Farewell

We have not been very regular for quite sometime. This is because we don't find the time and the energy to blog. We had been contemplating discontinuing it altogether. Someone who we know only on the cyber space suggested that it might be a good idea if someone else could continue the writing with a similar drift. Fortunately he could come up with a volunteer.

So, in some time, a new person will be writing this blog. Some elements of style might change, hopefully there will be a little more enthusiasm, if not regularity. The fundamental thrust will remain the same, or hopefully, get even better.

By July 1, 2015 the transition should be over.



Updated on: July 18, 2015 (Rath Yatra Day)

I am the new person, and I am maintaining both Twitter and Blog accounts.

Narendra Modi's Strategy

In our previous articles (see here, here, here and here) we wrote about our assessment of Modi's one year in office. We expressed our displeasure regarding many issues. In this article we want to present our view from the perspective that Modi does want to deliver on most fronts, but that he is timing it and strategizing it differently.

We present this in four segments. Models, Image, Time Line, and Strategy and Control. In models section, we describe our view of how various components of the picture. This will make us understand the behavior of the components. In image  section, we describe the kind of image that Modi needs to project (positive) and imager that Modi needs to guard against (negative) but which his detractors would like to push. In time-line section, we describe how deliverables must get delivered so that an advantageous situation exists for Modi in 2019. And finally, in the last section, we describe how, based on the models, the desired image and its time line, Modi can manueover the control variables for his goals.

This does not in the least mean that Modi wants to merely win elections in 2019. We believe him to be a well intentioned PM, and we believe that he wants to make a great change for the better in India. And for that he might need more than one term. However, what we mean is that Even if he is looking forward to merely win the 2019 elections, he could use the outline given in this article.

(A) Models:

1. Voter Model:

(i) Hindutva Middle Class voters are too demanding, and too easily irritable. They are the most difficult to get to vote too.

(ii) His Support Base (both potential and actual): Silent Hindutva poor, silent Hindutva middle class, (in potential) non-Hindu poor.

(iii) His opponents: Loud vocal secular (both Hindus and non-Hindus) Middle class, (in potential) non-Hindu poor, (now slowly increasing) Vocal Hindutva middle class.

2. Opponent Model:

(i) Congress and other opposition parties are not concerned about "Hindutva" voters of Modi. they know the flimsiness of the Hindutva-brigade (2004 etc.). Also they know that it is highly unlikely that Modi will do a Hajpeyi.

(ii) The main fear of the opposition parties is what the "middle and poor" class people perceive Modi as. We can notice that they are scurrying to alter Modi's image into a Corruption-accommodating and anti-poor leader. It is unlikely that they will succeed.

(iii) He has detractors within his own party, who might be waiting for Modi to fail/fall in some way, so that they can jump all over his corpse.

Possible Scenario Predictions:

(a) If he goes aggressive on Hindutva and economy goes in doldrums, people would say: why did he have to do it so badly. "Ghar mein khane ko nahin hai aur ladai pe nikal pade".

Remark: Modi would want to avoid this.
(b) If Economy takes off a little and then aggression happens as a result of cross-border provocation, he will have much better traction. (We have had a glimpse of this during this Myanmar incident).

Remark: Modi would want to have better than this.
(c) Before next LS election he would have achieved a healthy majority in Rajya Sabha, so he wants to aim at a strong (350+) majority in Lok Sabha in 2019.

Remark: Modi will have this as desirable.

3. Constraints Model (Simple Lessons for Modi from 2004 loss; a few possible causes that added up):

(i) Apologetic behavior regarding 2002, resulting in cringing-Hindutva image.

(ii) Despite decent infrastructure development and growth rate, the message could not be conveyed to people, Hindutva folks were completely sidelined, and India-Shining campaign was seen to be "arrogant".

4. Strong Points Model (Some innate strengths in favor of Modi):

(i) He will (most likely) remain personally clean and impeccable (unlike MMS).

(ii) If his party detractors, and opposition parties do not oppose him he will do much better. If they keep opposing him, he will gain sympathy (vo kaam karna chahata thaa par usako kaam nahin karne diye). This will help him to further strengthen his grip on BJP as well as candidate selection.

Remark: We don't view this as bad per se; for we can't disallow a PM, who we want to act as an efficient CEO, the freedom he seeks, and then blame him if he fails to deliver. He will have more to worry if he is given freedom, for then he will have to show success. He will be comfortable if he is denied freedom, for he can legitimately claim that he was not allowed to function freely. In our understanding, Modi will lay claim to the freedom he seeks and get it for himself, and he will also deliver what he has in mind. (Which may be different, in content and sequence, from what most critics or "intellectuals" expect)
(iii) He will not capitulate regarding 2002, anti-terrorism, etc. Even if he does not go the whole hog as per the "Hindutva" script.

(B) Image:

Modi would strive to project a comprehensive image in which:

(i) He remains clean, and impeccable.

(ii) He remains visible as someone who is working hard for noble goals.

Remark: The above two are easy, for Modi merely needs to be himself to be so. The only effort he needs to put in will be to counter the contra-campaign by his opponents (both within and without) to sully his image by reality-inverting propaganda. Modi should not take it lightly, but he need not boil his head over it. His actual personality, his ability to communicate, and most importantly, delivery of deliverables on the ground, will take care of this.
(iii) Development, infrastructure growth, Economic growth to be perceptibly better than 2004/2009.

(iv) Poor peoples' on ground experience and hope for the future to be significantly better than 2004/2009.

(C) Time Line:

Politics is as much about timing as it is about image. Even if it turns out that Vajpeyi was a stauncher Hindu than Chhatrapati Shivaji, it matters a little about the results of Election 2004 results.

Until now we believe that Modi will not have to be other than himself to project the right image. However, we do not rule out the possibility that someone could be compromised. For now, we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

(i) Poor peoples' on ground experience must change for the better, latest by third year middle, and keep steadily improving after that.

(ii) More aggressive economic reforms (free market for middle/upper class) can also begin then or even a bit later.

(iii). Fourth year, and later could see aggressive Hindutva or suggestive-Hindutva.

(D) Strategy and Control Variables:

To achieve the said image, at appropriate timing, given various models regarding the situation, a part of Modi's strategy could be (or possibly is):

(i) To provide "free market" to middle class. This will turn many "secular" into his voters even if it does not turn them into non-secular.

(ii) To provide "development" oriented welfare (not doles a la Congress, rather growth opportunities with charitable perspective) to poor. This will consolidate his Hindutva-poor base, and also significantly shift non-Hindu poor (Gujarat Experience?).
 

In view of the above he has (until now) managed the Control Variables appropriately, for example:

(i) Development focusing on for poor/lower-middle class. (This has begun)

(ii) Small scale industry oriented reform. (Has begun or might begin shortly)

(iii) Tax (Income Tax, etc.) reforms. (Can begin from third year too).

(iv) Hindutva agenda. (To be timed to peak at the right instance).

From the above, it is clear that Modi Government (even while doing much better than UPA yet being highly disappointing) is on a decent course.

Pit Falls:

What we have mentioned are average scenarios. We have ignored a few delicate but extremely important things.

(i) Modi himself is compromised:

The lure of becoming an international figure is often too strong even for the staunchest nationalists. While Modi is unlikely to be an easy or a cheap sell out like say Jawahar; the possibility that Modi has sold himself out, or has been bought out (A combination of threat and inducement) can not be ruled out with absolute certainty. While we are unhappy about Modi's volte face on FDI/GM-food/Aadhar etc., and we DO have our suspicions regarding certain employments under his govvernment for Economic posts, and while there are many who are "sure" that Modi is a zionist and all that; we still would like to give him a benefit of the doubt, at least for the time being.

However, you will notice that such a thing will not alter his winnability in 2019 (unless he stands exposed by then), if he does as what we mentioned in this article.


(ii) Subversion by the system itself:

Since we suspect that Indian system is heavily and highly infiltrated, timing and delivery can come unstitched if the system (both bureaucratic and judicial) subverts all the initiatives. Modi needs to take two steps. One, select key bureaucrats very very very carefully. Two, Change and Reboot the system itself. We skip this topic now, and will present our views on this in another article.

(iii) War:

International players can manipulate wars. Modi must ensure that either war does not happen, or if it happens India wins the war decisively. The how and why of this is beyond the scope of this article. However, as politicians, Modi and Shah might be intelligent enough to handle such a crisis should it arise.

One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-4

Indian public was, has been, and is FED UP of politicians. Most politicians turn out Congress-style. Thus anyone who had a non-politician image did well in the recent past. Modi himself sold his image of a semi-non-politician who wanted to "change" the system, and wanted to "perform". In the following we present an assortment of what he spoke during his campaign. We are not providing exact quotes, we are mostly relying on our memory, and we request our readers to exercise their discretion.

1. Real change choose me otherwise there are many others
2.  I am Hindu Nationalist.
3.  Unapologetic 2002, puppy remark.
4.  Punish the corrupt
5.  It is not government's business to do business.
6.  Policy driven state

Then, when he was feeling somewhat more "confident", he started mixing it up with Twisters like:  "toilet over temple",  and "constitution holy book" (he continues to stick with it now). It was occasionally interspersed with foolishness like: "technology will solve corruption", "new cities beside optic fiber cables" and so on. By that time his 5F, 3T, and such Readers Digestian fluff had become quite popular (they continue to remain so).


However, we believe that people (especially Hindus) developed a love for Modi because he appeared to them a semi-non-politician who wanted to bring about real-change. The real change can not come without appreciating the following two things:

1. There is a looming existential threat to Hindu Civilization. The threat is a continuation of what has been going on for about a millennium. And there is an urgent need to not only take cognizance of it, as well as "naming it".
2.  This subversion happens in variegated forms, which are led by a subversion of language, law, and education.
3.  In view of such existential threats, no amount of "development" is meaningful without urgently strengthening "civilizational security".

Now lets us mix it up a bit:

       4. It is important to bootstrap development in order to bootstrap security. Undeveloped societies do not remain secure for long. Thus development is critical too.

       5. However, it must be designed as "civilizational development". Mere development, or secular development is not just insufficient, it is positively dangerous.

Thus returning:

       6. We must recognize that true-secularism, and virat-hindutva too are insufficient, however much they may appear to be in the tight direction. And further, they are not merely insufficient, they are fraught with horrendous dangerous (especially in light of their vulnerability to deception).


In the face of all this, what did we observe? We, as Hindus get:

• 1. Chastizing of pro-Hindu speech.
• 2. A Sabka Saath Sabka Vikaas government being dedicated to poor, rather than being steadfastly anti-poverty.
• 3. Civilizational wealth-redistribution rather than intra-civilizational charity.
• 4. Often puerile ideas like "gharwapasi". gharwapasi is effective when those outside perceive how well their "in-house" friends are doing. Without taking care of those who remained in-house for a millenium despite horrible persecution, if we indulge in inviting "outsiders" for gharwapasi, we are NOT strengthening our civilization; we are incentivizing going out.
• 5. When non-English educated hindu-civilizxationalists express opinions which name the threats, and caution our society, what is the result? They are being severely rebuked by those whose life is mired in Macaulayian indulgences.

Concluding Remarks:
Notice that whatever we have mentioned DO NOT take much time to make a Beginning. And yet, one year as passed, rather has been wasted and not even a whiff of a hint of movement has happened in the right direction. You find people "exposing" Islamic atrocities based on 9/11 (a mere decade and a half old incident, while Hindus suffered for a thousand years). You find people sloganeering "India with Israel" and "Hindus with jews" ( or likewise Indians with Palestinians etc) rather than the simple: Hindus for Hindu Civilization.

Also, extremely disturbing is the trend of obsession with "foreign things". Whether Indians educated abroad, or Indians with job-experience abroad. We are skipping FDI, GM crops, Aadhar for the moment. Each one of them is capable of dooming us. And yet, what does our PM say? He asks us to "trust" him. Well hindus trusted Mohandas, what did they get?

We will skip over good things like PM Jandhan Yojana, insurance, Mudra bank, etc. These might be good ideas but only fruits over a period time will tell. This also shows why we judge one year of Modi-Sarkar as much-better-than-UPA. However, on the most important fronts, it has been abysmal. It has done worse than mere failing, it has NOT Begun at all. And dear PM, that is why we are heavily disappointed.

One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-3

We are not going to "defend" Modi by blaming some or many of his colleagues. It has become fashionable to scorn Arun Jaitley and Smriti Irani. Personally, we too disapprove of Jaitley (we will return to it later), and are neutral about Irani. However, for the purpose of this article, we view them as parts of Modi's government, so the buck finally stops at Modi.

Now, we also describe our understanding of the categories of reviewers we mentioned. This might give you, our dear readers, some more "hints". Ha ha. But before that we would like to share a story. Imagine an upper middle class family whose son is driven around in an expensive car by a driver. The son is attending FIIT-JEE and such reputed coaching centers. The driver too has a son, and he is preparing on his own. He is NOT interested in the free super-30 and all. He wants to fight it out in his life on his own. The exams happen, and lo and behold, the upper middle class son flunks badly while the driver's son gets in to JEE top 100. How do you, dear reader, think will the upper middle class family take it? Well, in real life, upper middle class families are not as bad as we imagine, still for the illustrative purposes of this story we assume otherwise. The members, well wishers, those who are patronized by the family, all view this result with utter shock. If you compound it with an imaginary constraint that such entrance exams are conducted only once  every five years, then the reactions would be further amplified. The long and short of it is that they find it nearly impossible to come to terms with the outcome. They can't imagine that while their talented son will only be attempting another shot at the exams, the driver's son could be graduating with flying colors. So they want the driver's son to fail, fail at any cost. But then, they are also apprehensive that the driver's son might succeed further, and the talented son might flunk further. They are torn between opposing feelings. Dear readers, do you get the drift of it? Good.

While the Modi-bashers are torn between conflicting emotions; those belonging to his "side" are so full of themselves that they think that the only way to answer any criticism is to point out what Congress used to do. While Congress indeed did horrible things, but then merely comparing with Congress puts such reviewers into those gloating about "-300 getting to -200" camp.

Now we come to the 4 percent folks who were in the third category. We found them mostly concerned about "only" economics, or Jaitley/Irani criticism in disguise.

Thus before we present our review, we wish to clarify our position vis a vis Jaitely and Irani. As far as we know, Arun Jaitley was one of the D-4 (Jaitely, Swaraj, Ravishankar Prasad, Anant Kumar) during Advani era. Then he was in good books of Hajpeyi too, at least till Hajpeyi was in power. And now Modi. Now, we believe, that anyone who always manages to remain on the right side of the fence is, more often than not, a man of suspicious and dubious character. And like it is often said regarding justice, that justice should not only be done, but that justice should be seen to have been done; we wish that it is important for Modi to not only remain clean, but to also be seen as clean. (We will mention our recommendation for Modi re' Jaitley later)

In the case of Smriti Irani, we believe it to be more a case of people being jealous of her rapid rise, rather than her (in)competence. We don't value her for her Yale certificate, nor do we denigrate her for her lack of "Doctorate" or whatever. Most of the high academics who have been criticizing Irani have been the ones with fat bottoms drawing fat pay-cheques at government expense for decades and have deep vested interest in the continuation of what we call as the Lutyens-Delhi-of-Academics. However, Irani can do no worse than getting swayed by the bureaucrats in her ministry. If she does that in her bid to protect herself from the wrath of high-academicians, she will be doing a great disservice to herself, and much worse disservice to her job. We believe that she is talented, and we believe that she knows that she is talented. If she asks herself some very elementary questions like: Does our educational system spot talent, nurture talent, and then put them to best use? If not (is there any doubt? haha) how should that be done? What measures does our education system take regarding those who are not "very intelligent"? How does it enable them to utilize whatever intelligence they have to achieve a reasonably happy and prospperous life (say, by being somewhat hard working and all)? - If Irani asks herself such questions and pushes for answers to such questions and their implementations, she would fare much better.

In the case of Jaitley, our advice is based on the premise that he is slimy. Even if he isn't, our suggestion should not make much difference to him. We would like that Modi makes Jaitley a minister without portfolio (he could even be a deputy-deputy-PM or whatever), but he must remain without portfolio. However, as "minister" he could advise (not mandate his advice though) any/all other ministers regarding negotiating the labyrithine pathways of India's babudom. If Modi has nothing to hide from public, he loses nothing even if Jaitley is able to know all that goes on in any department (which he anyway knows now). At the same time, all departments are protected from Jaitely's intrigues should he desire them. In this manner, even if Jaitley is slimy, the government is protected from his machinations, while his capabilities are utilized nearly fully. And, if Jaitley is clean, he should gladly do this "sacrifice" for the good of his "friend's" government. We must recall that other members of the D-4 have been doing far better already.

There is a certain skill in Congress kind of people, that they specialize in making themselves indispensable even though they do nearly nothing. And we believe that Jaitley does have, and most likely practices, such a skill. He would do a great service to the nation if he can use his skills in rooting out other "Jaitleys" from the government, and device means so that in future newer Jaitleys can not gain entry, then he would have fulfilled more than a fair share of his obligation.

Now that we have meandered round and about, we can return to presenting our review, in the concluding part.

One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-2

A little Background:

Ten years of UPA, and especially its final years were anything but horrible. Peoples' noses were getting cleared, and they could start smelling the Congress-shit. Wanton corruption, Lawlessness, name what you will, prevailed. People wanted some air (even if not fresh) as much as a drowning man yearns for a whiff of air. This is why Annas, Kejriwals could open their shops. People wanted something different from Congress, and something that could potentially deliver something. In Delhi-2013, BJP could not convince people that it was different from Congress, so people chose Kejriwal (though he deceived the people and jumped into parliamentary elections later).
 

In such a situation Narendra Modi's choice as a PM-candidate inspired people's imagination. Nay, it was almost as if the groundswell people's imagination forced the BJP to make Modi their PM-candidate. Here is a man, they thought, who is clean (different from Congress), and who will deliver (whatever said and done, Gujarat became a reasonably known place for "delivery").

And he led a great campaign. We must be clear, for the moment, that Congress was almost surely destined to lose. Even Advani, along with Nitish Kumar might have cobbled up a coalition, with Congress "respecting" the message of the "peoples' mandate" and letting some of its partners switch sides. So an Advani, or an Advani-like government was, kind of assured. Then what was the need of Modi?

 

A Brief Analysis of Advani:

We have heaped scorn on Advani and Hajpeyi in the past, so are we going to retract our opinion? No. We will present a somewhat more refined analysis. Let us, for the moment look at Vajpeyi and Advani in two "roles"; Vajpeyi-A, Vajpeyi-B; similarly Advani-A, Advani-B. There was Vajpeyi-A who along with Advani-A built the BJP, as if from scratch. (Not exactly, but still). There was Advani-A who led the rath yatra and fired Hindu-imagination with his "Jahaan Ram ka janma hua hai Mandir vaheen banayenge". This was a powerful lunge, in times when politicians were busy further dividing the hindus (Mandal commission and all). In our opinion, Advani-A outperformed Vajpeyi-A. He made a genuine sacrifice in letting Vajpeyi-A become PM, accepting him as his elder and leader. Okay, okay, ignore "Vajpeyi was a coalition builder and such and such...".

And then? And then Vajpeyi-B, popularly known as Hajpeyi happened. Vajpeyi-B was suspicious and insecure re' Advani-A and an internecine feud ensued. The 2004 debacle is history. Whether Advani-A was shortchanged or what remains unknown, though we have our suspicions. But this in a way destroyed Advani-A's "confidence", and (this is our guess, we are not privy to any personal confessions by Advani-A) this started Advani-A's decline and degeneration into Advani-B. While Advani-A stood as tall as, if not taller, than Vajpeyi-A, Advani-B was striving to outdo Hajpeyi in his "haji-ness". This was the reason BJP lost in 2009. In hindsight, we believe that had BJP been unapologetic re' 2002 in 2004 elections, Advani-A would have become PM just as Modi has become PM in 2014. But that was not to be, and in any case it is only our hypothesis.

However, Advani-B too, while unable to fire Hindu imagination, was quite likely equal to the task of puling it off in 2014, just as he did in 1999. Not that well, but some respectable total to cobble up coalition to "respect the mandate".

If, under such background, Narendra Modi got elected, he was chosen by people not to be a Hajpeyi, or Advani-B; rather he has been chosen to outperform Advani-A.

We digress a little further here. Recall what we wrote about Congress. Is it possible to have a "clean" Congress? No, but it IS possible to have a "seemingly" less-dirty Congress for a while. How? Change the people (politicians within Congress). Why only "seemingly"? Here lies the crux of the issue. Congress, as a group of a "kind of people who use certain kinds of solutions", is bound to produce only shit because those "certain kinds of solution" are designed (and known) to do only and precisely that. Ha. Good you guessed it. In a nutshell "secularism" and "socialism" epitomize their "solution strategy". However, that will not elucidate it as much as we wish to convey.

In an abstract way, take secularism as "separation of some concerns", and socialism as "sharing, collectivization of something". This pair, facilitates phenomenal levels of hypocrisy in Indian politics. For example: If Congress loses (apply collectivization) all the leaders (there are no leaders in Congress, only stooges of Congress president) own the responsibility. If Congress wins, it is the Congress president who won. We mention here that such can also be a practice in "good faith" in a good and honest team. However, in Congress, it is a different story. Now, observe most other parties in India. Aren't they similar? Whoever is to be robbed is pushed into a "collection", whoever is to be made "rich" is separated from the "collection". Whoever is to be hidden from "law" is pushed into collection, whoever is to be victimized is separated from the collection. And so on.

So try and view Congress, is a group which practices thusly. So merely changing people or names can hardly help. Also observe that for anyone who is even slightly competent, dropping moral hangups and practising "congress" can be highly profitable. Thus, you find a lot of "competent" people in congress. And then, when you become much more competent, then you don't want to share even within congress, so you start a new congress under a different name. And if you start losing competence, you surrender and rejoin congress. Political history of India post-independence is replete with such stories.

The main point to understand is that whichever group practices "congress" IS Congress, no matter what the name of the party. Now, try to investigate why Hajpeyi and Advani-B were thought to be congressising BJP. And that is why before BJP can push for Congress-mukt-Bharat, it has to become a congress-mukt-BJP first.

 

Another summary evaluation:

Therefore, Modi must ask himself a few questions. Is he really moving towards congress-mukt-BJP? Has his government done something which Advani-B could have done? Has he refrained from doing something which Advani-B would surely have done? These and similar questions will go a long way in grounding his perception.


By the way, those curious re' Vajpeyi and Advani need to be told that while we do consider Vajpeyi-A and Advani-A to be at least somewhat admirable, Vajpeyi-B (Hajpeyi) and Advani-B turned out to be such abominations that their respective sum totals, viz., (Vajpeyi-A + Vajpeyi-B) and similarly (Advani-A + Advani-B), continue to remain despicable. We also mention that someone might refine such analysis further into, for example Vajpeyi-A, Vajpeyi-B, Vajpeyi-C and so on, and come up with even more detailed analysis. Yet, the final sum total would still remain quite indefensible, in our opinion.

One Year of Modi Sarkar: Much Better Than UPA, But Heavily Disappointing. Part-1

First anniversary of getting elected happened on May 16, and that of taking oath happened on May 26. A lot of reviews of past one year have been published. Most reviews can be classified into one of the three categories. First, written by those who are known to be Modi-bashers so were expected to write adverse reviews. Second, written by those who are known Modi-defenders, so were expected to defend the government. About 75% belonged to the first category, and about 20%+ belonged to the second.But there is this third category, which is written by those who want Modi government to succeed and yet wished to provide a critical assessment without undue Modi diatribe while avoiding undeserved eulogizing. When we say that only about 4.5%+ belong to this category, we are still exaggerating the figures. We must also clarify that we have not read all reviews in English, and have read none of the non-English ones. So please bear that in mind. Now we come to our review.

Frankly speaking, we expected a much larger percentage to review Modi in the style mentioned in the third category, and a significant number to review the way we will review Modi in the following. However, we were (and we hope the general readers too) pretty much disappointed. So what category IS our perspective? Well, we present our review so that you can judge it for yourself, and then we will also try and categorize our perspective.

First a quick recap of 1947-2014 and Congress.
There are a large number of people (unfortunately BJP too is infested with them) who genuinely believe that Congress was a great movement (with Mohandas, Jawahar and all) but unfortunately it declined and deteriorated after that.  We believe differently. We believe that Congress was poisonous shit and it kept adding newer shit as well as kept rotting further. Then what changed? We believe that it is the ability of people for clear perception that changed. It was (and continues to be) a case of nose getting cleared and olfactory glands returning to normal sensory perception. Thus the more and the clearer people perceive the stronger the revulsion and disdain they feel for Congress. Further, we don't believe that Congress is only a "set of corrupt politicians" etc. For such problems have easier solutions, like, "change the politicians". When people describe Congress as an ideology, they are closer. We believe that Congress represents a "kind of people, who repeatedly attempt certain kinds of solutions". Such a representation will attract its "kind" of people, and it will perpetrate systems and institutions which keep attempting its "kind" of solutions. Please recall that we are not ascribing any ulterior motives to such "people", at least not now. This does not mean that they do not have ulterior motive. However, our purpose is to remind you, our readers, that even without ulterior motive and even despite the best of intentions, when certain "kinds of solutions" are attempted, it leads to perpetration of shit. Ha, now you are making guesses. Good.



Politician and Lawyer:

Consider how an honest leader is supposed to behave. If a large dirty yard needs cleaning, he inspires the imagination of the people (towards the goal of a clean yard), and starts doing the cleaning himself (inspiring people to join him). Now consider how a lawyer deals with his client. A good lawyer warns his client (often even when the case is strong) and yet strives hardest to get the best possible results. A bad lawyer assures the client (even if the case is weak) but after the debacle quibbles with the client regarding what his assurances meant and what they didn't mean.



Priorities:
Now consider a somewhat lateral situation. (Women might understand it more easily though you don't need to be a woman to understand this). Suppose you and your family returns after (say a fortnight/month) a vacation, and enter the house (say at 5 in the evening). Assume you stay in a not-so-automated house and your house (and appliances) is not connected to the internet-of-things etc. So what sequence of action do you expect? We suggest one (of possible many): You first start the water pump (a few minutes later geysers will have to switched on for heating bath-water). Then you quickly rinse two vessels using the water from the bottle you carried in your journey  (the vessels might have been clean but have accumulated dust), open a milk-packet pour it in one vessel and put it on the gas-stove, similarly you put a another vessel with water (everyone might want to have a cup of tea/coffee!). And then something, and then some more thing etc. While there are many admissible solutions possible, consider the following one. As soon as you get to your house you thrust a broom each in to every member's hands and start cleaning the house. Midway, you realize that it would have been a good idea to have a cup of hot beverage, but now it will take another fifteen minutes (at least) to prepare it, so you tell all to skip it, and finish the cleaning job. After cleaning you realize that the pump was not switched on, so all have to wait for water to be pumped and then heated and so on. Pretty awful scene. Surely much below optimal. (And mind you, we are not alluding here to Swachchh Bharat Mission. Not at all.) What we are alluding to are "priorities". And if one is a sensible family person, while traveling itself one has thought about and decided priorities. Priorities will vary from individual to individual, and family to family. However, if a significantly non-optimal (in some cases counter-optimal) priorities are chosen, one suspects the capability of the chooser (even if not the intentions).



Summary Evaluation:

Suppose there are two delivery mechanisms A and B. On a scale from 0 to 100, suppose A regularly delivers -300 (yes, minus/negative 300); and then when you choose B, he delivers -100, isn't it a great improvement? Yet, is it good? Suppose B delivers 5 (yes positive 5), isn't it HUGE improvement? Still, is it good?
 

So dear reader, we are sure that you have made some very good guesses regarding what we are going to write. And you are not off the mark at all. This does not require any great genius. In fact, we honestly believe that most reviewers ARE much more intelligent than we are, and that is why we were disappointed by their reviews.
 

Also, before we shoot our volleys, we want to make it clear that we are NOT going to complain that "Achchhe Din" have not come, or this or that. Things take time. Journey from -300 to 50 can take a long time. Journey from even 50 to 75 is bound to take time. But, there is another aspect to it. The simplest question is: Has the journey begun? If it has begun, is it to cover -300 to -200, or -300 to -100, or -300 to 5, or what? What was the BEST possible journey that could have begun? Have the best possible choices been made? We all must ask these questions, and answer them for ourselves.