Politics, Dissent and the Indian Opposition; and other stories

In this edition of Samvaad, we look at the recent furore over the "One Nation, One Election" committee formed by the Central Government. The other story talks about my experience of watching Oppenhiemer and the questions of existentialism it raises.

Hello everyone, we are moving things around in Samvaad: in the ways the stories are read, and shared. Moving on, Samvaad will feel more like a newsletter, with in-detail stories linked to my Medium blog. Feel free to visit the links, and subscribe to my Medium profile.

The hubbub around "One Nation, One Election" paints a sorry picture of our Indian Opposition, once again. First, some context.

The Central Govenrment headed by Bharatiya Janata Party(BJP) led National Democratic Alliance(NDA) named an eight member committee on September 2 to "examine and make recommendations for holding simulatanous elections" to Lok Sabha, state assemblies and municipal corporatons across India.

A day later, Congress leader in Lok Sabha Mr Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, the lone voice of Opposition in the committee, opted out. In a letter to Home Minister Amit Shah, he remarked that he cannot be the part of the committee, the "terms of reference" of which "have been prepared in a manner to guarantee its conclusions".

While the merits and demerits of "One Nation, One Election" are left best to the experts, the event casts a shadow on the opposition. In a parliament skewed towards the ruling dispensation, the opposition takes dissent to the extreme by not engaging in dialogue and rather boycott the machinery altogether.

Read more about my views on the sorry state of affairs of our Opposition, and if it is time to rethink our strategy on opposition here:

https://medium.com/@anuj_sahu/dissent-in-politics-and-the-indian-opposition-997e5779d328

Last week, I watched Oppenhiemer. While the movie was good, the questions it raises have been puzzling me.

It's the same old story of painting a guy bad to salvage brownie points for political ascension. At the tipping point, the protagonist(Robert J. Oppenhiemer) turns the tables(You should watch the movie for how the scales shift throughout the movie).

However, does a win absolve you of the moral guilt inside?

The movie raises pertinent questions on scientific pursuits and the means of applications. Scientists always face the moral dilemma about the existence and feasibility of their endeavours. Will their discovery be for the benefit of humankind?

They never know. Oppenhiemer struggled with the same dilemma once his experiments in the Manhattan Project bore fruit.

A dialogue in the film did resonate with me:

When did your moral dilemma outweigh the feasibility of the project? Was it before or after the bombing?

All in all, I was left to dabble with the following questions:

1. How do you analyse the pros and cons of scientific endeavor?
2. Knowledge lays hidden and is bound to be found some way or the other, eventually. Can you then delay its discovery by raising objections, or become Prometheus himself?
3. If your discovery is mechanized and scaled, do you bear the moral guilt of its eventual use by other parties for good or bad?

I leave you with these questions. I recently wrote an edition starting a romance serialization. You can find the prologue here:

https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/girlfriend-prologue-anuj-sahu

Thanks to Shashank Sharma for motivating me to continue it. I will post the next few chapters in some time.

Or maybe I should monetize them if they are good enough?

Only time will tell.

Until next time, keep reading folks!