johneeG wrote:
nageshks wrote:
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 Congress, even today, has often more impressive leaders, particularly at the local level, than the BJP does. Take Karnataka, my state, for instance. The reason why the Congress has a very strong presence in every part of the state is not because it has a very good cadre. It is because, even today, the Congress has a large number of very capable local level leaders. BJP does not even have half as many good leaders in many places. Similar is the case with Assam. In upper Assam, the Congress is winning only the the strength of some very good local leaders.
The Centre keeps trying to cut them down to size. But that is a direct natural consequence of the quality of the central leadership. Indira Gandhi tolerated much stronger leaders than Sonia does. But when the prime minister candidate is Pappu, you cannot have great leaders under him. The underlings will eclipse Pappu, and consequently, they have to be periodically sacrificed, so that no one becomes better than Pappu.
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.
It is a top down vs bottom up approach. In BJP, usually, the good leaders from the states are elevated to the top like NaMo or SSC. When this approach is disturbed, and a bunch of broken backed leaders milk the BJP for their own profit, you get the D4 - people who have to be nourished at the expense of the cadre. Take Rajnath Singh. He cannot win a seat on his own from anywhere. Yet he is party president. Why is he being pampered and given a ticket, I ask you? Why can he not be told - fight from your seat, Ghaziabad, and win, or lose and go home? What was he made party president in the first place? What were his qualities? Similar is the case with Sushma Swaraj, or Arun Jaitley, or heck, even Venkaiah Naidu..
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.
+1. Could not put it better. We have a very inspiring PM candidate in NaMo. Why can we not have an equally impressive party president at the national level, a Leader of Opposition? Yet, even in BJP, it does not often happen.
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?
Brutally honest answer, IMO, is that BJP got greedy and impatient. If the BJP had gone on its own for another term or two, they could have built up their own party in Odisha, AP, Assam, and Bengal (the BJP was growing strongly in all four regions in 1998). But it would have taken another 5 years before they were ready to start winning enough seats from the four states on their own. But they got greedy, allied with a ton of non-ideological allies and dumped their own core agenda, and in turn, got dumped by voters.
nageshks wrote:
तादृक्षे समुपस्थिते परिभवे सभ्येषु वाचंयमे
श्वाध्यायात्सु विधेर्बलं स्वदयितेष्वन्येष्वशक्तेष्वपि
निश्चित्यार्थिमतां गतिं यदुपतिं नीव्याम् करौ कुर्वती
साचक्रन्द तदोच्चकैरिव हरे त्रायस्व हामामिति
Saar,
please explain the meaning of the verse.
It is a quote from चम्पूभारतम् of Anantha Bhatta. It is basically Draupadi's appeal to Lord Vishnu when she was abandoned by everyone in the assembly of the Kurus, all earthly aid failed her, and she realised that only Lord Hari could help her.
As I said, a husband-wife fight with a kid thrown in!
) and definitely far (far more) authorative than what that crap of the site does.