MMS: Kimvadanti

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Nov 15 2007, 01:46 AM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Nov 15 2007, 01:46 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Whenever there is a important discussion, this idiot just leave country.
[right][snapback]75248[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is a well-known (at least known by now) strategy of ManMohan Singh. He has done this on previous occasions, exactly at the times of internal controversies surrounding his party. And he'll keep doing this, to evade any investigation, query, inquiry, etc for the underhanded dealings of the UPA, until he has handed over 'his' chair to Rahul Gandhi, in keeping with his initial understanding with Sonia several years ago - that in return for appointing him as the PM, he will keep the chair warm for Rahul. The man is a complete venomous snake, slithering on the floor, where he thinks no one can see him, or see through him.

Of all the dirtbags we have had as PM, this one takes home the cake! I have never felt so much disrespect and contempt as I do for him. Even the ''sociopath'' karunanidhi makes his anti-hindu, anti-north intentions well known, and for that at least we can credit him with honesty (along with stupidity and irrationality, and few other unflattering adjectives). But MMS, on the other hand, is a game player - that subdued quiet persona is a mask behind which hides the glinting dangerous eyes of a power-hungry, ruthless, meglomania, on the verge of 'pushing the button' that will destroy India, just for spite. He knows perfectly well what he is doing, and, despite his outwardly demureness, there is nothing remotely innocent nor ''nice'' about him.

[Guest]

Rediff today has an article of MMS patting his own back and blaming situtaion during NDA rule blaming them for Gujarat, Akashdharam attacks, etc.
They say with old age near term memory is lost while the long term memory remains intact. Our MMS could be a perfect example of this. How else can you explain his amnesia over Diwali day attacks in Delhi, Shamjhauta express attacks, 7/11 Mumbai train attacks, Jama Masjid attacks, Mecca Masjid attacks, Nandigram, Singur etc etc etc.. all under his watch. Oopps.. sorry under Congress(Sonia) watch.

[Guest]

Unity in Diversity (revised)
MeghnaddesaiPosted online: Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print EmailFor this principle to remain a foundational one the Centre must play by the rules

Meghnad Desai
Rad LinksPakistan India Cricket

Earlier this month, while inaugurating the Fourth International Conference on Federalism, Dr Manmohan Singh chose to go beyond the usual clichés about unity in diversity, and that sort of thing. He gave a short, thoughtful speech in which he raised “some serious questions... to reflect on”.

The next day’s headlines trivialised what the PM had said. Reading them, one got the impression that he was merely complaining about the behaviour of coalition partners. But the PM did more than that. His first question: In a modern state, does a single-party state have any advantages in managing Centre-state relations smoothly as opposed to a multi-party system? Or is a multi-party model, with national parties dominating the political scene, superior where one can hope that all of them will take a national view on policy issues and help reinforce the unity of the federation?”

One can see where the learned doctor is coming from. But the answers to his queries need a perspective wider than India. One-party federations without democracy have collapsed in recent years as the USSR shows. Pakistan before 1971 is another example where a lack of democracy broke the federation. But even with democracy, if the same party is in power at the Centre and states, as was the case in India until 1967, it was not quite federal. Uniformity was imposed by the Centre in government and party matters.

Much bad behaviour — such as arbitrary imposition of President’s rule, the dismissal of one CM and the parachuting of another — prevailed. Kerala was forced to change government when it dared to elect a non-Congress one in 1957. When the Congress lost control of many states in 1967, the Centre’s behaviour went from bad to worse. It may have been peaceful times for the Congress but it suppressed tensions which were to explode later.

But the second question concerns multi-party democracies with ‘national parties dominating the scene’. This was the situation during the governments that ruled the Centre in 1991-1996 and 1998-2004. A national party —Congress or BJP — dominated the multi-party coalition and managed federal relations. Of course the Centre’s power to change governments in the states had to be modified since coalition partners ruled in some states, but the parties outside the ruling coalition continued to receive the Kerala treatment.

The PM mentions national parties taking a ‘national view on policy issues’ and this is very true. While they may differ on the secular/communal issue, they agree on defence and economic issues. Regional parties have no stake in national economic growth and care not much about defence. This point is evident from the common programme the coalition partners agree upon — which is usually confined to bread and butter issues and not national or foreign policy ones.

But the problem here is not of having non-national parties in the ruling coalition but the strength of the national party therein. With 182 seats, the BJP could lay down the line to its partners although it did soft-pedal the mandir issue. With 145 seats, the Congress cannot call the shots in the UPA. This matter was reflected in the PM’s next question. He asked whether in the case of a multi-party model with parties that have varying national reach and many with limited sub-national reach in the coalition, ‘the unity of purpose which nation-states have to often demonstrate’ will be provided.

What Dr Singh has put his finger on is the crisis of the Indian nation today. The Constitution presumed that there was a single national purpose that everybody agreed upon and that the Centre would be in charge of expressing that, with the states left to play a minor role to reflect local aspirations. But that story fell apart during the Emergency. The eighties were a false decade, when once again Congress hegemony hid the tensions. But since 1989, there has never been a single national purpose. The BJP has a different definition from that of the Congress, since it has a different story of why India is a nation. The regional parties are not merely local but they reflect strong local nationalisms, which were suppressed during the Independence struggle. The national stories the Congress and BJP tell are upper-caste/upper-class north Indian — indeed Doab — stories. Large parts of India feel left out of it. Tamil Nadu, Assam and even Bengal were never fully part of either the Hindutva or the syncretic Hindu-Muslim unity story which the Congress tells. Nor are groups such as dalits, tribals and many backward castes and religious minorities (as Sikhs tragically demonstrated in the eighties). The debate on Ram Setu showed that even the Ramayana is not a national epic but only a north Indian, non-Dravidian one.

But the flexibility of the Constitution is proven by the fact that what was once thought to be a centralist structure now sustains a diverse decentralised discourse. But the politicians need to acknowledge that a single national purpose cannot be presumed any longer; it has to emerge from daily negotiations and accommodations of local aspirations. India, after 60 years of democracy, will not march to a top-down elitist tune of a single national purpose. A whole new story needs to be created as to why India is a nation with a true and organic unity in diversity and not one presumed.

But this requires a strict adherence to Constitutional norms and not high-handed Central diktat which imposes President’s rule as the UPA did in Bihar. It requires clarifying the rules for unseating incumbent governments to avoid a farce such as the one in Karnataka, and imposing the rule of law that protects Taslima Nasreen from the mob, regardless of whether her attackers are MLAs in Hyderabad or Congress/ Trinamool instigated fundamentalist Muslim mobs.

If anything, the future will contain even weaker ‘national’ parties and stronger local ones. This is not a problem. There is no need to be fearful of India’s unity as Nehru’s generation was. India’s unity has been forged in the crucible of democracy and it can weather a weaker Centre and stronger states. What the Centre must do is to play by the rules and guarantee the Fundamental Rights promised in the Constitution.