Govt. Cabinet Reshuffle

[Nilgiri]

What are your views on Tytler and Kamal nath? Are they also innocent? What's your view on Sonia Gandhi and Vadhra, Are they innocent?

They are all innocent till proven guilty for whatever crimes they have been charged with. Quite simple.

Now if you want to jump the gun and say someone is guilty on account of a charge being filed against them, that is your prerogative...but I do not share that.

On the other hand their political performance and strategy is definitely something that can be commented on and analysed.....but those are not crimes.

And speaking about your views on governance, it is your personal opinion, can't see much of a difference on ground... All of a sudden the "minimum government maximum governance" has a different meaning, Now its the bureaucracy...

LOL look at what was said then...

Show me where Modi or anyone that matters in his party have loudly trumpeted the number of ministers w.r.t UPA as the be all end all? He has commented on ministry formation in that tweet feed, not the number. Others latched onto the number like you have....that is their interpretation of it....does it really matter what they personally think about whats the most important indicator in minister formation?....or the PM himself?

 

[The_Showstopper]

They are all innocent till proven guilty for whatever crimes they have been charged with. Quite simple.

Now if you want to jump the gun and say someone is guilty on account of a charge being filed against them, that is your prerogative...but I do not share that.

On the other hand their political performance and strategy is definitely something that can be commented on and analysed.....but those are not crimes.

I hope you will stand by your statement since I get to hear/read on this forum that the people you just mentioned are corrupt and criminals...

Show me where Modi or anyone that matters in his party have loudly trumpeted the number of ministers w.r.t UPA as the be all end all? He has commented on ministry formation in that tweet feed, not the number. Others latched onto the number like you have....that is their interpretation of it....does it really matter what they personally think about whats the most important indicator in minister formation?....or the PM himself?

I already posted some tweets showing the same. Will repost them...

 

[Nilgiri]

I hope you will stand by your statement since I get to hear/read on this forum that the people you just mentioned are corrupt and criminals

Being corrupt/morally bankrupt has nothing to do with final criminal conviction on the ledger of evidence. Likelihood of those politicians that are facing criminal charges being actual criminals is up for debate and discussion given their past behvaiour w.r.t morals, personality and political ethics. When they are more visible, they will obviously attract more attention.

Thats why the PM and his cabinet and ministers now are so different in perception and performance compared to the last PM and his group (that controlled him more than other way around because of lack of clear chain of command due to first family interference/meddling and that PM's own personality).

Nepotism is not a crime directly in India....unless discrimination can be proven....so nepotism will simply continue in an opaque family based system like Congress party. We can definitely compare that to BJP where a royal family does not exist in the first place....and thus gives the BJP much more street cred for not having a inherent nepotism character in the first place.

I already posted some tweets showing the same. Will repost them...

These were the tweets I was responding to. I see one by Mr Modi and several by various journalists etc. The one by Mr Modi does not refer to it being better just because of the lower number. Read what his tweet says.

Now if others harp on the number being the cure-all for ministry efficieny, that is their opinion....not Modi's. Modi knows that quality and delivery is what counts....if that means first starting with 45, monitoring how that works and adding to this number as needed (while transferring, removing those that dont work according to some metric) that is already a huge change from how it was done before (loyalty to a family combined with appeasement of coalition partners).

So show me a tweet by Modi that specifically mentions the lower number of ministers at formation of govt (45) being the "revolution" he talks about.

I don't care what others interpret, what matters is the words from the leader himself.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Being corrupt/morally bankrupt has nothing to do with final criminal conviction on the ledger of evidence. Likelihood of those politicians that are facing criminal charges being actual criminals is up for debate and discussion given their past behvaiour w.r.t morals, personality and political ethics. When they are more visible, they will obviously attract more attention.

My point is quite simple... Will you apply the same rule to everyone that "all innocent till proven guilty"?

Thats why the PM and his cabinet and ministers now are so different in perception and performance compared to the last PM and his group (that controlled him more than other way around because of lack of clear chain of command due to first family interference/meddling and that PM's own personality).

Nepotism is not a crime directly in India....unless discrimination can be proven....so nepotism will simply continue in an opaque family based system like Congress party. We can definitely compare that to BJP where a royal family does not exist in the first place....and thus gives the BJP much more street cred for not having a inherent nepotism character in the first place.



These were the tweets I was responding to. I see one by Mr Modi and several by various journalists etc. The one by Mr Modi does not refer to it being better just because of the lower number. Read what his tweet says.

Now if others harp on the number being the cure-all for ministry efficieny, that is their opinion....not Modi's. Modi knows that quality and delivery is what counts....if that means first starting with 45, monitoring how that works and adding to this number as needed (while transferring, removing those that dont work according to some metric) that is already a huge change from how it was done before (loyalty to a family combined with appeasement of coalition partners).

So show me a tweet by Modi that specifically mentions the lower number of ministers at formation of govt (45) being the "revolution" he talks about.

I don't care what others interpret, what matters is the words from the leader himself.

Oh dear... Are you really dumb or acting like one? Modi clearly mentions in his tweet about ministry formation and no mention of bureaucracy is made and this tweet comes immediately after 45 member ministry formation. So the tweet implies either there is some radical difference in this ministry. And the only radical difference here is the size of ministry. Moreover Modi or the BJP never came out to clarify its stand on what it meant by "unprecedented and positive" change in ministry formation even after news reports from reputed news dailies...

Modi Sticks to His ‘Minimum Government, Maximum Governance’ Mantra

Source: http://m.indiatoday.in/story/narend...keep-minimum-government-promise/1/363664.html

Narendra Modi aims for `minimum govt, maximum governance`; set to club ministries


Source: http://zeenews.india.com/news/natio...governance-set-to-club-ministries_934869.html

 

[Nilgiri]

My point is quite simple... Will you apply the same rule to everyone that "all innocent till proven guilty"?

Sure. As far as being guilty of a crime. Morals and ethics are a much wider universe which crime is just a small part of....so we can judge on that based on what evidence is available.

Oh dear... Are you really dumb or acting like one? Modi clearly mentions in his tweet about ministry formation and no mention of bureaucracy is made and this tweet comes immediately after 45 member ministry formation. So the tweet implies either there is some radical difference in this ministry. And the only radical difference here is the size of ministry. Moreover Modi or the BJP never came out to clarify its stand on what it meant by "unprecedented and positive" change in ministry formation even after news reports from reputed news dailies...

And you are so thick to focus on just ministry size. You still have not given any indication that Modi said "minimum government" refers specifically to the size of minister council he forms. Then you use the absence of him explaining what he means by it (like he needs to give a detailed account of every single philosophy and policy directive to the internet twiterrati instead of actually achieving results which he much prefers)....as an absence of what it has clearly achieved on the ground.

Thus you must selectively interpret what you think he means by it so it fits some agenda of yours in a desperation seeing how UPA administration fared in front of the whole nation. The UPA can have 10 ministers or a thousand, it wont matter...they are utterly useless.

Minimum government obviously means a larger philosophy regarding central govt control of the country's resource, overall govt size, govt consumption in general (as % of GDP), govt fiscal discipline and many such factors.....and here you are saying the only thing it can mean is council minister size.

I mean we are seeing:

- Greater devolution to the States financially
- PM running a tight ship ministry wise (plenty of updates, monitoring and active interest)
- Fiscal discipline being adhered to
- Lack of scams like 2G
- End of transfer raj system (buying bureaucrat postings)
- Greater involvement of the public in end use monitoring and giving feedback
- Mapping results to better improve the policies
- Merit based system in the higher echelons of power, now expanding downwards
- Competitive and cooperative federalism taking off

And you think because he increased the size of the council of ministers, we have to ignore these real visible results (compared to the complete crap UPA was running) and focus on just one metric: number of ministers....which was never defined as being such in the first place by the PM himself (but you seem to think tweet environments and responses are proof of it rather than direct words).....and then contradict yourself by saying they didnt define what they mean by saying X,Y,Z.

The basic difference is this govt cares about actions and results.....not making fancy explanations about the details of what they mean when they label something.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Sure. As far as being guilty of a crime. Morals and ethics are a much wider universe which crime is just a small part of....so we can judge on that based on what evidence is available..

You and me don't have the authority to judge and decide, let the court decide it based on evidences. So I hope you do stand by your statement of innocent until proven guilty for everyone...

And you are so thick to focus on just ministry size. You still have not given any indication that Modi said "minimum government" refers specifically to the size of minister council he forms. Then you use the absence of him explaining what he means by it (like he needs to give a detailed account of every single philosophy and policy directive to the internet twiterrati instead of actually achieving results which he much prefers)....as an absence of what it has clearly achieved on the ground.

Thus you must selectively interpret what you think he means by it so it fits some agenda of yours in a desperation seeing how UPA administration fared in front of the whole nation. The UPA can have 10 ministers or a thousand, it wont matter...they are utterly useless.

Minimum government obviously means a larger philosophy regarding central govt control of the country's resource, overall govt size, govt consumption in general (as % of GDP), govt fiscal discipline and many such factors.....and here you are saying the only thing it can mean is council minister size.

I mean we are seeing:

- Greater devolution to the States financially
- PM running a tight ship ministry wise (plenty of updates, monitoring and active interest)
- Fiscal discipline being adhered to
- Lack of scams like 2G
- End of transfer raj system (buying bureaucrat postings)
- Greater involvement of the public in end use monitoring and giving feedback
- Mapping results to better improve the policies
- Merit based system in the higher echelons of power, now expanding downwards
- Competitive and cooperative federalism taking off

And you think because he increased the size of the council of ministers, we have to ignore these real visible results (compared to the complete crap UPA was running) and focus on just one metric: number of ministers....which was never defined as being such in the first place by the PM himself (but you seem to think tweet environments and responses are proof of it rather than direct words).....and then contradict yourself by saying they didnt define what they mean by saying X,Y,Z.

The basic difference is this govt cares about actions and results.....not making fancy explanations about the details of what they mean when they label something.

Its not my interpretation, it's the interpretation of reputed newsrooms, it's the interpretation of BJP followers... The time of tweet and the ministry formation just precedes the other very clearly indicating what it meant... All the talk of transfer raj, scams etc has nothing to do with ministry formation but the governance overall and as stated earlier Modi did not come out to clarify what he meant vindicating those tweets and news articles... So please stop clutching at straws...

 

[Nilgiri]

Its not my interpretation, it's the interpretation of reputed newsrooms, it's the interpretation of BJP followers.

And these mean they are Modi's interpretation?

Take your interpretation squabble with those people then. We are talking to each other and only our opinions and logic need to come in here.

The time of tweet and the ministry formation just precedes the other very clearly indicating what it meant... All the talk of transfer raj, scams etc has nothing to do with ministry formation but the governance overall and as stated earlier Modi did not come out to clarify what he meant vindicating those tweets and news articles... So please stop clutching at straws...

You said it yourself. GOVERNANCE OVERALL. Thats what the main thing is: Maximum governance through the least amount of government. What that level of govt will be and how it manifests is only relevant w.r.t the PM....and no one else. We can only judge the results of it.

Why must Modi come out and clarify anything just for you? Let people interpret his naming of things however they want. They will do the same even if he clarifies it or start attacking it in some petty way....to again distract from the broader overall goals of the philosophy. Best to leave it in vague layman's terms, let the elite bicker and twitter whatever they want.... and focus on achieving results. Thats what common folk care about and expect.

 

[The_Showstopper]

And these mean they are Modi's interpretation?

Take your interpretation squabble with those people then. We are talking to each other and only our opinions and logic need to come in here.



You said it yourself. GOVERNANCE OVERALL. Thats what the main thing is: Maximum governance through the least amount of government. What that level of govt will be and how it manifests is only relevant w.r.t the PM....and no one else. We can only judge the results of it.

Why must Modi come out and clarify anything just for you? Let people interpret his naming of things however they want. They will do the same even if he clarifies it or start attacking it in some petty way....to again distract from the broader overall goals of the philosophy. Best to leave it in vague layman's terms, let the elite bicker and twitter whatever they want.... and focus on achieving results. Thats what common folk care about and expect.

Why shouldn't he? If his policies or statements are misinterpreted then why shouldn't he or his representative come out with proper explanation. No its not for me but for his own followers and the media. By staying mum, is he not validating the news and its interpretation? You quickly picked out GOVERNANCE OVERALL but missed out on MINIMUM GOVERNMENT. So going as per your logic you still did not explain the relevance and timing of ministry formation and the timing of the tweet.

 

[Nilgiri]

Why shouldn't he? If his policies or statements are misinterpreted then why shouldn't he or his representative come out with proper explanation. No its not for me but for his own followers and the media. By staying mum, is he not validating the news and its interpretation? You quickly picked out GOVERNANCE OVERALL but missed out on MINIMUM GOVERNMENT. So going as per your logic you still did not explain the relevance and timing of ministry formation and the timing of the tweet.

His followers and the media have some direct link to Modi thought patterns and speak 100% for him? lol.

Anyway whats this all to you? You want to nitpick every name of every policy instead of checking the results.

Was there even one character of the competence and dedication like Gadkari, Goyal or Prabhu in the last cabinet?

Was there any form of meritocracy or results oriented selection process?

I already explained my interpretation of what I see as the minimum government (from the results on the ground not the theory of number of ministers).

Minimum government + Maximum governance is the same thing getting bang for the buck. Its the ratio that matters (i.e the transfer efficiency of the govt)...not the bang (governance) or the buck (government) alone. To maximise this ratio you need as much bang for as little buck as possible. What those levels are still being experimented with and validated over time....but its the objective of maximising it that matters.

Thats what Modi's philosophy is all about. Its not about reducing the absolute number of ministers to be as low as possible....its about getting the best overall ratio. If twiterrati (both for and against him) and media led you on to believe something, take that up with them.....and try thinking and researching the facts for yourself next time instead of blindly following what others interpret.

This will be my last post on the matter since we are just going in circles now. Agree to disagree and move on.

 

[The_Showstopper]

His followers and the media have some direct link to Modi thought patterns and speak 100% for him? lol.

Anyway whats this all to you? You want to nitpick every name of every policy instead of checking the results.

Was there even one character of the competence and dedication like Gadkari, Goyal or Prabhu in the last cabinet?

Was there any form of meritocracy or results oriented selection process?

I already explained my interpretation of what I see as the minimum government (from the results on the ground not the theory of number of ministers).

Minimum government + Maximum governance is the same thing getting bang for the buck. Its the ratio that matters (i.e the transfer efficiency of the govt)...not the bang (governance) or the buck (government) alone. To maximise this ratio you need as much bang for as little buck as possible. What those levels are still being experimented with and validated over time....but its the objective of maximising it that matters.

Thats what Modi's philosophy is all about. Its not about reducing the absolute number of ministers to be as low as possible....its about getting the best overall ratio. If twiterrati (both for and against him) and media led you on to believe something, take that up with them.....and try thinking and researching the facts for yourself next time instead of blindly following what others interpret.

This will be my last post on the matter since we are just going in circles now. Agree to disagree and move on.

You are still not answering my question, Is it not necessary for Modi or his representative to come out and clarify the statements he made when falsehood is being propagated. Lol and you can explain Modi's statements/philosophy and it's interpretations when news sources have a different say on it yet you state that I should seek clarification from those twitters. If you didn't want to clarify it, you should have stated it in the very beginning, why getting agitated...?


Well let the audience decide what those tweets meant.. Lets agree to disagree

 

[Nilgiri]

Is it not necessary for Modi or his representative to come out and clarify the statements he made when falsehood is being propagated.

Only if the falsehood matters to the operation of the govt. Short term perception and propaganda by the "followers" and "haters" only matter in the year leading up to the national elections in the overall realpolitik...It matters little in the middle of the admin period and esp not with the mandate modi has and with just how minor this issue really is to begin with in the context of results delivery.

Modi isn't going to respond to every little thing that twitter puts out....why expose yourself to that in the first place? You know how Indians are....they will attach themselves on to it like nobody else for all the wrong reasons. Just let them have their own fun with their own interpretations and meanwhile get the damn job done!

Anyways i broke my promise, just thought I would clarify this one last thing.

Been good having this chat with you.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Only if the falsehood matters to the operation of the govt. Short term perception and propaganda by the "followers" and "haters" only matter in the year leading up to the national elections in the overall realpolitik...It matters little in the middle of the admin period and esp not with the mandate modi has and with just how minor this issue really is to begin with in the context of results delivery.

Modi isn't going to respond to every little thing that twitter puts out....why expose yourself to that in the first place? You know how Indians are....they will attach themselves on to it like nobody else for all the wrong reasons. Just let them have their own fun with their own interpretations and meanwhile get the damn job done!

Anyways i broke my promise, just thought I would clarify this one last thing.

Been good having this chat with you.

I shall end this conversation by stating that similar kind of issues are nit-picked by the very same supporters against the party they 'hate' but when tables turn, these issues become minor details much like what we are now being told as jumlas...

 

[Nilgiri]

I shall end this conversation by stating that similar kind of issues are nit-picked by the very same supporters against the party they 'hate' but when tables turn, these issues become minor details much like what we are now being told as jumlas...

And I'm against their unfair nitpicking too Yes lots of bhakts are hypocrites in this way....emotions run high what to do. But hypocrites are everywhere these days I find.