The Narendra Modi thread

[someone]

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.

Unlike Congress at central, Gujarati have voted for Modi for his good work in the state. And this work was for all people in their state. That includes minorities being better off in Gujarat than many other parts of India And don't speak of we on your own account. You made a mistake when you voted for Congress and you are again making the same mistake by living in that denial.

[someone]

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".

Or you meant your own made-up definition of inclusive growth. Don't care about that at all

[Crookbond]

Unlike Congress at central, Gujarati have voted for Modi for his good work in the state. And this work was for all people in their state. That includes minorities being better off in Gujarat than many other parts of India And don't speak of we on your own account. You made a mistake when you voted for Congress and you are again making the same mistake by living in that denial.

Oh man what kool aid! Congress is voted for other reasons but Modi is voted for "good work" in the state. :hysterical: The people of India have voted for Congress throughout the country. It doesn't matter what dimwits on this forum think about it. By your definition of fandom, Congress stands for an inclusive growth throughout the country unlike Modi and BJP who can't grow outside 1 state.

Or you meant your own made-up definition of inclusive growth. Don't care about that at all

Not my own- lets see what you've got on inclusive growth. Please post credible references and spare the kaanspiracy theories.

[seedhi]

^ So anyone who writes anything against your opinion is a fanatic?

He was being sarcastic ..

[Sachin=GOD]

With friends like these

The ascendancy of Narendra Modi may have scripted the inevitability of Nitish Kumar’s exit from a 17-year-old alliance but it still doesn’t explain everything about the precise point of rupture. For several years now, the Bihar chief minister’s antipathy for the rising star of the BJP has been well chronicled. He kept his Gujarat counterpart far away from the state’s election rallies; unceremoniously scrapped a dinner for senior BJP leaders in protest against posters that jointly featured him and the Gujarat CM and virtually dared the BJP to end the relationship by insisting that a prime ministerial candidate be named well before the 2014 elections, adding the simultaneous condition that the contender could not be Modi. Despite some equally well-documented contradictions (thanking the PM for calling him secular in 2013; telling him scornfully to not act like the “vice-chancellor of the university of secularism” in 2009) the not-if-but-when question had already sealed the fate of this long-lasting, but cantankerous relationship. Logically then, the bolt from the NDA should have come right after the first-among-equals anointment of Modi in Goa. But interestingly, on that fateful weekend party representatives of the JD(U) were much more circumspect. While they stuck to their stand on opposing a larger national role for Modi, they argued that his elevation as poll panel chief was an internal party matter. After all, said one spokesman after another, it was not as if he had been declared chairman of the NDA or prime ministerial candidate. In that case, what changed all of a sudden? Of course you could argue that the party was hedging its bets and buying time as it evolved a more cogent strategy. Or you could argue that what changed was not within Nitish Kumar’s party but within the BJP. It was only when the BJP patriarch LK Advani suddenly quit from all party posts that the strongest articulation of an immediate exit came from the JD(U). Notwithstanding the historical ironies — remember it was Advani whose intervention prevailed over Vajpayee’s counsel in Goa, 2002, preventing Modi from being removed as CM — the sharp response of the Bihar ally to the treatment of the party veteran brought into focus the real faultlines of the Sangh Parivar. The headlines may have been constructed to convey a clash of two CMs. But the conflagration isn’t so much Nitish vs Modi (that’s already done and over with) as much as it is Modi vs his own party, or at the very least a section of it. Who the BJP cadres would choose is a no-brainer; they are impatient with the coyness the party leadership has shown in officially naming Modi their man for 2014. But before the Gujarat CM can be the general who leads his troops into electoral battle, he must fight a million mutinies in his own backyard. Advani may have been persuaded to withdraw his resignations — significantly the only post he did not resign from was that of the chairman of the NDA — but an elaborate camp warfare is underway within the BJP. Everyday a smattering of small-arms fire can be heard across the line of control that separates the pro-Modi factions from those opposed to him. Traditional equations have been turned upside down. Former party president, Nitin Gadkari, ousted by a shrewd Advani plan to pitch Yashwant Sinha against him is now back on the side of his recent nemesis. Gadkari had his own run-ins with the Gujarat CM before a tenuous patch-up. His patronage of Modi’s bête noire Sanjay Joshi created a war of nerves between the two politicians. At the worst point in their relationship, he and Modi did not even communicate directly. Even as party president, he once told me that he would talk to Modi through the mediatory efforts of another BJP leader, Balbir Punj. Now Gadkari has been using his proximity to the RSS to open a line of communication between Nagpur and Advani, seemingly forgiving of the palace coup that toppled him. Other Advani protégés are lying low and being politically correct for the media. But privately, several of them are candid about their fears. The cult of personality, they say — from the Modi masks at election rallies to the photographs on children’s school bags — will devour the space for any other individual ambitions. Under-confident about their own ability to take on a man whose support is clearly derived from the party base, they are quite happy to shoot from Advani’s shoulder, and duck quickly from the counter-shelling. As Advani insists on a “collective leadership” to steer the BJP into the warzone of electoral conflict, the fight is being positioned as an ideological one. But it really is an intensely political one — a story of competing ambitions whose script is being written by the intensely complicated logic of my enemy’s enemy is my friend. It’s no coincidence that Advani’s long-time aide Sudheendra Kulkarni has gone public with his description of Modi as an “autocrat” and the party president as “foxy.” It’s clear that there are those in the BJP who think the Gujarat CM will shore up the numbers only to be rejected by prospective allies. So they are backing him for now in the hope that this will bring them back into the game at a later stage. Contrary to what his social media evangelists like to propagate, Narendra Modi’s biggest opposition is not from the liberal (or as they like to say ‘sickular’) media or even from the Congress. Before he jumps those hurdles, he has to fight friendly fire. His real battle is at home. Barkha Dutt is Group Editor, NDTV

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/viewsBarkhaDutt/With-friends-like-these/Article1-1080243.aspx "The cult of personality, they say — from the Modi masks at election rallies to the photographs on children’s school bags — will devour the space for any other individual ambitions." - this line from the article may end up being the most important factor for/against Modi's rise/fall in the BJP.

[Crookbond]

To be quite honest (and I've said this earlier as well), I have no problem with Modi (or anyone) becoming the PM IF he/she doesn't resort to classic xenophobic tactics. But before that I want him/her to take up one cabinet minister post to see what he/she can do there. I want an all inclusive growth - not the typical sh!t sold on forums.

[Sachin=GOD]

To be quite honest (and I've said this earlier as well)' date=' I have no problem with Modi (or anyone) becoming the PM IF he/she doesn't resort to classic xenophobic tactics. But before that I want him/her to take up one cabinet minister post to see what he/she can do there. I want an all inclusive growth - not the typical sh!t sold on forums.[/quote'] thats the thing - for Modi it seems like its "all or nothing" where he just wants to be the PM. On the other hand there's Rahul Baba who is the "Yuvraj" but for 9 years he hasn't bothered to accept any Ministry to prove himself or to get Administrative experience.

[bulbul]

To be quite honest (and I've said this earlier as well)' date=' I have no problem with Modi (or anyone) becoming the PM IF he/she doesn't resort to classic xenophobic tactics. But before that I want him/her to take up one cabinet minister post to see what he/she can do there. I want an all inclusive growth - not the typical sh!t sold on forums.[/quote'] There is no Ideal inclusive growth in India. Poor are becoming poor & rich becoming rich in any community. Even after all Muslim appeasement by various governments, I feel sorry for poor Muslims who is not getting any benefit but still produce dozens of children, most of them wont get any education. Add to that number of poor Hindu's in India is more than total number of Muslims put together. Is your inclusive growth means only growth of Minorities? if that's the case I give damn about such growth.

[Crookbond]

thats the thing - for Modi it seems like its "all or nothing" where he just wants to be the PM. On the other hand there's Rahul Baba who is the "Yuvraj" but for 9 years he hasn't bothered to accept any Ministry to prove himself or to get Administrative experience.

and he's another idiot of the highest order!

[Crookbond]

There is no Ideal inclusive growth in India. Poor are becoming poor & rich becoming rich in any community. Even after all Muslim appeasement by various governments, I feel sorry for poor Muslims who is not getting any benefit but still produce dozens of children, most of them wont get any education. Add to that number of poor Hindu's in India is more than total number of Muslims put together. Is your inclusive growth means only growth of Minorities? if that's the case I give damn about such growth.

That is of no use.

[bulbul]

That is of no use.

Didn't got your point? is statement wrong or intent wrong?

[adi B]

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: Inclusive growth policies?!!! Yea - please enlighten us more Einstein about "inclusive growth".

inclusive growth means equitable growth and resource distribution to all the sections of society,it means all sections of the society contribute to growth development on a whole.. by the way whats there to laugh? i said people have hope the NDA govn led by modi or anybody else for that matter will improve the growth as is the case in gujarat and other NDA states.. its not like congress is doing a fantastic job on growth parameters,further,the standard of living of muslims in gujarat is much better than many states in india to support the growth policies.. dont try to belittle everyone and think urself as the master of knowledge

[Crookbond]

whats there to laugh? i said people have hope the NDA govn led by modi or anybody else for that matter will improve the growth as is the case in gujarat and other NDA states.. its not like congress is doing a fantastic job on growth parameters

I want to know what you meant by "inclusive growth".

[Crookbond]

Didn't got your point? is statement wrong or intent wrong?

If rich become rich and poor become poor - it is of no use to show "growth". That is NOT "growth"; that is cronyism.

[bulbul]

If rich become rich and poor become poor - it is of no use to show "growth". That is NOT "growth"; that is cronyism.

Then what is growth? particularly what is Inclusive growth? I don't want text book/encyclopedia answers , give me answers in context of India and its people.

[adi B]

^answered above with a note at the end

[Crookbond]

inclusive growth means equitable growth and resource distribution to all the sections of society,it means all sections of the society contribute to growth development on a whole.. by the way whats there to laugh? i said people have hope the NDA govn led by modi or anybody else for that matter will improve the growth as is the case in gujarat and other NDA states.. its not like congress is doing a fantastic job on growth parameters,further,the standard of living of muslims in gujarat is much better than many states in india to support the growth policies.. dont try to belittle everyone and think urself as the master of knowledge

I did not claim anything of "inclusive" or any other growth. So not I am thinking myself as the "master of any knowledge". You made a claim, I am providing you an opportunity to prove that claim. Simple question - what does inclusive growth mean? Do you understand it - if so, please state your parameters (with credible references of course) and evaluate Modi's role to all those parameters. Very easy to throw jargon and be pretentious - lets cut the chase and tell me what you meant by inclusive growth.

[Crookbond]

Then what is growth? particularly what is Inclusive growth? I don't want text book/encyclopedia answers , give me answers in context of India and its people.

Huh? Hang on there mate. How is rich getting richer, poor getting poor even growth? Forget inclusive.

[adi B]

I did not claim anything of "inclusive" or any other growth. So not I am thinking myself as the "master of any knowledge". You made a claim, I am providing you an opportunity to prove that claim. Simple question - what does inclusive growth mean? Do you understand it - if so, please state your parameters (with credible references of course) and evaluate Modi's role to all those parameters. Very easy to throw jargon and be pretentious - lets cut the chase and tell me what you meant by inclusive growth.

are u blind?cant u read the 1st couple of lines ,i have already stated whats inclusive growth.. but still if you insist i`ll type about inclusive growth in gujarat..inclusive growth occurs when all sections of society contribute to the overall growth of the state be it rich,poor,hindu,muslim ,poverty is reduced,resources are equally distributed,growth of all sections of the society should be the prerogative .. check this article http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-01-08/news/36216469_1_economic-freedom-freedom-index-gujarat-tops-list here is the planning commission report http://post.jagran.com/planning-commission-finds-1371714247 the inclusive growth rate from this report is not upto the mark but its not that bad tbh,now the other bjp states have done good work in case inclusive growth that is why i wrote in that original post- ''modi/any other leader''..check carefully i wrote ''inclusive growth policies will be formed' i just gave a general public perception about modi in the suburbs,believe it or not he`s got many admirers ..he also has critics like u and many haters but the aam aadmi who goes to vote dont give a damn specifically on '' inclusive growth issue'',the voter just has an overall idea of all round growth/development under the leadership of a particular leader PS-dont project me as a modi bhakt,coz am not

[Muloghonto]

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.

That makes no sense, because bulk majority of leaders who have backed or proposed any sort of action against a minority would be communal. But that is clearly not the case- opression happens for many reasons- financial, personal gain, ideological but it does not always equate to communal. If I bulldoze you for bein a perceived threat to my nation, then it matters not whether I am a hindu or a muslim background guy, it makes my actions legalist, not communal. When the Chinese govt. agents supress the Falung Gong or the Tibetans, its not because Buddhist-Confucian majority is opressing the Tibetans on a communal basis, its simple case of legalists who put government & party first removing any obstacle. Patel was the same sort. A secular does not mean someone who loves or respects all religions/creed equally. It just means that someone who is not a proponent of legal basis being derived from any religious viewpoint. Therefore, it could equally mean someone who hates all religions equally or simply (in Patel's case) someone who didnt give a horse's hiney about any religious mentality. it doesnt mean Patel was atheist- he could be hindu to a personal level or whatever, just that he had no time for hindu philosophical views on governance, he simply put nation first. Yes, these sorts are rare in Asia (outside of Japan & China, where legalists do exist) but you do find them in India and Turkey as well in considerable numbers.