If Modi has lost, who won?
It is absurd to dream that since the BJP lost the race to power in West Bengal where voters’ schism has brought about an unbelievable consolidation of anti-nationalistic forces and a thematic divide, and it is the beginning of the end of Modi rule in India and a new alternative national leadership is dawning. Parochialistic attitude cannot substitute a nationalistic outlook, if it does; it sheds its parochial character. Parochialism is a degraded version of regionalism.
Voting behavior is not a mechanical process. The human instinct therein is the secret of parliamentary democracy. Several media editorials published seem to have agreed that the second term of Mamata rule had been a waste of governance. Bengal’s spiritual leadership, intellectual initiative, Industrial and economic progress in Bengal during dictatorial and terroristic Communist rule earlier three decades and later its continuation for two decades under Mamata’s rule destroyed the confidence of Bengal. Corrupt, work-shirkers, sycophants, incompetent parts of bureaucracy, no wonder, if these had not sided with the incumbent government, whose return to power was an assurance of their protection.
Once we accept a parliamentary democracy, needless to state that a voter is treated as a sovereign master. NDA lost in Bengal very badly, according to the political commentators Ms. Mamta Banerjee has now emerged as a national leader. It is interesting and important to study the example of Sir Winston Churchill who won the Second World War for England and his Party lost the General Elections. The following reference would throw light on the voters’ psyche under any circumstances. Voting behavior of the British, is required to be carefully studied.
“The election campaigning was focused on leadership of the country and its future. Churchill sought to use his wartime popularity as part of his campaign to keep the Conservatives in power after a wartime coalition had been in place since 1940 with the other political parties, but he faced questions from public opinion surrounding the Conservatives' actions in the 1930s and his ability to handle domestic issues unrelated to warfare. Clement Attlee, who led the Labour Party, was seen as a more competent leader by voters, particularly those who feared a return to the levels of unemployment in the 1930s and sought a strong figurehead in British politics to lead the postwar rebuilding of the country. Opinion polls when the election was called showed strong approval ratings for Churchill, but Labour had gradually gained support for months prior to the war's conclusion”.(Source: Wikipedia)
Who won in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly elections? Parochialism? Anti-national elements? Is it not that once again, the Muslim strong minority has rendered a strong signal to all the anti-national players—both at the national as well as regional levels, that their presence cannot be ignored? In fact the results have evidenced that the minority voters can tilt the balance in favor of anyone which these minority voters prefer. Does anti-incumbency mean anything? Is it not possible that the incumbent government while in the race to power may adopt an appeasement policy disregarding the basic structure of our socio-cultural ethos? Was it not a sharp political divide on religious themes in the crucial strategic Border States? Is it not that the basic structure of the Constitution is socio-cultural ethos of the society in India? Does the minority community have the liberty to destroy the socio-cultural ethos --- the way of life – while enjoying (in fact it is exploiting) the right to rule of law and its consequent protection under the constitution.
Aren’t we going to decipher the meaning and its compass of Article 1, where it is said, “India that is Bharat…, what does this term mean ?. Can “Bharat” mean composite cultural entity? Is it not an ancient historical lineage? Was the name “Bharat” imaginary? These are some important questions posed by the history before India.
“Nobody is against the Muslims or Christians in the country. We would come across several examples during the past history of India that in the governance and in the army, Muslims and Christians have discharged important duties and functions with great pride. Many of these have earned decorated gallantry awards and medals under the Hindu rule. There are several hundreds and thousands of examples of such a kind….Majority of the Muslims or Christians in this country were Hindus, several generations ago these embraced other religious faiths therefore it can be stated that several thousands of these communities have enjoyed India has to find out the answer to the above questions.
In a federal structure federating units do have to proclaim regional pride and a differentiating identity. There is nothing wrong in it. The only pre-condition is the pride should not run counter to the national interests. In Indian federation most of the federating units have shown a remarkable balance. Border States in several federations have posed at times serious problems and headache to the Central power in view of the national security. It was a great fortune that the Constitution framers particularly, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and his colleagues in the Drafting Committee, had taken full care and necessary precaution to tackle any untoward challenging incidence, should it arise.
In Part XVIII and under Article 352, explicit care has been taken as to how to tackle grave threat to the national security.
Assam and West Bengal are the two States on the North East and Eastern Border -- an area where illegal migration is on a rampant scale. A majority of immigrants to both the States believe in the rule of theological State and governance. Regional parties like Trinamool Congress and once upon a time a party which was known as a national party like Indian National Congress, cannot help themselves associating or aligning with these immigrants (many of whom have acquired legal status over a period of time bribing the local Government employees) and their official political groups for petty party interests. These immigrants according to their convenience hide behind the Constitution of India and if it is not convenient to their community interests, these plead for theological justification.
I submit that, although in a different context, the basic structure of the Constitution is once again required to be analyzed in the context of minority community voters. Nobody is against the Muslims or Islam or Lord Jesus. But the life style of the majority people in India, i.e. its socio-cultural ethos has to be preserved as it is the basic structure of India. It is the natural right of the majority to secure constitutional guarantee to protect its identity and its eternal continuation. (To be Continued...)