Chiru Joins Congress Party
From Times of India:
Chiranjeevi, who leads the Praja Rajyam Party in Andhra Pradesh, filled up a form seeking primary membership of the Congress and the AICC headquarters in the presence of Gandhi and senior leaders.
“I will remain in the Congress for the rest of my life. I will be a loyal worker…I thank Rahulji, our Prime Minister in the future,” the actor said.
Chiranjeevi also hailed Gandhi as the “future” and the “ray of hope” for the country.
Ayya Chiru garu, meekidi avasaramaa?
Another Gandhi from the Nehru family, another “ray of hope” for the country, eh? I have a tendency to make new words by combining syllables from multiple words. In that tradition, I would say: another Gandhi, another “rape” for the country.
Let me first get back to real topic .That is Chiranjeevi joining Congress party.Why did he do that? Is it for a ministerial post ? Looking at his success story,coming from a non-film backgroud and attaining the star status as Mega Star is not normal.I personally admire chiru on this aspect,however when it comes to politics ,I dont think the same.I dont think he will change the state for better when he has such personal gains to accomplish.He should just concentrate on serving people at his best even being in opposition.After a major flight accident and assuming it as a second birth,a person of his stature should not be thinking for his personal motto,but about what he can payback to society. And, Rahul as the future PM?Why do congress leaders run behind Gandhi family?Can’t they find a leader other then Gandhi family members in Congress party?In this regard,I think that the Gandhi family has been deeply injected into the minds of Indians just by showing the deaths of Indira Gandhi ,Rajeev Gandhi and of course Mahtma Gandhi. We need to change our mindset and reject the Gandhi family as leaders or future leaders.What’s the need for every congerss party worker to say as Rahul to be the future PM?If he has the worth to be a PM ,let it be,but why to chant his name or for that matter his family name always.Every Congress member is obsequious to Gandhi family to just achieve their personal gains.
Praja Rajyam movie is a big flop just because one big flaw in the story. at the end Hero surrenders to villain thinking that “he is no more hero and villain is a hero”.
Good analogy – only problem is that it is simply wrong.
Our villain is not Congress party but the problems the country is facing. When he realized that he cannot fight it alone (side hero), he joined hands with someone who is currently taking the country in right direction (main hero).
I think the main comment of the article is that Chiranjeevi, who has enormous following among masses, chose to show a servile attitude towards someone who we don’t even know how good he will be in terms of administering and governing. Rahul might be a good person and has a clear conscience but it that alone doesn’t make him to be projected as the would be prime minister right out of the bat after signing up as primary member of Congress party. It is this servile attitude towards one person, family, or a caste or a religious deity that had bogged down India’s progress for centuries. Let’s say it was very complicated to unite all the diverse factions of the kaleidoscope that India is with all the various creed with which it is boiling port that it is. But should we still have to go through the same method of ‘Vandhi Magadha Brundam’ to praise or hoist someone as a means to leading this country !? Yes this is 21st century and it takes a facebook post or a tweet that can ignite something when done by the right person. That is why we have to be laser focused on someone who is blindly followed by millions.
When Chiranjeevi launched his party many had hopes that he will make the difference in doing something and fight the establishment but by all means he fell short of the expectations. With the kind of charisma that he has, he could have built a grass roots movement like the one what Jaya Prakash Narayan (Lok Satta) has been trying in vain for the later doesn’t have that kind of Charisma but has far superior political knowledge (we can see the records of all political discourse in the assembly etc). Why can’t Chiranjeevi see a ‘future prime minister’ in JP?!
PS: Since Chirajeevi chose to lead his life in politics, it is fair game he has to face this criticism.
I think Chiranjeevi’s statement need not be taken so seriously. It was a formal get together and he needs to say few good words and he said what ever he said. Yes, another example of his political simplicity but every day, dozens of leaders come to Rahul Gandhi and yell that he is future PM…for which, ofcourse, he has only a simple smile as answer. That alone deserves some respect to him.
I am one of few admirers on Gandhi Family, Congress might have been disintegrated. Leadership of Sonia had done more good than harm, she had success that control over things from going worse than bad currently. Not sure if Rahul has that ability but definitely he has the charm to produce a stable government in Todays environment of Indian politics.
For the record – Here is what I think of Nehru/Gandhi Dynasty.
NEHRU
Nehru is a great intellectual but a bad leader. The country would have been served better under the great leadership of Patel with Nehru as his adviser. Nehru’s vision of a ‘socialistic democracy’ has been a disaster.
His foreign policy of aligning India with the Soviets (it is a joke to call India as a non-aligned country. It is not enough to stay out of Warsaw pact. But for all practical purposes, India under Nehru/Indira was aligned with the soviets)
INDIRA GANDHI
Indira Gandhi is perhaps the most capable, charismatic intellectual and also a great leader. However, her policies are too socialistic. There is no balance. No job growth, no industry growth in her two decades of rule. Furthermore, she was very insecure and spent most of her time playing politics and splitting the opposition than governing.
With the exception of aligning with Soviets and keeping Americans at bay, her foreign policy was good. I loved he firm stance against the apartheid policies of South Africa. I loved it when she denied visas to English cricketers with ties to SA. Never budged under pressure even from the prime minister of England. One has to love the way she brought Pakistan to its knees in just 11 days in 1971 war.
She created a monster in Bhindranwale, which led to Khalistan movement and eventually the very movement killed her. She had the golden chance to shape India. If she focused more on industry and jobs, and anti-corruption programs India would have been in much stronger position today.
RAJIV GANDHI
Rajiv Gandhi was GIVEN the prime minister-ship. Like his mother, he played with fire in interfering with Sri Lanka internal affairs which eventually killed him. Other than deregulating telephone license raj, I cannot think of his major achievements.
Legacy of the Nehru/Gandhi dynasty:
Socialism, Bank Nationalization, License Raj, Corruption, Nagarwala, Bhindranwale, LLTE, Bofors, 2G scams.
Your usual classic over simplification. Your analysis is a bloggers view from 21st century. One can easily comment on the results after an experiment is completed…but those were the days where there was no clear picture of which one is better – Capitalism or Socialism…many countries on the planet were doing huge experiments on which route to take…Obviously with Russia’s influence, we choose Socialism – which had both advantages and disadvantages. You also understand that these leaders had to lead a country that has number of inherited issues like large population, education, caste, religion etc., They did whatever they could with very difficult situation at hand. ‘They would have done like this or some one else would have been better’ is only wishful thinking and over simplistic. You might question their policy decisions but there is no question that they are Patriotic and believed that they took best decisions.
If you don’t like a family in which a great grandfather plays a major role at highest levels as a freedom fighter, grand mother and father are great leaders who died for the country and a mother who sacrificed highest political position and who always wanted to lead a simple life, I wonder which family would you respect (politically) ?
YS,
“One can easily comment on the results after an experiment is completed…”
Fair point. It can also be seen as an observation in time.
“but those were the days where there was no clear picture of which one is better – Capitalism or Socialism…”
If the fall of Soviet Union is not an indication of the demise of socialism, what is? Philosophically speaking, I am of the opinion that when you take one human emotion to the extreme in a political ideology, it will fail. Socialism at its core tells us to be altruistic, share the wealth and not have aspirations on material comfort. Yes humans have compassion and are altruistic. But we all tend to be more selfish than altruistic.
Now take the selfishness to the extreme – you will get Ayn Rand version of the so called Objectivism. Rand suger-coats that as a virtue. But in reality, unchecked greed leads to an oligarchy and corporatism, like what we have in United States today. In other words, I see current US style capitalism as an extreme case of catering to the greed of a few well connected (mind you, I am not using the word “capable or deserving”) people. When you let greedy to take extreme wealth and demonize the dwindling middle class who fall on hard times with such names as racoons, we can see the end of such brand of capitalism.
I am of the opinion that there should be a balance between Socialism and Capitalism. Neither extremes are good.
Even China is now catering to the greed in human beings to balance its socialism by allowing citizens to amass property.
That is where I come from on my ideas on Socialism.
I always admired Nehru as an intellectual. As a leader, he was completely inadequate. He acted like a crybaby when Bose got elected for INC chief. When Hindu-Muslim riots were raging after the partition, Prime Minister Nehru spent time next to fasting Gandhi rather than bringing law and order to the nation. It was Patel who really took the bull by the horns. Furthermore, who can deny the disaster called Article 370 on which Nehru signed on?
Indira Gandhi DID NOT DIE FOR THE COUNTRY. Khalistan was a direct result of her dirty politics. She nurtured Bhindranwale to create split in Akalidal vote. The charismatic Bhindranwale was then courted by the Khalistani forces and he turned on her. She essentially fell on her own sword. When she was asked about reassigning her Sikh bodyguards, she wrote on the memo, “How can we call ours a secular country if we cannot trust my own Sikh body guards?” (paraphrased). I admired her guts and sticking to her principles. But, it was a dumb thing to do.
Rajiv Gandhi also DID NOT DIE FOR THE COUNTRY. He had grand illusions about making India a regional super power. He aided LTTE in the beginning and then sent Indian troops as IPKF to root out the LTTE. LTTE waited to take revenge.
Lastly, I will not and should not claim anything that is not my property because of my forefathers’ “sacrifice.” I have to earn it.
Almost everyone agrees with your professorial opinion that there should be balance between Socialism and Capitalism. Where exactly it should balance is what you find in tons of books in any political science section of a library.
Anyway, your question : If the fall of Soviet Union is not an indication of the demise of socialism, what is?….USSR did not fall during the time of Nehru and in fact, it is in pinnacle of its days. So my point is that it is easy to analyze and conclude in hindsight but they were the great men who had to steer this huge young nation carefully without much of prior experience.
It is unfortunate that you do not think that Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi died for the country but at the same time you agree that Rajiv has grand illusions about making India great…sounds mutually contradictory. Glad majority of the country doesn’t agree with you.
You can give me an example of any assassination in the world and I can definitely attribute a personal story to it. That doesn’t mean that they did not die for a greater cause.
Regarding Rahul Gandhi, he never ever claimed that he automatically claims to rule. He was always subdued and is working his way up and in many cases a lonely and uphill battle. He never acted like a minister’s Son, let alone a Prime minister’s Son.
“It is unfortunate that you do not think that Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi died for the country but at the same time you agree that Rajiv has grand illusions about making India great…sounds mutually contradictory. Glad majority of the country doesn’t agree with you. ”
They are not contradictory. If one believes that India becoming a regional super power is a great thing, he/she might think that Rajiv died for the country in such pursuits. I don’t think that it was in India’s best interest to become a regional superpower – especially when the domestic unemployment was so high.
I agree that Rahul should be given fair chance to prove himself. But, based on what I know about his so far, my opinion is that if he weren’t a Gandhi, he would not be fit enough to be a low cadre leader in the party. On a personal note, I rode with him on the T (bus) in Boston once. He lacks something his grandmother and his father has – a charismatic presence. I mean just presence. By sheer stroke of luck, I also had the opportunity to see Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi within 30 feet. I could see why they both were such a great crowd pullers – especially Indira Gandhi.
No one should be rejected based on his last name.
No one should be projected based on last name too.
The banality of Indian politics is that it is always portrayed there is no one except a family or two to lead the country. I hope this will change with the new generation.