The War Within

If the Naxals were intending to grab the nation's attention, they certainly succeeded. Killing 80 of the Central Reserve Police Forces is usually a result achieved by militants in insurgency ridden Kashmir, doing it in the heart of the country is a completely different matter.

Dantewada in Chattisgarh, the venue of violence, is perhaps one of the least developed parts of the country. The Literacy rate totters at 30%, and two-thirds of the population are aadivasis (tribal people). It isnt a coincidence that the Naxals are found in abundance in regions with a lack of development. The Naxals use the disparity as evidence of being 'targeted' and 'dispossessed' and claim to represent the rural population, who have not shared the benefit of Indian economic progress. The Naxals aim to overthrow the Indian state, and their means for doing so are disruption; disrupting services and economic activities for taking place. The NMDC operates its largest iron-ore mine in the area, and other corporates have plans for Projects utilizing the rich natural resources in the region.

The skirmish was a deadly one; only 8 Naxals were killed to the 80 policemen. The Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, admitted that the forces had 'walked' into a rebel ambush while they were on their way back from a training exercise. The entire fiasco was humiliating as well as damning. The idea of the Indian state not being in control of the elements in its own jurisdiction is not one that has been discussed in the recent times of being tagged as an 'Emerging Superpower'.

The question of how to respond after this is not as easy as it may look. While the BJP have called out for an 'all-out-offensive' to eliminate these extremists, it might not be prudent to treat them as foreign invaders and crush them. The claim of them representing rural voices gives rise to a possibility of other villagers taking up arms if their 'representatives' are killed.

Of course, that has not stopped public opinion and outrage to demand to 'gun those ******-******* down', a tactic / way of life best left to the US military. Some have clamoured for the Armed Forces to step in and end this matter. However, after putting Rambo ideas aside, the Air Force Chief makes an excellent point of Naxals being our own citizens, and unless we are completely sure that they are enemies, we should not be using Air Force within our own borders.

Other reasonable ideas include using helicopters to assist the local police and paramilitary forces. The idea seems more feasible than MiG 21's firing missiles in the forests of Chhatisgarh, but leaves us open to a much bigger problem if the Naxals are able to bring down a helicopter and use it against the forces, following which a massive military action will take place, which would be disastrous considering it would be Indians versus Indians.

Does that mean no military action? I disagree that this problem is one that can be solved with dialogue, and no matter how badly treated the Naxals feel they are, the Dantewada attack in the words of Chidamabaran 'has shown how vicious these Naxals are capable of being'. Indeed, the attack has delegitimized the Maoist movement at an intellectual level in public discourse.

Smart, rapid and effective counter-insurgency tactics are needed. The Government should send in units of elite combatants who can scour the forests with the local policemen to hunt down armed Naxals. The right approach is not too little, and not too much.

It is not often when India chooses to take a heavy hand, but one hopes it does now -before this issue escalates.

(Credit to Pragmatic Euphony, a highly informative blog on the Indian National Interest - http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/)

The Idea of India: The Idea of Chandigarh

'The Idea of India' is perhaps one of the best written books regarding modern India's political history. Sunil Khilnani explores democracy, institution, cities and personalities in this much recommended book.

In his third chapter, titled 'Cities', Khilnani explores different Indian cities and their distinctive personalities. His explanation of Chandigarh is worth reading -

'Partition was the immediate background to the building of Chandigarh. The need for a new capital for the province of Punjab (the old capital, Lahore, had been awarded to Pakistan) presented an opportunity that matched Nehru's intention to have India break away from the existing cities - stamped by colonialism, soiled by Partition, and in the grip of often corrupt municipalities. Nehru was in search of a way to renew the city, to use it to display an Indian modernity distinct from and free of the colonial version. Like his British predecessors, he was attracted by the possibility of starting again, of constructing on an empty field a generous architectural proposition of the new India. The result was a monumental city, condemned to revolve in an external orbit around the life of its people in Punjab: a glorious stage set where tableaux of state might be enacted but lacking everyday politics.

Chandigarh was a city of politicians, bureaucrats and politics. Built after waves of post-Partition migration, it was spared inundation by the poorest and most abject. It became a terminus for the more prosperous: retired civil servants and servicemen, professionals, and a large class of their servitors. But Chandigarh lacked any of the productive capacities of modernity. Le Corbusier, its architect, was insistent that it must be solely a seat of government, not of industry and manufacture: 'one must not mix the two' he stipulated in his eccentric and imperious manual,' For the Establishment of an Immediate Statute of the Land'.'

'Although a provincial capital, Chandigarh from its inception had the status of a national project - Nehru took a personal interest in it, and it was generously funded by the national government. The site was desolate but spectacular: 400 kilometers north of New Delhi, on a plain that sloped slowly, beneath wide blue skies, towards the Himalayan foothills. 'The site chosen,' Nehru explained,' is free from existing encumberances of new towns', which would make the new city 'symbolic of the freedom of India, unfettered by traditions of the past.... an expression of the nation's faith in the future'. But Chandigarh was also, and ultimately most decisively, the fantasy of its architect.'

'The design of Chandigarh expressed one aspect of Nehru's idea of a modern India: the sense that India must free itself of both the contradictory modernity of the Raj and nostalgia for its indigenous past. It had to move forward by one decisive act that broke both with its ancient and its more recent history. The rationalist, modernist strain in Nehru's thinking obliterated the attachment to the heritage of an Indianness rooted in the past. Chandigarh boldly divested itself of history, rejecting both colonial imagery and national sentimentalism of ornament. The literal, utilitarian names of its axial avenues (Madhya Marg, Uttar Marg - Central Avenue, North Avenue) recount no nationalist history (no ubiquitous MG Road here). It has no nationalist monuments, because Le Corbusier specificially banned them.... Just as the English language placed all Indians, at least in principle, at a disadvantage of equal unfamiliarity, so, too Chandigarh could not be seized and possessed by any one group. Even those familiar with colonial architectural idioms, the bungalow and compound, could not immediately usurp this brave new reinforced concrete world.'

'The residential area was divided into thirty neighborhood blocks, or 'sectors', all organized in a repeating pattern. But the egalitarian air was illusory, since the sectors were graded by the strict ranks of administrative hierarchy. The exclusive low-numbered northern sectors, inhabited by bureaucrats and politicians, ranked above the middle class southern sectors; the high-numbered sectors housed the lowest in the hierarchy. Each sector was internally differentiated: houses were identified by plot number, and the lower the number, the larger the plot; those in the thousands were the smallest. Every Chandigarh address thus encoded fairly precise information about its owner's standing in the bureaucratic and economic hierarchy.'

'Chandigarh never achieved the cosmopolitanism it craved. Instead of ruling, enlightening and modernizing its society. this city of the the future became a museum piece in need of protection from its own violently quarreling citizens and the ravages of climate. Its vacant, eerily ordered centre was ignored by the teeming and disorganized expansion of the industrial townships of Panchkula and S.A.S Nagar, whose economic dynamism helped to make it one of India's fastest growing urban regions during the 1960s and 1970s. In that sense, it could claim a certain success. But Chandigarh failed to produce a society of secular individuals or a modernist politics: drawn into the vortex of Punjab's politics, it was turned into a cipher in a battle of communal identities.

'Chandigarh spawned further provincial 'concept' capitals: Otto Koenigsberger's Bhubhaneshwar, Bhopal and Gandhinagar - the one that most aspired to Chandigarh's image, a cruel concrete homage to Gandhi, which displaced Ahmedabad as the new capital of Gujarat.'



In these selected lines (above), Khilnani has succinctly summarized the need for Chandigarh; what the idea behind it was, and he gave his own opinion of what he felt it become. It is true that it failed to inspire similar cities across the country, but it battled the 1980 communal tensions of the Hindus and Sikhs to return to be a secular city, albeit because of a truce between the two religions. A short background of Chandigarh (circa 2009) might be useful at this point -

The first planned city of India, Chandigarh, is spread across 114 square kilometers and holds the distinction of being the city with the highest average per-capita income in the country. It is home to 3 governments, a claim no other Indian city has, with the Chandigarh UT Government being here along with the Punjab and Haryana Governments. According to a 1985 agreement by Rajiv Gandhi with the Akali Dal, Chandigarh was meant to go entirely to Punjab, but after 24 years of the agreement, it does not seem to be coming into effect anytime soon.

In Infrastructure terms on a whole, the city appears to be peerless. A 2007 study by the Asian Development Bank showed that Chandigarh had the best water supply in India, supplying water 12 hours a day compared to the 4.3 hour average of the other 20 studied cities. Also, it has the largest number of vehicles per capita in the nation. A reason cited for this are the wide and well maintained roads, often viewed as an anomaly in India.

Yet the city is trapped in a conflict. Past and the future. A visit to the city will explain it. You'll know it when you see it.

alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5353179785984437122" />

The map of Chandigarh. As Khilnani, put it, the lower the sector number, the more prestigious it is. A few points to note: Sector 13 doesnt exist, Le Corbusier was apparently superstitious. Sector 17 is exclusively the commercial centre, with no residences.



A typical roundabout which is found between the sectors. The traffic is higher than what you will typically see though.

Welcome technocrats!

In a refreshing move, the UPA Government has planned to go full steam ahead with the Unique Identity Authority of India, and they have picked a political novice (although an industry captain), Nandan Nilekani to head the Rs. 1,990 crore project, which is expected to be completed by 2011, in time for the Census.

The project aims to give every Indian citizen a unique identification number, which can do away with documents like ration cards and voter identification cards. It will be a huge boost to national security, a much needed step after the infamous 26/11 attacks. The number system will also overhaul and direct the delivery mechanism for public goods and services to intended beneficiaries. An initial Rs. 100 crore have been allocated as of now.

Nilekani had previously been the Co-Chairman of Infosys Technologies, but had always campaigned for this idea of a unique ID. In his book, he claimed that a national ID will be 'nothing less than revolutionary', and the government felt fitting to hand over this project to a technocrat, whose past experience make him an excellent candidate for the job. He had to resign from his Chairman-ship at Infosys, in order to avoid any conflict of interest, which will be effective from July 9.

This act by the UPA government, has earned itself plaudits, and it will be a major achievement if it can be completed in time. The NDA government had launched an experimental version (the Multi Purpose National Identity Card) in 2003, but had not been carried forward by the UPA in its first term. Nilekani's appointment is the second major technocrat appointment; the first being Montek Singh Ahluwalia, one of the best known Indian economists who was appointed as the Head of the Planning Commission. MIP is quite in favour of such an ambitious project, it is time to modernize our government!

Why. You. Just. Can NOT. Predict. Indian. Election. Results!

The votes are in! While many expected the Doctor to be raising his hand for the trademark (if not cliched) victory sign, few would have anticipated it barely a few hours after election results were released.

Even the most optimistic UPA figures (including those thought by themselves) did not exceed the 240 mark. Regional Heavyweights like Mulayam Singh Yadav of the SP, Lalu Prasad Yadav of the RJD and Jayalalitha of the AIADMK were being courted as allies in either an internal or external support structure to help the coalition cross the magic 272 figure mark. Of course, the results of May 16, stripped the 'kingmakers' of their regal rewards.

To recap the results,
UPA - 262 seats (+43 since GE 2004)
NDA - 157 seats (-23)
Third Front - 57 seats (-22)
BSP - 21 seats (+2)
Others - 17 seats

To compare the results with MIP Predictions,
UPA outperformed by 67 seats
NDA underperformed by 32 seats
Third Front underperformed by 43 seats
BSP underperfomed by 11 seats
Others outperformed by 7 seats

To explore where the actual results deviated from the expected, it is quite clear that the UPA's increase of seats was a direct steal from the share of its competitors, the need-for-rejuvenation NDA and the need-for-any-kind-of-stability Third Front. The Congress Party in itself, had a fantastic performance taking a total of 206 seats across the nation. The last time the Congress had such a result, the dynamic Rajiv Gandhi was at the helm. Credit is definitely due to the Congress for beating the BJP, party-for-party, by a margin of 90 seats, which can only be a termed as an absolute drumming.

Lets dive in further to analyze the UPA results.

1. The Trinamool Congress chipped in as the most valuable ally with 19 seats. The alliance with the Congress, helped it take over West Bengal, long regarded as a Left Stronghold (through the CPM).

2. The DMK came a close second with 18 seats in Tamil Nadu, exactly double of Amma's return with the AIADMK.

3. Very strong performance by the UPA (>80% of seats) in the states of:
Andhra Pradesh (95%)
Haryana (90%)
Rajasthan (80%)
Jammu & Kashmir (83%)
Kerala (80%)
Delhi (100%)
Uttrakhand (100%)

4. Strong performance by the UPA (>60% of seats) in the states of:
Punjab (62%)
West Bengal (62%)
Tamil Nadu (69%)

5. Moderate performance by the UPA (>30% of seats) in the states of:
Gujuart (42%)
Maharashtra (52%)
Madhya Pradesh (41%)
Orissa (29%)

6. Weak performance by the UPA (<30% of seats) in the states of:
Uttar Pradesh (26%)
Jharkand (21%)
Karnataka (21%)
Himachal Pradesh (25%)

Do note that this weak performance only represents arithmetic numbers. In reality, the UPA has perfomed exceptionally well to even get this 20-30% share in some states like UP or Karnataka. The dominance of regional heavyweights are often the cause of a poor show by national parties.

The UPA had very few Zeros - Small North-Eastern States like Sikkim and Nagaland and Union Territories like Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Daman & Diu.

The Final scorecard of the UPA reads as: 7-3-4-4 (only taking major states into account).

Comparing the results to GE 2004, the main increases of the UPA were:
Uttar Pradesh (200% increase)
Punjab (300% increase)
Rajasthan (400% increase)
Jammu & Kashmir (150% increase)
Kerala (a phenomenal 1500% increase, the tally of only 1 seat in 2004 rising to 16 in 2009)
West Bengal (333% increase)
Madhya Pradesh (200% increase)
Orissa (100% increase)

The main declines were seen in:
Bihar (93% decrease)
Jharkand (75% decrease)
Tamil Nadu (25% decrease)
Himachal Pradesh (67% decrease)

While the UPA camp is a happy one, the NDA is hardly 'Shining'. The BJP itself fell from its 2004 position of 138 seats to 116 seats. Some reasons for the dismal performance of the NDA:

1. The departure of Naveen Patnaik's Biju Janata Dal (BJD) from the NDA weakened the chances of getting seats in Orissa. The BJD ultimately got 14 out of the 21 seats in Orissa, with the NDA failing to capture even 1.

2. Poor performance of the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) in Punjab. While in power via the Badals in the Vidhan Sabha, the BJP-SAD combo failed to take over Punjab. The alliance only gave 5 out of the 13 seats, with the UPA securing the remaining 8.

3. Failure to do well in South India. While the Congress enjoys a pan-India reputation, the BJP is largely a North India party catering to the Hindi heartland. In South India (barring Karnataka), the NDA took a real whacking. 2 seats of 42 in Andhra Pradesh, none in Kerala or Tamil Nadu have practically cost it the election. In the same 3 states, the UPA took a mammoth 83 out of the 101 seats.

A more detailed state-wise analysis of the NDA:

1. Very strong performance by the NDA (>80% of seats) in the states of:
Bihar (80%)
Chhatisgarh (91%)

2. Strong performance by the NDA (>60% of the seats) in the states of:
Karnataka (68%)
Himachal Pradesh (75%)

3. Moderate performance by the NDA (>30% of the seats) in the states of:
Gujuarat (58%)
Jharkand (57%)
Punjab (38%)
Maharashtra (42%)
Madhya Pradesh (55%)
Assam (36%)

4. Weak perfomance by the NDA (<30% of the seats) in the states of:
Uttar Pradesh (19%)
Andhra Pradesh (5%)
Rajasthan (16%)
West Bengal (2%)

The NDA had much more 0s than the UPA. In Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Delhi, Kerala, Orissa and several North-Eastern states, the NDA failed to register a single seat. With a scorecard of 2-2-6-4 can hardly compete with the 7-3-4-4 of the UPA.

But the NDA arent the biggest losers of this campaign. Not by a long shot. See the results of the Left and try and not think about the words 'crushing defeat'. Quite tough.

The CPI and the CPM in total polled 24 seats, a 29 seat decline from the 53 seats captured in 2004. The Communist bastions of Kerala and West Bengal are now UPA strongholds. In Kerala, the Left only took 20% of the seats, while in West Bengal, its 35% capture was insufficient to block the advances of the UPA. It was quite amazing to see Prakash Karat pull off a faint smile, while reporters all over for screeching questions about the reasons for this defeat.

Now that we are on the Losers column, let us also talk about the heartland trio - Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal and Lok Jan Shakti Party.

The SP saw a fall of 13 seats to end with 23 seats. Perhaps Mulayam Singh Yadav's idea of removing computers and teaching of English was not as visionary as he thought.

Lalu's RJD was embarassed with a 20 seat loss, ending with simply 4 seats. The ex-Railways Minister will find no place for himself in the Cabinet this time around.

If the RJD was embarassed, the LJP was humiliated. Ram Vilas Paswan's party lost his 4 seats and has failed to find representation in the Lok Sabha.

Sharad Pawar of the NCP has been remarkably quiet about his chances for the Top Job. He probably realized that his party's return of 9 seats was not impressive in an alliance of 262 seats.

The most quiet person of this elections has probably been Mayawati. While the Bahujan Samaj Party got a decent return of 21 seats, there is no reason for the UPA to invite her to join the alliance. External support may be considered for the UPA to cross the 272 mark, but she is not going to have as imporant a role in the national polity as she would have hoped for. The BSP is also quite weak outside of the UP, its only other seat coming in Madhya Pradesh.

Special mention to Nitish Kumar, whose JD(U) in Bihar won 20 out of the 40 seats. The Lalu era is practically over, and Nitish's popularity continues to rise.

Rahul Gandhi's work in UP seems to have paid off well. He seems at ease in the Engine of the Congress, and seems to getting the right seasoning. Lets hope Rajiv's son has inherited many of his father's qualities.

The 'Brat' (Varun Gandhi) won the Pilihibit Constituency by receiving 49.79% of the total votes casted (over 4.19 lakh votes). MIP's Idol-in-Chief Shashi Tharoor is also an MP now, winning the Trivandrum constituency in Kerala. Tharoor beat his nearest rival by over 1 lakh votes. Meera Sanyal, however, did not enjoy success. She barely polled over 5000 votes, and quite easily beaten by the incumbent Milind Deora.

To end this mammoth article, MIP would like to congratulate the UPA and the Congress, for their excellent results. While personal opinion supports the NDA and the BJP, MIP realizes the need for stability and continuity and prefers a government that will not have to face no-confidence motions any time its allies feel like making a U-turn. Well done. Heres hoping to 5 more years of India Shining! :P

Before I forget, isnt this picture really, really funny?

Know your MP!

Do you know your MP?

Well I do know the name of my constituency's (Chandigarh) representative - Pawan Kumar Bansal. And I do know that he's part of the Indian National Congress. Apart from that, I confess I don't really know anything.

But perhaps maybe we should care a bit more. We do tend to spend too much time looking at affairs at the Centre level; will the Left rejoin the UPA this time around? Fascinating political stuff no doubt, but not one to directly impact our everyday lives. Our own local MP - slightly more relevant!

Every election has its fair share of independent candidates, more than what you think. They usually have low profiles, low finances, hardly a clear political mandate, and ultimately tend to fail miserably at the ballot box. But a few times, some committed independents do stand a chance - when the electorate is fed up of the existing options and the new option resembles a breath of fresh air.

Take the case of Meera Sanyal, whose enjoyed a lot of publicity recently. The current Chief Executive of ABN Amro in India, Sanyal has taken a sabbatical from work and has announced her candidature in the upcoming General Elections of 2009 from the South Mumbai constituency. Inspired by the outburst of the general public in the aftermath of the 26/11 terrorist attacks, Sanyal's campaign slogan is 'lets get Mumbai back on track'. She proclaims her 'Punch-a-mantra' as -

1. More Investment for Infrastructure in Mumbai
2. A Radically Improved Public Transport System
3. Stronger Security
4. Systemic Reforms through the Nagara Raj Bill
5. Directly Elected and Empowered Mayor

See something different? Any mention of reservations in educational institutions for any particular caste? What about points for or against the Indo-US Nuclear Deal? What about 'realistic claims' like fixing the price of rice of Rs. 2 per kg?

In fact, there are no national issues at stake here. All 5 points concern MUMBAI, which happens to be the very location of the seat being contested. Before deriding the sarcasm, do think how many other candidates talk seriously about local issues. And when do you ever listen to them? I'm pretty sure if youre a BJP / Congress supporter, you'll vote for pretty much anyone who your preferred party will put up to contest the elections. Kumar this time, Raj the next, who cares about the guy? After all, isnt it more important to make sure the right party comes to power at the Centre?

Not quite. Let me refresh what I wrote in an earlier article (System Overhaul?)-

'The point of parliamentary democracy is to choose your own area's representatives. These representatives, based on ideologies are members of political parties. And the party with the most number of seats in the national assembly chooses a representative to lead the government, and effectively, the country.'

It makes more sense to vote for who the right MP is. And if you agree so much with your preferred party, you really should agree with their candidate, right?

Sanyal's announcement has gained national publicity. Her idea is good, tackling real issues is what politics is intended to be. But dont fool yourself into thinking that she is a front runner. The odds are still stacked against her. She might have the support of the English-speaking, but in a representative democracy, the masses are what win you the seat. And wherever the masses are involved, a huge amount of unpredictability follows. MIP does wish Sanyal luck, if she is true to her word, Mumbai will stand to benefit greatly.

But what about all you other readers residing in different parts of the country? Do you know your MP? Well very simply, just long on to - http://www.hindustantimes.com/Loksabha2009/

Type in your location to personalize your election page. A resident of Kolkata, after simply trying 'Kolkata' will get access to all 42 MP's from West Bengal. If you live in the 'Calcutta North East' constituency, simply click on the name of the constituency and you will see that your MP is Mohammed Salim, a 46 year old representative of the CPI(M), attended 87% of Parliamentary meetings, and participated in 59 Parliamentary debates.

Similarly, you can see 'Development Data' as of 2008, compared with that of 2004, to see the progress made under the incumbent MP. Lastly, Hindustan Times provided location-customized election news. So now you can keep track of the politics concerning the area where you reside!

Go ahead, have a look. Know more about your MP. Judge for yourself from the development data whether he's done a good job. The General Elections are for determining the next National Government, but are also for determining the fates of 552 constituencies all around the country.

Calling for Guest Articles!

Do excuse the the inappropriateness of using a US Military Voluntary Draft poster for recruiting Indian Political Commentators, but the phrase 'We Want You' is rarely put across in a better way. :)

Modern Indian Politics invites guest articles, opinions and even rants about information relating to Modern + Indian + Politics. While pieces relating to current affairs are the most preferred, please feel free to bring back historical issues, as well as predictions on how you expect things to become. With the delicate relationship of Politics with the Economy, articles about the Indian economy might also be a good idea.

Please email articles to modernindianpolitics@gmail.com in the next few weeks. Brevity and conciseness always make for good articles, but if you enjoy a healthy one-sided rant, do send that too. Selected articles will be published with full details of the Guest Author.

Let the writing commence!

GE 2009: The Politikal Prediction

Its that time of the decade again. The General Elections are here, with the first phase of voting having taken place yesterday (May 16). The nation waits with baited breath for its next Government, for a new set of policies impacting the economy, every state and every citizen in some way or the other.

After studying each state, and looking back at GE 2004's results, these are my predictions for the 2009 Indian General Elections:

UPA - 221 seats
NDA - 188 seats
Third Front - 91 seats
BSP - 32 seats
Others - 10 seats
Total - 542 seats

Mayawati is going to play the role of 'kingmaker' this time. While she will not become the Prime Minister this time (Third Front + BSP = 133 seats), both the UPA and the NDA will be courting her for the stronghold she'll have over Uttar Pradesh.

The most likely scenario seems for the UPA to invite the BSP to join. However, such a combination will only produce 221 + 32 = 253, still under the magic figure of 272. The remaining 20-odd seats will be extremely difficult to get, with almost no option of the Left backing the UPA this time. Do note, I have included Mulayam Singh Yadav's Samajwadi Party and Laloo Prasad Yadav's RJD as partners of the Congress in the UPA. In case they do not join, expect the UPA to have a 180-odd seats, with almost no hope of forming government.

While I expect the BJP to do quite well, the NDA overall wont be much of a threat because of lost coalition partners. The split with Navin Patnaik's BJD in Orissa and Chandrababu Naidu's TDP in Andhra Pradesh will cost it about 25-odd votes.

The Left's stronghold over Kerala and West Bengal for a major chunk of the Third Front's 91 expected seats. Other useful contributors will be the PMK in Tamil Nadu, BJD in Orissa, the JD(S) in Karnataka. High chances are that the UPA and NDA will both try and obliterate this loose alliance, and try and get as many coalition partners as possible. But it is going to take a lot of convincing to get the 50-odd seats of the Left to join either coalition.

I predict drama. Crazy coalitions. Newspapers and media channels dedicating more time to it than even the 'Abhi-Ash' wedding. The UPA has an edge over the NDA, but simply because of number of coalition partners. The BJP will beat the Congress party-for-party, but will have to try hard to get allies. The BSP is unpredictable; expect it's alliance to be revealed right at the end and to also be the most decisive one.

Logic suggests no government to be formed. 272 is hard to get in a three-way split Parliament. Then again, logic and Indian elections never go together.

Jai Hind.