Also, it is not wise to make existing government entirely responsible for the existing corruption that got coalesced across so many years since our independence. It is time to think whether existing democratic governing procedures (including parliamentarian framework) are apt enough to promote India’s democratic needs for the next 50 years. Can the procedures formed 50 years back are sufficient enough to solve the current problems witnessed by common man where current political structure is not able to meet the needs of “Common Man”.
At one end, we are demonising Indian politicians for their inept responsibility in representing “People of India”. While there are merits in it, we need to focus our energies such that existing democratic procedures recognize that each MP or MLA has to shelve significant amount of money to win an election from their pocket. Why is this happening? How we can address this? Why educated class is standing at arm’s distance from the existing political structure?. In my opinion, corruption is starting from such roots and getting onto multi-folds when we go up. Our revised democratic procedures need to address such fundamental issues and help “right qualified and behaved citizen” to represent “People of India” in legislative parliamentarian framework with Zero or “Minimal expenditure”.
We need to look such sensitive issues from all four sides of the square. Our democratic procedures need to support and supplement three sides of the square sufficiently well while enforcing the fourth side of the square (i.e. strict Policy or procedure implementations). Thereby, we gain the support from “common man” to appreciate the set procedures to address the corruption. This is where we gain cooperation.
What we are today is the result of “merits and de-merits” of framed policies 64 years back. It is time to revisit and revamp our diction to address the needs for next 50 years. We need to cooperate with our governments during this “Change Process”. At the same time, the government has to show accountability in providing speedy resolution. In this process, if we rub one side of the square too much, we only pay heavy price for the “emotionally right” movements when they certainly not yield “rationally prudent” gains.