There's nothing wrong in being politically motivated
Whenever two or more political groups disagree they accuse their rivals of being "political" or "politically motivated".
For example, the Centre had granted in-principle clearance to the Rs 25,000 crore trans-shipment harbour project at Enayam, a village 10km north of Colachel’s fishing harbour in Tamil Nadu, and just 35km away, in Kerala’s Vizhinjam, work had started on a similar harbour with the same objective.
Union minister for shipping, Pon Radhakrishnan, is sceptical if two harbours with the same objective so close to each other would be viable.
He, like all politicians, says that this dispute is only political.
Using this example, one of millions by now, it doesn't seem that the political class has realised the obvious. If a Union minister's argument is not going to be political, is it going to be spiritual, financial, philanthropic, psychological or sexist?
In political discourse throughout the world, politicians, activists and critics are in the main reluctant to cite political motivations.
In the Brexit debate in the UK, a number of political arguments were made. It was all about what would be good for the UK, how remaining in or leaving the European Union (EU) would be bad or good for the UK, especially its economy, the issue of immigration, and so on.
But there was little coherence about the political project. There was relatively little discussion about austerity - a major issue for the large majority of Britons, and Britain's fate under the EU.
 |
| In the Brexit debate in the UK, a number of political arguments were made. |
But at the core of all political statements was a political attack on the "other".
Hilary Benn, a Blairite Labour MP spoke of the bombing of Syria - a very political statement, without taking into account what has happened in that country, with millions of Syrian refugees yet to be settled, and few politicians with the stomach to help in social reconstruction in such war-torn countries.
Further and especially with the findings of the Chilcot inquiry exposing Blair's dubious role in the attack on Iraq, Blairites blame Chilcot as being political. Both Blair and Chilcot are in a sense characters of the British political scene. Chilcot has looked to British law, but law is grounded in politics.
To denigrate the politics of the "other" is to make politics blindingly partisan. Politics exists in many spheres and at its best is enlightening.
It is high time to call a spade a spade. If politics is so bad, why are millions aspiring for political power? Can there be governance; reform; and empowerment of women, backward classes, migrants, minorities, agricultural labourers, urban poor and others, without structures of the State and civil society?
In which modern society have the State and civil society not been political? But can we deny that we cannot do without them? Many politicians deny that they are political. But the denial itself is political.
Often politics is abhorred because it is "bad".
But bad or partisan politics can only be defeated by better or good politics. This has been borne out by human history.
Poet-saints like Kabir, Sheikh Nooruddin, Lal Ded, among others, influenced society, politics and culture across the social spectrum. They were not politicians but they influenced the politics and society of their times and even later.
Literary figures continue to play this role. Poet Pablo Neruda not only profoundly influenced the Spanish-speaking audience, but many others. As did Lebanese poet Kahlil Gibran whose poetry is read by many in English, or the American poet Robert Frost.
Good literature reflects on life as Rabindranath Tagore and Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay's works did, not to speak of poets or directors like Ali Sardar Jafri, Kaifi Azmi, Guru Dutt, Satyajit Ray, and many others.
But then the obvious question is why politics is so partisan, so selfish? That is not politics' fault, but that of the people and groups who take to politics with a partisan agenda.
Ashoka did politics, as did Akbar, Shivaji and Ranjit Singh. But these kings had loftier motives and a deep commitment to a just society. The world today is much different.
About Indian politics much is said and known. But international and foreign politics is far from pure. Tony Blair as British prime minister introduced austerity in the UK, which was a major reason for Brexit.
The same Blair who spoke of sacrifice and the need for tightening belts, bought a £27 million house. His role in the Iraq War was sharply criticised by the Chilcot inquiry committee report just a few days ago. But are inquiries in our country as consistent?
The answer is that we must question our norms and values. Politics will remain. Can we, through social action, create better social attitudes? We do tend to get the politics we deserve.