Friday, May 16, 2014

The election results in India

1. Narendra Modi will be the first Indian Prime Minister born after Independence.  Modi was born in 1950.  (Rajiv Gandhi was born in 1944, and the power behind Manmohan Singh (1932), Sonia Gandhi was born in 1946.  The other Prime Ministers were born in  1889, 1898, 1904, 1917, 1896, 1902, 1931, 1927, 1924, 1933 ). 

2.  Modi makes 3 claims about the elections (the first two here):

1. This election has proved that polls can be won in the country on the issue of development alone. This verdict is a verdict for development, to take India forward and to work hard to fulfill people's dreams.
2. This is the second election after the Emergency where people voted for an agenda, rather than going by caste and religion. This result is the answer to those who attacked me fiercely. They did hard work and so much of research to attack me, but finally they lost.
 3. (here) During the victory rally, Mr. Modi referred to people born after British rule ended in 1947, saying they never had the “opportunity” to die or to go to jail to fight colonialism. “We did not die for independence, but we will live for good governance.” “This is the first time people who were born in independent India have played a decisive role in the election,” Mr. Modi said.

The agenda for the elections after the Emergency was the restoration of civil liberties; and the agenda for this election is development.   The poll results seem to show splits in the votes of  Muslims, and various caste groups including Dalits. (Excuse me for the old terminology - the political set up in India since Independence has featured politicians exploiting these divides to create "vote banks".  The terminology and the "vote bank" phenomena should hopefully fade away.)

It also appears that the youth vote went for Modi in a big way.  We shall know more as the analyses roll in.

All in all, a truly historic election.

PS: Pankaj Misra is upset. As a BRF-er put it: "Delicious whine from Pankaj Mishra. Just count each word as a drop of tear and enjoy. Don't try to read it."



Modi's speech (Hindi) in Ahmedabad is on youtube:


A very good speech.

Modi talks about "su-raj" - good governance -- to be achieved now, decades after achieving "swaraj" - self governance. He says that this election has laid the foundation of modern India. He says that India has rendered the verdict that the solution to its problems is development; that the other parties had to talk about development too, even if only to criticize Modi and to be negative about Gujarat. The people have grasped that the development agenda is the only one that can save the country.

Modi says that from 1857 to 1947 so many people made sacrifices for the cause of Independence; the people supported the cause, but it did not turn into a revolution. Mahatma Gandhi's greatest contribution was to turn the cause of independence into a people's movement/revolution. Everything that people did - wearing khadi, educating women, sweeping the road, any public service, even little actions - came to be in the cause of independence. Not everyone had to face execution, go to jail or face the beatings of the British. It was very easy for the British to shoot the lone revolutionary, but what could they do about the person who was teaching fifty people in the classroom, and who says, I'm doing this because I want freedom? But after Independence, development became a government thing, and not a people's movement. People were disconnected from the development done in their name. If it was a people's movement, then people would not litter or drive on the wrong side of the road, because it would hinder development. But forget about the wasted time. Development has to be made into a people's movement.  The student who does well at school, the sweeper who does a good job, should feel it as a contribution to the nation's progress...then we need just 10 years to make the 21st century the Indian century. We have to take all one-and-quarter billion people of all persuasions on this journey.


Comments (9)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
The strong win of Modi says a lot about the current state in India. I hope his efforts will help to make the lives of the indian people better.
The most delicious aspect of this election to me is the pain it had inflicted on folks like Pankaj Mishra, Amartya, Amitava Ghosh, Teesta, Praful Bidwai, Prannoy Roy and the rest of the tribe. Never has someone else's misery been this morally uplifting.
1 reply · active 567 weeks ago
Yes :)

Also, I think Modi mentioned that 1 million youth or some such enormous number enter the workforce each month. To give them a chance, India's economy has to expand very rapidly. I get the feeling that Modi of all politicians understands that the best. The consequences of anything else are too dire to be contemplated.
The Gardener's avatar

The Gardener · 567 weeks ago

I fully agree with what you say in the post and your reply above.

I did have a little reservation about voting for Modi but he was the best among the contenders. However, he should take care to include some Muslims and, if possible, a Christian in his Council of Ministers to show what he said in his fist post-victory public address a Vadroda (Baroda). I read that there is no Muslim among the newly-elected B J P MPs. In that balanced address, in the elections, there are no enemies, only competitors; once the competition is over, the winner belongs to all.

I feel sorry for Arvind Kejriwal. He has good intentions; he can be only an agitator but failed in governance. I feel sorry for Meera Sanyal. a fellow banker like me, who contested in Mumbai on an AAP ticket and lost. She gave up a successful career in banking to join Arvind Kejriwal.
Critical_Observer's avatar

Critical_Observer · 567 weeks ago

It is worth reading Juan Cole's ('Informed Comment') vituperative and abusive outburst to the Narendra Modi / BJP victory. He essentially heckles with scribbled barbs.
http://www.juancole.com/2014/05/reasons-governmen...

Excerpts :-

"5 Reasons India’s new BJP (“Tea Party”) Government may not be so Great for Business"

Comment : If he has reservations, why is he couching them in terms of "not great for business" ? He can straightaway express concerns
for minority rights and violence.

"The Hindu Nationalists have conducted pogroms against Muslims (12 percent of the population) on several occasions, as well as against other religious minorities. What kind of business atmosphere is that creating– whether for investors or consumers? The new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, himself has been on a US travel ban because as governor of Gujerat State he was felt to have done too little to halt one such pogrom. "

(Comment : No mention of the Supreme Court and SIT clearance, and turning down of the Zakia Jaffrey appeal. Cole DID NOT allow comments reminding him of this. He also DID NOT allow comments pointing out the selectivity of the State Dept "travel ban".)

" It maintains that Sanskrit developed in India rather than spreading into it from the north. It opposes the academic study of religion and its findings. Already, the books of Chicago Sanskritologist Wendy Doniger have been banned in India, and this sort of thing will now get worse."

(Comment : He is completely unaware of *empirical* problems mainstream archaeologists and Sanskrit scholars have found with the Indo-Aryan Migration scenarios. Much more seriously, he is simply lying about the banning of the Dongier work - it was, of course, withdrawn by the publisher. He is also ignoring the content of the books, and ignoring other book bans, like that of the Satanic Verses. Again, he DID NOT allow comments pointing out his mistakes)

" The last time the BJP was in power, it almost went to war with Muslim-majority Pakistan, coming close twice in 2002 alone. Since India and Pakistan are both nuclear states, such a war would have been a catastrophe of cosmic proportions."

(Needs no comment. But someone tried to explain as below in the comment section:

Ashutosh :
...
'#4: This is probably the most irresponsible comment on your behalf. You can claim that India almost went to war with Pakistan without providing any context and get away with it but it simply shows how misguided your article is.'

Cole responded :
yeah this was real good for business http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/...

Ashutosh :
...
The 2002 attack from Pak terrorist was real but the Indian response was clearly a pressure tactic to make Pakistan act on it and assuage the Indian populace’s anger. It is not that the Indian Govt led by BJP was belligerent and wanted to have war as you had portrayed in your article.
...

Cole ENDED THE DISCUSSION (disallowed more comments on the thread) by questioning the commenter's reading comprehension (!!!) :

I am afraid you don’t read texts very well. The BJP government was belligerent and willing to go to war, as the article’s headline said, despite the danger of nuclear weapons exchange. There is no evidence that the Musharraf government itself was behind the attack on the parliament building.

(that is, headline = proven fact !!! "Musharraf government" (!!), not regime or dictatorship. Parliament attack in 2002 (!!). Ignores Lahore summit, Kargil, J & K Assembly attacks, 2002 attack on military kids. Ignores the history of systematic anti-India terrorism past 20 years - only *1* attack is relevant, no background or history of attacks is acknowledged.)

Some more academic rioting from Cole : "They don’t seem to realize that India has just elected the equivalent of a Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz."
and " One dark cloud on that horizon is that it attained an absolute majority in parliament and so does not need more moderate coalition partners." (!!)

All in all, an ugly, jeering, non-academic, genuinely Hindu-baiting scribble.
Critical_Observer's avatar

Critical_Observer · 567 weeks ago

PS : to the above : the entire Juan Cole scribble is worth reading. Isn't it - at some level and in some manner - culpably unethical for a professional academic to author screeds like this on something close to his subject matter ?
3 replies · active 567 weeks ago
Juan Cole is married to a Pakistani, was married in Lahore, and his view of the Indian subcontinent tends to be a Pakistani one.
I posted this, let's see if it gets past moderation:

#1 Narendra Modi was very good for business in Gujarat, the state he presided over for over a decade. His campaign was wholly about jobs and development, and Indian voters believed him.

2. Doniger's publisher, Penguin, withdrew her book, faced with a private lawsuit. The book is not banned. As to science, the Vajpayee government (BJP) was an enthusiastic supporter of Indian science establishments. Congress's Manmohan Singh always seemed skeptical of Indian capabilities and seemed more inclined toward import rather than indigenous development of technology. It remains to be seen how Modi will do.

3. Modi's state of Gujarat actually has the third lowest Gini coefficient of the states in India, and the Gini coefficient improved a wee bit (i.e., more equality) during his tenure as Chief Minister.

4. The correct way to put it is that Pakistan-backed terrorists attached the Indian Parliament, and army encampments in Jammu & Kashmir. That almost led to war.

5. India's real GDP growth rate per the UN http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wesp...

Year - India - Developing countries average
2000 - 4.0% - 5.8%
2001 - 5.2% - 3.0%
2002 - 3.8% - 4.3%
2003 - 8.4% - 5.3%
2004 - 8.3% - 7.3%
2005 - 9.3% - 6.7%
2006 - 9.7% - 7.3%
2007 - 9.1% - 7.6%
2008 - 7.3% - 5.4%
2009 - 5.9% - 1.9% (partly estimated)
2010 - 6.5% - 5.3%

The war scare in 2002 did not dampen growth in 2003, it would appear.
Critical_Observer's avatar

Critical_Observer · 567 weeks ago

He has responded, and the response is hilarious conspiracy theorizing.

"Oh come on. Penguin voluntarily removed a book from the Indian market? That’s your story? They knew Hindutva judges would rule against them. BJP infiltrates RSS types into the bureaucracy as a way of remaining in power even when they aren’t. We are likely
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
headed toward the end of freedom of speech in India as regards archeology, linguistics and history– which you cannot separate out
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
from science.

Why would BJP risk nuclear war twice in 2002 over a terrorist attack (not the attack of a state) if they were sane people? If you don’t think that affected foreign investment for a while, you didn’t live through it."

He never heard of state-sponsored terrorism...

Post a new comment

Comments by