Last year I was a vociferous critic of AK and AAP. I still am. He subscribes to an impractical idealistic branch of politics that doesn't make sense to me. The party is more of protestors and agitators who don't seem to know or care much about legislating. That being said I have to give him credit for turning things around. He made many mistakes and tried to rectify them. He still isn't a smart, reliable, proven candidate. The only things he has going for him is sincere and well meaning.
We also have to note that AAP didn't win by a slim margin. They didn't run a close head to head race. They swept the elections with a resounding majority victory. It is easy to dismiss slim wins as being influenced by a minority or niche group that was active. A sweeping victory of this magnitude cannot be easily explained by that. It means that AAP appealed to the masses and classes. AAP's message resonated even with affluent and majority voters. The message cut across all economic, social and religious divides.
It might seem petty that water and electricity promises are the deciding factor of a major election when there are so many more significant issues that are ignored. The bottom line though is that good infrastructure is the backbone of a successful thriving economy. Water is a basic necessity. Easy access to good clean water should not be a luxury but a readily available commodity, at least at nominal cost if not free. Similarly, gone are the days when electricity was a luxury for the rich. There are nations in the world starting to look at high speed internet as a basic necessity. So for a country like India which is a fastest growing economy needs to focus on infrastructure like water, power, transportation if it wants to continue thriving economically. It is infrastructure that differentiates the developing from the developed world.
The recent financial crash and burn of the United States is an example for all nations across the globe that investing in internal infrastructure is far more important than military might and foreign policy. From 2001-2007/8 many Americans backed the aggressive foreign policy. People were convinced that heavy investment was needed in national security and destroying our enemies. That came at a cost though. Education and infrastructure suffered. Spending in military put the country in economically dire circumstances. National security and defense are important, but now people know it needs to be done pragmatically and with caution. Without burdening the infrastructure and basic livelihood of the nation.
That is why most Indians are not acting like chickens with their heads cut off when it comes to Pakistan, terrorism or foreign policy. Yes the threat remains and we have to do something about it. But India is not a nation that can afford to mull on that while letting the infrastructure slide. Even the Modi government understands this. Rather than aggressive posturing they have taken a more pragmatic stance focused on national progress.
Looking back at BJP's defeat in Delhi. The Modi wave was not as much pro-Modi as it was anti-Congress. Many people voted for Modi, because he was not Congress. He made a lot of campaign promises like tracking and finding black money that he didn't keep. Gone are the days when India will keep voting despite broken promises. AAP is lucky to get a second chance. Should AK fail the people again, he will definitely get the boot for the next person with a plan.
Cricket
