The market is flooded with books on every imaginable wrinkle of the Modi era. And they are not just written by journalists & scholars. A new breed of writers is emerging – CEOs, tech gurus, RSS followers and self-published experts.
In my view as the finance secretary during UPA II govt, the least RBI could have done was not to further depress the sentiment with doomsday prophecies.
About 300 employees had called in sick Wednesday, allegedly in protest against mismanagement of airlines. Remaining staff given ultimatum to rejoin work by end of Thursday.
Chiman Singh, injured in 1971 India-Pakistan war, was discharged as non-pensioner in 1972. In his petition, he states denial of pension is contrary to settled law.
Even in the weeks leading up to Chamkila’s assassination there were massacres every other day. To airbrush all of this is sheer intellectual cowardice if not a crime.
Modi is a very strong and decisive leader. Like that of a king in monarchy or autocrat in autocracy. But it is to be noted that, the growth of a country is highest under monarchy if the monarch is good. Modi loves India and all his actions, decisions are for the good of India, nobody can question his devotion to India. In a proper democracy, Modi would not have been elected. But India and the world was in an exceptional situation when Modi arose. The world realized the dangers of terrorism after 7/11. Indians were too fedup with Pakistan playing the game of terror whenever it wanted and the inaction of Indian leaders. So when 2002 riots happenned although Indians were concerned, the people of Gujrat ignored the violence for the greater good. It is to be noted that Modi was not an MLA when he was declared the CM. But people saw his decisive attitude and didn’t waste time to reelect him again and again. The emergence of ISIS, the corrupt UPA era, the dirty dynastic politics, the discrediting of Congress by the Anna movement, etc. all played a role in making Modi the PM. I strongly doubt if Modi would’ve been PM had the other factors didn’t exist. So the external situation was ripe for an autocrat like Modi to be accepted. If autocracy is taking India forward, who cares if the means he applies seem illogical or outright illegal, democratic values be damned. So Modi is definitely destiny’s child!
Modi is a very strong and decisive leader. Like that of a king in monarchy or autocrat in autocracy. But it is to be noted that, the growth of a country is highest under monarchy if the monarch is good. Modi loves India and all his actions, decisions are for the good of India, nobody can question his devotion to India. In a proper democracy, Modi would not have been elected. But India and the world was in an exceptional situation when Modi arose. The world realized the dangers of terrorism after 7/11. Indians were too fedup with Pakistan playing the game of terror whenever it wanted and the inaction of Indian leaders. So when 2002 riots happenned although Indians were concerned, the people of Gujrat ignored the violence for the greater good. It is to be noted that Modi was not an MLA when he was declared the CM. But people saw his decisive attitude and didn’t waste time to reelect him again and again. The emergence of ISIS, the corrupt UPA era, the dirty dynastic politics, the discrediting of Congress by the Anna movement, etc. all played a role in making Modi the PM. I strongly doubt if Modi would’ve been PM had the other factors didn’t exist. So the external situation was ripe for an autocrat like Modi to be accepted. If autocracy is taking India forward, who cares if the means he applies seem illogical or outright illegal, democratic values be damned. So Modi is definitely destiny’s child!