The political climate in India has been highly charged in the past few months, to say the least.
There are different types of camps: of people who staunchly support one of the three top bigwigs/parties (Modi of BJP, Rahul of Congress and Kerjriwal of AAP); of those who are taking a party-specific approach irrespective of candidates--and vice versa; and those who are pulling their hair out on whom to choose for the coming elections.
The debates are fierce, the arguments and counter-arguments vehement and the tripartite mud-slinging distasteful--on social, anti-social, local, global and all types of wobbly media.
I was watching all this uproar, trying to make up my own mind as a voter (as a journalist I'm avowed not to side with any party), when I came across an eloquently written piece by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of The Art of Living in Hindustan Times.
Before I go on, a disclaimer is in order: I have undergone the basic course of AOL and do Sudarshan Kriya regularly and have personally benefited from it in physical and mental well-being. But I have heard contradictory accounts of Sri Sri and AOL (not unlike what you hear of politicians) and I neither support nor denounce them blindly.
Like my new-found interest in politics and spirituality, I'm exploring the options. But then, I digress...
In his opinion article, which is provocatively titled "AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal has left the country choiceless," Ravi Shankar relates how AAP and Kejriwal started with the noble mission of rooting out corruption and giving voice to millions of Indians who are sick and tired of corrupt and criminally tainted politicians. And how they subsequently got consumed with political ambitions of their own and are no longer proving to be different from the political class they seek to dethrone.
He also writes that "While Gujarat may not be 100% corruption-free, I have no hesitation in saying that it is much better than what it used to be. Instead of being honest with facts, Kejriwal has chosen to put down BJP’s prime ministerial candidate and Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi on flimsy grounds," referring to Kerjriwal's high-octane four-day visit to Gujarat in which he hurled criticism at Modi at the slightest opportunity.
Talking about his own visits to the state in the 1990s and comparing them to the situation now, Ravi Shankar says the situation in the Modi-ruled state has improved visibly in infrastructure and economic terms.
Coming from someone of the stature of Sri Sri, the assessment is sure to lend credibility and godspeed to Modi's campaign and promise of taking the governance experiment in Gujarat to the national level (if he becomes PM, of course).
Personally, I have also heard contradictory views on to what extent Modi has been able to make a difference to the infrastructure as well as the people of the state in his three terms as chief minister.
All the same, I'm astonished at the apocalyptic statements issuing forth from the mouths of a whole battery of politicians, religious groups and others on what will happen if Modi does become the prime mover of a country of 1.3 billion people. They depict an inferno-like situation, riots, wholesale destruction, and what not.
It is arguable that Modi's conscience should prick more (than to the extent it has) at the loss of innocent lives in riots that happened in the aftermath of the train-burning incident in Gujarat. Court cases have gone on for long and disputes about Modi/administration's role in handling the situation are still arising. But on Modi becoming PM, to say things like "Aag lag jayegi"?!
Crazy.
When the Aam Aadmi Party initially entered the scene (following its split from the Anna Hazare anti-corruption/Lokpal movement which itself was an amazing sight to watch, though it peaked in a whimper), I could feel a sense of rejuvenation in the electorate, especially the youth and white-collar workers. To its credit, AAP and Kejriwal brought corruption to the forefront as a political issue and impressed a whole swathe of Indians with their candor, nimble thinking and swift mobilisation.
But when the ticket-giving for seats began, many of the candidates have been found to be of dubious record or get-elected-quick types who just want to ride the AAP wave.
So again, what we have is a mish-mash of (mostly) bad apples to choose from--be it AAP, BJP or Congress.
So, in a way, Ravi Shankar is right in saying that the initial promise of better choice exhibited by AAP is dissolving into a haze of disillusionment and hunger for power.
I think a lot of people will make their choice thus: since there are no best or even good choices, they might try opting for the "least bad" as per their perception, media projection and past experience or record.
If the prevalent view is that Congress has ruled the country for the maximum number of years (first without and then with alliances) AND India is a messier country than it was 60 years back, most people would certainly vote against the party.
Many would not vote at all or caste their vote for nobody (not sure if the ballot allows that option).
Unfortunately, a huge mass of Indian humanity would just choose whoever was in their good books on election eve (gifts, liquor, freebies, etc.)
"Choiceless," did Sri Sri say?
There are different types of camps: of people who staunchly support one of the three top bigwigs/parties (Modi of BJP, Rahul of Congress and Kerjriwal of AAP); of those who are taking a party-specific approach irrespective of candidates--and vice versa; and those who are pulling their hair out on whom to choose for the coming elections.
The debates are fierce, the arguments and counter-arguments vehement and the tripartite mud-slinging distasteful--on social, anti-social, local, global and all types of wobbly media.
I was watching all this uproar, trying to make up my own mind as a voter (as a journalist I'm avowed not to side with any party), when I came across an eloquently written piece by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar of The Art of Living in Hindustan Times.
Before I go on, a disclaimer is in order: I have undergone the basic course of AOL and do Sudarshan Kriya regularly and have personally benefited from it in physical and mental well-being. But I have heard contradictory accounts of Sri Sri and AOL (not unlike what you hear of politicians) and I neither support nor denounce them blindly.
Like my new-found interest in politics and spirituality, I'm exploring the options. But then, I digress...
In his opinion article, which is provocatively titled "AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal has left the country choiceless," Ravi Shankar relates how AAP and Kejriwal started with the noble mission of rooting out corruption and giving voice to millions of Indians who are sick and tired of corrupt and criminally tainted politicians. And how they subsequently got consumed with political ambitions of their own and are no longer proving to be different from the political class they seek to dethrone.
He also writes that "While Gujarat may not be 100% corruption-free, I have no hesitation in saying that it is much better than what it used to be. Instead of being honest with facts, Kejriwal has chosen to put down BJP’s prime ministerial candidate and Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi on flimsy grounds," referring to Kerjriwal's high-octane four-day visit to Gujarat in which he hurled criticism at Modi at the slightest opportunity.
Talking about his own visits to the state in the 1990s and comparing them to the situation now, Ravi Shankar says the situation in the Modi-ruled state has improved visibly in infrastructure and economic terms.
Coming from someone of the stature of Sri Sri, the assessment is sure to lend credibility and godspeed to Modi's campaign and promise of taking the governance experiment in Gujarat to the national level (if he becomes PM, of course).
Personally, I have also heard contradictory views on to what extent Modi has been able to make a difference to the infrastructure as well as the people of the state in his three terms as chief minister.
All the same, I'm astonished at the apocalyptic statements issuing forth from the mouths of a whole battery of politicians, religious groups and others on what will happen if Modi does become the prime mover of a country of 1.3 billion people. They depict an inferno-like situation, riots, wholesale destruction, and what not.
It is arguable that Modi's conscience should prick more (than to the extent it has) at the loss of innocent lives in riots that happened in the aftermath of the train-burning incident in Gujarat. Court cases have gone on for long and disputes about Modi/administration's role in handling the situation are still arising. But on Modi becoming PM, to say things like "Aag lag jayegi"?!
Crazy.
When the Aam Aadmi Party initially entered the scene (following its split from the Anna Hazare anti-corruption/Lokpal movement which itself was an amazing sight to watch, though it peaked in a whimper), I could feel a sense of rejuvenation in the electorate, especially the youth and white-collar workers. To its credit, AAP and Kejriwal brought corruption to the forefront as a political issue and impressed a whole swathe of Indians with their candor, nimble thinking and swift mobilisation.
But when the ticket-giving for seats began, many of the candidates have been found to be of dubious record or get-elected-quick types who just want to ride the AAP wave.
So again, what we have is a mish-mash of (mostly) bad apples to choose from--be it AAP, BJP or Congress.
So, in a way, Ravi Shankar is right in saying that the initial promise of better choice exhibited by AAP is dissolving into a haze of disillusionment and hunger for power.
I think a lot of people will make their choice thus: since there are no best or even good choices, they might try opting for the "least bad" as per their perception, media projection and past experience or record.
If the prevalent view is that Congress has ruled the country for the maximum number of years (first without and then with alliances) AND India is a messier country than it was 60 years back, most people would certainly vote against the party.
Many would not vote at all or caste their vote for nobody (not sure if the ballot allows that option).
Unfortunately, a huge mass of Indian humanity would just choose whoever was in their good books on election eve (gifts, liquor, freebies, etc.)
"Choiceless," did Sri Sri say?
