Narendra Modi- What He Represents

[Omkara]

If the prediction is for BJP minus its allies then it is down by 70+ seat to get a simple majority... We have seen that coalition government is a curse for India

BTW, congress loosing its credibility in Karnataka too... Recent Atm attack during the business hours hasn't gone well with the public ... You can't see any thing bizarre than this

Let's not set our sights too high. BJP's best performance so far is 182. I am hoping for 220 at best.

[Omkara]

Modi must give India the change it wants
By Swapan Dasgupta

The only charitable thing that can be said about Samajwadi Party leader Naresh Agarwal is that he is unrepresentative of the class that remains totally unreconciled to the rise and rise of Narendra Modi. Those who are pathologically allergic to the Gujarat Chief Minister aren't those who chew paan and spit venom against someone who began life selling tea on a railway platform in Gujarat. No, a pointless remark that Modi's origins would rule him out from the Prime Minister's post would never escape their. The real detractors of Modi wouldn't provide him such a wonderful propaganda handle--one that would prompt an automatic unity of the less privileged. They would instead snigger at his apparently flawed exposition of history, snigger at the accent with which he said "Yes we can" at the rally in Hyderabad two months ago and proffer suitably erudite comments on how Modi's "idea of India" is at variance with the one they have never spelt out but yet hold dear.

The striking thing about the great polarisation that is happening as a warm-up to the real general battle in April-May next year is that the intellectual class has moved from open confrontation to guerrilla warfare. The New York Times may still pen an editorial stating that they find the growing national clout of Modi deeply disturbing. Similar tut-tutting accounts of Indian waywardness may still appear in occasional foreign papers, inspired in the main by non-residents of Indian origin who feel that the most convenient route to Western cosmopolitan acceptance is to decry what they perceive is the bigotry of the land of their origin. However, what is interesting is how little these 'global' interventions have impacted the otherwise phoren-loving citizens of India.

Let me be explicit. Till about six months ago, the conventional wisdom among the India-watchers of the world was that although the Congress was in a spot of bother over the inability of the shehzada to take off, Modi was hardly an answer to rampant anti-incumbency. What was this profundity based on? The answer is obvious: inputs from the intellectual class that hobnobs with diplomats, travel abroad for weighty seminars on strategic issues and, generally, are the resident guides to the native mind.


To such people, Modi was some tilak-wearing bigot with support among the Gujarati moneybags around the world but who would find it hard pressed to find a single respectable supporter in the class that knows the right way to use a knife and fork. It is interesting that within the European Union countries, the most dogged resistance to any contact with the Gujarat Chief Minister came from the ambassador of a country that successfully sells weapons to India but perceives itself as culturally superior--I really couldn't get more explicit. The reasons have nothing to do with their belief in the lofty principles of the European Enlightenment and everything to do with the Indian interlocutors of their choosing.


I refer to this not as an amusing aside or to point out the growing desperation of those who in the past quite arrogantly referred to Modi as a "mass murderer" but only to indicate that an intellectual establishment that had been nurtured on the loaves and fishes of the Nehruvian high table, has suddenly shifted gear. The swagger may have been replaced by a contrite admission that the Congress has 'mishandled' the Modi phenomenon and that, yes, the Gujarat Chief Minister is creating quite a stir throughout the country. But what hasn't diminished is the determination to ensure that the Modi project is either scuttled or, better still, completely emasculated.

Frontal and unambiguous opposition is easy to deal with. What is more problematic is the sly subterfuge of a project with the idea of ensuring that political change is accompanied by no real substantial change. Tragically, this is what happened to the NDA in the years of Atal Behari Vajpayee's prime ministership. In a bid to ensure that the BJP was transformed into a natural party of government, a section of the party convinced itself that the Indian establishment had come over to it lock, stock and barrel--just as it had come over to the Congress after the British packed their bags and departed in 1947.

Looking back, these were the years of missed opportunities. The old establishment remoulded the BJP leaders in their own image and, after the NDA's surprise defeat in 2004, went back effortlessly to the Congress. If the BJP was left dispirited and disoriented for eight years after 2004, it was partly due to a leadership crisis and partly an inability to define the party in its own terms. If some BJP leaders hadn't tried too hard to make themselves 'respectable' to an intellectual class that viewed the entire movement with social disdain, many problems would have been averted.

All political parties need to evolve with the times and the BJP is no exception. But this transformation can be effected in two ways: by assuming someone else's identity or a more organic evolution. The growing popular acceptance of Modi is not because the BJP's evolution is complete. In India people look at leaders first and endorse their agenda subsequently. As such the Modi project is still a work in progress.

This is fortuitous because the Gujarat Chief Minister can avoid falling into the same trap that was successfully set for the Vajpayee dispensation. He can live and grow with the opposition of the dominant intellectual, now licking its wounds and contemplating the next move; what he cannot afford is being embraced by the same rotters and coopted by them.

India wants change. Modi must not shy away from providing it.

[Sahasranama]

Why don't Indian intellectuals ever use simple English in their writings? It's like they are using as many complicated words as possible to sound educated.

It reminds me of this episode of Friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1tOqZUNebs

[Jaskaran Singh]

Why don't Indian intellectuals ever use simple English in their writings? It's like they are using as many complicated words as possible to sound educated.

It reminds me of this episode of Friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1tOqZUNebs

Come on, dAsgupta is merely trying to accommodate for his lack of grammatical sense, as is evident in the following sentence fragment, :
"No, a pointless remark that Modi's origins would rule him out from the Prime Minister's post would never escape their."
Escape their what? Regardless, I would agree that the phrase "endorse their agenda subsequently" does sound a bit uncanny as far as stylistic matters are concerned. However, there are situations in which the wording is just plain "dumb." For example, why was he talking about the "Modi project" being "completely emasculated." Who would use the term "emasculated" (which has biological connotations) in such a context? If he actually wanted to sound pseudo-scholarly, he would use a word such as "enervated," such that you can still tell that he's desperate, yet not so much so that he sounds like he's spewing bull**** which makes little to no sense.

[Sahasranama]

I have noticed that a lot of Indian opinion writers and bloggers like to use overly complicated language, but it comes across as artificial.

[Banarasi]

Namaskaaram:

I am back after a long time and am in India right now. I do support Shri Narendra Modi. I think that his opponents are living in a false world. Do they really think Rahul is a possible leader? Even if Modiji has some flaws (I personally do not think he has any serious issues/problems), he would appeal to the youth and that is key. One underrated achievement is his popularity in Tamil Nadu where BJP has never had anything of note.

Even if his achievements are discounted, to me he is the only real option. On the one hand, we have someone who has had all power and zero accountability and yet has achieved nothing positive while on the other hand we have someone who inspires even semi-retired veterans like me (the youth obviously would be more) by just his speeches. The choice is clear.

I think the people are also tired of stale journalists and "secular" politicians who give their same recycled nauseous arguments and speeches. On the other hand, Modiji's simple, direct and commonsense politics and "we can do it" approach is extremely refreshing.

I have been to Ahmedabad and yes, there are many homeless and poor people and quite possibly there is a lot of corruption too. BUT, the people here are also largely happy (sometimes a little too eager to celebrate and get out the holi colors for every festive occasion), respectful and hardworking.

The dismal picture painted by the lazy press and intellectuals is invisible to me here.

I hope he wins. But I think even die-hard cong fans can see the writing on the wall. No one is eagerly awaiting Rahul Gandhi to be PM.

Jai SitaRama

[Omkara]

I hope he wins. But I think even die-hard cong fans can see the writing on the wall. No one is eagerly awaiting Rahul Gandhi to be PM.

See this- When Rahul gandhi went to watch Sachin's farewell match at Wankhede, the crowd welcomed him by chanting Modi, Modi!

See video evidence here-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=5fSdgMVyEIs





And tweets from celebs at the stadium-

[Omkara]

Crowds begin leaving as Rahul Gandhi gets ready to speak, Sheila Dikshit pleads with them to stay- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTICEGw_vKI

The Congress is struggling to explain the less-than-enthusiastic response to Rahul Gandhi's rally in Delhi on Sunday ahead of the December 4 assembly polls.

The party today blamed factors ranging from security to lack of water for the poor show at the rally in south Delhi. This is the second such event in the capital - since last month's rally at Mangolpuri in north Delhi - that their star speaker has failed to draw crowds and Congress strategists are worried.

"The police were extraordinarily strict, so people were not being allowed in. When water was not allowed in, then people got thirsty and restless," Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit said, insisting that it was a 'good rally."

"It was not a fiasco. I strongly disagree. All our people were busy filing their nominations, despite that it was a good rally. Rahul's speech impressed Delhi," added the 75-year-old, who is trying to win a fourth straight term in Delhi.

On Sunday, it was Ms Dikshit who pleaded repeatedly to the thinning crowd, "My dear sisters, I know you must be hungry, thirsty... at least listen to Rahulji before leaving."

Sizing up an audience smaller than the police and media contingent, the organisers even took the stage to ask security men to speed up their checks and let people in faster.

The steady stream towards the exit gates forced the Congress number 2 to keep his speech short at just about seven minutes.

Sunday's debacle is worse as it played out in what is supposed to be a Congress stronghold at Dakshinpuri, one of the hundreds of illegal colonies in the city regularized over the years and given power and water connections, for which the Congress government takes credit.

Since October 27, this is the second 'Sunday clash' between the Congress leader and Mr Modi, the BJP's presumptive Prime Minister. Mr Modi, whose rally was targeted by serial blasts on that day, boasted that when they both started speaking at the same time, many channels just played his audio and muted Mr Gandhi's speech.

[Omkara]

Hahaha

[Omkara]

http://www.theunrealtimes.com/2013/1...from-politics/