Indian politics is sometimes hope, mostly disappointment. The recent events leading to trust vote of Indian government definitely cannot be classified as hope.
Congress party and its allies may have won the trust vote but the nation, as a whole, lost. In what could have been an ideal environment to discuss and debate the Indo-US nuclear deal, soon turned out to be a mockery of democratic values. The deal that had long been occupying media and politicians' attention was pushed behind for the sake of personal political ambitions. Such travesty makes me wonder when, if ever, we would have an issue-based politics in India ? And it's not some abstract Utopian ideology that I am talking about. It's very much a practical issue. The survival of the government meant survival of the deal and therefore, this trust vote was either a 'Yes' or 'No' to the deal.
So, while some leaders bargained to christen airports with their daddy's name, others asked for specific ministries in return of support to the government. Then, there were others, negotiating for higher ratio in seats distribution for the coming election.
Where have we gone wrong ? Is it the democratic structure in India to be blamed that allows multiparty system ? In other words, is it the cost that we will have to pay to ensure being the largest democracy ? Assuming that it is so, can we rely on the electorate to bring such opportunistic leaders to notice ? This brings me to another disappointment in Indian politics' arena. Why doesn't the electorate ever find it objectionable and question the propriety of their elected leaders ?
Ajit Singh is a US returned UP politician. His claim-to-fame: his daddy is late Charan Singh, a notable freedom fighter and then activist who fought for the rights of Indian farmers and land reforms primarily against Nehruvian regime. Indian farmers in western UP, who mostly belong to his native Jat community, owe high allegiance to him. But, like most other things in India, this allegiance is smoothely shifted from father to son and Ajit Singh, who returned from US at the demise of his father, lacking any experience in politics, became the next president of his father's party. Twenty years on, his vote bank is still the same and he always manages to get few MPs from the western UP region.
TRS is another party that seeks creation of Telengana state in northern Andhra Pradesh. Their leaders are ready to support any party or goverment in center as long as they can be promised creation of their new state. It's an important identity issue among people of Telengana region in AP. Not surprisingly, TRS also manages to win reasonable amount of seats from the same region.
Shibu Soren, leader of JMM, also fought the same cause for Jharkhand about a decade back. Jharkhand was created eight years back but his part still gets few MPs from the same region. His desire - to get coal ministry back after trust vote.
I can go on and on but a pattern can be observed from these examples alone. We, Indians, are not a single kind of people. Our nation does not beat at the same rate. We are divided - not in two, ten but hunderds parts. Such parties and hectic money-exchange before trust vote are just effects of this underlying reality. The sad part is, not only are we diverse, we are also divisive. Sixty years on, and we have failed to rid ourselves of narrow divisions like casteism, religion or regionalism. Such leaders thrive on these desires and it is always easy to divert attention from real issues to these emotional appeals.
How can the nation come together ? Do we need a charismatic leader like Pt. Nehru ? Sure, we do but that is a passive wait for Godot. My understanding is that we can beat at similar, if not the same, rate if our communications infrastructure gets stronger. Imagine, every house in India with a television set and telephone and every village connected by a road. These may look basic equipments to few of us metro dwelling Indians but some parts of India take days if not weeks to get to know what is happening in the rest of country. Also imagine the amount of travel and mobility it will bring to each Indian. I believe infrastructure can be a catalyst in changing the dynamics of our socio-cultural fabric.
Coming back to the deal, I still feel cheated. Noam Chomsky, in one his article, argues that Indo-Iran gas pipeline would have done much more to solve our energy problem than this deal will ever do. Does that mean we are making a mistake in sacrificing a more value proposition in favor of a less one ? Also, by when can be expect to get newer energy from nuclear reactors if this deal is operationalised ? There are many more questions that could have been asked but both the political and media time was rather lost to arithmatics of parliamentary numbers. When would we, as Indians, realize and question this ?
