... Having won the "weak" versus "strong" debate conclusively - the PM's contribution to the victory should not be underestimated - Manmohan Singh must now live to the faith reposed in him and actually exercise the tough options. Will he take steps to curb a fiscal deficit that has become unmanageable? Will he inject a sense of urgency into the security establishment so that terrorists, and not citizens, become the hunted? The voters have been very generous to an incumbent government which allowed too many things to drift in the past five years. But the season for excuses ended on Saturday afternoon.
Let's get this straight. You just conceded that Manmohan Singh won the weak-versus-strong controversy; and you still expect to be able to set the agenda for him, even though you represent the, um, losing side? Nice try, but ... Fail!
You talk about the government's drift. But, here's the thing: the verdict shows that people didn't see this drift. Or, if they saw it, they weren't bothered by it.
Isn't punditry about testing your own views against that of the public, and responding creatively to the differences? By peddling the same old arguments and buzzwords which didn't find too many buyers, you have just displayed an acute inability -- or, arrogant unwillingness -- to engage with the people's verdict. Fail, again.
Finally, voters have all kinds of virtues in a democracy, but 'generosity' is most definitely not one of them. They have been ruthless when it comes to judging governments. Ask BJP about 2004. And yes, they have also been ruthless in judging the Opposition. Ask BJP about 2009!
Yet, you view Congress's (and UPA's) gains through the lens of voters' generosity.
Epic Fail!
4 Comments:
good one Abi!
and yes, congrats!
:)
Eff you Abi.
"You talk about the government's drift. But, here's the thing: the verdict shows that people didn't see this drift. Or, if they saw it, they weren't bothered by it."
Duh! This doesn't mean the drift did not exist. It could have (probably did) and it could have led to disastrous consequences for the country. It is the job of people like Swapan to point it out. Obviously, short-sighted people like you will not understand. Just because a leader or a government has been voted back to power, it does not mean that he/she/they have been absolved of all their misdeeds in the past or that their previous rule was perfect. For heaven's sake, even Bush was reelected? What does that tell you?
"an acute inability -- or, arrogant unwillingness -- to engage with the people's verdict. Fail, again. "
Eff you again. The people's verdict need not necessarily be the best for the country. Why should intelligent, opinionated people change their views based on the result of one election? It goes against the very spirit of meaningful debate in a society. They may still be right. Only time can tell.
"Yet, you view Congress's (and UPA's) gains through the lens of voters' generosity."
Any election result is a statement of the voters' generosity. Not the virtues/ethics/ideals/ideologies of the candidate. Don't you see several well-meaning people contesting elections (as Independents) and losing badly? Does it mean they are bad? If a MNS candidate gets more votes than Meera Sanyal, is it not predominantly voter generosity?
I am appalled at the lack of logic in your post(s). I think you are better off just putting links, without including your own 'views'.
This blog-post is an EPIC FAIL.
I share your joy and ebullience at not seeing the "Iron Man" at the helm. And agree with your analysis!
Abi, this hubris seems pretty ugly. The government has to act like it is of all people, not just of those who voted for it and hence be able to listen to aspirations of everyone. It did indulge in the little shameful episode of asking Bihar of all the aid money to armtwist one political party; I hope they do not indulge in something like this again.
Post a Comment