What's new

Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

And for the support Parrikar showed during naming of NaMo as campaign head in Gao.

Jokes apart , in past Parrikar has proved himself as incorruptible ,competent , very able IIT educated administrator.
Yeah, I completely agree. He is one good politician so should get some role to play but Home is too much for him, in my opinion. Unless Modi wants to place his man on thr position. Parricker will be yes man for Modi..
 
. . .
Folks,

To late you may ask , but nevertheless. I have been having some arguments in office about the entire gujrat growth model. People are remarking about Gujrath is a myth when compared to TN /Andhra , etc. Is this true ? Does anyone have some articles which crushes this myth.
Not being from a finance background - i dont have grasp on numbers. But i did visit the Wiki - it does seem to suggest that Gujrat lags in overall GDP behind states like TN, Andhra and West Bengal (States with comparable GDP)
Would be great if someone can share some facts.
 
.
Im not that well "informed" on Modi and Indian politics and dont really want to read lots of articles to get what will probably be a confused understanding of the man. Can someone give me a brief understanding of what is expected under Modi, in terms of geopolitical movies, aggression, reforms, religion?

thanks if anyone can be bothered haha

OK Will try to condense the idea of Narendra Modi in a few words

He is a right of centre politician. He does not believe in the politics of giving doles to the people but rather believes in job creation and enablement of people to rise themselves above poverty

He is very Nationalist and Patriotic. He will not be soft spoken on cross border terrorism issues or on intrusions into Indian territory. He has already said that he will push back all illegal Bangladeshi migrants.

He is very mush pro industry. He will give them land and create single window clearance mechanisms. He will attract investments not only from Indian companies but also foreign countries specially in the infrastructure sector. This is why China and Japan holds him in great regard because they hope to do great business with India.

He is a very decisive leader. this will be a welcome break from soft spoken leadership of Dr Manmohan Singh the outgoing PM.

He is a member of the RSS which a right wing Hindu cultural and social organization. He calls himself a proud Hindu Nationalist. This however does not mean that he will promote Hinduism over other religions like Islam. He believes in development for all and appeasement to none. this will mean that Muslims may lose some special privileges they got previously. He believes that since all Hindus and Muslims are Indians first no one should have extra privilege just on basis of his or her religion. his motto is Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas meaning With everybody, development for everybody

He will try to implement Uniform Civil Code in India. this means there will no longer be community specific civil laws in areas such as marriage, divorce etc.

He wows to abolish Article 370 of the Indian constitution which gives special status to Jammu and Kashmir and prevents non kashmiris from settling in Jammu and Kashmir.

He has promised to build a Ram Temple in Ayodhaya in the place of a disputed mosque subject to resolution of a Court case. Ayodhaya is considered the birth place of Lord Ram and is a holy place for Hindus just like Jerusalem fro Christians and Jews or Mecca and Medina for Muslims. there was a temple in Ayodhaya which was pulled bown by Mughal King Babur and a mosque was build. In 19992 the mosque was pulled down by a mob. Since then a case has been going on in the Indian courts regarding the status of that place. A few years ago the high court has given the order that a temple had existed in the place and had ordered that the land be divided between the Hindus and Muslims. The case is now in Supreme Court. Subject to the decision of the Supreme Court BJP (Modi's Party) has promised to build a Ram Temple in that location

Hope I have answered some of your queries. If you want to know more just read this thread and you will get all the details abut Modi.
 
. . .
Folks,

To late you may ask , but nevertheless. I have been having some arguments in office about the entire gujrat growth model. People are remarking about Gujrath is a myth when compared to TN /Andhra , etc. Is this true ? Does anyone have some articles which crushes this myth.
Not being from a finance background - i dont have grasp on numbers. But i did visit the Wiki - it does seem to suggest that Gujrat lags in overall GDP behind states like TN, Andhra and West Bengal (States with comparable GDP)
Would be great if someone can share some facts.


Here there is a series of articles based on statistics that were written by Surjit s. Bhalla




Gujarat’s inclusive growth | The Indian Express | Page 99


From high farm growth to wages for the disadvantaged, even their employment levels, Gujarat comes out on top.

Both the opinion polls and the bookies suggest that Narendra Modi will be the next prime minister of India. There is a constant but healthy debate in the media about the likely pros and cons of a Modi administration. For each assertion made by the BJP, there is a counter presented. Some of this is quite transparently facile — for example, comparing item for item the UPA’s 10-year record with the NDA’s five-year record (1999-2004).

There are several reasons this comparison borders on the ridiculous — the most important being that the Indian voter has already voted for the “good” performance of UPA 1. This she did in 2009, when even the Congress was surprised by its victory. The proper comparison is obviously 2009-14 with the NDA, and when this comparison is made — well, that is what the voters are voting for or against; we will know their evaluation on May 16th.

Another important objection to Modi comes with the refrain that the dream, the vision, that Modi is selling is a nightmare for the poor, the minorities and the disadvantaged. The accusation is made that the Modi growth model is really for the rich and the super-rich, that is, the Adanis and Ambanis of India. As debates in India rarely centre on evidence, the allegations fly thick and fast. Agricultural growth in Gujarat, far from being high, was actually negative — or so proclaimed Arvind Kejriwal.

When sanity returns, the argument changes — growth has always been high in Gujarat because the Gujaratis are industrious and hard-working. The real problem, the critics contend, is that growth in Modi’s Gujarat has not been “inclusive”. Now inclusion, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder, particularly if the person pontificating is of the secular left-wing variety. Here it is automatically assumed that if one is secular, then one is guaranteed inclusion — saying so makes it so.

This debate is very important. If Modi is the next PM, we need to directly examine his contribution to both the successes and failures of the “Gujarat model”. Towards this end, I will present results pertaining to growth indicators (see below) and socio-economic indicators (next article). The method followed is straightforward. Modi became chief minister of Gujarat in 2001. How did Gujarat compare with other “similar” states in India? But how does one define similar?


One approach is, and the one adopted here, is to look at states that had a similar per capita income in 2001. Thus, data are presented for Gujarat, all India, and the average of seven other states that were close to (+/- 20 per cent) Gujarat’s 2001 per capita income level. These seven states are Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal.

Data are examined for various indicators (subject to data availability) for pre-Modi Gujarat (years between 1992 and 2001) and Modi Gujarat (2002 to the latest year for which data are available 2011/12 (see table). These data indicate that the people of India might just possibly be voting for Modi because they are impressed with Gujarat’s growth performance.

No matter what the growth indicator, Modi and Gujarat come out trumps. (This is the conclusion for only indicators of growth — socio-economic indicators do not present this overwhelmingly consistent story). Annual agricultural growth accelerated across India and in the similar seven states (SSS), agricultural growth accelerated by 1 per cent per annum (ppa) to 3.8 per cent; in Gujarat, the acceleration was more than three times as much. Some have argued that this was entirely the result of Bt cotton. Which raises the interesting question — why did other states not adopt Bt cotton?

Manufacturing in Gujarat accelerated by 5.6 ppa compared to an acceleration of 2.9 ppa for the SSS; perhaps this is the Adani and Ambani effect that Modi’s detractors emphasise. But the service sector in Gujarat, from being 0.5 ppa behind the comparator states in the pre-Modi period, accelerated to 2 ppa higher with the arrival of Modi — 10.7 per cent per year versus 7.7 per cent before.

A consistent story that emerges about the Gujarat growth model is that Modi/Gujarat did deliver “extra” growth. But did this extra growth benefit all sections of society rather than just the privileged few? To answer this question, household-level NSS data on wages and unemployment for the large sample years 1983 to 2011/12 are used. Wage and unemployment data are presented for the disadvantaged group (comprising of Muslims, SC & ST) and the rest (non-disadvantaged group).

In the Modi period, wages of the “rich” (non-disadvantaged) group increased at an annual rate of 2.2 ppa compared to a higher 3.5 ppa rate for the poor. In the comparator states, the difference was only 0.4 percentage points (ppt) higher for the poor and all-India, the poor had faster growth of only 0.2 ppa.

The critics of UPA have emphasised the jobless nature of growth. This aspect is brought out by the “parallel” data on unemployment. And these data are striking. By an overwhelming margin, Gujarat has had, and continues to have, the lowest unemployment rate in the country. In both the pre- and current Modi period, unemployment rate (those looking for a job and unable to find one) in Gujarat averaged 1.5 per cent of the working population; the national average increased from 2.7 to 2.9 per cent.

In the 2001-11 period, only Gujarat shows a decline in the unemployment rate of the poor disadvantaged group (from 1.8 to 1.6 per cent) while the SSS show a 0.2 ppt increase and for all India, there is a sharp 0.5 ppt increase.

This result is not contingent on data source or selection of time-period. No matter how the data are sliced, the overwhelming conclusion is that Gujarat has witnessed enviable economic growth under Modi. Are the opinion polls reflecting this simple fact?

The writer is chairman of Oxus Investments, an emerging market advisory firm, and a senior advisor to Zyfin, a leading financial information company.


Gujarat’s other calling card | The Indian Express | Page 99

Whether it is female infanticide or mortality, education or various health indicators, Modi’s Gujarat has done quite well.

India is at the halfway stage of Election 2014, and if opinion polls and turnout increases are to be believed, it looks increasingly likely that Narendra Modi will be our next prime minister. Why Modi evokes such strong reactions from the Congress and the Left (could it be that they know that their days as the political elite are numbered with a challenger like Modi?) is a subject for a later article. The advantage with forecasting what might happen under Modi is much more than predicting the future of India if Rahul Gandhi was the leader, or even if it were L.K. Advani, Sushma Swaraj or Rajnath Singh. The reason is simple — with Modi, one has a performance record in Gujarat, a record spanning over 12 years.

But, and this is the first of many objections, Gujarat is not India. It has only a six crore population, India is 20 times as large, so what lessons can the Gujarat experience provide? I have always found this “objection” to Modi the most forced and, for lack of a better word, most stupid. Indeed, in no election, in India or elsewhere, has stupidity sunk to such depths. One of the best political leaders in the last century, Bill Clinton, was the governor of a state, Arkansas, whose population is three million. Quite honestly, the objection to Modi as PM on such nonsensical grounds is not worth any discussion. So my apologies.

There are many reasonable objections to a candidate’s quest for the highest honour. In the case of Modi, the biggest negative is the fact that a large communal riot took place under his watch, Godhra 2002. Enough has been written on this matter by scholars, commentators, pundits, politicians and laypersons (including myself) that yet another discourse will have precious little value-add. There are other possible objections to Modi as PM — that his leadership style borders on a personality cult, and that he has a tendency to be authoritarian. My own view, as a liberal, is that one should worry about such attributes, but I am rather shocked that my good intellectual friends did not raise such objections, for the last 50 years, or even utter a word about the personality cult around the Gandhis (Indira, Rajiv, Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka). And regarding authoritarianism and dictatorial leadership, we now have formal evidence, from Sanjaya Baru’s book, The Accidental Prime Minister, that Sonia Gandhi has been just as dictatorial as Indira Gandhi, and perhaps even more so, since she did not (does not) have the constitutional authority to be authoritarian.

So the political, personality objections to Modi as PM do not carry much weight. What is worth discussing, and what does seem to carry weight with the new-age Indian voter, is economic performance under different leaderships. In my previous article (‘Gujarat’s inclusive growth’, IE, April 12) I had discussed the pattern of growth in Gujarat since 1992 and how it had performed in the pre-Modi (1992-2001) and post-Modi (2002-present) phases relative to other comparable big states in India. I had identified the following seven similar states (SSS) as being comparable to Gujarat in 2001, the year Modi became chief minister: Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. There were some objections online to the fact that I did not include Mizoram and Nagaland as comparators to Gujarat — simple reason, comparable, especially NSS data, is not easily available for the small states.

Gujarat has performed very well on unemployment, agriculture, industrial and per capita GDP growth, but how has it performed with respect to socio-economic indicators pertaining to health, education, inequality, etc? That is the question being answered in this article. The results:

One, inequality: Gujarat performs marginally better than the SSS. Real inequality in Gujarat, as measured by the Gini coefficient, increased by 2.3 percentage points (ppt) to 28.6 between 1999-2000 and 2011-12 (NSS data); in the SSS, real inequality increased by 3.27 ppt to 32.4. So the level of inequality is less in Gujarat, and the increase is less, and the increase is small.

Two, education: The increase in school enrolment in comparator states is higher than the increase in Gujarat, but this result has largely to do with the fact that the variable being considered is subject to a ceiling value (100 per cent enrolment). So if a state starts with a higher initial level, its growth rate or increment will, by definition, most likely be less (Think about Kerala — according to increase, it is the worst performing state). In 2011-12, female enrolment of the disadvantaged (SCs, STs and Muslims) in Gujarat was 90.1 per cent, compared to 86.7 for the comparator states. The corresponding levels in 1999-2000 were 86.7 and 57.2 per cent, respectively.


Three, access to water and sanitation: Very similar increases in both Gujarat and the SSS; however, Gujarat ahead by about 4 to 8 percentage points, with the highest lead in urban areas (97 per cent in Gujarat vs 89 per cent in SSS).

Four, health: Female infant mortality in Gujarat was 60 deaths per 1,000 births in 2001 and declined to 42 in 2011; for the SSS, the decline was slightly larger to 36 from 56.5 in 2001. But female life expectancy increased by more in Gujarat: from 64.6 in 2001 to 71 in 2008 versus a smaller increase (65.9 to 70.8) for the comparator states. Note also that in 2001, female life expectancy in Gujarat was 1.3 ppt lower than SSS; in 2008, it was marginally higher.

Five, sex ratio at birth (SRB): It is quite unlikely that a chief minister can have any influence over trends in the sex ratio, especially the sex ratio at birth. The only reason this statistic is being documented is because it was much talked about when Modi became the PM nominee of the BJP in September 2013. That was the stick used to beat up the Gujarat model, but without presentation of evidence, of course. For whatever its worth, the SRB statistics suggest that the lot of the girl child has improved considerably in Gujarat between 2001 and 2011. The increase is of 72 points (from 844 to 916), second only to the increase observed in Himachal Pradesh (from 826 to 935). The national increase was considerably less at only 16 points (from 892 to 908). (Note that the biological ratio of girl births to 1,000 boy births is 950).

Several bits of data presented in this and in my earlier article reveal a consistent story, a story independent of the type of data (micro-household or state level) used. The reality is not data dependent, or dependent on the choice of states used to compare Gujarat with. One can make the absurd choice of choosing the best performing state for each separate variable and then seeing where Gujarat stands or make the equally absurd claim that “look, Himachal is better on sex ratio, so shouldn’t one be talking of the Himachal model?” Alternatively, the research and policy community can accept the fact that the socio-economic performance of Gujarat has been the best, or certainly among the best, of all the states in India for the post-2000 time-period. Maybe the policies that Gujarat pursued in this time-period had something to do with its exceptional performance.

The writer is chairman of Oxus Investments, an emerging market advisory firm, and a senior advisor to Zyfin, a leading financial information company.


Just name-calling | The Indian Express | Page 99

Next time intellectuals complain about Gujarat, can they provide some evidence?

The intellectual letter season is in full bloom. It must be because along with spring, fascism is around the corner. No matter which left turn you take — JNU, The Hindu, Oxbridge, The Guardian, and even the nominally not left-wing The Economist — you have intellectuals dreading the future — Narendra Modi as authoritarian, as dictator, as the great divider, as apocalypse personified. And just two days ago, we had no less an authority on learning and intellectuals than Father Frazer Mascarenhas, principal of one of the most prestigious colleges in India, St Xavier’s in Mumbai, pontificating to his students. In a letter leaked to the nation, Mascarenhas pleaded and cajoled his students to “choose well”, to make a choice which “will see India prosper or flounder on the precipice”.



Each and every missive recently sent out by the intellectuals (at least six in the public domain and countless others in equally misleading conversations) contains mandatory and aggressive references to the 2002 Godhra riots. Such condemnation is very desirable in a democracy like ours because such events should never happen in a civilised country, and never again. The prestigious Salman Rushdie, Anish Kapoor et al letter to The Guardian reminds us that “it is crucial to remember the role played by the Modi government in the horrifying events that took place in Gujarat in 2002”. However, not one intellectual letter contains any reference to the larger-scale riot, actually worse, pogrom, that took place in 1984 in Delhi, when members of only one community, the Sikhs, were the “victims of pillage, murder and terror”. For those keeping count, over 8,000 Sikhs were killed nationwide in 1984 and over 3,000 in the capital alone.

Two wrongs do not make a right, but isn’t it a terrible wrong for the intellectual to not even mention, let alone acknowledge, that a major wrong took place in their (the Congress’s) secular India in 1984? They know full well that the Gujarat rioters took many cues and directions from the Delhi pogrom murderers — they got their strategy of pinpointing victims (from the addresses on electoral rolls) and their belief that they would not be punished for their crimes because nobody had been punished for the 1984 riots. Indeed, the accused political leaders involved in the 1984 riots had been given cabinet posts in subsequent Congress administrations. If these intellectuals had acted post the 1984 riots with even a quarter of the dedication they are mustering now, maybe, just maybe, Godhra 2002 would not have happened. And yes, how many of the oh-so-secular-intellectuals have noted that before the blood of 8,000 Sikhs had even dried, the oh-so-secular Congress party called for national elections, within two weeks of the pogrom? And capitalised on the Sikh killing fields by winning 415 of the 543 seats in the Lok Sabha.

Not mentioning the 1984 riots is a grotesque error of omission. But there are many errors of commission in the letters from the intellectuals. The major errors of commission involve communicating (whether to impressionable students at Xavier’s or to fellow travellers) that there is something not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong, with the so-called Gujarat model of development.

This intellectual opposition to Gujarat’s Modi is garbed in terms of negatives. For example, the model is not secular, favours the rich (Adani and Ambani) at the expense of the poor (tribals and Muslims). It is not an inclusive model of development — inequality has increased, the environment has deteriorated, water is not there, electricity connections are there but electrons are not available, etc.

No intellectual points for the miraculous agricultural growth in Gujarat under Modi, a growth that primarily benefits the poor (and so is inclusive, equality inducing etc). The intellectual is on safer ground when it comes to aspects of life other than income, because no one can counter their bluff, counter their ideology or prove them wrong. For example, sociologist Shiv Visvanathan (again in a letter) eloquently cites Amartya Sen and the worthiness of the Human Development Index and openly challenges Modi to “read the report and tell us where Gujarat really stands”. No evidence is provided because once one mentions Nobel laureate Sen, no evidence is needed (for the intellectual). And in echoes of Arundhati Roy and Father Mascarenhas (do left intellectuals move in packs?), Visvanathan says, “Gujarat is home to some of the great tribal, nomadic populations and some of [the] great craft societies. What will happen to them when development occurs?”

A sine qua non feature of self-proclaimed anti-Modi intellectuals (is there any other kind?) is never to cite any empirical evidence in their accusations. Since both Mascarenhas and Visvanathan go out of their way to cite the sorry, and worsening, state of tribals in Gujarat, it should be at least intellectually worthwhile to examine some interrelated questions about Modi and the welfare of Scheduled Tribes (STs) in Gujarat. In the pursuit of intellectual excellence, let me assert that it is nobody’s case, not even the intellectuals’, that Modi should have made the tribals the richest citizens of Gujarat. The yardstick is simple and straightforward — improvement in the standard of living of tribals in Gujarat should at least be equal to tribals elsewhere in India. If there has been less improvement than the average then one can begin to question the worthiness of the Gujarat model; if greater than average improvement, then perhaps there is something to be said about the Gujarat model.

Data on poverty levels, and reduction in poverty levels, for all states with an ST population above 10 per cent, and all India, are reported for the years 1983, 1993-94, 1999-00 and 2011-12. Woman does not exist by bread alone, and it is not my contention that only income levels matter. However, especially for the poor, decline in absolute poverty should be the number one policy concern. In this regard, Modi’s Gujarat is a stellar performer, or in plain English, has done the most (along with Assam) for the tribal population. Madhya Pradesh and Orissa are some distance behind, and Rajasthan, of Sonia Gandhi’s Congress-dole-economics fame, and the darling of the intellectuals, performs the worst. The rate of poverty decline in Rajasthan, in the Modi years, 1999-00 (NSS) to 2012, is less than half of the average pace of decline in India, minus 0.7 per cent per annum.

The ST population in Gujarat has witnessed a 29 percentage point (ppt) decline in poverty since 1999-00 compared to an all-India decline of 22 ppt. And this is the largest decline in the country, that is, the tribals, notwithstanding Mascarenhas or Visvanathan, have done the “best” under Modi. My plea to all, laypersons and intellectuals, is to look at both qualitative and quantitative conclusions before pontificating or lecturing, or just plain evaluating policies and outcomes. Of course, if we look at only qualitative evidence, then the intellectuals have an unfair advantage, an advantage derived from insider trading. And that is grossly unfair, no?
The writer is chairman of Oxus Investments, an emerging market advisory firm, and a senior advisor to Zyfin, a leading financial information company

The slur and troll campaign | The Indian Express | Page 99

The rebuttal of the Gujarat model relies on flawed analysis and obfuscation.

The closer Narendra Modi gets to possibly becoming prime minister, the more intensified the slur and troll campaign of intellectuals and academics opposed to Modi becomes. I have written several articles on growth, poverty and living standards for the different states of India and for different socio-economic groups. The footnote to the table is just a partial listing of this research. The broad conclusion of the research: on all three counts — growth, poverty reduction and welfare improvement of Muslims — Gujarat has done very well.

This conclusion has not been met with approval, at least from the anti-Modi brigade. There is nothing wrong with disagreement, and such disagreement, if it points to errors in analysis, is always welcome. But what Salman Soz and, to a lesser extent, Yoginder K. Alagh and Sourindra Ghosh-Atul Sood commit is intellectual dishonesty, and in my book there isn’t a larger crime that an intellectual/ academic can commit. The crimes arise from ideology. We are all ideological animals, that is not a problem. Intellectual dishonesty is when one makes an error fully knowing that one is wrong. Such an accusation needs to be backed up by evidence, and that is what this article is about.

Alagh: An ex-economist and ex-Planning Commission official, Alagh does not even bother to present any evidence for his interpretations about poverty levels in Gujarat. His conclusion: “the richer a state, the lower its poverty levels”. Hence, Gujarat has lower poverty, whatever that means. Alagh should know better, and given that he does, he is being disingenuous in making the above statement. Poverty levels are a function of several initial conditions, among which per capita income or consumption and its distribution are two of the more important.

Delhi, for example, in 2011-12, had a per capita income level 65 per cent higher than the second-richest big state, Haryana, yet its poverty level was just 1.1 percentage points lower.

The table shows poverty levels for various socio-economic indicators for two comparable states, Gujarat and Maharashtra. Note the difference in ranking of Gujarat according to Central Statistical Office data (4th) and the National Sample Survey Organisation (12th). The poverty data needs to be interpreted with reference to this NSSO rank among 21 big states; if any indicator for Gujarat is less than 12, then Gujarat is performing better than expected. Poverty levels for the different groups are generally lower in Gujarat than the richer Maharashtra. This holds true for all groups except Modi’s own OBC caste — perhaps now the Congress intellectual trolls will complain that since his own caste has “relatively” lost out, Modi is not fit to be PM!

There are other problems with Alagh’s rant. Most importantly, he accuses Ashok Gulati of publishing results because he was paid to do so; Gulati has responded, effectively showing up Alagh’s posturing.

I have published three research-based articles specifically on the poverty situation of Muslims in Gujarat. ‘The Modi metric’ was based on the then latest available NSSO data for 2009-10. This article concluded that while Gujarat had delivered exemplary growth, it had performed very badly on poverty reduction for Muslims — among the worst. “Gujarat has delivered growth under Mr Modi; equally emphatically, growth in Gujarat has neither been equitable nor inclusive”.

This result has been seized upon by the dishonest detractors. Dishonestly not “known” to them, in two subsequent articles, I document in detail what happened to poverty in each of the three years, 1999-00, 2009-10 and 2011-12. The 2011-12 survey was especially commissioned by the government of India (normal lapsed time between surveys is five years) because 2009-10 was a problematic drought year. The data for this survey were released in mid-2012; in ‘Lessons to be learnt from Gujarat’, on October 26, 2013, I concluded: “The poverty ratio for Muslims, which had not shown much change between 1999-00 and 2009-10, now collapses to only a 11.4 per cent level from the high 37.6 per cent level observed just two years earlier.” I could have chosen to not report the 2009-10 data and thereby “hide” the sharp two-year change, but did not do so, because that would have been dishonest.

One of the two survey year data, 2009-10 or 2011-12, has to be an outlier; both cannot be right. The very next week, I examined data for six large NSSO surveys conducted since 1983 and concluded: “If the 2009-10 data was freely and willingly accepted and endorsed… why not the same acceptance for the 2011-12 data… the large decline in poverty shown between 2009-10 and 2011-12 is statistically suspect and deserving of further investigation… It appears that several statistical criteria favour rejecting the estimate provided by the 2009-10 NSS data”. In other words, the 2011-12 data was deemed to be comparable to the other NSSO years, not 2009-10 — exactly the same conclusion reached by most researchers and the government of India.

Soz: Let us examine what Soz does. First, he does not mention ‘Gujarat Muslims: In a politically correct trap?’ at all, the article where I directly compare results for 2009-10 and 2011-12. Second, he accuses me of not looking deeper into sample sizes and, instead, cites the news portal Counterview, which claimed that rural Muslim poor in the NSSO survey comprised a “mere five households”. This betrays both Counterview’s and Soz’s complete lack of understanding of statistics. The relevant sample size to be considered is not of the rural poor, but of the rural Muslim universe. I had not cited any rural or urban figures precisely because the sample size of Muslims for each region was too small to reach any conclusion. “The NSS surveys are not designed to capture the consumption behaviour of a subset of population and in Gujarat, Muslims constitute less than 10 percent of the population…”

Ghosh-Sood: They complain about “three fundamental inconsistencies” in my approach. Essentially, they use me as a peg to plug Sood’s book. I am flattered. But their article is flawed analysis and obfuscation. First, they criticise me for changing my views on Gujarat, but don’t bother to explain to the readers that I changed them after examination of the 2011-12 data. To paraphrase Keynes, an honest person changes his view when new evidence presents itself, a dishonest person does not.

Second, Ghosh-Sood talk a lot about inequality worsening in Gujarat. Their analysis is flawed. They look at inequality for all 32 states but most researchers prefer, for reasons of sample size, only the 21 big states. Inequality is better measured as real inequality (accounting for price differences between regions and states). Maharashtra has one of the highest inequalities in India; Gujarat’s inequality is much better at 7th lowest, in the top one-third, and much better than its consumption rank of 12 would indicate.

It is sad that intellectual dishonesty is being indulged in by so-called intellectuals/ academics. One can escape disrepute and ridicule on Twitter because replies are restricted. But a newspaper column exposes one’s nakedness.

And biggest proof of Gujarat model is the fact that he has been elected four times. You could fool media but you can't fool your own people.


Now go out and own your Socialist friends.
 
. .
Sonia & Rahul Gandhi aren't keen to become Leader of Opposition, I think Gandhis are only born to become PM!! :disagree:

BIG MISTAKE AND SMART MOVE AT THE SAME TIME, AS CONTRADICTORY AS THAT SOUNDS.

A mistake because IF the Congress wants to stick to the decisions of the CWC then retaining the Gandhi family can only be justified if said family can lead the opposition from the front.

A smart move because there is no member of the Gandhi family who has the ability to lead the opposition in a credible manner.

Talk about a rock and a hard place.
 
.
@arp2041 @Star Wars @Sidak @KS @wolfschanzze @Android @NKVD @chak de INDIA @Jason bourne @HariPrasad @GreenFoe @jha @AugenBlick @Dem!god @JanjaWeed @jbond197 @Soumitra @Indischer
@SarthakGanguly @Butchcassidy @indiatester @halupridol @he-man @jiki @Proud Hindu @kbd-raaf @Dillinger @Ravi Nair @jha @MST @Indischer @ExtraOdinary and anyone else.


Now that the compulsory drama of Sonia-Rahul offering resignation and CWC rejecting it after a tearjerker is over, i have a pertinent question as to Would Congress survive till 2019?

This does not originate from some form of wishful thinking but out of alignment in various states.

Congress is in power in Himachal, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Haryana, Assam, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. Out of these Congress is a sure goner in Maharashtra where election would take place in few months and in Uttarakhand they are running an unpopular minority government with help of BSP and independents where it could and would fall in couple of months. Jharkhand government is so incompetent and unpopular that BJP is not even looking forward to topple it as it's stay in power adds to prospects of BJP.

Now if we go by Lok sabha results, Himachal where BJP has done clean sweep would most probably vote BJP government and in Haryana also, NDA this time has got it's alliance correct and anyway Hooda is most likely to fall due to cyclic nature of polls in Haryana. Assam and Karnataka has shown signs of resurgence of BJP.

Congress would most probably win Punjab unless AAP performs extremely well in Punjab assembly election or cuts enough vote that SAD-BJP combine wins.

So in best case scenario Congress in 2019 would have Haryana, Assam, Karnataka, Punjab, Kerala and Karnatka and in worst case scenario Nothing!!

While BJP may have been out of power for 10 years but it was in power in enough number of states to remain relevant and able to extort political rent Oops " Donations " for running the party and i have read somewhere that a both Congress and BJP needs to be in power in at lest 5 medium to large size states in order to extort enough money to run it's day to day activity at national level.

So the question arise as to can Congress have resources to be a Pan-Indian party if it is in power in zero states ( optimally it would be in power in 3 , Punjab, Assam and Kerala ) ?

Congress as a brand could not die. What i am talking about is death of 1969 Congress ( Indira ) as we know it . After all if Dynasty fails to provide livelihood to Dynasty sychophants, some Congressi ( Scindhia, Gogoi, Pilot ) could kick out Maino family back to Italy.
 
Last edited:
.
@arp2041 @Star Wars @Sidak @KS @wolfschanzze @Android @NKVD @chak de INDIA @Jason bourne @HariPrasad @GreenFoe @jha @AugenBlick @Dem!god @JanjaWeed @jbond197 @Soumitra @Indischer
@SarthakGanguly @Butchcassidy @indiatester @halupridol @he-man @jiki @Proud Hindu @kbd-raaf @Dillinger @Ravi Nair @jha @MST @Indischer and anyone else.


Now that the compulsory drama of Sonia-Rahul offering resignation and CWC rejecting it after a tearjerker is over, i have a pertinent question as to whether Would Congress survive till 2019?

This does not originate from some form of wishful thinking but out of alignment in various states.

Congress is in power in Himachal, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Haryana, Assam, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. Out of these Congress is a sure goner in Maharashtra where election would take place in few months and in Uttarakhand they are running an unpopular minority government with help of BSP and independents where it could and would fall in couple of months. Jharkhand government is so incompetent and unpopular that BJP is not even looking forward to topple it as it's stay in power adds to prospects of BJP.

Now if we go by Lok sabha results, Himachal where BJP has done clean sweep would most probably vote BJP government and in Haryana also, NDA this time has got it's alliance correct and anyway Hooda is most likely to fall due to cyclic nature of polls in Haryana. Assam and Karnataka has shown signs of resurgence of BJP.

Congress would most probably win Punjab unless AAP performs extremely well in Punjab assembly election or cuts enough vote that SAD-BJP combine wins.

So in best case scenario Congress in 2019 would have Haryana, Assam, Karnataka, Punjab, Kerala and Karnatka and in worst case scenario Nothing!!

While BJP may have been out of power for 10 years but it was in power in enough number of states to remain relevant and able to extort political rent Oops " Donations " for running the party and i have read somewhere that a both Congress and BJP needs to be in power in at lest 5 medium to large size states in order to extort enough money to run it's day to day activity at national level.

So the question arise as to can Congress have resources to be a Pan-Indian part if it is in power in zero states ( optimally it would be in power in 3 , Punjab, Assam and Kerala ).

Congress as a brand could not die. What i am talking about is death of 1969 Congress ( Indira ) as we know it . After all if Dynasty fails to provide livelihood to Dynasty sychophants, some Congressi ( Scindhia, Gogoi, Pilot ) could kick out Maino family back to Italy.
Its nothing knew mate they know that if they resign the party will be fall apart like in the past whenever they suffered defeat. May be in 1967, 1977 ,1989 the party always divided
 
.
Its nothing knew mate they know that if they resign the party will be fall apart like in the past whenever they suffered


Dude, Read full write up mate. I have explained as to why Congress may suffer irreversible decline.:D
 
. .
@arp2041 @Star Wars @Sidak @KS @wolfschanzze @Android @NKVD @chak de INDIA @Jason bourne @HariPrasad @GreenFoe @jha @AugenBlick @Dem!god @JanjaWeed @jbond197 @Soumitra @Indischer
@SarthakGanguly @Butchcassidy @indiatester @halupridol @he-man @jiki @Proud Hindu @kbd-raaf @Dillinger @Ravi Nair @jha @MST @Indischer @ExtraOdinary and anyone else.


Now that the compulsory drama of Sonia-Rahul offering resignation and CWC rejecting it after a tearjerker is over, i have a pertinent question as to Would Congress survive till 2019?

This does not originate from some form of wishful thinking but out of alignment in various states.

Congress is in power in Himachal, Uttarakhand, Jharkhand, Haryana, Assam, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. Out of these Congress is a sure goner in Maharashtra where election would take place in few months and in Uttarakhand they are running an unpopular minority government with help of BSP and independents where it could and would fall in couple of months. Jharkhand government is so incompetent and unpopular that BJP is not even looking forward to topple it as it's stay in power adds to prospects of BJP.

Now if we go by Lok sabha results, Himachal where BJP has done clean sweep would most probably vote BJP government and in Haryana also, NDA this time has got it's alliance correct and anyway Hooda is most likely to fall due to cyclic nature of polls in Haryana. Assam and Karnataka has shown signs of resurgence of BJP.

Congress would most probably win Punjab unless AAP performs extremely well in Punjab assembly election or cuts enough vote that SAD-BJP combine wins.

So in best case scenario Congress in 2019 would have Haryana, Assam, Karnataka, Punjab, Kerala and Karnatka and in worst case scenario Nothing!!

While BJP may have been out of power for 10 years but it was in power in enough number of states to remain relevant and able to extort political rent Oops " Donations " for running the party and i have read somewhere that a both Congress and BJP needs to be in power in at lest 5 medium to large size states in order to extort enough money to run it's day to day activity at national level.

So the question arise as to can Congress have resources to be a Pan-Indian party if it is in power in zero states ( optimally it would be in power in 3 , Punjab, Assam and Kerala ) ?

Congress as a brand could not die. What i am talking about is death of 1969 Congress ( Indira ) as we know it . After all if Dynasty fails to provide livelihood to Dynasty sychophants, some Congressi ( Scindhia, Gogoi, Pilot ) could kick out Maino family back to Italy.

Dude, even in worst case they will still continue to hold at least Kerala. Lots of sickulars are still alive there (No offence to BJP supporters in Kerala)!! The fact is BJP's support base is extremely low there and if you go by the comments of some of the Keralites here, it appears they simply hate Modi/BJP to the core. I particularly noticed that even when it was clear Modi is coming with full majority, they were not willing to believe and some geniuses among them even projected only 210 seats for NDA. LOL!!. I am sure they will not let Kerala to change and it will remain Communists/Congress base for ever.

Another reason for Congress remaining alive is that they continue to enjoy about 20-25% vote share through out India, which is big enough to pose a threat if they are able to forge right alliances. One need to be wary of this fact.

Now since Modi govt is in power, the next important thing they need to do is to expedite the investigations in Vadra property cases and follow up investigation on Gandhi family black money hide-outs. Once this Gandhi family is completely exposed it will act as death knell for Congress. It will be wiped out from most of the places except a few like Kerala/Assam/(a few seats here and there in Punjab/Haryana).
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom