“So long as the millions live in hunger and ignorance, I hold every man a traitor who, having been educated at their expense, pays not the least heed to them.”
The above quote is a very often repeated one, by anyone who knows the socio political views of Swami Vivekananda.
It is from this point perhaps that Gandhi ji emphases the concept of Daridra Narayana and holds that any development could be accepted as a development only if it touches the lower most one in the ladder.
More than a century after this basic principle and expectation has been laid down as a measuring rod for any development, we have been eluding ourselves with statistics which show overall growth, the per capita growth, comparative growth of GDP year on year, compared with world index or that of other countries, etc. Much of the changes in the livelihood of the poorest of the poor has most often happened due to mass production and inventions which automatically reached them. Otherwise, as a system, there was very little that happened. There have been few cases of reforms, by some Governments, here and there, during certain brief periods, in India immediately after Independence.
But gradually, over a period of time, the political activities have been taken over by market forces from the shadows first and then in the open later.
I remember when I was in college, (80s) there was a veteran Sarvodaya leader who told me that there was hardly any difference between different political parties. That was a time, I used to think that with political change, a social change could be engineered and that the political change was possible through organizing opinions. He said, the political parties only appeared different from the outside. Inside, they were all the same. He used a simile of two shop keepers, one with a flat hat and another with a long hat. Both of them sold the same product but with two different prices. People purchased from one of them, either because it was cheaper than the other or they thought that the costlier one was of better quality. At the end of the day, both of them used to share the profit. This example could be seen on the roadside platforms also, where one will be selling tomatoes or onions at a lesser price and the neighboring one at a higher price and when one’s pile gets reduced, it gets replenished from the other one.
It was very difficult for me then to understand this concept or more rather to accept it. That was a period when stalwarts were still there in the Janata Party. Some real Communists were also there in the horizon. Of course, with the leaving of Kamaraj and his friends from the Congress, there was no expectation from the Congress to have any great ideals.
But with passing years and with changes seen in the political horizon, one thing becomes clear. Whatever may be the intention of some political leaders or their parties (whether actual or only professed might be again subject of dispute), ultimately, they get manipulated by larger power centers or big business interests. Because, votes of the common man are required only to ascend to a position. Thereafter, to run the Government, they require the support of the moneyed class. This has started having a preceding effect itself. The moneyed class start supporting a particular group which they feel will cater to their needs. So they start investing in them even before elections. If the results of the elections do not tally with their desires, then they try other methods to get around.
Dhirubhai Ambani is said to have told Ramnath Goenka that he (Ambani) goes around with a golden shoe on one leg and a silver shoe on the other and that everyone has a price. A shocked Goenka is said to have asked whether it meant that he (Goenka) also had a price. To that it is said that Ambanis said yes and that infuriated the old News Paper baron which provoked him to take on Ambani openly.
One industrialist told me three decades ago, (around the same time Ambani would have been talking to Goenka) that 99% of the Government officials could be bought for one of the three Ws. For the remaining 1%, he said, their boss could be bought.
Now these, are applicable to politicians and parties as well.
Unlike in the European countries, politics in our country is not a part-time work where one can have some profession and allot some time for public activities. For those in public service there is hardly any privacy. The expenses of an ordinary panchayat member is so huge that when he is on a 24X7 activity, he cannot attend to any private job or business (except of course money lending, real estate, etc). The remuneration given to him as sitting fees for the meetings will be paltry. How then do we expect someone to come for public service at our expense? Hence it will be only naïve to expect that politicians will work honestly with the paltry remuneration.
When at the lowest level in a polity it is so, how can people coming to serve larger constituencies with more people, larger areas and more responsibilities be expected to survive?
The expenses to reach out to the constituency in an election is itself huge. It will be a mindboggling amount. No fresh entrants can therefore dream about that.
This issue had in fact been a matter of public debate in the initial days of the Independent India. People like Rajaji had said that the elections should be publicly funded.
But over a period of time when parties got entrenched and got their own source of income, obviously through the licence-permit-quota raj, this demand faded away. It was taken for granted that the parties are self-sufficient and therefore they will contest and win elections with their ‘own’ monies.
It is at this stage that the business community gets an entry point. The remaining tale of the deal and understanding need not be explained.
Once the parties have got strongly established, no further new entrant will be allowed by the cartelization among the established parties.
Thus the script becomes decided between the already set players.
Now, within this permutation and combination, the drama of ideals, manifestos, etc have to move on.
People going into the polling booths have hardly any choice. They have to choose from what is available. Of late we have an option to go in for NOTA. Otherwise people abstain or vote for someone they do not really think will win at all.
From this multi-cornered contests which are actually tuned to specific corners, the first past the post method ensures that someone not necessarily getting even 51% of the total votes cast also can win.
The next phase is when all these candidates go into one basked called a party to elect their chief.
Once they get identified as a party itself, their identity goes for a toss. The party takes over from that moment. This became firmer after introduction of the anti-defection law. Now, what is to be the law that should be passed, is not determined by these representatives who have been elected by the people, but by the party to which they belong.
In other words, they are sponsored by the party which is going to determine the fate of the people and the electorate votes only for a party and not for the representatives as such. Technically then the relevance of the individual representative loses relevance after the election, once a government is formed. The representative remains in the scene only to be approached by people with their grievances and to speak on either the floor of the house or to participate in meetings of councils or committees, etc.
When policies are centrally decided by a party, the speaking on the floor of a house also is only for public consumption. It is not going to alter any set decision because cross voting will be dealt with by the anti-defection law.
It is in these circumstances that we still believe that we can, with one vote for a post, once in five years, determine what is to be done for us.
The players who continue with this show are part of a full time business. Therefore it increasingly appears that what even choice is made, ultimately, the final decision is taken elsewhere by some other forces which are not directly visible.
Nothing else will explain why a particular party getting into office opposing another one vehemently, including on economic policies, will continue with the same economic policies, even with much more vigor and speed.
The other shrill cries to garner support and vote, in the name of the adversary being corrupt, in-competent, against the interest of the people, against certain communities or religions, etc are increasingly found to be only convenient positioning in such a manner that the ‘real agenda’ of economic decisions in the interest of the business community being carried out by one or the other.
There is a feeling cultivated among un-suspecting minds that the interest of business houses is itself in the interest of the general wellbeing of the people. This is not necessarily true because, the concept of the laissez faire being able to make self-corrections is as much as a utopia as the state withering away on its own. Cartelization is the essence in business and no business man can be expect to deliver to the people a product or service at a cheaper cost than that is made by the state itself.
The running of the state with capacity to produce goods and services that are most essential for all citizens has to be then paramount for any democratically elected government.
But in the decades that have passed by, we have seen that activities performed by the Government have been given away to private players, with one excuse or the other.
The simple question that begs answer is why should a private player bother to offer any service to the people, which their own government is not able to give?
Corruption and in-competence have been an oft repeated charge against the Government machinery for severing its functions. But refusal to correct the system and instead handing it over to business interests directly is throwing the baby with the bath water.
The state constituted by our own volition has an obligation to provide the basic amenities for every life – which is the right to life. They are – education, health and basic needs of food and shelter. As long as these could not be provided to each citizen, then we have failed in our mission.
And we know that these are a far cry.
The vocal minority belonging to us, the middle class, can hardly be expected to portray grievances other than its own immediate concerns.
To this is added the new trend where even out of concern or empathy for the less fortunate someone raises a voice, our own people will shout it down as ‘vested interests’, anti- something’, ‘andolan jeevi’, ‘parasites’, etc. Only those who are affected are supposed to state their objection. When the affected state it or protest, they will always be in a minority when compared to the others.
In this, therefore the people have also only the option to choose among the lesser evil.
When this picture of good and evil are themselves only deceptive and painted according to someone else’s agenda and advantage, we continue to waste our energies by keeping on shuffling and ‘expecting’.
All these WWF like fights will only ultimately wear us out. Once this realization has dawned, we have to get to basics.
What are the parameters based on which the performance of each player is to be assessed. Not definitely what they promise. Not their propaganda. What is that has reached to the lowest of the low could be the only parameter. What they are able to deliver through the state machinery for the sustenance of life and protection of life and liberty could be the standard.
For that again, our resources cannot depend upon their own propaganda or reports of certain media alone which again is only a partner in the whole game.
We have to strive to have our own assessments, through our own sources. From reading between the lines of the reports from various media sources. We have to search for the needle of truth from the hay stack.
Very difficult indeed.
But we have to strive.
At least the understanding that this is the only yardstick will be able to clear our view about the happenings and to take sides ‘in this game’, consciously.
