How the internet generation got politicized?

When I was an undergraduate student in the mid-2000s, politics was never a popular topic among my classmates. Political matters were hardly discussed, and even if they were, it happened without any great passion. When I moved to Bangalore for masters’ degree, I came in contact with students from all over the country. However, I didn’t see any noticeable change in attitude towards politics. Indeed, some people from older generations would often express dissatisfaction that the current generation does not care for the society or country, and are becoming hedonists addicted to TV, internet, cricket, fast food and sex.

All these changed quickly over the next couple of years. It was perhaps triggered by the Anna Hazare movement in April 2011. Although some political intellectuals derided it, there can be no doubt that it created a huge stir among urban youth- people of my generation or those a few years younger. Very quickly, people became aware of politics, politicians and the various scams they were indulging in. Some of the ministers in the central government had recently been implicated in major financial scams like CWG scam, 2G spectrum scam and coal scam, and this made the ruling party unpopular. The innumerable terrorist attacks and bomb blasts that had taken place in the 2005-08 period, as well as the Maoist strikes in April-May 2010 had created outrage among people- especially the middle class, and the ruling government was now seen as weak and ineffective. RaGa became a butt of ridicule. Much of this outrage was channelized through the internet, and it quite quickly made an impression on our internet-addicted generation. And the main opposition party- the IPP- quickly managed to seize control of the outrage. They offered a panacea called NaMo- an all-powerful  leader who would cure all the maladies of the ruling government. The internet generation is too young to remember NaMo’s shady past, and they readily fell for it. The result: a resounding victory for NaMo-led IPP in the 2014 general elections, along with the decimation of ruling party.

The young generation, specifically the 20-29 age groups today is a lot more politically aware than it was earlier. They are also angry and outraged. I understand their outrage, but not their anger. Most of them are very intolerant of opposing ideas, and look upon proponents of opposing ideas as traitors or enemies. Not all of them have the same set of ideas- maximum are broadly rightists, but leftists and centrists are also not negligible in number. But whatever the beliefs, these “politically-aware” people generally have very polarized 1-dimensional, black-and-white views. They quickly take sides on most issues. But the problems of the country are multi-dimensional, and there no side is black or white- rather there are different shades of grey. If people do not appreciate this fact, they can never hope to solve any problem. What has happened is a strange polarization in this young generation, along with a never-ending vitriolic, polemical rhetoric all over social media. All sides- from left to right- are guilty of such polemic, though right now the IPP followers are far ahead of everyone else in this regard. The top IPP leaders, as already mentioned, have cleverly outsourced the rhetoric to these people, through a few specialist rabble-rousing icons whom the internet generation can easily connect to- like the (in)famous Susu-Swamy. Anyone who feel that India should not be rapidly industrialized, anyone who don’t agree that Hindus are threatened in India, anyone who oppose harsh police activities in Kashmir, Manipur or in the red corridor are quickly labelled as traitors and anti-India. The other political parties have already been painted as anti-India, with varying degrees of success. This reminds me of a breed of “politically aware” people who abounded Kolkata in the eighties and nineties- who attributed everything wrong around them as “capitalist conspiracy”, “American conspiracy” or “Center’s negligence of our state”. Such people have dwindled in number now, but they still exist in isolated pockets. They are no less polemic than the right-wingers, only that their voices are not all-pervasive across the social media. If you somehow chance upon their “discussions”, on social media or elsewhere, you will realize that the anger, arrogance and intolerance is not limited to any party or ideology. 

And the intellectuals- scholars from various institutes, social workers, film-makers, non-mainstream journalists have not been able to stem the tide because they have not spoken a language which people can understand. They have espoused seemingly unpopular causes- farmer suicides, displacement due to industrialization, migration, environmental degradation, custodial deaths and disappearances- issues which those in power do not want to hear of. Their intentions are obviously noble, but they have not tried to understand the popular outrage, much less connect to the outraged and explain their causes. Nor have they offered plausible solutions to any problem. This has caused these people to be ridiculed and hated by most (though worshipped by a few, who in turn may hate the outraged majority!) Some of these intellectuals suffer from a syndrome called “blinded by ideology”- they may be so unreasonable that even those who could have sympathized with their causes, can be repelled away!

Yet another case worth examining is the role of NRIs. They are among the richest, most successful and visible people associated with India. They are also the most aggressively nationalist, and very keen to let the world know that they are so. They want the country to industrialize fast, and build a powerful military force necessarily with nuclear capability- so that the country is counted as among the most powerful ones in the world- alongside USA, China, Russia, Germany etc. They are particularly keen to overtake China. Such desires may stem from an inferiority complex they feel in the first-world countries, or due to real or perceived discrimination and arrogance they may face from the people there. On the other hand, they also feel a sense of guilt-they may be seen as people who have put self-interest above country’s interest and caused brain-drain, while their parents and grandparents may feel that they have abandoned their “traditions”. Out of such guilt, they often aggressively display their attachment to the roots- that they are very proud of their country and their religion. They are keen to have a leader who will try and make India important in the eyes of the first world, but will also stand for traditional Indian culture and traditions. NaMo is almost designed to fit these desires, and no wonder they are over-the-top in cheering him. They are mostly unaware of the poverty and inequality in India. In their eyes, anyone opposing rapid industrialization or pointing out the maladies in any Indian tradition is an enemy, and they will do their utmost to humiliate and isolate him. During the 2014 elections, many NRIs actually quit their jobs and came over to India to help the election campaigns of NaMo and IPP. Admittedly, some NRIs have quite different political views- some are more interested in ridding India of corruption and other problems rather than showing off to the world. On the other hand, those NRIs who are not much into politics and are more interested in enjoying the normal pleasures of life, are often derided or made fun of by these “politically aroused” NRIs, especially the nationalist right-wingers. They try to show off to their countrymen that they are standing up for their country, religion, tradition and culture, while others have forgotten these and enjoying the ugly American culture!

The current batches of twenty-somethings have gone through massive changes over the last few years. It is true that many have shed their apathy and hedonism, and are more interested in making a difference for their country. But they are outraged and angry, and intolerant of opposition. They have become strongly polarized. They do not have the patience or the broadness of mind to examine and understand various aspects of the complex problems of the country, but want to jump forward. Their main medium is the internet, and they are overzealous in making their presence felt there. The question arises- how are these changes going to affect our country and society in the near future? Will there actually be any improvements, or will there only be increased polarization and intolerance? Will the next batch of twenty-somethings be even more angry and polarized, or will they learn to see things more holistically? Or will they just give up, and go back to hedonist enjoyment? And is that really such a bad thing after all?

From nation-states to states: towards a peaceful world

The current world is partitioned into nation-states. Almost all nation-states have a central national government, and a national armed defence force.  Some, like India have regional governments also, though these governments do not have their own forces.  Also, the nation-states have well-defined geographical boundaries, demarcating the regions of influence of these governments. Of course, in some cases the locations of the boundaries are disputed by the neighboring nation-states, leading to some armed conflicts. The question is: what is the basis of such partitioning of the world?

Country is a geographical concept, nation is a cultural concept, nation-state is a political concept. Countries have natural, but often not strictly defined, borders. For example, Australia and Great Britain are well-demarcated by seas all around; Indian subcontinent is well-separated from the rest of Asia by the Himalayas etc. But such borders are quite small in number, and are interpreted as continents or sub-continents rather than countries. Geographical countries have less clear borders- which could be a river, a hill range, a bay or gulf, change in soil nature etc.

Cultural nations are even more difficult to demarcate on the globe. It is true to some extent that people in certain geographical regions have some characteristics of their own- in terms of language/religion/art/cuisine. But since thousands of years, people from one place have interacted with another, and have migrated or settled elsewhere. This has inevitably resulted in cultural mixing. Some cultures have merged with others and evolved into new forms, while some cultures have died away. Culture has always been very dynamic. It is even more so in modern times, due to globalization brought about by mass media. To stick to one particular set of cultural practices and militantly oppose influence of other cultures is called chauvinism.

Finally comes the question of governance. Since historic times, almost all groups of people have some form of government or the other- monarchy, theocracy, military rule, various forms of democracy and so on. All governments need to have a geographical limit within which they would have their influence, but not outside.

Since historic times to the early 20^th century, it was usual for governments to try and extend their geographical sphere of influence, mostly by military expeditions. Such tendencies could be due to economic, religious or strategic reasons, or simply for the lust of power. Ever since the Second World War, it has been agreed upon to make such expansions illegal, and partition the world into nation-states with permanent fixed boundaries. There are still many instances where adjacent nation-states do not agree on where their boundaries are, like India and China do not agree about Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. Again, such disputes may arise due to economic or strategic reasons, or simply due to “pride”. The current nation-states are demarcated by either geographical or perceived cultural boundaries, or by a mixture of both. Some demarcations may exist only for historic reasons, like at the end of WW2 if two regions were under different governments, they have been retained as different nation-states. Most nation-states claim to represent a homogenous cultural nation, and attempt to celebrate them with concepts like national flag and national anthem. And then comes a curious nation-state: India.

India encompasses lots of religions and languages, as well as other characteristics like art and cuisine. As already mentioned, it is very difficult, and probably useless, to demarcate geographical boundaries of cultural nations. Nevertheless, India is currently demarcated into zones based on languages- a cultural concept. Needless to say, it is very common for people from one linguistic zone to move and settle in a different linguistic zone in India. Federalists say that India the nation-state encompasses many cultural nations. Alternatively, one can also say that all these so-called cultural nations are linked by the so-called “unity in diversity”. It is quite easy to spot cultural similarities and differences across India.  The question is, how we will interpret them. It all depends on perspective.

 One may harp on the differences more and say that there are many cultural nations- Bengali nation, Tamil nation, Hindi nation, Marathi nation and so on. Regional politicians routinely play up chauvinistic sentiments to polarize people and garner votes. The limitations of this idea are easily exposed by polyglot people- who may be born in Punjab, move to Mumbai for livelihood, marry someone from Bengal who also has moved and settled in Mumbai, and so on. Moreover if we are really looking for diversity, it is always possible to further split these so-called cultural nations also! This is proven by movements for creation of Telengana out of Andhra Pradesh, Vidarbha out of Maharashtra, Kamtapur and Gorkhaland from West Bengal and so on. Many people in Kashmir valley, Manipur and Nagaland do not even want to stay inside the Indian nation-state. They claim to be separate nations and demand nation-states for themselves. But even among them, there are tribes and factions intolerant of each other. For any modern nation-state government, territorial integrity is a prestige issue. So the Indian government refuses to accept their demands of secession, and this has resulted in a never-ending cycle of violence in these regions.

On the other hand, we may harp on the similarities more, and say there is really one cultural nation. That is what national political parties preach, but try to impose a majoritarian cultural identity to the Indian nation-state: the so-called Hindu-Hindi nationalism. This hurts the sentiments of the minorities, and more importantly causes practical disadvantages for them in day-to-day life. On the other hand, if we argue that the Indian nation-state is a distinct homogeneous cultural nation, then comparisons must arise with neighboring Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. After all, these also have strong cultural similarities with the Indian nation, then why are they separate nation-states? But surely that does not mean they should be integrated into the Indian nation-state: in fact many people in these nation-states look upon India with suspicion and hostility- for some valid and some invalid reasons.

 In our subcontinent, the three concepts: geographical country, cultural nation and political nation-state, have got entangled peculiarly. The result: never-ending disputes, violence and mistrust among people. These disputes are related to the question of individual identity. Should I look upon myself as a Hindu, or a Bengali, or an Indian, or a global citizen, or only myself? It is very possible that many or most common people do not really care about this question. One can live a life without answering it, or with the indisputable answer like “I am myself”. If that is the case, then the disputes and conflicts in Kashmir, Nagaland, Telengana, Vidarbha, Gorkhaland,  etc are explained as-frustrated power-hungry politicians are raking up divisive sentiments to polarize people and gain followers. But it is equally possible that people actually do take the question of identity very seriously, and the separatist leaders and parties are only a reflection of popular sentiments. It is impossible to say which is true- it is a chicken-and-egg problem. But either way- the Indian nation-state is faced with a big dilemma: handling these disputes.

The federalist's point of view is that, nation-state is an artificial hence flawed concept, it is the cultural nation that is real. This is wrong because, as already pointed out, cultural nations may not even exist due to the inevitable dynamic nature of culture. On the other hand, it is probably true that nation-state is a flawed artificial concept, due to the fact that it has rigid, well-defined boundaries which can cause tremendous inconvenience to people living in border areas.  They find their natural mobility restricted due to presence of borders. Even if there is a forest or a river that is geographically close they may not use it for their livelihood if it belongs to a different nation-state. They may not visit relatives and friends across the borders without detailed official procedures. And if the nation-state tries to impose a majoritarian identity on them through religion, language or rules like mandatory saluting of a flag, standing up to an anthem or being servile to arrogant border security forces, it is even worse.

But then, for meaningful and effective governance, boundaries and demarcations cannot be wished away. Otherwise there will be inevitable confusion and conflicts. What needs to be understood is that, rigid and strict borders are inconvenient and problematic for all, and fewer the borders the better. Also, it should be realized that creating separate nation-states on the basis of cultural nationality is never a good idea. Not only are such nation-states unsustainable due to the dynamic nature of culture, but more nation-states means more borders, and more problems. The aim should rather be to gradually reduce borders all over the world, and encourage the merging of nation-states. This should be a natural process, not coercive. And states should exist only for purpose of governance, not for cultural nationhood. Governments should realize the differences between geographical country, cultural nation and political nation-state, and respect these differences. Anyone should be free to live in a nation-state, assume any cultural identity (s)he wants to (including none) and live life the way (s)he wants as long as basic laws of the land are not violated. And these basic laws should be close to universal, and as much unintrusive as possible. The only aim of laws should be to have peace, justice, equality and sustainability in the society- not promote beliefs and practices related to a culture.  In other words, nation-states have to become simply states- strictly political entities. States may continue to have armed forces, but their duty should be maintenance of security- internally as well as around borders, rather than fighting wars. State forces should not be associated with old-fashioned romantic nationalist ideas like defending the honor of motherland, instead they should act as an administrative service. If a secessionist/separatist movement arises for governmental negligence of a particular region, the government should be obliged to address their grievances. But if secessionist/separatist movements are for issues related to culture and identity, they should neither be entertained nor suppressed. Suppression usually leads to cycles of violence. Nor should they be entertained because one successful secession may well lead to others, resulting in more nation-states, more boundaries and more problems. State forces should treat cultural secessionist violence as a law-and-order issue- people can be arrested only if they commit violence. The states should emphasize the fact that they never enforce any cultural identity on anyone, and the creation of a new nation-state is redundant. This way, the cultural and ethnic conflicts, and eventually the existing borders will gradually die natural deaths, paving the way for a unified and peaceful world.

My Socio-political Identity and Position (as of now)

Going through the socio-politically opinionated articles on the internet and such posts on social media has become a harrowing experience for me these days. While I cannot ignore these because I am seriously interested in these matters (particularly if they concern Indian affairs), I am also unsatisfied by much of what I read (even leaving out the ones that are visibly  junk, and concentrating only on the more thoughtful ones). I feel that most people are greatly prone to taking sides about various issues, and sticking to their guns ignoring the other side's opinions. Such people are prone to "validating" their "arguments" with partial information, and conveniently leaving out other information that does not conform to their "arguments". In such cases, arguments get reduced to rhetoric, and the situation becomes like that of six blind men (from Hindostan, coincidentally), each of whom touched one random part of an elephant's body, and drew ridiculous (and contradictory) conclusions about the elephant's appearance. Holistic analyses, that tries to understand the thoughts, viewpoints, prejudices, limitations etc of all the concerned parties are pitifully scarce. Moreover, accurate news on various issues are hard to obtain. While sources of news are plentiful (perhaps excessive), not a single one is known to be fully reliable. Some of them have vested interests and others suffer from the same one-sided-ness discussed above. Amusingly, people from all ideologies across the multidimensional political spectrum are united in criticizing the Indian media, often for contradictory reasons. In such a situation, taking stands on socio-political issues is impossible for a rational person who refuses to marry him/herself to any fixed ideology/viewpoint or constrain him/herself by any identity/bias/prejudice. But even if I cannot take a stand on every micro-issue, or declare myself as a firm follower of any "ism" at a macro level, I can attempt to locate my positions on various broad matters of debate in India, and try to see what patterns emerge. I can also answer the question of "identity"- a question often asked in India. This is what I will attempt to do in this essay.

1) Social identity: This is about the question "Which persons do I relate to more strongly than others?". It is usually answered in terms of attributes like language, religion, nationality, race etc. I do not like to identify myself this way, since these are attributes which I obtained by accident of birth, and have no conscious control on them. First and foremost I am myself, an individual. I can relate to other people on the basis of the values mentioned below, or tastes, personality etc. Regarding the above-mentioned attributes, I give importance to my nationality- I am an Indian. This does NOT mean I am a strong nationalist- see below. My linguistic or religious identities have absolutely no importance to myself- I do not want myself to be classified as a "Bengali" or as a "Hindu". I cannot say why it is this way- but this is the way I have always felt.

2) Position on economic policy: I am an egalitarian, I believe in equality in terms of income, access to basic amenities and social status. I generally favor state socialism, and believe this is the most practical way of achieving the society I want. I cannot relate to the notions of capitalism, big business, wealth building etc. That does not mean I am a staunch socialist. If in any particular case a capitalistic approach is found to be a better way to my goal, I will endorse it.

3) Position on religion: I am supposed to be a Hindu by birth, but I am agnostic by faith. I am sceptic towards religion, but not overtly critical. I do not worship, but participate in some rituals (like pushpanjali in Saraswati Puja, lighting candles in Diwali) as a social practice rather than religious. I have no problem with any religion as long as it does not 1) Attack people of other beliefs (including no belief) 2) Does not involve environmentally wasteful rituals 3) Does not place restrictions on the natural behavior of its followers.

4) Position on nationalism: I regard myself as an Indian, and I love to see people rising above their regional boundaries, and identifying themselves as Indian. I love the idea of an unified India, but that does not mean that I am a staunch nationalist. I am not in favour of forcibly imposing Indian citizenship on unwilling people, like in Kashmir valley, and parts of Manipur and Nagaland. I do not support their demand of secession from India, but nor do I support militarily repressing them. I realize that "nation", "nation-state" and "country" are all different things, and want governments to understand and respect these differences. I have no hatred towards any other nation- not even Pakistan, China or USA. I am ambivalent towards the Indian armed forces. I feel happy about their heroic exploits during wars and natural disasters, but cannot ignore the atrocities committed by them (sometimes in the name of nationalism, sometimes for the sake of promotions and medals, or sometimes from sheer arrogance of power). I do not like India building weapons like ICBM, nuclear submarine etc, which are irrelevant to national defence.

5) Position on nature and environment: I feel that nature and environment should have higher priority than "development" and industrialization. I love the idea of Radical Ecological Democracy (RED) proposed by Ashish Kothari.

6) Position on marriage, sexuality etc: I am in favour of leaving these as matters of individual choice. Indeed I think our society should be more permissive about sexuality. I am in favour of revising marital norms to remove the deeply-entrenched patriarchial overtones.

Festivals and Environmentalism

The festivals of Diwali, Holi, Durga Puja, Ganesha Puja etc are celebrated with a lot of pomp in India. Durga Puja and Ganesha Puja celebrations include construction of huge pandals on roads that house larger-than-life idols made of clay. Diwali celebrations involve firecrackers, and Holi celebrations are around spraying of coloured water and “abir”. These festivals are celebrated by great many Indians, of all social statures, often by religious minorities also. However, these celebrations involve massive utilization of natural resources. Burning of Diwali crackers also causes sound and air pollution, huge pandals for Durga Puja and Ganesha Puja often cause tremendous civic inconvenience, especially for people whose priority is different from celebration. That is why, in recent years we hear environmentalists appeal to people before these festivals to avoid usage of firecrackers, coloured water etc., on the grounds of pollution, wastage of resources, civic inconvenience etc. Another ground is that, the firecracker production industry is a notorious employer of child-labour, where children have to work in unhealthy conditions with toxic matter.

I am generally environment-conscious. Nor do I have any great passion for celebrating the above-mentioned festivals, not any more. I find the sound of crackers very irritating, though I do enjoy fireworks. I agree with all that environmentalists have to say in this matter. They are definitely correct. But somehow it appears strange to me that specific festivals, which occur over only a few days of the year, are targeted, though in our day-to-day life throughout the year we harm the environment in a multitude of ways. Be it usage of use-and-throw paper cups and glasses (sometimes justified for hygene), establishment heavy industries/dams in ecologically sensitive areas, unnecessary usage of electricity to decorate shops, malls etc, use of personal vehicles instead of walking/public transport even for short, solo drives- the list is endless. Diwali crackers do come with unnecessary packing which is not eco-friendly, but so does Dominos Pizza. The current neo-liberal growth pattern in India encourages consumerism and materialism shamelessly, trying to convince people that greater consumption stands for “economic development”. Similarly, our society stands on child labour and exploitation of the poor, probably in every aspect of life. The environmentalist activism before festivals indicates that there are people in the country who are aware of these issues. That is no doubt a positive sign, but I don’t see why these thoughts are attached to the festivals only. I doubt whether it even makes any difference to the environment if we only change the way to celebrate a few festivals, while our day-to-day lifestyle becomes more and more profligate. Indeed, I would rather suggest that if we can live an austere, eco-friendly life daily, and build an inclusive society with dignity of labour and free from exploitation, then it is probably not harmful to celebrate a few days of festival with some amount of pomp!

Jay Ganesh Baba??

Taking up the “pen” today, after a long time to write about one of my favourite themes- regionalism/racism within India. In the recent past I was particularly disturbed to read a series of Facebook posts by “progressive, liberal Bengali-s”. Many of them took exception to the fact that Bengali youngsters are posting “Ganapati Bappa Moriya” on their Facebook walls during Ganesha Puja in Mumbai, or celebrating “Dhanteras”, but they do not celebrate traditional Bengali festivals like “Sindur Khela” after Durga Puja, Haalkhata on Bengali New Years’ Day (Nababarsho) etc. Many of these devout Bengali-s were distressed to see Bengali-s forgetting their own culture, and blindly copying others’. Some saw racism in it- that non-Bengali-s (whatever that means) are working overtime with their grand conspiracy to systematically wipe out Bengali culture by propaganda through television, movies etc.

Racism, really? I wondered who are being racist. In a democracy, which India is supposed to be, isn’t every person free to choose which festival (s)he wants to celebrate? Even if we assume that modern Bengali-s have scant regard for their Bengali tradition (my own experience suggests otherwise), isn’t it totally a matter of individual choice? If a particular person is born in a Bengali-speaking family, but finds Ganesha Puja more attractive than Durga Puja, what exactly is wrong with it? The community into which (s)he was born was chosen just by chance, isn’t it? By expecting a person to follow the tradition of the community into which (s)he was born, one puts communal identity above individual identity. Isn’t  that itself racism???

And then regarding the issue of blindly copying others, isn’t that what everone does anyway? A child born in a Bengali family does not know either Durga Puja or Ganesha Puja to begin with, it is not a genetic thing. (S)he learns what others around her do, and copies them. If others around her celebrate Durga Puja, she may learn to celebrate it. If some people around her are celebrating Ganesha Puja also, then she may celebrate whichever she finds attractive, or maybe both! In any case she is copying others. To say that it is correct to copy some (those in her community), but wrong/bad to copy others (those outside her community)- is complete bigotry.

Moving away from the philosophical premise that individual preference is above racial/regional stereotyping, I would like to make a few observations. Some Bengali-s are upset that in all-India institutions like corporate offices, “non-Bengali” festivals like Dandiya etc are celebrated but never the Bengali festivals. Again, they find racism in this. My own experience suggests that most (not all, say myself) Bengali people, on coming to any new place, seek out other Bengali-s, and form a closed sub-community among themselves, considering others as different or outsiders, by labelling them all with that one attribute: "non-Bengali". That’s the reason they get isolated from the rest, and their festivals do not  get known to the others! And somewhat anomalously, many people who shout “racism against Bengali-s”, identify themselves as “liberals”, and consider nationalism as vile. They hate it when right-wing parties or organizations denounce “westernization” or “foreign influence in India”. I do not approve of such parties/organizations/jingoist sentiments either, but isn’t these liberals’ way of thought at the regional level equivalent to the militant nationalism of the right-wing parties?

What next for the Common Man's Party?

The 16th Lok Sabha elections are just over. This was, according to a large section of the media, the most fiercely contested parliamentary election in the history of India. While the main fight for power was between two established political parties, with mostly familiar post-poll promises like "economic growth and development" (whatever that means), this election became more interesting due to the advent of a brand new party- the Common Man's Party (CMP) under AK, and activist-politician. This party's main plank was to rid the Indian political system of corruption, and they went about exposing various wrongdoings of the existing parties. At the same time, they had another agenda- to bring real "Swaraj" or self-rule to the common man, by allowing him/her a greater say in governance of the country. Alongside, there were promises to drastically bring down charges of electricity, gas and other essentials, which, according to them, had been hugely overpriced by the existing governments mostly to allow more profit to certain big corporate houses. 

The ideas of CMP, especially their declaration of crusade against corruption, was well-received in Delhi and parts of North UP, Punjab and Haryana, and they made a stunning political debut in the Delhi Assembly polls. Though AK had a rather controversial stint in CM's office for only 49 days, the CMP was expected by many to continue their good show in the Lok Sabha elections also, and they put up candidates in nearly 80% of the seats all over the country. AK himself challenged the IPP (Indian People's Party) prime ministerial candidate to a virtual duel in a IPP stronghold constituency. Unfortunately, a massive wave seemed to have gripped the electorate, and the IPP stormed to power, and the CMP, though not entirely disgraced, could not manage even a fraction of what their leaders had claimed.

Now the elections are over, the CMP has only 4 relatively unknown members in the parliament, and they are out of power in Delhi, with another assembly elections coming up there. The question is, where to now for this fledgling party?

In the past, lots of new parties have been launched by well-meaning, idealist politicians, but most have failed the test of time, and either faded into oblivion, or stayed on, maybe in only one or two states, as "yet another political party".  It will be a great loss if CMP also courts this fate, because it is unique in several ways. First of all, it has a great manifesto, ranging on a variety of issues neglected by mainstream politics, for obvious reasons. These issues include decentralization of power, electoral reforms, transparency in party funding, environmental issues, freeing national policy-making from influence of major corporate houses, and of course their main plank so far- anti-corruption crusade. Another reason for its uniqueness is that it has been able to mobilize the urban youth to levels barely imaginable. To avoid losing its way very early, and instead sustain, grow and ultimately seize political power, it needs a clear vision, which seems to be lacking at the moment.

One of the biggest criticisms of the political analysts and intelligentsia against the CMP is that, its position in the political spectrum is not clear. AK himself has indicated that the party would be flexible in its policies, and need not be rigidly "leftist" or "rightist". Personally, I believe that this apparent weakness or identity crisis can also be a great strength. It is quite clear that in politics, it is never a good idea to paint every issue with the same brush, which is what the political intellectuals have usually tended to do. 

The next big criticism against CMP and AK is that, it depends too much on stunts and theatrics, which may have been successful initially, but have gradually turned people off. Personally I agree to this point fully. The memories of the Delhi CM declaring himself "an anarchist" (probably a misuse of the word, as far as I understand), or of spending nights on the pavement in front of the lieutenant-governor's house to press for a demand, are very much unsavoury to me.  Some other top leaders of the party also have been guilty of over-dramatic behaviour, that does not suit responsible leaders. I feel it is important for them to stop this immediately.

Another related criticism is that AK and other leaders are self-righteous, and always trying to project every established political leader as corrupt. Now for election purposes rhetoric is important, and exposing powerful corrupt people is an important part of CMP's main plank. However, they may not have been able to do this in a way that appeals to people. In fact their later campaigns may have appeared to many people as "fear-mongering", trying to find conspiracy and corruption everywhere on earth. Over-the-top statements against established, popular (perhaps for wrong reasons) leaders, like "there is not an atom of development in Gujarat", have not gone down well with many. Also, a Delhi minister leading a vigilante mob against a settlement of foreigners, and pressurizing the police to arrest them illegally, also reinforce the perception of self-righteousness of the CMP leaders. Another attitude to change quickly.

AK's campaign against many corrupt political leaders and  powerful corporate houses that manipulate national policies for profit, are very relevant. Indeed, so far it has been their main selling point. However, criticising others can take you only so far, unless you have some positive to offer. Looking at CMP's manifesto, it appears that they do have plenty of fresh, appealing ideas which no party has ever explored in India. In my opinion, it is high time CMP identifies a well-defined political philosophy which the party will stand for, until it is achieved.  I don't think anti-corruption movement qualifies as a political philosophy. So what can that philosophy be?

The idea in the CMP manifesto that greatly appeals to me is that of political decentralization. It is the policy of allowing countrymen a greater say in the governance, something that isn't there right now. On this front, the CMP  manifesto promises implementing the Right to Recall elected representatives. It has also suggested conducting local "Mohalla Sabha"-s at locality level, where the local residents can assemble and discuss the needs of the locality, which will then be relayed to a higher policy-making authority. These are fine ideas, but the CMP campaign somehow did not focus on them prominently. They can consider doing so from now on.

There is another aspect of decentralization, which has been considered by CMP, but discussed and communicated very little in their campaigns. This is the issue of supporting various people's movements, in different parts of the country. These include protests against dams and nuclear power-plants, acquisition of agricultural and forest lands for industrial projects, movements against draconian laws and infringement on personal liberties in disturbed/insurgency-affected areas, and so on. In fact, National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM) had already aimed to unite such protesting groups, and now NAPM has merged with CMP. This is a very significant phenomena, unheard of in the history of India. These are the voices of dissent, protesting against the government, and the most common response of previous governments has been to repress them by force and defame their leaders as selfish, anti-development and/or having vested interests. But any democracy worth its name must heed voices of dissent, particularly if they are coming from already unprivileged people. The merger of NAPM with CMP provides a scope to arm these marginalized and alienated people with political power, with which their representatives can bring up their issues in the highest echelons of power. 

I just found out that a whopping 1687 parties had contested in the elections, most of which contested in only a handful of seats and got about a few thousand votes. Many of these are actually small interest groups, campaigning for unusual caused neglected (or opposed) by the big parties. Some of these causes have strong parochial/communal overtones, and hence cannot be promoted. But the CMP may want to identify the ones with worthy causes, and acquire them or forge alliances with them.

The discussed idea of political decentralization appears a very appealing philosophy to me, and I feel CMP should make it their main aim, and main theme in future elections. That should also justify the name of the party. It is especially important at a time when the country is going through a major churning in the pursuit of development, which has not been inclusive and has resulted in millions of people displaced from their rural homes and traditional professions, lakhs of farmer suicides, and a bloody, fierce civil war in the forested heartland of India. By attending to the alienated people and trying to include them in India's development plans, CMP can prevent further social imbalance, and the resulting violent backlash. It is true that the current mindset of the electorate may not endorse this ideology, as most people seem keen on having a strong center which will hurtle India towards being an "economic superpower", repressing and liquidating all the rural naysayers. Still, this is an ideology which seems worthy enough to fight for.

India needs a party like CMP, that will avoid the beaten path of Indian poltics, and infuse fresh air, fresh issues and fresh ideas into the political system. Only then can we move towards achieving Swaraj- self-rule, for every Indian citizen.

India's Mars Mission: Justified??

Recently, the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) achieved a major landmark when they successfully launched the "Mangalayan"- India's spacecraft for the Mars. Of course it has not yet reached its destination, but it is in orbit, and so far things have gone according to plan. This is a project funded by the Government of India, and it is worth INR 450 crores.

Immediately after the launch conflicting opinions have started proliferating the main media as well as social media. People with a leftward tilt have criticized the project to varying degrees, the general argument being that a Mars voyage with Government funding is not justified in a country where a shocking number of people are unable to lead a life of minimum dignity and comfort due to poverty. The western media has criticized the mission on the same ground. The jingoist brigade has taken offence at this, and declared that India's Mars mission is a "tight slap on the face of the jealous Western media". They want India to "teach the westerners a lesson"- namely that Indians are in no way inferior to them in technology, especially in space technology. 

Some feel that if "India" can spend thousands of crores of money over cricket and Diwali crackers, then why not over a spacecraft also? 

The scientific community has generally pointed out that 1) The project is quite low-cost 2) Every good research ultimately benefits mankind as a whole 3) This project is a morale-booster for science and technology research in India, and will make westward-bound Indian science/engineering students consider studying and working in India.

First of all, there is no doubt about the shocking levels of poverty in India. I don't see how any sane person can talk about "teaching the Western world a lesson" when so many of India's own people are living in miserable conditions. It is probably true that the Western media is jealous, but unfortunately the points they are raising are irrefutably true. I do not want to debate the scientific community's claim that this will ultimately benefit humanity including these poor people. However even if it were true, it would seem a greater priority to me to channelize government spending in a way that is more tangible in terms of improving the minimum living conditions of the people as soon as possible. The reason why I am not opposing the Mars mission strongly is that it is actually quite low-cost, compared to most government projects. Even some of the smaller railway projects consume several thousands of crores. And of course, the points being made about Diwali crackers or cricket are irrelevant. "Spending money" is not the point, we need to see who is spending the money, and to whom the money is going! The spendings over Diwali crackers or cricket are not by the government! It would have been best if instead of the Government, the project had been funded by profit-making yet well-meaning Indian companies and entrepreneurs (if any such companies or entrepreneurs exist), or by voluntary donations by the people, especially the scientific community. 

I have heard some very optimistic thoughts by idealists. Thoughts on the lines of "the poorest people will look up at the sky- towards the Mars- and think that if their poor country could get there, then they can also rise out of their poverty". Or that the bright Indian student who is fed up with the quality of research in India will have a morale boost. Well, I highly doubt if these- especially the former- will ever happen. Well, if it happens, then it is good!