An insight on what is at stake for secular India

As we, Indians, welcomed the beginning of a new era 2020 (the era which was supposed to bring the promised 'acha din'), it would be interesting to investigate the contemporary political discourse that pervades the country. Any impartial political observant committed to the democratic secular ethos of the Constitution of India would be alarmed at the way all the ideals that make up our country such as democracy, secularism, etc are under threat and all the political establishments that were built by Nehruvian era have been irrecoverably destroyed. Judiciary, Rule of Law, and every such institutions are being on the verge of complete annihilation.

This, coupled with the continuous electoral victories of the ruling party, would prompt us to ask this crucial question: Is India turned out to be a completely hopeless theocratic state with hundred per cent disregard for civil rights?

The answer is not so simple as one may imagine. Just look at the way AAP has managed to win the election. We would be able to appreciate the fact that our voters were not mesmerised by the fundamentalist bombardment of propaganda that pervaded the media. When Kejriwal brought out the "good governance"(acha din) as promised by him, people chose him.

So, is it so easy to convince the voters and bring back the secular forces to power? Before proceeding to answer either a 'yes' or a 'no', we need to know what were/are the problems of the dominant democratic secular political party of India, INC (Indian National Congress): dynasty, corruption, incompetency, identity politics? It invites a detailed analysis. 

(Will continue...)

Reinvent the ideology- the only option before Congress

Indian National Congress is the oldest political party in India. During the time of British colonial rule, the party gained control by invoking the nationalist sentiments of the people. The leaders of the party knew that in a multi-cultural society like India, secular ideals would be better to get the support of the people. Thus, by combining the ideals of nationalism and secular concepts, INC became an unquestionable power. Any other economic ideology other than that of socialism would have been inappropriate in a country where the social division of haves and have-nots is a social reality. The Congress party under the leadership of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru adopted socialist policy in order to decrease the gap between rich and the poor. In other words, the ideological positioning of the party “nationalism+ secularism+ socialism” is what helps Nehru remain as an unquestionable power centre in the country.

In short, in order to understand the real depth of the problems of Congress party in the contemporary India, an understanding of history will be useful. There are political observers who say that it is because of the dynastic rule within the party that led to the destruction of the party, whereas some others point out the corruption cases leveled against the leaders of the UPA govt. I would say these are just simplification of the issue.

Nationalist sentiments were something which helped grow the Congress party, but the party failed to instill the same sentiments among the youth in the present era. In the place of Congress, BJP and RSS invoked the same sentiments. They have used the ideas and writings of the earlier national leaders such as Bal Gangadhara Tilak. This helped them gain control.

The Janata Parivar and the Leftist parties became powerful parties as they have concentrated on secularist and socialist ideas. When Congress failed to support the minorities and Dalits, they lost their support base.

In short, the reason behind the failure is because of their lack of ideological stand point. BJP proved to be a better right wing, nationalist political party and the regional parties raise the slogan of secularism louder than the Congress. So, if Congress wants to regain their lost ground, they need to invent some catchy slogans and ideology.

The Game Changer- NOTA or AAP?

In your opinion, what makes this election so curious? Or, is it curious? I find the election extremely curious, I will tell you why. Though I don’t think the rhetoric ‘cast vote, use your right’ worth considering, I think casting vote this year may be is interesting. The major reason for discarding this rhetoric is that we don’t have any right at all as we don’t have much voice in the selection of the candidates or in the decision making process. Election 2014 is curious enough for me because of three reasons:

The presence of AAP
Inclusion of large number of young voters
Introduction of NOTA

Among these I consider NOTA as of extremely curious, but I think the presence of AAP will decrease its relevance. Large sections of our people are against the political situation in our country, but couldn’t express their unhappiness in any other way. However, now, these discontent sections can show their feelings by voting NOTA. The relevance of NOTA is decreased not because these discontent sections are happy now, but they can show their unhappiness by voting AAP. Though this will not put AAP in power, it will have a strong effect in most of the states, especially in urban sections and among educated young Indians. The educated young Indians are not that much politically conscious as most political observers would think; in fact most of them are blindly following, the communal, fascist, feudal politics, but a significant minority among them will think otherwise.
It is not the majority who are turning the wheels of history and bringing about revolutions, but a vigilant minority.

Obama's Gandhi- A Blood Thirsty Devil?

The railway station with its colored bricks and people from various classes seemed as the mirror-image of everything the country was at that time; the white masters, their servants, the zamindars, and so on. An elderly lady was sitting anxiously in one of the compartments. She was alone and she couldn’t find anyone to help her buy some drinking water. Though there were so many other passengers in the same cabin, she couldn’t find any innocent faces there. Then, she saw a young man outside; she called him and gave some money and the bottle she had with her. As she waited for him, the train started moving. The fellow passengers started criticizing her for giving money to a completely strange man. However, she looked so calm. When the train moved a bit, the young man came running and gave her the bottled water and the remaining cash. He waved his hands as the train left. Then, the fellow passengers asked her, “How did you trust that completely stranger so much?” With a smile, she replied, “He was wearing khadi.”

I heard this story in a speech by Prof. Muhammad Ahammad. He was referring the trust people had for the Gandhians during the time of India’s freedom struggle. The people who were named as Gandhians were not just workers of Indian National Congress, but those who follow certain kind of lifestyle such as complete simplicity, vegetarianism, adherents of ahimsa, truthfulness, and always felt that serving fellow beings irrespective of caste, religion, race, nationality and so on is their duty. It was not limited to the followers of Gandhi in India alone, but all those who were influenced by his ideas such as Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Aung San Suu Ki and so on. However, in the present day, Gandhians are people who wear khadi, except that nothing is similar with the old values and ideas. Politicians know the market value of Gandhi, but never take any care to follow the footsteps of Gandhi. Though it became a standard practice in India for politicians to wear khadi and conduct special programs on Gandhi Jayanthi, only to woo the people, it became a phenomenon outside India.

Barack Obama, for example, during and after the presidential election, shared how the ideas of Gandhi such as Satygraha influenced his life. Those who observed the way he is running his country will have to find a new meaning for the word “influence.”

The basic principle in which Gandhi built his political philosophy is ‘ahimsa’. Though ‘ahimsa’ is somewhat similar to non-violence, it is not as simple as that. Anyone who is following ‘ahimsa’ as his basic ideology can’t even think of violence. Further, Gandhi maintained the view that ‘both end and means should be pure’, contrary to the long-held view that ‘end justifies the means.’

In other words, in order to fight terrorism, a person influenced by Gandhi won’t send his army to kill people. He will not introduce a motion in the Senate to get permission to attack Syria. In other words, the policies of Obama clearly show that he does not have any respect for Gandhi or the ideas of Gandhi.

It is clear that Obama got elected as the president of the USA by creating an image about him- a black, influence by civil rights movement of Martin Luther King, ideas of Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. Of course, the reason for his success is mainly the ‘hope’ he tried to sell to the voters. The point is, if ‘hope’ was the commodity he tried to sell, Gandhi, Mandela, and King were the selling strategies. Later, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Alas, what is the meaning of peace then?

Image Courtesy:

exposing the truth

Google Images

Friday, 13th Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister

“Don't walk under any ladders, Don't break any mirrors, Don't spill any salt, And don't walk by any black cats. Happy Friday the 13th!”

On 13th Friday, 2013, the BJP Parliamentary Board has ‘unanimously’ declared Narendra Modi as their prime ministerial candidate. As the old guards became useless and most of the second-level leaders do not have mass support, Modi’s succession is easily predicted, and political observers were curious only to know when it will happen. However, what message this action gives to the people of India. One easy answer is Modi can lead India to the path of development, as he did in Gujarath ( as he did everything else in Gujarath, including the riot!). But we need to ask the disturbing question, how Modi’s concept of development is different from that of his counter-part, i.e., the Congress.

Evidently, he is not against multi-national corporations, wooing capital flow from the other countries, or anything like that. In other words, his idea of development is in no way different from that of his opponents. But, one difference maybe that he will be stricter in implementing the plans and programs. His dictatorial style won’t be suitable to a multi-cultural society like India.

Let us hope for the best!