i love the crack about dog-food.
"what if pulses are too expensive? let them eat dog-food!" quoth palaniappan "marie antoinette" chidambaram, by reducing the duties on pet food in the budget.
btw, anybody remember the gyro-man fighting with the dog over the remains of a can of dog-food in 'mad max'? great little touch.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Moksha
Rahul and a self goal
By Sandhya Jain
As a launch-pad remark for the party's campaign for the forthcoming Uttar Pradesh Assembly polls, it must have struck deep gloom in the rank and file and skewed Congress' already slender chances with the electorate. Though Mr. Gandhi's remarks are consistent with the policy of UPA chairperson, Ms. Sonia Gandhi, of appeasing and promoting Muslims at the expense of the Hindu poor and backward classes, the policies have already led to a backlash.
Amethi MP Rahul Gandhi has emerged as the Congress party's greatest rootless wonder, surpassing Finance Minister P. Chidambaram's attitude of 'if there is no bread, let them eat dog food,' with the foolish remark that his father would have stood in front of the Babri Masjid to prevent the demolition of December 6, 1992.
As a launch-pad remark for the party's campaign for the forthcoming Uttar Pradesh Assembly polls, it must have struck deep gloom in the rank and file and skewed Congress' already slender chances with the electorate. Though Mr. Gandhi's remarks are consistent with the policy of UPA chairperson, Ms. Sonia Gandhi, of appeasing and promoting Muslims at the expense of the Hindu poor and backward classes, the policies have already led to a backlash for the party in Maharashtra, Punjab and Uttarakhand, and further reversals are expected in Delhi. Indeed, this is reportedly the reason why Congress president Sonia Gandhi has refused to canvass for the party in the capital, though she did rush to Mumbai because she expected a victory that would add a feather to her cap.
Rahul Gandhi's statement shows that either the party has learned nothing from these reverses, or that it has no other constituency to woo. Either way, he has exposed the utter bankruptcy of the grand old party of India. The timing could also not be more unfortunate. Could we, for instance, ask Mr. Gandhi to explain how exactly his father, late Rajiv Gandhi, would have saved the structure by standing before it?
Let us assume that the former Prime Minister managed to personally reach the structure with his personal security guards on December 6, 1992 (for there is no way he would have become Prime Minister in 1991; even the postponed elections did not get the Congress a majority after his assassination). Once the mob broke the cordon and the domes were scaled, does Rahul mean to suggest that the security guards would have started firing upon the unarmed people, like the party's Communist comrades just did recently at Nandigram? Is that what has inspired this statement? Having spoken, he owes the nation a fuller explanation for his words.
Rahul Gandhi is the perfect example of how city-bred hereditary politicians, especially ones who pride themselves as being 'above' the hoi-polloi, can fail to connect with the minds and hearts of the people. He exposes the ancient truth that youth without proper education and training can more often than not produce a greater disaster for a nation or society than the old. Rahul has erred in relying upon the old bankrupt formula of wooing Muslims even at the expense of alienating Hindus. Scratching thinly-healed communal suspicions in order to pressurise the Muslim community that the Congress is its only hope, is not the road to power.
Besides his graceless attack upon former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao, Rahul has exposed his father's communal doublespeak on the issue of the Ram Janmabhoomi. For as is well known, it was Rajiv Gandhi's government that opened the gates of the Babri Masjid to Hindu devotees, and organised the shilannyas at the site, and even launched the 1991 election campaign from Ayodhya.
And in what is surely a politically suicidal remark, young Rahul has called the 1996 Congress alliance with the BSP a 'complete sellout,' as Congress had to settle for 125 seats, while BSP contested 300 seats.
No comments:
Post a Comment