A bureaucrat from J&K resigns out of the blue and floats a political party; presents himself as a changemaker. The frustrated, defeated, lost and futureless people, particularly the youth, seem all too eager to welcome this latest political entrant. Meanwhile, his resignation comes as a shock to everyone – especially to those who the bureaucrat-turned-politician had inspired for a career in Civil Services.
Touseef Raina
Consistency is not always a virtue, certainly not in politics — that is to say, the politics which is strongly professed to serve “public good” ultimately boils down to securing the avenues of “personal good”. Political realism and its proponents contend that the inconsistency is a “political expedient”. Saul Alinsky, who was an American community activist and political theorist, saw the world as “an arena of power politics, where morality is rhetorical rationale for expedient action and self-interest”. The proponents of political realism strongly believe that even the laws are “written for the lofty aim of ‘the common good’ and then acted out in life on the basis of the ‘common greed’.” Securing one’s ends is, after all, neither immoral nor unreasonable, though one may debate its costs, or try and put it to means and ends analyses! In Politics, according to Aristotle, “everyone thinks chiefly of his own, hardly ever of the public interest.”
As I delve a little deeper into the subject of this article — A tale of two very different decisions — a story of bureaucrat-turned-politician-now-wanting-to be-bureaucrat-again puts it this way: A bureaucrat from Jammu and Kashmir resigns out of the blue and floats a political party; presents himself as a changemaker. The frustrated, defeated, lost and futureless people, particularly the youth, seem all too eager to welcome this latest political entrant.
Meanwhile, his resignation comes as a shock to everyone – especially to those who the bureaucrat-turned-politician had inspired for a career in Civil Services. That said, the former bureaucrat had possibly believed that he could widen the scope of his vision to promote the welfare of the people.
He wanted to make his idea of politics relevant in no time and denouncing the decrepit and the incompetent institutions came in handy. As soon as he and his party colleagues made a concerted attempt to question the credibility of existing structures, political and otherwise, a good chunk of young and educated people — who had been exposed to literature on political and social change, and were desperately trying to make some sense of their lives and of the world around them — got involved in the initiative.
But then sort of a political apocalypse happens. Every political activity is restricted and considered as subversion. The major and minor political actors are put behind the bars, for no apparent reason. This was the time for the former bureaucrat to show his true mettle. He begins by attacking the government for making an “illegal” move and vows to keep up the fight for challenging the decision to abrogate Article 370. In the meantime, he tries to leave the country but lands up in custody.
After remaining under detention for some months, the former bureaucrat said that some new realizations have dawned on him. “I realised that at the end of the day you are all alone. It’s your family that suffers the most while ironically those for whom you seem to be standing up are drawing a sadistic pleasure out of your misery. Detention gave me the clarity of mind that I belong somewhere else. That I can’t destroy my life for those who won’t even cry for me,” he said in an interview with The Indian Express. He also acknowledged that in the changed political realities he does not want to show “quixotic dreams” to people when he had no power to change it.
Now, some people might want to appreciate his “honest confession” and forget and forgive his quick contradictions. In fact, people don’t have much choice. Having said that, he will have to explain the reasons behind his self-interested behavior to the people, who had thrown their full weight behind his plan and looked up to him as a role model and believed that he would bring much-needed change.
Effective organisation is thwarted by the desire for instant or dramatic change, or what Alinsky would call “demand for revelation rather than revolution”. He says, “It is something that is seen in the playwriting; the first act introduces the characters and the plot, in the second act the plot and characters are developed as play strives to hold the audiences’ attention. In the third and final act good and evil have their dramatic confrontation and resolution.”
“The present generation wants to go right into the third act, skipping the first two, in which there is no play, nothing but confrontation for confrontation’s sake – a flare-up and back to darkness.” Building a powerful organisation is a tedious task; it takes time. “But that is the way the game is played if you want to play, and not just yell ‘kill the umpire’.” Similarly, the former bureaucrat – wanting instant results –moved straight away into the third act, all without making any worthwhile investments.