Kiran Kumar Reddy, as the Chief Minister, has been a puzzle of sorts. His becoming a Chief Minister itself was a big surprise. People who know him wonder, how did he convince the ‘high command’. Many did not know about his existence, before he became the Chief Minister. The most visible position of his being the Speaker of the Assembly, not many knew him. A loner at best, he is not known to inspire and motivate any following. Visitors came away unimpressed. They were neither impressed by his acumen, his knowledge, nor his demeanour. He is not a haughty person, but also does not have a ‘warm’ personality. He would not know how to respect, how to shower affection to the elderly and young. Does he suffer from inferiority complex? Probably yes, but one is not sure. Commoners who met him to solve their critical problems did not find him helpful.
Pundits have observed that he did not have administrative experience, in running a government. He was never a Minister. He did not even steer the Congress party. He was confined to his constituency. Locals in constituency mention that he is not known to be an endearing MLA. His standing all along was that he is the son of an erstwhile big personality. In the political geography of Rayalaseema, where families dominate certain constituencies, he belongs to one of those. But, his kind of personality, how did he manage to be a MLA for so long. Is it a comment on the Rayalaseema political culture, or on his abilities? Observing his performance as a Chief Minister, one would not bet on his abilities. In the beginning most thought, he does not know how to clear files, and at the fag end of his tenure as CM, everyone was aghast at the speed with which the files were moving. Even a daring personality such YSR did not dare so much.
It is another discussion, why Rayalaseema political spectrum does not enable political competition, even against such personalities, leave alone stronger dictators.
For me, looking at the past three Chief Ministers, all of whom belong to Rayalaseema, except for brief period held by Rosaiah, he comes as a distant cross between Chandrababu Naidu and Y. S. Rajashekhara Reddy. He believed in very few people. He has some traits of adamancy, and he has cunningness to cover up his weaknesses. The usual coterie that surrounded him, as a power centre, did not know how to deal with him. He did display childish behaviour even as a Chief Minister, a behaviour not defined by innocence, but of foolishness. Raising hands, while boarding the bus, in Andhra Bhavan, before going for dharna at jantar mantar being on such instance. After every such act, he displays that expression of ‘cocking a snook’, which infuriates a onlooker. He most probably relishes ridicule more than praise.
Probably stemming out such foolishness, he chose to portray himself as a champion of United Andhra. Without a follower before he became a Chief Minister, one wondered why he chose to defy the high command. This is the same high command, which enabled him to become Chief Minister. Otherwise, he would be generations away from being a Chief Minister. People did not believe him. So much so, they thought he was playing a game, or a drama, at the behest of the high command. Such a comment, to me, means even his passion is not believable. Is it a problem of expression, communication or language? In Congress, where cut throat competition exists, how did he manage without such basic political skills? Ofcourse, he is not alone in lacking such skills. There are other politicians, who equally lack such skills.
Post bifurcation approval by the Parliament, he went back to becoming a loner again, abandoned by cronies – pretty fast, going by the media reports. Albeit, the only change before and after being the CM seems to be the raise in his fortunes, thanks to family support. When one spans the AP political scenario, where personalities such as Chandrababu Naidu, Kalvakuntla Chandreshekhar Rao and Jaganmohan Reddy are struggling, one would wonder whether Kirankumar Reddy would be able to match them as the head of a political party. If Congress did not want to take action against him, knowing his weight, or lack of it, which politician worth his salt would add weight to his efforts? When people can’t believe his passion, with best of the communication resources at his disposal, it would be interesting to see how he would make others believe in him amidst a political war, nearer to the elections. However, I would not write a epitaph on his political career, if he survives a ‘vigilance’ assault under the Governor’s rule. He is probably destined for some darker days. If he has an iota of political shrewdness, he would lie low, and would not fritter away the only resources he accumulated to negotiate for better times.
Realisation of Telangana State is a joy for many. Tenacity, perseverance and grit of many individuals, organisations and people did play a significant role in the formation of Telangana State. There is no doubt about it. Leadership of Kalvakuntla Chandrashekhar Rao in steering Telangana Rashtra Samiti through various phases is appreciated by friends and foes. Today, a section of Telanganaites rever him so much that they started comparing him Mahatma Gandhi. Telangana Mahatma, Father of Telangana are being used.
Many would vouch for his political shrewdness, and would acknowledge him as a wily man. More than a decade back, he was ridiculed for his idea to bring Telangana through electoral politics. He held extensive discussions on the strategies required for demerger of Telangana State. His view then was that Telangana State can be formed only by making it a political and electoral issue. And, then later, after formation of Telangana Rashtra Samithi, time and again and much later, he had repeatedly said TRS has been formed only to realise Telangana State. KCR had also announced time and again in various meetings that any other issue can be discussed only after the formation of Telangana State. I particularly remember when his visited a village downstream of Hyderabad, which was affected by polluted water flowing in Musi river. He promised them that after Telangana formation, he would solve it. Villagers were not happy, as it has become a life and death situation for them. Yet, KCR kept on ‘postponing’ discussions and debates on possible solutions for many issues at various places across Telangana. Ofcourse, he also started promising a dream land of bliss, comfort and employment. He carefully avoided issues of potential intra-Telangana conflict. With the formation of Telangana, his position on various issues would become critical. And, such positions would also decide upon his status, as a visionary or ordinary person.
Telangana realisation was because of various contributions starting with the sacrifices made by youth (in the form of suicide, agitations and foregoing of their careers), involvement of different organisations and individuals, and the firmness displayed by Smt. Sonia Gandhi. From July, 2013, starting with the CCW resolution, a number of hurdles have been created in the formation of Telangana State. It was only because of Smt. Sonia Gandhi, who had repeatedly assured that CWC resolution has to be implemented, since this decision came after consultations and approvals from various sections and political parties. Final step, in the formation of Telangana State, was possible only because of this grit, displayed by Smt. Sonia Gandhi. While there cannot be any comparison on whose contribution was what, how much and at what cost, either qualitatively or quantitatively, every contribution needs to be acknowledged for whatever it may have been.
There would be endless debates on such contribution. KCRs contribution is also being discussed. This reminds us of the discussion of Mahatma Gandhi’s role in bringing independence to India. However, the big issue, in the aftermath of the formation of Telangana State, is how and what form this acknowledgement can be. Expectations would be there, no doubt. A ‘blank cheque’ realisation of this contribution, in terms of whatever expectations can be, may not be possible. However, sacrifices need to be acknowledged. For example, a family of youth who committed suicide, demanding Telangana State, can be rehabilitated as per their need and ability, to the extent that they can lead their life normally, happily and contented. So is the case with every contribution. Politics over Telangana ‘freedom fighters’ would be a major emotional issue. Selective and/or partial acknowledgement would give scope for fissures and heart burn.
With KCR himself leading a surge for acknowledgement, it remains to be seen how and to what extent he would be able to satisfy these demands for acknowledgements. Would they be limited to words, symbols, higher social status or personal economic gains, etc.?
KCR had at one stage, sensing the difficulties in the separation, especially thinking that there is a political obstacle, had announced that TRS would be merged with Congress. He had repeated this ‘offer’ several times, in response to apprehensions about sharing of political gains, after the formation of Telangana State. Then, it was considered as a brilliant political stroke. There was no hint of any pre-conditions in this offer. But, post-Bill, merger of TRS with Telangana Congress seems to be in trouble. There are reports there is a section of TRS is opposed to such merger. And, KCR is not yet decided on unconditional merger. Delay, in either alliance or merger, would not augur well for both parties and can change the politics from bonhomie to bitterness.
In 2004, when TRS and Congress had entered into alliance, and TRS has reaped a few MLA seats, many people thought this is a beginning for a more united push towards Telangana. However, KCR by his intemperate language has missed an opportunity of becoming a Statesman, then. Probably, a conciliatory, strategic approach might have prevented Y. S. Rajashekhar Reddy’s influence in Telangana, and created an positive atmosphere for Telangana formation, much before than 2014.
No one can disagree that on the eve of elections, especially after formation of Telangana State, various aspirations have to be reconciled. Conflicting and contradictory claims have to be responded to. At various levels, expectations have to be met. Political jostling for a chance to serve the people of Telangana has already begun. In this situation, instead of playing a role of Statesman, KCR seems to be veering towards a partisan role and serving narrow interests.
Reconstruction of Telangana and sustainable development of Telangana is possible, when all political forces align themselves to the aspirations of the people. This is not easy, ut not impossible either. A leader of a party, which has announced itself as an agitational party, has the work cutout for himself. KCR should play the role of a Statesman and shun the role of a sectional leader. He has that mandate, given by an admiring crowd of Telangana enthusiasts. His name would be permanently etched in the memory of Telangana, if and if he plays that role. He should no longer see himself as the President of one party.
Not just KCR, political leaders who wanted change because power was not with Telangana people, should transform themselves into statesmen, and enable growth of honest, committed and visionary youth in the political spectrum. Negotiations, reconciliations, acknowledgment and responsiveness can be built into political system, if all Telangana politicians shed their personal interests.
An equitable, justiciable, democratic political platform can help in enabling progress and development of Telangana. Current political trends are a cause of concern. While the geography has been redefined, political trends seem to have not changed. Class and caste should not be the primary factors of political games. If so, the atmosphere gets vitiated. Social change is possible with a joint commitment for structures of political, social and economic empowerment. Political parties alone cannot be the harbingers of such change. Political culture has to change, which means either current crop of politicians have to reform themselves, or a new crop of political enthusiasts have to replace them. KCR with his current status in Telangana political geography can set such an example. His political acumen and strategies need to be channelized into creating a broader, acceptable and ‘native’ form of political culture.
Support from civil society and media in such efforts would be helpful, as well.
Finally, there is a huge doubt in the context of the above, whether this policy would help in more landless becoming land owners (if not all), and contributing more land for food production. If these two objectives are in doubt, then what is this policy for?
As persons associated with many struggles to protect lakes, against pollution in Hyderabad, we often wondered who bothers about the status of Hyderabad. We always were concerned whether there is ownership. We scanned different sections of Hyderabad. Residents of old city of Hyderabad, or pre-1956 city, are poor and are not in a position to alter the looks and status of Hyderabad. Many residents in basthis, slums and poorer residential areas live on the banks of nalas, tank beds and Musi beds struggle to maintain status quo, leave alone participate in growth programmes or situation correction programmes of Hyderabad city. These people may be many, more than 40 percent, and may have been the original residents, or may have migrated from different parts of the country, and the State of Andhra Pradesh. Their daily grind does not give them any scope for dreaming about the city. They might as well dream about a decent house, with water, toilet and road facilities, and higher access to educational facilities. And, most importantly, steady incomes from sustained sources of employment. They would not have wherewithal, internally or externally, to think of pollution-free and various other hazards-free environment in Hyderabad. Maybe they think, but are not in a position to have a say, or change the status-quo.
Ofcourse, the upper echelons of social hierarchy in the city have the influence and necessary resources to change Hyderabad. But do they want to change, or did they change. However, what is their contribution to Hyderabad’s dirt and clean atmosphere? We all know that automobile pollution is largely because of large number of personal vehicles, and growing number of cars. There is also enough data to support that these classes use water irresponsibly, and waste lot of water, by extracting large amounts of ground water and public water supplies. Thus, their contribution to the sewer flows is disproportionate to their numbers, and payments to water and sanitation services. Road usage is also more by these class of people, in terms of occupying them for more time and space. Their contribution to the growing mountains of solid waste remains unchallenged. Just the quantity, quality might be debatable. City investments, if any on basic facilities of water, sanitation, roads, electricity, etc., are all geared to meet the demand from these classes. But, do they feel they own Hyderabad? Their ownership, pride, or whatever related synonym, is disproportionately lesser to the benefits and facilities enjoyed by them as residents of Hyderabad. We have not seen them participating in any of the struggles to improve living environment of Hyderabad. Nor, they responded to actions that have deteriorated ecology and environment. It could be destruction of lakes, parks, watershed basins, ground water reservoirs, rocks, heritage structures, trees, footpaths, etc.
Layers and layers of migrating families, and individuals, have come here. More are likely to come. What motivates them to come to this city? Many studies have established that they come for income, employment and comforts. When do these migrants start feeling that they own this city? Is it after making/buying a home? Does the number of years of living influence such thinking? Or, achievement of their goals, when they came to this city, helps them in developing a feeling of ‘ownership? Often, migrants who have nothing to back to build such affinity, but not those who have links with the place they come from.
The question comes back who owns Hyderabad? Let us examine this question with a concrete example. Who feels bad about living with a polluted Hussainsagar, Musi river becoming a gutter and smoky, dusty road corridors of Hyderabad? Maybe, many, if not all the residents. But, then who takes the initiative of doing something about it? If there is threat to a religious place, we often find so many rolling up their sleeves, even if they are unconnected to that place. If a person meets an accident, how many do respond quickly and appropriately? Maybe a few, but not many. Such kind of responses, or lack of such responses, is what established the ownership.
However, in the aftermath of State bifurcation announcement, suddenly we find so many claimants to Hyderabad. In fact, the claim is ownership, nothing less. I was surprised to find youth who probably never set foot on Hyderabad, including school children, who might have seen Hyderabad only their television screens, claiming ownership of Hyderabad. It is fine, if the real estate investors are worried and want to claim their right over Hyderabad, and not just lands, for fear of wipeout of their investments. But, then why people unconnected to Hyderabad claim it? Are they the would-be migrants? In anticipation of their migration to Hyderabad, and fearing that their migration may not be possible, these youth and their parents want to claim ownership. How do they do it? They claim past investments as their money.
Leaving the concerns and fears of would-be migrants, and settled migrants, there are many claimants to the glory of Hyderabad. These claimants include a regional political party, the democratically accepted leader of that political party, many businessmen, and a few real estate dealers-cum-political leaders. Chandra Babu Naidu has gone ahead and said only he has brought glory to Hyderabad, and has built monuments during his tenure. A tall claim indeed. Even if one accepts these ‘ownership’, one should also wonder do they claim ownership to the growth of dirty side of Hyderabad as well?
Not many would know that hi-tech city, in and around Madhapur, with famous, infamous and glass buildings, has only 14 percent sanitation coverage, while old city with four times the same population has almost 80 percent. Deaths and debilitation due to infectious, water-borne diseases have grown in Hyderabad, in the last 15 years, because of improper sanitation and polluted drinking water. Is there any ownership to such situation as well? Is there a 360 degree ownership? Or just the brighter side of Hyderabad?
In fact, during the peak of Telangana agitation, there were many comments and opinions that Hyderabad is dying. If it was dying, why are there claimants still?
Is there governance in Andhra Pradesh? Is the government working? These questions have become repetitive. All party discussions, involving ‘beneficiaries’ and ‘losers’, does not help in improving our understanding. A common refrain on a commoner’s lips has been that government does not respond, come what may. Not new; it has been like this for the past 14 years. The big indicator everyone agrees upon is the pile of files. But those in the government would contest this. They would say look at our schedule. We are busy. True, they are so busy in meetings solving people’s problems, that they do not have time to listen to people themselves, who are their office door.
In this regard, we need to look at the initiatives of three distinct individuals as Chief Ministers – Chandrababu Naidu, Y. S. Rajashekhara Reddy and N. Kiran Kumar Reddy. All the three have one thing in common. They matter the most in the governance. Cabinet and Ministers in the Cabinet, senior or junior, did not matter. They kept every official busy, but could not avoid this question: is there governance at all?
All the three crafted programmes such as Prajala Vaddaku Palana, Raccha Banda, Indiramma Kalalu, etc., which enabled them to be in the limelight. But all these programmes were not meant to solve the problems, rather to swamp the people and get away leaving them bewildered. Mannerisms, methods, deployed boogey’s, etc. are different, but the culture is the same and espoused by them thoroughly.
Media personnel, and their ‘supportive’ intellectuals, do know that government is indeed working. Chief Minister’s office in Hyderabad had become a files godown. Files are moving. They would move only after certain background mechanisms start creaking. So much so, even Ministers and MLAs have been reduced to depend on these mechanisms. Each of the CMs have/had their distinct mechanisms – the biggest and most daring mechanism was that of YSR. Wheels within wheels. Ultimately, all wheels have to churn out the same – a favourable decision. Individuals have changed in the last 14-15 years, but the path of governance remains the same.
Decisions are taken only by the Chief Minister, based on files prepared by a small office. This small office (size varied with each CM), had the onerous task of organizing meetings, hammering out consensus among competitors, framing the proposals as per law, or as per needs, and putting it for final stamp from the CM. All other decisions, social welfare, transfers, pensions, doling out occasional handout to a destitute (old, woman, differently-abled) are mere fillers for public consumption, ably played out by the ever present media. A few media persons always know who is visiting the CMs peshi for what purpose and what kind of discussions are going on. But they are part of the crony system. Occasionally a story comes out when the rival lobby wants the story out simply to pressure upon a favourable point. All in all, top echelons of every pillar of democracy know what is happening in the name of governance. But people and citizens are not aware of it.
In the age of ‘right to information’, under the very nose of ever vigilant RTI activists, only one office keeps working, and has been working. No doubt, there is all round reluctance to sign GOs, confusion over GOs, schemes are announced without the cabinet knowing it, Cabinet Ministers get busy with their ‘business’ enterprises since they do not have any work to do, most Cabinet meetings are about the contents and approvals in various files, and not on any development vision, most MLAs (including Opposition MLAs) sit in CM’s office and get things done from such hallowed precincts, and a small clutch of individuals would decide, and most possibly override constitutional bodies such as Legislature, local governments, Auditing office, etc.
Chief Secretary cannot even whimper, forget protesting, because they are ‘pulled’ from lower rung, fulfilling their dream earlier than they would have expected. Ministers are satisfied that they are in the Cabinet (with all the paraphernalia and perks). Otherwise, there is always another MLA, from the rival group, for the Chief Minister to chose. Crumbs are always available for representatives of all other pillars of democracy.
Only courts are the last recourse, and, that is why we see more IAS and IPS officers approaching courts for decision, while procedures and rule-based system are lying at the door-step of the Chief Minister’s office.
About a decade back, media columnists used to write furiously if there was any smell of Governor’s rule. Opposition would be up in arms. They would have said ‘democracy is being killed’ by such rule, single person’s rule. However, in the last 14 years or so, it has been only Chief Minister’s rule, a single person dictating, directing, participating, signing, approving, laughing, thundering, receiving and issuing orders, requests, applications and budget releases. All others including the mighty Ministers, respectable IAS and IPS officers, merely penning and following this one person’s rule. Yet, there is no protest or struggle against this system.
What kind of an example is this? A future, ‘democratic’ Chief Minister would find the entire administration tuned to this ‘sham’ful procedures obnoxiously binding him. Roshaiah, almost had a choke, after the abrupt departure of YSR, in avoiding this set-up. Not that he was any angel. It was simply beyond him to operate like this. Dismantling it might be easier, but the culture cannot be worn off easily. Fortunately, for ‘thus’ accultured elite, Kiran Kumar Reddy has become a savior.
The big surprise is how this is continuing when Congress is in power. TDP had no choice because CBN was the only person who could scale and stay on the hillock. Congress at the State level is not known to encourage such single person dominance. But times have changed it seems. Power lobbies seem to have decided to continue the ‘zero’ procedure approach. It is so cosy for everyone. There is no dictatorship, to given any ruse for protest. There is perfect democracy. Everyone in their own place, understanding each other’s weaknesses and strengths. A fine balance achieved.
The most worrisome aspect is this is not changing, despite Ministers and officials being in the dock, for toeing CM’s rule, in the courts in recent months. If courts can’t change, elections can’t change, what can change this pernicious culture of governance?
In India, the world’s largest democracy, a large number of people do not get to vote in the elections. Many of those who have a vote do not want to punch their choice on the EVM. Due to geographical reasons, many villages and settlements remain outside this process.
But in recent years, we are seeing more efforts to ensure the participation of NRIs in the Indian election process. The Prime Minister promised this at an NRI forum meeting. Many political parties also are keen. Why?
NRIs in the last 15 years have become a major source of funds for almost all political parties. They arrange lecture tours, provide hospitality and funds. If they become voters, it would change the political scenario. Most NRIs having been exposed to foreign culture, including political culture and would influence the agenda of the political parties to suit their interests. Politics of local resources are not of interest to them, because they do not need them. NRIs would be a constituency without a obligation.
Seizing such an opportunity, Nationalist Congress Party has started a company, NCP Inc in the US. Two cabinet Ministers, Mr. Sharad Pawar and Mr. Praful Patel, flew to US to be present on the occasion. They assured the audience that they would use their ‘good’ offices to get any work done. NCP Inc, it was declared, was established to help business interests in US with lobbying services in India. A complaint was filed about this, before the Election Commission, with no result.
All political parties seem to be interested in developing a new constituency to tilt the electoral prospects. NRI participation would lead to a serious blow to the domestic political process, undermining the efforts of public struggles for positive and growth-oriented public policies. As it is, disadvantaged sections of society, especially tribals, farmers, handloom weavers, primary small producers, small-scale industry units, are all facing difficulties in including their concerns and aspiration in the policy agenda. Any unorganised group, whose voting pattern may not be uniform, is not responded to by any political party. All political parties respond to ‘suits and suitcases’.
In this scenario, we should be very worried about the factor of NRIs, who do not understand the politics related to various issues in India, especially those related to natural resource ownerships.
Change is inevitable. Socio-economic changes are expected. But then who would welcome the change and who would not? Obviously, those who benefit from a particular moment of time would not want the change. They would resist the change. Or, people who are afraid that they may be at a loss would resist change.
Formation of Telangana State is a desire and aspiration of many sections of people – across religion, caste and class. Yet, there are sections who want the status-quo – no change. History is replete with examples where resistance to change beyond a point is not possible. For this reason, people who resist change would want ‘static change’. Static change is a change, which ensures the continuation of the benefits, yet allows for change. Some may view this as middle ground, negotiated position, consensus, win-win situation, etc. It might happen as well. But a static change is questioned, if not now, but later. This later can be anytime, depending on the growth of socio-political consciousness.
Congress, with regard to Telangana, in the backdrop of economic reforms, is in a situation where they do not want change, which can add another hurdle in their progress towards ‘wealth accumulation’ through PPP and inclusive growth. They do not want to lose power. They want change – but on their own terms. But, Telangana movement is forcing them to take a decision towards change. Naturally, mid-way course is to enable static change.
TDP wants change. They want to come back to power. But, in a State of status-quo. However, it may not be possible, without political factors that can derail Congress bandwagon. Hence, the two-eye and two-hand theory. While the ‘big boss’ has fixed, two-eye, stern gaze, TDP hands would work for and against Telangana demand, with perfect aplomb, without batting any eye-lid. They would be happy with status-quo with change – that is static change.
All other parties would like to help themselves with the change, in terms of money and power. They would maintain a ‘fixed’ distance with the positions of main political parties. It would equi-distant, even if there is a ‘swing’ in the positions of the main political parties. For this reason, wherein their positions are determined on a comparative basis, they would also want static change. The spoilsports in this game of change are two parties – TRS and YSRC. Both are strong and vulnerable. One is brash and the other is young. Both have cobwebs in their cupboards. Anyday, these ‘vulnerabilities’ can be used to enable static change.
Amidst all these, media is shamelessly discussing who gains and who loses, politically. To my knowledge, at no time, before, political gains have been declared so openly. This brings us to the earlier discussion, in this TSR blog, by Mr. Prasad Rao, ‘politicisation of voter’. Discussion on political options before political parties ‘sanctifies’ the greed, misuse of power and encouragement of evil. If the government of India is discussing Telangana issue in terms of what are the gains and losses for Congress party and we accept this as the ‘legitimate’ agenda, easily the change desired by the Telangana people would be in the danger becoming a “static change”.
Struggles of the people, in Telangana, and in other places by farmers, handloom weavers, tribals and dalits, is about a change, which helps them in participating in the decisions of the democratic institutions. They want participation in the decisions which impact them. Power to the people was enshrined in the Constitution, but have been side-stepped in various ways. Gram-swaraj, local governments, 73rd and 74th amendments were some of the initiatives, which offered sustainable participatory mechanisms. Formation of State followed a logic, immediately after Independence. But this logic is questioned because the other additional mechanisms have been successfully rooted out. Unfortunately, only two fundamental units of power are State and Central governments. Eventually, with Direct Tax Code, CENVAT, BRAI, Seed, Mining, Land acquisition and many other legislations are going to take away the autonomy of the State governments, if not done already. Intensification of federal structure is happening.
Status-quoists in various forms, at various levels, in various places, are resisting the struggles of the people, using the very same democratic institutions and principles, which helped them in continuing discrimination and exploitation. Multitudes of young people, who are also beneficiaries of this system of exploitation, are carried away by attractions and one-line logics. Resistance to real change is likely to lead to confrontation, contestation and violence. Younger generation status-quoists are fed on the nation-state philosophy. One would wonder how formation of a new State affects national integration. But, then status quo and the logic to maintain status-quo would come up with more stranger logics, in the days to come. Not that they are new – old wine in a new bottle. We all know the illogical rationality of the colonial British.
Violence on the advocates of ‘real’ change is under-exposed and not understood easily, while the struggle for change itself gets projected as violence and disturbance to the existing fabric. Political parties, neo-liberal government leaders and the ‘wealth accumulators’ work in tandem to dilute the conditions for real change. We need to be cautious about this.
Obviously, in the ultimate sense, one may see a decision, which can be termed as win-win (to benefit every ‘power’ voice), but then one needs to see whether such an outcome would change relations of power between haves and have-nots. If not, the struggle would continue, until the ‘real change’ happens.