Skip to main content

Battles closer home

The Bengal elections have ratified that despite massive inputs and involvements, raising a regional party against an incumbent govt. It is not one of the most straightforward tasks. This highlights the dynamics of regional and national politics in India, especially regarding geographic specifications and whether the BJP expansionist strategy needs a sanity check. The earliest signs of this defiance were spotted when the state of Odishavoted simultaneously fore MLA and MP candidates. It was the first time people were choosing candidates from two different ( and conflicting ) parties, clearly portraying a choice concerning the role, not allegiance. 

To start with, BJP had its prominence in the Hindi heartland of UP, MP and Rajasthan before it became a national alternative. The first few stints, which came from the NDA, saw active partners like Shiv Sena, JDU, BJD, AIDMK and, ironically, TMC. In this stage, the opportunity for a right-aligning Hindu-biased vote bank developed, which the party later used. However, the role of NDA partners in keeping regional affairs at bay has eroded the NDA memory.

After the victories in 2014 and 2019, BJP has extended its foothold across numerous states, with the ambition of an influence that the INC once commanded. But unlike INC, it has had to run into its friends and battle the likes of JDU in Bihar, and Shiv Sena in Maharastra, whose dedicated vote bank was once that of NDA. 

In other states like Odisha, West Bengal and Kerala, the strategy had been to collect faces from the regional battleground, which isn't in coordination with the incumbent government. Add a few bench sitters and push the wagon with massive central pomp. Although it makes a beautiful ready-made recipe for a regional wing on paper, the reality proves otherwise. This brings us to the initial question.

Is national propaganda enough for a regional caravan to sail the tides of state concerns and affairs? 

Popular posts from this blog

Politics of Perpetuity

There are obvious downsides to democracy. When we look at the distribution of opinion on a particular issue, it generally follows a normal distribution. This implies that to achieve the majority, it's theoretically advised to stick to the centre. And this love for mediocrity makes democracy allergic to politically solid decisions.  Along with it, democracies tend to be the rooster for sweet talkers. And that is an outcome rather than a voluntary trait. Primarily because most voters need to be equipped to deal with the complexities of the field. For example, it could be more practical for an electrical engineer to comprehend medical patterns and the pandemic's effect on production. Thus, democratic institutions need people managers who have two keywords to watch out for - sweet talking and status quo. However, democracies have been hugely popular. And people have reported being happier. Whether this is induced, indoctrinated or influenced is another question. But history has cho...
dive in...

The Theatre Era

As tough times await us, it's frivolous to talk about theatres. But doesn't it look like theatres would go out of fashion before the pandemic ends( But would it ?? ) With the footfall on OTT platforms rising daily. Looking at a screen stuck to the chair, with no ability to pause or even play subtitles, sounds so technologically inferior. The blockbuster release has increasingly been  generously funded , mega-multi-starrer films, which keep running sequels until they go unprofitable . In fact, content is sometimes the second priority; the fan base and the festive season come first. Over the years, movie houses have mastered this art. Roping in top actors into characters that have gone synonymous with their name. The OTT platforms, however, are earmarked for the content. Their promise to give a shot to the aspiring director who doesn't have funds to compete against the mult-million movie releases. Thus i n its cast and crew shines the raw, untamed art which any critic would b...
dive in...

What if "Maggus" don't have a choice ?

There are two possible reasons for stopping by this post; you happened to be among those hard-working study-serious college-goer who lament not being perceived as fun by his/her peers. Or you have a soft spot for these people, striving to pay off the debt from when he single-handedly completed your group project. There could be a hundred other reasons, so let's jump into the matter. Let's construct a scenario with simplified assumptions. Suppose there are 5 students in your project team. Each of you has decided whether you want to work or not. If you decide to work, you must put in an effort of value "e". The project will be possible if at least 3 of the students participate. A successful project rewards everyone in the team "r", which is greater in value than "e". So what do you think will happen. Let's assume that each of you is rational (which secretly implies you will maximise your personal gain whenever possible). Will all five contribute ...
dive in...