Amma and Didi - a tale of two cities
Last week, history was made and enough has been written about it. Jayalalitha swept the polls in Tamil Nadu and Mamta Banerjee consigned the Communists to not having a government in any single state in India for the first time in 30 odd years. And when the two of them take over as CMs, we would have 4 women CMs in India viz. Jayalalitha (Amma), Mamta (Didi), Mayawati and Shiela (of Delhi/CWG fame and not jawaani).
Good for the country, more power to the women! But in all this change, is there really any "poriborton" the word that Mamta made famous (means change in Bengali). Today, TOI ran an article about how 35% MLAs in Bengal and 27% in TN are history sheeters. (ToI article).
But then this article is not about corruption and/or criminals in politics. The people have voted and since I have not been part of the voting populace, I don't want to sit and write about what could have been, should have been or would have been if things were otherwise. Ofcourse I have my opinion especially on the issue in Bengal (and I have written about it earlier) but will leave that for another post.
Today's post is about the two different sets of people that make up the states of TN and Bengal and the two different leaders they have elected.
On the face of it, Amma and Didi are women, single, undisputed leaders of their respective parties and ready to become CMs. But that's pretty much where the similarity ends. Then the differences begin.
Amma moves around in a fully covered jeep (bullet proof I think), meeting people from afar and being the Queen of her little kingdom. People see her as their leader and someone who can bring them health, wealth and maybe a new color TV!
She lives in a mansion (Poes Garden or something it is called) and is part of the high and mighty that rules India. The British replaced by our own. Rarely, if ever, can she be seen in anything other than the impeccable cloak she dorns. Gives her a truly superman feeling I guess (no inappropriate red u/w jokes pls), but really must be hot in there isn't it?
Mamta, on the other hand, is a study in contrast. Here is a woman, who is always dressed up in a white sari with a green border, wears a hawai chappal, doesnt care too much about make up and is in her element when she is amongst the people on the street. She is part of them, they see her as one of them.
She still lives in a whitewashed, little house in Kalighat (not the powercentre of Calcutta, but a more obscure part of town) which is neither a mansion or a palace.
And in this difference, we can understand the psyche of the two states that these two women represent.
On one hand, there is Tamil Nadu. The people there feel their leaders should be deified, the person who leads them should be someone who they can look up to, someone they can emulate (even in terms of wealth accumulated), someone who will not be them because they don't think they can do it but someone who while being able to represent them is more a king/queen for them. A Mamta Banerjee will never win an election from TN. She does not have the requisite oomph (that's probably not the correct word) to be that one leader who the people can say embodies all their dreams. And that is why a Jayalalitha with her stately grandiose posturing can hold over them a charm which no slipper wearing Mamta can achieve.
Then there is Bengal. The epitome of any state demanding equality and socialism understood by the fact that they voted in a communist government for 3 decades and more. The people of Bengal would never accept a Queen. They would need someone who is one of them, part of their life, works for the underdog and is part of the mindset that come what may, they have to root for the underdog! And that is why Amma would never triumph in Bengal. She is too distant, not one of them, would never be seen as part of the masses. And that is what Mamta understood and exploited through various tantrums on the streets of Calcutta or in showing solidarity with the farmers against Tata.
Two states (Bengal and TN), two cities (Calcutta and Madras), two new women CMs (Didi and Amma) - a million hopes! Let's see what happens.
Good for the country, more power to the women! But in all this change, is there really any "poriborton" the word that Mamta made famous (means change in Bengali). Today, TOI ran an article about how 35% MLAs in Bengal and 27% in TN are history sheeters. (ToI article).
But then this article is not about corruption and/or criminals in politics. The people have voted and since I have not been part of the voting populace, I don't want to sit and write about what could have been, should have been or would have been if things were otherwise. Ofcourse I have my opinion especially on the issue in Bengal (and I have written about it earlier) but will leave that for another post.
Today's post is about the two different sets of people that make up the states of TN and Bengal and the two different leaders they have elected.
On the face of it, Amma and Didi are women, single, undisputed leaders of their respective parties and ready to become CMs. But that's pretty much where the similarity ends. Then the differences begin.
She lives in a mansion (Poes Garden or something it is called) and is part of the high and mighty that rules India. The British replaced by our own. Rarely, if ever, can she be seen in anything other than the impeccable cloak she dorns. Gives her a truly superman feeling I guess (no inappropriate red u/w jokes pls), but really must be hot in there isn't it?
She still lives in a whitewashed, little house in Kalighat (not the powercentre of Calcutta, but a more obscure part of town) which is neither a mansion or a palace.
And in this difference, we can understand the psyche of the two states that these two women represent.
On one hand, there is Tamil Nadu. The people there feel their leaders should be deified, the person who leads them should be someone who they can look up to, someone they can emulate (even in terms of wealth accumulated), someone who will not be them because they don't think they can do it but someone who while being able to represent them is more a king/queen for them. A Mamta Banerjee will never win an election from TN. She does not have the requisite oomph (that's probably not the correct word) to be that one leader who the people can say embodies all their dreams. And that is why a Jayalalitha with her stately grandiose posturing can hold over them a charm which no slipper wearing Mamta can achieve.
Then there is Bengal. The epitome of any state demanding equality and socialism understood by the fact that they voted in a communist government for 3 decades and more. The people of Bengal would never accept a Queen. They would need someone who is one of them, part of their life, works for the underdog and is part of the mindset that come what may, they have to root for the underdog! And that is why Amma would never triumph in Bengal. She is too distant, not one of them, would never be seen as part of the masses. And that is what Mamta understood and exploited through various tantrums on the streets of Calcutta or in showing solidarity with the farmers against Tata.
Two states (Bengal and TN), two cities (Calcutta and Madras), two new women CMs (Didi and Amma) - a million hopes! Let's see what happens.
Comments
Post a Comment