someone Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Old news, Mayawati covered that like a decade ago. Modi supports are all religions, but modi sycophants are hinduvta idiots. There is adifference. Firstly unlike Maywati, Modi has not played the caste card. And you are clueless as you think that Hinduvta reasons are behind this rise. Muslims and people of different reasons are very much contributing.Would you call them idiots then?
someone Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Please dont forget the actual seculars who also hate him. Just because our naam-chor psuedo-seculars hate him does not mean we genuine seculars dont hate him either. :hitler::hitler::hitler: And why are you are a "actual seculars"? Does not going to Ayodhya make you one, does talking about minority rights makes you one, does making anti-Hindu statements makes you one? You are nothing but a paranoid actor who is terrified about the status quo is being challenged.
Khalpat Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 So modi determines the flow rate of the Sabarmati ? If you want someone to give you all that and more, not for the last 15 yrears but for the last 30, look no further than Kerala. It doesnt even matter who is in charge there, because Kerala is the only state that has actual government appartus in place. I was talking about ground water level, genius. http://www.socialcause.org/getarticlefromdb.php?id=2632
Crookbond Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 most of the youth who support him particularly in suburbs give a damn about religion or hindutva' date='[b']they have hope that this country might benefit from his development model,gdp will improve,inclusive growth policies will be formed etc...thats the general perception his supporters get.. frankly i dont care if he`s the PM or not,i just want NDA/BJP to win the general elections be it sans modi or with him...people are fed up of this sh1t UPA govn,one of the worst witnessed :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: Inclusive growth policies?!!! Yea - please enlighten us more Einstein about "inclusive growth".
Sachin=GOD Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Modi’s rise a gift for Congress The primary fault-line of Indian politics since 1947 used to be Congress versus the rest. This changed abruptly after the Gujarat riots of 2002. Since then, the primary question has been whether one is for or against the BJP. Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar’s departure from the BJP-led NDA turns a new leaf in this story. Anti-Congressism helped the ascent of the BJP. It was socialist leader George Fernandes — then Nitish Kumar’s political guru — who went to President Shankar Dayal Sharma in 1996 to demand that BJP stalwart AB Vajpayee be invited to form the government when the saffron party emerged as the biggest in the Lok Sabha. Fernandes took pride in the fact that he ended the BJP’s untouchability. He said before the 1998 elections: “How long are we going to keep the Babri Mosque as a kind of cut-off date to decide our political activities in the country? How long are we going to treat any political party as an untouchable? December 6, 1992 (demolition of the Babri Masjid) is considered a cut-off date. If that is a cut-off date, for how long will you hold on to that position?” This argument helped the BJP gather a dozen allies in 1998 and 22 by 1999 — all bound by their antipathy to the Congress. The BJP’s growth continued until the 2002 Gujarat riots. Bihar Dalit leader Ramvilas Paswan was the first to quit the NDA, citing the riots as the reason. Gujarat 2002 has become the new cut-off date in Indian politics as the BJP has been losing allies one after another since then, all of them citing Gujarat as the reason for severing ties with the BJP. In fact, Gujarat was the primary catalyst for the formation of the UPA in 2004. The carnage in Gujarat resulted in something that the Babri Masjid demolition did not — several parties shed their hostility to the Congress to stop the BJP. It started with the Left, which opposed the Congress in Kerala and West Bengal but supported it at the centre. Regional parties, born to oppose the Congress, also gathered around it. Not only did the UPA survive the first term, it returned for a second with a larger majority. In the past two years, however, support for the UPA has been unravelling. While the SP and BSP — rivals in Uttar Pradesh — support the UPA at the centre, two key allies — the DMK and the Trinamool Congress — have left the ruling alliance. Serial scams, governance drift, a sagging economy and soaring prices — everything seemed to be going wrong for the Congress. That is when the BJP introduced the new fault-line. This was highlighted when Nitish Kumar reacted to Gujarat CM Narendra Modi’s rise in the BJP and quit the NDA, marking the departure of the last socialist leader from the saffron camp. Modi promises to be the leader who will set the agenda for the 2014 general elections. His image of a driver of economic growth in Gujarat through decisive governance and his rhetorical skills will immensely help the BJP draw a significant chunk of anti-incumbency votes in its favour. But while Modi is trying to set the agenda, he himself is becoming the agenda. His track record and even his backward caste have become a point for intense public debate. Modi’s emergence as the agenda itself has relegated all other issues to the backburner. The Congress could not have asked for more. Modi certainly lifts the BJP. Unfortunately for him and his party, he’s likely to lift the Congress as well. http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/newdelhi/Modi-s-rise-a-gift-for-Congress/Article1-1079834.aspx
Crookbond Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Firstly unlike Maywati' date= Modi has not played the caste card. And you are clueless as you think that Hinduvta reasons are behind this rise. Muslims and people of different reasons are very much contributing.Would you call them idiots then? Who made the "Hum paanch, hamare pachees" comment then? Modi's nephew perhaps.
maniac Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 Who made the "Hum paanch' date=' hamare pachees" comment then? Modi's nephew perhaps.[/quote'] They got you with the propoganda man :((
asterix Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 ^ Absolutely agree with the article... BJP's downfall started with Gujarat riots.. Modi will finish BJP and am pretty sure he'll break away from BJP after fecking it for long and decimating it. Modi will launch Gujarat Janata Party (GJP) once he decimates BJP...
Muloghonto Posted June 21, 2013 Posted June 21, 2013 And why are you are a "actual seculars"? Does not going to Ayodhya make you one' date=' does talking about minority rights makes you one, d[b']oes making anti-Hindu statements makes you one? You are nothing but a paranoid actor who is terrified about the status quo is being challenged. Dont mislabel me. I am a legalist, like Patel was. I care about one and only one thing: power of the state. I dont care if muslims stand in the way or hindus. Whoever stands in the way deserves to get bulldozed. India is not 'ghazwa-e-hind' territorry or 'hindu rashtra'. India is far more. I've openly stated that problem #1 with India is islamic proliferation, problem #2 is hinduvta proliferation. I dont think you will find many people more secular than me, because i am an agnost who has no time for religion- any religion- in the government. RSS and Tablighi Jamaat are the same thing under different garb. I've also said that seperate civic code needs to be scrapped and uniform civic code must be implemented. If i had my way, 99.99% muslims and 50-60% of Hindus would be peeved off at me. It doesnt make you secular to pander to Hindu or Islamist policies but it sure makes you one when you oppose any and all religious influence in governance.
The Outsider Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 Who made the "Hum paanch' date=' hamare pachees" comment then? Modi's nephew perhaps.[/quote'] Its kaansparasy. Modi bhakts shut off their senses even to respectable publications to which I posted a link.
The Outsider Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 ^ Absolutely agree with the article... BJP's downfall started with Gujarat riots.. Modi will finish BJP and am pretty sure he'll break away from BJP after fecking it for long and decimating it. Modi will launch Gujarat Janata Party (GJP) once he decimates BJP... For once we agree, the question is will Modi proclaim himself as a secular leader?
Khalpat Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 This is what Pritish Nandy has to say, another fanatic Hindutvadi like Narayan Murthy, Amitabh Bacchan http://http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/extraordinaryissue/entry/modi-offers-a-new-camelot There's no doubt Narendra Modi is a big deal. He may not be everyone's hero. But for young, urban India, those who read Chetan Bhagat and watch Kai Po Che, his appeal has grown exponentially in recent months. Media pundits (the last to climb on to his bandwagon) think he could be the next PM. From a pariah in 2002, Modi is the star of 2013. And I don't think his support base is hardcore Hindu fanatics, as the Congress wants us to believe. Rather, it comes from young, secular, well educated, successful young men and women. They don't follow Modi because he espouses Gujarati asmita (which he does occasionally) or sells some exotic blend of Hindutva and nationalism (which he also does, but increasingly rarely) or because he's rabidly anti-Muslim, anti-Pakistan or anti-anything. They follow him because he promises them a new India. What this new India is no one quite knows. It's a curious promise Modi has conjured up. Rajiv was the last Gandhi who sold us Camelot, much in the grand old tradition of the Kennedys. Modi, on the other hand, offers us a simpler version. Good roads, well built flyovers, electricity that does not fail, a modern, transactional society where corruption may exist but will not be half as corrosive and soul killing as it is today, and cities that can grow without falling apart. He doesn't offer high pitched rhetoric on stuff everyone knows he can't deliver on. He wants business to flourish, jobs to be created, dollars to come in, the rupee to stay strong. His vision may not be entirely inclusive. But then who offers inclusive politics in a country split by caste, religion, language, regionalism? What Modi offers is the dream of a new nation unburdened by history. This suits our times. The young no longer care for history. Gandhi is a distant memory. Ayodhya, a bad dream. The young are not bothered about last week's headlines, leave alone last year's. Modi's pogrom is a decade old. Even the Muslims have moved on since then and, like the rest of India, are thinking about jobs, careers, money and opportunities. If Modi can offer them that, integrate them into the larger Indian dream, they will be happy to forget the past and look ahead. The Congress offers them the lollypop of secularism but nothing else. And no one is enamoured of empty promises any more. The young want change. They want it quickly. Anyone who offers it to them is welcome, no questions asked. It's not political amnesia alone that defines them. What defines them also is the search for a new India. They have heard about it before, in election doublespeak. But once elections are over, the traditional dynamics of Indian politics come back into play. Caste based reservations. Pampering of khaps. Vote bank politics. Socialist rhetoric. Gender prejudice. And corruption, all pervasive corruption. The more things promise to change, the more they stay the same. Both Congress and the BJP have the same problem: They seek the comfort of numbers on the basis of the existing status quo. The young resent that. They know they have no role to play in such politics. Their only hope lies in change, and Modi for them represents the possibility of that change. Rahul doesn't. (In fact, last week's Cabinet reshuffle underscored that.) Rahul doesn't because he's a Congressman, a Gandhi. Whereas Modi is not the BJP. He is a lone wolf. He may make all the right noises but he reports to no one, is accountable to none That's why he takes the kind of decisions a party man may not, being forced to balance countervailing forces. Modi balances nothing. He allows rebellion to raise its head and then squashes it. The young see that as the capacity to act, to take a decision against all odds. That's why Modi appeals to them. He's everything they want to see in the new India. Quick decision making. Decisive policy changes that can achieve swift results. No looking back at the past. The burial of history, and a new Discovery of India. It's ironic Nehru's great grandson has abdicated that role. It's equally ironic the BJP which saw glory in our Hindu heritage has now found itself a leader unabashedly campaigning to be the next PM on the plank of a new, modern, unapologetic identity that seeks to capture the future. Will he succeed? I have no clue. The algorithms of electoral politics are fickle. But many people believe (and no, they are not all BJP flunkies) that he could. Traditional arithmetics don't give him the numbers. But then, a wave just might.
Tiger80 Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: Inclusive growth policies?!!! Yea - please enlighten us more Einstein about "inclusive growth". This is what Madhu Kishwar wrote in modinama Now even Muslims realize that Modi is good for them. There are two kinds of Muslims in Gujarat – the rich and the poor. My experience tells me the poor Muslims are solidly with Modi because riot free Gujarat and a resurgent economy with new opportunities have benefited the poorer Muslims far more dramatically. It has provided them avenues of upward mobility. I love Modi, I want him to be Prime Minister. Even though some of the organizations are still anti-Modi, “Truth is Truth†how can I deny facts? I always go by factual accounts – no **** and bull stories. I only want good things. When we talk too much of minorities, who has given minorities full rights? It is the Hindu majority. Who wrote the Constitution? Hindus. We must appreciate Hindus for this/give them credit." http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1685&ptype=&pgno=9
someone Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 Dont mislabel me. I am a legalist, like Patel was. I care about one and only one thing: power of the state. I dont care if muslims stand in the way or hindus. Whoever stands in the way deserves to get bulldozed. India is not 'ghazwa-e-hind' territorry or 'hindu rashtra'. India is far more. I've openly stated that problem #1 with India is islamic proliferation, problem #2 is hinduvta proliferation. I dont think you will find many people more secular than me, because i am an agnost who has no time for religion- any religion- in the government. RSS and Tablighi Jamaat are the same thing under different garb. I've also said that seperate civic code needs to be scrapped and uniform civic code must be implemented. If i had my way, 99.99% muslims and 50-60% of Hindus would be peeved off at me. It doesnt make you secular to pander to Hindu or Islamist policies but it sure makes you one when you oppose any and all religious influence in governance. :giggle:Well, can't be bothered with your post then. Every sentence starts with I and how "I" is greater than "you".
someone Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: Inclusive growth policies?!!! Yea - please enlighten us more Einstein about "inclusive growth". So you are greater and bigger than Gujaratis, as you decide everything? They have voted for him for his good governance which in turns means inclusive growth. You have a problem then you do not know the ground reality.
Tiger80 Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 Not being a friend of Muslims does not equate to being anti-Muslim. Sardar Patel was no friend of hindus either. Or sikhs or jains or Buddhists or Christians. he had one and only one friend: the state. Sardar Patel was as legalist as they came- who believed that state authority and realities of state & inter-state dynamics trumps all considerations- moral, religious & financial. Sardar Patel wouldnt blink an eye at the slaughter of muslims if it meant security of the state. He wouldnt bat an eyelash at the slaughter of hindus if it meant the same. Legalists care about one thing only- that is authority of the state. He pretty much had one rule - get in the way of India and whats best for India and expect to get bulldozed. Didnt care a whit if it was a masjid or a temple blocking the way. Obviously, Sardar Patel stood for 'tit for tat'. Most legalists would, since tit-for-tat is the most successful policy towards co-existence of the trust game. Its been proven on a computer simulation level too. PS: Gandhi was not entirely right when he said 'tit for tat leaves the whole world blind'. His quote is applicable in a world populated by hippies, buddha, etc. In the real world, where cheats exist, eye for an eye and tit for tat is the most sucessful survival strategy- to the point that many species have developed social responses as tit-for-tat or tit-for-two tats. No leader in the world that belongs to majority community allow massacre of a minority can be considered as secular.He will considered as communal.
someone Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 Who made the "Hum paanch' date=' hamare pachees" comment then? Modi's nephew perhaps.[/quote'] Firstly, how is that relevant to the OP? You love mixing things together as presenting them as connected which isn't the case in truth. BTW
Crookbond Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 ^ So anyone who writes anything against your opinion is a fanatic?
Crookbond Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 This is what Madhu Kishwar wrote in modinama You see - one can always write what one wants to. Let us talk numbers - firstly I would want to know if people do understand the meaning of "inclusive growth". Tiger miyaa, this is not about you here just in case. I respect your opinion and stand (even if it is different than mine) on these issues because I know that you have a fair degree of idea what you talk about (of course no one is omniscient including me). The earlier comment was for the kids who don't hesitate to drop jargon at the slightest opportunity.
Crookbond Posted June 22, 2013 Posted June 22, 2013 So you are greater and bigger than Gujaratis' date=' as you decide everything? They have voted for him for his good governance which in turns means inclusive growth. You have a problem then you do not know the ground reality.[/quote'] Yes and India voted for Congress for good governance and "inclusive growth". I don't think we need Modi or BJP at the centre in the same account. So, now we know who has a problem accepting ground reality.
Recommended Posts