What's new

One Year of Modi Administration - How Much Has The New Indian Government Actually Delivered?

How will you rate Modi Government's Performance in its first year?


  • Total voters
    110
(01) 4-5 years for ONLY getting the permission to acquire the land - a process which doesn't take more than a couple of months or some weeks for that matter in other competing economies both emerging and developed - no one is amending the provisions concerning the land use - firms will be penalized for not using the land and sitting idle according to the original land acquisition bill 2013.

(02) Yes, development of industrial projects has given immense job opportunities to the locals who benefit directly or indirectly from the industries set up - What Singur missed, villagers of Sanand are lapping up where TATA Nano has its manufacturing plant - those farmers who once didn't have enough fortunes to buy a tractor for their fields are now crorepatis who can afford not one but as many as six of them -

Sanand now a home to crorepati farmers | Business Standard News
The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Nation | At Sanand, Nano makes a village of <I>crorepatis</I>
Tata car plant to open gates today


That plant not only made Sanand an auto-hub with Ford setting up its facility as well but also turned villagers into crorepatis.

Nano makes Gujarat village an auto hub, turns villagers into crorepatis, Tata Car News | CarTrade.com

(03) Lets be clear about one thing -India can't be overdependent on the agricultural sector (17.4% of GDP, one of the highest in the world which average at 5.9%) if eradication of poverty is concerned.

In 1956-57 - India's poverty rate was 65% which was reduced only by 14% in 34 years by 1990 to 51% - after the liberalization of the Indian economy in 1991 we saw the very same poverty rate being reduced by 29-30% in 22 years by 2013 to 22%. This was because of the simple fact that investments started to pour in and the industrial and services sector began to overshadow the agricultural sector of the economy.

India’s economy needs to reach an annual growth rate of 9% to 10% and then sustain that activity “many, many more years than 10 years” in order to improve infrastructure and bring down rampant poverty creating more and more jobs as per the growth in the population and to harness the demographic dividend. If that little 8% growth comes at the price of some farmers then be sure that if that growth doesn't come - it would actually cost the entire nation in a much more devastating way. Such issues are not unique to India - you will find them in any other developing economy - we will continue to address them. Do you have any other option?

1. That was my argument.. cuz Modi has removed that penalty clause among many things in new bill. It has been done with solely one intention, and that is worth worrying.

2. Those are paid news. Go to interior Gujrat and see the truth for yourself.
3. Agreed, but let them buy it directly from farmers like all other commodities, and your data related to poverty is fudged up because they say that person spending below rs 32/day in rural and rs 47/day in city is only a poor. Do you really believe this crap ??
New poverty line: Rs 32 for rural India, Rs 47 for urban India | Down To Earth
In my opinion setting the industries in farm land instead of baron land will have more devastating effects. Nowhere in the world the land has been snatched from farmers like India.
And one last thing, if Govt and Industrialists are honest in their intentions of developing India, why not they issue some shares of project to the farmers in lieu of their land ???

Do you know how much land is laying unused with railway and Defense ??? even if 10% of this land is put to use, there will be no need for acquiring new land for 10 years.
Both congies and sanghis are snatching farmers land in the name of development since independence, and India is still a dirt poor country. Why ?? Dont you think that there is a basic error somewhere in our developmental approach ??
You said that if a larger section develops at the cost of some farmers (say 10000) then it is nice thing, Let me give a better solution to you. Why not snatch all the property of only four big business house and put it in developmental projects ?? This way whole country will benefit at the cost of only four families.
 
. . .
.
Both congies and sanghis are snatching farmers land in the name of development since independence, and India is still a dirt poor country.

Sir not congress, we are always with mazdoors and farmers who have been 'making in india' for almost 6 decades now.

We made the 2013 land act so that no crony capitalist can snatch your rightful land from you

Modi is just paying back all those ambanis and adanis who've paid for his monogrammed suit

'PM Modi Paying Back Industrialists Who Helped Him,' Says Rahul Gandhi at Farmers' Rally

PM is in India, he should visit farmers: Rahul Gandhi - The Times of India

Maharashtra: Rahul Gandhi woos farmers, begins his 15 km padyatra against Land Bill in Amravati - IBNLive

Land war: Rahul Gandhi takes a train to meet Punjab's farmers : India, News - India Today

Farmers too ‘Make in India’: Rahul - The Hindu

Rahul Gandhi assured farmers to take up the issue of compensation: Congress Politics News Videos-IBNLive

Rahul Gandhi's padyatra in Amravati district: As it happened | Zee News
 
. .
1. That was my argument.. cuz Modi has removed that penalty clause among many things in new bill. It has been done with solely one intention, and that is worth worrying.

Only the time period was changed with the land owners having the last call if the project is not completed within the specified timeline -

Time Limit Clause:Section 101 of the UPA Act states that if the acquired land remains unutilized for a period of five years from the date of taking over the possession, the land shall be returned to the owners.

Change: The NDA amendment has changed it from “five years” with “a period specified for setting up of any project or for five years” and period wasted in legal matters is not included in this timeframe. By doing this the Government fixes responsibility on its own that it has to finish the project within the time limit specified for the project. If Government does not finish the project within the time line, then whatever the original land owners wishes, would prevail.

2. Those are paid news. Go to interior Gujrat and see the truth for yourself.

If that is the case then it all ends here - no one will go anywhere but if one can alledge the news reports to be false then one can also challenge the personal claims made from the other side which are often found to be less credible - figures don't lie - especially when those are compiled by your adversaries - these all were the revelations made by the erstwhile UPA government -

Gujarat had recorded the highest decadal agricultural growth rate of 10.97% in the period 2000-01 to 2009-10, shooting past Maharashtra and leaving many other front-running agricultural states behind.

Gujarat records highest decadal agricultural growth rate of 10.97% - timesofindia-economictimes
If one takes agriculture as index of inclusive development, Gujarat’s agrarian miracle stands out - The Times of India
Kalam lauds Gujarat's agricultural success - The Hindu

3. Agreed, but let them buy it directly from farmers like all other commodities, and your data related to poverty is fudged up because they say that person spending below rs 32/day in rural and rs 47/day in city is only a poor. Do you really believe this crap ??
New poverty line: Rs 32 for rural India, Rs 47 for urban India | Down To Earth

Well those poverty rates have been benchmarked by the World Bank which are exactly the same elsewhere in the World may it be India or United States -

Poverty | Data

In my opinion setting the industries in farm land instead of baron land will have more devastating effects. Nowhere in the world the land has been snatched from farmers like India.

Yes of course - acquisition of land has been prioritized in the bill with the use of barren land being on the top slot.

Do you know how much land is laying unused with railway and Defense ??? even if 10% of this land is put to use, there will be no need for acquiring new land for 10 years.

Not necessarily - there is a lot of vacant land in possession of those ministries but that doesn't mean all of it can be utilized the way we want for example Nuclear plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans because these bodies provide the large quantities of cooling water needed to handle the heat discharge. Coal burning power plants are located near water because the water is used to create energy and most are located near coal fields or at such a location when supply of raw materials isn't hindered. Same with hydroelectric power plants as well.

You said that if a larger section develops at the cost of some farmers (say 10000) then it is nice thing, Let me give a better solution to you. Why not snatch all the property of only four big business house and put it in developmental projects ?? This way whole country will benefit at the cost of only four families.

I never claimed it to be a nice thing - but we are certinly improving - no matter how tough the land acquisition bill 2015 may be but it's way better than the 1854 one bringing in much relief to the farmers in the current form as well.

As far as snatching is concerned - There are only 4% taxpayers in India which form a major part of the revenue from which those developmental projects are funded - the rest 96% contribute too little for a country as big as ours.

We are charging the super-rich and will continue to do so - Union Budget 2015: ‘Super-rich’ firms will pay bulk of surcharge | The Financial Express

We did try the socialist regime - which ultimately ended up like - 1991 Indian economic crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
. . .
1.Uranium Supply deal with Canada

2.Rafale deal with france

3.Renewal of Military cooperation with US.

4.50 billion $ investment from Japan and China.

5."Befitting" Response to Adversaries

None of these are earth shattering ...
 
. .
1) He took over when things were recovering, which is the ideal situation to come in, since you neither have to take difficult decisions to cut spending or raise taxes, but benefit from the improvements. So he could either sit back and take, what's coming anyway or be bold and push India way forward and after 2 budgets and very little reforms actually achieved so far, we know that the earlier is the case.

There is no major changes made in the policies, infact they have followed most of the policies of UPA....... the problem with UPA was not about policies or vision, but implementation..... This govt seems to be better when it comes to implementation.... But it is too early to judge as i said in my first post...... Let us give them some time.

There is one more important aspect which helped this govt is Oil prices........ It went rock bottom and without any resistance they could stop all subsidies....... infact they gained a lot too from this oil prices......
 
.
There is no major changes made in the policies, infact they have followed most of the policies of UPA....... the problem with UPA was not about policies or vision, but implementation..... This govt seems to be better when it comes to implementation.... But it is too early to judge as i said in my first post...... Let us give them some time.

There is one more important aspect which helped this govt is Oil prices........ It went rock bottom and without any resistance they could stop all subsidies....... infact they gained a lot too from this oil prices......
Certainly this was the best time to kill subsidies, however apart from diesel i am not sure what other subsidy you are talking about? As far as diesel is concerned then the decision was taken in congress era with raising the cost by 0.50 every month till it hit the market price and from thereafter it would be market driven

Dude the less we talk about Rahul Gandhi the better it would be for all of us...better he go out for another vacation as whenever he comes back we get to see some more comedy :lol:
 
.
One year of Modi government: A look at what does India Inc think

NEW DELHI: Speaking at a meeting of Bharatiya Janata Party's lawmakers on April 19, a day before the Lok Sabha reconvened, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a seemingly innocuous reference to Mukesh Ambani, chairman of Reliance Industries, India's largest private company by revenues. Seeking to burnish his pro-poor credentials, Modi spoke on affordable housing and the controversial land Bill, stating that land acquired by the government will be used for projects benefitting the poor.

"Who is going to live in them? Are industrialists going to stay there... Will Mukesh Ambani live there?" said the PM, referring to affordable housing, one of the government's social sector priorities.

Despite its seemingly anodyne nature, eyebrows were raised as this was Modi's second reference to Ambani within a span of 10 days. Earlier, in an interview to Hindustan Times, Modi had said red tape should not only be removed for Mukesh Ambani but also for the common man.

Modi's prolonged quest for prime ministership, by most accounts, had the enthusiastic backing of the grandees of India's business, fed up as they were by the policy paralysis that blighted the second term of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA).

But 11 months into his tenure, Modi seems to be redefining his relationship with big business in appearance and substance and sometimes in surprising ways.

ET spoke to more than 20 people, including the promoters of some of India's biggest companies, politicians, party leaders and bureaucrats to understand whether and how the prime minister is changing the rules of engagement.

There was virtual unanimity that corruption at the top had declined dramatically, a welcome change from earlier. But the reviews were mixed, with most saying this administration's engagement with business was very different from those before.

Most declined to speak on the record given the sensitivity of the matter.

In the 2014 general election campaign and recently, Congress Vice-President Rahul Gandhi has portrayed Modi as a friend of big corporates, accusing him of crony capitalism. But big business says access to the upper echelons of government has declined in dramatic fashion.

One of India's bulge-bracket investors said that from being Rs 1,400 crore in debt, he's now Rs 50 crore in the cash. "I've shorted the market. I'm bearish in the short term but haven't touched my long-term investments," he added.

So what's the reason for the subdued sentiment, just a year after the thumping win?

Modi government has cracked down on corruption in high places but many top leaders of India Inc feel a sense of drift. Little access to top ministers and over-centralisation at the PMO could be the reasons.

Access Control

At an industry meeting in Mumbai last week, bankers expressed reluctance about funding new projects. "Nobody wants to take on more exposure. They want the existing projects to give a certain return on investment. And the government is not willing to help," said a top Mumbai-based industrialist present at the meeting.

"This government is cautious that it shouldn't be seen as favouring certain corporate houses. So it is looking at overall policy decisions that may or may not benefit individual companies. But there are issues with individual projects which no one wants to iron out. Those have to be addressed but no one seems to be interested in doing that," said another promoter.

As Gujarat chief minister, Modi was said to be more proactive. There would be follow-up calls from bureaucrats and decision making was quick. When the Tata group was scouting for a new site for its Nano plant, Modi sent an SMS to Ratan Tata.

"He later spoke about how his one 'Welcome to Gujarat' message clinched the deal since five other states were also in contention," said the businessman cited above. "The government's culture then matched the corporate culture, which is why there was so much investment in Gujarat. As PM, he has become more reactive."

Another corporate chief echoed this: "We met him more when he was the Gujarat CM."

A prominent Delhi-based industrialist who sought time with the PM was taken aback when he was politely asked why he wanted to meet. "That had never been a problem in the previous regime," the person said.

BJP president Amit Shah, widely seen as the second most powerful person in the country, is also believed to have refused most requests for appointments by industrialists. "He is clear that is not his job. He is concentrating on building the party and does not wish to get into sorting out the problems of companies or socialising with them. He invited them for his son's wedding but that was all," said a person close to Shah.

"So who do we go to get our legitimate issues resolved?" said the Mumbai-based promoter.

A BJP member who played a key role in strategy during the 2014 elections said, "There are Rs 6-7 lakh crore of stressed assets. That's the biggest problem for industrialists and government is not doing anything to
address them. The government is only looking at future projects such as bullet trains."


Sensitive to Criticism

Late last year, participants at a Confederation of Indian Industry meeting complained that they had expected the government to do more. The details of the meeting had been reported in ET, drawing a frosty response from the government. "The PMO was furious and a strong message was sent to CII not to organise such forums," said a bureaucrat.

"There is a sense of fear among corporates and people are wary of speaking up or giving suggestions," said one of the industrialists cited earlier.

A Mumbai-based businessman said at least two Delhi-based promoters have told him that they are always guarded in phone conversations. "It's a democracy but you can't speak," said this person. "The government tends to take criticism personally."

When the elder statesman of Indian finance, Deepak Parekh, said in a recent interview that there was no real change in the ease of doing business in India and that a "little bit of impatience was creeping in", it didn't go down too well either.

Parekh is known to speak his mind and had been similarly critical during the UPA regime. But now the reaction was much sharper, with demands that senior officials of the HDFC Group give "positive" interviews, according to people aware of the matter.

The incident seems indicative of how sensitive the government is to any sort of criticism.

"Nobody wants to speak up. Even top industrialists have no access to Modi. They've also been asked not to speak against the government at any forum," said the Delhi-based industrialist cited earlier.

Industrialist Naveen Jindal, who took the government to court for denying him a coal block despite being the highest bidder in the recent auctions, recently ran into the PM at a function. When Jindal walked up to the PM to greet him, Modi is said to have referred to the court case, said a person privy to the interaction. Jindal sought time from the PM, which was not granted, at least thus far.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) recently charge-sheeted Jindal in the coal allocation scam.

The raids at the petroleum ministry and the arrest of employees of private sector companies in the so called "corporate espionage" case have also sparked alarm in India Inc.

"If the systems were faulty, they should have been fixed but to indulge in fear mongering and call it corporate espionage was a little over the top," said a businessman.

The fear of being seen to be procorporate has resulted in most ministers shunning the company of industrialists. A party to celebrate the appointment of a key minister, shortly after the government assumed office, had some prominent industrialists in attendance. "This did not go down too well with the PM," said a party functionary.

The image makeover

During last year's poll campaign, Rahul Gandhi and Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal had accused Modi of having cosy ties with corporate India, notably Gautam Adani and Ambani. That didn't stop Modi leading the BJP to an overwhelming mandate, with the Congress reduced to 44 seats, its lowest ever.

"But the allegation stuck in Modi's mind. He is a careful man who has worked very hard to reach where he is. He wouldn't want to risk his image," said a BJP functionary.

"We fund many parties but with Narendrabhai we can't expect a quid pro quo. No one can tell him that just because I gave money to the party for the elections you do this for me. He doesn't encourage that," said a Mumbai-based industrialist.


A popular story doing the rounds is how a top industrialist was curtly told by Modi not to meddle in governance. The industrialist was complaining about a few bureaucrats who he felt were "not working properly and should be changed." "Aap apni company chalaiye aur mujhe apni sarkar," was what Modi is said to have told him.

A bureaucrat said stern messages have been sent to some industrialists on the PM's behalf saying he doesn't appreciate interference in running his administration. Earlier, appointments for the post of bank chairman entailed hectic lobbying.

"That has almost come to an end now because the PM is strictly against it and has made it clear on more than one occasion," said the bureaucrat quoted earlier.

It's a change that many welcome. "Modi is bringing about a fundamental change in the paradigm of doing business in India. If he succeeds, connections will not matter. Industrialists will have to focus on their competence rather than manage connections," said the head of a foreign bank.

He mentioned the move to let a new banking bureau appoint head of public sector banks as a big deal. "It is not something which was conceivable even recently," he said.

The investor cited earlier said the country is going through a "governance transition", which industrialists are finding difficult to deal with. "Most big industrial groups are used to fixing things, which is not happening in this government."

The impact of Rahul

Some industry leaders fear that Modi could go the Rahul Gandhi way and end up demonising industry.

The land bill that has been mired in controversy could be put in cold storage because of opposition pressure, said a political leader.

"Modi just doesn't want to risk giving ammunition to the opposition before the Bihar elections. If that happens, it could completely disenchant corporate India," said this person.

A Mumbai-based promoter said: "It is all very well to be pro-poor. No one has a problem with that. But that can't be at the cost of industry. How will you get 7-8% growth if there are no new investments?"

Modi's attempt at an image makeover is linked to elections in crucial states such as Bihar later this year, said a BJP functionary. "You can either be pro-corporate or pro-poor. In rural India, the message that has gone is that this is a pro-corporate government. That might not be true but that is the perception," said this person.

Rahul Gandhi's latest jibe describing the Modi government being "suit-boot ki sarkar" has put the government further on the back foot. Corporate India, said a Mumbaibased promoter, is now wary of investing in India as a result.

The Congress party's Digvijay Singh said the decisions taken by the Modi government in the last 11 months show that it's a pro-rich government. "Look at all the ordinances passed so far. They are all pro-rich. From the land ordinance to not increasing the minimum support price and reducing fertiliser imports--all this has crippled rural India," said Singh.

National BJP spokesperson Shrikant Sharma countered. "This is not a 'suit-boot sarkar' but a 'soojhbhooj ki sarkar'. Rahul Gandhi's allegations don't stick because they are far removed from reality. Our government has already announced transformational schemes for the poor. Such allegations were made during the Lok Sabha elections as well but they were rejected by the public," he said.

Reduction in corruption

The general consensus in Indian industry is that corruption at the highest level, perceived as being widely rampant in UPA2, has seen a dramatic decline. "The introduction of eauction of coal and telecom has done wonders for transparency," said one of the Mumbai-based businessman cited above.

All industry executives ET spoke to for this story were unanimous that large-scale corruption was almost nonexistent. "Weeding our corruption from the highest levels of the government was much needed and he's been able to do it. In the short term, this may have led to decisions not being taken on various projects," said the Delhi-based industrialist

From PM Modi downwards ministers have cited the auction of spectrum and coal mines as a transformational instance of good governance.

Digvijay Singh however dismissed claims of reduced corruption, saying official-level corruption has increased. "If earlier you had the Jayanthi (Natarajan) tax then now you have the Piyush tax," he said, referring to coal minister Piyush Goyal.

Goyal rejected Singh's allegation as "desperate". It "demonstrates the hollowness of the Congress," he said.

"The most transparent and honest allocation process of coal mines through the e-auction route, is something the Congress would have a problem with," he said. "I wouldn't like to take names but allocations earlier happened through prominent Lutyen's Delhi addresses--a number similar to that of 10 Downing Street--when allocations happened through chits sent from there."

He went on: "In a way that (the auction) was the 'Piyush tax' that was levied on corporate India, unlike what happened during the Congress regime." Goyal was referring to the commitment by companies to pay Rs 2 lakh cr over a 30-year period.

A mighty PMO?

Though "big" corruption has declined, to quote one of the Mumbaibased industrialists, the bureaucracy, many say, is scared and not taking decisions. Ministers are largely powerless because every file goes to the PMO. Over-centralisation, some said, is leading to policy paralysis of a different kind.

"This is a one-man show. The PM is trying to run everything from defence policy to foreign policy to finance," said one of the business leaders cited. When the Reserve Bank of India and the finance ministry were at loggerheads over budget proposals related to debt management and bond regulation, the issue was flagged to the PM.

"Modi, who has a direct equation with governor Raghuram Rajan ensured that RBI's powers remained (intact)," said the person. "The PM selects every single CEO who accompanies his delegation overseas every single time. He works 17-18 hours a day but there no delegation," said the Delhi-based industrialist.

The PMO did not respond to queries seeking its response on the perception of excessive centralization and sensitivity to criticism.

"No one in his cabinet can claim a special relationship with him. His key advisors are bureaucrats," said another corporate head. This is why Modi lacks "political maturity" and is therefore sensitive to criticism, unlike others in his party such as Nitin Gadkari, said this person.

"When news reports emerged of Gadkari availing the hospitality of the Ruias (Essar's promoters), he called a press conference and aggressively defended himself. The next day he was also part of a function involving the Ruias. The news report did not dent his relationship with them. Contrast that with how Modi reacts," said this person.

Govt & big business

Corporate India is also abuzz with speculation on the relationship between Modi government and Gujarat-based businessman Gautam Adani and Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL). While Adani is widely seen as being close to Modi, there is increasing chatter of growing distance between RIL and the government.

Adani, who has accompanied the PM on all trips abroad and has also stayed in the same hotel as him unlike the other industrialists, dismisses talk of a special relationship.

"We are serious players in the infrastructure sector and no special favors have been granted to us.

We work with all political parties--be it BJP, Congress or regional parties," Adani told ET. He said merely working with the government cannot be construed as "crony capitalism" and that he has known Modi for the last 25 years, along with many other political leaders.

The opposition has been unable to point out any instance of Adani getting special treatment. "Modi is his own man and even Gautambhai knows that," said a BJP functionary.

But the perception of proximity has people flocking to him to resolve issues with the government. Jindal, when denied an appointment with the PM, went with his wife to Adani to "seek advice" according to people in the know. Jindal declined to comment on specifics of his interaction with Adani. "Gautam is a dear friend and I meet many people," said Jindal.

Former environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan who launched a blistering attack on the Congress party earlier this year is said to have tried to reach the BJP through Adani.

In the case of RIL, analysts see the government's scrapping of the higher gas price set by the UPA government and stymieing of two arbitration cases initiated by the company as evidence of a relationship growing cold.

A Mumbai-based promoter said all of big business was being treated the same. "Why Mukesh Ambani, tell me one industrialist who's happy with the Modi sarkar? They all funded the elections but are disappointed today. Adani may be a close friend but did SBI play ball with him, No. Did he get any coal mine? No." The reference is to a $1 billion loan sought from State Bank of India for Adani's Australia business.

RIL did not respond to questions on the arbitration cases and its relationship with the Modi administration.

"The mood is sombre. But still there's hope because they see the man as hard-working and making fundamental changes, which will bear fruit in future," said an industrialist.

One year of Modi government: A look at what does India Inc think - The Economic Times

@AHAM BRIHMASMI Contrary to the popular perception that the new government is pro-corporate - the reality seems to be a bit different.
 
.
In one interview Arun Jaithli said "People come to me and ask for BIG BANG reforms, but when I ask them to suggest at least 2 BIG BANG reforms, they never get back to me" . Thats' the problem with some people, for them glass is always half full.
 
.
Give PM and his team 1.5-2 more years. Forget that Mr. Modi is PM and we members have their own political affinity, for a while, anyone who has got the job and under pretty difficult circumstances (Global slowdown etc), will take sometime to form policy, implement them and do course correction. Yes everything isn't as rosy as NDA promised during polls, but again aren't gloomy as they were say a couple of years back.
In a society and economy of our size, things have their inertia and take time to change. let us keep patience for 18 months before passing judgements.
My report card for NDA 2 would be as follows:
Hits:
1. Spectrum and Coal auction success and the gains it has brought.
2. Inflation remaining moderate (though low crude prices were largely responsible).
3. Things moving visibly in Defence sector.
4. Budget low on Populism.
5. Engaging nations diplomatically and recent pro-active help provided to Nepal.
6. Push in infra-structure sector and manufacturing.
Misses:
1. Land bill turning into a controversy. It is single biggest bill right now and industry is banking on it (especially road building).
2. Random statements from smaller leaders unnecessarily creating issues that give a chance to opposition and media to portray BJP as anti-secularist. Though not important, gossip mongering media gets to focus on things that aren't necessarily true. PM needs to keep these people on leash.
3. Partnership with PDP and its stance on extremist leaders (their release included).
4. Lack of clarity on GST.

Its a reasonably good performance and gives hope atleast on economic front that better days are round the corner, but a lot depends on how government is willing to learn from its experience. IMHO if government's floor managers in Rajya Sabha are able to garner support for some critical bills, we can expect happier times ahead.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom