The Narendra Modi thread

[ravishingravi]

Bhaiyya Kejriwal, like user id chosen, there is lot of noise and little substance. And that blog. Lord. On the subject, all I can say is that "poora ramayan khatam ho chuka hai aur ab aap pooch rahe hai ram kiska baap tha." Most of what everyone has to say on the subject has been covered.

[Kejriwal4PM]

And that has again gone up.. have a look at this: India today link

Pre-polls showed him to have gained vote shares even before the election in which he actually lost vote shares. Anyway, lets focus on the main issue...

I've just reached the GDP part and I couldn't help but laugh at seeing the cheekiness with which you've manipulated your conclusions. firstly in the comparison, Bihar, by virtue of being having a much lesser GDP base, is to be excluded, and that is something you've agreed in the blog as well. That leaves TN and Maharastra.

Lets see who is cheeky here: If Bihar, with its lower (than gujarat) GDP base is to be excluded as a mere base-effect, why shouldn't Gujart be dismissed as mere base-effect too when its GDP is smaller than TN and Maharashtra? :D

Now let me point out some issues I've with your selection of period and data, 1. Firstly you've got the years you averaged up wrong. Modi took charge in 2001 FYI, and hence an analysis of his performance should start with the year ending 2002, and not 2005 or 2003.

(1) Modi took over in Oct (or Nov?) of 2001. And obviously that is not enough to include that fiscal year in the evaluation of any new, non-incumbent CM! :D

2. Now, if I take the avgs from the correct period, Modi's Gujarat has a growth rate of 10.19 over 10 years. The comparitive figure for TN and Mah are 7.90 and 9.41 respectively. So your first argument is invalid.

(2) Same argument as in (1)

3. Now comes the interesting and wierd part. You're trying to also show that the incremental growth rate added on by Modi (LMAO, that in itself is stupid, as there is issue of a lower base that will aid the growth rates in the initial stages, but let's forget that for the time being}, you've selected with data from YE 1995. What's the basis in comparing a 7 yr period with a 10 yr period? Why not 6? Why not 8? A close inspection at the data reveals the obvious answer.YE 95, Gujarat recorded a growth rate of 18, which is a big extreme considering the following years growth rates. Ignore that year, and the pre-Modi avg growth rate is as follows: 1996-2001 = Guj 4.19, Mah 5.52, TN 5.55 Incremental growth topped up : Guj : 6, TN : 2.35 and Mah 3.89... Even if you figure in the skewed numbers of 1995, the incremental numbers are : Guj : 4.02, TN : 1.34 and Mah : 4.31.. i.e he is right up there with the best performing states, is that supposed to be a negative?

(3) (The LMAO was funny because of the same reason as above - All these states have had lower GDP in 1990s as compared to their respective GDPs in 2000s. Elementary my dear stupid Watson :giggle: ) But what is actually ridiculous is your argument to pull out that 18% (FY 95) just because it is uncomfortable to Modi :D Typical of the Modi brigade I should say! Did you notice that there are also some 2.11% (FY 97) and 1.02% (FY 99) for Gujarat in pre-Modi's time, and a 1.75% (FY 02) in TN or 3.38% for Maha etc in Modi's period? Should we selectively pluck them out too? Funny logic! :D As for why I calculated from 1994: Because thats what is available in that PC datatable, and this period applies to all states. May I ask you this instead: Why does Modi and his brigade fret about one year or the other? If he is the development messiah, he shouldn't nit pick on the year chosen :D And as for that quote, let me quote fully:

A typical reaction from the Modi brigade is to point out to the two tables above and say "See! statistics cant be trusted at all, and so, all hail Modi!" To them, I say: Of course statistics gives an undeniable fact. In the case of two tables, the undeniable facts are that, ModiÃÔ growth rate slips down if you dont include the first two years of his rule, and raises only when you do. This is a fact. But how these facts are interpreted is left to individuals.

[Kejriwal4PM]

Now regarding poverty part, You say that Maharastra has done a significantly better job in reducing poverty, but when I look at the raw data, Gujarat has a BPL % of 23% vs MH's 24.5%. And regarding TN having just 17% under poverty line, I suggest you look up what constitues as poor in the same table: Gujarat - Rural 729.5 and Urban 951.4 TN - Rural 639 and 800 In effect, there is a difference of 14% and 18% difference in the baseline itself...

Of course those are the poverty lines based on prof Tendulkar's method, which is the official estimation (earlier it was Lakdawala method). Whats new here?! Also, you forgot(?) to include Maha's poverty line (which is more than gujarat): Maharashtra Rural:743.7 Urban:961.1 and Maha too pulled more people out of poverty line than Modi. So, this cherry picking and quoting base-effects etc are pure silly :D And you missed the main point: Inspite of total GDP of Modi growing at fastest rates (Gujarat grew at fastest rate even before Modi came, as the blog shows), it didnt pull as many people out of poverty as some other states. Typical of cronyism.

[Kejriwal4PM]

Bhaiyya Kejriwal, like user id chosen, there is lot of noise and little substance. And that blog. Lord. On the subject, all I can say is that "poora ramayan khatam ho chuka hai aur ab aap pooch rahe hai ram kiska baap tha." Most of what everyone has to say on the subject has been covered.

Listen kiddo. It is better to stay silent and watch the discussion from the pavement if you dont have anything solid to say (or even point out to), rather than saying something silly and messing it up.

[Precambrian]

Pre-polls showed him to have gained vote shares even before the election in which he actually lost vote shares. Anyway' date=' lets focus on the main issue...[/quote'] I see you concede the point. Go ahead, do that, and save us the gibberish. Oh and BTW Guj and TN have almost same GDP just FYI. Oh really? 6 months does not quantify as enough time in your books? (2) Same argument as in (1) You haven't answered any of my points. Why stop at 1994? What is the logic in comparing 7 yrs to 10 yrs? Why not roll back another 3 years? Why not 20 years? Explain. Lets atleast bring some equality in the periods involved here. That still doesn't make it not sound stupid. Why would u ignore selective years out of Modi's reign to make him look bad? it seems you're the one with an agenda here.

[Precambrian]

Of course those are the poverty lines based on prof Tendulkar's method' date=' which is the official estimation (earlier it was Lakdawala method). Whats new here?! [/quote'] It suggests that TN is apparently 15% cheaper to live than Gujarat. which is frankly BS. Yes, and Gujarat is still better than Maharastra, your point being? it didn't. Gujarat's rate of growth in the 6 immediate years prior to Modi taking control was a measly 4%. Modi during his decade returned 10%+.

[Precambrian]

Couldn't even read the rest of the blog. Puerile analysis at its best. A commentor put it succintly:

Poor Modi, his baiters will say take this part from Bihar and see Bihar has been better on this account, take that part from Tamil Nadu and TN has done better for that part, take something else from AP and AP has done better their. Its like saying the topper of the class got 95% marks overall but still isn’t good enough because in individual subjects he is not the topper. What you are doing is, breaking each parameter into silos and then comparing each silo’s topper with Modi. Statistics don’t lie but it can be used selectively to create any view so disired by the presenter. As per today’s TOI Gujarat has more muslim policemen than other states… sort of an paradox for the so called Muslim hater Modi.

[Precambrian]

The literacy part really made me chuckle: Apparently Gujarat has not done well in literacy rate growth, I look up the tables and see that it has actually added 10%+ of its population which is better than the national avg during the period 01-11. Now the states which have done better than this are, Tripura, Sikkim and Nagaland. So you mean to say Gujarat is worse than these three states?

[Kejriwal4PM]

I see you concede the point.

Yup, I concede the point that his vote shares fell in last elections even though pre-polls said otherwise

Go ahead, do that, and save us the gibberish. Oh and BTW Guj and TN have almost same GDP just FYI.

Almost? :haha: And Maha? :D

Oh really? 6 months does not quantify as enough time in your books? (2) Same argument as in (1)

Surely not. If BJP-wallahs can say that its because of NDA policies that India's growth rate is high during all these years (7-8yrs) under UPA-1&2, then 6 months is clearly not enough to evaluate for Modi.

You haven't answered any of my points. Why stop at 1994? What is the logic in comparing 7 yrs to 10 yrs? Why not roll back another 3 years? Why not 20 years? Explain. Lets atleast bring some equality in the periods involved here.

Sorry, I edited to include my answer above prolly after you started replying. Let me repaste:

As for why I calculated from 1994: Because thats what is available in that PC datatable, and this period applies to all states. May I ask you this instead: Why does Modi and his brigade fret about one year or the other? If he is the development messiah, he shouldn't nit pick on the year chosen uniformly for all states :D

That still doesn't make it not sound stupid. Why would u ignore selective years out of Modi's reign to make him look bad? it seems you're the one with an agenda here.

Because I didnt dumbo :D Like I mentioned it in my blog, I first copied the data from PC table (which didnt include those years) before someone pointed it out and then I calculated it myself and added it. And I have clearly disclosed my agenda - to demolish the false figures and hype of Modi brigaders like you. So, all your arguments have fallen flat irrespective of how much ever twist you give (quoting "base-effect" and poverty-lines etc selectively, feigning amnesia :D )

[Kejriwal4PM]

Yes, and Gujarat is still better than Maharastra, your point being?

Better? :--D Maha's poverty reduction is better than Gujarat's by almost 60%. Typical bullsh*t, eh? :D

it didn't. Gujarat's rate of growth in the 6 immediate years prior to Modi taking control was a measly 4%. Modi during his decade returned 10%+.

Let me expose your twisting of facts by quoting how you arrived at 4% and my response to it above: You said:

YE 95, Gujarat recorded a growth rate of 18, which is a big extreme considering the following years growth rates. Ignore that year, and the pre-Modi avg growth rate is as follows: 1996-2001 = Guj 4.19

And my reply was:

what is actually ridiculous is your argument to pull out that 18% (FY 95) just because it is uncomfortable to Modi :D Typical of the Modi brigade I should say! Did you notice that there are also some 2.11% (FY 97) and 1.02% (FY 99) for Gujarat in pre-Modi's time, and a 1.75% (FY 02) in TN or 3.38% for Maha etc in Modi's period? Should I selectively pluck them out too? Funny logic! :D

So tell me, should we pull out those 2.11, 1.02, 1.75 and 3.38 too? :hysterical: Another typical bullsh*t, eh mate? :two_thumbs_up: Let me show you another typical bullcr*p brandished by Modi during his past election campaigns: Modi freely quoted the Sachar Committee report to show how Muslims were better under him in Gujarat than anywhere else. You will also see this quoting of Sachar report by his stupid followers on online forums. But fact is, the education and income levels of Muslims in that report were based on Census 2001 and NSS (or NFHS-3) survey of 2004 which is barely 2yrs after he took over (see appendix tables of ch-4 and ch-8 respectively of that report)!! :D

[Kejriwal4PM]

The literacy part really made me chuckle: Apparently Gujarat has not done well in literacy rate growth, I look up the tables and see that it has actually added 10%+ of its population which is better than the national avg during the period 01-11. Now the states which have done better than this are, Tripura, Sikkim and Nagaland. So you mean to say Gujarat is worse than these three states?

Gujarat's rank in literacy, far from improving, actually fell down under Modi. The states you quote didnt have the GDP growth rate that gujarat saw. Once again, inspite of having one of the highest growth rates among all states, its rank in literacy fell. Let me see you chuckle now :--D

[Kejriwal4PM]

Couldn't even read the rest of the blog. Puerile analysis at its best. A commentor put it succintly:

Of course you cant. I didnt expect much smartness from the Modi brigade when it comes to numbers ;) I guess its time for you to rest your brain and join Ravishingravi on the pavement :D As for that comment, again selective pasting! :D This is exactly what I wanted to demolish :haha: Let me paste my reply to that below:

GDP growth is a basic (no esoteric statistics here) indicator of growth that encompasses the growth of every goods and services of all economic sectors within a territory, and is not some pick-and-choose indicator. Also, I have given you comparisons not just from the start of his rule but also from his predecessors times.

So, GDP is not some individual subject, but the grand total. Its the same GDP that Modi and his not-so-smart followers have been brandishing all these years. And now, you want to discredit the very GDP figures because all of Modi's lies have been exposed :--D

[BeautifulGame]

But the planning commision stats are confusing tbh http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/0904/tab_45.pdf For example I cant really understand Planning commision stats abut BPL citeria.Are they really saying if u earn Rs.800 in TN u are above poverty line?

[Kejriwal4PM]

But the planning commision stats are confusing tbh http://planningcommission.nic.in/data/datatable/0904/tab_45.pdf For example I cant really understand Planning commision stats abut BPL citeria.Are they really saying if u earn Rs.800 in TN u are above poverty line?

Yup, and 951 in Gujarat and 961 in Maharashtra. You can read the Tendulkar Committee report to know about their methodology. Like it or not, that how poor people are in India. At least their percentages are less (which, by absolute numbers, is still huge) in states like Maha, TN and Gujarat etc. In some states, they are much higher.

[BeautifulGame]

Yup' date=' and 951 in Gujarat and 961 in Maharashtra. You can read the Tendulkar Committee report to know about their methodology. Like it or not, that how poor people are in India. At least their percentages are less (which, by absolute numbers, is still huge) in states like Maha, TN and Gujarat etc. In some states, they are much higher.

Thanks for the source mate

[CSK Fan]

Dude Kejriwal4Pm' date=' there is a reason why Modi's approval ratings are at an all time high... if you're saying he's managed to hoodwink an entire state for close to two decades by half truths and marketing, and actually kept them happy, well probably then we all need such a PM.[/quote'] Dude, we had the CPM who completely destroyed WB rule the State for 38 years. So approval means nothing

[Sachin=GOD]

Narendra Modi as PM will be at the mercy of allies

As the Gujarat election campaign reaches its apogee, many observers predict a massive victory for Narendra Modi of the BJP, bigger even than the one he won in 2007. This can propel him to become the party's candidate for Prime Minister in the next general election. The Congress Party is in poor shape, dogged by high inflation, slowing economic growth and widespread accusations of corruption. This could conceivably enable the BJP to come to power once again at the head of a wide-ranging coalition, as in 1998 and1999. And that could mean that Modi becomes Prime Minister. This prospect fills many analysts with horror. Here is one example, in a column by TK Arun in The Economic Times: "Narendra Modi should not become the Prime Minister because that would destroy the idea of India as a nation that celebrates unity in diversity, where multiple identities prosper in harmony and dignity. Equally, democracy and the rule of law would be casualties under Modi. For the BJP, Modi's ascent to the top would mean a hasty end to any hope of evolving into a centre-right party minus a Hindu majoritarian agenda." I cannot disagree more with this line of thinking. It sounds to me like fear of Modi translating into mistaken, unwarranted panic. If he becomes Prime Minister-which is still a long shot-it will be as head of a ramshackle coalition of the sort Atal Behari Vajpayee headed in 1998 and 1999. Vajpayee was the liberal face of the BJP, and had immense charm and a capacity for accommodation that enabled him to carry people along with him. That is how he shepherded a rag-tag group of parties for so long. But Modi is singularly lacking in precisely those skills. Whatever may be the great administrative qualities that have enabled him to claim to be creator of the Gujarat economic miracle, he has none as a persuasive team builder. He generates fear and loathing not only among other parties but among his own party peers. "Modi is not on the best terms with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. This is not because the Sangh suspects him of any ideological deviation. Rather, Modi personifies the Sangh's belief system. The problem is that Modi is too authoritarian to accept the discipline even of the Sangh. This authoritarian streak has manifested itself as quashing of dissent and fostering of leaders like Amit Shah, prime accused in encounter killings and extortion rackets." Such a man will be a pathetic failure as head of a coalition in New Delhi. He loves to flex his muscle, and that is feasible for a state leader with a large majority and successful economy. But flexing your muscle is recipe for disaster for somebody heading a wide-ranging coalition in New Delhi. He will be humiliated and cut to pieces daily by his coalition partners, and will probably have to exit with his tail between his legs. Those who hate Modi should welcome the prospect of his becoming Prime Minister, not dread it. Nothing is more certain to wreck his charisma. However, the chances of the BJP coming to power in the next election are not too high. In 1998 it won no more than 182 seats against 273 needed for a majority, and required a host of allies to garner a majority. In 1999 it had the huge advantage of having won the Kargil war against Pakistan, yet the BJP-led NDA coalition was fractionally short of the magic figure of 273 and had to rope in the TDP for a clear majority. In those days the BJP was a major force in the largest state, Uttar Pradesh. But today it has faded into fourth place in the state. It has parted company with its old partner in Odisha, the BJD. So, it will be lucky to get more than 150 seats in 2014. If at all it comes to power it will be as part of a large, undisciplined coalition where minor partners constantly thumb their noses at the Prime Minister. Such a coalition may not even have a majority, and may rule as a minority government of the sort India had in 1996-98, constantly in danger of being toppled. In 1996, Deve Gowda was a strong chief minister in Karnataka. He happily came to Delhi to become Prime Minister. He found to his dismay that as PM he had pomp and splendour but little real power, and lasted less than a year. Meanwhile, his power base in Karnataka eroded, and on return he couldn't become the powerhouse he once was. That's surely a lesson for Modi.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/columnists/swaminathan-s-a-aiyar/narendra-modi-as-pm-will-be-at-the-mercy-of-allies/articleshow/17633864.cms Exactly what I have been saying for a very long time now..

[Sachin=GOD]

Almost all the Exit polls say Modi to win more seats than last time..... if this does happen then it will be a HUGE step towards Modi's dream of being PM.

[ravishingravi]

Almost all the Exit polls say Modi to win more seats than last time..... if this does happen then it will be a HUGE step towards Modi's dream of being PM.

PM candidate at best. He will never be PM.

[ravishingravi]

Dude' date=' we had the CPM who completely destroyed WB rule the State for 38 years. So approval means nothing[/quote'] Denial factor at work again.