Nandu's Insight

'Telengana' - news waves seem to be full of this word in the last few days. Formation of another state in India is not earth shattering news. Many new states have been formed since independence. A foreign country Sikkim even became an Indian state in 1975. It is not that new state is Telengana either. Fazal Ali Commission or the States Reorganisation Commission in 1955 recommended that Telengana be kept separate from coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema [Paragraph 386 of SRC Report]. Therefore, fifty-four years later, if the people of Telengana want a separate state, there is nothing to wander about. What is important about this now is the fact that the Government of India has decided to start the process of forming the new state, after K.Chandrasekhara Rao, leader of the party with a one-point agenda that of formation of Telengana fasted and was reported to be in a critical health condition.

One could think of this as a typical Gandhian struggle, if it were not for a couple of ironical points. One, Irom Sharmila, a political activist in the state of Manipur has been on a hunger strike from November 4, 2000 to demand the withdrawal of a draconian law called Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958. For people who wonder how she is alive after nine years of fasting, the explanation is that she is regularly arrested, taken to the hospital and force-fed. Well, the point is that in spite of her Gandhian struggle, the Government has not budged a bit. But for KCR, the government bends. Strange are the ways of politics. Two, KCR himself is a controversial leader whose political ambitions made him move from Telungu Desam Party, where he was a minister from Telengana Rashtriya Samithi. His way of running the party led to differences with another leader, A. Narendra, which led to his suspension from the party. The political ambitions of KCR took him from BJP camp to Congress and then the third front. After the electoral process earlier this year, even before the election results came out, KCR declared that he would be with the NDA led by BJP. The conclusion is that, this struggle is neither Gandhian nor done with a noble purpose.

Let us sit back, wait and watch the developments.

The 'ideological' note

The term ideology has always fascinated me. What emerged as the loose thought on society, and it should be structured, first emerged as religion. But with time, society began to attach value to economic activities and found religion had only limited solutions to offer (religion had much more don't do'es than do's) as to the direction societal structures should take, the term ideology was conceived.


Thus ideology and religion have had the same roots and initial thought processes, except that ideology was secular and was acceptable to all across divides. Principles on the way society was structured to meet economic objectives, evolved from the time early agrarian societies were formed and extends down to today's ideology of liberalism and conservatism with all shades in between, paleo, neo and post modern.


Enough said.
I will leave it to this brilliant child to expostulate further.... Atagirl!



Today morning I spent quiet a lot of time thinking about how liberals and conservatives fundamentally differ in their basic approach to a problem. My expertise on political ideologies is limited. However, it forced me to think about the relevance of a strong political ideology as a balancing force to human development in any civil society. I believe,every society needs to have some sense of logic and a collective conscience, which can be established only when there is a decision-maker on top. But how far can this process be influenced by the principles one believes in? How badly do solid ‘principles’ affect the rights of an individual? In addition, what happens when there are too many ideologies and a small number of issues?


An example might help.


Naxalism has been dominating the national news for several weeks now.I am not going to comment on the issue itself because pretty much every rational individual (even the irrational ones) has argued on TV debates or to blog comment threads. The issue has become very mundane.However, today I have decided to look at this from two distinct perspectives.


Personally, I think there is a social liberal and social conservative inside all of us. Only the degrees differ.


To begin with, I want to think about the principles held by those
supporting the Maoists to continue what they are doing. Either they
believe that law and order do not have any role to play, or that it
simply does not apply in this case. True, liberal arguments are always rooted in moral principles and a true liberal would possibly talk in support of the Maoist turned peasants. But how long do you think Maoist extremism can exist..? Moreover, what exactly do you mean when you talk about the so called Maoist ‘victory’? A caste less, classless society is what we dream, but how far does the leftist liberal inside you think it is practical?Knowing Ms. Roy’s stance, which sounds farcical, and did not do anything to bring the issue to Supreme Court, or even get the government involved in the first place, I wonder what stance would a nearly ‘liberal’ have chosen in this context. For all those who believe that government cannot take action against Maoists, I respect that belief, but that is not the one I share.


Unfortunately, I cannot fully comprehend the thoughts of a conservative too. Think about it and you will be surprised how it will suddenly encourage free-thoughts (as we now know one side of the story). Unfortunately, we have not so far come across a pure
conservative point of view in this issue. But I would surely not limit their thoughts to the sanctity of human life and how discrimination can hamper the growth.

Remember, how we reacted to Abortion rights, Euthanasia and Homosexuality?


It seems to me, that our modern political ideologies do not necessarily help in the decision making process. It is high time we
make sure that our principles are authentic and objectivity is not
lost. If you are a leftist liberal, I do not think you can bear to
bring yourself to defend everything branded as "liberal" - just for
the heck of it. If you still want to, What, then, do you think is the moral position of the majority of those including ‘you’ demanding that Maoists be allowed to continue killing hundreds everyday? And for those who are in the opposition, believing that tradition is sacred and extremism cannot be tolerated, when would you stop preaching and start acting?


I'm genuinely curious.