In the last week or so there The New Indian Express has carried out couple of articles carried hitting out on Rahul Gandhi saying his educational qualification given to EC in his nomination affidavit as wrong and also making insinuations against his potential qualities as a political leader and potential future PM of India. The same story has been carried by various blogs (Youthcurry and Offstumped are a couple to name).
I am surprised and shocked by the nature of the article appeared in The New Indian Express, may be it has served its purpose of hyping issues and a gimmick to attain instant celebrity status.
Fundamentally there are many loopholes in the article and the assertions made by the bloggers and the journalist from The New Indian Express. When I contacted one of the blogger, she had clearly not done her homework, she replied to me saying "in her judgment she felt it was factually correct and hence carried the article" in pursuit of truth.
Some of the glaring omissions in the article and the post are as follows:
1. Firstly how did this journalist get hold of the marks sheet of Rahul Gandhi. Under the UK data protection act it can’t be accessed by 3rd party unless there is a formal consent from the candidate in question. This immediately puts a suspicion on the credibility of the cited document.
2. Level and grade of education is not a criterion for serving the people, but what is more important is the intent to serve the people, and I don’t see any wrong in Rahul Gandhi's approach to it. There is no correlation between quality of education and type of leadership. Also there is no academic research which can throw any light regards to such an assertion.
3. India is much more than the cozy confines of our offices where we sit out and belt out such articles. Different regions of India have different issues. Rahul Gandhi is rightly traveling across the country to understand these problems. Like many big names in Indian politics he is treading in their path to understand the issues first hand. Again I don’t see any fault in his approach of traveling across India to understand the problems - this is single most important agenda for any politician to come face to face with ground realities.
4. Political leadership is all about making decisions - education is helpful, but clearly how much one scores in a subject is not a yardstick for ones performance as a political leadership. If all top rank holders in India in various fields would have been half as successful in understanding the complex problems of India and doing something for it then i am sure we could have seen a more mature political leadership. I am afraid there is no proof or can be no correlation between the education qualification and intent to serve. Hence the argument on Rahul scoring less marks in a subject and hence your assertion he cant be good politician is absurd.
5. Casting doubts and slagging a famous surname of India politics, and in doing so you are misleading the youth of the current generation who lap up even things which are untrue. Hence I would suggest exercising some caution. Being a journalist one is vested with enormous power to shape the thought process of countless readers of the newspaper - hence with great power there should also be a sense of responsibility. Which I am afraid I have not seen in the article. At the least you could have put a disclaimer at the end of your article.
6. Why is that all these articles appear only during election time - I do suspect a malicious intent!!!
Either he is in a hurry to make name and draw attention by making insinuations on Rahul Gandhi or plainly want to increase his newspaper circulation - either way not ethical.
I have been over the last few days trying to address this issue on various blogs who have lapped up your article as true. The amount of damage that the article has caused Rahul Gandhi is enormous. The least the journalist in question and the new paper group could do is make an unconditional apology to Rahul Gandhi.
I have now spoken to the communications office of Cambridge University and they have confirmed to me that Rahul Gandhi did indeed pass in the year 1994 -1995 as claimed in his affidavit to Election Commission.
The real issue here which I want to draw attention to is about ethical reporting be it in the mainstream print and digital medium or the blogspace. I am all for accountability in politics and the need to ask some Str8 and hard questions to our politicians, but the issue I have is in the pretext of asking Str8 questions, one should not make insinuations and character assassination. Person in question is immaterial.
Internet as a medium is very powerful in this age and day of technology and increasingly the urban population have taken to off stream media like blogs as a source of information based on which they shape and frame their opinions. Hence give this great power, it is at least reasonable to exercise some caution and responsibility before we write or in this case make insinuations.
26 comments:
Why is Rahul Gandhi claiming his M-Phil was in Development Economics when in fact Cambridge University in this press release dated 11th October 2006 clearly states his M-Phil was in Development Studies.
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/press/dpp/2006101101
You have neither clarified nor debunked the facts merely raised a bunch of questions imputing motives.
Fair point, i am gestulating here that the course could have been one of those joint programes that are common in UK universities.
For example my MSc was in System Level Integration, but i do cite it as System on Chip Design - which means one and the same, just emphasising the subjects which i have specalised in. This could be the same what Rahul Gandhi could have done.
Also the degree awards in UK are pretty vanila, it would state if it is Master or Arts, or Master of Science or Master of Philospphy.
Important aspect of the article which i have tried to raise issue over is:
1. Verifiability of the cited source on the backdrop of UK Data protection laws
2. No correlations between level of education attained to that of political leadership
3. Larger issue of ethical publishing
4. Intent or Motive to publish derogatory things against Rahul (can be anyone for that matter) each time during elections.
I have clarified that Rahul Gandhi indeed passed ion the year 1994-1995 as against the cited 2004-2005. This is on the basis of my telephonic conversation with the University.
As for debunking the article, i have indeed highlighted certain assertions made in ther article which is far fetched.
Here are the facts.
Prof Joanna Gathercole, Graduate Admissions, Faculty of Economics, Cambridge on 21st Apr 2008 wrote an email clarifying that the markbook for the year 1994-1995 indicated that Raul Vinci's MPhil was in Development Studies and not in Economics, and that the Mphil had not administered by the Faculty of Economics. She also pointed out that Ms. Diana Kazemi, Administrator, Department of Development Studies could provide full details of Raul Vinci's MPhil.
On April 22nd 2008 Ms. Diana Kazemi, Administrator of the Development Studies Committee provided the official transcripts of Raul Vinci over e-mail. The digital copy sent by her had misspelt Raul Vinci's name.
Subsequently she ammended the digital copy of the Transcript.
Two days later she mailed 2 physical copies.
The ammended digital copy and the 2 physical copies are identical to the transcript published in the New Indian Express.
Its possible Ms. Kazemi made a mistake in the year like she made a mistake in the name when she first shared the digital copy. A snafu only she can clarify as the issuing authority of the transcript.
But an indisputable fact attested to by all 3 independent sources at Cambridge - Prof Joanna Gathercole fro Faculty of Economics, Ms Diana Kazemi from Development Studies Committee and the 11th October 2006 press release by Cambridge University is that Rahul Gandhi's MPhil was not in Development Economics but in Development Studies.
Why pray must Rahul Gandhi be shy of clarifying this issue ?
Why do well meaning individuals like Jairam Ramesh how to provide vauge answers like this one in 2004 in an interview to Amulya Ganguly in The Frontline Magazine of The Hindu to assert that
”in 1995, he got an M.Phil. in the economics of developing countries from Trinity College, Cambridge”
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fline/fl2108/stories/20040423004503400.htm
There is no MPhil in the economics of developing countries.
Rahul Gandhi can set this controversy to rest with a simple forthright clarification in the face of indisputable evidence from 3 independent sources in cambridge on the subject of his MPhil, even if the year of graduation is not a subject of dispute.
1. Issue on the date of passing:
I have spoken to both Diana and the University Communication office who have confirmed to me that Rahul Gandhi completed the degree in the year 1994-95.
2. Whether Rahul Gandhi's MPhil was in development studies or as Rahul has put it Development studies and economoics - is not much of an issue. The reason being, may be he wanted to showcase in his CV a particular interest/specilisation. For example when i write my edication qualification, I do so as MS in System on Chip design rather then MS in System Level Integration which is what is in my certificate. The only difference is i am emphasising an area of specilisation or interest to me, also based on my dessertation. Also i use Edinburgh university as my primary university though my program was jointly awarded by 4 UK universities. There are others who studied with me emphasise slightly differently based on their expertise - end of the day, the most important issue is we have been graduated with a Masters degree and have decided to position our expertise when we write our CVs. Hence i dont see any need to make a issue on this matter. Also it is important to note when the degree is awarded to Masters program it is done so as so and so graduated with a Masters degree - often they dont specify the name of the subject in the degree certificate for MPhil and PhD programs.
3. As for the articles assertion equating level and quality of education proportional to political leadership - the newspaper has accepted my counter point and admitted my objections.
Let us say it is wrongly given in the affidavit when it comes to subject, what is the major issue there? As long as Rahul did graduate in 1994-95 with an MPhil and from Cambridge - there need not be any controversy and such a hupla.
between if u check in Edinburgh university, there is no MS in System on chip design (which is my specilisation) as opposed to which you can find MS in System Level Integration....hence from where i see, i idont see why there should be such a huge issue
Its not about academic performance, its about Leadership Values and respect for the Rule of Law. The election affidavit is a legal document and authenticity of information in it was recently reiterated by the Supreme Court. Misrepresentation of facts in the affidavit is grounds for perjury.
Its not enough to make hollow comparisons with Mahatma Gandhi. Leaders must lead by example and hold themselves to a higher standard on Truth and Transparency.
Rahul Gandhi can still redeem himself on this by coming clean to explain if it was an honest mistake, an innocent embellishment or if there was more to it.
By doing so not only will he take the moral high ground he would also make all cheap talk on academic accomplishments a non-issue.
I dont see how it is a misrepresentation of fact, because he has indeed been awarded an MPhil from Cambridge University and in the year 1994-95 which i am sure can be backed by his certificate if indeed Law wants to verify.
There is no grounds for not respecting law as well as a need to redeem himself. I hold my ground that as long has he has been awarded MPhil and in the year as claimed by him - the subject of specilisation is not really a issue, also he has not claimed as doing Science where in reality he has done development studies - then it would have been a sea of change.
You have clearly pointed that he did indeed take economics as part of his studies but the degree was adminstered by Development Studies. This is not uncommon in western world to do subjects of choice if available as part of their degree and i dont see anything wrong if Rahul Gandhi has indeed mentioned Development studies and economics.
Now this is limit of sycophancy, You are seeing positives in Rahul Gandhi where and rational person just cant see any, his only claim to fame is his second name.
If you feel roaming around the coutry makes him a great leader, i'm sorry roaming around surrounded all the time with his part's workers can never show him the real India, if that is what he is looking for, even if you shouldnt argue on this.
If you want to discover India and know what it is like you need to see it first hand like a commoner and people you interact to should believe you are a commoner, in the last rally in amethi Mr Gandhi gave a speech claiming he fell in love with amethi because when he was a kid he went there with his dad a an old lady whose house had been burnt the last night gave him a chocolate :)
Now when a person is distributing sweets after their house is burnt to the yuvraj , you can very well understand how people actually will share heir grief with such a person
Inspite of this you want to advocate Mr Rahul Gandhis greatness and leadership skills , up to you, but seriously i feel amazed when i read apparently educated people talking like this.
It is not sychophancy in any form or shape. The specific issue and the controversy around his educational qualification is rather a gimmick and also i feel bad and irresponsible journalism.
I have only said he he doing the right thing by cris corssing the country to understand the issues affecting the people of India. Which is the first and most important step for him to understand the pulse of the complex country like India. Hence it is laudable. Also he could have taken the easy route by becomming the minister in the last govt which he did not do, what ever be the reason - i think it was the best way going forward.
It is for him now to graduate from just knowing the problems of the people he has come in contact with and how he shall go about addressing them - this still needs to be seen, before any judgement can be passed on his credentials.
If you have issues over dynastic politics, i would invite you to join polity as well and why dont all those arm chair critics who have opinion on each and every thing no dwell into real time politics ...this way all these self styled top notch rank holders adn proponents of merit based system can help india polity - but i dont see this happening, because these people are happy sitting out and belting comments and opinions, b'cauz they dont have the courage or the vision to work towards the larger good of the society.
Education does not give a right to make insuniation, also politics and serving the cocuntry is not easy - it is difficult, one needs to undertstadn different parameters of development to bring about a common platform - and i would support any politician irrespective of his or her second name. Because they have a very un enviable job.
Those who want to change the system, get into it and work towards changing it rather than making comments and insinuiations. It is not that Rahul Gandhi or a Sachin Pilot are any less educated, even though they have a famous 2nd name, the beauty of democracy is that they still have to go back to the people to get elected. Now if you are questioning the prudence of people then, show them the alternative buddy.
Your challenge to Join politics is uncalled for and has absolutely no logic attached to it, every citizen has a role to play in politics and democracy including an arm chair critic who makes his voice heard.
We have a number of excellent politicians who have been commoners lived the ordinary Indian life criss crossed every district of the country and transformed into leaders and visionaries, I dont see a need for myself to enter politics and also I dont see a reason for your optimism that Rahul Gandhi can ever graduate to any where even close to that level given his Yuvraj Status where his congress workers take him around to gatherings and meetings where people are coaxed with 10 Re notes to come to such gatherings and shout slogans not having an iota of an idea what this man stands for.
You also made a point that Rahul Gandhi didnt become a minister, My view is this is no great favour he has done to our country or anyone by not becoming a minister, Even congress leadership belived he is not fit to be a minister even worse than the 8 "tainted" ministers that the UPA started with. And the most important of all reasons is that a Yuvraj cannot just become any minister that will be an insult to his status, he only deserves to be the Raja :) (pun intended)
Finally i agree with you (for a change ;)) with your point that any kind of education, even in the best of international universities cannot make Rahul Gandhi fit to lead this country.
I did not intend to hit at you in person. But i will hit back at arm chair critics, as these arm chair critics when it matters most either they dont vote and even if they do so, rather than just commenting they can make efforts in educating the voters.
What works for Rahul Gandhi, is that the congress party is dependent on one family to kep it cohesive, if not for that family, the party will cease to exist. Hence the optimism in Rahul is optimism towards a set of ideology whcich may have been mired with a lot of negatives, but is still the best bet in my view (which is subjective)
As for as education, i have always maintained it is an enabler, what is more importnat is the intent to serve and work for the masses and understand their problem. Here i would take Rahul's corner because, he has shown the intent to understand the problems, let us see what is in sotre for the future.
Optimisim my friend is my inherent trait, and i hope it turns out to be true.
Offstumped seems to agree with you partially
http://offstumped.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/india-elections-2009-dissecting-the-bjps-infrastructure-vision/#comment-13395
You talk about a set of ideaologies here, now that is something which i couldnt comprehend could you elaborate on what exactly is the ideology of the Congress party other than praising the lord ! (Nehru - Feroze Gandhi Clan)
PS I hv specifically mentioned Freroze above as many people including Madam Priyanka Gandhi belive (or want people to belive) that their Family is actually a descendent of the Mahatma !
You talk about a set of ideaologies here, now that is something which i couldnt comprehend could you elaborate on what exactly is the ideology of the Congress party
-----
India has had a great distinction that which ever party rules at the centre, they take a consensus on Economy, Defence, Foreign Affairs, Education. Though there might be differences on methods of implementation, but the objective are by and large the same.
The difference are majorly subjective and on issues like Hindutva and sarva dharma samabhava. Hence is where i find the GOP and Nehru - Gandhi family consistent in their adherence or interpretation of our constitution to add to it this is very much defined by Nehru's vision of India, rightly acknowledged by all the leading thinkers of the world.
You issue of dynastic politics - the answer is simple every party needs a glue that binds it, and for Congress it is the Nehru-Gandhi family. For communists it is anti america, for BJP it is Ram temple and to bring back the glory of brahminical influence and the rule (between i am not casteist here, i have choosen my words carefully). If one calls the glue a slave that is unfortunate.
Freroze above as many people including Madam Priyanka Gandhi belive (or want people to belive) that their Family is actually a descendent of the Mahatma - this is not true, no where has she equated her family to Mahatma's and the people of india are not fools either. This is just the frustration on the part of opposition parties and the below the belt tactics of mis campaigning.
this blogger loves to lick shit stained of the congress' honchos.. so no use in engaging in a healthy debate with him.
Healthy debate should not be skewed up Mr. Anonymous.
Lets have a debate, why not reveal your identity. Also debate can be done without using slangs and also using descent langauge.
Learn to control your emotions. Just by abusing or shouting on top of your voices dont win you argument. Healthy debate are had based on ideology and philiosphies and conviction and not by using indescent language. It either shows the persons frustration or his cluture.
"This is just the frustration on the part of opposition parties and the below the belt tactics of mis campaigning."
could you elaborate as to why inspite of being married to Robert Vadra , Priyanka is still a Gandhi ?
"for BJP it is Ram temple and to bring back the glory of brahminical influence and the rule (between i am not casteist here, i have choosen my words carefully)" looking at this statement i can assure you that you are in a dream land and have no idea of Indian politics as it is today.
The Urban Middle Class that supports BJP (and that is a sizeable core support base ) does not support the BJP for any of the above mentioned reasons.
The BJP has a support across all caste as well as religions in the Nationalistic Urban educated Middle class in India which also includes Muslims, this is based my personal experience and interactions across this section of the society.
(None of the current major leaders or BJP are either Brahmins or have Ram Temple on top of their agenda)
Given your narrow understanding of todays politics and limited knowledge of the real contributions of the Nehru - Feroze Gandhi clan , i strongly believe you should avoid making such statements which can reflect on your intellect and knowledge.
Re: Priyanka Gandhi
Is there is a rule book which says after you get married the girl should change her 2nd name? If so i dont know. What i have been told and understood about indian ethos is when the girl gets married, she becomes part and parcle of her husbands family in the sense, shw would be one of the family members of her hubbys family. This does in no way stipulate that she should take her hubbys name as her name.
Re: Ram temple and the brahminical influence - i did not mean brahmins per say as a caste. It is a fact and i am not in dream land, that Ram Temple issue polarised society in the name of religion and caste line and was responsibile for the emergence of BJP. I am sure all the poll pundits and even the BJP will accept this as a fact.
Re: Urban supporters of BJP - there is an element of societies being divided on caste/religious lines even in urban centre, though to a lesser extent. I can cite various examples for this. To add to this, RSS has been very strong in advocating its ideologies to urban centres and also in using technology to often cater for the fickle minded and define hindutva to suit their version of hindu samrajya.
I am not sayign that BJP does not have good leadership or those who are moderates who are worthy of the support. But there is a pattern.
I see the reason for you gettign upset. when i mean brahmin - it does not contitute brahmins as a caste, it means the aradhaks.
As for politics, no party can come to power based on one particular caste supporting it. But what i also mean here is BJP showed the way to partiles liek BSP, SP, RJD and others to divide the society based on caste, religious and creed lines. Pre 1992, the politics of india was between two ideologies of Congress (Nehruvian view of secularism) and the socialistic Janata parivar.
As for my knowledge of politics, i dont want to pat my back here. I have based my views after seeing politics for very close quarters and also having travelled length and bredth of india. Probably the only three states of india i have not been to are Punjab, J&K and Gujrat.
As for contributions of Nehru, i dont think i would need a lesson on it, as i have been inspired by Nehru and his writings.
I believe you have travelled the length and breath of India a la Rahul Gandhi way, so I dont blame you for your ignorance.
I think if you can understand what has brought the congress from 400 + in 1989 to 145 now and possibly even lower post 16th may, you will know what is the current political landscape, and these 20 years has marked huge urbanization and education in India and made people more literate to understand what the congress has given them since independence.
If you still fail to understand what a majority of Indians have understood, i'm not surprised as there is a class of Indians who actually dont understand India.
Factors that caused the erosion of Congress from numero uno position in indian politics is as follows:
1. Mandal politics - alineated the OBCs from Congress and went towards the erstwhile socialist leaders like Lalu, Mulayam in the hindi belt
2. 1992 Babri demolition and eventual division of indian society in the name of Lord Ram and on religious lines - made Mulsims in hindi belt leave congress to various destination and in the same context the upper castes in the same belt went towards BJP
3. Rise of a strong Dalit party in the name of BSP - further dented Congress
If you look at all these factors, it was these factors which all have a religious/caste siwing to it which has hurt congress.
For Eg in UP & Bihar - Congress leadership was and still is based on Brahmin, Muslim and Dalit facotrs - and today the three group have moved away from congress not in the name of development but in the name of polarization.
As to your views on urbanisation. Let us be straight and get our records correct. In 1991 had not Manmohan Singh acted tough under the leadership of Congress led govt of Narashima Rao, India would not have seen its economy swell and the fruits of the tough decision taken then helped subsequent govts starting with the dream budget given my Chidambaram in 1997 as part of the United Front Govt and followed by Vajpayee govt. The process that was set in place was so irreplaceable that benefits of which was hammered home by NDA govt (full marks to them for not messing the process). If you are a student of economics you shall understand the process of economic policy takes time to bear fruits.
Hence in my comments i said, Manmohan Singh's contribution to india in th elast 25 odd yeards is more than any other individual towards india's growth.
The above mentioned factors were the real reasons for the loss of Congress, as it is stuck in its ethos of Nehruvial secularism and that of its opponents who have made division of society the plank to emerge successful.
The best examaple is UP and Bihar where Congress cant ask votes in the name of caste, creed or religion where as alla other parties are polarising society.
My friend i would suggest you to be bit more holistic when you are evaluating the downfall/ upswing of any political process.
All said and done, i am not for a second arguing that Congress is all good - it has made blunders as well. I am not discounting that nor am i ready to forgive them for that. But in the larger interests of the country i would prefer a biplar polity and also my personal preference is Congress comapred to other parties may be because of my inspiration from Nehruvian secularism and world view. I would suggest you to read Glimpses of world history, Doscovery of India and letters a father to his daughter - all three books of Nehru would help you give an insight to a great mind.
As for development, i guess no party can not strop doing it - but it is important how much they do and what pace they carry out and would it reach the people.
For example NDA - National Highway project was a massive hit and it is sad the current govt did not give enough thrust to it.
In the same sense RTI and NREGS from this govt have been highly successful.
If Rajiv Gandhi introduced telecommunication and high technology to India, The pitch was clear for Vajpayeeji for testing Nuclear in 1998. If it was indeed in true sense under Vajpayeeji tenure economy was sitting up and doding good because of tough decsions underpinned by the previous govt, the aam admi plank did come to fore with Manmohan Singh govt.
Development politics has been happening in india for a long time and every govt have played their part in it. Sadly the issue in india is that of implementation and accountability of implementting these schemes - which successive govts have not given much thoughts to it.
All this and the looming global recesion - i would be safe if Manmohan Singh the economist and the PM whose integrity cant be questioned and whose contributions to Indian in the last 25 odd yrs has been the defining corner stone for the new modern India as the man who heads the nation. As against the alternative of Advaniji.
Sadly, the only image of Advaniji or contribution of Advaniji when comopared to Manmohan Singh that sticks out in the last 25 yrs would that be of his Rath Yatra - which no doubt did wonders for BJP, but i am afraid did more damage to the country than (in my personal opinion) that any good.
Hence when compared I strongly would feel MM Singh deserves anaothers term as PM.
WHats despicable and completely missed point from Rahul Gandhi's election commission submision is his only 2+ CR. assets. DO you really think these guys are playing politics for teeny weeny copule of crores.
They are a family based clan who help their blood relatives suck Indian tax payers money. In BJP Atal Behari Vajpayee, Advani and Modi have no kith and kin to serve or hoard money for(male child).
Lets talk about what wrong woth Rahul Gandhi(I hope they are not tracking my IP ) . what despicable is him strutting around in Beamer 7 series among the poor and oh BTW he loves India,s poor and thats why his family is working for the last 50 years to make sure India has millions of them.
I have lived in the states for more than 4 years. Used to be a time when I couldnt imagine what states would have that India cant build in 50 years now feel that task could take 500.
Take that mister VC.
I am back in India(family closeness) but my friends continue to live and work there. Nobody wants to come back and work or live in India , people would rather commit suicide in US than think of coming back to India. Thats what my impression is.
You talk about Nehruvian principles , good to talk about, and preach but look what China did , annihilated us in 1962 war, they had occupied most of Assam and reached for good chunk of bengal, Hadnt it been for US we would have lost that part. But have we learnt from the mistakes. The North East India is going to go away any way after 50 years thanks to the heavy set of infiltration by Bangladeshi immigrants.
China is impressive infrastructure built across the Arunachal Border, our Defence minister himself admitted.What are we doing about it. BJP a hard core nationalist party had the guts to blast those nuclears othwerwise god forbid if the situation warranted our sceintist couldnt have given the go ahead of using them without testing. YUO think the congress would ever ever have the guts to go for nuclear testing.
At least I expect the people who have been outside India to appreciate the fact that it has been 50 years of myopic policies which led us here millions and millions continue ot be hungry. Asian tigers and china have whizzed past us. WHy after all we are a democracy and some of them are communist or ruled by dictators.Why?
India has voted my friend and it is a decisive victory for a Congress led UPA.
As for the issue on Rahul Gandhi - i dont see any issues in his income. Why do you think his assets should be more than that stated?
All you have done is accusations rather than explaning the rationale behind or the proof behind your views or opinions.
My friend though i live currently in UK, i have been grounded with India. I would be making an entry to Indian polity in the next few years.
Your impression that no one wants to come back and work in India - is very much false. I have interacted with a lot of students and professionals who have come to UK to study and or work, have clearly indicated they want to go back after gaining some exposure and experience.
Nehruvian era was marked a lot of good things to India which we and the world still acknowledges. China war was indeed Nehru's low point and which eventually led to his death. This is the view you can get from any historian.
China as a comparison is wrong. Democracy per say has many benefits when compared to dictatorship. Also all the hype around Chinese development is skewed. Indeed China has made immense urban development but one should also ask at what cost has this come? The other issue is also the rural - urban divide in China is far to large when compared to India. To top this all freedom of speech - what we are doing here, is the greatest democratic pillar.
You are correct, we can be better and there is enough scope for improvement. For me Chinese growth is complimentary to India and i dont see it as a competitor. Being an eternal optimist, i can say you we are in for good phase of developmental politics in the next few years. Dr. Singh is the best man in the current Indian polity to lead India at present and the talent around the table is also very good to deliver. Voters must have their task cut out make their politicians be accountable
Post a Comment