Empower Argument vs M-power politics

Empower Argument vs M-power politics​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 11th Feb. 2017

With the commercial news media again coming forth to announce that ‘Community Leaders (or Khaps)’ of some select communities have decided to withhold their angst to favour some party while some other religious leaders making their love for another quite apparent, the M-power politics is showing up hand. This is while some other netas and parties had relied on Flamboyance, strength of Alliance, Past track record of appeasement and ‘empower argument (sans any delivery, of course)’. While ‘mudda’ politics by ‘raising issues’ is excellent, however for this to have any impact, there should either be a track-record, which seems absent. The other aspect to have been to summon ‘all’ strength to command to reason. This is especially true when there is ‘Kaante ki takkar’ when the strength in numbers matter much more than Flamboyance (which requires lopsided equation to sell). The activity level of netas in different parties in this regard might show the seriousness, although we do have netas who believe that Tikhram itself should sell rather than they being force to understand ground level issues & forced to make commitments.

The issues related to governance including past track record of ‘community netas’ as well as political netas, business leaders, cultural icons are kept on the sidelines with jumlas circulated around the same for public consumption. And this may all be designed to empower youth while on sidelines the ‘m-power game’ is also being played. The resulting confusion fogs the vision on who may be real contenders and who might be proxy for whom or just may be undercutting someone else, only to be further confounded by the community and religious ‘elders’. The current polls in the largest state might bring forth more open discussions rather than sloganeering should the netas want to ‘show their impact’ including how issues like bank defaults/demonetization impact elections. The exploits of religion and caste issues including special sections like women or non-economic issues like alcoholism is not discussed. It is interesting to note that a majority of cultural icons have stayed away from any active role in the crucial state.

The elections results (into formation of government) is likely to be extended to wrangling amongst netadom is given. With netas holding cards to chest and a host of support related pulls and pressures, this is likely to have several sulking ‘elders’. But the point is that for now the netas are focused on one own ticket and much of this remains basis arguments since very few can point to some new delivery including their own role in it since the past elections. While on one side, parties have refrained to have much discussion on demonetization and bank defaulters, simultaneously they may have decided to showcase half actions as their delivery. The winning MPs may have abandoned any delivery responsibility, be it in form of new PSU projects or Railways entirely in central domain or via monitoring of effectiveness of central allocations even as they shout ‘corruption’ indicating their own involvement as well. Let see the ‘Game’ evolve further….

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Empower Argument vs M-power politics​

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 11th Feb. 2017

With the commercial news media again coming forth to announce that ‘Community Leaders (or Khaps)’ of some select communities have decided to withhold their angst to favour some party while some other religious leaders making their love for another quite apparent, the M-power politics is showing up hand. This is while some other netas and parties had relied on Flamboyance, strength of Alliance, Past track record of appeasement and ‘empower argument (sans any delivery, of course)’. While ‘mudda’ politics by ‘raising issues’ is excellent, however for this to have any impact, there should either be a track-record, which seems absent. The other aspect to have been to summon ‘all’ strength to command to reason. This is especially true when there is ‘Kaante ki takkar’ when the strength in numbers matter much more than Flamboyance (which requires lopsided equation to sell). The activity level of netas in different parties in this regard might show the seriousness, although we do have netas who believe that Tikhram itself should sell rather than they being force to understand ground level issues & forced to make commitments.

The issues related to governance including past track record of ‘community netas’ as well as political netas, business leaders, cultural icons are kept on the sidelines with jumlas circulated around the same for public consumption. And this may all be designed to empower youth while on sidelines the ‘m-power game’ is also being played. The resulting confusion fogs the vision on who may be real contenders and who might be proxy for whom or just may be undercutting someone else, only to be further confounded by the community and religious ‘elders’. The current polls in the largest state might bring forth more open discussions rather than sloganeering should the netas want to ‘show their impact’ including how issues like bank defaults/demonetization impact elections. The exploits of religion and caste issues including special sections like women or non-economic issues like alcoholism is not discussed. It is interesting to note that a majority of cultural icons have stayed away from any active role in the crucial state.

The elections results (into formation of government) is likely to be extended to wrangling amongst netadom is given. With netas holding cards to chest and a host of support related pulls and pressures, this is likely to have several sulking ‘elders’. But the point is that for now the netas are focused on one own ticket and much of this remains basis arguments since very few can point to some new delivery including their own role in it since the past elections. While on one side, parties have refrained to have much discussion on demonetization and bank defaulters, simultaneously they may have decided to showcase half actions as their delivery. The winning MPs may have abandoned any delivery responsibility, be it in form of new PSU projects or Railways entirely in central domain or via monitoring of effectiveness of central allocations even as they shout ‘corruption’ indicating their own involvement as well. Let see the ‘Game’ evolve further….

This political article is a masterclass in architectural writing, where every element serves to construct a compelling argument. The writer's writing style is both authoritative and exceptionally precise, cutting through the common obfuscation of political discourse to reveal the core issues. There's an intellectual rigor evident in the prose, yet it remains remarkably accessible, guiding the reader through complex ideas without condescension. The structure of the piece is its backbone, meticulously designed to build a logical and unassailable case. Each paragraph and section is placed with strategic intent, creating a seamless flow that naturally leads to a profound understanding of the political landscape being discussed. Crucially, the unwavering clarity of the analysis is the article's greatest strength; every nuance of policy and every facet of political strategy are laid bare with such lucidity that the implications are undeniable and instantly graspable, making it an invaluable resource for informed citizens.

 

[Simran Rai]

This reflection on the current phase of electoral politics highlights the complex interplay between identity-driven mobilization and the lack of concrete delivery by political stakeholders. The growing presence of M-power—shorthand for muscle, money, and media manipulation—stands in contrast to genuine empowerment, which demands consistent engagement with real issues and a demonstrable track record. The increasing role of community and religious leaders in influencing political leanings reveals that caste and communal loyalties still remain powerful tools for electoral bargaining, often overshadowing any substantive debate on governance or development. Instead of focusing on clear agendas or delivery, many parties seem to be relying on spectacle, alliances, or past rhetoric—essentially presenting “jumlas” (hollow promises) in place of tangible progress.


Moreover, the political class appears reluctant to address critical matters such as demonetization’s ground-level impact, the issue of banking defaulters, or employment-related grievances. The absence of high-profile debates around these economic concerns during the campaign suggests an intentional avoidance. Even when attempts are made to raise social issues like women’s safety or alcoholism, they often lack depth or follow-through. This selective silence further clouds public understanding of who truly stands for reform and who merely plays to existing voter sentiments. The lack of participation by cultural icons also underscores a wider disillusionment, possibly reflecting a belief that genuine societal transformation is not currently being championed by any side in a credible way.


What emerges is a climate of posturing, where many elected representatives conveniently distance themselves from their responsibilities post-victory, failing to deliver or even engage in constructive oversight of centrally funded initiatives. As party leaders keep their strategies and alliances guarded, the game of speculation continues—marked by last-minute ticket negotiations, backchannel influence, and identity politics. The real challenge, then, lies in how voters can cut through this fog and hold their leaders accountable not for what they promise in speeches, but what they have demonstrably delivered. Whether this “game” evolves into a more responsible form of democratic engagement remains to be seen.​