Leaving aside all his work, Speaker Somnath Chatterjee and his cronies in the Parliament are busy passing 'privilege motions' against some article that appeared in the newspaper Daily Pioneer.
Tells us how busy this speaker really is !!! In my last post i mentioned Swapan Das Gupta's brilliant article which teared down the current Speaker's deeds. Chatterjee is oh-so sensitive to criticism. The hindi saying 'Chor kay daadi mein tinka' sounds apt for this situation. (One who's guilty will always be sensitive to criticism)
Read On.. how a small OP/ED can be such a big deal for these intolerant pinkos... who by the way do not leave anything for imagination when criticising others.
http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/18somnath.htm
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Friday, August 12, 2005
Speaker Chattttttttttterjeee
Unsuspecting Indians,some 20 years ago, went to play a cricket series in Pakistan where they were not only welcomed by unruly and partisan audience, they had a blatantly partisan umpire called Shakur Rana to reckon with. Later Shakur Rana became singularly responsible for International Cricket Council to propose a neutral match refree for international Test matches.
His name became synonomous with brazenly partisan decisions. By the end of his career he had already maligned the "Gentlemen's game" by some of the most horrendous decisions ever given in cricket.
It's a miracle that the then Indian cricket team returned without loosing a Test match in that series.
The Indian Parliament today has its own Shakur Rana. His name is Somnath Chatterjee. Such has been the conduct of this mercural bengali, he can even put a Shakur Rana to shame. As a parliamentarian his frequent heckling of the opposite benches was legendary. He was also known to use the most venomous attacks on his opposing sides.
But now as a Speaker conducting the proceeding of the Parliament of the World's biggest democracy, he was expected to stand aside on politics. As a match refree or as a monitor of a class he was expected to stay above petty party politics. But the Comrade has shown his true colours, which is different shades of Red. His "Red" affiliations are starkingly visible even in
his role as a Speaker.
As Swapan Das Gupta put in his column recently in the Daily Pioneer-
"Certainly, Speaker Chatterjee has done nothing to foster the belief that he is economical with his opinions. A great heckler during his distinguished tenure as the leader of the CPI(M) in the Lok Sabha, the Speaker hasn't lost his facility with interjections. What the Leader of the Opposition called the "running commentary" has become a feature of Lok Sabha
proceedings. In the thrust and parry of partisan exchange, the Speaker does not share the conventional belief that it is his job to listen."
Not only has he played mischief inside the house, he has taken liberty with the Indian Judicial system as well which goes far beyond his jurisdiction as a Speaker of Lok Sabha. For example he had no compelling reason to join issues with Supreme Court judgement on governor of Bihar or passing unsolicitated advice on IDMT judgement of Supreme Court.But like the other systems in India's democracy, even the Parliament is a farce.
This whole big drama enacted every few months in Lower House has become a nauseating routine. The Speaker has more than once tried to brow-beat the NDA/BJP members and tried to corner them.
Last week Somnath Chaterjee played the same game with Mamta Banerjee who herself is quit temparamental. His partisan conduct forced her to resign in disgust.
The growing domination of the Left in various areas of the country does not augur well for the country's future. With a leftist speaker at the helm of parliamentary affairs the day to day parliament activities have become meaningless. The media is as usual blaming the opposition for the ruckus and shielding the deeds of Congress and Left and their man on the Chair.
A crushing defeat of the Communists in Bengal, from where they really gain all the false strength and confidence, is the need of the hour. For the sake of India and West Bengal all the parties need to come together and not only expose these Communists but beat them at their own game.
Even if that requires backing Mamta Banerjee who is fighting a lonely battle on the East front.
Not many people know that the combined vote share of all the communist parties in India is barely 6%. Almost quarter of the BJP's share. Its unbelievable though, how much clout these leftists have over the key estates of the country. Whether its media or parliament or judiciary, their say is disproportionate to their popularity in the country.
They have always been master hijackers. They hijacked the education system right from Nehru days. We were made to believe that Akbar and Aurangazeb were great rulers thanks to them. Today our children are being taught that Shivaji Maharaj and Prithviraj Chauhan were no great warriors.
Media has been traditionally on their side and always portrayed the right-wing parties such as BJP and RSS in bad light. RSS today is youth's object of contempt, thanks largely to media (mis) reporting.First Judiciary and now Parliament has been totally pollutted by the leftist hue.
Somnath Chatterjee is from the old school of Left, who are probably the most intolerant ideologes.Mr. Chatterjee has given a bad name to a Speaker's position, a much decorated positon held by greatest of thinkers and statesmen.
Alas, Somnath Chatterjee is only a reflection of the sad polity of Indian Parliament today.If we can have Lalu Prasad Yadav as a Railway Minister and Taslimuddin as a Cabinate Rank minister, why should Somnath Chatterjee be a problem?
His name became synonomous with brazenly partisan decisions. By the end of his career he had already maligned the "Gentlemen's game" by some of the most horrendous decisions ever given in cricket.
It's a miracle that the then Indian cricket team returned without loosing a Test match in that series.
The Indian Parliament today has its own Shakur Rana. His name is Somnath Chatterjee. Such has been the conduct of this mercural bengali, he can even put a Shakur Rana to shame. As a parliamentarian his frequent heckling of the opposite benches was legendary. He was also known to use the most venomous attacks on his opposing sides.
But now as a Speaker conducting the proceeding of the Parliament of the World's biggest democracy, he was expected to stand aside on politics. As a match refree or as a monitor of a class he was expected to stay above petty party politics. But the Comrade has shown his true colours, which is different shades of Red. His "Red" affiliations are starkingly visible even in
his role as a Speaker.
As Swapan Das Gupta put in his column recently in the Daily Pioneer-
"Certainly, Speaker Chatterjee has done nothing to foster the belief that he is economical with his opinions. A great heckler during his distinguished tenure as the leader of the CPI(M) in the Lok Sabha, the Speaker hasn't lost his facility with interjections. What the Leader of the Opposition called the "running commentary" has become a feature of Lok Sabha
proceedings. In the thrust and parry of partisan exchange, the Speaker does not share the conventional belief that it is his job to listen."
Not only has he played mischief inside the house, he has taken liberty with the Indian Judicial system as well which goes far beyond his jurisdiction as a Speaker of Lok Sabha. For example he had no compelling reason to join issues with Supreme Court judgement on governor of Bihar or passing unsolicitated advice on IDMT judgement of Supreme Court.But like the other systems in India's democracy, even the Parliament is a farce.
This whole big drama enacted every few months in Lower House has become a nauseating routine. The Speaker has more than once tried to brow-beat the NDA/BJP members and tried to corner them.
Last week Somnath Chaterjee played the same game with Mamta Banerjee who herself is quit temparamental. His partisan conduct forced her to resign in disgust.
The growing domination of the Left in various areas of the country does not augur well for the country's future. With a leftist speaker at the helm of parliamentary affairs the day to day parliament activities have become meaningless. The media is as usual blaming the opposition for the ruckus and shielding the deeds of Congress and Left and their man on the Chair.
A crushing defeat of the Communists in Bengal, from where they really gain all the false strength and confidence, is the need of the hour. For the sake of India and West Bengal all the parties need to come together and not only expose these Communists but beat them at their own game.
Even if that requires backing Mamta Banerjee who is fighting a lonely battle on the East front.
Not many people know that the combined vote share of all the communist parties in India is barely 6%. Almost quarter of the BJP's share. Its unbelievable though, how much clout these leftists have over the key estates of the country. Whether its media or parliament or judiciary, their say is disproportionate to their popularity in the country.
They have always been master hijackers. They hijacked the education system right from Nehru days. We were made to believe that Akbar and Aurangazeb were great rulers thanks to them. Today our children are being taught that Shivaji Maharaj and Prithviraj Chauhan were no great warriors.
Media has been traditionally on their side and always portrayed the right-wing parties such as BJP and RSS in bad light. RSS today is youth's object of contempt, thanks largely to media (mis) reporting.First Judiciary and now Parliament has been totally pollutted by the leftist hue.
Somnath Chatterjee is from the old school of Left, who are probably the most intolerant ideologes.Mr. Chatterjee has given a bad name to a Speaker's position, a much decorated positon held by greatest of thinkers and statesmen.
Alas, Somnath Chatterjee is only a reflection of the sad polity of Indian Parliament today.If we can have Lalu Prasad Yadav as a Railway Minister and Taslimuddin as a Cabinate Rank minister, why should Somnath Chatterjee be a problem?
Monday, August 08, 2005
Aussie Rock
England beat Australia in the second test match last Sunday.
You cannot but praise the Aussies for bringing the match to that stage. How many teams in the world would have actually even bothered to think of a win with just 2 wickets in hands and more than 100 runs required for a win? Surely not India.Neither of the other test playing nations would have come close of that chase.
Whatever ! England's win has opened the Ashes wide open. More importantly it has brought a new lease of life to cricket whose fans all over the world had become habitual to mundane Australian victory over England and thus were becoming dis-interested in England-Australia series. England's victory this Sunday has opened the flood gates of interest for cricket lovers all over.
As the gutsy Australian opener Justin Langer wrote in his column in BBC.com...
[..] in the bigger scheme of things it is one of the best things that has happened in
international cricket for a long time[..]
No kidding. It takes a lot of self-confidence to say so, Justin !
As a cricket lover i have seen the Australia rise from 'ashes' (literally). I guess it was Bob Simpson and Alan border who built that formidable Australian side of 1987 which went on to win the Reliance World Cup in India. Thereafter there was no looking back. There was off course a minor dip in Australia's fortunes when Australia failed to reach even the last four of 1992 world , which incidently was played in Australia. Barring that brief period Australia never looked easily beatable. I guess except for South Africa under Hansie Cronje, none of the teams really stood up to Australia's professionalism on the field. There mental toughness has been un-matched ever since.
It takes a lot of foresight and planning to build such a temparament and attitude. Bob Simpson almost redefined the way one-day cricket was played. He gave a lot of weightage to fielding and physical fitness and discipline.No wonder teams like Windies,Pak and India who depended largely on just the batting and bowling skills of their players started looking increasingly inadequate .
The Australians ooze a silent confidence with their body language. Aggression is their second name. They play hard. But all this was not procured overnight. They actually build this step by step.
Remember the tied match at Chennai when Ravi Shastri almost gave us victory. That word "ALMOST" has been our bane. The same word was applicable when we "ALMOST" beat Australia in 1992 world cup; when Steve Waugh even after dropping a catch of last ball had the cools to make an accurate throw at the keeper and run the sloppy lazy out.
But to be fair to India, we have given Australia a run for their money from time to time. Whether the famous VVS Laxman series where he turned around a lost match into a win or when Tendulkar bull dozed Wagh's team out of Sharjah.
Neverthless the Aussies have seldom failed to live upto their reputation. They have the last two world cups in their pockets and are likely to be the favourites for 2007 with their current form.
But as like in every sport and every team the downfall of Australia will come. The West Indies seemed indomitable and unbeatable not so long ago. They were the kings and rest all the other teams competed amongst themselves to come distant second. Their domination over the game was absolute. It was complete. I always argue that Clive Lloyd's team of late 1970s and early 1980s was the best cricketing side ever.
But as with Lloyds team when the key players started retiring one by one leaving a vaccum, the same fate is likely to hit Australia. The key might be a gradual phase out.Warne and McGrath are likely to retire sooner than later and Australia might need to build a second-rung of players who will fit in their shoes. Thats easier said than done. Off course Ricky Ponting is still young and very able skipper.
I am happy with the result of second test purely because it has kept the interest alive in series. Also since cricket is dying a slow death in the country of its birth, it is heartening to see England beat its arch rival at home. This will,God willing, give the required filip to English cricket.
I would like to see England,South Africa and West Indies build up a formidable challenge to the Asians to see a balance in cricketing world. Cricket was much better when these teams were playing well. Today somehow it has become more asian and lost some of its lustre.
Not sure what affect the new rules will have on its popularity. Hope it manages to raise the sagging interest in cricket overall.
Great games and great sports are always marked by great rivalries. I lost interest in watching tennis when every year a new face came to centre court of Wimbledon finals. Tennis was great when McNroe fought Bjon Borg and Becker fought Edberg and Sampras fought Aggassi each year. It was great when Chris Evert and Martina or Steffi Graf and Monica Seles were arch-rivals and each of us had their prejudices and favourites to back up.
Similarly soccer is fun to watch as long as Latinos have a serious competition from Europe or even amongst the latinos, Brazil and Argentina have a India-Pak like rivalry.
Arch-rivalries bring out the best and the most exciting games.
Thankfully English cricket is reviving and Ashes still has some meaning. Hope Andrew Flintoff can do an Ian Botham on Ashes for the sake of English cricket :)
You cannot but praise the Aussies for bringing the match to that stage. How many teams in the world would have actually even bothered to think of a win with just 2 wickets in hands and more than 100 runs required for a win? Surely not India.Neither of the other test playing nations would have come close of that chase.
Whatever ! England's win has opened the Ashes wide open. More importantly it has brought a new lease of life to cricket whose fans all over the world had become habitual to mundane Australian victory over England and thus were becoming dis-interested in England-Australia series. England's victory this Sunday has opened the flood gates of interest for cricket lovers all over.
As the gutsy Australian opener Justin Langer wrote in his column in BBC.com...
[..] in the bigger scheme of things it is one of the best things that has happened in
international cricket for a long time[..]
No kidding. It takes a lot of self-confidence to say so, Justin !
As a cricket lover i have seen the Australia rise from 'ashes' (literally). I guess it was Bob Simpson and Alan border who built that formidable Australian side of 1987 which went on to win the Reliance World Cup in India. Thereafter there was no looking back. There was off course a minor dip in Australia's fortunes when Australia failed to reach even the last four of 1992 world , which incidently was played in Australia. Barring that brief period Australia never looked easily beatable. I guess except for South Africa under Hansie Cronje, none of the teams really stood up to Australia's professionalism on the field. There mental toughness has been un-matched ever since.
It takes a lot of foresight and planning to build such a temparament and attitude. Bob Simpson almost redefined the way one-day cricket was played. He gave a lot of weightage to fielding and physical fitness and discipline.No wonder teams like Windies,Pak and India who depended largely on just the batting and bowling skills of their players started looking increasingly inadequate .
The Australians ooze a silent confidence with their body language. Aggression is their second name. They play hard. But all this was not procured overnight. They actually build this step by step.
Remember the tied match at Chennai when Ravi Shastri almost gave us victory. That word "ALMOST" has been our bane. The same word was applicable when we "ALMOST" beat Australia in 1992 world cup; when Steve Waugh even after dropping a catch of last ball had the cools to make an accurate throw at the keeper and run the sloppy lazy out.
But to be fair to India, we have given Australia a run for their money from time to time. Whether the famous VVS Laxman series where he turned around a lost match into a win or when Tendulkar bull dozed Wagh's team out of Sharjah.
Neverthless the Aussies have seldom failed to live upto their reputation. They have the last two world cups in their pockets and are likely to be the favourites for 2007 with their current form.
But as like in every sport and every team the downfall of Australia will come. The West Indies seemed indomitable and unbeatable not so long ago. They were the kings and rest all the other teams competed amongst themselves to come distant second. Their domination over the game was absolute. It was complete. I always argue that Clive Lloyd's team of late 1970s and early 1980s was the best cricketing side ever.
But as with Lloyds team when the key players started retiring one by one leaving a vaccum, the same fate is likely to hit Australia. The key might be a gradual phase out.Warne and McGrath are likely to retire sooner than later and Australia might need to build a second-rung of players who will fit in their shoes. Thats easier said than done. Off course Ricky Ponting is still young and very able skipper.
I am happy with the result of second test purely because it has kept the interest alive in series. Also since cricket is dying a slow death in the country of its birth, it is heartening to see England beat its arch rival at home. This will,God willing, give the required filip to English cricket.
I would like to see England,South Africa and West Indies build up a formidable challenge to the Asians to see a balance in cricketing world. Cricket was much better when these teams were playing well. Today somehow it has become more asian and lost some of its lustre.
Not sure what affect the new rules will have on its popularity. Hope it manages to raise the sagging interest in cricket overall.
Great games and great sports are always marked by great rivalries. I lost interest in watching tennis when every year a new face came to centre court of Wimbledon finals. Tennis was great when McNroe fought Bjon Borg and Becker fought Edberg and Sampras fought Aggassi each year. It was great when Chris Evert and Martina or Steffi Graf and Monica Seles were arch-rivals and each of us had their prejudices and favourites to back up.
Similarly soccer is fun to watch as long as Latinos have a serious competition from Europe or even amongst the latinos, Brazil and Argentina have a India-Pak like rivalry.
Arch-rivalries bring out the best and the most exciting games.
Thankfully English cricket is reviving and Ashes still has some meaning. Hope Andrew Flintoff can do an Ian Botham on Ashes for the sake of English cricket :)
Friday, August 05, 2005
Analyse That
This is a good analysis by Sushan Sareen in rediff.com.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/06guest1.htm
Its a fact that no muslim in the world has ever come out strongly against islamic terror. There's always a tacit justification provided after whatever cosmetic condemnation is,if at all, done by any muslim leader.
Sareen goes on to say
[...] the implicit justification offered by the so-called moderate Muslims to acts
of Islamic terrorism by pointing out at the 'root causes' begs the question: does
the 'root cause' of Islamic terrorism lie in social, political and economic
conditions in Muslim societies or do they lie in the religion itself? Do the root
causes lie in 'grievances' of Muslims or do they lie in the way Islam is
perceived, taught and imbibed by its followers?
Terror apologists like Sayeed Naqvi,Arundati Roy, Praful Bidwai invariable point the fingers to Israel or Afghanistan or Iraq or somewhere in the middle east whenever a terror strikes , as if to tell us that 'root-cause' lies there.
Every time they mention 'root causes' in the same breath as they condemn an act
of terrorism they effectively end up providing a tacit justification for
terrorism. What is more, this state of denial prevents a deeper soul searching
within the community on the direction the religion is taking and prevents any
course correction.
How very true.
The moderates want us to look the other way and i believe they want us like them to run away from the problem. The only way to end terror is to crush it. No amount of "peace talks" and reasoning can be of any good. You cannot reason with someone who says he's doing it under God's command. What possible argument can you provide to counter it.
The great bleeding hearts and the liberals like Arundati Roys and Kuldeep Nayars seldom shed a tear for Hindus,Jews,Christians killed by these jihadis on a daily basis. But always remind us of Palestine and Iraq as the 'root-cause'.
The hard fact is, these jihadis, will always find a 'root-cause', if not in Israel than in Somalia, if not in Somalia than in may be Kashmir to justify all their actions. There's no limit to their 'root-causes'. Even if you give them Kashmir and Palestine away, peace will not return. Because they will invent new roots and causes.
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/06guest1.htm
Its a fact that no muslim in the world has ever come out strongly against islamic terror. There's always a tacit justification provided after whatever cosmetic condemnation is,if at all, done by any muslim leader.
Sareen goes on to say
[...] the implicit justification offered by the so-called moderate Muslims to acts
of Islamic terrorism by pointing out at the 'root causes' begs the question: does
the 'root cause' of Islamic terrorism lie in social, political and economic
conditions in Muslim societies or do they lie in the religion itself? Do the root
causes lie in 'grievances' of Muslims or do they lie in the way Islam is
perceived, taught and imbibed by its followers?
Terror apologists like Sayeed Naqvi,Arundati Roy, Praful Bidwai invariable point the fingers to Israel or Afghanistan or Iraq or somewhere in the middle east whenever a terror strikes , as if to tell us that 'root-cause' lies there.
Every time they mention 'root causes' in the same breath as they condemn an act
of terrorism they effectively end up providing a tacit justification for
terrorism. What is more, this state of denial prevents a deeper soul searching
within the community on the direction the religion is taking and prevents any
course correction.
How very true.
The moderates want us to look the other way and i believe they want us like them to run away from the problem. The only way to end terror is to crush it. No amount of "peace talks" and reasoning can be of any good. You cannot reason with someone who says he's doing it under God's command. What possible argument can you provide to counter it.
The great bleeding hearts and the liberals like Arundati Roys and Kuldeep Nayars seldom shed a tear for Hindus,Jews,Christians killed by these jihadis on a daily basis. But always remind us of Palestine and Iraq as the 'root-cause'.
The hard fact is, these jihadis, will always find a 'root-cause', if not in Israel than in Somalia, if not in Somalia than in may be Kashmir to justify all their actions. There's no limit to their 'root-causes'. Even if you give them Kashmir and Palestine away, peace will not return. Because they will invent new roots and causes.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
The Unsung Hero
I would like to start a series of articles on the personalities/people whose achievements went unnoticed or they were, as they say, Unsung.
I would like to start with the man who according to me was singularly responsible for affecting the lives of the entire Indian middle class, a class which i proudly belong to.No its not (the oft repeated) Manmohan Singh, but the real force behind him and the political will behind all his measures - Mr. Narismha Rao.
While reading through the tribute by rediff's Amberish Diwanji on Narshimha Rao, i realised what this man had achieved with such paper thin majority. Agreed that he used all the means (good or bad) to achieve what he finally achieved. But look at the results.
I will always prefer a leader who is corrupt but gets results for the people rather than a non-corrupt 'progressive' socialist who only speaks and plans and does nothing concrete. Ideally i would like a leader who's non-corrupt and result oriented. But leaving idealism aside i woudn't mind, lets say, a leader who builds roads, hospitals, schools and infrastructure and also warms his pockets on this path.
Narsimha Rao may have been corrupt and there's been lot of mud on his dhoti right from Jharkhand MPs to Harshad Mehta, but what he did for India during those turbulent times has been un-matched in Indian political history.
Before we judge Mr. Rao from these isolated events, lets take in perspective what was the state of the country when he became PM.Firstly lets get some facts.
He was the PM of India from 1991 till 1996. Just preceding his rule, there had been two failed governments. One of VP Singh and the other of Chandrashekhar. Owing to VP Singh's Mandal the nation's social fabric was in a state of disarray. The so called OBC's were the new Czars. To counter the potential divide within the larger Hindu family L.K Advani had to embark upon his rath yatra to Ayodhya which in turn polarised the Hindus and Muslims further. A divided Hindu family was what VP Singh was looking at as he wanted to become the messiah of the Muslim-OBC vote bank. Thankfully Advani was able to consolidate atleast a chunk of Hindus behind him, specially the Hindu middle class. That probably saved a much larger divide along the caste lines, which was VP Singh's real intent. (I say thankfully; but for now i will leave that discussion to another day)
Lets say finally neither Advani nor VP Singh succeeded completely in their mission. VP Singh in fact became a spent force almost immediately.But these two also left the country in a state of uneasy disturbance by their actions.
But the real issue facing the nation was the economic crisis. The Gulf war had just ended and the oil prices were at all time high. The previous government had already taken loan from IMF keeping Gold as mortgage. Something that was unprecedented in the history of Nehru's socialist India. Thanks to Nehru and Gandhi family whose "socialism" had the tacit support of the communists in all those years, the country was on a brink of economic and social disaster. All those years the Indians had been fed with stories of how self sufficient India was and how good was Nehru's socialist policies and how PSUs would be enough to make India productive. It was only a matter of time before the socialism's bomb exploded in the face of Indian policy makers, who all those years, were just avoiding to confront this issue.
In this context i would like to quote Dr. Ramesh Thakur of the United Nation's University..
"Fascination by Jawaharlal Nehru [...] with the state's occupying the commanding heights of the economy and with planning as the instrument of choice for economic growth -- at the cost of a free-market price mechanism -- grew from an admiration of what at the time seemed to be impressive achievements by the Soviet Union, one of the two superpowers. This produced compromises with liberal democracy. The result was the greatest pogram of poverty multiplication and persistence in human history."
And the bomb did explode, the day the news came of India surrendering gold to World Bank in return to a loan.
So basically Rao came in at an unenviable time. Also since he was not a Gandhi family member it was not going to be easy for him to have the backing of the Congress MPs who are eternally intoxicated in sycophancy of Gandhi-Nehru clan. He was always going to walk a very tight rope.
But he had one big advantage. BJP after loosing the 1991 elections was not at its combative best. It was always going to be a weak opposition. Also it was pro-liberalisation. But its biggest handicap came when Babri was destroyed. In one stroke that event galvanised the entire non-BJP force of the country. In one way it might also have been Rao's master stroke.
By being soft on BJP and in some ways allowing Babri to get demolished, Rao gave the entire "secular" polity a permanent handle to beat BJP with.
Babri demolition sent shock waves across the country. More importantly it tamed BJP and its off shoots. A weak opposition was Rao's best bet during those days. And he got that in exactly one year of his rule.
With oppositon on the back foot, Rao now had to rein in the even more vocal opponents of practically everything - the Left. One must credit Rao of handling them well by playing them against BJP. He was able to divert all the left's negative energies towards BJP while silently under taking the reforms. He gave Manmohan and his team a free hand to handle economics. A free hand without political pressure is probably every Finance minister's dream. And Singh made full use of it.
It must not be forgotten by all who are always jumping in giving Manmohan Singh all the due for liberating the economy that as a part of the deal with IMF in 1992, India HAD to liberalise its economy. There was no going back on that. Manmohan Singh JUST HAPPENED to be the Finance Minister at that time. I doubt any other finance minister (whether Jaswant Singh,Yashwant Singh,P.Chidambara or any other) would have done anything different.
Lot of people today give all the credit for economic reforms to Manmohan Singh. But that at best is only partially true. Today Manmohan Singh is just the face behind the real power. 13 years ago the story was not different. He was playing his innings when the real game was played else where. Rao had the political will and the guts to carry on with what he thought was right for the nation. Without much fuss and hype he brought some sweeping changes in India's economic thoughts and ideas. Behind the scenes he manufactured deals and applied his political skills to keep the communists and socialists from making too much noise. While Manmohan Singh got all the praise showered upon him , specially by media and the middle class, Rao silently worked to see that all the bills are passed smoothly.
In his essay "The political economy of reform", management guru Gurcharan Das wrote,
"Narasimha Rao deserves credit for his deft handling of the reform process, especially in sequencing the acts in a politically shrewd manner. Hence, India has avoided the political damage – or even collapse, as in Russia’s case – that many countries have suffered after the economic reforms"
Rao's tenure was qualitatively different than that of Rajiv Gandhi's. One must not forget that Rajiv Gandhi, the poster boy of Indian politics, had things on platter. He had more than three fourths of Parliament members solidly behind him. He had the world at his feet. He could have done anything with a snap of his finger.The media was behind him and there were no private channels to probe his dealings and breath down Rajiv's neck for every decision he makes.
(Its a different thing that he wasted all those years in playing a celebrity rather than a serious leader and frittered away all the good will and advantage he started with).
Rao's style, as Shekhar Gupta of IE puts it, "was so hopelessly understated as to amount to self-denial". As he gave free hand to Manmohan Singh for handling nation's economy he was also equally benevolent towards the home affairs. The Punjab problem, one of the worst faced by India, post-independence, came to an end during his tenure.
And most likely it ended because even though Rao was fully aware of KPS Gill's strong arm tactics he did not interfere; on the other hand he created an intellectual base in the media to justify Gill's actions.
"The end of terrorism in Punjab without conceding any of the demands of the terrorists and the successful termination of many hijackings without conceding the demands of the terrorists, were some his achievements on home front" - B.Raman (Author of many articles on International Terrorism)
His foreign affairs acumen was never a question. Hence his bold decision in 1992 to bring into the open India's relations with Israel, which had been kept secret since they were first established under Indira Gandhi's orders in 1969 and to permit Israel to open an Embassy in New Delhi, was nothing short of a master stroke.
Israel which had been a victim of terrorism for long was a perfect partner for our counter-terrorist program. Rao saw that India could learn a lot from Isreal in many areas of tackling terrorism.
In a country where the Nehrus and Gandhis are worshipped, there was this political pygmy who by his actions brought more positive changes within the country than those brought in by the entire rule of the Nehru Gandhi family.
Right from handling Foreign affairs to internal matters to economics to politics, Rao showed that you can drive the nation out of problems rather than take it towards it.
His own party, the Congress (shamelessly) never really acknowledged his contributions and achievements.Congress men feared a backlash from their goddess Sonia, if they ever uttered anything positive about Rao.
Unfortunately Rao's political career ended in humiliation. He was being dragged from court to court in various cases even as his own party men were looking the other way or looking to hold the fingers of Madam Gandhi.
I guess we are too close to Rao's history to really fathom his greatness. It is really sad that we have made heroes out of unqualified and ill deserved people today and we have consistently forgotten the contributions of the real heroes.
Rao, knew more than 18 languages, he was a qualified lawyer and had great knowledge of world history. He used all his knowledge and experience to drive India out of those tough times. Frankly today's new generation leaders are not a patch on this man.
For me he was probably the only Congress PM , who i will ever see in positive light.
I would like to start with the man who according to me was singularly responsible for affecting the lives of the entire Indian middle class, a class which i proudly belong to.No its not (the oft repeated) Manmohan Singh, but the real force behind him and the political will behind all his measures - Mr. Narismha Rao.
While reading through the tribute by rediff's Amberish Diwanji on Narshimha Rao, i realised what this man had achieved with such paper thin majority. Agreed that he used all the means (good or bad) to achieve what he finally achieved. But look at the results.
I will always prefer a leader who is corrupt but gets results for the people rather than a non-corrupt 'progressive' socialist who only speaks and plans and does nothing concrete. Ideally i would like a leader who's non-corrupt and result oriented. But leaving idealism aside i woudn't mind, lets say, a leader who builds roads, hospitals, schools and infrastructure and also warms his pockets on this path.
Narsimha Rao may have been corrupt and there's been lot of mud on his dhoti right from Jharkhand MPs to Harshad Mehta, but what he did for India during those turbulent times has been un-matched in Indian political history.
Before we judge Mr. Rao from these isolated events, lets take in perspective what was the state of the country when he became PM.Firstly lets get some facts.
He was the PM of India from 1991 till 1996. Just preceding his rule, there had been two failed governments. One of VP Singh and the other of Chandrashekhar. Owing to VP Singh's Mandal the nation's social fabric was in a state of disarray. The so called OBC's were the new Czars. To counter the potential divide within the larger Hindu family L.K Advani had to embark upon his rath yatra to Ayodhya which in turn polarised the Hindus and Muslims further. A divided Hindu family was what VP Singh was looking at as he wanted to become the messiah of the Muslim-OBC vote bank. Thankfully Advani was able to consolidate atleast a chunk of Hindus behind him, specially the Hindu middle class. That probably saved a much larger divide along the caste lines, which was VP Singh's real intent. (I say thankfully; but for now i will leave that discussion to another day)
Lets say finally neither Advani nor VP Singh succeeded completely in their mission. VP Singh in fact became a spent force almost immediately.But these two also left the country in a state of uneasy disturbance by their actions.
But the real issue facing the nation was the economic crisis. The Gulf war had just ended and the oil prices were at all time high. The previous government had already taken loan from IMF keeping Gold as mortgage. Something that was unprecedented in the history of Nehru's socialist India. Thanks to Nehru and Gandhi family whose "socialism" had the tacit support of the communists in all those years, the country was on a brink of economic and social disaster. All those years the Indians had been fed with stories of how self sufficient India was and how good was Nehru's socialist policies and how PSUs would be enough to make India productive. It was only a matter of time before the socialism's bomb exploded in the face of Indian policy makers, who all those years, were just avoiding to confront this issue.
In this context i would like to quote Dr. Ramesh Thakur of the United Nation's University..
"Fascination by Jawaharlal Nehru [...] with the state's occupying the commanding heights of the economy and with planning as the instrument of choice for economic growth -- at the cost of a free-market price mechanism -- grew from an admiration of what at the time seemed to be impressive achievements by the Soviet Union, one of the two superpowers. This produced compromises with liberal democracy. The result was the greatest pogram of poverty multiplication and persistence in human history."
And the bomb did explode, the day the news came of India surrendering gold to World Bank in return to a loan.
So basically Rao came in at an unenviable time. Also since he was not a Gandhi family member it was not going to be easy for him to have the backing of the Congress MPs who are eternally intoxicated in sycophancy of Gandhi-Nehru clan. He was always going to walk a very tight rope.
But he had one big advantage. BJP after loosing the 1991 elections was not at its combative best. It was always going to be a weak opposition. Also it was pro-liberalisation. But its biggest handicap came when Babri was destroyed. In one stroke that event galvanised the entire non-BJP force of the country. In one way it might also have been Rao's master stroke.
By being soft on BJP and in some ways allowing Babri to get demolished, Rao gave the entire "secular" polity a permanent handle to beat BJP with.
Babri demolition sent shock waves across the country. More importantly it tamed BJP and its off shoots. A weak opposition was Rao's best bet during those days. And he got that in exactly one year of his rule.
With oppositon on the back foot, Rao now had to rein in the even more vocal opponents of practically everything - the Left. One must credit Rao of handling them well by playing them against BJP. He was able to divert all the left's negative energies towards BJP while silently under taking the reforms. He gave Manmohan and his team a free hand to handle economics. A free hand without political pressure is probably every Finance minister's dream. And Singh made full use of it.
It must not be forgotten by all who are always jumping in giving Manmohan Singh all the due for liberating the economy that as a part of the deal with IMF in 1992, India HAD to liberalise its economy. There was no going back on that. Manmohan Singh JUST HAPPENED to be the Finance Minister at that time. I doubt any other finance minister (whether Jaswant Singh,Yashwant Singh,P.Chidambara or any other) would have done anything different.
Lot of people today give all the credit for economic reforms to Manmohan Singh. But that at best is only partially true. Today Manmohan Singh is just the face behind the real power. 13 years ago the story was not different. He was playing his innings when the real game was played else where. Rao had the political will and the guts to carry on with what he thought was right for the nation. Without much fuss and hype he brought some sweeping changes in India's economic thoughts and ideas. Behind the scenes he manufactured deals and applied his political skills to keep the communists and socialists from making too much noise. While Manmohan Singh got all the praise showered upon him , specially by media and the middle class, Rao silently worked to see that all the bills are passed smoothly.
In his essay "The political economy of reform", management guru Gurcharan Das wrote,
"Narasimha Rao deserves credit for his deft handling of the reform process, especially in sequencing the acts in a politically shrewd manner. Hence, India has avoided the political damage – or even collapse, as in Russia’s case – that many countries have suffered after the economic reforms"
Rao's tenure was qualitatively different than that of Rajiv Gandhi's. One must not forget that Rajiv Gandhi, the poster boy of Indian politics, had things on platter. He had more than three fourths of Parliament members solidly behind him. He had the world at his feet. He could have done anything with a snap of his finger.The media was behind him and there were no private channels to probe his dealings and breath down Rajiv's neck for every decision he makes.
(Its a different thing that he wasted all those years in playing a celebrity rather than a serious leader and frittered away all the good will and advantage he started with).
Rao's style, as Shekhar Gupta of IE puts it, "was so hopelessly understated as to amount to self-denial". As he gave free hand to Manmohan Singh for handling nation's economy he was also equally benevolent towards the home affairs. The Punjab problem, one of the worst faced by India, post-independence, came to an end during his tenure.
And most likely it ended because even though Rao was fully aware of KPS Gill's strong arm tactics he did not interfere; on the other hand he created an intellectual base in the media to justify Gill's actions.
"The end of terrorism in Punjab without conceding any of the demands of the terrorists and the successful termination of many hijackings without conceding the demands of the terrorists, were some his achievements on home front" - B.Raman (Author of many articles on International Terrorism)
His foreign affairs acumen was never a question. Hence his bold decision in 1992 to bring into the open India's relations with Israel, which had been kept secret since they were first established under Indira Gandhi's orders in 1969 and to permit Israel to open an Embassy in New Delhi, was nothing short of a master stroke.
Israel which had been a victim of terrorism for long was a perfect partner for our counter-terrorist program. Rao saw that India could learn a lot from Isreal in many areas of tackling terrorism.
In a country where the Nehrus and Gandhis are worshipped, there was this political pygmy who by his actions brought more positive changes within the country than those brought in by the entire rule of the Nehru Gandhi family.
Right from handling Foreign affairs to internal matters to economics to politics, Rao showed that you can drive the nation out of problems rather than take it towards it.
His own party, the Congress (shamelessly) never really acknowledged his contributions and achievements.Congress men feared a backlash from their goddess Sonia, if they ever uttered anything positive about Rao.
Unfortunately Rao's political career ended in humiliation. He was being dragged from court to court in various cases even as his own party men were looking the other way or looking to hold the fingers of Madam Gandhi.
I guess we are too close to Rao's history to really fathom his greatness. It is really sad that we have made heroes out of unqualified and ill deserved people today and we have consistently forgotten the contributions of the real heroes.
Rao, knew more than 18 languages, he was a qualified lawyer and had great knowledge of world history. He used all his knowledge and experience to drive India out of those tough times. Frankly today's new generation leaders are not a patch on this man.
For me he was probably the only Congress PM , who i will ever see in positive light.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Bombay
What happened to Bombay last week was incomprehensible. Was it just incessant rains that did that?Or is there a larger story?
I am not a mumbaite myself. But I have some connections with that city. For the starters most of my mother's side relatives stay there, and we being a pretty close family, I spent a lot of my child hood vacations in what used to be 'Bombay'. Also I worked in Bombay for around 4 years so was pretty much a part and parcel of the system.
My wife is from Bombay. So that makes the full circle and makes Bombay almost my second home. But I carry mixed feelings about this great city. Its not my favourite but I feel like admiring and appreciating a lot of things about this city.
If you really ask me Bombay is the only truly cosmopolitan metropolis of India. Rest all the so called Metros are merely overgrown villages. There's no city till date in India which can compare Mumbai's professionalism.
Hence it is sad to see the state of this city today, which fills the nations revenue coffers with 40% share, in such shambles.
One can go on and on blaming governments and system for Bombay's plights. But aren't the real mumbaikars themselves to blame for this? Haven't they voted the wrong people again and again? Aren't the people who did not vote at all in all these
elections equally to blame?
The BJP-Sena government ruled Maharashtra for only 5 years. But what they gave Bombay was priceless.Imagine, had it not been for the initiative taken by the dynamic PWD minister Nitin Gadkari during their rule, would we have seen Bandra-Borivili connected so well? Would we have seen those innumerable number of flyovers which now hang over the city landscape and which in effect removed so many traffic bottle necks.
Lot of anti-Sena people will argue that it was the previous Congress governments plan. The hard fact is, it requires political will and foresight to carry out such major investments in infrastructure,and not just plans on paper.
Sadly the anti-BJP media never focused on this achievement of that government and far more tragic is the fact that the same mumbaikars who should have been thankful to this government, voted them out.
With Congress back in the game its back to square one.
(I seriously feel that were it not for improved roads on the western express highway, the situation in Mumbai would have been far worse today.Bombay should atleast thank Gadkari for that)
For a city which is now (somehow) sustaining a population of more than 1.5 crores the real issue is not these rains. The real issue is unchecked immigration to this city and its effects on city's already stressed infrastructure. Again here the
mumbaikars have failed to come together and support the leader who was ready to stick his neck out and give a call against Immigrants.
His name happens to be Bal Thackray. Sadly not many Mumbaikars (including Maharashtrians) have come out in his support on this issue.
Mumbaikars take great pride in their resilience. But this very trait of Mumbaikars is today costing this great city bad.If all the Mumbaikars unite and take a stand against immigration there's a possibility of some salvage even now.
Its Utter Pradesh's problem that it does not have enough jobs. Its not Bombay's problem that Bihar cannot sustain itself economically. Its not Bombay's problem that West Bengal has 70% industrial units declared sick.If Bombayites do not realise this now, it will be too late.
I fear that a lot of good families who really value quality and honest life will be leaving this city in coming days. Unfortunately they will also take away the productivity and skills along with them. The lifeline of Bombay.
It would be foolish to write off this great city so soon. But surely the decay has set in. Its not of question of 'will this happen' but now its a question of only 'when will this happen'. I give Bombay two decades tops.
I mean off course people will be staying there and all that. But by then it would have lost its prime position as India's commercial capital. I think the economic's weight is shifting southwards.
The Chalta Hai attitude is going to kill this booming region. You get a feeling that something is not right with Bombay when you see that an honest man like Ram Naik is voted out for a non-serious entity like Govinda.
You realise that future is not safe when Underworld is all over real estate and bollywood and ready to strike in more lucrative businesses anytime.
The hijack of Bombay has begun. The pseudo-intellects who speak for and on behalf of Bombay have got it all wrong when they blame everything on Shiv Sena. No, Shiv Sena is not a problem. If at all, today it's Bombay's only hope.
I am not a mumbaite myself. But I have some connections with that city. For the starters most of my mother's side relatives stay there, and we being a pretty close family, I spent a lot of my child hood vacations in what used to be 'Bombay'. Also I worked in Bombay for around 4 years so was pretty much a part and parcel of the system.
My wife is from Bombay. So that makes the full circle and makes Bombay almost my second home. But I carry mixed feelings about this great city. Its not my favourite but I feel like admiring and appreciating a lot of things about this city.
If you really ask me Bombay is the only truly cosmopolitan metropolis of India. Rest all the so called Metros are merely overgrown villages. There's no city till date in India which can compare Mumbai's professionalism.
Hence it is sad to see the state of this city today, which fills the nations revenue coffers with 40% share, in such shambles.
One can go on and on blaming governments and system for Bombay's plights. But aren't the real mumbaikars themselves to blame for this? Haven't they voted the wrong people again and again? Aren't the people who did not vote at all in all these
elections equally to blame?
The BJP-Sena government ruled Maharashtra for only 5 years. But what they gave Bombay was priceless.Imagine, had it not been for the initiative taken by the dynamic PWD minister Nitin Gadkari during their rule, would we have seen Bandra-Borivili connected so well? Would we have seen those innumerable number of flyovers which now hang over the city landscape and which in effect removed so many traffic bottle necks.
Lot of anti-Sena people will argue that it was the previous Congress governments plan. The hard fact is, it requires political will and foresight to carry out such major investments in infrastructure,and not just plans on paper.
Sadly the anti-BJP media never focused on this achievement of that government and far more tragic is the fact that the same mumbaikars who should have been thankful to this government, voted them out.
With Congress back in the game its back to square one.
(I seriously feel that were it not for improved roads on the western express highway, the situation in Mumbai would have been far worse today.Bombay should atleast thank Gadkari for that)
For a city which is now (somehow) sustaining a population of more than 1.5 crores the real issue is not these rains. The real issue is unchecked immigration to this city and its effects on city's already stressed infrastructure. Again here the
mumbaikars have failed to come together and support the leader who was ready to stick his neck out and give a call against Immigrants.
His name happens to be Bal Thackray. Sadly not many Mumbaikars (including Maharashtrians) have come out in his support on this issue.
Mumbaikars take great pride in their resilience. But this very trait of Mumbaikars is today costing this great city bad.If all the Mumbaikars unite and take a stand against immigration there's a possibility of some salvage even now.
Its Utter Pradesh's problem that it does not have enough jobs. Its not Bombay's problem that Bihar cannot sustain itself economically. Its not Bombay's problem that West Bengal has 70% industrial units declared sick.If Bombayites do not realise this now, it will be too late.
I fear that a lot of good families who really value quality and honest life will be leaving this city in coming days. Unfortunately they will also take away the productivity and skills along with them. The lifeline of Bombay.
It would be foolish to write off this great city so soon. But surely the decay has set in. Its not of question of 'will this happen' but now its a question of only 'when will this happen'. I give Bombay two decades tops.
I mean off course people will be staying there and all that. But by then it would have lost its prime position as India's commercial capital. I think the economic's weight is shifting southwards.
The Chalta Hai attitude is going to kill this booming region. You get a feeling that something is not right with Bombay when you see that an honest man like Ram Naik is voted out for a non-serious entity like Govinda.
You realise that future is not safe when Underworld is all over real estate and bollywood and ready to strike in more lucrative businesses anytime.
The hijack of Bombay has begun. The pseudo-intellects who speak for and on behalf of Bombay have got it all wrong when they blame everything on Shiv Sena. No, Shiv Sena is not a problem. If at all, today it's Bombay's only hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)