Itihaas or Bhavishya: Political Conundrum

Itihaas or Bhavishya: Political Conundrum

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 2nd April, 2017

We again have the media abuzz under political influence with the voting over in the largest state. A question that remains open for introspection as well as interpretation is ‘What won’ ? It is important but very often ignored. The point that I am trying to make is that generally the one ‘Who won’ would try to interpret the victory in their own way, which is followed up by the commercial news media rather than anyone ‘independent’ making their own attempts. It generally pays to the commercial news media personalities to stick to the interpretation of the victors, rather than raising questions on their own. And this is true even if some party or Neta go about differing with them or claiming that their performance was not so bad except for in the largest state.

While the commercial news media may be right in raising some tough questions with the last sentence in the above paragraph. This could be that why should the Olympic gold event be given a miss and the other results which are again a mixed bag, with advantage clearly tilting towards those holding on to power; be given a greater flavor. This could be right from a ‘Who won’ perspective. Often one has to evaluate What won’ as well. It might be a bit too early to say that the people voted in favour of Cow and Temple, but the commercial news media may already have taken positions in its favour to please those who may favour such an interpretation. That really the ‘opposition’ here seems all but rather too fragmented might be a bit of a concern. What might be of even greater concern is the failure of Netas especially in the opposition to conjure up list of ‘failed projects’, ‘misleading communications’ and even more importantly ‘what can and needs to be done much better/sort of what next’.

Key issue here is that the Netas love Itihaas in all probability. This is because it is carefully etched and is believed to be true. So to make a mark, some changes or corrections pertaining to Itihaas which can be rather easily done to proclaim oneself’s greatness, is a good scoring point for them. However, for most people it is about struggle for their daily bread and butter with a hope about a better future. Itihaas as worshipped by political parties and Netas, may not have more than a textbook value or a subject for them. Therefore to interpret a poll victory as one for some correction pertaining to Itihaas, might itself be flawed. Although it may not suit political parties and Netas hell bent on proving their self-worth by antics that may already be antiquated. This might be especially true when there are they see little challenges in terms of political opposition or more practically the ability of political opposition to wrest its claim to some of the areas. An ‘egotist’ opposition Neta/Party which failed to take legal route in time to lay claim some important position such as the Leader of Opposition, rather than seeking greater alignment with the voters may end up making its own ‘game’ difficult. Followers of these articles would know…

In such a situation, it is left to the social media to interpret ‘What won’. And one should feel free to say that given the way voters think, anything about correction of Itihaas may have little chance. If one says that their expectation from the future may have propelled them to change, this may be a better idea; and also this may be a strong ‘castigation’ of those may have lost even when they had whatever little ‘game’ support. The interpretation might warrant a strong re-look as some of the Netas may have already sensed by now. This is even though projection of battle readiness may still be a weak spot and this could be on account of failure to think about the Bhavishya. To their satisfaction though could be the fact that the victors may now be even more strongly glued upon Itihaas rather towards the people or what the people may want or need. Let the ‘Game’ evolve…

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

Itihaas or Bhavishya: Navigating the Political Conundrum​

In the dynamic and often tumultuous world of politics, leaders and policymakers are perpetually torn between two compelling forces: the lessons of the past (Itihaas) and the visions of the future (Bhavishya). This dichotomy is not merely a matter of historical analysis versus futuristic speculation but a fundamental tension that shapes the very core of political decision-making. Understanding this conundrum is crucial for anyone seeking to navigate the complexities of governance and policy formulation.

The Weight of Itihaas​

History, or Itihaas, serves as a repository of collective memory and experience. It provides a context for understanding current events and a reference point for charting future paths. Political leaders who heed the lessons of history often do so to avoid repeating the mistakes of their predecessors. This is evident in the way many nations have structured their constitutions and legal frameworks to prevent the recurrence of past injustices and conflicts.

For instance, the United Nations, established in the aftermath of World War II, was a direct response to the horrors of the 20th century. Its founding documents and principles were crafted to foster international cooperation and peace, lessons hard-earned from the devastations of two world wars. Similarly, the civil rights movement in the United States drew heavily on the historical struggles of marginalized communities, leading to landmark legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

However, the weight of history can also be a burden. Overreliance on historical precedents can lead to inertia, where policymakers are hesitant to embrace innovative solutions. The fear of straying from established norms can stifle progress and adaptability, particularly in rapidly changing global landscapes. Moreover, historical narratives are often contested, with different groups interpreting events in ways that suit their agendas. This can create divisions and hinder consensus-building.

The Vision of Bhavishya​

On the other hand, the vision of the future, or Bhavishya, is a driving force that propels societies forward. It is about setting ambitious goals, anticipating trends, and taking bold steps to address emerging challenges. Leaders who focus on the future are often seen as visionaries, capable of inspiring hope and mobilizing action.

The concept of Bhavishya is particularly relevant in the context of technological advancements and climate change. For example, the global push for renewable energy sources and sustainable practices is a forward-looking response to the looming threat of environmental degradation. Similarly, the development of artificial intelligence and other cutting-edge technologies is being guided by a vision of a future where such innovations can significantly improve human life.

However, the emphasis on the future can also be risky. Predicting the future is inherently uncertain, and policies based on speculative scenarios can lead to unintended consequences. Additionally, there is a danger of ignoring the immediate needs and concerns of the present in favor of long-term goals. This can erode public trust and lead to political backlash.

Striking a Balance​

The key to effective political leadership lies in striking a balance between Itihaas and Bhavishya. Leaders must be adept at learning from the past while remaining open to new possibilities and challenges. This dual approach ensures that policies are both grounded in reality and forward-thinking.

One notable example of this balance is the Marshall Plan, which was implemented after World War II. While it drew on historical lessons of economic devastation and the need for reconstruction, it also envisioned a future of European stability and prosperity. The plan was innovative in its scope and execution, combining historical wisdom with a progressive outlook.

Another example is the Green New Deal, a proposal that aims to address climate change and economic inequality simultaneously. It recognizes the historical roots of environmental degradation and social injustice while proposing a bold, future-oriented plan to transition to a sustainable and equitable economy.

Practical Implications​

1. Policy Making: Policymakers should conduct thorough historical research to understand the root causes of issues and the effectiveness of past solutions. At the same time, they should engage in foresight exercises to anticipate future trends and challenges.
2. Public Engagement: Leaders should communicate the importance of both Itihaas and Bhavishya to the public. This can help build a shared understanding and align diverse interests.
3. Innovation and Tradition: Encouraging innovation while respecting traditional values and practices can foster a more resilient and adaptable society. For example, integrating indigenous knowledge into modern scientific approaches can lead to more sustainable environmental policies.
4. Ethical Considerations: Both historical and futuristic perspectives should be guided by ethical principles. Policies should aim to promote justice, equity, and the common good, whether they are based on past experiences or future aspirations.

Conclusion​

The political conundrum of Itihaas versus Bhavishya is a timeless one. While history provides invaluable lessons and context, the future demands innovative and adaptive strategies. By embracing both, leaders can craft policies that are both effective and visionary, ensuring that their actions serve the needs of the present while laying the foundation for a better future. In an ever-changing world, the ability to navigate this conundrum is not just a political necessity but a moral imperative.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Itihaas or Bhavishya: Political Conundrum

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 2nd April, 2017

We again have the media abuzz under political influence with the voting over in the largest state. A question that remains open for introspection as well as interpretation is ‘What won’ ? It is important but very often ignored. The point that I am trying to make is that generally the one ‘Who won’ would try to interpret the victory in their own way, which is followed up by the commercial news media rather than anyone ‘independent’ making their own attempts. It generally pays to the commercial news media personalities to stick to the interpretation of the victors, rather than raising questions on their own. And this is true even if some party or Neta go about differing with them or claiming that their performance was not so bad except for in the largest state.

While the commercial news media may be right in raising some tough questions with the last sentence in the above paragraph. This could be that why should the Olympic gold event be given a miss and the other results which are again a mixed bag, with advantage clearly tilting towards those holding on to power; be given a greater flavor. This could be right from a ‘Who won’ perspective. Often one has to evaluate What won’ as well. It might be a bit too early to say that the people voted in favour of Cow and Temple, but the commercial news media may already have taken positions in its favour to please those who may favour such an interpretation. That really the ‘opposition’ here seems all but rather too fragmented might be a bit of a concern. What might be of even greater concern is the failure of Netas especially in the opposition to conjure up list of ‘failed projects’, ‘misleading communications’ and even more importantly ‘what can and needs to be done much better/sort of what next’.

Key issue here is that the Netas love Itihaas in all probability. This is because it is carefully etched and is believed to be true. So to make a mark, some changes or corrections pertaining to Itihaas which can be rather easily done to proclaim oneself’s greatness, is a good scoring point for them. However, for most people it is about struggle for their daily bread and butter with a hope about a better future. Itihaas as worshipped by political parties and Netas, may not have more than a textbook value or a subject for them. Therefore to interpret a poll victory as one for some correction pertaining to Itihaas, might itself be flawed. Although it may not suit political parties and Netas hell bent on proving their self-worth by antics that may already be antiquated. This might be especially true when there are they see little challenges in terms of political opposition or more practically the ability of political opposition to wrest its claim to some of the areas. An ‘egotist’ opposition Neta/Party which failed to take legal route in time to lay claim some important position such as the Leader of Opposition, rather than seeking greater alignment with the voters may end up making its own ‘game’ difficult. Followers of these articles would know…

In such a situation, it is left to the social media to interpret ‘What won’. And one should feel free to say that given the way voters think, anything about correction of Itihaas may have little chance. If one says that their expectation from the future may have propelled them to change, this may be a better idea; and also this may be a strong ‘castigation’ of those may have lost even when they had whatever little ‘game’ support. The interpretation might warrant a strong re-look as some of the Netas may have already sensed by now. This is even though projection of battle readiness may still be a weak spot and this could be on account of failure to think about the Bhavishya. To their satisfaction though could be the fact that the victors may now be even more strongly glued upon Itihaas rather towards the people or what the people may want or need. Let the ‘Game’ evolve…

This article offers an exceptional deep dive into the complexities of political policy. The writer's writing style is both analytical and accessible, making intricate policy discussions understandable and engaging for a broad audience. Their ability to translate dense political mechanics into relatable prose is a significant asset, demonstrating a profound understanding paired with strong communication skills. The structure is meticulously organized, systematically breaking down the policy in question and exploring its various facets with a methodical yet engaging approach. This allows readers to grasp the nuances and implications thoroughly. Furthermore, the outstanding clarity of the policy analysis is a defining feature. The arguments are presented with such precision, and the potential outcomes so plainly articulated, that the article becomes an invaluable guide for anyone seeking to understand the real-world impact of political decisions.