Page 1 of 20 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 199

Thread: Narendra Modi- What He Represents

  1. #1
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1128

    Narendra Modi- What He Represents

    Awesome Article-

    CRAFTING A FRESH IDIOM OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE
    Sandhya Jain



    As a conglomerate of once-impressive ideological and regional stalwarts (some still formidable in their respective States) met in the capital to explore the contours of a possible Third Front alliance for the 2014 general election, one noted the visceral hatred for the Gujarat Chief Minister across large parts of the political spectrum and associated fellow travellers. So primeval is the loathing that it must be motivated by deeper reasons. The Gujarat riots of 2002, by no means the most abhorrent since independence, seem increasingly like a ‘working excuse’ to keep one man down —and out.

    One reason, which explains the raw anger of Congress president and Nehru-Gandhi family matriarch Sonia Gandhi, the tenacious resistance of Bharatiya Janata Party stalwart LK Advani, the Left parties and regional satraps, is that for the first time since the palpable decline of the Congress in 1967, India may be moving towards a new one-party dominance under post-independence leaders.

    Mr Narendra Modi stars among a host of BJP leaders who have served their respective States with distinction and improved the lot of their people. They have excelled in bucking incumbency, with citizens appreciating their efforts to raise development indices (bijli, sadak, pani et al) and returning the party to power, often with an improved margin. Such leaders do not easily succumb to intra-party mischief (Ms Vasundhara Raje was partly responsible for her agony).

    The BJP is a post-independence party, not a colonial legatee perpetuating itself through some variant of divide and rule, targeting and exploiting specific groups to craft a winning electoral arithmetic. In its original incarnation as the Jana Sangh, it was not overly enamoured of the British Raj and had proposed an alternative to the Nehruvian model of nation building. For complex reasons, its growth was limited. It may be mentioned, however, that the mysterious deaths of Jana Sangh stalwarts put the party in the hands of leaders without firm ideological convictions or drive to conquer; they rose when the tide ebbed for the Congress.

    Today, we are on the cusp of a new phenomenon: The political order dominated by the Nehru-Gandhi family is in visible decay; and its rejuvenation unlikely. Should the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance be voted out in 2014 (as seems likely), this order will wither away, opening the hitherto invincible leadership of the Gandhi family to serious challenge. Viable Chief Ministers may find better traction as regional satraps.

    Mr Modi heralds the new order gestating in the nation’s womb. When powerful historical currents operate below the surface, one man becomes the symbol of the change and seems to drive it. The larger forces tend to coalesce around the personality of the leader, who serves as a crystallising point; this is why the writings of early historians tended to be ruler-centric. Marxists understood that more impersonal forces were at work, but they de-personalised the process to the extent of taking liberties with chronology and historical facts.

    Mr Modi does not represent the RSS consensus (though the RSS has endorsed him) or the traditional non-Congress consensus (a la Third Front or NDA minus core BJP agenda). In a fundamental sense, he continues the Jana Sangh quest for a non-Nehruvian paradigm in which trade and industry get legitimate respect and are not stymied by petty inspector raj (achieved handsomely in Gujarat); this real economy stimulates development, growth, investment et al. The state confines itself to the macro picture (roads, highways, infrastructure, power).

    If this assessment is correct, then Mr Modi is not just leading the Bharatiya Janata Party to power at the Centre, but to the commanding heights of the polity, the pole position around which other players adjust themselves, in alliance or in opposition. This seems plausible for reasons larger than one individual.

    The foremost is that Mr Modi has succeeded, where Mr Advani failed, in crafting an affirmative idiom of political discourse which is not defensive vis-à-vis the majority or minority community. By appealing uniformly to all on a platform of growth and development, opportunity not entitlement, he has dealt a body blow to the de-energising and disempowering concepts of socialism (read patronage, crony capitalism, and the dead weight of corrupt bureaucracy) and secularism (read undue weightage to non-Hindus, including the army of anti-Hindu Hindus who populate the ranks of our so-called intellectuals).

    This has taken the sting out of the charge of ‘communalism’, hitherto the most virulent form of political abuse in India. Unnoticed by most commentators, over the past few decades, a huge intelligentsia (middle class of varying degrees of prosperity) has grown across the country which is neither apathetic nor apologetic about its Hindu identity. This class is truly contemporary (this is also the most appropriate meaning of Sanatana Dharma) in that its aspirations are modern and conform to the Hindu goals of kama and artha (material well being), which translates into education, employment, physical security, cultural pursuits, and the freedom to practice faith without hindrance or denigration.

    As an unselfconscious Hindu, Mr Modi is endorsed by Hindus who want to be Hindu without ifs and buts. His modest background (no Ox-bridge, LSE) adds to his appeal as a man who educated himself and rose through unsparing hard work, without compromising personal integrity — a sharp contrast to others on the political spectrum.

    Mr Modi represents the spirit of an India that could never reconcile with the imposition of Jawaharlal Nehru as political heir to MK Gandhi, an act which exposed Gandhi’s artifice of not being a member of the Congress when he called all the shots all the time until the British nudged Nehru to sideline him. Strange none of our eminent historians has seen fit to assert this truth. This India is fiercely nationalist; one day it will force the truth about Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose into the open.

    It is no surprise that of all the three issues the BJP put in cold storage in order to lead the NDA Government, Mr Modi unerringly honed in on the one issue that modern India regards as critical to national integrity and sovereignty — Article 370. With terrorism repeatedly raising its bloody head in the valley, and now increasingly in Jammu Province where Hindus face the danger of another ethnic genocide, it is time to undo the combined blunders of Gandhi and Nehru and nix the nonsensical talk of ‘accession, not merger’. A new India can only be led by a wholly Indian leader.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  2. #2
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1128

    Re: Narendra Modi- What He Represents

    Another Article-
    Narendra Modi as the anti-Nehru
    Rajeev Mantri and Harsh Gupta

    India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru defined the philosophical debate in Indian politics till his death in 1964. The worldview he espoused has come to be known as Nehruvian. It entailed pervasive state control over the economy, an idealistic stance in foreign affairs, and special consideration to certain communities in domestic policy.
    But the Congress was far from a one-man or one-ideology party in the 1950s—it was a big tent with a vibrant right wing, too. Its decline as a political institution began under Nehru, who was the first prime minister to abuse Article 356 and dismiss Kerala’s elected state government in 1959. Even if Nehru was not inclined to take this position, he reportedly allowed himself to be overruled by the Congress president, his daughter Indira Gandhi, whom he had gotten installed as party president. This Stalinist template, where no distinction is made between party and state, and the executive is debased at the expense of the party, was pioneered by Nehru and has been followed by almost all successive Congress prime ministers: Manmohan Singh has only elevated it to a new high. The emasculation of inner-party democracy accelerated under Indira Gandhi, was continued by her son Rajiv Gandhi and has been dutifully carried forward by his wife Sonia Gandhi.
    Jivatram Bhagwandas Kripalani opposed Nehru vigorously on the issue of allowing separate personal laws for Muslims in 1955, charging him with communalism on the floor of Parliament. C. Rajagopalachari quit the Congress at age 80 in 1959 to establish the Swatantra Party, espousing economic liberalism. “The Congress Party has swung to the Left, what is wanted is not an ultra or outer-Left...but a strong and articulate Right,” Rajaji wrote in his essay Our Democracy. The Swatantra Party was later hounded by Indira Gandhi, who nationalized industries to decimate Swatantra Party’s financial backers. It was a classic case of destroying economic freedom to kill political freedom.
    But Nehru’s most formidable ideological opponent was Vallabhbhai Patel, and it was Patel’s death on 15 December, 1950, that accelerated India’s tilt towards the left.
    Patel’s worldview was substantively different from Nehru’s in many important spheres. Despite opposition from Nehru, Patel got a mosque shifted—whether one agrees with it or not—to rebuild a temple at Somnath that had been repeatedly destroyed over the centuries by Muslim invaders. Mahatma Gandhi gave his blessings to Patel but wanted no public funds to be used for the construction of the temple. On China, their views differed with Patel advocating help to Tibet when it was invaded—and Patel turned out to be right. On Kashmir’s accession to India, Patel’s realism was again overruled, and Nehru needlessly internationalized the issue by inviting intervention from the United Nations.
    On economic issues too, they had significant differences, with Patel repeatedly opposing Nehru’s demand for establishing the Planning Commission. It was on Patel’s insistence that the Commission was given an advisory role only, with its policies subject to the Union cabinet’s review and approval. Nehru wanted to define the purpose of planning as the elimination of “the motive of private gain in economic activity or organization of society and the antisocial concentration of wealth and means of production.” Patel prevailed over him and got this language deleted.
    That Nehru sought to endow an unconstitutional body with such sweeping powers only betrays his affinity for a centralized, anti-market, if not communist, approach to economic development.
    Their positions on zamindari abolition and the use of eminent domain for land acquisition further illuminate their philosophical leanings. Patel wanted compensation as market price plus 15%, while Nehru favoured no compensation. Patel also successfully supported Rajendra Prasad for President of India, and Purushottam Das Tandon for Congress party president in 1950, not just for ideological reasons but also to show Nehru that he couldn’t always dictate terms. Only Patel commanded the political heft to counter Nehru, and with his demise, the right wing within the Congress lost its strongest ballast.
    Just as with Swami Vivekananda, leftist intellectuals are confused whether to re-appropriate the legacy of Patel, or to escalate their attacks to make them toxic for the right. They are tempted to try re-appropriation because of the titanic stature of these individuals, but at the same time they are unable to reconcile the liberal views of Patel and Vivekananda with their own collectivist dogma, which they have managed to label as liberal.
    In such a political-historical context enters Narendra Modi. His economic record has been debated threadbare. There have been cases where newspapers have published false data, perhaps in their eagerness to bring down his record, and then retracted. Nobody credible doubts that Modi’s tenure as Gujarat chief minister has accelerated Gujarat’s economic progress.
    Modi’s critics argue that he may be a good administrator, but he isn’t inclusive and is autocratic. He has been said to be insufficiently reformist. Above all, Narendra Modi is not secular—he is painted as someone who is too divisive and obdurate to lead a diverse nation like India.
    This is an inaccurate narrative. The word inclusive has become a euphemism to justify irresponsible government spending, often based upon identity, and it is parroted by all who believe in the type of socialism that kept India impoverished for decades. Even the darling of the self-described secular crowd, JDU’s Nitish Kumar, is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist from the Ram Manohar Lohia school of thought.
    Kumar’s government already receives over 75% of its revenue from New Delhi, yet he agitates for more. The sustainability of his Bihar model will be determined by his ability to extract taxpayer funds remitted from other parts of India. Essentially, Kumar is willing to barter political support in exchange for even more funds from New Delhi.
    This kind of parasitic growth is unsustainable and undesirable. Not only does it hurt the poor, it weakens India’s federal structure by centralizing power in New Delhi and by making states dependent on Union government handouts. To quote economist Frédéric Bastiat, Kumar seems to believe in the fiction that everyone can live at the expense of everybody else.
    In stark contrast, Modi stands out as the only major Indian political leader since Atal Bihari Vajpayee to advocate that government has no business to be in business. No mass leader in recent times, even from the BJP, has been as explicit in expressing this view on the role of government. India has witnessed economic growth since 1991 because the government stepped back from areas where it had no reason to be in the first place. It is economic liberalism that has catalyzed economic growth in India, and strong doses of it are the need of the hour. Modi has spoken unequivocally in favour of federalism and decentralization, too, calling for flexibility to state governments in designing welfare schemes.
    In India, one is branded communal if one doesn’t support state welfare of citizens based on religious criteria. This is a hideous perversion of secularism. Can UK’s prime minister or the US president get away with saying that any one community has the first right over the country’s resources? Yet, in India, Manmohan Singh said exactly this for Muslims, and is considered secular. The hideousness of secular politics has plumbed new depths in recent times. During a rally at Azamgarh at the time of the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections, Congress parliamentarian Salman Khurshid said that the Congress president “wept bitterly” on seeing images of the encounter that took place at Batla House. Congress leaders like Digivijay Singh insisted the encounter was fake before a judicial verdict was delivered. Tears were shed for the terrorists killed in the encounter, but apparently there were no tears shed for policeman Mohan Chand Sharma, who was murdered by the terrorists at Batla House.
    The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government has gone so far as to advocate special courts for Muslims to expedite trials for them. Don’t members of other communities deserve speedier justice?
    Patel had severe disagreements with Nehru and Abul Kalam Azad over the allocation of housing in Delhi that used to be occupied by Muslims who, after partition, migrated to Pakistan. Nehru and Azad insisted that only Muslims should stay in those homes, whereas Patel held that no secular government could take such a stand. The gatekeepers of secularism would have charged Patel as communal today, just as they attack Modi as communal for upholding the same principle.
    Patel unreservedly condemned the methods adopted by communists as being against the rule of law - he said that “their philosophy is to exploit every situation, to create chaos and anarchy, in the belief that, in such conditions, it would be possible for them to seize power.”
    The same charges - fascist, communalist, capitalist—made against Patel during his lifetime and since his demise have been levelled against Modi. This only shows that the Nehruvian consensus has never been so threatened in India as it is today—and those wedded to Nehru’s ideas will do everything they can to prevent the implosion of this consensus.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  3. #3
    Join Date
    October 2012
    Location
    Bhaarath
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,113
    Rep Power
    1502

    Re: Narendra Modi- What He Represents

    Should the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance be voted out in 2014 (as seems likely), this order will wither away, opening the hitherto invincible leadership of the Gandhi family to serious challenge.

    A new India can only be led by a wholly Indian leader.
    Namaste Omkara,

    Regional parties are the real danger to India. As long as people keep voting regional parties, the demon Congress won't perish.


    PS

    you are doing a great job by posting articles which will impact the well being of SD followers and Bhaarathvaasis. Can you post articles which highlight the danger country facing due to selfish pseudo secular regional parties? ....
    Last edited by Anirudh; 05 November 2013 at 07:05 AM.
    Anirudh...

  4. #4

    Re: Narendra Modi- What He Represents

    Narendra Modi- What He Represents
    Pranam-s,

    Shri Mahatma Aryottama Suyodhana Rajadhiraja Maha Kshatrapa Narendra Modi represents the Vishve-Devah: Auspicious Powers of Light, the Foremost of Gods/Devas, that come to us from All Directions to better our lives!

    regards

  5. #5
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    70
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    5038

    Re: Narendra Modi- What He Represents

    Vannakkam: From what very little I know, I sure hope he wins, and wins big! Enough is enough, after all.

    Aum Namasivaya

  6. #6
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1128

    Re: Narendra Modi- What He Represents

    Quote Originally Posted by Anirudh View Post
    Regional parties are the real danger to India. As long as people keep voting regional parties, the demon Congress won't perish.
    Not all regional parties are bad. TDP, BJD, AIADMK are good political parties.

    A vote for SP, BSP, JDU, DMK, NCP, etc. is actually a vote for CONgress.

    Please read the first article carefully. What is happening in this election is that the BJP is moving towards the commanding heights of the polity, the ideological pole with respect to which other parties position itself, either in support or in opposition.

    The pseudo- secular regional parties have strength and influence only when the Congress is strong. If the Congress tally falls below 100 and the BJP crosses 200, parties like SP and BSP will lose their strength.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  7. #7
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Posts
    1,525
    Rep Power
    2741

    Re: Narendra Modi- What He Represents

    I heard Congress politicos who, because they have not donewell in opinion polls, now want to restrict opinion polls.

    In other words, if it doesn't help Congress, then do not allow it. That means they will not allow a lot of things. Including elections.

    Om Namah Sivaya

  8. #8
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1128

    Re: Narendra Modi- What He Represents

    Quote Originally Posted by ShivaFan View Post
    I heard Congress politicos who, because they have not donewell in opinion polls, now want to restrict opinion polls.

    In other words, if it doesn't help Congress, then do not allow it. That means they will not allow a lot of things. Including elections.

    Om Namah Sivaya
    See This- http://www.firstpost.com/politics/se...n-1211125.html
    Last edited by Omkara; 09 January 2014 at 11:14 PM.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  9. #9
    Join Date
    October 2012
    Location
    Bhaarath
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,113
    Rep Power
    1502

    Re: Narendra Modi- What He Represents

    Namaste Omkara

    Not all regional parties are bad.
    But regional parties give into the pressure exerted by their local opponents. For eg: TDP gave ascent to division of Andhra and now trying to backtrack. Though DMK was decimated in the last election, the ghost created by DK is yet to meet its natural death. So ADMK is directly or indirectly supporting Tamil nationalism.

    Both actions have had bad effects on Bhaarathvaasis and Bharathiya culture. I don't think Abrahamic practitioners are proud of Bharathiya culture. If they have to choose between their religious believes and Bharathiya culture, they will select the former.

    If parties people vote give into their regional aspirations the day is not far when Raam Sethu will be a history or Thirumala will become a picnic spot in the name of earning revenue.

    During Vajpayee reign, he didn't had the numbers to keep the regional demands under check. If Modi makes it to red fort, he should have enough numbers to guard himself from being paralyzed by the regional demands. Like EM has said already, Modi should win big. Only then he can streamline the ideologies of the regional parties.
    Anirudh...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1128

    Re: Narendra Modi- What He Represents

    Quote Originally Posted by Anirudh View Post
    Namaste Omkara



    But regional parties give into the pressure exerted by their local opponents. For eg: TDP gave ascent to division of Andhra and now trying to backtrack. Though DMK was decimated in the last election, the ghost created by DK is yet to meet its natural death. So ADMK is directly or indirectly supporting Tamil nationalism.

    Both actions have had bad effects on Bhaarathvaasis and Bharathiya culture. I don't think Abrahamic practitioners are proud of Bharathiya culture. If they have to choose between their religious believes and Bharathiya culture, they will select the former.

    If parties people vote give into their regional aspirations the day is not far when Raam Sethu will be a history or Thirumala will become a picnic spot in the name of earning revenue.

    During Vajpayee reign, he didn't had the numbers to keep the regional demands under check. If Modi makes it to red fort, he should have enough numbers to guard himself from being paralyzed by the regional demands. Like EM has said already, Modi should win big. Only then he can streamline the ideologies of the regional parties.
    I think BJP may even cross 220 seats this time. what I dread is an NDA-2 with Mamata in it. Recipe for disaster.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Vote for Narendra Modi in Times Magazine
    By Sahasranama in forum Politics - Current Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08 April 2012, 10:26 AM
  2. Baba Ramdeo on Narendra Modi
    By Sahasranama in forum Politics - Current Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21 March 2011, 12:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •