Jump to content

Bal Thackeray passes away


1983-2011

Recommended Posts

All this aside' date=' what he ordered during the riots was absolutely not justifiable. Not saying this as a Muslim, but saying it trying to be as unbiased as possible.[/quote']From the personal accounts that I have heard, if the Shiv Sena people had not fought off the muslim rioters a lot of innocent Hindus/Christians would have been slaughtered. And remember it was not the Shiv Sena who started the riots, it was the muslims who started violent protests and damaging temples etc, because of a structure brought down 1500 km away in UP. The role of Thackeray during the riots may be far from blameless but to lay the blame of the riots on him is wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Balasaheb forced Maun Maun Singh to implement economic reforms in 1991. I do not know why people are so negative about him? :dontknow:
It was pv narasimha rao who was the genius behind that not maun maun singh yes he was the fm but pv saab was the architect .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the personal accounts that I have heard, if the Shiv Sena people had not fought off the muslim rioters a lot of innocent Hindus/Christians would have been slaughtered. And remember it was not the Shiv Sena who started the riots, it was the muslims who started violent protests and damaging temples etc, because of a structure brought down 1500 km away in UP. The role of Thackeray during the riots may be far from blameless but to lay the blame of the riots on him is wrong.
So if you do not start the riots you are absolved from all crime and sins. Good lessons to teach our next generations. Probably we should include this in CBSE textbooks too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rao's major achievement is generally considered to be the liberalization of the Indian economy. The reforms were adopted to avert impending international default in 1991.[23] The reforms progressed furthest in the areas of opening up to foreign investment, reforming capital markets, deregulating domestic business, and reforming the trade regime. Rao's government's goals were reducing the fiscal deficit, Privatization of the public sector, and increasing investment in infrastructure. Trade reforms and changes in the regulation of foreign direct investment were introduced to open India to foreign trade while stabilizing external loans. Rao wanted I.G. Patel as his finance minister.[24] Patel was an official who helped prepare 14 budgets, an ex-governor of Reserve Bank of India and had headed The London School of Economics and Political Science.[24] But Patel declined. Rao then chose Manmohan Singh for the job. Manmohan Singh, an acclaimed economist, played a central role in implementing these reforms. Major reforms in India's capital markets led to an influx of foreign portfolio investment. The major economic policies adopted by Rao include: Abolishing in 1992 the Controller of Capital Issues which decided the prices and number of shares that firms could issue.[23][25] Introducing the SEBI Act of 1992 and the Security Laws (Amendment) which gave SEBI the legal authority to register and regulate all security market intermediaries.[23][26] Opening up in 1992 of India's equity markets to investment by foreign institutional investors and permitting Indian firms to raise capital on international markets by issuing Global Depository Receipts (GDRs).[27] Starting in 1994 of the National Stock Exchange as a computer-based trading system which served as an instrument to leverage reforms of India's other stock exchanges. The NSE emerged as India's largest exchange by 1996.[28] Reducing tariffs from an average of 85 percent to 25 percent, and rolling back quantitative controls. (The rupee was made convertible on trade account.)[29] Encouraging foreign direct investment by increasing the maximum limit on share of foreign capital in joint ventures from 40 to 51% with 100% foreign equity permitted in priority sectors.[30] Streamlining procedures for FDI approvals, and in at least 35 industries, automatically approving projects within the limits for foreign participation.[23][31] The impact of these reforms may be gauged from the fact that total foreign investment (including foreign direct investment, portfolio investment, and investment raised on international capital markets) in India grew from a minuscule US $132 million in 1991–92 to $5.3 billion in 1995–96.[30] Rao began industrial policy reforms with the manufacturing sector. He slashed industrial licensing, leaving only 18 industries subject to licensing. Industrial regulation was rationalized

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarkar is right. Narsimha Rao should get more credit for the economic reforms. He was the one who really took the initiative through Yashwant Sinha, who was the finance minister in 1990-91. Some posters here really need to read up the history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

‘Narasimha Rao, not Manmohan Singh, led 1991 reforms’ Published: Wednesday, Oct 3, 2012, 10:00 IST By DNA Correspondent | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA In the midst of all the controversies that have surrounded Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the one achievement that has remained a feather in his cap is the opening up of the Indian economy in 1991, when he was finance minister. Now, there’s a question mark over whether the credit for this should really go to Singh. Journalist and author Shankkar Aiyar says in his forthcoming book, Accidental India: A History of the Nation’s Passage Through Crisis and Change, that it was only “an unprecedented crisis” that led to the economic reforms of 1991” and he applauds P V Narasimha Rao, who was then the prime minister, for reviving the economy. According to Aiyar, Singh was not the first choice for finance minister. He writes that Rao had offered the post to I G Patel, former RBI governor, who suggested Singh’s name. The writer describes Singh as “an economist as ambidextrous as any”, and argues that when he joined Rao, he inherited an economy in crisis as well as a plan for change. The liberalisation of the economy began when Yashwant Sinha was finance minister and, Aiyar says, the initiative to complete the process was Rao’s, rather than Singh’s. Accidental India looks at seven critical moments in the recent past in India, like the nationalisation of banks, the green revolution and the role of Amul’s Verghese Kurien. Aiyar believes that in each of these cases it was a crisis caused by neglect that led to a positive change, rather than any foresight of the leaders. About DNA | Contact Us | Advertise with Us | Subscription | Reprint Rights ©2012 Diligent Media Corporation Ltd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you do not start the riots you are absolved from all crime and sins. Good lessons to teach our next generations. Probably we should include this in CBSE textbooks too?
Did I say that? Read the last line of my post you responded to. What I am saying is that a misleading impression is being created in various denouncements of the man that he was solely responsible for the violence in the riots. No one has mentioned the fact that it was the muslims who started the rioting. I was responding to one such post by a person who claims an unbiased opinion of Thackeray's actions during the riots, adding perfunctorily that she is a muslim. Well then, acknowledge the fact that the riots were not started by Thackeray but by muslims before denouncing his role in it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sarkar is right. Narsimha Rao should get more credit for the economic reforms. He was the one who really took the initiative through Yashwant Sinha, who was the finance minister in 1990-91. Some posters here really need to read up the history.
Sarkar says PVNS was the "architect of reforms".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say that? Read the last line of my post you responded to. What I am saying is that a misleading impression is being created in various denouncements of the man that he was solely responsible for the violence in the riots. No one has mentioned the fact that it was the muslims who started the rioting. I was responding to one such post by a person who claims an unbiased opinion of Thackeray's actions during the riots, adding perfunctorily that she is a muslim. Well then, acknowledge the fact that the riots were not started by Thackeray but by muslims before denouncing his role in it.
Riots can't take place without involvement from two parties - no one says he was solely responsible but he was "responsible".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the personal accounts that I have heard, if the Shiv Sena people had not fought off the muslim rioters a lot of innocent Hindus/Christians would have been slaughtered. And remember it was not the Shiv Sena who started the riots, it was the muslims who started violent protests and damaging temples etc, because of a structure brought down 1500 km away in UP. The role of Thackeray during the riots may be far from blameless but to lay the blame of the riots on him is wrong.
Don't know what Mariyam meant exactly there, but what I read in her post was "what Thackrey ordered during riots". It was not "Thackrey ordered riots" as you seem to have understood. What I know from reports etc, that Sena was definitely complicit in those riots, as "instigator" or as "propogator" may be debatable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the personal accounts that I have heard, if the Shiv Sena people had not fought off the muslim rioters a lot of innocent Hindus/Christians would have been slaughtered. And remember it was not the Shiv Sena who started the riots, it was the muslims who started violent protests and damaging temples etc, because of a structure brought down 1500 km away in UP. The role of Thackeray during the riots may be far from blameless but to lay the blame of the riots on him is wrong.
Srikrishna Commission report- The Report asserted that the communal passions of the Hindus were aroused to fever pitch by the inciting writings in print media, particularly Saamna and Navaakal which gave exaggerated accounts of the Mathadi murders and the Radhabai Chawl incident; rumours were floated that there were imminent attacks by Muslims using sophisticated arms, though the possibility of it happening was very imminent. From 8 January 1993, many riots occured between Hindus led by the Shiv Sena and Shiv Sainiks and the Muslims funded by the Mumbai underworld at that time. The communal violence and rioting triggered off by the burning at Dongri and Radhabhai Chawl and then the retaliatory violence by Shiv Sena was hijacked by local criminal elements who saw in it an opportunity to make quick gains. By the time the Shiv Sena realized that enough had been done by way of "retaliation", the violence and rioting was beyond the control of its leaders who had to issue an appeal to put an end to it.[3]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...