A Shameless Polemic Against the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty

What is Jawaharlal Nehru`s legacy?

This hogwash to promote Nehru as a champion of ``pluralism`` and ``Secularism`` might have worked till the 1970s... but ever since the Transfer of Power Papers have been released, Nehru`s true role has been exposed... more so in the latest book by Stanley Wolpert ``Shameful Flight`` ....

As one reads more, one discovers that Jawaharlal Nehru was an unscrupulous and a corrupt politician with no sense of fairness or sense of dignity and fairplay. He was the typical narcissistic delusional megalomaniac who by his hunger for power is responsible for - along with his nocturnal buddies Lord and Lady Mountbatten and his British Masters- all the deaths at partition.

It was he who vetoed the Cabinet Mission Plan, it was he who insisted that independence date be moved from June 1948 to August 1947, it was he who forced the vivisection of Punjab and Bengal (please bear in the mind that his illogical scheme meant that all Muslim majority districts of India should also have gone to Pakistan) against all appeals of reason from Muslim League and others... it was he who vetoed Jinnah-Suhrawardy-Sarat-Kiran Shankar Rao plan for an Independent Bangladesh in 1947 (and his idiotic drudge of a daughter had the nerve to claim that 1971 undid Pakistan.... 1971 undid her stupid father`s ridiculous legacy)...


it was under his charge that the worst violence in East Punjab took place which accounted for 70-80% of all partition violence... while he was busy doing nautanki drama and shedding crocodile tears...


And lets not forget his most enduring legacy : Kashmir...

Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to Sri Prikasa:

``I was amazed that you hinted at Kashmir being handed over to Pakistan. If we did anything of the kind, our Government would not last many days and there would be no peace.... it would lead to war with Pakistan because of the public opinion here and warlike elements coming in control of our policy. We cannot and will not leave Kashmir to its fate... the Fact that Kashmir is of most vital significance to India... Here lies the rub.... we have to see this through to the end. Kashmir is going to be a drain on our resources, but it is going to be a greater drain on Pakistan. ``

Page 189- Shameful Flight by Stanley Wolpert.


The same Kashmir where he imprisoned his closest ally - Shaikh Abdullah - and lied about it to the Indian Parliament... The same Kashmir that continues to haunt India-Pakistan relations... while poor get poorer.

And then these digusting and corrupt fellows Nehru, Gandhi and Mountbatten had the nerve to blame everything on the one man - Jinnah- who was the most scrupulous and honest amongst them... and whose ideas they wrecked the destroyed? And you call these fellows ``leaders``... and we have people like Aparna Pande delivering tributes to this mass murderer maniac Nehru whose entire family ought to be tried for crimes against humanity.
In reality Nehru ranks amongst the top homicidal maniacs known to man... and the damage he has done by creating the Kashmir issue only because he was from Kashmir ...the selfish bastard that he was .. will be felt for years on...

So what is Nehru`s legacy...

1- Lust for power

2. Unscrupulous conduct and corruption.

3. Violence both at partition

4. Kashmir issue

5. 2 wars between India and Pakistan

6. Nuclear Arms race in South Asia.



These are the salient points of the legacy of Jawaharlal Nehru, the worst megalomaniac known to 20th century... And what is more... you guys can go on praising him, but history now being written will accord this bastard his due in full measure.

Ref sunstroke #92

I am not surprised that you took my questions extremely literally and answered them in that manner. One expects no less from a simplistic mind fed on propaganda and the Indian education system.

Here is some data on the growth of India`s forex reserves.

[2000 Country Reports on Economic Policy and Trade Practices
Released by the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
U.S. Department of State, March 2001
INDIA
Key Economic Indicators
(Billions of U.S. dollars unless otherwise indicated)
1998 1/ 1999 1/ 2000 2/
Gold and Foreign Exchange Reserves 29.4 32.5 38.1]

By the way, today the reserves touched $109 billion.

It is with s good reason I asked you not to step out by yourself.

In case you get into a minor accident, doctors are likely to diagnose brain death and start harvesting organs.

Stay home. And out of the sun.

#94 by harimau
Then tell me who was in power in Dec 1990 when gold had to be transferred to London because of the payments crisis.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The UF was in power and Yashwant Sinha (now foreign minister where he is doing a much better job) was finance minister

Who was in power from 1947 to 1990?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Congress - but the fact that when Narasimha Rao and Manamohan Singh came to power in 1991, they were quickly able to solve the foreign exchange reserves crisis shows that if Yashwant Sinha had been competent, he could have solved the crisis as well (which he didn`t).

If the increase in reserves took place during the Narasimha Rao administration, why was there NO publicity for that event?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Increase in reserves has been taking place steadily since Narasimha Rao`s time. There was no publicity for any of this since the BJP understands the value of publicity better than anybody else since Rajiv Gandhi. The only parallel to the ``India Shining`` campaign I can remember is Rajiv Gandhi`s campaign just after Indira Gandhi`s assassination.

I suppose it took 10 years for the Manmohan Singh-Narasimha Rao reforms to bear fruit but the BJP managed to fcuk up the economy in a few months in office.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From Businessworld: 16 Feb 2004: Educating Mr Vajpayee http://www.businessworldindia.com/feb1604/coverstory02.asp
1998, when the first NDA government took office. The BJP and its allies had angrily railed against globalisation in the preceding years. The World Trade Organization (WTO) was the devil incarnate. The need for foreign direct investment (FDI) was grudgingly accepted, but only in a few high-tech areas. ``Computer chips yes, potato chips no,`` went the evocative slogan of the times. Even essential legislation - like the one proposed by the United Front government to set up an insurance regulator - was blocked in Parliament by the BJP.
Swadeshi was the magic word. And its ideologues were immensely influential. (...deleted...) Yashwant Sinha became finance minister. His first budget was, in his own words, rooted in swadeshi. Taxes were increased, protection levels were hiked and fiscal discipline was ignored. The markets were stunned. The economy was drifting towards stagnation.

Business Standard: 1 March 2003: A positive act indeed http://www.business-standard.com/budget/2003/union/evedisp.asp?Menu=0&story=2543
There is something purely subjective about the transition at North Block from Yashwant Sinha to Jaswant Singh. Many saw the former as simply bad news; whatever he did turned out to be adverse.
Correspondingly, many see the latter as simply auspicious; whatever he does turns out to be a positive act. This feeling is likely to be strengthened by Jaswant Singh`s first budget, particularly when you compare it to Yashwant Sinha`s last Budget.

Times of India: 11 January 2004: Jaswant versus Yashwant http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/416074.cms
A successful finance minister typically has three characteristics: good luck, political savvy, and wisdom. Yashwant Sinha was neither lucky nor politically savvy, though he showed flashes of wisdom.
...
He (Yashwant Sinha) was finance minister of an unexpected coalition in 1998, whose longevity was in grave doubt. He did not dare risk a collapse of the coalition.
And so when coalition partners criticised several measures he had proposed to reduce the fiscal deficit in 1998, he rolled them back. This earned him the nickname Rollback Sinha, which dogged him ever after

``#86 by harimau on March 7, 2004 6:27pm PT
Ref yogiraj #82

[Now tell me economically... it is a sail.]``

Point well taken. You have solid stats to prove your point.

You simply skipped the second point though. Judiciary. That is ok.

Even on the first one. Economy. I think things happened not because of our shining ``sons`` or ``suns``. It happened in spite of them.

If you say Govt should not have any undue right to meddle... and let the business grow/die..... They should simply create a climate, where all have a fair chance. Agreed and accepted.

But then they should state why are they there for ... The pathetics that I vote in are there for power play. Mosquitoes who will suck just a little blood and see I live on... so that they can suck it again... just a little more ....gosh

They should be there to define their role. What they will do, and what is out of scope.

Yogiraj Patil

Ref sunlight #88

[This is a tremendous over-simplificiation. In fact, until about a year or so ago, it could be claimed that the BJP`s contribution to economic progress in India was negligible. Today, there is a swell of support for the BJP, because it appears to have decided to firmly back the reforms, whereas the Congress is short-sightedly waffling.

Actually, most of the reforms that resulted in economic growth were the result of the Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh combine. Yashwant Sinha`s first budget for the current government (prepared under pressure from the Swadeshi faction of the BJP) was a disaster that brought down India`s growth rate from >8% to 4.5%, if memory serves. In fact, Yashwant Sinha has the distinction of being the only finance minister in Indian history who in three consecutive years was forced to make three major modifications to his own budget. Yashwant Sinha was also the finance minister during the time that India nearly went bankrupt and had to airlift gold to London (just before Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh), and could possibly be the most ineffective finance minister in Indian history.]

I suppose it took 10 years for the Manmohan Singh-Narasimha Rao reforms to bear fruit but the BJP managed to fcuk up the economy in a few months in office.

Here is the lsit of Prime Ministers. You can guess which party was in power during those years.

Jawaharlal Nehru Aug. 15, 1947 - May 27, 1964

Gulzari Lal Nanda May 27, 1964 - June 9, 1964 (Interim), January 11 - 24, 1966(Interim)

Lal Bahadur Shastri June 9, 1964 - January 11, 1966

Indira Gandhi Jan. 24, 1966 to March 24, 1977, Jan. 14, 1980 to Oct. 31,1984

Morarji Desai March 24, 1977 to July 28, 1979

Charan Singh July 28, 1979 - Jan. 14, 1980

Rajiv Gandhi Oct. 31,1984 to Dec. 1,1989

V. P. Singh Dec. 2,1989 - Nov. 10, 1990

Chandra Shekhar Nov. 10,1990 - June 21, 1991

P. V. Narasimha Rao June 21, 1991 to May 10, 1996

Atal Bihari Vajpayee May 16 to June 1, 1996

H. D. Deve Gowda June 1, 1996 to April 21, 1997

I. K. Gujral April 21, 1997 - Nov. 28. 1997.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee March 19, 1998 - till date

Read the following article. Then tell me who was in power in Dec 1990 when gold had to be transferred to London because of the payments crisis. Who was in power from 1947 to 1990?

If the increase in reserves took place during the Narasimha Rao administration, why was there NO publicity for that event?

Let me give you the advice I normally give to people of your abilities: do not go out by yourself.



Forex reserves cross $100-bn mark
PRIYA RANJAN DASH

TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ SUNDAY, DECEMBER 21, 2003 02:22:46 AM ]

NEW DELHI : A Century and going strong. India crossed the historic landmark of $100 billion in foreign exchange reserves on Friday. It marks a ``Period of Great Confidence,`` finance minister Jaswant Singh declared on Saturday.

``Self-reliance, for which we worked for decades since Independence has been reached,`` Singh said, pledging to push ahead with ``bolder economic reforms`` to achieve significantly higher growth.

The current level of reserves keep India firmly on the course to full convertibility of the rupee. That is when the remaining restrictions on overseas investment by Indian citizens and companies will go.

The rupee, however, is not going fully convertible tomorrow. With the reserves, an important condition has been met. Other crucial tests such as a low level of public debt and a strong banking sector have to be passed, chief economic advisor P K Lahiri said.

Days were when forex shortages made government impose draconian controls over India `s entrepreneurship and ingenuity, creating criminals out of perfectly good citizens.

Just 13 year`s ago, in December 1990, forex reserves plummeted to less than $ 1 billion, insufficient to fund even a fortnight`s imports.

The foreign exchange crunch, following the first Gulf War and the oil crisis, forced an external payments crisis for India . The Reserve Bank of India was even compelled to mortgage reserve gold abroad.

A virtual import ban ensued, not letting even necessities to be imported. A 200 per cent bank margin was slapped on funds for imports.

India had to rush to IMF for getting contingency loan. The country also had to go in for steep two-step devaluation of the rupee.

The reserves hitting a Century signifies the long way India has travelled since then. ONGC Videsh had to let go its privileged rights on a highly potential Vietnamese oil and gas field only because it could not get a meagre $7,000.

Today, it does not stop to think before putting in billions of dollars in oil fields around the globe.

The country has added $94 billion to the reserves since March 1991. The reforms that began then have unleashed the entrepreneurial spirit of Indians and made the country an attractive investment destination for foreign direct and equity investors.

The reserves have not been built by hot money, nor by foreign borrowings.

In the last 13 years, India `s foreign debt have increased by only $ 20 billion but the reserves are up by $ 94 billion.

India is Asia `s third largest economy and it now has the fourth largest forex reserves after China , South Korea and Japan .

The reserves, as the FM said, will contribute to national security and will provide much greater autonomy to conduct public policy. They will also enable Indian corporates and banks to tap resources abroad on more favourable terms than ever before.

#85 by harimau
Under Rajiv Gandhi, the Central Minister for Telecommunications ordered a cross-bar switch from Sweden... a technology that has been outdated for years
...deleted...
A friend of mine wanted to make telephone instruments in India. He was denied a license during the Rajiv Gandhi ``technocratic`` regime
...deleted...
So much for the myth of economic liberalization under Rajiv Gandhi.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think we are in agreement; Rajiv Gandhi was not effective in economic liberalization because he was too naive and inexperienced in politics; I myself noted that Ericcson (a Swedish company) was able to beat out CDOT. However, there was no doubt that Rajiv Gandhi had some good ideas such as the establishment of CDOT. As another example, when he used a laptop everybody laughed at him for being out of touch with the comman man; nowadays Chandrababu Naidu uses a laptop all the time and everybody applauds him for being progressive.

#62 by kaurasach
The green revolution was brought by the hard working farmers and some farsighted progressive officials than these credit takers and parade jumpers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An army needs both soldiers as well as generals. So yes, the hard-working farmers (soldiers) made a tremendous contribution but so did Indira Gandhi (the general) as well as the Agriculture Minister and the scientists who developed the agricultural technology.

#64 by hossp
I don’t see any problem with emotions, how can we from the subcontinent ignore emotions, as we are the products of emotions. Sometimes emotions show that how much you care, so don’t laugh at them. :)
++++++++++++++++
OK.

Anyways, what you missed that he pointed out certain conditions that are part of the new Indian economy.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think they were always part of the Indian economy, and do not really have anything to do with outsourcing.

Recently the economies in Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and China (still going thru this) have experience the sweatshop phenomenon and have turned the leaf. The point is whether India can do it or not?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I would say India cannot completely avoid sweatshops. There are three stages for workers: unemployed, sweatshop labour and skilled labour. Skilled labour will always have good working conditions. However, the pre-requisite for skilled labour is education and training, and given the huge population, it would be difficult to train everybody.

Unskilled labour will always have poor working conditions since the workers do not possess any skills which would allow them to bargain with their employers. The situation can be improved by (i) passage of laws; however, both in India and other countries including the West, there will be evasion of laws (ii) encouraging rural entrepreneurship (e.g., setting up of small mechanic`s shops, small factories, etc).

What we can aim for is that the children of the people working in sweatshops will not have to work in sweatshops.

Look forward to see more of your posts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks, and look forward to seeing your responses.

Addendum to my post #89
Bofors, IMHO, is a classic example of irresponsible journalism and the way the press can be manipulated.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
You could check the history of Bofors and see that the campaign against Rajiv Gandhi on Bofors was led by Frontline and the Hindu, well known magazines with Leftist leanings which were interested in raking up the issue since Rajiv Gandhi was not a Leftist. It was opportunistically taken up by Rajiv Gandhi`s other opponents.

#75 by harimau
Bofors has admitted paying bribes to get the contract.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bofors has only admitted to paying commissions to third parties, which is normal in any arms deal. They did not admit to paying bribes. After 30 years, including 5 years of a BJP Government, there is no evidence that anyone in the Indian Government received any bribe. In contrast, many of the allegations made at the time (such as the allegation that Amitabh Bachchan had secret Swiss bank accounts through which money was funnelled) have been proved to be false.

The effectiveness of the Bofors guns was never questioned, and as is well known, the gun proved its effectiveness during the Kargil War.

I am by no means a sympathizer of Rajiv Gandhi, but I do not believe in blaming people for sins they did not commit. Also, Bofors would be just an amusement if not for the fact that it had the unfortunate side-effect of paralyzing the Indian Defence Ministry. Defence deals now take much longer than they should because people are afraid of being named in a scandal like Bofors. Bofors, IMHO, is a classic example of irresponsible journalism and the way the press can be manipulated.

If Rajiv and his widow Antonia are so interested in clearing his name, why is the middleman Quattrachi hiding in Kuala Lumpur?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(1) There is no evidence that Sonia Gandhi and Quattrochi were close friends. As Italians living in New Delhi, they knew each other. As a South Indian living in Calcutta, we knew large number of other South Indians in Calcutta. If tomorrow one of them turns out to be a criminal, are we automatically implicated?

(2) Why should Quattrochi bother? The Hindujas have large business interests in India, and were eager to clear their name. Why would Quattrochi be interested in participating in a tamasha? If you were Quattrochi, and knew you were innocent, would you be interested in travelling to India, facing hostile questioning, and being treated like a criminal, all for no good reason?

#80 by Harimau
Life is easier today because Congress is NOT in power. India would only get better under the BJP... there is enough support from the middle class so that the Swadeshi crapola of some of the lunatic fringe of the BJP would be completely ignored.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is a tremendous over-simplificiation. In fact, until about a year or so ago, it could be claimed that the BJP`s contribution to economic progress in India was negligible. Today, there is a swell of support for the BJP, because it appears to have decided to firmly back the reforms, whereas the Congress is short-sightedly waffling.

Actually, most of the reforms that resulted in economic growth were the result of the Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh combine. Yashwant Sinha`s first budget for the current government (prepared under pressure from the Swadeshi faction of the BJP) was a disaster that brought down India`s growth rate from >8% to 4.5%, if memory serves. In fact, Yashwant Sinha has the distinction of being the only finance minister in Indian history who in three consecutive years was forced to make three major modifications to his own budget. Yashwant Sinha was also the finance minister during the time that India nearly went bankrupt and had to airlift gold to London (just before Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh), and could possibly be the most ineffective finance minister in Indian history.

Jaswant Singh (who has a confusingly similar name) has done much better as finance minister, but he has been finance minister for only about a year or so. The NDA government`s main performer on the economic front apart from that has been Arun Shourie, who has been pressing ahead with disinvestment. Arun Shourie also straightened out the telecom mess that was created by Pramod Mahajan. Another important contribution is from Vajpayee himself, who signed an important agreement with China, leading to great growth in India-China trade.

The Narasimha Rao-Manmohan Singh reforms led to the growth of the software and services industry. They also led to the restructuring of Indian industry to become more efficient. However, the benefits from the restructuring were not immediately apparent as they need a gestation period, and have become visible only now (which is why people credit them to the BJP).

Anyway, the important thing is that the BJP appears to have become convinced of the need for economic reforms, while the Congress has not conveyed a clear message. But there are danger signals. For example, just about a year ago, BJP leader and Labour Minister Sahib Singh Verma tried to push through a bill reserving 20% of the seats in the board of directors of all companies for union representatives. The unfortunate situation today for the Congress today is that even though it initiated the reforms, it has put itself in the position where a victory for the Congress will be seen as a defeat for economic reform.

Ref plats8 #69

[The bankruptcy of the Congress leadership is transparent in the manner Narasimha Rao has been treated lately.]

Narasimha Rao ran a Congress government at the Center for 5 years... giving the lie to the perception that a South Indian cannot be the Prime Minister of the country AND run a long-lasting government. During Nehru`s time, it was ``After Nehru, who?``. During Indira`s time, it was ``Indira is India``. Fortunately for Indians, Sanjay Gandhi didn`t have the brains to realize that there are certain laws that even he couldn`t ignore... such as the Law of Gravity. Otherwise, we would have been stuck with that thug for decades.

The Congress and the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty don`t want people to know that there are alternatives to them. So, just like in Communist countries, they are writing Narasimha Rao out of history.

Ref sunlight #52

[Rajiv Gandhi wanted to jump-start India`s growth in software and telecom. In telecom, he picked Sam Pitroda and set up CDOT to develop telecom equipment.]

Under Rajiv Gandhi, the Central Minister for Telecommunications ordered a cross-bar switch from Sweden... a technology that has been outdated for years...at the most, useful for small rural telephone exchanges... where of course then it cannot be maintained for lack of capable technicians.

Proving my point that Rajiv Gandhi didn`t know his arse from telephone switches.

A friend of mine wanted to make telephone instruments in India. He was denied a license during the Rajiv Gandhi ``technocratic`` regime because 7 companies were already licensed to produce telephone handsets... each authorized to make 50,000 sets a year. A Taiwanese company was cranking out 500,000 sets a month and you would get a phone free in the US if you got an oil-lube-filter job for your car.

So much for the myth of economic liberalization under Rajiv Gandhi.

Ref yogiraj #82

[Now tell me economically... it is a sail.]

Let me give you ONE example of what improving the lot of the middle calss does for the lower classes.

Just one software company employing about 2,000 persons in Chennai has a food bill of Rs. 1.5 crores. (Meals are free because there aren`t enough restaurants to seat 2,000 persons and the company has to provide food!)

Now consider Infosys, Wipro, Satyam, EDS, IBM Global Services, TCS, Polaris. iGate, Cognizant (the giants) and a hundred smaller companies (amounting perhaps to another 5 giants). What is their food bill? How many persons are employed in cooking and serving the food?

How about the mechanics who repair the two wheelers and cars that these high-tech workers own?

A rising tide indeed DOES list all boats.

#71 jung

``You dont like dynasties. What do you make of Bal/Uddhav/Smita Thakre inc? Is that just plain mafia?``

A dynasty is characterised by a transfer of power from one generation to next. Lets see if Uddahav/Smita are able to fight it out when Balasaheb kicks the bucket.

I think not, being a true mafia style family we`ll see a battle (with blood in the streets) once the old man goes. The big mafia will be split between several local ``dons`` (who are already asserting themselves) who will go to the mattress fighting each other.

Ashish says

``My sarcasm is strong and my polemic is bitter because I am suspicious of the BJP and my natural home should be with a genuinely secular minded party``

And I and a lot of other people I know agree with him, who dont just worry about the `secular vs communal angle`` but are concerned with the attempted control of insitutiions of excellence, the complacency over ``india Shining`` which seems to ignore all Human development Index statistics, the blind belief that all is hunky dory with reforms. However there seems to be no alternative to the BJP. The problems are two fold.

1) The BJP has hijacked everything the congress had. Economic reforms, dynamic state level leadership. aging film stars even Navjot Singh Sidhu, you name it they got it. Strategically the congress has no vision of its own, it only seems to react to the BJP.
2) Ideologies of any sort seem to have disappeared. No one except the Left really has any ideologies to speak of. All the other ABCD combines either claim to represent a region (DMK, Biju Janata Dal, Trinamul) or a community or caste group (BSP). All manifestos, especially since the BJP purged its saffron stamps seem to read the same. So why do we really prefer any party over another.

harimau.

I am not an idiologue. I am just an Amar/Akbar/Anthon...A street urchin.

What I hate most... and may be real ones should answer.

The economic future of India is like ``Sailed boat``. You know where a Sailed boat goes.... The direction wind takes... globali.... WTO.... free trade...

Worst. It is judiciary that has to and does decides well being of citizens. No. It was not Ms. Dixit that had anything to do with pollution in Delhi. No. It was not Balasaheb or Sushilkumar who worries about slums in Mumbai. No. it was not any missionary, so loved by a shrink, that takes care of morals. They all.. simply forced to follow.

Now tell me economically... it is a sail. Well Being (barring shrink who likes to licks) it is Judiciary...

Welll

Yogiraj Patil

Ref pmishra2 #13

[The only way out is the development of a deeper democracy which will throw up more sheila dikshits, chandrababu naidus, CM of Goa, Budhadeb of Bengal etc.]

Sheila Dikshit claimed credit for Federal government projects (such as the Delhi Metro) and judicial initiatives (such as use of CNG in buses and taxis and enforcement of Euro 2000 Clean Air Standards which she was against) for the cleaner air in New Delhi. She is just another arse-licker of Antonia Mano aka Sonia Gandhi. She can be fired at will by Sonia.

As to Buddhadeb Bose of West Bengal, it doesn`t take a genius to recognize what a fcuk-up West Bengal had become under 35 years of Communism. He is now trying to learn the Beijing Model of Capitalism which Jyoti Basu resisted to his last day in office. The fact that the Beijing Model happens to be participation in globalization is irrelevant to him. To him, all wisdom emanates from Beijing. So it did for Jyoti Basu except that for him the Fount of Knowledge was Mao Zedong and Deng Xiao-ping was a Revisionist.

Ref halur_rasho #19

[There is an economic issue, which most pakistanis entirely miss. That is, the BJP is to a large extent pro-business. In fact, the Jan Sangh from which it evolved was primarily a party of small businessmen and professionals. A lot of middle / upper middle class folk are anti-Congress rather than pro-BJP. The Congress, until very recently was contemptous of the indian middle class.]

Let me give you just one example why the middle class is happy. Under Congress misrule, India produced 35,000 Ambassador cars (beloved only by the Headshrinker on Chowk) a year and you paid a down payment and waited 7 years for the car. You waited even longer for a Lambretta scooter. When a company in Chennai (Standard Motors) successfully copied without needing a license agreement the advanced engine of the Rover 2000 and then entered into an agreement with Rover to produce that car in India, that car costing an unprecedented Rs. 200,000 at that time was sold out for the next 7 years before the first car even rolled out. (This was when the Maruti 800 sold for Rs. 80,000 and there were no other alternatives to the Ambassador). The Government took several of the Rover cars to the Emissions Testing Center in Ahmedabad (because they were paid off by Hindustan Motors), used the vehicles as personal vehicles of the lab officials and never certified the engine and Standard Motors went into bankruptcy. (By the way, the car`s styling was so good that a Canadian company planned to import the vehicle minus the engine and stick a Ford engine in it so that it could be easily serviced in Canada).

Today, there are some 15 or so marques being sold in India, most of them being assembled here. Instead of waiting for a car, you get accosted by car salesmen when you go for a walk on the beach in Chennai who offer fantastic credit terms. If you want a two-wheeler, India churns out close to a couple of million a year and there are monthly price cuts on them. Hyundai plans to expand capacity to 280,000 cars a year in India. Tata just bought the truck unit of Daewoo Motors in South Korea!

The middle class is able to buy real-estate with low-interest loans, buy consumer goods such as refrigerators, TVs, Hi-Fi entertainment systems, cell phones without even a down payment (my brother paid US$3,000 15 years back under the Own Your Line scheme of the Indian Telephones...after he paid the money, he was told by an employee of the telephone system that such a scheme did not exist, despite it being documented in the Telephone Directory...and he was told that once paid, the process to get the money back (in Indian rupees not US dollars) would take forever...he just lost the money...). You find today college girls and guys chatting with each other over the cell phone and sending each other SMS messages.

Life is easier today because Congress is NOT in power. India would only get better under the BJP... there is enough support from the middle class so that the Swadeshi crapola of some of the lunatic fringe of the BJP would be completely ignored.

Ref nazarhayatkhan #17

[Congress is a declared Secular Party. Whereas the BJP coalition does have a Saffron touch.

I am a little confused about the long run implications of BJP on the Indian politics. Pakistan`s experience of religious-politics has not been a pleasant one.

I hope the Indian interacters are factoring this element in their assessment.]

Dear Khan Sahib,

With due respect, the difference is that your religious parties look back to 1400 years ago whereas our religious parties would happily dump all the baggage except the label ``Hindu``. As the people have mostly done.

Ref HisExcellency #174

[Congress and BJP are not the only alternatives in India. There are a lot of ``third`` options as well such as Janata Dal, DMK, AIMDK, TDP, Samajwadi, BSP, etc. At one point, BJP too was a small party with very few seats in parliament. Who knows one of these parties may grow into national movements in another 10 years!!]

The DMK? Ha, ha, ha... that is good for a laugh! Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion has anointed his son Stalin as his successor in Tamil Nadu and his nephew Murasoli Maran`s son Dayanidhi (Fund of Compassion, again!) as his representative in Delhi. He sold MP tickets for the coming elections at the rate of Rs. 6 million to Rs. 10 million. His only hope is that he doesn`t die when Jayalalitha is in power so that he could be buried on Marina Beach next to The Great Intellectual because if Jayalalitha is in power she will make sure that no space is made available on public beach-front property to bury his rotten carcass.

Ref Lord_Dirtier #7

[Where was Indra Gandhi and Rajev Gandhi educated, can someone please let me know?]

They both flunked out of school/college in England. Indira Gandhi was sent off to Switzerland to study at a finishing school. Must have flunked out there too, looking at the amount of charm she oozed!

Ref sunlight #52

[Rajiv Gandhi wanted to jump-start India`s growth in software and telecom. In telecom, he picked Sam Pitroda and set up CDOT to develop telecom equipment.]

Pitroda OFFERED his services to the Indian government. Rajeev Gandhi wouldn`t have known his arse from a telephone switch. There is no question of Rajeev Gandhi making an informed decision about Pitroda. Pitroda had demonstrated his abilities by becoming a VP at Rockwell and a multi-millionaire.

Ref sunlight #53

[Rajiv Gandhi`s problem was that he was too bhola-bhala (as one says in Hindi). A completely innocent person, he could not protect himself against the Bofors scandal in which many of the people who were making allegations against him were extremely corrupt. In Sri Lanka as well, he was deceived and discarded by both sides to the conflict.]

Rajiv Gandhi said about the anti-Sikh riots following his mother`s death, ``When a great tree falls, the earth shakes``. He didn`t do squat to curb the riots. If this a$$hole was a bhola-bhala (whatever that means), I am the Pope.

Bofors has admitted paying bribes to get the contract. If Rajiv and his widow Antonia are so interested in clearing his name, why is the middleman Quattrachi hiding in Kuala Lumpur?

``#71 by jang on March 6, 2004 3:55pm PT
#70 yogiraj

You dont like dynasties. What do you make of Bal/Uddhav/Smita Thakre inc? Is that just plain mafia?``

If you know ``political`` history of Shiv Sena, you would know the answer. Shiv Sena was for formed by Balasaheb as an organisation for locals against south Indians...Hindooo south Indians.. (not muslims/Italians). It worked upto a time. Then he knew formula works... find some one or some group to...

Yogiraj Patil

``#72 by stuka on March 6, 2004 10:08pm PT
Jang:

You give the Thakerays undeserved credit by calling it a political dynasty. It is most certainly a mafia. And the Shiv Sena BJP combine is a major reason I want a strong Congress. Today BJP kicked out DP Yadav because a man like ABV is at the helm. Afyer he is gone, they will happily take someone like him. India has at best a few years for a legitimate politcal system to emerge that is federalist in nature. ``


Gosh Stuka... Congess has taken so many DPs....Congressmen today will sell their souls to devil to be in power.....

Yogiraj

Jang:

You give the Thakerays undeserved credit by calling it a political dynasty. It is most certainly a mafia. And the Shiv Sena BJP combine is a major reason I want a strong Congress. Today BJP kicked out DP Yadav because a man like ABV is at the helm. Afyer he is gone, they will happily take someone like him. India has at best a few years for a legitimate politcal system to emerge that is federalist in nature.

#70 yogiraj

You dont like dynasties. What do you make of Bal/Uddhav/Smita Thakre inc? Is that just plain mafia?

Ashish,

Loved this one. However started asking questions to meself

I am an open bigot. So you know whom I will vote for. However, while voting, there are so many factors you have think about. I will still vote for one congress candidate, who I can assure you, will be get elected from Mumbai. The guy simply stands out.

Also, please...please, Pandit Nehru, Indira and Rajeev did lot of good along with bad.

I agree with you.. dynasty is bad.

My question is who allowed it to happen? Nehru? Indira? Rajeev? We do not take responsibility of our own destiny and start blaming what ...Italy? Spain?

Oh come on ....let me give myself a break.

Yogiraj

The bankruptcy of the Congress leadership is transparent in the manner
Narasimha Rao has been treated lately. The sole reason behind the senior
leadership avioding him is to not incur Madame`s wrath. Pitiful !! It would
be one thing if the sidelining was done based on a principled stand of some
sort - given the scandals and all. This is being done with the sole purpose
of sabotaging an alternative power center within the party.

Correction
``the conclusion was that until a country`s GDP rises to a certain level``

``the conclusion was that until a country`s per-capita GDP rises to a certain level``

stuka #65
Someone once posted a New Scientist article on sulekha about a British? study on the relation between corruption, GDP and opening up of markets.

If I remember right, the conclusion was that until a country`s GDP rises to a certain level, globalization/opening of markets is counterproductive, ie doesnot help the economy, doesnot benefit average citizen etc because only increased corruption results from more money being available via globalization/FI.

That article in now in archive, but I have the link to a couple of graphs that went with it:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/9999/99994247F1.JPG

hossp

You make a flawed assumption that the Indians on this board are die-hard BJP ites. I will be sureprised if that is the truth. Then you attempt to analyze the reasons behind it. I request that you restate the topic of analysis.

Jay:

The governments job is to provide infrastructure and institutions. Latin American countries failed because they did not evolve institutions. Since Pakistan is your favorite whipping boy, let us examine the failures of Pakistan itself. It was the absence of structure and stability that is the bane of Pakistan and not the opening of markets.

Sunlight Various posts,

I agree with gist of all your post but I think you missed the point completely when responding to my friends post.
Here is a little from you to just refresh the context but I am discussing all your posts.

“Further because it is now family driven they do not have any social security - what ever little they would have been entitled if they had gone to work to a factory. No medical, no pension no pf.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This made me laugh - since when have such workers got social security or pension?”

I don’t see any problem with emotions, how can we from the subcontinent ignore emotions, as we are the products of emotions. Sometimes emotions show that how much you care, so don’t laugh at them. :)

Anyways, what you missed that he pointed out certain conditions that are part of the new Indian economy. In this particular instance he mentioned that outsourcing in India is hurting the Indian labor and something needs to be done about it.

One argument to reply that would have been that all capitalists’ economies have gone thru the sweatshop experiences before they turned the corner. The Europe and the US some 150-200 years ago-I would remind you of textile workers in England in the 18th and 19th centuries- New York in 19th century etc. Recently the economies in Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and China (still going thru this) have experience the sweatshop phenomenon and have turned the leaf. The point is whether India can do it or not? I hope to see your post on this issue. When I reproduced that post all I was trying to do was to ask my friends to concentrate on the issues rather than persons.
I think that’s is happening and your contribution is valuable.

“If our traditional morals cannot withstand the assault from the West, then the traditional morals deserve to die.”
Couldn’t agree more!!!!!

Your post #58 Indira Gandhi- I am not discounting Mrs. Gandhi’s contributions, I merely pointed out in a shortened version, that by being a status quo Queen, she just stymied the progress for a long period and failed to see the emerging economic realities in India and all over the world. It would be best to keep this discussion to current or situation in the last 10-15 years rather than going too far back in the history, as that would just distract us from the current economic revolution that is taking place in India. We can use that as reference but discussing that all by itself would require lot of energy and historical research.:)

We will be discussing Rajiv a little bit later, in detail.
Look forward to see more of your posts.

Re:nazarhayatkhan#56
Khan sahib,
It is interesting to see your strong support for secular parties. Are you related to the famous Hayat and Tiwana families in West Punjab, who used to run the Unionist Party prior to 1947 ? I was just curious given your strong secular sentiments.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Concemnation of nehru,

There are a lot of new generation indians like stuka and sridhar who believe that opening up of the economy is the panasia. They do not recognise that competotion and capitalism in a society immediately after independance when the social institutions are not in place can only lead to corruption and chaos.

It is pathetic that this new born economic theorists can only cite singapore and korea. How about the latin american countries that were guided so closely the US. Look at the state of argentina, venezula, brazil and argentina. These are the classic exmples of capitalistic failures. May the stukas can find the death squads of brazil as capitalistic response to poverty.

The foundations of economic failure of pakistan was laid by ayub and his dependance on americans and the failure to develop a system of paks own. It is the immature capitalism that has put the industry in the control of 7 families in pakistan and the land in the hjnds of another 7.
The foundations of a capitalist system, the acuumulation of capital, both human and finacial was achieved by the nehru days. One can ilagine the impact of consumerism in india of the 60s, it wouls have decimated capital accumulation, something that happened in pakistan.
If I remeber correctly, the saving rate in india is 24 percent, that of pakistan is less than 10 and of the US is less than 1 percent.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

hossp (#57 and various).

You are partly right/correct. However there is another dynamic here. The BJP as a party is slowly moving towards the centre and making the congress espouse more a more leftish policies - more like a loony-left party which will not connect with the Indians - only with the fringe like pro_fool_budweiser (a columnist in The News), Arundhati`` I_am_not_a_citizen_of_india_still_will_live_of_it`` Roy.

Anyway here is an interesting article which you might like to peruse at you liesure

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20040308&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=1

Powerpoint Pashas by SABA NAQVI BHAUMIK

some quotes:

(a)Arun Jaitley is in. Narendra Modi is out. Ayodhya has become mythical. Electricity, water and roads are the raging issues. Is the party changing its colours?

(a)The idea is to take the Resurgent India, Shining India themes to the next level of aggrandisement. If India Shining showcased the past ``achievements`` of the BJP-led NDA government, the ``superpower`` catchline holds out promise for the future.

(b)Ever since the BJP came to power, the party of trishul-wielding sadhus, sants and masjid-wreckers has undergone a quiet transformation. Today many would identify the BJP with the moderation of Atal Behari Vajpayee. It is also a party increasingly associated with modernity, with articulate middle-class icons like Arun Jaitley and Pramod Mahajan, the political managers par excellence. Election 2004 marks an important generational change in the BJP, with the nuts and bolts of the campaign handed over to the second generation.

(c)More than anything else, it is the party`s effort to shift from the extreme right to a little more towards the centre of an urbanised Indian politics that lies at the core of this transformation. As Arun Jaitley puts it, ``The idea is to reposition the rival. The BJP already occupied the Hindutva right-wing space. Now we are increasingly claiming the centrist agenda. The only space left for the Congress is to be pushed towards the left agenda, which can only be fringe and marginal in India.``

(d)BJP national executive member Seshadri Chari is candid: ``If you study the BJP`s growth, you will find after the Ram temple agitation there were only two instances when the Hindutva agenda clicked electorally.

(e)It was after the 1993 defeat in the Uttar Pradesh assembly poll that the party realised stridency could fetch it no further electoral returns.

(f)[bold]The economic agenda of the leaders of the New BJP also makes them different from the swadeshi-touting leaders of the old Jana Sangh and early BJP. With exceptions like Murli Manohar Joshi, most prominent leaders in the BJP remain committed to economic liberalisation.They can best be described as right-wing free marketeers. ``Most of us believe in less, not more government, in the economic sphere,`` says Jaitley.[/bold]

Stuka,

Moeen Q did not start opening up the Pakistan economy that I was referring to. Pakistan became pretty much a consumer economy during the first Bhutto period. During the early 70s Pakistanis started going overseas for jobs and that started an inflow of cash and the consumer spending with it, that still goes on unabated. Public sector spending in Bhutto era reached highest levels also. Bhutto opened up new jobs in public sector and that too helped the consumer economy but as I said earlier there was no structure available to take advantage of that and now it is just a burden on the public exchequer. Anyways, we are not interested in Pakistan right now. Rest of your post about Moeen Q is accurate.

I agree with your assessment of BJP. But the phenomenon that BJP has become in India does require some better understanding. By the nature of its politics, BJP is loosely a right of the center party but its stated politics in the last ten years or so does place the BJP in a regressive mold. Still, its current popularity is among the most liberal and secular young crowd in India. So much so that some of them are questioning their own secularism to conform to BJP style. BJP does not shy away from its support for saffrons’ or the extreme right wing, yet it is able to convince many here on this board as well as all across India and a major portion of the NRI, that it is the party that can lead the progress India is making.

BJP has never espoused any major economic platform and as you mentioned it basically continued with what it inherited.
Here is how I think:
BJP is more of a right wing party but on account of coalition that it has built, it is now a right of the center party. BJP espouses no huge economic program and it is not offering a new social agenda. Still, the BJP is the party of choice for a majority of upwardly mobile and educated middle class. I think there are certain contradictions in this situation. True, that congress or other parties have failed to provide alternate and TINA factor applies here but IMO, this does not explain the whole scenario.

I think the BJP somewhere along the line has made a huge connection with Indian common folks and the middle class. I think that connection helps explain the hope Indians have in BJP. It does not appear to be just ABVcentric. It seems that Indians especially the so-called yuppies and the well grounded middle class are looking up to BJP to continue the march of progress.

Looking at all the ideological difficulties that the BJP has, we may have to think as to where and at what point the BJP made this connection. It was certainly not the case when BJP first came to power. This is some thing that happened while the BJP was already in power as the first BJP rode into power on different shoulders.

I think I have some more ideas and I will explore them in my next post.

#38 by hossp:
The Second Phase: Indra Gandhi-twice. She was born into power. She never struggled for her political ideals. She relied on Nehru name. She was status quo. She also helped develop pride in India. Since she was not a product of the people she lost sight of democracy at her first major challenge.
+++++++++++++++++++
Minor correction: Indira Gandhi had a major achievement to her credit - the Green Revolution. It may be hard for people to believe it now, but in the 1960s scholars in the West were predicting that there would be massive famines in India in the 1970s. One scholar went so far as to predict that the number of people in India would be reduced by 50% from 1965 to 1975 due to famine. In fact, during British Rule, the population of India did reduce from 1850 to 1900 due to famines.

In the 1960s, high-yielding varieties of rice and wheat were developed by international research organizations. The agriculture minister, C. Subramaniam, wanted to introduce Indian varieties of these seeds, as well as replace the Soviet style collective farming with American style capitalistic agriculture. Because of this, he was bitterly opposed by Leftists both within and outside the Congress Party. However, Mrs. Gandhi, to her credit, opposed the Leftists (who were her only supporters) and fully backed C. Subramaniam.

The result was a dramatic transformation of Indian agriculture, and a country which had been wracked with periodic famines up to 1947 (with for example 6 million people dying in the ``1946 man-made Bengal famine`` - more than the number of Jews killed by Hitler) suddenly became a food surplus country; and today has ambitions to become one of the major food-exporting countries of the world.

The White Revolution - the dramatic increase in milk production leading to India becoming the world`s largest producer of milk - also occurred during Mrs. Gandhi`s time but she was less directly responsible for it. At one time, one had to queue up to get milk.

#33 by jang:They also saw the unionized labor as lazy, unproductive, politically hyperactive and earning more than their parents due to bonus and overtime, and have little sympathy for it. So while you will see them grateful to Nehru for creating jobs for their parents via the public sector employment, they have no sympathy with any of the working masses. OTOH they are believer in the trickle down effect,
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Not true. Indians are out of sympathy with Leftist policies since they have been tried for 50 years with no effect. They also see unions as just another vested interest; most unions are controlled by gangsters who simply use Leftist rhetoric as a means to come to power.

People do not believe in the trickle down effect. What people believe is that the government should (i) slash wasteful subsidies and create better infrastructure (e.g., because fertilizers, water, power etc used by farmers is so heavily subsidized, there is no money left over to build irrigation canals; only 40% of land in India is irrigated) (ii) liberalize the economy (for example, I recently read that it takes 85 days to set up an industry in India while it takes 50 days in China). The infrastructure spending will also have the beneficial side effect of increasing employment. If the government does this, there will be rapid economic growth which will take care of all sections of society.

#16 by hossp:
Here is a post from an Indian friend on another board. Can we discuss this instead of Sonia?
++++++++++++++
Most of the post seems highly emotional and non-factual.

Instead of constructing sheds/factories and getting people to work, they are sending work home. Now families work from home and fulfill production targets.
++++++++++++++++++
What is wrong with this - what is great about working in a shed instead of at home?

These targets keep growing and rates keep falling. So to earn the same amount they have to work double or triple times the previous.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This seems most unlikely - I would demand some facts to prove it.

It is the `law of diminishing returns ` working with a vengeance.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Clearly your friend does not know what the law of diminishing returns is.

Further because it is now family driven they do not have any social security - what ever little they would have been entitled if they had gone to work to a factory. No medical, no pension no pf.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This made me laugh - since when have such workers got social security or pension?

Some clerics and theologians argue that globalization is tantamount to an assault on religious faith, because it undermines traditional morals and supplants local values with a culture of materialism and excess common in the West.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If our traditional morals cannot withstand the assault from the West, then the traditional morals deserve to die.

Inquireer # 46, Amit # 41, Arjun_m # 25, PunjabiZulu # 23

Obviously, the Indians have a better feel of their politics than an outsider. I agree with the general theme of your observations.

Indian politics are not only moving towards a two-party system but the dynastic rule of Congress seems to be under a serious threat. This all can`t be bad.

The Pakistanis do feel a little exaggerated threat from the BJP.

But the well established democratic ethos of India, coupled with the recent economic gains, the diversity of its population and the sheer size of the country should filter out or minimize the Saffron radical touch of BJP. My two-pence opinion - it will.

Pakistan has also moved towards a two-party system - PPP (the secular) & PML (the religious right). So far both are dynastic - and a third FORCE Army is not letting them bloom. Both have a poor record on economy & corrupton.

But since PML, the religious right, has a tendency to become an unguided missile in search of Islam, my all votes in future are for PPP.

#38 by hossp:
Rajiv was inept and even lacked his mother’s charisma and stubbornness. Ran a confused and devoid of any ideas type of govt.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Rajiv was inept, but he had some of the right ideas. For example, it was due to his personal intervention (in some sense) that the software industry in India started. See ``The horse that flew`` by Chidananda Rajaghatta.

The first two US software companies to start in Bangalore were HP and Texas Instruments. However, these two companies almost did not start at all. HP and TI approached the Government of India to set up development centers in Bangalore with direct satellite links to the US, so that software could be easily sent to their development centers in the US. The Defence Department refused to clear the proposal on the grounds that military secrets could also be sent over the satellite links. It took Rajiv Gandhi`s personal intervention to overrule the Defence Department. He worked out a compromise whereby a soldier was stationed in the room where the satellite link was present to make sure no defence secrets were being sent. After some time, of course, all parties realized the absurdity of the situation, and the Defence Department stopped stationing a soldier.

Rajiv Gandhi wanted to jump-start India`s growth in software and telecom. In telecom, he picked Sam Pitroda and set up CDOT to develop telecom equipment. However, in this arena, the established Western companies such as Ericsson and Alcatel quickly saw the danger and made sure they drove CDOT out of business by dumping their products at very cheap prices in the Indian market. They also may have bribed the Indian bureaucrats at the Telephone Ministry, who were at that time the only buyers for telecom equipment in India, and preferred to buy from Ericsson and Alcatel since they could get foreign trips. Rajiv Gandhi was too naive to stop all this.

#? by sunlight
Rajiv Gandhi was too naive to stop all this.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An addendum to my own post - Rajiv Gandhi reminds me of some advice one of my old bosses gave me - ``If you are a boss (leader) you cannot be 100% nice and sweet all the time; sometimes you have to be a little bit of a b*****d also``. The missing word refers to an illegitimate child. Rajiv Gandhi`s problem was that he was too bhola-bhala (as one says in Hindi). A completely innocent person, he could not protect himself against the Bofors scandal in which many of the people who were making allegations against him were extremely corrupt. In Sri Lanka as well, he was deceived and discarded by both sides to the conflict.

Rajiv Gandhi had some good ideas - but he was unfortunately enough not a politician, so in the end (as in the CDOT case I mentioned earlier) he could not accomplish what he wanted.

Ashish,

Congratulations !!!

I am a congresswallah but I should admit this is probably the best article on chowk on Indian politics. Congress still has not learned the rules of the new Indian politics. India has changed and so has the politics. You can spend money but there is no guarantee that you will get elected even in rural areas, because people will take money but they will vote whom they want to vote. It is not communal anymore but about economics. In my own town there are so many non hindus organization campaignaning for BJP. This is a healthy sign.

People of India of any generation will not see Ayodhya temple in their life time. Mark my words. No matter which party it is in power. Once in power they will drop temple issue like a hot potatoe.

Hossp:

``Rao followed him but he was not the person who could have inspired confidence in a nation. It is the third phase of the Indian history where Indian youth begun to question its leadership. ``

I agree with the bulk of your post. I have already put one post about the Moeen Qureshi reforms.

``During his three-month tenure as caretaker prime minister, Moeen Qureshi initiated a substantial number of strong reform measures. He devalued the currency and cut farm subsidies, while raising the prices of wheat, electricity, and gasoline--strategies to reduce Pakistan`s huge budget deficit-- 7.5 percent of the gross national product (GNP). Qureshi also cut public-sector expenditures by instituting austerity measures, including closing down ten embassies and abolishing fifteen ministries. Qureshi`s most daring innovation, however, was a temporary levy on agricultural output--a measure resisted by powerful zamindari interests. ``

The only thing I would disagree with is your perception of Rao. Rao gov`t did bring along a political stability that was badly needed. Rao had been preceded by the weak governments of VP Singh and Chandrashekhar. This was also the time when India faced hopelessness and a big psychological blow was the transfer of gold to stave of the balance of payments crisis during Rao`s time. Rao`s reforms, along with the political stability, actually gave a glimpse of possibilities to middle class India. His term however was followed again by political instability with PMs following each other in quick succession.

The BJP has been a gainer not in terms of exceptional governance (it has only follwed the course set by Rao) but also the ability to put its own agenda on the backburner and manage a coalition to run for 5 years. The days of one party gaining absolute majority are gone. India actually has devolved more power to the states in a political sense through regional parties rather than through formal power sharing in a legal sense. The ability to last a full term is seen an asset in itself. Rao`s government is therefore not percieved in as negative a sense as you might think.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#17, Nazarhayatkhan:
Nazar Sahab, your statements are, as usual, totally on the mark. As an Indian, I too have concerns regarding the overall benefit of BJP`s shenanigans. But Indian democratic system has stood the test of time. It is true, there are elements in BJP such as Joshi and even Advani to some extent, that need to be checked. But do not forget that BJP amounted to nothing till they made way for Atal Behari Vajpayee. He is the Nehru of 21st century. My concern is that he is seventy nine years old. Ultimately, his strength is from the sensible Hindus of which there are a plenty. If Mr. Vajapayee is not given the Prime Minister`s status the NDA which is propped up by the BJP would immediately disintegrate. And if that happens in absence of the reformed Congress or a similar other party it would plunge India in to a cauldron of uncertainty. That may very well lead to a disintigration of India itself. BUT I HAVE HOPE, largely, in the maturity of the fairness and liberalism of Hindus and Indians.

Inquirer

Read the article from start to finish. I am not talking about Jawarhalal Nehru. You are a prime example of these men who prostrate themselves like eunuchs before the name of the family and acts as if a God has been spat upon if you dare to question their legacy. Get a life.

Gujji-Half-Wit

Man you were rumbled royally as Shamshul that was really funny, stop being so obvious and do your undercover work properly.


hossp

I would concur with Amit`s posts on everything.

#41 by amit

I think the ``secular`` middle class also kind of liked the muscular hindutva of the atom bum and a long term vision presented by BJP of finally finding India`s position under the sun. (It took a page out of Iqbals khudi book) This facet of hindutva has little to do with religion, and e.g. G. Fernandes like seculars could easily identify with it. So, congress and Manmohan, although got the economic reform (under the IMF danda) going, congress never spelt out such a vision.

Hossp:

``Indian would not agree with me here but Pakistan had started on the path of consumer economy way before India did but Pakistan had no strong economic sector to build upon the consumer spending whereas India already had a strong capitalist class to take advantage of heavy consumer spending. ``

Any knowledgable Indian would agree with you in terms of open market for consumer goods. At the time India believed in ``consensual`` socialism and Pakistan was derided for importing and patriotic slogans like ``Be Indian Buy Indian`` were popular.

What is of more significance is Pakistan`s role in jumpstarting economic reforms in India. In the late 80s or early 90s, Pakistan has a caretaker PM ...I think his name was Moeen Qureshi but I could be wrong. Anyway, this gentleman completely rewrote rules on foreign investment for Pakistan and was a major motivational factor for the manadrins of South Block.

I came late to this thread.

But I have no hesitation in stating that the author is an immature ignorant who just rambles on without any rhyme or reason.

#5, Romair: who generally is off sense, has exactly stated the relevant truth. May be naturally a Pakistani can always have more sense than an erratic and ignorant Indian about India.

Ask them what india has achieved!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Under Jawahar Lal Nehru!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

# 14 His Excellency

+++++
There are a lot of ``third`` options as well such as Janata Dal, DMK, AIMDK, TDP, Samajwadi, BSP, etc. At one point, BJP too was a small party with very few seats in parliament. Who knows one of these parties may grow into national movements in another 10 years!!
+++++

Limitations inherent in the charter, membership and even in names of parties like DMK, AIDMK, TDP make them as unlikely to grow into national movements in India in another 10 years as, say, the MQM in Pakistan.

In fact, given the fact that South India is socially, educationally and economically more advanced than the rest of the subcontinent, its proportion of the nation`s population will be going down for the foreseeable future. So, I see a shrinking voter-base for parties like DMK, AIDMK, TDP. They will definitely not grow into another Congress or the BJP.

Re:nazarhayatkhan #17
The more secular elements in India are basically frustrated that they don`t have a good choice other than the BJP. In any mature democracy, we see that the system naturally gravitates towards a two party system with one party being slightly right of center and the other being slightly left of center, in terms of economic and social matters. Typical examples are the Republicans and Democrats in US, Conservatives and Labor in UK etc. India is also moving in that direction with the BJP being the right of center party. The Congress is a natural choice for the contrasting left of center party. However, it is severely handicapped with its obsession with political dynasty. The voters in India have developed a strong sense of self-respect and will not elect an Italian-Indian to head their government. It doesn`t matter how good or bad Sonia is. Yet the Congress party will not leg go of her and select a more electable person to head their party, simply because of their weird separation complex from the Nehru-Gandhi family.
In addition, due to poor leadership, Congress is simply unable to form viable coalition governments with other similar parties. Today, India`s complex demographics has ensured that only a coalition government can survive at the center. Any entity that can form viable coalitions will be able to rule India. In the nineties, we saw the game of musical chairs with Deve Gowda and I. K. Gujral. One of the core strengths of BJP is the presence of Vajpayee, whom the rest of the NDA alliance supports wholeheartedly. There is no such figure in the Congress and hence their coalitions are so weak and fragmented.
I don`t think that the middle class in India is completely against the Congress, because it was the Congress Party that started liberalizing and opening the economy. The Congress may have leftist inclinations, but it is not beyond the pale as far as the electorate is concerned. However, what matters is the state of leadership in the Congress Party that seems stuck on Sonia Gandhi. I guarantee that if an Arjun Singh or Manmohan Singh took over the Congress Party, it could bounce back and reclaim its position in the Indian political domain.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

There is/was a roumor at the time of sitaram kesaris presidentship of CWC that a lot of the funding of election campaigns happens with funds from various dead gandhi trusts. Sonia is the main trustee, and heirs shall be her kids. That is where the main power emanates. After all, all the loyal followers of Gandhi clan are for a reason. They are hard-core politicians not really famous for rajput style loyalty. In the old license raj, it was easy for a Birla to fill in the trusts coffers based exclusive deal on making ambassadors.

Here is the Sonia bio where all her trustee positions are indicated.
http://www.congresssandesh.com/aicc_directory/biodata/ls/soniagandhi.html

Anybody with knowledge of how campaigns are financed and party tickets issued?

Stuka, Jang, plats8 and others,

I wanna again make it clear I am not accusing Indians of anything I was merely asking for debate on some issues rather then just saying that Congress is bad and Gandhi family is bad as to me it makes no sense.

Here is how I look at Indian politics/Economy in an extremely sanitized and shortened version.

The first phase: Nehru and his socialism. After independence India needed stability first from some unnerving experiences after the partition. Nehru handled it well. He put India together and sowed the seeds of pride in India. He was an idealist and followed the ideology of that time-socialism. We may differ with that but Indians elected him and he followed his policies.

The Second Phase: Indra Gandhi-twice. She was born into power. She never struggled for her political ideals. She relied on Nehru name. She was status quo. She also helped develop pride in India. Since she was not a product of the people she lost sight of democracy at her first major challenge.

The Third Phase: Rajiv and Rao. Rajiv was inept and even lacked his mother’s charisma and stubbornness. Ran a confused and devoid of any ideas type of govt. Rao followed him but he was not the person who could have inspired confidence in a nation.
It is the third phase of the Indian history where Indian youth begun to question its leadership.

The Fourth phase: BJP/NDA coalition
Before we discuss the fourth phase lets look at what happened that brought about the fourth phase.

India opened up the country in Rajiv-Rao period and Manmohan Signh led that opening of market and economy.
The initial opening took place at the consumer side
Indian would not agree with me here but Pakistan had started on the path of consumer economy way before India did but Pakistan had no strong economic sector to build upon the consumer spending whereas India already had a strong capitalist class to take advantage of heavy consumer spending.

The Indian TV, from that stupid Govt owned media moved into private enterprises hands. The Hollywood developed program showed people what the good life is and Indians took to the shops to buy color TVs, fridges, Microwaves and what not. Indian entrepreneur invested heavily on consumer demand items. India already had a 250 million strong middle class and that middle class had no place to spend the money before. Now it could. The Hindustan car and the Ambassador car that changed models some 50 years ago were now quickly replaced by newly assembled Japanese car. The huge motor bikes were replaced by Honda made small and affordable bikes and families started to travel more within the city and spend more at recreation. The current economic revolution in India is based on the consumer economy. It is leading to low cost technology driven economy and soon it will translate into high tech industrial economy.

Next what part did the BJP/NDA play in this whole saga?

Before I post the second part, Stuka and Jang and plat, just assess and see where I am right and where I am wrong and we will continue from there.

Again this is a shortened version and I have not gone into details but I think this sets up the paltform for us to discuss the current situation.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

rsridhar #29,

``There is no need for Pakis to get too excited about all this. You guys
have hardly seen any democrazy in your country, so i am amazed you
should be giving a sermon on chowk.``

Drop it. We can be shown the mirror in a thousand different ways.

Congress cronyism probably hit rock-bottom during the Emergency, and it
has never recovered from that. Indira and her lumpen younger son were
almost exclusively responsible for promoting such a culture, mostly through
a carrot and stick policy (lot of stick, little carrot).

As several people here have suggested, Congress really needs to stop reacting
to the BJP and start promoting people like Manmohan Singh and Sheila Dikshit
as its public face. Sonia`s primary handicap is not her Italian origin - it is her
complete lack of political intelligence.

Sadna:

#34 is a very astute post and I agree completely.

Jang:

``So while you will see them grateful to Nehru for creating jobs for their parents via the public sector employment, they have no sympathy with any of the working masses.``

I am grateful to Nnehru for creating the idea of India. I am certainly not grateful to him for creating Public Sector jobs. If he had not created those jobs, the private sector would have filled the vaccum. India did have a thriving private sector right upto the late fifties. It was massive central planning, followed by Indira Gandhi`s nationailzation followed by ``Loan Melas`` that lead to crisis of confidence of 1991.

hossp and tears about labor

hossp, pls understand where the middle class here comes from. Most of the folks on chowk are very middle class, and that means children of white-collared berurocrats, public sector employees etc. They got a stable home enviroment during Nehru-Gandhi congress rule via the Kendria Vidyalayas, IITs, and other colleges, but always saw themeselves as having earned it though struggle. They also saw the unionized labor as lazy, unproductive, politically hyperactive and earning more than their parents due to bonus and overtime, and have little sympathy for it. So while you will see them grateful to Nehru for creating jobs for their parents via the public sector employment, they have no sympathy with any of the working masses. OTOH they are believer in the trickle down effect, where they want policies to further grow the middle class and consumption, and labor will take care of itself thru trickle down. They have had enough of lal-bawta (the favorite red-flag of the unions) politics, which promises entitlement.

Re India Shining ad campaign : Apparently an organisation named `Peoples Union of Unemployed Youth` or st. filed a PIL, so the Delhi HC asked the government to name the amount spent. Law Minister Jaitley said `only 48 crore` out of allocation of 100 crore.

I remember those Rediffusion ads. Around about that time, the opposition parties also published ads. One of them said, `Do you want a midnight phone call from Delhi to dismiss your State govt, if not then donot vote Congress, vote XXX party`. Very compelling argument, I thought.

I think Narasimha Rao(and VP Singh`s stint as Finance Minister under R Gandhi) have been the turning point for Indian politics. In his time, there was a total lack of charishma or dynastic name which allowed them to take public support for granted. The Congress needs to ditch Nehruvian economics unashamedly, they need to ditch Gandhi era tokenism unashamedly, and they need to espouse Nehruvian inclusion unashamedly. The BJP is trying to be Congress-lite in this respect, and its hypocrisy in this regard can be easily exposed if Congress sheds its own.

Hossp:

#16 is a good post. Let me address some point and we can go from there...

``Pakistanis hate BJP, so All Indian on this board support BJP.``

Not true. Relations with Pakistan were bad in the 80s as well. BJP won two seats in 1984 elections.

``But I wanna discuss India with my friends on this board. Can we discuss that without my being bashed by Indians? ``

I speak for myself. Yes, we can...no problems at all.

Other then that, there is a strong sense of emotionalism in the rejection of Sonia Gandhi amongst the middle class. This is due to a combination of race as well as a systematic erosion of second rung leadership in the party.

The Indian Middle class is frustrated because they do want a national mainstream party as an alternative to BJP. After all, if there is no opposition what is to stop BJP from becoming Congress.

It used to be said that Congress wins because of TINA (there is no alternative) Situation has changed becasue BJP is wining because of TINA.

There used to be leaders like Rajesh Pilot and Madhav Rao Scindia who had national appeal. Both died (car crash and chopper crash) within a year. The emotional rejection that you see here is not of the Congress Party per se but of the remnants of the Gandhi family.

You also say that Indians are defining themselves in negative. Not true. The Indian middle class has aspirations. The BJP, rightly or wrongly, is showing a door for these aspirations. Be it foreign policy or disinvestment, there are individuals who have their own identity. Jaswant Singh, Shourie etc are individuals that exist in the public mind. Their achievements and/or failures reflect off of them thereby dispersing the perception of one individual being solely in charge.

In contrast, the Congress has nothing except