we have a wannabe icon and an anarchist iconoclast; but alas though you can raise the height of a statue with some ease, it takes a lot more work and to raise the height of your stature. And that leader or icon of stature is what people might be looking for and haven’t found yet!

The attacks against Indian students in Australia have gotten me thinking a lot. As someone who has up until very recently been a “visitor” in other countries, and in a couple of instances faced the palpable fear of a racist attack, I cannot help but put myself in the shoes of those boys.

Continue Reading »

It is remarkable that Indian electorate has simultaneously clipped the wings of “Left” and “Right” while rewarding prop-poor policies coupled with Dr. Singh’s strategic approach to “make market work” for India. In some states like West Bengal, I am not sure if the electorate had voted for Congress but they definitely voted against parties who had been seen by voters as spoilers. Nevertheless, at this hour of history, Congress is entitled to take all the credit for the outcome.

It is even more remarkable to note that, India has survived yet another test of democracy. When charismatic Vajpayee’s government was defeated in 2004, despite his exceptional leadership, he accepted the verdict humbly and said, “It is always with the will of the people that governments have been formed - and changed. This power of democracy is a matter of pride for our country, something which we must always cherish, preserve and further strengthen…” Our faith in democracy has made India a beacon of democracy surrounded by an ocean of uncertainties.

The immediate challenges ahead of UPA government are “global economic meltdown”, “troubles in India’s neighborhood” and safety & security. Now that Left is out, Congress can get things done easily at home and it can now focus more on pursuing long term strategic foreign policies. Verdict of 2009’s general elections is decisive not only for India but also for the world. Given the kind of uncertainties in South Asea and middle east, the world wanted stable government in Delhi so that India can play a significant role in establishing peace and tranquility in the region. Indian voters have done exactly the right thing by rewarding UPA.

Quite often, “Left” and “Right” wings in India overestimated Dr. Manmohan Singh as an economist and underestimated his abilities as a politician. I think, he has an unusual brand of politics. To strike a balance between coalition partners, Sonia Gandhi’s powerful influence and his own position as the de-facto head of the government is never an easy task. I think he has done that successfully. More over, The internal politics of Congress is much more complicated than Indian politics. If one can survive that, he cannot be a weak politician. During 90s, in the era of protectionism and India’s own brand of socialism, he was able to convince the leaders about market friendly approach. Yet again, his impeccable position on Indo-US nuclear deal has established his strength and proved his far reaching vision. Only time can prove his political strength as it proved his strength as an economist.

One can only hope that, this victory of democracy will bring much needed peace and stability in the region.

Left nahi, right nahi, chalo centre hi sahi. It’s clear - an increasing number of voters have decided to grin and bear it, and settled upon the Grand Old Party as the least of all the evils that compose our political system. But since anyone and everyone is a psephologist nowadays (who, like the humble journalist who also happens to be the head of one of the major news networks, distance themselves from their predictions the minute they start getting things wrong), I’m going to do some post-poll analysis of my own.

A couple of my classmates claimed to have gone for the bow and arrow - one, because he claims that those are the guys who actually show up at non-poll times, and two, because he preferred Advani over Manmohan. This second guy’s naive chain of thought catches my fancy - as much as it is known that this is India and not the US, where it’s a straight fight between the Democrat and the Republican, that’s what the thought process seems to have been behind a significant number of voters. So even though it is but obvious that the chances of a two-party system being implemented are slimmer than the success of philo-anarchy, many voters went into the polls knowing that there were only 2 real contenders for the top job.

Moving on, if one notices the number of votes in each of the seats where MNS contested from, in particular the Mumbai-Thane region, one thing is clear: Congress n Co. were on their way out, but for Raj. Clearly, some flowers are due here. I’m yet to look at the detailed voting figures for states like UP where the mandate is greatly fractured, but from the looks of things, splitting of votes has played into the hands of the Congress. The pessimistic way of looking at the Bombay figures is that the local majority is easily swayed and has complete faith in the regionalistically divisive forces. The optimistic way is that the people voted for the alliance (i.e BJP), and by analogy, a victory for candidates from the UPA meant a vote against the divisive forces - of course, there are certain pockets among the business people for whom saffron is a friendlier colour, but though they managed to pull it off in Gujarat, the infamous Mumbai South was a different story altogether.

Then again, the much-publicized youth vote, however insignificant a percentage it might have formed (more later), seems to have gone to Rahul Gandhi and his peers - other than the ‘crown prince’, Sachin Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Naveen Jindal, Milind Deora, etc. all contributed to the image of Sonia & Manmohan’s party as a youthful one, which had the young vote unless one was particularly attached to the opposite camp. One more name springs to mind - Omar Abdullah, who again is currently a friend of the party of the aforementioned. Little wonder, then, that the sub-35 votes were consolidated.

Of course, social equations were, are and will always be in place unless something drastic happens, but they were majorly re-written. So the rat-eaters and the other really low castes of Bihar voted for Nitish and against the Lalu-Paswan combine; the middle class mostly Punjabi Delhiite continued to repose their comparatively recently found faith in Congress; UP was spoilt for choice but the Muslim vote did not entirely go to Mulayam, while Mayawati seems to have lost the Brahmin votes she toiled so hard to get; Orissa went with Naveen’s BJD; as is always the case, no one gives a damn about the few seats in the North-East and the UTs, but broadly it can be said that the regional parties shared the spoils with, yes, the Congress.

And finally, the Left. The continuous upgradation of ideology has finally got voters in 2 of their 3 states (Tripura being a north-easterly is a national non-entity) to wake up and smell the coffee - in the name of welfare, the states, one with the highest literacy rate and the other which is home to some of the most famous intellectuals over the ages, have been fooled over and over again. Especially West Bengal, whose Left leaders are from amongst those very intellectuals but who were a tad smarter than the rest and who in the name of social welfare and upliftment of the downtrodden were able to maneuver the naive idealists and the sufferers. Only now, the traditional stances of the Left and its main opposition have switched - and while the socially backward continue to stand by those who seem closest, the urban populace seems to have fallen for the change rhetoric. As for Kerala, the less said about it, the better it is (if you want to know, major internal bickering and fatally wrong tie-ups).

So there you have it. The big businesses believe that the Manmohan-Chidambaram combine is as good if not better than the industry-friendly BJP; the youth loves its ilk namely Rahul & Co. These and the splitting of caste, regional and poor people’s votes have all meant that Congress alone hovers around the double century mark. The good thing about it is that one-party can take charge and actually take decisions; the bad thing is that it that very party which has had that opportunity oh so many times and failed to capitalise. It doesn’t take much to be a political analyst, does it? Or did I miss something major here?

PS: I missed out on a couple of things. Good governance over anti-incumbency? NREGA, loan waivers and pay commissions notwithstanding, I don’t think so (the why of it later). And among past governments, neither has been particularly effective in combating terrorism. Also, both the large parties have major stains on their peace-loving credentials and clean sheets, except that our present single largest party hasn’t majorly goofed up ever since the anti-Sikh riots and Bofors of the 80s, where the opposition-cum-opposition-to-be’s recent track record springs to memory. The only counts on which the former has failed in the past 20 years are Babri Masjid and numerous terrorist strikes, which hardly matters since the latter didn’t get Mumbai, in spite of all the hoopla, to care anyway.

It is a well known fact that when the losing party accepts defeat gracefully and with humility, respect from all quarters pours in. For 5 years, the BJP was unable to do it and finally it seems that the party is left with little option.

As opposed to the 2004 verdict which was a little muddled thanks to the looming presence of the charismatic AB Vajpayee, this time, the mandate is squarely in favor of the congress party. If one looks at the reasons, they are not difficult to find. They would help the losers introspect and the victor to be responsible and thankful to the electorate.

• The BJP leadership was not appealing to the masses with LK Advani’s image far from being clean. The vacuum was hard to fill. Internal squabbles due to strong personalities in Jaswant Singh, Rajnath Singh and Arun Jaitley resulted in a less than cohesive unit. Darjeeling and Telengana proved that the party was power hungry.
• A motley group of regional parties - DMDK in TN, Praja Rajyam in AP and MNS in Maharashtra - helped split the anti congress vote. In some cases, people were suspicious as was the case with SP and BSP in UP. Mayawati was ready to join any combine while Kalyan Singh was welcomed to the folds of SP. As a result, the congress gamble paid off handsomely.
• The Left overestimated its prowess and is left badly bruised and shattered. It failed to read the voter; the increasing awareness among the electorate led to its downfall. It might be a while before there can be a resurgence for Karat and Co if at all there is one.
• The image of Manmohan Singh as a sincere and honest person won the congress, the votes of the middle class and the youth. The BJP lost a considerable chunk of middle class vote due to its negative campaign and its failure to offer a credible alternative policy framework in the absence of any single over arching issue.
• The saturation of BJP in Karnataka, Gujarat and MP and its ally in Bihar meant it was always going to reap handsome rewards in these states and little elsewhere.
• The singular failure of BJP to give its party a youthful look and the fortunate irony of Rahul Gandhi garnering the media support again led to first time voters rejecting the NDA in favor of the UPA.
• Good monsoons and reasonable success of NREGA and populist policies ensured that though the coffers were getting drained, sizeable chunk of rural votes were a given.

This election also offered some insights. While the kind of identity politics presented by the MNS and celebrity power in the south were rejected, some incidents that were given obsessive attention by the media like the pub attack in Mangalore fell on the back burner for the electorate.

Looking forward to the next 5 years, the average Indian is happy that there is no commotion and mad scrambles. At the same time, several issues cry out for attention from security to Economy to Climate Change. We wait in anticipation and have high expectations from a team, that I am sure, has some able Men and Women ready to shoulder huge responsibilities.

I salute our democratic system and end this post!

Obama in this book written in 2006 when he was senator, has managed to weave together the personal with the political experiences beautifully and engagingly. Though the references are largely to the American politics, some of the issues that he speaks of and the concerns he says, unite Americans across “race, region, religion and class” transcend geographies and seem to be the same in our country too. Therein lies the beauty of this book; one doesn’t have to be an American to be able to gauge Mr. Obama’s sincerity. It shines throughout palpably and is one of the biggest reasons why the book has become very popular. Since it offers glimpses of what Roosevelt, Kennedy, Lincoln, Reagan, Johnson, Clinton and Bush stood for during their reign at the helm of America in a broad fashion, it is highly educating and informative to read each and every page.

Values:

What struck me quite clearly, as very different, was a whole chapter devoted to Values; a politician talking about values in such a fashion as Obama has did is quite astonishing. As in all the other chapters, he uses the book to express his stand on various issues. In the chapter devoted to values, for example, he talks about executive pay among others.

The language of the book is rich with intricately woven sentences; in their every curve and bend are nuggets of wisdom to be cherished, and revelations abound about the functioning of a sharp, intensely observant, shrewd and empathetic mind. At various points in the narrative, he stresses on the need to find common ground; to find in people the common value that everyone shares. How aptly it applies to the Indian context where we see politicians competing against one another in finding grounds to divide the electorate in pursuit of votes.

Constitution:

In the chapter on “Our constitution”, Mr. Obama throws light on the judiciary’s interpretation of the constitution as lifestyle changes sometimes make the Government’s role in a large democracy debatable. Ultimately, the conclusion drawn merits appreciation for who can rightly discern what the intent of the founders was!

Politics:

Obama candidly observes that the more time one spends in the limelight of politics, the farther it takes the person from the problems of ordinary people. Talking about the amounts of money required for funding, suffering defeat, living by stereotypes, he convincingly gives an insider view of the traps and pitfalls that a Politician has to traverse. He is at his very best when he describes how complicated it is to decide either on an aye or a nay vote when both sides have some merit. He is also critical of the media who always want a “yes” or a “no” for an answer to complicated questions thereby always putting politicians in a spot in an attempt to trap them. In this particular aspect, the Indian media excel and our politicians either sadly don’t recognize their traps or are naive enough to fall into them and pay the price.

Opportunity:

Obama talks about his meeting with the founders of Google – Larry Page and Sergey Brin – when he doesn’t meet any black or Latino in the group of new recruits. He realizes the potential trouble for the US economy as more companies hire non US employees to get their work done. As juxtaposition, he describes the meeting with a group of union leaders of a plant on the verge of laying off American workers. Now as we know that he has announced large stimulus packages to kick start economic activity, it comes as no surprise to read “…in each and every period of great economic upheaval and transition we’ve depended on Government action to open up opportunity, encourage competition, and make the market work better”. Some of these give broad outlines on how the president may act on grave issues that need American action.

He proceeds to suggest three investments to make America “more competitive in the global economy” – investments in education with reforms of high impact on student achievement, in science and technology with focus on R&D, in energy infrastructure to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels. One of my favorite chapters, Obama ends with an explanation of his vote against Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), as a “means of registering protest against White House’s inattention to the losers from free trade”.

Faith:

Tackling the issues of abortion and gay marriage which we know dominated the discourse of debates in the run up to the Presidential elections, Mr. Obama feels his pro-choice stance and stand on homosexuality makes him “human and limited in the understandings of God’s purpose”.

Race:

Obama clearly acknowledges on the issue of race that, there is a need to “acknowledge the sins of the past and the challenges of the present without becoming trapped in cynicism and despair”. There is optimism and subtlety employed judiciously to defend affirmative action and placing some responsibilities on the minorities. In his earnestness to address the nexus of unemployment and crime, there is the urge to tackle the root causes impeding progress. Will any Indian Politician boldly address the pathetic infrastructure of the public school system and wean the focus away from just quantity to a combination of quality and quantity?

The Outer World:

Titled “The World beyond our borders”, Obama traces the rise and fall of the land he grew up in – Indonesia. After reading this, what stays with the reader is the trajectory of US foreign policy from isolationist sentiment in the world war era to the interference of today. How successive US Presidents felt the pressure to sound “hard” on communism, how certain resultant policies led to a loss of credibility – there is a touch of candid and critical self introspection.

Family:

Obama ends the book by ravishing praise on his wife and commenting on the increasing role of women as breadwinners. It is a fitting end by a man who loves his family as much as his nation.

In its sweeping look at history, broad and honest examination of grave issues, it is an engrossing read and one that is strongly recommended.

The first time I saw George Fernandes was outside Pune railway station when he was addressing a rather sparsely attended public meeting. Although the crowd was not large, they were also those who were listening with rapt attention with an attitude akin to hero worship. He was in his usual crumpled kurta and pajama, speaking on a subject which I can’t remember. But I do remember stopping in my tracks, watching to gawk at a person, who in his time had become a mythical figure. He had arrived on the political scene by emerging as a major trade union leader from Mumbai, and had defeated the local Congress satrap, S.K.Patil in a surprise defeat that ended his political career.

Of course, the legend of George Fernandes was born during the emergency or a little before in 1974 when he organized a railway strike of such proportions that it is still remembered. The railway strike is considered to be one of the factors that eventually pushed Indira Gandhi to the wall and made her declare a state of emergency. His escapades on numerous occasions and eventual arrest further added to his aura. Post emergency, “ giant killer”, George Fernandes became known for espousing socialism by kicking out giant companies like Coca Cola and IBM out of the country.

George in his time was an effective leader who began well but has ended his political career miserably losing as an independent candidate from Muzaffarpur to an octogenarian Ram Sundar Das, after being disowned by his own party, the Janta Dal (United). The journey from his native Mangalore to Muzaffarpur via Mumbai has taken George 79 years, but the unnoticed fading into oblivion in the last election, where the once famed giant killer managed just 22, 00 odd votes’ shows that the lion has roared its last roar and has now no bark left. Vajpayee has earned much more respect after fading out gracefully after losing the 2004 elections and not contesting at all this time.

The debate as to whether politicians should have a retirement age will never end. After all, politics is a form of public service which typically a citizen ought to be engaged in all of his or her active life. May be politics has become a debased form of public service – but let us not forget that in its essence that is what it is. But whether it is the sports field, or the political arena or the field of public service, the discernment to guess when one’s time is over and to retire gracefully while some luster still remains attached to the name is an art not many learn.

Consider the case of the Marxist patriarch Jyoti Basu. After serving as the chief minister of West Bengal for more than 25 years, he stepped down from the post and then gradually from other party positions within his party – the CPI (M) but remains widely consulted and relevant and possibly more astute than those in formal positions of authority. He knew when to bow out and there by only increased his influence and standing in public life.

George saab began well as an activist who could bring the most powerful powers and personalities to their knees. That time he was altruistic. But along the way, he jettisoned not only his socialist and secular ideology but acquired for himself the sobriquet of the supreme opportunist. Who could sell his soul not once, but perhaps many times over?

The George Fernandes era is over and he is not coming back. But by not knowing when to step out of the arena and leave the team to others, he might have lost, not just his soul but his legacy too.