Over generations, Bihar’s bane has been its utter lack of urbanisation. But now, even Bihar is urbanising. Or let’s say, rurbanising. Two decades under Nitish Kumar have created a new elite in its cities.
Indian govt officials last month skipped Turkish National Day celebrations in Delhi, in a message to Ankara following its support for Islamabad, particularly during Operation Sindoor.
Bihar is blessed with a land more fertile for revolutions than any in India. Why has it fallen so far behind then? Constant obsession with politics is at the root of its destruction.
It is amusing to see that who support Modi’s policies and political stand are ridiculed by intellectuals as blind BHAKTS and find nothing positive in Modi’s objectives, but praise all statements of his opponents and abusers who have no coherent economic or political policies acceptable to all of them, cannot see that their comments appear extremely partisan and displaying their hatred for Modi. To many who want to see and compare the policies of all political parties and their propaganda such partisan stand can only hurt their objective . I know even this comment will be called to be from a Bhakta !
Thank you Tejas, Ashok and Yamini for your comments – you have already said all that i felt reading the article.
Rahul Gandhi may have his faults (and who does not? though Bhakts believe Modi has none) but deliberate polarization is definitely not one of them.
He hugged is adversary for god’s sake 🙂
To the Gandhi worshiper, As i mentioned earlier, it has been inherited from Rajiv Gandhi’s time, reversal of Shah Bano judgement that create Muslim appeasement image. To change that image he was the one who bring Ram Janmbhoomi dispute in to limelight by arranging Pooja on the vanue by opening the gates which was closed up to that time.. That gave BJP an opportunity to make Ram mandir issue in a big way.
‘Polarising’ was always a British tradition that Congress faithfully adopted as they believed it got them “Votes”; the’Hindu’ vote being taken for granted. It was only after the BJP began demolishing Congress citadels everywhere that they actually remembered ‘Hinduism’. This descended to its nadir when Rajiv Gandhi was the PM, with the reversal of the Shah Banoo verdict and, worse, as if to compensate for that and appease the Hindus, opening up of the Ran Janma Bhoomi. Now, Rahul Gandhi has taken this polarising to its worst ever depths in Congress history, with their “Janeu Dhari” spree of’ Temple visiting on election eve’ credentials.. It is very strange that they should blame Modi and the BJP without opening their eyes to what THEY are actually doing.
Bravo. Well said! Congress’s vote bank politics which the feckless dynast is trying to desperately rejuvenate is the ultimate in polarisation.
Fair analysis, ‘because the liberal and Left intelligentsia, who were the unchecked gatekeepers of language for the longest time,’ would not write something like this. However, in recent times, the polarising against Rahul Gandhi (mainly on account of his ‘Pappu’ image) has softened in comparison to against his counterpart. Many of the friends of NM, especially among the more thinking people, have now become less friendly, neutral or even hostile, though their number in electoral terms seems insignificant. In perception politics it can still dent BJP and benefit Congress. On the other hand, among the large poor and common people the polarising seems to be in favour of NM.
The article points out some great facts about other leaders but it the claim about Rahul Gandhi would have been better justified had there been more examples of his ‘polarizing’ mannerisms.
If one divides society into liberals and illiberals – there must be lots of people in between as well – it is evident that the members of one group will be fond of their leaders and averse to those who head the other side. To that extent, both leaders could be considered ” polarising “. However, I don’t think that would be fair to either language or substance. Politicians don’t have to be Munnabhais, one is not sure how much hugs work in real life, in eithet politics or global diplomacy, but hatred is not an emotion that should be part of democracy. To be fair to the Congress President, he has not referred to any group of his countrymen with derision, thought of them as being anything less than complete citizens, indicated to his followers that they are fair game. Somehow one cannot visualise Shri Rahul Gandhi as a polarising figure. Whether he becomes Prime Minister will be decided not by his genes – although they give him a huge leg up – but by the Indian people in a free and fair election.
Extremely disingenuous comparison by the author, who calls Rahul Gandhi “polarising” based on the hatred some people have for the Congress party. The author doesn’t even specify which dictionary was used: the Oxford dictionary says to polarize is to “divide into two sets of opinions or beliefs”.
In that context, Rahul Gandhi is simply a generic Congress chief, which incidentally also means he is from the only party acceptable to (if not currently loved by) every major social group in the country. Having detractors is one thing, and separating or “polarising” society into a set of immediate identities is completely another. No one dislikes Gandhi for his policies, or his personal traits/ideologies. They hate the Congress, and he represents it. The author should seriously consider looking up Lohia’s “anti-congressism”, it’ll prove there’s nothing new about this.
On the other hand, there are elements of society who love Modi for what he has done, and others who hate him and his government. To name the most prominent; religious minorities. These people are not detractors, they don’t oppose him for sociological/historical reasons, but for his own policies/actions. Hence the term “polarising”. Not everything can be turned into a facile language game which is an excuse for demonizing “liberals”
It is amusing to see that who support Modi’s policies and political stand are ridiculed by intellectuals as blind BHAKTS and find nothing positive in Modi’s objectives, but praise all statements of his opponents and abusers who have no coherent economic or political policies acceptable to all of them, cannot see that their comments appear extremely partisan and displaying their hatred for Modi. To many who want to see and compare the policies of all political parties and their propaganda such partisan stand can only hurt their objective . I know even this comment will be called to be from a Bhakta !
Thank you Tejas, Ashok and Yamini for your comments – you have already said all that i felt reading the article.
Rahul Gandhi may have his faults (and who does not? though Bhakts believe Modi has none) but deliberate polarization is definitely not one of them.
He hugged is adversary for god’s sake 🙂
To the Gandhi worshiper, As i mentioned earlier, it has been inherited from Rajiv Gandhi’s time, reversal of Shah Bano judgement that create Muslim appeasement image. To change that image he was the one who bring Ram Janmbhoomi dispute in to limelight by arranging Pooja on the vanue by opening the gates which was closed up to that time.. That gave BJP an opportunity to make Ram mandir issue in a big way.
‘Polarising’ was always a British tradition that Congress faithfully adopted as they believed it got them “Votes”; the’Hindu’ vote being taken for granted. It was only after the BJP began demolishing Congress citadels everywhere that they actually remembered ‘Hinduism’. This descended to its nadir when Rajiv Gandhi was the PM, with the reversal of the Shah Banoo verdict and, worse, as if to compensate for that and appease the Hindus, opening up of the Ran Janma Bhoomi. Now, Rahul Gandhi has taken this polarising to its worst ever depths in Congress history, with their “Janeu Dhari” spree of’ Temple visiting on election eve’ credentials.. It is very strange that they should blame Modi and the BJP without opening their eyes to what THEY are actually doing.
Bravo. Well said! Congress’s vote bank politics which the feckless dynast is trying to desperately rejuvenate is the ultimate in polarisation.
Fair analysis, ‘because the liberal and Left intelligentsia, who were the unchecked gatekeepers of language for the longest time,’ would not write something like this. However, in recent times, the polarising against Rahul Gandhi (mainly on account of his ‘Pappu’ image) has softened in comparison to against his counterpart. Many of the friends of NM, especially among the more thinking people, have now become less friendly, neutral or even hostile, though their number in electoral terms seems insignificant. In perception politics it can still dent BJP and benefit Congress. On the other hand, among the large poor and common people the polarising seems to be in favour of NM.
The article points out some great facts about other leaders but it the claim about Rahul Gandhi would have been better justified had there been more examples of his ‘polarizing’ mannerisms.
If one divides society into liberals and illiberals – there must be lots of people in between as well – it is evident that the members of one group will be fond of their leaders and averse to those who head the other side. To that extent, both leaders could be considered ” polarising “. However, I don’t think that would be fair to either language or substance. Politicians don’t have to be Munnabhais, one is not sure how much hugs work in real life, in eithet politics or global diplomacy, but hatred is not an emotion that should be part of democracy. To be fair to the Congress President, he has not referred to any group of his countrymen with derision, thought of them as being anything less than complete citizens, indicated to his followers that they are fair game. Somehow one cannot visualise Shri Rahul Gandhi as a polarising figure. Whether he becomes Prime Minister will be decided not by his genes – although they give him a huge leg up – but by the Indian people in a free and fair election.
Extremely disingenuous comparison by the author, who calls Rahul Gandhi “polarising” based on the hatred some people have for the Congress party. The author doesn’t even specify which dictionary was used: the Oxford dictionary says to polarize is to “divide into two sets of opinions or beliefs”.
In that context, Rahul Gandhi is simply a generic Congress chief, which incidentally also means he is from the only party acceptable to (if not currently loved by) every major social group in the country. Having detractors is one thing, and separating or “polarising” society into a set of immediate identities is completely another. No one dislikes Gandhi for his policies, or his personal traits/ideologies. They hate the Congress, and he represents it. The author should seriously consider looking up Lohia’s “anti-congressism”, it’ll prove there’s nothing new about this.
On the other hand, there are elements of society who love Modi for what he has done, and others who hate him and his government. To name the most prominent; religious minorities. These people are not detractors, they don’t oppose him for sociological/historical reasons, but for his own policies/actions. Hence the term “polarising”. Not everything can be turned into a facile language game which is an excuse for demonizing “liberals”