Bharat Rakshak

How does this end "democracy"? And why even if its the end of "democracy" - it implies "disintegration of India"? The issue of "war on two fronts" need not lead to "end of democracy" which even if it happens need not imply "disintegration".

CRamS wrote: While discussing with westerners, of course, I am temperate in my language. .

Why sir? Why can't you practice what you preach MMS and GOI should do?

arnab wrote:
Why sir? Why can't you practice what you preach MMS and GOI should do?

I do. I ask pointed questions whenever I get a chance and steadfast in upholding India's interests. None of this crap about "walking the extra mile" with terrorists. What R-man was saying is that if you play the race card, its recipe for being ignored, and in response I said I don't in direct confrontation with western elites. But that does not mean we cannot articulate robust, forceful disagreements, and on this count MMS falls way too short. Even Senator Larry Pressler said that MMS should show more spine that acquesing to whatever it is that Washington and London ask him to do.

CRamS wrote: I do. I ask pointed questions whenever I get a chance and steadfast in upholding India's interests. None of this crap about "walking the extra mile" with terrorists. What R-man was saying is that if you play the race card, its recipe for being ignored, and in response I said I don't in direct confrontation with western elites. But that does not mean we cannot articulate robust, forceful disagreements, and on this count MMS falls way too short. Even Senator Larry Pressler said that MMS should show more spine that acquesing to whatever it is that Washington and London ask him to do.

How do you know MMS is not asking 'pointed questions' in private (and avoiding 'direct confrontation')? Why is TALKING about 'walking the extra mile' considered crap? How about emulating China which signs on every dotted line and reneges on every one of them if it is in their interest? What do you think of the GOI response in the foreign secy level talks (some posters were predicting a sell out here)? Do you think Nirupama Rao exceeded her brief and said things which MMS did not want articulated?

arnab:

Lets not dance around. It is now well established that MMS and terrorist Mush agreed to make joint love in Srinagar. Thats a sell out and its an understatement. Of course, its possible Kiayni & Co are going fot the kill and want even more. But everything points to reviving the MMS/Mush pact. I am not going to argue on abstract notions. Just facts please.

CRamS wrote:arnab:

Lets not dance around. It is now well established that MMS and terrorist Mush agreed to make joint love in Srinagar. Thats a sell out and its an understatement. Of course, its possible Kiayni & Co are going fot the kill and want even more. But everything points to reviving the MMS/Mush pact. I am not going to argue on abstract notions. Just facts please.

'Well established' by whom? That epitome of honesty - Mushy? What is this 'joint love'? The 'facts' as they are show that MMS has always been consistent - he has clearly stated 'no redrawing of borders'.

arnab wrote:
'Well established' by whom? That epitome of honesty - Mushy? What is this 'joint love'? The 'facts' as they are show that MMS has always been consistent - he has clearly stated 'no redrawing of borders'.

Not just by Mushy. Even Indian newspapers have reported that. All western reports indicate that. Can you tell me what "no redrawing of borders" means? Also what does "walking the extra mile" entail? Are you not curious to know?

CRamS wrote:

arnab wrote:
'Well established' by whom? That epitome of honesty - Mushy? What is this 'joint love'? The 'facts' as they are show that MMS has always been consistent - he has clearly stated 'no redrawing of borders'.

Not just by Mushy. Even Indian newspapers have reported that. All western reports indicate that. Can you tell me what "no redrawing of borders" means? Also what does "walking the extra mile" entail? Are you not curious to know?

All news papers have merely reported what Mushy said. As you said before - we have to go by 'facts'. No redrawing of borders simply means what it says. Nope I'm not curious. I will cross the 'extra mile' once the initial condition of halting terrorism has been met. Jst like the UN resolutions on J&K will be considered once the initial conditions have been met.

Don't dance with words. Pakis are not asking for re-drawing international border with India. They are asking for re-drawing of the LOC. So the question remains, what does MMS mean when he says no redrwaing of boundaries?

CRamS wrote:Don't dance with words. Pakis are not asking for re-drawing international border with India. They are asking for re-drawing of the LOC. So the question remains, what does MMS mean when he says no redrwaing of boundaries?

Currently LOC is the de facto border. How can pakis ask (and get) for a redrawing of LOC on the table, which they could not get in war? Why don't you tell me - what is your fear that MMS will unilaterally give away? Are you trying to tell us that when MMS says 'no redrawing of borders', he actually means to give away muslim majority Srinagar (redraw the LOC) and retain India's 'international border' claim on paper? (Incidentally, this was the old paki Jhelum plan rehashed by Mushy).
Should MMS and GOI need to respond to every paki wet dream?

The extra mile I suspect, is trade and investment in pakistan by India.

MMS is an economist, and he thinks business onlee.

MMS does not have the authority to change LOC/Borders, and S-E-S was a learning process for him too.

MMS is not a glib talker. I agree that MMS comes across as a weak person when he talks. This does not translate into him being a weak minded person.

Why so much angst against him? This guy is as honest as they get. Power has not gotten to him. He is a typical middle class daal-roti eating indian, not an elitist, and a well regarded intellectual. He is the type who will quietly fade away from the limelight and not mind it at all, after acheiving so much for India on his guard.

I fail to see why people have such mistrust of him.

Gagan wrote:I fail to see why people have such mistrust of him.

This for one -

Manmohan blames RSS for anti-Sikh riots
Manmohan says he was misquoted on RSS role in '84 riots

What this tells me is that MMS is a politician and he'll equivocate with the best of them if it serves to give him a political advantage. Although that'd be a plus when he's the chief negotiator with the Pakis .

Another suspicious but not directly substantiated strike is the HT article that said MMS was looking to reduce defense spending by buying peace using an open borders type of arrangement in J&K. Plus the fact that MMS initiated talks with the Pakis knowing that his internal security was not up to the task of preventing the attacks from Paki actors looking to disrupt the talks. Those 17 people in Pune would have been alive if the talks had not been started.

MMS has openly expressed his love for the otherside in the past , his comment about having BF in dilli and lunch/dinner in Lahore shows he is not much different from others of his generation who were born on the other side and despite all these acts of TSP terror somehow are ready to forget everything all in the name of peace. Iirc on his visit to his hometown in Lyallpur he even presented a small electricity producing unit (was it a solar unit from TATA ? ) , and here my village still does not have electricity and a proper road to this day .

OK OK, but don't disparage MMS so vehemently guys. The guy is PM of India, although whatever his beliefs, he seems to be keeping the country soundly on course. Even my grandfather's family migrated from Pakistan, and they had fond memories of lahore. But they also had some unprintable words to say about the killing and the looting that went on. (Per him, it was Looting and then Killing mostly)

1. If hafiz sayeed is talking about water from kashmir etc etc, essentially acting as pakistan official non state foreign minister, then India must pay heed and promptly re-review security to all the important dam projects ongoing there. If possible prevent kidnapings of engineers and senior officials etc.

2. wrt 1000 laser guided kits. I am not a aerial bombing expert, but, how many people seriously envisage Pakistan fizzaiya being able to position a fighter so that it can carry out a LGB attack on an Indian target? The last time I checked, the pak fizzaiya would be harrassed enough not to be able to use them to any significant extent. What are they going to lase and bomb, a border outpost?

But massa needs to be told that this is not the way to conduct diplomacy. Those stingers that they gave the mujahideen ended up taking the lives of IAF officers during Kargil when the Mi-17 was shot down.

Gagan wrote: Why so much angst against him? This guy is as honest as they get. Power has not gotten to him. He is a typical middle class daal-roti eating indian, not an elitist, and a well regarded intellectual. He is the type who will quietly fade away from the limelight and not mind it at all, after acheiving so much for India on his guard.

I agree with parts of this assessment, and disagree with others.

By most yardsticks, "typical middle class" Indians cannot afford to educate themselves at Oxford, nor their children in America. Not, at any rate, the "middle class" Indians of Manmohan Singh's generation.

And it is only the most inveterate elitist who would burnish his brown saheb credentials by going back to Oxford as Prime Minister of India, and thanking the British for the benefit of their colonial rule.

But yes, power has not gotten to him, and yes, he will fade away into the limelight and not mind it at all. That is exactly why he is the PM today. He is a politician with no mass base who has never been elected to the Lok Sabha; a dedicated functionary quite selfless in his devotion to the extra-constitutional authority who makes all the decisions that really matter. He has no political ambitions for his own children.

He has proved his intellect in the field of economics, certainly. But unlike such leaders as Madhavrao Scindia and Rajesh Pilot, who were tragically taken from us in the prime of their lives, he has no political heft that might empower him to wield that intellect independently in the service of the nation.

MMS does not have the authority to change LOC/Borders, and S-E-S was a learning process for him too.

I personally wouldn't be so generous with the Indian national interest, as to shrug off its being frittered away as part of a "learning process" by a septuagenarian Prime Minister.

Dr. Manmohan Singh is not a raw trainee who deserves some leeway while learning on the job and making mistakes. That is not why he has been entrusted with the office he holds, and with the stakes being as high as they are, the nation cannot afford his education at our expense.

He has decades of experience in government, and is surrounded by people with decades of experience in government.

Apparently, however, Dr. Manmohan Singh entertains the opinions of only those who tell him what he likes to hear. He sidelines the M.K. Narayanans and the Shyam Sarans, discards the collective wisdom of the G. Parthasarathys and J.N. Dixits, and instead chooses one Shiv Shankar Menon to draft high-level policy statements... with disastrous consequences for the national interest.

These are all considered, deliberate choices... not rookie errors... that he has made. And we will be paying the consequences, as a nation, for a long time.

I fail to see why people have such mistrust of him.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Transparency has never been a hallmark of the Manmohan Singh regime; not during the nuclear deal negotiations with Washington, not during the Musharraf dialogue on Kashmir, and not at present, when Indo-Pak dialogue has been resumed regardless of continued terrorist atrocities perpetrated by Pakistan against the Indian people.

Far from building popular consensus for the path he chooses to take, Manmohan Singh has demonstrated a penchant for haring off in pursuit of pet projects without bothering to garner the support of the people's elected representatives, or even the members of his own cabinet. He has preferred to gamble the stability of his government rather than honestly attempt to reach parliamentary accord regarding his policies.

There is something to be said for a leader with obstinacy and single-mindedness of purpose, but in a democracy, there is an expectation that some effort will be taken towards building popular consensus before embarking on a political course... by presenting the arguments publicly in a transparent manner. When no such effort is made, and the leader goes ahead and does exactly what he wants... the nation runs the risk of what America suffered at George W. Bush's hands.

The full magnitude of the Bush disaster did not become apparent, even to Americans, until half way through the President's second term. Up to that point, there were plenty of indicators that clearly stand out as warning signs in hindsight but weren't obviously so then.

However, those Americans who interpreted these signs (correctly) as tokens of impending catastrophe, were in fact ostracized by the majority for their "distrust" of Bush during the period 2002-2005. It was considered somehow unpatriotic and unfair not to give Bush a chance.

In India today, many people see things that make them uncomfortable.

The crushing price increases that are making life's necessities burdensomely expensive for the real "dal-roti eating" middle class. The national security apparatus' relentless emphasis on "Hindu Terrorism", to the extent of tarnishing the Indian Army with allegations of involvement in the Samjhauta Blasts, even as far greater devastation is wreaked by Islamists, Maoists and Northeastern Tribal groups. The desperate rush to make concessions to Pakistan while it consistently sponsors acts of terrorism against India. The assertion by a sitting Prime Minister of the country that Indians of a particular religious community should have "first right" to India's resources (can one imagine the uproar if a leader of the opposition had similarly accorded "first right" to Hindus?) The apparent convergence of the GOI's foreign policy with American national interest, accompanied by an apparent divergence from Indian national interest.

Maybe it's all really nothing. Maybe Manmohan Singh is doing a bang-up job of growing the economy and will never make any concessions to Pakistan, and that's all there is to it.

What is disconcerting, however is the combination of his obduracy, his lack of transparency and the few occasions when the consequences of his policymaking have been revealed to public view (such as Sharm-el-Shaikh). None of these have given us any cause for comfort IMO.

So when Manmohan Singh says that he is willing to "walk the extra mile"... I think a lot of Indians can hardly be blamed for wondering, "in which direction?"

I begin to wonder when people say that MMS is not transparent, and that he needs to share more info.

Err, can one point out which PM of India was more transparent and when? The culture up in New Delhi is different from washington or ouirope.

Not yet on BRF, but the words that I've heard people use when describing MMS as the PM makes me wonder if we are a tolerant society.

On G Parthasarthy not being FS of India. Well GP was the one who lead that SES barrage against MMS. He was the one who fired the first shots on TV. Did he think he would be a serious contender for the NSA post after that? How is India better served - GP as the NSA or GP not as the NSA?

Was SES really all that big a sell out as is being made out to be? What stops the pakis from acting like pakis eitherway? The pakis yelping about balochistan was on the way regardless of SES.

I don't deny that MMS wouldn't have been PM if it hadn't been for the peculiar set of circumstances that Sonia Gandhi found herself in. AFAIK, MMS has not arisen from a particularly well off family. His gaffe at Oxford is unquestionably imporper, but why pick up statements from someone who is clearly not a statesman and use that as a stick to berate him?

Was IK Gujral or Deve Goda or Morarji Desai any better PMs? If one should seek to do so, one would find several faults with IG and Vajpayee too. And JLN, his one china error makes him persona non grate on BRF and the junta here completely ignores that but for JLN, india would never have had those institutions and that industry that we are so proud of.

I don't know about the posters here, but I would prefer to hold back on judging people at the drop of a hat. And certainly, not PMs of India.

Gagan wrote:Err, can one point out which PM of India was more transparent and when? The culture up in New Delhi is different from washington or ouirope.

I don't get the need to conform by not criticising MMS. When has there been a time that the then PM of India was not roundly criticised by someone or the other? New Delhi is not different from Washington or Europe in being susceptible to the echo chamber effect.

Gagan,

Why shouldnt one judge the PM to exacting standards? Why should one use excuses for him?

He is not a 5th class student to give excuses for his actions. He has the power of the whole Govt machinery behind him. If even then, he needs excuses - I am sorry, he doesnt deserve that and having him will be a great disservice to the nation.

Better have clarity. Are what you are giving excuses or differences in strategic vision. If it is the first, he is a drag. If it is second, well all the whines here against him become legitimate.

and yes, the much vaunted "freedom of speech"

Sometimes it gets tiresome to read and re-read this ad nauseam phrase that posters seem to put up

The sonia maino-MMS cabal is selling us out

and the like.
Some even bringing in religion into this.

Some gentlemen here I suspect I understand where they are coming from when they say things such as this.

I disagree when people make personal attacks on an individual.

Vajpayee was the first India PM in the internet forum era, MMS is the second. But now all the baby boomers have keyboards. Once a senior member vents out on what his perception is, the forum becomes an echo chamber with people going over board.

Judge a person for his actions or the lack of them, but not his personal attributes or beliefs.

Well why so much takleef Gagan ? what happened to the worthies when PM himself played the religion card from red fort ? What happened to people who when people call MMS names when PMO himself put IPS in dock by saying something to the tune IMs being unfairly treated by the law ?

Btw the last straw which people can cling to defend MMS is "No please do not call him names as he is PM" .

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 10#p833010

in nukkad my post.

ravi_ku wrote:He has the power of the whole Govt machinery behind him.

You mean the PM of India wields power just like the President of the United Sates of Yamerika? "Power of the whole govt machinery". This is not true for an Indian PM. Only the American president gets such great powers.

Yes both are democracies but the US President is more of a dictator elected by consent, while the Indian PM is a compromise candidate appointed by expedience and replaceable mid term without further elecions, unlike the US president.

Imagining that Indian PM==US President would be Americanitis - a political version of Discovery channel syndrome.

Trust Shiv ji to come down on me. You knew it was rhetoric, I knew it was rhetoric to puncture the apologists of MMS hiding behind "oh he is PM and so such great god and only puja paat is allowed".

P.S: IG showed to a great extent, that PM can forcefully pull the bureacracy and dance to PM's tune, the constitution not withstanding

Birathers and Sistahs

The fact is MMS is single-handedly controlling/changing India's foreign policy right before our eyes. I think we should view it like a dictatorship in foreign policy. It can be seen to do good as we saw in the West-Asia thread, and we are seeing the other side of it in Pukistan dhaaga.

Since its a dictatorship of sorts, all I can do is hope and pray that MMS has some vision and is doing the right thing in the long run (read "Chaanakiyan"). What else can we observers do?

Gagan wrote:
Err, can one point out which PM of India was more transparent and when? The culture up in New Delhi is different from washington or ouirope.

Actually, both JLN and LBS were astonishingly transparent by comparison. Nehru came to power as India's favourite son in the wake of the independence struggle, but took great pains to articulate to the nation (and its elected representatives) every one of his policy decisions out of his own strong belief in the democratic process. Even on the occasions when he was wrong, as with a disinclination to resist the Chinese encroachments in Aksai Chin, he admitted guilt and took the heat like a man. (Ram Manohar Lohia answered his comment about "not a blade of grass grows there" with "not a hair grows on my head either"!)

There were no legions of servile media corps to cover up the faults of Nehru or the errors of Shastri. There was no attempt to fob off responsibility onto the political opposition. Even when railway accidents happened, railway ministers resigned. The government did not set attack dogs like Manish Tiwari or Jayanti Natarajan to shout down inconvenient questions.

Indira Gandhi brought with her a new autocracy that you represent as the "culture up in New Delhi", and was not nearly as transparent. Yet despite the sycophancy surrounding her, even she made honest attempts to build up popular consensus in support of such measures as nationalization of banks, and the Bangladesh war.

Following the era of third-front governments, coalition politics brought back a degree of accountability to the government, even if it was motivated by necessity rather than the altruism of the old guard. The NDA engaged in open debate with allies and opponents alike regarding the Lahore peace initiative, the Kargil intelligence failure, the vegetable scarcity, the sustained move towards disinvestment, and support for the American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though the Vajpayee government was pro-US, they signed on to a parliamentary resolution condemning the invasion of Iraq. Ultimately the power of the legislature (and the press) to ask tough questions and demand accountability remained firmly intact.

All this, I see being reveresed in the my-way-or-the-highway regime of Manmohan Singh.

Not yet on BRF, but the words that I've heard people use when describing MMS as the PM makes me wonder if we are a tolerant society.

Questioning the right of people to use words critical of the Prime Minister, makes me wonder if we are a democratic society.

On G Parthasarthy not being FS of India. Well GP was the one who lead that SES barrage against MMS. He was the one who fired the first shots on TV. Did he think he would be a serious contender for the NSA post after that? How is India better served - GP as the NSA or GP not as the NSA?

If I understand correctly, the argument is that G Parthasarathy should not have publicly opposed something he saw as a disastrous foreign policy move by the MMS regime, just so that he could have retained their favour and gained a political appointment.

So it is only G Parthasarathy's fault that he is not NSA. Seriously?

Maybe GP saw honesty as its own reward, in terms of maintaining his credibility with the public as a genuine expert in strategic affairs. Only a sycophant would pretend that there was any saving grace to the Sharm-el-Shaikh debacle.

Now, should we absolve a petty and vengeful MMS government of not choosing the best person for the NSA job because he dared to be publicly critical of them?

It's not without precedent, mind you. Atal Bihari Vajpayee was stridently critical of PVNR's Congress government on many occasions. Yet, when PVNR needed an experienced statesman to represent India at the World Disarmament Conference in Geneva, he picked Vajpayee to head the delegation.

Now that took vision. PVNR was a genuine leader... as opposed to a stooge.

Was SES really all that big a sell out as is being made out to be? What stops the pakis from acting like pakis eitherway? The pakis yelping about balochistan was on the way regardless of SES.

The Pakis have been yelping about India's involvement in Baluchistan for years. Dignifying those claims with credibility at the highest level, for no apparent reason whatsoever, was what Sharm-el-Shaikh achieved.

Besides entirely decoupling the leverage of dialogue resumption against a cessation of Pakistani terrorism... an agenda that the MMS government is now pressing into action. "Pakis will be Pakis" is no excuse for the Indian government's errors.

What does "as big a sellout as it is being made out to be?" mean? How much bigger does it need to be before it qualifies as a sellout?

With the current rush to crystallize the SES agenda into action, I hate to think we might yet find out.

His gaffe at Oxford is unquestionably imporper, but why pick up statements from someone who is clearly not a statesman and use that as a stick to berate him?

He represents my country. If he is not a statesman, then he should keep his mouth shut or get a real statesman to write his speeches for him. If he insists on making his own gaffes instead, why absolve him of the responsibility for those?

Was IK Gujral or Deve Goda or Morarji Desai any better PMs? If one should seek to do so, one would find several faults with IG and Vajpayee too.

Gujral, Deve Gowda and Morarji Desai? If one wants to scrape the bottom of the barrel, add in V.P. Singh and Charan Singh as well. But if one is reduced to those standards of comparison it's quite evident that we have a problem.

IG and Vajpayee had many faults, and these have been discussed on BRF quite extensively.

So why the takleef when MMS' faults are discussed as well?

And JLN, his one china error makes him persona non grate on BRF and the junta here completely ignores that but for JLN, india would never have had those institutions and that industry that we are so proud of.

Can we be a little less judgemental in our generalizations about BRF? Some posters may be critical of Nehru on China to the exclusion of everything else. Many others recognize all that he achieved in setting up a world class educational system, industrializing the country and handling the demands of a nascent and fractious republic.

None of that has any bearing on MMS' merits as a Prime Minister.

I don't know about the posters here, but I would prefer to hold back on judging people at the drop of a hat. And certainly, not PMs of India.

Maybe one shouldn't judge the posters here at the drop of a hat either?

Gagan wrote:Sometimes it gets tiresome to read and re-read this ad nauseam phrase that posters seem to put up

The sonia maino-MMS cabal is selling us out

Might be a good idea to try and rebut the entire argument being made, the next time you see a post containing that phrase. Instead of quoting the phrase out of context many, many pages later and complaining about it. JMT.

Rudradev, excellent summary. But this is for Gagan.

http://pib.nic.in/photo/2005/Aug/l200508295378.jpg

Please do the following for yourself and us
1. Identify the place and the 'gentleman'
2. Recall what the first Sikh Guru said about him. The person praying there would know the same, no?
3. Please use all kinds of thoughts and words to summarise this action. No chankian ones please

No offence meant. Cheers.

The government did not set attack dogs like Manish Tiwari or Jayanti Natarajan to shout down inconvenient questions.

Dislike both.

More so this Jayanti with her flat nose flared as she speaks.

Manish has a voice that sound like one scraping a razor blade - scratchy and offending the ear!

They speak with a forked tongue and the bogus defence makes one shut the TV!

When L.K Advani raised the issue of U.S involvement in the restart of Indo-Pak talks in Lok Sabha, MMS literally started a verbal volley and launched a scathing attack on L.K Advani by accusing him of trying to drive a wedge in Ind-U.S ties. All L.K Advani did was he raised a very pertinent question about India's foreign policy matters. MMS could have kept a straight face and given the answers. Instead he chose to attack the one asking the questions. Looks like L.K Advani had touched a nerve perhaps. Similarly, in a T.V debate in the past,when K.C Singh said that MMS has a penchant for acting in stealth in foreign policy matters, Jayanthi Natarajan started her own verbal assault. The presence of types like MMS, Jayanthi and Manish in INC shows the level of arrogance that has seeped into the minds of the Delhi elite. They want scripted T.V debates and news reporting with predefined agenda. If anyone deviates from this stance and starts asking some tough questions, he/she will be shouted down.

A blog on the number of coups on India.

Coups in Indian politics

The author defines a coup as unauthroized/unnatural seizure of power.

Also look at the side bar on the same theme.

RayC,
Jayanti Natrajan was the MP for whose sake RG went to Sri Permbuddur.

RamaP wrote:When L.K Advani raised the issue of U.S involvement in the restart of Indo-Pak talks in Lok Sabha, MMS literally started a verbal volley and launched a scathing attack on L.K Advani by accusing him of trying to drive a wedge in Ind-U.S ties. All L.K Advani did was he raised a very pertinent question about India's foreign policy matters. MMS could have kept a straight face and given the answers. Instead he chose to attack the one asking the questions. Looks like L.K Advani had touched a nerve perhaps. Similarly, in a T.V debate in the past,when K.C Singh said that MMS has a penchant for acting in stealth in foreign policy matters, Jayanthi Natarajan started her own verbal assault. The presence of types like MMS, Jayanthi and Manish in INC shows the level of arrogance that has seeped into the minds of the Delhi elite. They want scripted T.V debates and news reporting with predefined agenda. If anyone deviates from this stance and starts asking some tough questions, he/she will be shouted down.

Now the Party has become a private corporation. It is a private group of people who have their own elite club.

ramana wrote:RayC,
Jayanti Natrajan was the MP for whose sake RG went to Sri Permbuddur.

I guess it was Maragatham Chandrasekhar and not Jayanti Natrajan.

Indian Who Built Yoga Empire Works on Politics: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/world ... mi.html?hp

Yatha Raja, thatha prashashan A good one.

Pranav wrote
Indian Who Built Yoga Empire Works on Politics: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/world ... mi.html?hp

I agree with most of what he says "should happen" in India. But, he should not be in the political limelight. He can feel powerful, but the existing system has had much longer investments. If big investors have already invested, both from internal as well as external sources, they will be keen to see that their investment is not lost. Ramdevji, cannot match it unless those same investors or even more resourceful entities invest. Which then will constrain him or his movement to serve their objectives.

On the other hand if he fails, he can also be used by forces hostile to Indian culture or Hindu culture, to bash up and delegitimize both him, his politics as well as "Hinduism". He should have stuck to the role of Vivekananda - the facilitator/ideologue and plant the seeds of idea only. The political movement that is necessary to carry out the task to completion has to come up from the grassroots, independently and in the form of mass movements. Hope, someone tells him my humble suggestions.

Pranav wrote:Indian Who Built Yoga Empire Works on Politics: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/world ... mi.html?hp

Baba Ramdev's mail political arm is Rajiv Dixit. I know this guy since 1997 back then he was part of a group called Azadi Bachao Andolan. He would tour cities and give lectures for free on swadeshi. After a couple of years he faded out and people forgot about him but since last year I have been seeing him with baba Ramdev on Astha channel talking about the message of swadeshi & swavalambhan. His message is pretty powerful and reasonable to any educated middle class person. I am not sure how much of it will work with mango man who votes more on caste equations and free rice bag, liquor bottle, saree & TV.

^^^ Some points in the Bharat Swabhiman agenda are not well thought out, it seems - the proposed transaction tax being an example.

I am generally supportive but it would be good to know more about Rajiv Dixit & Co. For example, who was funding the Azaadi Bachao Andolan?

There have been some interesting developments:

1. Sonia deciding to become Chairman of the National Advisory Council, suggesting a desire to exercise more control over the Govt (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_so ... on_1364896)

2. PC being targeted, first on the Maoist issue by loyalist Digvijay (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 805320.cms), and then over the wire-tapping issue (http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265193)

3. A mob of Congress thugs, led by an ex-Congress MP apparently close to Sonia, frees a Maoist king-pin from police custody in Silvassa: http://www.timesnow.tv/INDIA/Biggest-Ma ... 343436.cms

4. Sonia's apparently strained relationship with MMS, UPA govt's majority precarious: http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/apr/ ... e-govt.htm

5. BJP withdraws support to the Soren Govt in Jharkhand: http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/bjp-with ... -21157.php

6. B. Raman says that leaks from Govt re spy Madhuri Gupta on eve of summit are significant: http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265241

Noteworthy development in the BJP-RSS equation?

Shivraj Chouhan meets RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat
Press Trust Of India
Nagpur, April 30, 2010

Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Chouhan was on Friday in Maharashtra's second capital to meet RSS chief Dr Mohan Bhagwat.

He visited Bhagwat at the RSS headquarters in old city area, sources said.

Chouhan is second chief minister of a BJP-ruled state after Narendra Modi to visit RSS headquarters within a week.

Modi was in Nagpur on April 21 and held closed door meeting with the RSS sansanghchalak for about three hours in the evening when all top party leaders were Delhi to protest against the price rise. He had skipped the meeting and instead preferred to speak to RSS chief.

Chouhan arrived around 9 am and left in the afternoon after meeting Bhagwat, sourced added.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed ... 37584.aspx