India: il rieletto governo controllato dal partito del Congresso dovrebbe accelerare le riforme favorevoli agli investitori
● India – La coalizione UPA (United Progressive Alliance), guidata dal partito del Congresso, rimane al governo, e si rafforza; le mancano solo 13 seggi per avere la maggioranza assoluta.
● I grandi gruppi economici, soddisfatti dell’esito elettorale, chiedono che l’UPA tagli la spesa statale per ridurre il deficit federale e degli stati, che si aggira sul 12%, e acceleri fortemente le riforme pro-investitori, tra cui
o eliminazione delle restrizioni alla chiusura di stabilimenti e al subappalto,
o vendita totale o parziale di gruppi statali,
o maggiori libertà agli investimenti esteri nel commercio al dettaglio,
o apertura agli investimenti privati dell’industria degli armamenti indiana in forte crescita,
o deregolamentazione dei servizi bancari e finanziari (pensioni e assicurazioni).
● Il presidente della federazione delle organizzazioni indiane per l’export, dato il -33% registrato a marzo, chiede 5 anni di esenzione dalle imposte per il settore (ché sarebbe ad alta intensità di lavoro).
– In sintonia con le richieste dei gruppi economici alcuni giornali;
● ad es., Hindustan Times, si dice soddisfatto
o dell’indebolimento dei partiti regionali e a base di casta, le cui lotte intestine e promesse populiste hanno a volte impedito la realizzazione delle riforme: “Sfruttare questa vittoria storica”;
o positivo che il Congresso non debba più contare sull’appoggio parlamentare dello stalinista Fronte della Sinistra, come nei 4 anni precedenti.
● Con l’aiuto degli stalinisti – che con il loro voto hanno assicurato la sopravvivenza del governo accusandolo al contempo di perseguire una politica socio-economico ed estera di destra, poco diversa da quella del precedente governo NPA, capeggiato dal BJP –
● e grazie ad un inedito boom economico, negli ultimi 5 anni l’UPA ha realizzato il programma del grande capitale, e tenuto a freno le lotte di classe.
● Questo secondo governo UPA entra in carica in condizioni mutate, che lo faranno scontrare con la classe operaia e le masse oppresse.
● Soddisfatta dell’esito elettorale in India anche la nuova Amministrazione Usa di Obama, che avanzerà presto proposte per rafforzare l’alleanza strategica Usa-India
● Essendosi rafforzato (i suoi seggi solo passati da 60 a 205), il Partito del Congresso (Congresso), presieduto da Sonia Gandhi, ha potuto aprire a partiti allineati con il rivale NDA (National Democratic Alliance), controllato dal Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), o con il Terzo Fronte.
Il Congresso può ora controllare i partiti suoi alleati a base regionale e di casta (nessuno con più di 19 seggi) con la minaccia di sostituirli facilmente con quelli ora all’opposizione.
Questi partiti sono emersi negli anni 1980, ed hanno avuto un ruolo decisivo nella formazione di tutti i governi dal 1996;
tra questi: il Telugu Desam Party (TDP), basato nell’Andhra Pradesh, il Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) nel Bihar, e il Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), che rappresenterebbe i Dalit (gli ex intoccabili) e gli oppressi.
Il loro consenso è diminuito perché va aumentando tra la gente la consapevolezza che essi sono gli strumenti di gruppi locali di elite corrotti e ingordi, e che nonostante le loro dichiarazioni populiste hanno perseguito il programma della borghesia indiana di attirare gli investimenti esteri e di fare dell’India un produttore internazionale a basso-salario.
o Gli stalinisti del Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPM] e del suo Fronte della Sinistra sono stati i maggiori perdenti nelle elezioni indiane, con un dimezzamento dei rappresentanti, scendendo dai 61 seggi del 2004 agli attuali 24.
o Nel 2004, appena incassato il miglior risultato mai avuto, gli stalinisti ebbero un ruolo importante nella stesura del Programma Minimo Comune dell’UPA, “riforme dal volto umano”, riformismo interclassista e socialimperialista; sostennero il Congresso contro il BJP, ed aiutarono a convincere altri partiti ad unirsi al Congresso per creare l’UPA;
§ Il Congresso si servì della sinistra, associandola al governo, per mascherare la sua strategia borghese con un volto “popolare” e tenere sotto controllo l’opposizione popolare.
o Il Congresso decise poi di sbarazzarsi del Fronte Sinistra, contrario all’accordo indo-americano sul nucleare.
o Negli stati indiani in cui era al governo, il Fronte entrò in conflitto con operai e contadini perché per attrarre capitale indiano ed estero frenava le lotte operaie, giungendo fino a proibire gli scioperi, tagliando le imposte ed istituendo Zone Economiche Speciali (ZES).
§ Nel Bengala Occidentale, dove erano al governo da 32 anni ed hanno stretti rapporti con il grande capitale, gli stalinisti tentarono, senza riuscirci, di reprimere nel sangue le proteste popolari contro l’espropriazione di terreni agricoli per le ZES a Nandigram e Singur. Sono scesi da 35 seggi del 2004 agli attuali 14 seggi. Qui il Trinumul Congress (Congresso di base) – capeggiato da un anti-comunista e demagogo ex BJP – si è proposto come difensore dei lavoratori contro una sinistra “sostenitrice del grande capitale”.
§ Il Fronte ha perso voti a favore del Congresso anche nel Kerala, dove era tornato al potere nel 2006.
§ Scaricati dal Congresso lo scorso luglio, gli stalinisti hanno riunito in un Terzo Fronte anti-BJP una serie di partiti di destra, a base regionale e di casta, tutti ex alleati del BJP e del Congresso. Un alleato del Fronte della sinistra, l’AIADMK, nel 2003 spezzò uno sciopero di dipendenti pubblici ricorrendo a crumiri e licenziando in massa decine di migliaia di lavoratori.
§ Diversi raggruppamenti del Terzo Fronte erano pronti a passare al Congresso o al BJP già prima del conteggio dei voti.
● Con il 28,5% dei consensi, il Congresso, ha ottenuto solo poco più del 2% di voti in più rispetto al 2004,
o e 50 seggi in più dell’insieme di tutti i partiti della maggiore coalizione di opposizione, l’NDA.
● Nonostante negli ultimi 7 mesi sia stata registrata una repentina caduta della produzione industriale e dell’export, e forte decelerazione della crescita economica, gli elettori hanno creduto alle promesse di Congresso e UPA di far ripartire la crescita.
o Gli strati sociali più privilegiati dell’India sono quelli che hanno tratto il maggior beneficio della crescita economica del 9%/anno per la maggior parte degli ultimi 5 anni, derivante dalla forte crescita dell’export e degli investimenti di capitale estero;
o sono in parte migliorate le condizioni nelle campagne, dove vive la maggior parte degli indiani fortemente toccati dalle riforme neo-liberali degli ultimi due decenni, grazie alle maggiori rimesse dei parenti emigrati nelle città, a favorevoli stagioni monsoniche, ad un piccolo incremento dell’investimento statale nell’agricoltura e alla spesa sociale.
o In particolare hanno influito positivamente sul tenore di vita nelle campagna un programma di proroga dei prestiti ai contadini indebitati e quello per la Garanzia Nazionale per l’Occupazione Rurale, che dovrebbe garantire ad ogni famiglia povera rurale 100 giorni l’anno di piccoli lavori a salario minimo.
– Altro fattore del successo di Congresso/UPA la reazione popolare all’opposizione, in particolare al BJP – che ha incassato il peggior risultato dal 1989 (116 seggi) – e alla alleanza NDA da esso capeggiata, scesa da 174 a 158 seggi:
o Il consenso per il BJP e il Shiv Sena (il suo alleato nel Maharashtran) è caduto nella maggior parte dei centri urbani, tra cui Delhi e Mumbai.
– Il BJP, benché si sia di recente radicato per la prima volta in uno stato del Sud, il Karnataka, rimane per lo più confinato al Nord e all’Ovest; molti dei suoi rappresentanti parlamentari provengono da stati arretrati e poveri come il Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkand, e Bihar.
o il BJP ha condotto la propria campagna elettorale accusando il Congresso di debolezza verso il terrorismo, promettendo una politica estera più muscolare, compresi eventuali attacchi contro il Pakistan;
o ha sostenuto leader il fascista L.K. Advani – che ha capeggiato il movimento per la costruzione di un tempio al dio Ram nel sito della moschea Ayodhya, culminato nel 1992-93 con il maggior spargimento di sangue in India dalla partizione del 1947,
o e Narendra Modi, primo ministro del Gujarat, sobillatore del pogrom anti-musulmano del 2002, che provocò con 2000 vittime e 100mila senza casa.
– Il primo vincitore è il primo ministro Manmohan Singh, che portando alla vittoria il Partito del Congresso, ha ottenuto un secondo mandato, prima di lui solo Jawaharlal Nehru ci era riuscito.
– Il Congresso, contro ogni aspettativa, è in grado di formare il governo da solo, senza l’appoggio della sinistra o dei partiti regionali; bastano pochi alleati per una coalizione in grado di operare.
● riforme sostanziali, il decollo del mercato finanziario – Singh è sempre stato per la liberalizzazione;
● maggiore fermezza in politica estera, importante perché il nuovo presidente Usa, Obama, è meno amichevole del predecessore; e nei paesi confinanti, Pakistan, Nepal e Afghanistan c’è instabilità.
– La sua vittoria prepara la strada al successore, Rahul Gandhi (38 anni), il secondo vincitore; Rahul Gandhi ha fatto triplicare il consenso per il Congresso nell’Uttar Pradesh.
– Il primo perdente è Lal Krishna Advani (81 anni), capo del BJP, il partito nazionalista hindu, che ha avuto il peggior risultato da 20 anni. Forte sconfitta anche per il primo ministro femmina dell’Uttar Pradesh, Mayawati, la “regina degli intoccabili”, considerata la versione indiana di Barack Obama.
o L’esito delle elezioni parlamentari indiane – con una chiara sconfitta della destra e della sinistra a favore del Centro – ha sorpreso; la maggior parte degli osservatori si attendevano maggioranze molto risicate.
o Negli scorsi 5 anni di governo guidato dal Congresso l’India ha registrato tassi di crescita continui; calo del prezzo del riso, cancellazione dei debiti per i contadini e programmi per la creazione di posti di lavoro.
– Il partito del Congresso [Indian National Congress] di Sonia Gandhi ha ottenuto il miglior risultato in 25 anni, ottenendo 205 seggi su 543; uniti a quelli dei partner della coalizione mancano 12 seggi per la maggioranza assoluta.
● Non deve più legarsi ai capoccia dei piccoli partiti e, cosa più importante per la politica estera ed economica, ai partiti comunisti.
● Il governo indiano guidato dal Congresso, anche se libero, ha diverse sfide da affrontare: prima di tutto il perdurare della povertà: nonostante un decennio di forte crescita economica 300 milioni di indiani rimangono sotto la soglia di povertà;
● urgenti infrastrutture; miglioramento delle scuole e nuove università per una popolazione in forte crescita; assunzione di infermieri e medici per un sistema sanitario debole.
● Non è certo che il nuovo governo attuerà veloci riforme sollecitate dal mondo economico; non sarebbe realistico attendersi una riforma del lavoro, dato che in India non ci sono ammortizzatori sociali, o la liberalizzazione di banche e assicurazioni, data la crisi finanziaria internazionale (secondo un parlamentare del Congresso).
– The Times of India: “Il Congresso è libero!”. Un economista indiano membro della Camera Alta britannica ha paragonato Sonia Gandhi a Caterina la Grande. Secondo i critici starebbe solo preparando la strada per il figlio Rahul, che si prevede avrà un ministero.
– Fattori del successo: grazie alla forte crescita economica la coalizione di governo si è curata dei poveri nelle campagne; ha utilizzato le entrate record per la spesa sociale, sanità ed educazione, e per programmi di lavori pubblici nelle campagne e per il pagamento debito degli agricoltori
India: Re-elected Congress-led government to accelerate pace of pro-investor “reforms”
– The Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) has retained power in India’s month-long, multi-phase election, having fallen only 13 seats short of securing an absolute majority in the 543-seat Lok Sabha.
– The strong showing of the UPA—especially of the Congress Party, which increased its seat tally by 60 to 205—belied the projections of the political establishment, the Congress leadership included. Anticipating a hung parliament, the Congress, in the days preceding Saturday’s vote-count, made very public overtures to parties aligned with either the rival National Democratic Alliance (NDA) or the Third Front. “We had not dreamt of such a result in our wildest dreams,” a “key Congress strategist” told the Hindu.
– Congress Party President Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Mamnohan Singh were quick to proclaim the election results a “massive mandate.” This is a gross exaggeration. The Election Commission has yet to publish complete results, but preliminary figures indicate the Congress increased its share of the popular vote from the 2004 election by little more than 2 percentage points, giving it a 28.5 percent vote share.
– That said, the Congress Party and its UPA government have emerged from the elections greatly strengthened. The Congress Party alone captured just shy of 50 more seats than did all the parties of the principal opposition alliance, the Bharatiya Janata Party-led NDA, combined.
– The Congress Party now has the luxury of choosing it parliamentary allies, including potentially poaching support from the NDA and Third Front.
– And it will be able to keep the regional and caste-based parties that are its allies—none has more than 19 seats—in line with the threat that any of them could easily be replaced by one or more of the parties now relegated to the opposition benches.
– Indian big business has applauded the election results and is demanding that the Congress-led UPA use it new political strength to dramatically accelerate the pace of pro-investor “reforms.” This includes
o gutting restrictions on the closing of factories and contracting out, the whole or partial sell-off of Public Sector Units (government-owned companies), greater latitude for foreign investment in the retail sector, the opening up of India’s booming arms industry to private investment, and the deregulation of banking and financial services (pensions and insurance).
“Industry,” said Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) President Harsh Pati Singhania, “is happy that we have a verdict which is clear and not fractured … This will help the government take quick and decisive action.
– "We already have a 100-day agenda for the new government and we will hand it over to the prime minister as soon as he takes charge. Reform will happen with a much faster pace.”
– Citing a massive drop in Indian exports, including a 33 percent drop in March, the President of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, A. Sakthivel, urged the government to declare a tax holiday for his members. “Since the export sector is an employment-oriented industry,” said Sakthivel, “we should be exempted from paying income tax for five years.”
– The corporate media was equally emphatic in demanding that the government use its strengthened mandate to press forward with big business’ agenda. Typical was a Hindustan Times editorial entitled “Use this historic victory.” It hailed the reduction in the strength of the regional and caste-based parties, whose factional struggles and populist promises have at times cut across the agenda of big business,
– and especially the Congress’ “liberation” from having to secure the parliamentary support of the Stalinist-led Left Front, as it did for the first four years of UPA rule. Declared the Hindustan Times, “The choices provided by the flotsam of the Third and Fourth Fronts have been exposed for what they were; at best, professional nay-sayers; at worst, fly-by-night operators. But with the UPA now without albatrosses like the Left around its neck, we expect the Congress-led government to press its foot more firmly on the gas of reforms.”
– And there is no question that the Congress leadership will do just that, beginning with a budget in late June or July. The chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, Suresh Tendulkar, responded to the election results by saying, "Economic reforms would certainly be on top of the agenda of the government."
– The Obama administration also welcomed the re-election of the Congress-led UPA. At a US Senate hearing last week concerning his appointment as the Under Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Robert Blake said Washington will soon be making proposals to “strengthen the strategic partnership that exists between the United States and India.”
– The Indian elite very much views the Indo-US civilian nuclear treaty, which broke the international nuclear embargo against India and which was negotiated by Washington and New Delhi with a view to cementing a “global” partnership, as the signal achievement of the UPA government’s first term.
– Several factors account for the Congress/UPA election victory.
– As the result of a surge in exports and an influx of foreign capital, India has experienced annual economic growth of 9 percent for most of the past five years. The fruits of this growth have flowed largely to the most privileged sections of society.
– But conditions in rural India, where the bulk of the population continues to live and which has been gravely impacted by the neo-liberal reforms of the past two decades, did improve somewhat in recent years, due to increased remittances from family members in the cities, a succession of good monsoons, and modest increases in state investment in the agricultural sector and social spending. Particularly important in terms of alleviating rural distress have been a loan-waiver program for indebted farmers and a National Rural Employment Guarantee Program that is supposed to provide one member of every poor rural household with 100 days of menial, minimum wage-labor per year.
– The past seven months have seen a sharp fall in industrial production and exports and a dramatic deceleration of economic growth. But much of the population clearly accepted the Congress claim that the UPA is the best bet to return India to high and “inclusive” economic growth.
– Just as important in the Congress/UPA victory was the popular reaction against its opponents.
– The Bharatiya Janata Party or BJP mounted a communally-charged, right-wing campaign. It attacked the Congress for being “soft” on terrorism, proclaimed that a BJP government would adopt a “muscular” foreign policy, including potentially cross-border strikes on Pakistan,
– and promoted L.K. Advani and Narendra Modi as the current and future faces of the BJP. A lifelong member of the fascistic RSS, Advani led the agitation to build a temple to the mythical god Ram on the site of a famous Ayodhya mosque that culminated in 1992-93 in the biggest wave of communal bloodletting in India since the 1947 Partition.
– Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat, incited an anti-Muslim pogrom in 2002 that resulted in the deaths of as many as 2,000 people and rendered 100,000 homeless.
– The BJP was manifestly rejected by the Indian people. It won 116 seats, its worst showing since the 1989 elections and its NDA alliance fell to 158 seats from 174. Support for the BJP and its Maharashtran-ally, the Shiv Sena, declined in most major urban centers, including Delhi and Mumbai. While the BJP has in recent years implanted itself for the first time in a south Indian state (Karnataka), its support otherwise remains almost entirely confined to north and west India.
– Many of its MPs come from states such as Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkand, and Bihar that are particularly economically backward and deprived.
– Advani resigned as Leader of the Official Opposition Saturday, once the extent of the BJP’s losses became apparent.
– The election results also represented a blow to many of the state-and caste-based parties that emerged in the 1980s and have played a decisive role in the formation of every government since 1996.
– Included among these are the Andhra Pradesh-based Telugu Desam Party (TDP), the Bihar-based Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), which falsely claims to represent the Dalits (former untouchables) and all the oppressed.
– If support for these parties has eroded, it is because of growing popular recognition that they are the vehicles of various grasping and corrupt local elites and because, their populist declamations notwithstanding, they have faithfully implemented the bourgeoisie’s program of making India a magnet of foreign investment and a cheap-labor producer for world capitalism.
– The biggest loser in the election, however, is unquestionably the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPM] and its Left Front. Their representation in the Lok Sabha has been slashed by well over half.
– Five years ago the CPM and the Left Front were buoyed to their best result ever on a wave of popular anger against the increased economic insecurity and social inequality that have resulted from the bourgeoisie’s “new economic policy.”
– No sooner were the elections over, than the Stalinists betrayed their working class and peasant supporters, by acting as handmaidens to the Congress, the traditional governing party of the Indian bourgeoisie. Claiming that it was necessary to support the “secular” Congress against the BJP, the CPM and the Communist Party of India helped persuade other parties to join with the Congress in creating the UPA.
– The Stalinists played a major role in the drafting of the UPA’s Common Minimum Programme (CMP), which incarnated the Congress’ claim that it was possible to have “reform, but with a human face,” that it is possible to marry the interest ands aspirations of India’s toilers with the Indian bourgeoisie’s drive to enrich itself and make India a great power.
– The Congress was eager to associate the Left with its government, not only, or even principally, for reasons of parliamentary arithmetic. It recognized that the 2004 elections, which unexpectedly catapulted the Congress into first pace, bespoke massive popular opposition to the bourgeoisie’s class strategy and was eager to use the Stalinists to provide it with a “pro-people” face and defuse a threatening situation for Indian capital.
– For the next four years, the Left provided the minority UPA with the votes needed to remain in office, even as it protested that the Congress was pursuing rightwing socio-economic and foreign policies little different from those of the BJP-led NDA government that preceded it.
– Ultimately, the Congress chose to be rid of the Left Front, after it balked at supporting the Indo-US nuclear treaty.
– Meanwhile, in those states where it holds office, the Left Front came into open conflict with the working class and peasantry as it sought to attract domestic and foreign capital by curbing worker militancy, (including through the imposition of no-strike laws), slashing taxes, and establishing Special Economic Zones. In West Bengal, the Stalinists used bloody police and goon violence in an unsuccessful attempt to quash popular opposition to its expropriation of peasant land for Special Economic Zones at Nandigram and Singur.
– In the 2004 elections, the Left Front won 61 seats, including 43 for the CPM. Five years later the CPM won just 17 seats and the Left Front as a whole 24. Not since 1951, have the Stalinists elected fewer MPs.
– In West Bengal, where the Left Front has ruled for the past 32 years, the Left Front won 14 seats as compared with 35 in 2004. The rightwing policies pursued by the Stalinists enabled the Trinumul [Grassroots] Congress, led by the anti-communist demagogue and former-BJP ally Mamata Bannerjee, to pose as a defender of the toilers against the “pro-big business” Left.
– In Kerala, where the Left was returned to power at the state-level in 2006 on a wave of opposition to the “reforms” carried out by the Congress-led government, it won just 4 Lok Sabha seats, while the Congress and its allies captured 15.
– Having been dumped by the Congress last July, the Stalinists floated the idea of an anti-Congress, anti-BJP Third Front. From the standpoint of the interests of the working class, this was a political abomination. The Stalinists roped together a series of rightwing state- and caste-based parties, all of them former allies of the BJP and Congress, and claimed that they could form the basis of a “secular, pro-people” government.
– In Tamil Nadu, the Congress and its DMK ally were able to taunt the Left by pointing out that its ally, the AIADMK, broke a Tamil Nadu government workers’ strike in 2003 by using strikebreakers and firing tens of thousands of workers en masse,
– Even before the votes had been counted several of the Third Front partners, including the AIADMK, the TDP and the JD (S), were preparing to jump ship and ally with the Congress or BJP.
Responding to the election results, CPM General-Secretary Prakash Karat said, “We have suffered a major setback. This necessitates serious examination of the reasons for the party’s poor performance.”
It is common knowledge that a significant section of the party leadership, especially in West Bengal where the CPM has developed intimate ties with big business, opposed last summer’s decision to withdraw parliamentary support for the Congress-led UPA. Former CPM legislator Somnath Chatterjee has publicly called for Karat to resign. Chatterjee was named Lok Sabha speaker as part of the 2004 arrangements under which the Left Front rallied to the UPA’s support. He was expelled from the CPM after he refused to resign the speakership when the Left withdrew its support for the UPA.
– With the help of the Stalinists and under conditions of an unprecedented economic boom the Congress-led UPA was able over the past five years to implement the program of big business, while keeping a lid, albeit not without several crises, on the class struggle.
– The second UPA government will take office under transformed conditions, which will bring it into headlong conflict with the working class and oppressed masses. Already the world economic crisis has caused a dramatic fall in economic growth and a spike in unemployment. In response, big business is not only demanding an acceleration of pro-investor reforms, but that the government take urgent action to slash state expenditure so as to sharply reduce a combined Union-state government budgetary shortfall that is now in the order of 12 percent of GNP.
Indiens Wähler entscheiden sich für die Mitte
Von Sophie Mühlmann 18. Mai 2009, 02:52 Uhr
Überraschend deutlicher Sieg für regierende Kongress-Partei – Zweite Amtszeit für Premier Singh – Rahul Gandhi gilt als Kronprinz
– Singapur/Neu-Delhi – Zwei strahlende Sieger gibt es bei Indiens Parlamentswahl und zwei große Verlierer. Premierminister Manmohan Singh hat die Kongresspartei zu einem unerwartet klaren Triumph geführt. Der 76-jährige Wirtschaftsexperte mit der leisen Stimme hat es allen gezeigt, er wird für eine zweite Legislaturperiode im Amt bleiben. Das hat vor ihm nur ein indischer Politiker geschafft: der legendäre erste Premier und Gründungsvater dieser größten Demokratie der Erde, Jawaharlal Nehru. Aufgrund des deutlichen Sieges wird die Regierung voraussichtlich schnell gebildet und Singh als Premier vereidigt werden können, heißt es in Neu-Delhi.
– "Singh is King", jubelten am Wochenende die Menschen auf den Straßen. Dem alten Gentleman mit dem blauen Turban fehlt es zwar an Charisma, doch das Volk vertraut ihm. Seine Partei kann nun wider alle Erwartungen allein eine stabile Regierung bilden – und sich langsam auf den Übergang zu einem jüngeren Anführer vorbereiten: Rahul Gandhi. Er ist der zweite große Gewinner dieser so überraschend ausgegangenen Marathonwahl. Der 38-jährige Erbe der Nehru-Gandhi-Dynastie mit den fotogenen Grübchen und dem stets schneeweißen Hemd hat in Uttar Pradesh den Sieg für die Kongresspartei heimgeholt. Die Partei konnte die Zahl der Sitze in diesem komplizierten Bundesstaat verdreifachen, und dieser Erfolg wird Rahul zugeschrieben. Er gilt nun als Kronprinz. Experten gehen davon aus, dass er nach 2011, wenn er die 40 überschritten hat, das Zepter von Singh übernehmen wird.
– Verlierer auf ganzer Linie ist der Chef der hindunationalistischen BJP, Lal Krishna Advani. Das desaströse Abschneiden seiner Partei – das schlechteste seit 20 Jahren – hat den Ambitionen des 81-Jährigen auf das Amt des Premierministers ein für alle Mal den Todesstoß versetzt. Er wird jetzt wohl von der politischen Bühne abtreten und jüngeren Platz machen. Auch für die "Königin der Unberührbaren", Uttar Pradeshs Ministerpräsidentin Mayawati, war die Wahl eine herbe Niederlage. Sie hatte sich bereits als indische Version eines Barack Obama gesehen.
– "Der Tanz der Demokratie" titelte die "Times of India" und schrieb: "Indien wurde wieder einmal von den Indern überrascht." Nie zuvor war der Ausgang einer indischen Parlamentswahl im Vorfeld so ungewiss gewesen wie diesmal. Die meisten Beobachter vermuteten hauchdünne Mehrheiten und anschließendes lähmendes Geschacher um Koalitionen. Umso überraschender der eindeutige Sieg der Kongresspartei. "Diese Wahl ist eine klare Absage an die Linke und Rechte gleichermaßen", sagt der politische Kommentator Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, "zugunsten einer Ideologie des Zentrums, dem der Balanceakt zwischen Kapitalismus und Sozialismus gelingen kann."
– Fünf Jahre lang verzeichnete Indien unter der Kongress-geführten Regierung stetige Wachstumsraten. Es gab billigen Reis, Schuldenerlasse für Bauern und Arbeitsbeschaffungsprogramme. Die Wähler haben eine klare Botschaft an Singh und seine Partei abgegeben: Behaltet den Kurs bei.
– Die BJP hatte im Wahlkampf auf die Terrorbedrohung gesetzt und Singh und seine Partei als Schwächlinge dargestellt – offensichtlich erfolglos.
– Diesmal wird die Kongresspartei keine Unterstützung von links benötigen, jene Mesalliance der letzten Regierungskoalition, ein Bund so ungleicher Partner, dass sie sich von Anfang an gegenseitig ausgebremst haben.
– Auch ist die große alte Partei Indiens in ihrer nationalen Politik nicht länger vom guten Willen regionaler Parteien abhängig.
– Diesmal wird es anders sein: Substanzielle Reformen werden erwartet, ein Aufschwung der Finanzmärkte – immerhin steht Singh für die Liberalisierung der indischen Wirtschaft – und mehr Konsequenz in der Außenpolitik. Dies ist besonders wichtig, da US-Präsident Obama Indien weniger freundlich gegenübersteht als sein Vorgänger. Außerdem herrschen in den Nachbarländern Pakistan, Nepal und Afghanistan ebenso wie in Sri Lanka Chaos, Gewalt und politische Instabilität – ein Grund mehr für Indien, in der Außenpolitik auf Kurs zu bleiben.
Kongresspolitiker sind nun bereits dabei, kleinere Parteien anzusprechen. Sie brauchen diesmal nur eine Handvoll Verbündete, um eine arbeitsfähige Koalition bilden zu können. Mit dem Sieg in der Tasche gilt es nun, ein neues Kabinett zu bilden. "Die neue Regierung sollte in einer Woche etabliert sein", sagte Kongresssprecher Tom Vadakkan am Sonntag. Der Nachrichtensender NDTV meldete, vermutlich werde das neue Kabinett schon an diesem Mittwoch vereidigt. Singh hat bereits betont, dass er dabei vor allem auf einen Faktor Wert legen wird: Jugend. Immerhin sind von den über eine Milliarde Indern mehr als zwei Drittel jünger als 35 Jahre. Und so wird wohl auch Rahul Gandhi einen Platz auf der Regierungsbank bekommen, bevor er zu Höherem berufen wird.
By SOMINI SENGUPTA
NEW DELHI — Eleven years ago, when she took over as president of India’s oldest political party, Sonia Gandhi was seen as India’s most improbable politician: a foreigner with a shaky command of Hindi, reclusive to the point of seeming aloof, a wife who had fought to keep her husband from joining politics and who lost him to an assassination.
– Today, Mrs. Gandhi, 62, is credited with having scored a stunning political coup. Her Indian National Congress party made its best performance in 25 years in the parliamentary elections completed last week, picking up 205 of 543 seats on its own, and with its coalition partners coming only 12 seats shy of an outright majority. All it needs to do now to form a government is stitch up alliances with a handful of independents and small parties.
– No longer would it be beholden to the many small party bosses that it needed during the first five-year term a Congress-led coalition was in office. Most important, for the sake of foreign and economic policy, it would no longer have to rely on India’s Communist parties to stay in power, as it had for most of that time.
– “Cong Gets Free Hand,” screamed the front-page banner headline in The Times of India on Sunday. It featured a photograph of Mrs. Gandhi dressed in a red-ochre sari, ushering the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, to a podium to address the news media.
– Meghnad Desai, an Indian-born economist and a member of the British House of Lords, went as far as to compare her to Catherine the Great, the powerful German-born empress of Russia.
Mrs. Gandhi is the Italian-born wife of the slain former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and the daughter-in-law of the prime minister before him, Indira Gandhi. She is known for rarely giving interviews, and she declined to be interviewed for this article.
– She has said she joined politics to save the legacy of the party, which her husband’s family has been associated with since before independence. “I had to accustom myself to the public gaze, which I found intrusive and hard to endure,” she said in a speech at the University of Tilburg in the Netherlands two years ago.
Critics say she is simply paving the way for her son, Rahul, 38, who is expected to take a cabinet post in the new government. The party’s often-slavish devotion to the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty, perhaps its biggest albatross, was evident over the weekend.
On Saturday evening, hours after the election results signaled the victory of the Congress-led coalition, a party leader and minister assigned to Mr. Singh’s office, Prithviraj Chavan, declared on television that Mr. Gandhi could become prime minister whenever he wished. This was after Mrs. Gandhi and her son had repeatedly endorsed Mr. Singh as the party’s choice for the top post.
The Congress landslide was all the more remarkable because it defied an Indian tradition of anti-incumbency. The Congress-led coalition, which routed the government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2004, was not only re-elected but it picked up 57 seats.
– First, under Mrs. Gandhi’s leadership, the Congress-led coalition homed in on the rural poor. During its first term, buoyed by robust economic growth, it used record government revenues to increase social spending, not just raising health and education budgets, but also starting an ambitious public works program in the countryside and a costly loan repayment waiver for farmers.
Second, she masterly cast herself as a leader who relinquished power, turning down her party’s appeals to become prime minister, first in 2004 and again this time. Instead, she chose the soft-spoken economist, Mr. Singh, and between them, they divvied up the job: she took care of the hard-knuckles politics of keeping the coalition together, while he served as the chief executive, albeit one who was always seen as subservient.
“She remade him,” said Mr. Desai, a longtime friend of the prime minister. “This victory is as much due to him as to her. He has made dynasty palatable.”
– During the election season, the Bharatiya Janata Party sought to portray the prime minister as weak. It accused his government of being ineffective against a spate of terrorist attacks and unable to tackle a worldwide economic crisis, which is beginning to be felt here.
– The opposition strategy did not pay off. Its coalition trailed with 159 seats, while a third alliance, spearheaded by Communists, won fewer than 80 seats.
– Even with a free hand, the Congress-led government will face formidable challenges. India needs to swiftly build roads, highways and power plants; improve public schools and build universities for a swelling young population; and hire nurses and doctors for its feeble public health system.
– Most of all, it needs to address its abiding poverty. Despite over a decade of high economic growth in India, 300 million people remain below the poverty line. Large tracts of the country are racked by a Maoist insurgency. And for the first time in years, growth rates have dipped sharply and the deficit has ballooned.
– Whether the new administration will fast-track economic reforms, as many business leaders urge, is questionable. Congress politicians, executives and analysts are already tempering expectations.
– Kapil Sibal, a Congress member of Parliament from Delhi, said in a television interview on Sunday evening that he expected the new administration to “send a signal” that it would advance reforms that had been stalled during the past five years but would make no “sudden shift” in policies. It would be unrealistic to expect labor law reform in a country with no safety net to speak of, he said, or to expect a greater openness in the banking and insurance sectors in the face of the global financial crisis.
– Nandan Nilekani, co-chairman of Infosys, one of the country’s largest technology companies, said Sunday that the government’s immediate priorities should be to raise economic growth and enact a broad set of reforms “that will widen access to both opportunities and public services.”
“We need reforms in higher education, we need reforms in empowering our cities, we need reforms in national security,” he said. “Reforms will cover a diverse set of issues, unencumbered by allies holding them back.”
– Not least, Congress will have to keep its promise to the rural poor. Mrs. Gandhi and her son, Rahul, campaigned on a pledge to expand the public jobs program and deepen food subsidies for the poor.
– Mother and son face a crucial political challenge as well: how to open access to a party that critics compare to a family-owned company. Mr. Gandhi has been most explicit in calling for internal party democracy. He says he can make that kind of demand because he is a Gandhi.
Hari Kumar contributed reporting.