Mr.Obama has taken over as American President, the most-powerful, responsible and lonely position in this world. Welcome Sir. All the best to you, your great country and this world of ours. Your thoughts, words and deeds will have profound effect on almost every facet of world affairs for the next four years and may be beyond.
As far as India is concerned, we have some apprehensions (outsourching, kashmir, military aid to Pakistan, etc.) and a lot of expectations. I am sure that the new President will be inspired to think, speak and act, not merely in American's interests but towards ensuring justice and peace to Indian too.
India can draw a few lessons from the election of Mr.Obama, especially our intellectuals and political class provided. they are willing to jettison some pet baggage.
Obama won the Democratic nomination against a powerful opponent and eventually won the election against a candidate who, on the surface, represented the majority (whites) and entrenched elite. He won handsomely and his victory, throughout the campaign, was never in serious doubt. This despite the fact, he was perceived to be handicapped by the colour of his skin, his being just a second generation American, his origins spread over vast geography wirg almost no roots within America.
His victory was not due to any positive discrimination or condenscending affirmative action. In Indian lingua not due to reservation. Cutting across various barriers, he won the popularity contest merely on his credentials and the hope he generated in the minds of Americans.
In India, there is a lot of talk and dependency on factors like Region, Language, Minority, Downtroddenness, etc. and till today no worthwhile leader in any party could emerge as leader without these crutches or cards except in the initial days of Independence euphoria. Even such stalwart like Indira Gandhi had to contest from Chikabalapur or Medak not sure of her own win from traditional constituency.
Especially the whining we hear from Secularists, Minorities, persons belonging to certain communities, on their percievred discrimination should introspect why no one could emerge from their ranks with a pan-Indian appeal. Jagjivan Ram contested election after election from Sasaram, a reserved constituency, and left it a more impoverished area than when he first represented it, thought he was Prime Ministerial Material.
There is none from these ranks who has even an iota of ambition of leading this country let alone be a serious contender on their own. One or two like Sonia Gandhi or Mayavati bank on not thier worth or popularity but on the wily political culture of our country.
For the sake of our country, for the sake of cleaner politics, for the sake of empowerment of vast masses, this mindset should change. But the present form of Government may not be conducive. Presidential form may be more suitable. I dont think Obama would have made it in an indirect election.
...Ponder
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
People's Representatives
Amar Singh announced that Sanjay Dutt will be SP's candidate from Lucknow constituency for the forthcoming general elections. As Sanjay Dutt is a convicted person in a terror case and whose appeal is pending in Hon'ble Supreme Court, doubts have been raised whether his nomination will be accepted as per the electoral code. Promptly, Amar Singh comes out with the name of Manyata, the wife of Sanjay Dutt, as the alternative choise. I wish her all the best.
Choosing a contestant by a political party is its own business and one cannot dispute that.
But some questions still linger.
1. We merely talk of eligibility but what about suitability?
2. Are they capable of really representing the citizens residing in that constituency? Do they reside there? Are they accecible easily to the voters? Do they experience the problems peculiar and particular to that state,district,constituency?
3. What is their contribution to the Nation, Country and Civil society, as a public person, to make them an MP ?
4. What is their experience/qualification which will enable them to function as an MP doing full justice to the onerous responsibilities that go with that position. Are they equipped to participate in any debate, appreciate the contents of plethora of papers they will receive from Lok Sabha Secretariat? Do they possess the potential to become a sub-committee member on any important issue or a member of Standing Committees like PAC, BAC, etc.
5. Why should capable,experienced, qualified, hard-working card carrying party members be ignored? What is the incentive for working up from grass roots?
6. All MPs of ruling party do not become ministers. Likewise all MPs of opposition also do not become prominent spokespersons of Opposition. Definitely, back benchers are needed to beef up numbers. But are they expected to perform only barraging, walkouts, raising hands, etc and otherwise remain silent?
There should be a system of democratically electing a party candidate before he/she attempts to get democratically elected as a People's Representative. This will also end the evil of a widow/widower or offspring of a deceased MP getting nominated automatically reducing the democratic process to dynastic succession.
In this context the talk of making Rahul Gandhi being made PM by no less than our incumbant PM and our unsuccessful bidder for that post, Pranab Mukherjee, makes depressing reading. Rahul Gandhi's winning election from Amethi is itself doubtful and there is talk is in the air of giving him Medak seat in AP as a safety net
.
Congress is steeped in nomination culture (also papered over as 'consensus') from pre-independence days. Remember how Subhash Chandra Bose was hounded out after he dared to win against Pattabhi Sitaramayya despite Mahatma Gandhi. Nomination culture provides for the undeserving, less-talented, less-popular, less-experienced to jump over others. Unfortunately, other parties too follow in Congress' footsteps.
Result is people 'do not get the government they deserve' thanks to the way electoral laws have been made and are flouted.
...ponder
Choosing a contestant by a political party is its own business and one cannot dispute that.
But some questions still linger.
1. We merely talk of eligibility but what about suitability?
2. Are they capable of really representing the citizens residing in that constituency? Do they reside there? Are they accecible easily to the voters? Do they experience the problems peculiar and particular to that state,district,constituency?
3. What is their contribution to the Nation, Country and Civil society, as a public person, to make them an MP ?
4. What is their experience/qualification which will enable them to function as an MP doing full justice to the onerous responsibilities that go with that position. Are they equipped to participate in any debate, appreciate the contents of plethora of papers they will receive from Lok Sabha Secretariat? Do they possess the potential to become a sub-committee member on any important issue or a member of Standing Committees like PAC, BAC, etc.
5. Why should capable,experienced, qualified, hard-working card carrying party members be ignored? What is the incentive for working up from grass roots?
6. All MPs of ruling party do not become ministers. Likewise all MPs of opposition also do not become prominent spokespersons of Opposition. Definitely, back benchers are needed to beef up numbers. But are they expected to perform only barraging, walkouts, raising hands, etc and otherwise remain silent?
There should be a system of democratically electing a party candidate before he/she attempts to get democratically elected as a People's Representative. This will also end the evil of a widow/widower or offspring of a deceased MP getting nominated automatically reducing the democratic process to dynastic succession.
In this context the talk of making Rahul Gandhi being made PM by no less than our incumbant PM and our unsuccessful bidder for that post, Pranab Mukherjee, makes depressing reading. Rahul Gandhi's winning election from Amethi is itself doubtful and there is talk is in the air of giving him Medak seat in AP as a safety net
.
Congress is steeped in nomination culture (also papered over as 'consensus') from pre-independence days. Remember how Subhash Chandra Bose was hounded out after he dared to win against Pattabhi Sitaramayya despite Mahatma Gandhi. Nomination culture provides for the undeserving, less-talented, less-popular, less-experienced to jump over others. Unfortunately, other parties too follow in Congress' footsteps.
Result is people 'do not get the government they deserve' thanks to the way electoral laws have been made and are flouted.
...ponder
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)