Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Mr N Modi Next BJP Chief ?
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is likely to ask Gujarat CM and Hindutva stalwart Narendra Modi to head the BJP after current party president Rajnath Singh ends his term in December.
The buzz at the RSS national headquarters here is that Mohan Bhagwat, RSS supremo, is extremely keen to have hardliner Modi occupy political centerstage at the national level.
But, there is an important postscript.
 |
| Chintan baithak: The RSS considers Narendra Modi to be more committed to its Hindutva ideology than L K Advani or Atal Behari Vajpayee |
Dilip Deodhar, a senior RSS watcher, who has written more than 30 books on the party pointed out, "Bhagwat may have told Modi that the RSS wants him to lead the BJP.
But on the spectacular condition that he amends his autocratic style of functioning, which Bhagwat feels is not in keeping with the RSS' style.
Modi has also been told to be more accessible to party workers." In fact, say RSS watchers, Modi has been told that the 2014 parliamentary elections for the party, could be held under his leadership, provided he changes his style of functioning.
In his home state, it is legend that Modi rarely meets his MLAs or cadres, yet always makes time for businessmen and investors.
A senior RSS activist pointed out that despite the condemnation for Modi by secularists, his credentials as the man who remodelled Gujarat cannot be denied.
"Modi also has a good equation with Bhagwat and the RSS considers him to be committed to the Hindutva ideology unlike Advani and Vajpayee with whom it has never had smooth equations," said the activist.
The only option
Said Deodhar, "Everyone in the RSS knows that sooner or later Modi will replace Advani, but nobody will speak officially as Bhagwat has asked everyone cadres and senior functionaries to be circumspect while talking to the media."
Deodhar added that had BJP leader Pramod Mahajan been alive, Modi wouldn't have stood a chance for the top post. "But now, the only person that Bhagwat says is fit enough for the role, is Modi."
A senior activist pointed to another overwhelming proof of the RSS' intimacy with Modi the choice of Ahmedabad for a RSS convention.
A three-day high level meeting of RSS intellectuals is being organised in Ahmedabad from September 18 in which 21 prominent RSS leaders will present papers to outline vision India 2025.
Old horse
RSS sources in Nagpur reiterated there was nobody who could match Modi's magnetism, especially Leader of Opposition, L K Advani.
M G Vaidya, RSS ideologue and former spokesperson admitted, "Advani has become a liability because of his age and it is in the interest of the party that he step aside and make way for younger leaders." But he refused to spell out who could replace Advani.
Another RSS source added that Advani knew the RSS was unhappy with him, yet he refused to step down.
A veteran RSS leader said the erstwhile RSS chief K S Sudarshan used to openly criticise former PM Atal Behari Vajpayee.
The former PM always maintained a studied silence and as a result he became larger than life and diminished Sudarshan's standing. This is something which the RSS does not want to do at this point of time
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Shed obsession with Pakistan, think of India's global role: Tharoor
Our prime goal should be to handle China , Pakistan is past and how hard we work for normalizing relationship they will continue their support to terrorism as that's what they have been telling their people . No politician in Pakistan can take the risk of not talking Kashmir . Its the best time we should be completely ignoring Pakistan from our media , Parliament etc and they will feel ignored and let back door politics win by funding for development activities in Afghanistan, taking strict measures of 1960 Water Treaty , support to Baluchistan groups etc
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
The road to Kabul
spew diesel smoke on shoppers who compete with cars, bikes and dogs for space on the road. A board saying 'Afghani Restaurant' in Farsi looks inviting. Unlike outside, the café is spacious, the ambience is typically Afghani - samovars on shelves, takhts covered with Persian carpets, seekh kebabs and naan on the tables, waiters shouting in Dari, people talking in Pashto and the steely gaze of Ahmed Shah Masood surveying everything from a hand-woven painting on the wooden wall. "He was the tiger of Afghanistan," says Wais, the café manager, recalling the Afghan leader who was blown up by al-Qaida on September 10, 2001.
Wais calls himself a Kabuliwala. But the restaurant is located in a lane in Delhi's Lajpat Nagar, not on a street in Kabul. Wais, who has been living in India since 2002, feels "completely at home here". Ever since Tagore created the character and Balraj Sahni brought him to life on the silver screen over four decades ago, the Kabulliwallah has been part of the Indian imagination. The tough Afghan, who would die for honour and kill for pride, has been a folk hero: Sher Khan of Zanjeer who shed his blood for friendship; the rich Afghan who would lend money to the needy; and the brave Afghans who gave the colonial British a bloody nose, not once but thrice when they tried to invade their country in the 19th century.
This week, as Afghanistan votes in its second presidential election since 9/11, the Kabuliwalas - around 10,000 in Delhi - are anxiously waiting for the result that will probably determine whether or not they will go home any time soon. "More than 400 Afghans arrive here every week, mostly for business and a peaceful life," says an official of the Foreigners Regional Registration Office. "There is no fee for the Indian visa and it's too easy to get it in Kabul," says the official, sounding concerned.
But foreign policy experts dismiss such concerns. Almost all of them agree that Afghanistan is too important for India to worry about a few thousand Afghan refugees. "Historically, we have enjoyed good relations with Afgha-nistan and in the present context of Obama's Af-Pak policy, the country is very important for us, not just to neutralize Pakistan's influence but also for stability in the region," says Professor Uma Singh, who teaches South Asian politics at JNU in Delhi.
This is why India has been paying a lot of attention to Afghanistan since 2001, when the Taliban and their Pakistani handlers were kicked out of Kabul. Since then, India has offered $1.2 billion for Afghanistan's reconstruction, opened five consulates in the country, provided planes to Ariana airlines, established hospitals and schools and planned to take bilateral trade to $700 million by 2010. "We have a long-term interest in Afghanistan. A friendly Afghanistan will help peace in the region, including Kashmir. It will also help us counter Pakistan's influence in Kabul and give us access to energy-rich Central Asia. We have a lot at stake in this election," says a ministry of external affairs official.
Since everything in this part of the world boils down to the India-Pakistan rivalry, analysts like Fahmida Ashraf, a scholar at the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad, see Indian foreign policy goals in Afghanistan as a way of "attaining a hegemonic position in the region and emerging as a global power".
"Indian efforts have been to infiltrate all sectors in Afghanistan, to make them dependent on Indian support, thus making Afghanistan a launching pad for its influence in the Central Asia," says Ashraf.
But Indian officials dismiss such views. "We want to see democracy flourishing in Afghanistan. The bad memories of Taliban rule – the Kandahar hijacking and support to Indian separatists - are still fresh in our minds." Though they won't accept it publicly, Indian leaders and officials would want to see the incumbent president, Hamid Karzai, win a second term. India trusts the Shimla-educated leader who has made common cause with India on the issue of "cross-border terrorism".
For Kabuliwalas like Wais, the August 20 election may decide their personal fate, but for India there is much more
at stake.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Don’t make a big deal of Shah Rukh’s detention
Salman has a point. SRK might be an icon to Indians and many in the subcontinent, even to the desi diaspora spread across the globe, but to America he’s just a visitor. We may be convinced he cannot be involved in anything that’s remotely violent, but the guard given the responsibility of stopping something like 9/11 from happening in his country again will want to take no chances. And what is the possibility that he’s a die hard fan of the Khan and Bollywood? Very slim.
Interestingly, the same day that SRK was detained in Newark, there came news that the great Bob Dylan, who was wandering around Long Branch, near New York City, sometime back, was asked for an ID by two cops too young to know who he really was. When he couldn’t furnish one, he was taken right back to the resort where he was putting up and staff there vouched for him. And America is Dylan’s own country.
Was there a furore? Not that I know of. Not even a little blowin' in the wind.
SRK says he’s ``upset and angry’’ because it was his Muslim name that caused all this. Thousands of Muslims are made to go through extra security checks everyday in America and a host of Western countries. Is he equally upset at that? He's probably just pissed that it happened to him, India's mega star. We all know how a lot of Muslims have been subjected to prejudice around the world because many countries see terrorism as an Islamic phenomenon. Yes, it is uncalled for, unjust and maybe wrong. But America is a country that takes the killings of its people with the seriousness it deserves, unlike India whose record on this is shameful, to say the least.
Also, because most of the perpetrators of 9/11 were Muslims, America thinks it has to be doubly careful where they are concerned. Had the terrorists been Jews, perhaps it would have looked at Jews with similar suspicion. I was much more aggrieved at President Kalam being frisked. But that’s a dated debate.
There are two layers to the SRK incident and we must peel them off with care. One, it is quite ridiculous that Indians feel their icons and superstars are everybody’s icons and superstars. What the heck? If Jet Li came to India tomorrow, the man on the street here would probably call him ‘`Chinky’’ and not give a second look. For that matter, what if Gérard Depardieu came travelling. How many would know him? Matt Damon was here recently and there wasn’t a traffic jam in Delhi. These guys are huge back home.
Moreover, America doesn’t have a culture of fawning the way India has. Mike Tyson was treated like a common rapist and spent most part of his youth in the slammer. Winona Ryder was sentenced to a three-year probation for shoplifting. Chinese born Hollywood actress Bai Ling was fined US 200 dollars for petty theft.
More importantly, we are actually aggrieved because we are ``not like them’’. Well, guess what. It isn’t a virtue. We should be like them and take the security of our country and its people with solemn, no-nonsense professionalism. Frisk Brad Pitt when he lands in India next. Give Tom Cruise the same dose. Don’t spare Bill Clinton either. Isn’t he an ex-prez just like Kalam? Who’s stopping you and what’s stopping you? Colonial hangover? Or is it plain lethargy and callousness. Looks like both.
We are just whimpering over here like hurt puppies because we feel, ``Oh, but we don’t do it to them’’. Oh no, we don’t. And it’s a scandal. We should. I’ve seen white men – and women – get away in India with murder. Indian women can’t get into some discos wearing a sari. And bouncers will frown at you if you are dressed in a kurta. Have you seen what some of these firangs have on them? No one bats a eyelid.
So instead of making SRK’s detention an issue, we should think of upgrading our own security set-up.
There’s a lesson in this. And it is a positive one. A day after our own 26/11, there was hardly any security at CST in Mumbai. It can’t get worse than that. The bottom line: Stop fawning, shed the colonial hangover and make no compromise where the country’s safety is concerned. Can we do that or is it too much to ask from a country that’s been free for 62 years but was ruled by white sahibs for 200?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Why are our leaders trying to re-write the history :No difference between Nehru, Jinnah, says Jaswant's book
Iran Heading to next civil revolution
Being Indian
created Italy, we must start creating Italians." To every Indian today there must be a familiar ring to this observation.
However we may like to write our history books, there can be no argument about the fact that over two centuries from the mid-18th century onwards different regions were brought under their suzerainty by the British, piece by piece, to create a political unit called India. The concept of India had existed from two millennia ago but this was the first time a political entity called India was formed.
The fight for the governance of that political unit by sons of the soil began from the end of the 19th century. Nearly half a century of struggle in many different forms forged a nation conscious of itself as being "Indian". To this nation came the supreme moment on August 15, 1947. It is a pity that on that night, amongst the many historic and brilliant orations in the Parliament, nobody expressed a hope similar to the Piedmontese patriot. It is quite possible that, in that euphoric moment, the need for such a thought did not even arise in anyone's mind. It is also significant that the newly independent country continued to call itself India a word of foreign coinage not found in any of the languages of the subcontinent.
The heightened momentum saw us safely through the adoption of a path-breaking Constitution. But cracks began to appear, thanks to the Congress being hoist by its own petard of promises made as a part of the struggle for independence. It began with the fast unto death of Poti Sriramulu, which led to the creation of Andhra Pradesh in 1956. Nevertheless, as long as the near monolithic hold of the Congress existed at the Centre, loyalty to old-time political bosses kept the situation manageable.
After Lal Bahadur Shastri, the Congress's reversal at the polls in 1967 saw the opening of a Pandora's box. Adherence to religion, region, caste and even sub-caste became more important in the democratic process of the election of our political representatives at all levels. Fortunately, the Centre has held together though badly scarred by fissiparous pressures. Parliament proceedings, even when they are allowed to take place, spend enormous amounts of time discussing issues inimical to the interests of Indianness.
Today we have a positive situation in as much as the central government, which has to play a pivotal role, is stronger. There are people in power who will value the quest for being Indians first. There are institutions and societies where merit and acceptability play the only part in choosing an Indian as an employee, friend or mate, a recipient of trust. To begin with, there is the corporate sector private or public which despite a few aberrations help, particularly when they engage in multi-state operations. There are inevitably complaints of community-based partiality but they are smoothed over.
Teaching institutions are another area for fostering Indianness. We have in the field of higher studies the IIMs, IITs and national law universities in various places which show we are capable of producing excellence through an admixture of Indians. This process has to be reinforced. Also there are quite a few privately funded institutions in the field of management studies which compete closely with the IIMs. In the field of technology we have several institutions at the state level which have a glorious history. They need to pull themselves up further and after self-improvement gain a public perception to this effect. Although they are state-run there should be a large quota for students from outside the state. Central universities have a big role to play in having a mixed range of students and faculty.
A familiar spectacle in all our educational institutions is "ethnic" groups sticking together. Majority groups must be made to be more interactive. Alumni activities to bring together past students from all over the country can play a useful part. Faculties in all central universities must come purely on merit, and other things being equal, those from outside a state should have preference.
We have no single dominant group in India today. We, therefore, will not suffer the fate of the manifestly Russian USSR or of Yugoslavia, which the autocratic Serbs helped disintegrate. Coping with plurality and striving for unity in diversity have been the significant features of our nation. Although our political unity is historically recent, although the manifold diversity of and within our regions is great, there has been for millennia an underlying binder amongst the people.
In every great national movement the lead necessarily comes from the educated public. Civil society is what matters. What we need above anything else is an abiding belief in the intelligentsia, and the media. We have everything going to forge an effective bond excellent telecommunication, television, air, railway and road connections, an influential cinema industry and media. Why need we feel disparate at all?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
'India has designs to destabilise Pakistan'
worth a read
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
India's Supreme Court is going nuts !
| |
|---|
However, if the mother-in-law takes away the gifts given to the couple at the time of the marriage, it amounts to “breach of trust” as specified under Section 406 IPC, the SC said while dealing with an appeal filed by South Africa-based NRI husband and in-laws in a matrimonial dispute case.
“Allegations that appellant No 2 (mother-in-law) kicked the respondent (daughter-in-law) with her leg and told her that her mother is a liar may make out some other offences but not the one punishable under Section 498A.
Great Entrepreneur Idea
The IIT-G also plans to develop a Centre for Technology relevant to Indian social settings, an official of the institute said on Wednesday.
"We will develop IIT-G as an umbrella centre for research in extreme events such as terrorism, nuclear disasters, cyclones, earthquakes and fires where event possibility is low but impact is very high. Also we intend to create a centre of relevant technologies here," Director IIT-G Prof S K Jain told PTI.
The idea is to bring researchers working on disaster management under one umbrella and provide them requisite infrastructure to conduct world-class research here, he said.
The Centre for Research in Extreme Events will develop technology to mitigate losses during outbreak of fires, nuclear disasters, cyclones or earthquakes, and serve as a platform for researchers to share their views on various facets of extreme conditions, Jain said.
Ways to mitigate losses during such events through innovative building designs and finding right mix of building materials to withstand such conditions will be key focus areas of the research, Jain said.
Its a great idea and can be easily monetized with customers being all world goverments
Bill Clinton shows that diplomacy and he still works
In October 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited Pyongyang. During Bill Clinton's presidency, the administration had locked down North Korea's plutonium production program, which had created enough deadly material for two bombs during the Reagan years. They had stopped all missile tests. They were a few details away from concluding a deal to end these programs completely.
But Clinton ran out of time. Enmeshed in Middle East peace talks, Clinton could not get assurances that a presidential visit to North Korea would seal the deal. He passed off the almost completed process to the incoming George W. Bush administration.
On March 6, 2001, new Secretary of State Colin Powell said, "We do plan to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off." But Bush had different ideas. On March 7, Bush kneecapped Powell.
With South Korean President Kim Dae-jung sitting next to him in embarrassed silence, Bush said, "We look forward to, at some point in the future, having a dialogue with the North Koreans, but any negotiation would require complete verification of the terms of a potential agreement."
The conservative ideologues in the administration froze all discussions with North Korea for an 18-month review. Clinton's hard-earned diplomatic wins were replaced by the Bush Doctrine, summed up by Vice President Dick Cheney: "We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it." The United States would instead.Serious options for diplomacy with North Korea were set aside. Negotiations were appeasement, the new administration believed, not a tool to advance American security. Then-Undersecretary of State John Bolton said in 2002 and repeats to this day, "We're not going to reward their bad behavior."
The strategy backfired. North Korea expanded plutonium production, exploded nuclear bombs, tested new missiles and traded nuclear technology to Syria and possibly Burma. North Korea's nuclear and missile programs advanced more in the George W. Bush administration then they had in the Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations combined.
Whether by accident or design, the Obama administration reset the diplomatic stage. Administration officials largely ignored North Korea for their first eight months in office. Kim Jong Il responded with provocative statements and actions. It almost spiraled out of control. But the Obama administration's patience -- or just policy drift, we may never know -- paid off.
Kim Jong Il's regime got weaker and more isolated. North Korea's main partners, China and Russia, turned against it, the U.N. Security Council imposed tough new sanctions, and Kim's own health deteriorated.
Now in a weaker position than at any time in his regime, Kim Jong Il has been on his best behavior for the past few months. This was the time for a power play, and Obama executed perfectly. He chose as his special envoy the most prestigious political figure in America outside the administration. It is a move that was sure to please the North Koreans, showing them the respect they crave, without costing America anything.
To capitalize on this breakthrough, the Obama administration must now continue to play large. It should show North Korea what good relations with the United States can lead to. Clinton's 20 hours in Pyongyang could pave the way for renewed diplomatic efforts, including direct dialogue between the United States and North Korea, the re-freezing of North Korea's nuclear program and even North Korea's return to the six-party talks.
However, in dealing with the North, actions are more important than words. The Obama administration must seize this moment as an opportunity not only to articulate a plan for North Korean nuclear disarmament but to take concrete steps towards a secure and stable Korean Peninsula. The president should use the momentum Clinton's trip has generated to unfold a comprehensive, consistent regional security strategy.
With this success, Bill Clinton has demonstrated what effective diplomacy looks like. He has shown the former Bush officials what they should have done years ago. He may have convinced senior White House strategists that diplomacy is a political winner, paying dividends across issue areas.
Two power players, Obama and Clinton, have together taken a giant step forward, advancing the agenda Clinton began 15 years ago. America is the better for it.
Would an Indian leader go to a hostile nation to secure the release of its citizens?
Would an Indian leader go to a hostile nation to secure the release of its citizens?
Bill Clinton arrived unexpectedly in North Korea on Tuesday and secured the release of two lady American journalists serving a 12-year prison term for allegedly crossing into the Communist nation illegally.
The former American president apologised to North Korea's supreme leader Kim Jong Il for the journalists's conduct and brought them back to the US with him.
Would an Indian politician have the courage to do the same? Would any former prime minister travel to a rogue country to negotiate the freedom of just two of its imprisoned citizens?
India did negotiate with terrorists in Kandahar for the freedom of passengers and crew aboard the Indian Airlines flight IC-814 in December 1999, but would it do the same for a few of its citizens languishing in foreign prisons, away from the media spotlight? Just recently, two Indian merchant navy officers spent months in a South Korean prison, virtually ignored by the government.
Does the Indian government care enough for the well-being of its citizens in alien countries; and for that matter within India as well?
Write in and share your thoughts...
Saturday, June 6, 2009
What is BJP all about today ?
As the BJP begins post-mortems of its defeat in the General Election and tries to institute a generational change in its leadership, many suggestions have been put forward about how it can recast itself.
The first suggestion — made by Arun Jaitley in an article in the Indian Express — is that the party must abandon shrillness because voters prefer moderation.
This sounds sensible enough but the problem is: can there be a BJP without shrillness? Its chosen persona is of the Hindu with a grievance. And a party of grievance can hardly mumble its complaints.
In the Eighties, when the BJP sprang to national prominence, it tried a dual approach. LK Advani would wring his hands and pretend to be the mild-mannered fellow who had been driven to anger by the injustices that had been heaped on Hindus. But even as Advani was doing his impression of RK Laxman’s common man, the message was being hammered away by a host of others who were shrill, almost by definition: Uma Bharati, Pramod Mahajan, Sadhvi Rithambara etc.
Since then, the BJP has always been shrill. Over the last few years, Advani himself has abandoned the mild-mannered fellow impersonation and revealed a nasty, combative side, attacking Manmohan Singh with needless viciousness.
During the last campaign, the defining characteristic of the BJP was pointless shrillness. Forget about Narendra Modi, what about the rest? Jaitley himself wasted his own time (and everybody else’s) by going on about the threat posed to Indian democracy by Ottavio Quattrocchi, massively exaggerating the significance of a 25-year-old scandal that most people had forgotten. Other spokesmen echoed this line (“this is a dark day for Indian democracy”: Sudheendra Kulkarni).
When the BJP talks about ‘shrillness’, it means Narendra Modi’s speeches during the campaign. But Modi was not their only problem. All of them — including Advani — were shrill.
And frankly, I don’t think they know how to conduct a debate in any other way.
The second suggestion, made by Swapan Dasgupta in The Times of India on Thursday, is that the BJP should play down its Hindutva agenda. Dasgupta has long rejected the Hindu basis of the BJP’s agenda and argued that the party’s best hope lies in recasting itself as a modern, right-of-centre, internationally-minded grouping.
This is an interesting suggestion but it does not belong in the real world. There may or may not be room for such a party within the Indian political system but that party is not the BJP.
To ask the BJP to recast itself in this fashion is akin to asking the CPI(M) to transform itself into the party of free speech, pro-Americanism and private enterprise. In other words: good idea; wrong party.
The BJP without Hindutva is like Pizza Hut without the pizza. Most of the BJP’s cadres are committed to some form of Hindutva. The party’s bosses in Nagpur are only interested in promoting a Hindu agenda. And much of the BJP’s support base likes the party because of its Hindu agenda.
A third suggestion, which first surfaced during the campaign itself, is that the BJP’s problems are the consequence of a leadership crisis. Halfway through the campaign, sections of the BJP began talking about Narendra Modi as a potential Prime Minister, even while Advani was still fighting for the job.
Now, the BJP is open about the leadership problem. When leaders say “we missed Vajpayee’s leadership” what they really mean is “Advani wasn’t up to the job.”
Proponents of this view argue that new leaders will revitalise the party. Perhaps they will. But who will these leaders be?
It is now clear that Advani wants Sushma Swaraj to succeed him because a) she is a mass leader, b) she is not Murli Manohar Joshi and c) she stood by him during the campaign when his other protégés rushed off to embrace Modi.
But is Sushma a 21st century leader? It is not unlikely that Rahul Gandhi could be the face of the Congress during the 2014 campaign. Is Sushma going to be effective in countering all the things that the Congress will claim that Rahul represents: youth, a forward-looking approach, empathy with the Kalawatis and other disadvantaged people of India etc?
It is hard to say. Certainly she will have to transform her persona from the xenophobic, rolling pin-wielding middle class housewife she now represents. And with Sushma at its head, the BJP will more or less have embraced shrillness as its tone of voice, regardless of what Jaitley wants.
But if not Sushma, who? Arun Jaitley perhaps. But does he have the electoral credentials any mass leader will require? Narendra Modi? Could be, even if the current mood is against him.
But do any of these people strike you as having the ability to lead the BJP in the way that Vajpayee did? Rahul, on the other hand, strikes most people as being quite capable of following in his mother’s footsteps.
Which leads us to the real crisis of the BJP.
The problem with the BJP and the reason why it gropes for old issues to blow up again and again is that it is a party with no core beliefs. Nobody is really sure what it stands for any longer.
We saw this in the campaign. It’s all very well for Arun Jaitley to call for moderation and an end to shrillness but for many years now he has been Narendra Modi’s ambassador in Delhi. He has consistently defended Modi’s behaviour during the Gujarat riots, has attacked anyone who dares question Modi and during this campaign, he sang Modi’s praises.
Or take the Varun Gandhi case. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the BJP should have stripped Varun of his ticket.
But the only people in the BJP who spoke out against Varun were its token Muslims (Shahnawaz Hussain and MA Naqvi). Other leaders either helped Varun’s legal defence or portrayed him as a victim, railing against the Election Commission.
When such leaders talk about the need for a moderate BJP, what credibility can they possibly have?
Then, there are the economic issues and the nuclear deal. The Vajpayee government would have grabbed the nuclear deal — we know this because Brajesh Mishra has said so. Yet Advani found pretexts to oppose it, before hurriedly re-arranging his position once again during the campaign.
So it is with liberalisation. Where does the BJP stand? Is it the party of the global economy? Or is it the party of the bania who wants no regulation for himself but regulation of all his business rivals?
We still don’t know.
For me, the defining moment of the campaign came when Yashwant Sinha went on TV. Yashwant is an old friend from the 1980s, an essentially decent and moderate man who finds it difficult to live it down that political circumstances drove him to the BJP just months after he had attacked the party in Parliament over the Babri Masjid demolition.
He was asked about Modi. I waited for Yashwant to give a reasoned or evasive reply. Instead he declaimed, “Narendra Modi is our most popular leader. He has all the qualities required to become Prime Minister of this country.”
I knew then that the game was up. The BJP had become a party full of people who stood for nothing except for political opportunism.
Friday, May 29, 2009
BJP Needs to Re-discover
Monday, May 11, 2009
Election 2009 : UP Point of Focus
Friday, May 8, 2009
Yadav's getting desperate
Lalu skips cabinet meeting as he is sure to be routed in Bihar ?
How the chess game will look like post May 15th
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Who will be better PM ? Manmohan or Shri Advani
http://www.itimes.com/public_main_community.php?gid=11132&ref=toi_sg