Re: The case against regional parties

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:56 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I have no wish to even meet you in person.
. Where did that come from? Do you think CHers are dying to meet you in person?

--> I wanted to clear away your false delusion that i plan to come and kick you on your balls. By the way, its funny to see you rolling in laughter whenever there is talk of someone kicking you on your balls.

Charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Everyone can see that you kept hedging, equivocating, and pussyfooting around when i asked the simple question--are you for Separate Telangana or for United Andhra?
I am sorry to inform you, but you are the only one suffering from that delusion. When you first asked me, I told you I have answered the question many times, and that I would even answer it specifically for you if you answered my question on regional parties in the Soviet Union. Instead of slowing down to look up my answer, you took the lazy route of making accusations. Look where that landed you, shameless liar!

--> The posts are there for everyone to see. Let others judge who is the shameless liar. Let them judge for themselves whether i did not repeatedly ask your view on a simple question: are you for Separate Telangana or for United Andhra, and whether you kept hedging, equivocating, and pussyfooting around rather than reveal your position on this issue.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:05 pm

Rashmun wrote:I wanted to clear away your false delusion that i plan to come and kick you on your balls.

Hahaha. This gets funnier. Shameless liar, I had no such delusion; I just knew you are into fantasizing about the violence you commit against CHers who get the better of you in arguments.

Rashmun wrote:The posts are there for everyone to see. Let others judge who is the shameless liar.

Sure... here a leading indicator of where that stands:

https://such.forumotion.com/u25stats

Positive votes received : 2
Negative votes received : 24

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:13 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I wanted to clear away your false delusion that i plan to come and kick you on your balls.
Hahaha. This gets funnier. Shameless liar, I had no such delusion; I just knew you are into fantasizing about the violence you commit against CHers who get the better of you in arguments.

--> As i assured you, i have no such fantasies that you keep dreaming about. I was only mocking your posting LOLs in even serious discussions. Far from wanting to kick you on your balls, i don't have any intention of even meeting you. I say this only to reassure you that i don't plan to come and kick you on your balls.

Charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The posts are there for everyone to see. Let others judge who is the shameless liar.
Sure... here a leading indicator of where that stands:

https://such.forumotion.com/u25stats

Positive votes received : 2
Negative votes received : 24

--> That is a leading indicator only in your imagination. I care two hoots about the opinions of people like HA and how many times they cast negative votes for me, for instance.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:14 pm

Rashmun wrote:
--> The posts are there for everyone to see. Let others judge who is the shameless liar. Let them judge for themselves whether i did not repeatedly ask your view on a simple question: are you for Separate Telangana or for United Andhra, and whether you kept hedging, equivocating, and pussyfooting around rather than reveal your position on this issue.

Rashmun dear. You are right...402% right. It is impossible to get Charvaka out of his delusional views.

It is time that you give your powerful treatment: Abuse his wife and mother, and that will teach him who you are and not to oppose your views.

He deserves it.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:30 pm

Rashmun wrote:That is a leading indicator only in your imagination. I care two hoots about the opinions of people like HA and how many times they cast negative votes for me, for instance.

Yes, ignore the mounting evidence and believe what you want to believe!

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:38 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That is a leading indicator only in your imagination. I care two hoots about the opinions of people like HA and how many times they cast negative votes for me, for instance.
Yes, ignore the mounting evidence and believe what you want to believe!

--> its quite amazing to note that you have so far given 28 negative votes to other posters on this forum.
https://such.forumotion.com/u2stats

--> anyone can check how many negative votes i have given:
https://such.forumotion.com/u25stats

--> Even HA has given only 14 negative votes:
https://such.forumotion.com/u5stats

--> Uppili has given 10 negative votes:
https://such.forumotion.com/u29stats

--> Am i correct in saying that you have given the maximum number of negative votes to others on this forum?

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:42 pm

Rashmun wrote:Am i correct in saying that you have given the maximum number of negative votes to others on this forum?

I don't know. If you had just one lesson to learn from this thread, shameless liar, it is that you should first check whether you are correct about something, before saying that something. Looks like you haven't learned the lesson.

Yes, I have been using the voting system for a long time now, and I give both positive and negative votes, in about the same overall quantity (27 positive, 28 negative right now.) You gave neither positive nor negative votes.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That is a leading indicator only in your imagination. I care two hoots about the opinions of people like HA and how many times they cast negative votes for me, for instance.
Yes, ignore the mounting evidence and believe what you want to believe!

--> its quite amazing to note that you have so far given 28 negative votes to other posters on this forum.
https://such.forumotion.com/u2stats

--> anyone can check how many negative votes i have given:
https://such.forumotion.com/u25stats

--> Even HA has given only 14 negative votes:
https://such.forumotion.com/u5stats

--> Uppili has given 10 negative votes:
https://such.forumotion.com/u29stats

--> Am i correct in saying that you have given the maximum number of negative votes to others on this forum?

--> And you've given 2 negative votes as Admin:

https://such.forumotion.com/u1stats

--> That makes it 30 negative votes you have so far given to others on this forum!

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:45 pm

Rashmun wrote:That makes it 30 negative votes you have so far given to others on this forum!

Correct. Thanks for bringing this up. This makes my score: 37 positive votes given, 30 negative votes given. Your score: 0-0.

BTW, if you need another data point to ignore regarding your credibility: 13 different people voted
on the thread where HA posted a poll on your posts. Nobody forced them to vote, and HA could not vote multiple times (one handle, one vote in polls here.)

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:46 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That makes it 30 negative votes you have so far given to others on this forum!
Correct. Thanks for bringing this up. This makes my score: 37 positive votes given, 30 negative votes given. Your score: 0-0.

BTW, if you need another data point to ignore regarding your credibility: 13 different people voted
on the thread where HA posted a poll on your posts. Nobody forced them to vote, and HA could not vote multiple times (one handle, one vote in polls here.)

--> in that poll, 10 people said they were not going to ignore me, and 3 people said it is better that i should be ignored. So?

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:47 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That makes it 30 negative votes you have so far given to others on this forum!
Correct. Thanks for bringing this up. This makes my score: 37 positive votes given, 30 negative votes given. Your score: 0-0.

BTW, if you need another data point to ignore regarding your credibility: 13 different people voted
on the thread where HA posted a poll on your posts. Nobody forced them to vote, and HA could not vote multiple times (one handle, one vote in polls here.)

--> Do you think it was appropriate for you to have given negative votes to others on this forum when you had your Admin hat on? Have you not diminished your credibility on this forum by doing so?

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That makes it 30 negative votes you have so far given to others on this forum!
Correct. Thanks for bringing this up. This makes my score: 37 positive votes given, 30 negative votes given. Your score: 0-0.

BTW, if you need another data point to ignore regarding your credibility: 13 different people voted
on the thread where HA posted a poll on your posts. Nobody forced them to vote, and HA could not vote multiple times (one handle, one vote in polls here.)

--> Do you think it was appropriate for you to have given negative votes to others on this forum when you had your Admin hat on? Have you not diminished your credibility on this forum by doing so?

I did some testing of the feature as Admin. But you are a shameless liar, so you are welcome to add this to your litany of lies.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:56 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That is a leading indicator only in your imagination. I care two hoots about the opinions of people like HA and how many times they cast negative votes for me, for instance.
Yes, ignore the mounting evidence and believe what you want to believe!

--> its quite amazing to note that you have so far given 28 negative votes to other posters on this forum.
https://such.forumotion.com/u2stats

--> Uppili has given 10 negative votes:
https://such.forumotion.com/u29stats

--> Am i correct in saying that you have given the maximum number of negative votes to others on this forum?

I dont recall giving neg votes to anyone, except when Carvaka was implementing it and asked us to check. I went about awarding negative votes to every post. In any case it shows how seriously you take everything and your/others "views" expressed here.

BTW, I stopped giving negative votes for your posts, as the system crashed due to overload of neg votes for you. Even the system is disgusted at your rehashing the same old crap and parroting the same thing over and over and over....and over...

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:58 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That makes it 30 negative votes you have so far given to others on this forum!
Correct. Thanks for bringing this up. This makes my score: 37 positive votes given, 30 negative votes given. Your score: 0-0.

BTW, if you need another data point to ignore regarding your credibility: 13 different people voted
on the thread where HA posted a poll on your posts. Nobody forced them to vote, and HA could not vote multiple times (one handle, one vote in polls here.)

--> Do you think it was appropriate for you to have given negative votes to others on this forum when you had your Admin hat on? Have you not diminished your credibility on this forum by doing so?
I did some testing of the feature as Admin. But you are a shameless liar, so you are welcome to add this to your litany of lies.

--> The problem is that you also gave 10 positive votes as Admin. Did you really have to give 10 positive votes to others for the purpose of testing?

https://such.forumotion.com/u1stats

--> the fact that you gave 28 negative votes to other users on this forum in your charvaka handle remains a little baffling.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:58 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That makes it 30 negative votes you have so far given to others on this forum!
Correct. Thanks for bringing this up. This makes my score: 37 positive votes given, 30 negative votes given. Your score: 0-0.

BTW, if you need another data point to ignore regarding your credibility: 13 different people voted
on the thread where HA posted a poll on your posts. Nobody forced them to vote, and HA could not vote multiple times (one handle, one vote in polls here.)

--> in that poll, 10 people said they were not going to ignore me, and 3 people said it is better that i should be ignored. So?

This is what people voted for:

Yes, it is better to ignore what he posts. The case against regional parties - Page 3 Vote_lcap

The case against regional parties - Page 3 Vote_rcap

23% [ 3 ]No, his outlandish posts are too irresistible to ignore. The case against regional parties - Page 3 Vote_lcap

76% [ 10 ] Total Votes : 13
Now, obviously neither option highlights your credibility. People who had a problem with the options would have asked for additional options, instead of voting on this poll. The fact that 13 people voted shows the level of credibility you have.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:01 pm

Rashmun wrote:The problem is that you also gave 10 positive votes as Admin. Did you really have to give 10 positive votes to others for the purpose of testing?

Yes.

Rashmun wrote:the fact that you gave 28 negative votes to other users on this forum in your charvaka handle remains a little baffling.

Don't be baffled, just lie.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:03 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That is a leading indicator only in your imagination. I care two hoots about the opinions of people like HA and how many times they cast negative votes for me, for instance.
Yes, ignore the mounting evidence and believe what you want to believe!

--> its quite amazing to note that you have so far given 28 negative votes to other posters on this forum.
https://such.forumotion.com/u2stats

--> Uppili has given 10 negative votes:
https://such.forumotion.com/u29stats

--> Am i correct in saying that you have given the maximum number of negative votes to others on this forum?

I dont recall giving neg votes to anyone, except when Carvaka was implementing it and asked us to check. I went about awarding negative votes to every post. In any case it shows how seriously you take everything and your/others "views" expressed here.

BTW, I stopped giving negative votes for your posts, as the system crashed due to overload of neg votes for you. Even the system is disgusted at your rehashing the same old crap and parroting the same thing over and over and over....and over...

--> thanks for being honest enough to admit that you gave me multiple negative votes. Wish Charvaka demonstrates the same honesty.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:05 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That makes it 30 negative votes you have so far given to others on this forum!
Correct. Thanks for bringing this up. This makes my score: 37 positive votes given, 30 negative votes given. Your score: 0-0.

BTW, if you need another data point to ignore regarding your credibility: 13 different people voted
on the thread where HA posted a poll on your posts. Nobody forced them to vote, and HA could not vote multiple times (one handle, one vote in polls here.)

--> in that poll, 10 people said they were not going to ignore me, and 3 people said it is better that i should be ignored. So?

This is what people voted for:

Yes, it is better to ignore what he posts. 23% [ 3 ]No, his outlandish posts are too irresistible to ignore. 76% [ 10 ] Total Votes : 13
Now, obviously neither option highlights your credibility. People who had a problem with the options would have asked for additional options, instead of voting on this poll. The fact that 13 people voted shows the level of credibility you have.

--> given the 2 options available, what is one supposed to do if one wants to say out loud that one wants to continue reading Rashmun's posts rather than ignore him. If the 10 people would not have voted, you would have gone around saying that everyone who voted in the poll said that i should be ignored.

--> i note the LOL is back. Please don't be nervous. I am not going to come and kick you on your balls.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:given the 2 options available, what is one supposed to do if one wants to say out loud that one wants to continue reading Rashmun's posts rather than ignore him.

Reply to HA and say there needs to be another option. Almost every poll here had that happen -- except this one.

Laughing

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:18 pm

Rashmun wrote:Wish Charvaka demonstrates the same honesty.

I am happy to state that I gave you a grand total of 4 negative votes. I gave you those negative votes when you were acting as the Congress apologist here defending the indefensible.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:18 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:given the 2 options available, what is one supposed to do if one wants to say out loud that one wants to continue reading Rashmun's posts rather than ignore him.
Reply to HA and say there needs to be another option. Almost every poll here had that happen -- except this one.

--> you think i care about HA and his polls?

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:19 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:given the 2 options available, what is one supposed to do if one wants to say out loud that one wants to continue reading Rashmun's posts rather than ignore him.
Reply to HA and say there needs to be another option. Almost every poll here had that happen -- except this one.

--> you think i care about HA and his polls?

Yes, you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't have bothered to look it up and misrepresent what people voted for.

PS: lol!

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:20 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:given the 2 options available, what is one supposed to do if one wants to say out loud that one wants to continue reading Rashmun's posts rather than ignore him.
Reply to HA and say there needs to be another option. Almost every poll here had that happen -- except this one.

--> you think i care about HA and his polls?
Yes, you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't have bothered to look it up and misrepresent what people voted for.

PS:

--> i only commented on it because you brought it up. And no need to LOL, nobody is going to kick you on your balls.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:22 pm

Rashmun wrote:i only commented on it because you brought it up.

You care, but you don't care. Got it! Laughing

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:22 pm

charvaka wrote:Where regional parties serve a legitimate purpose...

Where? Not in the examples cited so far.

charvaka wrote:But where they might have accentuated identity politics, you blame the regional parties but not the existence of the underlying identities.

It is one thing for a Bal Thackeray to lead a street movement purportedly protecting the interests of the marathi manoos but a different thing when his party comes to power solely on that populist plank. The former is fine but I see no reason to believe the latter is better for Maharashtra.

charvaka wrote:It is fine to do the former, but then you can't really blame regional parties for regional chauvinism (to use Rashmun's phrase) either!

What else is one to call a political platform devoted solely to the propagation of one region's interests?

charvaka wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:But regional parties are not the answer to the ills of the national
party system. They are prone to all those exact same ills and without even any recourse.
This I agree with. We don't have any recourse with the national parties either -- in fact, we got an emergency when a national party was in the situation Yeddy is in at the state level!

Yes, but regional parties are even less equipped to challenge such a situation if it were to arise again. OTOH, in the Yeddy example, it clearly helped that the BJP is a national party which had much to lose from his continuance in power. That wouldn't have happened if he was, say in the TDP or the Shiv Sena. See how the RJD shamelessly clung to power in Bihar a decade back (aided by the Congress of course), even though Laloo was in judicial custody and Rabri, his successor, was chargesheeted but out on bail.

charvaka wrote:My point is that regional parties serve a very useful purpose in a diverse polity (and that point applies beyond India.)

Adding-to-diversity, maybe. Just like Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal, Maoists etc. But very useful? Not so sure.

charvaka wrote:Most of the problems that they pose are also posed by national parties. They exploit some kinds of divisions, while national parties can exploit other kinds of divisions.

But we should be working towards lessening such kind of divisive politics, not encouraging more divisions. Casteist, religious and regional politics appeal to the lowest tribal instincts in us.

charvaka wrote:If anything, this discussion shows that both regional parties and national parties have some gaps, and having both would help ensure that various legitimate interests find representation.

I've still not seen the case for regional parties. Both examples cited in this thread - creation of AP and anti-Hindi movement - were not achieved by regional parties. States with regional political parties - Orissa, AP, TN - have little to show on the economic or developmental fronts, for all that regional jingoism, compared to states without regional parties.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:24 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Wish Charvaka demonstrates the same honesty.
I am happy to state that I gave you a grand total of 4 negative votes. I gave you those negative votes when you were acting as the Congress apologist here defending the indefensible.

--> we will have to take your word that the number is 4, and not 10 for instance. but its still odd why you would go about casting multiple negative votes for people you disagree with. it just smacks of juvenile behavior. at any rate, it does little to enhance your credibility on this forum.

--> btw, would you care to reveal the other people on this forum for you have casted negative votes? 30 negative votes (28 in your Charvaka handle, 2 in your Admin handle) is a large number after all. you seem to dislike many here!

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:26 pm

Rashmun wrote:but its still odd why you would go about casting negative votes for people you disagree with. it just smacks of juvenile behavior. at any rate, it does little to enhance your credibility on this forum.

Coming from a guy who got 24 negative votes from members, that's not surprising!

Rashmun wrote:you seem to dislike many here!

I vote for posts, not people. If I like a post a lot, I click +. If I dislike a post a lot, I click -. That's what those buttons are for.

There are many posts that I particularly liked here, and many that I particularly disliked. Hence the 37-28 record.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:30 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I've still not seen the case for regional parties.

There is no need to make a case for them. In a democratic system, if they fill a legitimate political need felt by the people, they will thrive, as they have done in India.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:31 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:but its still odd why you would go about casting negative votes for people you disagree with. it just smacks of juvenile behavior. at any rate, it does little to enhance your credibility on this forum.
Coming from a guy who got 24 negative votes from members, that's not surprising!

--> 24 negative votes from how many members? After all, both you and Uppili admit to having cast multiple negative votes for me.

--> Also, do not forget that 10 negative votes have been cast for you even though i did not cast a single negative vote for you.

Charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:you seem to dislike many here!
I vote for posts, not people. If I like a post a lot, I click +. If I dislike a post a lot, I click -. That's what those buttons are for.

There are many posts that I particularly liked here, and many that I particularly disliked. Hence the 37-28 record.

--> Looks like we will have to take your word that you go around giving negative votes to people if you dislike any of their posts. But would you care to name some of the other people to who you have given your 30 negative votes in the past?

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:37 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
charvaka wrote:Where regional parties serve a legitimate purpose...

Where? Not in the examples cited so far.

In the example of Hindi imposition in Tamil Nadu. The existence of regional parties filled a much-needed role in the political space, and that helped the country resolve that situation politically instead of it getting out of hand.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:It is one thing for a Bal Thackeray to lead a street movement purportedly protecting the interests of the marathi manoos but a different thing when his party comes to power solely on that populist plank. The former is fine but I see no reason to believe the latter is better for Maharashtra.

The fact is that he gives voice to a group of people who feel their views are not represented. That's a legitimate role in democracy. What is NOT legitimate is using physical violence to threaten outsiders.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:But we should be working towards lessening such kind of divisive politics, not encouraging more divisions. Casteist, religious and regional politics appeal to the lowest tribal instincts in us.

Democracy inherently is based on people's interests. For the politics of the country to reflect the people's interests is a good thing in a democracy. It stabilizes the system. India has incredible diversity, and its political system ought to reflect that. Regional parties emerged and are thriving precisely because of that need.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:39 pm

Rashmun, if you sincerely believe that you are credible, good for you. I can only take the horse to the water. Apparently, showing you data that should give you pause is not useful; instead of reflecting on the data and trying to learn some lessons, you just stick to your age-old tactics. So please add some like-dislike-vote-related lies to your litany of lies.

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:40 pm

charvaka wrote:There is no need to make a case for them.

Haha. Sure, there's no compulsion, but I thought if Rashmun makes a case against them, you are compelled to take a contrary position. But seriously, you two should stop this really low-level name calling. Just a suggestion.

charvaka wrote:In a democratic system, if they fill a legitimate political need felt by the people, they will thrive, as they have done in India.

Maoists thrive in India too because they fill a legitimate political need of the tribals. That doesn't make them a desirable element in the body politic.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:42 pm

charvaka wrote:Rashmun, if you sincerely believe that you are credible, good for you. I can only take the horse to the water. Apparently, showing you data that should give you pause is not useful; instead of reflecting on the data and trying to learn some lessons, you just stick to your age-old tactics. So please add some like-dislike-vote-related lies to your litany of lies.

--> what lies? is it not true that i did not cast a single negative vote for you while you cast multiple negative votes for me and then would like to use the number of negative votes cast against me as a means to judge my credibility.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:43 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:if Rashmun makes a case against them, you are compelled to take a contrary position.

It is enough to show that his case against regional parties is flimsy. And that has been done not just by me, but by others as well.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:But seriously, you two should stop this really low-level name calling. Just a suggestion.

Good suggestion; before I saw this I just posted something to him intending for it to be my last comment on this topic to him.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Maoists thrive in India too because they fill a legitimate political need of the tribals. That doesn't make them a desirable element in the body politic.

If they win elections I would see them as a legitimate political force. If OTOH thrive by the barrel of the gun, I don't consider them a desirable element.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:50 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:but its still odd why you would go about casting negative votes for people you disagree with. it just smacks of juvenile behavior. at any rate, it does little to enhance your credibility on this forum.
Coming from a guy who got 24 negative votes from members, that's not surprising!

--> 24 negative votes from how many members? After all, both you and Uppili admit to having cast multiple negative votes for me.

--> Also, do not forget that 10 negative votes have been cast for you even though i did not cast a single negative vote for you.

Charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:you seem to dislike many here!
I vote for posts, not people. If I like a post a lot, I click +. If I dislike a post a lot, I click -. That's what those buttons are for.

There are many posts that I particularly liked here, and many that I particularly disliked. Hence the 37-28 record.

--> Looks like we will have to take your word that you go around giving negative votes to people if you dislike any of their posts. But would you care to name some of the other people to who you have given your 30 negative votes in the past?

*bump*

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:52 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
artood2 wrote: On the other hand the telengana episode (where all MP/MLAs from the region resigned irrespective of their political allegiance) is a case in point where having national parties only does not help.

Nor having regional parties. Ultimately, it's a new sub-regional entity that is spearheading the agitation. And that brings me back to my core issue - once you raise the banner of tribal loyalty for political opportunism, there is no stopping how much can you divide and sub-divide in a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual country like India. It's the perfect recipe for the balkanization of India.

*bump*

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:57 pm

charvaka wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
charvaka wrote:Where regional parties serve a legitimate purpose...

Where? Not in the examples cited so far.

In the example of Hindi imposition in Tamil Nadu.

As I pointed out earlier, the anti-Hindi movement began in the 30s, long before the DMK and AIADMK came about.

charvaka wrote:The fact is that he gives voice to a group of people who feel their views are not represented. That's a legitimate role in democracy. What is NOT legitimate is using physical violence to threaten outsiders.

See my post. I'm not questioning his legitimacy. I'm only questioning if a government that comes to power purely on that populist plank is better for that state than a non-divisive option.

charvaka wrote:Democracy inherently is based on people's interests. For the politics of the country to reflect the people's interests is a good thing in a democracy. It stabilizes the system. India has incredible diversity, and its political system ought to reflect that.

In a country of such diversity, the approach should be of inclusivity, not exclusivity. Your argument is as much an endorsement of outright caste-based parties. They too reflect people's interests. It's easy to confuse people's tribal interests with their economic and social interests. Regional, religious and casteist parties cater to the former and there's nothing positive to be said about that other than what you did - that they thrive.

charvaka wrote:Regional parties emerged and are thriving precisely because of that need.

Where? Even in TN, they thrive only because there's no alternative - it's just the DMK and AIADMk who keep playing musical chairs after getting kicked out of power for committing ever more outrageous acts of corruption. How is that a good thing for TN?

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 1:59 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Looks like we will have to take your word that you go around giving negative votes to people if you dislike any of their posts. But would you care to name some of the other people to who you have given your 30 negative votes in the past?

*bump*

Looks like this is going to be your next obsession, so I will humor you. Off the top of my head, here are some of the others whose posts I disliked: Uppili, Merlot, HA, SP, SB.

I believe that I have given you enough data to prompt a reflection on your methods and the resulting credibility you have here. You are welcome to ignore that and focus on me.

This thread has helped me see how much of a liar you are, and how comfortable you are repeating lies even after they are proved to be lies. So I will make no further attempts to correct you on the off chance that you weren't intentionally lying. I will treat you going forward on the assumption that you are dishonest.

I have no further interest in this mudslinging, so you are welcome to have the last word.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:04 pm

charvaka wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:Maoists thrive in India too because they fill a legitimate political need of the tribals. That doesn't make them a desirable element in the body politic.
If they win elections I would see them as a legitimate political force. If OTOH thrive by the barrel of the gun, I don't consider them a desirable element.

the maoists make a reasonable demand. unfortunately they use an unreasonable method: arms -- which makes us stand up and take notice -- agreed. other secessionist or subversive elements use this same technique including goonda tax. what they do not realize is that there is another method, within our own tradition, to grab the attention of the state -- satyagraha. if you get laticharged -- kk, now we have a problem. but the fact remains that you have to respond in the democratic tradition. anything else is not acceptable unless it is a revolution.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:07 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Looks like we will have to take your word that you go around giving negative votes to people if you dislike any of their posts. But would you care to name some of the other people to who you have given your 30 negative votes in the past?

*bump*
Looks like this is going to be your next obsession, so I will humor you. Off the top of my head, here are some of the others whose posts I disliked: Uppili, Merlot, HA, SP, SB.

I believe that I have given you enough data to prompt a reflection on your methods and the resulting credibility you have here. You are welcome to ignore that and focus on me.

This thread has helped me see how much of a liar you are, and how comfortable you are repeating lies even after they are proved to be lies. So I will make no further attempts to correct you on the off chance that you weren't intentionally lying. I will treat you going forward on the assumption that you are dishonest.

I have no further interest in this mudslinging, so you are welcome to have the last word.

--> you were the one who brought up the issue of negative votes as a means to judge the credibility of a poster on this forum in the first place. Since it turned out that you had given multiple negative votes to me (you admitted to this), and since you have given 30 negative votes in total, and since it can be seen that i have not cast any negative vote at all, you ended up with egg on your face once again. Allow me to lol!

--> its highly amusing that you claim to have cast a negative vote even for HA with who you have been on the best of terms on this forum. Btw, can you confirm whether your number of 30 negative votes (28 in your Charvaka handle, 2 in your Admin handle) is the highest anyone on this forum has given to other posters on this forum?

--> i have already been treating you like a dishonest liar for some time now, so i am cool with you treating me the same way going forward.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:10 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:As I pointed out earlier, the anti-Hindi movement began in the 30s, long before the DMK and AIADMK came about.

And as I pointed out earlier, you don't give regional parties credit where it is due, but you give them blame when it is due. The anti-Hindi movement began in the '30s but that didn't stop the constitution of India from having the 15-year language time-bomb in it. Congress governments in British-rulecd Madras province willingly promoted Hindi under guidance from Gandhi and Nehru.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I'm only questioning if a government that comes to power purely on that populist plank is better for that state than a non-divisive option.

Populism is the essence of democracy.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:In a country of such diversity, the approach should be of inclusivity, not exclusivity.

Sure, ideally, yes. But in practice, democracy always works on competing interests. And different groups fight for scarce resources through the democratic process. There is no such thing as a fully inclusive approach.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Your argument is as much an endorsement of outright caste-based parties. They too reflect people's interests.

Yes, and I recognize that. As long as they operate within the parameters of democracy and rule of law, I don't see that as a problem.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:It's easy to confuse people's tribal interests with their economic and social interests. Regional, religious and casteist parties cater to the former and there's nothing positive to be said about that other than what you did - that they thrive.

You are deciding what is or ought to be important to people -- economic versus what you call tribal interests. People do make their own choices, and as long as people value their tribal interests, it is better that we have a political outlet for expressing those interests, than not having such an outlet. It is when you don't have political outlets that the pressure builds up of unmet political needs and aspirations, and leads to much worse outcomes like extremism and militancy.

IMO, one of the great success stories of independent India is the manner in which it solved the first problem of its existence: to remain a united democracy despite its incredible diversity. Regional parties are a fundamental part of that solution.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:14 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

In a country of such diversity, the approach should be of inclusivity, not exclusivity. Your argument is as much an endorsement of outright caste-based parties. They too reflect people's interests. It's easy to confuse people's tribal interests with their economic and social interests. Regional, religious and casteist parties cater to the former and there's nothing positive to be said about that other than what you did - that they thrive.

--> Agree completely. Caste based parties or regionalistic parties or communal parties bring out the worst in all of us. They succeed only by dividing people along caste based or religion based or regionalistic lines.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:15 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:the maoists make a reasonable demand.

I agree... India cannot ride roughshod over the interests of the poor rural masses and the tribals. But the Maoists make the problem worse with their methods. Because of their violence, it becomes too easy for the establishment to ignore the actual problems.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:but the fact remains that you have to respond in the democratic tradition. anything else is not acceptable unless it is a revolution.

I would say, even a revolution is not acceptable. Not when you have a democratic constitution in place, and when any sizable group has available to it multiple means of getting its voice heard.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:19 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:That is a leading indicator only in your imagination. I care two hoots about the opinions of people like HA and how many times they cast negative votes for me, for instance.
Yes, ignore the mounting evidence and believe what you want to believe!

--> its quite amazing to note that you have so far given 28 negative votes to other posters on this forum.
https://such.forumotion.com/u2stats

--> anyone can check how many negative votes i have given:
https://such.forumotion.com/u25stats

--> Even HA has given only 14 negative votes:
https://such.forumotion.com/u5stats

--> Uppili has given 10 negative votes:
https://such.forumotion.com/u29stats

--> Am i correct in saying that you have given the maximum number of negative votes to others on this forum?

--> Within a few hours, Uppili's number of negative votes cast has gone from 10 to 26. lol!

by artood2 Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:41 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
I've still not seen the case for regional parties. Both examples cited in this thread - creation of AP and anti-Hindi movement - were not achieved by regional parties. States with regional political parties - Orissa, AP, TN - have little to show on the economic or developmental fronts, for all that regional jingoism, compared to states without regional parties.

Before I make a case for regional parties, I would like to stick to the current state of intra party functioning as a basis for argument.

The case for regional parties:

* National party shows apathy to a state level opponent as that opponent is helpful in centre. Case in point, Mamta creating an outfit and dislodging CPM. Similarly Cong in Bihar under Janeshwar Mishra and Sitaram Kesari was too cosy with Laloo and later Nitish provided an alternative. Nitish seems to have provided better governance than the national parties ruling the state.

* National party is too top down to allow for newer leaders to emerge all the way to the top. Congress is the biggest culprit. BJP/CPM are as bad. There is no intra paarty democracy in any national party to allow for a truly democratic process. Lack of democratic process in smaller party can be an issue but as long as you allow people to create smaller parties they can break away if their voice is not heard.

* Some regions are neglected and due to the top down handing of state leadership, lack of development is not addressed. Regional party can challenge that and address the issue. You mentioned that Orissa, AP or TN do not show any better than rest. I would like to know the basis of your argument. I think TN did well and so did Andhra under Naidu. I am not sure about Orissa but I remember reading that Orissa did better under Biju and probably Navin as well. As far as I understand the case for Vidarbha is more for development than language.

The case against regional parties as casteist, religious or linguistic pots is half true. BSP and BJP used caste and religion (I believe BSP qualifies as National Party). The Dravidian parties have refrained from any secessionist stuff with the exception of PMK. Shiv Sena is the worst. The likes of TDP, TC, LJP, BJD, Lok Dal have provided decent alternatives without resorting to jingoism. The concentration of power in few hands at the center is not a good option when there is not intra party democracy.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:05 pm

artood2 wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
I've still not seen the case for regional parties. Both examples cited in this thread - creation of AP and anti-Hindi movement - were not achieved by regional parties. States with regional political parties - Orissa, AP, TN - have little to show on the economic or developmental fronts, for all that regional jingoism, compared to states without regional parties.

Before I make a case for regional parties, I would like to stick to the current state of intra party functioning as a basis for argument.

The case for regional parties:

* National party shows apathy to a state level opponent as that opponent is helpful in centre. Case in point, Mamta creating an outfit and dislodging CPM. Similarly Cong in Bihar under Janeshwar Mishra and Sitaram Kesari was too cosy with Laloo and later Nitish provided an alternative. Nitish seems to have provided better governance than the national parties ruling the state.

* National party is too top down to allow for newer leaders to emerge all the way to the top. Congress is the biggest culprit. BJP/CPM are as bad. There is no intra paarty democracy in any national party to allow for a truly democratic process. Lack of democratic process in smaller party can be an issue but as long as you allow people to create smaller parties they can break away if their voice is not heard.

* Some regions are neglected and due to the top down handing of state leadership, lack of development is not addressed. Regional party can challenge that and address the issue. You mentioned that Orissa, AP or TN do not show any better than rest. I would like to know the basis of your argument. I think TN did well and so did Andhra under Naidu. I am not sure about Orissa but I remember reading that Orissa did better under Biju and probably Navin as well. As far as I understand the case for Vidarbha is more for development than language.

The case against regional parties as casteist, religious or linguistic pots is half true. BSP and BJP used caste and religion (I believe BSP qualifies as National Party). The Dravidian parties have refrained from any secessionist stuff with the exception of PMK. Shiv Sena is the worst. The likes of TDP, TC, LJP, BJD, Lok Dal have provided decent alternatives without resorting to jingoism. The concentration of power in few hands at the center is not a good option when there is not intra party democracy.

Excellent post. Orissa under Navin has improved on many development metrics, although I personally hate the way in which he inherited his spot. Both Vidarbha and Telangana are development issues more than they are tribal loyalty issues (using Merlot's shorthand.)

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:42 am

charvaka wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:I'm only questioning if a government that comes to power purely on that populist plank is better for that state than a non-divisive option.
Populism is the essence of democracy.

I'm very disappointed to hear that from you. Populism has been the bane of this country and is what is responsible for the discrediting of the democratic model. Free electricity that has turned SEBs into basketcases, crippling oil subsidies, mega slums in our mega-cities, farm loan waivers that ruined fiscal discipline across the country, imposition of Hindi, Haj subsidy, election-time freebies that bankrupts the exchequer -- these are examples of some highly irresponsible, financially ruinous and yet populistic examples of taxpayer money irresponsibly diverted towards cultivating personal political votebanks. Such irresponsibility taking place in the US would have evoked strong reactions evn from you but when it comes to India, you smugly call it the "essence" of democracy. Like your fetishizing of free speech, I now see you fetishize democracy as if that is an end in itself, and not a means to an end i.e. better governance. Anyway, that about does it for me on this topic.

by charvaka Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:59 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Populism has been the bane of this country and is what is responsible for the discrediting of the democratic model.

I don't arrogate to myself the right to decide what ought to be more important to people -- tribal interests vs. economic interests, etc. Sure, I wish the world were all better and we had excellent national parties with strong internal democracy and accountability. I also wish that we all got along beautifully regardless of our divisions, and always found win-win solutions to our resource contentions. And yes, world peace too. But in the world we live in, for the reasons stated above, I think regional parties are on balance a good idea. And I am done too.

PS: I sometimes we wish we had regional parties in the US. If California had a regional party that regularly got 50 seats in Congress, its applications to EPA wouldn't be turned down so callously by the federal government.

by Another Brick Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:28 am

Rashmun wrote:Notice how the BJP was forced to take action against Yeddy, the Karnataka CM. What would have been the situation if Yeddy was CM and also a member of a regional party instead of a national party? The answer is that it would have been business as usual for him and also for the Reddy brothers.

but isn't that why we have opposition parties in place? regardless if it is a national party or local party in power, is it not for them to make sure that things such as corruption don't happen? i agree that a national party is likely to take a swift action on issues such as this one, but it is not impossible for the opposition parties to force a regional party to act.

by Guest Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:13 am

Another Brick wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Notice how the BJP was forced to take action against Yeddy, the Karnataka CM. What would have been the situation if Yeddy was CM and also a member of a regional party instead of a national party? The answer is that it would have been business as usual for him and also for the Reddy brothers.

but isn't that why we have opposition parties in place? regardless if it is a national party or local party in power, is it not for them to make sure that things such as corruption don't happen? i agree that a national party is likely to take a swift action on issues such as this one, but it is not impossible for the opposition parties to force a regional party to act.

--> i have a few more things to say on this issue. need some time to frame my thoughts. thanks for sharing your views.

by Sponsored content