Elections 2014 : a lesson from Mahabharat for indecisive minds

As we draw closer to the Lok Sabha Elections 2014, a lot of people still seem to be confused as to who deserves their vote. A new party raises its voice against corruption and enters into politics claiming itself to be honest, but soon loses its credibility. The ruling party tries to appear Honest, secular and pro-development but its track record speaks otherwise. The opposition's PM candidate though has a track record that speaks for itself, the party also has few members that face corruption charges. Other parties that aspire to rule the Nation as 3rd front, have their own closets full of skeletons. In short, no party is spotless. 

Those who plan to vote based on religion and caste, or for some other personal gains, have little confusion. Ignorance is bliss, right? And equally true is the corollary - 'He who increases knowledge, increases sorrows.'  The ones that know the true value of their vote and are aware of every party's blots are left disillusioned. The desire to find an 'ideal' party, with spotless track record and that can solve people's problems immediately, turns this disillusionment into utter confusion. Such 'aware' individuals are thus not able to pick a side. And even when they do, they don't let their choice spare anyone from their criticism. Blindly following any party is dangerous and Criticism is good...BUT timing is crucial. Most of such individuals fail to realise this.

This predicament reminds me of a story from Mahabharat -

The most powerful of all the warriors present at the beginning of the great war was Barbareek (बरबरीक). Barbareek, Grandson of Bheem and Son of Ghatotkach, after completing his education, had Promised his Guru that he would only fight for the weaker side in a battle, and so, in the beginning, he joined the Pandavas. Pandavas rejoiced while Kauravas were alarmed. But it was only Shree Krishna who was able to see what this really could lead to, and hence Barbareek was prevented from joining any side. Why was the most powerful warrior present at that time, who could have finished the war in matter of minutes, not allowed to join the war? because his promise to his Guru would not let him remain on one side. He would join the weaker side and kill warriors of the other side till the stronger side is now reduced to the weaker one. And so, he would again switch sides, till all are killed and only he remains. 

Powerful enough to change the course of the war, but too confused to pick a side and stick with it - Barbareek represents today's aware, disillusioned and confused individuals. Such enlightened minds are excellent when it comes to constructive criticism. But is this the right time for such discussions? 

Pick a side and join the battle.

Manish Tewari and Congress' silent revolution

After election commission's declaration of dates for the upcoming Lok Sabha elections, Just a few moments ago, I saw Congress spokesperson Manish Tewari giving his statement in Hindi saying -

"The 2014 elections are going to be fought between two ideologies. On one hand there is a party that has given sacrifices for the nation and its freedom, while on the other hand there is this party with a very narrow psyche and that believes in dividing people."...he further added,"Congress has brought a silent revolution in the country."

With that statement, I know, he was referring to Maun-Mohan Singh; And I couldnt agree more on this with Mr. Tewari. But how does the Congress party become a party that gave sacrifices for the nation? Was he talking about Nehru-Gandhi family's assassinated members? or was he referring to India's freedom struggle? In either scenarios, the claim is ridiculous. 

Did Congress, as Manish Tewari claims, sacrificed for India's freedom struggle? No! The Indian National Congress that fought for India's freedom was led by Mahatma Gandhi, and it was Mahatma Gandhi himself who wanted this party to be dissolved after India won its freedom. Also, to say India won its freedom only due to the efforts of INC will be a gross mistake, neglecting innumerable sacrifices of the brave revolutionaries and those Martyrs that did not agree with congress' ideology.

If Manish Tewari was referring to assassinations of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi...firstly, he is reiteration what Rahul Gandhi has been saying all along. Though I sympathise with him, their 'sacrifices' do not give their progeny the right to rule the nation. Especially, when the aspirant has no administrative experience and an IQ that has been laughed upon. Also, when did the Nehru-Gandhi family become the Party? My bad. We are talking about Congress here, which obviously is run by 'the family'. Secondly, let me remind the readers, it was the same Indira Gandhi that imposed emergency on the nation. She was only a step away from becoming a Dictator! (and by saying that, I'm not trying to justify her assassination.) Also, it does not suit to absolve Rajiv Gandhi of '84 anti-Sikh riots that claimed over 8,000 lives, while they keep hounding Narendra Modi for 2002 that were promptly controlled in 3 days time, but sadly with a loss of 1,044 lives (790 muslims and 254 Hindus). I hate to recall Rajiv Gandhi's famous words, "When a giant tree falls, the Earth shakes."

At best, Mr. Manish Tewari, the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections can be described as Dynasty Vs Development. Everything else is only votebank politics. 

Ghanta's reaction on Nawaz Sharif's 'Dehati Aurat' comment

NEWS: Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif called Manmohan Singh a 'Dehati Aurat'.

I really wish he could meet the dehati wives of the soldiers Martyred at LOC. If they ever get their hands of him, He'll not remain in a state to use this term in a derogatory manner for anyone ever!

If Manmohan Singh is Dehati Aurat, by using this term in a derogatory manner Nawaz Sharif proved that he aint Shareef at all!

The Irony is, when Nawaz Sharif called Manmohan Singh Dehati Aurat, only Narendra Modi spoke against it while Congress leaders chose to keep mum. 

I wonder, If pointing out the Truth that Pakistan has become epicenter for terrorism makes Manmohan Singh a Dehati Aurat; what should the Prime Minister of a country be termed that survives on the aid from USA for most of their needs?

In a rush while updating our status message, we by mistake termed Nawaz Sharif as President, which we regret. but in our defense..... 
Its extremely difficult to keep in mind who rules Pakistan - The President, The Prime minister, The Army, The mullah-Ulemas or the Jehadi Terrorist Organisations?