Political Verdict 2009

By giving clear mandate to a national party and sidelining regional parties people of India have proved that India is marching towards a mature democratic system. The politics of victimization has no place in the current scenario of the world where people are more aware about the actions of political parties and they are able to make independent decisions. Now the age of "ism" is ending. Only the voice of development echo with implementation and action are able to attract people's mandate.

Terrorism free India, a vision shown by BJP which also tried to show itself as Hindu pro party by bringing forth Narendra Modi and having soft corner for Varun Gandhi in spite of his communal statements, was not able to change the people's mood. People have come to know that terrorism is more institutional problem rather a political voice. No party is going to endorse terrorism.

Blackmoney issuse was important issue which would have brought fortune for millions of people. It might be possible that people have no confidence of getting money.

The best part of the election, where RJD, LJP, BSP and SP parties who kept winning by wooing castiesm and doing nothing for their upliftment were discarded by development oriented people. The setback to Left was historical where the long awaiting voice of people was finally echoed with the result. The success of Mamta Banerjee ensured that now the time has come when the voice of common man can not be ignored on the name of development.

Overall scenario is rosy. But we can not claim anything from one election. The distribution of percentage of vote along with absence of larger educated mass from election process put challenge to the national parties. They all have to work hard in near future. Now it is evident that only word is not going to play but work can get people's mandate.

Intellectual opinion

Getting fed up by doing work which are mostly iterative types in the lab, we need some change. Generally we walk to the staff canteen and have a cup of tea sitting under the tree. We used to delve either into some entertainment stuff or into some political, social issues. Today my colleague criticized the action of social activist like Arundhati Roy and argued that their net input to the development is zero. I personally felt that their agitation is not baseless even they are motivated and directed by some tycoon. Common men have grievances and hence they are coming behind these people who are trying to give them voice. Now it is the duty of Gevernment to adress these issues properly. Instead of negotiating these leaders, if Government would have wooed people, it is really difficult to organize such agitations.

My dear friend made a very good point. "For the safety of village is it acceptable to sacrifice a family?" he asked me. I said yes. Taking inference of this logic he justified the destruction of some villages for the welfare of the nation. Suddenly one logical but counter thought propped up in my mind and I thought I should write to preserve this.

There is difference between the two issues, issue of security and issue of development. Everyone feels his duty to sacrifice his life for the safety of his community. His sacrifice was seen with respect. Basically people are motivated to sacrifice for their community rather they were pushed by giving some incentives. On the other side, if we deprive someone for the benefit of others, that may cause a resentment which might be harmful for the society. We can not justify for keeping someone hungry so that others would get two pieces of bread. As I personally think that it is more logical that distribute lesser amount of bread to all so that the last one would not have to sleep without bread. On this logic Government should have to provide proper compensation to the people who are getting affected by the development programs by imposing more taxes on benefactors.