An election which could have gone either ways definitely went the way I didn’t want it go. I wished the exit polls to go wrong but in the other direction. Though I know whichever party comes to power, it won’t be affecting general public life to a large extent and only people who will be benefitting will be the ministers in the government who will be making money for their generations to come. Still, accepting congress in its present form due to reasons like historical blunders, one family rule, sycophancy, etc. is atleast not possible for me.
With the kind of support congress had before independence, it is hard to believe they took more than forty years to get us independent. One might argue the methods used then were the only possibilities and it is easy to condemn the past sitting in the lap of the present, but yet a leadership which was more foreign than Indian in their thoughts and was more than happy of having Dominican status was not the best bet for India. Even the leaders like S. C. Bose who also captured the imagination of masses weren’t supported by M.K. Gandhi for the reasons well documented and ultimately have to move away from the Congress. With all due respects to the work done by the leaders and people then, there is no denying the fact that if it was not for the World War II, the party could have fought for next hundred years for the Indian independence but couldn’t have achieved anything. A well documented reason that it became harder economically for the British to sustain a colony after WWII is never even talked of at school level. Indian Navy revolt, another major reason which made British to leave India, is never taught in school history to keep the credit of Independence always with the Congress. It is an accepted fact that the history is the mistress of the victorious but the way the past governments have indoctrinated Indian public of their glorious past is something unacceptable. India has been ruled by the outsiders for last 1000 years and the majority population, whether you want to accept it or not, was treated badly during those times. But blatantly and selectively wiping off the history in the name of maintaining communal peace was not a way forward. Having said that, there is no doubt that people followed them due to charismatic nature of these leaders and ultimately it is the public that decides who leads them at the end of day, hence the blame totally lies with us, the people of India.
Ruling a country for around fifty years at a stretch and still having a large portion of population which thrives on reservations, a large percentage being illiterate, a lot of area no better than a place in underdeveloped country makes me think if the ruling party (or the family) never really worked on making things works the way they should have been. Some classical examples given are that of China and Japan, which were almost at the same level as was India at the time of independence. No doubt, they are the countries with different models but yet, if their model worked why couldn’t the Indian model work. Did the party have some vested interest in keeping people the way they were is something to ponder about?
Democracy, as per many commentators, is the best form of rule tried and tested till now. But seeing the democracies around the world makes me wonder if it’s just an exercise where people vindicate their trust in the hereditary rule. Again there is no denying the fact that it is the people of a country who are electing these scions but has it to do something with the mentality of people or is it just a human nature to go and trust the people of a particular family to lead them. Congress keeps falling back on one family to revive their fortunes because they know that people of this country will support the family. People whose leadership credentials are no better than mine just jump into the fray and may become the ruler one day just because of his/ her family name. Was it possible if large population in the country was educated is something I always wonder?
A party which since long has supported corruption, appeased people in name of secularism, or backed sycophants is the last thing India needed at this stage.
With the kind of support congress had before independence, it is hard to believe they took more than forty years to get us independent. One might argue the methods used then were the only possibilities and it is easy to condemn the past sitting in the lap of the present, but yet a leadership which was more foreign than Indian in their thoughts and was more than happy of having Dominican status was not the best bet for India. Even the leaders like S. C. Bose who also captured the imagination of masses weren’t supported by M.K. Gandhi for the reasons well documented and ultimately have to move away from the Congress. With all due respects to the work done by the leaders and people then, there is no denying the fact that if it was not for the World War II, the party could have fought for next hundred years for the Indian independence but couldn’t have achieved anything. A well documented reason that it became harder economically for the British to sustain a colony after WWII is never even talked of at school level. Indian Navy revolt, another major reason which made British to leave India, is never taught in school history to keep the credit of Independence always with the Congress. It is an accepted fact that the history is the mistress of the victorious but the way the past governments have indoctrinated Indian public of their glorious past is something unacceptable. India has been ruled by the outsiders for last 1000 years and the majority population, whether you want to accept it or not, was treated badly during those times. But blatantly and selectively wiping off the history in the name of maintaining communal peace was not a way forward. Having said that, there is no doubt that people followed them due to charismatic nature of these leaders and ultimately it is the public that decides who leads them at the end of day, hence the blame totally lies with us, the people of India.
Ruling a country for around fifty years at a stretch and still having a large portion of population which thrives on reservations, a large percentage being illiterate, a lot of area no better than a place in underdeveloped country makes me think if the ruling party (or the family) never really worked on making things works the way they should have been. Some classical examples given are that of China and Japan, which were almost at the same level as was India at the time of independence. No doubt, they are the countries with different models but yet, if their model worked why couldn’t the Indian model work. Did the party have some vested interest in keeping people the way they were is something to ponder about?
Democracy, as per many commentators, is the best form of rule tried and tested till now. But seeing the democracies around the world makes me wonder if it’s just an exercise where people vindicate their trust in the hereditary rule. Again there is no denying the fact that it is the people of a country who are electing these scions but has it to do something with the mentality of people or is it just a human nature to go and trust the people of a particular family to lead them. Congress keeps falling back on one family to revive their fortunes because they know that people of this country will support the family. People whose leadership credentials are no better than mine just jump into the fray and may become the ruler one day just because of his/ her family name. Was it possible if large population in the country was educated is something I always wonder?
A party which since long has supported corruption, appeased people in name of secularism, or backed sycophants is the last thing India needed at this stage.
No comments:
Post a Comment