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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.