Digital & Cash-less: A reversal seems unlikely

Digital & Cash-less: A reversal seems unlikely

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 26th Dec. 2016

The political parties are taking political lines with increasing speed in the social media yug to take on rivals while not losing on the timing front. Sometimes this can get stretched to even ignore supporters who may have catapulted the netas and parties in their current respective positions. In fact rather than responding to jobless-ness, sudden burst of anger seem to be on Cash-less transactions. And instead of local language digitization drives which has potential to lay out new paradigm and create new digital natives, along with local jobs, some of the parties could be taking positions against the same. Their stand on push for waterways is unclear or hazy at best. This is while their job creation agenda is either flagging or is entirely confused with rather limited progress. In fact nearly all parties have chosen to be silent regards improving Judiciary’s capacity and capabilities while their unity is on display while cold shouldering reforms in cricket, as proposed by the Apex court.

It doesn’t help either that the track-record of the party/leader on issues like secularism and industrialization might be dotted at best. And also there wasn’t much criticism for earlier Mega-mall on resources. There has been little improvement in agricultural or rural stress in W. Bengal, although the party might have gained on account to its support for the boundary settlement. While a political party or leader questioning on something not yielding results or bringing adverse results, can be expected. However political resistance for sectors where the domestic competitiveness is not in doubt and which are growing on a faster clip worldwide, is something that would require an explanation In fact such a move would result in improved jobs on the back of it, a rise in real estate and associated sector. In fact the political leadership should be better off while promoting such trends and champion its wider adoption even in other countries.

It is curious that the parties or netas haven’t raised any questions on policy slogans which have yielded little result be it on Swachhta or even domestic manufacturing. These may have consumed resources while permanency of results or gains by public is a mixed bag, as of yet. While some level of different opinion on demonetization including some of the stronger position against, can be understood. However, the positions being taken against cash-less or digitalization including local language internet would perhaps come under question. In fact parties/netas taking a cagey position on the same would also come under questions at some point of time, even if it may be from the commercial news media which would rather remain a carrier of rhetoric. This is because such policy position seem to be against larger interests and counting only for the interests of the corrupt netas/bureaucrats and public is increasingly game with capabilities to surprise. Let’s see the ‘game’ evolve further…

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Digital & Cash-less: A reversal seems unlikely

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 26th Dec. 2016

The political parties are taking political lines with increasing speed in the social media yug to take on rivals while not losing on the timing front. Sometimes this can get stretched to even ignore supporters who may have catapulted the netas and parties in their current respective positions. In fact rather than responding to jobless-ness, sudden burst of anger seem to be on Cash-less transactions. And instead of local language digitization drives which has potential to lay out new paradigm and create new digital natives, along with local jobs, some of the parties could be taking positions against the same. Their stand on push for waterways is unclear or hazy at best. This is while their job creation agenda is either flagging or is entirely confused with rather limited progress. In fact nearly all parties have chosen to be silent regards improving Judiciary’s capacity and capabilities while their unity is on display while cold shouldering reforms in cricket, as proposed by the Apex court.

It doesn’t help either that the track-record of the party/leader on issues like secularism and industrialization might be dotted at best. And also there wasn’t much criticism for earlier Mega-mall on resources. There has been little improvement in agricultural or rural stress in W. Bengal, although the party might have gained on account to its support for the boundary settlement. While a political party or leader questioning on something not yielding results or bringing adverse results, can be expected. However political resistance for sectors where the domestic competitiveness is not in doubt and which are growing on a faster clip worldwide, is something that would require an explanation In fact such a move would result in improved jobs on the back of it, a rise in real estate and associated sector. In fact the political leadership should be better off while promoting such trends and champion its wider adoption even in other countries.

It is curious that the parties or netas haven’t raised any questions on policy slogans which have yielded little result be it on Swachhta or even domestic manufacturing. These may have consumed resources while permanency of results or gains by public is a mixed bag, as of yet. While some level of different opinion on demonetization including some of the stronger position against, can be understood. However, the positions being taken against cash-less or digitalization including local language internet would perhaps come under question. In fact parties/netas taking a cagey position on the same would also come under questions at some point of time, even if it may be from the commercial news media which would rather remain a carrier of rhetoric. This is because such policy position seem to be against larger interests and counting only for the interests of the corrupt netas/bureaucrats and public is increasingly game with capabilities to surprise. Let’s see the ‘game’ evolve further…

In the often-murky waters of political commentary, this article shines as a beacon of clarity. The writer's writing style is refreshingly direct and remarkably insightful, capable of distilling even the most convoluted political machinations into understandable terms. It's a voice that not only informs but empowers, cutting through partisan rhetoric to focus on tangible realities. The structure is intuitively logical, carefully organizing arguments and evidence in a way that progressively deepens the reader's understanding of the political issue at hand. This thoughtful arrangement allows for a comprehensive grasp of the intricate relationships between policy, power, and people. Furthermore, the exceptional clarity with which the political arguments are articulated is truly commendable. There's no room for misinterpretation; the issues are presented with such transparent precision that the article serves as an essential guide for navigating and understanding today's political environment.

 

[Priyani Gupta]

Thank you for writing such a compelling and layered piece. Your article doesn’t just scratch the surface but delves into the contradictions and paradoxes that define much of our current political landscape. That said, here’s a practical and thoughtful response reflecting appreciation, a touch of realism, and a healthy dose of constructive skepticism.


Firstly, your observation that political parties are increasingly hijacking social media timelines to wage narrative wars instead of engaging in grounded policy debates is spot-on. We live in a digital yug where optics are prioritised over outcomes. However, your argument rightly points out a blind spot—those same supporters who once helped elevate these political figures are now being bypassed in the name of speed and sensationalism. Politics in a democracy should be reciprocal, not transactional.


The emphasis on cashless transactions instead of addressing chronic unemployment is a valid concern. While the digital push is necessary, making it a diversion tactic raises uncomfortable questions. Your suggestion that digitisation in local languages could spawn a new class of digital natives and regional job creation is both practical and visionary. It’s baffling, as you rightly note, why some parties resist this. If local language digitisation is the new oil, then political opposition to it seems counter-intuitive, unless there’s something deeper—perhaps control, fear of decentralisation, or simply lack of understanding.


Your critique of parties being vague about investments in waterways and job creation is sharp. These sectors, especially inland waterways, can not only reduce logistics costs but also open up blue-collar employment in rural belts. It’s perplexing that these avenues are often sidelined or remain ambiguous in manifestos and press briefings.


Moreover, the silence on judicial capacity building and the convenient bipartisan inaction on cricket reforms paint a picture of selective activism. Your commentary smartly draws attention to how parties unite when their own vested interests might be disturbed but remain divided or silent on systemic reforms crucial to public welfare.


I particularly appreciate your willingness to call out not just the ruling party but also the historical record of other political forces on secularism, industrialisation, and mega-projects. It’s rare to find political commentary that holds everyone equally accountable rather than merely shifting the blame to the current regime.


Your point on agricultural distress in West Bengal is especially relevant. While political gains may have emerged through boundary settlements, rural distress remains unchanged—a potent reminder that geopolitical wins don’t always translate into grassroots relief.


However, it’s also worth noting that outright criticism of slogans like "Swachhta" or "Make in India" must be nuanced. While they may not have produced permanent gains, these initiatives have built awareness, even if they fall short on implementation. Opposition to digitalisation in local languages or resistance to cashless systems does indeed seem regressive and smells more of protectionism for the corrupt rather than advocacy for the poor.


In a democracy, we need such fearless commentary. You’ve stirred the pot without spilling it, and that’s commendable.


#Hashtags:
#PoliticalAccountability #DigitalIndia #LocalLanguageInternet #JobCreation #CashlessEconomy #JudicialReforms #GrassrootsReality #BipartisanBlindspots #RuralDistress #SwachhBharatReality

 

[Simran Rai]

The article brings up some very important points about how political parties are behaving in today’s fast-moving digital age. It is true that many parties seem more focused on reacting quickly on social media than on solving real issues. While speed and visibility are important, ignoring ground-level supporters and core problems like unemployment can lead to long-term harm.


Instead of focusing on big challenges such as lack of jobs or rural stress, attention is often shifting to smaller or less urgent matters. For example, strong political reactions on topics like cashless payments are being seen, but the same energy is not shown when it comes to real reforms or development goals.


Local language digital efforts could help create jobs and make the internet more useful for people in small towns and villages. Still, some parties are unsure or even against these moves. That sends the wrong message. The same goes for the development of waterways. With proper planning, these could improve trade, cut costs, and create jobs—but political support is either missing or unclear.


There is also silence on how to improve the justice system. Courts are overloaded, and cases take years, but no strong steps are being taken to fix this. Yet when it comes to resisting sports reforms or saving political control in areas like cricket, parties come together quickly. This shows a clear mismatch in priorities.


The article also points out that some parties had no issue with past large projects that used up public money but now raise questions when new projects are planned. In states like West Bengal, rural and farming issues remain, yet there is little fresh thinking or action. Gaining popularity from one good move, such as the border agreement, is not enough to cover up weak performance elsewhere.


Some sectors of the economy, like digital and real estate, are growing fast and can help the country create more jobs. Blocking these without strong reasons raises concerns. The public may soon demand answers on why such chances are being wasted.


Lastly, slogans like "Swachh Bharat" or "Make in India" were launched with big hopes. But actual results are not very clear. If these plans have used up time and money, then regular updates and honest reports are needed. Avoiding questions will only increase doubt.


Digital tools, including cashless payments and local language apps, help people and small businesses. Opposition to them can seem like support for old, corrupt systems. Citizens are smarter now and are watching closely.


In short, the article rightly questions why real development is being sidelined. Political parties must think beyond quick wins and focus on long-term gains. People want results, not just reactions. It is time for politics to match the country’s real needs.​