B.R.P.Bhaskar
IANS
A landslide victory in last month's local elections has heightened the United Democratic Front's (UDF) hopes of returning to power in Kerala in next year's assembly elections but the Congress, which heads the alliance, may be exulting too soon. Its position is not as rosy as it imagines.
The credit for the UDF victory belongs not so much to the Congress as to its allies who helped consolidate minority support behind the UDF after the Communist Party of India- Marxist (CPI-M), which heads the rival Left Democratic Front (LDF), antagonised Muslims and Christians.
Kerala had created history in 1957 by voting the undivided Communist Party to office. It created history again in 1959 by staging a 'liberation struggle', which provided the centre with the excuse to dismiss the Communist government while it enjoyed majority support in the assembly.
The local election vote was 'liberation' by other means. All the forces which had joined hands in 1959 to oust the Communists from power came together again to end their reign over local bodies. The only exception was the Nair Service Society, the forward Hindu community's organization, which now officially follows a policy of equidistance from the two fronts.
In the local elections of 2004, the LDF had secured control of all five city corporations, 12 of the 14 district panchayats, a large majority of the municipalities and block panchayats and two-thirds of the village panchayats. This year, for the first time, the UDF seized control of a majority of local bodies at all levels with the exception of city corporations, where the LDF was able to retain a slender 3-2 lead.
The LDF victory in the 2006 assembly poll came as a hat-trick after successive wins in the Lok Sabha and local elections. In the past three decades, people have voted the LDF and the UDF to power in the state alternately. After successive drubbings in Lok Sabha and local elections, the LDF now faces the possibility of a reverse hat-trick.
The local elections victory has boosted the image of the state Congress leadership, now firmly in the hands of Leader of Opposition Oommen Chandy and Pradesh Congress Committee president Ramesh Chennithala.
For decades, the party had witnessed continuous infighting between an 'I' faction, named for Indira Gandhi, and an 'A' faction, named for A.K. Antony. Oommen Chandy inherited the 'A' faction when Antony moved to the centre. Ramesh Chennithala, a former protege of K. Karunakaran, gathered around him the remnants of the 'I' faction when the veteran walked out of the party, peeved with his neglect by the high command. With Sonia Gandhi backing them to the hilt, the Chandy-Chennithala 'jodi' established a condominium.
Karunakaran, 92, is back in the party but too old and weak to challenge the duo, whose clout is evident from the way they have delayed the return of his son and former state Congress president K. Muraleedharan. He had left the party with Karunakaran but did not return with him. When he finally expressed readiness to return Chandy and Chennithala reacted coolly and the high command did not want to go against their wishes.
While the Chandy-Chennithala combine is in an unassailable position within the Congress, the party's position in the UDF has weakened. The party's electoral performance under them pales into insignificance beside the strides made by its partners, the Indian Union Muslim League and the Kerala Congress (Mani).
The League is in a position to wield power on its own in many local bodies in its stronghold, the Muslim-majority Malappuram district, which happens to be the most populous one in the state. Unable to agree on the division of seats, the Congress and the League had opposed each other in some parts of the district. The League trounced the Congress in those areas. That puts the League in a commanding position.
In areas with a concentration of Christians, the Kerala Congress similarly outperformed the Congress. Its leader, K.M. Mani, had once described the party as one that "splits as it grows, and grows as it splits". He recently strengthened it by wooing back the breakaway factions led by P.J. Joseph and P.C. George, which were in the LDF during the last assembly elections and had helped it attract Christian votes.
Across the state, the UDF polled 15.65 lakh votes more than the LDF. Malappuram alone contributed a lead of more than four lakhs. Kottayam and Ernakulam districts, which have significant Christian populations, provided a lead of more than three lakhs.
The Church, which runs many schools and colleges, was annoyed with the LDF government's education policy. It reportedly played a role in the merger of the Kerala Congress factions. The CPI-M distanced itself from its former Muslim supporters since the Lok Sabha results showed that the association with some of them had cost it many votes. The bid to make up the loss of minority votes by appealing to majority sentiments did not succeed.
The change of government in the state every five years has been made possible by a swing of the pendulum in the southern districts of Thiruvananthapuram, Kollam and Alappuzha. As the minority parties command little influence in the region, elections there are a direct trial of strength between the CPI-M and the Congress. The LDF's lead of about 80,000 votes over the UDF in these districts is something the Congress has to worry about.
Showing posts with label Panchayats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Panchayats. Show all posts
Monday, November 22, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Gearing up for a decisive poll
BRP Bhaskar
Gulf Today
Besides the long-established political parties, a host of smaller entities, many of them with no political affiliation, are preparing to contest the local self-government institutions (LSGIs) in Kerala, which is likely to be held towards the end of September.
LSGIs constitute the lowest levels of administration. They are bodies elected to exercise authority at the district, block and town and village levels.
As in the elections to Parliament and the State Assembly, the main contenders for power in LSGIs are the Left Democratic Front and the United Democratic Front. Traditionally, the LDF has had an edge over the UDF, thanks to the well-oiled election machinery of the Communist Party of India-Marxist, which heads the alliance.
In the last elections, held in 2005, the CPI-M got control of all five city corporations, all but one of 14 district panchayats, a majority of the municipal councils and block panchayats and nearly 700 out of about 1,000 village panchayats.
A series of reverses suffered by the CPI-M in by-elections to local bodies held during the past year point to erosion of its mass base. With a disastrous Lok Sabha poll behind it and new Assembly elections less than a year away, it has much at stake in the LSGI elections.
This is one reason why the CPI-M, which limited the role of small LDF constituents four years ago, is now willing to placate even the smallest splinter group. It recently decided to retain the breakaway P C Thomas faction of the Kerala Congress (Joseph) in the alliance and welcomed back the National Congress Party which had been shown the door earlier.
Originally, the panchayat system did not envisage division along party lines. However, lately local bodies too have become an arena of partisan warfare.
The last LDF government had initiated a programme of democratic decentralisation and people’s participation in the planning process. It generated a lot of enthusiasm, which evaporated fast. People’s interest in local bodies waned as parties which controlled them resorted to favouritism.
The coming elections are the first since women’s reservation in LSGIs was raised from 33 per cent to 50 per cent. When women’s reservation was introduced, the political parties drafted wives and daughters of their leaders as candidates. The CPI-M picked candidates from the ranks of its student and women’s affiliates too.
When elected, these candidates generally acted as proxies for male party functionaries. Those who refused to do so were reined in. As a result, women’s empowerment, the proclaimed objective of reservation, remains unrealised.
The Bharatiya Janata Party and the People’s Democratic Party of Abdul Naser Mahdani, which fought LSGI elections in the past and are holding the balance between the LDF and the UDF in some local bodies, are hoping to improve their position this time.
Several new players are also preparing to enter the arena. They include the Bahujan Samaj Party, the Social Democratic Party of India, the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Dalit Human Rights Movement.
The BSP, a recognised national party which is in power in Uttar Pradesh, has only a small presence in Kerala. The SDPI is the political wing of the Popular Front of India, which is under a cloud following the arrest of several of its members in connection with the chopping of the hand of a college teacher at Muvattupuzha, allegedly as punishment for denigration of the Prophet (PBUH).
The Jamaat and the SDPI have done considerable groundwork in areas where they have influence. Both the groups are planning to field Muslim women in constituencies where the community has substantial presence.
A large number of civic groups involved in agitations over environmental and developmental issues are also likely to contest the elections. They want to challenge the stranglehold of the LDF and the UDF on state politics. CPI-M dissidents may also enter the fray.
All this invests the LSGI elections with unusual significance. The outcome of the election may well decide whether the present two-front system can survive for survive.
With many forces vying with one another, multi-cornered contests are inevitable. The resulting splintering of votes will work to the advantage of the two fronts. Realising this, the small entities are exploring the possibility of coming together on a common platform. All of them agree on the need to eliminate corruption and favouritism which are rampant in LSGIs today.
Gulf Today
Besides the long-established political parties, a host of smaller entities, many of them with no political affiliation, are preparing to contest the local self-government institutions (LSGIs) in Kerala, which is likely to be held towards the end of September.
LSGIs constitute the lowest levels of administration. They are bodies elected to exercise authority at the district, block and town and village levels.
As in the elections to Parliament and the State Assembly, the main contenders for power in LSGIs are the Left Democratic Front and the United Democratic Front. Traditionally, the LDF has had an edge over the UDF, thanks to the well-oiled election machinery of the Communist Party of India-Marxist, which heads the alliance.
In the last elections, held in 2005, the CPI-M got control of all five city corporations, all but one of 14 district panchayats, a majority of the municipal councils and block panchayats and nearly 700 out of about 1,000 village panchayats.
A series of reverses suffered by the CPI-M in by-elections to local bodies held during the past year point to erosion of its mass base. With a disastrous Lok Sabha poll behind it and new Assembly elections less than a year away, it has much at stake in the LSGI elections.
This is one reason why the CPI-M, which limited the role of small LDF constituents four years ago, is now willing to placate even the smallest splinter group. It recently decided to retain the breakaway P C Thomas faction of the Kerala Congress (Joseph) in the alliance and welcomed back the National Congress Party which had been shown the door earlier.
Originally, the panchayat system did not envisage division along party lines. However, lately local bodies too have become an arena of partisan warfare.
The last LDF government had initiated a programme of democratic decentralisation and people’s participation in the planning process. It generated a lot of enthusiasm, which evaporated fast. People’s interest in local bodies waned as parties which controlled them resorted to favouritism.
The coming elections are the first since women’s reservation in LSGIs was raised from 33 per cent to 50 per cent. When women’s reservation was introduced, the political parties drafted wives and daughters of their leaders as candidates. The CPI-M picked candidates from the ranks of its student and women’s affiliates too.
When elected, these candidates generally acted as proxies for male party functionaries. Those who refused to do so were reined in. As a result, women’s empowerment, the proclaimed objective of reservation, remains unrealised.
The Bharatiya Janata Party and the People’s Democratic Party of Abdul Naser Mahdani, which fought LSGI elections in the past and are holding the balance between the LDF and the UDF in some local bodies, are hoping to improve their position this time.
Several new players are also preparing to enter the arena. They include the Bahujan Samaj Party, the Social Democratic Party of India, the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Dalit Human Rights Movement.
The BSP, a recognised national party which is in power in Uttar Pradesh, has only a small presence in Kerala. The SDPI is the political wing of the Popular Front of India, which is under a cloud following the arrest of several of its members in connection with the chopping of the hand of a college teacher at Muvattupuzha, allegedly as punishment for denigration of the Prophet (PBUH).
The Jamaat and the SDPI have done considerable groundwork in areas where they have influence. Both the groups are planning to field Muslim women in constituencies where the community has substantial presence.
A large number of civic groups involved in agitations over environmental and developmental issues are also likely to contest the elections. They want to challenge the stranglehold of the LDF and the UDF on state politics. CPI-M dissidents may also enter the fray.
All this invests the LSGI elections with unusual significance. The outcome of the election may well decide whether the present two-front system can survive for survive.
With many forces vying with one another, multi-cornered contests are inevitable. The resulting splintering of votes will work to the advantage of the two fronts. Realising this, the small entities are exploring the possibility of coming together on a common platform. All of them agree on the need to eliminate corruption and favouritism which are rampant in LSGIs today.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Highly inflated poverty figures embarrass government
The Centre and the Kerala government have been arguing for years about the number of people below the poverty line in the State. Now the State government is at loggerheads with local self-government institutions too on this issue.
According to the National Sample Survey, India’s population below the poverty line (BPL) in 2004-05 was 22 per cent.
While in absolute terms the BPL population was substantial, the authorities said poverty was on the decline. In 1993-94 the BPL population had been estimated at 36 per cent and in 1999-2000 at 26 per cent.
In 2007, Central estimates put the number of BPL families in Kerala at 1.55 million, including 590,000 who were classified as extremely poor. It was on that basis that the Centre allotted food grains for distribution at subsidised rates through the public distribution system.
The Union Agriculture Ministry had worked out this figure on the basis of the Planning Commission’s poverty estimates for 1993-94 and the population projections made by the Registrar General of India in March 2000.
Kerala disputed this figure. Civil Supplies Minister C Divakaran claimed that there were 2.02 million BPL families in the State and demanded that the Centre allot food grains on that basis.
The Centre rejected the demand. It actually reduced the allotment as the State was not lifting the allotted quantities.
Kerala has the most extensive public distribution system in the country. It was built up decades ago when there was severe shortage of food grains and a large section of the population stood in need of subsidised rations.
As remittances from migrants working abroad boosted the State’s economy, those who could afford to buy good quality grains from the open market stopped making purchases from PDS outlets.
BPL families are entitled to various kinds of benefits under Centrally-financed schemes. For instance, at present, a BPL family gets a subsidy of Rs 50,000 for construction of house. If the family belongs to a Scheduled Caste the subsidy will be Rs 75,000. A Scheduled Tribe family will get Rs 100,000.
Also, a BPL family is entitled to a grant of Rs 5,000 for renovation of house. If it belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it will get twice that amount.
Sometimes the State modifies the Central scheme and extends benefits to more people. Under the guidelines drawn up by the Centre, only 1.18 million families in Kerala were eligible to join its free health insurance scheme for BPL families. The State decided to extend coverage to one million more families figuring in its BPL list.
The State government will pay the annual premium of Rs 550 for these families.
To make available the benefits of such schemes to more people, the State has been urging the Centre to revise the norms for identifying BPL families. Alternatively, it wants the States to be allowed to fix their own norms, taking into account local conditions.
The Centre has rejected the idea of using different standards for identifying BPL families in the different States. However, the Union Rural Development Ministry has been toying with the idea of revising the Central norms to bring them in line with the criteria adopted by Kerala.
Officials from State were invited to make a presentation before an expert committee set up the ministry to revise the norms. A newspaper report quoted a ministry official as saying, “The Kerala model is progressive and sensitive. There, poverty is understood in its totality.”
While the Kerala pattern of BPL identification is thus gaining national recognition, things have got out of hand in the State. Panchayat institutions, which were asked to draw up revised BPL lists, have came up with the highly inflated figures, making for a total of 4.8 million BPL families in the State.
Evidently, panchayats members inflated the number of persons below the poverty line in their wards with a view to cornering as much benefit as possible for their constituents.
The revised BPL lists have come as an embarrassment to the State government because, when added up, the number comes to more than twice the figure of the last count. If the government accepts this figure, it will amount to admitting that poverty, instead of going down, is going up.
Local Self-government Minister Paloli Mohammed Kutty has now asked the panchayats to rectify the anomalies. The process may take up to two years.--Gulf Today, January 12, 2009.
According to the National Sample Survey, India’s population below the poverty line (BPL) in 2004-05 was 22 per cent.
While in absolute terms the BPL population was substantial, the authorities said poverty was on the decline. In 1993-94 the BPL population had been estimated at 36 per cent and in 1999-2000 at 26 per cent.
In 2007, Central estimates put the number of BPL families in Kerala at 1.55 million, including 590,000 who were classified as extremely poor. It was on that basis that the Centre allotted food grains for distribution at subsidised rates through the public distribution system.
The Union Agriculture Ministry had worked out this figure on the basis of the Planning Commission’s poverty estimates for 1993-94 and the population projections made by the Registrar General of India in March 2000.
Kerala disputed this figure. Civil Supplies Minister C Divakaran claimed that there were 2.02 million BPL families in the State and demanded that the Centre allot food grains on that basis.
The Centre rejected the demand. It actually reduced the allotment as the State was not lifting the allotted quantities.
Kerala has the most extensive public distribution system in the country. It was built up decades ago when there was severe shortage of food grains and a large section of the population stood in need of subsidised rations.
As remittances from migrants working abroad boosted the State’s economy, those who could afford to buy good quality grains from the open market stopped making purchases from PDS outlets.
BPL families are entitled to various kinds of benefits under Centrally-financed schemes. For instance, at present, a BPL family gets a subsidy of Rs 50,000 for construction of house. If the family belongs to a Scheduled Caste the subsidy will be Rs 75,000. A Scheduled Tribe family will get Rs 100,000.
Also, a BPL family is entitled to a grant of Rs 5,000 for renovation of house. If it belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it will get twice that amount.
Sometimes the State modifies the Central scheme and extends benefits to more people. Under the guidelines drawn up by the Centre, only 1.18 million families in Kerala were eligible to join its free health insurance scheme for BPL families. The State decided to extend coverage to one million more families figuring in its BPL list.
The State government will pay the annual premium of Rs 550 for these families.
To make available the benefits of such schemes to more people, the State has been urging the Centre to revise the norms for identifying BPL families. Alternatively, it wants the States to be allowed to fix their own norms, taking into account local conditions.
The Centre has rejected the idea of using different standards for identifying BPL families in the different States. However, the Union Rural Development Ministry has been toying with the idea of revising the Central norms to bring them in line with the criteria adopted by Kerala.
Officials from State were invited to make a presentation before an expert committee set up the ministry to revise the norms. A newspaper report quoted a ministry official as saying, “The Kerala model is progressive and sensitive. There, poverty is understood in its totality.”
While the Kerala pattern of BPL identification is thus gaining national recognition, things have got out of hand in the State. Panchayat institutions, which were asked to draw up revised BPL lists, have came up with the highly inflated figures, making for a total of 4.8 million BPL families in the State.
Evidently, panchayats members inflated the number of persons below the poverty line in their wards with a view to cornering as much benefit as possible for their constituents.
The revised BPL lists have come as an embarrassment to the State government because, when added up, the number comes to more than twice the figure of the last count. If the government accepts this figure, it will amount to admitting that poverty, instead of going down, is going up.
Local Self-government Minister Paloli Mohammed Kutty has now asked the panchayats to rectify the anomalies. The process may take up to two years.--Gulf Today, January 12, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)