Aditi Phadnis is one of the best political reporters in India today. So I was extremely happy to exchange views with her about my new book, demonetization, and the political landscape in India today.
Here’s a glimpse:
Q. Muscle and money are traditionally associated with feudal politics. But a lot of India is postmodern and post-industrial. So, how do we explain the persistence of money and muscle?
A. The persistence of muscular politics, as I see it, has to do with the failure of governance. The prevailing wisdom in many quarters is that the allure of muscle would melt away with urbanisation, improvements in living standards, and rising literacy rates — in other words, with modernisation. This has not happened. Despite the many notable changes to India’s politics, economics and society, the ability of the state to manage its sovereign responsibilities has not increased in kind. We have not seen institutional rejuvenation that can keep pace with citizens’ demands.
You can read the entire exchange here.
Bonus: Business Standard created this illustration of me (is that really me?)
This weekend’s Mint Lounge has a short excerpt from the book. The excerpt provides a glimpse into the life and times of Anant Singh, a highly eccentric criminal-turned-politician in Bihar.
Anant Singh is an unlikely poster child for electoral success in a flourishing democracy. He is fond of wearing sunglasses, a cigarette perched on his lips, his body adorned in all white, occasionally gussied up with a leather jacket. If he were not in politics, Singh could have had an alternate career as a cinematic villain—his practised bad boy look was straight out of central casting.
You can read the entire excerpt here.
To my utter delight and surprise, Raymond Zhong of the Wall Street Journal reviewed “When Crime Pays” in today’s paper. And, in even better news, he seems to like it.
The first paragraph literally made me laugh out loud:
The next time you sink into despair after news of a politician’s sexting or gaffes, be consoled: At least your city councilman didn’t start out as a bootlegger who did time for inciting religious riots. Your state legislator (probably) doesn’t threaten to feed people who cross him to crocodiles kept in a private lake. Your state governor didn’t cut massive pay-to-play deals that helped his son’s wealth grow 4,000-fold in a decade.
Zhong does a really nice job of hitting all the main points. He’s a terrific writer and clearly could have written my book in much nicer prose (reading the review almost makes me wish he had). Another passage:
We also meet more ambiguous figures, including some who seem to be thug, mafia don and Robin Hood all rolled into one. Ahead of polls in the eastern state of Bihar, Mr. Vaishnav watches a local strongman stride through a village with a band of followers in “a display of force and virility.” The politician, Anant Singh, was well-known for his past shoot-outs with police and gangs—yet boasted of organizing 10,000 weddings for poor folks in his constituency. In Bihar, Mr. Vaishnav also meets Sunil Pandey, a longtime assemblyman and former leader of an upper-caste militia group who completed a Ph.D. while in prison for kidnapping. His thesis was on—what else?—the philosophy of nonviolence. Mr. Vaishnav asks Mr. Pandey if he finds this ironic. His reply: “Life is limited and people have unlimited requirements. Thus there can be a need for force in some cases.”
The review is not without its critiques. In particular, Zhong writes that the book could have used more moments of “bleak comedy,” drawn especially from the outrageous characters occupying Indian political life. He is undoubtedly correct in his assessment.
The entire review is here.
In Sunday’s edition of the Hindu, Varghese George has a lengthy look at my new book, “When Crime Pays.” He writes:
It is a well-researched and data-rich book on crime and politics in India. For those not interested in the biographical details of Indian lawmakers who live on the wrong side of the law, there are data sets and graphs, and those who are not interested in or are intimidated by the grey data points can devour the exploits of Arun Gawli in Mumbai or Anant Singh in Bihar or M.K. Alagiri in Tamil Nadu.
You can read the entire piece here.
On Thursday, February 2, Carnegie will host a book launch event for When Crime Pays.
Carnegie President Bill Burns will kick off the event with introductory remarks, after which Ishaan Tharoor of the Washington Post and I will have a conversation about the book.
The event is open to the public. If you’d like to attend, all you need to do is RSVP here.
I had the chance to exchange views with Doug Busvine, New Delhi bureau chief for Reuters, the other day about my new book. We spoke about the twin themes of the book–money and serious criminality–and their relation to demonetization, upcoming state assembly elections, and Prime Minister Modi’s record in office.
Here’s a snippet:
Q: What’s the read-across from your research for the forthcoming round of state elections – especially Uttar Pradesh?
A: No matter which party wins elections in the pivotal state of UP, rest assured that the crime-politics nexus is not going anywhere anytime soon. Our best estimates suggest that fewer than 10 percent of UP state legislators elected in 1984 were the subject of ongoing criminal cases. That proportion has skyrocketed to 45 percent in the last election in 2012. The underlying drivers of criminality — costly elections, weak rule of law, and deep social cleavages — are available in spades in UP. The good news is that voters seem hungry for a chief minister at the top who is willing to invest in development and governance to improve the state’s image. But, at the end of the day, voters are also realistic: they understand that until the government in Lucknow is able to project its power into the far reaches of the state, they will need a local “guardian” to look after their interests.
You can read the entire interview here.
Thanks to Soutik Biswas of the BBC for writing about my new book book, which he says “offers some intriguing insights into what is a disturbing feature of India’s electoral democracy.”
Soutik’s report can be found here.