India 2014

[ag]

Narendra "Newton" Modi has a lot to answer for

It was a great headline in the Times of India back then - and it still is.

The original article is down here

http://www.echarcha.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7414

[ag]

Well, at least INC isn't running him for PM this time.

[ag]

Well, most ultra-right parties in Europe are increasingly pro-Israel as well. So, in that respect, there is no inconsistency here.

[ag]

Well, most ultra-right parties in Europe are increasingly pro-Israel as well. So, in that respect, there is no inconsistency here.

Yeah, but the right wing in India is quite fond of Jews, which I don't think is true of the European right wing. I think it is because they are the "model minority" who don't convert people. And I actually agree with the BJP on this, especially on missionary activity in tribal areas. It should be stopped or at least heavily regulated.

Oh, by now the European right-wing has found itself other Jews - it's ok with the old kind, for the most part. Still more so, w/ the Israeli kind.

[ag]

Also to guide the conversation back to Modi, I don't know what the hell he is doing. As has been pointed out, nobody who isn't already tightly associated with the NDA wants anything to do with Hindutva. Of course there are parties who will give outside support to the BJP if they feel they can get more power at the center than with Congress. But it becomes less and less likely if Modi acts like this. He has to advertise Gujarat's economic performance and lack of corruption, not their pogroms. That is the only way the BJP can get enough outside support to take control. And the base doesn't need to hear the red meat to come out big for Modi.

But pogroms is THE fun of it. What else is the top job for?

[ag]

I wonder where that BJP vote will go. It very well could go to the INC since Mamata is not popula with the BJP type crowd in WB.

That alone should be reason enough for BJP to contest.

[ag]

It seems Modi is making a positive difference.  BJP vote share is up across the board in Bihar, WB, TN and AP.  Of course in terms of seats BJP is losing relative to 2009 because its loses in Karnataka and loss of ally in Bihar.  In other states increase in votes does not win seats.

Keep in mind, that the voting intentions for also-runs early on do not take into account the eventual Duvergerian effect. BJP is a national party, people have heard of it, and some might now be saying they'd vote for it. However, once the voting day is approaching, it will turn out that a) BJP is clearly not in the running for their seat; b) the BJP candidate in their district is a complete nobody, as compared to the real players running for the locally dominant parties; c) the BJP local organization and campaign is weak or non-existent (nobody is going to be campaigning hard in a district, where the best feasible outcome is the third or fourth place - that would be wasting the resources). While I don't remember what it was back before the last Indian elections, I am pretty sure that national party vote intentions early on must be overstated in places, where they have no chance. The actual vote totals will be lower - unless, that is, some of the candidates actually make it a real run.

[ag]

AAP is the anti-corruption Aam Aadmi Party which came from the anti-corruption Anna movement back in 2011.  It has some strength in Delhi but no where else.  It is anti-INC and if anything will align with NDA.  It was thought that AAP would split the anti-INC vote but according to this poll it would still be enough to oust INC from power.  Of course INC CM Diksh**t is still popular so INC could come back.

I am hearing that, if AAP is necessary for government formation in Delhi, they'd rather abstain. They do not want to support either of the alliances: there are enough anti-BJP people in it as well - and they do not want to be fracturing before the Lok Sabha election. They might let a minority government be formed by whoever is in the lead without them. In fact, if the government cannot be formed, from their standpoint it is for the better: they believe that the media is ignoring them, and screwing up government formation  in the capital would do marvels for media coverage before the Lok Sabha election. In that election they want to expand beyond Delhi - definitely to Harayana ad western UP, so they do need national media coverage.

[ag]

Actually, technically in Delhi BJP has 31 + 1 for their satellite SAD.

My prediction: AAP and BJP will be attacking each other mercilessly, while Congress and AAP will be involved in a strange dance. The reason is: Congress weakness. In Delhi now, arguably, it is now (at least temporarily) a third party. In a FPTP environment that means AAP and BJP are fighting for the Congress vote: as long as Congress "cannot win" the task for each party is to make themselves the preferred option for the defectors.

AAP simply has to become THE secular option, at least in some areas - or it will be a one-season wonder.  For them it will mean attacking BJP on ideological grounds, while trying to tag Congress as corrupt "unelectable" (at least, locally) failures. Modi will be increasingly used as the foil: attacks will be directed at him not to gain votes from the BJP, but to prevent votes going from the Congress to the BJP. And, of course, the symmetric attack is going to be that AAP cannot govern/ is bad for business/ whatever (or, in places, that it is not Hindu enough - but that is a matter of course). Of course, this also means that, besides the obvious strongholds, they should attack in places where the Cong is weak, but where there is no major local party. Gujrat, Rajastan (now), etc. They will not win in Gujrat, but they may hope to permanently displace the Congress as the local opposition - that should be the objective at the moment.

Congress will be in a tricky position. On one hand, it has to prevent leakage of the votes to AAP. On the other hand, better leakage to AAP than to BJP.  If I were them, I would try to smother AAP in love.  AAP is only a threat in a few, mostly urban, areas (or where Congress is weak, anyway). Elsewhere they will be a non-factor. Be nice to them, hint at every opportunity that you value their opinions and would love to form a government with them.  Push comes to shove, unlike the BJP, this could be another component in a Cong coalition - make it very hard for AAP to articulate, why it does not want to be in it, without making it possible for the Cong to tag them with the hint of possible treason to the secular cause (" We are willing to do everything they want. Why are they refusing to work with us if not because they are really planning to tie-up with Modi?"). AAP might continue swear they will not work with the majors, but what if the only alternative is a Modi cabinet? And after a nasty campaign, for that matter. So the Congress should be happy to make that alternative as horrible for AAP (in comparison) as possible. Anyway, I doubt Kejriwal is Beppe Grillo (or wants to be one). And if he is, his eruption will be forgotten in 5-10 years.

[ag]

Indians here: why isn't anybody acknowledging that I predicted today's news 12 hours before it happened?

)

[ag]

Kejriwal resigned in Delhi.

INC folk seem to have gone nuts. Effectively, they brought the government down on the main platform plank: the Jan Lokpal (anti-corruption monitor) bill. This is beyond anything Kejriwal could have hoped for.  They really were beginning to get into trouble in Delhi - and, lo and behold, they were put into a situation, in which there was no alternative but to resign: nobody can govern when they do not have a majority for the main thing they were elected for. INC promises of cooperation are now exposed as not worth the air they were uttered in. BJP and Congress voting together to bring the government down! What could be sweeter for the AAP?

On top of everything, the Congress folk chose to go out of their way to stress that Delhi is not a proper state and should always remember its proper subordination to the central authority (the showdown, ostensibly, was over the lack of a proper authorization from the Lok Sabha to the Delhi Assembly for passing of the bill - the authorization, which, on top of everything, is required based not on a law, but on an Interior Ministry letter). This will do miracles for their popularity in the Capital territory. Which, by the way, now, most likely, will have the repeat Assembly election simultaneously with the national polls. Sometimes one thinks certain people want to be wiped out. If that is not an example of political masochism, I do not know what is.

[ag]

Why would AAP be hurt among the middle class urban voters? They resigned, having been defeated on what was their original well-established objective, their main reason for existence, in a way. Given that, it is not like they had a realistic option not to resign (now, they may have maneuvered the other parties into overthrowing the government - but that is no such an easy point to make).

Of course, they will be running on a hardcore anti-corruption platform. But they were always planning to run on a hardcore anti-corruption platform - nothing changed here. Or is it supposed that the anti-corruption plank is very unpopular among the middle class urban voters?

From what I understand, their objective is to make the election in UP and Maharashtra as unpredictable as possible, preventing the formerly INC vote flowing to BJP. They also want to displace INC in as many places as possible as the runner-up (there is a rumor they might be going strongly out in Gujarat, where, naturally, they would not gain any seats, but might come second to BJP in a few places).

[ag]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/saritharai/2014/03/19/indian-stocks-rally-ahead-of-2014-general-elections-fuelled-by-hope/

Well, the fascist government in India seems increasingly certain. I just hope, they are sufficiently constrained with allies needed to form a majority. Still, I want a different globe.

[ag]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/saritharai/2014/03/19/indian-stocks-rally-ahead-of-2014-general-elections-fuelled-by-hope/

Well, the fascist government in India seems increasingly certain. I just hope, they are sufficiently constrained with allies needed to form a majority. Still, I want a different globe.

Right.....because markets always rise when they think an extremist, unstable government is coming into power.

Westerners need to chill out about the BJP. Modi is a dick of course, but the BJP really isn't worse than most western right wing parties.

That is the problem: it might be a stable extremist government. The best hope, at this point, it turns out to be unstable.

I do not like BJP too much, but I could live with it. But Modi is beyond the pale.

[ag]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/saritharai/2014/03/19/indian-stocks-rally-ahead-of-2014-general-elections-fuelled-by-hope/

Well, the fascist government in India seems increasingly certain. I just hope, they are sufficiently constrained with allies needed to form a majority. Still, I want a different globe.

Right.....because markets always rise when they think an extremist, unstable government is coming into power.

Westerners need to chill out about the BJP. Modi is a dick of course, but the BJP really isn't worse than most western right wing parties.

That is the problem: it might be a stable extremist government. The best hope, at this point, it turns out to be unstable.

I do not like BJP too much, but I could live with it. But Modi is beyond the pale.

Modi is running in his economic record in Gujarat as far as I can tell, and Gujarat is one of the best managed states in India, if not the best. It is not unnatural that people will be attracted to his candidacy. I can sort of see your point about the crazies being emboldened if the BJP had a majority, but an unstable government just defeats the purpose of why Modi was elected since most parties just want to suck the treasury dry for the benefit of their castes. Only a BJP- AAP alliance might be able to get anything productive done.

As far as I am coserned, the only purpose of a Modi election is a pact with the devil. Modi being able to do anything is a crime against humanity. Some things should never be forgiven or forgotten.  Whatever he wants to do for the economy is irrelevant.

[ag]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/saritharai/2014/03/19/indian-stocks-rally-ahead-of-2014-general-elections-fuelled-by-hope/

Well, the fascist government in India seems increasingly certain. I just hope, they are sufficiently constrained with allies needed to form a majority. Still, I want a different globe.

Right.....because markets always rise when they think an extremist, unstable government is coming into power.

Westerners need to chill out about the BJP. Modi is a dick of course, but the BJP really isn't worse than most western right wing parties.

That is the problem: it might be a stable extremist government. The best hope, at this point, it turns out to be unstable.

I do not like BJP too much, but I could live with it. But Modi is beyond the pale.

Modi is running in his economic record in Gujarat as far as I can tell, and Gujarat is one of the best managed states in India, if not the best. It is not unnatural that people will be attracted to his candidacy. I can sort of see your point about the crazies being emboldened if the BJP had a majority, but an unstable government just defeats the purpose of why Modi was elected since most parties just want to suck the treasury dry for the benefit of their castes. Only a BJP- AAP alliance might be able to get anything productive done.

As far as I am coserned, the only purpose of a Modi election is a pact with the devil. Modi being able to do anything is a crime against humanity. Some things should never be forgiven or forgotten.  Whatever he wants to do for the economy is irrelevant.

I think Modi's involvement with the riots are way overblown but whatever. I am just pointing out that he his certainly not stressing hindutva in this election. This election is not about that. I still hope the BJP choose someone else than Modi but I certainly hope the BJP wins decisively. Perhaps with some alliance members who force someone else other than Modi to become PM. That could be a best case scenario.

As far as I am concerned, there is only one thing that Modi could do that would reconcile me with him (short of doing the right thing and committing suicide, of course - but that he should have done long ago). He should anonymously retire into a very distant monastery and take a vow of never uttering a word and never showing his face to any human being.

Conditional on India electing him as a PM, of course, I will sincerely hope his government is disastrous.

Now Kalwejt will come and say that I am losing my mind

[ag]

Vajpayee was a much better PM ...

If you noticed, I have never said a word against BJP in all of this discussion. I, actually, somewhat liked Vajpayee myself: he was a decent man and a proper statesman. Advani, of course, is an SOB, but, still, I could, probably, even tolerate his government. I would never support BJP personally - but I would not wish a disaster to a BJP-led government just because it is BJP-led.

But Modi is another matter. The guy is a proud murderer, and everything we know about him suggests that if he gets his way, he will be murdering people. Given that he is almost certainly going to be a PM, one has to, at this point, hope that he is heavily constrained by the necessity of running a coalition government, and that while doing that he flops badly, so that he never has a chance of properly winning an election. Because otherwise we are in for a horrible future.

No decent person may consider cooperating with Modi. That guy is beyond the line that separates politics and Evil.

[ag]

One thing about Gujarat that you must keep in mind is that they didn't have the advantage of having a big city like Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai or Chennai in their state. That is what make their growth impressive, while West Bengal has squandered most of the opportunities it had. Ahmedabad is a medium size city at best and is overshadowed by other cities such as Bangalore and Hyderabad. No one should expect a state like that to have a lot of FDI. Speaking of Haryana, basically all the growth there is from Gurgaon which happened mostly because of the growth of Delhi.

The city of Ahmedabad proper is bigger than Chennai proper. Comparing metro areas, Ahmedabad is indeed a bit smaller - but it is still the 7th largest metro area in India. A tiny town the size of Madrid.

[ag]

One thing about Gujarat that you must keep in mind is that they didn't have the advantage of having a big city like Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai or Chennai in their state. That is what make their growth impressive, while West Bengal has squandered most of the opportunities it had. Ahmedabad is a medium size city at best and is overshadowed by other cities such as Bangalore and Hyderabad. No one should expect a state like that to have a lot of FDI. Speaking of Haryana, basically all the growth there is from Gurgaon which happened mostly because of the growth of Delhi.

The city of Ahmedabad proper is bigger than Chennai proper. Comparing metro areas, Ahmedabad is indeed a bit smaller - but it is still the 7th largest metro area in India. A tiny town the size of Madrid.

Your first sentence is irrelevant. That would be like saying Jacksonville is a bigger city than San Francisco. Metro areas are all that matter. Also, if you look at the population in 2001 versus 2011, you would see that Ahmedabad has been growing rapidly in the last decade.

My point is that after the British left, the four major cities of India were in an advantageous position in comparison to the rest of the country. And even until the recent past, the four metros are what got most of the attention. One would figure most of the FDI to flow to these places, and for the most part it has. No one talks about the investment boom in Patna or Lucknow, which are comparable cities to Ahmedabad, historically speaking.

Bangalore is not on your list of 4 major cities. And they are doing fine, it seems. Same with Hyderabad. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why "most of the FDI <should> flow to" the other four cities.

[ag]

One thing about Gujarat that you must keep in mind is that they didn't have the advantage of having a big city like Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai or Chennai in their state. That is what make their growth impressive, while West Bengal has squandered most of the opportunities it had. Ahmedabad is a medium size city at best and is overshadowed by other cities such as Bangalore and Hyderabad. No one should expect a state like that to have a lot of FDI. Speaking of Haryana, basically all the growth there is from Gurgaon which happened mostly because of the growth of Delhi.

The city of Ahmedabad proper is bigger than Chennai proper. Comparing metro areas, Ahmedabad is indeed a bit smaller - but it is still the 7th largest metro area in India. A tiny town the size of Madrid.

Your first sentence is irrelevant. That would be like saying Jacksonville is a bigger city than San Francisco. Metro areas are all that matter. Also, if you look at the population in 2001 versus 2011, you would see that Ahmedabad has been growing rapidly in the last decade.

My point is that after the British left, the four major cities of India were in an advantageous position in comparison to the rest of the country. And even until the recent past, the four metros are what got most of the attention. One would figure most of the FDI to flow to these places, and for the most part it has. No one talks about the investment boom in Patna or Lucknow, which are comparable cities to Ahmedabad, historically speaking.

Bangalore is not on your list of 4 major cities. And they are doing fine, it seems. Same with Hyderabad. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why "most of the FDI <should> flow to" the other four cities.

Uhh, traditionally Chennai, Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata were considered the 4 major metros. Certainly true for the first 50 years of India's existence. Then you had cities like Hyderabad, Bangalore and yes, Ahmedabad, rise to challenge that paradigm, especially with regards to Kolkata due to their commie governance.

Also, of course most investment flows to the major cities. That doesn't mean smaller cities can't get investment, but they are at more of a disadvantage and have to make up for it. Why has Ahmedabad gotten so much more investment and growth than other comparable cities like Patna or Lucknow?

I don't understand why we are debating this. Gujarat has obviously capitalized very well on the opportunities they have had. Of course they are not alone. I didn't mean to imply that, but Gujarat is definitely in the top and a state to emulate. That doesn't mean you need to go out there and immediately murder a 1,000 Muslims. Take the good, leave the bad etc etc.

There would have been nothing to argue about, had Modi done the right thing and killed himself years ago )

[ag]

AAP mde a big mistake by contesting everywhere. They simply do not have the money. If they concentrated, they might have gotten 10 or even 15 seats. This way they would be lucky with 4 or 5.

Anyway, fascist government in India all but certain. Just hope Indian democracy is strong enough to survive it. If I were an Indian, I would be looking for a way out of the country.

[ag]

Feeling a little hyperbolic this morning?

No. Just dislike murderers.

[ag]

Feeling a little hyperbolic this morning?

No. Just dislike murderers.

Oh, your post is just amusing because Congress/caste party economic policies actually do force  many people to leave India.

Here it is not about economics, but about being alive, unfortunately. Mind what I am saying: if Modi is PM, he will spill blood. And a lot of it.

[ag]

Well, and once Modi is the disappointment of the middle class and foreign investors, what is he to do? Sit back and enjoy the defeat at the next election? Or, may be, do what he can, actually, do: wipe up the communal hatreds to make sure a sizable segment of voters has to maintain him in power to avoid retribution?

The problem with Modi is not that he is a horrid fundamentalist - perhaps, he is, but that is not the main thing. The problem is that he has shown that he is not averse to using mob hatreds and murders to achieve his political goals. You might believe (or, should I say, hope?) that it will not be in his interest to do those things again. But hatred does pay, unfortunately. So I would not be that sanguine.

[ag]

History teaches us, that a pact with Devil is always fraught - even if the Devil in question promises to build roads aor cut the red tape. sh**t will happen - I am pretty damn sure of that. And, BTW, why would you think that he, who was willing to have people killed en masse in Gujarat, would stop before launching a "little victorious war" with Pakistan or sponsoring a convenient terrorist attack before an election?