Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
So now we have a series of different views, from all quarters. Let us pick our way through, carefully.
Whenever Modi goes out the reality of his "success" would be visible to all. The argument that he is a monster but a benevolent person is an age old justification. Every such criminally insane person manages to keep himself looking economically beneficial till the moment he falls and by then its too late. I think Modi's reality will come to light when he is made PM and thus I hope he does get made PM.[/QUOTE
Thank you very much for your good wishes, but you are welcome, in this present instance, to keep them to yourself. The reason that you adduce for hoping that Modi becomes PM, that it will reveal him in his true colours, and that he will no longer then project himself as 'economically beneficial', to use your phrasing, is a very cruel and distasteful one. In short, you hope that when he becomes PM, his revealing himself in his true colours, and his working of the administration of India in a biased and bigoted manner will show him up. That might happen; his becoming PM is a faint possibility at the moment, although in our turbulent polity, anything can happen, and his elevation to such a position cannot be ruled out entirely.
It is with the reasons why you wish that it should happen that I take exception.
It is rather strange that releasing a genocidal monster on us, in a position of trust and responsibility, seems OK to you, the inevitable damage to lives and to the social fabric notwithstanding, so long as he is seen by Indians and by others to be an evil being. That is roughly on par with wishing that Eichmann were to be released and allowed to join anti-Semitic circles in Argentina, because that would be one way to demonstrate how evil he actually was.
Fair enough, I have sufficient tolerance for this kind of humour; the only charitable explanation can be that you find it irresistibly funny. Strangely, considering the genocidal nature of the attacks, considering his complete lack of remorse or regret, I do not share your feeling about his being funny. He is beyond jokes; perhaps banal, sometimes jarring, never to be considered less than a criminal lunatic.
Thank you once again for your good wishes. I hope your Interior Mininister, Mr. Rahman, becomes (in succession) Prime Minister of Pakistan, and then President, and finally is selected to the greatest position in Pakistan, the Chief of Army Staff.
One Good or Bad decision does not make a person doomed forever.
There are several things wrong with your analysis, and I take leave to bring them to your attention.
This is not about Mr. Modi's personal life; this is not about an error of judgement deciding what colour kurta to wear. This is about his oath of office and how he chose to interpret them. This is about the Godhra incident and the subsequent civil strife in Modi's state. This is about the over-arching approach that he brought to Gujarat state politics, which directly led to a reign of terror in that unhappy state. This is about the encounter in the Ishrat Jahan case, and the second, the tragic and very disquieting Sohrabuddin case.
Further, it is a problem within the administration itself. It declares clearly that process and regulated movement is to be abandoned immediately within the state administration, and that personal and wider qualities will take precedence over the combined counsel of many.
It was not one bad decision, it was a great many, none of them standing up to scrutiny.
Life gives second chances to heveryone and those who learn from their mistakes and try to improve them makes them man of history.
Certainly, life does give such chances, even in the case of Modi. But what did he do with those chances? Did he show regret? Not at all. He sails out in the full conviction of his rightness in ordering people killed, and holds forth on his chosen area of preference for discussions, the comparative economic expansion of Gujarat, and not a word about the horrors for which he was responsible.
He was given chances. He did nothing with them; he almost mocked the opportunity to repent. What do we conclude from this? That he deserved a chance to repent and to show contrition?
NaMo did what his personal choice
Do you even understand what a terrible thing you are suggesting? Are these people kings or dictators? Is there any obligation on them to observe the law? Do they swear to uphold these laws when they take their assignment, at the inauguration during their oath-taking ceremony?
Where is the question of his personal choice? He has no right to act against the constitution and its laws, those are the laws that he was sworn to defend. Do you even understand what you have just said?
was against "those" who "brutally" planned to kill people in a train attack.
Let us assume for a moment that your peculiar understanding of how the state works is considered to be correct for the sake of argument. Let us assume that the Chief Minister of a state has the right to order rioters to inflict punishment on innocent people for a crime which may or may not have been committed. At the time that he took decisions to do what he did, there was absolutely no evidence that there had been a conspiracy, or that the conspiracy was widespread.
At that time, it was not known; he took his decisions not on fact but on supposition. Even today after the trial of the conspirators is over, the facts do not show that there was a widespread conspiracy; the trial court, whatever the quality of its judgement, has found only a handful of people guilty, and has released a vast number of others; at no time was this maniacal decision founded on anything remotely like an established finding.
Is it the Chief Minister's job to order the deaths of many others not even remotely connected to this 'brutal' plan? Were those other 2,000 people all involved in the plan? How did he select them for punishment?
Should he not have ordered the police, totally under his control, totally communalised, totally hostile to the community that was accused, to look into the matter? Considering how prejudiced they were against the entire Musllim community, was there even a shadow of doubt that their findings would have led to a prima facie case against a number of conspirators, whether they were in fact guilty of conspiracy or not is another matter? Was it not his job as Chief Minister to order therir arrest and trial? Is there no law in India? Is it free to individuals like Modi to order innocents to be slaughtered in order to take retribution for an unestablished incident? Is this what you believe is justifiable?
He can be rejected and can never come out of those mode when whole world was poiniting finger towards him.
It is not clear what you mean by the sentence above. What else did you expect the whole world to do?
He made a choice later on and changed Gujrat totally with Social/ Economical culture. If we point a finger for his decisions in 2002 then we should also be open hearted to praise him for what he did in Gujrat.
And why should he enjoy that privilege when he never gave up his ways, and continued to encourage the killing of Muslims in order to build an atmoshpere of siege around his government?
Hitler & Stalin made one bad decision as well.
No, they, like Modi, made several; a career full of them. It is impossible to weigh one life on a scale; even while I sympathise with what lies under your remark, the fact is that they killed millions; this jackal killed hundreds.
I am not justifying his actions, only pointing out that a comparison between him and Hitler and Stalin is a poor comparison.