Hubby and I have a longstanding debate on who is lesser evil or which crime is less evil? Before you wonder what we are talking about, its good old Indian politics.
The debate between us is should NaMo be even given a thought as the PM candidate?
My response has been an emphatic NO. For a simple reason that he owns the moral responsibility for the Godhra carnage. Under his Chief Minister ship thousands of Muslims perished. He has no moral standing to even go for the role of the head of a country. All of us are reading the platitudes that are being written about him- he is a great leader, a doer, someone who can take charge and make things happen and so on. And how the existing Govt is a bunch of imbeciles and corrupt and basically full of people who have ruined the country.
Im either praising the current Govt for their inaction nor Im saying that NaMo is nothing but evil. But yes; my conscience does not allow to vote for someone who is symbolic of partition politics, lie, autocracy and basically murders that happened in public view.
Hubby, comes back with the retort. Assume he is responsible for all the killings. But so is Pawar. Under Pawars watchful eyes, thousands of farmers committed suicide. Millions got embezzled. And so on.
Now the Q is which is worse? Or which crime is less heinous? Killing innocent people in the name of religion or letting innocent people commit suicide because they couldn’t pay the debt?
Our debate continues. My personal view is that someone who didn’t give anyone a choice to live and killed them doesn’t have any right to lead the nation. Neither does the person who in his pursuit of wealth killed (indirectly) people. But killing in the name of religion is unpardonable.
NaMos latest claim has been to evacuate thousands of Gujaratis from the disastrous floods in Kedarnath. This was the most amazing piece of PR trick I ever saw. We all know the mathematics behind the number and if the reports are to be believed then he evacuated 15000 Gujjus overnight which is an impossible task even for the armed forces. To this hubby says, well even if he helped evacuate even one person atleast he did some thing. Yes that’s not wrong. But that’s not right also!
I decide to evacuate one person but give T&C that he/she has to belong to certain caste, religion and community…then its not really a philanthropy. Its basically factious politics in the name of philanthropy/charity.
We continue to disagree and the house continues to simmer over the dining table. But we both know as Indians we have only three religions: Politics, Cricket and Movies (aka Bollywood). And we are unashamed of being armchair politicians, cricket analysts/commentators and movie critics.
While we continue to debate…you let me know what you think?