About Narendra Modi, Dark Secrets Of Pm Narendra Modi, Modi is a man who stands with same courage in every hard situation either it is Narendra Modi and Jashodaben, Modi Gujarat riots Information and Many More Latest News and Samachar About Narendra Which You Never Know, Every Time this information Is hide by Normal Peoples, Let's Start Dark Secrets Of Pm Narendra Modi OR Narendra Modi.
Sombhai said the marriage was forced on Modi by his parents when he was a teenager in keeping with the old orthodox tradition of fixing marriages between children and that it was never consummated as Modi walked out of the marriage soon after it was solemnized.
Dwelling on the reasons for the Gujarat Chief Minister's act, Sombhai said a young Modi did it in response to an inner call to work for the nation and the society inspired by the teachings of Swami Vivekanand.
In his press statement Sombhai, who runs a home for the old-aged and lives a simple life with his family in Ahmedabad, appealed to the people to see the marriage in the backdrop of these facts.
Modi, who has ruled Gujarat since 2001, has left the field for "spouse" blank in four Assembly polls. Of late, he has also flaunted his single status at rallies, saying that he was single and had no one to be corrupt for.
Modi ended the speculation over his marital status after a long period of silence, perhaps because the Congress had run a smear campaign against him in the last Vidhan Sabha elections and even after that by projecting Jashodaben, a retired teacher living in a north Gujarat village along with her brothers, like a spurned wife and a victim of Modi's exploitation.
Modi's declaration of his marital status is aimed at pre-empting such a campaign and also any attempt to drag him to the Election Commission on the issue.
Since 1992, when Gujarati weekly Abhiyan carried for the first time a story on Modi's marriage, Jashodaben and her family have refrained from talking to media, calling it a personal affair, and wishing Modi good luck in his endeavors.
.
That, in a nutshell, is the rationale much of India’s secular elites have backed themselves into. It is a counsel of despair. Modi is certainly a decisive leader. In contrast to Singh’s style of operating, which has been dilatory and weak, files rarely gather dust in Gujarat. Investments get swiftly approved. Projects are executed on time. And bribes are rare. Gujarat continues to outpace most of India in terms of its investment flows and per capita income growth. By electing Modi, India’s middle class hopes he can transpose Gujarat’s story to the national level.
That is the hope. It should also be fear. Much like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, there are two sides to Modi’s character. And the dark side is very dark indeed. In addition to presiding over its impressive economic performance, Modi has killed the spirit of Indian secularism in Gujarat. The region of Mohandas Gandhi’s birth has become a shrine to Nathuram Godse, the Hindu nationalist who assassinated him in 1948. Twelve years after more than 1,000 Muslims were killed in one of India’s most brutal pogroms, Muslims are treated as second class citizens in Gujarat. Tens of thousands have fled the state altogether.
Modi’s apologists point out that India’s Supreme Court cleared him of direct involvement in the 2002 riots. But the absence of proof is not the same as innocence. I was living in India in 2002 and remember very well the inflammatory rhetoric Modi deployed on the day 85 Hindu pilgrims were burnt to death in a train fire in Godhra. The incident was immediately blamed on the Muslim tea sellers who hawked their wares at the train station where the horrific accident occurred. A subsequent exhaustive government inquiry absolved the tea sellers of any blame for the fire, which was thought to have been caused by kerosene.
Modi did not wait for any inquiry. Just a few months before facing re-election in a contest he was by no means certain to win, Modi seized on the Godhra incident to show how decisive he could be.
Citing Newton’s Third Law: “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction,” Modi gave the rioters the cue they needed. No one, Indian or foreigner, who covered the following, gruesome, 72 hours, was in any doubt about the meaning of Modi’s signal. For three days and nights, mobs of fanatics went from house to house armed with electoral rolls (to identify the religion of each household), dragged women and children out of their homes, poured kerosene down their throats and ignited them to crowds of cheering onlookers. The police in Ahmedabad and other Gujarati cities did not intervene. After 72 hours, the police intervened and the rioting stopped. Defenders of Modi would have us believe that he lost control of his own police force. That would make him a weak leader, which contradicts his principal selling point. I do not believe that explanation. Six months later, Modi won re-election in a landslide. As he put it at the time, the Hindu majority had awoken.
Apologists also point out that Modi has mellowed since 2002 and discarded the harsher sides of his communal ideology. They forget that he is a life-long member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the quasi-fascist Hindu militant group to which Gandhi’s assassin also belonged. He is a life-long celibate in the cause of Hindutva — literally Hinduness — to which the RSS subscribes. Given Modi’s reputation as a Hindu nationalist, he can afford to tack to the center as far as he likes. He will never lose the Hindu nationalist vote. This is the risk India’s beleaguered secular classes are taking. They want the sunny Dr. Jekyll and pray the nocturnal Mr. Hyde has been put away for good. It is a big bet.
For my part, I believe Modi is a brilliant tactician who is saying and doing what it takes to reach India’s top job. After that, who knows? Apologists say that he could never afford as prime minister to repeat the kind of communal hatred he has institutionalized in Gujarat since he will head a coalition government that will quickly fall apart. They may be right. Deepak Lal, the distinguished Indian economist, asks whether Modi is a Margaret Thatcher or an Adolf Hitler. He concludes that Modi is probably a Thatcher. If so, as Gideon Rachman has rightly argued, a dose of Thatcherism is precisely what India needs. They may be right. I suspect they are wrong. Either way, I would rather not take the risk of finding out.
(We apologize if anything is wrong please contact us to correct this article, we are not responsible for anything written in this article because this is sent by an unknown writer.)
 |
| Pm. Narendra Modi |
Narendra Modi walked out of his marriage with Jashodaben
A day after BJP's prime ministerial nominee Narendra Modi declared in his poll affidavit filed in Vadodara that he was a married man and that his wife's name is Jashodaben, his elder brother Sombhai Modi issued a statement here on Thursday to explain that the marriage was forced on a teenaged Narendra. |
| Somabhai Narendra Modi's Elder brother |
Sombhai said the marriage was forced on Modi by his parents when he was a teenager in keeping with the old orthodox tradition of fixing marriages between children and that it was never consummated as Modi walked out of the marriage soon after it was solemnized.
Dwelling on the reasons for the Gujarat Chief Minister's act, Sombhai said a young Modi did it in response to an inner call to work for the nation and the society inspired by the teachings of Swami Vivekanand.
In his press statement Sombhai, who runs a home for the old-aged and lives a simple life with his family in Ahmedabad, appealed to the people to see the marriage in the backdrop of these facts.
Modi, who has ruled Gujarat since 2001, has left the field for "spouse" blank in four Assembly polls. Of late, he has also flaunted his single status at rallies, saying that he was single and had no one to be corrupt for.
Modi ended the speculation over his marital status after a long period of silence, perhaps because the Congress had run a smear campaign against him in the last Vidhan Sabha elections and even after that by projecting Jashodaben, a retired teacher living in a north Gujarat village along with her brothers, like a spurned wife and a victim of Modi's exploitation.
Narendra Modi and Jashodaben
Modi's declaration of his marital status is aimed at pre-empting such a campaign and also any attempt to drag him to the Election Commission on the issue.
Since 1992, when Gujarati weekly Abhiyan carried for the first time a story on Modi's marriage, Jashodaben and her family have refrained from talking to media, calling it a personal affair, and wishing Modi good luck in his endeavors.
.
That, in a nutshell, is the rationale much of India’s secular elites have backed themselves into. It is a counsel of despair. Modi is certainly a decisive leader. In contrast to Singh’s style of operating, which has been dilatory and weak, files rarely gather dust in Gujarat. Investments get swiftly approved. Projects are executed on time. And bribes are rare. Gujarat continues to outpace most of India in terms of its investment flows and per capita income growth. By electing Modi, India’s middle class hopes he can transpose Gujarat’s story to the national level.
Gujarat Riots
That is the hope. It should also be fear. Much like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, there are two sides to Modi’s character. And the dark side is very dark indeed. In addition to presiding over its impressive economic performance, Modi has killed the spirit of Indian secularism in Gujarat. The region of Mohandas Gandhi’s birth has become a shrine to Nathuram Godse, the Hindu nationalist who assassinated him in 1948. Twelve years after more than 1,000 Muslims were killed in one of India’s most brutal pogroms, Muslims are treated as second class citizens in Gujarat. Tens of thousands have fled the state altogether.
Modi’s apologists point out that India’s Supreme Court cleared him of direct involvement in the 2002 riots. But the absence of proof is not the same as innocence. I was living in India in 2002 and remember very well the inflammatory rhetoric Modi deployed on the day 85 Hindu pilgrims were burnt to death in a train fire in Godhra. The incident was immediately blamed on the Muslim tea sellers who hawked their wares at the train station where the horrific accident occurred. A subsequent exhaustive government inquiry absolved the tea sellers of any blame for the fire, which was thought to have been caused by kerosene.
Modi did not wait for any inquiry. Just a few months before facing re-election in a contest he was by no means certain to win, Modi seized on the Godhra incident to show how decisive he could be.
Citing Newton’s Third Law: “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction,” Modi gave the rioters the cue they needed. No one, Indian or foreigner, who covered the following, gruesome, 72 hours, was in any doubt about the meaning of Modi’s signal. For three days and nights, mobs of fanatics went from house to house armed with electoral rolls (to identify the religion of each household), dragged women and children out of their homes, poured kerosene down their throats and ignited them to crowds of cheering onlookers. The police in Ahmedabad and other Gujarati cities did not intervene. After 72 hours, the police intervened and the rioting stopped. Defenders of Modi would have us believe that he lost control of his own police force. That would make him a weak leader, which contradicts his principal selling point. I do not believe that explanation. Six months later, Modi won re-election in a landslide. As he put it at the time, the Hindu majority had awoken.
 |
| Muslim During Riots |
Apologists also point out that Modi has mellowed since 2002 and discarded the harsher sides of his communal ideology. They forget that he is a life-long member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the quasi-fascist Hindu militant group to which Gandhi’s assassin also belonged. He is a life-long celibate in the cause of Hindutva — literally Hinduness — to which the RSS subscribes. Given Modi’s reputation as a Hindu nationalist, he can afford to tack to the center as far as he likes. He will never lose the Hindu nationalist vote. This is the risk India’s beleaguered secular classes are taking. They want the sunny Dr. Jekyll and pray the nocturnal Mr. Hyde has been put away for good. It is a big bet.
For my part, I believe Modi is a brilliant tactician who is saying and doing what it takes to reach India’s top job. After that, who knows? Apologists say that he could never afford as prime minister to repeat the kind of communal hatred he has institutionalized in Gujarat since he will head a coalition government that will quickly fall apart. They may be right. Deepak Lal, the distinguished Indian economist, asks whether Modi is a Margaret Thatcher or an Adolf Hitler. He concludes that Modi is probably a Thatcher. If so, as Gideon Rachman has rightly argued, a dose of Thatcherism is precisely what India needs. They may be right. I suspect they are wrong. Either way, I would rather not take the risk of finding out.
(We apologize if anything is wrong please contact us to correct this article, we are not responsible for anything written in this article because this is sent by an unknown writer.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment