In Theory

Published on May 15th, 2014 | by Sandeep Patil

Two to Tango

In the election season (and also in general), one could see the war of words on the social media between the left wingers and the right ones. The word-weapons were unleashed from one side as Libtards, Commies, AAPtards etc. and they were cordially reciprocated by replies like Sanghis, Fascists and so on. While it is understandable to snigger at each other, but one must understand that only left or only right cannot make the complete system.

A functional system, has at least two main sub-systems. One brings in necessary energy/resources/fuel to run the system. The other distributes the resources/energy to all parts. Take example of human body. The food is taken in by digestive system, the oxygen is brought in by respiratory system and then the generated energy is distributed to all parts of the body. This applies to the group of people also – be it small or large. A typical example of small system with a few people in it would be a ‘family’. In family it is typically one (or say two) person who earns for the whole family, and his earnings are distributed to the rest of family members. In a larger group of people – like our democracy – it is ofcourse much complicated. There are classes of more capable, privleged people who can bring in resources. And there are other under-privileged people to whom these resources should be passed on. In general it is the rightist politics that triggers the generation of resources, while the leftist politics that deals with the distribution of resources!

This is why precisely the left and right are not against each other, but rather complimentary to each other. The rightist philosophy is about “equal opportunities” while the leftist philosophy is about “equal distribution”.  The unfortunate thing  is that, they do not acknowledge the importance of each other.

Lets take a rightist’s view. He believes in “equal opportunities” – so everybody gets an equal chance, and may the best person win. This is why a rightist approach wants to interfere minimum in people’s matters. There would be smaller government. The governemnt would not be in businesses, so more privatisation or disinvestment. Instead governemnt would focus on providing necessary infrastructure to the businesses. The government would facilitate job creation but it would not dictate who should get job and who not, so there will be less reservations. As a result it becomes more and more an open field, and it benefits those who are capable – they can substantially increase their performance and lead to progress. So here the sector that brings in resources becomes stronger, but what about the distribution? Lets’ take a look at what happened in India in last 10-15 years.

In these 15-20 entered lots of multinationals – they paid a far better salary and did not have reservations. This changed the perspective dramatically. Earlier people used to think of their own house towards retirement, now youngsters started owning a flat even before marriage. Now people started changing 4 wheelers every few years. People started touring to Europe, Australia, Thailand etc. There was a new higher middle class resulted – who enjoyed all these bounties. But all the same, this new class did not let the benefits go beyond itself. They only bothered about solving their own problems, but didn’t care in anyway (knowingly or unknowingly) about those who were not so lucky. The public transportation is a problem, let me go by car. The climate is getting hotter every year, who bothers about tree plantation, let me put AC. The neighbourhood is getting insecure, let me buy flat in a ghetto like township and put security guards at the gate. The Auto-wallah is asking 20 rs extra, its’ okay yaar. The builder has  once again increased property prices, who cares let me make another trip to onsite.

So you see, the problem is this self centered attitude at the most may solve the problems of an individual – and even that would have been acceptable. But, it makes life of others more difficult. Put an AC, and you add to the warming of surroundings. Pay 20 rs more to the Auto-driver, and soon there is no Auto-rikshaw which will drive to your collony for normal tariff. Look at todays’ prices of apartment, and ask to yourself, does this place deserve the price?

This is where the left comes into picture. First of all, the underprivilaged are natuarally upset due to the problems in their daily life. Plus it is unbearably painful to see that they have missed the opportunity, while others have been joyfully riding on it – for no apparent fault of theirs. Finally, you get mocked by the privilaged class – adding insult to injury. So there are people who are frustrated, exasperated, asking God everytime why they can’t have the comforts – or even a part of it – like few others in their neighbourhood. What would this give rise to? A well cultivated field, ready for a new leader to take on. And in this case a leader, who can show them dreams rather than showing the way.

I have always wondered, why the left leaders engage more in theatrics, give speeches which sound more like scripts of Saas-Bahu serials (you know who I am talking about 😉 ), and try to challenge people’s emotions rather than wits? I think, it’s because people who have had enough for the day need to seek some sort of solace, assurance, some hope at the end of the day than other things. Rather than watching a movie in which Sanjeev Kumar argues a case brilliantly in court, they would like to see one in which Mithun single handedly thrashing 10 goons down.

That’s why I say to all you learned people, that it is okay to talk about ‘politics of development’ and all – there will be a large section around who is too busy to think beyond tomorrow. Of course I have seen most of the times their leaders to exploiting the situation for personal gains – and that brings the movement in general bad name. The left leadership needs to be more responsible and visionary – like Gandhiji, who had guts to call off non-cooperation movement after Chouri-choura incident with firm belief that the nation is not yet matured for its independance. Like Mahatma Phule, who with his wife Savitribai had started nursing and caring for unmarried women who had become pregnant – 100 years back such women did not have any place in the society and many times had to take the way of suicide. Or in today’s times like Anna Hazare, who after enjoying immense popularity, is not addicted to it – but can turn back to the limelight. But otherwise, a large section of left leadership is full of self-centered, irresponsible and attention-savy people, which makes the leftist politics an object of scoff.

As said before, let the concept not suffer due to the behaviour of the leaders. Let the stronger take care of the weaker. Let left and right acknowledge importance of each other.

Image courtsey:


About the Author

God knows why but I have too many interests. So chances are that you and me have something in common. Let’s see… Patanjali? Chanakya? Romans? Vijaynagar? Shivaji? Renaissance? Vivekanand? Agatha Christie? Tagore? Hitchcock? S.D.Burman? Cary Grant? Satyajit Ray? Grace Kelly? Brucia la terra? Suchitra Sen? Roman Holiday? Vasantaro Deshpande? Robert de Niro? Malguena? Kishore Kumar? Osho? Hotel California? Smita Patil? Erich von Daniken? Pu La? GA? Andaz Apna Apna? Asha Bhosale? PVN Rao? … Watch this space, sooner or later you will something on similar topic

Back to Top ↑