Mayawati vs Sonia and Naidu vs Rahul

According to Carvaka, Sonia should be called 'Empress' but not Mayawati.

Also, the fact that Chandrababu Naidu is the son in law of NTR does not mean dynasty politics is in place in A.P..

Please discuss

Rashmun wrote:the fact that Chandrababu Naidu is the son in law of NTR does not mean dynasty politics is in place in A.P.

Naidu was an MLA and a minister before his father-in-law entered politics and started the TDP. Before the Empress's ascension to the throne, where do you think the Yuvraj was?

Rashmun wrote:Sonia should be called 'Empress' but not Mayawati.

Correct. Mayawati did not inherit her throne because of her husband or his family.

Rashmun wrote:According to Carvaka, Sonia should be called 'Empress' but not Mayawati.

Also, the fact that Chandrababu Naidu is the son in law of NTR does not mean dynasty politics is in place in A.P..

Please discuss

chandra babu naidu was the heralded king maker for NTR in early 80s. unlike sonia, his job description didnt include giving blowjobs to hujband and making him a sammich.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:the fact that Chandrababu Naidu is the son in law of NTR does not mean dynasty politics is in place in A.P.

Naidu was an MLA and a minister before his father-in-law entered politics and started the TDP. Before the Empress's ascension to the throne, where do you think the Yuvraj was?

Rashmun wrote:Sonia should be called 'Empress' but not Mayawati.

Correct. Mayawati did not inherit her throne because of her husband or his family.

--> would Naidu have become the CM if he was not the son in law of NTR? or would he have remained an MLA and at best a state minister? Is it not true that Naidu led a revolt within the TDP against NTR and succeeded in carrying out a political coup against his own father in law?

--> i will return to the Sonia vs Mayawati issue later.

Charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Sonia should be called 'Empress' but not Mayawati.

Correct. Mayawati did not inherit her throne because of her husband or his family.

1. Mayawati inherited the throne only because of Kashi Ram. For whatever reasons he handpicked her over many other senior party members.

2. Sonia, one must remember, entered politics extremely reluctantly. in fact she was keen that rajiv should not enter politics as per what i have read.

3. If Sonia would not have entered active politics, it is quite likely that the Congress party would have broken up. In such an eventuality who would have benefited? Of course, BJP. And if the BJP would have continued in power for long enough, who would have become the prime minister at some point of time? Narendra Modi.

4. Who do you prefer between Sonia and Narendra Modi?

5. Could it be that your opposition to Sonia and Congress actually ends up resulting in indirect support for BJP and Narendra Modi?

6. I would like to emphasize that i do not support the Congress blindly. For instance, i am a staunch opponent of caste based reservation. But then no major political party in India agrees with me on this point. But given a choice of Congress vs BJP, i support the Congress because i do not believe they would deliberately orchestrate communal fights like what happened in Gujarat.

Rashmun wrote:--> would Naidu have become the CM if he was not the son in law of NTR?

You answered your own question in your next sentence...

Rashmun wrote:Is it not true that Naidu led a revolt within the TDP against NTR and succeeded in carrying out a political coup against his own father in law?

Naidu became CM not because of NTR, but despite NTR's best efforts to prevent him from being CM. He was a qualified, proven politician before his father-in-law entered politics. Sonia Gandhi was a housewife, and Rahul Gandhi even less qualified than that, at the points in time when they became recognized leaders in the Congress. Congresswallahs worshiped Sonia and Rahul before either of them even held Congress office. None of that happened with either Naidu or with Mayawati.

Rashmun wrote:Mayawati inherited the throne only because of Kashi Ram. For whatever
reasons he handpicked her over many other senior party members.

And Mayawati was Kashi Ram's daughter, wife or daughter-in-law?

Rashmun wrote:Sonia, one must remember, entered politics extremely reluctantly.

If someone I am interviewing for a job at my company says they are extremely reluctant to get into this field, I don't consider than an asset. I think they are not qualified to do this job. The same applies to her. She is no more qualified to be Chairperson of UPA than Edward VIII was to be King-Emperor.

Rashmun wrote:Who do you prefer between Sonia and Narendra Modi?

Ask me this question again when either of them is a PM candidate.

Rashmun wrote:Could it be that your opposition to Sonia and Congress actually ends up
resulting in indirect support for BJP and Narendra Modi?

No, I don't support BJP, directly or indirectly. The problem is that your fear of the BJP has blinded you to all principle and turned you into an unscrupulous and hypocritical partisan hack.

Rashmun wrote:i do not support the Congress blindly.

. Your support of Diggy's goondagiri is ample proof that you do. It is telling that even Merlot agrees with other posters that Diggy has become a nuisance, but you seem to idolize him the more the worse his behavior gets.

It is pretty easy for any "upper" caste person to oppose caste-based reservations; it doesn't take a whole lot of courage to do that on a forum dominated by "upper" caste people. On that issue, all parties agree. So your opposition to caste-based reservations puts you in disagreement with the BJP as much as it is puts you in disagreement with the Congress. It therefore does not prove that you don't support the Congress.

Rashmun wrote:i am a staunch opponent of caste based reservation.

I guess your views have changed from "mixed" to "staunch opposition."

Here is what you said earlier:

I have mixed views on caste based reservations. I
believe dalits are entitled to caste based reservation (not indefinitely
though) but not OBC's because as per my observation in u.p. and
bihar/jharkhand, the OBC castes (particularly yadavas and kurmis) are
economically well off and in rural regions of these states they are
usually better off economically than brahmins.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/brahmin-bigots-and-their-fake-concern-for-freedom-of-speech-865781.htm

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:--> would Naidu have become the CM if he was not the son in law of NTR?

You answered your own question in your next sentence...

Rashmun wrote:Is it not true that Naidu led a revolt within the TDP against NTR and succeeded in carrying out a political coup against his own father in law?

Naidu became CM not because of NTR, but despite NTR's best efforts to prevent him from being CM. He was a qualified, proven politician before his father-in-law entered politics. Sonia Gandhi was a housewife, and Rahul Gandhi even less qualified than that, at the points in time when they became recognized leaders in the Congress. Congresswallahs worshiped Sonia and Rahul before either of them even held Congress office. None of that happened with either Naidu or with Mayawati.

--> The point is would Naidu have become the CM if he would not have been NTR's son in law? NTR trusted him and he backstabbed NTR.

--> Sonia Gandhi had spent a lot of time with Indra Gandhi and also with Rajiv Gandhi. It is inevitable that she would have learnt politics and political maneuvering from her husband and mother in law. She was no ordinary house wife.

--> The very fact that she was able to hold the party together at a time when the BJP was clearly ascendant makes her praise worthy.

Charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Mayawati inherited the throne only because of Kashi Ram. For whatever
reasons he handpicked her over many other senior party members.

And Mayawati was Kashi Ram's daughter, wife or daughter-in-law?

--> the point is that at the time he elevated her in the party and started grooming her she had no political experience.

Charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Sonia, one must remember, entered politics extremely reluctantly.

If someone I am interviewing for a job at my company says they are extremely reluctant to get into this field, I don't consider than an asset. I think they are not qualified to do this job. The same applies to her. She is no more qualified to be Chairperson of UPA than Edward VIII was to be King-Emperor.

--> you forget that she has performed magnificently. First, she has held the party together. And second, under her leadership, Congress managed to dethrone BJP at a time when BJP enjoyed the formidable leadership of Vajpayee. So i dispute your claim that she is not qualified to do the job. As mentioned earlier, whatever political training was required was given to her by her husband also by spending time with her mother in law with who she is said to have got along very well.

Charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:Could it be that your opposition to Sonia and Congress actually ends up
resulting in indirect support for BJP and Narendra Modi?

No, I don't support BJP, directly or indirectly. The problem is that your fear of the BJP has blinded you to all principle and turned you into an unscrupulous and hypocritical partisan hack.

--> My understanding is that there is no alternative as of now in Indian politics other than the Congress and the BJP. I am very open about my preference for the Congress. You, on the other hand, go out of your way to smear the Congress leadership and then conveniently claim that you are no BJP supporter. So i would submit to you that it is you who is being unscrupulous and hypocritical. Unless of course you foresee and support another Third Front kind of coalition government at the center which would inevitably be weak and would not last the full term as per what we have seen in the past.

[quote = "charvaka"]

Rashmun wrote:i do not support the Congress blindly

Your support of Diggy's goondagiri is ample proof that you do. It is telling that even Merlot agrees with other posters that Diggy has become a nuisance, but you seem to idolize him the more the worse his behavior gets. [/quote]

--> Digvijay is simply doing his job of being an attack dog for the Congress. The BJP has its own attack dogs. I am of the opinion that Diggy is doing a great job of being an attack dog to the extent that the BJP is now complaining and whining. There used to be a time when the Congress used to complain and whine when the BJP's attack dogs went after it. I recall Praveen Togadia calling Sonia 'Italy di kutri' (Italian bitch) and Narendra Modi claiming that Sonia meets former Chief Election Commissioner Lyngdoh in church and so on and so forth. So i have no sympathy for BJP walahs when they whine and complain as Diggy goes after them.

[quote = "Charvaka"]It is pretty easy for any "upper" caste person to oppose caste-based reservations; it doesn't take a whole lot of courage to do that on a forum dominated by "upper" caste people. On that issue, all parties agree. So your opposition to caste-based reservations puts you in disagreement with the BJP as much as it is puts you in disagreement with the Congress. It therefore does not prove that you don't support the Congress.[/quote]

--> are you really claiming that i am scared of putting forward unpopular views and that i am fond of personal popularity in an online forum? May i remind you that on several occasions i have espoused unpopular views on CH. For instance, I recall being subjected to filthy abuses only because i was critical of Advaita Vedanta. Likewise for my praise of Akbar. And also for my praise of Charvaka philosophy.

--> My point is that i do not support the Congress on every issue. Like, for instance, the issue of caste based reservation. I am particularly opposed to caste based reservations for OBC's because in my opinion OBC's are a prosperous community in general.

--> As of now, i only see two choices before me: congress and BJP. i am brave enough to say that i prefer the congress to the bjp. i suggest you do the same and openly state your preference for either congress or bjp or else state that your preference is for a third front.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:i am a staunch opponent of caste based reservation.

I guess your views have changed from "mixed" to "staunch opposition."

Here is what you said earlier:

I have mixed views on caste based reservations. I
believe dalits are entitled to caste based reservation (not indefinitely
though) but not OBC's because as per my observation in u.p. and
bihar/jharkhand, the OBC castes (particularly yadavas and kurmis) are
economically well off and in rural regions of these states they are
usually better off economically than brahmins.

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/brahmin-bigots-and-their-fake-concern-for-freedom-of-speech-865781.htm

--> i am strongly opposed to caste based reservation for OBC's. With respect to caste based reservations for dalits i am of the opinion that they cannot go on indefinitely.

another point comes to mind:

if sonia would not have been qualified to hold her job she would not have been able to handle the rebellion within the congress of sharad pawar and sangma.

Rashmun wrote:Sonia Gandhi had spent a lot of time with Indra Gandhi and also with Rajiv Gandhi. It is inevitable that she would have learnt politics and political maneuvering from her husband and mother in law.

Rashmun wrote:The very fact that she was able to hold the party together at a time when the BJP was clearly ascendant makes her praise worthy.

The very fact that it was seen as her party that she had to hold together indicates the problem with the Congress!

Rashmun wrote:the point is that at the time he elevated her in the party and started grooming her she had no political experience.

That is quite simply untrue. She was a Lok Sabha contestant for BSP right after the party was formed. Besides, what we are arguing about is dynastic politics. The lack of blood ties between Kanshi Ram and Mayawati demolishes the flimsy parallel you are trying to establish. If you are confused about the meaning of the term, look at the dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynasty

Rashmun wrote:So i dispute your claim that she is not qualified to do the job.

She was completely unqualified for the job when it was offered to her on a platter. Right after Rajiv Gandhi's death, the CWC got together and handed the reins of the party to Sonia Gandhi. She was not even a party member at that time. So your attempts to put lipstick on that pig make me laugh... this is nothing but dynastic politics, and you are desperately trying to make it look better than it is.

Rashmun wrote:My understanding is that there is no alternative as of now in Indian politics other than the Congress and the BJP.

There are many alternatives. The left, the regional parties, new parties like Lok Satta, etc. Besides, there is such a thing as honesty. I may at some point hold my nose and vote for a Congress candidate (I haven't had to do it yet), but I won't be hypocritical and dishonest to defend the mistakes of Congress and its attack dogs.

Rashmun wrote:As of now, i only see two choices before me: congress and BJP.

That's because you have your eyes closed.

Rashmun wrote:another point comes to mind:

if sonia would not have been qualified to hold her job she would not have been able to handle the rebellion within the congress of sharad pawar and sangma.

You are increasingly relying on this line of argumentation. "If Diggy's claims were false, he would not have made them," "If Diggy was wrong, BJP would not have not prosecuted him," "if the police overreached, Ramdev would not have not filed a case," etc. I guess we can call it the Rashmun Method now. Let me illustrate it with some examples.

1. If tobacco really caused cancer, tobacco companies would not have claimed that there is no link between cancer and smoking.

2. If Sarah Palin was not qualified to be Vice President, her party would not have nominated her for the job.

3. If Kalyan Singh wanted Babri Masjid to be demolished, he would not have given assurances to the central government that all action will be taken to protect the structure.

4. If PVNR wanted Babri Masjid not to be demolished, he would not have believed Kalyan Singh's assurances.

All these examples share a common fallacy with your arguments I listed above. The fallacy arises from the Rashmun Method. Good luck finding it.

Rashmun wrote:another point comes to mind:

if sonia would not have been qualified to hold her job she would not have been able to handle the rebellion within the congress of sharad pawar and sangma.

i don't think sonia gandhi had anything to do with what you term a successful handling of the rebellion. pawar (or sangma or banerjee) never had any appeal at the national level. pawar was the strongest of those who rebelled but he was (and still is) influential only in MH. those who stuck with congress knew that very well and they also knew that their political future would be safeguarded only if they were loyal to congress (and gandhis - gandhis because that name fetches votes). that, and not sonia gandhi's magic powers, is the reason why it stopped with NCP.

btw, mayawati > sonia gandhi. with dalit background, no glamorous last name and no political ties, if a woman manages to control a party in a backward state, you have to give it to her. sonia gandhi had only her last name, nothing else. she did not even know hindi which i suppose is one of your favorite demands of political leaders.

Rashmun wrote:
--> are you really claiming that i am scared of putting forward unpopular views and that i am fond of personal popularity in an online forum? May i remind you that on several occasions i have espoused unpopular irrational and idiotic views on CH. For instance, I recall being subjected to filthy abuses only because i was critical of Advaita Vedanta. Likewise for my praise of Akbar. And also for my praise of Charvaka philosophy.

**amended**

Charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:The very fact that she was able to hold the party together at a time when the BJP was clearly ascendant makes her praise worthy.

The very fact that it was seen as her party that she had to hold together indicates the problem with the Congress!

--> this problem is not confined to the congress but to many if not most political parties in India. so let me ask you again:
who would you prefer between Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi?

Charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:the point is that at the time he elevated her in the party and started grooming her she had no political experience.

That is quite simply untrue. She was a Lok Sabha contestant for BSP right after the party was formed. Besides, what we are arguing about is dynastic politics. The lack of blood ties between Kanshi Ram and Mayawati demolishes the flimsy parallel you are trying to establish. If you are confused about the meaning of the term, look at the dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynasty

--> my understanding is that she was a history student or history teacher when Kashi Ram spotted her and became her political mentor. My claim is that the kind of political grooming Mayawati received from Kashi Ram was given to Sonia by Rajiv Gandhi and Indra Gandhi. In the election campaigns of Rajiv Gandhi, Sonia was a very active participant and would personally go around Amethi with and without Rajiv in the pre-election poll campaigns.

Charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:So i dispute your claim that she is not qualified to do the job.

She was completely unqualified for the job when it was offered to her on a platter. Right after Rajiv Gandhi's death, the CWC got together and handed the reins of the party to Sonia Gandhi. She was not even a party member at that time. So your attempts to put lipstick on that pig make me laugh... this is nothing but dynastic politics, and you are desperately trying to make it look better than it is.

--> if she was totally unqualified to hold the job she would not have been able to hold the party together.

--> dynasty politics is ocuring in several political parties in India. not only that, it is also ocuring in the U.S. for instance, hillary did not hold any political office before she became a senator. but all the contacts of her husband passed on to her and she made it. there is now talk of jeb bush becoming the republican candidate in 2016.

Charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:My understanding is that there is no alternative as of now in Indian politics other than the Congress and the BJP.

There are many alternatives. The left, the regional parties, new parties like Lok Satta, etc. Besides, there is such a thing as honesty. I may at some point hold my nose and vote for a Congress candidate (I haven't had to do it yet), but I won't be hypocritical and dishonest to defend the mistakes of Congress and its attack dogs.

--> Past experience has told the Indian polity that Third Front governments are weak and do not last the full term. But if that's who you support, then fine. my understanding is that no non-BJP or non-Congress government is going to be formed in India in the foreseeable future.

Charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:As of now, i only see two choices before me: congress and BJP.

That's because you have your eyes closed.

--> ok. there is a third choice: Third Front. But as i mentioned i do not see them forming a government in India in the foreseeable future. Even if they do form a government it would be a hodge podge kind of weak government which would not last the full term. This is what one has observed in the past when it comes to Third Front governments.

charvaka wrote:

Rashmun wrote:another point comes to mind:

if sonia would not have been qualified to hold her job she would not have been able to handle the rebellion within the congress of sharad pawar and sangma.

You are increasingly relying on this line of argumentation. "If Diggy's claims were false, he would not have made them," "If Diggy was wrong, BJP would not have not prosecuted him," "if the police overreached, Ramdev would not have not filed a case," etc. I guess we can call it the Rashmun Method now. Let me illustrate it with some examples.

1. If tobacco really caused cancer, tobacco companies would not have claimed that there is no link between cancer and smoking.

2. If Sarah Palin was not qualified to be Vice President, her party would not have nominated her for the job.

3. If Kalyan Singh wanted Babri Masjid to be demolished, he would not have given assurances to the central government that all action will be taken to protect the structure.

4. If PVNR wanted Babri Masjid not to be demolished, he would not have believed Kalyan Singh's assurances.

All these examples share a common fallacy with your arguments I listed above. The fallacy arises from the Rashmun Method. Good luck finding it.

--> You are
distorting what i said. It is common sense that the BJP--which is the political enemy of Digvijay Singh--would not have tolerated him thrashing
its own party workers in a state in which they are in power. Unless, of
course, there was immense provocation and he had reacted to something
which if publicized would embarass the BJP. You can continue spinning
the Charvaka Spin and claiming that the reason BJP did not take action
against Digvijay is that it has no respect for the rule of law just as
Congress has no respect for it.