Changing one minister for another...what difference does it make?

Greetings! Last night I was at the Gateway of India.I had approached gateway from the Radio Club end. Big crowds. Lots of banners. People shouting slogans. Singing our National Anthem. Celebrities. Bouncers protecting the celebrities. TV crews filming. Lots of people with cameras. Candles being lit. Police cordoning off the restricted area. Sniffer dogs. Few wannabies on dias. Some walking with candles. Traffic jam on the Colaba Causeway.

I couldn't help but shed tears.

Today's newspaper headlines : Vilasrao goes, Shinde in.I am still flipping the coin over who is the bigger baffoon. Verdict : Can't say. No, this is not about who is the better man, the better politician, which party they come from, who are they allied with. None of this at all. Think about it and you realize they are all the same. Very few differences. Hardly any.

A CM is FOR the state - responsible for the state. I am not sure how the Constitution of India defines the responsibilities of a CM, but I surely think he should be aware of what is happening within and outside the state; as well as about India.

So, when terrorists attack Mumbai (or any other place in, say, Maharashtra) who should we blame? Who is the one person responsible? Who can we hold accountable? So, far we have no prospects or provisions for a Rudi Giuliani. Most people (especially, the politicians & opposition) think that the CM should resign.

I ask why.Did we really expect him to step up and take the bullets face on? Did we really expect even one of our honourable ministers to have done that? Did we really expect that when we exchange one politician for another it will be any different? Do we think that under any other CM things would have been any different?

I don't think so.If he does not make any difference so far, why do we think by replacing one minister for another will better the situation here? Replacing ministers is plain and simple - politics.

All of our ministers, in fact, any one linked to politics, and those who can afford it, do not move around without security of some or the other kind. Those who are exclusively & constantly being protected by someone else can never understand how Mumbai has changed in the last one week. Those who cannot afford protection have already moved into the daily grind. These people know better.

Some are fighting with the government for better security. Some are filing PILs against the government. A few people have now been dismissed. How does that make us any more safer or secure? Most of the people who walk on the street know the answer. I am not the one who likes being pessimistic. I have always believed we can be good, if we want to be. We always have a choice. But most of us always pick the easier way out. That easily explains why after 60 years of Gandhi corruption is still so rampant in our country.

Coming back to main question. When all this hoopla ends, when the PILs are being fought over, after the ministers have been exchanged, how much do we really expect the position to change. A lot of us are blaming the politicians for what has happened. But, I still feel, we are not really hitting bulls eye by doing that.

When we exchange one minister for another, one bureacrat for another nothing much actually changes. After a little bit of firework, most of them go back to filling their own coffers. If we are really looking at better governance, then it should be down to president's rule in the state by now. For that matter - most of the country should be under martial law right now.

Now that Mumbai is ravaged, people are crying. India has been under attack for years now - all through our independence. Netagiri and babuism have survived so far. The faces keep changing, but the method the same. Replacing one face for another is not the solution. What is really needed is a change in the system.

I know a lot of people will say it is young blood that is talking. But then, such is the need of the hour.