Filtered Posts

India Votes - and How! Well , the people of India voted for this government ,and now they will face the consequences...End of India beckons. Enjoy !!

---

CMP will lead to nation`s bankruptcy


SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR


TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ MONDAY, MAY 31, 2004 03:10:25 AM ]
NEW DELHI :


The Common Minimum Programme (CMP) of the ruling coalition is being trumpeted as ‘reform with a human face’ but looks suspiciously like ‘populism with a bankrupt face’.


If seriously implemented, the CMP could swell the fiscal deficit from 10% of GDP to an astronomical 16-17% of GDP. Even one step in that direction will cause FIIs and domestic investors to flee, producing a stock market crash that makes the Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh debacles look like a picnic. Any JPC enquiry will easily identify the culprits behind such a crash: Manmohan Singh, Sitaram Yechury, and others who drafted the CMP.

Ironically, the main defence of the CMP, that the Congress can offer investors is that it should not be taken seriously, that politicians suffering from election fever say things in their delirium that they do not really mean.

CMP promises to raise education spending from the current 4% of GDP to 6%; health spending from 0.9% of GDP to 2-3%; doubling agricultural lending, providing a National Employment Guarantee Act, and debt relief to improvident states. But, Congressmen will say in private, we will carry on much as before, with more rhetoric and not much more money.

In other words, investors should not worry because while Manmohan Singh is an honest man, the CMP is a lie. This is a fragile basis for assuaging nervous investors.

Now, India has a long-run a fiscal deficit of 10% of the GDP, without the usual disastrous results because of an unanticipated flood of remittances from overseas Indians, FDI and FIIs.


Last year, these totalled close to 6% of the GDP, and painlessly financed the fiscal deficit. This has fed the illusion that deficits don’t matter. But they do: History is littered with the wrecks of high-deficit economies. If India ’s fiscal deficit looks like shooting up, expect a reduction (and maybe a reversal) of flows from FIIs and overseas Indians.


Two factors have the potential to reduce the fiscal deficit: the growing service tax and the fall in interest rates. However, the service tax still has a small base, and cannot produce thousands of crores overnight.

India ’s public debt has risen from 57% of the GDP in the mid-90s to 85% today. This has not raised the debt service correspondingly, since the interest rate on public debt has fallen, as a consequence of reform and globalisation. However, global interest rates are certain to rise. The US Fed looks like raising its short-term rate from 1% to perhaps 4% over the next year or two. Indian rates will have to rise in tandem. So, falling interest rates will cease to provide budgetary relief.

The CMP claims it will reduce the revenue deficit to zero by ‘09. But it has no credible programme to raise enough revenue to meet even the current deficit, let alone one greatly expanded by explosive spending on education, health and employment.

CMP assumes that a human face means two things: more subsidies and more public spending on anti-poverty schemes. But dozens of studies show that such spending is mostly wasted. Three-quarters of subsidies go to the non-poor, and the announcement of free power for farmers by several states will worsen this ratio. Close to 85% of funds in employment schemes fail to reach the poor, and 95% of funds spent on the public distribution system. Teachers and health workers do not attend schools or clinics.

FIIs have brought around $20 bn into the Indian stock markets, half of that since the start of ‘03. The withdrawal of a mere $700-m on black Friday caused a fall of over 500 points in the sensex. Imagine what will happen if FIIs withdraw just a quarter of their investment ($5bn). Indian investors will follow suit. Manmohan Singh needs to lose some sleep over this.

India Votes - and How! ``You seem to harbor some kind of hatred against Nehru. Wonder why? ``

Not just Harimau , all Indians who harbour ambitions of India becoming an economic powerhouse despise Nehru. Nehru put this huge millstone called `socialism` on India`s neck. Even today , after decades of his death , we cannot get rid of it.

Because of Nehru and his still active henchmen , India has been condemned to everlasting poverty ,mediocrity and depravity.

Angelic Saint of Calcutta Mother Teresa is more of a curse to India than cure. Charity doesn`t work. There is nothing more fraudulant and sinister than soul harvesting done in the name of charity.

India needs Microsoft and GE...not Missionaries of Charity...

My Pakistan Diary: A Rich Heritage Neglected Nikki , I dont know what your problem with Sikhs is. All I know is we hindus dont see Sikhs as an alien community. They are a part of us. As Indian as we are.

My Pakistan Diary: A Rich Heritage Neglected Urstruly represents real Pakistan. Like it or hate it. Thats just the way it is. The only way to deal with it is to squash it.

India Votes - and How! Don`t think I have much to add to what Harimau and Mohar said..

All I can say is , I only wish Shri.Jaya Bharathi had read `India Unbound` of Gurcharan Das a little more diligently , and with an open mind.

India Votes - and How! ``I am now convinced Gujjubania is not from South but is posing as a South Indian on Chowk``



jaya bharata jananiya tanujate
jaya he karnataka mate

-- Kuvempu.



[Gujju is South Indian (from dad`s side) as well as North Indian (mom`s side).

Indian , basically.

Dad from coastal Karnataka (Karwar) .

Was born in Delhi , lived all life in various towns and cities of Karnataka.

I know I dont know my Iyers and Iyengars well enough , but how am I supposed to know !

I am a kannadiga , not tamilian. ]

A Bold Agenda for United Progressive Alliance (UPA) The psychotic mass murderer of a thousand Sikhs , Shri. Jagdish Tytler , is today an honorable minister of state (Indeoendent charge) for NRI affairs.

---

Agree completely with D-M >>

I also saw a chart once showed that in India there is direct relationship between poverty reduction and income disparities, i.e, the greater the income disparities, the greater also is the reduction in poverty.

The greatest reduction in poverty happened post 1991-reforms , or post the dreaded LPG (Liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation).

1991 : 41% population lived BPL.
2003 : 23%.
This is inspite of an increase in population by 20% in the same period.

Meaning , every year , 10-20 million Indians are rising above poverty line ever since 1991-reforms.

Any move to hijack the reforms-LPG agenda will take India back to the days of grinding poverty and depravity.

India Votes - and How! D-M ,

havdu saar , naanu 100% kannadiga (lol..atleast from my father`s side. That should make me 50% kannadiga..anyway.. )

I was then wrong about this Iyer/Iyengar business. Honest mistake. Had this classmate with the surname `Iyengaar` when I was living in Mysore. He gave me that explanation. I believed him.

India Votes - and How! Iyer = tambrahm from Tamil Nadu.

Iyengar = tambrahm from Mysore.

Thats the only difference , as far as I know.

A Bold Agenda for United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Why do you guys bother responding to that joker Romair ?

A Bold Agenda for United Progressive Alliance (UPA) My mom did her MA economics at D.School between 1975-77. Her maiden name was Shastri.

My mom says that Manmohan Singh was not around at that time as he had left for UK. But there was this tiny official room reserved for him , with the name plate `Dr.M.M.Singh` , which was always closed and never used by anybody else.

A Bold Agenda for United Progressive Alliance (UPA) HisExcellency ,(regarding stand of the new administration in India on Kashmir , India-Pak peace)


In India , usually policy making is shaped by the personality and thinking of the incumbent prime minister.

When Nehru was PM , we had an economic policy based on the fabean ideology that Nehru took to during his days in upper class UK , a foreign policy that was built on Nehru`s desire to be known as a `world statesman`. Being out of touch with the common man , Nehru went for grand massive scale public investments and nationalisation , instead of concentrating on agriculture and ssi.

Lal Bahadur Shastri was a humble farmer , and so was responsible for laying emphasis on agriculture , giving birth to the `green revolution`.

Indira Gandhi was more of a dare devil - 1971 war. But her economic thinking was no different from that of her father`s. So - more nationalisation.

Fast forward to Vajpayee -

Vajpayee was a poet , a famous foreign minister , and a foreign affairs enthusiast.

So when he became PM , his first priority was external affairs. That is why so much momentum was built on India-Pak peace efforts , Kashmir etc.

He only had a rudimentary knowledge of finance and economics , and depended on technocrats like Y.Sinha and A. Shourie .

Foreign Policy , Peace with Pakistan , and Kashmir issue was given a much higher priority than day-to-day economics .

That is why he lost.

People of India do not really care , as it has been proven, about abstract notions such as peace with Pakistan etc. People of India want better administration , better governance , and employment.

With Dr. Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister , it is clear that this government will concentrate on providing the above. Dr.Singh is a 24-hour economist , and so his focus will only be on improving the economic situation in the country.

Foreign policy /peace with Pak/Kashmir etc. will be put on the backburner. Anyway it doesn`t get one any votes. So why bother !!

Maybe a Foreign Minister will be appointed who will look after these issues. But it is quite clear that the new government will not give these issues the sort of importance that Vajpayee did.

No more Lahore yatras then !!



[Make no mistake - plebiscite/re-drawing of boundaries are simply impossible. No Indian government will ever do anything that will compromise India`s territorial integrity vis-a-vis Kashmir. India being a democracy , will of the people will always dictate policy making. Government of India will always care more about what people of India want rather than what people of Kashmir want.So unless people of India want to compromise on Kashmir , which is unlikely , no deal (that is acceptable to Pakistan or muslim separatists of Kashmir) is possible. Peace with Pakistan ain`t sexy anymore.]

A Bold Agenda for United Progressive Alliance (UPA) There was this yahoo chat room I used to frequent 2-3 years back. Had a long running battle with a Khalistani movement Sikh (3rd generation Canadian). He scoffed everytime I said that Sikhs are most patriotic Indians around , and the biggest opposition to his Khalistani movement came from the Sikhs of India. When I told him about the massive representation of Sikhs in the Indian Army (multiples of their actual % of population of India) , he told me that was no big deal as we Indians would never let a Sikh become the General of our armed forces.

Ha! If only I could see his face now !!

A Sikh is today the Prime Minister of India.

A Muslim is today the President of India.

An Italian born Roman Catholic is the head of the ruling political party.

This should be the final nail in the coffin of any ridiculous khalistani movement. This is a resounding slap on the face of those enemies of India who tried to paint India as a hindu fanatic country . This is India`s answer to those who laughed contemptuously when told that India was a secular country.

---

Btw ,Agree with everything D-M said ,

but this thing I dont understand >>

``For example, madrassas should not be allowed to teach their students that they are living in dar-ul-harb or that the majority of their countrymen are jahils/kaafirs``

Whats `dar-ul-harb` ?

Whats `jahil` ? (`Kaafir` I know)

And do Indian madrasas train their students to be anti-India ?

Very interesting.

Sonia Gandhi and the Coming of Age of the Indian Nation Whose inner voice?

Pioneer News Service/ New Delhi


Did Sonia Gandhi step down from the race to be Prime Minister because her ``inner voice`` suddenly told her to do so? Why did this ``voice`` speak now, despite her being elected Congress Parliamentary Party leader and after obtaining letters of support from all allied parties?






Apparently, it was not the ``inner voice`` but certain queries that could have been put to her by the President of India, custodian of the Constitution, which caused her to withdraw her name.



Contrary to attempts by Congressmen and Communists to portray her eleventh-hour retreat as a ``personal decision`` spurred by her children, it could be the clarifications apparently sought by President A P J Abdul Kalam that resulted in the rethink. The President, it is reliably learnt, did not outrightly reject her candidature for the post of the Prime Minister. However, he is believed to have sought certain clarifications on a few points regarding the precise status of her Indian citizenship. In doing so, he may have referred to some pointed queries referred to him by legal luminaries who met him since the declaration of the Lok Sabha election results.



That probably explains why Ms Gandhi`s decision to opt out came only after she emerged from the Rashtrapati Bhawan after meeting the President on Tuesday at 12.30 pm. That could also explain why she did not allow the entourage of allied parties to accompany her for the meeting, contrary to custom.



According to highly placed sources, the President may have conveyed to her that in view of the legal and constitutional queries raised, he would need some more time to examine the matter. Accordingly, there could be no swearing-in on Wednesday, May 19 - a date unilaterally announced by Left leaders and enthusiastically endorsed by Congressmen on Monday without consulting the Rashtrapati Bhawan.



Highly placed sources in the Government told The Pioneer that on the basis of various petitions submitted to him, the President could have sought to clarify a few issues from Ms Gandhi. He is said to have informally communicated to her on Monday evening that certain queries needed to be answered, even as he invited her to have a discussion on Government formation.



On the basis of pleas submitted to him by people like Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy and BJP leader Sushma Swaraj against any person of foreign origin occupying a top constitutional post, and the legal advice that he had obtained from top constitutional experts, the President could have sought three clarifications from Ms Gandhi. This would be a haunting experience for Ms Gandhi. The BJP leaders had already declared that they would continue to support any form of agitation on the foreign origin issue.



The most damaging clarification that has apparently been sought relates to Article 102 of the Constitution that says: ``A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament`` on any or more of five possible grounds. Clause(d) of the same Article says ``... or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state``.



The term ``adherence`` had to be clarified specifically as Ms Gandhi in her affidavit before the Returning Officer of the Rai Bareli parliamentary constituency had stated that she owned ancestral property, namely portion of a house, in Orbassano, Italy, the country of her origin. This fact of ownership, legal experts say, makes her subject to Italian law in this matter and could be interpreted as ``adherence`` to a foreign country. Since this portion of the ancestral property was apparently bequeathed to her by her father in his will, she inherited it only after his death. Consequently, the property was not her`s when she filed her 1999 nomination affidavit.



Article 103 states that ``if any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to disqualification mentioned in Article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision to the President and his decision shall be final``. Clause 2 of the Article says: ``Before giving any decision on such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion.``



This means that the President is required by the Constitution to undertake an elaborate process of examining the legal and constitutional issues involved. Thus, Ms Gandhi`s swearing-in could not happen before the matter was fully clarified and resolved.



Another point that came in the way of Ms Gandhi was Section 5 of the Citizenship Act. Under this, there is a reciprocity provision whereby citizenship granted by India to persons of foreign origin is circumscribed by the rights that particular country confers upon foreigners seeking citizenship there.



The crux of this provision of ``reciprocity`` is that a person of foreign origin, who has acquired the citizenship of India through registration by virtue of marrying an Indian national, cannot enjoy more rights (like becoming Prime Minister), if the same opportunity is not available to an Indian-born citizen in that particular country.



While it is not known whether the President mentioned this, legal luminaries pointed out there could be a further lacuna over the issue of her surrendering Italian citizenship. It is believed that while acquiring citizenship through registration in 1983, she surrendered her Italian passport to the Italian Ambassador in New Delhi but did not obtain a formal notification from the Italian Government that her citizenship of that country had been cancelled.



This might be only a technicality that could be rectified in a few days, but it would have certainly helped the BJP raise the pitch of the campaign once the citizenship issue returned to the fore.



Another petition submitted to the President on Tuesday by Sushma Swaraj pointed out that as the Supreme Commander of India`s Armed Forces, the President should examine a key issue. It referred to the fact that a Defence or Indian Foreign Service official cannot even marry a foreign national without permission, or must quit his post. How could a person of foreign origin be handed over the nuclear button in such circumstances, Ms Swaraj`s petition demanded to know.



What could have prevented Sonia?



Article 102 of the Constitution says: ``A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament - (d) if he or she is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign state.`` Sonia Gandhi, in her affidavit, had declared she owned a house in Italy and may thus invite, the term ``adherence`` of the said provision.



Under Article 103, the President is the sole adjudicator on the issue who has to decide on such matter in consultation with the Election Commission.



Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, dealing with the reciprocity clause for a person who registered herself as an Indian citizen, says the said person could not enjoy more rights than those available to an Indian born person in that other country if he/she acquires citizenship of that country, like Italy for instance.



The clauses of the Citizenship Act were apparently not fully met when Ms Gandhi relinquished her Italian citizenship.

Sonia Gandhi and the Coming of Age of the Indian Nation Yo Idiot....is getting hitched to Rajiv Gandhi qualification enough to be the head of state of a country of 1 bn people , with an economy of PPP GDP $3 Trillion ?

What has she done exactly ? What exactly are her views on economic ,military and other matters that are relevant to India ? Does she even have `views` of her own ? Hell , she can`t even speak without a prepared text.

All those who have voted for her are f..ing nitwits. The fact she got so many votes only goes to show that India does not deserve a democracy.

If right to exercise franchise is limited to only those Indian citizens who pay income tax , how many votes doing you think Antonia is gonna get ? Not even 0.5% .