The Samajik Nyaya Factor
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 9th January 2017
The bold decision to pursue respective ‘issues’ by ‘Samajik Nyaya’ factors, on the eve of the event, in the elections have a clear gambit around Sankhya or possible post elections ‘alliances’ or even ‘surprise alliance’ without a shocker (to voters) since shockers are a way of elections already. This is while the play of ‘game’ is rather confused, notwithstanding the strength of rationale as no one wants to spell out how they intend to ‘change’ policy and with likely impact of the life of people. The gambit of Samajik Nyaya rests coolly upon the fact that ‘Game’ seekers would fail to define a cogent ‘communications’, which is able to reach the masses, which is quite usual. This is also taken for granted that the netas and public cannot go for short term government, given the costs of elections and therefore will not hesitate to shift sides ‘for the sake of stable government’, and that ‘all sides must accept this’. It is important to point out that the author is not changing his views suddenly (which are well understood by the followers of these articles), but is analyzing the media output of the respective factions.
The race to sell a face is on, while it is well known that a face merely doesn’t represent ‘Game’ unless one has clear associations with the idea about the direction that the economy has to take with well-defined policy measures. However media wants to create ‘strong identities’ that would imply that a ‘face’ broadly represents ‘development’ while a set of policy level discussions is sought to be avoided. That public should have some understanding about policy options is sought to be avoided although public can demand ‘infra’ with no say on its ‘costs’ or policy measures that may impact viability or continuity of such development measures. To make matter worse, it is ensured that the management of such properties is the worst possible, so that focus remains to win the dog-fight for the ‘minuscule benefits’ delivered by ‘governance measures’, rather than on overall quality of governance itself. This also ensures that the ‘local dada’ is deemed to be a better social servant, than some learned ‘intellectual/s’ trying to decipher governance especially on the basis of policy measures along with delivery. This is even as most of the elected representatives can only have influence on policies or rules, while only a few (ministers) may have say on supervision of the executive or control on bureaucratic performance.
What has be the gains though is that ‘infra’ including its ‘costs’, ‘quality’ including ‘inadequacy of the right infra’ on account of ‘wrong priorities of people in government’ is suddenly a fashion of discussions. This is while people have also started discussing measures which are deemed to be ‘stupid’ or ‘avoidable inconvenience’ and ‘bureaucratic apathy under some leaders’. The rationale of policy decisions, their short-comings and further supportive measures or next course of actions; is not being communicated in clear measures, though even these areas may not be bereft of rhetoric. The room to wriggle out of publicly postured commitments or consideration for well-considered implementation (or selective implementation) is always scoped, even if they may lead to gloominess for public, neta or even the party. What helps is that ‘how are you doing under present policy’ is a question for structured businesses alone rather than for people in general. While demonetization has stirred this up, however efforts are on to bury the question, since answering this ‘all the time’ or about past/future (under a given policy related scenario) is not something political netas want for their party leaders. Also, feelings about numbers alongside anecdotes rather than hard data, stats et al and allusions to policy rather than clarity of direction doesn’t help public but the neta and commercial news media can do reams of programs and propaganda on these feeds. Let’s see the ‘Game’ evolve further…..
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 9th January 2017
The bold decision to pursue respective ‘issues’ by ‘Samajik Nyaya’ factors, on the eve of the event, in the elections have a clear gambit around Sankhya or possible post elections ‘alliances’ or even ‘surprise alliance’ without a shocker (to voters) since shockers are a way of elections already. This is while the play of ‘game’ is rather confused, notwithstanding the strength of rationale as no one wants to spell out how they intend to ‘change’ policy and with likely impact of the life of people. The gambit of Samajik Nyaya rests coolly upon the fact that ‘Game’ seekers would fail to define a cogent ‘communications’, which is able to reach the masses, which is quite usual. This is also taken for granted that the netas and public cannot go for short term government, given the costs of elections and therefore will not hesitate to shift sides ‘for the sake of stable government’, and that ‘all sides must accept this’. It is important to point out that the author is not changing his views suddenly (which are well understood by the followers of these articles), but is analyzing the media output of the respective factions.
The race to sell a face is on, while it is well known that a face merely doesn’t represent ‘Game’ unless one has clear associations with the idea about the direction that the economy has to take with well-defined policy measures. However media wants to create ‘strong identities’ that would imply that a ‘face’ broadly represents ‘development’ while a set of policy level discussions is sought to be avoided. That public should have some understanding about policy options is sought to be avoided although public can demand ‘infra’ with no say on its ‘costs’ or policy measures that may impact viability or continuity of such development measures. To make matter worse, it is ensured that the management of such properties is the worst possible, so that focus remains to win the dog-fight for the ‘minuscule benefits’ delivered by ‘governance measures’, rather than on overall quality of governance itself. This also ensures that the ‘local dada’ is deemed to be a better social servant, than some learned ‘intellectual/s’ trying to decipher governance especially on the basis of policy measures along with delivery. This is even as most of the elected representatives can only have influence on policies or rules, while only a few (ministers) may have say on supervision of the executive or control on bureaucratic performance.
What has be the gains though is that ‘infra’ including its ‘costs’, ‘quality’ including ‘inadequacy of the right infra’ on account of ‘wrong priorities of people in government’ is suddenly a fashion of discussions. This is while people have also started discussing measures which are deemed to be ‘stupid’ or ‘avoidable inconvenience’ and ‘bureaucratic apathy under some leaders’. The rationale of policy decisions, their short-comings and further supportive measures or next course of actions; is not being communicated in clear measures, though even these areas may not be bereft of rhetoric. The room to wriggle out of publicly postured commitments or consideration for well-considered implementation (or selective implementation) is always scoped, even if they may lead to gloominess for public, neta or even the party. What helps is that ‘how are you doing under present policy’ is a question for structured businesses alone rather than for people in general. While demonetization has stirred this up, however efforts are on to bury the question, since answering this ‘all the time’ or about past/future (under a given policy related scenario) is not something political netas want for their party leaders. Also, feelings about numbers alongside anecdotes rather than hard data, stats et al and allusions to policy rather than clarity of direction doesn’t help public but the neta and commercial news media can do reams of programs and propaganda on these feeds. Let’s see the ‘Game’ evolve further…..