General Elections 2014- Transition of power & World Reaction

[Shreeman]

Why should India care about the relations with the Khans. We need to mind our own business and deal with the Khans on a transactional basis.

There will be interaction, for the sake of business or ego. If you keep making left/right turns every 15 years you will never get anywhere. Artificial barriers to communication are bad for all business. All sort of speculation (is Obama going to the inauguration?) pop up. Way too many reasons for an open door policy and a two way street even if you dont care.

[ramana]

Shreeman, Have you read a book "How to read Literature like a Professor"? It gives pointers on the grand themes of the US.
Your comments are right on.

[Shreeman]

Shreeman, Have you read a book "How to read Literature like a Professor"? It gives pointers on the grand themes of the US.
Your comments are right on.

No Ramana, thanks for the pointer. Am hoping to expand my reading beyond Asterix and Tintin when I get older! (or when paperwork lets up, whichever is earlier).

September is near enough, we will find out soon.

[SwamyG]

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/16th- ... 58235.html

The number of first time MPs 315 is highest ever barring post-Emergency election in 1977 when 376 first timers had won. Also the number of re-elected MPs 171 out of 543 is one of lowest ever. Lowest number of re-elected MPs was in 6th Lok Sabha in 1977 when only 144 could win again, followed by 157 in 1980 in 7th Lok Sabha and 165 in 1989 in 9th Lok Sabha.

[ramana]

Narendera Modi: A leader who is what he wears

Looks like Modi Kurta is set to become the fashion statement of the age.

[anmol]

Lessons of the 1984 Sikh Massacre

by Simran Jeet Singh, thediplomat.com June 13th 2014


As millions around the globe continue to celebrate the election of India’s controversial new head of government, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, millions of others have been left scratching their heads, wondering how a notorious perpetrator of human rights violations could be elected to lead the world’s largest democracy.

The global community has expressed serious concern regarding what Modi’s meteoric rise means for the developing Indian nation. While he has been hailed as a savior for India’s stagnating economy, both Modi and the Hindu Nationalist party he represents – the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) – have been linked to state-organized atrocities targeting minority communities.

Modi’s state administration oversaw the 2002 anti-Muslim pogroms in Gujarat, which claimed over one thousand lives and injured thousands of others. The global community has held him accountable for this massacre, to the extent that up until his prime ministerial appointment, the U.S. government refused to grant him a visa.

Modi’s ascent to political leadership has struck a nerve with religious minorities. Communal violence has long affected minority communities in India, and this is not the first time an individual accused of the murder of Indian civilians has been slated to lead the country. This fact is especially poignant this week, as Sikhs around the globe commemorate the anniversary of the anti-Sikh massacres in June of 1984.

Thirty years ago this week, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered a military assault on the historical epicenter of the Sikh religion, Darbar Sahib [Golden Temple] of Amritsar, Punjab. The Indian Army planned its attack to coincide with a day on which the Sikh community traditionally gathers at Darbar Sahib, a decision that directly resulted in thousands of civilian casualties. The Army also attacked about 40 other gurdwaras[/i] (places of Sikh gathering and worship) throughout the Indian state of Punjab on the same day.

As noted by the respected civil liberties collective, Citizens for Democracy, the Indian government imposed a media blackout and manipulated international perceptions of the massacres. The state invoked the pretense of terrorism and framed the military assault as a necessary intervention. To this day, most accounts of the violence use the Army’s sanitized codename – “Operation Bluestar.” The Sikh community, however, has remembered this event as aghallughara – [/i]a massacre of genocidal proportions intended to strike at the heart of its collective psyche.

The anti-Sikh violence of June 1984 is not the first ghallughara [/i]in Sikh history, nor is it the first assault on Darbar Sahib of Amritsar. Sikhs have long been targeted in their homeland of South Asia and consider the military assault of 30 years ago as the third such ghallughara [/i]in which the state has attempted to devastate and exterminate its own Sikh citizens. During the first Sikh Holocaust of 1746 ruling authorities offered monetary rewards for the capture and slaughter of practicing Sikhs. Less than 20 years later, the Great Holocaust of 1762 nearly wiped out the entire Sikh population.

The Sikh community has endured a long history of persecution at the hands of the state, yet Sikhs themselves do not understand oppression in the frame of victimhood. Sikh memory primarily functions to edify and inspire, and the word “victim” is not part of the Punjabi or Sikh lexicon. Rather than recalling these massacres as moments of hopelessness and despair, Sikhs remember these massacres in the spirit of chardi kala [/i](perpetual optimism).

This affirmative outlook does not take away from the seriousness with which Sikhs view and address issues of injustice. The Sikh religion expects all followers to serve humanity and to challenge injustice, and this conviction has historically positioned the community at the center of political persecution, particularly in moments when leadership enacts and engages in unjust practices.

This historical positioning seems important at the present moment. This week, as the Indian nation grapples with the appointment of a public figure tied to serious human rights violations, it also commemorates the 30th anniversary of the anti-Sikh massacres and state-sponsored assault on Darbar Sahib in Amritsar, Punjab. Memories of violence targeting minority communities in the more recent past, coupled with the emergence of a new leadership carrying a Hindu nationalist agenda in the present, leaves minority communities especially anxious about what they might expect in India’s uncertain future.

Simran Jeet Singh is currently completing his Ph.D. at Columbia University. He also serves as a Security Fellow for the Truman National Security Project, the Senior Religion Fellow for the Sikh Coalition, and the Scott and Rachel F. McDermott Fellow for the American Institute of Indian Studies.

[sanjaykumar]

Pic

Does not look like a terrorist to me.

[Prem]

Sanjaykumar, Terrorism too is a state of mind. Good chances that he is not India born Sikh. Here is another one in the same den.
The Modi Era: Responsibility for Whom?
http://trumanproject.org/doctrine-blog/ ... -for-whom/
Kristy Kumar

By reexamining Modi’s history and the elections through a racial lens, it is clear that numerous barriers exist to revolutionizing India’s rich and unparalleled diversity. Although there are 177 million Muslims in India, of the 282 lawmakers in Modi’s BJP, zero are Muslim. Only 9% of Muslims, 8% of Christians, and slightly more Sikhs voted for the BJP. If the Modi era initiates by continuing the systematic push of ethnic minorities to the political periphery, there is no doubt violence will continue to stain India’s future.As head of state of a secular democracy, Modi will only be able to bring a new and just narrative to India’s history if he is able to reconcile these complex ethnic and religious constructs. In his acceptance speech, he passionately claimed “Celebration will continue, but this marks the beginning of the era of responsibility.” If Modi emphasizes issue-focused rather than identity-focused policies, he can set the stage for a type of responsibility blind of religion or caste. His actions will be closely watched not only by the international community, but also by a captivated 1.2 billion population that is fatigued by corruption, ravenous for palpable change, and restless to see India on the center stage.

[abhik]

@sanjaykumar, please remove resize the huge image.

[sanjaykumar]

Sorry about that. I can't seem to be able to do it. Perhaps the mods can help.

[Prem]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/16/opini ... .html?_r=0
With Values Like These ...
(By Puss In Butt)

NEW DELHI — Of all the pictorial charts used in Indian schools as teaching aids, it was the Ideal Boy that haunted my generation. The Ideal Boy woke up and brushed his teeth with care, saluted his parents, prayed, had his meals on time, helped others, performed sundry duties and, more puzzling, took “lost children to police post.”The Ideal Boy embodied certain Indian values, and though these seemed innocuous enough, there was something about his smudgy features, identifiably mainstream Hindu and North Indian, and his expression of saintly smugness that scarred my child brain. Now that I am an adult, and that the right-wing has come back to power in India, I understand why I was so queasy back then. The feeling was a foreboding that otherwise unobjectionable traditional Indian values — respect for one’s family, obedience to elders, modesty for women — might be invoked to reject or repress certain groups.
The new Bharatiya Janata Party government seems determined to look to Asia for political and cultural inspiration. Prime Minister Narendra Modi projects an image of himself as an authority — even an authoritarian — figure, in keeping with the regional ideal of a strong leader. All the while he has been careful to reach out to his counterparts. His first scheduled trips abroad will be to Bhutan and then Japan: and the Chinese foreign minister has just ended a visit to India.
His approach isn’t just a personal predilection; it also reflects a wider shift within India: the search, especially among right-wing politicians and intellectuals, for a common set of Asian cultural norms that would help them create and strengthen a new sense of Indian identity.In the 1990s, Lee Kuan Yew, the former prime minister of Singapore, triggered a fierce debate by drawing a line between Western freedoms and human rights, on the one hand, and on the other, an Asian vision of living in harmony, which might place individual rights in abeyance for the good of the community. In India, this “Asian values” debate found its way into discussions on development, among other things, notably in arguments trying to discredit environmentalists for being too heavily influenced by the West.
The problems with that position are the same now as they were then. As the economist Amartya Sen put it in 1997, “What can we take to be the values of so vast a region, with such diversity?” As a result, invoking an Indian, or Asian, identity in such a plural country, or region, often becomes an excuse for the majority to speak over many minorities.
And why assume, Mr. Sen also argued, that “Western notions” were “somehow alien to Asia”? Yet just a couple of weeks ago, a report by the Indian government’s Intelligence Bureau on the influence of NGOs was leaked to the media. One of its conclusions was that many local NGOs — some funded by “donors based in the U.S., the U.K., Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavian countries” — had been “using people-centric issues” to stall development projects. Another was that some of their work served “as tools for the strategic foreign policy interests” of Western governments. This stiff-collared bureaucrat-speak isn’t just a peculiarity of the Intelligence Bureau: It reveals a suspicion of the West — and of a human rights culture seen to have been forged in the West — that is widespread in India, among politicians and businessmen and, indeed, many ordinary Indians.Every major case of rape recently, for example, has prompted a belligerent reaction against the victim, often couched in terms that pit India against the West. On June 7, a leading ideologue of the extreme right-wing organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, S. Gurumurthy, raised a minor storm of protest when he tweeted: “If Indian women westernize rapes will rise by 50/60 times to reach the levels of West, But there will be no media report No UN intervention.” Among his next few tweets was this definition of Westernization: “Unbridled individualism which destroys relations and families.”These days, the purportedly shady influence of the West is invoked not only to explain why women are victims of sexual violence, but also why Indian culture is in danger, artists should be censored or anyone who questions the costs of development is “anti-national.” In other words, the return of the Asian values debate in India has already become an excuse to assault civil and political rights.
The first time around, Mr. Sen had argued that “The so-called Asian values that are invoked to justify authoritarianism are not especially Asian in any significant sense.” This was a wise attempt to get beyond hopeless dichotomies. But it appealed to rationality, and lately rationality is a value that has seemed not Indian enough.

[ramana]

X-Posted from GDF. original by vivek.rao
----------------------

Election 2014: Modi versus Macaulay's ghost

The post-mandate comments that ‘darkness has descended on India’ show the kind of opposition Narendra Modi has to overcome. It is this aspirational India that is attempting to throw away the shackles of Macaulayism. Make no mistake, it is a tectonic shift and a beginning of the end of the Macaulayan mindset that has ‘ruled’ India for close to 60 years, says Colonel (retd) Anil Athale.

When Modi, on reaching of the steps of Parliament, bowed down, he in essence asserted for the first time a very Bharatiya tradition. A tradition that is followed by the humble railway ‘gangman’ (rail track checker; observe a new group of track patrol men joining duty, they will touch the rail tracks with reverence) to even highly-paid white-collar bank employees, who also touch the steps of their work premise with reverence before entering their office.

This was no ordinary gesture/event; it was an assertion of Indian ethnicity and pride in showing his Indianness in public.

The two worldviews that were in contest, as a subtext of the just-concluded elections, were India as a State to give economic succour to its citizens versus India as a civilisational State with its own worldview, philosophy, aesthetics, music, art and culture.

The Bharatiya Janata Party inarticulately defines it as ‘cultural nationalism’ when what they mean is Indian civilisational nationalism. Partly this confusion can be attributed to the fact that in Hindi the words civilisation and culture have a common and interchangeable term -- sanskriti and sabhyata. Culture is an expression of civilisation but it is civilisation that is supreme and defines the philosophy of the people.

Historian Arnold J Toynbee had offered an explanation for the rise and fall of civilisations. He visualised civilisation as a living organism going through the cycle of birth, growth, stagnation, decline, demise and rebirth. He saw long-term history as a contest between challenge and response. Thus, when Indian civilisation faced Islamic onslaught and military defeat from the 13th century, the Indians led by Marathas under the leadership of Shivaji checked the expansion of the Mughals.

Lord Macaulay’s famous Minute on Education dated February 2, 1835, has shaped the Indian elite's perceptions for close to two centuries. The British prevailed because they had the technology of rail and telegraph combined with firearms to which the Indians had no answer.

But the British were cleverer than other imperial rulers. They ruled India through Indians. To this end they created, through a Macaulayan system of education, a class of Indians that had no pride in their culture, no confidence in their ability and were virtual mental slaves. Extracts from that famous Minute read like it was written in January 2014 and not 1835.

'That English is better worth knowing than Sanskrit or Arabic; that the natives are desirous to be taught English, and are not desirous to be taught Sanskrit or Arabic; We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country.'

The two main points of that education policy were:

A total disdain for any kind of Indian knowledge/achievements in the past as ‘the entire Indian literature on any subject cannot even fill two shelves in any European library’ (paraphrased).

The English must have an education system to serve its Empire and create a class of Brown sahibs and clerks.
At the risk of oversimplification, one can summarise the salient points of Macaulayism as under:

India was a creation of the British -- they unified the several kingdoms etc. Never mind that consolidation of nation states was a 19th century phenomenon when India was already a British colony or that Germany or Italy attained political unity only in the 19th century, or that British India still had close to 400 princely states. Historical memories of vast Indian empires of the past including Chandragupta, Ashoka, Samudragupta or Vikramaditya was not history but mythology. The Indian subcontinent’s cultural unity was also a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh myth.

But for British rule India would have remained in the bullock cart age. All modern technology is the gift of the British colonialists, never mind that countries like Japan, China or even Thailand who were never colonies are today far more advanced than India.

Indians have no history to be proud of, the society was caste-ridden, backward and primitive. Indians should be ashamed of their faith and but for the intervention of the English India would have remained a disunited, backward country full of superstition. Indian intellectual achievements in mathematics, astronomy, medicine are a part of communal propaganda. Aryabhatta, Sushruta, Bhaskara never existed and there is no evidence on the ground of any Indian achievement in art or architecture.

Indian secularism/pluralism is due to the Constitution of 1947, itself a gift by the Macaulayan elite, otherwise India would have been a theocracy like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Never mind that in its entire history of over 5,000 years only two Indian rulers took up the task of spreading faith, Ashoka and Aurangzeb. Also ignored is the fact that Christianity had come to India's shores in 62 AD (when the Romans were feeding the Christians to lions for sport) and continues to flourish, India had Jews who were never persecuted, there were Muslim Arab trader colonies and mosques on the west coast much before Mahmud of Ghazni made his appearance.

----------------------
We had shouted ourselves hoarse about this topic earning the wrath of psecs chatterati!!!

Also ignores the fact that Britian till 1748 (Culledon) was three kingdoms.

[ramana]

X-posting second part....

Why Indian nationalism must win over Macaulayan ideas

In the second and final part, Col Athale says the fight between forces of Indian nationalism and Macaulayism aided and abetted by West is going to be long, hard and dirty. The outcome will decide whether India becomes a superpower or continues to wallow in the swamp of underdevelopment.

My first encounter with Macaulayism was in April 1975. The episode is worth a recall. It was April 21, and India had just launched its first satellite ‘Aryabhatta’ from a Russian rocket.

This author, then a junior captain posted on operational staff, was present at an army party in Rajouri (a field area and headquarters of a division in Jammu and Kashmir). All of us were gathered in the main hall with the general as chief guest. The conversation veered around that day’s news, namely the launch of the Aryabhatta satellite.

A very good friend of the author, a senior major, who headed the intelligence department, in a light-hearted manner, commented on this, “Who is this Bhatta Bhatta?” There was general laughter! I think something snapped in me and at top of my voice from the other end of the room, I told my friend (and indirectly the general and others who found this a joke worthy of laughter) that Aryabhatta was one of the world’s greatest astronomers, who had accurately predicted the various facts about planets 1,000 years before Galileo and Copernicus and if he did not know this he should just shut up.

Most of these colonial institutes produced precisely the kind of Indians that Macaulay envisaged. It is these individuals who mostly man India’s administrative machinery, judiciary and even armed forces. Modi has a long, hard and dirty battle on his hands in the future.

Returning to the ‘challenge and response’ theory of rise and fall of civilisations, one can understand the initial Nehruvian years when India and Indians absorbed Western ideas, institutions and language. But it became clear that having adapted and grown in strength, India will assert and free itself from the Macaulayism. After Nehru’s death in 1964, Lal Bahadur Shastri became the prime minister.

Shastri was steeped in Indian culture and tradition and was a true ‘rajyogi’ (an ascetic ruler). But it is a fallacy if one were to claim that his leadership was easily accepted. The author was a cadet in the National Defence Academy at the time and can vividly recall that every time he came up on the screen during a movie show (for those who don’t know, at the beginning of all movies a short ‘news reel’ produced by the Films Division was shown), the cadets would burst into laughter.

After the imposing figure of a pucca sahib like Nehru, the rustic, diminutive, dhoti-clad Shastri with a squeaky voice was indeed a figure of derision for most Macaulayans. But then came the 1965 Indo-Pak war and Shastri showed exemplary leadership in fighting the US-Pakistan combine.

If Shastri would have survived longer, Macaulayism would have been dead and buried. One recalls the kind of national spirit Shastri evoked. When India faced the American food embargo, his call to eat one less chapati got a huge response. It seemed that Indian nationalism was asserting itself. His early death cut short this attempt.

Indira Gandhi, who followed him, was no Macaulayist. But it took her some time to find her feet and by the time she did, in 1980, she became the victim of international politics that was hell-bent on dividing India. Her son who followed her won a landslide victory in the 1984 elections essentially on the plank of Indian nationalism. One of the measures he took to re-assert Indian identity was to revive the public's interest in India’s ancient past. His decision to air the Indian epics Ramayan and Mahabharat, dealt a decisive blow to Macaulayism. But his assassination cut short that attempt.

In 1999, when an avowedly ‘nationalist’ government came to power in India under Atal Bihari Vajpayee, another attempt was made to dismantle the Macaulayist legacy. Under Dr Murli Manohar Joshi, an attempt was made to re-assert Indian nationalism.

Restoring the Indian historical narrative was seen by him as the first step to national rejuvenation. It is understood that victors write history. Since the British ruled India for long, the version of history taught to Indians had a heavy bias towards their rule.

For instance, the emphasis given to narrating the deeds of various governor generals was far in excess of their long-term impact. On the other hand, ancient Indian history was given a short shrift. It is this that produced the kind of people described by the author earlier, who had no clue about Indian contribution to science or philosophy.

But Joshi's attempt was fiercely opposed by the Macaulayists, individuals as well as institutions. It was derisively called ‘saffronisation’ of history. The Vajpayee government was weak politically and had to succumb to the pressures.

After the 2004 electoral defeat of the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Macaulayists under the United Progressive Alliance government struck back and virtually rolled back most of the changes that had been brought about since the 1980s. But it soon became apparent that the Macaulayists were in retreat. For despite the political changes in India and return of Macaulayists to power, the IT professionals of Indian origin as well as the Indian Diaspora was doing exceedingly well.

The success of Indians abroad and the dismal performance at home began to show up the ruling elite in bad light. It was only a matter of time before the electorate sent them packing in 2014.

India and China, two ancient Asian civilisations, followed different paths to rejuvenation. While India took up the parliamentary democracy route and Macaulayist and administrative system, China adopted Marxism, another Western philosophy, to modernise itself. As China progressed and gained confidence, it jettisoned the Marxist crutches by 1979 under Deng Xiaoping, who proclaimed the Chinese path as Marxism with Chinese characteristics. It seems that India is finally at that ‘Deng’ moment in its history where it is ready to shed the Macaulayan ideological baggage.

But there are others who sincerely and genuinely believe that a pluralistic, modern and democratic India can only survive on Macaulayan foundations. Their number is large and they do occupy important slots in administration and the media. The West understands the danger of the rise of another China-like Asian power. Witness the chorus of criticism and apprehension at the possible victory of Indian nationalists in the Western press.

The fight between the forces of Indian nationalism and Macaulayism aided and abetted by the West is going to be long, hard and dirty. The outcome of this war will decide whether India fulfills the prediction of British historian Arnold Toynbee and like China becomes a superpower or continues to wallow in the swamp of underdevelopment.

[ramana]

Iconization, Fractal Recursivity, and Erasure

The semiotic processes of iconization, fractal recursivity, and erasure, as discussed by
Irvine and Gal (2000), provide a solid basis for the mapping out of these ideologies.

Iconization: This process involves “the attribution of cause and immediate necessity to a
connection (between linguistic and social groups) that may only be historical, contingent, or
conventional” (p. 37). These linguistic features are then made to be (and are subsequently
interpreted as being) iconic of the identities of the speakers.

Fractal Recursivity: The notion refers to the fact that the differences which are made to be
iconic are used in the creation of an “other.” Integral to the idea of fractal recursivity is that
the same oppositions that distinguish given groups from one another on larger scales can
also be found within those groups. Operating on various levels, fractal recursivity can both
create an identity for a given group and further divide it. Within each group or subgroup,
then, there is a schismogenesis (or creation of differences), whereby speakers can be divided
further according to those same principles.

Erasure: It is the process by which these distinctions are created and maintained. Erasure is
integrally intertwined with both iconization and recursivity, as it is the erasure of any
differentiation which is, according to the given ideology, inconsequential. Ideological
outliers, then, are either discounted as being anomalous or disregarded altogether and
ignored. Erasure therefore determines what can become iconized and also what then
becomes recursive within a given group.

[Philip]

The Indian cultural renaissance since Independence has already put paid to Macaulayism. However,India cannot be "an island entire to itself" ,shutting itself outside the "winds of the world".What is more insidious since Independence is the coordinated master plan to attack India from all sides,economically-making us dependent upon western global trade rules,which will cripple Indian industry,especially our indigenous nuclear power capability which also has military dimensions,agriculturally by inducting GM crops into India,and through Hollywood,etc.,introducing a most unhealthy western lifestyle that will require massive costs in health expenditure,which is dominated by western pharma companies.add to this string-arm tactics in buying western mil. eqpt.,and the servility and de-facto conquest of the country is complete.of course,our best and brightest young minds must also migrate to the US and sue their brilliance in the furthering of American interests,first,second and last!

India's strategy is as Gandhi said,allow the winds to enter,but use those which benefit our interests,first always.

[ramana]

Looks like a lot of pockets of alienated people in India

You should take a look at

http://www.daijiworld.com

and
http://www.mangalorean.com

These are news portals for Mangalore but the comments that each news
items carry are full of virulent anti-Modi remarks. Both the Muslim and Catholic
community is highly anti-Modi.

Seems they expeted Congress to come to power and continue to allow their privilieges. They feel let down at thwarted aspirations and vent on Modi.

What they don't realize is a strong and prosperous India is their best surety which only Modi can provide.

[member_23692]

I had said that in all humility.
But I am happy to remove that caveat from that post. I fully stand by my post, categorically and unequivocally.

Thank you for removing the caveat that you might be wrong, and stating categorically and unequivocally that you stand by your post. Your concern for the country and its people seems to be as humble in its value and scope as that of your dolorogenic post, for which you seek archival for the next five years.

I would simply like to highlight part of your post, so it will be read and remembered. This is a "sacrifitional" choice I make on your behalf.

3. The third thing that makes me apprehensive is the Indian people in general. When the people by an overwhelming majority are corrupt, non-nationalist and uncouth and presumably mostly voted for Modi only on the basis of them being "aspirational", not "sacrifitional", I wonder what one man alone can do, no matter how tall or how strong or how good. He has one billion crabs to pull him down.

It has been 30 days now. Please refer to my longish post on this thread of earlier in May, just after Mr. Modi was sworn in, an extract of which is quoted above by another poster. This poster took offence to what I said, particularly what I stated in the extract that he has quoted above. His taking offence was understandable, although he did it in a pompous and "all knowing" way. But that is understandable too, as that is his style, personal attacks against people, whose opinions he disagrees with, so it is not just me, but he does it to everyone whose opinions he does not agree with. And he makes no distinction between serious people who make serious points and frivolous posts, he is an equal opportunity "lashing outer" at whoever he chooses to target. He argues with even people, and I count myself among those, who largely agree with him in a lot of things he says. So, I neither take his manner personally nor do I take it seriously.

Nevertheless, regardless of this particular poster, it is understandable that people, serious people, even non-pompous people, even non-personal attackers could take offence to my basic assertion that all these high expectations of Mr. Modi may be misplaced. Misplaced, not because Mr. Modi is not an honorable man, not because Mr. Modi is not a competent man, not because Mr. Modi does not have his heart in the right place and not because Mr. Modi is not a highly capable man. I asserted that all these high expectations are misplaced, because Mr. Modi is one man and most of us Indians are not like him and if an overwhelming majority of our people are fundamentally corrupt or have grown up making accommodations with a corrupt system, or have found ways to exist, work and to make a living in this corrupt system, we are now fully adjusted in our minds with a corrupt system. A large majority of us have also rationalized this "adjustment" that we have had to make with a corrupt system, by even morally diluting corruption as a "minor vice", a "victim less crime", even claiming that it is "necessary" in a growing economy that transitions from a third world economy to a first world economy (by constant references to how corrupt the West still is and certainly, look at Britain in the 19th Century in the aftermath of the industrial revolution). So in a scenario where most of us have not only made our peace with corruption (and mind you, by corruption I dont just mean bribery), but also partaken in it, not just partaken in it, but in some cases heavily involved ourselves in it and made it a way of life for decades and generations, what is more likely ? Majority of Indians changing their character voluntarily without an external shock or at the barrel of a gun or as usual finding "lanes and byways" around anything that Modi might put up by way of a "healthy system", circumvent him at every step, and dare I say, even sabotage him at every step.

This is what I had asserted on this thread just in the aftermath of Modi taking oath. The post is still there.

Now it has been 30 days, and admittedly 30 days is too short of a time to judge completely. But we can take some clues from what has happened in these 30 days. Have we, collectively as a people, not found a way to thwart, if not sabotage Modi ? And we have done it in a classic Indian way. Look at what the people and media have focused on in the past 30 days. Some controversial statement made by someone, not Modi, on article 370. Some controversial statement made by someone, not Modi on imposition of Hindi, some controversial policy that has been instituted by Delhi University, not at the behest of Modi or his government, but by the previous government, some controversy about some minister, not Modi, being involved in a rape case, some controversy about the rise in railway fares, some controversy about someone, not Modi, making a statement about sex education in schools and some controversy about a potential supreme court justice, again something that Modi did not have much to do with personally.

Are all of the above, not just pure diversionary tactics, a kind of a sabotage so that Mr. Modi just gets mired in these controversies and does not get the time and chance to pursue his real agenda ? Are all of the above not meant to make a serious dent in Mr. Modi's credibility and popularity to soften him up, so that he refrains from trying bold things going forward, and if he does pursue some bold agendas, that he does not have sufficient political capital to successfully push it through ? And are these not being done with at least a majority of us Indians condoning or looking the other way, while this sort of sabotage is going on ? Why do most of us condone this sabotage of Modi and not rise up in arms against it ? Because it suits us fine. Even a reasonably intelligent person like Arnab Goswami has show after show with screaming guests on these trivial diversionary issues, blowing them way out of proportion. And he is not alone. Most of us want a "clean person" "up there". Someone who can curtail price rise, give us jobs, give us enough money so we can go to the malls and pubs, ride around in fancy cars, but we want all these things given to us. We want Modi to "give" them to us. We ourselves dont want to change. We dont want to get in the "earning" mode, rather than being in the "receiving" mode. We dont want to give up our fundamentally corrupt ways or mindset. We want Modi to curtail everyone else's corruption but our own. As long as he does not curtail my corruption, Modi is a "nice guy", not only a nice guy, a "very nice guy", but he should keep his hands off of my corruption. So, any fundamental systemic change proposed by Mr. Modi will be opposed by most of us, if he dares offer such fundamental changes, after we collectively are done sabotaging him, softening him up and beating him up with our diversionary tactics.

Many people, including some on this forum have been asking, why even after a short time of 30 days, there has not been encashing on some low hanging fruit by Modi so far ? Why even some symbolic bold steps have not been taken or even bold policy reversal statements have not come about (no one considers asking babus to come to work on time, a bold enough statement) ? Why ? Well, the answer is that we Indians have successfully managed to bog him down in trivial and side issues, so he has had no time, in between putting out fires, to pluck some low hanging fruit.

In my post in the aftermath of Modi's oath taking, I had cautioned against expecting too much from Modi, not because I questioned Modi's capabilities and credentials, but because I questioned the credentials of the majority of Indians, of all hue and across all demographics, or at least most demographics. In a system that we have in place right now, one man alone, even if he is Lord Rama, cannot do much without active participation or at least the cooperation of the majority, an overwhelming majority. And a vote one time can never take the place of that on going constructive and positive engagement from a majority of us. I had questioned the ability of 90% of us to provide that constructive engagement and last 30 days has further confirmed my questions about our population's collective ability to do so. And yes, some may take offence, understandably so, at my calling most Indians "crablike" who will pull Modi down at every step. Tragically, and with great sadness and regret and shame, after 30 days, I stand by my characterization of most of us Indians.

Most of us Indians may not have much in common, and we may squabble and even outright fight about many issues, most of all over how we divide up our national resources. We may divide ourselves up in groups and subgroups, linguistic, regional and even despise each other. But the one agenda we seem to have in common, from Kashmir to Kanya Kumari, across all demographics, regional groups, caste groups, linguistic groups, tribal groups - one unifying force that binds us as Indians. That is this self destructive desire to not only not dismantle the corrupt and weak state we have built over the last six decades or so, but actually to perpetuate it and take it to new lows, resulting in destruction of all of us. Because, not all in the same way, but in one way or another, we all have consciously constructed a deep emotional and material stake in this corrupt system and we are not willing to risk that stake for building something healthier.

As for my prognosis for the future, and I am open to this thread being archived for future reference, if the adminstrator so choose, I firmly believe that Mr. Modi during his tenure will only be able to make some marginal changes in our system, mostly around the edges, while not being able to fundamentally change either our system or the general thrust of our domestic, foreign and defense policies. At the end of his tenure, we will still have, not a "welfare state", but worse, "a subsidy state", still not have as firm a policy towards our "friendly neigbours" such as Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangla Desh and Myanmar, not fundamentally change trajectory on our Pakistan and China policy, still have our defense forces mired down in bureaucratic and corrupt procurement systems which will sap the capability and the morale of our forces, still massive infighting for resources among castes and regional groups, still being very corrupt as a people and a nation. Yes, we will be governed a little better than just about any government before, but nothing fundamental is going to change. Why ? Again, because in our system as it is structured currently, the system is meant to fail us. This system cannot work without a good man at the top getting full proactive cooperation from not just a majority, but an overwhelming majority. And I am afraid, Mr. Modi will not even find a slim majority or even a significant plurality who will support any bold measures he may take to fundamentally alter us as a society. So, what next, if even a man like Modi cannot bring this about ? Well, the obvious answer is that if even Modi cannot bring this about, we need to seriously consider changing our system of governance, this so called democracy that we have and move in some other direction, towards creating a system which is more suited to our current and future needs and more practical in terms of bringing about the fundamental changes our people and society badly need in order not even to thrive, but to merely survive over a period of time, in the face of all the global and neighborhood challenges we face, not to mention internal challenges.

[SanjayC]

Seems they expeted Congress to come to power and continue to allow their privilieges. They feel let down at thwarted aspirations and vent on Modi.

What they don't realize is a strong and prosperous India is their best surety which only Modi can provide.

Monotheists in India are being pampered by Nehru-Gandhi establishment since before Independence. When the Government changes to Hindu nationalists and there is a quest for equality between all peoples, the monotheists project loss of special privileges as evidence of their persecution.

[member_23692]

Read this very interesting article on the Indian budget and what it symbolizes. Does it symbolize bold change ? Does it even proclaim a change in direction ?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/modi-surp ... 58215.html

I am extracting a quote from this article.

"When for 66 years various governments have not found an answer to these subsidies, I should produce an answer? Obviously, it is not possible," Jaitley told NDTV 24X7 television channel after presenting the budget.

Read my posts above of several days ago. This is not an attempt to say, "I told you so", it is merely to set expectations and also, to point out that we as a people have a long way to go. We have to do a lot, lots, more than merely electing Modi to get back on track to survival. Modi alone can only pick around the edges, he cannot do anything substantial or fundamental, unless we as a people transform ourselves to be in the same mental state as where Modi is today. Modi is not superhuman or an "avatar", the long awaited messiah in the mold of Lord Rama or Lord Krishna.

We must have a strong plurarity (a good 30-35% ) if not a majority, of our population, thinking nationalism and sacrifice, not being personally aspirational for cars and pubs and malls, and only then if we elect someone like Modi, there will come about fundamental change. Creating this plurality requires a lot of grass root organizing by literally hundreds if not thousands of selfless neighborhood leaders. A very tall order. Our young people in their early 20s have to take up this mantle.

If we think by just electing Modi, we have done our job and now we can sit back and Modi will deliver us our air conditioners and designer clothes, we are sadly mistaken. In the absence of a 30-35% plurality of right thinking people, India will keep sputtering along, like an old creaky Indian Railways train on dilapidated tracks, barely moving forward, sometimes stopping for no apparent reason, sometimes also going back, sometimes crashing, but sometimes when the stars align right, also speeding though the night for brief periods. No real control, all "Bhagwan Bharose" and all in the spirit of two steps forward, and one and three quarters back.....until either we will slowly melt away into Islamdom or suffer a massive sudden external shock.

[ramana]

rsangram , X-Posted from GDF:

BTW from a book on change:

In case you find the summary helpful for this particular book on change…

Summary of “SWITCH” by Dan Heath

• Start by Clarifying the Change: For things to change, somebody, somewhere has to start acting differently
o Who is it that needs to change?
o What is the goal?
• Direct the Rider – highly specific concrete steps.
o Script the critical moves: Ambiguity is the enemy of change. Discuss: what are the one or two critical moves that would create the most rapid change toward your goal.
o Find the Bright Spots: We are natural problem solvers, but we often fail to pay attention to what IS working. Discuss: What’s already working, with respect to your goal, and how you can do more of it.
• Motivate the Elephant - Can I make it easier?
o Shrink the Change: The elephant is daunted by big changes. Can you break it down? Discuss: how can I shrink the change to make it less daunting?
o Find the Feeling: People rarely change because of information. Our elephants are motivated by feeling. SEE, FEEL Change model. Can I motivate with visual impact to drive the need for change? Discuss: What can you show your audience that would motivate a change?
• Shape the path
o Rally the Herd: Behavior is contagious – but only if it’s visible. When social norms are in your favor, publicize them. When you’re fighting a hostile culture, create a “free space” for your innovators and advocates. Discuss: How can you rally your herd?
o Tweak the environment: A smooth path can turn jerks into saints. Shape the environment to make the right behavior a little easier, whether that means a floor plan change or a new workflow process or a clever checklist. Discuss: How can you “one click-ify” your change (like Amazon one click shopping).

You cant do change overnight if you want it to stick.

[ramana]

28 of the items in BJP manifesto were implemented in the two budgets. its a small step....

[RamaY]

Modi needs to announce a new Bharat-resurgence bond (longterm) and use that money solely for infra projects. I suggest he starts with a $10b bond and repeat it every year based on its success.

This bond will give a simple interest (paid yearly) and addl returns from the infra projects (linked to Tax revenue growth?)

And make this bond tradeable on NSE

[member_23692]

You cant do change overnight if you want it to stick.

It depends on the change you would like to make. Some changes can be made overnight and they will stick, while others take time. Regardless, I agree with you that it is more important for the change to stick than for it to be temporary. But nowhere in my posts, am I talking about expecting "fast" change.

I am simply arguing this. That if we simply rely on one man, like an avatar, to make that change, we will not only not have any quick change, we will never have change. I was laying down the conditions for change to occur, quick or long term. The condition for change to occur is that we should have at least a good plurality if not a majority that provides a push and a momentum for the desired change to occur. In other words, there should be a solid, hardcore constituency of at least about 30-35% of the people who are pushing for the kind of changes required, who Modi can rely on, as his strategic base. Only then the change can come about. In a non-autocratic system (of which I am not an advocate of), the change cannot be top down, it has to be bottom up, with of course the leader believing in that change also being a pre-requisite. Having a strong and right minded leader in a non-autocratic system is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for change.

If we do not understand this, then we will mistakenly believe that "no change now" necessarily means a "promise of change in the future" , just because we have the necessary condition fulfilled. I can illustrate this with an example.

If there were a solid 30% constituency for severely "streamlining" subsidies, for instance, Jaitley would not have said, "no one has been able to solve the subsidy riddle in the last 66 years, how can you expect me to solve it now". He instead would have said, "we fully stand by our belief in severe curtailment of subsidy, but we would like to do it over time so as to provide time for the truly needy to adjust to that scenario, and here is a roadmap of doing it..........". If he had made the latter statement instead of the former statement which he did, then there would be cause for optimism that change will come, not immediately, but over time. By making the former statement, Jaitley has totally bought into the Congress culture or a culture that symbolizes everything wrong with our nation and our people, and has not only not provided any hopes for change, but in fact, deliberately dashed any hope for change, even in the long run. He is now leaving those who had high hopes from this government to find excuses, apologize or even going into denial and actually grasp for straws.

Think about it. What does anyone say, when they cannot bring about the change. The classic answer is, "change takes time", right. Sometimes it is true, but a lot of times it is not. Logically, it is not looking as if this is true for this government, not because it is the fault of this government, but because we as a people don't want change, even 20% of us. We want the change in outcome, but we do not want to go through the process and pay for that change. We want the change in outcome handed to us in a platter.

[Cosmo_R]

@ rsangram ^^^:

Did he not say somewhere that he wants 'targeted subsidies' meaning cash payments to the poorest via a revamped Aadhar scheme?

[member_23692]

@ rsangram ^^^:

Did he not say somewhere that he wants 'targeted subsidies' meaning cash payments to the poorest via a revamped Aadhar scheme?

His latest statement through the budget itself and after the budget says exactly the opposite. Besides, the proof of the pudding is in the budget, not in statements. Jaitely is perfectly willing and capable of saying not two or three, but thirty contradictory things at the same time. In that sense, Jaitley is no Modi. You will seldom catch Modi making contradictory statements. At worst, he will just keep quiet. He has that level of integrity.

Jaitley's integrity level is just a tad above Sonia Gandhi and he is the Congress culture status quoist in the BJP. In fact BJP is full of status quoist Congress culture people and they seem to have overwhelmed Modi, at least so far. "bide your time", "go slow", "wait for the right opportunity", are all classic status quoist statements. Unfortunately, like I said, Modi does not have that 30% of the population as a base, who he can go to, to counter status quoist in his own party and he is not a dictator either. He has no choice, but to listen to the status quoists in his own party.

It is rather unfortunate, that Hindu organizations like RSS and others have so far only figured out what they want. They don't have a clue how to go about getting what they want, even when they have their own government.

People often wondered how it was that Mrs. Gandhi returned to power so soon after her big time rejection in the elections after emergency. People are also stupefied as to how Congress can have such longevity and even people like Sonia can come to power. Mark my words, Congress will come back with a vengeance again, soon, much sooner than anyone thinks. You know, why ? Precisely because of the Congress culture status quoists within the BJP, whether it be Vajpayee, or Advani, or Sushma or Jaitley and there are many others. I make no revelation when I say that people like Modi are rare exceptions in the BJP, you can count them on your fingers. Even the RSS, as I said, is a timid organization, incapable of leading. Then there are a whole bunch of people in the BJP, in fact the majority, and they primarily inhabit the state units of BJP, who are not just status quoists, but either absolute Congress culture corrupt or just out and out criminals.

No change is possible in such a scenario. It is crystal clear. To expect anything more than marginal improvements around the edges without that 30% base within the general population, is a giant leap of faith. Only if God exists, and He is of the intervening type and he radically alters the trends and the trajectory he has put Hindus into over the last 1000 years, will that change come about. Or, our young people, in the thousands, become hardcore karmayogis and organize the 30% of our population to form a strong constituency for change.

[JE Menon]

Isn't it funny that there is no real "world" reaction... The largest election in the history of mankind has just ended, the man elected is the only one on the planet, EVER, to have received a mandate of such proportions and from such a large number of people... and yet, "world" reaction is surprisingly muted... No one writing paeans to democracy in India, no one really examining how it happened, no thoughtful after-piece in any media about what this dramatic change really means for the world, and for India, the second most populous and arguably the youngest population on the planet.

No one knows what to really make of it all. Good.

[Hari Seldon]

Radha Rajan responds to @AndyMacaskill's hitjob against @AmitShahOffice.

Ms Radha Rajan is incisive, logical, articulate and simply brilliant. Kudos.

Open letter to Bloomberg’s Andrew MacAskill

A column that could'v been penned by a BRF-ite in flow. Must share widely.

[svinayak]

Isn't it funny that there is no real "world" reaction... The largest election in the history of mankind has just ended, the man elected is the only one on the planet, EVER, to have received a mandate of such proportions and from such a large number of people... and yet, "world" reaction is surprisingly muted... No one writing paeans to democracy in India, no one really examining how it happened, no thoughtful after-piece in any media about what this dramatic change really means for the world, and for India, the second most populous and arguably the youngest population on the planet.

No one knows what to really make of it all. Good.

The world reaction is due to control of the western media by large western corporation. So by not covering the Indian election the western media has created no 'world reaction' to election

[devesh]

Looks like a lot of pockets of alienated people in India

You should take a look at

http://www.daijiworld.com

and
http://www.mangalorean.com

These are news portals for Mangalore but the comments that each news
items carry are full of virulent anti-Modi remarks. Both the Muslim and Catholic
community is highly anti-Modi.

Seems they expeted Congress to come to power and continue to allow their privilieges. They feel let down at thwarted aspirations and vent on Modi.

What they don't realize is a strong and prosperous India is their best surety which only Modi can provide.

they might not want a "strong and prosperous" India, because they might fear that this will result in the increased assertion by Hindus of their rights and freedoms. this they fear much more than living in a economically, politically, militarily neutered country. perhaps.

[SwamyG]

With 1.2 billion people, India should behave like IT is THE world.

[sum]

Both the Muslim and Catholic
community is highly anti-Modi.

Christian weekly wants prayer for Modi

In its editorial titled ‘Narendra Modi, disciple of Jesus Christ’, Sunday Shalom – a weekly publication in Malayalam for Catholic communities — tries to trace the impact of BJP’s victory in the Lok Sabha elections on Christian faith and believers in the country. “Narendra Modi has won on God’s design and with God’s consent. Anything that has God’s consent also comes with God’s plan,” Chief Editor Bro Benny Punnathara wrote.

Meanwhile, some of those who commented on the editorial’s online page have slammed the publication for its stance on Modi and alleged ‘political designs’ of the Church.

These guys seem to be as lost cause as most of the IMs im encountering these days.

[JE Menon]

Well, let's hope they convince their readership to vote for Modi next time, since it is "God's plan"... I'm sure BJP will take all the votes it can get, especially in Mallustan.

[svinayak]

These guys seem to be as lost cause as most of the IMs im encountering these days.

We need to get them into the Indian vision and Indian global plans for the next 30 years.

Past 30 years of secularism have fragmented the Bharatiya national vision and lot of individuals educated ones have been conphused.

[member_23692]

MAYI ASK THE MODERATORS TO SECURE THIS POST, SO THAT WE CAN KEEP COMING BACK TO THIS AND REFER TO IT PERIODICALY AND CERTAINLY AT THE END OF FIVE YEARS ? - R

With all the hopes and expectations from the middle class in India, mainly educated and urban, I would like here to express a word of caution and some apprehensions on the extent to which Modi will be able to bring about revolutionary changes. If everyone recalls, Mr. Vajpayee came to office with similar expectations and optimism, just like the Janata Party government in 1979 after emergency, when Mrs. Gandhi was defeated. In fact, unlike Mr. Vajpayee, who did not even have a BJP majority, the Janata Party had close to if not actually a two thirds majority. It did not take long for that Janata Party government to disintegrate. I dont think it even completed its full term. So here are reasons why I am cautious and apprehensive.

1. I hope that Mr. Modi does not fall into the classic trap of being at a subconscious level, an "aspirer" to being a part of the English speaking St Stephens crowd. I hope he does not feel that now that he has become the PM, that he has now become their "equal" and now he will act in ways to vindicate his reputation by acting just like other politicians, particularly Congress politicians. There are several reasons why I think this may not be totally out of the realm of reality. One, once in power, not only the BJPians of Vajpayee ilk, but also supposed hardliners like Advani and his ilk, started behaving exactly like Congressis, and there was hardly anything to distinguish between the Congress governments and Vajpayee's BJP government. Same is true for most BJP ruled state governments. One can hardly distinguish them from a Congress ruled state (Gujarat being an exception, of course) The jingos here will be quick to jump up and down and claim, well, those were all "non-Modis", that Modi is different. Well, maybe and I certainly hope Modi is different. But ever since 2002, it has seemed to me like Modi has always been on the defensive himself on the Muslim issue in India and instead of doubling down and standing firm on his original anti-Islamist stance, he has instead been busy justifying himself on how he treats everyone equally and in his reign, muslims do not have to fear ( I will admit to coming from an point of view that a little bit of fear is a good thing). I personally dont think, that at least this time around, had Modi continued to explicitly maintain his hard stance against the Islamists, it would have made more than 1% difference in his vote share, if that. Almost all the people who voted for Modi this time around would have voted for him anyway, even if he had a harder stance.
The second thing that makes me think that Modi may not meet all our expectations is because he never ever brought up the issue of deliberate and systematic step by step destruction of our defense preparedness by successive Congress and other non-BJP governments. I am not sure, Modi is even aware of the dismal level of our actual defense preparedness on the ground. The last BJP government did not raise a red flag about lack of defense preparedness which was compromised by their Congress predecessors and in fact, did not do much to enhance and rebuild our defenses. Lastly, I would have expected Modi to start with a very stern stand against Paki, not invited them to his inauguration and then extract concessions from the Paki for even small favors that India would perform for them, such as talking to them at all, or serving them a meal or even acknowledging them as interlocutors. If the argument for inviting them is the opinion of the "International Community", then let me remind everyone, Mao did not care a damn for "International Opinion", and yet it was Nixon who visited China first, not Mao. Even the present day, so called "Moderate capitalist" Chinese leaders dont care a damn about the "International Community" today. Just ask the Phillipines, the Japanese, the Vietnamese and the Indians. There should have been a de-facto non recognition of Pakistan on day one of his taking office, without making it public, but by making it a silent policy within his government. He should have started off by treating Pakis as pariahs and launched a very strong diplomatic initiative in all world capitals with full multi-media presentations of the history of India, how India was invaded by Islamists, how Pakistan was formed, how Paki is a virulently Islamic nation - just a frontier arm of the larger Islamists expansionists forces and point out clearly the differences between India and Pak. This diplomatic initiative should have ended with the unmistakable conclusion that if Hong Kong is recognized by the international community as a part of China, if Taiwan is more or less regarded by the rest of the world as a renegade province of China and if Tibet of all places is recognized by most of the world as part of China, why cant Pakistan be considered a breakaway rogue province of India, a completely illegitimate entity to begin with and continues to be as proven by its acts everyday, to be reunited in the long run, "preferably by peaceful means", This attempt should have been made to gain as much leverage as possible before finally and grudgingly sitting down in talks with Paki. But again, Modi played right into Paki hands by appearing smiling and harmless. Why soften a hardline image for nothing ? It is hard enough to get an Indian of any station with a hard and ruthless image and here by some miracle which only occurs once in a millennium, we finally got a Prime Minister, no less with that image, why would you give it up ? In fact, Modi should not have directly engaged with Paki at all, not over-exposed himself at all, and maintained a mystery, an aura and a sense of darkness and foreboding around him, which could have been used as a huge advantage for the country, when everybody and their brother would keep guessing what Modi is thinking and what he would do next - kinda like an Indian rightist Mao with a finger on the nuclear button. I certainly hope that Modi did not fall into the trap of self-aggrandizement by our typical Indian thinking that no party is a real party or a big party or a prestigious party, unless some "big people" attend that party and thus his invites to these other Saarc leaders ("big people"). We all are familiar with the current syndrome or even the sickness that has inflicted us Indians from top to bottom - no wedding is complete or worth going to, unless there is a minister or two and a commissioner attending or at least an MLA or two and the collector, no matter how corrupt or uncouth they are. By the way, what is up with Farouq Abdullah these days. He comes from a "good family". I have never seen him this uncouth before. His son, Omar, is just a crook and an opportunist, but Farouq was a better guy. Better than both his father and his son. Now he is just uncouth.

2. The second thing that makes me apprehensive of whether Modi will meet our expectations is that fact that politically Modi does not have good advisers. I dont know much about Amit Shah and Nada, but I am not sure that even if they are the best, that they have the heft to counter all the corrupt, the mediocre, the charlatans, the personally over-ambitious and particularly the ignorant, the disloyal chameleons, the opportunists, the short sighted, the uneducated, the complete non visionaries, the castiests, the fools, the anti or non nationalists and the idiots which are the rest of the BJP party, just like any other political party in India. Let us look at who all surround Modi today. Arun Jaitley, falls in the total non-visionary, personally over-ambitious, possibly a disloyal opportunist, certainly a chameleon, at best a non-nationalist and very much part of the "old school congress political culture" (no I dont mean he was a Congressi ever). Such people do not want revolutions or to make waves, they want to feel cozy and secure in being part of the establishment so that they can now fully utilize, what they think is "their turn" to use power to their personal advantage. Jaitley will certainly pull Modi towards the "center", if not "left" and try to keep any "controversial" hardline decisions at bay. Next, Sushma Swaraj, the less said about her the better. Next, Rajnath Singh. Fat, dumb and happy and totally clueless. He was in the right place at the right time to ride the Modi wave. He was and is nothing more than a figure head. The only thing going for him is that he is loyal to Modi, will fight for him and he did not allow himself to feel self important enough to come in the way of Modi getting elected. He is also honest. But being dumb and a total non-visionary cancel out all his advantages. He in no way can match Jaitley or Swaraj in guile or cunning to act as a counter against them. Then look at all the others. There is no one that can be said to have either the heft or the vision or the conviction or the nationalistic credentials to second Modi, if ever he attempts any bold or revolutionary moves. BJP ruled and other party state governments will be another headache for Modi and will act as an ally of the likes of Jaitley and Swaraj, against Modi's natural inclinations and leanings. VK Singh ? Maybe, he comes close, but he does not have the heft to counter the heavy weights, at least yet. So, we have Modi, who will be internally sabotaged and externally challenged by other casteist groups, the likes of Lalu, Mulayam, MAyawati, Mamata, Amma and maybe even Patnaik, although I tend to think that Patnaik is the most sober of the lot and not as destructive. The problem is that Modi does not have a good support system. In addition to Amit Shah and Nada, if he can get people like Brahma Chellany, and the likes of KPS Gill, maybe he will create a better support system for himself. He should also try and get people like Maninderjit Singh Bitta, regardless of party affiliations to join him and then create a new "Modi corps" to create a full line of succession for continuity in addition to create a support system for him in the present.

3. The third thing that makes me apprehensive is the Indian people in general. When the people by an overwhelming majority are corrupt, non-nationalist and uncouth and presumably mostly voted for Modi only on the basis of them being "aspirational", not "sacrifitional", I wonder what one man alone can do, no matter how tall or how strong or how good. He has one billion crabs to pull him down.

I want to re-post something I posted immediately after Modi victory on may 28 2014. I believe several people went ballistic reading this post, including and particularly, a certain person who purportedly practices "healing" in a Congress ruled state. He and a lot of people subscribe to the theory that there is nothing wrong with India, other than Western propaganda and the Macaulyte class that the British left behind in India and that criticizing India on anything other than those two counts, amounts to blasphemy, punishable by Sharia justice.

The gist of my post of May 28 2014, quoted above, was that Modi may be a good guy, but what can he alone do, when there are a billion crabs pulling him down. I was attempting to say that little by little, the billion people, will begin to wear Modi down, and clip away at his wings, step by step, systematically, by banding together and uniting, despite their mutual hate for each other, for the sole purpose of destroying Modi. Even a dictator cannot be effective in enforcing his writ, without a certain minimum critical mass, a certain minimal plurality (I am not saying majority), but a good 20 to 25% of the population which forms a core support for him. Modi is not a dictator, far from it. He has to operate within the confines of Indian "democracy", the most mafiaized kleptocracy ever invented by mankind. In a kleptocracy, the value and the reward system are corrupted and perverted. A"thief" is a good guy and an honest person is someone to be stomped upon and excoriated, ultimately destroyed. Does that not define India of today ? Has India not progressively becoming more and more of a kleptocracy, every day that passes, starting in 1947 ?

It does not help that Modi's self confidence has also been dented by almost 15 years of daily harangue by the media and Indians of all hue. He has been called a mass genocidal murderer by our own people, the Indians, a "Hitler", a regressive neanderthal-lic, "intolerant" Hindu, a killer, killer and more killer. It certainly appears that these daily and sometimes five times a day, non-stop and vicious attacks, coupled with the Indian Kleptocracy, which goes by the name of "democracy", has constrained and confined Modi to be at best a "figurehead" with no teeth, no power and no will to do anything, but talk a good game. See, even "thieves" and "kelptos", have this need to get away from it all and hear a lecture on real virtue, every now and then - a kind of self-piskology, to make them feel good about themselves, despite the orgy of thievery they indulge in, all day long. And Modi, alas, is now reduced to merely providing them this delusional, lofty and healing rhetoric, so that the kleptomaniacs feel good about themselves. Poor Modi! But more importantly, Poor India and Poor Indians. I weep for you! I weep for us.

It is better to disappear as a civilization, than to transform ourselves into a Kleptocracy - a civilization of thieves, and in our case, a cannibalistic thieving nation. We dont rob others, we just rob each other.

[member_29218]

I want to re-post something I posted immediately after Modi victory on may 28 2014. I believe several people went ballistic reading this post, including and particularly, a certain person who purportedly practices "healing" in a Congress ruled state. He and a lot of people subscribe to the theory that there is nothing wrong with India, other than Western propaganda and the Macaulyte class that the British left behind in India and that criticizing India on anything other than those two counts, amounts to blasphemy, punishable by Sharia justice.

The gist of my post of May 28 2014, quoted above, was that Modi may be a good guy, but what can he alone do, when there are a billion crabs pulling him down. I was attempting to say that little by little, the billion people, will begin to wear Modi down, and clip away at his wings, step by step, systematically, by banding together and uniting, despite their mutual hate for each other, for the sole purpose of destroying Modi. Even a dictator cannot be effective in enforcing his writ, without a certain minimum critical mass, a certain minimal plurality (I am not saying majority), but a good 20 to 25% of the population which forms a core support for him. Modi is not a dictator, far from it. He has to operate within the confines of Indian "democracy", the most mafiaized kleptocracy ever invented by mankind. In a kleptocracy, the value and the reward system are corrupted and perverted. A"thief" is a good guy and an honest person is someone to be stomped upon and excoriated, ultimately destroyed. Does that not define India of today ? Has India not progressively becoming more and more of a kleptocracy, every day that passes, starting in 1947 ?

It does not help that Modi's self confidence has also been dented by almost 15 years of daily harangue by the media and Indians of all hue. He has been called a mass genocidal murderer by our own people, the Indians, a "Hitler", a regressive neanderthal-lic, "intolerant" Hindu, a killer, killer and more killer. It certainly appears that these daily and sometimes five times a day, non-stop and vicious attacks, coupled with the Indian Kleptocracy, which goes by the name of "democracy", has constrained and confined Modi to be at best a "figurehead" with no teeth, no power and no will to do anything, but talk a good game. See, even "thieves" and "kelptos", have this need to get away from it all and hear a lecture on real virtue, every now and then - a kind of self-piskology, to make them feel good about themselves, despite the orgy of thievery they indulge in, all day long. And Modi, alas, is now reduced to merely providing them this delusional, lofty and healing rhetoric, so that the kleptomaniacs feel good about themselves. Poor Modi! But more importantly, Poor India and Poor Indians. I weep for you! I weep for us.

It is better to disappear as a civilization, than to transform ourselves into a Kleptocracy - a civilization of thieves, and in our case, a cannibalistic thieving nation. We dont rob others, we just rob each other.

And, 18 months after the election, do you still believe that Modi is simply a figurehead, a well-meaning but powerless man, 'reduced to rhetoric'? Is there any glimmer of hope at all, or is it as always just 'gloom and doom'?

We're all Jingoes here, granted. But even with a strictly objective eye, is there no perception that this time around maybe, just maybe things may go a bit different?

I still see steel in his backbone and grit in his voice. Perhaps yes, we should all weep eternally for Mother India, but I am now seeing a ray of hope and that brings a smile to my face.

[member_23692]

I want to re-post something I posted immediately after Modi victory on may 28 2014. I believe several people went ballistic reading this post, including and particularly, a certain person who purportedly practices "healing" in a Congress ruled state. He and a lot of people subscribe to the theory that there is nothing wrong with India, other than Western propaganda and the Macaulyte class that the British left behind in India and that criticizing India on anything other than those two counts, amounts to blasphemy, punishable by Sharia justice.

The gist of my post of May 28 2014, quoted above, was that Modi may be a good guy, but what can he alone do, when there are a billion crabs pulling him down. I was attempting to say that little by little, the billion people, will begin to wear Modi down, and clip away at his wings, step by step, systematically, by banding together and uniting, despite their mutual hate for each other, for the sole purpose of destroying Modi. Even a dictator cannot be effective in enforcing his writ, without a certain minimum critical mass, a certain minimal plurality (I am not saying majority), but a good 20 to 25% of the population which forms a core support for him. Modi is not a dictator, far from it. He has to operate within the confines of Indian "democracy", the most mafiaized kleptocracy ever invented by mankind. In a kleptocracy, the value and the reward system are corrupted and perverted. A"thief" is a good guy and an honest person is someone to be stomped upon and excoriated, ultimately destroyed. Does that not define India of today ? Has India not progressively becoming more and more of a kleptocracy, every day that passes, starting in 1947 ?

It does not help that Modi's self confidence has also been dented by almost 15 years of daily harangue by the media and Indians of all hue. He has been called a mass genocidal murderer by our own people, the Indians, a "Hitler", a regressive neanderthal-lic, "intolerant" Hindu, a killer, killer and more killer. It certainly appears that these daily and sometimes five times a day, non-stop and vicious attacks, coupled with the Indian Kleptocracy, which goes by the name of "democracy", has constrained and confined Modi to be at best a "figurehead" with no teeth, no power and no will to do anything, but talk a good game. See, even "thieves" and "kelptos", have this need to get away from it all and hear a lecture on real virtue, every now and then - a kind of self-piskology, to make them feel good about themselves, despite the orgy of thievery they indulge in, all day long. And Modi, alas, is now reduced to merely providing them this delusional, lofty and healing rhetoric, so that the kleptomaniacs feel good about themselves. Poor Modi! But more importantly, Poor India and Poor Indians. I weep for you! I weep for us.

It is better to disappear as a civilization, than to transform ourselves into a Kleptocracy - a civilization of thieves, and in our case, a cannibalistic thieving nation. We dont rob others, we just rob each other.

And, 18 months after the election, do you still believe that Modi is simply a figurehead, a well-meaning but powerless man, 'reduced to rhetoric'? Is there any glimmer of hope at all, or is it as always just 'gloom and doom'?

What do you think ?

I think that whatever glimmer of hope you may be feeling now, I felt maybe .5% of it when Modi got elected, not even that, it was more a prayer, rather than a hope, but I was hoping against hope, wanting very badly for things to be different.

Today, 18 months after the election, I have lost even that tiny bit of hope, or rather a hopeful prayer, as I see events unfold. Here is why. Let us look at the facts.

When Modi took office, he found himself in the following situation.

1) He found that decades of corruption and neglect practiced by the Indian Kleptocracy which even included the top brass of the armed forces, had completely eroded and corroded the Indian armed forces' battle readiness. The defense procurement system was in shambles, resulting in rusting and outdated weapons systems, obsolete aircrafts, disjointed purchases, no strategic war doctrine, no ongoing adaptation of plans to deal with the fast changing nature of threat, and a completely hollowing out of the defense forces, its equipment and its morale, to a point, where not even a lay person could be fooled any longer into believing the myth that Indian army was ready to face any threat, leave aside all threats.

2) To make matters worst, Modi found himself with a treasury, not merely empty, but in red, and in a hole so deep, that there really was no money whatsoever. Years of theft and splurging money in the form of subsidies to buy votes by the kleptocrats had even stymied the ability of the government to debt finance, to remedy the defense situation or to meet the country's infra-structure challenges, which would poise India to be in a better place from a defense and an economic perspective.

3) None of the above two things, ie., a hollowed out Indian defense and an empty treasury, could be advertised or even divulged by Modi to the world or even the people of India, lest we be completely and brazenly naked in front of the world and particularly our enemies, to where they could very easily take advantage of our situation (the enemy of course knew for the most part, the sad state of our battle readiness, but if Modi were to acknowledge it publicly, it would do away with any uncertainty that the enemy may have felt towards taking advantage of us)

4) So, now, what was Modi to do. He had promised the country two basic things. 1) Restore the country's pride by taking a hardline posture against our enemies and 2) Provide the people of India with a great economy to meet the aspirations of a young India. With the Indian defenses in complete shambles and an empty treasury, how was he to accomplish that ? Moreover, he could not come out and tell the Indian people the real state of affairs, lest we as a nation be completely exposed to the world and our enemies. So, he started visiting countries, and tried to lure them to invest in India, in an attempt to replenish the treasury, so that he could provide the economic stimulus via infra-structure development, which by the way requires tonnes of money and embark on rebuilding our defenses, which also require a ton of money. This accounts for the many and much criticized foreign trips by Modi, which in the whole scheme of things, failed to make even a small improvement in the precarious state of Indian treasury, as no significant investments actually occurred. Attracting foreign investment is a very long term project and depends a great deal on setting the country towards a positive course in legal reforms, infra-structure reforms, regulatory reforms, fiscal reforms, monetary reforms, culture reforms etc, all of which take a very long time, in Indian context and Modi knew all this, but was desperate for funds quickly and embarked on this long shot approach to attracting capital.

5) While Modi was almost completely hampered in anything he wanted to do, primarily by an empty treasury, and completely pre-occupied with attempting to raise money for his initiatives, the klepto maniacs from his own party, his own cabinet, his own regional party satraps were having a field day, further providing patronage to their relatives, friends and sycophants and continuing the Congress orgy of klepto mania to the extreme, as if no change in government has taken place, and it actually started feeling to the common man, that the change in government has really changed absolutely nothing. The perception of the common man was matched by reality,because indeed and in fact, nothing had changed, other than the name of the party, ruling Delhi.

6) Completely surrounded by kelpto maniacs from his own party. The Jetlies, the Sushmas, the Rajes, the BJP State level Satraps, and the likes. These klepto maniacs would thwart any positive action taken by Modi and prevent any significant paradigm shift or a Hindu revival of sorts, which would require blood sacrifice on the part of many. Far from being prepared to offer themselves in this blood sacrifice for Hindu revival, these klepto maniacs just wanted a bounty for winning the elections and had no intention of deviating from or changing the status quo.

7) This Indian system of governance, which goes by the misnomer called Democracy, but is actually the worst form of Kleptocracy known to man, until changed, will not spring up another leader, with 5% the capability, character and fortitude of Modi. The Indians got lucky that a billion thieves elected an honest man. It has not happened in the past 65 years, and is not likely to happen again, unless, the Indians hit the jackpot again, through no merit of their own. Mistakes happen sometimes, and even the most hardcore thieves and kleptos, are not perfect. They made a mistake this time and elected an honest man. But alas, with India's and Indians' luck, Indians will not be able to take advantage of this unexpected good fortune, because the Indians have ensured over the past 65 years, that they will create a Kleptocracy to perfect, that even a good man at the helm, has no chance of turning things around. They created a system, so corrupt, so foolproof that they ensured that nothing would stop the general population, lead by their castiest leaders, from indulging in an orgy of Klepto mania.

Therefore, my young friend, the BRF trainee, forget about hope, I believe, we as Indians dont even have a prayer.

If you think different, by all means, state your opinion, but make it thoughtful and give reasons for your opinion. And I keep weeping for India and keep weeping for Indians and keep weeping for myself.

[A_Gupta]

Wow, if India had one extra rupee coin for each expression of gloom, then India would sink under the weight of all that money!

If India is so sunk that only One Man (which is virtually a Hollywood trademark) can save her, then might as well pack up bags and move to, say, Pakistan.

[member_23692]

Wow, if India had one extra rupee coin for each expression of gloom, then India would sink under the weight of all that money!

If India is so sunk that only One Man (which is virtually a Hollywood trademark) can save her, then might as well pack up bags and move to, say, Pakistan.

India is so sunk that not even the "ONE MAN", as you put it, can save it.

What makes you hopeful ? Not wishful, hopeful ?

[A_Gupta]

What makes you hopeful ? Not wishful, hopeful ?

Indians!

Not all 1.2 billion of them, but there's plenty of good ones.

PS: Also, just think - a few months as CM in Gujarat and 2002 riots happen. CM Modi went through that. This is merely a defeat in the elections after one year as PM, nothing as terrible and tragic and divisive as 2002. PM Modi is not a wimp like me or you. Few reach the top who are not incredibly tough and resilient. I doubt PM Modi was dejected at the defeat for more than a couple of hours. He would instead be going to Plan B, strategizing his moves ahead, thinking how to separate the milk from the water within his party, and so on.

[member_23692]

What makes you hopeful ? Not wishful, hopeful ?

Indians!

Not all 1.2 billion of them, but there's plenty of good ones.

PS: Also, just think - a few months as CM in Gujarat and 2002 riots happen. CM Modi went through that. This is merely a defeat in the elections after one year as PM, nothing as terrible and tragic and divisive as 2002. PM Modi is not a wimp like me or you. Few reach the top who are not incredibly tough and resilient. I doubt PM Modi was dejected at the defeat for more than a couple of hours. He would instead be going to Plan B, strategizing his moves ahead, thinking how to separate the milk from the water within his party, and so on.

What you are saying is all platitudes and leap of faith. No evidence. Gujarat is an anomaly in India. Rest of India, particularly North and North Eastern India is a different planet than Gujarat.