"If at times I do seem dogmatic, it is because it is convenient to give my
own views as unequivocally as possible."
Bartlett M.S. via http://www.jstor.org/stable/2982519.
A well thought article a lot of it being what we know already. Infrastructure should be India's top priority, but it shouldnt be at the cost of social sector reform. Thats what even Chandrababu Naidu has learnt.
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
In the article Trouble with India, Dr VS Rao Director of BITS Pilani Hyderabad campus may think that Chandrababu Naidu was wrong in considering Economics as more important than politics. Who told Economics is urban and politics is for rural? Bihar gave importance to politics instead of economics and see the state of affairs there. Bhagavat Gita says that you cannot do good somewhere without doing bad somewhere else and vice versa. Naidu did not mean to do bad for rural and intended to do good for urban. In West Bengal Left Front used to give importance to Rural and win all votes there but used to loose seats in Kolkata city. Naidu’s Urban development with subsequent rural benefits was indeed wise thinking. Success is not to be measured by CM designations, elections fought and seats won but by the enormous obstacles which were overcome and there is no doubt that with Economic Focus Chandrababu Naidu is indeed a success which pigeon headed fellows have failed to appreciate.
Well, I agree that Naidu did bring something new to indian politics, but even he himself has realized that not only good work has to be done, it also has to be seen to be done. Unfortunately, however we wish against it, people are swayed by what they see if they have no means of knowing the truth. I think Naidu was probably basking in the glory of his media publicity(and earned as well). He assumed that the rural areas will be impressed and satisfied with that. But then the rural ppl were enraged. The same happened with BJPs India rising campaign.
2 comments:
In the article Trouble with India,
Dr VS Rao Director of BITS Pilani Hyderabad campus may think that Chandrababu Naidu was wrong in considering Economics as more important than politics. Who told Economics is urban and politics is for rural? Bihar gave importance to politics instead of economics and see the state of affairs there. Bhagavat Gita says that you cannot do good somewhere without doing bad somewhere else and vice versa. Naidu did not mean to do bad for rural and intended to do good for urban. In West Bengal Left Front used to give importance to Rural and win all votes there but used to loose seats in Kolkata city. Naidu’s Urban development with subsequent rural benefits was indeed wise thinking. Success is not to be measured by CM designations, elections fought and seats won but by the enormous obstacles which were overcome and there is no doubt that with Economic Focus Chandrababu Naidu is indeed a success which pigeon headed fellows have failed to appreciate.
Well, I agree that Naidu did bring something new to indian politics, but even he himself has realized that not only good work has to be done, it also has to be seen to be done.
Unfortunately, however we wish against it, people are swayed by what they see if they have no means of knowing the truth.
I think Naidu was probably basking in the glory of his media publicity(and earned as well). He assumed that the rural areas will be impressed and satisfied with that. But then the rural ppl were enraged. The same happened with BJPs India rising campaign.
Thanks for your comments.
Post a Comment