The writer is a columnist. He is also a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar
aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk
In the two decades from the formation of the party to the time that it took power in the late 1990s, the BJP was controlled by only two very competent presidents — Atal Bihari Vajpayee and LK Advani (with one short term for Murli Manohar Joshi). When the party formed the government in Delhi and both Vajpayee and Advani held ministerial responsibility, the party presidency was finally let go of by them.
In this period, to communicate the idea of an open democratic system that was unlike the closed dynastic system of the Congress, the BJP presidents continued to be elected. But because the rivalry was strong between Vajpayee and Advani, this president was a safe person, meaning someone neutral, and with no base of his own.
And so, the BJP had presidents like Kushabhau Thakre, Jana Krishnamurthy, Bangaru Laxman and Venkaiah Naidu. They were picked through consensus between the rivals, not through competitive elections, meaning the system was actually closed and not open. The cadre did not have a say in the choice of their leader. These men did not make any changes or define a new direction for the party and they were not supposed to. They were placeholders and held office till the big boys came back to play.
The important aspect is that because the system was closed, no new leadership actually emerged in the BJP through the popular route. The disappearance from public life of Vajpayee after his defeat in 2004, and the eclipse of Advani within the party (about which more later) after his defeat in 2009, exposed this vacuum and opened up the space for someone to take the national leadership. It was assumed that this would be someone from inside the closed system. The BJP had some leaders who were “national”, like Sushma Swaraj, Pramod Mahajan and Arun Jaitley, groomed for bigger things, and some who were “regional”, like Modi and other state chief ministers. This division did not indicate true levels of power. Jaitley, for instance, has never contested an election and has no popular appeal.
Advani’s visit to Pakistan in 2005 and his concession to Muhammad Ali Jinnah put off a cadre that craved someone who would take them back to first principles, meaning the muscular Hindutva that had propelled it to power. This is when Modi emerged as his own man. A confluence of things — first, the killings of 2002 and the proven involvement of his ministers (one of whom has been convicted); second, his no-nonsense image and refusal to play by the rules of inclusive secularism, such as wearing skull-caps and hosting iftars; and third, his competent managing of Gujarat’s economy and the praise of corporate leaders — has made him a national figure.
He attracted the core BJP worker and voter because of the first two things and also large parts of the middle class. The media, which is usually wary of communal politics, has been neutralised through the third aspect, corporate endorsement of Modi.
The selection/election of Modi as the head of the party’s campaign for 2014 has actually made him more powerful within the party than its president, Rajnath Singh, because it reveals him as the popular choice within the party. Modi gives the lower rungs of the BJP and the RSS what they want, a full-throated and uncompromisingly Hindu nationalist leadership, which radiates strength and power. Even if Modi performs poorly in the election of 2014, he will retain control of the BJP. This is because his power comes directly from the cadre of both the BJP and the RSS and the groundswell has opened up the closed system.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 30th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (54)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Somnath Temple: Big joke.He can only dig without success!
@ Lala Gee & @ his Indian interlocutors: Surely nobody would accuse enlightened South Koreans to be practicing genocide of Buddhists nor would one accuse Christians to be converting them at the point of a sword. Till 18th century Korea was overwhelmingly Buddhist. In mid-19th century there were less than 20,000 Christians out there. And now almost 30% of SK population follows Christianity. Only 23% of South Koreans are Buddhists while a huge number-47% are Irreligious. In other words, 77% of South Koreans reject Buddhism. So, what happened? Answers can be intelligently worked out for those that seek, just as explanations are there as to why Buddhism almost vanished from India & Jainism despite influential adherents lost its appeal. And why Hinduism declined in areas now known as Pakistan/B'Desh & why Islam never made big inroads in many areas or why despite missionaries Christians are only a small part of population. But then who would ever care to discuss? People love their pet theories so much! What do these Pak-Minorities & Buddhists & Jains mean at all except as barbs & rocks to be hurled at each other in an Indo-Pak meet?
@Lala Gee: OOh...Once again,you have FAILED to prove links which talk of a genocide against Buddhist by Hindus and you are now using my old comments to divert the topic
Bravo,Well played.....Whatever disease you can associate me with... Its still common knowledge that you havent yet provided me the proof of your "Buddhist Genocide"
Let me patiently wait for it ..If you have provided evidence,you can provide me once again...... As I said before,it should be links or Book references because anyone can write a random blog and publish in internet
@1984:
LOL. To give the readers some background, this is what happened last time:
@1984: “If I could enter in an argument with you….Why cant I play chess with my dog???”
Of course you can, by all means. I totally believe you. Please play chess with your pet dog.
“Atleast he gets the point that living room is not a toilet after I explain to him a few times”
I have several times explained things to you, with proofs and online references, but you’re still there where you started from.
And this is what you said then in response:
"I tried with him few times and now I ignore reading his posts,no matter how much my heart aches to rebutt it"
And this is what you're saying now:
"I always refrain from debating with him because you can debate facts with facts not with fairy tales"
I am enjoying this. Everybody in this forum knows who backs his arguments with "credible" online references and who talks only in thin air. One thing, however, is very obvious though, from the history of your own statements, that you significantly lack will power as well along with "negligible" degree of CDS (Comprehension Deficit Syndrome). I hope the mods will allow this comment also to "Lets see what reactions this gives”.
@A reader:
"Since the overall number of individuals killed in communal riots in the Past 10 years in Pakistan is far fewer than in India, Pakistan must treat its minorities in a far better way."
"Pakistan’s maltreatment of minorities is known the world over .... with such regressive and unequal laws such as the “Blasphemy law”."
Though this may sound strange to you, I completely agree with the above quoted parts of your statement.
@1984:
LOL. To give the readers some background, this is what happened last time:
@1984: “If I could enter in an argument with you….Why cant I play chess with my dog???”
Of course you can, by all means. I totally believe you. Please play chess with your pet dog.
“Atleast he gets the point that living room is not a toilet after I explain to him a few times”
I have several times explained things to you, with proofs and online references, but you’re still there where you started from.
And this is what you said then in response:
"I tried with him few times and now I ignore reading his posts,no matter how much my heart aches to rebutt it"
And this is what you're saying now:
"I always refrain from debating with him because you can debate facts with facts not with fairy tales"
I am enjoying this. Everybody in this forum knows who backs his arguments with "credible" online references and who talks only in thin air. One thing, however, is very obvious though, from the history of your own statements, that you significantly lack will power as well along with "negligible" degree of CDS (Comprehension Deficit Syndrome). I hope the mods will allow this comment also to "Lets see what reactions this gives”.
Dear Lala Gee,
Have you ever wondered why there are so few minorities left in Pakistan?
The logic you are presenting goes the way of the following: Since the overall number of individuals killed in communal riots in the Past 10 years in Pakistan is far fewer than in India, Pakistan must treat its minorities in a far better way. Unfortunately for you, your far fetched reasoning doesn't involve any concept of scale or magnitude.
India has 180M+ Muslims and a population of about 1.2 Billion, and that's well into the 21st century. Pakistan's maltreatment of minorities is known the world over - and has a history starting from the days of Direct Action and leads well into the 21st century with such regressive and unequal laws such as the "Blasphemy law".
By the way, can you tell us who these Buddhists and Jains were prior to the time of Buddha and Mahavir?
Regards.
@abhi:
"Only few other commentators like kaalchakra and Riaz Haq can compete with you."
Oh! Perhaps you didn't pay attention to what I said about teaching chess to some intelligent creature. Nothing strange or unexpected though.
So,there it is my fellow ET commenters....When Lala Gee gets cornered,he brings out his own theory of Genocide of Buddhists by Hindus when there is no historical proof of any such genocide other than the one Bin Qasim committed to the largely Buddhist population of Sindh....
I always refrain from debating with him because you can debate facts with facts not with fairy tales....But his comments make me itch to write a counter-comment.....I think the ET Mods chuckle everytime they see a comment from Lala Gee and think themselves "Lets see what reactions this gives"
Hats off to you,sir....
@ASHOK:
"Hindus and Sikhs were around 20% of the entire population in the area now Pakistan in 1946 and in 2001 census they were reduced to 1.75%,"
Remember Buddhists used to be 40% of India's population during their peak and are now only 0.2%. Similarly Jains were 10%-15%, who are now only 0.3%. Unlike the population of Buddhists and Jains which is reduced to near to zero, nothing of the sort happened in Pakistan. Hindu's and Sikh's population in the current Pakistan was only around 10%, that is roughly 3.7 million, not 20% which you people consistently quote despite being corrected on numerous times. Most of them, around 2.5--3 million, migrated to India at the time of Partition, as did the 10 million Muslims who migrated from India to Pakistan. After this population swap their percentage came down to merely 2.7%. ((3.7-2.5)/37+10-2.5). Now the population of Muslim have jumped from 44 million to 180 million since 1947, and after adjusting for the differences of population growth rates of Muslims and Hindus+Sikhs, their percentage population come out to be the same as theirs is now.
@Lala gee
Your excellent reasoning capability and extraordinary hold on statistics makes you king of comments section. Only few other commentators like kaalchakra and Riaz Haq can compete with you.
@ASHOK:
"Hindus and Sikhs were around 20% of the entire population in the area now Pakistan in 1946 and in 2001 census they were reduced to 1.75%,"
I don't know of which special material Indians are made of, no matter how many times you explain to them even the most simple thing, they just refused to learn, and come up again and again with the same old lies hoping that by consistently repeating a lie they will be able to turn it into truth. Here are the facts again, although there is little hope that you are here to seek truth.
Remember Buddhists used to be 40% of India's population during their peak and are now only 0.2%. Similarly Jains were 10%-15%, who are now only 0.3%. Unlike the mass genocides committed by Hindus in the medieval times which reduced the population of Buddhists and Jains near to zero, nothing of the sort ever happened in Pakistan. Hindu's and Sikh's population in the current Pakistan was only around 10%, that is roughly 3.7 million, not 20% which you people consistently quote despite being corrected on numerous times. Most of them, around 2.5--3 million, migrated to India at the time of Partition, as did the 10 million Muslims who migrated from India to Pakistan. After this population swap their percentage came down to merely 2.7%. ((3.7-2.5)/37+10-2.5). Now the population of Muslim have jumped from 44 million to 180 million since 1947, and after adjusting for the differences of population growth rates of Muslims and Hindus+Sikhs, their percentage population come out to be the same as theirs is now.
@Milind:
"3 Million Bengalis are far more than ....."
Weren't we talking about minorities? Whats wrong with you Indians, when you don't have any answer you simply go off topic. Regarding sufferings in East Pakistan, India is, in fact, more responsible for those casualties by turning political unrest into civil war through manipulations, and training, arming, and financing rebels who wreaked havoc in the country and started the massacre of non-Bengali population, and later India imposing war on the country. Further, on numerous occasions, I have proved from credible sources that the figures Indians quote are grossly inflated - at least 10 times - but it seems that teaching a dog how to play chess is much easier than to bring Indians to rationality. Had that been the case as you make it, there wouldn't have been good relations between the governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Rather Bengali people think India their enemy as now they have realized the fact that they were manipulated by India. In his research report "Why Bangladesh hates India?" Rediff India Abroad Deputy Managing Editor Ramananda Sengupta quotes from a Dhaka University student:
"After our independence, India has time and again treated us with condescension and disdain. You have threatened to cut off our water sources. You have repeatedly accused us of harbouring anti-Indian rebels on our soil. Your border forces regularly attack our villages, rape our women. You accuse us of flooding India with illegal immigrants. And while mouthing platitudes about a free market, you deny us the right to sell our goods in India without tariffs. We might be poor, but we are Bengalis, we have some self-respect," he declares."
@Lala Gee – “In Pakistan, not a single incidence even the 1/1,000th in scale ever happened what happened in India during Sikh massacre of 1984, and Muslims pogroms of Ayodhya and Bombay in 1992, and Gujarat in 2002. “
LalaGee, Even excluding genocide of 3 million East Pakistanis in 1971, incidents as bad as massacre of Sikhs (3000 to 4000 killed) in 1984 or communal riots of 1992 (500 to 700 killed) and 2002 (1000 to 1500 killed), have been happening almost evey year in Pakistan and Afghanistan (for which Pakistan is either directly or indirectly responsible) with no sign of stoppage.
Please take care of your fellow citizens especially Shias, Ahmadis, Hazaras, Hindus and Christians. Time is not far off when Pakistanis would have to rely on internet to find how the original inhabitants of Pakistan (Hindus and Buddhists) look like. Hindus and Sikhs were around 20% of the entire population in the area now Pakistan in 1946 and in 2001 census they were reduced to 1.75%, mostly in Sindh. I will not be surprised if their numbers have been reduced to less than 1 percentage in 2013.
My heart goes to the families of those 20 or so young female medical students and also to those 50 or so Shias who were killed just in the last 2 weeks in Pakistan. Rest in peace. Only LALAGEEs of Pakistan can change the mindset of hyper-active Muslims Jehadis responsible for the carnage on daily basis.
@Lala Gee - "In Pakistan, not a single incidence even the 1/1,000th in scale ever happened what happened in India during Sikh massacre of 1984, and Muslims pogroms of Ayodhya and Bombay in 1992, and Gujarat in 2002. "
1/1000 in scale... huh.. Which scale are you using... 3 Million Bengalis are far more than all the 1984, 1992 & 2002 put together. Maths & logic were never your favourite subjects in school....
Mr. Modi will lose 2014 General Election in the same manner as Mr. Imran Khan has lost in Pakistan.Mr.Khan was successful in galvanizing youth of Pakistan but he still finished as second best.Mr. Modi's supporters are mainly youth and even though he will get votes from majority of them no way he will be able to win decisively to form the next government.Lastly, we Indians really deserve and we will get the highly corrupt, inefficient and utterly incompetent UPA again. The Con-gress party knows it very well too and hence the arrogance.
Now-a-days mostly this has been seeing in the comments posted by Indians on different issues most importantly especially Kashmir Issue that Pakistan,ISI and Muhajidee have been nightmares for India and Indians.Why????
@1984: Whether the enlightened individuals like it or not symbolism is very important in Indian politics. Politicians have to show enough examples where they seem to be in the middle and not far right or left. Modi will very soon adopt these symbolism as 2014 elections come around the corner. I am pretty sure, Modi will adorn his own skull cap very soon.
Modi will not be some sort of panacea that will suddenly fix all problems known to man kind as many seek to project him as, nor will he be some sort of crazed dictator that left wing activists seek to highlight him as.
He will simply be a likely better alternative to the other candidates around India at the present moment and for the near future. The term "better" as in advancing the interests of India in a more clear structured way and that too more rapidly.
All other expectations of him, whether positive or negative, are likely to be belied.
@Gratgy:
"Which one is secularism? I guess Pakistanis would choose B for India and C for Pakistan"
There is one very big difference between Pakistani's and Indian's mentality and attitudes towards minorities. While it is mostly the illiterate uneducated people in Pakistan, misguided by equally uneducated 'Mullah', who display narrow-minded, bigoted, and hateful attitude towards minorities, in India this is the hallmark of the educated people, without any misguidance, and, in fact, they are much more ahead of their uneducated compatriots. The other gigantic difference is in scale and severity. In Pakistan, not a single incidence even the 1/1,000th in scale ever happened what happened in India during Sikh massacre of 1984, and Muslims pogroms of Ayodhya and Bombay in 1992, and Gujarat in 2002. Despite all that, you still think you weren't able to do much to satisfy your thirst for "revenge", and now the remaining thirst for "revenge" must be quenched by blaming Pakistan.
@Gratgy:
"@Bewildered Why only “Vande Matarem” should be a yardstick for judging secularism?"
"And Why not, after all its the national song? And do tell me why should a Muslim member of parliament walk out of the parliament when it is being played? He could have carried on sitting, no one asked him to sing or dance along"
Here is the exact reason, taken from wikipedia, why 'Vande Mataram' wasn't chosen for National Anthem, which was a song chosen by National Indian Congress as the party song - one of the main reasons of Muslims resent which forced them to separate their ways from Congress and establish Muslim League. In no way 'Vande Mataram' can be India's national song for obvious reasons, but only of Hindus.
"Jana Gana Mana was chosen over Vande Mataram as the National Anthem of independent India in January 24, 1950, although before this date, Vande Mataram was treated as such. Vande Mataram was rejected because Muslims offended by calling India "Mother Durga" (a Hindu goddess) equating the nation with Hinduism, and by its origin as part of Anandamatha, a book they felt had an anti-Muslim message."
@Lala Gee: " ... I didn’t know that wearing skull-cap was forbidden in Hindu religion like pork is forbidden for Muslims. I’m sure, if some Sikh had offered him ‘kirpan’ or ‘turban’ he would never have refused to take. ... "
A skull cap will always be a foreign object.
A: Everyone should be treated equally, regardless of religion, caste or creed- Modi B: "Minorities have first right on national resources- Manmohan Singh" C-Decimate minorities, minorities cannot hold any important posts, bomb them, rape their daughters.
Which one is secularism? I guess Pakistanis would choose B for India and C for Pakistan
Every rational thinking Indian has an idea that the Congress is a threat to communal harmony by its divisive and Muslim appeasement policies.
@Bewildered Why only “Vande Matarem” should be a yardstick for judging secularism?
And Why not, after all its the national song? And do tell me why should a Muslim member of parliament walk out of the parliament when it is being played? He could have carried on sitting, no one asked him to sing or dance along
@1984:
"Second, his no-nonsense image and refusal to play by the rules of inclusive secularism, such as wearing skull-caps"
"Will a Muslim eat pork offered from a Christian to prove that he’s secular????"
I didn't know that wearing skull-cap was forbidden in Hindu religion like pork is forbidden for Muslims. I'm sure, if some Sikh had offered him 'kirpan' or 'turban' he would never have refused to take.
@Cynical: "So you think that your prejudice against Nehru weighs more than the collective wisdom of the whole nation, Gandhi included." Was Hitler's rise due to "collective wisdom" of Germans or Mussolini's due to "collective wisdom" of Italians? Can it be called wisdom when choices made have to be reversed immediately after the buffoons are overthrown or pass from the scene? Such characters as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and yes, Nehru are catapulted into the bright spotlight due to some temporary "divine grace" (earned Karma?). That spotlight blinds everyone else in the audience who just cannot see any other characters on the same stage. As soon as that spotlight moves they fall like Humpty Dumpties. Nehru was a ham handed shallow-minded politician but due to that "divine grace" even men like Gandhi were blinded.
@sid:
"while pesdo seculalist want topis and iftars but remain quiet when told to sing Vande Matarem (which praises the nation)…………The yard stick of secularist is blaffing"
Do these "pesdo seculalist" also despise 'Jana Gana Mana', 'Holy', and Independence Day celebrations as well? Why only "Vande Matarem" should be a yardstick for judging secularism? Isn't it your own yardstick "blaffing"?
To all surprised by an article with positive tone on Modi from Akar patel, the only reason is that Modi is a Gujrati.
@G. Din
“Modi is a real and a worthy forebear of the great Sardar Vallabhai Patel!” Desperate attempt at shopping for icons, even from Congress stable by an icon starved BJP. “He mesmerized Gandhi and the whole nation because of his fair skin and European features;” So you think that your prejudice against Nehru weighs more than the collective wisdom of the whole nation, Gandhi included. Even the most ardent admirer wouldn’t see a pretty face, fair skin and European features in Gandhi. Still he mesmerised the nation and became the undisputed leader of a movement the world hasn’t seen before. So, Sardar’s not having a pretty face surely didn’t come on his way to the top. Modi is more suited to be a worthy forebear of Jinnah. Advani and Jaswant Singh should agree. Any which way they look at it!!!
Most of this piece discussed party president elections in the BJP - well, the BJP President is Rajnath Singh. Modi is merely a next-generation leader who has risen through the ranks; it is unprecedented in India because on the other side, the top position is reserved for somebody with the Gandhi name - no other qualifications are necessary. Now regarding the reasons for his popularity, Mr. Patel is misinformed on both points. First, if Modi had not established his stellar record in growth and development impacting all sections of the society, both he and the riots would have become a distant memory, as were all of the riots in India till date. It is his success that forces all the pseudo-secular forces to keep harping on this one decade-old incident and to magnify it and distort it until no one really knows what actually happened. Second, the English language media, of which Mr. Patel forms a (rather repetitive and predictable) part, has always been anti-Modi regardless of corporate endorsement. What columnists like Mr. Patel and Ms. Mustafa do not realize is that they are helping to strengthen Modi's existing groundswell of support because they have nothing new to say.
play by the rules of inclusive secularism, such as wearing skull-caps and hosting iftars Since when was secularism came to be defined as wearing skull-caps? Please let me know how many secular Muslim leaders of India would wear 'tilak' on their foreheads to display their inclusive secularism?
1st time I am seeing the author to praise Modiji nd watever here author mentioned about Modiji is true. U can hate Modi but u cant ignore him, many hate Modi but at the same time tey also praise Modiji in private. In India now we need a leader like Modiji who is believed to b straight forward nd no nonsense type.
I can feel a big change is gong to come in the next general election in India as ppl r fed-up with this kangres corrupt dogs. Most ppl of India r waiting to see our beloved Modiji as the next PM, if he bekms our PM I can bet within 4 yrs u will see a different rising India with beaming confidence.
God bless India.
@G. Din
“Modi is a real and a worthy forebear of the great Sardar Vallabhai Patel!” Desperate attempt at shopping for icons, even from Congress stable by an icon starved BJP. “He mesmerized Gandhi and the whole nation because of his fair skin and European features;” So you think that your prejudice against Nehru weighs more than the collective wisdom of the whole nation, Gandhi included. Even the most ardent admirer wouldn’t see a pretty face, fair skin and European features in Gandhi. Still he mesmerised the nation and became the undisputed leader of a movement the world hasn’t seen before. So, Sardar’s not having a pretty face surely didn’t come on his way to the top. Modi is more suited to be a worthy forebear of Jinnah. Advani and Jaswant Singh should agree. Any which way they look at it!!!
Second, his no-nonsense image and refusal to play by the rules of inclusive secularism, such as wearing skull-caps
It was the mistake of that Muslim leader to offer him at the first place without knowing he will accept or not...Being secular means respecting other religions,that doesnt mean you need to just follow everything of other religion.......
Will a Muslim eat pork offered from a Christian to prove that he's secular????
Another Modi related article from Aakar Patel......
Why doesnt he talk about the dynasty rule which is being practiced in his favorite party.Congress..... Why only one party seems to be the supreme and how come prominent persons like Madhavrav Scindia,Rajesh Pilot,Jitendra Prasad seem to mysteriously get killed in accidents when Sonia Gandhi decided to join the Congress Party.....How about the fact that a senior Congress Leader like Sitaram Kesari being insulted by his own party members by locking him in a toilet????
But suddenly,everyone seem to have sympathy wave for Advani,whom they once accused of destroying Babri Masjid......
Thanks to the Congress, secularism is now all about wearing topis and arranging iftar parties. Who cares about empowering and enabling Muslims to make use of opportunities thrown up by the growing economy? Just provide things like funding for madrassas, mosques, salaries for imams, haj subsidy, Urdu teachers, and that's to be considered "minority welfare".
I fundamentally disagree with the author's diagnosis regarding the rise in popularity of Modi. One of the main reason if not the only reason would be his excellent governance which has resulted in his state out-performing every other state economically while keeping corruption at bay from most parts of his administration. Large swathes of the educated middle class and the youth who were sick and tired of the last two terms of the UPA government, which presided over some of the biggest scams, were desperate for a no-nonsense, straight talking, efficient administrator who could deliver strong growth. As it so occured, Modi happened to fit the mold as he didn't have a powerful family to prop him unlike some others and he delivered decisively on the governance front.
The other reasons regarding his core Hindutva ideology only appeal to a small minority of voters else you would have seen Praveen Togadia of the VHP running as the leading candidate. The Indian electorate has changed tremendously over the last decade and by and large the change has been for the better. At the end of the day what most voters want is for the provision of basic services such as education, food, water, electricity, health care, jobs, infrastructure etc. If you deliver, you will be handsomely rewarded.
More than the blog, it is interesting to study the love hate relationship that Aakar Patel has for Modi. His eminence as a journalist (and his livelihood?) arise largely because of his undoubtedly deep and incisive knowledge of Modi. His articles alternate between praise of Modi followed by scathing criticism.
The next blog on Modi will be a carping critique. Aakar. Do you write on other topics as well?
Nathan
@Sohrab Karboy:
Well said Sir!
BJP got Modified. Hopefully India too will be Modified soon. Another great Indian leader emerging on world stage.
Man..I can't believe it is Mr Aakar Patel who is singing praises to democracy within BJP in contrast to the dynastic rule in Gonegress! Oh now I understand.. he has found a new enemy in the style of closed door (s)election of President in BJP.
Modi's (presumed) ascend to the seat of power will not prove that we Pakistanis are any better. It will only prove that Indians are as communal as we are. What a bizarre win win situation!
@Author. Thanks for acknowledging Modi's merits for the first time in your writing career.
@Sohrab Karboy: growth....prosperitu...economic ascendency through butchering and blood bath is acceptable. ...hmmmm....who says fascism was dead with stalin or hitler...?
@Sohrab Karboy: As someone who is not an Indian, you have elucidated much better than most Indians!
Mr Aakar- please do a favor and define secularism. The concept of secularism is misused. Focus should be on eradicating poverty, casteism and good governance. All your articles say in the name of secularism, it is ok to be corrupt and keep playing the communal card. Please list three things that India needs to move ahead.
"Such a takeover of a major political party by an individual, purely on his credentials and popularity, has no precedent in India." Utter rubbish! What was Nehru's gobbling down of Congress Party? And, he didn't even need or have any credentials beyond being a pretty boy! He mesmerized Gandhi and the whole nation because of his fair skin and European features; even his oratory was simply atrocious. In stark comparison, imagine Sardar Patel, who singlehandedly arranged the geopolitical map of India, was not considered worthy enough to be the Prime Minister of India simply because he was not as pretty-faced as Nehru. Modi is a real and a worthy forebear of the great Sardar Vallabhai Patel!
Well written article, one of the few articles that praise Narendra Modi. Modi is definitely a no non-sense leader and a capable administrator. Thanks for publishing this article. It is upto minorities if they want to be inclusive in development and be sensitive to the sentiments of the majority community or if they want to indulge in communal hatred that their ancestors perpetuated during India partition.
That was decidedly an opinion piece worth reading.
If what Mr. Patel writes is true, ascendancy of Mr. Modi in BJP through democratic means should be a welcome change in the dynamics of major political parties in India and should be emulated in neighboring countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka where dynastic leadership of political parties has been the norm for ages.
Mr. Modi evokes negative emotions among the Muslims of the sub-continent because of his past record. As a Pakistani, I believe that regardless of that phenomenon, I would rather see a leader in India whose hands are not tainted with corruption, and who has a proven record of vibrant economic growth, stability, and progress as Mr. Modi seems to have established in Gujrat. I strongly believe that this is much better than seeing the same old faces getting elected on the platform of secularism and by playing the communal card but failing to deliver on the economic and social front, besides being involved in corruption up to their eyeballs.
The world has moved on, and so should we in the Indian sub-continent. Our people, whether they be in India, or in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, or Nepal, deserve a better standard of living, education, health facilities, modern infrastructure, and happiness. And, we should choose our leaders on the basis of their capability to deliver these.
digvijay singh for PM...............
while pesdo seculalist want topis and iftars but remain quiet when told to sing Vande Matarem (which praises the nation)............The yard stick of secularist is blaffing..........