Inquisitiveness is a trait that scratches your soul, demanding the devil within to venture into the unknown and excavate the needful. I find fervor in asking and inquiring people on their political stand-points. The more you ask the common man who chooses between two sides of the same coin, the BJP and the Congress, the more satisfactory the answer gets regarding whom do they vote. For the liberal leftist (the cult predominant in urban dwellings that see themselves politically denigrate, are disillusioned with parliamentary procedures and aloof by their own design of critique), the fact of a Muslim who votes for the BJP certainly shakes the very foundation of the ideology alongside whom they walk together in the park that is the social realm.

The ideology is that which ascertains particularities that cannot be hitherto understood by the virtue of being there, seeing everything, and experiencing an event. The function of ideology is to reduce the quantifiers attached to a particular event in a reductionist manner that aligns with their ideology and therefore produce knowledge that can serve political purposes.

When TheWire, Newslaundry, and TheQuint present their said section of the news, the ideological standpoints from which originate even the framing of any story albeit a dishonest attempt if one is to be nothing but a realist stance. Can there be a point outside ideology where one can stand to present facts without a socio-moral implication underneath it? No. There is, however, nothing wrong with the said operation. One must resort to a certain ethical standpoint that invariably is thought to be an ideology. He who rejects the ethics of the society and lives autonomously without any guarantee of an Other who shall act as the pacifier for his sufferings, but can affirm to life a form of existence that requires only but him in itself to operate. He doesn’t demand the necessity to know the field in order to act accordingly to the norm. He acts and the norm is thus defined, and thus is born an authentic master.

What does this have to do with contemporary politics?

In today’s neoliberalist effects that have to lead to the rapid formation of the bourgeois middle class, it is often easy to see how they in their urban pockets are disenfranchised. That the idea that there is no representative of their ideological standpoints at the municipality, the state government, and the national parliament is readily taken to be true for granted. Why so? The disavowal of certain ethical notions by the government speaks not the distance that the democracy has generated between the government and the people, but speaks more loudly of how childish an entire generation has relegated itself into. Political action and landscapes never were to be already given in the hands of the public, with the only choice to be that of accepting one of two political parties.

Proactiveness remains below the horizon of modern political discourse among the youth, barring a few who stood up against the norm.

One must venture deep within socioeconomic strata to truly uncover the truth. One must talk with the common man who visits neither Starbucks for his coffee nor Zara for his clothing. There exists the common man who talks with his nagarsevak on a weekly basis to formulate what remains best for their locality. In talking with a key-maker today, a rickshaw-walla tomorrow, and the bus driver day after, political disenfranchisement is the farthest point to exist from their thought process. They see action that we do not because of our privilege. There exists at the ground level certain active humans who without the garnishing of social media presence or by the grace of the ‘new age’ media aforementioned are continuing to do good work regardless of the party they stand for.

This disillusionment of the liberal left as that of the BJP to be nothing more than a religio-monolithic demagogue doesn’t find resonance within the daily man. In Pune, 80% are Hindus and 11% are Muslims. Communal riots that have occurred in the modern past of Pune are minuscule in comparison to their demography if the notion of a divide between politics based on religion is to be considered true. One finds social harmony affluent even at the periphery of modern Pune.

‘Labour camps’ are infamous pockets of hoi polloi which have no illusions regarding who and what does the justice system work for and as seen, functions for. If one is to talk with them, one sense a solidarity between their state of life and the function of labor they undertake for the procreation of life to be of umteenth importance. If a hypothetical raid is to be undertaken on their illegal vices that solely run their economy, the police faces in retaliation a horde that simultaneously functions as the gatekeeper for their lifestyle as well as the classic Marxist solidarity between class struggle that can be invoked not by studying Marxism but living life beneath, as the proletariat. He doesn’t study what Foucault and Marx have to say regarding police as the gatekeepers of private property and gated societies.

This thought and action come to them from their daily livelihoods which is of utmost importance to understand.

Where does the ethical autonomous being attach himself within this write-up? The necessity of the urban elite who have had the privilege to denote themselves towards the study of political science and socioeconomic realities from textbooks are to only discover that the world that lies beyond this realm is one that meets inadequacy with what one is taught. The clarion call to identify which is the real and symbolically expose the political power that runs on the nerves of such systems is what Foucault described as the political activity that deserves our attention at its finest.

Today, Pune functions within fascinating capitalist cognition. The startup culture has flourished alongside the many shops that dot the enterprise aspect of the city. With talking to the working class, there is the near-mystic reality confronted which speaks of nagarsevaks truly being at the mercy of the population’s democracy. In framing the questions to be of purely the national level, whether it be the religious sphere taking over the social and the hegemonic hold of the BJP for elections to come, we lose the groundwork that could lay itself to work for the society, least of course for the nation.

People with the liberal democratic dream of its functioning within the decadent Indian polity must aspire not to only criticize and expose the crimes of the current government that whose realities are accessible to a paltry sum of bourgeois people who nevertheless would love to pass over the said implications of the crimes so as to recreate thought within the ideological boundaries of Congress vs BJP, but also to move the step further. That of grass-root empowerment and the awakening of the working class as a political tool that can wield power to conform the capitalists at their will.

What can be aspired is a society of politically awake and active citizens, not workers in the cogs of an industry. That seems to me the true political activity to be undertaken by the public intellectuals of today. The question that remains open is: is it the degree of disenfranchisement in modern India the reason of no public intellectuals within the horizon, or is the lack of public intellectualism and debate off the screens of the ‘entertainment news industry’ the reason for apolitical standpoints?

We now take off to another paradigm.

Where does the description of the BJP begin? For the Indians above Madhya Pradesh and below Kashmir, it stands as the beacon of shining light that shall restore the glory of Bharat Mata in the eyes of their world. Their sight has grown exasperated by the burgeoning call for secularism. What once was the Pratham in overflowing with a multiplicity of culture and sociological practices unknown to the Western world today lies in malaise. Decayed by liberal democracies signaling the end of our virtuous history, a regressive motion set into account towards our roots seems plausible for the elders of the middle-class in North India. West India falters and perceives the BJP as the historical successors of the Hindu tradition. Maharashtrians take pride in the glory of the Maratha Confederacy and rever Shivaji. BJP’s failure to cement themselves as the torch bearers is due to Shiv Sena and the political games played by them. This cultural chasm did not stop them from winning the region.

The grass-roots of culture and the elders who seemingly are the only heirs to erstwhile flourishing immoral cultures are on a decline. There nevertheless, from the top to the bottom, is a clarion call from the BJP to protect their ‘dharma’. Political stooges now bear the seal of authenticity to save it by engaging in communal warfare. In practice, the BJP accept everything that is decadent about liberal democracy and neoliberalism. At the same time, an exercise to derange the progressive ideal set forth by Nehruvians is conducted by the proteges of the saffron parties.

One overarching claim while not meant with sufficient proof today can be met tomorrow.

It is the saffronisation of everything India into structuring the totalitarian aspects of the party into a single monolithic identity with Hindutva at the driver’s seat.

Between traditions, one must scourge to find the valuable that can be considered rationally acceptable within societal norms that are secular and democratic, as is the basic ruler for measurement. It was Hannah Arendt who first pointed out three forms of human governance and a followed description useful for our project. The ‘private’ is where the government stands away from its gaze. The ‘social’ has its basis on discrimination as its highest virtue. Without that, the entirety of human life would result in a single elephantine without the difference and make culture therefore impossible. The ‘political’ is where everyone is held as equals.

With that being said, one doesn’t need to look far for proof that the BJP seeks to poison the social by their rulings, legislation, and action in accord with their governance. The Ayodhya scandal is but a blot designed to divert our attention. January 3rd: Sushma Swaraj declares that the government doesn’t make financial concerns to have Hindi as an official language in the UN. March 10th: the Rajasthan government seeks to saffronize history by ruling that Maharana Pratap won wars that he lost.

What is more concerning however isn’t the creeping shadow of Hindutva within our Parliament, but the outward pacing legitimization that has been provided to the fanatical BJP workers and leaders who pathologically subscribe to their ideology. The actions carried out by the gou-rakshaks signify what can be called the protection of the big Other, as noted French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan would put it. ‘So as to not tarnish the image of the big Other, who is the all-perceiving Narendra Modi and the BJP, I in his name yet without saying his name will carry out the party’s and the Sangh Parivar’s true agenda.’

The separation of the BJP as the political wing of the Sangh Parivar indeed strikes as nothing but the single greatest game of delusion played in the history of our politics. The middle class never gets to perceive the threat posed by their coming to power, for the acts that are intended to be carried out act only in the background. The middle class remains only but a puppet in the hands of propaganda and new-found wealth, unaware of the rich cultural diversity which is the very foundation of our democracy. Unaware that soon, one day that which was ignored will now corrode the political institutions that have long protected their existence, all without them knowing.

But is this true? Is this analysis of the BJP within the lenses of protection for democracy, social realms, secularism, communalism, partisanship, and with the massive undertaking to privatize for the sake of their overlords, the saving of the commons, all enough to tilt the scales of the common voter?

I firmly believe: no.

Now onto another paradigm.

At the atom of society exists the individual. He can be understood in many ways. Psychology will seek to outline his psychic individuality. Sociology shall confer a social norm under and above which he is graphically represented. Psychoanalysis assumes every human as a libido-maximizing machine walking around. What we shall keep in consideration in our analysis is his political standpoint.

Many see the convergence of a multiplicity of issues, whether private or social, to meet at the political. After the convergence lies the manifestation. This first and foremost takes shape in a community. This implies the gathering of people and declaring themselves as a collective responsibility after which is conferred the Rights of Man, not the other way around where the Rights of Man are to be precluded by nature. From the community emerges rules and regulations that thereafter extrapolate themselves to give formations to political institutions. Within these political institutions begin the leadership and permeation of the leader or the ideology who stands with the power and felicitous authority.

Today’s democratic Indian institutions have given rise to the BJP. The ways to remorse, rejoice, improvise, and adapt to this sentence are immense. I will attempt to shed light on hitherto unnoticed dimensions to this question which stands pertinent to the Indian polity. We shall have a look at three distinct political classes and their actions.

The BJP runs within the veins of nearly 88% of India. According to the Pew Research Center, that number reflects the people who see Narendra Modi is favorable light. A simple walk around a minimum of 3 chowks in India is enough to see the diffusion of the BJP within the corridors and hoardings of the social in India. In the cities, I extensively have the opportunity to travel, namely Mumbai and Pune, BJP’s calendar being the mainstay behind the shops of most baniyas is a frequent sight. Tremors underneath the social fabric of the cities are caused by the division over the question of who the successor of their civilization is, namely the Shiv Sena, MNS, and the BJP. They never concern themselves directly with political participants in a vibrant democracy, but as businessmen looking to capitalize on any event, which of course isn’t a sin. In here, political thinking is absent and decisions are made by everything but the mind.

The youth turns towards the BJP -

This is a false statement. The youth towards AWAY from the Congress and therefore falls into the laps of the BJP. Modern India cannot imagine Rahul Gandhi as the stakeholder of Indian pride among the leagues of nations. Mr. Gandhi’s antics, albeit an unfair distribution of it due to the BJP IT cell, nevertheless define his caricature as that which cannot lead. There is no question posed ahead, and contemplation over the case between Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi ends here. It is from here that the sins of Narendra Modi are heinously overlooked because of two reasons. First, Narendra Modi gets a free ticket in terms of what he has to say over what how he has to look and pose given he wins that game by a huge margin. Secondly, since the first game takes the precedence in elections, the question of discerning the truth between what Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi have spoken and promised is considered futile.

The elders are the BJP -

The infamous ‘uncles’ that the youth resent. And resent they do rightfully! These critters concern itself only with the youth to meet their standards within an ethical ladder so as to accumulate power by the virtue of being old in itself (as in seen widespread in India). They also tend to be farther off from the economic sphere so as to engage in the religious and its consequential hierarchy. Their troubles are resolved by the distinction of an ethical body that stands the test of time against the modernly ostensible. Gram Panchayats, honor killings, the infantile death of the girl child, and the absolute authority of the patriarchy are among the vestiges of this cult. Such collages of society exist at the periphery of modern India but shout the loudest. Examples are rioting over Padmavati and the ongoing problem of freedom of speech. This society looks forward to the regression of India into ‘Bharat’, a utopian land promised with great culture permeating every aspect of the social. While there is nothing wrong with such posturing, we can deliberately see how it is wrong with the people in contention posturing the said idea.

The Urban Liberal -

Their cars start from the key and end with the windows opening to Lonavala. The life of the urban liberal interpellated from the thriving mine within which rushed an entire lower middle-class society after which was brought the formalization of the new bourgeois class. The 18-year-old girl could be affectionately concerned about the status of women in the city, scorn at onlookers, and attempt to make herself more politically active and heard. The 19-year-old boy could, however, have never opened a page of the newspaper in his life and yet have possessed a slew of opinions by the virtue of reading on the internet and YouTubing. In my investigation, the next point of fascination isn’t a middle-of-the-road teenager finding his path, but how similar both of these will lead to in terms of political standpoints.

We here return to our fundamental question asked in the first and the second question. Is the lack of public intellectualism and debate off the screens of the ‘entertainment news industry’ the reason for apolitical standpoints? Is this analysis of the BJP within the lenses of protection for democracy, social realms, secularism, communalism, partisanship, and with the massive undertaking to privatize for the sake of their overlords, the saving of the commons, all enough to tilt the scales of the common voter?

The first section of society described above demands no necessity in themselves to enslave a particular ethic in order to derive the correct answer as to ‘whom to vote’. The second section is fanatical enough to understand that their will to power lies not within the constellation of the Indian democracy, but rioting as savages. Hooliganism is their ideology.

It is clear from these standpoints that there is no necessity in of the public intellectual marking a debate between ideas for both of them. The analysis of the BJP decrepit with their misdeeds serve as the virtue for the next. We then look at the urban liberal who while demanding of a secularist-modernist outlook of a political leader nevertheless fail in accomplishing any political goal or vision due to lack of mobilization, commitment, and time that is ever consuming of the student. They are however acutely ‘aware’ of the notion that the liberal-secular values of India are under a constant threat of to the social foundation of our constitution.

We have however missed all but one person. He spent 22 years of rigorous education. He has to be considered right in believing that the time invested in the system today will yield financial results tomorrow. Right now, however, he discovers that the economy is on a slew, businesses that profit is among the 1%, and he remains among the many crores that lie unemployed as a result. Who is to blame here for his deeds and the subsequent aftermath? We must constitute what is it that was the ‘system’ and ‘reality’ that have brought more than 2 crores of such people. I do not believe naively that every single of them were dedicated in the time and efforts which should’ve therefore led to their progress as an individual. It is nevertheless, this particular question that plagues our political sensibilities and open discourse. Before the answering of all the political, the intersectional, the societal, and the entertaining within journalism, lie these parameters.

I promised answers. I leave my impression of what I consider to be the structure of the polity within which debates with a paramount necessity must occur immediately and with simple questions. Can we change this ‘system’ politically? If so, who is to be the change? And lastly, can we tomorrow hold effectively accountable the people who have caused the malfunction of the system today?