Once I was passionately driven by the idea that youth should come forward and join politics. The patriotic idea that we should not just look out for jobs catering to only self and a tiny family, rather we should look out for the enlarged family, the society and the country at large. Very idealogical aspirations. Before independence most of the educated class showed definite aspirations towards country’s interests and many of them did join active politics and what we have today is the direct product of all that political activity, good or bad and whether we like it or not.
But what we have now is a situation which is slightly ironical and honestly, confusing. We do have a good amount of youth into politics entered, from various quarters, and the latest of all, though not technically youth (if we take the age in true terms), entry of a very young movie star. May be this is one of those firsts where a relatively younger (and hence could be equated as youth as he would probably be attracting mostly the youth) from a film industry is coming up with political aspirations. Or political revolution? Somehow the whole episode is yet to instill the same passion or confidence or hope that it once did, hundred years ago. Not many of the young politicians, youth leader turned politicians proved promising. They might not be crooks, yet the expectations are more.
Is it because of the failure of too many hopes that are raised? Or is it just a direct derivation of the calibre and kind of people coming into politics? Is youth in politics having a direct relation to being good and efficient, anymore?
I have seen mad and emotionally driven youth burning their bodies and that of others in the cause of some leaders or something that they do not even totally understand. Some take up guns and kill others whether they have a gun or not! I have never seen general public appreciating any of the college politics or university elections, the bedrock for youth dynamics. Many from these univeristy politics must have made into higher political arenas but, the questions remain.
One has also to remember that Government does not make revolutions, revolutions are always on the outside. So if you are a revolutionist, you are the opposite of government, you are the opposite of politics.
The idea of dynasty politics is perfectly flawed, and equally flawed and appaling is the politics of a single person running the show. This new entrance is also totally on singular person’s popularity and his charisma. It will go as long as the charisma can sustain. Our country never was able to garner a stronger democratic political setup, the internal democracy is almost absent. Those politicians who have shown promise on at least a basic level should ensure the internal democracy is applied and strengthened. It is a long and hard process, but the only possible working option.
This is all a game of cricket. The politicians play it, old ones retire, new ones come in, some play well, some doesn’t, Yet they all have only one target, to win. We (bureaucrats) do the umpiring. You all are the audience. Once in a while you try stopping the matches by throwing bottles and showing resentment, nevertheless the game continues!
May be, I rather give a better solution for the youth. Politics still are not for youth, as long as we think like youth. Try civil services if you are one of those who want to do ‘something’ for the country. It is a silent revolution., not within the government, but within the governance.
Use your anger with reasoning, Frustration with patience, Decision making with empathy, nationalism with regionalism. You can actually serve the nation better. With more committment and more satisfaction.
No country’s history is the same in hundred years. It will change, for better or for worse. Yet, I am hopeful. It will be for better.