H C Singh

National Polities and UPA Polities

It is obvious that national polities demands and is guided by national interests while the UPA coalition polities is more concerned in keeping the divergent political allies like DMK and Trinamol Congress together whether these political associates are more concerned with the political interest of their states and their parties or of the nation. Our PM is under UPA President and follows her directions. But even Sonia Gandhi, UPA Chairperson cannot go to the extent to annoy leaders like Krunanidhi and Mamta Banerjee, even if they are upto some actions which are not in national interest at large because Sonia Gandhi cannot afford to lose their support and let the UPA government fall.

In politics of India, as of any other country national interest and nationalism are the fundamental issues and subjects, whether it Mahatma Gandhi’s idealistic nationalism or Sardar Patels nationalism of making India united and powerful by merging 500 princely states or that of Jawahar Lal Nehru to raise India’s stature in world polity through founder and leader of non-aligned countries union. All these top-ranking leaders of India’s Independence movement and of Independent India after 15th August 1947 were strong nationalists in their own philosophy, reality or being in comity of nations.

However, unfortunately during last 5 years or so since UPA came to power with Sonia Gandhi as UPA Chairperson and Manmohan Singh as PM, there has been no or little interest in national polities to raise India’s prestiege at home and abroad. If one looks back, even Babar and Akbar recognized India’s greatness. Similarly Clive and Churchill too felt great after having conquered and administered India for more than a 100 years and it is well known that when after Second World War negotiations for India’s independence from British rule were going on with Cripps and Attlee Churchill refused to participate saying: I have not become His Majesty’s First Minister to preside over liquidation of empire. As a result after losing India Mughals became insignificant and Muslim rule and rulers in the world became non-entities, not to be bothered about. Similarly after India’s independence British power and status in world got a great set back- from rulers of an ‘empire where the sun never set’ UK became just one of the dependent countries of USA for a long.
Inspite of virtual indifference by UPA Govt to raise India stature in national and international level, India is rising and shining despite one of the worst crisis and recession in the world. In this connection I reproduce below comments of Tobias F Engelmeier which to our pleasure compare India and USA almost equal in many ways, after his views on nationalism in India.

“Nationalism and the process of nation-building in India were precarious and contingent. They were neither popular nor driven by a larger historical dynamic, material or phenomenological. They were not strongly based on symbols of the past. Nationalism was a product of thought rather than of actual conditions. It was, furthermore, a product of agency rather than of a phenomenological dynamics, and it was based on a mobilization linked to a very selective view of the past in an abstract rather than concrete way. Had it been otherwise, the outcome (the state) would likely have been different. There was a serious lack of ‘natural’ emotional stability.

Except for the challenge of forming a nation out of a highly diverse people, India and the USA share important founding myths, both have to been colonies (both have been colonized by Britain), both were able to create a national idea around a struggle for independence, towering leadership (Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Gandhi, Nehru), and a set of values that set them apart from both their colonizer as well as from the evil, violent ways of a European world in general.”

It is high time, as UPA has still more than 4 years to rule and because of virtual break-up its rival BJP, it may another 5 year term to rule, it should wake up and rise above petty matters covering its partners like DMK and others and draw a composite Policy for raising India’s stature at home though raising the living standard of poor villages and also abroad by showing unity of action to raise India’s standard and importance as much as that of China.

September 17, 2009 - Posted by | India, Indian History, Political Commentary, Politics | , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: