.
.
.
I like Rahul Gandhi, he seems a nice chap, or he has had acting lessons...whichever, BUT definitely more likeable than Modi the dour butch gay 'saviour' of India who is going to sort it out.
Hitler did sort it out bringing unemployment down from 6 million in just a few years......or fiddling the stats....or just giving men some shovels to dig an infrastructure project of no worth, a Reichmark a day, cheap free food....and vola! .......economic miracle, feel good butch gay parades, mass rallies, military marches, the clever use of the volk radio...and cinema.
Do we have any war movies by Bollywood before the end of May 2014? Or patriotic TV dramas? Or ...............Seriously Hindu themed programs in tv and cinema?
Hitler destroyed Germany. Shamed Germans to this day. made Germans guilt ridden to this day. Divided the country into 2 parts. Lost territory.........killed 10 million Germans and directly and indirectly 50 million others around the world.....enabling the USA to becoming the sole superpower which had secretly been funding Hitler since the 1920's via certain Jewish banks.
Here are some more 2 hour interviews I would recommend for Rahulji.......with Karan Thapar, Shobhaa De,
and Sagarika Ghose.
I don't recommend a USA style debate with all the leaders of the parties .....first Rahulji is not the PM of the country, merely a leader in waiting; Rahul may be short vis a vi other leaders; and he is too 'young' vis a vi the other party leaders in a society which respects the old more.
1. Would like to know what he was doing with suitcases full of dollars at an American airport? Does he not know about bank to bank transfers? This smells of conspiracy, corruption and farcical of the Bollywood type.
2. Is he gay? Has he been to gay parties in the UK/USA? Does he have a boyfriend? Do the spooks in those countries have pictures of him with his gay boyfriends? Can he be blackmailed by foreign entities?
3. Was he partying hard whilst Mumbai was burning at the behest of the RSS/Shiv Sena/Israelis/ISI/RAW in 26/11? Does he not give a flying fuck for India and its very serious problems, and the death of 160 people, with clearly sighted gora foreign mercenaries shooting up India's major financial hub?
4. What policy implementations has he achieved in the legislature over 10 years in politics that have benefited the country?
5. Would he prefer to be a playboy......jet setting around the world?
6. What is the first natural language he thinks and speaks in?
7. What does strategic thinking mean? What does national policy mean?
8. How does he intend to push through radical policy initiatives with his happy-clappy personality? PM Rajiv Gandhi failed because the old guard in Congress thwarted him. Does he have greater stature and determination than his father?
9. Is he a true REAL INDIAN....50% Italian, 25% Kashmiri Brahmin, and 25% Parsee?
10. How is he going to sort out CORRUPTION in India with suitcases stuffed with cash from the CIA?
11. Indian INDUSTRIALISATION..........representing 25% of the world manufacturing in 1750....is not going to happen merely through foreign investment. 80-90% of it is going to be realized ONLY through government initiatives and the private sector of India. That means taking money from Indians and investing in industry...whether the money is in Switzerland, Mauritius, London or New York or India itself via an effective domestic tax system. It means blocking cheap CHINESE IMPORTS DUMPED into the Indian market in addition.
12. Indian INFRASTRUCTURE..........representing some of the best under the Mughals by 1750....is not going to happen merely through foreign investment. 80-90% of it is going to be realized ONLY through government initiatives and the private sector of India. That means taking money from Indians and investing in INFRASTRUCTURE...whether the money is in Switzerland, Mauritius, London or New York. It means taking help from Japan, Germany, France, South Korea and China.
INDUSTRY AND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT is non-inflationary and will propel India into the NIC club.........with 50% of GDP in Industry. At present India is sitting awkwardly, unremarkable between being an LEDC country and a NIC country unlike Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia..........after 67 years of INDEPENDENCE.
INDUSTRY AND INFRASTRUCTURE creates real jobs.
13. CHRONIC POWER SHORTAGE---invest in cheap coal generated electricity for now, and more dams. More R & D on Thorium as a source of nuclear power, and of course Hydrogen power. Solar power investment is a good bet in sunny India.
14. Why did he run away from Harvard? One of the best universities in the world, where he could have, were he to stay for 3/4 years networked with some of the best and brightest kids of the future in politics, governance, philosophy and much more. All he had to do was arrange ghost writers from the Indian embassy to do his work. I am sure you can do serious partying at Harvard. But instead after just 3 months he ran away from there.....headed towards Maimi? And $20 million donation money to Harvard wasted from poverty stricken India......so he could get in the first place.
15. How much money has the Gandhi family made from arms contracts/license Raj since grandma started on this road? $4 billion, $10 billion or $20 billion? Is India's national security for sale to the highest bidder? Why does India spend only 1.8% on defense? Why is there a focus on the sea when there should be a focus UP THE MOUNTAINS......I know that, the ordinary Indian knows that, armchair generals know that, Strategic Studies center academics know that, the military know that.........but our block vote bank, minority reserved place Harijan defense ministers under both major parties don't seem to know that.
16. Why after 60 years of 'independence' is there 850 million Indians STILL living on $2 a day. Why does India have the largest number of people living below the poverty line in the world?
17, Why does India STILL have 300 illiterate adults? The greatest number in the world.
18. Is India a country run by Indians or are its key decisions made by globalists in London and New York?
19. Does Rahul Gandhi think his charm will woo ALL 50% of the voters......women. Because they see him as their son, potential boyfriend or even a husband? Is that it? Is that the only strategy and reason for..."empowering women".....which he repeats ALL the time in the interview, above.
The per capita income will then jump from $4200 to $10,000 in a few years......Bill Gates prediction of poverty being eradicated will ONLY then be realized.......home to the largest below poverty group.
BUT yes better than this fucking clown BELOW from Gujarat to achieve ALL this.
Rahul is not representative of the Congress Party in any real sense. There are various power blocks within the party. He is a front mascot.
He may be trying to create a 'radical' young reformist wing within the party.....if he is successful, I'll join it at 50.
____________________________________________________
India's Gandhi family
The Rahul problem
By the Economist.
WHAT is the point of Rahul Gandhi? The 42-year-old scion of the Gandhi dynasty, which has long dominated India’s ruling party, is still the most plausible prime ministerial candidate for Congress at the looming 2014 election. In advance of that, possibly within weeks, he may get some new party post (some talk of a “vice presidency”) or possibly a government job (as rural affairs minister, perhaps?). A cabinet reshuffle is awaited, with the washed-out monsoon session of parliament swirling down the drain.
.
Promoting Mr Gandhi now would in theory make sense for Congress. He has long been presumed the successor-in-waiting to Sonia Gandhi, his mother and the party’s president. He needs time to start showing some skills as a leader before campaigning starts in 2014. And for as long as Mr Gandhi does not rise, it is hard for other relative youngsters to be promoted without appearing to outshine him. That has left Congress looking ever older and more out of touch.
.
But he has long refused to take on a responsible position, preferring to work on reorganising Congress’s youth wing, and leading regional election efforts, both with generally poor results. The problem is that Mr Gandhi has so far shown no particular aptitude as a politician, nor even sufficient hunger for the job. He is shy, reluctant to speak to journalists, biographers, potential allies or foes, nor even to raise his voice in parliament. Nobody really knows what he is capable of, nor what he wishes to do should he ever attain power and responsibility. The suspicion is growing that Mr Gandhi himself does not know.
.
Mrs Ramachandran’s book—along with just about every other one about the Gandhi dynasts—is thus hampered by a lack of first-hand material on its subject. Mr Gandhi can only be judged by his actions, his rare and halting public utterances, and the opinions of others who work near him. Given that limitation, she does a decent job: sympathetically but critically analysing his various efforts. She concludes that his push to modernise the youth organisation of Congress as if it were an ailing corporation, applying management techniques learned from Toyota, were earnest and well-meaning but ultimately doomed to fail. “Brand” Rahul, she suggests convincingly, is confused. A man of immense privilege, rising only because of his family name, struggles to look convincing when he talks of meritocracy.
.
The overall impression of Mr Gandhi from Mrs Ramachandran’s book is that of a figure who has an ill-defined urge to improve the lives of poor Indians, but no real idea of how to do so. He feels obliged to work in politics, but his political strategies are half-baked, and he fails to develop strong ties with any particular constituency. He has tried to disavow the traditional role of a Gandhi (which would pose him as a Western-educated member of the elite with a near-feudal style of concern for the masses) preferring to pitch himself as a man ready to drink the dirty water of village peasants, and to eat food among the most marginalised of society. But his failure to follow up on such gestures (and many others), with policy or prolonged interventions to help a particular group, suggests a man who strikes an attitude but lacks skills in delivering real change—either as election results, or social improvement.
.
Part of the problem is presumably the coterie of advisers who surround Mr Gandhi. Western-educated, bright and eager to cosset their leader within a very small bubble, they appear unready for the messy realities of Indian politics: the shady alliances that are required to win elections; the need to strike deals with powerful regional figures who increasingly shape national politics; the importance of crafting a media strategy in an era of cable TV news. More basically, they seem not to have developed any consistent views on policy. What does Mr Gandhi stand for: more liberal economic reforms; defensive nationalism; an expansion of welfare? Instead they prefer to focus on tactics. Perhaps because of their poor advice, their man too often looks opportunistic and inconsistent.
.
Opportunities have presented themselves to Mr Gandhi in the past couple of years. One was the Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement, of last year and this, when young, urban, middle-class voters, in the main, expressed rage at huge scandals overseen by the elderly folk who run Congress and their coalition allies. Mr Hazare’s campaign successfully drew on their anger, yet it was a halting, confused movement. Mr Gandhi might have intervened at some point, and tried himself to tap into public anger over corruption and inequality, and drawn some of the sting of the Hazare camp’s efforts.
.
Or, he might have taken charge and confronted the anti-graft campaigners. He could at least have set out evidence for how the government was tackling graft, claimed credit for the government’s introduction of a right-to-information act, and lauded the fact that suspect politicians had been arrested and (temporarily) put in jail. Instead he flunked the test in hiding, not daring to speak out, other than in one ill-advised intervention in parliament.
.
Another opportunity of sorts was to energise Congress in state elections. The failure of the campaign led by Mr Gandhi in Uttar Pradesh (UP) early in 2012 is briefly but convincingly assessed in the biography. Congress did worse in the state during the assembly elections than it had in the 2009 general election. Mr Gandhi led the party to a humiliating fourth place, even doing dismally in constituencies where the Gandhis have long been local MPs.
.
Perhaps he was doomed to fail from the start (voters did not think Congress could win in the assembly elections, so did not see a reason to “waste” their votes). But his methods—poor public speaking, a failure to understand how particular castes and religious groups would act, weak connections to local organisers—did not help. The main mistake, in retrospect, may have been that he invested so much of himself in that particular poll. But similar efforts, in Bihar and Kerala, in recent years, brought similar results.
.
Since the poll in UP Mr Gandhi has made little impact on Indian politics. That would change quickly if he is indeed promoted to a higher position and takes on a bigger role. But the growing impression of the man—certainly the one promoted by Mrs Ramachandran’s “Decoding Rahul Gandhi”—is of a figure so far ill-prepared to be a leading politician in India.
.
Just possibly, therefore, this is the moment for Congress to dare to think of something radical: of reorganising itself on the basis of policies, ideas and a vision for how India should develop, and not on a particular dynasty that seems, after various iterations, to be getting less and less useful. Mrs Ramachandran’s book does not touch on this thought, but it is high time for the powerful within Congress to think about it.
