The Indian election results have been pouring in, with the Congress/UPA government set to return to power for another five years. Here is the New York Times’ story; apparently, this is the first time since Nehru that an Indian political party has served out the full five years, and then been reelected to power.
I wanted to give readers a chance to share information and suggest sites that are gathering results in various parts of the country. I am especially curious to see what happens with Shashi Tharoor in Trivandrum (I blogged about him a few weeks ago), and of course the political landscape as a whole. As of 1:00 am EDT, the UPA is up over the NDA/BJP around 220-150 [update: the final number for the UPA will be something more like 259]. The UPA is going to stay in, and even consolidate its power — which means, greater independence from the Left. Manmohan Singh is likely to remain Prime Minister for awhile, and perhaps it’s going to be curtains for L.K. Advani’s Prime Ministerial aspirations.
I was watching IBN live here.
The NDTV VoteMap is pretty nice, though it would be better if there were a way to see who held a given state or a given district earlier.
On Twitter, the tag seems to be #indiavotes09. The stream is moving very quickly. There is something called Tweetgrid, which lets you see feeds for six Twitter keywords at once.
Shashi Tharoor has his own Twitter feed: ShashiTharoor. As of now, he is up by 30,000 votes, with more than half of the votes counted.
The BBC’s live results are pretty good. As of this writing, Varun Gandhi (the communal one, from Sanjay’s wing of the family) is leading, and Mayawati’s BSP is losing. In Kerala, the left is likely to decline dramatically from 2004. The Communists are in decline in West Bengal too, presumably in payback for their handling of Nandigram. Lalu Prasad Yadav, who had earlier decided to pull support from Congress, is now admitting it was a mistake, as his RJD party ended up losing seats.
Via Ultrabrown, Bloomberg has a story, with Congress leaders using “Jai Ho” as a victory chant. Also via Ultrabrown, Mayawati is going to lock up victorious BSP candidates, to prevent them from being picked off by other parties. It’s a typical Mayawati thing to do, and presumably illegal — though that’s never stopped her before.
Please suggest any sites with data and analysis that you would recommend.
Whoa, Abhishek, calm down, buddy. For someone so jubilant about the elections, you’re sounding pretty “rabid”…I’ve had plenty of civil discussions with people from opposing perspectives, but if you’re worried about trolls focused on non-issue oriented flames, I’d be happy to group you into that category.
Calling out abuses of the constitution in the name of minorityism is not communal–it is the right and decent thing to do for people who truly believe in liberal constitutionalism. In short, for people who are truly secular. Indian muslims are not looking to be patronized-with special laws, qazi courts, or haj subsidies. They want equality of opportunity. Instead of putting together schemes just become divisive excuses for patronage, why don’t you try pushing through policies that will give them access to education…Nah, cause that would mean they would actually be empowered and wouldn’t need congress patronage to protect them from the hindutva bogeyman. I bet you didn’t know this, but the vast majority of the muslim world considers subsidies for the haj to be against sharia…hmmm…so wait, should the congress be sued for “offending religious sentiments” then? I thought “Congress is secular”
Finally, dude, what bluffs? I’ve been writing facts and including links. A bluff is when you have no idea what you’re talking about, but you pretend like you do (as you did when you pathetically laughed off a basic political fact that Narasimha Rao was the father of the reforms. Way to do your homework, bud). Anyhow, my tone only changes when people are being intellectually dishonest and are being disrespectful themselves, like you for example (your attempts to characterize me as “unhinged” smack of desperation). As I stated in my initial post here, I wasn’t even looking for debate. I just posted points that I thought were in vital national interest and asked congress voters to think about that. I even said, if you don’t like the bjp, fine, at least hold your own party accountable and lobby them to make sure they do their jobs properly. But of course, that would necessitate governmental competence and nationalism, and congress can’t do that, it’s “secular”. For all your bluster, you really haven’t provided any facts to counter my statements on issues of governmental interest. I know that’s the way the congress likes to operate (labels and slogans are a lot easier than facts and accomplishments “garibi hatao!”), but if you really have been following me over the past few weeks, you’ll notice that i provide facts for all my statements and assertions and plenty of links. Perhaps you should learn to do the same.
yes, of course, what we really need is the unity of sycophancy so that we can continue to have one set of laws and rules for Congress vote banks and another set for the rest of the country– and then you call it secularism all while being and apologist for an actual massacre of minorities in 1984…whoa, that’s a lot of responsibility. think you can handle it? Anyhow, i’m glad Madam has given you permission to feel magnanimous. I’m sure she has plenty of scooby snax for all your efforts…adieu
Satyajit Wry, your comments seem a little hysterical. Take a deep breath. You were telling Abhishek to calm down, but you really need to take a look in the mirror.
I don’t have a lot of time, but I thought I would just respond to a couple of your points.
Republicans in the U.S. said the same thing when they were criticized for saying “Barack Hussein Obama.” Using someone’s name in this way is mean-spirited and unfair. You should refer to people as they wish to be called.
I agree that India’s security situation does need serious fixing, and the issue Abhishek mentioned, about a gap between state level and national level security, was new to me.
Here is the question you should be asking: For whatever reason, the BJP’s use of security as a political issue did not resonate with Indian voters this time. Why do you think that is? You could just call them donkeys who have been brainwashed. But that is a cop-out — in fact, a large swath of Indian voters do switch parties and loyalties fairly often. Did the BJP really have a better substantive answer on security this time (other than invading/bombing Pakistan, which is a non-answer) ?
[I recognize that the BJP actually didn’t do that badly in terms of losses — it was the losses in the third front and left that have made the congress victory seem like a mandate. But it’s also true that I think the BJP hoped/expected to pick up some new seats on this platform, and they weren’t able to do that.)
You are not the only one to try and paint MMS as a mere puppet. I do not think he is — the nuclear deal, for instance, seemed to really have his fingerprints on it. In reality, we don’t know what is really going on behind the scenes.
I am not sure why you seem determined to attack MMS, with his Ph.D. in economics, by saying he was in fact not the architect of the 1991 reforms. I do not have time to go and research all this right now, but it seems a bit hysterical to make this move. Was he not finance minister in 1991?
The scandal was a real issue, but everyone knows MMS was not involved. He is clean. The BJP has its own scandals. The corruption issue doesn’t get you very far this time (in the absence of fresh major corruption scandals).
Under Congress, India’s growth continued at a good rate until last year, and the slowdown last year was understandable, given the global economy. This is despite what a lot of BJP supporters were saying in 2004. They were predicting a doomsday scenario.
MoorNam had a point in his comment above: Congress seems to have learned some lessons from the five years of BJP rule, and from earlier campaign contests. I would also add (and here I suspect MoorNam would disagree) that the parts of the Indian economy that have remained government supported (like banking) have actually shielded it from the worst of the financial collapse that has wreaked havoc in the west.
Strange to see the hysterical commentary above, I am just back from india and quite struck by the positive vibes people had. There was quite a deep sense of involvement, knowledge of the local candidates, detailed lists of accomplishments and negatives and so on. This is really the heart of democratic fuctioning, more important that Varun vs. Rahul and other froth.
There were many significant trends that are very positive; and, yes, I agree this gandhi family tamasha is not one of them. Am I the only person who always feels annoyed when landing at the “Indira Gandhi Intl Airport” 🙁
Increasing growth of governance-oriented strong regional leaders: in additional to Tamil Nadu which has a history of regional politics, we also have YSR in andra pradesh who bucks the anti-incumbency tide based on performance, nitish kumar in bihar, shiela dixit in delhi, patnaik in Orissa. So there is a real mandate for leaders who deliver and keep a solid regional focus. In contrast, Mayawati, in spite of her vote bank was seen as uninvolved in the welfare of UP and had some serious losses.
The aspirational people want progress, want money, want to get ahead. They may hate some group or the other but they are not willing to risk things by making things unstable. Hence a negative view of Varun Gandhi (sort of admire him as bold, but also quite alarmed by him). So even some strong BJP supporters said to me, we dont really care about exactly who wins, we want performance, we want things to keep moving forward.
There have been some changes on the rural side; I didnt get to see this first hand but many knowledgeable commentators referenced the loan forgiveness and NREG programs.
Finally, a real respect for Manmohan Singh, who in his systematic scholarly way has focused on some real core issues: increasing health spending, rural education and empowerment, working positively with the states.
You can design plans as an ‘architect’ all you want, but in politics the real work comes in actual implementation. The issue isn’t that MMS has a PhD in econ. The issue is that ANY finance minister would have designed similar reforms. It was the decision and leadership of the Prime Minister that actually creates the space to make a policy and then twists the arms to put it into play.
Thus, it was Narasimha Rao who actually made the decision to implement economic reforms. And he managed to pull it off while at the helm of a minority government as well. It’s no small feat and his accomplishments are often covered up by the sycophantic wing of the Congress party that would are dependent on the dynastic teat for their power and privilege. Heaping all the glory on MMS and ignoring Rao would be like ignoring Patton and fixating on one of the field-marshall.
Don’t Satyajit Wry, Nanda Kishore, and Lupus Solitarius feel just a little bit fake conflating the BJP’s right-wing agenda with nationalism? All these eminent gentlemen are presumably ensconsed in the protective arms of some liberal Western democracy like the US or the UK, but they feel fully entitled to prove their patriotism by supporting the noble, egalitarian, pluralistic and multi-religious heaven that the BJP dreams of.
In this paradise, women shall not be beaten up for having the effrontery to drink in pubs in, gasp, a pair of jeans. The BJP would never dream of supporting such regressive hidden agendas. Its the bad, bad Congress who set Muthalik up.
Mere bhaiyon, if your nationalistic sentiments are getting so hard to control, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? Come, live in your beloved Hindu Rashtra, otherwise also know as India, like all of us, deluded pseudo-secular Hindus.
Bharat Mata needs you, the BJP needs you, come back, dharti ke lal!
I am not sure why you seem determined to attack MMS, with his Ph.D. in economics, by saying he was in fact not the architect of the 1991 reforms. I do not have time to go and research all this right now, but it seems a bit hysterical to make this move. Was he not finance minister in 1991? You can design plans as an ‘architect’ all you want, but in politics the real work comes in actual implementation. The issue isn’t that MMS has a PhD in econ. The issue is that ANY finance minister would have designed similar reforms. It was the decision and leadership of the Prime Minister that actually creates the space to make a policy and then twists the arms to put it into play.
The answer is both: Narsimha Rao, and Manmohan Singh.
However, it was neither’s idea.
In 1991, India was facing the worst FOREX crisis since its existence, and was 60 to 90 days short of defaulting its loan payments to IMF, and other foreign lenders. IMF recommended (or forced) some reforms. It took Manmohan Signh’s econimic maturity, and Narisihma Rao’s overall firmness to implement them. Some may argue there was no choice, as India was going belly-up economically. Manmohan Singh’s recommendations were even fiercely opposed within the cabinet, and Narsimha Rao backed him up.
Some may argue, IMF had forced other countries with same panacea, like Mexico, Turkey, and Argentina, and it did not work at all.
Why did work in India?: a) the genius of small scale Indian business, b) cheap english speaking technically educated workforce, and c) last but not the least – a huge force of NRIs who were itching to use this tiny opening to their maximum advantage to create business opportunities.
Even before 1991, there was some reforms by Rajiv Gandhi in deregualtion, and one must also credit BJP Government (1999-2004) for bringing these reforms to become a complete steady policy.
People have spoken, and Indian masses havs started to become aspirational. If Congress does not deliver and become cocky, they will throw them out. I think neither party should consider Indian masses for granted.
Is this the new canard? That all BJP supporters are NRIs?
Because the Congress doesn’t get its share of fluffery from the Western Press no siree. And it’s not like the BJP gets no votes either.
Rob: Re. assigning blame for Gujarat, if you know anyone in India, ask them and you will know. Or read about the 3 days after Godhra in any non-RSS/VHP publication. I don’t want to write inflammatory words here.
Satyajit: If you will read what I wrote, I start with saying the others may be no better. All I was saying was that the defining characteristic of BJP, and specifically of its leaders in this election, was communalism. Pointing out this fact does not make media biased.
In fact, the BJP
wantsneeds to remind their base of this, to energize them. But they would like to present a different BJP to the moderate voters. A dilemma similar to the Republicans in this country. If only the media could send a different message to each viewer!Every party has this dilemma. The Democrats have it too as does the Congress. It’s part of the reality of partisan politics. Trying to act like it’s solely a BJP thing is disingenuous.
If the left-wing Democrats had their way America would have jettisoned its military and turned itself into some pot-smoking hippie commune.
And I say this as a registered Democrat, by the way.
Satya: BTW, if the congress was fighting the election with Tytler and Sajjan Kumar as the PM candidates for this and the next election, the media would point out their histories as well. And justifiably so.
Nanda Kishore in 89 – I will address this only briefly since we can keep going back and forth without resolution on this. Whether he was the driver behind the Gujarat murders or not, it is indisputable that he failed miserably as a leader to stop the riots. The fact that the riots happened and he failed to fulfill the basic duty of the state to protect the lives of its citizens means that either he did not care, he ordered it or was incompetant. This is indisputable that he failed badly as a leader. Its not about hating or liking Modi, its about what if he is the PM, can ordinary citizens trust their lives if shite happens. You may say that under MMS too terrorism happened, but to me the situations are different and also I do not see the BJP doing any better on that front going by their rule.
As for development, I agree it is difficult to pin point the facts, but there are as many claims that development in Gujarat is also coming at the cost of compromising the economic well being of a part of its citizens and environmental degradation (and I am not talking about nonsensical leftspeak). This is of course a disputable point because its highly subjective.
There have been riots, terrorist attacks, and rapes and murders with communal undertones (perpetrated by a variety of communal groups thank you very much) outside of Gujarat since 2002. Why does the blame not rest on their state governments as well? Is it because it would be silly to hold one state government to an unrealistically high standard while ignoring the shortcomings of another?
Why does the government at the center not get grief for failing in their basic duty to stem the Naxalite expansions in the red corridor or the increasingly unstable situation in the North East? One does not have to be incompetent to have bad things happen on their watch.
There have been riots, terrorist attacks, and rapes and murders with communal undertones (perpetrated by a variety of communal groups thank you very much) outside of Gujarat since 2002. Why does the blame not rest on their state governments as well?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but other state governments weren’t giving the murderers and rapists a helping hand.
I’m pretty sure that with the level of mau-mauing directed at Modi over 2002, if there was any credible evidence of that it would have been uncovered by now.
Because it depends on who, what, where they are headed and relativity to others. If a Tytler had started talking about becoming PM and actually started making gains in that direction , I would be just as worried about him as I would be about Modi. Kamal Nath should be thrown out too. Thankfully incompetents like Aiyar, Shivraj and Arjun Singh are making exits. Or if Manmohan Singh had an autocratic style of functioning where he exercised control over everything, I would be a lot more skeptical about supporting him because that is counter democracy and ideas of checks and balances in governance.
The Congress and others too are all guilty of anti democratic acts,democracy in India is a sham in many instances (free TVs, dalit-brahmin alliances, vote banks, and the lip service and exploitation of secularism). Communalism and castesim are facts of life in Indian politics. The Congress under Indira Gandhi started using it big time and have been doing it for a while now. But the BJP has a more extremist rabid form of communalism and so the choice comes to which kind would you rather not have. That does not mean that you get a great deal, you only get a less bad deal depending on what you perceive as important.
The Congress is disgusting in its resorting to communal politics as much as the BJP, its lack of democracy within is disturbing and its incompetance on many fronts. National security sucked, economically we had a huge deficit even during the boom. But standing next to the BJP and the left today, it is less clueless and less dependent on extremism. In 2004, I thought the BJP seemed ok – inching towards moderation and was less clueless than the Congress. Today its the other way around, their leaders are Advani (now ex) and loonies like Rajnath, Sushma Swaraj and MM Joshi while the Congress (if it does not get cocky, that’s why I would love to see a moderate center right party) is showing the inclination to learn from its mistakes. Barring these two parties and if Nitish had a better national presence, who else is there – jokers like Mayawati and Sharad Pawar. It all depends on what you deem as important and who you decide to put your faith in.
As I understand it, the BJP’s allies are mostly center-right parties. Hence policy outcomes generally fall right at the center.
Yoga Fire – Indian politics always comes down to whose non-sense you believe more. Thus, like I said, it depends on who you put your faith in. Also, they have 5 years to solidify their center right credentials – they had a good opportunity to do that post 2004 and they instead acted like headless chicken for a while and then went back towards hard line Hindutva (irrespective of their allies). One problem they in fact had was that they were unable to get allies this election. Hopefully this time they will focus more on issues of national security, fiscal responsibility, transparency (they brought the RTI which was great!) and good governance. If they do so and the Congress does a bad job, I’ll root for them again in 2012 as I did in 2004. As for Modi, I would like to see a lot more evidence of his espousal of democratic ways and moderate tendencies, if he does that a seemingly dedicated and honest man like him will be an asset to governance in India.
In 1991, at one point, India did not even have foreign exchange to buy petrol.
IMF agreed to a series of bailouts to India, and also said they would not impose any conditions. The changes have to be “yours“
Those “yours” changes were authored by Manmohan Singh.
Eventually, Argentina and Turkey turned around too but not some serious bottoming out.
Also, from what I have read though I may be wrong on this, MMS went to PVN and told him about the condition. PVN asked what needs to be done and then the rest ensued. From comments here, it almost seems like it’s being implied that MMS was opposed to those changes and PNV forced it upon him.
Nope. They should use the alternate handles. They are such time savers. You know exactly where they stand without having to go through all the effluvia.
Exactly. Those were shameful episodes. The brainwashed BJP cadres boast a lot and thump their chests a lot but when push comes to shove they are as weak kneed and stupid as Nehru ever was.
I always knew that the rabid NRI BJP backers were nothing but fake “nationalists”. Greed, selfishness, casteism, communalism etc are their real motivations.
I’m glad people have made clear MMS’s role – the stretching and contortions that people go to minimize his contribution to economic liberalization is quite a laugh.
You forgot absenteeism, absolutism, aeroembolism,anachronism, alcoholism,astigmatism, barbarism, botulism and 198 other isms between a and c. You jumped straight to c! You bling shame to the glolious mothelrand, comlade Plema.
5000 extra hours of patriotic re-education for you.
Typical brainwashed NRI BJP drone. Go to any hindutva forum and watch these clowns mocking chinese, pakistanis, bangladeshis, christian missionaries, indian dalits, indian secularists, indian muslims, indian christians etc in the most juvenile fashion. They have developed their own ghetto hindutva hinglish, heavy on acronyms, in which they chatter incessantly giving each other cheap thrills (probably the main pleasure in their sad lonely lives living as near pariahs in the West).
You bling shame to the glolious mothelrand, comlade Plema
Haha! Funny! The Chinaman is so funny. Thanks for the laughs!
Not to forget Polynesians, Martians, Hutus, Onges, Spartans, Harappans, Maori lesbians, Celtic dwarves, Indian magicians, Indian missionary position and the vulval pain society. Hail Mogambo!
Not to forget Polynesians, Martians, Hutus, Onges, Spartans, Harappans,
Lupus, lololol…I can usually count on you and few others to make me laugh on Monday….
Satyajit, Check out this playlist..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaOLOVHyVkM
Secularism is just disguised Christianity!! No wonder the Hindus are up in arms. If you can’t convert them after 300 years of Xavier and Clive, try the back door.. All these self-proclaimed keepers of the peace are just disguised christians peddling for the 10/40 evangelical window.
Lupus Solitarius wrote:
Uh-oh, Comrade Lupus. You might need some re-education yourself.
Communism is the only way forward for the Motherland!!! Only then will the people be saved from the class warfare that opiatizes the masses!!! The spineless bourgeois twits of the INC, the BJP–heck, even LeT itself– will cower in fear before the coming revolution!!! Hail Marx-gambo!
Maogambo. . . khush hua.
PAFD wrote
Pagal ji, I am happy that my small sketch of a 100% swadeshi Maoist brother with a slight speech impediment (brought on by police brutality, no doubt) made you laugh. May I just point out that the term ‘Chinaman’ is no longer politically correct except when used to describe slow left arm unorthodox spin bowling in cricket, and that too is changing. The correct term these days is ‘Chinese Gentleman’, I believe.
I am pretty sure these hindutva clowns are actually grinding their teeths in anguish while pretending to LOL at each others juvenile attempts at mockery. 🙂
Aah, fantasies of bruxism- You truly have a beautiful mind, Prema.
Amardeep,
I have the utmost respect for your efforts on sepia (particularly the Sri Lanka post), but I do think your remarks above are unfair since my post was perfectly restrained considering the caliber of Abhishek’s remarks. First, Barack Obama did not masquerade by running as “Barry O’bama”. Sonia Gandhi came up with a new name that bears no relation to her old one. There is a difference. And there is nothing wrong with people knowing that. Second, I have the utmost respect for all religions and want a pluralistic India; however, Sonia Gandhi and YS Rajasekhara Reddy have been transparently attempting to change the demographics of the country and overturn its real secular credentials through religiously motivated actions, likes trying to appropriate the sacred Tirumala hills from the Tirupathi Temple in Andhra. But any concerted attempt to honestly call this out has resulted in name calling such as “rabid hindutvavadi” “chaddiwalla” “unhinged” etc –all of which you have permitted on this post and elsewhere. Most unfortunately, you have only contributed to that now by attempting to brand my remarks as “hysterical” and, sadly, seem to tacitly approve of Abhishek’s attempts to call me “rabid” and “unhinged”. His is a tactic often used to brush aside more rational opposing viewpoints or commenters when there is an absence of supporting fact. It is something that Vijay Prashad used with Narendra Modi in his attempt to torpedo Sonal Shah’s candidacy for a position in the Obama administration. Oddly enough, as the moderator here, you didn’t see fit to chide Abhishek for that remark or when he straight up lied about how I apparently “added a Khan to somebody’s name, again as an insult and exhibited several other behaviors, which reflect the most extreme elements of the Hindutva ideology”….When someone attempts to communally slander me, I think I am perfectly within my rights to defend myself and calmly call out his hysteria. I hope you can understand that.
Second, with all due respect as the resident mutineer here, you are forgetting that in 2008, India had month after month after month of blasts throughout the country. People even forgot the 7/11 blasts of 2006 in Mumbai. The entire international intelligence community was warning of a specific strike on those hotels. But due to its politicization of COUNTER terror, the Congress pressured the Mumbai ATS to spend 90% of its time elsewhere. That is the height of irresponsibility and it is unfortunate that you have rationalized it. Second, the BJP actually passed a strong national law that allowed for effective counter terror, and created fast track courts so that terrorist don’t become celebrities (like Kasab has). But the Congress communalized and rescinded it. If there were specific issues or concerns, why couldn’t they have merely amended it? I suppose then they could not have burnished their “secular” credentials. I am sorry, but there is no comparison here. MMS did not have a good comeback as the BJP had solutions, pushed them through, and the Congress rescinded them and made the situation worse. As for Pakistan in particular, the BJP has offered many solutions as to how to tackle it, but as Brahma Chellaney said, you don’t discuss them in public so your enemy can prepare for them. Nevertheless, it would seem that covert programs counter terror programs were on the agenda. Shourie has hinted at this himself.
Third, regarding MMS’s cambridge credentials: Amardeep, Harvard economists and Wharton MBA’s drove the global economy off the cliff. Degrees alone do not mean much. Contributions do. As I’ve demonstrated, Narasimha Rao was responsible for the reforms, so let’s just leave it at that. I know you must justifiably take pride in having the first sikh PM in power, but as much as I don’t wish to take any of that away, I do think his time as PM has been harmful to India. Please do not take it personally, as you know from my posts, I have great respect for the sikh community, most notably figures such as KPS Gill and Jagjit Singh Arora, but MMS certainly does not belong in their ranks.
Fourth, I would really hope that an academic such as yourself would not so cavalierly dismiss the blatant subversion of republican institutions in India. When she received the order of leopold in Belgium, Sonia Gandhi was called “the Prime Minister in all but name”… Please tell me, how is it that the Belgians know who’s calling the shots in India, but Indians themselves do not? As such, I would politely ask that you not attempt to water down what is a clear violation of the Indian Constitution’s intent. Also, even from a Parliamentary perspective, MMS histrionics with the deal were not exactly his finest hour. His promises to parliament for honest debate and bipartisanship we obviously violated. And Somnath Chatterjee did his bidding by covering up the cash for votes scandal. Funny how Narasimha gets a jail sentence for doing the same thing because he struck a chord independent of the Nehru Gandhis (and was denied a state funeral in Delhi), but due to MMS’s loyalty to The Family, he is India’s “honest and accidental politician”. Anyhow, I have already posted above how he misled the indian republic on India’s energy needs and how he cut the budget during his time in office. If nuclear is the future, why would you cut its budget by 40%? If you have uranium mines to cover your needs for the next half century, why ramrod a deal through without discussion?
Finally, as you can clearly see from my initial post, I never meant to engage anyone in debate on this post, and stated so. I simply made remarks in good faith to draw attention to exceedingly important issues in an election that people were told “there were no real issues”. While I do think it is commendable that you seek to maintain standards of civility on this post, I would hope that in the future, you would exhort the other side to do the same. Thank you for your comment. I do hope we can have more of these constructive discussions in the future.
Best Regards,
Satyajit Wry
Here’s Economist Subramanian Swamy on the Economic Reforms. He credits Rao and notes that the blueprints were actually out of the Chandrasekhar government. This makes sense because Yashwant Sinha, Minister of Finance under Chandra Shekhar noted how he had to take the decision to mortgage India’s gold reserves due to lack of FOREX.
Kay,
Rajiv Gandhi was directly responsible for the deaths of 4,000 sikhs, tytler and kumar were just his henchmen. The media never called him out then. Narendra Modi was CM when hindus and muslims rioted and 700 muslims and 300 hindus died. The media made him out to be Adolf Hitler and called the 2002 riots a modern day genocide. In fact, the media–and all those bleeding heart activists–treated the hindu victims like dirt who didn’t deserve mention. Teesta Setalvad was found by the Supreme Court to have committed perjury. Why hasn’t the media called for her prosecution? Thanks to her efforts, innocent women and children at godhra were made to seem as though they deserved being incinerated because they were singing bhajans. All these events were tragic, and my heart truly goes out to all the innocent victims, but there is an obvious qualitative difference between how 1984 and 2002 were treated–even though 1984 was an actual pogrom. I am sorry, but the media is biased.
Satyajit, What, you haven’t gotten the message from the Columbia University Middle Eastern Studies department? The great chain of being is as follows:
1) Followers of the Semitic Sky-God 2) dogs 3) Hindus
Satyajit Wry,
You make it sound like you have been respectful of everyone in this debate, and you’re deeply wounded that I would use the word hysterical to describe your comments.
Actually, you like to dish it, but you clearly can’t take it. Let me play back your earlier comments on this thread for you: “Actually, on the nuclear deal, it might help if you actually did a little reading that didn’t come from your Italian babysitter’s talking points.” And then later in the same comment: ” that’s ok, please get back to justifying your high school educated Italian Babysitter’s rule.”Â
That’s not rude, but “hysterical” is rude? Really?
More substantively, much of what you have been arguing falls under the “Manmohan Singh is a puppet” meme. You want to diminish his role in liberalization, and you want to believe that Sonia Gandhi calls the shots. Isn’t it simpler to believe that the person in power actually has the power they appear to have? Doesn’t sustaining this conspiracy theory of yours get tiring after awhile?
It’s odd, because you also have lines like “MMS lied through his teeth to push [the nuclear deal] through.†So, what is he, a doddering old “apparatchik” puppet (“lapdog”), or a Machiavellian power player, who would say anything to accomplish his political ends? You seem to be confused about who you think Manmohan Singh is.
Another moment of self-contradiction in your comments comes with the education question. You pooh-pooh Manmohan Singh’s considerable credentials (” Degrees alone do not mean much. Contributions do.”Â), but then you also go after Sonia Gandhi as follows: “This is not only worrisome because she is unqualified (she only has a high school education and barely speaks english let alone any indian language), but because she is unaccountable.” If education is a serious criterion, isn’t it in fact a good thing that we have a Prime Minister Singh? If only “contributions” matter, then why do you care about Sonia Gandhi’s education? (She’s obviously become an effective campaigner and political party boss in India, whatever her background.)
You said a number of very condescending things to Abhishek (i.e., “Way to do your homework, bud.”) when he questioned your assertion that PVN Rao was the real “father” of the reforms that started in 1991. First, are you aware that you are seriously out on a limb with this assertion? No one has backed you up. (I trust Kush Tandon — he is almost always on the right track.) The burden is on you to prove it when you are trying to put forward a point of view that is a) far from the mainstream, and b) based on a technicality. Yes, a Prime Minister would technically “decide” to institute major reforms like this, but they would certainly do it in consultation with, and probably under advisement from, their Finance Minister, especially when that Finance Minister is as smart as Manmohan Singh.
The articles you’ve pulled from the net are not convincing anyone. At any rate, this whole line of argument might well be irrelevant, since it was still clearly a Congress Government that started the process. How does this really help you, except as it supports your “Manmohan Singh=puppet” meme?
You seem really obsessed with the fact that Sonia Gandhi was born Maino. Did you know that she changed her name when she married Rajiv Gandhi? She is now known to most reality-based people as Sonia Gandhi. Please note this for future reference.
“Please tell me, how is it that the Belgians know who’s calling the shots in India, but Indians themselves do not?” Please tell me, why should anyone care what the Belgians think?
Then you mention Rajasekhra Reddy, in Andhra Pradesh. I must admit I don’t know much about him; I’ll look him up to see if he is as bad as you say. All the same, he is a regional, not a national figure, and as far as I know he has no national aspirations.
As I said in my previous comment, India has some serious security problems. But India’s Pakistan policy and security was a mess in 2002 as well. You referred to POTA, I believe, in your “I am deeply wounded” comment above, as the main thing the BJP would apparently do differently. Maybe there’s something to it. But you didn’t answer my sincere question: why do you think this didn’t resonate with voters this time around? I am not asking in a smart-assed way: I myself thought that national security ought to be an issue in this election, and I was surprised when, a few weeks ago, Soutik Biswas reported on the BBC that he wasn’t seeing it outside of limited pockets in Mumbai (which, interestingly, went largely for Congress all the same).
You’ve complained a lot about nepotism, but the BJP didn’t exactly run away when Varun Gandhi decided he wanted to try and become a player on the national scene. How much do you want to be that Varun, once he learns to tone it down, becomes a national BJP spokesman?
You say: “the $15 billion loan waiver did nothing to resolve the farmer suicide crisis. They continue unabated in Vidarbha and Andhra.” Maybe, but the BJP never cared about farmer suicides before. Do you really care now?
Genuine curiosity: can you explain Chandrababu Naidu’s about face for me?
Another genuine curiosity question. You say this: “The point I’m trying to make is that India doesn’t have real secularism, and that’s what BJP supporters want. Everyone equal under the law. There is no Uniform Civil Code, but special law codes for the congress’s fave minority group, and overturning of Supreme court decisions when it might hurt minority vote banks (Shah Bano case).”
Fine. I am actually a supporter of a fair, truly neutral version of a Uniform Civil Code, and have said so numerous times on this blog. But my question is this: why didn’t the NDA push it through during their time in office? They had five years. I tend to suspect this is a campaign talking point and a bit of posturing, not something anyone intends to actually implement.
Finally… You say at the end of your comment above: “I simply made remarks in good faith to draw attention to exceedingly important issues in an election that people were told “there were no real issues”. While I do think it is commendable that you seek to maintain standards of civility on this post, I would hope that in the future, you would exhort the other side to do the same. Thank you for your comment. I do hope we can have more of these constructive discussions in the future.”
Certainly, Dr. Satyajit. Civility and all that, old chap.
But is the “in good faith” Dr. Satyajit acquainted with his twin, the sarcastic and belligerent Mr. Wry?
This is from an original 1994 article in New York Times, when Rao was the PM, and MMS just a Finance Minister written by John Burns, a Pultizer Proze winner. Since this is a dated article about the changes were made, it is free from latter day revisionalism. Also, it must be remembered this article is written when nobody was sure about the effects of 1991. It is a three page article, but contain a real insight into history of India, and the significance of 1991 in the history of India. Everywhere I have read, both PVN Rao and MMS are given equal credit, this is the first time, I am see a seeing either/ or discussion.
But it gives some interesting insights, here are some exerpts [Bold is my emphasis]:
…………………
In the end, Mr. Rao must bear responsibility for the changes. But few in India doubt that his crucial move was a telephone call he made in June 1991 to Mr. Singh, a former governor of India’s Reserve Bank who was then languishing as chairman of the country’s university grants commission. Mr. Rao appointed Mr. Singh Finance Minister and charged him with introducing some of the most ambitious economic changes India had seen since Britain’s East India Company established its trading monopoly in the 18th century, prefiguring the dirigiste economics that had been a hallmark under British and Indian governments for 250 years.
Speaking to foreign reporters in New Delhi earlier this year, Mr. Singh recalled the instructions he received from Mr. Rao when the two met to discuss Mr. Singh’s appointment. Greeting Mr. Singh in his office in the yellow sandstone building that once housed the governments of Britain’s viceroys, Mr. Rao invited Mr. Singh to begin dismantling what had become known in India as the “license raj,” a system of economic management hemmed in at every turn by Government monopolies, decrees, quotas, prohibitions and permits.
At the time, India was in economic and political turmoil, with a balance-of-payments crisis, the worst in independent India’s history, deepening a pessimism that had set in after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi during the national elections the previous month. Mr. Rao, recalled from political retirement to take over as Prime Minister, put the matter squarely. “We are in a crisis,” Mr. Singh recalled Mr. Rao as saying. “But we must use this crisis and turn it into an opportunity, to do all those things that we should have done before but somehow were prevented by history or other circumstances from doing.” Mr. Singh took the finance position at a point when India’s hard-currency reserves had sunk to the equivalent of less than one month’s imports, and Western bankers were speculating that India might default on interest payments on its $70 billion of foreign loans. The crisis was partly cumulative, the result of years of over-borrowing and anemic exports. But it had been hastened by the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union, which had become India’s closest political ally as well as its principal arms supplier, main export market and crucial supplier of oil.
…………………….
To some, Mr. Singh seemed as unlikely a reformer as Mr. Rao. After returning from Oxford in the 1960’s, Mr. Singh spent most of his career as a civil servant, administering the economic system. Before becoming Reserve Bank governor in 1982, he held senior positions in the ministries of finance, economic affairs and foreign trade. If he stood out, it was more for his taste in eye-catching turbans — his favorite is sky blue — than for any open break with the system.
BUT like many senior officials, he was privately disillusioned, and the edges of his dissent began showing discreetly in his speeches and writings. In an interview, he said he had been constrained in his public criticisms by his position as a civil servant, but he had concluded more than 20 years ago that big changes were needed.
“Right from the beginning, when I came to the Government, I had been of the view that India needed deregulation, liberalization, tax reform and reductions in excessively high rates of taxation,” he said.
With Mr. Rao’s backing, Mr. Singh has introduced changes that have marked a sharp break with India’s past. One of the earliest involved a 20 percent devaluation of the rupee, which has held stable at about 31 to the dollar, coupled with step-by-step progress toward full convertibility. Foreign companies have been allowed to take 51 percent ownership in joint ventures, and, with Government approval, up to 100 percent, as was the case when the Coca-Cola Company returned to India earlier this year, 20 years after it was forced to sell its Indian operation to local interests.
…………..
In polls taken by Indian newspapers, Mr. Singh has been rated as the cabinet minister voters trusted most. Among Western diplomats, he has a similar standing. “There is no double-talk with Singh,” one ambassador said. “What he says, he believes.”
I meant: Everywhere I have read, both PVN Rao and MMS are given equal credit, this is the first time, I am see a seeing either/ or discussion, here at Sepia Mutiny.
NYT article is a must read for anyone interested in India.
Am curious about this – in a relatively free country like India, individual media houses may be biased but why would there be a overall media bias against one party or one school of thought (if valid) as opposed to another? Media houses should work on the principles of demand supply and there is a big section of the populace which supports the BJP and so I do not understand this claim of bias.
In domestic media houses, if the reason is because no one wants to get in the bad books of the Govt., the BJP ruled for 5+1 years too, why were media houses not sympathetic to it? Also, almost everyday there is some criticism or the other of the Govt, that hardly seems like a systemic bias.
Good point, Ardy–I don’t think the BJP can cheaply blame their loss on the media. But I do think a lot of $$ is going to be looking for better places to invest–no real security with Congress in charge–it’s not entirely a surprise how many Desis you see walking down the street in Bangkok. At any rate, perhaps I can get my Dads to pony up for a condo near Sukhumvit–cheaper than the Peninsula, once you price it out!
Amardeep,
Moderators typically try and make some attempt at objectivity, just a thought. When Abishek decides to start mocking me with sarcasm, smiley faces and talk about extremists in his very first post , what do you think I’m going to do? So my little “rude” remarks that you falsely characterized as “hysterical” are only natural and justified. He obviously wasn’t interested in dialogue and proceeded to escalate by calling me “rabid” and “unhinged”, etc, etc, but I’m glad you saw fit to only call out commenters who oppose your viewpoints. You can do a little “secular” hitjob by calling me “hysterical” Amardeep, but that really doesn’t reflect well on you as someone who makes claim to moderating discussion. As I have told you before, if people are respectful to me, I am respectful to them. Now, I have been trying to be polite–while rebutting your unfair remarks made at my expense–but my bet is that you’re purposely taking this confrontational tone with me. The real question is whether the polite and conscientious moderator Amardeep is acquainted with the partisan and inaccurate Dr. Singh?
The Times of India reported that the CAG said that MMS was wrong about the deal for all those reasons. I didn’t invent that conspiracy theory, perhaps you should ask the Comptroller Auditor General himself. Also, it’s possible to be machiavellian and be a political lapdop (see Rove, Karl). That’s the genius of the congress: shameless sycophants with ruthless political minds that are unafraid to jeopardize the country’s ability to fight terror in the name of politics…jai ho… Anyhow, again, I find it really odd that someone with the academic background that you have would actually be trying to justify the political rule of someone with barely a high school education and who didn’t take Indian citizenship until her husband’s political power demanded it…
Amardeep, please read comments beyond mine and those who align with your viewpoints. Do you even have an understanding of the economic reforms beyond your 30 seconds of net research? Yoga already supported my point about Rao, and I included a link to a column in Frontline by Dr. Subramanian Swamy, a Harvard trained economist who was a Professor at IIT and was on the Indian Economic Planning Commission in 1990 and 1991, but I suppose you, Kush, and Abhishek naturally have greater insight then he does, since he was there and you weren’t. Why you think that “no one is backing me up” so I must be a “conspiracy theorist” I don’t know, but I’m afraid the facts are not your side, my friend. Please don’t try and tag “conspiracy theorist” to your list of already futile labels like”hysterical” to avoid having honest and substantive discussion. It takes the dignity away from your being a normally very conscientious and polite moderator.
Amardeep, I know as a Professor you can certainly digest nuance, but let me start from the top: George H.W. Bush (Yale degree and life time of substantive political service)–> good and qualified President. George W. Bush (Yale degree and a life time drunk before taking over the weakest governorship in the Union)–>bad and unqualified president. See you can have a degree and make substantive contributions or you can have a degree and make no substantive contributions. Education is step 1–aka the bare minimum. Education alone doesn’t mean you’re qualified. Now the fact that you think not even having a bachelor’s degree is a good idea for “an extra constitutional locus of power” really doesn’t help your case..PS, George W Bush was an effective campaigner and political party boss in America whatever his background…
Actually no, I don’t care that her maiden name was Maino. However, we in the reality-based community don’t like the idea of an unqualified woman bypassing the constitution to rule a country that she has no business ruling. Those of you who “create” reality probably don’t care to note that distinction.
Then, as with all these other issues, please do go ahead and do some research. I think it might save all some time, and certainly the rancor of these exchanges that you’ve initiated…
We don’t, but that’s the point, Indians do care and you’re completely dismissing them due to your partisanship and hero worship of MMS http://www.petitiononline.com/stop1305/petition.html
You say: “the $15 billion loan waiver did nothing to resolve the farmer suicide crisis. They continue unabated in Vidarbha and Andhra.”� Maybe, but the BJP never cared about farmer suicides before. Do you really care now?
I do, that’s why I donate to causes that are trying to tackle the issue. The real question is whether you do? If not for Andhra or Vidarbha, what about the poor farmers in the Punjab suffering from cancer? I don’t care at all about political parties, Amardeep. I care about the interests of the country and her people, whether hindu or muslim, urban or rural, north indian or south indian. So please, put your partisanship behind you and let’s focus on the issues if you have any suggestions or ideas about these matters.
We can continue with this exchange and you can continue escalating and trumping up charges and doling out snide insults until you believe you have enough to justify blocking me while assuaging your conscience (or in a few days/weeks from now to avert suspicion of partisanship), or we can actually have a candid exchange “in good faith”. Unlike you and your little friend, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you want the latter:
Naidu’s decision about Telangana was made on the basis of pure politics. Unfortunately for him, he made the wrong calculation and went with the TRS and a discredited KCR (who left the TDP because he wasn’t getting the political power he wanted). No Andhra CM wants to be the first to rule a rump state. Also, if Telangana goes, then Rayalaseema, in the Southwestern corner of the state, will then split because it has the biggest claim for being an ignored region in Andhra. Moreover, telugus from coastal andhra were the big investors and drivers of Hyderabad’s rise. If Telangana splits, Hyderabad could then do the same and go the way of Delhi. My bet is that Naidu was counting on inertia or political pressure to prevent Telangana from happening while suddenly becoming an advocate for it.
Re: Varun Gandhi. I have no interest in every seeing another nehru gandhi, rajivling or sanjayling, in political power ever again. Period. Full stop.
It did resonate with a class of voters, but if you’re a villager in India’s hinterland,your votes are based on transactions (free power, color tv’s, kilograms of rice). As much as Pakistan hates India, I’m not sure they have the time to focus their malice on villagers in UP or Maharashtra. Elections are won in rural India, Amardeep, not Urban India.
4.
A minority government has to pick and choose its issues otherwise it collapses. If you are Vajpayee and you want to build a Ram temple and you want to have a uniform civil code, but your coalition partners threaten to jump ship on these issues, what can you do? Either you look principled, build the temple, and convince Amardeep that you weren’t posturing but fail the nation by not building a nuclear deterrent (and turning it over to an unqualified high school educated woman that can’t speak english or any indian language), or you can focus on protecting the country by focusing on broad issues that are in the national interest…
Hope that answers your question. Anyhow, assuming you don’t block me for having the temerity to call you out above, please let me know if there’s anything else I can answer for you. I sincerely hope any future discussion we may have (assuming I’m ever seen on sepia again, heh) can start fresh and be free of rancor…but the ball is in your court. Good day, sir.
Best Regards,
Satyajit Wry
i don’t know how one has decided that kasab is a celebrity, but even given that, pota’s suspension of basic legal safeguards is hardly effective counter terror.
as vajpayee has himself said, the nuclear deterrent was built up during rhe congress regime of pvnr.
But I am a lapdog of an uneducated italian baby sitter.
What does this have to do with her name being Maino? Referring to her as Maino and YSR as Samuel reddy gratuitously reveals exactly the kind of mentality that forced a certain wing of the republican party to insist on the Hussain in Obama’s name, and bring up the fact that he was half Arab, not that there was anything wrong with that of course. Very similar to your repeated insistence that Sonia is Italian and has not surrendered her Italian citizenship.
It says a lot that the evidence you can muster is quotes and essays from people like Subramaniam Swamy, who has made a career as a rabble rouse and a fortune as a corrupt fixer, and from Hindutva boosters like Arun Shourie, not any serious non partisan sources.
Another complete baldfaced lie. If anything, the Supreme Court chided the plaintiffs on the leak of the SIT report, and earlier acquitted her on the Best Bakery Zaheera allegations. The leak of this purported SIT report, which was most likely a report of the Gujarat government, has been discredited in multiple locations by now. Here is one and there is much more here.
Actually, this is exactly the opposite of what is expected. People realize that external security is no different with the Congress than with the BJP, and that measures like POTA or grandstanding or propaganda pretense changes nothing in terms of security. (That said, the general subcontinent security is in trouble thanks to the instability in Pakistan and potential fallout in infighting between factions of the ISI/Army.)
In fact, in the first day after the stock market opened, the Sensex went up dramatically – so much so that the upper end circuit brakers were triggered and trading halted, I think for the first time ever in the market history. (To the extent there will be investment in this global economic climate, India will have no problem attracting it).
Guys: this is turning personal. I appreciate the fact that opposing viewpoints can be read on Sepia, but this ongoing conversation about who said what first, who started what, why i reacted the way i did.. is starting to seem like an childish, impolite public argument. Can you guys get your own chatroom?
Abhishek, bhai, what happened, I thought you would said “so I will cease to engage with you at this point” : ) ?
Anyhow, Swamy is a world class economist. That he has been a thorn in the side of the Sonia Gandhi regime may make him “a rabble rouser” in your eyes but does not take away from his qualifications or commentary. Just to assuage your doubts: http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1233405. Looks like Singh just copied Sinha…
that is because you apparently do not read newspapers and make blanket statements without supporting facts
Rao laid the groundwork to test, but could not test because of pressure from the clinton administration. you cannot have a proven deterrent without testing. vajpayee tested and charted out the nuclear strategy and doctrine for the country…details, abhishek, details…
Glad you’ve finally come to terms with that, which is why the rest of us have to align with political parties who stand against her rather than just discuss national issues.
Barack Obama was born in the United States and has lived here all of his adult life. He is an educated constitutional law professor who had prior political experience before becoming leader of his party and President of the United States. Sonia Gandhi is a native born Italian and lived in Europe until she married Rajiv Gandhi. She has no educational qualifications worthy of mention and only took citizenship when she had to, and still has not officially confirmed her relinquishment of Italian Citizenship. She became leader of her party without prior political experience and has been ruling the country outside of the constitution’s stipulations. Sonia Gandhi is no Barack Obama….but please continue comparing her to him…
Nice, I link an article to The Hindu’s frontline and you link to wikipedia and a blog…There’s plenty on Teesta in “Mainstream nonpartisan sources”, but you can continue to lie as she did…
It’s not a baldfaced lie when the witness she “coached” was convicted of perjury and given a three month sentence…
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sc-affidavit-wrong-didnt-know-what-we-signed-riot-victim/399007/1
Nachal, I agree, I keep trying to move on, but they keep pulling me back in; nevertheless, I shall oblige: what are your thoughts on the election and what’s up ahead for India?
In 1984, there was one TV channel in India. It was called Doordarshan and run by a government ministry. Nobody is claiming that it was unbiased. There were newspapers and they did call him out.
If you were to talk to some people in India, you would find that the Modi supporters would proudly tell you how he deserves the credit for ordering the police to enjoy their sunday holiday, and then sending his partymen to do the needful. In fact, that is the reason many of them vote for him. If you have lived in any riot affected area, you would know that riots today are usually not spontaneous crowd reactions.
Yes. We did not have a sufficiently independent media in 1984. We did have one in 2002. No one who has lived in India equates those two time periods. That does not make the current media biased. That does not change who Narendra Modi is. If the media in 1984 did not call a spade a spade, it does not mean the media in 2002 shouldn’t either.