The irony about Rahul Gandhi's failure is
this.
People may be rejecting his charms -- such
as they are -- but in its place, what are they opting for?
I think they're opting for something worse.
I think people are becoming ever more conscious of various local identities
based on religion, language, caste, etc.
So you have regional Hitlers springing up
all over the country.
Since you mention Uttar Pradesh, the guy
who eventually won, one Mulayam Singh, is apparently known to run his district
in such a manner that the district is 'untouched' by the rule of law or the
machinery of law enforcement. Mulayam is The Law there.
Then there is the satrap named Narendra
Modi who taught a lesson to the Muslims in 2002 and runs a financially
uncorrupted administration focused on development of the state and now based on
his record in Gujarat, aims to become the Prime Minister of India.
Then there's the octogenarian L. K. Advani,
who feels the post of prime ministership is his by 'right' -- since he has not
been able to occupy it yet, he feels cheated and robbed. 2014 will see a
massive tug between the various aspirants in that right-wing party.
Let's see who might be qualified to be the
prime minister.
Clearly, Rahul Gandhi is not. He seems to
have fudged his educational qualifications and done very little real work in
his life. And this does not quite make him like the British Kings in waiting --
Diana's sons, William and Harry -- as those two blokes appear to have proper
military training and have got real jobs in the armed forces.
Manmohan Singh is an economist -- and
probably the first economist-turned-politician in the world and who also ends
up becoming the prime minister of a country.
He seems to think of himself as God's gift
to India. The job of prime minister of India is such that one tends to acquire
the delusions of being a Maharaja and develop a sense of indispensableness. But
India has been around for thousands of years.
India will manage quite well after Manmohan
Singh goes. Gandhi and Nehru are dead too.
Crediting Narendra Modi too much for the
state of the State of Gujarat takes credit away that should in all fairness go
to the hard-working and smart people of Gujarat. The state has ALWAYS been a
leading Indian state. No wonder it's leading the way even now. It will do so
either with Mr. Modi in the CM's chair or without him.
The tales one hears of Mr. Modi's
inclinations to be a Hitler-like figure are scary. He may not have plans to
exterminate any particular races, but he runs a pretty autocratic ship.
Nitish Kumar is running a clean
administration in god-forsaken Bihar. He is getting some deserved credits for
running a good show there. But Bihar has done so badly in recent decades under
successively corrupt politicians -- not the least of whom was Laloo Prasad
Yadav -- that the bar is essentially set too low for Nitish Kumar. Not to
forget the inconvenient detail and truth either that once upon a time Mr.
Nitish Kumar was a close lieutenant of Laloo Yadav.
Maharashtra is another relatively developed
state in Western India -- predictably therefore being home to a few more prime
ministerial aspirants.
If honesty is the criteria, one could also
mention the CM of Odisha or the CM of Goa.
But look at the other side of the coin now.
Imagine the best of these guys being in the PM's chair. Imagine APJ Abdul Kalam
being the PM. Or N. R. Narayan Murthy. Or Ratan Tata.
So what? What will happen then? What are
the REVOLUTIONARY changes that will come to pass under their leadership that
are not happening now?
Is India somehow miraculously going to get
transformed into another Singapore, South Korea, or Switzerland, Norway, or
Germany?
I am afraid not. Any right thinking, sane
Indian knows that Indians will do their VERY BEST to stay poor for the foreseeable
future. I don't know about the far future as brain transplants might
fundamentally change the thinking styles of Indians. Until then, it hardly
matters who lives in 7 Race Course Road.
India has seen a wide spectrum of folks in
the Prime Minister’s chair Ã
from the first occupant, the elegant if privileged Jawaharlal Nehru, followed
by the much-admired-for-some-mysterious-reason Lal Bahadur Shashtri, to Mrs.
Gandhi in due course, the daughter of Nehru (thus arguably making Nehru responsible
for starting the odious tradition of dynasty in Indian politics), Morarji
Desai, who also earned fame for being a urine drinker, small-time kings like V.
P. Singh, to pilots and benefactors of dynasty such as Rajiv Gandhi. The problem
with blaming the Nehru-Gandhis for foisting a dynasty on India is of course
two-fold: 1) there are other dynasties in politics in India as well. Many of
the former kings of the princely states have made politics their new business. The
examples are too numerous and I don’t want to name any specific ones and leave
out others thus appearing to be partial to any single dynasty. 2) people of
India have apparently voted voluntarily for some of these dynastic figures. Which
shows that may be Indians – like the British people – probably love to be ruled
by kings and such.
The days of optimism are over for me – 1991
and 2002 and 2004 are NEVER going to come back for me in this life time. To explain
those dates: I think in my youth, I was prone to being optimistic and the fact
that Narasimha Rao knew 13 languages or whatever had probably made me feel that
he was quite a talented guy. 2002 saw Abdul Kalam as President. A scientist
becoming the head of state made me happy I think as a science-loving guy. Even Manmohan
Singh, with his clean and intellectual image, was a sign of hope, when he
became the PM. I don’t mention 1998 as the nuclear tests clearly did not create
any illusions in me that India had suddenly become a superpower or anything. And
the Kargil dumb charade of a war was of course silly business.
So here’s congratulating Arun Jaitley or
Sushma Swaraj or Mulayam Singh or whoever else becomes the next PM.