The two sequences of tweets that on one hand blames JLN for constitutional safeguards protecting jihadi claims on J&K and the other appeals to NaMo as the sole saviour who can change history - illustrates whats so totally wrong with our popular political thinking.
Both show how most see history or political decision making as a single person process and thereby totally fail to capture the underlying process by which such blunders as the constitutional one or selection of JLN as chief "happens" or hope one NaMo can and will "correct" it all
Lets ask some simple questions: if JLN was so "bad" why was he "selected" to be the "chief"? if u say MKG chose him, then apart from raising serious doubts abt MKG's own calibre as a leader, who chose MKG to get such overwhelming "choosing" power? if you say then INC members,
then remember for most of the 2 decades b4 transfer of power, MKG was not a formal member of INC, yet decided AICC composition and selection. So it must have been the small tight circle that recycled in the AICC from 20's. How cd they gain such powers to be "permanent" AICC-ites?
why did INC delegates, in their hundreds and often thousands, vote for this permanent AICC in official congresses, who were "chosen" by non-member MKG? The reality of Bose's rebellion shows that congress delegates were not always kowtowing to MKG and his horde.
But the ouster of Bose from AICC also shows that even if grassroots (hopefully) represented by the delegates chose to go against non-membre MKG's selected AICC, the "popular" choice could not sustain itself at the top and could do nothing to prevent someone like JLN being foisted
If such "stalins" (literally "men of steel") of stature of Sardar bowed down to MKG's choice what does it say of the relative amounts of steel shared between MKG, his not-so-loyal minion JLN, and loyal-from-Tilak-Swaraj-fund-satyagraha-days Sardar?
If JLN had so much power that he could subvert everyone and everything including the whole army of staunch nationalists that brimmed over from the overflowing pool of nationalism manifested in INC and country, he must have had real b**** over& above that of "nationalists"+nation?
the same error or perhaps escapism is driving this abject appeal to a single individual who has had to rise within a post-colonial colonial-continuity state machinery and state mediated politics and is therefore constrained to continue to support core drives of that state.
the problem I dub as the problem of "avataar-vaad" among Hindus: the avataar is a clever device perhaps concocted by Hindu elite to prevent lower "orders" to organize and revolt or upset any cozy arrangements the elite has managed to set up in collusion with "state".
an "avataar" is the perfect excuse to say, common Hindu must wait for the "right individual sent from top/HQ in sky" to deliver them from their enemies, and meanwhile not challenge the status quo and suffer any injustice meted out by existing cozy power relations among elite.
this was the sentiment exploited by MKG to set up and ensure his "trusteeship" model, by which ppl had to blindly obey and trust him and his decisions - which gave him the power to impose leadership from top. Any challenge or questioning of his choices wd be tantamount to heresy
or wd invite accusations of "disunity" "splittism" and of dividing the "movement". The chain of personal loyalty that builds up in such a movement over time comes from each higher level selecting next lower level based on personal devotion.
the prioritization of personal submission automatically implies selection of lesser abilities and talent as ability would often lead to independent thinking and non-acceptance of amrita-vaani handed down from higher/supreme ldrs.
this whole trusteeship model of Hindu politics has been facilitated by Hindu elite needs for continued stake in state protection of power and profit relations that allows them to exploit the "common" Hindu as and when needed& reinvent and persist through formal regime changes.
any so-called Hindu leader who even gives hint of line "oh we r simply strategically protecting/helping mullah interests but we will do course corrections once u trust us more and give us more decision making powers" are future betrayers of Hindus - just as MKG/JLN proved to be.
MKG/JLN were faces of leadership who could rise to and stayed on such power could only do so because of a whole process of and sectional support from Hindu elite involved in the business of state and economy as it was in their interest to have them at the top.
