BJP is against Gandhi dynasty

smArtha wrote:For now Gandhi dynasty is a worse and deep-rooted and entrenched dynasty that is hoisted on the nation. If they get successful in uprooting it then the taking care of other smaller and regional ones is easier. They have their priorities in the right order.

Thanjai Nalankilli wrote:

smArtha wrote:For now Gandhi dynasty is a worse and deep-rooted and entrenched dynasty that is hoisted on the nation. If they get successful in uprooting it then the taking care of other smaller and regional ones is easier. They have their priorities in the right order.

will BJP also be able to uproot the RSS dynasty?

smArtha wrote:

Thanjai Nalankilli wrote:

smArtha wrote:For now Gandhi dynasty is a worse and deep-rooted and entrenched dynasty that is hoisted on the nation. If they get successful in uprooting it then the taking care of other smaller and regional ones is easier. They have their priorities in the right order.

will BJP also be able to uproot the RSS dynasty?

dy·nas·ty
 noun \ˈdī-nə-stē also -ˌnas-tē,especially British ˈdi-nə-stē\
: a family of rulers who rule over a country for a long period of time; also : the period of time when a particular dynasty is in power
: a family, team, etc., that is very powerful or successful for a long period of time

smArtha wrote:Which part of the 'rule over a country for a long period of time' or 'in power' did you not get?

Thanjai Nalankilli wrote:

smArtha wrote:Which part of the 'rule over a country for a long period of time' or 'in power' did you not get?

RSS has been wielding backroom power without any accountability. For instance when Vajapyee was PM, the then RSS chief K.S. Sudarshan went at midnight to meet Vajpayee and insisted that Yashwant Sinha be made Finance Minister of India. As per your definition, dynasty could refer to family but it could also refer to a 'team'. I agree with this. RSS is a 'team' which has now been shown to be wielding backroom power and also shown to be involved in instigating communal riots as per the confession of Aseemananda who was in the RSS for i think thirty years or so. According to Aseemananda, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat personally approved of violence and criminal activities of people like Aseemananda since Bhagwat thought that would benefit Hinduism and Hindus.

smArtha wrote:

Thanjai Nalankilli wrote:

smArtha wrote:Which part of the 'rule over a country for a long period of time' or 'in power' did you not get?

RSS has been wielding backroom power without any accountability. For instance when Vajapyee was PM, the then RSS chief K.S. Sudarshan went at midnight to meet Vajpayee and insisted that Yashwant Sinha be made Finance Minister of India. As per your definition, dynasty could refer to family but it could also refer to a 'team'. I agree with this. RSS is a 'team' which has now been shown to be wielding backroom power and also shown to be involved in instigating communal riots as per the confession of Aseemananda who was in the RSS for i think thirty years or so. According to Aseemananda, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat personally approved of violence and criminal activities of people like Aseemananda since Bhagwat thought that would benefit Hinduism and Hindus.

Will try again - Which part of the 'rule over a country for a long period of time' or 'in power' did you not get?

Rashmun wrote:

smArtha wrote:

Thanjai Nalankilli wrote:

smArtha wrote:Which part of the 'rule over a country for a long period of time' or 'in power' did you not get?

RSS has been wielding backroom power without any accountability. For instance when Vajapyee was PM, the then RSS chief K.S. Sudarshan went at midnight to meet Vajpayee and insisted that Yashwant Sinha be made Finance Minister of India. As per your definition, dynasty could refer to family but it could also refer to a 'team'. I agree with this. RSS is a 'team' which has now been shown to be wielding backroom power and also shown to be involved in instigating communal riots as per the confession of Aseemananda who was in the RSS for i think thirty years or so. According to Aseemananda, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat personally approved of violence and criminal activities of people like Aseemananda since Bhagwat thought that would benefit Hinduism and Hindus.

Will try again - Which part of the 'rule over a country for a long period of time' or 'in power' did you not get?

Rule over country does not exclude rule over some state in this context. There are many regional parties which practice dynastic politics. The words rule and 'in power' does not exclude indirect rule and back room power which the RSS practices. For instance RSS gave marching orders to Advani to step down from his position of BJP party president. It was also RSS which selected Gadkari and later Rajnath as BJP president. RSS basically rules over the BJP and BJP has had governments either at the center and/or also in the states for quite some time now.

We must not--out of some inherent bias--insist on a very narrow definition of dynasty politics otherwise we would be forced to accept the foolish position that the parties of Paswan, Lalu, Thackeray, Badal, K'nidhi, Jagan, etc. do not practice dynasty politics.

smArtha wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

smArtha wrote:

Thanjai Nalankilli wrote:

smArtha wrote:Which part of the 'rule over a country for a long period of time' or 'in power' did you not get?

RSS has been wielding backroom power without any accountability. For instance when Vajapyee was PM, the then RSS chief K.S. Sudarshan went at midnight to meet Vajpayee and insisted that Yashwant Sinha be made Finance Minister of India. As per your definition, dynasty could refer to family but it could also refer to a 'team'. I agree with this. RSS is a 'team' which has now been shown to be wielding backroom power and also shown to be involved in instigating communal riots as per the confession of Aseemananda who was in the RSS for i think thirty years or so. According to Aseemananda, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat personally approved of violence and criminal activities of people like Aseemananda since Bhagwat thought that would benefit Hinduism and Hindus.

Will try again - Which part of the 'rule over a country for a long period of time' or 'in power' did you not get?

Rule over country does not exclude rule over some state in this context. There are many regional parties which practice dynastic politics. The words rule and 'in power' does not exclude indirect rule and back room power which the RSS practices. For instance RSS gave marching orders to Advani to step down from his position of BJP party president. It was also RSS which selected Gadkari and later Rajnath as BJP president. RSS basically rules over the BJP and BJP has had governments either at the center and/or also in the states for quite some time now.

We must not--out of some inherent bias--insist on a very narrow definition of dynasty politics otherwise we would be forced to accept the foolish position that the parties of Paswan, Lalu, Thackeray, Badal, K'nidhi, Jagan, etc. do not practice dynasty politics.

Congress and Nehru are the root cause of this dynasty cult to originate and continue in the Indian democratic system. The sooner we kill that root the better for the entire democracy. All the Lalu,, Paswan, K'nidhi are much smaller players that can be easily tackled later. 

PS: I did suspect that my last post will get you back with your 'original' handle :-)

Rashmun wrote:Nehru did not install dynasty cult. Nehru did not leave behind any successor. After Nehru's death Lal Bahaduri Shastri became Congress Prime Minister.

RSS had given a promise to Sardar Patel that they would not engage in electoral politics in any way which is why he lifted the ban he had placed on them after Mahatma Gandhi's death.