Such secular mud never must have been flung on anyone in the history of India. Tons of editorials were written and sting operations were conducted. We were warned that if Modi was re-elected, it would be bad for India. We were told that there is an anti-incumbency factor in all Indian elections and Modi would definitely be out. We were told that the people who died in the Mumbai train bomb blasts were Gujaratis and so it is fine. Everything and anything was blamed on Modi.
Thankfully it is not Psephologists, Op-Ed writers, various bloggers and news anchors who decide the election results of Gujarat. Now the Gujaratis have given such a secular heartburn with the elections that no amount of Zantac 75, and Pepcid AC can cure. The fun is in reading the post-results headlines and analysis and watching the reactions of Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt and the likes. The comment from Pakistan was, "Democracy is not just about voting, it is also about protection of minorities, about human rights". When Pakistanis talk about "democracy", "minorities" and "human rights", then you know it is hard to top that.
Bloggers are weeping and are trying to come to terms with the Jeet ka Saudagar and Prof. Haimanti Roy will now have to replace Anand Patwardhan's movie with an analysis of Gujarat elections in her MIT course The Making of Modern South Asia. The elections reveal something which the pundits have not been able to predict: No one cares what the pundits think.
Comments (5)
Hi,
It is indeed true that there was a lot of sanctimonious crap before the election and 'predictions' from 'pundits'...
But the tone of this article suggests that you are thankful that Modi was reelected. Is it so? Isn't it clear, especially after the recent TV interviews and such, that Modi indeed had a heavy role to play in the Guj violences? Is electing such a person to chief a state a wise decision?
Or did you mean the election was good considering the alternative - Congress?
Posted by Sundara Raman | December 25, 2007 12:05 AM
Posted on December 25, 2007 00:05
JK,
You ain't seen nothing until you've seen Jawed Naqvi's column in Dawn.
MotherofAllGodwin's Law, perhaps.
Posted by Nitin | December 25, 2007 2:38 AM
Posted on December 25, 2007 02:38
Sundara Raman,
Electing someone with a history of heavy violence is not a good idea, but this is not the first time that has happened in India. We have elected Congress who conducted a party sanctioned progrom against the Sikhs, with approval from Rajiv Gandhi himself and we elected him as the Prime Minister. Buddhadeb's Govt. is murdering Muslims in Bengal and he will get elected. So why is Modi alone so special?
The voters of Gujarat seem to have put the past behind them and noted that there has been no communal violence in the past 5 years and there has been development projects in the state.
Posted by JK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://varnam.org/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 25, 2007 11:02 AM
Posted on December 25, 2007 11:02
Nitin,
Very entertaining indeed! All the magic words are there, holocaust, facsism, hitler, mussolini.
Posted by JK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://varnam.org/blog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 25, 2007 11:06 AM
Posted on December 25, 2007 11:06
Sundara Raman, You wrote
Isn't it clear, especially after the recent TV interviews and such, that Modi indeed had a heavy role to play in the Guj violences? Is electing such a person to chief a state a wise decision?
Is this the first time in the history of India that such people have been elected to power?
Posted by Anonymous | December 25, 2007 12:39 PM
Posted on December 25, 2007 12:39