Rahul is 'mentally unstable', 'another Kejriwal', Rahul Gandhi has proven that he is not even nearly close enough to a leader who can head any form of political entity, forget a country.
21 february 2018
Opinion
22/02/2018
1144
In his most direct attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Congress president Rahul Gandhi has said that Narendra Modi is "corrupt himself" since the prime minister has no time to speak about Nirav Modi case.
Speaking to India Today in Shillong, Rahul Gandhi once again raised the issue of the November 2016 demonetisation of two high-value currency denominations and said the move essentially helped "all the crooks change their black money to white".
"First Narendra Modi demonetised the economy, then he told the people of India to stand in queues in front of banks, then behind the banks all the crooks changed their black money to white," Gandhi told India Today in poll-bound Meghalaya's Shillong where the Congress president is on an election tour.
When Rahul is abusing RSS, BJP AND PM Modiji many citizens of Bharatham are of the opinion that Congress President Rahul Gandhi has the lowest intellectual level in the Nehru-Gandhi family and said that the latter has to learn politics from the scratch to understand the ideology of the right-wing organisation. Sinha said the country’s first prime minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and even his daughter Indira Gandhi never used these kinds of language for the RSS.
“To understand RSS ideology, Rahul Gandhi has to learn politics from the scratch. Rahul Gandhi is not mentally stable. Rahul Gandhi has the lowest intellectual level in Nehru clan dynastic politics,” Sinha told ANI. The Congress vice-president yesterday said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the RSS have destroyed the core spirit of India. “These people (BJP and RSS) think that they can rule by spreading hatred and fear among the people. The Congress Party will defeat and remove them from power. We do not hate them (BJP and RSS) but we will defeat their ideology,” Gandhi said.
He said Congress party has always stood for dispelling the fear and asserted that India is strong and the country and its people do not to fear anything in this world. “The basis of their politics, their structure, is to change fear into anger. This is not happening for the last two or two-and-a-half years but this has been going on for thousands of years. And they (BJP and RSS) are the ones doing it. This ideology is doing it,” he said. Rahul, who yesterday led the Congress Working Committee’s meeting at New Delhi’s Talkatora Stadium in the absence of party president Sonia Gandhi, alleged that the Prime Minister has in the last two years destroyed institutions that were built over many years.
India's Ghandi family
The Rahul problem
An effort to understand a man who has remained too mysterious and too important, for too long
WHAT is the point of Rahul Gandhi? The 42-year-old scion of the Gandhi dynasty, which has long dominated India’s ruling party, is still the most plausible prime ministerial candidate for Congress at the looming 2014 election. In advance of that, possibly within weeks, he may get some new party post (some talk of a “vice presidency”) or possibly a government job (as rural affairs minister, perhaps?). A cabinet reshuffle is awaited, with the washed-out monsoon session of parliament swirling down the drain.
Promoting Mr Gandhi now would in theory make sense for Congress. He has long been presumed the successor-in-waiting to Sonia Gandhi, his mother and the party’s president. He needs time to start showing some skills as a leader before campaigning starts in 2014. And for as long as Mr Gandhi does not rise, it is hard for other relative youngsters to be promoted without appearing to outshine him. That has left Congress looking ever older and more out of touch.
But he has long refused to take on a responsible position, preferring to work on reorganising Congress’s youth wing, and leading regional election efforts, both with generally poor results. The problem is that Mr Gandhi has so far shown no particular aptitude as a politician, nor even sufficient hunger for the job. He is shy, reluctant to speak to journalists, biographers, potential allies or foes, nor even to raise his voice in parliament. Nobody really knows what he is capable of, nor what he wishes to do should he ever attain power and responsibility. The suspicion is growing that Mr Gandhi himself does not know.
The latest effort to “decode” Mr Gandhi comes in the form of a limited yet rather well written biography by a political journalist, Aarthi Ramachandran. Her task is a thankless one. Mr Gandhi is an applicant for a big job: ultimately, to lead India. But whereas any other job applicant will at least offer minimal information about his qualifications, work experience, reasons for wanting a post, Mr Gandhi is so secretive and defensive that he won’t respond to the most basic queries about his studies abroad, his time working for a management consultancy in London, or what he hopes to do as a politician.
Mrs Ramachandran’s book—along with just about every other one about the Gandhi dynasts—is thus hampered by a lack of first-hand material on its subject. Mr Gandhi can only be judged by his actions, his rare and halting public utterances, and the opinions of others who work near him. Given that limitation, she does a decent job: sympathetically but critically analysing his various efforts. She concludes that his push to modernise the youth organisation of Congress as if it were an ailing corporation, applying management techniques learned from Toyota, were earnest and well-meaning but ultimately doomed to fail. “Brand” Rahul, she suggests convincingly, is confused. A man of immense privilege, rising only because of his family name, struggles to look convincing when he talks of meritocracy.
The overall impression of Mr Gandhi from Mrs Ramachandran’s book is that of a figure who has an ill-defined urge to improve the lives of poor Indians, but no real idea of how to do so. He feels obliged to work in politics, but his political strategies are half-baked, and he fails to develop strong ties with any particular constituency. He has tried to disavow the traditional role of a Gandhi (which would pose him as a Western-educated member of the elite with a near-feudal style of concern for the masses) preferring to pitch himself as a man ready to drink the dirty water of village peasants, and to eat food among the most marginalised of society. But his failure to follow up on such gestures (and many others), with policy or prolonged interventions to help a particular group, suggests a man who strikes an attitude but lacks skills in delivering real change—either as election results, or social improvement.
Part of the problem is presumably the coterie of advisers who surround Mr Gandhi. Western-educated, bright and eager to cosset their leader within a very small bubble, they appear unready for the messy realities of Indian politics: the shady alliances that are required to win elections; the need to strike deals with powerful regional figures who increasingly shape national politics; the importance of crafting a media strategy in an era of cable TV news. More basically, they seem not to have developed any consistent views on policy. What does Mr Gandhi stand for: more liberal economic reforms; defensive nationalism; an expansion of welfare? Instead they prefer to focus on tactics. Perhaps because of their poor advice, their man too often looks opportunistic and inconsistent.
Opportunities have presented themselves to Mr Gandhi in the past couple of years. One was the Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement, of last year and this, when young, urban, middle-class voters, in the main, expressed rage at huge scandals overseen by the elderly folk who run Congress and their coalition allies. Mr Hazare’s campaign successfully drew on their anger, yet it was a halting, confused movement. Mr Gandhi might have intervened at some point, and tried himself to tap into public anger over corruption and inequality, and drawn some of the sting of the Hazare camp’s efforts.
Or, when Mrs Gandhi was absent, being treated abroad for a serious illness (rumoured to have been cervical cancer), he might have taken charge and confronted the anti-graft campaigners. He could at least have set out evidence for how the government was tackling graft, claimed credit for the government’s introduction of a right-to-information act, and lauded the fact that suspect politicians had been arrested and (temporarily) put in jail. Instead he flunked the test in hiding, not daring to speak out, other than in one ill-advised intervention in parliament.
Another opportunity of sorts was to energise Congress in state elections. The failure of the campaign led by Mr Gandhi in Uttar Pradesh (UP) early in 2012 is briefly but convincingly assessed in the biography. Congress did worse in the state during the assembly elections than it had in the 2009 general election. Mr Gandhi led the party to a humiliating fourth place, even doing dismally in constituencies where the Gandhis have long been local MPs.
Perhaps he was doomed to fail from the start (voters did not think Congress could win in the assembly elections, so did not see a reason to “waste” their votes). But his methods—poor public speaking, a failure to understand how particular castes and religious groups would act, weak connections to local organisers—did not help. The main mistake, in retrospect, may have been that he invested so much of himself in that particular poll. But similar efforts, in Bihar and Kerala, in recent years, brought similar results.
Since the poll in UP Mr Gandhi has made little impact on Indian politics. That would change quickly if he is indeed promoted to a higher position and takes on a bigger role. But the growing impression of the man—certainly the one promoted by Mrs Ramachandran’s “Decoding Rahul Gandhi”—is of a figure so far ill-prepared to be a leading politician in India.
Just possibly, therefore, this is the moment for Congress to dare to think of something radical: of reorganising itself on the basis of policies, ideas and a vision for how India should develop, and not on a particular dynasty that seems, after various iterations, to be getting less and less useful. Mrs Ramachandran’s book does not touch on this thought, but it is high time for the powerful within Congress to think about it.
Rahul is 'mentally unstable', 'another Kejriwal'
Calling Congress President Rahul Gandhi 'mentally unstable' over his remarks about having personal information about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's involvement in corruption, the Bharatiya Janata Party on Wednesday said the former was suffering from an 'attention seeking disorder'.
Launching a scratching attack, BJP leader Shrikant Sharma told ANI that the kind of questions Gandhi is raising, he needed 'medical attention'.
"I think he has lost his mental stability. We want to challenge Rahul Gandhi. Why are you running away from Parliament? From the very beginning, the government is saying it is ready for any kind of debate. If he has any evidence, he should put that forward in parliament. He doesn't want Parliament to run because he has no facts. To speak inside parliament is different and to speak outside is different. Rahul Gandhi is suffering from 'attention seeking disorder' and if in this age also he is suffering from this disorder, then he should seek treatment," he added.
Toeing the same sentiments, another BJP leader Shahnawaz Hussain said allegations levelled against Prime Minister Modi by Rahul Gandhi will not have any impact on anyone.
"The Congress is scared of getting exposed. Prime Minister Modi has launched a scheme to fight black money and people are supporting it. Congress tried its best to influence people against the government but they didn't success. Now, Rahul Gandhi is saying that if he speaks, there will be an earthquake. What can be more hilarious that him saying that Prime Minister Modi is scared of him," he told ANI.
He further said if Rahul Gandhi has any evidence against Prime Minister Modi then he should bring it forward.
"But they are not allowing Parliament to function and putting that blame on the prime minister that he is not allowing him to speak. The party who did corruption of crores in their regime now raising question on us, it is not going to have any impact on anyone. People know that they are themselves running away from parliament," he added.
Union Minister Prakash Javadekar also used a news channel sting, which purportedly showed some leaders from rival parties offering to change old currency notes for a commission, to attack Congress, SP and BSP and taunted Gandhi saying he should rename All India Congress Committee as All India Currency Conduit.
The sting has exposed the true face of these parties opposing demonetisation, he told a press conference at the BJP headquarters, and said while Prime Minister Narendra Modi was working to change the country, the Opposition was changing notes for a commission.
"The more Rahul Gandhi speaks the more Congress will be exposed... These parties are protesting outside. They stand by Mahatma Gandhi's statue to protest. They have been unmasked now. They are opposing (demonetisation) because their wounds are deep. They have now opened money exchange centre.
"We demand that Congress, SP, BSP and NCP tender an apology to the nation. Merely taking action against individuals won't do," he said.
Mocking the Congress vice president over his "personal corruption" jibe at Modi, Javadekar said Congress has become "commission agent" while the world has come to appreciate the Prime Minister's "spotless" character in the two and a half years of his rule.
Attacking the Opposition party over its protest in Parliament, he said such disrespect for democracy was never seen and it highlights the Emergency era mindset of Congress.
Congress, BSP and NCP committed scams when they were in power and continue to do so when they are out of it, he alleged.
Taking a dig at Gandhi, BJP spokesperson Nalin Kohli said he was practising shoot and scoot, and spit and run tactics to stay relevant in the media.
"If Rahul Gandhi wants to become another Arvind Kejriwal of Indian politics, then who are we to stop him," he said.
If he is so keen to speak in Parliament, then why are members of Congress and other Opposition parties are disrupting it, he asked.
Dismissing Gandhi's allegation that the prime minister was scared, Kohli said the nation and world have come to see how "bold and fearless" Modi was.
Rahul Gandhi has proven that he is not even nearly close enough to a leader who can head any form of political entity, forget a country.
5 ways the Arnab Vs Rahul interview screwed up Rahul Gandhi
Rahul Gandhi took 10 years to give a serious interview and still wasn’t prepared to face the music for the actions of his party in the past or even in the past decade since he was an MP and the Congress led coalition wreaked havoc on the country.
A very special mention to the disoriented Congress yuva ‘leader’ who kept looking over Arnab Goswami’s shoulder as if Priyanka Gandhi or mummy dearest, Sonia Gandhi, was holding up placards of ‘woman empowerment’, ‘youth empowerment’ and ‘RTI’ to fill his sentences with some sense of connect with India and its problems. But, despite Rahul Gandhi’s efforts to fill up the 80 minute interview with sensible insight, it seemed like the interview was actually just 5 minutes long and it was edited later with the questions put in later, it really was that bad.
Rahul Gandhi was even fortunate to not have Arnab Goswami breathe fire down on him as he usually does during debates but Arnab didn’t really have to push Rahul Gandhi much as his questions along seemed to make Rahul Gandhi unsettled and amazed. Arnab must have been smirking thinking about all the story ideas Rahul was throwing in his lap and visualizing the ratings soar higher than he had anticipated with the headline “Congress Leader Pisses His Pants”.
All the words in the thesaurus for vague cannot sum up what Rahul Gandhi’s answers were but he did end up saying something and we look at the 5 most royal f@&k ups that Rahul Gandhi made during the course of his interview.
1. Who will be the PM candidate from the leading party of the coalition?
No clear answer from Rahul Gandhi. He ranted on about the democracy not being about non-arbitrary processes and having a shadow Prime Minister is allowed and happens.
2. Change in the system and empowering the people?
Had he been a part of any other political party, he would not even have been given a ticket, let alone being considered as a candidate to contest election so having had an elevated platform because of his last name, what has he or the Congress Party done in the 10 years of their governance to make India get rid of red-tapeism. He instead spoke of RTI as if it came from his brilliant thoughts as a ‘serious politician who likes to tackle difficult issues’.
3. Development and growth in India?
Rahul Gandhi said that he wants to make India the centre of manufacturing in the world. But, how will that happen when mutli-million dollar kickbacks and record scams are coming out without the appropriate serious conviction and forget conviction, where the hell is all that money? Screw those ministers, strip them off their posts, throw them in jail but only after you recover all the public money that they skimmed. Otherwise forget growth, the Congress is taking the country back.
4. Focus on 1984 riots and 2002 riots being different
Narendra-Modi-Rahul-Ganghi
A riot is a riot despite what the role of the ruling government had in formulating it or not doing enough to stop the damage to life and property. But why is your focus on trying to differentiate the riots when there are more pressing issues at hand. Just to be clear, Rahul Gandhi lied on national television because it has been widely known that Congress leaders led the mobs so your petty efforts to show how your party wasn’t as wrong as the BJP party’s actions in 2002 is not helping your case at all.
5. Corruption, Scams and alliances with convicted criminals
Rahul Gandhi said that Congress party’s alliance with the RJD is on the basis of ideology and not with an individual. So Mr. Rahul Gandhi, if Sonia Gandhi were to be disassociated with the Congress Party, would the grasp be the same? Your argument is absolutely invalid and playing on the ideological plain is as good as hiding behind your mother to avoid the questions.
Rahul Gandhi proved to the country that he may be growing up as a politician but when you weigh the slingshot he got due to his name and family grasp over the Congress party, Rahul Gandhi is not even nearly close enough to a leader who can head any form of political entity.
Read more stories on the Rahul Gandhi interview here.
Rahul Gandhi VS Arnab Goswami: The most hilarious political interview of all time!
Since 2004, when Rahul Gandhi got elected as an MP, Rahul Gandhi may have addressed or rather acknowledged the media but in the decade when he has been in the Congress party, this is the first time he faces a face to face interview. Modi, 1984 riots and even his schooling records came under the scrutiny based on allegations and pressing issues that pertain to the Congress leader and he gives very interesting answers.
Here’s Part 1 of the debate
1.Rahul Gandhi’s ambiguity :
To the question of how wholesale price index of food can rise by 157%, vegetables by 350% and Onions by 521%, Rahul Gandhi says that “women are the backbone of this country and women need to be empowered”.
What the hell is Rahul Gandhi thinking to be saying such things to obviously deflect the issue with such moronic vagueness?
2. Rahul Gandhi apparently likes dealing with difficult and tough issues :-
What a joke, if he can deal with difficult and tough issues then why does he stick his head between his legs whenever someone asks him if he is open to a debate with Narendra Modi?
3. Rahul Gandhi on the 1984 Sikh Riots issue :-
Rahul Gandhi tried to deflect the 1984 Sikh Riots issue by trying to dissolve the argument by first praising the Sikhs and said that he doesn’t hold the community responsible for the evil acts of 2 people.
He tried to downplay the blame on the party by admitting the role of “some Congressmen” in the riots.
I guess all is well as he doesn’t hold a grudge against the Sikh Community so people shouldn’t hold a grudge against the untold loss of life and property due to the direct or indirect actions of the Indian National Congress.
4. Rahul Gandhi takes pot shots at Narendra Modi :-
Trying to draw a contrast between the 2002 Gujarat riots and 1984 Anti Sikh riots, he accused the Modi government of being involved in the formulation and abetting the riots, without any proof of course, whereas his family’s Congress party and its members tried to stop the riots in 1984.
5. Rahul Gandhi on PM candidature :-
Who else can the Congress choose other than the ‘Chosen One’? Rahul Gandhi goes on and on about how the candidate is chosen after detailed processes and if he is the choice after those ‘processes’ are completed than he will respect the process.
What a load of futile comments to beat around the bush by without saying that it is all set come what may.
6. Why is Rahul Gandhi avoiding a direct confrontation with Narendra Modi?
Rahul Gandhi starts off very philosophically saying that to understand that, one need s to understand who Rahul Gandhi is and what circumstances have been.
What circumstances, as Rahul Gandhi is a self-made man who has risen from the underbelly of society to the pinnacle of Indian politics? Having done nothing even remotely close to any of that, the only thing missing is a throne and a crown but will that circumstance be much too obvious even by Rahul Gandhi’s vagabond answers?
7. Throw a question with big words that Rahul can’t really comprehend and his answer is…:-
“I think the women of the country need to be empowered, the youth needs to be empowered.”
Thanks Rahul, for such a lovely time listening to you babble on about yourself in third person and cribbing about how the answers you had learnt by-heart for the interview weren’t asked.
Opinions :
"GIVEN DETAILS SELF EXPLANATORY, ABOUT A LUNATIC CONGRESS SO CALLED PRESIDENT IS ..."
Thank you for reading
JAIHIND.
VANDE MATHARAM
Comments
Post a Comment