Why I’m Done with the Indian Political Class

Yes, I unequivocally stand by the title of this blog, “Why I’m Done with the Indian Political Class”.
 
I have always been an optimist, especially when it came to the progress of India; unfortunately, I was—and like many now are—deceived by the spin masters of the status quo. However, due to recent elections and further understanding of a prudent liberal democratic society, the state of India’s politics has conformed me into being a pessimist.
 
The actions of all the political players since the inception of the sovereign republic have made me disillusioned and worse—apprehensive towards the very notion that the nation could ever be democratic, equal, just, rationale, and pragmatic, rather than rogue and anarchic ideas that are extreme for nation-building—imperative is a zeitgeist that is inclusive, constructive, and progressive.
 
No politician inculcates the liberal democratic aptitude that a modern country in the 21^st century requires, let alone any political thinkers in academia who would add greater impetus to the large discourse—than to further see society under the lens of caste, color, religion, and gender—they are progressive and socialist only by thought; they believe that by making their nonsensical ideas encapsulated with confusing theories, it projects their intellectual prowess—no, it does not; the political thinkers, media, and other commentators are very much a part of the failed system.
 
Bluntly, all of the previously mentioned are the most influential surrogates of the failed system.
 
Plethora of times, I have consistently berated individuals who do not lend their support towards a particular political leader or a party as indecisive or ignorant. In contrast, the matter of fact is that I too was oblivious to come up with that very inconclusive and amateur conclusion.
 
My lamentation is not confined to a particular ideology, may it be left, right, or center; the ruling party or the opposition—all have played an equal role in deteriorating what India could have achieved by now—the status of a middle-income earning country, whereas not as a country of malaria, slums, abject poverty, lack of toilets, power, abysmal education, and an environment where most young individuals in the labor market are aspiring for a civil service job.
 
Principally, the political class has effectively and deliberately deviated itself from the founding document of the nation.
 
In the preamble of the constitution, it is stated as the following:
 
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA,
have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

The country is socialist for the rich, not the poor.
 
The country is contrary to secularism; in actuality, it has fermented religious nationalism and majoritarianism into the psychosis of most.
 
Besides the above two mentioned aspects, the most fundamental is the word “democratic.” What does it imply? For many, it serves its purpose through only the process of election.
 
Fine. The people are given choices, though what are those very choices? There are only two types of political formations: one is that of a party revolving around an individual in a cultish manner, and the second is that of a dynastic party—a family business. Both the latter and the former can synthesize simultaneously. 
 
This is the very reason why India is classified as an “electoral autocracy.”  Voters vote, but the winner at most times behaves as an autocrat.
 
Should a liberal democracy have to choose a person to lead the country just because they share the same family name as the former prime minister, a member of parliament, or even a municipal councilor?
 
The prevailing predicament is not of a liberal democracy. It is the antithesis of the very ideas and values bestowed upon by the constitution. Moreover, the country has metamorphosed itself from the era of kings and queens to contemporary feudalism. It seems to me the zeitgeist has not changed much. 
 
The Westminster Parliamentary system adopted by India has been exploited by its political functionaries; a parliamentary system is only effective if the political parties having representation follow internal democracy, which is not prevalent in India. Why even propagate it as the world’s largest democracy?
 
It is more like a farce.
 
The very same people who have benefited are the few in Lutyens Delhi—the sole proprietors of the party and the coterie, and sycophants—are the beneficiaries of the current feudal system.
 
The incompetence, buffoonery, and exploitation of the Indian mind will not end, only further increase, entrenching the country to further backwardness, illiberalism, anti-democratic tenacity, and the further rise of kleptocracy.
 
I will remain disillusioned unless the elected autocrats become practicing liberal democrats internally in their party (which is not happening in the distant future) and start fixing the roads, toilets, and adequate electricity. Falling prey to my own ill-conceived predilection; learning is a lifelong process, and I am glad that my eyes got opened before the inflection—of me myself being a downright apologist of dynasts and self-anointed politicians, now I am ossified by the perilous nature of the most fundamental pillar of a society, its politics, which is being led by a malignantly anti-democratic, illiberal, and opportunist political class. 
 
“The mistake is to assume that rulers who came to power through institutions cannot change or destroy those very institutions — even when that is exactly what they intend to do.”

— Timothy Snyder