Politics in India is particularly heated right now, with all major parties releasing their manifestos for the upcoming elections. Recently, the Samajwadi Party unveiled its manifesto in Lucknow. The party’s chief, Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav, made some controversial statements. He proposed banning computers, English-medium schools, the stock market, harvesting machines, and high corporate salaries. His rationale seems to be that these elements create unemployment and contribute to inequality.

I believe that rather than banning English, efforts should be made to promote and strengthen Hindi. India’s global competitiveness is partly due to our proficiency in English, which is a significant advantage over countries like China. If English were banned, it could harm our international standing. Moreover, many top Indian leaders, including the Prime Minister and President, often speak English in their addresses. It would be more constructive to advocate for the use of Hindi without eliminating English.

Interestingly, Mr. Akhilesh Yadav, Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav’s son, was educated in English-medium schools. It seems inconsistent for Mr. Mulayam Singh to advocate for banning such schools when his own family has benefited from them. Instead of eliminating English education, the focus should be on prioritizing Hindi while maintaining the importance of English. Moreover, banning computers is an absurd idea in the 21st century when digital technology is crucial for progress.

Computers play a significant role in various sectors, including the IT industry, which is a major contributor to India’s economy. The manifesto itself was likely printed using computers, highlighting the hypocrisy of such a ban. During Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav’s previous tenure as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, allegations of corruption surfaced. A committee led by Mayawati discovered that thousands of police jobs were given in exchange for bribes, leading to their dismissal. Banning computers might hinder transparency and anti-corruption efforts by eliminating digital records.

Mr. Yadav’s disdain for the stock market also raises questions. Politicians are required to declare their assets, and investments in the stock market must be disclosed. By opposing the stock market, Mr. Yadav might be attempting to obscure financial dealings and evade scrutiny. Corrupt practices, such as stashing money in Swiss banks, are prevalent, and the stock market provides a transparent mechanism for tracking investments. Additionally, the manifesto’s stance on harvesting machines reflects a lack of understanding.

These machines increase agricultural efficiency and productivity, which is crucial for a country with a large agricultural sector. The Samajwadi Party’s focus on destroying such technology seems contradictory, especially when considering other significant issues like preserving cultural heritage. Ultimately, it seems that the Samajwadi Party’s manifesto is more about appealing to certain voter demographics rather than addressing substantive issues. Instead of targeting technological and educational advancements, political leaders should focus on improving education quality, reducing corruption, and preserving cultural landmarks.

As the saying goes, “Vote ke liye sala kuch bhi karega…” – for votes, they will say anything.