Obvious?

Amit Verma, on his ‘WTF of the day’ blog India Uncut says the following -

That said, I obviously support Singh over Advani as PM: the divisive politics of the BJP is a deal-breaker for me, though this is a matter of degree, as the nature of Indian politics dictates than any party that wishes to do well must be divisive. Such it is.

(The entire post is here. Emphasis is mine).

Here is a person who is usually not too inarticulate and manages to induce a chuckle almost always. But every time he posts any serious political stuff, he tends to get unnecessarily verbose and roundabout, as if trying to be too political correct lest he piss off some readers. He exhibits the dilemma/ misconceptions(?) most of the young intellectuals of our country currently face -

1. “Supporting the BJP is equivalent to supporting Modi. And Modi is communal, he is bad, he doesn’t care a hoot about non-Hindus (or worse, about non-Gujaratis).”

2. “The BJP’s (unwritten) mission statement is to wipe out all Muslims from the face of India and to ‘talibanize’ (sic) India by posting cultural watchmen a.k.a. Bajarang Dal/ VHP/ RSS goons outside all pubs and bars.”

3. “It’s better to vote for a party like the Congress which has no plan or ideology, because then it has enough of leeway to accommodate anyone and everyone. This also makes it easier to not contradict oneself, as you do not have anything to say in the first place.”

4. “We’d rather vote for an independent who will change the society by being in parliament, because he will then not be part of the numbers game. In fact, the Lok Sabha elections is not a numbers game at all.”

People have been scared into believing that supporting the BJP is politically incorrect and unsecular. Maybe it is unsecular, but so is being pro-Dalit or pro-Muslim. So when Mr. Manmohan Singh says that “minorities, particularly Muslims, must have the ‘first claim’ on resources so that benefits of development reach them equitably.”, it is lauded as brimming with humanitarianism and definitely not divisive.

Contrast this when Modi says (and I heard this live at a rally last Sunday) that the first claim of resources lies with the economically backward- it is considered to be an empty rhetoric. When he asks people to hold politicians accountable for their actions, it is glossed over. When he makes us question how to turn the current recession to our advantage, he is called delusional. When he gives examples of how he’s transformed Gujrat’s non-performing sectors – from Power to Agriculture to things as simple as efficient Octroi Collection mainly by plugging ‘leaks’ , the media chooses to ignore it. And when he says that Pakistan needs to be taught a lesson rather than being gifted with inaction and cribbing, he’s called a war-mongerer, the media actually misquotes him as “Modi says we should respond to terror with terror.” Sheesh. It’s the double standards, more than anything else, which frankly can piss off even the fairly lethargic people.

However, when the Congress uses its last days in power to cover up long-standing ‘non-issues‘ and other embarrassments through a complete destabilization of the nation’s institutions – first making the CBI exonerate Mr. Tytler, now clearing Quattarochi, it is still ok. Mr. Singh is clearly not involved in the whole scheme of things because, well … umm … I don’t know really the excuse this time round. And then he takes offence at being called a weak PM.

Amit Verma then says that the choice he makes is obvious. Obvious? Seriously??

I remember using this word in quite a few exams – especially for those subjects which were not my preferred ones. Terms like Obviously , Similarly, … and We know that … are thrown around quite liberally. Since we we aren’t quite sure what the answer is, we choose to appear knowledgeable and bluff our way through it all.

It eventually boils down to a simple matter of priorities – no party is in the green, that’s undeniable. So would you go with someone who has a (fairly vague) plan and a working model for development? Or would you go with someone who is an all-accomodating, all-encompassing organism, not really bothering to go beyond the ruling family? The illusion of there being is a Third Front is just that – an illusion. This ‘front’ will disintegrate faster than you can say ‘what the f…”.  Is being anti-Hindu the necessary interpretation of being secular or Pro-minority, and the converse? Your choice.

SB.

(Needless to say, the thoughts here are of the author alone, and needn’t be endorsed by the other contributors)