The saga of RaGa

I think most people in India know what NaMo and RaGa mean. These are the brand names of two of the most famous national political figures Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi. Unprecedented branding of political figures started in India with the rise of Narendra Modi. Mr. Modi and his team aggressively developed his brand just like any other product, this started during his tenure as a chief minister of Gujarat. When that strategy worked superbly, every party started doing the same thing, no one could match the fire and force of the BJP for quite some time, but all are still trying and the RaGa brand is Indian National Congress's answer to BJP's NaMo brand. 

Rahul Gandhi belongs to the Nehru-Gandhi family. There is no doubt that one of the major reasons behind where he is today is the family to which he belongs. He recognizes it, acknowledges it and I don't think there is any doubt about the role his last name played in his political existence. But dynasty is not an uncommon thing, it is prevalent in many parts of the world and India is not an exception. It is common to see dynasties in Indian politics, business, or any other field where there is a scope to have a dynasty. In the Indian film industry, some dynasties are in their third or fourth generation, big corporations are run by families where top management consistently comes from the same family, and Indian mythological stories are full of dynasties. It is difficult to ignore the presence of dynasties in various fields including business, media, film, and politics. Dynasties are present in most political parties in India, the level and positions they occupy might be different in different parties, but they are there. This all is not to justify the rule of the dynasty but to show that the Nehru-Gandhi family is not the only dynasty in India, but it is the most famous one. I think Rahul got into politics out of compulsion rather than his own choice. His father, Late Rajiv Gandhi also got dragged into politics after the untimely death of his brother Sanjay and then the death of his mother Mrs. Indira Gandhi. Somehow the Indian National Congress feels the perpetual need to have someone from the Nehru-Gandhi family at the helm. Somehow the party and its workers feel safe and secure under their leadership. Many senior leaders acknowledge this thing and they feel it keeps the party united. This reasoning never made any sense to me, but this is what it is. 

Rahul didn't have a conventional upbringing, his uncle, grandmother, and father all died unnatural deaths. Two of them (grandma and father) were assassinated brutally by terrorists. He was very young when his grandma and father were assassinated. His mother was forced to enter politics and then he had to follow her. In the beginning, he was not even considered as a viable option. He was visibly uncomfortable during his political appearances. Congress party suffered humiliating loss after loss at the hands of BJP and other parties, and Rahul was projected as one of the reasons for these debacles. He was attacked for who he was (a Gandhi dynast), he was ridiculed as "Pappu," his lack of stage confidence, and fumbles during interviews were highlighted, his comments were edited so that they sounded utterly stupid, and eventually it was unimaginable for people to even compare Modi and Rahul. But, somehow he survived all these attacks from outside. The main reason was that no one within his party asked for his resignation due to all those failures. This is the advantage one gets when your position within the party is secure. There was absolutely no challenge to his position within his own party. He became president of the Congress party even though the party was not performing well in election after election. Recent victories in some state elections might justify his promotion and may turn his party's fortunes in another direction, and people might see him now as a national leader who can challenge Mr. Modi. But, this is too early to predict any such thing, and Rahul has a lot to prove before he can present himself as a serious contender for the prime minister's position. Actually, the BJP helped him a lot by constantly attacking him and ridiculing him, they always kept him relevant for some reason, they used him as a punching bag and it seems that the punching bag punched them back really bad. In the same way, the Congress party helped Mr. Modi to gain prominence on the national stage by attacking him relentlessly. I am not judging Rahul's political acumen and capabilities, he needs more time to prove himself. I was purely drawn to his story because of his unique background and his roller-coaster political journey. As I already mentioned there is no doubt that he got many privileges and advantages just because he was born in a particular family, but for the same reason, his life took many unexpected turns and presented him with unique challenges. It will be interesting to see his future progression. 

I had very high expectations from Mr. Modi's government. After all, the BJP secured a single-party majority under his leadership and this government had a golden opportunity to introduce some reforms which only a single-party majority government could implement in a country like India. However, instead of focusing on that, he focused all his attention on conquering all states of India. Let's see how RaGa compares to NaMo as far as delivering reformative governance is concerned. I am happy to see that at least Rahul is not talking about eliminating BJP from India. The presence of strong opposition is necessary for any democracy to be vibrant and functioning. I wish both brands RaGa and NaMo deliver what they claim, and people hold them accountable for their promises and not get blinded by their glitter and glamor. If this doesn't happen, then the same old musical chair circus will continue without much change in governance, RaGa and NaMo brands might become successful, but brand India will fail and I don't think any right-minded Indian would like to see this happen.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

Me Too - easy to mock, but difficult to understand

Sexual harassment is a serious issue. This is a widespread problem in each and every country around the world. It would be really naive to assume that it is more prevalent in developed countries where women participate more in the workforce compared to developing or undeveloped countries. Also, this problem is more prevalent than one can imagine. We underestimate it because traditionally many behaviors were not recognized as harassing, for many centuries societies around the world ignored such harassing behaviors or accepted them under some lame justifications like "boys will be boys."  Patriarchy and chauvinism not only sheltered such behavior but also legitimized it and generations were raised believing that this was a part of social male-female interaction in a male-dominated society.  Now, before anyone points it out, let me make it clear that this is not a gender-specific problem, men also get sexually harassed, but women are at the receiving end of this type of harassment in disproportionately high numbers and one can confirm this by checking the data.

When the "Me Too" movement started and many women started openly talking about the sexual harassment they faced, societies got rattled. It was totally unexpected and not a very comfortable situation for them to see the elephant in the room being addressed so openly and directly. I am sure most women knew that this problem existed but somehow we accepted it as a part of the day-to-day ordeal of being a woman. Many famous and not-so-famous people got exposed for their predatory and harassing behavior, this is how it caught the media's attention. The "Me Too" movement became viral on the internet and was in the news all over the world. Now, like any other movement, some will try to misuse it, but this problem is not unique to Me Too, that's the nature of our society. Any law or popular movement is always misused by a few people, and I don't think Me Too will be an exception. Misuse by a few people cannot be a reason to question the legitimacy of any social transformation. But the way this movement got ridiculed from its start, especially in India was not a very good sign. I was tired of reading so many messages on WhatsApp making fun of Me Too and questioning the motives of women who chose to come forward with these allegations. The messages were so many that it was not easy to ignore them, for a few weeks it seemed like it became a favorite time pass on WhatsApp, especially for men. 

First of all, it takes immense courage to share any such thing publicly knowing that nothing might come out of this except ridicule, humiliation, and character assassination. Second, the kind of publicity you get after coming out is not always desirable, one can look at the way most of the victims were treated. Would any of us like to be in that situation? And lastly, for all people who ask the question, why now? Why not when it happened? Please try to understand the vulnerability, and social and personal situation of the victim before passing any judgments. Many harassment or discrimination incidents are exposed much later than the time when they actually happen. The main reason for this is that normally the victims are suppressed and not in a position to raise their voices when they face such incidents, they fear serious repercussions for their personal and professional lives and prefer to keep quiet. Normally the victim and their harasser have disproportionately different professional standings and harassers take advantage of it. This is not a failure to report by the victim but as a society, it is our failure to provide them with an atmosphere where they feel comfortable in reporting such incidents. 

I just have one request, before being judgemental about any victim of any harassment or discrimination please try to understand their situation at the time the incident happened with them. If you can, I am sure you will be empathetic towards their plight and offer them all the support and help they need. At the same time, we must acknowledge that it is everyone's right to express their opinion, no matter what it is. No one should be penalized just for expressing their opinion no matter how offensive we might feel that opinion is. It is important to offer criticism whenever we see anyone misusing any movement or law, this is necessary to keep the legitimacy of such social movements intact. Mocking any social movement like Me Too without understanding it is very easy, the difficult part is to try to understand the intricacies of such a movement and relate to the victim's plight. The choice is always ours.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.