Like in the US (Democrats and Republicans) and the UK (Labour and Conservatives) a two party system does not offer too many choices. For example - Obama's strategy for American Imperialism and war is no different to that of his presidential predecessor. The Corporate houses who funded Bush and Obama are not dissimilar - this translates to their positions being identical. The policy-based differences in UK between the two national parties are equally thin.
A very plural - multi-party regional political system seems to be more representative. While it may not be more representative of the Urban Middle Class and Urban elite, it will be more representative of the 800 MILLION Indians who live on less than a dollar a day. We know that both the Manmohan Singh and Advani think-tanks have a bent towards the "Model" as designed and directed by the IMF, World Bank and WTO. With the complete collapse of this model in South America - it is obvious that such models will never work in an impoverished country like India.
Because the global corporatocracy cannot enforce these models covertly they now use direct force. e.g. Iraq. The best example is the introduction of Bechtel for the water supply system in Iraq after a majority of Public Sector employees were "sacked" by the occupying forces. Bechtel came to Iraq soon after being kicked out of Bolivia by the people for preventing rain water harvesting on the grounds of unfair competition and inflating the price of water by a factor of 300. Such sadly hilarious examples are numerous.
The continuous efforts of the media to create a two-party system in India is bewildering because of the undemocratic nature of such a system. Lastly, the media's approach to the budget and their lack of honest coverage of budget issues that affect 800 Million Indians is bordering on being obscene.
Equally alarming is this red paint job that media is engaged in with "Maoists". Calling the people in these district insurgents is like the American demand for Palestine to Lay Down arms before negotiating. This deliberate and pointed effort to create an illusion of "violence" and "insecurity" is to cloud the real issues. The real issues being lack of food, water, education and primary health care. "Maoists" seems to be the excuse for the government and media to oppress voices that can direct us to the real picture of this country. This environment is the perfect excuse for commericalising natural resources in the "red districts". It looks and smells like the Nigerian privatization moves on Oil.
Neither of the two parties has condemned or questioned the occupation of the NWFP in Pakistan by the US Army. It is known that the Intelligence Agencies and the Pakistan government are influenced by the US government and need the approval of the US government to survive. Sri Lanka and Pakistan have a massive refugee crisis on their hands. We are on the brink of a drought. Can we afford to focus on issues that only benefit corporate houses - do millions of other people not exists? We are being pushed by the media into a conflict with Pakistan who's government is nothing more than a puppet in the hands of the US. We need to be on the side of the people of Pakistan, not the government.
My questions are
- Other than Hindutva and the Gandhi family - how are the two parties different?
- What have these two parties done that has had a direct impact on the poorest of the poor in this country in the last 15 years?
- The revenues that the media generated in the US with the Obama effect was maddening. Is the Rahul Gandhi story of change any different? A well packaged pipe dream that is about as good as and as far from reality as an SRK film?
- The media is reduced to producing news that their advertisers want. (Fear, Insecurity, Violence - all targeted at the urban middle class with brand ambassadors such as Simir Grewal and Shobha De). This environment will allow corporate lobbyists to push "reform" through in the backdrop of confusion rooted in insecurity.