Menu
blogid : 65 postid : 22

Rahul Gandhi-Thackeray fracas,Indian polity

जागरण संपादकीय ब्लॉग
जागरण संपादकीय ब्लॉग
  • 17 Posts
  • 333 Comments

Rahul Gandhi, Thackeray face of has been the latest political controversy to have figured prominently in the headlines. The fracas captured the attention of the entire nation.

I marvel at the ability of our politicians who are able to stir a debate out of nowhere; create controversy over rudimentary issues that are catapulted into inexorable discussions. It is arcane how the theatrics of some of our illustrious political families are lapped on to by the society. But one will have to concede that it does require special ability to be able to consistently mesmerise, confound the public with an over drive of drama; an ability which our leaders have an innate knack for and the dramatics which may seem banal to few are intriguing for most. The consequent reams of newsprint that these leaders occupy and the fodder that they provide to our 24/7 news channels is ipso facto.

It might be a heresy but every emergent imbroglio is reflective of the new low that our polity has plummeted to and that is what makes me cringe.

The Thackeray family seems to have perfected the art of demagoguery. The rivalry between the old and the new sena has taken rabble rousing to the unattained, never before experienced levels of outrage. Their harangue has engulfed movie stars, sports legends, business czars and political adversaries. The rhetoric has become increasingly preposterous and strident. It seems incredulous that at the receiving end of the two sena rumble have been national icons like Amitabh Bachchan, Shahrukh Khan, Sachin Tendulkar, Mukesh Ambani, and Rahul Gandhi.

Shahrukh Khan incurred the ire of the Thackeray patriarch by speaking in favour of the inclusion of Pakistani cricketers in IPL 3. I personally do not subscribe to the view of maintaining sporting ties with Pakistan in the present times. I endorse a different political ideology. I am opposed to the point of view expressed by Shahrukh Khan; having said that I nevertheless maintain that we should protect the right of Shahrukh Khan and his ilk to express their view. We differ from you but we shall still let you fearlessly speak your view; divergent views must coexist in harmony. That for me encapsulates the spirit of democracy. The obverse of this liberality which is the hallmark of a vibrant democracy has been the Thackeray stand.

An example of radical dogmatism; add to it the glut of parochialism and we have a Molotov cocktail. Amitabh Bachchan, Sachin Tendulkar, Mukesh Ambani, and Rahul Gandhi, tremendously significant in their fields have been targets of sectarian shrill. This sectarian divide challenges the fundamental quiddity of a unified Indian nation. The divisive politics, irrational regional bias of the Thackeray family is anti national and threatens to portray them as quislings. It is insidious to the concept of one India and poses an existential quandary. Article 370 that provides special privilege to the state of Jammu and Kashmir has justifiably been an anathema for most patriotic Indians who are recalcitrant over any compromise on Kashmir. The Thackerays have also vehemently opposed the article and advocated its abrogation. It is abstruse why they have adopted this incongruous stand on Mumbai which is more in consonance with the much reviled article 370.

Over hundred years back, in 1888 there was an English writer named John Strachey. He had put forward a theoretical argument that there never was nor will be any one country called India; that India was a label of convenience assigned to a great land mass comprising of multitude of different countries. In Strachey’s view, the differences between the countries of Europe were much smaller than those between the countries of India. Scotland was more like Spain than Bengal was like Punjab; the diversities of race, language and religion were far greater in India. There was no Indian nation or country in the past nor would there be in the future.

We have survived as one unified India contrary to all speculation; have existed as a pluralist, unified and a democratic nation. The Thackeray ideology of regionalism resonates more with the anti India sentiment of the cynics such as Strachey than nationalist pride. It stymies the relentless efforts of the erstwhile nationalists and questions the raison d etrée of India as one country.

It is heartening to witness that for the first time the congress led state government in Maharashtra has taken a stand against the Thackerays. It does not however extricate the congress from its cavalier approach of the past. The two senas had been unreasonable since long but the congress sprung into some sort of an action only when its crown prince was confronted. It chose to be blithely oblivious to the earlier sena misdeeds; remember Raj Thackeray’s tirade against Amitabh Bachchan, the frightening violence with the north Indians. Because it was politically expedient for the congress party then to pit one Thackeray against the other, to not annoy the Marathi sentiment before the Maharashtra state assembly polls, it acted insouciant. They cannot be allowed to take a moral high ground now. If Rahul Gandhi after over an year, mentions the Bihari contribution in combating 26/11 or takes cognizance of the uncharitable remarks against the UP, Bihar community, it prompts one to believe that it emanates out of the fact that the state of Bihar goes for polls later this year. It is more of a political posturing and reflects a sanctimonious mindset.

If ever any evidence was required about Rahul Gandhi’s charisma, his recent visit to Mumbai settled that; his harshest critic will also have to acknowledge Rahul Gandhi’s metamorphosis into a hugely popular mass leader. Nevertheless, as much adulation that he may have received, in all fairness, I can only surmise it as a successful but contrived attempt of playing to the gallery. I do not think its being cynical and is only a substantive conjecture. He is mastering the craft of such populist measures; recall his train journeys at the height of the austerity drive last year. This time around as well, he boarded a local train, stopped by at an ATM, made forays in the so called sena bastion. Such public mingling endeavours may entail substantial discomfort for that very public itself, but that is a profound subject which we can discuss later; nevertheless the image management exercise was very well orchestrated and executed. Political gimmickry would be an appropriate epithet to explain it. However, should we not ponder that how long will it be till such gimmicks from our leaders continue to sway our public?

The congress party in Mumbai was out in full strength to welcome Rahul Gandhi; the de facto anointed future Prime Ministerial candidate. The Maharashtra Chief Minister spent around half an hour at a station waiting to receive him. Did anybody mention protocol? Please remember he is the scion of the Nehru/Gandhi family. The minister of state for home affairs picked up his slippers. Such show of deference is not uncommon in congress. How much they deify their leaders who by some quirk of fate happen to be from one family. Comparisons are odious but this one is unavoidable. The former UP and Uttarakhand CM, former governor of Andhra Pradesh, now a retired octogenarian congress politician who recently captured the imagination of the entire nation and the admiration and envy of the male fraternity with his alleged carnal exploits, had reportedly demonstrated similar deferential treatment for the then Nehru/Gandhi family crown prince, in the seventies during one of latter’s UP visits. It has been an age old tradition. Please do not be as petty to term such obeisance as sycophancy.

Let us not be as naïve to view monarchy as an anachronism in the modern world. Today it manifests itself in a slightly altered form. The principle of primogeniture has been adopted by almost all political parties. Politics has become a family profession and the party a private fiefdom. Why single out the congress party? The BJP may claim to be somewhat an exception to at least this principle of primogeniture but it is enmeshed with its own malaise and stuck in a quagmire.

Did we associate leaders with being terse and writers verbose? Today prolixity has become a norm for leaders as well. Hence as a writer I shall be laconic and end with a request to our leaders to may as well indulge in verbosity but to refrain from waffling and specious posturing. It may at most times not be illegal but is certainly not salubrious for our democracy.

Read Comments

    Post a comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    CAPTCHA
    Refresh