There is a contradiction in what you say lol Think about it
Indian PM Singh 'refuses holidays'
- Thread starter Lankan Ranger
- Start date
There is a contradiction in what you say lol Think about it
Abingdonboy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 29,597
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
Let's be honest, he's not perfect- NO ON IS. But he's never claimed he is and has always been open about his flaws. the reason this great man is so popular is easy to see in a country where people get into politics for themselves and to become millionaires this man entered in to help his country. His selfless and commuted approach is 100% genuine and a true reflection of himself, 2 weeks after undergoing MAJOR HEART SURGERY he was back at work! In a country where there are ****** who send private planes to FETCH SANDALS he keeps his first and only car (Maruti 800). In a country where his main opposition is accused of CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY I'd say holding him to blame for the actions of SCUMBAG ministers around him and the fact that he can maintain his integrity and image (in the eyes of ALL including THE OPPOSITION) whilst wading through the deluge that is the Indian politic system os nothing short of a MIRACLE. To date NOT ONE corruption allegation has been levelled at honourable MMS and I suppose it is for History to judge him, but I know history will be very pleasant to this humble, soft spoken, saviour.
Abingdonboy
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 29,597
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
Last edited by a moderator:
kingkobra
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,780
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Last edited by a moderator:
Kazhugu
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,128
- Reaction score
- 0
workaholic yet weak.
excellent economist yet could not stop farmer suicides, could not rein in inflation.
cool-headed almost like a puppet
honest yet could not find the chors right beneath his eyes
likeable to those who get carried away reading a person's resume and not his actual work.
I would anyday go for a corrupt Indira than this honest puppet.
As for the "larger-than-life" show men......they have already proved their mettle for a decade and the recent US congressional report call the man , you called a show off, as the model administrator.
Now let me come to why he is liked by "all" and lets start with our neighbours
Pakistan - emotional bs for his land of birth and bending over backwards to please them @ the cost of our own people. naturally he will be liked...
SL - disregarded the sentiments of the people of his own country, threw of all ethics,morals to the wind ans supported a bunch of mass murdering maniacs...naturally support will come...
Nepal - instead of supporting the royalists who were always friendly to india, buckled to the "coalition dharma" and supported the maoists...another blunder
etc etc....it can go on.....
This man is nothing but a disaster of the scale of hurricane katrina and if he is the super duper economist let him go teach economics in Delhi university...no need to damage the nation.....
Kazhugu
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,128
- Reaction score
- 0
A honest king who cannot control his tyrannical ministers is NOT a good king. He is a WEAK king.
BTW read this -
The case against PM and Chidu is same as case against Modi | Firstpost
Kazhugu
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,128
- Reaction score
- 0
it was a rational move to develop peace..but did not we kick *** when invaded ?
but this guy after 26/11 what he accomplished ?...only wasted indian forests cutting down trees and sending dossiers which the pak generals probably used as a tissue paper
and to top it off he wants to separate terror from talks with pakistan and discusses kashmir, agree to discuss balochistan, remove the opposition to EU deal which will directly affect our people, says he protected raja to maintain "coalition dharma"..duh..if i start writing his failures the forum will crash for want of bandwidth.....
Kazhugu
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,128
- Reaction score
- 0
Bangaru Laxman was not a minister and secondly he took a bribe of 1 lakh
do you know how much has the gandhi clan puppies have accumulated as bribes ?
victory on economic front ?...oopsie doopsie....
continuing and ever increasing farmer deaths, inflation that reduces to come down, food-inflation rate being what ideally the GDP expansion should be, never mind about ever increasing petrol prices squeezing the common man, loss in the range of laks of crores to exchequer under the watch of this "briiliant" economist....wow what a huge victory ?
And India shining was no more comical than the "mango man" (aam admi) theme of the congress..
Kazhugu
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,128
- Reaction score
- 0
Hmmm...shall we look at the avergae inflation rates during the NDA and UPA ?
NDA
2000 - 4.02 %
2001 - 3.77 %
2002 - 4.31 %
2003 - 3.81 %
2004 - 3.77 %
UPA
2005 - 4.25 %
2006 - 5.79 %
2007 - 6.39 %
2008 - 8.32 %
2009 - 10.83 %
2010 - 12.11 %
2011 - 9% (approx).
So take your pick...
---------- Post added at 08:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:13 AM ----------
Do you know the "honest" and "courageus" IPS officer has court cases pending against him for falsifying witnesses ? Do you know that even the constable under him have spoken against him ?
please that "honest" police officer was not so honest after all.
1, 2, 3, 4
Kazhugu
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,128
- Reaction score
- 0
And for all the fanbois out here who think this super duper economist did some magic to make the economy grow, red this article and educate yourselves.
==================================================================
There is a celebratory air in India these days, and not just because of the festive season. As Barack Obama’s visit made eminently clear, India has arrived, at any rate as a destination for American business, if not yet as a geopolitical great power. That, too, may obtain, if we sustain our current pace of economic development. With the growth rate ticking close to double digits, second only to China, and even The Economist newspaper, ever the naysayer, now suggesting that the Indian growth rate could overtake the Chinese, there is a justified sense of satisfaction that India’s gradualist track toward economic reform is beginning to bear fruit. So is it time to pop the champagne corks? Perhaps, not just yet.
A quick recap of history: The initial impetus to the first phase of reform, back in 1991, was a foreign exchange crisis, induced by the First Gulf War and the sharp increase in the price of oil that followed. In a story that has now become famous, Indian leaders at the time, not particularly popular politically, decided that a piecemeal approach to stave off the crisis was not enough, but that what was required was a thorough liberalisation and opening up of the economy. In a bold move that required a look toward the long view, rather than short-term electoral gain, the government, at one fell swoop, virtually eliminated the “License Raj”. It also lowered trade barriers and liberalised the foreign direct investment regime, amongst other key elements of the reform package. It was, indeed, these first generation economic reforms which ushered in the period of rapid economic growth and development that has made India the success story it currently is.
Following the initial reforms, there was a lull, as we were ruled by a series of unstable coalition governments with the Left parties playing a prominent role. They did not then, nor do they now, have any appetite for liberal economic policies. At least, they did not reverse course. The next phase of a muscular and purposeful pursuit of systematic reform came during the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, starting in the late 1990s and carrying into the new millennium, in which the case for further reform was prodded and pushed by key figures such as Jaswant Singh and Yashwant Sinha.
Indeed, one could well argue that the current Congress-led government is reaping a harvest, the seeds of which were sown by the BJP-led government it ousted in the 2004 general elections. They have been good managers, and have delivered reasonably sound fiscal and monetary policy, that saw India weather the worst of the global financial crisis of three years ago. One should not minimise that accomplishment. However, this does not gainsay the fact that the two most recent Congress-led governments, UPA 1, which ruled from 2004 to 2009, and UPA 2, in power from 2009 to the present, have been unable to carry forward the agenda of next generation economic reforms.
What must be stressed is the necessity of completing the reform agenda. All of the low-hanging fruit have been plucked. Now it is high time to deal with vitally important areas such as labour law reform, privatisation of public sector units (PSUs), elimination of agricultural subsidies, opening up retail and insurance to foreign investment, and the dismantling of what remains of the industrial licensing regime, especially reservation for the small-scale sector. We cannot sustain our high growth rate and cement our economic transformation without this next phase of reforms.
Some may ask, if reform is so vital, how is it that we are growing almost at double digits? Here, I would echo the view of astute observers, such as Arvind Panagariya, who have rightly argued that the current boom in the Indian economy is entirely driven by the dynamic private sector, the high savings rate (almost a third of GDP) which drives investment, and the large domestic market, which gives economic growth a certain momentum of its own. But, it must be underlined that without further reforms, rapid growth in itself will not accomplish the required structural transformation of the economy, and, indeed, may not be sustainable in the long run.
Regrettably, rather than getting on with the job, the current government has been content to pursue an uncontroversial and innocuous agenda, focusing on politically safe issues that no one could argue with, such as improving India’s infrastructure, which is bursting at the seams, things like airports, ports, bridges, highways, and the like, and all of this under the mantra of our time, public-private partnership. Anyone who has recently flown through Delhi’s impressive new airport terminal will agree that this is working well.
But there is much more to ensuring sustainable growth and development than building airports and highways, important though they are. The crux is this: India’s current economic success rests on slender and fragile foundations, which are missing one key ingredient: a large, labour-intensive manufacturing sector. No major economy in history has ever gotten rich without this. India is still a largely agrarian society, excessively dependent on relatively unproductive agriculture. This is attested to by the striking fact that, despite all of our progress in the modern economy, the single largest determinant of year-to-year variations in GDP growth is still variation in rainfall. The bottom line is that hundreds of millions of young people are going to need to move out of the countryside and into the cities in the coming decades, and this will only happen without creating major social unrest if there are manufacturing sector jobs waiting for them. Otherwise, our much vaunted “demographic dividend” will turn into a nightmare instead.
The notion that we can defy this iron law and get rich instead by focusing on high-tech services is a dangerous delusion. A large, export-oriented, labour-intensive manufacturing sector was the driver of growth in East Asia and is the formula for China’s success. We must emulate this model. Yet, the critical failure to liberalise and rationalise labour laws in India (most notably the notorious Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) is without doubt the principal reason why manufacturing has not taken off, and is not likely to, anytime soon. After all, if you cannot fire workers, why would you hire them in the first place?
Take another contentious area: privatisation of PSUs. When UPA 1 came to power in 2004, they effectively froze the disinvestment part of the reform agenda. Now, under UPA 2, there have been only very tentative steps toward renewing this process, and certainly no wholehearted embrace. Rather, the divestment that is taking place, such as the recent public offering in Coal India Limited, is fiscally driven, by the need to raise more cash for the exchequer, and does not demonstrate a commitment to reform this highly inefficient sector, with its arcane system of notified prices and consequent rationing. A secure energy supply is integral to the development of manufacturing, but the much needed restructuring and liberalisation of the power sector in general, and of electricity-generating capacity in particular, has also gone begging.
So what is going on? When the Congress party in UPA 1 freed itself from reliance on the Left in late 2008, over the wedge issue of the civil nuclear deal with the United States, and then trounced them, as well as the BJP, in the 2009 general elections, they came back to power with a bigger majority, reincarnated as UPA 2, without the need to rely on leftist allies. Yet, reforms are not even remotely on its agenda. Most pundits predicted the opposite. A few prescient commentators, such as Shankar Acharya and Arvind Panagariya, got it right, and recognized as early as 2004 the lack of commitment to economic reform not only within UPA 1 but critically within the Congress itself. That is the reason that UPA 2 has not pursued reform: it has not been embraced by Congress itself.
Arguing that they could not reform in UPA 1 due to reliance on the Left has now been revealed as the hollow excuse it always was. As another astute analyst, Ashutosh Varshney, wrote in 2006: “Congress party strategists have independently come to the conclusion that the party’s social base requires a programmatic focus on the lower and middle echelons of society.” In other words, the party’s own electoral interests inveigh against aggressively pursuing further reforms, as the presumed beneficiaries are the urban middle classes, mostly upper-caste Hindus, who predominantly vote for the BJP.
The more thoughtful, and candid, members of the current government admit as much. Jairam Ramesh has said on numerous occasions that a vigorous pursuit of further reform requires what he aptly terms a “politically durable consensus”, which evidently is lacking within Congress. In terms of electoral calculus, he could be right. The Congress’s short- and medium-term political interests may well be harmed by re-igniting the reform process. It is a safer bet to squeeze slightly higher growth out of the cogs of the exiting system, and coast along for the next few years.
In the long run, this would be a mistake of cataclysmic proportions. Surely the time is now, with the economy booming and a general election still almost four years away, to grasp the nettle and get on with the job. The failure to do so reflects an “original sin” of the first phase reforms in 1991. They were undertaken in an ambiente of crisis, and the case for reform was never properly articulated by Congress. That original sin has now come back to haunt them.
On the other side of the aisle, now would be the time for the BJP to shelve its Hindutva agenda, which is not a vote-winner in any case, and once again put the economy at the top of its political manifesto. That formula worked fabulously for them when they were last in power, and it can work again. While political parties have to be opportunistic to some extent, they also need to stand firm on principle, if they are to remain credible. Unfortunately, on furthering the economic reform agenda that they themselves did so much to strengthen, the BJP strayed too far from principle, and are pursuing electoral gains that thus far have proved illusory.
There is truth in the old parliamentary adage that where you stand depends on where you sit, but this should not be applied to a principled defence of economic reform, which was, and could once again be, at the core of the BJP’s platform. The BJP, quite simply, needs to move beyond its election defeat in 2004, in which it was out-strategised by Congress. The 2009 election defeat was merely a footnote. It must build a new manifesto for 2014 which makes clear that economic development is not just for the urban middle and upper classes, who are already beneficiaries, but for everyone. That could be a winning ticket.
A reinvigorated BJP, committed to completing the reform agenda, may also have the salutary effect of inducing Congress to be a little less smug and complacent about their re-election chances, and get them to focus seriously on the economy again. Doing so will require that they vanquish the old Nehruvian socialists still in their midst. That way, when the next election comes around, Indians will have the choice to vote for a party—either one—which actually believes in economic reform, and then gets on with the job. We should keep the champagne on ice until that happens.
Vivek H Dehejia teaches economics at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, and writes on the political economy of globalisation and development, with a special interest in India
Where are the second-generation reforms?
==================================================================
There is a celebratory air in India these days, and not just because of the festive season. As Barack Obama’s visit made eminently clear, India has arrived, at any rate as a destination for American business, if not yet as a geopolitical great power. That, too, may obtain, if we sustain our current pace of economic development. With the growth rate ticking close to double digits, second only to China, and even The Economist newspaper, ever the naysayer, now suggesting that the Indian growth rate could overtake the Chinese, there is a justified sense of satisfaction that India’s gradualist track toward economic reform is beginning to bear fruit. So is it time to pop the champagne corks? Perhaps, not just yet.
A quick recap of history: The initial impetus to the first phase of reform, back in 1991, was a foreign exchange crisis, induced by the First Gulf War and the sharp increase in the price of oil that followed. In a story that has now become famous, Indian leaders at the time, not particularly popular politically, decided that a piecemeal approach to stave off the crisis was not enough, but that what was required was a thorough liberalisation and opening up of the economy. In a bold move that required a look toward the long view, rather than short-term electoral gain, the government, at one fell swoop, virtually eliminated the “License Raj”. It also lowered trade barriers and liberalised the foreign direct investment regime, amongst other key elements of the reform package. It was, indeed, these first generation economic reforms which ushered in the period of rapid economic growth and development that has made India the success story it currently is.
Following the initial reforms, there was a lull, as we were ruled by a series of unstable coalition governments with the Left parties playing a prominent role. They did not then, nor do they now, have any appetite for liberal economic policies. At least, they did not reverse course. The next phase of a muscular and purposeful pursuit of systematic reform came during the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, starting in the late 1990s and carrying into the new millennium, in which the case for further reform was prodded and pushed by key figures such as Jaswant Singh and Yashwant Sinha.
Indeed, one could well argue that the current Congress-led government is reaping a harvest, the seeds of which were sown by the BJP-led government it ousted in the 2004 general elections. They have been good managers, and have delivered reasonably sound fiscal and monetary policy, that saw India weather the worst of the global financial crisis of three years ago. One should not minimise that accomplishment. However, this does not gainsay the fact that the two most recent Congress-led governments, UPA 1, which ruled from 2004 to 2009, and UPA 2, in power from 2009 to the present, have been unable to carry forward the agenda of next generation economic reforms.
What must be stressed is the necessity of completing the reform agenda. All of the low-hanging fruit have been plucked. Now it is high time to deal with vitally important areas such as labour law reform, privatisation of public sector units (PSUs), elimination of agricultural subsidies, opening up retail and insurance to foreign investment, and the dismantling of what remains of the industrial licensing regime, especially reservation for the small-scale sector. We cannot sustain our high growth rate and cement our economic transformation without this next phase of reforms.
Some may ask, if reform is so vital, how is it that we are growing almost at double digits? Here, I would echo the view of astute observers, such as Arvind Panagariya, who have rightly argued that the current boom in the Indian economy is entirely driven by the dynamic private sector, the high savings rate (almost a third of GDP) which drives investment, and the large domestic market, which gives economic growth a certain momentum of its own. But, it must be underlined that without further reforms, rapid growth in itself will not accomplish the required structural transformation of the economy, and, indeed, may not be sustainable in the long run.
Regrettably, rather than getting on with the job, the current government has been content to pursue an uncontroversial and innocuous agenda, focusing on politically safe issues that no one could argue with, such as improving India’s infrastructure, which is bursting at the seams, things like airports, ports, bridges, highways, and the like, and all of this under the mantra of our time, public-private partnership. Anyone who has recently flown through Delhi’s impressive new airport terminal will agree that this is working well.
But there is much more to ensuring sustainable growth and development than building airports and highways, important though they are. The crux is this: India’s current economic success rests on slender and fragile foundations, which are missing one key ingredient: a large, labour-intensive manufacturing sector. No major economy in history has ever gotten rich without this. India is still a largely agrarian society, excessively dependent on relatively unproductive agriculture. This is attested to by the striking fact that, despite all of our progress in the modern economy, the single largest determinant of year-to-year variations in GDP growth is still variation in rainfall. The bottom line is that hundreds of millions of young people are going to need to move out of the countryside and into the cities in the coming decades, and this will only happen without creating major social unrest if there are manufacturing sector jobs waiting for them. Otherwise, our much vaunted “demographic dividend” will turn into a nightmare instead.
The notion that we can defy this iron law and get rich instead by focusing on high-tech services is a dangerous delusion. A large, export-oriented, labour-intensive manufacturing sector was the driver of growth in East Asia and is the formula for China’s success. We must emulate this model. Yet, the critical failure to liberalise and rationalise labour laws in India (most notably the notorious Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) is without doubt the principal reason why manufacturing has not taken off, and is not likely to, anytime soon. After all, if you cannot fire workers, why would you hire them in the first place?
Take another contentious area: privatisation of PSUs. When UPA 1 came to power in 2004, they effectively froze the disinvestment part of the reform agenda. Now, under UPA 2, there have been only very tentative steps toward renewing this process, and certainly no wholehearted embrace. Rather, the divestment that is taking place, such as the recent public offering in Coal India Limited, is fiscally driven, by the need to raise more cash for the exchequer, and does not demonstrate a commitment to reform this highly inefficient sector, with its arcane system of notified prices and consequent rationing. A secure energy supply is integral to the development of manufacturing, but the much needed restructuring and liberalisation of the power sector in general, and of electricity-generating capacity in particular, has also gone begging.
So what is going on? When the Congress party in UPA 1 freed itself from reliance on the Left in late 2008, over the wedge issue of the civil nuclear deal with the United States, and then trounced them, as well as the BJP, in the 2009 general elections, they came back to power with a bigger majority, reincarnated as UPA 2, without the need to rely on leftist allies. Yet, reforms are not even remotely on its agenda. Most pundits predicted the opposite. A few prescient commentators, such as Shankar Acharya and Arvind Panagariya, got it right, and recognized as early as 2004 the lack of commitment to economic reform not only within UPA 1 but critically within the Congress itself. That is the reason that UPA 2 has not pursued reform: it has not been embraced by Congress itself.
Arguing that they could not reform in UPA 1 due to reliance on the Left has now been revealed as the hollow excuse it always was. As another astute analyst, Ashutosh Varshney, wrote in 2006: “Congress party strategists have independently come to the conclusion that the party’s social base requires a programmatic focus on the lower and middle echelons of society.” In other words, the party’s own electoral interests inveigh against aggressively pursuing further reforms, as the presumed beneficiaries are the urban middle classes, mostly upper-caste Hindus, who predominantly vote for the BJP.
The more thoughtful, and candid, members of the current government admit as much. Jairam Ramesh has said on numerous occasions that a vigorous pursuit of further reform requires what he aptly terms a “politically durable consensus”, which evidently is lacking within Congress. In terms of electoral calculus, he could be right. The Congress’s short- and medium-term political interests may well be harmed by re-igniting the reform process. It is a safer bet to squeeze slightly higher growth out of the cogs of the exiting system, and coast along for the next few years.
In the long run, this would be a mistake of cataclysmic proportions. Surely the time is now, with the economy booming and a general election still almost four years away, to grasp the nettle and get on with the job. The failure to do so reflects an “original sin” of the first phase reforms in 1991. They were undertaken in an ambiente of crisis, and the case for reform was never properly articulated by Congress. That original sin has now come back to haunt them.
On the other side of the aisle, now would be the time for the BJP to shelve its Hindutva agenda, which is not a vote-winner in any case, and once again put the economy at the top of its political manifesto. That formula worked fabulously for them when they were last in power, and it can work again. While political parties have to be opportunistic to some extent, they also need to stand firm on principle, if they are to remain credible. Unfortunately, on furthering the economic reform agenda that they themselves did so much to strengthen, the BJP strayed too far from principle, and are pursuing electoral gains that thus far have proved illusory.
There is truth in the old parliamentary adage that where you stand depends on where you sit, but this should not be applied to a principled defence of economic reform, which was, and could once again be, at the core of the BJP’s platform. The BJP, quite simply, needs to move beyond its election defeat in 2004, in which it was out-strategised by Congress. The 2009 election defeat was merely a footnote. It must build a new manifesto for 2014 which makes clear that economic development is not just for the urban middle and upper classes, who are already beneficiaries, but for everyone. That could be a winning ticket.
A reinvigorated BJP, committed to completing the reform agenda, may also have the salutary effect of inducing Congress to be a little less smug and complacent about their re-election chances, and get them to focus seriously on the economy again. Doing so will require that they vanquish the old Nehruvian socialists still in their midst. That way, when the next election comes around, Indians will have the choice to vote for a party—either one—which actually believes in economic reform, and then gets on with the job. We should keep the champagne on ice until that happens.
Vivek H Dehejia teaches economics at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, and writes on the political economy of globalisation and development, with a special interest in India
Where are the second-generation reforms?
If I'm no one to judge him who r u to rate him??wats ur qualification to rate him??congress @$$ licker.just quote lines from my post and dven after editing them, well this has been a style os MMS the theif..
India had 5% growth in 6 years nda period 4 out of which were under international sanctions..and for last 7 years upa rule indias growth has never been an avg of 9 but 7.5 to 8 and that too with hiper domestic inflation..UPA earns 45+ rupees from 1 litre of petrol..
And for the reforms bought by mms..huh he only signed the papers as instructed by imf, and these instructions were given to india by imf to the gov which was before 1991 to which congress has given outside support..imf categorically told india that "unless u guys bring economic reforms we are not going to give u anymore loans as we are not confident of u guys repaying that loan".these reforms were to come in as parliament sessions were due in 6 mons time and so to not being defailted on loan repayments then fm and the cabinet took decession to keep the indian gold as security in england banks so as to get loans for less interest from a friendly country the gold was not sold..but the ever treacherous congress withdrew support from the vp singh gov before par sessions and the economic reforms didnot come and MMS took the credit for bringing the reforms as suggested by imf..if mms is that a genius then y is he not able to control inflation, what happened to nuke deal,why is air india bankrupt even after mms took spl interest in the org??
I know I have typed this all for waste, cause all the congress supporters are just blind folded by hate towards change, all they can do is lick sonias @!!
Splurgenxs
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 2,512
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Well this is hilarious...
People really think that the Congress and BJP are worlds apart? Get real..
We are all Indians and wisdom states that to avoid catastrophe we need to all work in tandem.
People tend to forget all the past in the pursuit of a future ..but the Fact remains that Congress came in to power for a reason and will be gone for a reason like the BJP did after Atal.
THe real danger is actually people forcing the congress to Knee-jerk its vote bank politics and deceptive maneuvering ..
The wise thing to do is to clean up the congress as it is ,and maintian this pressure, till the time the Congress still holds to the belief it can win the next election ;(But i dont thing the congress is unwise ...and would accept defeat graciously)
And i guess wise people of our country are hard at work at it too im thank full of them.
On topic....
MMS is an Introverted Workaholic who likes his privacy and is a great trait for a king-maker, an advisor ,but not a leader.
People tend to like him so much because of his calm which come with his age as well.
Having said that We need to maintain this 'Govt + Opposition' relation ship if we want people to keep together and work together..
For in the end we are all sheeple and we need to better our country by bettering our parties rather than totally destroying or forgetting it.
Who knows what more would we uncover if BJP comes to power and something bad happens ...then waht?
who do we fall back to? the cycle of Improvement must go on ...
An opposition should always be maintained.
It help the unaware masses choose and have a purpose.
People really think that the Congress and BJP are worlds apart? Get real..
We are all Indians and wisdom states that to avoid catastrophe we need to all work in tandem.
People tend to forget all the past in the pursuit of a future ..but the Fact remains that Congress came in to power for a reason and will be gone for a reason like the BJP did after Atal.
THe real danger is actually people forcing the congress to Knee-jerk its vote bank politics and deceptive maneuvering ..
The wise thing to do is to clean up the congress as it is ,and maintian this pressure, till the time the Congress still holds to the belief it can win the next election ;(But i dont thing the congress is unwise ...and would accept defeat graciously)
And i guess wise people of our country are hard at work at it too im thank full of them.
On topic....
MMS is an Introverted Workaholic who likes his privacy and is a great trait for a king-maker, an advisor ,but not a leader.
People tend to like him so much because of his calm which come with his age as well.
Having said that We need to maintain this 'Govt + Opposition' relation ship if we want people to keep together and work together..
For in the end we are all sheeple and we need to better our country by bettering our parties rather than totally destroying or forgetting it.
Who knows what more would we uncover if BJP comes to power and something bad happens ...then waht?
who do we fall back to? the cycle of Improvement must go on ...
An opposition should always be maintained.
It help the unaware masses choose and have a purpose.
cyphercide
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 18, 2011
- Messages
- 2,197
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Bah,I hate typing long winded replies;you owe me.Where do I commence;with the font in bold I guess.
Well it's true that the NDA led government kicked off the divestment of PSUs in India.Unfortunately many of the PSUs offered to the private sector up for grabs were extremely profitable on their own.Case in point is the divestment of BALCO, a solid PSU churning up crores in profit was inexplicably(at least from India's point of view) sold off for a pittance to what BALCO is really worth.What's more,the BJP included even the natural aluminum reserves under BALCO for sale.All for the mere price of Rs 551 crores,considering BALCO had surpluses and assets far exceeding 5000 crores,it was practically given away for free.Something so criminal that the CPM dubbed it "the plunder of national wealth" and rightly so.
For one thing,I'm glad that Enron went bust else BJP would've insisted on paying them for NOT supplying electricity to India!!! That's how committed they are in completing their "reform agenda". Mercifully,we can depend on ourselves for addressing energy issues today.
Umm,ever wondered why when global markets got hammered everywhere,India and China didn't get impacted? It's because both nations were not connected to global market peripheries like most western nations.It saved us from enduring global recession and in fact helped us accelerate while other nations got stuck in a rut.Divestment should be approached with rationality and moderation and not by selling off every PSU in sight.at least Congress pulled it off without major hiccups.
Tying up economic reforms with religion bases that benefit from it?Moronic beyond belief,I passed out of a business school and I would demand for the resignation of this "professor"(I denote the term loosely)if he taught us.
I would love to have two robust parties jousting for power in India but the BJP just doesn't inspire confidence in whatever task they undertake.Even the core beliefs of their parties was explained away by Arun Jaitley as an "opportunistic issue".Hindutva? sure if we can get some votes out of it!!!!
Pressed on the question of Hindutva, Jaitley argued that Hindu nationalism ""will always be a talking point"" for the BJP. However, he characterized this as an opportunistic issue. In India's northeast, for instance, Hindutva plays well because of public anxiety about illegal migration of Muslims from Bangladesh. With the recent improvement of Indo-Pak relations, he added, Hindu nationalism is now less resonant in New Delhi, but that could change with another cross-border terrorist attack, for instance on the Indian Parliament.
WikiLeaks cable on Arun Jaitley's 'opportunistic' remark
The sooner they get their act together,the better for the nation.Sadly until that time,Congress remains the lesser of the two evils!!!
Well it's true that the NDA led government kicked off the divestment of PSUs in India.Unfortunately many of the PSUs offered to the private sector up for grabs were extremely profitable on their own.Case in point is the divestment of BALCO, a solid PSU churning up crores in profit was inexplicably(at least from India's point of view) sold off for a pittance to what BALCO is really worth.What's more,the BJP included even the natural aluminum reserves under BALCO for sale.All for the mere price of Rs 551 crores,considering BALCO had surpluses and assets far exceeding 5000 crores,it was practically given away for free.Something so criminal that the CPM dubbed it "the plunder of national wealth" and rightly so.
For one thing,I'm glad that Enron went bust else BJP would've insisted on paying them for NOT supplying electricity to India!!! That's how committed they are in completing their "reform agenda". Mercifully,we can depend on ourselves for addressing energy issues today.
Umm,ever wondered why when global markets got hammered everywhere,India and China didn't get impacted? It's because both nations were not connected to global market peripheries like most western nations.It saved us from enduring global recession and in fact helped us accelerate while other nations got stuck in a rut.Divestment should be approached with rationality and moderation and not by selling off every PSU in sight.at least Congress pulled it off without major hiccups.
Tying up economic reforms with religion bases that benefit from it?Moronic beyond belief,I passed out of a business school and I would demand for the resignation of this "professor"(I denote the term loosely)if he taught us.
I would love to have two robust parties jousting for power in India but the BJP just doesn't inspire confidence in whatever task they undertake.Even the core beliefs of their parties was explained away by Arun Jaitley as an "opportunistic issue".Hindutva? sure if we can get some votes out of it!!!!
Pressed on the question of Hindutva, Jaitley argued that Hindu nationalism ""will always be a talking point"" for the BJP. However, he characterized this as an opportunistic issue. In India's northeast, for instance, Hindutva plays well because of public anxiety about illegal migration of Muslims from Bangladesh. With the recent improvement of Indo-Pak relations, he added, Hindu nationalism is now less resonant in New Delhi, but that could change with another cross-border terrorist attack, for instance on the Indian Parliament.
WikiLeaks cable on Arun Jaitley's 'opportunistic' remark
The sooner they get their act together,the better for the nation.Sadly until that time,Congress remains the lesser of the two evils!!!
notsuperstitious
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 10,473
- Reaction score
- -15
Some of these desis really spoil the job market for the rest of us
Similar threads
