As the great fare of Indian general elections nears It's end, we see emotions flying high all over print media and social media, electronic or otherwise. I take this chance to go through the chronology of events as they unfolded leading up to the current status-quo of the general public ideas floating around, and those of an un-enchanted layman viewing them from the sidelines.
As for the chronology, we can choose to go as far back in time as we could owing to India's disturbed and much debated history which has been written, torn and rewritten time and again by whosoever was in power to do so when they wished. In case you are guessing "who?...", these have been the mughals, the Europeans, the congressmen and more recently the so-called Hindu extremists. The history has been made so murky that it has become hard to really trust when something is told about the flourishing indus valley civilisation, the rich India as it was or those about the possibilities of India actually having a civilisation even before the harappan civilisation. Tales of the magical cities like Dwaraka will always be considered tales. The figment of doubt has grown so much that India has lost confidence in its capabilities and possibilities. This doubt now shows up regularly in normal public discourse. This sense of distrust has reached so dangerous levels that today India stands as the crossroads where it can't decide for sure who is the right person to lead their country. They had followed many leaders till now: Mangal Pandey, Mahatma Gandhi, Pandit Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose, Vivekananda, and many more. However, the experience with the leaders who came later has been so bitter that people have started questioning the authenticity of the claims of the greatness of even these leaders.
"Did India really get independence because of Gandhi, or was it because of the naval uprising of Bombay we never talk about? And while that questions is answered, how practical was Gandhi's way of non-violent revolt? Was it allowed to continue because British never considered it a revolt and wanted to be just happy with a non-effective way of protest?"
"Did Subash Chandra really inspire people, or was the army of Indian soldiers captured by the axis powers was uneducated and quite clueless about the events and their reason , as the public is now, that they just followed Subhash? Also was the factor that they had no other go had any role to play in their decision?"
"Was Mangal Pandey really a rebel or was he just a hindu fanatic fighting because of the cow fat used in cartridges?"
"Was Nehru really that great or was he encashing all the money spent by Moti Lal Nehru to fight independence? Did he really want the prime-minister-ship so bad that he traded that wish with the unity of Bharatvarsha (pre-independence)?"
"Was Indira Gandhi the lady who helped India win the war against Pakistan or was she the lady who cracked down on the freedom of press and effectively everybody? Did her adventure with mukti-vahini do anything good to improve Indo-Pak relations? Does Bangladesh feel even an iota of obligation towards India for the support India gave them for their independence from then west-Pakistan? (Add to it the event where they hoisted dead Indian soldiers on sticks and carried them like animals.)"
"Is the rumour true? "kroor saaamnee apne hi bachon ko kha gayi? (the cruel snake-mother ate its own eggs?)"
"Was Rajiv gandhi really a man with a vision, or was he the person knee-deep in corruption?"
These questions might seem trivial to one who wants to live in the present for the future. I wish such a thinking was right in an ideal world. However, it starts to matter when these questions are curbed, with words or violence and instead the alternate facts or propaganda is floated around and these leaders of the past are glorified to grab as many votes as possible in the General Elections. Imagine a Rahul asking voters to help him and his party win the elections, neglecting the possibility that he is born in a family which had a role to play in the sikh genocide that happened in 1984 just after his grandmothers death. There is hardly a shard of evidence that would support this, but the more important thing is doubt that it could be true. In normal public dealings the truth doesn't matter. All that matters is public perception. Like the public perception that Gujarat is booming. Is that really true? Or is it true that in 2002, the then Chief Minister of the state had a role to play in the mass killing of our brothers and sisters from both sides of the communal divide. Along with this many more doubts arise that have created confusion and colluded the public thinking. Like,
"Is Arvind Kejriwal really an agent of good change or that of Congress?"
"Is Rahul Gandhi really concerned about the problem of the poor or is he just projecting that? Is the conspiracy theory true that he was involved in the crime committed against one of the lady workers of his own party? In case its true, how dangerous it is if he becomes India's prime minister!!!"
"Does Robert Vadra really deserve the VIP treatment across India or is it a blatant misuse of the taxpayers money and a mockery of Indian Law?"
In spite of all these unanswered questions and unaddressed doubts, it seems funny when we see people vehemently supporting a certain individual's claim to the highest seat of Governance of the country. But then again, mind believes what it wants to. People tend to close their eyes when they see that there is certain doom ahead and there is no where to run or hide. A storm is brewing and we are all ostriches sticking our heads deep in sand. Only fate and our acumen will decide, if we would all die with our heads buried under earth or will that messiah of hope arrive and force us to get our heads out of the sand and work together to build that shelter where we can all have a save and prosperous future.
