Advices To BJP Party

[Guest]

<b>12 unsolicited revival tips for an ailing BJP </b>
Sumit Gulati & Neeraj Saxena, ET Bureau

Here are a few lessons that the BJP can take home from these elections:



· Fight to win, not win to fight Action Point: Hold a US style Presidential Primary. The winner in this primary, becomes the BJP candidate for the PM’s post. Once this is done, the others need to gracefully step back; the way Hillary Clinton did once Obama surged ahead. At the same time, get a fix on some mechanism to also groom potential ministers, particularly the key ministries and also have stated key policies you would pursue. Get your A team in place and do it NOW. Since BJP calls itself a democratic party (as against the ‘non-democratic ‘ones), it should walk its talk.

· The Perfect Delivery Action Point: Fix specific delivery targets for each State’s leadership, ones that are going to be visible and helpful in garnering the maximum votes the next time round. Pursue these targets relentlessly. Highlight achievements to the local people. And do that in a united manner, and unequivocally. Also, take it further down to your workers. Make the cadre accountable and responsible for elect ion results.

· Be a growing boy, Boost your reach Action Point: The moral of the story: BJP needs to grow on its own in size, reach, geographies and do this even in areas where their allies are strong. How dependance on allies can cripple them is evident in Orissa. What will be the BJP’s condition in Bihar if the JD (U) too dumps them is not difficult to visualize. Its next leadership needs to work assiduously towards building the party at the grassroots level. Allies should be a bonus. Plus, if you become big and have a good shot at getting and retaining power, they will come to you wagging their tails.

So, build, build and build. Identify 350-400 constituencies around the country where you stand a chance, and work hard on them right away. Spread yourself to other states. If BJP wants a chance in the next election, it ought to stop worrying and start acting right away, preferably right after its ‘Chintan Baithak’!

· Who am I? Why am I here? Action Point: First sit down and define what you are and what you stand for. Get your mission and vision statements clear. Your workers have to know what you stand for. And, after that, let no party member go out and contradict party position because he has a right to express his private opinion in public.

· Fevicol your beliefs Action Point: Stick to stated party positions and do not keep changing/vacillatin g as per the need and situation. This doesn't mean that you do not re-look some of the party positions in the recent past and see if you want to stick to them. Be flexible, but, at the same time, core positions are not meant to be shifted election to election.

· Cure yourself of Congressitis Action Point: Now that you have tasted the fruits of power, it is difficult for you to go back to your old self of coming across as selfless. But, do try to at least ‘look’ less desperate. This also includes saying ‘Buzz off’ to criminals and history sheeters. Why should you be seen as the party fielding the maximum number of candidates with a criminal background? Is there is a dearth of eligible, young people in this country who can contest?

· While you are laid-off Action Point: We know you have the succession issue to battle out and that it will pre-occupy you because your `larger than life’ leaders never cared to develop and identify the second rung of leadership. But, coming back to point number one (which said that to become Prime Minister you have to win elections), it should be clear that you have to sort this out really fast.

· Connect on the ground, not on Facebook Action Point: Get your chappals out and start walking and connecting. Pack in your sun screen and water and get going to the muddy waters of roadless villages. Go taste the real India.

· (No more) Pursuit of Pettyness Action Point: Don’t be petty. The ultimate objective of occupying the seat of power is to improve the lives of all Indians. Don’t oppose anything that will achieve just that. It makes you look petty and short-sighted.

· Need to develop a ZooZoo strategy Action Point: How about BJP formulating a series of inexpensive ad and marketing campaigns from time to time (and not just during elections) that connect with the people while delivering the intent and the message with honesty? Are the “War Room” controllers listening?

· Say no to astrologers and Bollywood stars, be the star.

· Be inclusive, love thy neighbour

At the same time, BJP needs to formulate an action plan that lets minorities know that their interests and development too will be ensured.

Instead of rhetoric, BJP needs to work sincerely towards taking them along; address their genuine concerns, have an action plan for their security and development while according them full freedom and rights, and yet not lose out on majority support. It may be tougher than said, but not impossible.



http://economictime s.indiatimes. com/quickieartic leshow/4559697. cms



\<!--QuoteBegin-acharya+May 22 2009, 10:04 PM-->QUOTE(acharya @ May 22 2009, 10:04 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are three things we need to undestand.

1. Strengthening of BJP in current format is next to impossible. If we keep a 15 year program then by that time there is nothing to salvage. (please refer to my elections 2009 excell)

IN 248 Seats out of 543 The chances of BJP/NDA  winning in the next three general elections is nill.  This is a 45% of the seats where BJP/NDA cannot have any influence. Totally 9 states out of 23 states BJP/NDA cannot have any representation this is 39% of the states. Now in 297 seats remaining to get 271 magic figure including NDA is next to impossible on any count. (AP 42, Delhi 7,  JK 6, Kerala 20, NE states 1, TN 39, Union Territories 6, West Bengal 42, UP 75).

The SDF factor worked in AP very well in swinging 60 seats with thin majorities. The same thing worked in Three states where for the last 5 years a concecrated efforts are made resources pledged and spent to achieve 1% to 2% change in SDF. Every one is caught unaware including communists in this game as this is perpetuated in the communist states only.

The UPA got 60 Parliamentary seats extra and this did not cut in to NDA allies. Over all loss of BJP in this election is NDA allies gain and the actual seat tally is close to that of last time. Infact Karnataka was swept by BJP as the lok sabha elections were held just in months of state elections in which BJP swept. THe same is true with Rajastan where congress swept. This is anti incumbency as the state and central elections were held in months apart.

SDF and elections:

As communists rightly analysed and concluded that the new minority vote played a major role in their debacle.

IN AP in the last 5 years 1% of the total population is subjected to SDF (Spiritual Displacement). Their faith from one spiritual entity is shifted to another spiritual entity. 1 % of the voter population is around 57 Lakhs in AP alone. This is precisely the swing in the areas where it is assume UPA will loose. IN sixty seinsitive constituencies if we disperse 57 lakh voters it come to 100 000 votes per assembly segment. All these voters were issued voter cards and a systematic attempt is made to bring them to pools. It is a 5 year work. Actually there may be more assembly segments in which these are spread but we are taking a rough idea the details will come out in next three months.

In AP there is 60 seat swing.

The exception is UPA gaininig extra 60 seats. These seats came from Kerala, West Bengal, UP. Pecisely from Kerala 13, Bengal 21, UP 21. AP 7 (last time it was 25 this time with vote count decreasing they got 32) and TN 21 (we are taking the bulk shift minor variations are always considered soon).  The other vote banks are same. This extra vote is due to SDF as the communists analysed.

THe same thing is 2% swing in national elections with the efforts being concnetrated for SDF in Kerala, WB and poorest regions of UP. 2% swing in parliament will give any where 150000 -  200 000 vote advantage in parliamentary segment. As this efforts are concentrated in Coimmunist states and AP nothing seem unusual. As NDA is non existant in these states none got a wind of any thing till the end.

Even we failed to take this factor in to consideration in AP. 

The same trends will appear with more SDF votes for next time.

Many want to strengthen the NDA but cannot. The only alternate is take the middle path and start constructive activism on issues like somebody stated in dual party system states. For example Lok satta in AP was able to muster 2% vote purely oin the issue of Dynasty rule and corruption. Most of the villagers too turned to Lok Satta and one MLA got elected. Same in TN with vijayakant getting 8% of votes. This is precisely we discussed when I was there. Though many donot agree it is the only way. He is right on dot that people of India not only believe that UPA NDA both are unfit to protect them against terrorism but also know that they are unfit to protect the economy also.

If NDA leadership is not in sink with reality so too UPA. But UPA has a powerful lobby gunning for more SDF votes as long as that goes they will definately come to power. Even if they get less votes in percentage thant NDA they will form the government.
[right][snapback]97629[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[ravish]

Dear Savitri ji,

The most fundamental policy that BJP needs to look into is whether in its present image as a Pro Hindu ultra right party it can win the majority of seats in parliament in any future election. The answer today appears to be a clear no.

Given this situation what has to be done so that the party can revive and capture its list ground. It will have to put up a development oriented forward looking agenda aimed mainly on improvement in the condition of the poor section of the society, particularly the rural poor. To achieve this main hurdle will be the future economic development program of the UPA Government and its result 5 years hence, as to be judged by the electorate of the next election.
Having tasted success with the rural employment scheme and the loan wavers etc, as is reflected in the election results, one can be sure that in the second innings all rural economic development programes will get further accelerated. With an eye to this the UPA government will certainly strengthen the HRD Ministry and ensure launching of several new programes for Human resource Development.

In the face of the above mentioned expected activities of the UPA , the need of the hour is for the BJP to make a drastic change in their policy. The party should appear to have such socio-economic development plan that can catch the imagination of the voters and induce them to vote for the BJP. If the BJP, continues to hang on to its old agenda of Hindutva, Ram Mandir etc then they may get further wiped out in the next general election.

[Guest]

Dear Ravishji,

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If the BJP, continues to hang on to its old agenda of Hindutva, Ram Mandir etc then they may get further wiped out in the next general election.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Why stick to BJP? People like you should join the Congress If not already done for that is the kind of ideal you are expecting. I mean why replace the Congress with the BJP?

Perhaps the following analysis of the Straits Times would please people whose core value is similar to that of the Congress or Secularism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"<b>13 reasons why the Congress won and the BJP lost</b>

Congress’ vote share increased by just 2 per cent and the BJP’s vote share fell by around 4 per cent.

But why did the Congress do as well as it did — and the BJP not as well as expected?

First, Congress’ pro-poor development agenda for the “common man”, or aam aadmi, found takers.

Second, regional parties such as the Samajwadi Party, the Bahujan Samaj Party, the All-India Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, the Telegu Desam Party and the communist parties were perceived by voters to be opportunistic power-grabbers who should be taught a lesson.

Third, Congress took a conscious decision not to enter into alliances with such parties. It was this decision that led some of them to form the Third Front, some with the avowed intention of returning to the UPA fold post-election. As things stand, the UPA no longer needs them.

This decision of Congress to go it alone improved its showing in the large state of Uttar Pradesh after many years of dismal performance.

Fourth, in addition to this strategy of ignoring the regional parties, Rahul Gandhi’s conscious decision to revive Congress’ organisational structures in the Hindi-speaking heartland of Uttar Pradesh — and to a lesser extent, Bihar — saw dividends.

Fifth, both because of Gandhi and the Congress fielding many younger candidates, it was perceived as a young party with a vision. In contrast, the BJP was perceived as an old party, led by an old leader, and without a vision.

Sixth, the BJP had no striking agenda. Its issues — terrorism, inflation and unemployment — have ceased to be major issues. The only thing the BJP could think of was speak ominously of money in Swiss bank accounts and this rarely got beyond the English-speaking media.

Seventh, the BJP’s campaign was perceived to be negative, filled with personal attacks against Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Because Dr ingh is perceived by the electorate to be clean and honest, these personal attacks backfired.

The BJP’s leader, Lal Krishna Advani, sought a presidential-type debate with Singh. That debate did not occur. However, in the verbal exchanges that followed, Singh got the better of Advani.

Eighth, the BJP resurrected its Hindutva agenda in the person Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujerat — who was also projected as a possible prime minister — and, somewhat inadvertently, in the person of Varun Gandhi, Rahul’s estranged cousin.

This issue did not resonate with the electorate, least of all among India’s numerous religious minorities.

Ninth, good governance or its promise delivered for the Congress in some states, like Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu.

Tenth, good governance or its promise did not deliver for the BJP in most states. Stated differently, pro-incumbency and anti-incumbency are too simplistic as propositions. They can be countered through an appropriate candidate selection system and the promise of good governance.

Eleventh, the BJP was not a united party. There was open wrangling within the party in several states.

Twelfth, third parties acted as spoilers, denting BJP vote totals in some states and that of its allies in other states.

Thirteenth, though the BJP has no presence in Kerala, the Congress gained substantially in that state because of the collapse of the left parties in the state.

Five years in opposition should have led to soul-searching within the BJP and the enunciation of a clear strategy to tackle the Congress. That did not happen. The Congress managed public relations and the media better than the BJP.

The BJP thought it was doing well and it is only in hindsight that we can now think of 13 or more reasons why it failed. That is the beauty of Indian politics — it is unpredictable. At the end of the day, the BJP was unpleasantly surprised and the Congress pleasantly. — The Straits Times

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However I take it that you are a BJP sympathiser.

The first and foremost thing to consider is if there is a level playing ground when it comes to the election.

Why and how is it that the Congress got so many seats in spite of incumbency? Is this a one time affair or is it likely to be repeated? Is this like a trump card in their permanent possession that they use at will? What gives in to them?

Are the criticism of people like Radha Rajan not valid at all?

The secular media has been against the BJP for so long. Has the BJP or the RSS done anything to face them headlong?

The NSA was invoked against Varun for one alleged speach. The Hindu Sankaracharya and later a saadhvi were arrested with such impunity and the BJP made a lip protest and carried on dreaming to annoint an old man. Why is it so easy to attack Hindu religious leaders?

And finally what does the BJP think that the Hindus want? Do they have any clue? Are we all reconciled to their idea of a modified secularism and the secularist constitution?

These are some of the important questions that are to be addressed.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Savithri+May 23 2009, 05:32 PM-->QUOTE(Savithri @ May 23 2009, 05:32 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dear Ravishji,

<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If the BJP, continues to hang on to its old agenda of Hindutva, Ram Mandir etc then they may get further wiped out in the next general election.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Why stick to BJP? People like you should join the Congress If not already done for that is the kind of ideal you are expecting. I mean why replace the Congress with the BJP?

Perhaps the following analysis of the Straits Times would please people whose core value is similar to that of the Congress or Secularism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"<b>13 reasons why the Congress won and the BJP lost</b>
.............
These are some of the important questions that are to be addressed.
[right][snapback]97671[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Immaturity and naivete of self appointed BJP well wishers like you never ceases to amaze me.

Did you vote this time? And did you talk to the people that voted?

I voted and I tried to find out from the people whom and why did they voted.

Some comments:

1. BJP's committed vote bank is a very restricted urban middle class population. This block is diminishing every year.

2. New voters (18-25 group) has voted for Congress, for all the reasons we know.

3. People do not care about ideology, at least Hindus don't.

4. People have voted for economic reasons. Govt employees and rural peasants for Congress. Nothing wrong in that.

5. Complain of a biased media is a childish rant at the best. Who opened the media sector for foreign investments in the first place? BJP/NDA did and they are reaping the fruits.

6. NSA against Varun is nothing to cry about. One hand we cry about media bias and then go all the way to provide media with opportunity to exploit.

Greatest sin of BJP is that they have never attempted to get rid of the INC lobby in the bureaucracy.

BJP/Right wing do not have any counter establishment to safeguard their interests. Varun@NSA case, Col. Purohit@Malegaon, witch hunt against Modi etc. are a larger pattern.

Over the years BJP/RSS has become a hangout for obstructionists, puritanical thinking and lumpens from the orthodoxy.

Hindutva is not to be discarded. But it needs to go in the background, out of the media glare. Let RSS handle it. Also, RSS needs to get rid of VHP/Bajrang Dals lunatic fringe.

In fact, I see RSS role gaining more importance. One cannot bet on BJP coming to power for many years. RSS will have to tackle to threat the conversions silently and get in touch with Hindu spiritual gurus to push for reforms. Only RSS provides a centralized platform.

Revive temples. They are the center of communities even in urban middle class areas.


In short mixing ideology and statecraft will lead to nowhere.

[Guest]

<b><span style='color:blue'>Election 2009 - The BJP got what it deserved - IV
</span></b>
<b>RSS - unwilling parent</b>

Both in 1997 and in 1998, the writer with her husband and daughter sat on the streets outside her poll-center feverishly assisting people to look for their names on the voters’ list. Prior to the polling day, the family spent ten grueling days banging on doors, house after house, building after building, handing out voting slips first for the AIADMK and then for the DMK. There was cheer in the heart then and a fierce hope that finally things may be beginning to change for the Hindus. Every swayamsevak and every RSS karyakarta worked for what they believed was their election.

In 2009, still a fierce loyalist of the RSS, I cast my vote for the local BJP candidate with reluctant discipline, great unwillingness, and even greater distaste; all my family did the same. But we didn’t care any more if he won or lost because one, we had lost faith in the BJP to serve even half a Hindu cause; and two we were convinced the BJP would get a drumming at the hustings. As Aurobindo put it in Bhawani Mandir, “Our beginnings are mighty, but they have neither sequel nor fruit”. The BJP had stopped delivering; there was no sequel to December 6 and no fruit after RSS labour; there was only wishful thinking. Hindu fury which erupted against Muslim offence over the Amarnath yatra, did not yield benefits for the BJP even in Jammu. The RSS must ask itself why. The Somnath-Ayodhya BJP rath of the 1990s decade is today only a rocking horse.

“The wish to be reborn we have in abundance, there is no deficiency there. How many attempts have been made, how many movements have been begun, in religion, in society, in politics! But the same fate has overtaken or is preparing to overtake them all. They flourish for a moment, then the impulse wanes, the fire dies out, and if they endure, it is only as empty shells, forms from which the Brahma has gone or in which it lies overpowered with Tamas and inert”. (Aurobindo in Bhawani Mandir)

The Hindu nation must rue the day Aurobindo abandoned our Kurukshetra in 1909; the RSS must take some visibly decisive step to stem the rot in the parivar if Hindus have to stop thinking the RSS too has deserted the war; or that Aurobindo’s lament about great beginnings and empty shells, true as they are of the BJP today, may become just as true of the RSS if it fails to act now. But if the RSS has to act, there has to be a re-orientation of its goals, its methods. It is not course correction that is required of the RSS; it is altering the course itself. The RSS has not lost direction, it is still plodding along on the same path as it had marked for itself in 1925; it needs new goals and new roads.

Gandhi’s leadership of the INC and the so-called freedom struggle was nothing more than attempts to get the British to sanction self-rule, even as India remained a colony of the British Empire. Gandhi’s freedom struggle was never a march for complete political independence as envisioned by Tilak and Aurobindo. Gandhi’s INC therefore was battling neither the British Government nor the Muslim League.

Hedgewar, in the wake of the Moplah massacre realized that the INC did not have the capacity to handle jihadi Islam and that the direction in which Gandhi was leading the INC was certain to have tragic consequences for the Hindus. It was this realization which forced Hedgewar to create the RSS but given the Muslim League’s political orientation and political objectives, it is puzzling why Hedgewar did not fashion the RSS as an effective Hindu militant political instrument to deal with the Muslim League.

Hindu nationalists are left with the baffling question, how if the Muslim League had political objectives, was Hindu society going to handle the threat without a political instrument. Gandhi declared the INC was not a Hindu party and did not serve Hindu interests while Hedgewar created a Hindu socio-cultural outfit that had neither political objectives nor a militant orientation; in retrospect, it is obvious that neither the INC nor the RSS was equipped to stave off the bloody vivisection of the Hindu nation in 1947.

To put it bluntly, both Gandhi and Hedgewar, two most powerful Hindus of the time, heading two very powerful organizations, did not aim to stop the Muslim League or jihadi Islam in their tracks. Their cadre – the leaders and members of the INC and the swayamsevaks of the RSS were not intended to be armed soldiers in Kurukshetra fighting to defend the Hindu nation from jihadis and Christian colonialists. While Dr. Hedgewar’s RSS spoke of the Hindu rashtra, there was no conception of a Hindu Rajya. Hedgewar therefore did not fashion the RSS as an instrument of Hindu polity.

Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar passed away in 1940 and Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, a sanyasi in the Ramakrishna Mission order, succeeded him as sarsanghachalak or chief of the RSS. The RSS under the venerable sanyasi, remained a Hindu socio-cultural organization even during the tumultuous years prior to vivisection. Both Keshav and Madhav, like the God after whom they were named, refused to pick up arms. It is to be hoped that Mohan, yet another name for the same God, has the karmic quotient to steer Arjuna to victory..

In the wake of the bloody vivisection in 1947 and the continuing trauma of Hindus in J&K and the by now total disempowerment of the Hindus under the Nehru dispensation, Golwalkar realized that the time had come for the RSS to create an instrument to protect Hindu political interests; in fact, create an Arjuna. While Hedgewar picked a sanyasi to succeed him in the RSS, the sanyasi picked a militant Hindu from the Hindu Mahasabha, Dr. Syama Prasad Mukherjee who had also served in the cabinet under Nehru, to create the Jana Sangh. Not surprisingly Dr. Mukherjee challenged Nehru in his own personal fiefdom in J&K. His death in June 1953 when in custody in J&K was post-independent India’s first political assassination executed by state power.

Having removed Savarkar from the political arena and from public life, Nehru’s removal of Syama Prasad Mukherjee did not come as a great surprise. Tottering under the sustained campaign by Nehru’s Congress as Gandhi’s assassins, the RSS suffered a second blow with Dr. Mukherjee’s murder in custody. The tentative attempt by the RSS to create a fighting arm suffered a major setback and the Jana Sangh had little to show for itself as a Hindu party in the virulently anti-Hindu Nehruvian years.

The Bharatiya Jana Sangh went into a limbo after Dr. Mukherjee’s death. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, thinker and scholar, was also not a kshatriya. Integral humanism cannot and therefore did not put a Hindu face to Indian polity; neither did it make the effort to study the ideal nature of polity to protect the Hindu rashtra. Hindu intellectualism had no clear and well-defined goal. It produced nothing of value by way of political doctrines and theories to serve the Hindu nation.

Hedgewar, Golwalkar, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya and even other intellectuals in the parivar may all be described as social thinkers, but they had no political orientation and were therefore not political ideologues in the same mould as Aurobindo and Savarkar. At least, their political philosophy did not set pursuit of state power to protect and defend the Hindu nation from all threats to its national character. They did not think state power was important; not as important as social transformation. The RSS made social transformation and capturing state power as naturally mutually exclusive goals. RSS ideologues believed in and promoted the idea that politics like power and money corrupts; and so an ordinary swayamsevak is not imparted the training to handle big money, big power and big politics.

It may even be said that there was fastidious distaste for politics and a superior resolve that the RSS has to do nation-building without taking recourse to politics. One is not sure when this pernicious trend emerged within the RSS but the thought that swayamsevaks must desist from politics and must not be tainted by political ambitions has taken deep root in the psyche of the ordinary RSS swayamsevaks and karyakartas. The largest voluntary cadre in the country, the most disciplined force, characterised by remarkable selflessness embodying physical-labour-as-worship is however, as a national force, singularly unable to deal effectively with the twin threats to Hindu national identity and character – jihadi Islam and the evangelising church.

It is not enough to want to ‘become’ a Hindu rashtra or to assert we ‘are’ a Hindu rashtra without the commensurate wherewithal to defend it and if need be, remove forces that threaten it. Little Sri Lanka showed the world what a determined state can do to uproot the last vestiges of forces threatening national security. In India the RSS has to battle not only external threats to national security but also both external and internal threats working in tandem to radically change the national character and ethos defined by the majority native populace.

The BJP went to the polls in 2004 without a Hindu agenda; in 2009, it went to the polls without any agenda. It had one of the best election manifestos but intentionally refused to speak about the manifesto; the issues in the manifesto were never made the political agenda or the talking points during the election campaign. Making Advani the Prime Minister was the only palpable agenda of the BJP in 2009; the Hindu nation is not obliged to fulfill this agenda where the person projected as the leader has not been projected as a leader of the Hindus with a verifiable track record. If anything, Advani’s track record proved the opposite.

Not only was there bitter and acrimonious in-fighting among the leaders in the BJP, quarrels which they did not care to hide from the people who they expected to vote for them, there was bitter and acrimonious quarrels even among the parivar siblings. In the last decade, the RSS has allowed these quarrels and in-fighting to worsen and get out of control. When the BJP went to the polls, none of the issues plaguing the parivar had been resolved. There was no visible coming together of the entire parivar as a united collective, with the fire of determination to capture Hindu state power enthusing the ordinary Hindu voter. The BJP and the VHP were at loggerheads, the BJP and the Swadeshi Jagran Manch were also at loggerheads when the BJP was in power between 1998 and 2004; the SJM, as a parivar offspring, crated to study and formulate an alternate economic model for the nation, had little to show for itself between 2004 and 2009 except to hold street demonstrations against FDI in retail as though FDI in retail was the only bone of contention in the entire retail debate or the only economic issue.

Serious and well-motivated parenting demands sustained physical and mental energy; if the parenting has been careless, then to deal with a wayward offspring calls for a physically fit body and an ever-young mind which is always learning. This much the Hindu nation has the right to expect of its leaders. The previous segment listed the tasks ahead of the Hindu nation. The RSS must first introspect if it is ready to face these Himalayan challenges to the survival of the Hindu nation. Mens sana in corpore sano. Does the RSS have it? We are a very long way away from infusing kshatriya blood into Hindu society. We need a healthy body first. The RSS has to heal itself before it heals the wounds to the body of the Hindu nation.

22nd May, 2009.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>India’s no to change</b>
pioneer.com
Chandan Mitra
On May 16, India voted out probably the best Government it never had. This is not mere wordplay. I believe the BJP-led NDA deserved another stint in office to demonstrate an alternative approach to governance, taking forward the incomplete tasks left behind by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and giving India a new direction both at home and abroad.

Lal Krishna Advani, with 60 years’ standing in public life and eight years of administrative experience (including two years as I&B Minister in the Morarji Desai Ministry) richly deserved to be India’s Prime Minister because he would have been his own man in office, not a proxy PM.

The BJP also had a well-balanced team, a mixture of experience and enthusiasm, capable of implementing fresh ideas that were a combination of welfare measures and nation-building policies. But it was not to be. India resoundingly voted for status-quo, preferring five more years of Sonia-Manmohan rule with Rahul Gandhi waiting in the wings to take over, possibly mid-way through the tenure of the 15th Lok Sabha.

In a democracy, the last word lies with the electorate and those who do not agree with the voters’ choice also must accept the judgment in all humility even while questioning the wisdom of the verdict.

Contrary to the media projection of the outcome of the 2009 election as “path-breaking” and “historic”, the fact is that it was essentially a vote for status-quo. Arguably, this was tempered with warnings delivered to certain parties especially in the States, but the electorate delivered this cautionary note knowing the applecart wouldn’t be upset anywhere.

For example, Mayawati performed worse than expected, but BSP remains the biggest political force in UP with one seat being added to its 2004 tally and two per cent to its vote share. Nitish Kumar got an overwhelming endorsement from Bihar’s voters, but the rise in the Congress’ vote share and the fact that the anti-NDA vote percentage in the State is barely one per cent less than the NDA’s, carries its own tale.

In Orissa, Naveen Patnaik romped home with staggering numbers, but BJD’s vote share is still only 37 per cent, albeit up by approximately eight per cent. Orissa and Andhra Pradesh results are significant because these were the two major States where Assembly polls were held simultaneously.

Both returned the incumbent Chief Ministers to power and even in Sikkim Pawan Chamling came back with all 32 seats in the Assembly. In other words, neither at the Centre nor in the States where Assembly polls took place, was the incumbent regime dislodged.

So, is the wheel turning full circle? Far from anti-incumbency being the key factor, has pro-incumbency emerged as the new X-factor? Howsoever tempting it might be to jump to that conclusion, it could be highly erroneous to say this definitively. It can, however, be said that over the last few years, incumbency has ceased to be an albatross around the neck of ruling parties. That benefited the BJP in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, although not in Rajasthan, in December last year, while Sheila Dikshit reaped the harvest of pro-incumbency for the Congress in Delhi.

Earlier, Narendra Modi in Gujarat had similarly bucked anti-incumbency to win successive Assembly polls in that State.

Now let’s hear the warning bells. It was loudest in West Bengal and Kerala, more resounding in the former because of the long-held assumption of the CPM’s invincibility. In Tamil Nadu, the warning was half-hearted: ADMK did win a fair share of seats but not enough to suggest that voters are disgusted enough to wait breathlessly for the first opportunity to overthrow the DMK regime. Basically, they have told the incumbent regime to shape up, not get out, as yet. Had they been certain about ousting DMK, they would not have ensured the defeat of all nominees of the Vanniyar-dominated PMK whose representative in Delhi, Anbumani Ramadoss, had unleashed terror of Tughlaqian proportions as Health Minister. In Maharashtra, voters by and large retained their faith in the bumbling Congress-NCP coalition although the incumbent regime’s performance was abetted by its own illegitimate progeny, namely, Raj Thackeray’s MNS.

It is necessary to disaggregate the 2009 verdict in order to understand it. There was no wave in favour of the Congress, nor was it an unequivocal rejection of regional parties. It was essentially a vote against change, demonstrating that the electorate was in no mood to experiment in a big way.

Barring West Bengal, Kerala, Punjab and Uttarakhand, the incumbent regimes were not jolted anywhere; even in Assam, the Congress retained the upper hand despite projections of an AGP-BJP sweep. The Congress and a few of its allies benefited most from this pro-incumbency trend by winning more seats than expected in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. Given this mood, which few analysts could foresee, the BJP’s performance was below par but not disastrous. It got just about 20 seats less than 2004, although it was hoping to get around 20 more than last time. It too was a beneficiary of pro-incumbency, although it didn’t do as well as expected in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. BJP improved upon its already high tally in Karnataka and Himachal Pradesh reaffirming pro-incumbency sentiment just as in Rajasthan it was pulverised in the follow through of its defeat in the Assembly six months ago.

Regional parties have suffered but not as grievously as it is being made out. BSP in my opinion hasn’t lost its base; its inability to substantially improve its presence in the Lok Sabha doesn’t mean it’s been routed, although its aspiration to emerge as a national party stands thoroughly rejected. Mulayam Singh should be reasonably happy that he managed to retain 24 seats in the face of a resurgent Congress’s success in attracting a sizeable percentage of the Muslim vote after several decades. Nitish Kumar, Naveen Patnaik, Jayalalithaa and Karunanidhi remain successful and powerful regional satraps, capable of influencing decisions even at the national level. So, writing them off would be a huge mistake.

Arguably, voters in the Left-dominated States have firmly put CPM in its place, but that is primarily because of the party’s high-handedness, insensitivity and in-fighting in those two States. It has very little to do with the voters’ disgust with the CPM’s destabilisation of the outgoing UPA regime in Delhi.

In other words, it is not entirely correct to describe the 2009 mandate as a “national” vote as opposed to the aggregate of State outcomes, although it is true that there was an undercurrent in favour of the Congress especially in the cities, which explains the party’s phenomenal success in Delhi and Mumbai.

Pressures of instant analyses, spawned by TV channels, have resulted in pundits reaching sweeping and largely misleading conclusions. The Congress, no doubt, has won but it has only 206 seats, which is why it remains desperate to have troublesome allies on board.

The BJP has lost the election squarely, but successfully retained its rural base, slowly emerging as the party of the upwardly mobile farmer rather than the urban middle class. This is a warning to the party, considering 40 per cent of India is now urbanised. But past experience tells us never to write premature political obituaries or get mesmerised by the illusion of permanence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Greatest sin of BJP is that they have never attempted to get rid of the INC lobby in the bureaucracy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Corrupt IAS, IFS, IPS, CBI tratitors are difficult to kick out. Indian Embassies helped Q to escape. They are used to settle political scores. Oil for Food coverup idiot is now Congress MP from Kerala. CBI was used to settle political scores. IAS were happy to make money under table. Well these greedy traitors need Congress and Congress need them to enjoy thier own life and destroy India. These traitors work for 10 Janpath.
Well Indians had elected them, and as I say, they deserve them.
Only God can save India and punish these traitors.

Indian corrupt politicans or corrupt bureaucracy will never jump from cliff as South Korean President did yesterday but in India its other way round, more corrupt means more power.

No one questioned how Sonia, Rahul Sibal etc made millions with MP salaries.
If Indians are blind and no vision, they deserve these politicans and crock bureaucracy.

[Guest]

<b>Elections 2009: The Myth of ‘Secular’ Verdict</b>
Swati Parashar

The verdict of the 2009 Lok Sabha elections is loud and clear as the UPA returns to power for another 5 year term. In the light of the developments in the last one year this election verdict comes as a surprise and in many ways a pleasant one. However, for those gleefully claiming the victory of the ‘secular’ forces, it is time for some bitter ‘truths’. It may not be possible to cover every aspect in the short space of one paper, but let me at the outset claim that this election mandate is not pro secular or anti communal as I argue further, but has definitely jolted the pseudo secularists. It is time for these pseudo secularist forces to introspect as much as it is time for the BJP and the Hindutva forces to rethink their political strategy and ideology should they wish to survive as a viable political alternative. After the Mumbai attacks last year (2008), many of us had called for change and called for a war against the forces that are divisive and violent. This election mandate, though not ‘secular’ as such, is a positive beginning in this regard and a reminder perhaps that people are not to be taken for granted, people are not naive, and that ‘all the people cannot be fooled all the time’.

The single most important outcome of this election verdict has been the defeat of the Leftist brigade along with other staunch and ‘committed’ champions of ‘fanatic secularism’, such as Lalu Yadav and Ram Vilas Paswan. In UP too, ‘secular’ Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav have incurred losses, owing to the gains made by the Congress Party. The importance of this verdict cannot be overlooked. Lalu Yadav and Ram Vilas Paswan have never hesitated to claim their alpsankhyak (minority) Muslim vote banks in their capacity as upholders of real secular values. The same vote bank could not come to their rescue as Bihar gave a decisive mandate to Nitish Kumar for the development work he has been doing as also for the personal image Nitish enjoys among the electorate. It was interesting to note that not one media report was keen to portray Nitish Kumar’s victory as the victory of the ‘communal’ forces considering he is officially still with NDA. Those who have memories of Lalu’s Bihar and his rise to ‘absolute power which corrupted him absolutely’ will heave a sigh of relief. Similarly, Mulayam’s Muslim vote bank could not do much for him and in fact sufficiently lowered his bargaining power because of the gains made by the Congress. Mayawati, who was being projected in the Indian and Western media as the possible first Dalit Prime Minister of India, is now blaming the Muslims for her defeat. She also has a few political lessons to learn. People vote for progress and that identity politics (of either caste or religion) does not always yield the best results in a democracy.

I must now turn my attention to the biggest secularists of our times, the Leftists (CPI - M/ML). Their ideological bankruptcy and regressive views saw them being routed from their home states, Bengal and Kerala. Does that mean that the people have rejected the agenda of secularism? Or that people have only voted for communal forces by rejecting the left? The usually eloquent Sitaram Yechury, D Raja and Prakash Karat did not divulge much on these questions but perhaps they have got the message. People are capable of taking decisions especially concerning issues of secularism/ communalism etc. We want governments that can best serve us, lead us into the future and provide us with security and development. If the BJP cannot dictate terms and decide for us what Hinduism/Hindu Rashtra should mean, the Karats and the Rajas cannot decide for us what secularism should mean. Moreover, the ideological bankruptcy of the Left was clearly revealed when they opposed the nuclear deal. They might learn a lesson or two now - that we live in a world of international relations and we have to deal with other actors in this system and ensure that our national interests are well served. They could also be advised that the Cold War is officially over and that it is no longer a fashionable subaltern position to be critical of the West (America) and isolate it, instead of engaging with it. The uncritical political tyranny that the Leftist ideology and leadership has unleashed in India (Nandigram is still fresh in our memories) has been exposed for what it really is. Ousted CPM leader and former Lok Sabha Speaker, Somnath Chatterjee made a pertinent point today that if the Left wishes to survive it would have to get rid of its narcissist leadership. Therefore, these are words of caution for those projecting this election verdict as a victory of ‘secular forces’. It is more of a defeat of pseudo secular forces and identity politics and a mandate based on developmental issues.

I believe that in a multi-religious and multi -ethnic country like India, politics of all kinds including identity politics will emerge and each will struggle to create its space and stake its claim. Each has its own relevance. There was much media attention paid to the concept of ‘Muslim votes’ majorly affecting election outcomes. Now I am alarmed by the fact that there are reports in the media claiming that Christians and Muslims are happy with this 2009 mandate. Should this imply that Hindus are not happy or that Hindus are not a political community or an identity group? Didn’t Hindus vote for the UPA and what if we really had a ‘Hindu vote’ or a ‘Sikh vote’ like the ‘Muslim vote’? These questions may seem inconvenient but they are legitimate and reflect the angst of people who are tired of being labelled as one or another and tired of the vicious political divide between ‘communal’ and ‘secular’ that overrides other important issues. I have always argued that the majority community is as much entitled to the politics of ‘nationalism’, ‘religion’ and ‘identity’ as is any minority and have earlier written about the pernicious politics of labelling (right wing, communal etc. which has been indiscriminately used to demonise people and communities).

Those celebrating ‘secular’ victory must remember that the biggest winner today like Nitish Kumar and Naveen Patnaik (are/were part of the BJP led NDA). Patnaik can claim all the secularism he likes after emerging victorious, but fact is that when anti-Christian violence was taking place in Kandhamal, his government fared worse than Modi’s Gujarat! He only quit the NDA alliance days before the elections when his astute political sense warned him that the NDA would not fare well. The ‘secular’ credentials of the Congress itself are not any better than its allies like Rashtriya Janata Dal (led by Lalu Yadav) and Lok Janshakti Party (led by Ram Vilas Paswan) who have lost the elections. Revisiting the past of the Congress can reveal how it has heavily relied on vote bank politics and played the communal card in states like Punjab and Kashmir. The Congress was also responsible for the opening of the disputed structure at Ayodhya in 1986 in a miscalculated effort to ‘appease’ the Hindus, after the Shah Bano controversy. We, therefore, must be careful before making tall claims about how ‘secularism’ has won or that communalism is out forever. BJP and its allies are not the only ones who practise ‘communal’ politics.

We might at this juncture, when celebrating a more decisive victory for the UPA coalition as against a fractured mandate, spare a thought or two for the role of the opposition. In any democracy the opposition has an important role to play as the conscience keeper of the government and as a political alternative at all times. In the absence of this alternative, it can become a one party tyranny which unfortunately we have witnessed in the past during the Congress ruled emergency years. In order to prevent that kind of one party dictatorship, it is important that we understand and appreciate the role of a strong opposition. Those stomping out the ‘Lotus’ in sheer political naivety must realise that the BJP will have to play the role of the opposition as the second largest party. If we are hoping and expecting the government to perform, let us also invest a little bit of that hope in an opposition that can be credible and responsible. BJP and its allies cannot be treated as a pariah in the political system. A revamp of the BJP is a must in the light of this electoral defeat (and it is up to their leadership to rethink their future strategy) but only lack of political sense will want anyone to desire that the BJP should disappear out of the political arena.

This election has sprung surprises of all sorts, pleasant and unpleasant but above all it has made it clear to the political parties that people are intelligent and politically mature and that they cannot be taken for granted, nor subjected to fear and oppression all the time. To end on a positive note, it might be worthwhile to appreciate how some criminal turned politicians and their kin have lost the plot. RJD MP Mohammad Shahabuddin's wife Heena Sahab lost in Siwan; Ranjeeta Ranjan, the wife of Pappu Yadav lost in Supaul; Congress candidate Lovely Anand, wife of former JD-U MP Anand Mohan, was defeated in the Sheohar constituency. Even veteran politicians have been shown the door in these elections. In this list is the most ‘secular’ of them all, Mr. A R Antulay (who had made some profoundly sinister ‘secular’ observations after the Mumbai terror attacks). Perhaps, out of optimism, we can claim that we did have the last laugh.

“Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be”.

~Sydney J. Harris~



Swati Parashar is a PhD candidate at the Department of Politics and International Relations, Lancaster University, UK. She can be contacted at swatiparashar@hotmail.com

[Capt M Kumar]

<!--emo&:ind--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/india.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='india.gif' /><!--endemo--> He hailed Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi as an example of development who is "popular as he has performed".

He said Modi could not be indicted for the post-Godhra riots in his state. "If he has the taint of 2002 riots then why can't we talk about the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 ... We should live in the present," he said.

Sidhu said BJP's ideology is to work for the development of a person as this would lead to the development of the country. "Vyakti nirman, desh nirman".

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/S...how/4571163.cms

[ravish]

I endorse the views of sroy. His analysis is very sound and nearest to the ground realities of present day India.Mr Mudi’s contention of the corrupt babu’s influence on the Indian electorate is far from true.It is rather an insult on the maturity of the Indian electorate, who know very well what they are doing. The majority of them even do not divulge the way they are going to vote, which makes exit polls an useless exercise. The mass transfer of IAS and IPS officials in Uttar Pradesh by the Chief Minister, for their inability to influence the voters is a glaring example of how off the mark is Mr. Mudi’s theory.

The BJP and its allies need not be disheartened . If the UPA fails to perform in the next 5 years to the expectations of the majority of the electorates, they will certainly be voted out. Who will be the replacement is an open question. The electorate will certainly choose the best of the outfits. The NDA to become their obvious choice will require a total overhaul of the BJP and its major partners. In fact, with proper planning the BJP on its own can go in to face the electorate , provided it can project a dynamic developmental programe and a strong leadership. At present, unfortunately both of these are missing from the BJP’s scheme of things.
The Left and its third front is expected to remain a non starter, in view of the liberalisation and economic programme that will get accelerated in the next five years.

[Guest]

Andhi Janta , Kana Raja, chor adhikari. Mera Bharat Mahan.

[Bodhi]

PARTY SEATS(2009) SEATS(2004 ) VOTE %

<b>UPA </b>
CONGRESS 206 145 29.67 (2004: 26.44)
TMC 19 2 3.43
DMK 18 16 1.91
NCP 9 9 2.24
NC 3 2 0.33
JMM 2 5 0.43
AIMIM 1 1

<b>NDA</b>
BJP 116 138 19.29 (2004: 22.16)
JD(U) 21 8 1.58
SS 11 12 1.67
RLD 5 3 0.49
SAD 4 8 0.92
TRS 2 5 0.63
AGP 1 2 0.45
INLD 0 0 0.33

<b>LEFT FRONT 24 59 7.00 </b>

<b>OTHERS</b>
SP 23 36 3.44
BSP 21 19 <b>6.27</b>
BJD 14 11 1.35
TDP 6 5 1.53
RJD 3 24 1.31
AIDMK 9 0 1.79
IUML 2 1 0.23
JD(S) 3 3 0.89
MDMK 1 4
LJP 0 4 0.48
BHAJANLAL 1 0

INDEPENDENTS 9 27 4.16


<b>70+% of Indians voted for the following, sorted in % of votes:</b>

CONGRESS 206 29.67
BJP 116 19.29
BSP 21 6.27
LEFT (all combined) 24 7.00
SP 23 3.44
TMC 19 3.43

[Bodhi]

I was wondering, if BJP had entered in a pre-poll alliance with BSP, by sacrificing the PM-ship to Mayawati, would NDA+BSP have defeated UPA+SP?

Besides UP, the above data shows that BSP has received impressive vote share in Rajasthan, Haryana, MP and Delhi. Must have impacted the direct BJP chances in those states.

Would it have been practical, meaning did BSP get moslem votes which would have been drifted in case of this tie-up? Data shows that moslems did not vote for BSP in any case, and went for Congress/SP, and Mayawati half-knew this before election and certainly knows this now.

Would "upper"-caste/OBC have deserted BJP in case of a tie-up? Likely not.

[ravish]

By hypothetically having different political combinations and trying to interpose the present voting figures, one can create imaginarily voting patterns. However , in a actual situation it cannot be guaranteed that the voting pattern would have remained the same.

An analysis of the voters trend indicates that development and economic agenda have been the main deciding factor. In the process , almost all the political parties have gone off the mark as they were still counting the possible seats on the basis of the old voting pattern based on caste , personal popularity or notoriety ( as the case may be) , religion and party affiliation.
In fact, this time the voters have almost completely surprised the political parties, exit poll specialists and others. Nobody could guess the real mind of the majority of the voters. The religious factor also did not play any decisive roll and so the BJP did not perform well.

The reality has been quite contrary to Mudyji’s one liner above. The voters in no way voted blindly, they have in fact voted very wisely and have also been able to maintain total secrecy .The most glaring example has been the fate of RJD and Ram Vilas Paswan in Bihar. Such strong political outfits in the State of Bihar, having the full backing of Caste and individual candidates who in most of the cases being the local don, could not give a formidable performance. The same has been the fate of the Left parties in West Bengal . Here perhaps the situation has been even worst. The Left has totally failed despite having the State Government apparatus at its disposal. Despite controlling the police and the administrative machinery in the State, the Left parties could not rig the polls nor could they induce the voters from changing the voting pattern.

The examples of Bihar and west Bengal cited above is reflective of the strong resolve and determination of the voters. This is not possible if the voters have exercised their franchise blindly on party lines or caste or religious lines, as has happened in the past. This new awakening amongst the voters needs to be taken note of by all political parties in the years to come. If the UPA fail, to perform to the expectation of the voters, they will have no hesitation to show them the door in the next general election. At the same time if the NDA can put up some formidable program of governance, the voters may again give them a try. However, if the NDA tries to maintain its old agenda and its old way of retaining elderly leaders, its revival of fortunes will indeed be difficult.

[Guest]

Andhi Janta-
Slave mentality, they still don't question authority and those who promotes. For them it doesn't matter; they are suffering from slave mentality or corrupt Babu padding mentality.
Why people don't question how Netas had made so much money on MP salary? In US IRS returns are open for public to see. That is why Indian democracy is flawed. It is supported by corrupt bureaucracy.
Why Indians accept appointed Prime Minister? Why they go for election to elect dummy babu who works for 10 Janpath?
Why people are not questioning misuse of Indian Embassies worldwide by 10 Janpath?
Why people working in Indian Embassies, CBI, IAS are not exposing or whistle blower? In fact they are part of corruption. One idiot pops up other. Damn these people are corrupt to core, both rub each other back and looting India.
Why no investigation for Oil for food? Why blind public is not asking these questions?
Don't suggest me public are very good in judging, Oh ya till it keeps corrupt people in power, its okay.
Why during BJP rule there were so many sting operations targeting NDA only, for five year why no sting operation against UPA, don't suggest me they are clean bastards.
Why no sting operation against Babu Cadre during UPA rule, but it was so common during NDA rule? Don’t tell Babus are suddenly had Ganga Sanan.

Oh ya !!! Electorates are suddenly became intelligent and knows better than others.

Andhi Janta , Kana Raja can deliver only corrupt rule degradation of society. That is why India was under foreign rule because or corrupts people who were traitors and sold India to biggest bidder. It is no different now.

[Guest]

http://www.telegraphindia.com/section/fr.../index.jsp

The Telegraph

<b>RSS defends Modi, blames campaign</b>

SANJAY K. JHA

New Delhi, May 23: The RSS has diagnosed bad campaigning, not Narendra Modi or Varun Gandhi, as the cause of the BJP’s poor poll show and recommended that the only cure is re-affirmation of its ideological purity.

In the latest issue of its mouthpiece Organiser, the RSS has interpreted the verdict as the people’s rejection of smaller parties (third front) and a vote for the “evolution of a national polity.” <b>Some essays have subtly suggested that the BJP move out of its coalition mindset and expand its own base.</b>

“The silver lining in this electoral outcome is the unmistakable play of the national psyche and the emergence of a clear two-party system,” the editorial has said.

“<b>There is no evidence to show that the ideology of the party has failed.</b> There is also no evidence that the Modi campaign or the Varun Gandhi speech damaged its prospects. <b>The BJP actually failed in presenting itself as a better alternative offering stability and a national vision.</b> This has more to do with a mismanaged campaign and organisational weaknesses.”

The campaign was managed by the BJP’s most celebrated strategist Arun Jaitley, hailed as a rainmaker after victories in state elections.

But the RSS appears to have made a direct attack on his style of functioning. “<b>Over-dependence on hi-tech and affluence more than grassroots-level management damaged the party. Politics is played out in the field, not in air-conditioned chat rooms</b>.”

The RSS has also hit out at the BJP’s self-defeating obsession with media endorsement, saying “this was one of the reasons for the party losing in urban constituencies”.

After the 2004 defeat, too, the RSS and a large section of the BJP had slammed hi-tech campaigning and media obsession. The campaign in-charge then was the late Pramod Mahajan, who had apologised for the defeat.

But a more hi-tech campaign was launched this time through Advani’s website and sleek TV jingles. Nor did BJP strategists forget to shower pity on the Congress’s poor show on this front.

<b>The RSS also does not share the dilemma of senior BJP leaders on Hindutva politics. It has indicated that any attempt to dilute ideology would be crushed with brute force. “...it has to shut its doors on all those who want to reshape it as a Congress B-team,” </b>the editorial has said.

There has been a clamour from some BJP quarters that the party should adopt a progressive, secular agenda and fight poll on the planks of development and governance alone. Advani too unsuccessfully tried to pursue this line.

But most articles have suggested an aggressive Hindutva line. <b>“The BJP will have no rationale if it is not a Hindu savvy party,” </b>an article has said.

The BJP will also have to grapple with the RSS belief that the coalition era has ended. “People have become sick of coalition talk. The craze will be for parties with a pan-Indian vision and presence. Instead of wasting time coaxing and cajoling recalcitrant partners, national parties like the BJP can now concentrate on building up the organisational structure in states where it is weak,” the editorial has said.

[Guest]

<b>BJP at crossroads: Back to basics or irrelevance? </b>
Virendra Parekh
25 May 2009 http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx? id=593

<i>"Many of us, utterly overcome by Tamas, the dark and heavy demon of inertia,
are saying nowadays that it is impossible, that India is decayed, bloodless
and lifeless, too weak ever to recover; that our race is doomed to
extinction. It is a foolish and idle saying. No man or nation need be weak
unless he so chooses, no man or nation need perish unless he deliberately
chooses extinction" - Aurobindo, "Bhawani Mandir"

"One who may die but will not perish has life everlasting" - Lao Tse</i>

Following the stunning defeat of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the
recent Lok Sabha elections, the secularist commentariat lost no time in
advising the BJP to eradicate once and for all the remaining traces of
Hindutva from its thinking and programmes and move to a centrist position.

The carrot is: this will enable the party to win more allies and overcome
the limitations of its vote base. The stick: the alternative is to play to
its core support base by emphasising the party's point of difference with
the Congress and others on the secularism issue and indeed to seek
polarisation on this count. The latter course might enthuse party cadres but
will stunt BJP's growth and confine its seat share in Parliament to double
digits.

<b>The advice is not new.</b> It resurfaces every time BJP suffers electoral
reverses. It is renewed now that the BJP's strength in the Lok Sabha has
declined by about 15 percent to just 116 seats (its lowest tally in two
decades) and its vote share dropped to barely 18 percent, a good 10
percentage points short of the Congress score. These results are
conveniently interpreted as "defeat of Hindu chauvinism," "rejection of
communal agenda" and so on. The situation is described as an "existential
dilemma" which can be resolved only by a determined divorce from Hindutva.

<b>The alternative explanation - that BJP might have been rejected by the
people for not being "chauvinist" or "communal" enough - never occurs to
those offering this unsolicited advice. "Mr. (Varun) Gandhi has swept a
polarised Pilibhit, but the party has done poorly in Uttar Pradesh. </b>Indeed,
even in Mr. (Narendra) Modi's Gujarat, the difference between the BJP vote
and the Congress vote is barely 3 percentage points," points out an edit
writer gleefully. What if the whole of Uttar Pradesh had seen polarization?
How many more seats could BJP have won in UP without Varun Gandhi? What if
Mr. Modi could polarize Gujarati votes as he has done in the past?

<b>BJP will be courting certain death if it were to heed the secularists'
advice. For the advice is not objective and well-meaning but interested and
partisan, motivated by a burning desire for total disarmament of Hindu
society ideologically, morally and politically.</b>

Yet the critics have a point: BJP cannot avoid taking a hard look at itself
without risking total irrelevance and terminal decline. <b>Its 'success' in
persuading Mr. L. K. Advani to continue as Leader of Opposition in the Lok
Sabha for a while has only exposed its weakness. It has postponed the day of
reckoning to prevent exposure of the faultlines in its central leadership.</b>
But sooner rather than later, it has to come to terms with the reality that
the Vajpayee-Advani era is truly over.

The real challenge before the BJP, however, is not to find a successor to
Mr. Advani but to rediscover its own original self, to compare what it
aspired to be in its original incarnation with what it has made of itself
through decades, and chart out a course of self-renewal which would restore
its credibility and relevance.

<b>Ever since it tasted power in Delhi, BJP has been consistently diluting its
commitment to Hindutva to broaden its political base, to win and retain
allies and to win acceptability and respectability in secularist circles.</b>
Commentators on this website (Sandhya Jain, Radha Rajan, B. R. Haran) have
described in graphic detail <b>BJP's degeneration into a Congress B-team</b> in its futile chase of a secular label.

It is amazing that BJP has been fighting a life and death battle as per
rules framed by its inveterate enemies. <b>Instead of challenging the values
fashioned by the anti-Hindu secularist elite, BJP has been bending backwards
to conform to them.</b> The enemies say "secularism is good." BJP says "We are
secular, you are pseudo-secular." Murli Manohar Joshi says BJP lost because
it did not field significant numbers of Muslim candidates. Arun Jaitley
boasts of Muslims being drawn towards BJP. Is this what BJP was set up to
achieve?

<b>The enemies say "caste-based reservations are good." BJP says "we are all
for it." The enemies say "women's reservations are good." BJP says "We
support it." The enemies say "middle class is sold on the nuclear deal." BJP
says "We will accept it with a few minor changes." At no point does it turn
around and say "your values are perverse. Your programmes are worthless. We
do not want any of them. We will chart our own course."

The strategy was flawed from the beginning, both at the political and
ideological level.</b> Whatever assurances BJP may hold out to Muslims and other
minorities, it can never compete with the likes of Mulayam Singh
(whose biggest achievement is showering bullets on kar sevaks in Ayodhya),
Manmohan Singh ('Muslims have first claim on national resources') and Sonia
Gandhi (about whom nothing need be said). More importantly, Muslims would
get the message that it pays to be cross with BJP (Bigad ke rahane se jyada
milta hai).

<b>This is a battle BJP can never win. The secularists in media and politics
have fashioned an identity for BJP which they want it to acquire, but which
they will never concede to it. </b>The more the BJP bends, the more will it be
asked to bend. Secularists are like spoilt rich brats. The sight of beggars
craving for crumbs makes them laugh. Even if BJP were to formally renounce
all traces of Hindutva and disown every one of its nationalist planks, it
will still be accused of being communal simply because that is the surest
way to put it on the defensive.

There is a historical parallel between the plight of BJP now and Congress in
the pre-independence era. <b>Everything that Congress is saying now about BJP
is what Jinnah used to say about Congress in the 1940s
(party of Hindu baniyas, Muslims can never get justice from it.) </b>Under
Gandhi, Congress embarked on a path of winning over the hearts and minds of
Muslims over the heads of Muslim League and Jinnah (a brave and noble
endeavour no doubt, but foolhardy) and ended up conceding Pakistan. BJP
under Vajpayee embarked on a similar mission vis-?-vis Muslims, secularist
parties and media. <b>It has no Pakistan to concede, but it can end up
compromising Hindu interests beyond repair.</b>

The first thing for BJP to do, therefore, is to resolve its 'existential
dilemma' in favour of returning to its roots. <b>It must develop the courage
and vision to think and act like a party centred on Hindu India</b>. If parties
speaking for Dalits, Muslims, Yadavs and other small groups claim
legitimacy, a party whose vision encompasses 82 percent of the population
cannot be denied it. <b>Secondly, a Hindu-centric party or polity need not be
anti-Muslim in intent or action. Only it will not run after votes of Muslims
as Muslims.</b>

The key requirement in making the right choice is courage. As Radha Rajan
put it so aptly, as long as BJP keeps looking only at the trees of
parliamentary seats currently held by its allies and adversaries, it will
not see the wood of Hindu sentiments and aspirations which will give it the
seats required to stand alone. To do that, BJP must first have the vision
and the courage to stand alone even in its weakened state. <b>The legs will
find their strength in movement, not in paralysis.</b>

On the face of it, this may look like a losing proposition. For too long,
BJP has been dominated by the mindset of a calculative Vaishya. <b>But politics
is a business of Kshatriya.</b>

The second essential requirement is vision. Being rooted in the native soil
is necessary but not sufficient. <b>If BJP is serious about emerging as a party
capable of governing a billion-strong country in the 21st century with a
fast-globalising economy, it must evolve an economic programme
simultaneously growth-oriented and inclusive. Such a programme will shun the
old and the new orthodoxy in economic thinking</b>. It will judge policies,
events and trends by their impact on different sections of the population
and the economy as a whole, rather than their conformity with notions and
theories currently in fashion. <b>It will push for social reforms centering on
ending caste inequities and promoting gender justice. It will conjure up a
vision of India where sky is the limit for youth with drive and ambition.</b>

Earlier, BJP relied exclusively on ideology. Of late, it is relying
exclusively on development. Naturally, it faltered. <b>At a time when the
community felt besieged nation-wide by jihad and Christian evangelism, BJP
disappointed its supporters by consciously avoiding these issues</b>. BJP lost
because Hindus who gathered to hear Narendra Modi did not get to hear what
their hearts wanted to hear.

Third, BJP must have a 24x7 TV channel of its own. It must also have a chain
of newspapers both in English and in regional languages, which would have
excellent secular content (be it economy, society or sports) but whose
editorial policy would be driven by a nationalist vision.

Finally, BJP must prepare for a long haul and develop the strength to
sustain the effort. As Sri Aurobindo put it, "in India the breath moves
slowly, the afflatus is long in coming. India, the ancient Mother, is indeed
striving to be reborn, striving with agony and tears, but she strives in
vain. What ails her, she who is after all so vast and might be so strong?

There is surely some enormous defect, something vital is wanting in us, nor
is it difficult to lay our finger on the spot. We have all things else, but
we are empty of strength, void of energy. <b>We have abandoned Shakti and are
therefore abandoned by Shakti."</b>

In strengthening the motherland, BJP will strengthen itself. In reclaiming
its glory, it will glorify itself.

<i>The author is Executive Editor, Corporate India, and lives in Mumbai</i>

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+May 25 2009, 09:31 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ May 25 2009, 09:31 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Andhi Janta-
Slave mentality, they still don't question authority and those who promotes. For them it doesn't matter; they are suffering from slave mentality or   corrupt Babu padding mentality.
Why people don't question how Netas had made so much money on MP salary? In .......................
.
[right][snapback]97719[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Mudy,

The above are a very fruitless argument.

Having accepted the fact that the entire media is against the Right wing, how do we expect sting operations against Cong?

Sorry, the public will not ask for it. They have other things to do.

>>

Off topic. Which mobile phone do you use?

I use Nokia.

And till date I've not seen a single ad from Nokia saying that "Hey, buy Nokia because Sony Ericsson and Motorola are crap".

I hope you get the drift.

I seriously think BJPs poll campaign was being run by BJPs inbred 4 year olds.

>>

[acharya]

<b>Why we have dynasties </b>

The number of members of this Parliament from political families has already excited comment. Yet arguments against dynastic politics miss the point that there’s nothing inherently wrong with kin-based leadership in a liberal democracy. To the extent that it is problematic, it reflects a deeper malaise in Indian politics; one which is unlikely to be eradicated even if parties were to refrain from nominating relatives of well-known politicians during elections.

There are at least three reasons. The first, voter-centric, explanation for the success of candidates who can be associated with a previous generation of political leaders is that a shared family name provides greater recognition, particularly in contrast with those candidates who are political unknowns. While visible worldwide, these effects are likely to be heightened in democracies where information about political parties is low to begin with and voters will need information shortcuts in making their choices. In the past, political scientists studying voting patterns in India have surmised that caste and religion provide convenient shortcuts for under-informed voters looking for candidates best able to represent their interests. Family affiliation can also act as one means, among others, by which to base voting decisions in the absence of more concrete information about material differences between candidates. Where voters have fond memories of a nominee’s mother, their sympathetic attitude is likely to provide a significant incentive to consider him more seriously. Thus dynastic politics is an indicator of a deeper problem —voter ignorance. If parties picked candidates on considerations other than those of kinship, voters would rely on other shortcuts.

Why do parties, the other half of the system, nominate kin? A complete answer will probably never present itself, given the phenomenal murkiness which characterises the internal dynamics of Indian political organisations. One possible reason, however, is to avoid the risks which arise from fielding relatively unknown candidates. Theirs is a risky business: survival depends on continued support across election cycles. To hedge against these electoral risks, parties often rely on tried-and-tested slogans and methods. The nominating of relatives of famous leaders is part of this strategy of the tried-and-tested, for parties now have a method by which to undercut the risks associated with nominating new candidates. Relatives of the well-known may technically be new candidates, but they very often stand on the platform of their benefactors. The faces may be new, but the brands (and the messages) are old, and familiar. Once again, dynastic propagation is hardly the source of the problem; it is merely a manifestation of the broader tendency among parties to resort to risk-avoiding behaviour in the face of great political uncertainty.

But legacy candidates can fail, spectacularly. Why do parties stick with them? Once again, the exact explanation for this phenomenon is likely to depend on the peculiar dynamics of individual parties, but one possible cause is the lack of intra-party democracy, and thus inequalities in internal power distribution. Entrenched leaders get to call the shots in terms of electoral alliances, candidate selection, polling strategy and so on; nepotism readily flourishes in such a system. The natural inclination of established political leaders to pass the benefits of their positions on to their progeny finds few barriers in the absence of regular party elections, term limits on those in leadership positions, and other procedural safeguards. Note, however, that even in this case, dynastic politics is merely indicative of a more fundamental flaw underlying party dynamics in India today, the lack of intra-party democratic governance. (Indeed, one could argue that this is symptomatic of an even deeper problem across the country in professions where there is little opportunity for outsiders to succeed — the film industry and legal practice are at least two examples which come quickly to mind.) The solution to this problem is, therefore, not to require parties to desist from nominating legacy candidates, but rather to require them to ensure that their leaders are selected democratically.

The existence of intra-party democracy will not guarantee the end of dynastic politics. The tendency of the electorate to side with a familiar name in the absence of relevant information, and the tendency of political parties to stick to the tried-and-tested, implies that, all things considered, relatives of famous politicians are likely to be preferred over unknown candidates. Indeed, dynasties are still seen in American politics, a system with reasonable intra-party democracy. What could change, however, is the reliance on dynasties as a means of doing politics even in cases of failure. An efficient, internally democratic party is very unlikely to stick with losing strategies; the costs of frequent democratic failure are just too high. In a political scenario dominated by internally-democratic parties, therefore, dynastic politics is likely to be one among many instruments of politics, rather than a defining characteristic of it.

The writer is in the department of government at Harvard University express@expressindia.com

---
Before writing the author should read about Feudalism .This is not dynastic politics it is feudalism in democracy.Congress party's feudal lords will not give tickets to people who are not loyal to feudal lords-- similarly the DMK and other parties. You cannot survive in the party if you antagonize these heads who prop up feudalism.This has nothing to do with democracy.Representative democracy requires feudalism .Two countries which have used that were all feudal-- India and UK.This is not prevalent in other democracies. Again not conducting referendums in democracies is a characteristic of Feudalism . Feudalism breeds illiteracy and is not transparent .The corruption in the system is because of feudalism

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->@sroy

Mudy,
The above are a very fruitless argument. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure, as they say Garbage In Garbage Out.
Don't educate people and expect somebody just come out as saviours and do magic. Blame who is running campaign. Congress able to make dummy sit on Donkey, haul its as victory, Is it a victory or defeat for other who are unable to do same.
I do care how they win.
I do care about flawed democracy.
You can't throw everything under rug and expect miracle. I think there is a generation gap and different expectations.
Now blame media, or public can't ask,. If public believes donkey is a elephant, they will get donkey it will not convert into Elephant, again I am saying Andhi Janta. What else one can expect as an outcome.
You got my drift.