What's new

Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.

Its well known AAP leaders have a habit of lying through their teeths and now AAPCONG supporters are on purpose leaving a part of report to project their opponents in bad light.

This part was left out from the above TOI news. Shashikant is a member of AAP so needless to say what he utters holds as much value as Kejriwal taking oath of this children before forming govt in Delhi..
LOL! Apologies (if they will ever be accepted) If I missed the bottom bit.But I don't gain anything from BJP or Congress or AAP wining.

My only problem is my state turning into shit hole with drugs other then that I have no interest in Indian politics.
 
.
You are missing the forest for the Trees.

What it really means is that the west is used to dealing with pliable Indian leaders all this time.

They are going to go out all against a leader who will put India first.

Why do you think Lal Bhadur Shastri was murdered by the USA in Russia ? .....why do you think the Indian govt. has kept this fact hidden from Indians all this time ? :disagree:

Can you think of a single free nation where the Murder of their PM or President will be kept hidden from their own people ? :lol:

Welcome back Manvanataratruti.
 
. .
. .
It seems Modi's Hyderabad rally was poorly attended. Some are saying that crowd were as low as 15,000... Any truth in this mitron..?

BJP and TDP hopelessly failed to organize the meeting.

On the ground there is a forced alliance between bjp and tdp.
 
.
Quami Ekta Dal may support Kejriwal in Varanasi in a bid to defeat Modi - IBNLive

Varanasi: Quami Ekta Dal, being led by mafia-don-turned politician Mukhtar Ansari, on Tuesday said the party will support AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal if he emerges as the strongest candidate with a potential to defeat BJP leader Narendra Modi.

"However, a final call on the matter will be taken at a meeting of party workers on April 29," said Quami Ekta Dal chief Afzal Ansari, the brother of Mukhtar Ansari.

"Despite a denial from AAP to take QED support, our party will still lend its support to Kejriwal if the AAP chief emerges as the strongest candidate among all the contenders to defeat Narendra Modi," QED leader Ansari said in a press conference.
"Our party's main aim is to defeat Narendra Modi here and also to stop him from becoming Prime Minister of this country, for which the party had already withdrawn its candidate Mukhtar Ansari to avoid any division of secular votes in the Lok Sabha polls here," he said.

"We are prepared to lend our support to any party candidate who emerges out as the strongest one and could defeat Modi," said Ansari.

"On April 29, a unanimous decision will be taken by all QED party workers in a meeting here, after which we will declare that to which party candidate we would lend our support for the Varanasi Lok Sabha seat," he said.
 
.
Will reach out to every INDIAN: Modi

Narendra Modi, the BJP's prime ministerial candidate, today said he would reach out each and every Indian (includes Muslim) like any other citizen of the country and made it clear that the contentious issues of Ram temple and Uniform Civil Code would be addressed within the Constitutional framework.

Mr Modi underlined that he saw all Indians as one and that it was his "responsibility" to reach out to all sections of the society, which includes Muslims.

"As Chief Minister of Gujarat, I have tried to connect to six crore people of the state as much as possible. Now, I have been entrusted with a national responsibility. I will use all efforts at my command to reach out to 125 crore people. This is part of my responsibility and I must do it."

"It may mean walking 100 steps. I may walk three steps, five steps or seven steps, that is a different matter. But it is my responsibility that I must make demonstrative efforts to reach out to every citizen of the country," he said.

He was responding on ABP news channel's 'Ghoshnapatra' programme when it was pointed out that he appeared to have started establishing contact with the Muslim community.

Asked specifically whether his effort to reach out to every citizen included Muslims, Mr Modi replied, "I will never go by this terminology of yours. Even if you drag me, I will not. I will meet my countrymen. I understand only one language that they are my countrymen, they are my brothers. You may see with whatever colour you want, Modi will not go into that colour."

He went on to add, "Even if I lose elections, let it be so, I have no problem. But the country has been destroyed by this language, the mindset of you people, and I will never own that mindset. And you please stop such attacks on my freedom."

Mr Modi was also questioned on the twin issues of Ram temple and Union Civil Code, which have been a major point of contention between the BJP and the Muslim community. Asked whether he would implement these unfulfilled issues in BJP's agenda, considering his 'tez tarrar' (fiesty) image, he said, "The country does not run by 'tez tarrari' (being fiesty) but by the Constitution.

A feisty spirit is for elections, not for running the country. The 63-year-old also made it clear that he would abide by the Constitution on these issues.

The Gujarat Chief Minister was also asked whether his work as Prime Minister would have the "RSS imprint" since he had been groomed by it. RSS or the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is the ideological mentor of the BJP.

"Let me tell you, I have to run the government. A government runs according to the Constitution. I believe that a government has only one religion - India first. A government has only one holy book - our Constitution. A government has only one kind of devotion - towards nation. A government has only one style of functioning - 'sabka saath, sabka vikas' (cooperation of all, development of all)," he said.

When referred to the communal riots in his state in 2002, the Gujarat Chief Minister said he was "ready for any test" but would "never surrender before lies and political motives."

"...Till 2007, I have spoken a lot on this issue. Whether you like it or not, I will not succumb to you (on the issue)," he said.

Attacking the UPA government, he said it "dragged" him to the Supreme Court on the issue and "now I should not speak as Supreme Court should not be influenced."

He, however, referred to the questioning he had faced on the matter by investigators.

"Till now, no chief minister has been grilled by policemen for nine hours. It was done on the orders of Supreme Court. Supreme Court has seen the video of that recording. I have stood that test and even in the future, I am ready for any test," he added.

Asked about BJP leader Giriraj Singh's statement that those opposing Mr Modi should go to Pakistan, the BJP's PM candidate said "nobody can agree with that (statement).

To buttress his point that he would not be vindictive, Mr Modi said, "After election victory of 2002, I went to thank the electorate of Maninagar (in Gujarat). There, I said 'this government is of those who have elected it, this government is also of those who voted against and this government is also of those who did not go to vote'."

Asked about the different voices in BJP over whether action should be taken against Congress President Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra in connection with controversial land deals, Mr Modi made it clear that he would focus on development rather than such issues which, he said, would be dealt with by the law as deemed fit.

"We get elected for five years and for five years, should we roam around with this mess or do some good work? My personal belief is that my energy should not go into this, that my energy be utilised for positive and good work. Otherwise, five years is very less time. If we get entangled in this, what good work can we do," he said.

Citing his "track record" as a Chief Minister for 14 years, he said, it "shows that I have never opened any file against anybody. I believe that one gets entangled in such things and cannot do good work. I have only focused on positive initiative. I do not even keep information about old cases. It is for the government, let them do."

At the same time, he said, "Nobody is above the law. Imagine if there allegations against Modi and he is the Prime Minister. Should the case not be pursued just because he has become the PM. It should not be so that it should be stopped. I am not above the law. I am not answering the question you asked. So do not mix up."

On the controversy over his marriage status in his poll affidavit, he said, "I do not get surprised by anything. There is nothing in my life. They (rivals) have no issue so they will continue to do it." Mr Modi had, in the affidavit, mentioned for the first time that he had a wife.
 
.
Quami Ekta Dal may support Kejriwal in Varanasi in a bid to defeat Modi - IBNLive

Varanasi: Quami Ekta Dal, being led by mafia-don-turned politician Mukhtar Ansari, on Tuesday said the party will support AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal if he emerges as the strongest candidate with a potential to defeat BJP leader Narendra Modi.

"However, a final call on the matter will be taken at a meeting of party workers on April 29," said Quami Ekta Dal chief Afzal Ansari, the brother of Mukhtar Ansari.

"Despite a denial from AAP to take QED support, our party will still lend its support to Kejriwal if the AAP chief emerges as the strongest candidate among all the contenders to defeat Narendra Modi," QED leader Ansari said in a press conference.
"Our party's main aim is to defeat Narendra Modi here and also to stop him from becoming Prime Minister of this country, for which the party had already withdrawn its candidate Mukhtar Ansari to avoid any division of secular votes in the Lok Sabha polls here," he said.

"We are prepared to lend our support to any party candidate who emerges out as the strongest one and could defeat Modi," said Ansari.

"On April 29, a unanimous decision will be taken by all QED party workers in a meeting here, after which we will declare that to which party candidate we would lend our support for the Varanasi Lok Sabha seat," he said.
secular votes? Hahaha By the way Its good if Mukhtar Ansari supports Kejriwal.
 
. .
Is India about to elect its Reagan?

I recently offered my perspective on India’s elections to an American audience. Writing in The Daily Caller (The Daily Caller | The Daily Caller features breaking news, opinion, research, and entertainment 24 hours a day. a popular online newspaper run by conservative television journalist Tucker Carlson, I compared Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi to former U.S. President Ronald Reagan. Through the magic of social media, my piece quickly made its way throughout the Indian diaspora and all the way back to India. It has clearly struck a nerve: Indian readers were amazed to see a western media perspective on Mr. Modi that was not reflexively negative.

To make my biases clear from the outset, I am a great admirer of President Reagan. I am also a great admirer of India. Where my piece offers some criticisms of certain segments of Indian society, please don’t take that as an American looking down on India. These are the observations of a pro-India American who looks for commonalities — both good and bad — between his own society and yours. And I see several commonalities between Gujarat’s Chief Minister and America’s 40th President. Here is an adaptation of what I told my readers:

Both Mr. Modi and Mr. Reagan rose from humble origins. Both were popular and successful State leaders: Reagan was “chief minister” (governor, as we say) of my home state of California. Mr. Modi, like Mr. Reagan, is an unabashed proponent of free market economics: the term “Modinomics” is of course a nod to “Reaganomics.”

21MODI_1853858f.jpg


The elite as detractors

A major common denominator between the two men is the nature of their detractors. Like the U.S., India has cultural elitists who seem to desperately crave the approval of their former colonial masters in Europe. The Indian cultural elite despises Mr. Modi every bit as much as the American cultural elite despised Mr. Reagan. They look down their noses at Mr. Modi, cringing at the thought of being led by a common chai wallah (“tea seller,” as I translated it for my U.S. readers) who can barely speak English. (I could never imagine Chinese or Russian citizens, proud of their own heritage, being ashamed that their leaders don’t speak English.)

The American elites believed that Mr. Reagan was an unsophisticated simpleton who was too extreme to be President. Prior to his election, they issued dire warnings about the calamities that would ensue if Mr. Reagan came to power. The rest, as they say, is history, and the collapse of the Soviet empire left Mr. Reagan’s critics on the wrong side of it.

The cultural elites labelled Mr. Reagan as a racist. That’s a term they use for anyone who believes that a robust and growing market economy, rather than massive government bureaucracy, is the best way to promote upward mobility for the poor and the minorities. American elites frequently resort to name-calling when facts and reason fail them.

Mr. Modi, of course, is also labelled by his critics as a “communalist.” I would call that roughly equivalent to the “racist” epithet that Americans hurl at one another. As with Mr. Reagan, the charge lacks merit and is stoked by political opponents seeking to sow fear (and hence cement support) in minority communities. Mr. Modi’s critics, of course, still constantly blame him for the 2002 riots in Gujarat. Those riots, and the train burning that preceded them, were indeed great tragedies. But I suspect the motives of Mr. Modi’s political opponents who ignore the results of the Supreme Court of India’s special investigation of the incident. They have no incentive to acknowledge that Mr. Modi has been cleared of any wrongdoing. They continue to profit politically by smearing Mr. Modi with India’s version of what we call, in American politics, the “racecard.”

I must admit that as an outside observer, I often find the terms of debate in India’s mainstream media to be confusing. As I understand it, if you favour allowing citizens to be treated differently on the basis of their religious beliefs, then you are an open-minded “secularist.” If, on the other hand, you favour treating all citizens equally under the law, without regard to their religion, then you are a “religious extremist.” It is comforting to learn that my country is not the only one with a mainstream media that uses Orwellian doublespeak to support its left-leaning agenda. (And I say that with all apologies and due respect to this great newspaper, which has kindly offered me a forum!)

It is a testament to the tolerance of India’s Hindu-majority society that it hosts several flourishing communities of other faiths. Neighbouring Pakistan, by contrast, is a highly inhospitable environment for those who don’t subscribe to the majority religion. The religious minority communities that have managed to survive there are tiny and constantly under siege. Bangladesh has similar problems. When critics lob the accusation that Mr. Modi is “intolerant” of religious minorities, they are certainly not applying the standards that prevail in the region.

Stand on terror

Mr. Modi, of course, promises to take a tough stand against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. In this regard, I reminded my American readers that Islamic extremists are not fighting against the “West.” Islamist extremists are fighting against all non-Islamic societies, including Buddhists in Thailand; Christians in Nigeria, the Philippines, Chechnya, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan and Timor-Leste; Jews in Israel; minority communities throughout the Muslim world — and, quite prominently, Hindus in India. India is very much on the front lines of what we Americans used to call the War on Terror, before our leaders lost the nerve to name it. Mr. Modi — his assertive posture against Pakistan reminiscent of Mr. Reagan’s stance against the Soviet Union — should be a valuable natural ally for the U.S.

As one who lived through Reaganomics, I believe that Modinomics can be the perfect antidote to the kleptocratic crony socialism that has kept India from realising her vast economic potential. If India’s natural entrepreneurial dynamism is ever fully unleashed, the sky will be the limit. I am persuaded by the evidence (hotly debated in an election season, of course) that shows that economic growth in Gujarat under Mr. Modi has been a boon to all segments of society, especially the poor. I am just sharing my view as an observer, and of course respect that it is for the people of India to decide what is best for them.

In the U.S., Mr. Modi is an undesirable in the same circles that made Mr. Reagan an undesirable. The U.S. State Department, whose career bureaucracy has long been dominated by the left-leaning cultural elite, has denied Mr. Modi a visa to visit my country. We routinely grant visas to the leaders of countries that virtually outlaw minority religions, and teach hatred of other religions as national policy. That we would single out Mr. Modi to be shunned, especially after the Supreme Court investigation, is shameful.

In his fierce opposition to government interference in the economy, to cronyism, and to corruption, the “tea seller” has much in common with the Tea Party, an American conservative movement that the elites detest. India, indeed, may have found its Reagan. And as America continues to struggle under misguided policies that have shackled our own natural entrepreneurial dynamism, when will we find our Modi?

(David B. Cohen served in the administration of President George W. Bush as U.S. Representative to the Pacific Community, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and as a member of the President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.)
 
. .
.
Another one :tsk::close_tema:

Letters: The idea of Modi in power fills us with dread - Letters - Voices - The Independent

As the people of India vote to elect their next government, we are deeply concerned at the implications of a Narendra Modi-led BJP government for democracy, pluralism and human rights in India.
Narendra Modi is embedded in the Hindu Nationalist movement, namely the RSS and other Sangh Parivar groups, with their history of inciting violence against minorities. Some of these groups stand accused in recent terrorist attacks against civilians.
We recall the extreme violence by the Hindu Right in Gujarat in 2002 which resulted in the deaths of at least 1,000 people, mostly Muslims. This violence occurred under Modi’s rule, and senior government and police officials have provided testimony of his alleged role in encouraging or permitting it to occur.
Some of his close aides have been convicted for their involvement, and legal proceedings are ongoing in the Gujarat High Court which may result in Modi being indicted for his role. He has never apologised for hate speech or contemptuous comments about various groups – including Muslims, Christians, women and Dalits. His closest aide has been censured recently by India’s Election Commission for hate speech used in this election campaign.
There is widespread agreement about the authoritarian nature of Modi’s rule in Gujarat, further evidenced by the recent sidelining of other senior figures within the BJP. This style of governance can only weaken Indian democracy.
Additionally, the Modi-BJP model of economic growth involves close linking of government with big business, generous transfer of public resources to the wealthy and powerful, and measures harmful to the poor.
A Modi victory would likely mean greater moral policing, especially of women, increased censorship and vigilantism, and more tensions with India’s neighbours.
Prof. Chetan Bhatt, London School of Economics
Dr. Rashmi Varma, University of Warwick
Dr. Murad Banaji, University of Portsmouth
Dr. Leena Kumarappan, London Metropolitan University
Dr. Subir Sinha, School of Oriental and African Studies
Prof. Phiroze Vasunia, University College London
Prof. Srirupa Roy, University of Göttingen
Prof. Shirin Rai, University of Warwick
Dr. Kalpana Wilson, London School of Economics
Dr. Sumi Madhok, London School of Economics
Dr. Bishnupriya Gupta, University of Warwick
Dr. Amrita Shodhan, School of Oriental and African Studies
Dr. Navtej Purewal, University of Manchester
Dr. Anandi Ramamurthy, University of Central Lancashire
Dr. Brenna Bhandar, School of Oriental and African Studies
Dr. Amit S. Rai, Queen Mary, University of London
Dr. Priyamvada Gopal, University of Cambridge
Dr. Meena Dhanda, University of Wolverhampton
Dr. Hugo Gorringe, University of Edinburgh
Prof. Gargi Bhattacharyya, University of East London
Prof. Barbara Harriss-White, University of Oxford
Prof. Pritam Singh, Oxford Brookes University
Dr. Dwijen Rangnekar, University of Warwick
Rohit K Dasgupta, University of the Arts London
Prof. Gautam Appa, London School of Economics
Prof. Patricia Jeffery, University of Edinburgh
Prof. Jairus Banaji, School of Oriental and African Studies
Dr. Goldie Osuri, University of Warwick
Prof. Gurminder Bhambra, University of Warwick
Dr. Shamira A. Meghani, University of Leeds
Prof. Amrita Dhillon, King’s College London
Dr. Rachel Harrison, School of Oriental and African Studies
Prof. Pablo Mukherjee, University of Warwick
Dr. Srila Roy, University of the Witwatersrand
Dr. Vedita Cowaloosur, Stellenbosch University
Dr. Alessandra Mezzadri, School of Oriental and African Studies
Dr. Dibyesh Anand, University of Westminster
Dr. Nitasha Kaul, University of Westminster
Dr. Bhabani Shankar Nayak, Glasgow Caledonian University
Dr. Talat Ahmed, University of Edinburgh
Karthikeyan Damodaran, University of Edinburgh
Nilina Deb Lal, University of Edinburgh
Nikki Dunne, University of Edinburgh
Prof. Bashabi Fraser, Edinburgh Napier University
Dr. Radhika Govinda, University of Edinburgh
Mary F. Hanlon, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Christopher Harding, University of Edinburgh
Gaia von Hatzfeldt, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Delwar Hussain, University of Edinburgh
Bethany Jennings, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Shishir Nagaraja, University of Birmingham
Daniel O’Connor, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Kanchana N. Ruwanpura, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Eurig Scandrett, Queen Margaret University
Lauren Wilks, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Richard Whitecross, University of Edinburgh
Prof. Gilbert Achcar, School of Oriental and African Studies
Dr. Sharad Chari, University of the Witwatersrand
Dr. Steve Taylor, Northumbria University
Dr. Shakuntala Banaji, London School of Economics
Dr. Sukhwant Dhaliwal, University of Bedfordshire
Supurna Banerjee, University of Edinburgh
Catriona Ellis, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Rowan Ellis, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Anderson Jeremiah, University of Lancaster
Maggie Morrison, University of Edinburgh
Dr. Anindya Raychaudhuri, University of St Andrews
Dr. Sharika Thiranagama, Stanford University
Dr. Joya Chatterji, University of Cambridge
Ravi Hensman, University of Manchester
Dr. Maan Barua, University of Oxford
Dr. Rahul Rao, School of Oriental and African Studies
Prof. Nandini Gooptu, University of Oxford
Dr. Nayanika Mookherjee, Durham University
Dr. Uday Chandra, MPI-MMG, Göttingen
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom