The Equality amongst Un-equals - The Great India Quest for Equality
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 13th Sept. 2016
How and why am I less unequal than other similar un-equals in the society? This is one of the principal thoughts, which got highlighted almost accidently through news reports emanating from Maximum City. While a freshly minted ‘un-equal’ sought and demanded unequivocal treatment parallel as ‘all other similar unequals’ from the powers that be. The system response was rather on the expected lines, that the ‘system owners’ have a right to decide the level of unequality of people and how would the same be distributed in a given time and space. The clarion call of the protagonist to seek the involvement of the highest levels of governance in the country, not-withstanding. This is even as near all sides claim to be supporters of the leadership at the center. The so called support is generally offered in order that the ‘right to distribute’ unequality remain unchallenged for the people in ‘power/influence’, rather than to exercise legal rights and duties which are meant for the ‘have-nots’ alone. It is irony that the Common People’s party with its media friendly policies and netas have chosen to rather ignore this burning issue, a testimony of loosening of grip or balance due to incessant volley of ‘charges’.
The other loosening of grip of the party is evident due its lack of its involvement with issues rattling national media like the issue of Release of a Strongman in a state which has been just passed elections and getting involved with petty local politics may be in a state that the party may eventually win, but again possibly due to demerits of the parties in competition. The news media gets its ‘bites’ due to such issues to revive personality centric, polarized polity. Such steps would be rather followed by accentuation of the ‘Caste’ identities to divide and fragment the voters further and most parties would succumb to the politics. However the newbie party as well as GOP, both of which claim anathema for such polity, would choose to remain silent on issues and policies of those considered to be supporters, rather than countering the politics of such parties. This is probably due to lack of enough political handle and need to keep ‘supporters’ placated. While such politics has already proved to be undoing of a established party, the policies of silence over such issues and to rather focus on the ones that are rather petty might also prove to be of little help for the newbie party as well. It may be noted that the author doesn’t intend to pre-judge (any person) basis media-spread prejudices (and I think these articles have a formidable track record on this count), however the reason for the sudden changes is the stance of government by the same leaders and parties seem to be less than convincing and seem to have undergone little scrutiny from the vocal and silent supporters. Also, nowhere does the author intends to play up the ‘individual personalities’ and the associated malafide in media as being more important than policy issues being pursued by some select leaders. What is only intended to be communicated that a structured party (and not all leaders in the party need to speak on every issue) cannot remain ignorant of something burning in media for ‘all the time’, while only speaking to the media out of its own choosing of time and space.
The commercial news media and the political leadership as well as influential persons seem to be visibly playing the game of equality amongst un-equals. The commercial news media instead of baring ‘all’ facts would depict facts from one of the sides depending upon its allegiance. So one may get see quite a few persons of influence using their influence and money to sabotage rules on some channels (and this is undeniable factual situation) while some others would depict a select few flouting the norms and claiming to be ‘holy cows’, being hassled un-necessarily by the government machinations and aided and abetted by neta-dom and therefore need to be saved by divine intervention somehow. While some political party and leaders would respond by meek tweets, some by aggressive mobilization of ‘Junta’ while some others by ‘silence’ or by keeping focused on ‘something else’. In politics especially in the ‘social media yug’ of hyper communications, silence and distracted focus, may not be a good option as it tend to project/send message as if the party and leaders might be ‘out of the race’. Learned and calibrated opinions and stand on the other hand might be a key to manipulate one’s way to electoral victory though. Such stands would then of course be scrutinized though….however the commercial news media and few netas might be in disagreement with some of the views expressed here. Let’s watch the game evolve further…
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 13th Sept. 2016
How and why am I less unequal than other similar un-equals in the society? This is one of the principal thoughts, which got highlighted almost accidently through news reports emanating from Maximum City. While a freshly minted ‘un-equal’ sought and demanded unequivocal treatment parallel as ‘all other similar unequals’ from the powers that be. The system response was rather on the expected lines, that the ‘system owners’ have a right to decide the level of unequality of people and how would the same be distributed in a given time and space. The clarion call of the protagonist to seek the involvement of the highest levels of governance in the country, not-withstanding. This is even as near all sides claim to be supporters of the leadership at the center. The so called support is generally offered in order that the ‘right to distribute’ unequality remain unchallenged for the people in ‘power/influence’, rather than to exercise legal rights and duties which are meant for the ‘have-nots’ alone. It is irony that the Common People’s party with its media friendly policies and netas have chosen to rather ignore this burning issue, a testimony of loosening of grip or balance due to incessant volley of ‘charges’.
The other loosening of grip of the party is evident due its lack of its involvement with issues rattling national media like the issue of Release of a Strongman in a state which has been just passed elections and getting involved with petty local politics may be in a state that the party may eventually win, but again possibly due to demerits of the parties in competition. The news media gets its ‘bites’ due to such issues to revive personality centric, polarized polity. Such steps would be rather followed by accentuation of the ‘Caste’ identities to divide and fragment the voters further and most parties would succumb to the politics. However the newbie party as well as GOP, both of which claim anathema for such polity, would choose to remain silent on issues and policies of those considered to be supporters, rather than countering the politics of such parties. This is probably due to lack of enough political handle and need to keep ‘supporters’ placated. While such politics has already proved to be undoing of a established party, the policies of silence over such issues and to rather focus on the ones that are rather petty might also prove to be of little help for the newbie party as well. It may be noted that the author doesn’t intend to pre-judge (any person) basis media-spread prejudices (and I think these articles have a formidable track record on this count), however the reason for the sudden changes is the stance of government by the same leaders and parties seem to be less than convincing and seem to have undergone little scrutiny from the vocal and silent supporters. Also, nowhere does the author intends to play up the ‘individual personalities’ and the associated malafide in media as being more important than policy issues being pursued by some select leaders. What is only intended to be communicated that a structured party (and not all leaders in the party need to speak on every issue) cannot remain ignorant of something burning in media for ‘all the time’, while only speaking to the media out of its own choosing of time and space.
The commercial news media and the political leadership as well as influential persons seem to be visibly playing the game of equality amongst un-equals. The commercial news media instead of baring ‘all’ facts would depict facts from one of the sides depending upon its allegiance. So one may get see quite a few persons of influence using their influence and money to sabotage rules on some channels (and this is undeniable factual situation) while some others would depict a select few flouting the norms and claiming to be ‘holy cows’, being hassled un-necessarily by the government machinations and aided and abetted by neta-dom and therefore need to be saved by divine intervention somehow. While some political party and leaders would respond by meek tweets, some by aggressive mobilization of ‘Junta’ while some others by ‘silence’ or by keeping focused on ‘something else’. In politics especially in the ‘social media yug’ of hyper communications, silence and distracted focus, may not be a good option as it tend to project/send message as if the party and leaders might be ‘out of the race’. Learned and calibrated opinions and stand on the other hand might be a key to manipulate one’s way to electoral victory though. Such stands would then of course be scrutinized though….however the commercial news media and few netas might be in disagreement with some of the views expressed here. Let’s watch the game evolve further…