India’s ‘silent’ prime minister becomes a tragic figure

[KS]

Growth rate during NDA rule year ending 2000-2004

2000 - 5.5
2001 - 6.0
2002 - 4.3
2003 - 4.3
2004 - 8.3

Average of 5.68%

UPA-1
2005 -6.2
2006 -8.4
2007 -9.2
2008 -9.0
2009 -7.4
2010 -8.4

Sure, 2012 is less. still dint beat NDA score even then world economy was fine

NDA was when the nuclear sanctions on India were in full effect (not to mention 3 years of utter disaster under third front) and it was only in 2003,2004 period that the sanctions were a bit relaxed after Bill Clinton's visit and it was during the NDA regime that the ground work/foundation for UPA I's high growth was laid. Most of the liberalization, divestation were done during the NDA regime which acted as a spur for growth under the UPA I.

The UPA I just inherited the solid foundation laid by NDA and reaped the benefits out of it. Where are the second-generation reforms?

Now see,
1991-92 - 1.3 @ After this manmohan singh was made FM.
1992-93 - 5.1 - Impressive right? He is genius, here he impleted first economical reforms which changed india economy
1993-94 - 5.9
1994-95 - 7.3
1995-96 - 7.8, Then comes NDA...you seee where GDP goes..

First of all Manmohan did not do anything particularly great during the '91 fiasco. When India ran out of money for paying the import bills (there was only 3 week worth foreign exchange) the then Coalition govt headed by Chandrasekhar and his finance minister Yashwant Sinha had to airlift 67 tonnes of gold to pledge for India's import bills. But then Congress pulled out of the coalition and won in the ensuing elections. Now as a result of the gold pledging IMF gave some very tough conditions to India, which we agreed to abide by. Now credit must be given to former PM, Late PVNR for tactly winning over the oppositions and setting the political field clear for implementing the IMF conditions. What the great MMS role in all this is just implementing the dictations IMF gave to him. That any IIM grad worth his salt will do.

Now coming to the second part - where does the numbers go after NDA comes ?. You mean the NDA govt for 13 ******* days ? Somehow you seen to have conveniently forgotten that the nation went to the dogs for three years under the UF govt and NDA came to power only in 1999.

Important thing to note here is. When NDA was ruling India their GDP was less than previous congress government. Still they Hijacked MMS financial reforms. You should be lucky to have talented person like MMS.

The only one hijacking Manmohans reforms and that too consistently is the great sonia mata's kitchen cabinet - NAC. They should be first sent to the firing squad.

 

[KS]

Manmohan is at worst an active collaborator in the scams or at best a kamikaze pilot doing a suicide mission on his own govt silently letting the media leaks about the various scams apparently for a clean-up or at neutral just sonia mata's puppet who is powerless to do jack.

Only god knows what he is...

 

[BJP*]

Growth rate during NDA rule year ending 2000-2004

2000 - 5.5
2001 - 6.0
2002 - 4.3
2003 - 4.3
2004 - 8.3

Average of 5.68%

UPA-1
2005 -6.2
2006 -8.4
2007 -9.2
2008 -9.0
2009 -7.4
2010 -8.4

Sure, 2012 is less. still dint beat NDA score even then world economy was fine

Now see,
1991-92 - 1.3 @ After this manmohan singh was made FM.
1992-93 - 5.1 - Impressive right? He is genius, here he impleted first economical reforms which changed india economy
1993-94 - 5.9
1994-95 - 7.3
1995-96 - 7.8, Then comes NDA...you seee where GDP goes..

you forgot to mention it was NDA which boosted India's image in International platform, in 1999, when they came to power, within one month BJP shocked the world by nuclear explosion. followed by the sanction which led to degrade of growth. It was under BJP when country fought a brief war with pakistan. with all these circumstances 5.68 growth rate is not bad. In fact I would say it was even better then now. (when there is peace and no sanction)

future generation will not remember the the growth rate of India during present time, but they surely remember the specific achievement (I am not talking about breaking of scams record every month)

 

[KS]

 

[metro]

This man is a criminal. I would not be surprised if tommorow he comes out to be the major beneficiary in many scams.
The a$$holes who support this moron have no logical argument to make, scams are coming out left and right, and the a$$holes supporting him keep screaming from the rooftops, hey so what if India lost this money, he is a honest man.
Like I saids many times earlier, this man has no dignity, no self respect, people this shameless are very rare to find.
Once thrown out of the PM chair, this man will be disgusted upon forever, noone will ever remember this man. He will get into a very big trouble, might land up into jail as well. And no one, not even his masters gandhis whose a$$ he licks day n night, would come upto his rescue.

 

[karan21]

Let me be frank.... The way I see it is....You as a Sikh support him because MMS is also turbanated sikh .
You are identifying yourself with him, many in our Punjab do ....Its a natural defence mechanism in Psychiatry...
Read up

There was a time when I also took proud in his Sikh Ancestory and was willing to fight those opposing him ,but his recent actions seem more of a puppet not a Sikh....frankly now I think of him as blot on our religion's credibility.

Honestly I was expecting someone to say this. Well I have been on this forum for a long time now, so just telling you about myself. I dont have turban and i am jatt sikh. I am not very religious and the reason I keep this khanda avatar is to let people know that some sikh members are also present. After all we are minority.

For me my religion means nothing infront of country, anyone who hurts my country is my enemy. Whetheer he is a sikh hindu or a christian. This man is a genius way above your head. So I will leave it to that.

 

[Riteon]

WTF?

President Jiang Zemin was a piece of sh*t. He was one of the worst leaders China ever had.

Elaborate .....i thought he had very good hand in the economic planning and international poilitcial clout that China enjoys now !!

 

[idune]

Looks like indians here missed underline message this news article carries.

 

[Tshering22]

Hu Jintao is pretty quiet as well.

But he does his job well.

Jintao doesn't stand like a puppet when his country is getting robbed. There is a strong decision in punishing those found guilty. Here politicians' jails are like VIP houses where they can come in and out and have all facilities they have at home.

Plus at the drop of a few crores, the best lawyers always get them out in a jiffy.

MMS is a sore loser who is an embarrassment to the country.

A man of his credentials would have been revered in India if he had stood up against corruption and done something about it rather than being a complicit in one of the biggest thievery of Congress in Indian history.

 

[idune]

Why is India so touchy about criticism by a foreigner?

The latest outburst comes from minister Ambika Soni, who is enraged by a piece by the Washington Post on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The piece, written by the newspaper's Delhi correspondent, said the prime minister, who helped set India on the path to prosperity, is now in danger of "going down in history as a failure". The paper said Mr Singh resembled a "dithering, ineffectual bureaucrat presiding over a deeply corrupt government".

Strong words, but nothing exceptional, really.

As his government lurches from one crisis to another, Mr Singh has borne the brunt of some trenchant media criticism at home and abroad in recent months.

Time magazine recently dubbed him The Underachiever, immersed in his "personal and political gloom". The Independent newspaper wondered whether the prime minister was a saviour or a "poodle" of the powerful Congress party president Sonia Gandhi. The Economist magazine called him an embattled prime minister.

All quite fair in the spirit of free speech.

What is shocking, many say, is Ms Soni's reaction to the Washington Post piece.

Ms Soni heads the rather curiously named information and broadcasting ministry - an Orwellian irony in the world's biggest democracy, many say - and was quoted as saying that the article was "unacceptable" and she would take up the issue with the government.

Ms Soni said the government had "apprehensions about a foreign daily publishing something baseless on our prime minister... This is what we call yellow journalism".

"We have done this thing earlier and they had apologised," Ms Soni said, hinting at extracting an apology from the Post. "If the Washington Post has written things like this against the prime minister, trust me I will oppose it strongly."

I don't think anybody asked her how she planned to extract an apology, especially after the Post correspondent ruled one out. Would the government move to rescind his work visa? Would it ban the publication of the newspaper in India? Nobody quite knows.

The government and the newspaper are now having a spat over attribution of some of the quotes about Mr Singh's performance in the article. Mr Singh's communications adviser Pankaj Pachauri, a former journalist of repute, has written to the Post, saying it was a "one-sided assessment" of the prime minister and added that "comment is free" in journalism.

Again, a fair remark.

But what is disturbing, many say, is the minister's outburst: it hints at a strong intolerance for criticism, especially if it comes from a foreigner. Local pundits and journalists excoriate Mr Singh and his government every night on India's TV news; and newspapers are no kinder.

Many critics say such intolerance to criticism is a dark legacy of a party, which suspended civil rights and imposed an emergency in the country in 1975. It was the darkest period in Indian democracy. Critics also suspect the democratic impulses of a party which has essentially been run by one family.

At another level, Ms Soni's discomfort raises uncomfortable questions about tolerance in India.

As analyst Pratap Bhanu Mehta says, India's governments are becoming increasingly intolerant as they face more scrutiny from an exploding middle class and a vibrant and growing civil society. "When exposed, governments are still trying the idiom of old politics to respond: use state power to silence critics, personalise the issue, avoid institutional regeneration and hide behind a sense of injured virtue to defend the indefensible," he writes in the Indian Express newspaper.

Clearly, this is a battle between old politics and new realities. When will the government wake up?

BBC News - Why is India touchy about outside criticism?

 

[Tshering22]

Why is India so touchy about criticism by a foreigner?

The latest outburst comes from minister Ambika Soni, who is enraged by a piece by the Washington Post on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

The piece, written by the newspaper's Delhi correspondent, said the prime minister, who helped set India on the path to prosperity, is now in danger of "going down in history as a failure". The paper said Mr Singh resembled a "dithering, ineffectual bureaucrat presiding over a deeply corrupt government".

Strong words, but nothing exceptional, really.

As his government lurches from one crisis to another, Mr Singh has borne the brunt of some trenchant media criticism at home and abroad in recent months.

Time magazine recently dubbed him The Underachiever, immersed in his "personal and political gloom". The Independent newspaper wondered whether the prime minister was a saviour or a "poodle" of the powerful Congress party president Sonia Gandhi. The Economist magazine called him an embattled prime minister.

All quite fair in the spirit of free speech.

What is shocking, many say, is Ms Soni's reaction to the Washington Post piece.

Ms Soni heads the rather curiously named information and broadcasting ministry - an Orwellian irony in the world's biggest democracy, many say - and was quoted as saying that the article was "unacceptable" and she would take up the issue with the government.

Ms Soni said the government had "apprehensions about a foreign daily publishing something baseless on our prime minister... This is what we call yellow journalism".

"We have done this thing earlier and they had apologised," Ms Soni said, hinting at extracting an apology from the Post. "If the Washington Post has written things like this against the prime minister, trust me I will oppose it strongly."

I don't think anybody asked her how she planned to extract an apology, especially after the Post correspondent ruled one out. Would the government move to rescind his work visa? Would it ban the publication of the newspaper in India? Nobody quite knows.

The government and the newspaper are now having a spat over attribution of some of the quotes about Mr Singh's performance in the article. Mr Singh's communications adviser Pankaj Pachauri, a former journalist of repute, has written to the Post, saying it was a "one-sided assessment" of the prime minister and added that "comment is free" in journalism.

Again, a fair remark.

But what is disturbing, many say, is the minister's outburst: it hints at a strong intolerance for criticism, especially if it comes from a foreigner. Local pundits and journalists excoriate Mr Singh and his government every night on India's TV news; and newspapers are no kinder.

Many critics say such intolerance to criticism is a dark legacy of a party, which suspended civil rights and imposed an emergency in the country in 1975. It was the darkest period in Indian democracy. Critics also suspect the democratic impulses of a party which has essentially been run by one family.

At another level, Ms Soni's discomfort raises uncomfortable questions about tolerance in India.

As analyst Pratap Bhanu Mehta says, India's governments are becoming increasingly intolerant as they face more scrutiny from an exploding middle class and a vibrant and growing civil society. "When exposed, governments are still trying the idiom of old politics to respond: use state power to silence critics, personalise the issue, avoid institutional regeneration and hide behind a sense of injured virtue to defend the indefensible," he writes in the Indian Express newspaper.

Clearly, this is a battle between old politics and new realities. When will the government wake up?

BBC News - Why is India touchy about outside criticism?

I agree with you. The reason why there is so much intolerance from our politicians is because they are afraid that it would influence the people to revolt against them and replace them with honest folks.

They are afraid since the Western news influences a lot of countries around the world and therefore if people wake up, their days of swindling will be over.

The reason is that the old coots don't want to stop robbing the country ever..

That's the reason why CONgress and its lap pooches criticize foreign remarks.

 

[cloud_9]

There was a time when I also took proud in his Sikh Ancestory and was willing to fight those opposing him ,but his recent actions seem more of a puppet not a Sikh....frankly now I think of him as blot on our religion's credibility.

Well he was a puppet PM from Day 1 but then again he has balanced his duties even though he never had the power (Look at the recent case of GAAR). During these last two years he has just lost his game altogether.
Even if he resign's the next in line for the post of PM is Rahul Gandhi,I mean are we prepared to accept Rahul Gandhi as our PM