Settling Accounts on Iraq, in which we remember Christopher Hitchens

Long before the current situation, it became fashionable to criticize the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq. I, for one, supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and continue considering it the correct decision. It is frequently and flippantly said, that if you were for the Iraq war then your opinion does not count now.  Well, I often wonder what the late, great Christopher Hitchens would be saying today.  Hitchens, of course, was that magnificent human moral compass - always pointing true north while we traversed the rough seas of radical events.  The purpose of a compass is not only to point towards a direction, but to drive the sailors of humanity towards a corrective course of action.  That is what Hitchens did for the collective conscience of the world in the matter of Iraq and the dictator Saddam Hussein.

It is important to begin any discussion of the Iraq matter (or affair, or adventure or any other frivolous title), with Hitchens.  By which I mean, of course, the matter of deposing Saddam Hussein.  In hindsight, it is clear to see that it should have been done in 1991.  It wasn't.

But those, like Hitchens, who recognized the missed opportunity, were keen to grab the next available one (be it 1998, or 2003).  The 9/11 attacks re-focused American and World attention to emerging, gathering as well as pre-existing threats to the established global order.

Yet, in the case of Saddam Hussein the vaunted International Community – in other words, the so-called grand deliberations at the UN - failed to provide the resolve (or rather, Resolution) to finally remove one of the worst actors on the international arena.  This without mentioning the despicable regime's internal actions, a reign for which the word terror is a vast understatement.

That the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq needed to be overthrown is without a doubt.  Neither is the fact that by 2003 it was well overdue.  Nor that the surest route to this eventuality rested in the hands of the overwhelming military power brought to bear by the unjustly smeared coalition of the willing, led by American might.  The case for the action was obvious to all, and endorsed by (almost) all.

But, here is where the issue of WMD, an issue that became a demagogic rhetorical punch-line to undermine the value of the mission, comes in.  So, before going on to discuss the value of the mission, I must address the issue of WMD and its role in the debate and discussion of the Iraq war, let alone its repercussions on ground realities.  I think Hitchens would approve, as it was his style to always directly face arguments contradictory to his own.

And Hitchens himself asked the question, repeatedly: were we really in a position to believe Saddam Hussein at his word that he did not possess WMD? Only a fanciful person would trust such a word.  The facts are simple - Saddam Hussein had, in the past, possessed and used WMD; he had consistently violated the inspection regime he was mandated by the UN to follow; he had sponsored global terrorism in the past; and global terror coupled with WMD remains the single largest military threat to the world.

Furthermore, today we have the knowledge that WMDs are still an important part of the battleground realities in the region (in welcome news for language buffs, and nobody else, the phrase "red-line" has made a dramatic splash in the lexicon).  There is a reason why coalition troops were equipped with gear to protect them from chemical warfare during the invasion - nobody at the time believed Iraq was free of WMD - indeed, the so-called "anti-war" faction cited it as a reason to disengage militarily.  In the face of all of this, the WMD argument given by the crudely labeled "pro-war" camp holds up over time.

What is not in dispute either is that WMD were not found in liberated Iraq.  This should have been cheerful news, as the disarming of Iraq was a central goal of the mission.  And it was cheerful, to a certain type of demagogue. When, as inevitably happens, there were setbacks in the war effort, political opportunists took no time denouncing the "war of false pretenses."

As if the monstrosity of the Saddam Hussein regime, or the policy to help a historically ravaged nation build a multi-ethnic, multi-religious constitutional democracy, were of no consequence!

Which brings us to today - a mess abounds, due in large part to an abandonment of a noble and valued mission.  Over-discussed war weariness, a deliberate and feckless political undermining of the mission and a desire for change have birthed a self-acknowledged muddled policy which has in turn squandered hard won victories and has helped produce the present chaos.

If I may make a suggestion (one which Hitchens agreed with and which I’ve made before):  "There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom." These words were enunciated by the much-maligned George W. Bush in his second inaugural address (one that is available online and whichI urge everyone to read).  The point is simple: legitimate, democratic government (with a transparent judicial system) will lead to (or rather, amounts to) civilized behavior.

This is called a world-view.  It helps shape policy and guide action.  And it is a doctrine that provides you with a compass that points true north.  So, as we began, let us end with Hitchens, from a piece published in The Weekly Standard of Sept. 5, 2005:

"If the great effort to remake Iraq as a demilitarized federal and secular democracy should fail or be defeated, I shall lose sleep for the rest of my life in reproaching myself for doing too little. But at least I shall have the comfort of not having offered, so far as I can recall, any word or deed that contributed to a defeat."

The Mental Fatigue of these Elections

The last time around I was not in India and had to only suffer internet chatter.  Reading up online I made some random predictions and accidentally got the broad thrust of the story correct.  Like many, I wanted Manmohan Singh to remain PM and was hopeful that good would come of it.  Alas, we all were wrong, and more on that below.  Suffice it to say that Manmohan Singh’s second term as PM has cast an immense shadow upon this entire election - the umbra and penumbra of years of silence.

The response, of course, has been tremendous noise - there is a “we are like that only” joke here that I do not wish to crack right now.

In 2009, I wrote the following:

“The media, as expected, has been weak, shameful, shrill, excessive and unwilling and unable to mediate a grand national debate. More money has been spent on this election then ever before, and I'm not sure if the issues could have been more ill-served than they were. One thing is for sure: nobody, not the politicians, not the parties, not the media, nor (heck, I'll say it) the electorate have lived up to the grandness of the occasion.”

Well…  Just writing this is getting me depressed.

The empty, vacuous and mind-numbingly silent nature of governance during the last five years – from recession and terrorism to corruption and nepotism – has given space to the shrillest, loudest and most cynical voices in the land to vent and spout fury.

There was a flutter of hope that civil society and activism could show the way.  But imperfect men are involved – evolved into heroes in the eyes of other women and men, those heroes then made gods – we are like that only.  The men fail and the gods are slain.

And so we turn to a (old) new god – the redeemer.  Flow like the Ganga and rid this sinful world of its depredation!!

A man – artful, effective, evocative, dangerous and sly – is being presented as a hero.  His supposed attributes make him sound god-like.  His is the blowhard air that is forcefully occupying the vacuum of Indian civic conversation.

And that is where the blame lies.  No matter how this election turns out (and I write this during the later phases of voting and before the results), one thing is inescapably true.  The heirs to the Congress Party claim to stay reluctantly relevant in order to remain a bulwark against the baser tendencies of Indian politics.  Yet, the unintended consequence of their blinkered ineptitude has been the ceding of the middle ground to the very same forces they say they abhor.

About any of the things that actually matter – poverty, health, education, sanitation, infrastructure, jobs, access and opportunity – it would be criminal to support this corrupt cabal.

So, what then?

Will we see the coronation of a new demon?  How will the old ones remain relevant?  And is chaos really a ladder?

Frankly, I don’t find it fun to make predictions anymore.

Wendy Doniger and "The Hindus"

In response to this article, I wrote the following on Facebook (ie. where I shouldn't be blogging, so here goes).

"I don't buy it. This is clearly a case of bullying and intimidation, fuelled primarily by insecurity and sexual prudishness, topped off by juvenile false equivalences like, "oh, you'd never write like this about Jesus or the Koran." Give me a break – the critical analyses applied to other religions by Western scholarship are there for all to see. Besides, this article is so full of factual errors, from a mis-characterization of William Jones to a childishly sanitized understanding of the Shiva Lingam and it's associated ritual practices, that I believe this writer couldn't stand toe to toe with Prof. Doniger for more than five minutes (also, I'm quite put off by the lack of respect with which these guys – and they're invariably guys – constantly refer to her as "Wendy," as if they've known her since pre-school). There's a reason this kind of ideology abhors scrutiny and free inquiry."

The only other thing I'll note is a quote from Arundhati Roy (incidentally, someone I rarely agree with) in her pained letter to Penguin publishers:

"The fascists are, thus far, only campaigning. Yes, it’s looking bad, but they are not in power. Not yet. And you’ve already succumbed?"

The Future of the Congress Party

Just finished reading “Durbar” by noted writer Tavleen Singh, which has inspired a very infrequent desire to blog.  Read the book – it’s a journalist’s critique of Indian politics under Indira Gandhi and her heirs.

Quote:

“Political dynasties now flourish across the country and because of this, legislatures are increasingly becoming private clubs in which the unworthy heirs of political leaders, with little knowledge of governance and even less political acumen, have privileged access.  Like feudal potentates they surround themselves with sycophants and courtiers… All of this has happened because of the example set by the dynasty in Delhi.”

Like I said, read the book.

My conclusion is that it is time to honestly examine and reform the Congress Party.  It is by far the most important political party in modern Indian history.  Being the party that won Indian independence, it is inextricably linked to the idea of the Republic of India.  Can India survive without the Congress?

Most thinking people would hope “yes”.  And rightly so.  The sins of the “unworthy heirs” of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty and their acolytes are clearly worth moving on from.  However, the other options available are underwhelming at best, terrifying at worst.

Reforming Congress is the Indian Liberal’s hope of the day – and to do that, the Congress should just look to its recent history.  The defection of Rajaji (C. Rajagopalachari) and the formation of the Swantantra Party can be read in hindsight as a desire to reform the Indian nationalist movement (ie. the Congress) just as the Janata movement of J. P. Narayan has been seen. 

Will a Liberal revolution ever occur within the Congress?

I doubt it, but I believe it’s our best bet.  The Hindutva faction considers violence a part and parcel of democratic politics and that is all that needs to be said about that.  Nor are Regional and Caste parties the answer to the crippling problems facing the country.  Only Congress is left.  Therefore, it must change.

Changing politics in a Constitutional manner is the first step in making peoples’ lives better.  Again, look to recent memory – when Narasimha Rao’s Congress-led Government enacted Liberal reforms the country undeniably improved.

It’s a futile hope though, my friends – the reform of the Congress requires the Dynasty vacating its position of privilege.  Don't hold your breath...

Remember, remember - the 26th of November

A grim anniversary approaches, and us pessimists will not fail in pointing out the lack of progress made in ensuring the security of Indian citizens. The perpetrators of the attack on Bombay remain unrepentant, un-prosecuted, and at large - ready to plot their diabolical plans and unleash havoc at their command. Nor have the real culprits of the 1993 attack on Bombay been captured. And, it is now beyond obvious that we must look to Pakistan for answers.

Tiger Memon, Dawood Ibrahim, Hafiz Saeed and many other diabolical criminals remain wanted in India, yet have secured shelter in Pakistan. As has A. Q. Khan, the so-called "Father" of the Islamic bomb, who walks free and lives the life of a national hero.

What are we to make of this?

On the one hand, it is obvious that nobody in Pakistan cares that criminal masterminds are running amok in their streets, as long as those criminals are targeting the people of India. On the other hand, the Pakistani Army's operations along its western border have to be seen as genuine attempts to end terrorism in the region. Why the double standard?

America wants to eradicate the international jihad, yet maintain peace in the region. So why do the Americans provide Pakistan with fighter planes that cannot possibly be used against domestic terrorists, when securing concessions of Pakistani co-operation on the western border? Why does the American government ramble on about nuclear proliferation, while offering no resistance to Pakistani denials of an interrogation of A. Q. Khan? Why the double standard?

Why does the Indian government concede to absurd discussions about Balochistan when trying to get co-operation from the Pakistani civilian government? Why are we unable to make common cause with those Pakistani civilians (not the least of whom is the widower Asif Zardari) who have been among the biggest losers in the jihad? How does an attack on Bombay, launched from Pakistan, trigger a threat of redeployment of troops to the India border from that very same Pakistan? Why the double standard?

It is clear that Pakistan is, was, and will be the center of the global jihad (and inevitably, to the resistance of that jihad). This has been true since long before 9/11, let alone 26/11. But the nation of Pakistan is too big and too complex to pigeon-hole. Too many internal factions (just like in all large and chaotic countries) vie for power in order to fulfill differing visions of what that country should be. And hence, outsiders make a series of Faustian bargains as described above, each creating its own little Frankenstein's monster (if you will excuse the mixed metaphor).

Is there a solution to this catch-22 (again, please pardon the excessive allusions)? In fact, there is. "There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom." These words were enunciated by the much-maligned George W. Bush in his second inaugural address (one that is available online and which I urge you to read). The point is simple: legitimate, democratic government (with a transparent judicial system) will lead to (or rather, amounts to) civilized behavior.

Can this be achieved in Pakistan?

The answer, disappointingly, is only a cautious "maybe". Circumstance and evidence lead us to believe that Pakistan is where the locus of the debate is. Will Pakistani society opt for a scenario where their country is used as a base for the global jihad? Or will Pakistanis realize the implications of such a move and make serious attempts to combat such an impulse? It is with Pakistani civil society (one that has strong un-civil and un-civilian elements) that we must turn. And frankly, the prognosis isn't good.

The only recourse for India is to protect its borders and maintain internal security, and then hope for the best in Pakistan. For the United States, the challenge is slightly different. With obligations in Afghanistan (and of course, Pakistan), they cannot easily cut and run. At least that is the conventional wisdom. In truth, the Americans can easily cut their losses and run, to the detriment of everyone who sticks around, not just to themselves. If, as appears likely, America reduces its influence in the region, then we will be stuck with a Pakistani establishment under fewer pressures to give up its radical tendencies.

The sad fact is that India's long-term safety is out of its own hands. One hopes that ordinary Americans and ordinary Pakistanis will realize the implications of their choices and act accordingly.

Analysis of Predictions vs Results

Well, I'm certainly pleased with the Indian election results, mostly because I wanted the Manmohan Singh government to return, but also because my pre-results predictions proved to be remarkably good (see post below for full predictions). Obviously I made some major howlers, but on the whole, I think I called this one correctly. Read on for the analysis and my thoughts on the whole thing.

What did I get right?
1. That Congress would be the largest party and UPA will return to power.
2. Mulayam and Lalu appear set to support the UPA government (albeit from a weaker position than I was expecting).
3. BJP allies fared badly (the exception is Nitish Kumar in Bihar - more on that below).
4. Mayawati was a non-factor. I predicted she would get 26 seats, and she got 21. I'm pretty happy with that, considering there was talk of her getting over 40 seats at one point.
5. The communists lost in both Bengal and Kerala.

On all the high level predictions, I was proved correct. Drill down into the numbers, and you see that the main mistake I made was to be a little too conservative when it came to picking a Congress win. Strangely enough, when you drill down into the states, you find that quite a few of the predictions were off. It seems all the errors even each other out!

Of the 12 big states, the ones I got correct (or close enough that I can legitimately claim that I called the trends correctly) are Gujarat, Kerala (bonus: Shashi Tharoor won), Orissa, UP and West Bengal (the last two with a little reservation - keep reading).

But I also failed to see a large Congress resurgence in Andhra (where my hung assembly prediction totally failed to happen), Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and to some extent, UP, where I think the results match my predictions with this one caveat. There was also Rajasthan, where I predicted a small swing towards Congress, when in fact it ended up being a Congress landslide.

I also missed the trends in the two states that definitively went against the national grain - Karnataka and Bihar, where the NDA did surprisingly well. Oh, and of course, Deve Gowda won three seats in Karnataka, so we still have him and his absurd son to kick around.

And finally, there's Tamil Nadu, where I expected Jayalalitha to catch up to Karunanidhi, but instead he came out with twice as many seats as her.

On the issue of West Bengal, I got the trend correct (that the commies would falter), but failed to predict the beneficiary - Mamta. I'm still going to put this one in my correct column because Mamta will be supporting the Congress government, so the upshot is the same.

So, what are the lessons (or "take-aways" as I used to say in my previous, corporate incarnation)?
1. It's all regional. Every party that won or lost did so because of how they have governed in their states. For example, Nitish, YSR, DMK, Patnaik all benefited from their recent positive track record in power in their states. The Communists (both in Bengal and Kerala), and the BJP in Rajasthan were seeking votes in states where their local governments had fared particularly badly in recent years. The Thackeray family fight in Maharashtra benefited the Congress, just as the honeymoon period of the Yediyurappa government helped the BJP in Karnataka. Mayawati and Mulayam's mis-governance in UP over the last decade hurt both of them.

It's all regional.

2. To the extent that there is any "national" trend or lesson, it's not about substance but a more fuzzy question of "national vision". What I mean by this is that when voters think beyond their own constituency and state, they focus more on which party offers a more compelling vision for India (or if you prefer, definition of India) rather than specifics (for which they turn to recent local history). On this count, the BJP failed to provide a compelling vision of India to the voters, and this further aided the Congress resurgence.

3. The following is a pet theory of mine that I can't back up with any evidence, but I think it fits the story. The national elections of 2009 can be viewed as a re-playing out of last year's confidence motion in parliament on a national scale. If you remember, even then, parties horse-traded and voted according to their local concerns (ex. Mulayam was scared of Mayawati and looked to fend her off by moving closer to the Congress) and the larger national vision was lost in the process. But somehow, the parliament muddled through and reached the correct decision. In this election, something similar happened, with the added bonus that everyone who proved themselves to be cravenly opportunistic politicians during the nuclear deal and confidence vote saga lost big time. In fact, support for the confidence motion was possibly the best indicator for how well parties did in this election.

And, now I'm sure you're asking whether I have any advice for our wonderful Parties. Why, of course! Here goes:

To the BJP - focus on regional government, try a little less cynical opportunism (see: nuclear deal) and tone down the Hindutva nonsense.

To Mayawati, Mulayam, Commies, Shiv Sena, Deve Gowda etc. - Please leave politics.

To Congress and UPA - don't screw it up!

Now, where's my TV contract?

2009 Indian Parliamentary Elections Predictions

Right, so the elections are coming to a close and we find out on May 16th what the results are. I've decided (in a significant bout of folly) to predict the unpredictable and to call the Indian election results before they're announced. I've read the tea leaves, consulted the stars, ruffled through wikipedia and a few websites of Indian news organizations, and have come up with my very own set of predictions. 543 seats being contested, in 28 States and 7 Territories, with over 30 political parties, all kinds of crazy characters, and very high stakes. This is a little long, so I'll post the predictions up top and discuss the thinking behind this and state-by-state analysis further down. Feel free to pull this list out on the 16th and ridicule me for getting it completely wrong!

FINAL TALLY
UPA - 257
NDA - 156
3rd Front - 108
Other - 22

PARTY - NUMBER OF SEATS (ALLIANCE AFFILIATION)
1. Congress - 179 (UPA)
2. BJP - 128 (NDA)
3. Commies - 36 (3rd Front)
4. Mulayam - 27 (UPA)
5. Mayawati - 26 (3rd Front)
6. Lalu - 19 (UPA)
7. Chandrababu Naidu - 15 (3rd Front)
8. Nitish Kumar - 13 (NDA)
9. Karunanidhi - 13 (UPA)
10. Jayalalitha - 11 (3rd Front)
11. Naveen Patnaik - 11 (3rd Front)
12. Sharad Pawar - 9 (UPA)
13. Shiv Sena - 8 (NDA)
14. Chiranjeevi - 6 (Other)
15. Raj Thackeray - 6 (Other)
16. Akalis - 5 (NDA)
17. Ram Vilas Paswan - 4 (UPA)
18. Omar Abdullah - 4 (Other)
19. Telengana - 3 (3rd Front)
20. Ramdoss - 3 (3rd Front)
21. Vaiko - 3 (3rd Front)
22. Mamta Banerjee - 2 (UPA)
23. Shibu Soren - 2 (UPA)
24. Ajit Singh - 2 (NDA)
25. Independents - 2 (UPA)
26. Independents - 6 (Other)


Phew! You'll notice I've used the names of politicians to denote the parties they lead. This is largely because too many acronyms will get too confusing, and also because most of these parties are glorified personality cults of their leaders anyway. The tallies above are based on a state-by-state analysis, which made sense because the national election is really a collection of separate regional elections. I'm including my state-by-state analysis below as well.

Well, the high level analysis is that we will see a return of the UPA government at the center. There are a few assumptions I'm basing this on. The first is that Mulayam will support the UPA. If he doesn't, then the equations will change all over again, but I have a feeling he'll stick with it. The second is that while the BJP will not be hurt very much, it's allies will virtually disappear. Third is that the Congress will improve its tally, continuing the BJP's stint in the wilderness of opposition. Fourth is that the Mayawati phenomenon will not materialize as expected. She will gain a few seats, but it won't be a dramatic gain, and her appeal will not translate outside UP. And fifth, the Communists will lose ground in Kerala and Bengal, but the 3rd Front will cross a hundred seats because of the gains of newly minted allies like Mayawati, Jayalalitha, Naveen Patnaik and Chandrababu Naidu.

One other major consideration is the confidence vote which took place in the Lok Sabha last year. The vote was very close, and so it will be again if the 3rd Front and NDA gang up again to avoid a UPA government. I doubt that will happen, because I think the UPA will be able to entice some of the Other parties (like Omar Abdullah's) as well as some constituent members of the 3rd Front and NDA to create the government.

The last point on a general national level is that of the issues. The major issues affecting India today, the threat of terrorism and the global economic crisis were rarely discussed on the campaign trail. The US-India Nuclear Deal and the subsequent confidence motion that the government barely survived in parliament are also not discussed nearly as much as they should be. Instead, this campaign was dominated by complaints of personal slights, random inflammation of religious hatred and its twin, over-reaction by the state apparatus, the ridiculous sight of pampered film stars in designer clothes urging dhoti and sari clad voters to blindly follow their recommendations and the prospect (as a very close friend put it to me) of "an 81 year old and a 76 year old vying to lead a country where the median age is 25." The media, as expected, has been weak, shameful, shrill, excessive and unwilling and unable to mediate a grand national debate. More money has been spent on this election then ever before, and I'm not sure if the issues could have been more ill-served than they were. One thing is for sure: nobody, not the politicians, not the parties, not the media, nor (heck, I'll say it) the electorate have lived up to the grandness of the occasion.

Below is my state-by-state analysis. It's in order of size of state, with a little blurb of explanation where I felt it was required. I'll stand by the predictions in the first 12 states on this list (ie. every state with 20 seats or more). These top 12 states account for 440 of the 543 total seats being contested. After that, what was an exercise that was mostly guess work became an exercise in complete guess work, so keep that in mind. Righto!

1. UTTAR PRADESH (80 Seats)
Mulayam - 26
Mayawati - 24
Congress - 14
BJP - 12
Ajit Singh - 2
Independent - 2

So here I'm predicting gains for Mayawati and Congress, and losses for Mulayam. I think that makes basic sense, so Mulayam goes from currently holding 35 seats to 26 seats, and Mayawati goes from 19 to 24. Mulayam still comes out on top, and with an alliance with Congress can fend off Mayawati and the BJP.

2. MAHARASHTRA (48 Seats)
BJP - 11
Congress - 10
Sharad Pawar - 9
Shiv Sena - 8
Raj Thackeray - 6
Mayawati - 2
Mulayam - 1
Independent - 1

This was quite possibly the hardest one to pick. So I'll start with the Independent. I'd like Meera Sanyal to win, so I've put her down as the winner in Bombay South (with the expectation that she will support the UPA). Congress, BJP, Shiv Sena and Sharad Pawar have all basically been evenly footed the last several years in the state, but with the split within the Thackeray family, and the heavy investment Mayawati is making in the state, it's all completely up in the air. My notes for Maharashtra have the most number of crossed out tallies than any other state.

3. ANDHRA PRADESH (42 Seats)
Congress - 16
Chandrababu Naidu - 15
Chiranjeevi - 6
Telengana - 3
Commies - 2

Another very difficult state to call. They're concurrently holding elections for the state legislative assembly, so that means that this vote is a referendum on the YSR led Congress government. Usually AP swings in a big way one way or the other. This time however, with the addition of Chiranjeevi in the fray I think Naidu won't be able to capitalize entirely on the expected swing, leaving Congress at the top, but not by much. Expect a hung assembly as well, where Chiranjeevi will play a much bigger spoiler role.

4. WEST BENGAL (42 Seats)
Commies - 20
Congress - 20
Mamta- 2

Major loss of face for the Communists is predicted here. They've pissed off secularists and internationalists by allying with the NDA to try to topple the government over the nuclear deal, and they've pissed off local leftist agitator types by supporting industry in Singur and Nandigram.

5. BIHAR (40 Seats)
Lalu - 19
Nitish Kumar - 13
BJP - 4
Ram Vilas Paswan - 4
Congress - 0

Gains for Nitish Kumar in the wake of the successful start to his Chief Ministership, but Lalu maintains enough seats to stay relevant.

6. TAMIL NADU (39 Seats)
Karunanidhi - 13
Jayalalitha - 11
Congress - 8
Vaiko - 3
Ramdoss - 2
Commies - 2

Jayalalitha makes some gains, but mostly at the expense of the Congress.

7. MADHYA PRADESH (29 Seats)
BJP - 26
Congress - 3

This traditional BJP bastion stays that way.

8. KARNATAKA (28 Seats)
BJP - 10
Congress - 18
Deve Gowda - 0

You may have noticed that Deve Gowda is missing from my total tally up top. That's because I have him and his party getting the sound thrashing they completely deserve. BJP will also lose seats, and Congress will make a remarkable come back in this state. You heard it here first folks!

9. GUJARAT (26 Seats)
BJP - 16
Congress - 10

The trend of the greater BJP-fication of Gujarat continues, much to my displeasure.

10. RAJASTHAN (25 Seats)
BJP - 16
Congress - 9

Congress won recent state assembly elections here, following a few years of caste based violence, and a poor governing record on the part of the BJP's Vasundhara Raje Scindia. BJP is still strong, but the Congress will pick up a few seats here.

11. ORISSA (21 Seats)
Naveen Patnaik - 11
Congress - 6
BJP - 4

Recent communal violence, as well as being ditched as an ally by Patnaik means that the BJP will lose ground here. Patnaik is an odd fish, because he just left the NDA, and has given temporary allegiance to the 3rd Front. If, as I predict, his position in the Lok Sabha doesn't change (he keeps the 11 seat tally he currently holds) then his party will also be a good candidate for the UPA to try and woo.

12. KERALA (20 Seats)
Congress - 11
Commies - 9

Another thumping setback for the Commies, and Shashi Tharoor will join the Indian Parliament as a Congress MP.

That's the last of the confident predictions (or as confident as they can possibly be). Below are the rest of the states and territories (the final 103 seats in the Lok Sabha).

13. ASSAM (14 seats)
Congress - 11
BJP - 2
Independent - 1

14. JHARKHAND (14 Seats)
Congress - 7
BJP - 4
Shibu Soren - 2
Commies - 1

15. PUNJAB (13 Seats)
Congress - 6
Akalis - 5
BJP - 2

16. CHHATTISGARH (11 Seats)
BJP - 9
Congress - 2

17. HARYANA (10 Seats)
Congress - 9
BJP - 1

18. JAMMU & KASHMIR (6 Seats)
Omar Abdullah - 4
Congress - 1
BJP - 1

19. UTTARKHAND (5 Seats)
BJP - 3
Congress - 2

20. HIMACHAL PRADESH (4 Seats)
Congress - 3
BJP - 1

21. ARUNACHAL PRADESH (2 Seats)
BJP - 2

22. GOA (2 Seats)
BJP - 1
Congress - 1

23. MANIPUR (2 Seats)
BJP - 1
Congress - 1

24. MEGHALAYA (2 Seats)
Congress - 2

25. TRIPURA (2 Seats)
Commies - 2

26. MIZORAM (1 Seat)
Mizo National Front (counted as Independent) - 1

27. NAGALAND (1 Seat)
Naga People Front (counted as Independent) - 1

28. SIKKIM (1 Seat)
Sikkim Democratic Front (counted as Independent) - 1

29. DELHI (7 Seats)
Congress - 5
BJP - 2

30. ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR (1 Seat)
Congress - 1

31. CHANDIGARH (1 Seat)
Congress - 1

32. DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI (1 Seat)
Bharatiya Navshakti Party (counted as Independent supporting UPA) - 1

33. DAMAN AND DIU (1 Seat)
Congress - 1

34. LAKSHADWEEP (1 Seat)
Congress - 1

35. PONDICHERRY (1 Seat)
Ramdoss - 1

If you've made it this far, then hats off to you! I think the numbers speak for themselves. We'll find out soon enough. Cheerio!