Indian Politics

One of the things I do not like about India is the Indian political system. I am not talking about the corruption and various other evils within the system; I am talking about the basic system itself. We have a multiparty system here in India, which means there is no limit to the number of political parties that can be formed in India (of course, there are certain rules for forming a new party). There are pros and cons for this type of a system. The main advantage is that the people of the country will always be in power. As there are many political parties they would try their best to ensure that voters vote for them and hence nothing that will adversely affect the general public will be or can be done. The disadvantage is that no work can be done in the parliament.

As there are too many parties representing different parts of the country, the chances of a single political party getting the majority and forming the government is next to impossible. Hence the new formula in Indian politics is "coalition politics". A few parties which will have a few ideologies in common will join hands and fight elections. The disadvantage of this system is that there will be too many egos. The various parties that form the government would want a share of power. Since these political parties who join hands have only a few set of ideologies in common, when it comes to the remaining issues there will always be confrontation. As a result political stability can only be ensured if the political parties find a middle path for all the issues, which is not always good.

Unlike in the US, where the leader of the country is directly elected by the people and is the most powerful person in the country, here the leader of the country is elected indirectly and is far less powerful. In the US the people elect a person and give him the authority to lead the country. As a result the president is directly responsible for the decisions that he/she takes. Here to get a bill passed is next to impossible.

The main advantage of our system as I mentioned earlier is that people will never lose power. The disadvantage is that the people views can be manipulated by various political parties so that the people will turn against the government. There is far less stability in the government when compared to countries which directly elect their leader. The term "dirty politics" is magnified here. It’s very easy for the opposition to mislead the nation. The constitution of our country is taken for granted. According to the convenience of the people they follow and break various sections of the constitution.

Even though our present system has quite a few merits I feel that very soon the demerits will over weigh the merits. Just consider the recent things that happened in the parliament. Now changing the constitution so that more stability can be attained in the country is not going to happen. I believe that serious studies and debates are needed about the political system in India and a solution needs to be found so that we can move ahead and be one of the leading nations in the world. Without political stability the prospects of development is dim.

Irresponsible politics

Recently Sushma Swaraj of the BJP said that the terrorist attacks that happened were part of a conspiracy of the congress to shift the attention of the people from the "cash for vote" scandal. That was an absolutely irresponsible and uncalled for statement from a relatively senior politician. That was a kind of statement that could create communal violence.

Well I am not going to question the validity of her accusation. It may or may not be right, but come on, give me a break. I don’t think any political party in India would put the citizens of the country at harms way for such an insignificant matter. With only a few months left for the parliament to conclude the chances of that scam to be solved/settled were very less. The reason why I felt that the comment was so outrageous was that, the logic behind that was so stupid and ridiculous. If she had said that the congress is behind the attacks because it wants to undermine the BJP lead state governments so that it can win the upcoming elections, it would have looked a bit more viable.

I am pretty sure that she didn’t mean to start any communal riots with the statement of hers. It was just plane old dirty politics to get more votes. People from the BJP have been making similar volatile comments in the past and party had faced a lot of criticism and embarrassment. I remember either Venkayya Naidu or Arun Jaitley saying in a press conference that the population of Muslims have increased a lot and the Hindu population has not increased correspondingly and hence Hindus should try to increase there population so that normalcy can be maintained. Similar outrageous statements were made by L K Advani on the Babri Masjid, and how can one forget Narendra Modi. The one positive that I found among these people were, even though they had done crimes for which they can never be forgiven, they have learned from their mistakes and have refrained from making statements that could lead to riots.(not included Sushma Swaraj). Even if Muslims still face a hard time in Gujrat, Modi is doing all that he can to clear his name and ensure that he is taking a comparatively more secular stand.

The antics of the BJP is nothing compared that to what Raj Thackery and the Shiva Sena do in Maharashtra. They have this obsession with the word "Mumbai" and everything Marata. They take up insignificant issues such as valentines day or westernization of the state and act as its moral police. Right now Raj Thackery is over shadowing the Shiva Sena in terms of violence caused. His aim is simple, to get more and more marata votes and for that he will use any means necessary, including violating the basic human rights and the Indian constitution. To a certain extend I can understand his point about Mumbai getting overcrowded with non Maratis, but Mumbai is what it is now because of such a culture. Not quite sure why he doesn’t have much of a problem with outsiders occupying other parts of Maharastra. Him being adamant over the word "Mumbai", ordering all films not to use the word "Bombay" and asking Bombay dieing to change its name to Mumbai dieing is quite outrageous and unconstitutional. The kind of hate he is spreading misguides his supporters. Even though i agree that the "marata" cause is important, to cause violence in that name is not acceptable. Raj Thackery is trying to eat into the Shiva Sena vote bank and for that he is creating all this havoc.

Getting voters on its side is what all political parties should do, but to adopt any means to do so is not right. Just like business ethics is given a lot of importance these days, lot of emphasis should be given to political ethics. I believe that the Indian voter get more mature and reject all unethical, immoral ways political parties use to come into power. Its quite sad that in the land of the Mahatma people find that only violence is the answer to any problem.