There was a time, years, decades back, when
none cared about Tripura elections; until recently. Be it anything in
the North-East - > elections or celebrations or riots; everything went
unheard somehow, until recently; that today, even the by-polls are 24/7 discussed
by the mainstream, citing national implications. Thus, seems the philosophical
minds of North-East+ (be it Assam or Tripura or Manipur or the rest)
wanted someone to bring their issues to Delhi (not to be merely heard but also
to be resolved), and thus elected accordingly; not ending up
philosophically contradicting themselves!
When Delhiites
(influenced by both Punjabis & Haryanvis) voted AAP, it was bit baffling, as why a showy state (rumors say so) would vote -> AAP? And this confusion got amplified when Punjab elected AAP too. Why? The rumors were that the inception of AAP was on the foundation of chants against the likes of Ambani, Adani, Capitalism, being Anti-Money; yet Delhiites & Punjabis from Punjab contradicted themselves philosophically by electing the absolute opposite viz. AAP?Tamilians/Dravidians technically
weren’t philosophically in contradiction with themselves, as they’ve
always elect(ed) the ones who’ve supported their own State Tamil Nationalist
movement.
The Hindi belt of North
India is also philosophically not in contradiction with themselves,
because, instead of being in favour of any state-level sectarian
nationalism; they’ve favoured only nationalism (as a whole bharat);
& from there, bifurcating themselves to being right or liberal
(modern liberalism included); unlike seen in South India, which being
embracing more state level nationalism. (Except in case of Punjab due to
recent developments, aligning it more towards with South).
Kerala, some call it a
place of the most emigrated (analogous to Telangana, Punjab, Andhra),
whilst some, an extension of Mid-East+ (rumors say so). But leafing
through their elected representatives being Communists/ Leftists; thus, ending
up philosophically contradicting themselves of being indirect
supporter of not only capitalism, but also of any culture or
conservative tradition & even mass religious proselytism! Yes, a
common minimum agenda at a regional level might be achieved; but never
at the national level via regionalism.
Basically, who celebrated
or evolved via Hinduism, had political issues with it. For example, Lingayats
- Shiva praying, Parasurama-Kerala connection, Bengalis - Goddesses
praying relation & hundreds such more evolved from Hinduism; yet,
politically migrated to something else. But why? Furthermore, there’re
contentions been given of following Hinduism, not Hindutva; which is
again a political myth forged by modern liberalism (just alike
assemblage of regionalism with common minimum agenda program);
as both are equal. Take this example -> Bengalis feel proud of embracing from
Goddess Kali to Goddess Durga, but preferred to elect the opposite, be it the
then Communists/Leftists (would or wouldn't they being anti such derived tradition -> rumors
said so) or today’s politically correct. Another example of this is going
against The Kerala Story (despite being pro women); or Nano-Singur controversy; ending up philosophically
contradicting themselves!
Gujarati & Marathis
are philosophically not in contradiction with themselves, as always
electing pro-capitalism/business oriented political parties, time then or now,
as they themselves were/are always too. Whereas, political parties kept
changing, from being Liberals to Right, but never the Left alone (unlike
W.B & Kerala)!
As there was never any
famous Bihar developmental model; and further, one must think philosophically,
as to why the Bollywood Masala even ended up making ‘UP-Bihar loot ke’?
Was there truly such an audience existing? And if yes, then being one of
the most Learned States & of Academic Centres, with rich ancient
history; how it ended up being alike that? Was it politics, parties, leaders or
otherwise; thus, making it philosophically undiscernible; as they’ve elected
both, from -> politically correct to politically right!
The minorities (mostly)
were/are always anti-right, thus nothing to discern philosophically.
But, philosophically, isn't it better to live in some other nation as a minority, rather living in your own native nation as a (so-called) majority?
Now, reiterating that there’s
nothing such as a common minimum agenda at the assemblage of the regional
parties; as those who’ve evolved through sectarian regional development
model; technically can’t forge the national or global model; nor their
assemblage can, even philosophically. Whilst at the National level, if
the Right is crystal clear in saying that they want to eradicate poverty
via making people richer through soft capitalism; whereas,
if the Liberals say, they want to eradicate poverty via whatever;
then the Liberals must come clean on the word -> whatever;
& if it’s not capitalism; then must prove alike being Leftists living
a humble middle-class lives; & if it’s capitalism; then shouldn’t be
going against it, the way went against the likes of Adani-Ambani!
© Pranav Chaturvedi 2023