T C A Srinivasa-Raghavan: A paradox for Mr Modi | Business Standard Column
T C A Srinivasa-Raghavan: A paradox for Mr Modi | Business Standard Column
My VIEW:
What the writer almost missed is the context and content of the ‘change’ that has happened in Delhi during the current decade. Here the article went with the perception of the common man, keeping aside his historian’s mantle. Those who voted in Elections 2014 were a disappointed lot, fed up with the manipulations of coalition politics, voting for a change. They projected Modi and Kejriwal as change agents, not
necessarily because of their BJP-Gujarat and Anti-Corruption Crusade backgrounds alone. They found two individuals speaking out things which they were wanting to give expression to for decades. As both leaders were not claiming family background or depended heavily on any ‘vote bank’, India rightly or wrongly opted to give them a chance.
Media and analysts are still judging these two individuals using the same scale used to measure their predecessors. Marks are being awarded on the basis of their ability to win subsequent elections. At the moment, both are pursuing the promises given by them before elections, rather than keeping an eye on the prospects in the next election. Both are likely to complete their present terms. WE THE PEOPLE (Refer Preamble of Indian Constitution) will decide at the end of their terms whether they should get a second chance, based on their performance.
My VIEW:
January 4, 2016
India in transition
This refers to T C A Srinivasa-Raghavan’s article “A paradox for Mr Modi” (Business Standard, Line and length, January 4). The brief but excellent presentation of change of guard in the capital of the largest democracy during the last 65 years makes this article a ‘collector’s item’. The writer has brought out the rise and fall of all prime ministers in a manner, perhaps, future historians may record the events in Delhi while putting
together the country’s parliamentary history.
together the country’s parliamentary history.
What the writer almost missed is the context and content of the ‘change’ that has happened in Delhi during the current decade. Here the article went with the perception of the common man, keeping aside his historian’s mantle. Those who voted in Elections 2014 were a disappointed lot, fed up with the manipulations of coalition politics, voting for a change. They projected Modi and Kejriwal as change agents, not
necessarily because of their BJP-Gujarat and Anti-Corruption Crusade backgrounds alone. They found two individuals speaking out things which they were wanting to give expression to for decades. As both leaders were not claiming family background or depended heavily on any ‘vote bank’, India rightly or wrongly opted to give them a chance.
Media and analysts are still judging these two individuals using the same scale used to measure their predecessors. Marks are being awarded on the basis of their ability to win subsequent elections. At the moment, both are pursuing the promises given by them before elections, rather than keeping an eye on the prospects in the next election. Both are likely to complete their present terms. WE THE PEOPLE (Refer Preamble of Indian Constitution) will decide at the end of their terms whether they should get a second chance, based on their performance.
M G Warrier, Mumbai
Comments