VinayB wrote:amidst the delirium, some facts to bear in mind
1. INC did not rule India for about 54 out of 64 years by being stupid.
2. One family did not control INC for that 64 years by being stupid or having stupid handlers.
They may not be that bright. The people are too stupid to understand the games being played.
3. 'middle class' is not a political entity. Best possible defn. is on some income range. There is no data that middle class has a common political interest or issues that it votes on.
I hope SONIA and her dummies are dumb enough to keep believing that for another 3 years.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-a ... mi/834441/
In its seven years in power, the Congress shunned the urban middle classes so much it has even stopped being on talking terms with them. The party can be forgiven for reading the 2004 verdict wrong, believing that the poorest Indians, irritated by the BJP’s India Shining, voted the NDA out. But its refusal to read the 2009 verdict for its aspirational impulse was not merely poor political judgment. It also resulted from a cynical and intellectually lazy thought process. Inevitably, it developed into an auto-immune syndrome where the party has been busy preying on its own government and its own new vote-base among India’s growing aspirational classes.
For seven years now, the Congress never bothered to send even a thank-you card to the middle classes that voted so overwhelmingly for it — in fact, in 2009, it voted for Manmohan Singh who was really the party’s first, genuine middle-class icon. Worse, its own povertarian basic instinct had so locked its mind it failed to read the verdict correct. Its Rajya Sabha-ist megaphones continued to boast that its NREGA, loan waiver, increased OBC reservations, cynical oil subsidies and other such populist policies had won it a second term in power. If it continued to reach out to the poorest Indians, an Indira Gandhi kind of sweep was guaranteed for Rahul in 2014. It, therefore, did nothing for the urban middle classes, its leaders never spoke to them, and even indulged in rhetoric that made upwardly mobile, hard-working urban and semi-urban Indians think they were immoral or guilty. That they had no idea that a majority of their countrymen were still stone-poor, nor did they care. As if these aspirational Indians were criminals who vacuum-cleaned all the spoils of economic reform while a vast majority had been left behind. With Sonia and Rahul Gandhi not speaking to them, a sullen prime minister in a shell, and the NAC and other durbari civil society stalwarts and Congressmen constantly maligning reform and the government’s policies, the middle class felt orphaned, alienated and rebuffed. Until they found their new interlocutors, and leaders, in Team Anna.
The Congress may not have erred like this if it looked at facts. In 2009, nine of our states had below poverty line (BPL) populations higher than the national average of 37.2. These nine states, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Manipur, Orissa, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh, together account for 247 seats in Lok Sabha. Together, these have for more than 80 per cent of India’s extreme poor. How many of these seats did the Congress win? Only 63, or just a quarter. Out of the rest, the less poor, and thereby more urbanised and aspirational states, it won its remaining 143, or almost half the seats on offer (296). Look at the party’s performance in the poorest states of India (BPL figures in parentheses): Orissa (57.2), 6 out of 21 seats; Bihar (54.4), 2 out of 40; Chhattisgarh (49.4), 1 out of 11; and Jharkhand (45.3), 1 out of 14. If NREGA, loan-waiver and nanny-state yojanas were winning the Congress votes, then it would seem the benefits of those schemes were going to richer, less-deserving states. Even in Gujarat, in spite of Modi’s sway, the Congress’s strike rate was much better, at 11 out of 26. It is in keeping with the trend because Gujarat has been one of our fastest growing and urbanising states. Similarly, while the Congress clings to the delusion that rural India loves it, the fact is the party, or its allies, swept every major city in India with the exception of Bangalore. But its basic, outdated, socialist and povertarian instinct rendered it incapable of acknowledging, or even understanding, this massive churn in Indian society, and electorate.
4. we are not araps. Our cousins to the west think they are. We have a multi-party democracy. We dont need to change government using color revolutions.
We don't need color revolution but we need a cause to rally the lethargic middle class. The theme of Sonia Gandoos was communal virus the last 2 elections: blame every single problem starting from polluted air to Pakistani terrorism on RSS/BJP and Gujarat riots.
http://outlookindia.com/article.aspx?278032
Uncivil Measures
The message is clear: NGOs/CSOs, who serve the Congress party's interest, either overtly or covertly, are "constructive" and therefore welcome. Those who don't are to be treated as predators and deserve a suitable drubbing. For this loyalty test the Congress Party has set simple criteria-assurance of obsessive, aggressive and incessant BJP and Modi bashing no matter what the occasion, no matter what the issue-because the Congress party knows it can ride back to power
5. in a democracy, if incumbent is corrupt, venal, even stupid, first thing is voting them out. It is as simple as driving down a slope and wanting to stop - take foot off the accelerator.
This the great strategy of Sonia and cronies. There is no incumbent. Who will you vote out? Vote out CON party and elect Maya? Or Vote out Maya and elect Mulyam? Use Secularism argument to force any of them to support CON party. Vote out CON party and elect Laloo? He too has to support CON gandoos. Vote out CON party and elect NCP? No problem. She can do business with him. Vote out DMK and elect AIADMK? No problem. She can do business with either of them. Vote out CON party and elect Left front. No problem. The DIE-nasty is safe. Vote out LEFT and elect Mamta? Don't worry. Madam got hooks there too.
This movement is a fight to reform the SYSTEM not just incumbent. That is why many people are attracted to it.
This is the process to raise the consciousness of Indians and put checks and balances in the system. If you put these arguments as against Sonia or UPA, you are branded as Sanghi or right-wing or sangh parivar and destroyed.
They have made every effort to brand it as RSS, communal and Hindu right wing campaign.
6. the argument 'all parties are corrupt' is not stupid, but made with vested interest in keeping INC in power. I.K.Gujral is not equal-equal with 2G.
The movement is not about supporting BJP or any alliance. It is to reform the system.
7. An ombudsman does not need to be judge/police/prosecutor all in one Org to be an ombudsman
It is not about ombudsman. It is about common man's desire to have accountability in the system.
So civil society does present draft laws and do influence the outcome of the final bill. Contrary to what some interviwed bimbos are saying on the news channels.
Make sure senior babudom is appointed in key posts on the basis of merit. (Somewhat similiar to the American oversight and appointment processes)
