Who should I vote for?
Only two days are left for the first phase of the General Elections and a few Assembly level elections. People are being exhorted to vote and there are slogans of ‘need for change’. However, overshadowing these is the business of traditional elections, which seems to have changed little. Large processions; huge rallies; film stars dragged out for canvassing; large crowds of shouting supporters are all de rigueur, as are bands, flowers, paying obeisance to all deities in the surrounding areas and of course menacing looking guards surrounding the ‘netas’. Their protection ability may well be low but without them no ‘neta’ worth the name will step out of his house!
While this great election tamasha has commenced, do the voters know who to vote for? I am certainly clueless about who I should vote for.
The voters are by and large clear about what they want– good governance; strong action against terrorism; better law and order; jobs for everyone; eradication of poverty; no corruption; focus on environmental degradation; equitable distribution of wealth and status – all knowledgeable and correct aspirations. However, who out of the thousands in the election fray would actually give us these? The couple of thousand aspirants for the Lok Sabha are all tall on promises and high in rhetoric, but when you look at their background or record of governance and the kind of company they keep (their parties and their connections with criminals); there are major doubts whether they will be able to deliver and meet the voter’s aspirations. The question therefore remains – who should I vote for?
With a view to clear my mind, I carried out an appreciation of the situation, as we do in the army. Let me share the salient points with you. The first and obvious question which bugged me no end was whether one should vote for a party or an individual. After all, it is one of the parties that will eventually be called upon to form the government and our concerns and aspirations would have to be met by it. I therefore analysed each party.
The oldest party was first on the list, especially as it was the party in power, along with sundry smaller parties and individuals, which formed the coalition. I listed their past achievements, their current promises and other relevant points, especially how they had performed and delivered. Being an ardent secularist, it received a positive point. Other points in favour included the Indo-US nuclear deal; the economic growth; the opening up of the economy, despite being dragged down by their obdurate partners-the communists; and the fact that they had managed to last their full term. But there are many negatives too – weak-kneed response to terrorist attacks; choosing unprofessional and timid security advisors; relying solely on ‘soft power’ in foreign policy formulations; no control over the rapacious bureaucracy; little understanding of military power and consequent choking of funds for defence; and similar inadequacies that have made the nation a ‘soft state’.
Then I analysed the next biggest party, which was trying to make a comeback after losing out in the last hustings. Being a rightist party, it understands security issues better, but has been unable to take tough stands when it was in power. It has very few leaders of caliber and it is heavily influenced by the ideas of Hindu ideologues, something least desirable in a secular country; its partners are again steeped in narrow and sectarian issues and it has major internal dissentions, although the latter is not peculiar to this party only. Its biggest negative, in my view, is its hard-line Hindutva policy, which has produced rabble-rousers who can take to extreme violence to further their ends. In our multi-lingual and multi-religious country, which has been known for millennia as tolerant to all religions, there is no place for any party that spreads hatred in the name of religion. Although it is now trying to make amends by wooing military personnel, having understood that they are no longer in a state of somnolence, by making promises which the oldest party, in its vanity, has ignored, most military personnel are unlikely to be overly influenced, especially as the past record of the party does not inspire confidence.
Need I say anything about the third aspirant to power, the so-called ‘third front’ – a grouping of has-beens and opportunists? Can anyone trust them when they have abandoned their partners for dubious short-term gains? No one in his right mind should even think of supporting such a conglomerate of diverse parties, mostly small. How can such a coalition deliver when their focus is on petty local issues? Even the coalitions anchored in the major parties have found it difficult to govern. In any case, depending on the equations, when the results are announced, the bulk of these small parties will commence hobnobbing and horse trading with the major parties.
I am afraid space does not permit me to share my analyses of the other prominent but considerably smaller parties, except to highlight the perfidy and anti-national stances (since Independence) of the communists, who need to be boycotted by all thinking persons; the gross populism of the party in power in UP, where their latest promise is to further increase reservations and even in the army-God forbid! Power was known to corrupt, but this is a case of power making one insane!
Therefore, only a party approach is unlikely to lead the voter to the correct conclusions; it has to be modulated by a detailed look at individuals also. This is even more difficult. The candidates are as diverse as our society. There are criminals of various hues, who must be discarded immediately, irrespective of the party to which they belong. The same goes for the known-corrupt; the ultra-religious; and racial zealots. The bureaucrats turned politicians, whose ulterior motives have turned to power and pelf now, to safeguard their ill-gotten wealth, must on no account be supported. We next come to the category of entertainers, both of the Bollywood and the cricketing varieties, who have been dragged into the fray both by their personal motives as well as by the parties to add colour and oomph to their campaigns. What has been their contribution in the past to governance? Zilch in my view, except for displaying their ‘matkas’ and ‘jhatkas’! It would only be crazy fans and we do have a fair share, who will vote for them!
What about other independents then? They are of two varieties. The first are those who did not get a ticket from their party and are therefore so-called rebels. In my dictionary, they are highly untrustworthy and need to be discarded. That leaves a few independents, with a record of being straight, honest and efficient? It is no doubt difficult to identify them in a sea of opportunist rogues, but with effort a few, very few, can be found. There is Shiv Khera at Delhi and Arun Bhatia at Pune and there is a sprinkling of down-to-earth, honest and upright military veterans, whose only aim is to reform the system from within and they are undoubtedly capable of doing so.
I also considered casting the “I Vote Nobody” option, as enshrined in the constitution, but there is currently a lacuna in this also, as such votes are not counted as ‘minus votes’ for the winner, which was the intention of the framers of our constitution. So far, the wily politicians have stymied both the election commission and the Supreme Court.
So Sir, who should I vote for? Can someone help?
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi (Retd)
Dear Gen Oberoi,
Your mail has your characteristic wit, and a philosophic touch. Many of us are faced with the same quandary and seek a prudent answer. You have, of course, analyzed the options in a very succinct manner.
Many years ago, our father was face with this problem. He found a way out of this quagmire. He voted for the party which he hated the least. Our mother was advised to cast her vote in favor of the nearest rival. And our servant was told to choose the "third" alternative.
This way, he was spared the guilt of not exercising his franchise and he was also able to tell the supporters of all the parties that he was sympathetic to them, without telling a lie.
Indeed, as a soldier, he disliked all politicians. And so if you have three votes in the house, this could be the DS solution to the question at the end of your mail.
Regards,
Maj Gen Surjit Singh (Retd)
