Freedom From The Congress Dynasty: Sooner The Better For States(must read)

[Josef K]

Name a leader and party which could 've brought greater progress in India after independence.

Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, the guy who incidentally was the founder of the original Swarajya magazine. That guy was a reformer in every sense. Too bad he felt content with being a state leader.

 

[Star Wars]

If I'm not wrong, congress has won 6 out of 15 general elections with clear majority, excluding the 4 times it formed govt by coalition. For about 49years congress headed central govt, they managed to keep India afloat at 3.5% growth rate. Now if you're comparing this figure with other countries then let me remind you that every country that touched 10% growth rate in mid and late 1900's, faced some sort of authoritarianism or dictatorship be it China, Korea or Taiwan.

Why do you ignore the fact that when Nehru became the PM of India he had to begin from a scratch?
FYI- I am not a Nehru fan.

And during the time they ruled India did we barely see any progress ? Especially until 1990 ? We were under Authoritarianism for a long long time. When you control the media, the news papers, form public opinion, divide them along caste and religious lines people are going to vote accordingly.This was very much an Authoritarian regime in every sense. There is a wonderful book called "Wars, Guns and votes" read it. Authoritarianism itself isn't bad if it benefits the people. Democracy isn't so nice and dandy either if it keeps countries down the drain for decades. Sure he had to begin from a scratch but then we remained just a scratch for decades if you look at the the quality of living.

Okay...I'm waiting.

 

[Levina]

We could have had leaders with backbone instead of Nehru slaves that are in abundance in our politics.

I am sure you will agree that Jinnah was not a spineless leader than but his early demise is what has landed Pakistan in such quagmire. Imagine what would have happened to India.

I bet that guy was assassinated, i really wish he was around..

Yeah....was it not Sardar Patel who wrote these words to PM nehru???
Now guess who could have assassinated Patel? Lol

Chakravarti Rajagopalachari, the guy who incidentally was the founder of the original Swarajya magazine. That guy was a reformer in every sense. Too bad he felt content with being a state leader.

1) he lacked Patel and Nehru's Charisma.
2) he was unpopular in his home state TamilNadu where he wanted to impose Hindi against popular demand for Tamil. He was obstinate and never cared for public opinion.
3) and wait..... Was he not the one who came with the notion of having conceived caste based vocational education scheme called Kula Dharma Kalvi Murai ( Education based on one's caste of birth)???
4) he was unpopular even among the congressmen.


Name a better leader...

And during the time they ruled India did we barely see any progress ? Especially until 1990 ? We were under Authoritarianism for a long long time. When you control the media, the news papers, form public opinion, divide them along caste and religious lines people are going to vote accordingly.This was very much an Authoritarian regime in every sense. There is a wonderful book called "Wars, Guns and votes" read it. Authoritarianism itself isn't bad if it benefits the people. Democracy isn't so nice and dandy either if it keeps countries down the drain for decades. Sure he had to begin from a scratch but then we remained just a scratch for decades if you look at the the quality of living.
]

We were a fledgling democracy, hit and trial was the only option our leaders had.
Nobody could have predicted how India would have fared under a diff leader or party.,

 

[magudi]

The Congress is India’s only ecumenical party. It is genuinely above region, caste and religion

We are a Congress-minded nation. What I mean is that Indian values are best, and I would even say, only represented by the Congress. These values are religious accommodation, comfort with racial and linguistic diversity, acceptance of caste in politics, comfort in dynasty and a preference for compromise over principle.

The Congress under the Gandhis, and later the Vadra-Gandhis, will remain our one great national party.

Talking about the Gandhi family - Sonia is slim and fit. At the dining table, she is probably disciplined. She brings the European’s refinement to our otherwise crude politics. She has brought up her children superbly. Both act correctly and modestly. Rahul is quite educated, getting his post-graduation degree at Trinity. From what I have read of him, Rahul is observant and intelligent. He has learned the limits of what the state can do to make India more liveable. He has discovered an essential truth about India. He is doing what Jawaharlal Nehru was doing with Gandhi before 1930, the discovery of India. When Rahul speaks, he usually presents an Indian reality which has come from an uncommon understanding. Though he is good looking, he doesn’t deploy his charisma. By this I mean he doesn’t pose and make heroic statements like Narendra Modi does. He chooses not to. When one is as famous and as good looking as Rahul Gandhi, charisma is a function of deployment.

 

[Josef K]

The Congress is India’s only ecumenical party. It is genuinely above region, caste and religion

We are a Congress-minded nation. What I mean is that Indian values are best, and I would even say, only represented by the Congress. These values are religious accommodation, comfort with racial and linguistic diversity, acceptance of caste in politics, comfort in dynasty and a preference for compromise over principle.

The Congress under the Gandhis, and later the Vadra-Gandhis, will remain our one great national party.

Talking about the Gandhi family - Sonia is slim and fit. At the dining table, she is probably disciplined. She brings the European’s refinement to our otherwise crude politics. She has brought up her children superbly. Both act correctly and modestly. Rahul is quite educated, getting his post-graduation degree at Trinity. From what I have read of him, Rahul is observant and intelligent. He has learned the limits of what the state can do to make India more liveable. He has discovered an essential truth about India. He is doing what Jawaharlal Nehru was doing with Gandhi before 1930, the discovery of India. When Rahul speaks, he usually presents an Indian reality which has come from an uncommon understanding. Though he is good looking, he doesn’t deploy his charisma. By this I mean he doesn’t pose and make heroic statements like Narendra Modi does. He chooses not to. When one is as famous and as good looking as Rahul Gandhi, charisma is a function of deployment.

Aakaar patel

 

[Levina]

The Congress is India’s only ecumenical party. It is genuinely above region, caste and religion

We are a Congress-minded nation. What I mean is that Indian values are best, and I would even say, only represented by the Congress. These values are religious accommodation, comfort with racial and linguistic diversity, acceptance of caste in politics, comfort in dynasty and a preference for compromise over principle.

The Congress under the Gandhis, and later the Vadra-Gandhis, will remain our one great national party.

Talking about the Gandhi family - Sonia is slim and fit. At the dining table, she is probably disciplined. She brings the European’s refinement to our otherwise crude politics. She has brought up her children superbly. Both act correctly and modestly. Rahul is quite educated, getting his post-graduation degree at Trinity. From what I have read of him, Rahul is observant and intelligent. He has learned the limits of what the state can do to make India more liveable. He has discovered an essential truth about India. He is doing what Jawaharlal Nehru was doing with Gandhi before 1930, the discovery of India. When Rahul speaks, he usually presents an Indian reality which has come from an uncommon understanding. Though he is good looking, he doesn’t deploy his charisma. By this I mean he doesn’t pose and make heroic statements like Narendra Modi does. He chooses not to. When one is as famous and as good looking as Rahul Gandhi, charisma is a function of deployment.

Another @SarthakGanguly in the making...

 

[Josef K]

1) he lacked Patel and Nehru's Charisma.
2) he was unpopular in his home state TamilNadu where he wanted to impose Hindi against popular demand for Tamil. He was obstinate and never cared for public opinion.
3) and wait..... Was he not the one who came with the notion of having conceived caste based vocational education scheme called Kula Dharma Kalvi Murai ( Education based on one's caste of birth)???
4) he was unpopular even among the congressmen.

1) he lacked Patel and Nehru's Charisma.
Yes
2) he was unpopular in his home state TamilNadu where he wanted to impose Hindi against popular demand for Tamil. He was obstinate and never cared for public opinion.
He was unpopular. But he was never rigid in his stand on Hindi. He himself never learned Hindi and was against forcible imposition of the language (although he favored introduction of Hindi in a non-forcible manner in 1938, he later reversed his stand).

3) and wait..... Was he not the one who came with the notion of having conceived caste based vocational education scheme called Kula Dharma Kalvi Murai ( Education based on one's caste of birth)???

Now this is a huge misconception. Rajaji wanted children to learn their parent's trades for half a day and for the rest of the day to attend schools. The reason was more a practical one, more like the recent proposed amendment to Child labor Act. The state did not have enough schools or teachers to cater the needs of all children. Rajaji wanted the schools to have a shift system and for the rest of the day, he felt that the children should learn the trades of their families. It was not because he wanted peasants to remain peasants or cobblers to remain cobblers. The notion that he wanted something of that sort was the result of a careful propaganda by the DMK, which in fact had thrown much mud over every Congress leader that it perceived to be an actual threat. In fact it had even said, K.Kamaraj had crores in foreign banks (in case you didn't know, that guy lived in a small rented home till his death, had no family and died in penury). Part of the DMK propaganda was to make it look like Congress was a Brahmin dominated party hell bent on oppressing Tamils.

4) he was unpopular even among the congressmen.
He fell out with Nehru very early on. Rest is history.

 

[ranjeet]

I am sure you will agree that Jinnah was not a spineless leader than but his early demise is what has landed Pakistan in such quagmire. Imagine what would have happened to India.

I am sorry but that's not even an analogy. Pakistan's struggle was different from India's.

Congress committees chose Sardar Patel as their leader but on Gandhi's request he stepped down to make way for Nehru. It was the Gandhi who forced personality/preference over merit on India, which Nehru and Gandhi clan followed in bureaucracy and politics in years to come.

 

[Styx]

Aakaar patel

ecumenical

sounda bit like John Dayal too

 

[TejasMk3]

Congress has its downside but it's impetuous to say that congress govt has been perilous for India.

You need to read this book:
Durbar eBook: Tavleen Singh: Amazon.in: Kindle Store

A very nice perspective on the various phases and big events in India, from 47-Rajiv assassination, these guys literally looked upon the country as their play toy and inheritance. You''ll know the outlines of most of what is talked about, but it comes from someone who moved in the same circle as the famiy

 

[magudi]

ecumenical

sounda bit like John Dayal too

Nope for all his worth dayal doesn't have even half as much command over the english language as ahmed patel does

 

[Levina]

1) he lacked Patel and Nehru's Charisma.
Yes
2) he was unpopular in his home state TamilNadu where he wanted to impose Hindi against popular demand for Tamil. He was obstinate and never cared for public opinion.
He was unpopular. But he was never rigid in his stand on Hindi. He himself never learned Hindi and was against forcible imposition of the language (although he favored introduction of Hindi in a non-forcible manner in 1938, he later reversed his stand).

3) and wait..... Was he not the one who came with the notion of having conceived caste based vocational education scheme called Kula Dharma Kalvi Murai ( Education based on one's caste of birth)???

Now this is a huge misconception. Rajaji wanted children to learn their parent's trades for half a day and for the rest of the day to attend schools. The reason was more a practical one, more like the recent proposed amendment to Child labor Act. The state did not have enough schools or teachers to cater the needs of all children. Rajaji wanted the schools to have a shift system and for the rest of the day, he felt that the children should learn the trades of their families. It was not because he wanted peasants to remain peasants or cobblers to remain cobblers. The notion that he wanted something of that sort was the result of a careful propaganda by the DMK, which in fact had thrown much mud over every Congress leader that it perceived to be an actual threat. In fact it had even said, K.Kamaraj had crores in foreign banks (in case you didn't know, that guy lived in a small rented home till his death, had no family and died in penury). Part of the DMK propaganda was to make it look like Congress was a Brahmin dominated party hell bent on oppressing Tamils.

4) he was unpopular even among the congressmen.
He fell out with Nehru very early on. Rest is history.

So you have accepted that he did not have the backing of populace.
A leader can not exist without supporters.

I am sorry but that's not even an analogy. Pakistan's struggle was different from India's.

Congress committees chose Sardar Patel as their leader but on Gandhi's request he stepped down to make way for Nehru. It was the Gandhi who forced personality/preference over merit on India, which Nehru and Gandhi clan followed in bureaucracy and politics in years to come.

My history isn't so weak. Lol
I knew that part.
Either India would have faced situations similar to Pakistan or Nehru would have taken over after Patel's demise in 1950, so our history would not have changed much.

You need to read this book:
Durbar eBook: Tavleen Singh: Amazon.in: Kindle Store

A very nice perspective on the various phases and big events in India, from 47-Rajiv assassination, these guys literally looked upon the country as their play toy and inheritance. You''ll know the outlines of most of what is talked about, but it comes from someone who moved in the same circle as the famiy

Understand that I am not a congress supporter, I do know that Gandhi family was involved in some fatuous activities.
My point is, at that particular point in history we didn't have better options.

 

[ranjeet]

My history isn't so weak. Lol
I knew that part.
Either India would have faced situations similar to Pakistan or Nehru would have taken over after Patel's demise in 1950, so our history would not have changed much.
.

I doubt Nehru could have charmed his way to the PMship after Patel, but lets agree to disagree here.

 

[Star Wars]

Yeah....was it not Sardar Patel who wrote these words to PM nehru???
Now guess who could have assassinated Patel? Lol
View attachment 249557

Its better to know the full story before replying right ?

Lifting of ban on RSS was unconditional - The Hindu

On July 9, 1949 the government refused to lift the ban citing “fundamental differences.” Shastri then decided to publicise the details of the substantive issues discussed — one, on the authority of the RSS chief to nominate his successor and the other, on participation of minors in its activities. On the RSS and politics, Shastri said that there was a “comment that though they profess to be a non-political body, they may turn into one overnight,” to which Shastri responded, “And so they may. If they did it would be no crime.” That was all. Shastri added that with the suspicion of the RSS’ complicity in Gandhiji’s assassination “recognized to be without any real foundation” and the charges against the RSS in some cases having been found unsustainable, continuing the ban was untenable. Surprisingly the very day Shastri’s statement was sent to The Hindu (which published it on July 14), namely on July 11 itself, the government lifted the ban. It must have been advised that the ban without evidence would be unconstitutional under the Constitution of India.

 

[Levina]

Its better to know the full story before replying right ?

Lifting of ban on RSS was unconditional - The Hindu

On July 9, 1949 the government refused to lift the ban citing “fundamental differences.” Shastri then decided to publicise the details of the substantive issues discussed — one, on the authority of the RSS chief to nominate his successor and the other, on participation of minors in its activities. On the RSS and politics, Shastri said that there was a “comment that though they profess to be a non-political body, they may turn into one overnight,” to which Shastri responded, “And so they may. If they did it would be no crime.” That was all. Shastri added that with the suspicion of the RSS’ complicity in Gandhiji’s assassination “recognized to be without any real foundation” and the charges against the RSS in some cases having been found unsustainable, continuing the ban was untenable. Surprisingly the very day Shastri’s statement was sent to The Hindu (which published it on July 14), namely on July 11 itself, the government lifted the ban. It must have been advised that the ban without evidence would be unconstitutional under the Constitution of India.

So?
Patel's helath deteriorated over a period of time and he finally died of a heart attack. It was definitely not an assassination, it was a natural death. But be assured that if somebody suspected otherwise then RSS would have been placed in the crosshairs.

I doubt Nehru could have charmed his way to the PMship after Patel, but lets agree to disagree here.

So who's going to agree first?