The poor upkeep of the historical building and attempts at its modernisation by the CPWD in the name of renovation prompted a concerned citizen in 1990 to seek the Supreme Court’s intervention for ensuring its proper maintenance. The Union Department of Culture and Tourism came out with the idea of turning it into a five-star hotel and the Union Cabinet decided in August 2002 accordingly. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, fixed December 31, 2003, as the deadline for shifting the Institute. Academics and the media exerted pressure, which has ultimately averted the eviction of the institute.

First, not since the days of Indira Gandhi fighting her intra-party battles with the Congress old guard in 1969 has the country witnessed an equally effective mechanism of propaganda and media manipulation. She converted a minority into a majority to claim the lion’s share in her party. But the new methods of communication, such as the Internet, the mobile phone and SMS, were not available to her. Nor was there the proliferation of private television channels subtly or otherwise to take her message across.

The Bharatiya Janata Party set about earnestly exploiting the new media in the recent string of assembly elections. They used computers to analyse constituencies and their composition, harnessing television to spread its message. The party had doubtless the advantage of committed workers of the Sangh Parivar to follow guidelines, but its decision to give advertising agencies the commission of honing in its message by building the Vajpayee brand yielded dramatic results. Such an effort was employed fitfully by Rajiv Gandhi after the assassination of his mother.

Come the general election, there was no going back for the BJP. The slogan India Shining was spread far and wide, until the compulsions of the election schedule cut it off. The brand Vajpayee prospered some more, interrupted only by the hiccups on the use of TV for political advertising. One has only to contrast this saturation coverage with the officially-sanctioned party political broadcasts, stilted and barely legible as they have been.

There are other firsts in high-tech introduced by the BJP. The recorded “I am Vajpayee” message beamed to owners of mobile phones and the SMSs propagating the candidates’ cause even as the more conventional flooding of postal appeals fell short of the target because of the very scale of the demand made on the country’s postal service. The SMSs served the purpose of tickling the fancy and vanity of recipients, despite their knowledge of it being a gimmick.

The use of high-tech by the BJP also fuelled the spirit of competition among different elements of the media. There was competition between the print and television media, aced in some instances by the two teaming up together, to cut costs and spread the results on a wider scale. But in the end, the competition led to something of a riot. There sprouted any number of Gallup polls, often leading to much confusion in the public mind. Even more controversial became the exit polls and the wisdom of their dissemination while the later phases of the election were being conducted. Both the courts and the Election Commission were brought into the picture while the Supreme Court gave an interim ruling on television advertising of political messages by making the Election Commission a censor.

The nature of political parties’ objection to polls and the reaction of the authorities, the judiciary and the media are indicative of the dilemmas posed by new technology in the Indian context. To take television first, the conduct of polls and their transparency must be rationalised, the ultimate arbiter being the viewer. To their credit, television channels have been seeking innovative ways of reporting and commenting on election campaigns and prospects. But they must make better use of information in the public domain of candidates’ material wealth and background.

The Indian election, with its variety and colour, is made for television. Efforts at looking at the election with the eyes of a humorist have not been successful, the exercises often degenerating into farce and juvenile jokes, only one channel succeeding in injecting satire and irony in takes on politicians. By its very nature, television is not an effective channel for making in-depth analyses, dependent as the medium is on images, rather than sound. The tragedy is that, with rare exceptions, the print medium has often sought to emulate television in covering elections, rather than concentrating on its strength — the ability to debate issues of substance in depth.

There is little point in bemoaning the end of traditional ways of campaigning. The reach and effectiveness of television pictures have made it the indispensable instrument of conducting campaigns and winning elections. The argument that television campaigning places a premium on money power is an acknowledgement of the demands of a modern election — consider the astronomical amounts spent by candidates on the traditional methods of reaching their constituents, despite the statutory limits — and a misreading of TV’s development. It needs a lot of money to launch national television campaigns, but with the growth of regional language channels, a candidate focusing on his area need not spend an inordinate amount on TV advertising.

One can make the philosophical point that with the new tools of modern technology, there is a dumbing down of issues. But democracy itself is, in a sense, an exercise in seeking the lowest common denominator. A more pertinent argument is that the dangers of manipulating the electorate are immense, given the professionalisation of spreading a political party’s message. In the United States — a continental sized variegated country somewhat similar to India — the impact of each party message sent and the release of information at prime time are calculated with great care. It thus happens that, thanks to suitable image creation and keeping out such unappealing messages as the return of US soldiers in coffins, a majority of Americans still support the bloody occupation of Iraq.

Come election time, everyone with a nodding acquaintance with a politician doubles over as a pundit. And that means every second Goan since the tiny state has so many politicians. 40 MLAs, three MPs and 2000 members in 183 panchayats for a population of just 13 lakh spread over 3400 sq km mean that politics comes a close second behind tourism as Goa’s main employer!

Politicians, serving and in between jobs, swarm the historic secretariat building by the placid Mandovi in scenic Panjim (or Ponjee in the local lingo — Panaji, the linguistic fusion, is still an orphan). Their excuse: “to get people’s work done”. Aspiring politicos hold day jobs as doctors, fishing boat owners and even motor cycle “pilots” — public transport unique to Goa.

Many hit it lucky thanks to the turbulent nature of Goa’s politics where governments change with the seasons. And cause a gold rush by their example. So when present Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar claims his Bharatiya Janata Party has roped in one lakh members, no one bats an eyelid.

Flashing one’s credentials as a journalist, newly para-dropped into the tourist state, is an invitation to partake from copious amount of juicy gossip at neighbourhood taverns. And take it from this old Goa hand, the stuff is fresh since it came directly to the purveyor from the politico’s cook or the driver!

Goa’s famous balladeer, Remo Fernandes who hit the headlines with his Politicians Don’t Know How to Rock and Roll should have listened to the wise sages holding forth over the locally brewed truth serum before hitting his keyboards. A debonair former Chief Minister who uses his skill on the dance floor to score with the ladies and the 60-plus businesswoman-turned-politician who dumped her husband to party with a younger man are the stuff of serious debate.

Even electioneering has the distinct Indo-Lusitanian flavour native to Goa. In India’s only state where prohibition is not officially imposed liquor flows during poll campaigns. Goa’s distillers and bottlers supply liberal amount of beer and harder spirits at cost price.

Candidates even woo the electorate in style. At street corner meetings voters are provided with chairs to sit in and cold drinks are served while politicians deliver their spiel. More enterprising politicians organise tiatr, the local art form derived from the Maharashtrian tamasha jazzed up with Portuguese theatre focusing on current affairs. As hundreds wait for the denouement, the sponsoring politician comes in to give his message.

In the Christian heartland of Salcette, where farmers rear prized bulls for dhirios the local variant of bullfighting, aspirants for a political career organise contests late into the night where betting runs into tens of thousands of rupees. After the Supreme Court banned the dhirio seven years ago, the sport has merely gone underground, say aficionados of the sport who claim to genuinely love the bovines.

Other less sanguine sports also benefit as politicians loosen their war chests on poll-eve. Football and volleyball matches between villages are popular since the ties are short and the half-times flexible to accommodate sponsors’ messages. Surprisingly, cricket is absent here.

Unlike in other parts of the country, the bait spread before the people work in luring voters to the polling booths. Turnouts at elections tend to exceed 65 per cent across the state though old timers say it used to cross 70 per cent earlier.

Beijing, on the other hand, insists that Taiwan is simply a renegade province and must be unified with the motherland by persuasion, coercion or force, if necessary. It fears Taiwan becoming independent. If that were to happen, Beijing will seek to bring about forcible unification.

Indeed, in 1996, when Taiwan held its first direct presidential election, China did stage a dramatic show of force in the Taiwan strait to emphasise its serious intent. At the time, Beijing regarded the holding of presidential election as a move towards eventual separatism.

But the massive show of force didn’t work. It galvanised the US into moving two of its aircraft carriers to deter China. The presidential election went ahead. And lee Teng-huai, whom Beijing hated the most, was reconfirmed as Taiwan’s President.

In the year 2000, Beijing again warned of dire consequences to prevent the election of Chen shui-bian, who seemed to favour separatism. It was once again counter-productive, helping Chen to win the election.

This time around, with election due on March 20, Beijing is again worried. Chen appears committed, if re-elected, to push for a new constitution to make Taiwan effectively independent.

But Beijing is not, making it easy for political moderates in Taiwan. For instance, its recent moves to silence proponents of democratic liberalism in Hong Kong by threatening to abandon the one country, two systems’ formula, will only make Taiwanese more nervous.

China has been trying to lure Taiwan with Hong Kong autonomy model. But just after about seven year of regaining the territory from the United Kingdom, it is already talking of reviewing the 50-year autonomy agreement. It, however, appears unconcerned about its impact on Taiwan.

Beijing apparently hopes that ‘peaceful’ unification will come with a progressive loss of internal cohesion and unity within the island. For instance, Taiwan’s business class is keen to expand investment and marketing opportunities in a growing Chinese economy. And its low labour cost and industrial peace make it a very competitive base for international exports.

Therefore, powerful economic interests in Taiwan tend to greater economic integration with the mainland by neutralising political issues. At the popular level, even though most people favour Taiwanese, they are not unhappy with the island’s present ambiguous status with de facto sovereignty. They feel worried, though, when Beijing starts playing war games with its missiles ready to shoot across the Strait

Interestingly, China’s bellicosity has been muted lately. Beijing believes that the tide is turning in its favour. According to a report in Current Events, a Communist party propaganda magazine, “…we have basically contained the over threat of Taiwanese independence since [president] Chen took office [in 2000], avoiding a worst-case scenario and maintaining the status of Taiwan as part”. In other words, the status quo has been maintained.

It also believes that “the balance of power in the [Taiwan] strait continues to shift in our favour.’’

Beijing was also heartened by the implied rebuke (in December) from President Bush, cautioning Chen Shui-bian against any unilateral decision “that changes the status quo.”

In the circumstances, Beijing is probably with the status quo on Taiwan with US help. It is hoping that unification would follow, in due course of time, dictated by the logic of China’s growing economy and Taiwan’s need to be part of it.

Even though Taiwan is a democratic political entity in its own right and a successful economy, its ultimate security is underwritten by the United States. For instance, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act required the US “to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardise the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.”

During the Bush administration, there has been a progressive cementing of defence ties between the United States and Taiwan, notwithstanding Beijing’s displeasure. It was President Bush, who said that US would defend Taiwan with ‘whatever it takes’.

Indeed, Washington is keen to sell billions of dollars of advanced weaponry to Taiwan to defend itself against a sudden Chinese attack. But Taipei is less than enthusiastic to spend all that money. Besides, it doesn’t want Washington to become complacent about Taiwan’s defence capability. It would rather have the United States on the scene sooner, rather than later, in case of a military conflict between Beijing and Taipei.

If Beijing were only contending with Taipei, it would have annexed Taiwan much earlier. zBut it has to contend with Washington also, if it were to use force. In the past it sought to test the US resolve but didn’t find it wanting. The signs so far are evident from growing US-Taiwan defence ties and American strategic interests that Washington will stand by its commitment.

But over-stretched as it is in Iraq and Afghanistan, and needing China’s political support on terrorism and North Korea, the United States could do without another military front. It is, therefore, not surprising that Washington is cautioning restraint on Taipei and urging it not to change the states quo. It doesn’t want Beijing provoked into any rash military adventure.

At the same time, preoccupied as China is with its economic growth to become another superpower, it is likely to play a waiting game on Taiwan, believing that time is on its side. It probably hopes that America’s over-stretched interest will wear it down over a period of time, thus enabling China to step into the resulting vacuum simply by default.