By Naushad A. Panjwani, President
fiogf49gjkf0d
Dear members of BCAS family,
1. Economists (businessmen) use politics to further their conflicts.
2. Conflicting groups use economics to further their politics.
3. Politicians use conflicts to further their economics (Conflict could read as anything from religion, caste, creed, race, region (domestic or international), gender, economic groups, ethnicity, cultural and many more.) Which of these statements rings a bell for you?
For me the third statement makes a lot of sense. To this statement let me add a couple of other beliefs.
1. In the Indian context, until 1947 all public figures were freedom fighters. Post independence the freedom fighters either sank into oblivion or became politicians. The freedom fighters may have differed in their ideologies but had the same purpose at heart; that of independence. Nation before self was the way of life that they lived. This breed, in my opinion, is extinct. Those who call themselves freedom fighters are in reality separatists being guided and funded by those with vested interest.
2. A politician can achieve the best of what he wants only if he is elected. To be elected he needs funds. These funds are huge (official and otherwise). These funds come from somewhere and there are no free lunches. Hence it’s a debt to be repaid with interest at a later date. An elected politician controls assets (tangible and intangible) for which many businessmen would potentially be willing to give gifts for favours. This power is too tempting for most to fritter away. Somehow he is obliged to grant favours in lieu of the funds that he had received for his election. Now it’s payback time.
One may argue that there would be those who would pump in their own money. For what purpose I would ask? Love of the country and public service are laughable reasons. It is an investment!
Hence in my opinion no politician can claim to be 100% clean. Taking money for self or for party is one and the same.
What is my point?
My point is that they function just like corporates. Corporates have a direct agenda of economic furtherance. Politicians need “conflicts” to further their economics. And hence, I’m not taken in by this pro or anti wave that’s building up pre-election. I am following the developments and observing the conduct of these politicians, as our constitution needs us to elect somebody to run this country. So I have to choose that party which appeals to me the most or I should say, I have to select the party that I detest the least. Just like I would choose between Pepsi and Coke or between Colgate or Pepsodent. But though these products are marketed aggressively there are boundaries, rules, laws and consumer protection norms. The companies fight it out and not the consumers. I haven’t seen a single instance of a fan of a particular brand fanatically arguing with his friend who uses some other brand.
Also I’m disturbed by the fact that people so easily give their destinies and pin their hopes on these politicians to come and bring prosperity to them.
Now take the sentence “Politicians use conflicts to further their economics”. Take your favourite politician and see if this is true or not. If there is any such political partyor following this norm please do let me know and I will vote for it blindly. If there isn’t a single party like that, then let’s choose our respective parties quietly and vote on the day of the election and be done with it. Why do we want to be their salesmen? Why should this salesmanship be so aggressive? Why should it brew hatred? Why should we spew venom on behalf of these corporate political parties? Why try convincing each other about which is a better party? Instead why not convince a non voter to vote? And then allow him to choose who he wants to vote for. You are intelligent. You are controlled. You know where to draw the line after a heated argument. But the line is thin. The threshold is too low. Circumstances arise and lives are lost in this mindless “salesmanship” and we have played our role in it. You may console yourself by saying that you didn’t yourself resort to violence. But can you keep your hand on the heart and say that your intensity of “salesmanship” was less than of that of the person who partook in the actual violence. Even when the violence has occurred and you are reading the newspaper, do you look for identifying the victims and the aggressor to see to which ideology they belonged and form your opinion based on that? If the victim matches your beliefs then the victim deserves your sympathy. And if he had beliefs contrary to yours then he must have been the instigator and deserved the death. If the aggressor is from your belief, then he is innocently framed and if from a contrary belief to yours then he is guilty without trial. You and I are not bad people in our day to day lives. This is the low of inhumanity these corporate political parties have dragged us to. For their cause, for furthering their economic growth and at the cost of your humanity. Please ponder. Please go to the depth of the matter. Please understand the power and lure of economic greed before you get sucked into their agenda of self development. Nobody cares for you and me.
Is this true of Indian politics alone? I am sure you agree that it’s universal. If greed is universal then so is politics. Let me give you an example of how naive we are in the context of politics and here let me talk about cross border politics. Players: India, China and Pakistan. India and Pakistan have been in conflict from the time the two-nation theory was born. If anybody has been along the LOC you will realise that a large chunk of this region is barren wasteland. No economic value to either. Yet both these countries are spending huge amounts in fortifying and manning these lands. Countless lives on both sides are lost every year on skirmishes that occur time and again. So where does economics come into this? Before we understand this let’s see how China is placed. For all it’s economic might, China has a very circular and long connectivity to the Middle East and West. It is completely landlocked on its western side. It has no access to any sea on its west. It’s cargo has to go from its eastern coast on a long route past the Indian Ocean. Hence they are building a road from their western borders through a willing Pakistan straight to the Middle East. Cutting down on time and cost. China has already annexed a large portion of land from India and the rest of the access that it needs falls in the Pakistan side of the LOC. Hence conflict between India and Pakistan must not be resolved lest India denies access for this road. For China’s economic growth it will buy Pakistan’s support by way of aid, alms and arms to strengthen them militarily against India. What ideology? What belief? What conflict? Pure economics!
So what’s the solution? Choose that party that spews no hatred. Talks of uniting Indians. The difficult part is that all are the same. Just the degree changes from time to time.
Cast your vote without costing any lives.
Here’s wishing everyone happiness and love.
With Warm Regards
Naushad A. Panjwani
