The Success/Failure songs and Elections

The Success/Failure songs and Elections

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 6th Jan. 2017

The songs of success and failures have always made for better campaigns. In past we had the netadoms love for Chalisa which now have given way to ‘Game’ questions. How the ‘Game’ works might be a bit different in that pre-pones and clarify things a bit earlier. Carefully shaped questions from public point of view does their bit irrespective of they being given a miss by the commercial news media and this is due to fact that one raising them with public is able to garner curiosity on grounds much more effectively than the one using other means. And those wanting to blow their own trumpet in a chosen manner then have to respond while playing on a different turf. This calls for ‘real skills’ both on the part of questioner as well as respondents since even the respondents have a chance to raise such questions. The political netas, long used to setting stage and one-sided communications and keep responding to themselves, have seen their stocks dipping. Now they know that that there would be ‘others’ who would raise these questions while they would only have their chance to raise some of theirs with others. What it calls for, is much greater level of preparation amongst netadom as well as for the commercial news media, who want to match rhythm with the ‘Game’. There are clear signs that the netadom only wants to raise questions while not reply to them. The questions are lobbed at Demonetization, it sidelines Cash-less transactions pushed with focused incentives (for corporate and institutional segments) to usher transparency and reduce black money generation and some lid on corruption ( http://www.managementparadise.com/article/9122/the-cash-less-incentives ). We are yet to see the netas in the government and the commercial news media to respond to these suggestions, though some other campaigns like women issues might have been picked up already. While for the ‘opposition’ it may afford this, however for the netas in government, Chhh… an ostrich with head in the sand approach might be revealing the results, already. And media looking to blow some other trumpets now. That the questions are almost always responded by pin-pricking or diversion (http://www.managementparadise.com/article/9128/the-game-question-politics ) does not necessarily mean that it may have convinced a large number of people.

What is ironic is that after the fillibuster of Cash-less, the established Netas are struggling to pull the discussion back to other issues ably supported by the commercial news media. What has not been questioned is why the parties and social organizations not endorsed or adopted cash-less mechnism for themselves and if some effort has gone, then has it yoelded any results. Won't be surprised that the track record of 'National Parties' is much poorer that a newbie party, although their Netas aren't shy of blabbering in full public view instead of giving their own side of data and possible expaination of failure on this count. The commercial news media however would fail to display this curiousity and conduct some discussions just to establish its avowed reputation of being 'independent'. The media has not questioned the champion netas about how much PayTM donations have such Netas been ables to garner from public after having championed/such move for public. These questions are raised so that the we know the fate of cash-less and being followers of the 'Game', people should understand this in advance, rather being confused on account of sundry noises (which could be something that could be taken up later, if not utter non-sense) that are often raised in public.It may be noted that the parties in opposition have not 'yielded' any space for those troubled by demonetization, or even reiterated their comittement to cash-less and trasparency, however it doesn't stop such Netas from negative campaign without offering anything positive even if namesake. Let's hope such Netas learn how India actually votes even if their knowledge about how India survives may be shallow.

The Netas and parties seem to have little concern that data of past vs latest performance statistics on vital parameters or vis-a-vis other states is revealed to public.What the want is to canvass bais perception alone which in normal circumstances can be easily biased that not enough has been done, with attendent pressures about a few macho moves, alongwith thrashing of sundry questions especially those which may be emanating from 'social media'. This also allows them to claim 'victory' even though they can be clearly seen avoiding 'issues'. Let's see the 'Game' evolve.....

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

The Success/Failure songs and Elections

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 6th Jan. 2017

The songs of success and failures have always made for better campaigns. In past we had the netadoms love for Chalisa which now have given way to ‘Game’ questions. How the ‘Game’ works might be a bit different in that pre-pones and clarify things a bit earlier. Carefully shaped questions from public point of view does their bit irrespective of they being given a miss by the commercial news media and this is due to fact that one raising them with public is able to garner curiosity on grounds much more effectively than the one using other means. And those wanting to blow their own trumpet in a chosen manner then have to respond while playing on a different turf. This calls for ‘real skills’ both on the part of questioner as well as respondents since even the respondents have a chance to raise such questions. The political netas, long used to setting stage and one-sided communications and keep responding to themselves, have seen their stocks dipping. Now they know that that there would be ‘others’ who would raise these questions while they would only have their chance to raise some of theirs with others. What it calls for, is much greater level of preparation amongst netadom as well as for the commercial news media, who want to match rhythm with the ‘Game’. There are clear signs that the netadom only wants to raise questions while not reply to them. The questions are lobbed at Demonetization, it sidelines Cash-less transactions pushed with focused incentives (for corporate and institutional segments) to usher transparency and reduce black money generation and some lid on corruption ( http://www.managementparadise.com/article/9122/the-cash-less-incentives ). We are yet to see the netas in the government and the commercial news media to respond to these suggestions, though some other campaigns like women issues might have been picked up already. While for the ‘opposition’ it may afford this, however for the netas in government, Chhh… an ostrich with head in the sand approach might be revealing the results, already. And media looking to blow some other trumpets now. That the questions are almost always responded by pin-pricking or diversion (http://www.managementparadise.com/article/9128/the-game-question-politics ) does not necessarily mean that it may have convinced a large number of people.

What is ironic is that after the fillibuster of Cash-less, the established Netas are struggling to pull the discussion back to other issues ably supported by the commercial news media. What has not been questioned is why the parties and social organizations not endorsed or adopted cash-less mechnism for themselves and if some effort has gone, then has it yoelded any results. Won't be surprised that the track record of 'National Parties' is much poorer that a newbie party, although their Netas aren't shy of blabbering in full public view instead of giving their own side of data and possible expaination of failure on this count. The commercial news media however would fail to display this curiousity and conduct some discussions just to establish its avowed reputation of being 'independent'. The media has not questioned the champion netas about how much PayTM donations have such Netas been ables to garner from public after having championed/such move for public. These questions are raised so that the we know the fate of cash-less and being followers of the 'Game', people should understand this in advance, rather being confused on account of sundry noises (which could be something that could be taken up later, if not utter non-sense) that are often raised in public.It may be noted that the parties in opposition have not 'yielded' any space for those troubled by demonetization, or even reiterated their comittement to cash-less and trasparency, however it doesn't stop such Netas from negative campaign without offering anything positive even if namesake. Let's hope such Netas learn how India actually votes even if their knowledge about how India survives may be shallow.

The Netas and parties seem to have little concern that data of past vs latest performance statistics on vital parameters or vis-a-vis other states is revealed to public.What the want is to canvass bais perception alone which in normal circumstances can be easily biased that not enough has been done, with attendent pressures about a few macho moves, alongwith thrashing of sundry questions especially those which may be emanating from 'social media'. This also allows them to claim 'victory' even though they can be clearly seen avoiding 'issues'. Let's see the 'Game' evolve.....

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.

 

[Priyani Gupta]

Thank you for this thought-provoking article—it navigates the terrain of political discourse, media behavior, and public accountability with a sharp yet satirical edge. While your argument is somewhat controversial, it offers a compelling critique worth unpacking and appreciating.


Your assertion that political communication is undergoing a paradigm shift—from stage-managed monologues to public-led interrogatives—is both timely and accurate. The “Game” metaphor is apt. Unlike previous eras where chanting slogans or religious symbolism sufficed, today’s electorate is increasingly demanding clarity and data-driven accountability. The political class, once confident in their unilateral messaging, is now being challenged by decentralized questioners—social media users, independent commentators, and even dissenting voices from within.


You rightly point out the irony in how these so-called champions of cashless economies haven’t implemented the same transparency within their own structures. Why haven’t political parties adopted cashless donation mechanisms at scale? Why isn't there an annual report on PayTM or UPI-based contributions? This contradiction hits at the heart of political hypocrisy, and your call-out is justified.


That said, the article does lean heavily on sarcasm, which—while entertaining—might cloud the otherwise solid arguments for readers seeking straightforward critique. For instance, lines like "blabbering in full public view" or "Chhh... ostrich with head in the sand" may amuse, but they risk diluting the seriousness of the underlying concern: the evasion of accountability and selective media amplification.


Your critique of the commercial media's role is also pertinent. News outlets often tiptoe around uncomfortable truths when political proximity or TRP incentives get in the way. A free press should be investigating not just opposition stunts but also inconsistencies in government narratives. The fact that mainstream media is slow to pick up on failures of cashless implementation within political circles is a blind spot worth highlighting, and you do so effectively.


What strengthens your article is that it’s not just about the ruling parties. You hold the opposition accountable as well—for offering critique without alternatives, for hijacking outrage without contributing to solutions. This balanced scrutiny is refreshing and vital in an era of deeply polarized discourse.


However, the article could benefit from clearer structuring. The flow sometimes jumps between themes—campaign strategies, demonetization, women’s issues, media conduct—without fully unpacking each before moving on. A more segmented approach could help readers digest the nuanced points more effectively.


To conclude, this piece challenges the reader to question the authenticity of public narratives, the convenience of selective outrage, and the silence of the media on matters that truly deserve attention. It is both a critique and a reminder—that transparency, whether in campaigning or in transaction, must start at home.


Hashtags:
#PoliticalAccountability #CashlessIrony #MediaSilence #TransparencyInPolitics #GameOfQuestions #DemonetizationDebate #UPIPolitics #QuestionTheNarrative #NetasUnderScrutiny #RealityCheck