Indian Politics

akash02 said:
Hehe isn't @The Man Himself a BJP fanboi?
Click to expand...

Not really. I do consider them lesser evil than Congress though by some margin and as long as someone like Modi is there, would vote them. In the end, it is a political party and it is less dangerous to jump in cage of hungry tiger than blindly trusting or being 'fanboi' of a political party.
 
kps88 said:
Far more likely than your theory is Bedi was brought in because Shah knew they were in trouble and needed someone to take the heat off Modi. When the result is this one sided, it's quite likely BJP could tell things weren't right on the ground.
Click to expand...

Far more likely is that Shah brought in Bedi because she was a viable alternative to the local cadre and was also hoping that he could ride the Modi wave once more. Both his decisions, Bedi as the CM Candidate and putting Modi in the forefront of the election, backfired.

Amit Shah is a shrewd political manipulator, but some of the praise he got last time around was just way too much, IMO.
 
The Man Himself said:
As if politicians care about things like becoming laughing stock etc. Not just this election, but politicians and parties otherwise also try to get best deals for themselves in any scenario. Why else do you think politicians dont get trialed when not in power too? You don't understand politics at all, do you? :D
Click to expand...

People contest from different parties, disgusting give and take are common in politics, agreed. But it's always to the gain of their own ass. What you are suggesting is outlandish and it doesn't make any sense that a political party will spite it's own face for some mythical long term gain. I'd say you've got this completely wrong TMH.
 
The Man Himself said:
Not really. I do consider them lesser evil than Congress though by some margin and as long as someone like Modi is there, would vote them. In the end, it is a political party and it is less dangerous to jump in cage of hungry tiger than blindly trusting or being 'fanboi' of a political party.
Click to expand...

I voted for BJP as well mainly for the reason you stated. They're not much better though. Has Modi actually done anything so far or is it too early to expect results?
 
fishfingers15 said:
People contest from different parties, disgusting give and take are common in politics, agreed. But it's always to the gain of their own ass. What you are suggesting is outlandish and it doesn't make any sense that a political party will spite it's own face for some mythical long term gain. I'd say you've got this completely wrong TMH.
Click to expand...

Not really. I was outlining a possibility. I am not saying that BJP or Congress will deliberately conspire to lose election just like that. Every party's first aim will be to come to power and do everything possible to come to power. But if indications are that it will not, they will try to limit losses or try to find how they can gain from it in whichever way. That's why I gave NCP's example.

akash02 said:
I voted for BJP as well mainly for the reason you stated. They're not much better though. Has Modi actually done anything so far or is it too early to expect results?
Click to expand...

For economy, I think it will take some time. Like LvG, Modi seem to be 'doing' lots of stuff but there is no drastic difference to see :lol: I have heard from various people that the accountability in government offices has increased nowadays and there are attempts to make it more professional. Will have to wait some more time though to see if it brings some major difference.
 
The new GDP numbers are out. As per the new method India will grow 7.4% in 2014-15. I wonder how would Congress react to it. Considering it lost miserably last year, that is a really good %age.
 
The make in India campaign is the positive so far for me. Not that it has achieved big results, but just that the government understands how critical the manufacturing sector is for our future. Will be very interesting to see what kind of budget they bring this time.

What's disappointing so far has been there's little to no policy/law changes, even with the massive numbers in the LS. Seems to me that Bjp wants to first consolidate politically before actually making policy changes, which I think is poor thinking.

Then of course there's things like ghar wapsi bollocks that's been going on without the government doing anything about it.
 
ffs I am losing money in market for last few days. #ModiOut
 
My analysis (which no one asked for :D )


1. Kiran Bedi backfired. Harshvardhan was a popular leader with a clean image, and and in the 2 elections where he was a visible leader (2013 assembly and 2014 general) they had good numbers (31/70, 7/7). She became the kind of laughing stock Rahul is and it is tough to recover from that. She couldn't mesh with the BJP workers and their style. Of course given this verdict, nobody could have saved BJP but no Bedi would have cut off one of AAP's easiest attacks (outsider)


2. In Delhi, the BJP retained their core vote, but the Modi wave is gone.
~35% in 2008 assembly (1v1 vs Congress), ~33% in 2013, ~45% for Modi 2014, ~30% now.
Unfortunately for my point of view, this was not an anti BJP vote, but it means that people expected more from Modi in the 8 months so far and the huge surge he got in 2014 is vulnerable. But the core vote of BJP remains with them. Of course, Congress graph is interesting:
~45% in 2008, ~25% in 2013, ~15% in general 2014, ~10% now. They are gone.


3. It IS a pro-AAP vote. ~60% vote share means they picked up all the undecideds, and a huge chunk of the Congress vote. One of the more interesting reports during campaigning said that many people attending Sonia's big rally said they would vote for AAP to beat BJP. Congress' old arguments of being the magnet for the 'secular' vote and making themselves the best hope v/s communal forcesare going away. That's great news for India.
Also, positively, the AAP vote crosses across caste and religion lines, the only groups they did not win was older voters/upper middle class/upper class.
They have consistently increased their vote share:
~28% in 2013, ~35% in 2014, ~60% now!


4. I have a man-crush on Yogendra Yadav.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Socialist is a strange one. Why is it even there?
Click to expand...

The Man Himself said:
Nehru family regime of course. It wasn't there in original preamble.
Click to expand...


Indeed, Indira Gandhi added it at the height of her power.
But there are interesting articles about how the words were implicit within the original constitution - both secular and socialist.

The word “secular” may have been inserted into the Preamble to the Indian Constitution in 1976, but undoubtedly, the politics of secularism, in the sense of what role to allow for religion in a democracy, was one of the dominant motifs of the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly (CA) that framed the Constitution.
...
The Constitution that was passed in 1949 did not contain the word “secular”, but the debates that took place in the CA from 1946 to 1949 referred to “secularism” and “secular” countless times. Not only were there attempts to insert the word “secular” into the Preamble (for example, in October 1949), or to have the first article of the Constitution read as “India shall be a Secular, Federal, Socialist Union of States” (in November, 1948), but more importantly, secularism in the sense of an equal respect for all religions had the near unanimous support of the members of the CA. For most members, since a secular state was “neither a god-less state, nor an irreligious nor an anti-religious state” (in the words of H.V. Kamath), they did not support the idea of confining religion to the private sphere or granting religious freedom in the form of a narrow right to religious worship. This latter position did have a few advocates like Babasaheb Ambedkar and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, who argued that in the name of religious practices, discrimination against the Scheduled Castes and women should not be allowed to continue. However, for most members of the CA, secularism meant a more expansive role for religion.
...
It is instructive to listen to Munshi defending all aspects of this right in December 1948: “Even if the word were not there, I am sure, under the freedom of speech which the Constitution guarantees, it will be open to any religious community, to persuade other people to join their faith. So long as religion is religion, conversion by the free exercise of conscience has to be recognised.”
...
Similarly, Ambedkar, in his explanatory notes on the draft on rights that he submitted to the Fundamental Rights sub-committee, wrote about the necessity of socialism. Clarifying different articles of his draft, such as the article that specified that farm land would be “let out to villagers without distinction of caste or creed and in such manner that there will be no landlord, no tenant and no landless labourer”, he claimed that his draft “establishes state socialism by the law of the constitution and thus makes it unalterable by any act of the legislature and the executive”. Much later, in November 1948, Ambedkar said in the CA: “We do not want merely to lay down a mechanism to enable people to come and capture power… While we have established political democracy, it is also the desire that we should lay down as our ideal economic democracy… [which] I understand to mean, one man, one value.
...
Finally, of course, to put socialism in the Constitution was considered a constraint on the democratically elected government, in the sense that a government may prefer to achieve the goal of economic democracy, that is, address the problem of poverty, through means other than socialism. Economic democracy remained the ideal. But the specific mechanism that would be used to achieve it would remain open to the particular government elected, as we find Ambedkar explaining, “there are those who believe in individualism as the best form of economic democracy, there are those who believe in having a socialistic state as the best form of economic democracy”.
...
Click to expand...
Equality was a fundamental goal of the members of the CA — for many of them, both secularism and economic democracy were necessary to establish equality as one of the tenets of the Indian Constitution.
Click to expand...
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/because-the-goal-is-equality-2/99/

I wish Ambedkar had managed to put in his definition of secularism- we would be a much better country if he had convinced the others.



Though it was not in the preamble, the directive principles make it clear what the constitution writers wanted.
36. Definition.
37. Application of the principles contained in this Part.
38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people.
39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State.
39A. Equal justice and free legal aid
40. Organisation of village panchayats.
41. Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases.
42. Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief.
43. Living wage, etc., for workers.
43A. Participation of workers in management of industries.
44. Uniform civil code for the citizens.
45. Provision for free and compulsory education for children.
46. Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections.
47. Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health.
48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.
48A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life.
49. Protection of monuments and places and objects of national importance.
50. Separation of judiciary from executive.
51. Promotion of international peace and security.
Click to expand...
http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p04.html

That is pure socialism.
 
Last edited:
fishfingers15 said:
Too early to expect anything out of Modi, IMO.
Click to expand...
You can expect a lot of photo ops.

I just find it funny that BJP went to such lengths during these elections with Modi's drunk-sounding speeches every 2 minutes on the FM, all their leaders campaigning big time, and they've got completely shat on :lol:
 
berbatrick said:




Indeed, Indira Gandhi added it at the height of her power.
But there are interesting articles about how the words were implicit within the original constitution - both secular and socialist.


http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/because-the-goal-is-equality-2/99/

I wish Ambedkar had managed to put in his definition of secularism- we would be a much better country if he had convinced the others.



Though it was not in the preamble, the directive principles make it clear what the constitution writers wanted.


http://www.constitution.org/cons/india/p04.html

That is pure socialism.
Click to expand...

This explains pretty well why Ambedkar and Nehru left it out..
http://www.newslaundry.com/2015/01/30/the-great-secularism-debate/

People are worried. They feel their Idea of India is under threat. Some even think the India envisioned by Nehru and Ambedkar may not last a Modi term. And it’s that word to blame again – Secularism. Ever since the Modi government placed a newspaper ad that displayed the original Preamble and not the altered one that contains the word SECULAR, we have begun demanding answers – without, one might add, asking the right questions. The question we should be asking is not whether the Modi government, by publishing the original copy of the Preamble, has laid bare its intent of doing away with the word SECULAR but, rather, why on earth did Nehru and Ambedkar not allow this word to be added to our Preamble in the first place? And it is the answer to this question that should concern us for it would not only quieten those frothing at the mouth but also illuminate them – that the India of Nehru’s dreams stood SECULAR for a quarter of a century till such time it was demolished by the very same person we now want to hoist upon our shoulders as a champion of Justice, Liberty, and Secularism.

Soon after independence, when our founding fathers set to work on the Constitution, they indeed had in mind to construct a secular state, except that – as will become clear shortly – their version of secularism was an Indianised one. They discussed robustly, whether or not to add the word SECULAR to our Constitution, but in the end vetoed the idea.

Why would die-hard secularists like Nehru, Ambedkar, Patel, Radhakrishnan and countless others reject the insertion of this word?

After all, if anyone had to make a guess as to which of the two – Nehru or Indira – might be more inclined to slip in the word SECULAR, ten times out of ten the answer would be Nehru. Why, then, did the exalted guardians of Secularism decide to not add SECULAR to our constitution?

This is a circuitous story, at once riveting and revealing, and one that must begin with us understanding the minds of the chief protagonists themselves – Nehru and Ambedkar. Ambedkar was secular but religious, while Nehru was secular and atheist (who believed in horoscopes). Ambedkar saw religion first and foremost as a political entity. “Religion,” he said, “like language is social for the reason that either is essential for social life and the individual has to have it because without it he cannot participate in the life of the society”.

It cannot be over-emphasised that Ambedkar, himself a victim of religious ill-practises and caste dogma, had in him to reform Hinduism through decree rather than wait till its natural inherent force did the same. There are numerous articles in our Constitution, like for example 17 and 25, which bear witness to this fact. He was a secular but in wanting upliftment of the oppressed he knew nothing could bring this change faster than through constitutional means. Some historians have rightly argued that Ambedkar wanted an “interventionist secular state”. True, this was indeed in pursuit of equality and justice for those who had been denied both for centuries but it wasn’t strictly secular – for the state to intervene in religion thus. It is the remarkable self-effacement of Ambedkar that he realised inserting the word SECULAR in the Preamble, after having made numerous interventionist changes, would be wrong and more importantly, not true to the principles of Secularism.

SUPPORT NEWSLAUNDRY. PAY TO KEEP NEWS FREE AND INDEPENDENT.

Nehru, too realised this, as is clear from the Constituent Assembly debates (see below). He knew, of course, what Secularism meant, but he also knew that the Constitution drafted by them did not adhere to the principles of what was, in his words, dictionary Secularism.

Reservations, restrictions on freedom of religion, Anglo-Indian quota, banning centuries-old caste beliefs of Hinduism – were interventions both felt were required, and rightly so. They were also grand enough to realise that true Secularism would have disallowed those interventions. As historian Ian Copland in his authoritative book, A History of State and Religion in India writes, “Their reasoning appears to have been twofold. (1) That, since ‘Enlightenment Secularism’, with its core principle of separation, founded on the Protestant conception of religion as essentially a private concern with which states had no legitimate business, was never going to work in a country where rulers and religious publics had been interacting from time immemorial, it was better not to use the term at all, than to use it fraudulently; and (2) that giving official recognition to the term might lead people to think that the new government had religion in its sights. Ambedkar felt sufficiently worried by this prospect to remind the Lok Sabha in 1951 that continued references in Parliament and the media to India being a secular state did not reflect what the Constitution was ‘intended to mean’.”

Reading the Constitutional debates, one astonishing fact emerges – that our founding fathers might not have inserted the word SECULAR in our Preamble but they drafted for us a secular Constitution, or as close to a secular Constitution they could get. Their minds lived and breathed secularism. They were convinced that the future for India lay in secularism. But it wasn’t enlightened European secularism. It was a glorious Indianised version of it. Glorious because it took into account our history and civilisation and yet stayed true to the path of religious equality.

So why didn’t these seculars insert the word SECULAR in the Preamble? Because they knew their draft intervened heavily in religious matters when a secular Constitution technically must not. The founding of Articles 15(4), 16(5), 17, 25, and 45 meant that our Constitution was laying down rules as to how certain practices within religions are unconstitutional, even criminal, while other practices that hurt a particular religious sentiment but are practiced by other religious groups – like cow slaughter – are to be banned. Additionally, the question of religious education – that entailed extraordinarily heated debates on how a secular state should conduct itself – made it obvious that the word SECULAR was now redundant in the Indian context.

And this here is the beauty of our Constitution – everyone who wrote it was pluralistic and secular and yet what they wrote doesn’t have the word secular. They were all concerned with one thing – that India should not be a religious state or a theocracy. Time and again, in debate after debate, they declared India to be a secular state. Inserting the word SECULAR, as Ambedkar said, was therefore superfluous. It is apparent from reading the constitutional debates that, yet again, Ambedkar was correct.

Many legislators were confused as to what secularism was. Some thought it was the negation of all religion, while to others it meant an absolute separation of religion and state. Still others insisted the Constitution should advocate articles that govern aspects of a religion; a few said the state should not involve itself in matters of religious education; a tiny minority even felt that a truly secular Constitution should demand a uniform civil code. The result of all this was that, in the end, India got a secular Constitution but in which the word Secular was omitted. It wasn’t a glaring typo or a faux pas; it was intentional. No point labelling it when you can recognise the fragrance.

It must rank as a tragedy that, 65 years from the time our forefathers gifted to us our most precious possession, we are happy to uphold the Preamble written by Indira Gandhi but not one written by Ambedkar. But then we are like that – we still don’t understand what the word Secular actually means. As Wittgenstein said, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

*****

Excerpts from the Constitutional Debates on the topic of Secularism

S Radhakrishnan: What is our ideal? It is our ideal to develop a homogeneous democratic State. That is why we have provided for fundamental rights, we allow no discrimination in public employment, we say, it is a secular State. We have to effect a compromise between the ideal we have in view and the actual conditions which have come down to us. (http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1534454/)


....

read link for more
Click to expand...
 
Quite a few bjp fanbois were rounded up and mocked today in delhi. And the majority of those doing the mocking were closet congressis.
 
@fishfingers15 you can find many articles appearing on social media now about how BJP might have been well aware of losing this or may even have planned it with some other gains in mind, something which I was saying in morning. Reasons everyone is coming up with are not same but the point is true that given how BJP treated this election and when one compares it with how they went about national elections and some other state elections in last year, year and half, it is not just a conspiracy theory. More so because this won't be the first time a political party will be doing something like this.
 
I bet those articles are appearing on social media from bjp cyber cell :wenger:
 
The Man Himself said:
@fishfingers15 you can find many articles appearing on social media now about how BJP might have been well aware of losing this or may even have planned it with some other gains in mind, something which I was saying in morning. Reasons everyone is coming up with are not same but the point is true that given how BJP treated this election and when one compares it with how they went about national elections and some other state elections in last year, year and half, it is not just a conspiracy theory. More so because this won't be the first time a political party will be doing something like this.
Click to expand...

:wenger: Amit Shah, the master strategist lol
 
VidaRed said:
I bet those articles are appearing on social media from bjp cyber cell :wenger:
Click to expand...

One I read was from 3 weeks ago, from some Gulf news or something and more 'RSS bashing' types. There were few more with different reasons but didn't look pro-BJP at least.
 
:lol: Yes BJP spent 5 crores on ads every day because they actually wanted to lose this election.
 
I haven't read any of the conspiracy theories but there were certainly sections within the BJP that would've been glad they lost.

Harshvardhan can bask in BJP's anhilation and Bedi's defeat from a seat he would surely have held on to, the people that Amit Shah has pissed off in the BJP are as glad as the opposition that he doesn't look so impervious now, and Advani probably smiled for the first time in 10 years.

The Sangh may be happy or sad depending on whether they think church burning and Trilokpuri went far enough or not. A sensible organisation when seeing this result combined with the backfiring of love jihad and their other nonsense may beat a retreat but they probably think that they haven't gone far enough and will be celebrating this as a proof that non-Hindutva BJP won't work.

BUT, with Modi in complete control of the party, and making this a prestige issue for himself, I don't see any of these people subverting the BJP during the elections.
 
BJP wouldn't have made this all about Modi if they really wanted to lose. FFS there's no point of discussion in this.
 
The Man Himself said:
@fishfingers15 you can find many articles appearing on social media now about how BJP might have been well aware of losing this or may even have planned it with some other gains in mind, something which I was saying in morning. Reasons everyone is coming up with are not same but the point is true that given how BJP treated this election and when one compares it with how they went about national elections and some other state elections in last year, year and half, it is not just a conspiracy theory. More so because this won't be the first time a political party will be doing something like this.
Click to expand...
:lol: That's beyond daft.
 
The Man Himself said:
So just like all your posts then. No substance but just showing your mental level.
Click to expand...
I reserve this stuff for you.

You can't actually seriously discuss things with someone who is a fan of the topics he discusses. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
Why would BJP spend so much money on front page ads, have Modi as their star campaigner, parade all their MPs and the cabinet in rallies only to lose it in the end deliberately?
 
amolbhatia100 said:
I reserve this stuff for you.

You can't actually seriously discuss things with someone who is a fan of the topics he discusses. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Or you should learn to read better. I have maintained that there is chance that BJP were well aware of what is going on but didn't do enough to stop it. Some very bizarre tactics on their part make an outsider think of that chance. That is different than saying they deliberately lost election. Margins aside, Congress too would have known they will lose national elections of 2014. Everybody knew. That didn't stop them spending money on ads and stuff, did it? Obviously even if a national party like BJP or Congress doesn't see chances, that doesn't mean they will not do any ads etc.

The result margin is what is making me think of that probability. Had it been say 40-45 AAP, 20 or so BJP and remaining others, then it wouldn't have left any scope for any conspiracy. Another reason is, BJP hasn't done anything awful in last 8-9 months in power that people will reject it so outrightly. As berbatrick had pointed, BJP's vote share remained same as in last elections but Congress's fell down by 15%. That's huge. Those numbers all went to AAP. So either BJP totally didn't see this happening or both they and Congress knew what was happening but given problems both have in state, they didn't put efforts to turn it around this time.

I am not fan of BJP here, and it is not so much conspiracy but I don't believe politicians in our Country are so naive to not see what is coming. They might be bad at what they are supposed to do about governance and stuff but in playing political games, they are masters. All parties. That's why I always wonder what goes on behind the scenes when we see some totally unexpected results.
 
The Man Himself said:
Or you should learn to read better. I have maintained that there is chance that BJP were well aware of what is going on but didn't do enough to stop it. Some very bizarre tactics on their part make an outsider think of that chance. That is different than saying they deliberately lost election. Margins aside, Congress too would have known they will lose national elections of 2014. Everybody knew. That didn't stop them spending money on ads and stuff, did it? Obviously even if a national party like BJP or Congress doesn't see chances, that doesn't mean they will not do any ads etc.

The result margin is what is making me think of that probability. Had it been say 40-45 AAP, 20 or so BJP and remaining others, then it wouldn't have left any scope for any conspiracy. Another reason is, BJP hasn't done anything awful in last 8-9 months in power that people will reject it so outrightly. As berbatrick had pointed, BJP's vote share remained same as in last elections but Congress's fell down by 15%. That's huge. Those numbers all went to AAP. So either BJP totally didn't see this happening or both they and Congress knew what was happening but given problems both have in state, they didn't put efforts to turn it around this time.

I am not fan of BJP here, and it is not so much conspiracy but I don't believe politicians in our Country are so naive to not see what is coming. They might be bad at what they are supposed to do about governance and stuff but in playing political games, they are masters. All parties. That's why I always wonder what goes on behind the scenes when we see some totally unexpected results.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what a conspiracy theory is. Let's take the bolded bit, for example. That happens all the time. Parties do things that seem or appear or actually are, daft, all the time. Given you seem decently qued in to Indian politics, you should know that. Don't you think the Congress has taken some bizarre strategic/tactical decisions over the last 2/3 years? Or has this crash and fall been something they totally expected.

I hope it's not the reason but it sounds like someone looking for reasons to justify what they favor not doing well. Politics is full of ups and downs, good decisions and bad decisions. Just because bad decisions were made doesn't mean there's something fishy.
 
amolbhatia100 said:
That's exactly what a conspiracy theory is. Let's take the bolded bit, for example. That happens all the time. Parties do things that seem or appear or actually are, daft, all the time. Given you seem decently qued in to Indian politics, you should know that. Don't you think the Congress has taken some bizarre strategic/tactical decisions over the last 2/3 years? Or has this crash and fall been something they totally expected.

I hope it's not the reason but it sounds like someone looking for reasons to justify what they favor not doing well. Politics is full of ups and downs, good decisions and bad decisions. Just because bad decisions were made doesn't mean there's something fishy.
Click to expand...

As far as I am concerned, I have no need to go to great lengths to justify why they failed, I am not a party worker ffs. Even then let's assume I am a BJP 'fanboi' and am being paid by BJP media cell to send out this message (!), but then I have read these theories from journalists who very clearly are anti-BJP. Obviously those who don't like the party will take more glee in saying that party lost in spite of all efforts than saying that there is some bigger game behind it?

Yes tactics can go wrong by political parties, not denying that. As far as Congress example, I think after 10 years in center which were awful and the Modi wave meant they had little chances anyway. As far as strategy is concerned, I think they are just not having 'any' nowadays than having a wrong one. I just think BJP's was very straightforward naive in comparison.

All of you are thinking that I am saying BJP DEFINITELY had this planned that they will get 3 out of 70. That will be ridiculous. I am maintaining every time that there is CHANCE that either BJP or Congress or both had seen the loss coming (definitely not this bad though) and altered their strategy to limit future repercussions. BJP's case looks ridiculous I agree but I don't believe there is any limit to which Indian politicians' level of games can go and hence am a bit paranoid about it always. Congress's vote share dropped by 15% points. That's huge. Not possible that Congress was happy letting it's vote share go to AAP to stop BJP as they themselves had no chance? Just few possibilities.

Anyways, As I said in very first post on this topic though, as long as BJP in center and AAP in state work together amicably and people benefit, it hardly matters for 'aam aadmi' :D
 
Has there been a rise in sectarian violence since the BJP got into power? I think hindu right wing fundamentalists are a stain on the country and will pose more problems the more power they get. Just read an article saying some of the nuts wanna put up a statue of the guy who shot Gandhi! In India!!
 
Desert Eagle said:
Has there been a rise in sectarian violence since the BJP got into power? I think hindu right wing fundamentalists are a stain on the country and will pose more problems the more power they get. Just read an article saying some of the nuts wanna put up a statue of the guy who shot Gandhi! In India!!
Click to expand...

They want to place his idol in every temple.
 
The Man Himself said:
As far as I am concerned, I have no need to go to great lengths to justify why they failed, I am not a party worker ffs. Even then let's assume I am a BJP 'fanboi' and am being paid by BJP media cell to send out this message (!), but then I have read these theories from journalists who very clearly are anti-BJP. Obviously those who don't like the party will take more glee in saying that party lost in spite of all efforts than saying that there is some bigger game behind it?

Yes tactics can go wrong by political parties, not denying that. As far as Congress example, I think after 10 years in center which were awful and the Modi wave meant they had little chances anyway. As far as strategy is concerned, I think they are just not having 'any' nowadays than having a wrong one. I just think BJP's was very straightforward naive in comparison.

All of you are thinking that I am saying BJP DEFINITELY had this planned that they will get 3 out of 70. That will be ridiculous. I am maintaining every time that there is CHANCE that either BJP or Congress or both had seen the loss coming (definitely not this bad though) and altered their strategy to limit future repercussions. BJP's case looks ridiculous I agree but I don't believe there is any limit to which Indian politicians' level of games can go and hence am a bit paranoid about it always. Congress's vote share dropped by 15% points. That's huge. Not possible that Congress was happy letting it's vote share go to AAP to stop BJP as they themselves had no chance? Just few possibilities.

Anyways, As I said in very first post on this topic though, as long as BJP in center and AAP in state work together amicably and people benefit, it hardly matters for 'aam aadmi' :D
Click to expand...
How would would the bjp limit the repricussons? Surely, spending obscene amounts, getting all your leaders to campaign, and making the elections all about modi, weren't signs of someone who had given up and decided not to bother?

I'm actually unsure as to what the limiting of reprecussions means in this case. Did they stop making an effort because that's clearly not the case given the effort and resources put it right till the end? Or do you mean they tried minimising losses because that would make the final result even sadder.
 
About the congress letting its vote share go to AAP, their vote share is now always up for grabs. It's up to others to seize it. BJP seized in the national lok sabha elections and AAP has done so in delhi. I'm again unsure as to how you think they would transfer votes to AAP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.