Why Farmers are so Dear to our Leaders!!
–By Devil’s Advocate
A few days back, as I was watching the Television, I heard a political leader say: ‘Farmers are very dear to us, and we care for them.’ Suddenly a thought came to my mind:
Very often our parents or caretakers show an extraordinary concern towards their weak child, knowing that there is little hope of any substantial development, and the poor fellow would need the support of the elders for their survival.
What an Irony, exclaimed my mind, as I smiled in sarcasm.
Many-a-times, our leadership does not care if a poor or underprivileged section would be benefited by the stance or policy taken by them. What matters is the show of public sympathy and grief that the so-called ‘leaders’ feel for these sections. While the redress of the problem lies in the systematic capability building of the deprived communities, the interest of those in power, generally lies in keeping some sections of the society in the dark.
This is an ugly truth of the politics today. In order to gain the public sympathy, and consequently their votes, it is important and indispensable to have a section, upon which political debates can be made, and sympathies can be amassed.
We express an overarching concern towards the sections that are particularly weak, and we know that it needs an explicit support in order to come up with the mainstream. But somewhere deep in our heart, there is little hope for the substantial change, and the most we expect is the fulfillment of the animalistic needs, and that to for the short period of time.
May be our public spiritedness has not reached the level where our moral conscience motivate us to make genuine efforts for the betterment of the society. Our leaders content themselves with a mere mouth-worship of the poor and needy. To stretch the programmes and policies is like exaggerate something, which of course, our leaders might not be interested in.
I find the application of the Theory of Diminishing Marginal Utility, well applicable to the public-spiritedness of our leadership. The advocacy of the welfarist measures gives an increasing return in the beginning. But, as they progress, the satisfaction and outcome of the same falls, to the extend that the leaders are forced to abandon their plans, and search for a more public-appealing subject.
A few days back it was the prices of the vegetables that was making a hue and cry in the political market; now the issue of the farmers is back in political debates, and a few days later, there might be a return of the age-old friend- the Kashmir Issue (Article 370).
While I still need to internalize some of the pros and cons of Budget and its implications, one thing is clear:
The present political structure follows only one principle- that of Populism. The populism that I am referring to is nothing less than the contemporary reality shows, that follow the cult of TRPs. In such circumstances, the aim of the budget seems to be- to attract the masses. The opportunity cost of this approach may be dangerous for our long-term goals. Without any long-term approach and a strong foundation, the sustainable growth of the country is unlikely.
What is required is a real belief and adherence to the principle of the new government- ‘Sab ka Saath, Sab ka Vikas‘ (Everyone’s Participation, Everyone’s Development).
Devil’s Advocacy: Dear Leaders, stop sympathising, and start empathising. This ‘public sympathy approach’ wont last for long.