The Narendra Modi thread

[someone]

Not Sonia supporter.. But pretty disappointed by Kachchadharis... They've one the best chance to win the election as a coalition but trust them to have brainfarts to fulfill the Man in hurry's dreams... :mad:

If you are referring to Modi, then, it's the public who wants him to be PM and thus bringing this hype. And that's the reason behind the optimism in the public or the party workers.And compare that to the self appointed PM, Rahul

[asterix]

If you are referring to Modi' date=' then, it's the public who wants him to be PM and thus bringing this hype. And that's the reason behind the optimism in the public or the party workers.And compare that to the self appointed PM, Rahul[/quote'] Don't worry both public and BJP will have to wait for many years to realise that dream... TBH Modi ain't gonna be PM in his life time... No matter how much BJP or public might aspire...sorry, tough luck...

[CSK Fan]

If you are referring to Modi' date=' then, it's the public who wants him to be PM and thus bringing this hype. And that's the reason behind the optimism in the public or the party workers.And compare that to the self appointed PM, Rahul[/quote'] Public wants Modi? Which public? The Internet people? Or the NRIs?

[saneindian]

Public wants Modi? Which public? The Internet people? Or the NRIs?

The countless surveys done amongst a sample of voters (no NRIs or internet people) by leading magazines/newspapers in the last few years seem to suggest so, no? Obviously whether that actually happens or not is a lot more complex but he does emerge as the popular choice amongst the available options in all the surveys. How the final results turn out only time will tell but for the time being, those surveys do indicate his popularity (may not translate to actual votes).

[Crookbond]

The "public" does not decide the post of the PM.

[someone]

The "public" does not decide the post of the PM.

The "public" is part of the voting.

[saneindian]

But the same 'public' will vote largely on the basis of who the potential PM candidates from the respective camps are going to be. So the 'public' does decide who gets to be the PM.

[someone]

Here is a good article describing a part of the current drama http://www.firstpost.com/india/the-shallow-secularism-of-nitish-kumar-is-a-farce-699007.html

It is perfectly all right for Nitish Kumar to nurse his own ambitions for Prime Ministership. He is equally within his rights to demand that Narendra Modi should not be the BJP's PM candidate. The BJP may or may not oblige (for that is its right), but then Kumar is free to look at his options, including a pullout. What is completely out of place is making this hypocritical demand in the name of secularism. Yesterday, Nitish Kumar made his famous “topi aur tilak” reference - one representing Muslims and the other Hindus. The Indian Express quotes him as saying: “Sometimes you will have to wear a cap, sometimes you will have to sport a tilak." The obvious innuendo is to Modi's reported unwillingness to wear the Muslim skull cap offered to him by a minority delegation to his 2011 “Sadhbhavna” fasts. ]Nitish Kumar. Reuters. The “topi-tilak” reference is a pathetic one. That in the 66th year of independence we cannot think of secularism as anything above “symbolism” is ominous. It implies that Muslims are more concerned about someone pretending to wear a “topi” than more substantive issues. In our entire existence as an independent nation, our “secular” leaders have been doing nothing but this: pretend to help the minorities while actually doing nothing on the ground for them. They have been running a protection racket for the minorities, and Kumar now joins the crowd. The joke, in fact, is on Kumar. The Hindi expression “kisiko topi pehnana” means making a fool of somebody. This is exactly what our secularists have been doing - fooling the Muslim minorities by promising them everything but good education, better jobs and integration into the mainstream. Consider all the implications of the “topi-tilak” metaphor and how it is actually demeaning to secularism. One, even if secularism is about symbolism, surely it cannot be one-sided. How many minority leaders have been sporting the “tilak”? Have we seen Omar Abdullah with a “tilak” or even a Mayawati with one? Which Kerala minority leader is into any kind of symbolic wooing? In fact, the strength of the Kerala model is the “salad bowl” approach of the political parties there, where each community keeps its own symbols, and joins together in a coalition. Is it only the so-called Hindu leader who has to prove his secular credentials by wearing a topi? Two, if identity is a matter of personal choice, as Amartya Sen keeps reminding us, why is it important for Modi to prove a point by wearing a skull-cap? Assuming he does wear a skull-cap, does that make him instantly secular? Why is he not entitled to decide his own identity? Why should he pretend to be a multi-identity person hypocritically, never mind his personal convictions? Three, secularism is about not being bigoted, and about not discriminating against any community in official policy (among other things). If Nitish Kumar's definition is valid, then we should consider the French to be communal for they have banned every religious symbol from public life - no crosses, no headscarves, no turbans even for Sikhs. We should even call the Irish communal, for they managed to apply their own religion-influenced anti-abortion law on a pregnant Indian immigrant and killed her. Four, is Nitish Kumar's secularism only skin deep? He may not like Modi, but surely he is close to LK Advani, who is the original creator of the Hindutva wave which ended with the Babri demolition. Nitish even flagged off Advani's anti-corruption yatra. So what is this selective targeting of “communal” Modi about beyond a clash of political ambitions? Five, in India we define bigotry too narrowly to include only Hindu communalism. Caste-based communalism is not considered, unless this is to target upper caste bigotry. Thus, a Congress party can ally with parties that are purely Muslim - Indian Union Muslim League, Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen - and not be called communal. A Samajwadi Party can align with all kinds of mullahs and base its vote on Yadavs, but it is not communal. The DMK can oppress Dalits in Tamil Nadu, but it will not be called communal. Every party in the Kerala coalition represents a separate community - Muslims, Christians, Nairs, Ezhavas - but it is not a communal coalition. The CPI(M) can kill Muslims in Nandigram, but it is not communal. Nitish Kumar has validated this kind of nonsense. There are many more things objectionable about Kumar's speech, including his references to Modi's authoritarian tendencies. He said: “Nobody should think that the country can be run by force...”. This is not to claim Modi isn't an authoritarian leader. But the boot is also on the other foot. Nitish Kumar himself is being accused of running a one-man show. The irrepressible Markandeya Katju of the Press Council accused Kumar of stamping out press freedom in Bihar. And a recent Indian Express story on Nitish Kumar's Bihar suggests that his own party leaders are upset at the excess power now wielded by bureaucrats - which is typical of strong, authoritarian rulers who enforce governance through a direct wielding of power. Janata Dal (United) leaders are critical of “afsarshahi.” The truth is, in India individuals wield more power than institutions, and this phenomenon runs across parties and is not limited to Modi. Consider these names and check if they are symbols of inner party democracy: J Jayalalithaa, Mamata Banerjee, Sonia Gandhi, Prakash Karat, Naveen Patnaik, M Karunanidhi, Mayawati, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Raj and Uddhav Thackeray (earlier Bal Thackeray). Clearly, Nitish Kumar's selective secularism is a product of ambition, political calculation and circumstance. It is going to do nothing to strengthen Indian secularism. It will, if anything, make a bigger mockery of it.

[jairamesh]

Here is a good article describing a part of the current drama http://www.firstpost.com/india/the-shallow-secularism-of-nitish-kumar-is-a-farce-699007.html

And that's why I back Modi. There is none of this BS 'topi and tilak' pandered by all these melodramatic politicians. Sometimes I would not be sad for Bihar or UP to have another 10 to 15 years of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Samajwadi Party. They will never learn.

[Crookbond]

The "public" is part of the voting.

But the same 'public' will vote largely on the basis of who the potential PM candidates from the respective camps are going to be. So the 'public' does decide who gets to be the PM.

[1] Voting does is not that simple, different people follow different voting patterns [2] Since the same 'public' does not know who the PM candidate is while voting, there's a very good chance they may not do what you said Unless BJP explicitly mention Modi as their candidate, the 'public' voting pattern will be chaos.

[Crookbond]

And that's why I back Modi. There is none of this BS 'topi and tilak' pandered by all these melodramatic politicians. Sometimes I would not be sad for Bihar or UP to have another 10 to 15 years of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Samajwadi Party. They will never learn.

Modi has his own BS and melodrama as well - a problem which die hard fans fail to realize. I have no problems in you prioritizing Modi over Nitish or vice-versa you can't choose to make one of them as a scape goat by some parameters while leaving out others which are of no concern.

[ravishingravi]

Agreed' date=' that's the strategy it seems this time. And imo, that's their best strategy available. Getting those old and tested Advani as mentioned would already been defeat as seen in 2009 elections. And the opponents very well know about this and thus this time their whole campaign is about Modi instead of focusing on their strengths. That's not the ideal strategy for them as well.[/quote'] Situation in 2009 and 2014 are drastically different. Same failed strategy can work here. Unfortunately Arun Shourie has been ousted and brijesh Mishra is no more. I think they would have brought people together this election. There is little doubt in Modi's capabilities and his vision. But timing and perception is what matters in politics. he will not get the numbers. I can see same Rahul Gandhi becoming a major player in 10 yrs time with greater maturity.

[The Outsider]

Last elections ka benchmark banana hai to BJP should give up and ask UPA 3 to take over.

Isn't past performance as a campaigner an indication of future performance at least to some extent?

If Modi was as irrelevant, why do you think he will be under so much attack? Wouldn't his detractors instead let him take over, fail badly and then be sent into oblivion forever if the outcome was as clear cut as you suggest? Even someone like Mulayam Singh has started singing praise of Advani, kiska dar hai woh?

Modi is no irrelevant. However, the number of seats BJP might gain through Modi will not be greater than the number they stand to lose as a result of losing post poll allies as well as the seat advantage to be gained through potential pre poll alliances.

As for 180 seats, it will have to be earned through hard work, voter outreach programs ( for which you need an active and enthused cadre), and presenting a clear cut vision and way ahead unlike the negative campaign run in 2009 by Advani. Nearly every political pundit believes Modi will add 2-3% vote share in BJP's favour in many states, could be the difference between 140 and 175-180.

The numbers just don't add up. Moreover, there is a segment of the population like me who is frustrated with the performance of the UPA government but will not vote for a Modi led BJP but will vote for BJP under a more moderate leadership. Since you are talking about surveys, there was one by India Today a few months earlier which showed a 6-7% swing against UPA, but only a 1-2% gain for NDA. That's a clear indication that the BJP has been ineffective in transferring the voter disenchantment to add to their votes.

[The Outsider]

None of those parties I mentioned intend to join BJP in a pre-poll alliance' date=' they have made it clear several times. So instead of chasing a mirage, BJP needs to play to its own strengths. If one analyzes what went wrong in 2009 - BJP lost a lot of seats in urban areas and in north India - Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab, Himachal, Uttrakhand and in Maharashtra. These are areas where BJP is not going to have allies anyway (except Shiv Sena) and so Modi is the one who can make a difference, more than any other BJP leader. Modi has the ability to attract the urban vote as well as revitalize the party's base - a combination that can lead to major gains for the party.[/quote'] Things change quickly in politics. With proper diplomacy, BJP was even able to get TDP in a seat sharing arrangement even though they did not participate in the government. Delhi, Uttarakhand, HP, and Punjab to some extent are small contributors. If BJP is to have a realistic shot at power it needs to improve it's performance in Maharashtra and UP and maintain the total tally of BJP and JD-U in Bihar. They are going to suffer major losses in Karnataka going by all indications - the urban seats Modi might deliver will at best offset those losses. Losing JD-U as an ally in Bihar will bring BJP + JD-U seats down from 32 currently to single digits for the BJP alone. Where is Modi going to make up those numbers?

[The Outsider]

But the same 'public' will vote largely on the basis of who the potential PM candidates from the respective camps are going to be. So the 'public' does decide who gets to be the PM.

You've got to look at how those polls are structured. For example in the India Today poll Modi had a backing of 36% and Rahul Gandhi 22%. However, Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi also got around 8-12% each numbers but the other BJP leaders like Advani, Sushma Swaraj etc. were around the 5% mark.

[ravishingravi]

And that's why I back Modi. There is none of this BS 'topi and tilak' pandered by all these melodramatic politicians. Sometimes I would not be sad for Bihar or UP to have another 10 to 15 years of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Samajwadi Party. They will never learn.

Arre Bhai chewtiyon ki toli hai. jo dikhate hai wahi bikta hai. Sign on the dotted lines. That's all that matters. Do all the topi and tilak necessary. Express all the apologies and regrets. It is theatre at the end of the day, don't forget that. Suck up to every contingent possible. Politics is art of possible. If Modi would have just cried on camera, perception would have swayed so dramatically. It is all about stories and narratives. Not just in India.

[Khalpat]

Since you are talking about surveys' date=' there was one by India Today a few months earlier which showed a 6-7% swing against UPA, but only a 1-2% gain for NDA. That's a clear indication that the BJP has been ineffective in transferring the voter disenchantment to add to their votes.[/quote'] This. NDA or BJP also do not have anything to show or fight for in the coming election infact BJP without Modi is similar to Congress B Team having a mixture of good and bad leaders for the time being good leaders quantity is more in BJP. Look people of India might vote on the basis of religion, caste and local issue but there is one factor which brought VP singh, Vajpayee into power and that is HOPE(remember Sabko parkha humko parkhein). This one word can do wonders for them. I would say sit in opposition but have Modi as your leader rather than be in power with hypocritic alliances such as Nitish or Mamta and do nothing new.

[The Outsider]

Sometimes I would not be sad for Bihar or UP to have another 10 to 15 years of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Samajwadi Party. They will never learn.

UP gave BJP an unprecedented mandate in the assembly as well as Lok Sabha elections - they gave 55 seats to the BJP at the center and an absolute majority in the state. Kalyan Singh, twice and then Rajnath Singh fecked up the state even worse than Mulayam and Mayawati. Unless the BJP changes the names who screwed up the state so pathetically why should UP vote for BJP - to get screwed up them all over again?

[Khalpat]

UP gave BJP an unprecedented mandate in the assembly as well as Lok Sabha elections - they gave 55 seats to the BJP at the center and an absolute majority in the state. Kalyan Singh' date=' twice and then Rajnath Singh fecked up the state even worse than Mulayam and Mayawati. Unless the BJP changes the names who screwed up the state so pathetically why should UP vote for BJP - to get screwed up them all over again?[/quote'] Kalyan Singh fecked up is true, infact among all Mayawati has been the best CM of UP which shows how would have others performed. But I still remember the 4-5 months tenure of Rajnath Singh and one bold decision taken during his tenure was giving STF target of killing Top 10 mafias in each and every district. That was one of the period when law and order was at its best.

[someone]

The thing is unlike 2009, this time there is a lot of ambiguity. And that's because there are a lot more new variables. Variables including such as social media. And then, Modi himself will be the biggest change this time around. And every party is vary about the huge effects of these new variables. Congress knows that and really has invested a lot of time and money in influencing them (but have failed terribly so far) . Congress understands the power it has to make them lose the election. Whereas, the likes of BJP are using these new variables as their strength as it provides them a new dimension to their profile. You are never going to win elections in India by just criticizing the existing government. Check 2009 elections where the country as a whole was at its lowest morale, yet Congress won the elections. BJP needs to build its own profile and that's what they are trying to project. Make no mistake, irrespective on what happens this year. Congress will start as the favorites in 2014 as in India, "convenient secularism" plays a great role. But favorites does not mean that they will win the elections at the end.