ramana wrote:LKA has redeemed himself. So this is how she decides to assert her independence!
Even before that article was posted, I wanted to write that Advani was the only one in the entire political class who showed some class and maturity. He was right when he said that this incumbent sarkaar should just leave after vote on account. Sushma, Rajnath, Jaitley...etc were acting like a bunch of children being led by nose by the kongis or in collusion with the kongis. Modi was talking that kongis are harvesting poison in the way they handled T. But, his own party also participated in this process and sided with the kongis...! I think Modi lost that oomph factor on this issue. People may still support Modi, but this is like a reality check.
The reason I mention that I wanted to post about Advani even before that article was posted, is to convey that my opinion about Advani was not formed on the basis of that article. That article only reconfirms the impression that I got even before.
SwamyG wrote:To me the problem with blaming everything on D4 is that, that BJP does not have the guts to throw them out, or Modi and others do not have the wherewithal to walk away and create a new party. This "D4" business is going to be around BJP's neck as a convenient way to deflect some problems of BJP.
Why cannot Rajnath kick Sushma out of BJP - citing disciplinary action or actions leading to the anti-party activities? The party needs to cut its losses, and by removing the D4, we will know what BJP is really made of.
Saar - outside of NaMo and a few self made leaders, most of the BJP is compromised, powerless, or useless.
Rajnath is also a D4 that did not make it into the D4. He is now riding the Modi bandwagon for his own benefit. He is just as useless, probably compromised too. Recall his consorting with the Mulayam government in 2005-2007, leading to loss of BJP credibility as an opposition to the SP? Rajnath has been single handedly responsible for finishing off the BJP in UP, and decimating the BJP in Jharkhand (Rajnath engineered the sidelining of the very capable politician and administrator, Babulal Marandi if he returns to the BJP, I have hopes he will be the next NaMo) to favour his protege, Arjun Munda. The idea that Rajnath will take on the compromised elements in BJP is utterly laughable.
Agree with the highlighted part, saar. Infact, earlier the kongis also used to produce such self-made leaders. But, that steadily decreased due to the presence of inept dynasty on the top. The dynasty on the top is so useless that any half-worthwhile leader would eventually break the party or challenge the dynasty's control. Eg: Power or Gajan Reddy(who used his father's work). Infact, the reason the kongis brought this issue in 2009 was to cut down the threat of future rise of any regional leader(even within the kongi party) so as not to threaten the dynasty. The dilli leadership of the lotus went along with this plan because they were happy to cut down the regional leadership and neutralize the possibility of the rise of the leadership that could challenge their hold.
The major reason for the steady decline of the kongis is the lack of strong local leadership. How long can the party survive on the dynasty's pretensions of charm due to posturing? The good thing about lotus is that some good leaders are still able to rise in the party unlike the kongis.
But, at national level, there seems to be lot of 'leaders' who are not punished for their failures and are given a very long rope. This is not really a unique problem of the lotus. Infact, this is a problem that seems to be affecting all parties. For eg: the left has been completely demolished by its current leadership after 2009 and are now facing extinction. Yet, has that leadership taken any responsibility for this failure? Why is left persisting with a failed leadership? Is there no punishment for failure? Similarly, in all regional parties the leadership can never be blamed despite the electoral losses. Another reason for the mess in AP is due to the failure of TDP and its leadership. TDP persisted with CBN who had failed in 2004 & 2009. After that, he should have taken the responsibility for the failure. That didn't happen. Infact, CBN is now wanting to give the party to his son. The same is happened in lotus. The difference is that lotus was the only party rewarded Modi for his hardwork(of course, there was a lot of pressure to do that, but they somehow did). And due to that single change, lotus reaped a lot of goodwill and positivity. But, the old tired, jaded and failed leaders continue play important role in vital decisions.
At national level, the problem is more complicated because the dilli billi leadership of most of these parties is hardly capable of winning even 5 LS seats on their own. Yet, they dictate crucial policies. Power without responsibility. Kongis and their dynasty started and persist with this culture. But, lotus and left also seem to have imbibed this culture. Most of these politicians are not very popular among their own cadre or core voters. So, they resort to backroom dealings to stay relevant. Whenever, there is a non-performing leadership on the top, then the organization suffers sooner than later. The leadership is quick to claim laurels in case of any success, but tries to deflect the blame in case of failure. With such culture, there is no reward for hardworkers and a culture of sycophancy and power-brokering develops. Soon, they lose contact with the pulse of the people and so the organization suffers.
kongis survive in many places because the alternatives are seen as worse. Of late, lotus is also holding on to the similar mantra: claiming that the alternatives are worse. Of course, lotus is best in the pack and the alternatives are worse. But, people will hope and try for some better alternative.
For example, lotus did not perform on any of its core agendas while it was in power. Issues like art 370, Raam Mandhir, uniform civil code, ...etc were never pursued. But even if those big and 'controversial' issues are ignored, what did the lotus do about other issues?
a) What did lotus do to build covert capabilities in bakisthan?
b) What did lotus do to handle the underworld and its penetration into movies & kirket?
c) What reforms in judiciary, police,...etc were brought in by the lotus to better the system?
d) What did lotus do to check the illegal immigration of BDs?
e) What did lotus do to cut the phoren funding of the jihadhis, EJs & 'social activists'...etc?
f) Why didn't lotus pursue the corruption charges against many of the erstwhile politicians? Even if one ignores the corruption by dynasty, is one supposed to believe that rest of the kongis are clean and have not indulged in any corruption or black money?
There are several such issues on which the lotus could and should have done something. There was nothing. They continued with the same system and continued the cozy setup. Yep, there are also positives for the lotus:
a) roads were built.
b) jobs were created.
c) Pokhran and handling of its fall out.
d) A stable sarkaar without any major scams.
But, there are also negatives:
a) handling of bakisthan including bus yaathra, kargil & agra summit.
b) FDI in media
In net conclusion, I think there are more positives than negatives but there are many lost opportunities. So, its better than kongis for sure, but not what the core supporters of the lotus had hoped for. I think many people had expected a proper systemic shakeup when the lotus was elected. This is again true with Modi's rise also. Many people seem to be expecting a proper systemic changes along with the regular development without corruption from Modi.
The third downside I see is TRS aligning with MIM and establishing Nizam as the patron saint of Telangana
Nizam and 'Nizami culture' getting glorified is the biggest irony of this whole issue. Eventually, separate T will have to define itself as not-Kostha/Seema if it has to keep the separate identity otherwise the separate identity will be hard to kept alive, and saar, you know what that means. There is already attempts at this type of definition. And when denying the similarities with the kostha/seema i.e. the pan-Thelugu similarities, one will have to depend on the unique features of T and invariably it is the 'cosmopolitan culture' due to the presence of muslims.
This is very similar to some sikhs trying to undermine the similarities between Sikhism & Hindhuism by insisting on the parts that are similar to Islam.
nageshks wrote:तादृक्षे समुपस्थिते परिभवे सभ्येषु वाचंयमे
श्वाध्यायात्सु विधेर्बलं स्वदयितेश्वन्येश्वशक्तेश्वपि
निश्चित्यार्तिमतां गतिं यदुपतिं नीव्याम् करौ कुर्वती
साचक्रन्द तदोच्चकैरिव हरे त्रायस्व हामामिति
please explain the meaning of the verse.