Will you enter politics under Congress party banner?

[Lurker]

Now you are romanticizing the issue. Everything was always pure gold back in the day.

Not at all. To be fair you brought up the question of how Congress is losing votes, only fair that I have to revert to history to show when Congress was taking a major chunk of votes.

There is no need for a party to throw up a leader with a national clout. Ours is not a presidential democracy...ours is a parliamentarian democracy. So while the PM may be the top job it is not a popularity contest that the media (especially indian english media) has been turning it into during the new century. Not even Nehru and Indira Gandhi had any great clout in the south even at their peaks. Sardar Patel had some strong support in the south because he was instrumental in unifying the princely states (Hyderabad, Mysore, etc).

Obviously. I mean we are a large nation. Even in 1947 we had population large than what United States is today so no surprises that no-one leader would speak to 400-500 million people. Still Nehru and Indira had folks like Kamraj who would come in handy for this as they swayed other parts of the country with their politicking.

I have reconciled myself to the fact that we will always have regionalism.

I have not, hopefully we can get rid of this notion. xxx

[pinkfreud]

Typically the crowd that shows up on most things internet are made of usual suspects from certain parts of India' date=' or abroad. These have, again generally speaking, right wing sympathy leanings. Take north east India for example, that part of the nation is all congress but how many Indians do you meet from these area online? On the other hand if I had a dime everytime I ran into a Gujrati online...:-) And who do you think Gujaratis support?[/quote'] This statement is too much of a generalization. I could well point you to (the link to) the DNA article that was penned by Subramaniam Swamy about a month ago and have you browse through the comments on that page. An overwhelming majority of the comments there were either pro-Congress or anti-right wing. Not everybody who is anti-Congress is pro-BJP/NDA, and vice versa. As for your point about Gujjus- granted that most of them may be pro-right wing, but to say their favouring Narendra Modi is solely to do with ideology is too much of a misnomer. In spite of his role in the Gujarat riots, he does have a reputation of being pro-development and has been credited with doing a lot for Gujarat. I remember reading an article a long time ago about even the Muslims in his constituency voting for him because he'd done so much for that region. I personally believe a significant percent of those who are openly supporting the NDA these days (judging from online comments on newspaper sites) are doing so because of them being fed up of the UPA rather than them resonating with the ideology of the right wingers. Since there seems to be no middle ground between both these parties, most folks are leaning toward parties that aren't part of the UPA.

[Guest Gunner]

Well lets not start with Communists now, they are akin to the Tea Party of United States, holding an entire nation ransome just to grind their political ideology. And you only have to look their contribution to India, ranging from disaster that became West Bengal (bear in mind Calcutta was once the jewel of the nation) to everything that has Naxalism written all over it. I do understand that just because somebody does not support Congress does not they support BJP. It was a general statement and geared more towards those who do support BJP, which you will have to accept is a genuine reason. I mean more people would oppose Congress to support BJP than Communists(like yourself). In fact you may very well be the only supporter of Communists on this board :giggle:

Oh well the communists were a bit of an extreme example perhaps. No one can deny the ill favours which they have done to the country on various occasions but I do think that going forward the communists might emerge as a more real counterbalance to the other parties. On a few occasions now the communists have spoken out correctly on issues such as corruption, I do credit them for that. But I hope that you get the larger point that support for the BJP doesn't always stem from any right wing belief. I think the BJP can emerge as a party with a genuine appeal if they can get rid of the RSS shroud and find amongst their ranks a good strong leader which they currently do not have.

[Vijay.Sharma]

I have not, hopefully we can get rid of this notion. xxx

Hopefully, we will never get rid of it. It is what makes us who we are and while standardization may be an option in a factory it dunn work with culture. The more diverse a country is the more tolerant it is forced to become. Consider for a second that you try to standardize culture in Bharatvarsha (leave alone that a culture can never be standardized). Whose culture will you take as the base culture? Punjabi, or Gujarati, or Marwari, or Naga, or Nicobari? Which language will you standardize in the country? Punjabi, or Haryanvi, or Sanskrit, or Marathi, or Bhojpuri, or Hindi, or Urdu, or Bangla, or Tamil, or Telugu, or Kannada, or which one? I think you are already aware that India has at least 15 national languages (which includes English too(?)). Which of these 15 will you choose to make it standard. Unlike popular belief Hindi is not the national language, it is just one among 15. You might get sarkari forms in Hindi in Bihar because Bhojpuri does not have a script but in every state, that state's language is used for sarkari forms. You go to Maharashtra, sarkari forms will be in Marathi. You go to Gujarat they will be in Gujarati. Celebrate diversity man...we are a nation of diverse cultures and that is our heritage.

[Mariyam]

1. Educated people are supposed to have a better view on policies and work done by various parties.

Going by some of the posts here, apparently not!! :D

[Mariyam]

My response - That is what is exactly happening. People are turning away from Congress over the last two decades. A Congress party that never got less than 200 seats in the Lok Sabha until the 80s started getting lesser than 200 seats since the 90s. In fact it no longer remained even the single largest party. If that is not a change then what is? Of course this time they got back to > 200 (edit - in fact it is 190) because people believed dynasty will not come back into the picture and Manmohan will be allowed to rule. Given the way they are drumming up Rahul baba I think they would have lost all the ground they earned between 2004 and 2009 come 2014 elections. Secondly, in 2008 the Left parties shook up the house and almost sent the country to premature General Elections which the public did not like. The result: Left was left with nothing and people gave Manmohan another go with a pro-incumbency verdict for UPA (not Congress).

I do not follow you here. You are saying that the rot for the Congress was stemmed in the 2009 GE because they put Dr.Manmohan Singh as the front-line candidate? I do not agree with this inference: that the disgust of dynasty politics caused people to vote for Manmohan Singh headed Congress in 2009. So, are you saying that if Priyanka or Rahul Gandhi were the PM candidates in 2009, the Congress wouldn't have won? Bold claim.Or have I not understood you right? The fact is that regional parties have been getting stronger over the last few years. Dynasty politics or not.

[Mariyam]

I am surprised you didnt know about this. About 100 plus seats in India are reserved for SC/STs. It is a constitutional law although I am completely at a loss to understand how can Consitution guarantee everyone equality and freedom and then stop somebody from contesting election.

This is correct. But this reservation is supposed to be temporary. Though how long this temporary period will be, is not known to anyone nor is it stated explicitly. http://cyberjournalist.org.in/archive/breakup.html The case was brought to the fore citing the example of Akola district, which for the first 40 years since independence had roughly 70% SC/ST/NT population and all its leaders were not from that 70% of the population. The idea behind this change was to have a voice of the majority. Maybe the idea was good in essence, but its just made new power centres in these districts. Your point of how someone can be denied their constitutional right of contesting an election is very valid. :hatsoff: In fact, I'm not sure how it wasn't bought up when this reservation in the parliament was proposed. Will have to read up on that. @ Vijay Sharma: 33% reservation for women means that women will have at least 33% of the seats. Its a minimum limit and not a maximum limit.

[Vijay.Sharma]

I do not follow you here. You are saying that the rot for the Congress was stemmed in the 2009 GE because they put Dr.Manmohan Singh as the front-line candidate? I do not agree with this inference: that the disgust of dynasty politics caused people to vote for Manmohan Singh headed Congress in 2009. So, are you saying that if Priyanka or Rahul Gandhi were the PM candidates in 2009, the Congress wouldn't have won? Bold claim.Or have I not understood you right? The fact is that regional parties have been getting stronger over the last few years. Dynasty politics or not.

No that's not what I am saying. I said the voter decided to give MMS another go because he had a good reputation. Of course the mandate for UPA came thru because people took Left's 'holding the country to ransom' seriously and taught them a lesson in the elections the very next year. Definitely Congress wouldn't have won 190 seats if they projected Rahul baba as their PM candidate. I think it is because they shut their traps regarding Rahul baba between 2004 and 2009 that people gave them another chance. People gave MMS and UPA another chance. The Congress is drumming up Rahul as the PM candidate now and for sure they will be booted out in 2014. Maybe you are unable to relate to the majority here. I'll be very analytical and present my observation in the next few sentences...it may be difficult to reconcile with but if you give it due consideration you may acknowledge it... From a minority standpoint, most of them (including christians and others) are resigned to a notion that they can never become top dog in India. So for them it dunn matter who the king is or whether this is a dynastic government as long as the dynasty sings tunes of equality. From the majority perspective, dynasty is a no-no. Why the fu

[Vijay.Sharma]

@ Vijay Sharma: 33% reservation for women means that women will have at least 33% of the seats. Its a minimum limit and not a maximum limit.

I know it is a min limit. I am hoping they don't turn it into a max limit thru their actions.

[Mariyam]

The Congress is drumming up Rahul as the PM candidate now and for sure they will be booted out in 2014. Maybe you are unable to relate to the majority here. I'll be very analytical and present my observation in the next few sentences...it may be difficult to reconcile with but if you give it due consideration you may acknowledge it...

Thats a bold prediction. Lets see how it turns out in 2014. Why would it be difficult for me to reconcile with it? Why do you even think so? Why do you doubt that I maybe unable to connect to the majority?

From a minority standpoint, most of them (including christians and others) are resigned to a notion that they can never become top dog in India. So for them it dunn matter who the king is or whether this is a dynastic government as long as the dynasty sings tunes of equality.

There is a lot wrong with this statement. Gross generalization. Topic for another day.:icflove: But let me put the question back at you, suppose it were Salman Khurshid, ( good playwright by the way) , who was Congress's PM candidate, would it endear the Congress any more to you than it does now under Rahul as the PM candidate? What implications would it have on the elections as a whole, do you think?

A question to you - Do you not mind that the country's top position seems to have a monarchic grip over it? If not, why not? If yes, why do you still support congress?

Yes I do mind. And I admit, it goes against the basic tenets of meritocracy and is nepotism at its best. Where we differ is in our mode of opposition: I may vote for UPA allies, like NCP for eg, who were against ( or initially were against) Sonia Gandhi as a PM and dynasty politics. I may still not be willing to let of the UPA ( and what it stands for , or claims to stand for) for the misdoings of the top echelon of the leadership. Kind of like, the case of the Penguin publications CEO who was charged in a case of sexual harassment at the work place. Didn't stop me from buying books that were published by Penguin. etc

[Vijay.Sharma]

There is a lot wrong with this statement. Gross generalization. Topic for another day.:icflove:

it is a generalization, no doubt. I don't claim that it is right either...I presented it as an observation from experiences and candid discussions with close friends who are Christians and Muslims - take it for what it is. No claims made.

But let me put the question back at you' date=' suppose it were Salman Khurshid, ( good playwright by the way) , who was Congress's PM candidate, would it endear the Congress any more to you than it does now under Rahul as the PM candidate?[/quote']Definitely it would change the way I look at Congress. Salman Khurshid, is a learned man and if he has the credentials to be the PM then I would support him - religion wouldn't matter a bit to me. I am not for any religion so it dunn matter to me which religion the guy/girl attests to as long as it is not shoved down my throat.

[vaibhav_delhi]

Going by some of the posts here' date=' apparently not!! :D[/quote'] i reckon there is significant difference between educated and uneducated people on average in knowing what various political parties are all about.

[Blue Panther]

I will join congress if they hang afzal guru and kasab. But i know these eunuch govt will never do that.

[Lurker]

This statement is too much of a generalization.Not everybody who is anti-Congress is pro-BJP/NDA, and vice versa.

Agreed. I have mentioned this earlier that those who have voted against the idea of contesting under Congress does not neccessarily mean they are BJP sympathiser, and hence my assertion to the thread starter that maybe he should have asked who would contest election in the first place. I also agree that there has been a generalization by me. But how do you discuss a country of billion people with lot many NRIs without generalization? It has to be taken with a pinch of salt is all I can say.

I personally believe a significant percent of those who are openly supporting the NDA these days (judging from online comments on newspaper sites) are doing so because of them being fed up of the UPA rather than them resonating with the ideology of the right wingers. Since there seems to be no middle ground between both these parties, most folks are leaning toward parties that aren't part of the UPA.

Mentioned this too earlier. That many simply relate to BJP because they are lot cleaner party than say Congress so there is also some good reasons why certain folks appreciate BJP, its not that every BJP supporter is a right wing loony. Heck my own Mom used to be a BJP worker . :winky: xxx

[Lurker]

Hopefully, we will never get rid of it. It is what makes us who we are and while standardization may be an option in a factory it dunn work with culture. The more diverse a country is the more tolerant it is forced to become. Consider for a second that you try to standardize culture in Bharatvarsha (leave alone that a culture can never be standardized). Whose culture will you take as the base culture? Punjabi, or Gujarati, or Marwari, or Naga, or Nicobari? Which language will you standardize in the country? Punjabi, or Haryanvi, or Sanskrit, or Marathi, or Bhojpuri, or Hindi, or Urdu, or Bangla, or Tamil, or Telugu, or Kannada, or which one? I think you are already aware that India has at least 15 national languages (which includes English too(?)). Which of these 15 will you choose to make it standard. Unlike popular belief Hindi is not the national language, it is just one among 15. You might get sarkari forms in Hindi in Bihar because Bhojpuri does not have a script but in every state, that state's language is used for sarkari forms. You go to Maharashtra, sarkari forms will be in Marathi. You go to Gujarat they will be in Gujarati. Celebrate diversity man...we are a nation of diverse cultures and that is our heritage.

I suppose thats one way to look at it. The other way to look at that argument is to simply use "local culture" as an excuse to mistreat what should rightfully be the leading language (not culture mind you). Yes we have 15 languages but there is only 1 language that is spoke by more people than perhaps the rest of them put together! Now if you go by democractic means which is what we are, then it is a no brainer. Of course that argument would be lost by those who oppose Hindi and hence "lets celebrate diversity". And how exactly do we celebrate it? By speaking English. Woohoo! Long story short it is not about culture at all, it is perhaps more about economics. By the by I do have an apprehension that just as there has been many violent demonstrations against Hindi, it is a matter of time before a idiot from Hindi land just picks this theme of "us versus them". A tail piece here. I am all for making a non-Hindi language as the lingua franca as well. Punjabi for example is lot older than Hindi, has a great history but the issue would be how do you train the rest of 95% of population that do not speak it? This is a tricky debate but if we have to grow as a nation a debate that needs to happen. xxx

[Vijay.Sharma]

I suppose thats one way to look at it. The other way to look at that argument is to simply use "local culture" as an excuse to mistreat what should rightfully be the leading language (not culture mind you). Yes we have 15 languages but there is only 1 language that is spoke by more people than perhaps the rest of them put together!.

Hang on a sec. Lurkerji, we can actually measure this and validate it's truth value because that you are claiming it as a fact. Please for heavens sake produce some evidence to back that claim. Also, please present some factual info regarding the number of people that speak Hindi in your own state, Bihar. "Rightfully theirs" Let's please make the moral pronouncements after we establish the facts, ok? I can see that this little tete-a-tete is gonna develop into a nice debate, hopefully healthy. Maybe we will learn new things and facts from each other :=)

Now if you go by democractic means which is what we are' date=' then it is a no brainer. Of course that argument would be lost by those who oppose Hindi and hence "lets celebrate diversity". And how exactly do we celebrate it? By speaking English. Woohoo! Long story short it is not about culture at all, it is perhaps more about economics.[/quote']These remain baseless until the facts are first established.

[Lurker]

Hang on a sec. Lurkerji, we can actually measure this and validate it's truth value because that you are claiming it as a fact. Please for heavens sake produce some evidence to back that claim. Also, please present some factual info regarding the number of people that speak Hindi in your own state, Bihar.

I should have given some numbers but frankly I was kinda tired towards the end of the day so perhaps cut it short but would take the oppertunity now to clarify that. Usually I am not big on Wiki articles or numbers but for this I couldnt find anything on census numbers so take it for whatever it is. A few points: a) The native speakers of Hindi so defined accounts for about 43% of Indians and another 27 to 43% of national population can understand or speak the language So you could add it to range of 70-86% of population who have a working knowledge of the language. b) If you go deeper into the subject here are numbers by native speakers. Hindi - 40% of population Urdu - 5 % Marathi - 7.5% Gujarati - 5% Punjabi - 3% I have clubbed these languages together because Urdu and Hindi pretty much go hand in hand of course. Usually a Marathi, Gujarati or a Punjabi have a very good knowledge of Hindi, I personally have not met one who did not. I would add Bengali (8 %) to the list as well as again most Bongs understand Hindi very well. So yeah we can hazard a guess and getting past 50% number would not be very difficult for Hindi really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers_in_India xxx

[Lurker]

^^ Turns out there is some nice data from Census on the subject. Quite fascinating really. The numbers are close to what was put above. http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement5.htm

[Sachin=GOD]

+ infinity. They already do. Narendra Modi- even if they aren't saying it out loud as of now. He may not be the 'default' choice for the next elections, but I pretty much see him as the frontrunner in the years to come.

Not much chance of him being the frontrunner because of Coalition constraints.

[ganeshran]

Lurker, you cannot thrust a language upon someone who doesnt want to learn it. A better way for the government would be to incentivize learning of Hindi, but it should not be made mandatory or the official language for government business.