Reforming Politics And Changing India

…country wants a lot to know from politicians or netas who aspire to change things. Why dynasts like Jagan or Shekhawat should be in politics at all; does political reforms mean preparing politicians and removing netas only; how corrupt ministers and corruption should be tackled, like Bofors scam; what reforming politics means, sleeping in a hut  or improving people’s plight…

Saurabh Dharmeshwari

There has been no dynast in India’s democratic history who attempted this Hurculean mission: having interaction with university students who would make a critical enquiry of genuineness of one’s activities rather than having a normal discussion and then eating what a common student eats in a mess; and here is yet harder undertaking, taking a countryside dinner – comprising of thick chapattis indigestible to an urbanized, metropolis stomach – at a dalit’s hovel in some backward pocket of country, and then sleeping there amid mosquitoes. Rahul Gandhi, no matter how so much his adventures pester some Congressmen and have BSP chief Mayawati fuming, seems an exception. People, party and press, everybody is all praise for him.

Of late, much light has fallen on young Gandhi scion and we the people are informed, as a section of thinkers put it, that this gentleman is not unrelenting to be in power, wants to know his country, countryside and countrymen closely, and as his actions show, aspires to democratize his party and encourage participative democracy in the country. Though there exists a sufficient room for a fair criticism of this entire goody-goody picture, I feel that Rahul Gandhi is the only politician in ongoing era who has at least kindled a hope among a section of optimist people of probable reforms in politics and polity.

Rahul Gandhi’s itinerary needs a better review than one confining it to a political-stunt-theory or commitment-to-change-old-things-view. When we speak of this, we’re not talking about a dynast but are confabulating on how much political scene in a party (or parties, for that matter) has changed.

India, for a transformation to become a country of every Indian’s dream, needs reforms in politics at many levels, indeed, anybody committed to usher them in is welcome, be it Rahul Gandhi or Shiv Kheda, Congress party or BJP. At present, India is a country where politicians haling from a common background, having an impressive back-story of struggle, knowing the poor well and having a class connectivity with aam admi, like Mayawati, Mulayam Singh, Lalu Yadav and many others, are utter letdowns, and in this backdrop, endeavours of a dynast, even if showy, hike up our expectation level and there’s a natural urge to see him or her in a league of politicians worth their salt rather than in a crowd of historical disappointments. For this reason alone, all this popular – populist – activities have to be interpreted in a broader persective.

I strongly believe that Rahul Gandhi’s itinerary, intended at understanding country and knowing ground realities of poor, needs a better review than one confining it to a political-stunt-theory or commitment-to-change-old-things-view. When we speak of this, we’re not talking about a dynast but are confabulating on how much political scene in a party (or parties, for that matter) has changed. If someone who counts in politics, dynast or otherwise, goes out of way while meeting hoi polloi merely to give them a feeling that he understands them, knows their life conditions and feels for them, and to set an example for his fellow party men to follow; two points instantly crash our minds. One, it explains that our netas have lost their connectivity with people and are inaccessible to them. This holds true for most of those coming from common background and attaining a position after a struggle. Two, there’s sizeable breed of politicians who are not even remotely aware of ground realities. It’s true about dynast, aristocrat and professionals.

Come to think of it: what forms Congress party’s inspiring youth brigade leadership anyway. Just at a moment’s thought, scores of dynasts, aristocrats and professionals, all accented, foreign returned, well-bred, come scurrying to our mind. It applies to other parties in varying degrees, too. So all the popular activities, besides everything mentioned above, aim to serve the purpose of a political creamy layer, which, unfortunately, has shown no willingness to take their lessons from it.

Yes, today we have netas and politicians. Jaganmohan Reddy, Rajendra Shekhawat, Sachin Pilot, Jyotiraditya Scindia, Shashi Tharoor are all politicians. Raj Thackeray, Akhilesh Yadav, Mayawati, Uma Bharati are all netas. The term political reforms in present context mean in all probability the expansion of politicians and shrinkage of netas. And for this expansion, politicians have to be as well connected with people and their reality as netas are – were.

Rahul Gandhi has identified and entered into a space that netas have left empty for long, once they get positions, they become inaccessible to people, turn blind eyes to their reality and there is no connectivity left between them and the masses. India is one democracy where the bigger is mass leader, the more inaccessible he is to masses. Will Rahul Gandhi be able to break this norm with his inspiring team of young politicians? It is actually not about politics but class that exists among leaders as well as masses. It’s a matter of working in a class and cross-class.

Rahul Gandhi has identified and entered into a space that netas have left empty for long, once they get positions, they become inaccessible to people, turn blind eyes to their reality and there is no connectivity left between them and the masses. India is one democracy where the bigger is mass leader, the more inaccessible he is to masses.

With Rahul Gandhi’s itinerary is closely linked participative democracy. His journeys have deservingly won huge applause and made him wiser but didn’t leave us much enlightened about his vision of India. We, for instance, hear about his eating with aam admi and sleeping in a hut but we’re not aware of how he is going to change their plight. Well, there already exist schemes like NREGA, some people would say, but here the basic point is: Gandhi scion’s zeal and commitment have made us expect of him something solid and more effective.

Ditto to his visit to JNU. Though he might have frankly talked to university students about education reforms, thousands of unemployed university graduates across the country are curious to know from someone like him as how government intends to tackle unemployment and engage a huge qualified work force into nation building. Questions and curiosities are endless.

Country wants a lot to know from him or any other politician or neta who aspires to change things. There’re many questions such as why dynasts like Jagan or Shekhawat should be in politics at all; does political reforms merely mean preparing politicians and removing netas or there’s a plan to prepare good netas, too; how corrupt ministers and corruption should be tackled, like Bofors scam; what reforming politics means, eating with people, sleeping at their home, or following such activities with some plan of improving people’s plight etc.

Anyway, despite all these drawbacks, Gandhi can be rightly credited with at least starting a tradition of a miniscule participative democracy in the country. It has to be followed in the right earnest. The majority of voters of the current zeitgeist are youth. Any ambitious politician or neta should know that the expectation of this generation is quite different. They want revolutionary changes. They want future PM, CM or Ministers to make public their vision. They want to ask questions from them at squares of their city. They want future PM and CM to roam around the country or state spending two-three years only to tell people of every town and every city what is their policy on each and every important issue. They want true and full-fledged participative democracy.

Hope some one will really change things. Someone.