India will be witnessing its 16th LokSabha Elections soon, again; Indians will choose their leaders in the festival of democracy to rule over them.
Yet, can we say that Indian leaders and Indian voters have any sense of responsibility and clarity of issues on which one may raise the platform for the general elections?
Indian politics is no less mysterious than the blind labyrinth of Jantar Mantar.
No matter how much one may try to look for a right perspective and correct way to find out the path towards freedom, development, peace and progress through the political system of India, it is highly improbable for him to get any ray of light in dark alley.
Recently, Rajnath Singh, the party chief of BJP raised the issue of Ram Temple again.^[1]
Yet, the thing is, is Ram Temple really an issue of Justice, or is it a political gimmick?
Anyways, Indian sense of secularism is extremely debauched, so yes; Ram Temple can again be the issue for election. Since the start, Indian politics is working on rules of caste, creed and religion.
India is a country that may face major political change not on the issue of extreme inflation or high unemployment rates, neither on the number of poor farmers committing suicides and starving^[2] , but the trivial issue of Ram Temple and Ram or on some further debauched issues of reservation on the name of caste, creed religion and sex.
Is it good for India, or is it bad?
What should be the issue for elections if not the Ram Temple? Should it be removing the illiteracy? Now that will be ridiculous, to remove illiteracy, we do not need government or government support, what we need is workers as teachers and investors to create schools. What we need is No interference from government in the process of providing education for all through private mediums, schools, channels and organizations. We do not want government to interfere in the process of educating and halt it uselessly by its worthless ways of licensing.
Can the election issue be employment? How logical it is to expect government to provide employment for all, or better ask can government really provide employment for anyone? No, that is not the work of government, providing employment is the work of Individuals, and entrepreneurs.^[3]
In a free society, we individuals provide jobs and work for each other. If one makes a house, he actually provides jobs for the labor, architect, engineer, raw material providers and transporters. If one feels hungry, he provides job for the farmers, the vegetable growers, the milkmen and the distributors, the dealers and the shopkeepers, the vendors. If one needs shoes, he provides job for the shoemaker, if one needs a nanny or a housekeep or a house cleaner helping in home maintenance, he/she provides further job. If one wants to provide education to their kids, he further provides job for teachers, schools maintainers, guards, peons and all, if one want to go to market from home, they provides job for autorikshaw drivers, city bus drivers and maintainers, mechanics, garage owners etc.
In any Indian city, the individuals living in that city provide roughly 60% of jobs by means of self-employment. Enterprises provide further 25% jobs in form of big shops owners, constructors and IT sector majors, private schools and colleges, colony maintainers, private security guards, private hostels, ambulance, nursing homes, doctors, restaurants owners and hoteliers etc.
Municipality in form of governmental colleges, schools, police, and government hospitals etc provides further 10% jobs as in maintenance and administration, and the central government provides the rest of 5% jobs.
So yes, we cannot expect unemployment as a major issue for elections. In fact, what we can desire for, is a governmental policy to NOT to interfere in market, because in absence of government interference there can be only voluntary unemployment in a society.
Often people opt for voluntary retirement. They work hard for a period, make enough money to lead a good life and future, and then enjoy the leisure, roaming round the country, visiting new places.
A person seek for employment only when he considers the value of leisure lesser than the value he will get by labor of working for the employer, or when he realizes that he need more and he can make more than what he is making from self-employment while working for the employer.
There can be a scenario of unemployment for a seeker only if he is not ready to accept any job, which will provide him lesser value (as in terms of salary or work satisfaction) than what he thinks is necessary for him to work.
As for example, a graduate person in India may complain of unemployment, but what he complains is not lack of work, but lack of his desired work. If he desires a clerical job in some governmental office, then yes there may be some sort of unemployment, but if he is just seeking for an honest living by hard work, there is no lack of work. He can very well establish a beetle shop too, that is self-employment. Furthermore, for self-employment, it is easier to get loans or micro finance from independent firms.
Even a farmer wishes to enter the cities somehow to get work only if he feels working in city is more worthy than his self-employing work at his farms.
Can politicians make poverty an issue for elections?
As a matter of fact, it is also not possible. We know that politicians and government policies cannot tackle the issue of poverty in India. The only solution for poverty is to increase productivity of the poor, and that is not possible by any governmental policy, government interference may further reduce the productivity though, as it is the case of failure of trade unions all round the world. Productivity can be increased if the individual citizens are provided with more potential to create job opportunities, and for that, freedom for citizens is necessary, freedom to innovate and enterprise, freedom to entrepreneur and channelize capital resources freely.
Free education does not increase productivity of poor by any means; hence, education does not make him rich too. A study on poverty, and always changeable poverty line definition suggests,

while nearly 26.7 per cent of non-poor households have at least one graduate, just 8.5 per cent of ‘poor’ households qualify under this attribute.^[4]

That clarifies the fact, that even a graduate can be a poor. As explained earlier too, poverty is comparative; we all are poor in some sense or other. A study on poverty in India by Planning Commission and NCAER under Mr S.L Rao^[4]

In contrast, 8 per cent of ‘poor’ households own colour television sets, 4 per cent have telephones, 3 per cent have refrigerators, 3 per cent own cellular phones, and hardly 1 per cent have cars and credit cards each. But these ‘poor’ do own them.^[4]

This shows that even many of us can be called poor by the measures of government, and even a “poor” can have cars and credit cards, refrigerators, mobile phones and colour television. This shows that the standards of poor are increasing progressively.
Obviously, the reason is the increased productivity of India through the liberalization process towards a more open and free economy as it was before under totalitarian socialistic system. As far as we go towards liberalism and libertarianism, towards free-market individualism, towards freedom from government and politicians, poverty reduces further.
Hence, political parties cannot make any of issues like poverty, education or employment as a political issue for the elections. What is left is again the dirty vote bank politics of caste, creed, and reservations, and religious differences and divide and rule politics, and unworthy ignorable issues of tussle like the Ram Temple.

1. BJP raising Ram Temple Issue, Times of India [↩]
2. GM genocide, Reason For Liberty [↩]
3. Population, Poverty and Production, Reason For Liberty [↩]
4. Planning Commission and NCAER study on Poverty in India, Rediff News [↩] [↩] [↩]