Link to postbrihaspati wrote:The swing or accumulation of votes in favour of a candidate in Indian elections does not necessarily reflect the motivations ascribed by urban intellectuals - who conveniently decide that the same population gives super-importance to selected "civilizational issues" over "economic development" which they also favour, but then the very same population also hate "civilizational issues" which they hate, and vote for "economic development" onlee.
What I see happening, is something that is not new for India - genuine popular discontent against a regime is cleverly harnessed by a political conmen, probably with a core of genuine leadership - but with ever increasing circles of opportunists surrounding them, when they smell that popular discontent might indeed change the very regime to which they have hitherto sucked on to like leeches and served as mosahibs against these very same people.
Time and again I see this argument that "now the need of the hour is to encourage and not do anything that psyches out the new entrants - swingers - switchers of support from the older regime". Inevitably each genuine change aspirant movement ultimately fails because it allows these two level opportunist voices to gain limelight. One level justifies the induction of the opportunists by similar arguments, (the external voices) and the other one acts from within the new movement. Typically they will seek to displace the "old-guard", because the older-guard would have developed within the more struggling phase and hence less corruptible and an obstacle for the leech-class to stay on in a beneficial arrangement with the state under change of regime.
There is a recent study on social-psychopathology of the US population. By an extension, typically there is likely to be a much higher proportion of these in the political and financial industry. The most notable feature of this psychopathology is their charismatic nature.
I think BJP is headed that way. The leech class is so widely entrenched, that it will reinvent itself within the "Modification" drive. Modi himself could be the epitome of incorruptibility, but already we see the signs of avatarification phenomena - a typical sign that the leech-class has actually leeched on to the "new".
I see that the demand for BJP/Modi dropping civilizational issues as not vote-worthy, vote-damaging, highlighting and pressurizing that onlee economic "development" be stressed with complete erasure of "civilizational concerns" - is a demand of the leech class. The vacuum ideology section that sustained a Jawaharlal Nehru in the first place, and what they want is a new Nehru. Modi can serve the purpose of getting a Nehru since he can sustain the illusion among the civilizational aspiration thread within the current discontent, and thereby manage the "saffron assertion" that would otherwise cost external and internal religious interests - while the cozy financial interests that benefit onlee a small proportion of Indian populations can be maintained in exclusive networks.
Jawaharlal nehru did not become what he became - a cynical manipulator, personal responsibility shirker, with a maniacal obsession with maintaining personal image and personal power even at the cost of not being truthful to the nation, entirely out of his own character. He was shaped up in interaction with an immensely corrupting and totally-devoid-of-humanity colonial regime as well as the leech-class that had already shaped up in India in the north surviving in collaboration with and a vacuum ideology under Islamic rule.
The leech class and the Brits saw potential in him being the substitute who could be used to assure the increasingly restless anti-colonial sentiments of Indians, and contain them, while managing a smooth transfer of power bypassing these "chaotic/fundamentalist/Hindu" masses so that the financial and elite interests and networks that had developed in collaboration under the Brits could continue in a cozy beneficial relationship with the new regime.
The same method is being applied on Modi. And he is really alone. He will be eventually even more isolated - as a new coterie will form, who will do their best to eliminate and sideline anyone seen to be connected to the "older" guard. There will be many a old political battle scar that cane be used to drive the wedges further - for onlee in greater isolation of Modi from the older subnetworks that fueled the BJP, with a steady replacement of potential stubborn pieces by more "flexible" newer functionaries - being actually a facilitator for the leech class reinventing itself in state power after swinging from the Congress.
----
Its not just ali, but this whole lot of new entrants are obviously opportunists who are jumping in to make the most of the anti-Kongi and pro-NaMo wave. The thing with opportunists is that they can abandon as easily as they have come. Of course, some of these people may have been waiting till now due to lack of proper alternative or circumstance and thats the only reason for not coming out this long. But, those who actively worked against and have not publicly regretted doing so, cannot be inducted...whether its ali or akbar.
Just as there is an oath taking at the time of cabinet formation, similarly there should be a compulsory public declaration of acceptances/rejections of core political party agendas for all entrants especially 6 months before elections. It should not be considered internal matter of political parties because it is not their internal matter. Political party is a public forum and needs to be transparent about its members and their views.
So, each new entrant has to come clean on what principles of the party are accepted by him and what principles of the party are not acceptable to him and his reasons for joining or leaving a party. This will be similar to giving manifestos by a political party. One can say that this is a useless exercise, but atleast if there is a public declaration, then people have some way of holding the politicians and political parties to account. The more uncommitted an issue is, the more there are chances of compromises and negotiations by politicians and political parties behind the doors for their private/public gains. Politicians and political parties would prefer to remain non-commital so as to give them space to maneuver in whichever direction they feel is convenient. But, if they are made to commit, then people will hold them to that commitment or atleast ask them reasons for changing the stance if they change the stance.
NaMo may be a mahathma. But, he is not omnipotent, omniscient and omni-present. A good leader is good, but not enough. A good leader needs to put in mechanisms to make the system itself good. I think this approach should start from one's own domain. Since NaMo is lotus' candidate and since most of the people joining are hoping to ride on his bandwagon, he should lay down the rule within the party that every new entrant should give a public declaration of core principles of lotus that are acceptable and unacceptable to him and the reasons for joining the party and leaving the erstwhile party. Similarly, lotus should give reasons for inducting the member.
Shree Raama co-opted Ravana's bro Vibhishana and Vaali's bro Sugreeva. Sugreeva was being persecuted by Vaali and had no place to go. Raama befriended Sugreeva. Sugreeva promised to provide the army, if Vaali was taken out. Both Raama and Sugreeva make a solemn promise in front of fire. This is a very important point. This may seem like just another useless exercise. But, it has a very important use. Making a public declaration of intent whenever a new friendship/relationship is made is important, so that both sides are safe that the other side will not just junk the relationship/friendship just like that. For politicians/political parties, this becomes much more important that there is a similar exercise where the new entrants make a solemn promise and also put in their reservations about the party. Then, Vaali was killed by Raama as was promised. But, when Vaali died, Sugreeva also cried. Raama made sure that Vaali's son is made the prince-regent while making Sugreeva as the king. Raama did not want Sugreeva to remain without competition. Sugreeva became King and promptly forgot about his promise to Raama. Raama then threatened to kill Sugreeva just as He had killed Vaali. Then, Sugreeva came to His senses and started arraying the army. The punishment and reward were immediately given. When Raama befriended Sugreeva, it was a desperate attempt for both sides because both of them did not have much choice. The equations altered after Vaali was killed. Raama had to actually assert His strength/might to ensure Sugreeva's cooperation.
Vibhishana came to Raama's camp seeking refuge when Raama's army was planning to cross the sea to assault on Lanka. Naturally, there was opposition to accepting Vibhishana in Raama's camp. But, Vibhishana is accepted and he plays a crucial role in the defeat of Ravana especially in the death of Ravana's son Meghanaath/Indhrajith who was tormenting Raama's army. But, Vibhishana makes a public declaration by condemning Ravana and wholeheartedly accepting the cause of Raama to be just. Then, as soon as Vibhishana is accepted, he is coronated by Raama to ensure that there is carrot for cooperation. Vibhishana is accepted because of favourable report by Hanumaan who had seen Vibhishana's conduct in Ravana's court and Shurpanaka's intro to Raama(Shurpanaka mentions that Vibhishana is unlike other Raakshasas). Raama is in a much better position while Vibhishana's position is desperate. One more thing that goes in Vibhishana's favor is that Raama's victory is not yet assured. Army had not even crossed into Lanka. Vibhishana came in before the crossing. But, if people start joining when the victory is assured, then such people need to be thought of as opportunists. And if these opportunists were with the opponents previously, then there needs to be ample caution.
Only those who have a good track record in the past, should be taken up. Those with a bad track record should not be accepted. So, general conduct of the new inductee and an open declaration are necessary to ensure that the scope for betrayals/deceptions is reduced. Carrots and sticks need to be in place to ensure that they do the job. Raama does honor His promises to Sugreeva and Vibhishana. But, He also ensures that they work for His cause. This requires carrot and stick in appropriate time and measure. And it needs to be taken care that chances of corruption are also reduced.
One chance is given for people to redeem. But, if they don't, then the punishment follows. So, that creates respect(bhakthi) and fear(bhayam). All the promises are kept by own side and its also ensured that the other side keeps up their promises(even by threat of punishment if required).
If Raamayana tells about the successful cooption, then MB shows how the cooptions can go wrong. Shalya was inducted into Kaurava side and he helps Kauravas, but he also weakens Karna.
Pancha-thanthra tells a story called Kaka-ulikiyam(crow-owl tale) about how the crow infiltrates the owl's army and weakens it. Interestingly, Sugreeva gives an interesting analogy when Vibhishana comes for refuge. He mentions crows being taken unawares by an owl. In MB, Ashwatthama is inspired to carry out a deadly nightly attack on Paandava camp when he sees a similar incident. Pancha-thathra story seems to be inspired from Raamayana and MB mention. But, it Pancha-thanthra cleverly reverses the roles by making the crow infiltrate the owls to show how a stronger side can be infiltrated by a weaker side.
Even if the inductees who worked previously for the opponent are genuine about their change of heart, they should be co-opted very carefully. The thing with co-option of the other side is that it leads to corruption/weakening. It needs to be done in an extremely careful way and there is still ample chance for things going wrong.
If all the corrupt get inducted, how can one act against corruption? If all the terrorists or their sympathizers get inducted, how can one act against terrorism?
The thing with deceptions/betrayals is that it can become so treacherous that no one knows whom to trust. For example, in kongi or even most other kongi Bs, the things are so treacherous that no one trusts anyone and everyone is trying to pull down everyone. That sort of culture leads to the ruin of the organization in the long run. That culture comes along when there are no clear cut rules of good and bad conduct and only sycophancy is encouraged. Clear cut rules are avoided by the leadership to give them scope for maneuvering. But, that leads to ruin of the organization.
On the other hand, if there are a clear rules of good and bad conduct and there is immediate appropriate punishment(after one warning) or reward, and when these rules are implemented without nepotism or bias, then the organization prospers.
In summary,what is needed is:
public declaration of why a particular person is being accepted or rejected by political parties.
public declaration of why a particular person is joining or leaving a political party.
at the time of joining, public declaration of what is acceptable and unacceptable to him about that political party.
similarly, public declarations by political parties about their common agendas and differences at the time of alliances.
.
. MJA will be used to constantly lecture them.