In the aftermath of the BJP’s absolute majority in the recently concluded Lok Sabha (Lower House) elections, the political scenario in the country is fast unravelling.
“We failed to gauge public mood”, the Congress Party President profoundly revealed at the recently concluded joint meeting of Members of Parliament (MPs) of the party from both houses of Parliament. Members, initially stunned by this revelation, later thanked her for the insightful analysis of the election debacle. Left to themselves, they would never have guessed, they sheepishly thought to themselves.
Thanking the group for their misguided faith in the party, she said, “The Congress has lost this time. You all know this is not the first time. With your support and my leadership, God willing, we will lose many more times. We have earlier come back after losses. I assure you no such debacle will happen this time. No more the pressure of performance. No more the burden of anti-incumbency going into an election”, she said to thunderous applause. A scuffle broke out as soon as she said “we have sat together and fought together in the past, there is no reason why we cannot do it again”, amongst loyal members keen to follow orders, or even faint hints of anything that could be construed as an order, without taxing their grey cells. It was impossible to be unmoved at such a spontaneous show of loyalty. Only a dyed-in-the-wool cynic would write off this party in future elections.
Acknowledging the mistakes made by her as President, the group unanimously voted to retain her in the position. This was, however, not done on a whim. It was done based on a process enshrined in the Constitution of the party and honed over a hundred years of repeated use. They found Singhs. They found Khans. They found Scindias. They found Pawars. They found Chidambarams. They found Deoras. They found Azads. But, amongst the many well-known surnames of people attending the meeting, there could not be found a person with the surname of either Gandhi or Nehru. The group really had no choice. Upholding the highest traditions of democracy and reflecting the trust placed in the capability of a population of 1.2 billion by the grand old party of Indian politics, they selected one of the only two names available with either of those surnames.
Meanwhile, in a gesture of support, the BJP working committee has come out with a strongly worded statement appreciating the Congress party leadership for their leadership and have thanked them for their (the BJP’s) success. They have even made a plea to them to not make leadership changes in a hurry. At least not until they have had a chance to win another general elections. Such bonhomie amongst parties at different ends of the political spectrum has rarely been seen.
A young satrap who questioned the role of the advisors to the leadership after the debacle, has come under fire from party seniors. Explaining his remarks he said that his comments were “out of deep loyalty to the party, pain of our performance and a sincere desire to bounce back”.
Several other party members are understood to have issued thinly veiled threats, including death-threats, to the party leadership “out of deep loyalty to the party, pain of our performance and a sincere desire to bounce back”. Some participants have stated that the voice of the former Prime Minister was also heard on the occasion. Repeated attempts at replaying the recording in an effort to identify the voice have yielded no results. It appears that no-one in the party was in a position to identify his voice, having not heard it in the last ten years.
The Communist Party of India – Marxist (CPI-M), from their ideological ivory tower protected by hardbound copies of Karl Marx’ Das Kapital, have blamed voters for not knowing what is good for them.
A founder-member of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), the party that rocked the political firmament with their stellar show on debut in the less-than-a-year-old Delhi state elections, has quit the party citing differences over lack of internal democracy. This was done after she lost in the recent Lok Sabha elections from a seat that was, apparently, not of her choice. Even under such trying circumstances, displaying maturity far beyond the brief existence of the party, she said that if offered a position of responsibility, she might reconsider her decision.
The PM designate had caused consternation amongst his advisors by insisting on inviting heads of government from neighbouring countries for the swearing-in ceremony. Concerned that this could be a case of withdrawal symptoms, with elections over and no-one to swear at, advisors had sought explain to him the difference between swearing-in and swearing-at. They were successful in their efforts, it seems, as the swearing-in ceremony happened yesterday without any untoward incident.