By Syed Ali Hashmi,
By sundown on 16th of May the electoral scene of the country was clear. While the winners are jubilant and losers are licking their wounds, let’s think for a while as to what lessons do we draw out of the long and arduous process of election 2009 in India.
Basic Indian character is secular
Irrespective of the rhetoric of Narender Modi or replaying the Ram mandir card by L K Advani, common man of India has given a clear verdict in favour of the secular UPA rule for the next five years. Advani has learnt his life’s lesson and hence withdrew as leader of the opposition. His dream of capturing the seat of the prime minister of India has since been shattered.
Nehru’s legacy
Jawaherlal Nehru’s crowd pulling popularity is left as legacy in his family. We see traces of this popularity inherited by Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka. Rahul Gandhi’s popularity and his desire to associate with masses have done a tremendous job in reviving the Congress which had become a dead wood in Utter Pradesh. At the same time inclination of the Indian masses to the dynastic rule is evident in the Rahul factor of the success story of the Congress.
Minority factor
Congress leaders’ joy knows no bounds, for they won against all odds of anti-incumbency, non-coherence in the party, etc. They are proud of their performance and thank profusely to the people for showing their confidence in their party. But an indepth analysis will reveal that it is the negative votes of the rival parties of Congress that made the party win. In other words, it is not the pro-Congress votes but the anti-BJP votes that brought success to the party. BJP has come out against minorities so vehemently that they had no alternative except choosing a party secular in character. Take the example of Andhra Pradesh, Utter Pradesh or Maharashtra and most probably Orissa, where the minorities’ anti-BJP votes went to the Congress. The former three states have targeted Muslims after every bomb blast and last the state, viz Orissa, because of the Christian killings after Kandhamal episode. It is after Naveen Patnaik severed his ties with BJP that he achieved remarkable success in the Elections 2009. His party swept not only Assembly polls but also gave a sizable number of Members to the Lok Sabha. Mayawati has come out openly against this strategy of Muslims. “The Congress and the SP spread the canard during the polls that BSP had thrice formed the government with the BJP’s support, it would support the latter, if it was in a position to form a government in the center. Ms. Mayawati said this resulted in the Muslims in supporting the SP where it was strong and supporting the Congress where it was strong.” (CONSIRACY: MAYAWATI The Hindu daily May 17). Mayawati is correct. But it was no conspiracy. It was an open fact for any voter to see and act. It is for those in the rank and file of the Congress to realize this fact and rectify their policy relating to minorities. Else, the same CM who was let to go scot free after the 2002 Muslims massacre will accuse the Congress Prime Minister as a weak prime minister.
Lack of principles on part of the political parties
No political party has shown principles, either in the choice of their candidates or in the making of their manifestoes. A circular letter sent by Civil Society NGO to all political parties requesting them to include the following two items in their manifestoes, drew blank.
1) That no person charged with cognizable offence will be fielded as a candidate in the Elections and that;
2) The draconian Police Act of Colonial period will be amended on the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India.
Both the demands were reasonable and required to be implemented. But to misfortune of the people, not a single political party responded. As a result, you find candidates from criminal background in all political parties. How many of these criminals or next of kin have brought credit or discredit to these parties is yet to be known. But criteria of the parties to choose a candidate is how much votes he can fetch and not whether he is competent to hold the post which he is seeking election to. A senior politician and a former minister of Andhra Pradesh represented to the Chief Minister of the state to allocate more seats to the minority on the lines allotted during his (the former minister’s) time, making clear at the same time that he was not in the election fray. The C.M. shot back, “But they should win too.” The former minister was a seasoned politician. He retorted, “Winning elections depends on so many considerations which you know well. I don’t have to tell you.” The conversation ended at that. But one thing is clear from this that elections are nothing but a horse race and that political parties bet on the winning horses, irrespective of his character or competence.
A cursory look at the manifesto of any political party will reveal that power and not public service is their motive. All their policies are election-oriented.
Unless the Constitution of India is amended suitably to prevent personal motives forming the basis of elections, instead of public service, political parties are not going to give performance required by the people.