The Boss must have been Watching Indian Elections

 

The dust and rabble of the Indian general elections definitely rose to get into many anxious eyes abroad. India after all is a massively crowded democracy, cramming the world with its people, culture and issues.  

Starting from the caves to the plans for settlement colonies on Moon and Mars, the evolution of human systems has been in synchronism with the evolution and nature of leaderships. Leaders, leadership and their functional support systems have changed over the ages at all levels beginning from family, village, state, province and international levels. Leadership is followed both through unwritten norms as well as duly established systems of governance and administration.

When you land up at an alien place, the US dollar in your pocket is the most assuring factor for your safety and upkeep. If the US dollar in every nook and corner of the world gives you a feeling of protection as a world citizen possessing some purchasing rights, then does not it speak about America as a world leader in more ways than one? Nothing wrong with that! The fight for the topmost-sayer in world affairs has not been assigned to the Americans by their constitution makers. They have managed and earned it.

America possesses a deep knowledge of the internal affairs of the nations whom it wants to manage in a broad spectrum of policies chosen to keep its position as the most influential player in the world affairs. By default this policy would not like too powerful nations to manage under its foreign affairs department. The American policy through its brilliant network of hundreds of thousand CIA operatives is based on the basic parameter of finding the contrasting shades prevailing in the world at all levels ranging from nationalities, religion, geographies, histories and many more. These antagonistic parts jutted against in an issue are the two fronts that can be made to keep staring into each other’s eyes at the cost of larger issues of peace, progress and prosperity. The American policy is to pick up these opposite elements in all issues across the world and keep them engaged in confrontation by either supporting one or suppressing the other.

When the divisions can be maintained, it stops the emergence of strong nation states. For example a violent South Asia with India and Pakistan as staunch enemies is a safer bet for the aspirant world leader than a peaceful region with both countries using their money and resources to become more stable and prosperous societies. Similarly India and China throwing pot-shots at each other is a better scenario for the world leader. For example, to stop an escapist approach by India regarding China, America may support India to give it a semblance of confidence against the Dragon. When the weaker opponent finds some support in the form of the superpower, it will definitely be less compelled to go to the negotiation table. It keeps the issues alive. That friction between the neighbours works as a sort of drag on their feet on the path of further peace and stability and consequent rise in the national power.

The same world leadership theory would also require creating hurdles in path of the emergence of strong, stable governments in countries across the world. China emerged to challenge America on account of the fact that they managed a very strong and stabilised system of governance over decades. State energy was used just in developing infrastructure, weaponry and industries. Consider it in relation to India’s tottering efforts with democracy. It has won us more praise in books for democratic values and less in terms of the results in implementation. Obviously we have been wasting too many resources on unnecessary issues.  

A vibrant India under a secure government run by a strong leader cannot fit well with the global theory of leadership that is presently being operated by America (simply because they are able to play it). Given the American efforts to manage the world in ways that are more suitable to them for the next coming decades, it is unthinkable that they would have been just uninterested spectators at a distance while the biggest democracy went for elections. Of course the Americans had, have and will have their set of priorities. Like any other country, they have certain things in their scheme that will keep them in a brighter position regarding India. And of course they do it subtly indirectly with the help of their vast networks at various levels. So crux of the matter is: A confident India under a stable BJP government under Modi is not a safer bet for America. As the world super cop it will any day prefer an India struggling politically under a motley mix of governing alliance run by some consensus choice. Whenever India had third party alternative governments, we had weakest short-term prime ministers.

Modi is now clearly running to the dawn of glory. After the UPA disaster it was just expected that the BJP might come to power with a comfortable majority. A strong nationalist leader having comfortable majority is always in a position to bring about major shifts in the plans and policies through constitutional provisions. To begin with, it is disastrous for the Congress whose old system of catching onto its deprived vote bank will become outdated. At the international level it may push India on a path taken by China under a strong stable government where it started even retorting America. So obviously a weaker India always needing American help to beat the Chinese nightmares is a safer bet for the Americans. Nothing exceptional! It is just fitting with the world theory of leadership!