Why Nilekani, Kejri talk local, and Modi, Jaya talk national

There is surely something incongruous going on in this election. Some people think it is national, others local. Leaders with a national presence (real or imagined) are highlighting local issues that CMs or mayors should be obsessing about, and the Chief Ministers who hope to become Prime Ministers are highlighting national issues. Consider these points. Nandan Nilekani, the former chairman of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and Congress candidate from Bangalore South, wants to talk about city governance and civic amenities. Arvind Kejriwal wants to talk about sewer, weaver and river in Varanasi to take on Narendra Modi. [caption id=“attachment_1449533” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Nilekani for his part, is no political innocent: Reuters[/caption] BJP politicians want to talk not about their local failures, but about the Modi wave. Modi himself wants to give India a Congress-mukt Bharat, and offers a vision of better economic management. Jayalalithaa wants to talk about her national vision and offers freebies for the national poor and an anti-reform agenda (no oil deregulation, etc). The Trinamool Congress issued a “national manifesto” that claims to be “people-friendly, industry-friendly and agriculture-friendly.” It promises “roti, kapda aur makaan”. What’s going on? Prima facie, it is obvious that elections to parliament are not about gutters and garbage, but national issues – which could be about security, defence, foreign affairs, jobs, growth and inflation. These are the issues in the domain of the central government, which is what Parliament can do something about. The centre can, of course, send funds for urban renewal or rural welfare, but that’s about it. Street-lighting and water supply are in the domain of municipal and local government, something which state governments can influence. Clearly Arvind Kejriwal and Nandan Nilekani think they are fighting a different election from the ones Modi, Mamata Banerjee, Jayalalithaa think they are. We know that neither Kejriwal nor Nilekani is fighting to become municipal chiefs in Varanasi and Bangalore. So what are they upto? To find an answer, we have to look at their political constraints rather than their sanity. In politics, you have to play your best card, and not the obvious one, which may be your weakest suit. Kejriwal does not have a track record in national politics beyond the one in Delhi – which wasn’t particularly successful. So it makes sense for him to talk about Varanasi’s local government failures. Of course, he plans to take on Modi over communalism – but that’s everyone’s agenda. He needs differentiation. Hence sewer, river, and weaver. The weaver is also the Muslim voter. Nilekani wants to talk about local governance and claims his opponent, five-time winner Ananth Kumar of the BJP, hasn’t done much for his constituency. But can Nilekani do anything locally without the state government and the Bangalore municipality? No. The reason why he is talking local is because the centre is not seen to have delivered on growth, jobs and prices. As Swapan Dasgupta noted in his Times of India column last Sunday (23 March): “Nilekani is no political innocent — his stint at the UIDAI has taught him more politics than he would care to admit. His decision to focus on the local problems of Bengaluru South is grounded in careful calculation. In fact, it amounts to a candid confession that the Congress Party finds the projection of national issues a grave liability.” Conversely, Ananth Kumar wants to talk about the Modi wave – which has a laser-sharp focus on central failures. He may find it difficult to on Nilekani on local issues, and so prefers the national themes. As for Mamata and Jayalalithaa, both of them think their state is in the bag, and the only additional thing they can offer their voter – or to take their minds away from pressing local problems - is the give them a glimpse of a share of power at the centre. For Modi, this is an important strand when it comes to getting votes in Gujarat, but elsewhere it is about giving people hope for the future, contrasting it with their bleak present. For politicians, whether they highlight local or national, the issue is simple: play to their strengths and hide their weakness by dragging red herrings in.