योगस्थ: कुरु कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा धनञ्जय |
सिद्ध्यसिद्ध्यो: समो भूत्वा समत्वं योग उच्यते ||2:48||
Be steadfast in the performance of your duty, O Arjun,
abandoning attachment to success and failure. Such equanimity is called Yog.
(Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2 Verse 48)
One who prudently practices the science of work without
attachment can get rid of both good and bad reactions in this life itself.
Therefore, strive for Yog, which is the art of working skillfully (in proper
consciousness). (Srimad Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2
Verse 50)
In the present times, ‘politics’ is a struggle to
find balance between economics and popularity.
Good economics (fiscal prudence; balanced
monetary policy; equitable taxation; etc.) usually does not get popular votes.
Whereas poor economics (subsidies; helicopter money; unsustainable incentives
like tax concessions, lower rates, subprime credit; etc.) may get popular votes
in the near term, but it creates enough problems (inflation, unemployment,
lower growth etc.) for the people as well as politician in power over mid to
long term.
Unfortunately, most modern day politicians show
a natural bias towards popularity over economics as it helps them in gaining
and retaining power. Recent visits to three states going to elections in the next
couple of months has shown that Indian politicians are no exception to this
general rule.
Politicians from all parties are promising a
variety of freebies to lure the voters. Free electricity and direct cash in the
bank accounts of adult women are two most popular promises. Aam Aadmi Party
(AAP), which is governing Delhi presently, is showcasing the Delhi model of
governance (free electricity and improvement in public education) in these
states and gaining support. In fact it is emerging as the main contender in
Punjab and a strong challenger in Uttarakhand. The principal opposition in UP
(Samajwadi Party) and Uttarakhand (Congress) have certainly taken a few leaves
out of theAAP book. In UP and Uttarakhand, the ruling BJP is apparently seeking
votes on the issues of good governance and development. However, on the ground,
emphasis on subsidies, freebies and revival of Hindu nationalism is
conspicuous.
My interactions with people in these states
indicate that no party in Uttarakhand and Punjab may get a decisive mandate;
though Congress seems to have a marginal edge in Punjab. In UP BJP may retain
power with a clear majority, though its tally may be much lower than 2017
elections. If I may summarize the input received from various media reports,
opinion polls and other sources, the other two states, i.e., Goa and Manipur,
may also see an indecisive mandate.
In all the states, religion and caste remain key
considerations for most political parties. In UP and Uttarakhand, predominantly
Hindu states, all parties are vying with each other to prove themselves more
Hindu than the others. The constitutional mandate of “secularism”, that used to
be a key theme of non BJP parties in previous elections, is conspicuous by its
absence from the main narrative.
Unsurprisingly, however, none of the parties
seems to be concerning itself with the teachings of Hindu scriptures. For
example, the above cited two verses of Srimad Bhagavad Gita, propound some
quintessential qualities for the leaders (or politicians in modern context),
viz., steadfastness in pursuit of righteous duty, equanimity, equipoise, and
detachment.
The Lord says perform your righteous duties
without bothering about success or failure; without attaching yourself with the
results. Listening to what Lord says, the politicians today must be pursuing
Good economics – adopt policies which would bring the prices down, create
productive employment, make taxation equitable, and make growth inclusive and
sustainable, even if pursuit of these policies does not fetch enough votes.
It is not that various governments have always
ignored this guidance and pursued only poor economics. But they have definitely
always shown a bias towards poor economics. Usually, the governments resorted
to good economics only when it was inevitable, i.e., when the economy faced a serious
crisis, e.g., Congress in early 1990s and NDA in late 1990s and early 2000s.
Obviously, the economic policy has been mostly driven
by the political ambitions of the party in power, rather than the steadfastness
and righteousness.
Of course, many would argue that this is not
true about the incumbent government at center. I would certainly like to hear
the arguments to find if there is any material difference.
