The pseudo Seculars, the Truly Seculars and the pseudo-Hindutva have voiced their self-reassuring fake-confident opinions about what qualities we need in a Prime Ministerial Candidate. And as usual most are blabbering the old stereotypes regarding "secularism", "inclusivism", "social-justice" and such bull-shit.
The biggest failure of these stupid self annointed wise men is that they are not only wrong in their answers, they almost always also ask wrong questions. It is stated about a scientist (Wolfgang Pauli) of an earlier generation that when he was told about some theory of some other person, he commented: It is not even wrong! Many of our fake wise men are just that, they are not even wrong! A nation goes through various time periods and if due considerations are not given to the space-time-context many questions related to national well being would be irrelevant.
Just as an example, if India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh were all wealthy nations yearning to form a South Asian Union, we could have, just for fun, elected a cute looking Johny Lever as our Prime Minister provided he was willing to marry, let's suppose, Pakistan's Prime Ministerial candidate Veena Malik. And the duo would have offered humor and glamor for the audience of all these four nations who would be clamoring for entertainment after a day's hard work. Unfortunately our so called leaders are too dumb to realize that the reality is much different from this, as of now.
Presently the situation in India is extremely grim. And while the situation demands urgent attention those in the government are busy merely surviving. The one thing that we need, and it might sound a truism, is "leadership". Right now, we do not have leaders. We only have restaurant-stewards.
Let us illustrate it with an example. Let us say we are on a journey and we feel famished and therefore visit a restaurant, dhaba or whatever. Our first question would be: What do you have on your Menu, what is "special" here, etc.? Instead of precise answers if the waiter replies in general terms, for example: "We prepare the best healthy and nutritious food, whatever you order we serve it here", we would be extremely impressed, and order our favourite, say some XYZ. And then, if to our chagrin after inexplicable delays, what we receive is some ABC (different from XYZ) and that too badly made, we would be furious and highly dissatisfied. And suppose this repeats many times, then what would our reaction be? On any of our subsequent journeys, we would rather visit a place which has ready-made food items on display, which we can order and get immediately. And if we are satisfied we would visit such places again.
Now consider this: All Secular, Social Justice and Inclusive leaders are running those abominable restaurants and dhabas. They have no Menu, only promises of "best quality hygienic, nutritious and tasty food" which have time and again turned out to be horrendously empty. Then, who should we choose? Would we not go for someone who has "something tangible" to offer, even if it is NOT the best possible thing?
We are in a situation wherein, as we mentioned, we need "leadership" and "decision-making" and then "acceptance of responsibility for those decisions". We need leadership in terms of "ideas" which will "solve" the problem; not some stupid, mostly unworkable, platitudes. A preferably demonstrated ability for such is the bare minimum.
Nitish Kumar, despite all his fluffy and inflated ego is merely a Lalu-Yadav-quality photocopy of the original that he is striving to emulate. This is the reason he proposes Affirmative-Action even for the post of PM, by stating that the PM must preferably come from a poor state. This fool does not realize that this is what Manmohan and his Congress are trying to do internationally! Manmohan wants to become an international leader and therefore wants to make India a poor nation! This is what Jawahar et al. did for decades! Such arrogant asses do not have the quality of even ordinary sports-persons who at least utter the words: "May the best player win", before a match. Jokers such as these must be shunned. We have had more than enough of Mulayams, Mayawatis, Lalus, Jayalalithas, Naveen Patnayaks and so on. We have had enough of Jawahar-clone Rajdharma upholders too.
Further, as we stated, we need to choose someone who comes closest to fulfilling such criterion, even if we have none who foots the bill completely. Performance and not mere Promises should count. And no bull-shitting of undisclosed secret recipes as solution to national problems. Manmohan had promised arrest of price rise in 100 days, it is about 2000 days over now. Those who do not put forth specific ideas, those who are afraid of debating their solutions in public, those who hurl platitudes thoroughly failed concepts of Secularism, Social-Justice, Inclusiveness etc., and also those who are poor caricatures of the original must be outrightly rejected.
Lest our readers get the impression that we are slipping in Narendra Modi. We reiterate that Modi is merely the best available choice. He is about OK, surely not good. We might concede though that he is the least anti-Hindu of them all, as of now. Very recently, we read a beautiful piece on Kalyan Singh. By the standards of the wind-bag Hajpeyi, Kalyan Singh may not have followed Rajdharma, but as the author points out, he still stands the tallest. Shri Narendra Modi, are you listening? You have nothing to learn from Hajpeyi and Advani, but if you really want to learn, take the initial lesson from Kalyan Singh.
The biggest failure of these stupid self annointed wise men is that they are not only wrong in their answers, they almost always also ask wrong questions. It is stated about a scientist (Wolfgang Pauli) of an earlier generation that when he was told about some theory of some other person, he commented: It is not even wrong! Many of our fake wise men are just that, they are not even wrong! A nation goes through various time periods and if due considerations are not given to the space-time-context many questions related to national well being would be irrelevant.
Just as an example, if India, Pakistan, China, Bangladesh were all wealthy nations yearning to form a South Asian Union, we could have, just for fun, elected a cute looking Johny Lever as our Prime Minister provided he was willing to marry, let's suppose, Pakistan's Prime Ministerial candidate Veena Malik. And the duo would have offered humor and glamor for the audience of all these four nations who would be clamoring for entertainment after a day's hard work. Unfortunately our so called leaders are too dumb to realize that the reality is much different from this, as of now.
Presently the situation in India is extremely grim. And while the situation demands urgent attention those in the government are busy merely surviving. The one thing that we need, and it might sound a truism, is "leadership". Right now, we do not have leaders. We only have restaurant-stewards.
Let us illustrate it with an example. Let us say we are on a journey and we feel famished and therefore visit a restaurant, dhaba or whatever. Our first question would be: What do you have on your Menu, what is "special" here, etc.? Instead of precise answers if the waiter replies in general terms, for example: "We prepare the best healthy and nutritious food, whatever you order we serve it here", we would be extremely impressed, and order our favourite, say some XYZ. And then, if to our chagrin after inexplicable delays, what we receive is some ABC (different from XYZ) and that too badly made, we would be furious and highly dissatisfied. And suppose this repeats many times, then what would our reaction be? On any of our subsequent journeys, we would rather visit a place which has ready-made food items on display, which we can order and get immediately. And if we are satisfied we would visit such places again.
Now consider this: All Secular, Social Justice and Inclusive leaders are running those abominable restaurants and dhabas. They have no Menu, only promises of "best quality hygienic, nutritious and tasty food" which have time and again turned out to be horrendously empty. Then, who should we choose? Would we not go for someone who has "something tangible" to offer, even if it is NOT the best possible thing?
We are in a situation wherein, as we mentioned, we need "leadership" and "decision-making" and then "acceptance of responsibility for those decisions". We need leadership in terms of "ideas" which will "solve" the problem; not some stupid, mostly unworkable, platitudes. A preferably demonstrated ability for such is the bare minimum.
Nitish Kumar, despite all his fluffy and inflated ego is merely a Lalu-Yadav-quality photocopy of the original that he is striving to emulate. This is the reason he proposes Affirmative-Action even for the post of PM, by stating that the PM must preferably come from a poor state. This fool does not realize that this is what Manmohan and his Congress are trying to do internationally! Manmohan wants to become an international leader and therefore wants to make India a poor nation! This is what Jawahar et al. did for decades! Such arrogant asses do not have the quality of even ordinary sports-persons who at least utter the words: "May the best player win", before a match. Jokers such as these must be shunned. We have had more than enough of Mulayams, Mayawatis, Lalus, Jayalalithas, Naveen Patnayaks and so on. We have had enough of Jawahar-clone Rajdharma upholders too.
Further, as we stated, we need to choose someone who comes closest to fulfilling such criterion, even if we have none who foots the bill completely. Performance and not mere Promises should count. And no bull-shitting of undisclosed secret recipes as solution to national problems. Manmohan had promised arrest of price rise in 100 days, it is about 2000 days over now. Those who do not put forth specific ideas, those who are afraid of debating their solutions in public, those who hurl platitudes thoroughly failed concepts of Secularism, Social-Justice, Inclusiveness etc., and also those who are poor caricatures of the original must be outrightly rejected.
Lest our readers get the impression that we are slipping in Narendra Modi. We reiterate that Modi is merely the best available choice. He is about OK, surely not good. We might concede though that he is the least anti-Hindu of them all, as of now. Very recently, we read a beautiful piece on Kalyan Singh. By the standards of the wind-bag Hajpeyi, Kalyan Singh may not have followed Rajdharma, but as the author points out, he still stands the tallest. Shri Narendra Modi, are you listening? You have nothing to learn from Hajpeyi and Advani, but if you really want to learn, take the initial lesson from Kalyan Singh.
As Hindus we need a pro-Hindu PM.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated. Please read the About Us page. If you have outright disagreement, then you may not have much use commenting. You are free to record your disagreements in a civil manner. Repeated abuse, and irrelevant postings will be removed. Please avoid advertisements.
This blog does not honor political correctness. If your comment is posted, this does not mean that this blog endorses your views.
While I allow anonymous comments, please quote your twitter account if you want to have a referenced discussion.
There is a Suggestions Page, please post your suggestions regarding this blog as comments on that page.