Whom should one vote for—party or candidate? Over the last few months, there has been a growing, disturbing, visceral intolerance across party lines—not just amongst the political parties, but within the citizens—in drawing room arguments, Facebook posts and comments and in media debates. But, there's a reason why the ballot paper has the names of individual candidates and not just the party symbols. We choose an individual to represent us, and through our choice we express what kind of parliament and parliamentarians we want.
We need to balance our party preference with the individual candidate. It's a fine, but, critical, balance. We need to ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions before we plunge into the polling booth and vote.
Let me list out those questions, along with how I have answered them in my particular case. It's for you to answer those for yourself as a responsible citizen. But answer you must.
Am I voting for a rubber stamp, worthless candidate in the name of a party or has the candidate actually demonstrated that s/he has achieved something worthy of being one of the 543 people to represent 1.2 billion people? The BJP says that we should be voting for proven competency. Maybe its PM candidate fits the description, but which of my local candidates fits that bill?
In an ideal world, Nandan would have been a shoo-in. Educated at IIT Bombay, co-founder of Infosys, architect of the Bangalore Agenda Task Force, creator of the Aadhaar card—Nandan has demonstrated an extraordinary range of competencies. At Infosys, he helped create one of India's first, and most visible, world class organization, and created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Through Infosys, he was also instrumental, more than anyone else, in putting Bangalore on the world map. As the prime mover behind the Bangalore Agenda Task Force, he helped in professionalizing urban governance in the areas of roads, toilets, transparency of accounting in government bodies and spent over nine crores of his personal money in the bargain. With Aadhaar, he has delivered a gigantic sized, complex project on time and on budget—an extreme rarity in India. He also proved that he could work with and navigate through different state governments, political parties, bureaucracy and government organizations. He fits the BJP's—or anyone else's—description of the ideal candidate for me. Does your candidate?
Am I sure that the person I am going to vote for in the name of the party is going to be clean or am I compromising my principles by voting for a corrupt person in the name of voting for a party? AAP says that we need clean politics and incorruptible non-politicians; which of my local candidate would fit the AAP criteria?
Nandan happens to be a self-made billionaire with his moral compass firmly in place. I think AAP, with all its mistakes, is a positive force in the Indian political scene and my wife and I have both donated generously to it. They talk about getting clean people into politics and—let's face it—it's difficult to find anyone cleaner than Nandan. If AAP tried to create the perfect candidate, chances are high that it would end up with Nandan. Yogendra Yadav is on record as having said “He ticks all the boxes”. Then, why is he not standing on an AAP ticket? Because there's no law that says that all clean people need to be in AAP and frankly, I can't visualize Nandan leading a mob and tearing up electricity bills. AAP's political tactics are predicated on urban guerrilla-ism and that's not Nandan's style. He would not last five days in AAP even if he tried. But, he fits the description of AAP's—or anyone else's— ideal candidate for me. Does your candidate?
Whether you go by the stated principles of AAP (clean non-political candidate) or of the BJP (effective, proven administrator), Nandan fits the bill. Does the candidate of the party of your choice?
But, there are more questions.
In a poor country desperately trying to grow out of poverty, there is an intense debate about right wing economic growth measures and left wing social alleviation issues. Which candidate in your constituency, if any, effectively manages both? Nandan fits the bill for me.
In the Russian roulette of choosing a candidate while you vote for the party of your preference, the last thing you want to do is to choose a candidate you can't trust. Above all else, which candidate in your constituency, if any, can you truly trust? Nandan fits the bill for me.
In the hurly burly of politics, in the passion of electoral jostling and in the heat of the moment, all candidates make statements, which they later retract or deny, whether they later regret or not. Which candidate in your constituency, if any, has had the equanimity and the balance to not surrender their ideals to vote bank politics? Nandan fits the bill for me.
And what about the biggest question of them all—what if the best candidate in your constituency belongs to the Congress, the favourite whipping boy of everyone today? Why waste your vote on a Congress candidate, however good s/he is? How does one make peace with that question?
I want 543 great parliamentarians irrespective of the party they belong to. If Nandan feels comfortable in the Congress, having interacted with all the political parties, I will take his word for it. And so with every deserving candidate, whichever party they have chosen. If the Congress can think of backing a person like Nandan Nilekani, it's a plus point for it in the midst of all the negativity that surrounds the party. The Congress may lose this election but it is not going to be wiped out for ever. When it comes back, I would like to see it evolve around a core of deserving people and having Nandan Nilekani there would increase my confidence.
And one more thing—Nandan Nilekani could have easily chosen the Rajya Sabha route; instead, he is standing for a Lok Sabha election and seeking political legitimacy for his ideas, unlike Manmohan Singh.
When you are in front of the electronic voting machine, that sanctum sanctorum of our democracy, ask yourself a simple question—is there a better person to represent Bangalore, or your constituency, than the person you are about to vote for? You have thought and argued enough about the party you want to vote for; now, think of the candidate.
But, do vote.
Disclosure: Aditya Jha has worked under Nandan Nilekani in Infosys
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
"With Aadhaar, he has delivered a gigantic sized, complex project on time and on budget—an extreme rarity in India.."
Apart from the fact that Aadhaar project exceeded the initial estimates, the card is so useless that Nilekani does not have one. This news came out recently.
So the creator of the card did not think it worthwhile to apply one for himself.
MR ADITYA JHA, THATS OLD SORY HEARD FROM YOUR SOMEBODY WHATABOUT HAPPENDS INFRONT OF YOU IN 2002 KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE,RAPING WOMEN AND BURNING THEM ALIVE YOU ARE SILENT ON THIS INCIDENT HAPPEND INFRONT OF YOUR EYES,
Anti-corruption is a code word to seek vote for rss. perhaps the author didn't get the memo. no matter how honest a particular upa candidate is, it is the divine right of rss candidate to get all the vote.
That is why kiran bedi says yeddiyurappa is a manageable baggage. imagine kiran bedi the epitome of anti-corruption movement "the third freedom movement" spirit saying that.
Now the abuses against nilekani will start. bjp is gearing up for that, it has already shot the opening salvo by declaring aadhar card as fraud.
rss visceral hatred to upa comes from upas attempt to empower poor and the marginal while it is rss official policy keep these people impoverished and on the margins of society.
There is one question you forgot to ask. With all his impeccable credentials, why is the worthy candidate joining a party of scams and scamsters - the Congress?
If his moral compass is indeed firmly in place, as claimed, why is it aligning with forces of corruption/
Nandan may end up like manmohan. Personally clean but heading a gang of theives.
There is something wrong with them. May be, they all feel powerful being a white spot against a black background. There is very little else that can explain their motivation.
Dont get me wrong, I am an admirer of Nilakeni. Especially was touched with his donation of 400 Cr to various public causes.
"We need to balance our party preference with the individual candidate. It's a fine, but, critical, balance. We need to ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions before we plunge into the polling booth and vote."
I had been doing this all along past despite my bias for a given party!
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT