india tweets

join in!

The Man Who Could Have Changed History

This is probably the first time  I have seen serious criticism emerging so soon after a person's death. Normally, we eulogise the deceased's known and unknown qualities for a while.

Jyoti Basu passed away into the unknown and a chapter, which is only a long list of missed opportunities, comes to a close.

Given a mandate for 23 years, this man imprisoned by his ideology set the clock back by 50 years and left a state in shambles. India was at crossroads and Basu could have taken the path where Bengal led the country with enlightened leadership and governance. Instead polemics and bandhs / gheraos and ghetto mentality overtook everything else.

This is a study bringing out the difference between ideology as a theory and its practical implementation. The contrast with Gujarat could not be starker.

History shall judge Jyoti Basu harshly. What a tragedy?


Anonymous said...

People were/are with the leader maybe And that is democracy.

BK Chowla, said...

This is where a lot of parties go wrong.Either they are slaves to the ideology or they dump the ideology for political gains.
We see all this every day-be it Congress,be it BJP.
But,at some point we must appreciate the discipline of the CPI party. Politburo was against his becoming PM and he accepted it.
And let us not be sure if was the right choice then.

Vinod_Sharma said...

Basu and Deng Xiao Ping came to power around the same time. Basu was out of phase by more than a quarter century; he chose the ideology Mao at a time when the pragmatism of Deng was needed.

Anonymous said...

Basu was only pragmatic when it concerned himself...He made money and led a more than comfortable life while raping WB and her people...He stuck to his ideology because that was the best way he could personally go forward...

BK Chowla, said...

ramblingsbybones, I understand,JB arranged to set up the industry for his son,who,they say is amongst the largest Biscuit mfrs in WB.
So much about communism.

Mavin said...

The sad part is the whole state would have lapped up whatever he did.

He could have created wealth and opportunities. Instead he chose to be Robinhood.

At the end of the day....any ism does not matter if you do not create wealth through economic activity. Our problem was hurdles in wealth creation and then its equitable distribution.

By focussing on equitable distribution first he created a culture of entitlement and not hard work. When there was nothing left, who else could you blame for your problems.

Post a Comment

Blog Archive

Recent Comments

Powered by Blogger Widgets