Point is that middle class prefers Gujarat style development and they care less about many social indicators which these reports are talking about.
पी एम हो तो मोदी जैसा...........
- Thread starter jatshiva1947
- Start date
- Status
I am talking about economic indicators, brother. Lets, leave the social indicators aside. Maha and TN have better growth and investment indicators.
Probably development of Gujarat is more attractive to north Indian Hindus than that of Tamil Nadu(Known for their regional,linguistic and cultural exclusivity) and Maharashtra( Hindutva but mixed with regional chauvinism), not to mention higher and numerically small OBC castes in particular feel alienated from governments in North Indian states.
Last edited:
Makes sense. Its something other than economics and development at work here - which you pointed out. So he's no vikas purush, loh purush and so on, right?
If we talk about Loh purush then Bal Thakrey can also be considered one but his regional chauvinism was not liked by North Indians. If we talk about development then Tamil Nadu was always ahead in development for so many years(even in Past) but their politics was always exclusive and no appeal outside Tamil Nadu. So Gujarat's development look more attractive to a section of North Indians who wish to be part of it.
If we talk about Loh purush then Bal Thakrey can also be considered one but his regional chauvinism was not liked by North Indians. If we talk about development then Tamil Nadu was always ahead in development for so many years(even in Past) but their politics was always exclusive and no appeal outside Tamil Nadu. So Gujarat's development look more attractive to a section of North Indians who wish to be part of it.
Agreed. He's nothing special in economic or social development, but is a prime candidate because as it happens the majority (Hindu North Indian) like him. Democracy works like that. I think that is a fair though sad analysis. But doesn't mean I or you have to fall in line.
I think that Modi has also an appeal in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh too, it has something to do with religious polarization in those states. Probably a frustration arising out of so called inactivity of this govt. add to clout of Modi. Of course, there is rapid development in parts of Gujarat, I have studied in Gandhinagar, Ahmadabad. Second thing is that state is more peaceful(which I think, more to do with culture than govt.), environment is best there. Third thing is that some people expect a state led by right winger should be like Khyber Pakhtun khawa, which is not necessary, given the fact that right wing includes vastly different ideologies.Agreed. He's nothing special in economic or social development, but is a prime candidate because as it happens the majority (Hindu North Indian) like him. Democracy works like that. I think that is a fair though sad analysis. But doesn't mean I or you have to fall in line.
You have mentioned what I have emphasized sometimes earlier. The failures of the incumbents make Modi look even better.
Gujarat is peaceful indeed apart from 2002. For a better comparison crime rates would probably give us a better insight.
Unsurprisingly, you didnt mention UP, which is also very polarized on religious lines. But I guess intra-religion polarization i.e. within Hindus, is even bigger and stalls Modi's popularity in UP.
rekhasmriti
New member
As I said , I m really not into any news or GDP or growth ( sab sar ke upar se jate hai )
I also have no clue what Modi has done or its just some off .
What caught my attention------is how come all those biz tycoons , people across world get together at one place . Key holders of Indian development and people who represented we Indians at GLOBAL Level Ambani , Tata n all ----------------who shared common stage with Modi .
Be it a Show OFF-------how many CMs or PMs were enable to pull up such event . Haryana may be 1000 times better than Gujarat ( as per some post ) but I have never ever heard any such thing in Haryana . How many biz tycoons visit Haryana ( please do not include Gurgaon ) .
N no doubt ----he is becoming face of India-------being Mere a CM---if someone can pull up some event , with international representatives .
Across GLOBE-----its a biggest deal --------again even if its POWER SHOW .
Globally people know Tata , Ambani n NOW THEY would all know MODI n Gujarat .
Yeh kam-------MMS ko karna chahiye tha----to show the world-------boss------u better be ready , coz now u gotta compete with us .
I also have no clue what Modi has done or its just some off .
What caught my attention------is how come all those biz tycoons , people across world get together at one place . Key holders of Indian development and people who represented we Indians at GLOBAL Level Ambani , Tata n all ----------------who shared common stage with Modi .
Be it a Show OFF-------how many CMs or PMs were enable to pull up such event . Haryana may be 1000 times better than Gujarat ( as per some post ) but I have never ever heard any such thing in Haryana . How many biz tycoons visit Haryana ( please do not include Gurgaon ) .
N no doubt ----he is becoming face of India-------being Mere a CM---if someone can pull up some event , with international representatives .
Across GLOBE-----its a biggest deal --------again even if its POWER SHOW .
Globally people know Tata , Ambani n NOW THEY would all know MODI n Gujarat .
Yeh kam-------MMS ko karna chahiye tha----to show the world-------boss------u better be ready , coz now u gotta compete with us .
I have read in a book 'post-modernity in Indian society' with a fundamental difference between Hindu fundamentalism and Muslim fundamentalism. Muslim fundamentalism is anti-modern which seeks to resist modernity and it has different social base (mostly tribal and disadvantaged group). Hindu fundamentalism is modern, resisting post-modernity, mostly deriving it's support from middle class. UP doesn't have big proportion of middle class. Apart from that you know after post 9/11 there is a global environment which influences middle class most.
There is something called Global Investors Meet which is much bigger than Vibrant Gujarat Summit, is apolitical and focuses on pure business.
Read this: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/global-meet-mp-mops-up-mous-worth-close-to-rs-1-lakh-cr/1023874
And next meet will be in Odisha: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/odisha-to-hold-global-investors-meet/202165/on
Read this: The state(Odisha) pulled 17 FDI proposals in last fiscal totaling to Rs 49,527 crore, garnering the lion's share of 27.82% of the overall FDI proposals of Rs 1.78 lakh crore received by all states.
Again, bold and blue. Follow news, read that khaki colored ET for a few weeks and you will know a lot more.
Face of India is probably something that foreign media would be better able to comment, dont you think
You simply went by what received most coverage or was popular in social media and blogosphere.
As Desi said earlier, businessmen come running when you shower them with sops. May or may not necessarily translate into on ground investment changes.
True concern, and often it is local leaders who mislead on FDIs.
I was related with POSCO in Orissa, insignificantly though, and my observance said that the project was giving much greater benefits to the people but local level politicians were creating a mess
I was related with POSCO in Orissa, insignificantly though, and my observance said that the project was giving much greater benefits to the people but local level politicians were creating a mess
Jaspreet, there is a war of propaganda from both sides. Modi has a great PR machinery, but it is not a one-way traffic. Let me ask a simple question. What is so different between Rajiv Gandhi and Narendera Modi as far as riots are concerned? I think the former's role can be shown as much more questionable than latter's. But as far as image goes, you can see a clear difference. Why?
This is not to say that Modi should be given the benefit of the doubt. I have no issues when any leader from any party, jat or non-jat is made accountable for his actions. None of these leaders are worth fighting for, as we tend to do here on JL. I know from my own little experience in student politics, that electoral politics is a game where you have to appeal to selfish concern of each vote. Going for principles is no good. These political leaders do the same at a much larger scale - the power at stake is immense. We have to be ruthless in judging them. All of them.
Some people are trying to prove that Modi hasn't done anything good on development. Incidentally, it is the same set of people who are trying to prove his role in the riots. They are not exactly same issues, are they? I mean, say if Modi actually ordered the riots - can any amount of development then reduce that crime?
Unfortunately, we don't have the precedent of forcing people out of public lives after such incidents. We have zero accountability - if we had it, then half of the current political class would be ineligible. After Shastri who famously resigned after a train accident, none of the leaders have shown such grace. So to demand such absolute standards of accountability in only one instance, as many NGOs and media personalities do, is hypocrisy. They have become anti-modi, whatever the issue or facts. But just by being anti-modi, they are neither moral nor defenders of liberal values. Just like by being pro-modi, you are not pro-development or patriotic.
Kapil,
I agree with your line of thought but before Jaspreet answers let me explain a few points you raised.
B) Lack of the power of PRs understanding- Rajeev focused more on growing the country by getting computers, liberalization etc. etc. without getting PR mileage but Modi on other hand believes in getting PR mileage and work to follow
Modi hasnt done any development is not true, he has but what is showcased is much beyond than ground realities.
On the comparison, I believe people draw the comparison when the larget question of 'Modi as PM' arises and it is only fair to see Modi under every aspect. Can we afford to have a CM who allows a mob of people to kill people by voter list and asks police not to do anything?
I agree with your line of thought but before Jaspreet answers let me explain a few points you raised.
A) Indians were not as communal as Gujaratis, Gujarat has more hindus who look upon hinduism more strongly than India. I pasted an article link above, plz go through it for different insights
B) Lack of the power of PRs understanding- Rajeev focused more on growing the country by getting computers, liberalization etc. etc. without getting PR mileage but Modi on other hand believes in getting PR mileage and work to follow
Modi hasnt done any development is not true, he has but what is showcased is much beyond than ground realities.
On the comparison, I believe people draw the comparison when the larget question of 'Modi as PM' arises and it is only fair to see Modi under every aspect. Can we afford to have a CM who allows a mob of people to kill people by voter list and asks police not to do anything?
I think this point is highly arguable. There is a lot of belated attribution of "liberalization" to Rajiv by the Congress. There are several independent accounts of how license raj became more entrenched during Rajiv's time, which was not very different from Indira's. Same coterie, sycophancy, policies, etc. And this getting computers would have happened anyways - it is not like India made a technological leap - unless you are living in a cave, you'd at a point of time (10+ years?) see what the world had already seen. As far as PR goes, as formidable as Modi's may be, it can't rival the one-sided PR India saw for decades. Half of India is named after one family. There is a giant machinery of academia and NGOs sympathetic to Congress.
Well, we already afforded a PM, no? From most accounts, what happened in 1984 was much worse than 2002. And it happened in National Capital! I am not going to condone one wrong with the other. But my point earlier was that India doesn't have such high standards to hold politicians to. So we can't talk about "moral responsibility". We have to go back to law's cardinal principle of innocent until proven guilty.
May be and could be, vice versa for social media platforms owned by right wing. Truth now a days is what we want to believe in.
No, because RG was never associated directly with the riots like NaMo. No court ever indicated his direct involvement like that of Sajjan,Tytler or other congressmen and no state machinery sponsored it the way it happened in Gujarat.
There have been several instances and people who help NaMo accountable for his role during the riots. There have even been sting operations where in you can clearly hear NaMos supporters saying they were given 3 days to do what they want. We all know Modi's hardcore right wing thought process and it works well in Gujarat because people are of same thoughts but will it work in India is a different question.
I started my first response with the line that there is propaganda from both sides. I choose to follow neither, and try to look at it objectively to the extent possible.
Sting operations, et al are a question of times. Some people feel that Gujarat was the last major case of riots (I sincerely hope so) because of the way it was covered. It has become just too dangerous now for the parties with all the mobile phone cameras, media presence, internet, etc.
We were in a different world in 1984. For ages there were not even FIRs against anyone, leave alone a proper investigation. If you dig the surface, you hear other versions. As I said before, I don't like giving 1984 as a reply to 2002 as both were wrong. But the differentiation you have made between leaders doesn't stand factual scrutiny. Below is an interview by Tavleen Singh, who covered that era as a journalist on the ground. She talks about hate speeches, campaign materials, voters list....for 1984. Incidentally, she says 2002 would not have happened if 1984 culprits were punished, since same techniques were used.
This part is from 25 minute onwards, but the whole interview is interesting.
[video]http://www.newslaundry.com/2012/12/can-you-take-it-tavleen-singh/[/video]
Kapil, few points.
1) Dynastic-rule did not start with Rajiv (/a result of Hindu polarization). So, let us not couple it with religious polarization. (Sycophancy and caste-ism in our blood... may be!).
2) Hinduism, unlike monotheistic religions, is too tolerant/vast// and India is too big & diverse to turn into another Pakistan. You can argue that for the same reasons there won't be a deep Hindu polarization in India (Hindu can not unite under a book, any book)!!
And who knows may be sense of religious belonging (/polarization) can curb the caste-based polarization, making India a more homogeneous society!! After all, while voting Indian muslims (Shia, Sunni, and Ahamadi) are not as fractured as Indian Hindus are! Is the religious polarization playing some +ve role here?
3) Of course, I don't want India to turn into a Pakistan. But I won't mind India turning in to a Italy, or Brunai or Quatar or Male or Turkey: Decent HDI you know :nonchalance:. Heck, even in god-less US, most non-Christian candidates find it hard to sway average voter's heart! :tongue: what do you call it? polarization?
4) I understand your apprehension regarding polarization. You like it or not, religious bigotry in India is on rise. TV serials, certain religious TV channels, and increasingly easier access to propaganda materials. Is it good? No. Is it bad? I don't know.
It could turn out to be a total disaster but then it could also be the biggest blessing Indian ever get.
Uniform Civil Code (undoing the historic wrong done to Shah Bano & sisters), solution of water-sharing problems, elimination of regional parties (which I believe are a nuisance), authoritarian govt at centre-> assertive foreign policy without any minority appeasing, laws to control population without giving a hoot to certain sections who oppose it tooth and nail, kick-starting economic reforms without being pulled from every side, and probably inculcate a sense of accountability (or fear thereof) among govt officials starting from the rank and file.
Congress had many chances to facilitate all this, it never did. In fact, many of these problems are created by Congress over their long rule. Congress has failed this nation way too many times to expect anything from it. Leftists are confused lot, lofty ideals not much to show for it; they seem to be the part of history in national politics now. Only BJP has any realistic chance (however small) to get this country out of gutter. If wide-spread religious bigotry is the clutch they need, so be it. Tyranny could only be better than the anarchy which we seem to have now.
Sunil, I didn't respond to the above earlier. I think it goes like this. You are disillusioned with Congress rule. So you hope BJP comes to power and does something positive - you know that direction BJP is going into, that chance is fairly small - but you want to give them a chance. Fair enough - makes full sense.
Only if religious bigotry is not the clutch used to grab power. I think you know yourself that this medicine of polarization is not going to work. Idea of India militates against homogeniety. India is a union of diverse sections of people. In that sense, it is a unique experiment, that has no parallels in the world. It should remain like this. None of us would be pleased when some homogenous standard alien to us is demanded from us. Afterall, this painting of Jats as Talibani because of following "medieval" Sagotra customs is due to the same thought process that imposes homogeneous standards.
India and Pakistan started from the same position in 1947. If you read the British era documents for the state of Punjab, several muslim rural tribes followed similar customs as hindu tribes. But as religious bigotry increased in Pakistan, those tribal identities are being washed away. One standard is being demanded from everyone, a Wahabi standard that doesn't even belong to this region. There is nothing to suggest that hindu bigotry will take some benevolent form that would focus its energy on nation building - all the evidence is to the contrary. And if Hinduism has been a religion that permits to each its own, then let it be like this.
The problems cited by you above (have issues with some of them, but that's a side point) are not problems of religion and have been solved in other countries without resorting to religious bigotry.
- Status