All of us can be forgiven for mistaking 2024 as the year of the longest-running live TV entertainment. Thankfully, one leg of it is over. As the votes get counted, the world can take a breather while regrouping and replenishing supplies for the second. The race to become the President of the United States has never been so absurd for the onlookers. Who or what, for example, was anyone rooting for?

According to a Pew Research Centre survey conducted in September, 69% of Americans admitted to following news about the presidential candidates for the 2024 election very (28%) or fairly (40%) closely. But what exactly were they getting or hoping to get? The survey report says, “Americans most often see news about actions on the presidential campaign trail, though they are most interested in their stances on issues”. A fair ask. Obviously unmet. 

Circus Of The Absurd

What the American voter has received so far is a concept of a plan from Trump and a promised continuum of Biden’s ‘problematic’ policies from Harris. Many Americans are sitting this election out, and who can blame them? A campaign trail inundated with descriptions of a golfer’s penis or how immigrants are eating other people’s animals, insinuations about a potential election steal on one side and an undressed stream-of-consciousness word salad on the other, has done little to convince the average American voter about the nobility and grandiosity of the White House. 

Both Trump and Harris have demonstrated an utter inability to learn from the past. While Trump got too bored of a decent, non-dramatic campaign just a few months into 2024 and unleashed his 2020 MAGA-man energy, Harris stubbornly refused to bring any course correction in her agenda on foreign policy issues despite her fellow Democrats’ public castigation. This election has been the most extensive testimony of what a lot of analysts within the US, as well as outside, have observed but have largely refrained from verbalising: both the Democrats and the Republicans fashion their electoral campaigns around the faults of the other side while doing absolutely nothing about their own. 

Kamala, The Saner One

Is it not ridiculous that the Harris campaign posited her only as the saner alternative to Trump? The fact that the Democrat incumbency became a burden and not a bolster for Harris should alert us that the new president’s arrival in the White House will probably be an extension of all the gaffes this campaign saw. And what about the process of candidate selection for both parties? Declaring Trump as their candidate for the third time, the Republican Party demonstrated an utter lack of imagination at a time when President Biden’s popularity was ebbing steadily. The Democrats changed their candidate from Biden to Harris with almost nil deliberations in their convention. The working-class voters, cold about Biden, have stayed cold towards her as well throughout the campaign.

But the US presidential elections are not about the American voters alone. What happens on Capitol Hill reverberates throughout the world. When Barack Obama won his first term, the symbolism of this victory was evident from young and old Indians celebrating at the India Gate in New Delhi. Presidents come and go, but their road to the Capitol paves ways across the world for ideologies, ideas, and geopolitical ramifications.

Nobody Knows Anything

From formulating trade controls to funding wars, what the POTUS decides goes a long way for the US and the rest of the world. Both Trump and Harris turned serious policy issues into farce during the campaign by sharpening the focus only on each other’s personalities. We still do not know what Trump’s plan is for the Middle East or the Russia-Ukraine war. Or China. Or Sudan or Bangladesh, for that matter. We only know that Harris is “committed to peace”, but her party’s ongoing actions have suggested otherwise. 

At this moment, it is an exercise in futility to assess what a Trump or a Harris win might mean for India or the larger Global South. There are no guiding principles to launch any such enquiry. Any scenario study will yield only fallacious conclusions because, simply, neither Trump nor Harris has stuck to either the party line or even their own stated beliefs. Trump’s transactionalism and Harris’s hubris are enough to defy any projections.

The US presidential election was once a lesson in how democracy asserts itself. In 2024, it has become something else. 

A glorified version of Hulk Hogan wrestling with his shirt.

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The euphoria of June 4 has waned. Narendra Modi is no longer seen as ‘vulnerable’. Rahul Gandhi’s seemingly impeccable “strategy” is being questioned, albeit in murmurs. Though no one in Congress can dare to seek his downgrading, when you hear talk of the need for Sonia Gandhi to be active again, it signals disappointment with the present Rahul Gandhi-Mallikarjun Kharge-KC Venugopal-Jairam Ramesh leadership. Priyanka Vadra’s presence in rallies is much sought-after—she had minimal exposure in Haryana—but nobody can suggest that openly within the Congress.

Rahul Gandhi’s image as a possible counter to Modi has been dented after the Congress’s drubbing in Haryana. Also, given that the election saw the Congress facing the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) one-on-one, its dismal performance has now sown doubts among its allies in Maharashtra and Jharkhand, as well as in Delhi and Bihar.

Not New To Defeat

The Congress is not new to assembly election defeats. After the 17th general election in 2019, the party could form governments in only three states: Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka and Telangana. It played at best a supporting role as a junior coalition partner in Tamil Nadu and Jharkhand—a role that it will again reprise in Jammu & Kashmir now as a minor ally of the National Conference government. This is in sharp contrast to its status till 2005, when the Congress had ruled more than half the states in India.

The Congress’s resurgence in this year’s Lok Sabha elections, in which it managed to bag 99 seats, was seen by many as an end to its lasting misfortune since 2014, when it couldn’t muster even the minimum numbers to be recognised as the official Opposition party in the Lok Sabha. On the eve of Gandhi’s US trip in September, Sam Pitroda, the Indian Overseas Congress chief, had even gone as far as to say that Rahul was “more intellectual” than his father, Rajiv Gandhi, and a “better strategist” who had all the qualities to be a “future Prime Minister”. The turnaround this year naturally made Rahul and his aides buoyant; they thought the worst was finally over. But Haryana voters were to soon undo this excitement. Just a month later, on October 8, the Grand Old Party was at pains to figure out how it managed to let slip an almost certain victory.  

Resistant To Dissent

A WhatsApp message circulating in some Congress circles sums up the party’s position: “A fact is information minus emotion. An opinion is information plus experience. Ignorance is an opinion lacking information. And stupidity is an opinion that ignores fact”. The loudest protest in most such party circles today is but just a murmur. Since the days of Indira Gandhi, dissent in the Congress has been muffled. Gandhi got rid of her critics in 1969 and 1978 by splitting the party. Both these splits followed Congress reversals in 1967 and 1977, respectively. Today, bereft of stalwarts who could provide an alternative trajectory, the Congress seems to have again stagnated over the past decade. 

The EVM Complaints

The principal opposition party has time and again voiced its reservations about Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), when, ironically, the system came into being during its own rule in the 1980s. Pointing fingers at the fairness of the electoral process in India, Pitroda said earlier this year that EVMs were violable and that the Election Commission of India was biased towards the ruling BJP. When asked about how his party won in Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh and Telangana, he seemed to suggest that they were mere flukes, while the ‘demon’ of ‘rigging’ was a distinct possibility. Rahul Gandhi echoed his views while addressing the National Press Club in Washington DC in September, where he underscored the ‘threat’ to democracy and the Constitution. Supreme Court has dismissed all petitions against EVMs, but the Congress party’s doubts persist.

This time, too, the Congress’s first reaction to the defeat in Haryana was that the result was “against reality”. The party went to the Election Commission on October 10 and, as expected, alleged malpractice. The review meeting at the residence of Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge was held only after the party delegation returned from Nirvachan Sadan. Neither Bhupinder Hooda, Deepender Hooda, nor Selja Kumari—its three Haryana stalwarts—were invited to the meeting. The reason for their exclusion was purportedly Rahul Gandhi’s frustration.

The absurdity of the Congress’s persistent complaints about the EVM system can be understood through simple data. In the latest Lok Sabha election, the BJP’s seat tally plummeted by 63 and its vote share dropped by 0.8 percentage points. In contrast, the Congress gained 47 seats and its vote share rose by 1.7 percentage points. If indeed the Election Commission was being biased and EVMs being manipulated, only a blunderous system could’ve produced such results. 

In Haryana, the Congress’s vote share went up from 28% in 2019 to 39% this year—a rise of 11 percentage points—while the BJP’s vote share rose by 3 percentage points, the same jump as in 2019. The Congress lost one seat by a mere 32 votes. The BJP’s data-based narrative trumped Rahul’s litany of complaints, which seemed to lack teeth. 

Forever Leaning On Allies?

Addressing BJP workers on October 8, Modi described the Congress as a ‘parjeevi‘, or a ‘parasite’, dependent on the largesse of its regional allies. In poll-bound Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Delhi and Bihar, the Grand Old Party will again likely be leaning on this largesse. Haryana was the last opportunity where it could have proven its mettle in a one-on-one battle against the BJP. Having failed, it has now tasked a fact-finding committee to find a scapegoat for absolving the Rahul-Kharge-Venugopal-Ramesh quartet of their inability to assess the ground reality.

(Shubhabrata Bhattacharya is a retired editor and a public affairs commentator)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) is a constitutional body established under Article 315 of the Indian Constitution. It plays a crucial role in the recruitment of officers for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), the Indian Foreign Service (IFS), the Indian Police Service (IPS), and several other Group A and Group B services. It is India’s premier central recruiting agency responsible for conducting examinations and selecting candidates for various civil services positions within the Indian government. In fact, the civil services exam is one of the most prestigious and challenging tests in the world. 

Notably, the other function of the UPSC includes giving advice on the quantum of punishment to be awarded to a deviant civil servant. In recent days, both the UPSC and the system of its recruitment have come under public criticism, thanks to incidents of abuse and misuse of quota by a few candidates. This has put into question the credibility of not only the examination process but also of the UPSC as an institution.

The UPSC examination system, pattern and process have often been called outdated. Going from preliminary exams to the final result of the interview round takes almost a year. The curriculum and exam pattern, which has remained unchanged for decades now, don’t align with the needs of governance and public administration in today’s world. Even the syllabus is criticised for not reflecting contemporary realities. This mismatch creates a gap between the skills required in today’s world and what the examination actually tests.

Another significant criticism of the UPSC examination is its tendency to promote a culture of rote learning. The UPSC’s heavy reliance on factual knowledge has led to the rise of “crammers”, that is, candidates who excel in memorising information but may lack deeper understanding, critical thinking abilities, creativity and a spirit of innovation. This leads to the selection of individuals who are less suited to the dynamic and complex nature of public administration. If you are very good at cramming facts and vomiting them on page on the day of the exam, you have got yourself a qualification for the mains.

That’s not all. The unpredictability of the UPSC exams, particularly the prelims test, adds to the stress and uncertainty faced by aspirants. Questions can vary widely in difficulty and scope, making it challenging for candidates to prepare effectively. This often benefits those who are better at guessing rather than those who possess a deep understanding of subjects.

Lack of transparency in the evaluation process is also a concern. Candidates have limited access to their answer sheets and don’t know the rationale behind the scores they are awarded. This opacity fuels suspicion about the fairness of the evaluation process. 

Even though the selection process is rigorous, the UPSC has been criticised for failing to produce competent and effective officers consistently. The need for reform is evident. Changes should aim to foster creativity, transparency, and a genuine understanding of the complexities of public service, ensuring that the best and brightest are selected to serve the nation. Such reforms would include measures to assess practical skills, such as case studies, simulations, and problem-solving exercises. It is also suggested that candidates be given access to their answer sheets and a detailed breakdown of scores. This can include explanations for marks awarded, helping candidates understand their performance and identify areas that need improvement.

The current system also does not adequately assess candidates’ personality traits and soft skills. Thus, there’s a need to enhance the Personality Test (interview round) and include methods that can assess leadership qualities, emotional intelligence, and ethical decision-making. Dedicated sections on ethics, integrity, and governance in the examination and personality test can help promote a culture of ethical public service and ensure that the selected candidates have a strong moral compass. And, the interview board must include a jury comprising the common public too, as it is they who are the ‘end-sufferers’ in this system.

Systemically, the UPSC, though an independent constitutional body responsible for the recruitment of all central civil service. This should not be the case; the members must include representation from all services. As an extension of this, the marks awarded during training at the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy Of Administration (LBSNAA) should also be considered so as to ascertain the suitability of a candidate for a particular job.

Finally, one of the most neglected duties of the UPSC – giving advice about the nature and quantum of punishment for a deviant civil servant – should be discharged in a timely manner. The UPSC is slow, tardy and status quoist in its approach. We need a faster, more transparent and clearer procedure so that erring bureaucrats are given appropriate punishments.

 It’s time to revive the lost faith in this sacred institution.  

(The author is a Delhi-based columnist and commentator) 

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

As was widely expected in the UK elections, the Labour Party has registered one of its biggest victories, inflicting a huge defeat on the Conservative Party.

No one had expected this seismic outcome just a few years ago. But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, who is going to be the next British Prime Minister, is being hailed by everyone for changing the fortune of the party. He promised to get Britain out of economic stagnation and claimed he would fix the ailing National Health Services. He even reached out to ethnic communities, including the Indian diaspora.

‘Namaste’, Starmer

In the last days of the election campaign, Keir Starmer visited the Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Kingsbury, a prominent Hindu temple in London, and said “namaste” with folded hands. His charm offensive included him wearing a tilak on his forehead and a floral garland around his neck. Starmer may have looked out of place, but it was an attempt to placate angry Indian diaspora voters, the majority of whom were expected to favour the Conservative Party. The temple visit was also intended to send out a strong signal of friendship with India.

Also Read | Labour Sweeps UK Polls, Rishi Sunak’s Party Ousted For 1st Time In 14 Years

Despite his awkwardness, Starmer knew he had to perform this political act, not only because his visit underscored Labour’s commitment to embracing and celebrating diversity within the UK, but also because he needed to repair relations with the influential Indian diaspora, and, by extension, India. It had been clear for quite some time that his party was returning to power after a hiatus of 14 years and he was going to be the next UK Prime Minister; that is why he needed to undertake an India outreach before assuming office.

The Baggage Of The Past

Starmer’s gesture of visiting the temple was particularly significant given the events of September 2019, when during its annual conference in Brighton, the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership had passed a motion addressing the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The motion declared that there was a humanitarian crisis in the region and asserted that the people of Kashmir should be granted the right to self-determination. Additionally, it had called for the deployment of international monitors to the area to ensure the protection of human rights and the assessment of the situation on the ground.

Needless to say, the Labour Party had gone too far. And despite the clarification issued by Jeremy Corbyn, the damage was done.

The motion was met with significant backlash from the Indian diaspora, who felt that it was one-sided and did not consider the complexities of the Kashmir issue. The event marked a turning point as many members of the Indian community began to shift their allegiances to the Conservative Party.

Also Read | “This Is A Massacre”: Conservative Leader As Labour Heads For Massive UK Win

The Indian government also responded sharply to the Labour’s motion. It was reported that the Indian High Commission in London took the unprecedented step of cancelling a scheduled dinner for Labour leaders, signalling its strong disapproval. The Indian government officially rejected the motion, emphasising its concerns about what it viewed as interference in its internal affairs.

In an effort to mend relations, Starmer attempted to address the situation last year, when he asserted that the Labour Party would strive to maintain strong relations with India, indicating a desire to rebuild trust and cooperation. Despite these efforts, the episode highlighted the fragile nature of Labour’s relations with India and underscored the significant political influence of the Indian diaspora in the UK.
Labour’s image makeover under Starmer

A Changed Labour

Indeed, the Labour Party has now made a triumphant comeback, securing a thumping majority. We should keep in mind that the party is a much-changed one under Starmer. It wants to inject more depth and substance into Britain’s strategic partnership with India.

India is most likely to carefully monitor Labour’s policy stance on Kashmir, immigration and the proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The Indian government may have apprehensions about Labour’s views on its internal matters, but on balance, the India-UK bilateral relations will not change much under Starmer. In fact, Labour supporters in the Indian community believe that under him, the relations are likely to improve. It is being claimed that the number of Indian-origin Labour MPs would double from the current six members in the outgoing Parliament. 

Will The Ties Improve?

Academics in the UK at times tend to romanticise the bilateral ties between the two countries, looking at it chiefly from the prism of colonial nostalgia. We are led to believe that it is in India’s interest to have a deeper strategic partnership with Britain. To be honest, however, India sees Britain as a middle power, whose influence on the global stage has been on the wane for long. One can only blame the Conservative Party for it, a beleaguered and divided house which presided over 14 years of stagnation. India under Narendra Modi, who was born after the country’s independence, is, whether rightly or wrongly, not in awe of its erstwhile colonial masters.

Also Read | UK’s Labour Party Commits To Stamping Out “Anti-India Sentiments”

Yes, the bilateral trade in goods and services is growing steadily, and stood at £39 billion last year, with the balance of trade heavily in India’s favour. Yes, we have a vocal, upwardly mobile Indian diaspora, which acts as a bridge between the two countries and it often works to India’s advantage. But the oomph factor in bilateral relations has been missing for a long time. For example, India and the US warmed up to each other and became trusted partners only after the Civil Nuclear Agreement between the two countries was brokered under President George W. Bush. It was a pivotal moment that added significant “oomph” to bilateral ties and transformed the dynamics of the relationship, fostering deeper strategic, economic, and technological cooperation. It set the stage for an enduring partnership in the 21st century. Even during the Obama and Trump administrations the bilateral ties never ran out of excitement. 

One cannot say the same about India-UK relations, which badly need to be injected with energy, excitement and a mega-deal. 

FTA: Starmer’s First Challenge In India-UK Ties

With regards to India, one of the first tasks on Starmer’s desk will be to reach a Free Trade Agreement. He has maintained his commitment to completing the FTA, but it is not going to be easy. India’s priority appears to be to finalise an agreement with the European Union (EU) first. The bilateral trade in goods and services last year stood at €113 billion. The two sides relaunched the negotiations in 2022 and the progress is said to be satisfactory.

According to a group of researchers, another stumbling block in the India-UK FTA is “the opposition in the UK to Indian demands for more visas for intra-company transfers and particularly to demands that social security contributions from Indian workers during such transfers be reimbursed”.

Immigration Policies

Brexit has led to record levels of Indian immigration. Of the 6.85 lakh immigrants in the UK today, the majority come from India. The Labour Party’s stated aim is to reduce legal immigration and curb illegal immigration. Many of the legal Indian immigrants are IT professionals on work permits, contributing to the UK’s technology sector. There is a small number of illegal immigrants from India as well.

The party’s policy seeks to balance the economic benefits of skilled migrants with the goal of controlling overall immigration numbers, reflecting broader political and economic priorities.
Human Rights and Citizenship Laws

Historically, the Labour Party has been vocal about human rights issues in India, particularly on laws like the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The Labour Party’s criticism has been viewed by the Indian government as interference and a misrepresentation of India’s internal policies aimed at addressing specific security concerns. Starmer will be under pressure from domestic human rights organisations to put forward liberal British perspectives. His diplomatic skills are bound to be tested in the coming months and years.

The relations between the UK’s Labour Party and the Indian government are complex, influenced by historical ties, diaspora politics, and divergent policy priorities. Addressing such challenges will require nuanced diplomacy, mutual respect, and an understanding of the sensitivities involved on both sides.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author