The Outsider Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 LOL at comparing governance with a trading desk job. Applying that logic FWD Roosevelt was a failure for not anticipating/stopping the Pearl Harbor attack. Even Abraham Lincoln who could not prevent the civil war. Pretty much any leader who could not prevent violence is a failure. Nehru, Patel, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, Narasimha Rao all are failures by that logic. Absurd. Which member of Roosevelt's government conspired with the Japanese to have Pearl Harbor attacked? If there was one, was he rewarded with a ministry like Kodnani was for years?
Crookbond Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Well HM, me and S=G were having a debate on Modi's performance during his tenure. He agreed that Modi has been successful in his later 11 years and I agreed that Modi was a big failure during his initial 3 - 6 months of being a CM. I justified that this was the initial days for him and he was not at all experienced in handling these kinds of mass riots like situation he asked the help of MP, Mah and Raj governments also. People gave him mandate again they thought he can do much better with experience and he did that in his next 11 years of rule. People of gujarat elected him again and again despite anti incumbency so he is successful. We can close this debate now coming to your point, "No riots - does not equate to good administration" I disagree with that statement if the state is UP, Maharastra, Gujarat as these states have a long history of communal tension and if there is no violence in these states then surely I will give credit to their government. Btw, what do you think about awarding Kodnani a cabinet ministry position for "Women and Child Development" in Gujarat? The election voters debate is also not perfect because people of India have voted for Congress as well. It does not mean Congress is great - quite the opposite really. So, the number of voters are not a good indicator.
seedhi Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Which member of Roosevelt's government conspired with the Japanese to have Pearl Harbor attacked? If there was one' date=' was he rewarded with a ministry like Kodnani was for years?[/quote']I was referring to your comparison with a trading desk job. Maya Kodnani was not part of the government, she later became minister and was removed as soon as her name was mentioned in an FIR. Shibu Soren was already chargesheeted for a murder case and yet was a union minister in UPA cabinet.
Crookbond Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Apart from one speech, apart from one riots everything is fine. The Modi koolade is just something out of the world, must admit. +1 One speech, one riots my a**. Here is a note from ECI in 2007 where it issued a cautionary notice by stating that his speech leads to "indulging in activity which may aggravate existing differences, create mutual hatred and cause tension between different communities". http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/press/current/NOTICETO%20CM%20GUJARAT.pdf
FischerTal Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Wow! 11 years after the riots people still don't understand why Gujarat riots were different to so many others and were akin to '84 riots. :hysterical: Apart from one speech, apart from one riots everything is fine. The Modi koolade is just something out of the world, must admit. its nothing compared to the phsecular bhang Muloghonto types drink :dontknow:
Sachin=GOD Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 I was referring to your comparison with a trading desk job. Maya Kodnani was not part of the government' date=' she later became minister and was removed as soon as her name was mentioned in an FIR. Shibu Soren was already chargesheeted for a murder case and yet was a union minister in UPA cabinet.[/quote'] If I'm not wrong, there was ample evidence from the very beginning that she had led rioters so why exactly was she made a Minister? Also, how about Amit Shah - named in at least 2 fake encounters cases, out on bail and prohibited by Court to enter Gujarat, he has been given a powerful position within the BJP and made in charge of the most important state for the BJP (i.e. UP) and made in charge of all social media for the 2014 elections - these might not be Govt. positions but are still very powerful within the party so why has he been given such positions? BTW saying that X was a criminal and still was a Minister so Y can also be given such position is no justification at all.
FischerTal Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 If I'm not wrong' date= there was ample evidence from the very beginning that she had led rioters so why exactly was she made a Minister? Also, how about Amit Shah - named in at least 2 fake encounters cases, out on bail and prohibited by Court to enter Gujarat, he has been given a powerful position within the BJP and made in charge of the most important state for the BJP (i.e. UP) and made in charge of all social media for the 2014 elections - these might not be Govt. positions but are still very powerful within the party so why has he been given such positions? BTW saying that X was a criminal and still was a Minister so Y can also be given such position is no justification at all. she wasnt convicted by any court. i can give you evidence that robert vadra is hand in glove with govt in getting deals that favor his business interests. Does that mean Italian Bai and her son will step down from their positions? NO
Sachin=GOD Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 she wasnt convicted by any court. i can give you evidence that robert vadra is hand in glove with govt in getting deals that favor his business interests. Does that mean Italian Bai and her son will step down from their positions? NO Oh come on......everyone knew that she WAS involved and she led the rioters but still he knowingly made a criminal a Minister.
FischerTal Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Oh come on......everyone knew that she WAS involved and she led the rioters but still he knowingly made a criminal a Minister. wait arent you the same person who said to let the courts do their job in the ishrat jahan thread? then why not give same benefit to others?
The Outsider Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 I was referring to your comparison with a trading desk job. Maya Kodnani was not part of the government' date=' she later became minister and was removed as soon as her name was mentioned in an FIR. Shibu Soren was already chargesheeted for a murder case and yet was a union minister in UPA cabinet.[/quote'] It's the same in any job. You feck up as majorly as Modi did (even assuming he is innocent), you will be removed, or rather should. Political leaders have been removed for much less. Kodnani was a MLA from the ruling party. Her name was associated with the riots from 2002 itself and she was rewarded with a ministry.
seedhi Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 It's the same in any job. You feck up as majorly as Modi did (even assuming he is innocent)' date=' you will be removed, or rather should. Political leaders have been removed for much less. [/quote']Was Roosevelt removed ? Patel, Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Narasimha Rao, .. there are innumerable leaders who continued after presiding over violence. In democracy, it is only the people who can "remove" a leader. There was no FIR against her till 2010. In UPA a person chargesheeted for murder was union minister.
Sachin=GOD Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 wait arent you the same person who said to let the courts do their job in the ishrat jahan thread? then why not give same benefit to others? right from 2002 everyone knew that Kodnani had led rioters -only thing was when the case would be filed and judgement give. Obviously it would have taken time but this was a very clear case and still she was rewarded with a Ministry in the meantime.
FischerTal Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 right from 2002 everyone knew that Kodnani had led rioters -only thing was when the case would be filed and judgement give. Obviously it would have taken time but this was a very clear case and still she was rewarded with a Ministry in the meantime. right from 2009 I have known that Robert Vadra has been getting his business deals passed with the blessings of Sonia Gandhi and many ministers in the UPA. its a clear case but as long as these ministers continue to bow down to the Gandhi family, they will continue to be rewarded with ministries. Your point?
Crookbond Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 right from 2009 I have known that Robert Vadra has been getting his business deals passed with the blessings of Sonia Gandhi and many ministers in the UPA. its a clear case but as long as these ministers continue to bow down to the Gandhi family' date=' they will continue to be rewarded with ministries. Your point?[/quote'] His point? Two wrongs do not make a right. Condemn both.
Sachin=GOD Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Was Roosevelt removed ? Patel, Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Narasimha Rao, .. there are innumerable leaders who continued after presiding over violence. In democracy, it is only the people who can "remove" a leader. There was no FIR against her till 2010. In UPA a person chargesheeted for murder was union minister. Roosevelt wasn't involved in the attack. But it was very clear that she was involved - there was absolutely no doubt about that yet she was rewarded with a Ministry. And since when has the UPA Govt been a benchmark in any area of Governance?
FischerTal Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 His point? Two wrongs do not make a right. Condemn both. what im saying is either you are for the rule of law or you are not. Either you believe in due process of law or you dont.
The Outsider Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Was Roosevelt removed ? Patel, Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Narasimha Rao, .. there are innumerable leaders who continued after presiding over violence. In democracy, it is only the people who can "remove" a leader. Presiding over violence is not what happened under Modi. The state machinery, whether through Modi's involvement or not, helped in perpetuating violence.
bulbul Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 His point? Two wrongs do not make a right. Condemn both. Just curious,Can you show a poster condemning both in same way as they condemn one topic?
seedhi Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 Let me say (and I have said this before) - if someone says that one riot is enough (in their eyes) for them to not vote for a person who was CM/PM, this is a legitimate reason and I can understand (while not agreeing with) this position. Similarly, if someone looks beyond a single riot and towards the whole governance record of 12 years and takes into account the history and ground realities in this country and makes a decision to vote for a person based on a wider perspective, for me this is also a legitimate reasoning. Every person has his/her own parameters as to what constitutes good governance for them. There is no "koolaid" here.
Sachin=GOD Posted July 7, 2013 Posted July 7, 2013 right from 2009 I have known that Robert Vadra has been getting his business deals passed with the blessings of Sonia Gandhi and many ministers in the UPA. its a clear case but as long as these ministers continue to bow down to the Gandhi family' date=' they will continue to be rewarded with ministries. Your point?[/quote'] so he should also be punished BUT the fact that he hasn't been punished doesn't mean that the BJP should copy that give Ministries to known criminals.
Recommended Posts