Is politics mere ‘career’ or a platform for ideological struggle?

There is a lot of argument nowadays that politics is ultimately a profession. It has its own morals and values, which are born and practised by the desire for ‘professional progress’.

In this, the order of ideological loyalty is very low, like in the resume it is given very briefly where and where you did the job.

It is important how much and how is your next ‘jump’?

In this episode, it is advocated to describe politics as a family profession by saying that when the son of an engineer can be an engineer, the son of a lawyer can be a lawyer and the son of an artist, then what is wrong if the son of a politician becomes a politician?

Congress leader Shashi Tharoor had tweeted a mark on the joining of BJP’s senior Congress leader and Brahmin face in the party, Jatin Prasad.

Tharoor had raised the question of whether politics can be a thoughtless career. Can a person’s ideological commitment by changing political party be like a cricketer who changes team in IPL?

These questions are not limited to Jitin Prasada’s sudden nationalist in the saffron camp while praising secularism till yesterday, but also to those TMC leaders and workers in Bengal who left their parent party

Trinamool Congress before the elections to the BJP. If he started playing the pungi and did not get power, then he started returning to TMC to lift Didi’s palanquin.

Party changing leaders and Indian politics

These questions are also applicable to those Navjot Sidhu’s, Nana Patoleo and all those defectors for whom politics is the only means of exploiting power.

Such people like political nomads can flirt with any ideology in any party at any time and accept or reject it. Saying that he was ‘suffocating’ in the old party, so he came to the new party.

And now he is ‘suffocating’ in the air of the new party, so he is going back to suffocate the old party.

From this point of view, we have to understand the ‘suffocation’ of a leader or worker in one party and eating fresh air only for a short time in another party, we have to understand in terms of ‘political medicine’ rather than medical.

The question raised by Tharoor can be extended further by the fact that if politics is an ideological battle, can this fight be fought better through dynastic or dynastic methods, or more credibly through single faces emerging from the struggle. can be fought?

In the Indian political scene today, we are witnessing an internal conflict between these two styles of political struggle.

Is politics really a career?

First of all considering politics as a career.

In this context, the first question is, why does a person come into politics?

What pressure or motivation compels him to do so?

Because entering politics or doing politics is different and voluntary than any undertaking done for livelihood. The first answer is the desire for power and social prestige.

The second part can also be of social service. But the third and most important issue is its agreeable or natural inclination towards the ideology of a political party in some way or the other.

Otherwise, instead of being associated with a political party, he can do social service even by being non-political or spiritual.

This inclination towards a particular political idea or assimilation may be due to the contemporary political-social situation, conflict, family rites, or resentment towards the present.

He wants to change it to some extent or exploit it in his own interest.

Many people come into politics with the aspiration to achieve the same position themselves, considering the social clout of the leaders in the society and they are always being surrounded by champs.

But those who have the sense to keep an idea alive, pursue it, protect it, spend everything, are worth counting on the finger.

And while eating cream, such faces are often pushed back. Rather, nowadays it is considered as political backwardness.

The bottom line is that going into politics is basically because of ideological commitment and not just to gain power in some way.

The freedom movement was also raised, run and eventually succeeded by the personalities inspired by this spirit. Ideological differences were there even then, but conscience was not auctioned openly like it is today.

There is a lot of argument nowadays that politics is ultimately a profession. It has its own morals and values, which are born and practised by the desire for ‘professional progress’.

In this, the order of ideological loyalty is very low, like in the resume it is given very briefly where and where you did the job.

It is important how much and how is your next ‘jump’?

In this episode, it is advocated to describe politics as a family profession by saying that when the son of an engineer can be an engineer, the son of a lawyer can be a lawyer and the son of an artist, then what is wrong if the son of a politician becomes a politician?

Occupation and politics in India

Actually, this is a half-truth because very few people want to pursue the traditional profession. And even adopting it, then it is basically for livelihood and to carry forward the established business.

There is no urge for social or system change in this. It is purely business. Economic profit and loss and driving a vehicle is its measure.

But political ideologies are not born to run or grow a business. She presents an ideological alternative to change the entire system and society.

How much the country agrees with him, is a different matter. If it does, it promotes the same idea as a political party. delegates power.

By assuming that the leader of the party or party will not consider the power as a legacy, but will understand the constitutional obligation given for the operation or change of the system.

That is, no leader should consider his ideological allegiance only as a ‘live in relationship’. But what is happening today is like a shameless auction of ideological allegiance.

Politics and leaders of parties

In this era, the leader remains in one party and if he does not get the desired importance, he keeps the wires connected from inside to go to the other.

Doesn’t hesitate to say ‘night’. Similarly, in the eyes of the party, the leader who was very ‘important’ till yesterday, becomes the most ‘worthless’ as soon as he leaves the party.

The most surprising thing is that he is ‘forced to leave the party because he is ‘loyal’ and goes to another party only because of being ‘loyal’.

Here loyalty is like ‘Gaon ki Bhaujai’. Whenever it happens with whomever because the leader wants material comforts and power and for him this is politics and joining the convoy of power in some way is ‘political salvation’.

Obviously, this is pure political careerism, whose goal is only the welfare of self or loved ones. Whereas in the ideological battle the victory of the idea and its socio-political establishment is the ultimate goal of the politician.

Revolutions are born out of this unshakable commitment. But careerist politicians can’t do any revolution except feticide of their own principles.

This mentality of riding in a moving vehicle is a clear indication of the moral, social and political degradation of any country.

Dynasticism accelerates this decline rather than stopping it. Or else he tries his best to maintain the status quo.

The direct meaning of the sale of the ideology of a politician is like the sale of his soul. And how can a career without soul be legit? Just think!