Why Not Modi? Saying Yes To Him (Part 2)

[Second and Concluding Part of the "Why Not Modi? Saying Yes To Him" Series. Link to Part One => CLICK HERE]

e. He Did Not Acknowledge the Existence of His Wife

The most pertinent question in relation to this "latest" accusation - Why do Election affidavits require the spouse(s) name and details? Simply to get a full detail of the assets and liabilities in the name of spouse. In a country, where even the commonest man plans or evades his taxes by investing a portion of his earnings in the name of spouse or kids, the Election Commission knows that wealth of the entire family is under the control of the candidate. Therefore, it seeks to know the details of all the family members and their respective assets and liabilities.

Till the September 2013 Supreme Court directive on Election Affidavits, not just Modi many other persons have conveniently ignored many such details and have submitted incomplete forms. Most often wilfully. Manmohan Singh did not fill up this details while filing his nomination form from Assam. If I remember correctly, he didn't even sign the form, before submission. 

In the case of Modi, he got married before attaining majority, had left the family and home to become a Pracharak. The web is filled with all the data and evidence to this effect. Jashodaben Modi has said that the marriage was never consummated, and Modi's brother has come forward and clarified that the marriage, at best, was a social function. 

These two didn't even live together. Modi cannot have any idea about the asset or liabilities of Jasodhaben. The marriage is void ab initio, in terms of legislation enacted years before Modi was born. Even assuming, it is legally valid (which it is not), living separately for close to five decades is enough proof that, for all purposes they are not husband and wife. So he was right in not mentioning anything in his form.

In a party dominated by "Advocates" and "Qualified Lawyers", it is rather surprising that none in the Congress understand the idea of "Substance Over Form". Probably, for the party which has forever been in denial about Sonia Gandhi being the Super Prime Minister, and putting up meek defence of the Country's weakest ever Prime Minister, they are "refusing" to understanding the idea, purely for their convenience.

f. He Refused to Wear Skull Cap

Arguably the most nonsensical accusation against Modi is this - that he refused to wear a skull cap and therefore he has insulted Muslims. Since when did tokenism define a person's general actions? Wearing a skullcap for the sake of "demonstrating" to the world that he is "Secular" is at best smacks of political gimmickry, appeasement and vote-bank politics. He wants none of that. 

He has repeatedly voiced his disgust against all forms of appeasement and tokenism. Did he not accept the shawl from the same gentleman who offered the skull cap? Why should he go back on his own views on tokenism? If he had worn a skullcap, would it mean that he has been "purified" of the sins purportedly committed by him? After skullcap, is wearing a cross across the chest the next thing? Would it be okay if somebody presented an idol for worship to some Imam? If the Imam refuses it does it mean a big deal? Nopes. It does not. 

This whole tokenism culture, which is aggressively promoted as a model of Secularism by the unscrupulous gang of pseudo-secular parties, needs to be dumped. As a society, people should be influenced only by real actions, and not these tokenism. If the society still gives into these kinds of tokenism and decides on a person only based on such acts, it only shows the immaturity of the society as a whole.

If the people of this country still want him out, and not become the PM on these flimsy and ridiculous grounds, they need to be educated on what is "real" and what isn't, what counts, and what doesn't, and they should forced out of their immaturity. If they still don't change, they definitely deserve another five years of UPAs destruction to come to senses. 

g. He is Dictatorial

What kind of man do you want as your leader - The assertive type or the meek one? Obviously the assertive one would be the answer. The meek one cannot and should not become the leader of even a street cricket team, leave alone the country. 

Any assertive leader who speaks his mind and acts firmly is a dictator to the pseudo-secular robbers. Especially if he is not regarded as part of the Secular Gang (Desi Version). They would regard somebody like Manmohan Singh as a "Great Leader" and God sent to save India. They would find Mulayam Singh Yadav, who repeatedly stonewalls whatever little good thing his poor son would try and do, as a great leader, but brand Modi as a Dictator. 

The fact is that every strong and firm leader on the opposite side of Pseudo Secular gang will be branded as a dictator. Especially, when such a leader is a real and pertinent threat to the entire fabric of fake secularism. 

Not just Modi, even J Jayalalithaa, Mamta Bannerjee, Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Biju Patnaik and including Sheila Dixit, were firm leaders. They were unquestionable, for the simple reason, they took mostly correct decisions, and did their job without any errors, and were very firm in their decisions and actions. If these people were not branded as dictators, atleast as often as Modi, it is simply because they were or are possible allies of the Pseudo Secular Gang. And thats all to it. 

Our misguided understanding and inability to differentiate between the assertive one (JJ / Modi) and the arrogant one (Sibal / Chidambaram) cannot make Modi a dictator and Rahul Gandhi a saint. The first type make great leaders, since they do most of their actions with utmost clarity, and firm understanding of the outcome. 

h. Gujrat was already a Growing State even before Modi became CM

This is probably the only point where I'd give the opposition some points. It doesn't mean I accept their statement in entirety. But only that there is "some" truth in this. But fact of the matter is this - despite being a developed state, Gujrat still managed to give a run for its money against smaller developing states in terms of growth rate. 

By extension of the above logic, India should be patting their back for having "accomplished" fantastic growth beating even the likes of Germany. Needless to say, any such comparison will be a joke. It is also a fact that Gujrat has managed to beat various states in multiple socio-economic, educational, industrialisation factors over the past twelve years, including the biggies from the South and Maharashtra. 

All it took was 10 Years of Lalu Rabri rule to destroy Bihar from whatever indication of development it exhibited at the time of their arrival. Ten years of Digvijaya Singh's rule in Madhya Pradesh has created such a negative effect on the minds of people that even today they fear that his return would result in getting back to stone-age, which he presided over his period. Ten years of UPAs rule has pushed the Country to the brink, and shrinking Industrial production. And compare this to the ten years of Gujrat, and any reasonably endowed person would understand the difference.

i. Godhra

I repeat what I highlighted a few months back on the occassion of Rahul Gandhi's usual "blabbering" on Modi and Godhra, and the usual brouhaha on "moral obligation", and downright hollow statements about "clean chit to Modi being questioned by credible experts" 

Either you accept the judgement of the Supreme Court as correct and final, and move on, or you don't accept it, and file a review petition. For all legal matters, the SC Judges are deemed as "Credible Experts". Invoking any other form "Credible Experts" when the SC Judgement or SC Monitored SIT's conclusion isn't favourable to you is plain bullshitting, which we don't need anymore. Morality is a lazy idea being invoked all those who are morally bankrupt. When your own moral compass is dysfunctional, any lecture on the "Moral Obligation / Responsibility" is at best an idiot's rant.

Enough has been said about Godhra and Sabarmati. Yesterday, the SC has refused to entertain any plea against the SIT. Refusal to acknowledge or accept the SC ruling is plain contempt of court. As on date, the SITs ruling is final, and just. Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but that does not mean that your opinion is the final word on truth. Even if you believe it to be so, thrusting it on others is plain hate mongering, and is grossly indecent.

What should also be remembered is that Godhra was always known for tension between the two religious groups. There has been innumerable riots and violence of varying size in that place that predates 2002. The undercurrent of tension was always there. It broke out right at the onset of Modi's rule. Thanks to Media's development, the Sabarmati Train Burning and Godhra riots got massive media coverage (and admittedly more for the Godhra Riots, than the Sabaramati Traing Burning), and with Vajpayee at his peak, and BJP at its most popular, the Pseudo Secular Gang got their finest opportunity, and they latched onto it. To pin it down to Modi the individual is grossly unfair. 

Admittedly, the albatross called "Godhra" will forever be associated with Modi. Not because he is guilty, but because the media wants a fall guy to superimpose their sense of righteousness on the people. On the flip side, I do believe that it is precisely this albatross, that has given further fuel to Modi's obsession with proper Governance. And this emphasis on Governance will do a world of good to all the people of this country, including the the Minorities and Backward Class people.

j. The Others

Latest set of arguments coming from Rahul Gandhi is that Gujrat's policies will only help Industrialists. Does he understand anything at all? To give employment on a large scale, you need Industries, and by extension Industrialists. It is obvious that, any industry will survive only if the local economic policies and laws are supportive of proper functioning of business. Only then will these Industries make profit and sustain themselves. If they make profit, it is obvious that the Industrialists will make more money. The man at the top always makes more money than others. It doesn't mean that the common man doesn't make anything.

Rahul Gandhi, belonging to a party which is known to frame economic policies, and Inccome Tax exemptions to appease a particular Industrial House based out of Mumbai for years together, making such statement is at best hypocrisy, and at worst, an expression of his ignorance. Yet again. He should stop dabbling with economics, and continue his rant on "his" RTI, "his" RTE, "his" Land Acquisition Bill. By the way, to all those who accuse Modi of being too much of "I, Me, Myself" Man, please listen to couple of gems from Rahul Gandhi. There is a bigger "I, Me, Myself, My Matha, My Papa, My Granny" stuff pouring out like a broken tap from the Gandhi Scion than anybody else.

The other set of arguments is about how Modi has sidelined Senior Leaders such as Advani or MM Joshi or Jaswant Singh. What if they are sidelined? None of them are exactly brimming with youth. Considering their health and age, I don't even know if they will survive for another two years, leave alone five. It is only logical that they are made to realize that they can at best be advisors and not leaders. Will anyone in the Congress dare to nudge inefficient Rahul or the epitome of "Authority Without Responsibility" Sonia Gandhi? 

If these are reasons people put forward for opposing Modi, then God save them. These kind of people are the ones who have a very mistaken sense of everything. Take tax savings for instance. They'd say "You should not earn more. Since if you earn more, you will pay more taxes. And our objective is always to save on taxes".

And I rest my case.