Citizens who have elected their
representatives to serve them end up
serving the leader itself, why has the feeling
come? This impression is because of the
the way we accept these leaders when they
come to visit and how these leaders expect
them to be treated by those people
without their support, they would not be
what they are now. They are treated as
superior human beings irrespective of
their tainted history.
Though we have attained independence from foreigners, power has been transferred from foreign rulers to political leaders and a handful power full people.
For most citizens, their life continues to be the same as before, they are struggling to be self-sufficient,
help each other, and tried to secure themselves and their loved ones feature hardly any support from
the government.
A brief insight into how political parties are being replaced by princely states. One similarity is that,
like the princely states, India today is a federal country with a diverse array of states, each with their
own political cultures and priorities. This can make it difficult to create a cohesive national agenda and
can lead to regional tensions and rivalries. Another similarity is that, like the princely states,
India today has a complex web of political alliances and coalitions. Political parties in India often
form alliances with each other in order to gain power, and these alliances can shift quickly depending
on changing circumstances.
Drawing some parallels based on certain characteristics of princely states and Indian political parties,
Here are a few possible similarities:
Regional Identity: Just like the princely states were defined by their regional identity
and cultural distinctiveness, some political parties in India is also based on
regional identity and cultural differences. For example, the Shiv Sena in
Maharashtra is a political party that champions Marathi identity and
regional pride. To ensure that power remains with few powerful individuals
this party champions Marathi identity has split twice once in 2006 and
recently in 2022.
Autonomy: The princely states had a degree of
autonomy and self-rule, with their own administrative and legal systems. Similarly,
some political parties in India have a degree of autonomy within their respective states, with their own
leadership and decision-making processes. For example, the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu is largely controlled by
the late Jayalalithaa's close aides. At the same time, the Trinamool Congress in West Bengal is known for its
strong leader, Mamata Banerjee.
Dynastic Politics: Many princely states were ruled by dynasties, with power passed down from one
generation to the next. Similarly, some political parties in India have become synonymous with
dynastic politics, with power concentrated within a single family. For example, the Indian National
Congress has been led by members of the Nehru-Gandhi family for much of its existence.
Resistance to change: Princely states were often resistant to change and modernization, preferring
to hold on to their traditional ways of life. Similarly, some political parties in India are known for being
resistant to change, either due to ideological reasons or to protect their vested interests. For example,
the Communist Party of India (Marxist) has been accused of being too rigid in its stance on economic
policies, while the BJP is attempting to rewrite history and glorify a mythical past.
These are just a few possible similarities and there are many other factors that could be considered
when comparing political parties to princely states.
In democratic India, after independence, we are witnessing where a leader or ruling class exercises
autocratic power while giving the appearance of a democratic government. There are also instances
when a leader or ruling party uses democratic procedures and institutions to legitimise their rule,
but in reality, they make all major decisions and maintain control over the government and society.
Media to remain commercially viable collaborate with the ruling power, regional party, or any other
power which ends them being controlled to shape public opinion, to suppress opposition parties or
dissenting voices.
If this goes like this we are heading towards, a government that appears democratic on the surface but is, in fact, autocratic in nature. This can be a dangerous situation for citizens, as it can lead to the erosion of civil liberties, the suppression of free speech, and other abuses of power. It is important for citizens to remain vigilant and to hold their leaders accountable, in order to prevent the emergence of a "Monarch Under The Skin Of Democracy."
www.ravinair.in
Comments
Post a Comment