What exactly does Ram Puniyani want?

I did not really know much about Ram Puniyani till a friend of mine shared a Youtube video of his speech on History (Will address that issue in a different post.). And when I decided to do a google search to know more about him; I came across this article, where he tried to "decipher" the 2014 Lok Sabha poll verdict. Most of his articles appeared in sites that seem to have a predictably similar tone.
       This post is not meant to support or oppose any Political party; but rather try to look at what really are Mr.Ram's concerns. Here's a quoted passage from his article:

The results of Parliamentary Elections were very interesting. With 31% vote share BJP-Modi won 282 parliamentary seats, Congress with 19% vote share got 44 seats, BSP polled 4.1 percent of votes and drew a total blank, the Trinamool Congress won 34 seats with 3.8 percent of vote share, Samajwadi Party won 3.4 percent with five MPs, AIADMK with 3.3 got 37 seats, Mamta with 3.8% of vote share got 32 seats while CPIM with 3.3 percent of vote share got only nine seats.We should note that this time around Congress’s 19.3% votes translated into 44 seats while during the last general elections of 2009, BJP’s 18.5% had fetched it 116 seats. That’s a tale by itself, the crying need for electoral reforms which has been pending despite such glaring disparities which weaken the representative character of our Parliament. Many social activists have been asking for these reforms but in vain.

  When an existing system doesn't work well, we either need to look at a better Alternative or look for steps that can modify and reform the Current system to make it work well. This kinda disparity in vote-share translating to seats isn't uncommon in a First-Past-the-Post system of Electing our representatives in a Parliamentary Democracy. So, what are the alternatives? A Proportional Representation? That'll only throw in further chaos; as the highest vote-share any single party has won in Lok Sabha polls was 48%+ in 1984 General Elections; with 35% vote share fetching just 35% of Seats; it is unlikely that we can witness a stable government in such a fragmented House.
     And if a person has better capability of understanding the numbers, he'll not really complain so childishly about the vote-share disparities. It's true that BJP won only 18.8% of popular vote in 2009, while Congress won 19.3% of votes in 2014 winning just 44. But the difference essentially is in the seats contested. While the BJP contested in 433 seats in 2009, Congress contested in 462 seats in 2014; thus the percentage of votes won in seats contested is higher for BJP in 2009 (23.575%) than for Congress in 2014 (22.68%), it might be <1% difference over-all, but that much is enough to create many an upset. (The percentage of votes won in seats contested stats will look skewed in the case of regional parties aspiring to be National forces, as they may put up candidates in far more constituencies than where they have a "winning chance".) Another way of looking at it is that in 2009, BJP had at-least retained base in its strongholds like Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgadh while consolidating its hold over Karnataka and performing decently as an alliance partner in Maharashtra and Bihar; but failed miserably elsewhere and losing the gains it made in less stronger areas during the 1990s; whereas Congress has not fared well anywhere in India except Kerala to an extent, however it retained its loyal vote-base all over India (Barring Andhra Pradesh, where it totally lost its base and Delhi) while failing to make much gains from the 14 cr+ new voters, thus resulting in very few leads (44).
     And regarding BSP failing to open account despite polling 4.1% of votes, while ADMK winning 37 seats polling 3.3% votes; it's a case of moderate revenue giving higher dividends. BSP being a major force in UP, polled most of these votes from 80 Lok Sabha Constituencies and that was not enough; while AIADMK contested 40 seats; for which 3.3% of National vote is more than enough to win 37 seats (3.3/40>4/90). One way to remove this disparity maybe possible by preventing Regional parties which have bases in selected areas from contesting; this again would not solve the problem, as Regional forces enjoy support mainly because either of the Major National parties failed to completely address the aspirations of some sections of a region's population. Frankly, this isn't a problem. If BSP contested just 40 seats of UP and bagged same number of votes as ADMK and still lost; then some reforms maybe needed to address this.

Kejrival’s AAP definitely split the anti-Modi votes with great success. AAP put more than 400 candidates and most of them lost their deposits. 

This again is a laughable conclusion. AAP's impact was limited to Delhi and Punjab. In Delhi, AAP stood second in all 7 constituencies. In a 3-way race between A,B and C; B will gain from anti-votes of both A and C. While, BJP won 46.4% of votes, AAP and Congress together too has edge of just 1.6% more; so if AAP was not in the scenario; the fraction of anti-Congress votes it polled would go entirely to BJP and it would have still swept all the 7 Seats, as it would have polled more than 50% of the votes. A party that won 46.4% in a 3-way contest is more likely gain from the absence of a 3rd major force; than a party that won a meager 15.1%. The 1-2% votes that AAP polled in Maharashtra or MP or Rajasthan won't make much difference; as the NDA polled more than 50% of the votes in those states.

If one examines the overall scatter of the areas where BJP has won, a very disturbing fact comes out. While at surface the plank of development ruled the roost, there is definitely the subtle role played by communal polarization. BJP has mostly succeeded in areas where communal polarization has already been accomplished through communal violence or terrorist violence. Maharashtra, Gujarat, UP, MP, Bihar, Assam all these have seen massive communal violence in the recent past. While the states which have not come under the sway of BJP-Modi are the one’s which have been relatively free from communal violence, viz.,  Tamil Nadu, Bengal and Kerala in particular. Orissa is a bit of an exception, where despite the Kandhmal violence, Navin Patnaik’s party is holding its ground.

This is a blatant lie, an attempt at undermining the verdict. While the BJP did win highest number of seats in Assam (7/14),its performance cannot be compared with the clean sweep it achieved in Delhi, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan nor the near sweep it achieved in Jharkhand, Chattisgadh and fine performance in Karnataka,Haryana. In fact it polled 36.5% votes in Assam, while it polled over 50% vote share in some of the states that I mentioned and 45%+ in Delhi and Chattisgadh. Did these states witness any massive communal violence since 2000?  In the Assembly polls held  immediately after the 2002 Riots; the BJP won a vote-share of 49.85% in Gujarat. Whereas, it won an awesome 59.1% of vote-share in 2014 Lok Sabha polls, the highest voter turnout witnessed in Gujarat for a Lok Sabha poll was clearly due to the eagerness in having their Gujarati "Son of the Soil" elected as the Prime Minister, and can't be attributed to any recent "massive" Communal violence,as we've not heard of any big Riot that occurred in recent years there. Even in 1984 polls, the INC didn't bag more than 53% of votes in Gujarat. In Madhya Pradesh, the BJP polled 10 percentage points more than it did in 2013 Assembly Elections held in December. So, what is the major incident that occurred in MP, which we all failed to notice and resulted in such a massive sweep in favor of a party (54%+ vote share)? The last major Communal riots that hit Bihar was in 1989 (Bhagalpur Riots). You can't attribute over 50% or ~47% vote share achieved in many states to big Riots that occurred eons ago; when no party achieved the same numbers in those states in the polls immediately after such Polarisation influencing incidents. The NDA lost all seats in Mumbai-Thane region in 2009 LS Elections, despite the major Terrorist attacks that hit Mumbai in November 26 2008. So, you can't attribute the 50.2%  votes polled by the Mahayuti (NDA) to an incident that happened 6 years ago, when it couldn't make gains in an election that happened barely 6 months after that incident. I'm not saying that the states he mentioned are free from Communal tension, several incidents of violence have been reported there in recent years , but those are mostly minor and restricted to a town or a Colony with no far reaching consequences barring the Unfortunate 2013 Muzaffarnagar Riots; in-fact even Kerala ranks high among states that witnessed many communal clashes in recent years.
      Ram's complaints seem to be that the party he didn't want to win has somehow won and hence, he wants the Elections system to be reformed. If his complaints are regarding the Communal polarization influencing the Results, this can happen on an even higher scale in a Presidential style system; if a powerful Leader decides to portray himself as a representative of the majority and he would even be free from the problems that a party faces in a Parliamentary system like lack of good cadre or candidates in some regions or constituencies. The real way of addressing it is through Law and Order reforms and Economic reforms too so that the Insecurity factor dies down. His complaints look similar to that of an average Cricket fan who cries over the Duckworth-Lewis method; if the result it gave in a Rain-affected match doesn't go in his favorite team's favor. It would be better if he accepted the people's verdict and moved on.
PS: I do think we need Electoral reforms to allot more Seats for some states. For example, Bihar and West Bengal are more populated than earlier united Andhra Pradesh, yet Bihar is represented by only 40 Lok Sabha MPs, West Bengal by 42 MPs, while united AP sent 42 MPs to the Lok Sabha.   

The truth about the Gazetteer.

 More than a couple of years ago, I read a speech delivered by former Supreme Court judge Markendaya Katju "What is India". A fairly lengthy speech covering a good deal of topics primarily concerning pluralism and the way forward for India, I considered it to be a good read. However, 6 months earlier as I was browsing through books on History available in the Public Domain, a report in a Gazetteer struck me. Having read that report, I had decided to re-read a particular portion of the Speech again. Well, here it is:

      If you go online and read the speech “History in the Service of Imperialism”, you will know how the British policy was to make Hindus and Muslims inimical to each other. For instance, B.N.Pandey has mentioned that in 1928, when he was a Professor of History in Allahabad University, some students came to him with a book written by Professor Harprasad Shastri, Professor of Sanskrit in Calcutta University, in which it was mentioned that Tipu Sultan told 3,000 Brahmins to convert to Islam or otherwise they would be killed, and those 3,000 Brahmins committed suicide rather than become Muslims. On reading this, Prof. B. N. Pandey wrote to Professor Harprasad Shastri asking him the source of his information. Prof. Shastri wrote back that the source of information was the Mysore Gazetteer. Then Prof. Pandey wrote to Prof. Srikantia, Professor of History in Mysore University, asking him whether it was correct that the Mysore Gazetteer mentioned that Tipu Sultan had told 3,000 Brahmins to convert to Islam. Prof. Srikantia wrote back that this was totally false. He had worked in that field and there was no such mention in the Mysore Gazetteer; rather the correct version was just the reverse, namely, that Tipu Sultan used to give annual grants to 156 Hindu temples, he used to send grants to the Sankaracharya of Sringeri, etc.

It's probably true that there was no mention of it in the Mysore Gazetteer, but it was indeed mentioned in the Gazetteer of The Bombay Presidency (1883 Volume XXIII)

The hitch in the terms of the treaty between the Nizam and the Marathas gave Tipu time to strengthen his northern outposts. The siege of Nargund in Dhdrwar and Tipu's treachery to its chief, the forced conversion of Hindus, the suicide of 2000 Brahmans to avoid circumcision, and the threatened attack on the Nizam stirred the Marathas and the Nizam to action.

   This para appears in pg no. 443 of this book. In my opinion, this is nothing short of an Intellectual dishonesty,as B N Pandey through his speech has mislead the readers into believing that the incident didn't occur by cleverly hiding name of the source which mentioned the incident. The person whom Katju quoted- B.N. Pande has passed away long ago; so I would rather like to ask Mr. Katju why he, being a former Judge forgot to verify the sources before quoting it as part of a speech?

A Fresh start!

Decided to junk my earlier blog, as I very rarely posted stuff that's insightful; most of the posts were either impulsive or too politically correct.  In this new blog, I've decided to make a fresh start to come up with more meaningful stuff-I might be apolitical but not politically correct and most of the posts will seek to address and challenge the Conventional narrative. The purpose of this blog is to provide a different perspective. :)