Advices To BJP Party

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->TogadiaSpeak

Lost Love Always Hurts
By Dr Pravin Togadia

Myth 1: We lost because of Hindutva identity. Muslims voted against us due to this.

Truth: Muslim was never a core constituency. It was Hindu. Everyone accepts and understands electoral growth. But if this growth is at the cost of the core or even anti-core, then it is called cannibalisation.

If a party cannot satisfy its own core constituency and limits itself to power gain by projecting individuals or issues that do not appeal or matter to its core constituency, then it is a love lost. And lost love always hurts. Both ways it hurts. It has hurt the Hindu core constituency that it was taken for granted.

If the Muslim League tomorrow says, it wants to grow in vote share and therefore it would start a majority morcha and gives tickets to Hindu sadhus (That Hindu sadhus would not take its tickets is a different issue), it would hurt Muslim League’s core constituency and it would lose even its sure seats.

When Mamata Banerjee fought against Tata Motors for grabbing farmers’ land for Nano, many so-called intellectuals declared that Mamata was finished and that she would never be able to come up in politics ever again. Communist parties, which usually speak only about themselves or against US, also tried to paint Mamata as anti-development and therefore, ‘useless’ for the today’s changed world. The then PM of Congress Dr Manmohan Singh too went to West Bengal to see if Mamata could be pacified and Tatas continue holding farmers’ land for Nano, as at that time the Congress was with the Left. Mamata sat on fast for the poor farmers for over two weeks, got her kidney ruined, Nano left the Left from West Bengal—and rest is history. Those so-called intellectuals, who had so confidently declared Mamata as permanently lost, were in for a huge shock in the Parliament elections. Mamata won with a thumping success. Not that credit of this doesn’t go to her tie-up with Congress, but even Congress tied-up with her knowing well the boiling sentiments of West Bengal poor and farmers. There it is! West Bengal’s poor and farmers. This was a core constituency of the Left. In the bargain of showing itself progressive, Communists hurt their core constituency by giving their land to Tata. Result? The core constituency was hurt. Hurt so much, that it left the Left.

This is what happens. For years a political party grows and shines with the votes of a particular core constituency—with its votes and with blood/sweat of the workers who come up from the same core constituency. It takes years to nurture faith and confidence of any core constituency. When this core constituency starts trusting a particular party for a particular stand and type of thinking, then the party grows fast and goes places. It takes years of unconditional commitment and sincerity from the party side to convince any core constituency that yes, truly this party has our well-being in its heart. Then this core constituency watches the behaviour and actions of that party and its people including its workers who deal with the core constituency daily and its top leaders. As the promises given to the core constituency get translated into real actions, the core constituency votes for that party and this way loyalties are built just like a brand loyalty. It does not happen overnight; it is a result of many above things as explained.

But the moment core constituency realises that the party in which it had faith and confidence over many years now has started compromising with core constituency’s interests for getting into the power, the core constituency loses faith in that party. This happens faster than building up faith, i.e. the moment Bengal farmers realised that the Communists have compromised on land protection of the poor farmers, the poor farmers felt cheated and they left the Left. It may sound crude but the truth is always crude and rude. It is not as simplistic as it may sound.

Now when it comes to yet another core constituency of Hindus, this was never a core constituency in the beginning when India got Independence. Yes, there were emotive issues like creation of Pakistan and attacks on Hindus during the Partition. But the Hindu was never perceived or nurtured by any party as a core constituency at the time of India’s Independence. There were organisations like the Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha, which had the Hindu well-being in their hearts and actions, but for them, the Hindu was not a core constituency for votes. Indian National Congress grew during the Independence movement and Indians had only two groups to choose from: The British and the Indian National Congress. Obviously, Indians chose anything that was non-British (or so to say—anti-British). Congress ruled for many decades and that was the time for basic infrastructure development like roads, railways, electricity, water, schools, colleges, post offices. Indians got these to certain extent. But then came the need for holistic development of Hindus as a majority in India. That’s where Hindus felt that parties like Jana Sangh and Hindu Mahasabha had the Hindu interest in their hearts. Such parties even promised Hindus many things like removing Article 370, Common Civil Code, protection of Hindu religious monuments, etc. It took over 30 years for building up and nurturing the Hindu core constituency.

Slowly, this core constituency got consolidated and the Jana Sangh grew. In 1967, even before the Emergency, due to great sacrifice by lakhs of swayamsevaks of the Sangh, the party that grew was the Jana Sangh, which could form state governments in MP and UP with other parties. This party later transformed into BJP. In 1980 same people suddenly left ideology of Hindu core constituency’s well-being and adopted Gandhian Socialism. The party that was reduced to two core constituencies was hurt, its love had cheated it immensely.

Then the party slowly returned to the Hindu core constituency. Ram Mandir movement was a peak of it. After returning to Hindu core constituency with the Hindutva ideology, the party went up to power in many states and at the centre. This core constituency had human beings in it who had emotions, intellect and aspirations.

Any core constituency consists of human beings. Their emotions, intellect and aspirations if fulfilled, then and then only that party grows. If their sentiments, intellect and aspirations are ignored or thrown down the drain or taken for granted, then the core constituency feels cheated and hurt. If one loves someone from the bottom of one’s heart and that someone does not keep promises given in love but breaks the promises for gains which may be hurting the core of that love, it hurts more. The Hindu core constituency got hurt this way post-1998 resulting into 2004 debacle. Excuse given was power to be retained with allies at the cost of core constituency's interests and thereby alienating the core constituency. The Hindu does not react fast. He waits, gives more time for improvement and watches the behaviour and actions. The Hindu core constituency again waited even after 2004. What the Hindu core constituency saw after that was more appalling and hurting the core. Love was not only lost; love which was showcased all the time was false! There was no love! The Hindu core constituency was not only hurt; it was angry. It did not abstain from voting. It voted decisively. It locked its Hindu sentiments, intellect and aspirations within its heart and voted for any other party that at least took care of some local issues. This does not mean that this Hindu core constituency would not spring up again together. It would. But for a truly caring party.

To distract the attention of those who nurtured this Hindu core constituency, some myths are now being floated as if this Hindu core constituency is full of fools and has only sentiments but no intellect and aspirations.

Myth 1: We lost because of Hindutva identity. Muslims voted against us due to this.

Truth: Muslim was never a core constituency. It was Hindu. Everyone accepts and understands electoral growth. But if this growth is at the cost of the core or even anti-core, then it is called cannibalisation, e.g. in the market of dental care. Dabur later added toothpaste. Its market share grew. It was in sync with its core target group. Dabur later added many more products in personal care but kept its dental care cash flow intact. If Dabur had launched anything with USP of no need to use toothpaste/toothpowder for teeth, then Dabur would have not only lost its market share but also would have lost its core customers’ faith and company credibility. When a party says or does anything to grow which is essentially anti its core constituency’s emotions, intellect and aspirations, the party loses miserably. Wherever this Hindu core constituency felt that warmth, it voted. People who were blamed for defeat, have won like Yogi Adityanath, Varun Gandhi, Dr Murli Manohar Joshi and many others who stuck to the core constituency have won.

If the Muslim League tomorrow says, it wants to grow in vote share and therefore it would start a majority morcha and gives tickets to Hindu sadhus (That Hindu sadhus would not take its tickets is a different issue.), it would hurt Muslim League’s core constituency and it would lose even its sure seats.

Myth 2: 40 per cent population is youth. Three crore youth voters are added. Youth have great aspirations. Youth do not like Hindutva.

Truth: It’s not that many of us, as a part of a large organisation, do not travel all India—both urban and rural. We travel extensively, more than 5,00,000 km per year, meet at least 10,00,000 people from various professions and of various age groups every year. Many of us did it this year too. That youth does not like Hindutva may be a part of a wish-list of a few power-mongers, but it is not a fact. From Varanasi to Bengaluru and from Indore to Lucknow, is there no youth? If they disliked Hindutva then in these places they would not have voted for some people who cared for the Hindu core constituency. Wasn’t there youth in India in 1990-98 when the same Hindu core constituency voted this party to the power based on the Hindutva identity? Were there only children and old people then? It is also a pseudo-intellectual air-conditioned thinking that today’s youth has different aspirations. Yes, the local and temporary issues change, but the ideological, emotional, intellectual and aspirational issues closer to core constituency’s heart do not change.

Myth 3: People want development and governance. People do not want Hindutva.

Truth: Core constituency, as said, is made of human beings who share the same ideology, has the same emotions, intellect and aspirations. Responsibility of any party that grows because of core constituency is not limited only to arouse these human beings’ emotions but also to give them all benefits of development and governance that come out of power. Has this party provided the benefits of its so-called development and governance to all people in its core constituency totally? If not, then on what basis, such a party went ahead and started saying that it needs to give development and governance to those who are anti-this core constituency while its own core constituency was without such development and governance. Hindus voted this party to power at the centre once and in a few states repeatedly. Has every Hindu irrespective of caste and gender got a job? Has every Hindu family enough food so that the family does not have to sleep with an empty stomach? Does every Hindu boy and girl have a school to study? There are many such questions.

If this party does not want to be answerable to the core constituency’s ideological questions related to Ram Mandir, Article 370 or Common Civil Code, then fine. But the Hindu core constituency has never got answers to their questions about their development and governance. So, leave the core constituency half attended, take them for granted thinking that where else can they go anyway and only for votes or for allies cater to the development of those who are all out to kill this core constituency. This is not development or governance at number 1; this is an immature hurry to get power at any cost. Hindu core constituency realised this and left this party. The very efforts of a few of painting Hindutva as anti-development and governance were a logical fallacy and the Hindu core constituency is wise enough to see through this.

Myth 4: If any party has to come to power, it has to compromise on its ideology and tone it down to accommodate the allies.

Truth: We are not worried about any or every party here. If the party that grows on a specific ideology and due to a specific core constituency, tries to hurt the very essence of that core constituency only to gain power, then the core constituency not only feels neglected but also feels cheated. Adding Muslims and Christians was not a problem for Congress. They were always a part of that party from the beginning. If Hindutva core constituency party tries to add such elements, then it becomes B-Congress. Then why would anyone vote for B-Congress (duplicate) when the A-Congress (original) is available? This apart, the party was nurtured by the Hindu core constituency as an anti-thesis to Congress. The Hindu core constituency is intelligent enough to see the faux pas in this ‘aim power’ logic. The core constituency may be just 10 per cent of the total voters but if even five per cent of it sees through the betrayal to the core, then this vote share makes or breaks the chances of winning. It is a paradox! The very reason to leave the core constituency was to gain power. And the same reason has become the etymological blunder for many parties in this election like the communist parties whose core constituency—the poor and the farmers—felt this loss of love. They were hurt. And so were Hindus. For different reasons and by different parties. When this happens, the networks of the workers who were attached to the party due to the core constituency and the organisations that were instrumental in nurturing the core constituency feel hurt. It shows in the real life, in voting patterns and in loss of percentage of votes. It also shows in the end of the state of inertia in some states like Rajasthan where there are fatal losses of sure seats.

Myth 5: It worked in the American elections, it must work in India too.

Truth: Although India has seen many kings and dynasties, India and Hindu core constituency follow their own cultural and intellectual ethos and now have their own democratic system, which is a parliamentary democracy and not a presidential one. Just because Obama projected himself in America as a change agent and won, it does not mean the same will happen in India. India and Hindu core constituency do not get enamoured by an individual for long and especially if an individual is projected, the Hindu core constituency still examines his/her behaviour and actions on the parameters of core constituency’s core interests. Consistency is not a weakness or not an anti-thesis of being progressive. Consistency gives credibility. For any brand to be successful, it needs credibility that appeals to its own core customer, not just to the media or the internet or the world.

If a party cannot satisfy its own core constituency and limits itself to power gain by projecting individuals or issues that do not appeal or matter to its core constituency, then it is a love lost. And lost love always hurts. Both ways it hurts. It has hurt the Hindu core constituency that it was taken for granted and then was betrayed again and again of late. It has also hurt senior and junior—millions of workers of the party who nurtured the party through the Hindu core constituency for so long. And it hurts party’s vote share too. For any party to come to power in a democracy, the support of the majority is a must; but for any majority, supporting a particular political party is not must.

And now, if people and organisations, which are associated with such a party that has hurt its core constituency, continue with it for long, the Hindu core heart, intellect and aspirations will go off at a tangent. Looking at the current scene, there is surely a scope for any party that is willing to truly address and fulfill the emotions, intellect and aspirations of the Hindu core constituency. If the old party does not want to follow it and disown this constituency, then it is that party’s own choice. But the Hindu core constituency has already been decisive and if not addressed with the same old love and care then surely there is a vacuum for any new or other party to grow. What is more important is the ideology and only ideological consistency can give any party a credibility for longer survival and symbiotic growth—whether it is a communist ideology (which we may not agree with) or the Hindutva ideology. Until there is some concrete care for the Hindus now, lost love always hurts and will keep on hurting.

(The writer is a cancer surgeon and secretary general of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and can be contacted at drpravintogadia@yahoo.com)<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.p...pid=296&page=11

[ramana]

Pioneer, 16 june 2009

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->EDITS | Tuesday, June 16, 2009 | Email | Print |


<b>Congress helped by vote-splitters</b>

A Surya Prakash

<b>Apart from massive media support and increased vote share in some States </b>like Delhi, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, <b>one factor that clearly tilted the scales in favour of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance in the recently concluded Lok Sabha election was the presence of three fledgling regional parties in the electoral arena in three States.</b>

An analysis of the results of the Lok Sabha poll shows that between them, <b>the three parties — Telugu actor Chiranjeevi’s Prajarajyam Party in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil actor Vijay Kant’s Desiya Murkoppu Dravida Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu and Mr Raj Thackeray’s Maharastra Navnirman Sena — helped split the anti-UPA vote and enabled the Congress and its allies mop up at least 50 seats that just did not belong to them.</b>

While it is true that the UPA would have certainly been ahead of the rival BJP-led National Democratic Alliance even without the help of these spoilers, there can be no doubt that the ruling coalition’s eventual triumph would have been far less spectacular than it seemed on May 16 if these vote-splitters were not around. <b>In other words, as in 2004, some fortuitous circumstances enabled the Congress-led alliance to get well ahead of the NDA.</b>

<b>In 2004, the NDA was knocked out because of three reasons. The BJP lost 45 of its own seats, suffering huge losses in States like Uttar Pradesh, and its numbers in the Lok Sabha fell from 182 to 137; the NDA took a bit hit in Tamil Nadu when Ms J Jayalalithaa drew a blank; and the Telugu Desam, with which the NDA had an electoral understanding, got nearly wiped out in Andhra Pradesh. The prime beneficiary in both the southern States was the Congress and the UPA.</b>

<b>In 2009, the two southern States and Maharastra have come to the aid of the Congress. The launch of three regional outfits in these States in the run-up to the Lok Sabha poll proved advantageous for the Congress and its allies. A look at constituency-wise results in Andhra Pradesh shows that it was Praja Rajyam Party that cooked Mr Chandra Babu Naidu’s goose. This is the worst-hit State for the non-Congress formations, be it the NDA or the ‘Third Front’.</b>

<b>The Congress got a whopping 33 of the 42 seats in Andhra Pradesh but election data show that the PRP wrecked the chances of the TDP alliance in as many as 31 constituencies. The Congress secured a clear majority in only one constituency, Kadapa, where the Chief Minister’s son Mr YS Jagan Mohan Reddy, got 53 per cent of the votes polled. In most of the other constituencies, Congress candidates secured 40 per cent of the votes or less.</b> However, the presence of the PRP helped the Congress sail through.

In these constituencies, the vote share of the TDP-led alliance fell to around 30-35 per cent because the PRP sliced away 18-20 per cent. <b>At the end of the day, the PRP did not win a single Lok Sabha seat but it ruined Mr Naidu’s chances of staging an honourable come back. Though there is some variation to this theme in the State Assembly election which was held simultaneously, there is no running away from the fact that the division of the anti-Congress vote by the PRP enabled the Congress to bag an unbelievable 33 seats.</b>

In the final analysis, the fledgling PRP took away 6.59 million votes (15.67 per cent). <b>The TDP’s vote share was 10.48 million (24.93 per cent) and that of its alliance was 13.50 million (33.5 per cent). The Congress, on the other hand, secured 16.37 million votes (38.95 per cent). </b>This means that the Congress was precariously perched in this State and would have taken a major hit if the PRP had not played the spoiler for the Opposition alliance.

<b>This is surprising because Mr YS Rajasekhara Reddy’s Government had ensured excellent delivery of social sector schemes, including emergency medical assistance, health insurance and pensions for senior citizens and other deserving persons in families below the poverty line. Also, there was no visible anti-incumbency sentiment in the State prior to the poll.</b>

<b>Tamil Nadu</b> is yet another state where a spoiler has come to the UPA’s rescue. <b>An analysis of constituency-wise data shows that of the 39 constituencies in this State, the presence of Desiya Murpokku Dravida Kazhagam of film-star Vijay Kant enabled the UPA to win at least 10 seats. In the absence of DMDK, the UPA could have ended up with just 18 seats in this Sate as against the 28 that it managed to win.</b>

<b>The DMDK, like the PRP, did not get a single seat, but it polled over three million votes (10.11 per cent) and this hurt the alliance led by Ms Jayalalithaa’s party.</b> In this State, <b>the DMK’s victory was devoid of ambiguity in just four constituencies — Vellore, Tiruvannamalai, Thanjavur and Madurai — where it bagged over 50 per cent of the votes polled.</b> The fate of many Congress candidates, including Mr P Chidambaram, could have been different if the DMDK had not been on the scene. The Union Home Minister scraped through by a narrow margin of 3,354 votes over his AIADMK rival in Sivaganga, a constituency where the DMDK polled 60,054 (eight per cent) of the votes. There are many more such constituencies where the DMDK tilted the balance in favour of the Congress.

<b>Maharastra is the third State where a new regional outfit came to the rescue of the Congress and the UPA.</b> The Congress , with 17 seats, and the Nationalist Congress Party, which won another eight, between them secured 25 seats as against the 20 won by the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance. <b>The Congress-NCP alliance secured 14.38 million votes (38.89 per cent). The BJP-Shiv Sena alliance got 13.01 million votes (35.17 per cent).</b>

<b>The MNS, like the new players in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, drew a blank but acted as a spoiler for the anti-Congress forces. It won 1.5 million votes (4.07 per cent) and impaired the chances of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance in nine constituencies. If MNS was not around, the Congress’s tally would have been less than 10 and not 17 that it finally secured. Five of these seats are in Mumbai city.</b>

All this only goes to show that the Congress’s victory would have been less euphoric if these vote-splitters were not around. But this certainly does not detract from the fact the Congress, with 119 million votes (28.55 per cent), is way ahead of the BJP, which secured just 78.40 million votes (18.8 per cent) and the gap between the two has now increased to over 40 million votes in a national election.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

And add to this the self defeats in the four states of Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Prades and Uttar Khand. And break with BJD in Orissa.

One thing for experts to think is what steps the BJP/NDA could have taken to attract these three parties that broke its bank.

I note that only one of them directly affected the BJP in Maharasthra. Both in TN and AP there was no real NDA presence. TDP and AIDMK are the ones to worry about why they lost and what could they have done.

One good thing is that INC wont have to consider banning RSS as they earlier thought as there is no support for them.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-ravish+Jun 15 2009, 03:15 PM-->QUOTE(ravish @ Jun 15 2009, 03:15 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Virenji,
It is perhaps too early to start trend on UPA's achievement. Let it settle down then we should discuss its peformance.
[right][snapback]98792[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the contrary, I think it's 4 years too late. It's same UPA minus Left and Laloo. Same PM. Same super-PM, etc.

[acharya]

<b>The middle class leaves BJP behind
</b>
Vir Sanghvi

Mon, Jun 15 06:30 PM

Around two decades ago, Prem Shankar Jha wrote a prescient piece about the coming of the new prosperity. Jha's argument was that as India's growth rate accelerated, this would lead to the rise of a new middle class comprising people who had benefited from the higher growth. This class, Prem argued, would be different from the traditional Indian middle class that had been brought up on the Nehruvian consensus of liberal/Left policies, secularism and gentleness in public discourse. Because the new middle class had not grown up within this consensus, it would be more focused on making money and showing it off and less interested in the welfare of those less fortunate. Because Muslims would not benefit equally from the new prosperity, the new middle class would be overwhelmingly Hindu. It would argue that secularism was a way for politicians to appease Muslims and ignore Hindu sentiments and religious beliefs. I am quoting from memory so it is possible that I am overstating Jha's case but I do remember the two basic points he made. One, a new middle class is coming. And two, this middle class will reject the Congress way of doing things and will embrace the BJP. As the years went on, there was little doubt that Jha had got it right. A new middle class did emerge. It did reject the Nehruvian consensus. It did embrace conspicuous consumption. And yes, it clasped the BJP to its collective bosom. The party, which had hovered around the fringes of national politics for decades in various guises, suddenly became the party of a certain kind of educated Indian. The new BJP pandered to middle class sentiment, to middle class prejudice and to middle class grievances.

By 2002 or so, things had got to the stage where history books were being re-written, where Jawaharlal Nehru was being routinely derided as the man responsible for India's poverty, and where L.K. Advani could confidently proclaim that the BJP was now the natural party of governance. And yet, just seven years later, the party seems to be over. If you have followed the news over the last week, then you will know that the BJP is being torn apart by an existential crisis. I wrote last Sunday that it has now become a party with no core beliefs, a party where everything is up for re-definition and re-negotiation. Almost on cue, Jaswant Singh went on TV on Wednesday to say that he did not understand Hindutva or know where the term had come from. All parties go through bouts of introspection during periods of adversity. But rarely do they question the very basis of their existence. For example, the Left is doing some soul-searching now and the Congress did a lot of it in the early years of this decade. But no party ever says: let's junk the beliefs our party is based on. The Congress has never renounced Nehru. And the Left still clings to the increasingly discredited view that Karl Marx got it right. And then, there's the other thing that intrigues me. I am continually surprised by how normal middle class people, who are not especially politically aware, seem to be so relieved because of the Congress victory. Not only are there no tears for the BJP but fewer middle class people seem to identify with it any longer.

So, here's my question: never mind what the crisis of the BJP tells us about the BJP. What does it tell us about the Indian middle class? Or, put another way: what happened to the new middle class and its affinity with the BJP? Over the last five years, prosperity has actually increased. And yet, the rejection of the Nehruvian consensus has tapered off. Nor do the issues that once defined the new middle class now seem to matter that much. We see this most clearly in the change in the middle class approach to the Hindu-Muslim issue. In the 1980s, the BJP built on Hindu anger. It said that Hindus had been humiliated by Sikhs in Punjab. Now, they were faced with fanatical Muslims who refused to return the sacred birthplace of Ram, preferring to protect a mosque that was itself a symbol of Hindu humiliation. Worst of all, the secular Congress was backing Muslims against Hindus. Because that approach worked for so many years, the BJP tried a variation in this election. Hindus were being attacked by Muslim terrorists. These terrorists could easily be locked up but the Congress refused to re-impose POTA for fear of losing Muslim votes. But this time, the middle class paid no attention. And as for the whole Ayodhya issue, middle class voters seemed embarrassed that in the 21st century they should be asked to debate India's future on the basis of a dispute over a medieval mosque. We see the change in the way the middle class has rejected the BJP's definition of Indianness. In 2004, Sushma Swaraj was able to go on TV to declare that she would shave her head in protest if a foreigner became Prime Minister. Now, nobody cares about the foreign origin issue. When you watch TV footage of Sushma's outburst today, she just seems silly and overwrought. So it is with 'Indian culture'. The last BJP government demanded that DD newsreaders increase the sleeve-lengths of their blouses and routinely denounced MTV. Throughout the BJP's term in office, cinema halls were regularly attacked and film shootings disrupted on the grounds that Indian culture was being undermined. Now, when the Ram Sene attacks women for going to pubs or the lunatic fringe of the Parivar tries to disrupt Valentine's Day, the protests come from the entire middle class. Nor are the attacks on cinema halls and film crews that common. For instance, Deepa Mehta could easily shoot Water in today's India. Even the every-man-for-himself mentality is changing. The BJP spent the last five years attacking the government for its social welfare schemes and loan write-offs. These were socialist measures initiated by jholawallahs, it sneered. But this position found few takers within the middle class. The well-off are now much more willing to accept that the less fortunate should also get their share of the pie. Nowhere is the transformation clearer than in the attitude to Narendra Modi. I accept that most middle-class people do not necessarily regard him as a mass murderer in the way that I do. But equally, you cannot deny that his brand of hate-filled demagoguery makes the middle class nervous. People want stability even more than they want development. They do not want the politics of hate and communal tension. And at some level, they are embarrassed by the way the world looks at us after the Gujarat riots and by Modi's pariah status in many Western countries.
<b>
What's made the difference? Here's my theory. I reckon that the middle class today is more homogenous and more mature than it was even five years ago. The new middle class has lost its sense of grievance; it has lost the outsider's desire to overturn the ruling consensus; and it has gone past the issues on which the BJP's appeal is based.</b>

[ravish]

Virenji,
Frankly speaking the achievement of UPA in the last five years has not been impressive. There had been many limitations in its functioning. Secondly, some of the welfare measures undertaken had just taken off in some areas of the country. Therefore, the full implication of these measures are yet to be felt and assessed.
The next question that will arise in one’s mind is that given this performance how come the UPA formation showed impressive results during the elections. It is perhaps the hopes of improvement on the implementation of some of the popular measures like 100 day work, writing off of farm loan etc that clicked the issue and influenced the voters mind. It is now to see how far these measures are really effective in social and economic development of the masses. The majority of the voters setting aside their religious and regional feeling have overwhelmingly voted for the UPA so that the promises and aspirations can be fulfilled. At least two to three years from now, it will be the time to access the success and failure of the UPA in its present form , when it cannot give the excuse of Left and the regional parties interference in the im0plementation and running of the Government.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->On the contrary, I think it's 4 years too late. It's same UPA minus Left and Laloo. Same PM. Same super-PM, etc. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Honestly it is the same UPA rearranged in numbers to the confort of the Congress. Compared to the casualties of the partners of the Congress, the BJP had bruises not fatalities. Our friend ravish is loathe to comment on the rigging using the EVMs and purchasing of votes.

Once they 'grow' in numbers the Congressmen will start fighting among themselves.

[Guest]

Ravishji, that in my opinion is yet another cop-out and frankly I'm not surprised.

UPA's been in power for about 5 continuous years now. Need I mention some 50+ years too since independence. It's easy for Congress fans to wake up every few years and pretend it's dawn of new era while criticizing one and only one govt that completed full 5 year term. While you claim that it'll take time for UPA govt policies to fully materialize, what about some of the NDA projects which were nixed purely due to spite (ABVs highway project, River integration project etc come to mind). Anyone quantified the loss to nation on that?

I'd still like you to start a thread on good governance provided by UPA - if there's none to show, why bother ranting against opposition which had little to do with progress in recent years. Hope it's not a case where party comes ahead of the nation?

added later: On your behalf I've started the thread link here. I'd be obliged if you can contribute and maintain it.

[Guest]

Let me list achievement of UPA

1) Appointed puppet Prime Minister. Damn these people can't get a elected puppet.
2) Appointed PM gets his pension from USA. (ex employee of World Bank). What a shame ?
3) Indian Embassies are working for 10 Janapath to save Sonia's Boyfriends and other sundry relation.
4) Indian Embassies had become hub of corruption
5) Babus are taking big commission on defense cut including more whore privileges.
6) CBI new alias Congress Burea of investigation
7) Bureaucracy already labeled as most corrupt, is looting Indian treasury
8) Roads construction is on negative
9) Planning Commission Monthek Singh is not even Indian Citizen
10) Banks write off loans before election
11) Election were rig by EVM machines, babus were behind this rigging
12) More terrorist attack on India , better it gets for Congress Party
13) Oil for Food and Sonia's involvement, no investigation
14) Nuclear deal, do we know how much Appointed Prime Minister and his master Sonia had accepted bribes.



guys add more

[Guest]

If we list all these uncomfortable achievements of Congress(woman)men then Ravish will take leave for five years.

[ramana]

I talked to an elderly man from India about the elections. He expected the BJP/NDA to perform better but in retrospect the following factors worked agaisnt them.
1) Candidate selection was not right. Some of them were fools and criminals

2) Infighting amongst BJP in states they control -Gujarat, Rajasthan. What is the problem in BJP that they cant stop infighting? And its teir supposedly senior leaders who do the backstabbing Eg: Shekawat, Modis detractors etc. BJP leadership encourages dissidence by listening to dissidents, which is agaisnt its so called discipline.

3) Alliances were weak eg. ShivSena which could not control its own family members, TRS an oppurtunist party. PR should have been made an ally. And failure to rope in non-INC, non-Commie parties aka Third front.

4) National security was BJP strong case but with the Mumbai Terrorist attack and Kasab being caught while Kandahar hijackers went scot-free weakend the case. Dismissal of Deshmukh etc made ti appear that INC took effective steps. What was the BJP doing after Kandahar Hijack? All the actors/players were still in power.

5) All attacks on MMS bounce off as he is not a politican and does what he is told. Attacking him was waste tactic.

6) Lack of any economic hardship-cyclones, price rise etc. Had the elections been a year earlier they had a good chance.

7) Now that people have spoken its time for BJP to act as responsible opposition and make themselves relevant.

Despite his initial misgvings he is reconciled as he has to live in India and thats what is good for India.

[Guest]

Ravishji, Are you touting those points as credits to UPA since NDA did all those things and more in it's short span. Forgive my confusion, if you are stating those as UPA achievements, please post it in right thread accordingly.

[Guest]

<b>Shiv Sena launches "Shiv Vada"
</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Shiv Sena launched the 'Shiv Vada' today, its version of the common man's burger, and they plan to take the snack to a global platform.

"We are taking the Shiv Vada as a brand on global level, just like McDonalds," Sena executive president Uddhav Thackeray said after the launch at Sena Bhawan in central Mumbai this evening.

The initiative is being seen as an attempt by the saffron party, which popularised the vada pav, staple diet of many Mumbaikars, four decades ago, to establish a rapport with the 'Marathi manoos.

"In foreign countries a burger is available 24-hours. Why can't vada pav be also available similarly," Uddhav said.

The party, which has started a cooperative to encourage Marathi entrepreneurs, showcases Shiv Vada as its first project under the new initiative, sources said.
To begin with, 25 Shiv Vada stalls will be operational in the city, they said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_shiv...iv-vada_1266204

[Guest]

<b>RSS can walk straight without BJP crutches: Govindacharya</b>

20 Jun 2009, 0904 hrs IST, PTI

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/RSS-can...utches-Go\
vindacharya/articleshow/4679174.cms


NEW DELHI: Virtually daring the BJP to snap links with the RSS, former
party ideologue K N Govindacharya has said the RSS can "walk straight
without the crutches of the BJP".

<b>Govindacharya, who parted ways with the BJP sometimes back, accused
the party leaders, including its chief Rajnath Singh, of practising
"pseudo-Hindutva".</b>

Besides, he dubbed Varun Gandhi's election speeches as
"pesudo-Hindutva of the reactionary, irresponsible kind" and "not
Hindutva".

In a hard-hitting interview to a weekly news magazine, he said <b>BJP did
not cater to the ideal of Hindutva either as a party in power or as a
party in the opposition.</b>

<b>"It is not a national party in terms of ideology, policies and
conviction," he said about the BJP, adding that it is a party "full of
opportunists and careerists".</b>

The BJP leaders are taking to politics "only as a career or a dhanda
(business)," he said alleging that their thought process revolves only
around power.

The interview has come at a time when the BJP's national executive is
taking place here amid calls by some leaders for an open debate on the
electoral debacle.

Asked how the RSS leadership is viewing the election results,
Govindacharya said, "the RSS will have a straight talk with the BJP
now and tell it to decide what kind of relationship it wants to have
with the RSS."

Govindacharya said that "as a responsible Swayamsevak", this is how he
reads the mind of the RSS leadership. "The RSS will tell them if you
want to go without us don't worry...

"We feel that we don't need any appendage or any extra baggage. Nor
any crutches. RSS can walk straight without the crutches of the BJP.
This is the message the Sangh leadership has given to the BJP."

Govindacharya was also harsh on the leadership of Advani, who was
projected as the prime ministerial candidate, saying that the election
campaign of the BJP, which proclaimed him as a strong leader, was "on
a wrong footing".
<b>
"As Home Minister, Advani's comparison can only be made with Shivraj
Patil. There was nothing much to choose from," he said adding that the
election was a competition between "a weak Manmohan Singh and a weak
Advani ji."</b>

"In the realm of strong leader (Advani), the issue of Kandhar kept
coming up," he said referring to the Kandhar plane hijack episode
during the NDA government when Advani was the Home Minister.

<b>Govindacharya faulted Advani aide Sudheendra Kulkarni for making RSS a
"scapegoat".</b>

"In no way was the RSS involved in any kind of election strategies.
Only BJP people occupied the war room and they should be held
responsible," he said.

To a question, he said that Advani has never said anywhere that he is
going to quit as Leader of the Opposition in December. "This is
rumour, conjecture," he said.

Asked whether there is a feeling within the RSS that perhaps it is
time for Advani to retire, he said the RSS unless asked to think and
advise on these aspects will not apply its mind on such issues.

At the same time, he said Advani has definitely expressed the will for
a retired life.

"He desires it and deserves it also. He doesn't deserve this kind of
lampooning and cartooning from either the media or from within the
sections of the BJP. He deserves a happy and serene life,"
Govindacharya said.

Asked how does he visualise the future of BJP, he said he leaves it to
the wisdom of the leaders. <b>"If things go as they are, the party will
be reduced in the arithmetic of elections and then they won't even
hold as many states in power as they do today,"</b> he said.

[Guest]

Govindacharya is very crazy person, fickle minded. He had completly destroyed Uma Bharati.

[ravish]

What is wrong in Govindacharya ji's past interest in Madam Uma Bharati. It is just normal, what is special about it?

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-ravish+Jun 20 2009, 09:22 PM-->QUOTE(ravish @ Jun 20 2009, 09:22 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->What is wrong in Govindacharya ji's past interest in Madam Uma Bharati. It is just normal, what is special about it?
[right][snapback]98991[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He used Uma Bharati to settle scores with Advani and Vajpayee.

[Guest]

<b>BJP failed to articulate poll issues in contemporary context: BJP</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->New Delhi, Jun 20 : Conceding that the BJP was not able to articulate its views during the Lok Sabha polls resulting in the party not performing up to the mark, BJP President Rajnath Singh today asked the party to collectively find a solution while offering to own up the responsibility if any individual had to take the blame.

Kickstarting the two-day National Executive with his opening remarks at Parliament Annexe here this morning, Mr Singh said the party had not been able to disseminate and articulate its position in the polls.

''The issues raised, be it external or internal security of the country, foreign policy, terrorism, appeasement or disrespect to cultural symbols, were all related to plight of the common man or farmers and they will remain relevant for the country. Perhaps we need to have presented the views in a better and contemporary context,'' he said.

Mr Singh's stress on 'collective responsibility' is viewed as an escape route from the present status of the party that has been aptly described as a party 'on a volcano'. Although he had put his own head on the bloc if any individual has to take the blame, but it cuts no ice in a party where senior leaders are baying for sidelining the the strategists responsibile for the failure.

The BJP President also sought the partymen not to undermine the importance of the people's mandate to play the role of a responsible and constructive opposition. The party had got only 22 seats less than it had in 2004 polls and the reasons for wins and losses were state specific, he said.

The party was analysing the reasons by visting the states and the Lok Sabha constituencies to understand the factors thoroughly.

There will be a structured debate for three days in August where all the views, suggestions and grievances would be properly addressed, he said.

He said it was a cause for concern that only 37 to 38 sitting MPs in the 14th Lok Sabha had made it to the House this time. This was the trend witnessed among the 13th Lok Sabha MPs also, he noted.

He said the Congress had emerged as a single largest party after the BJP. The Left parties, and many major regional parties were way behind the BJP in terms of number of seats in the Lok Sabha. The mandate had clearly shown that the common man's national option was to move towards bipolar polity. ''This is why it is important for the BJP to expand the organisation and take effective steps to get people's mandate. Tomorrow will definitely be ours,'' he exuded.

He said ideology, organisation, leadership and strategy were the four components for any party to succeed. While ideology is the perpetual guiding force, the organisation, leadership and strategy played significant and immediate role in determining the victory or defeat in polls. Hindutva or Bharatiyata or cultural nationalism -- all occupied the same esteemed space in the politics of the BJP and its status for the party was akin to that of the Constitution in the politics of the country, he reasoned.

Justifying his own role as the BJP President, Mr Singh listed the states where the party had wrested power from the Congress while retaining power in the states of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. However the party had failed in making inroads in Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi, he regretted.

About the performance of the BJP governments in the states, he said Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh were 'gaining popularity' as government of common man. In Bihar, where the BJP was in coalition, people were believing that there was a working government in the state afer a long time.

Stressing the need to maintain discipline, Mr Singh said the party had to ensure disciplinary mechanism in the coming years and it may move forward with better coordination and unity within in the states.

He said party activists should be made to participate in decision making and implementation processes and better coordination between the party and 'morchas'. Differences should be sorted out and disciplinary actions should be swift and not delayed. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Husky]

http://vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayAr...spx?id=643
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Advani is a US stooge implant, before the last elections when BJP lost under Vajpayee, this man went with his family on a US funded trip along with crooks like Brajesh Mishra and hobnobbed with the bigwigs there. He cut a deal to basically wipe out BJP and so far this man has succeeded well.   
  Arup Roy Chowdhury 
  20 Jun 2009<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How much? How much money.

[ravish]

Mr Husky,
Do you really believe in what you have posted?

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jun 21 2009, 02:26 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jun 21 2009, 02:26 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayAr...spx?id=643
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Advani is a US stooge implant, before the last elections when BJP lost under Vajpayee, this man went with his family on a US funded trip along with crooks like Brajesh Mishra and hobnobbed with the bigwigs there. He cut a deal to basically wipe out BJP and so far this man has succeeded well.   
   <b>Arup Roy Chowdhury</b>  
   20 Jun 2009<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How much? How much money.
[right][snapback]99009[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Husky,
Always check name of person who wrote. West Bengal, probability of Commie foot solider is very high.
There are people who are very mad with Jinnah comment and they are after Advani.
Some are upset because of Babri demoloation.
Some are upset because he is Sindhi.
Some are upset because of his Rath Yatra.

Advani is not behaving or ever behaved like current appointed Prime Minister of India, who was holding Obama book all over UN building and when he met Obama he said, Please please please sign this book for my daughter.
Advani is full of pride, he may get party funds or support from Hotel-Motel Guju lobby of USA but he is not US stooge. Appointed Prime Minister is another story. He was joke of town during last UN meeting. Radio talk shows had field day on appointed Prime Minister of India.