Re: The case against regional parties

by Guest Sat Jul 30, 2011 9:58 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> Charvaka Spin at work again: she was convicted of electoral fraud by a single judge bench of a high court but then that decision was overturned by the supreme court.
Both Yeddy and Lalu are nowhere near conviction. Indira was convicted. So the case against national parties is stronger than the case against regional parties!

--> Her conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court. In other words, it was nullified. Also, is it your contention that Lalu and Yeddy have never indulged in electoral fraud?

--> Is that LOL a cry of anguish, now that your idiotic side has been exposed?

by charvaka Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:01 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> Why should i ask you for a translation of your Telugu posts? Why this hedging and pussyfooting around on the simple question: are you for United Andhra or for Separate Telangana?
What are you scared of? That your popularity would get diminished if you express unpopular views?

You didn't need to ask for a translation. You could have just looked whether I expressed any views on this topic, before you made bombastic claims that I avoided expressing an opinion and proceeding to speculate about why I did that! If you didn't look for that information, then you are a lazy person who shoots his ignorant mouth off; if you did look for it and still said what you said, then you are a liar.

PS: If after I showed you proof from three years ago, you repeat the above claim as you are wont to do in Goebbels fashion, then that will be another confirmation that you are a liar.

by charvaka Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:04 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> Her conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court. In other words, it was nullified. Also, is it your contention that Lalu and Yeddy have never indulged in electoral fraud?

Let me put this to in you a manner that you might recognize.

Could it be possible that Yeddy will never be convicted? Given that Indira Gandhi was actually convicted -- and two weeks later imposed a State of Emergency and forced the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction -- your logic can be better applied to conclude that national parties are a bad idea, and that we should only have global parties.

lol!

PS:

The case against regional parties - Page 2 3077217049

by Guest Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:04 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:in a country as diverse as india, the regional parties play an important role in protecting local political interests. for example, if it wasn't for the role of the kazhagams in the 60s in TN we'd all be speaking hindi now forever forsaking our glorious linguistic and cultural heritage. i'm certainly thankful for that.

--> We are all entitled to our views. I have made the argument that a national party is more sensitive to corruption allegations than a regional party. If Yeddyyurappa, the CM of Karnataka, would have been representing a regional party instead of a national party like the BJP, he would probably have continued in power and not bothered about his indictment by Justice Hegde. After all, he was not actually convicted in court.

--> If Lalu Yadava would have been representing a national party--instead of a regional party-- at the time he was sent to jail, he would never have been able to anoint his wife as his successor.

by charvaka Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:06 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> If Lalu Yadava would have been representing a national party--instead of a regional party-- at the time he was sent to jail, he would never have been able to anoint his wife as his successor.

Indira Gandhi, at the time she was convicted, imposed a national emergency and suspended fundamental rights. She didn't need to anoint a successor, because she anointed herself dictator of India!

by Guest Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:08 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> Why should i ask you for a translation of your Telugu posts? Why this hedging and pussyfooting around on the simple question: are you for United Andhra or for Separate Telangana?
What are you scared of? That your popularity would get diminished if you express unpopular views?
You didn't need to ask for a translation. You could have just looked whether I expressed any views on this topic, before you made bombastic claims that I avoided expressing an opinion and proceeding to speculate about why I did that! If you didn't look for that information, then you are a lazy person who shoots his ignorant mouth off; if you did look for it and still said what you said, then you are a liar.

PS: If after I showed you proof from three years ago, you repeat the above claim as you are wont to do in Goebbels fashion, then that will be another confirmation that you are a liar.

--> I looked at all your posts but i could not find the information i was looking for: do you support Separate Telangana or are you for United Andhra. Its pretty obvious why you would want to hedge and pussyfoot around and obfuscate by giving me links to your past posts (many of which are in telugu) rather than just answer the simple question that i ask. The explanation is that you crave cheap popularity and do not wish to annoy the United Andhra Telugus at any cost.

by charvaka Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> Why should i ask you for a translation of your Telugu posts? Why this hedging and pussyfooting around on the simple question: are you for United Andhra or for Separate Telangana?
What are you scared of? That your popularity would get diminished if you express unpopular views?
You didn't need to ask for a translation. You could have just looked whether I expressed any views on this topic, before you made bombastic claims that I avoided expressing an opinion and proceeding to speculate about why I did that! If you didn't look for that information, then you are a lazy person who shoots his ignorant mouth off; if you did look for it and still said what you said, then you are a liar.

PS: If after I showed you proof from three years ago, you repeat the above claim as you are wont to do in Goebbels fashion, then that will be another confirmation that you are a liar.

--> I looked at all your posts but i could not find the information i was looking for: do you support Separate Telangana or are you for United Andhra. Its pretty obvious why you would want to hedge and pussyfoot around and obfuscate by giving me links to your past posts (many of which are in telugu) rather than just answer the simple question that i ask. The explanation is that you crave cheap popularity and do not wish to annoy the United Andhra Telugus at any cost.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

https://such.forumotion.com/t2271-the-case-against-regional-parties#19448

After seeing this, you keep repeating the lie... what shamelessness! They should replace Diggy with you.

by Guest Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:13 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> If Lalu Yadava would have been representing a national party--instead of a regional party-- at the time he was sent to jail, he would never have been able to anoint his wife as his successor.
Indira Gandhi, at the time she was convicted, imposed a national emergency and suspended fundamental rights. She didn't need to anoint a successor, because she anointed herself dictator of India!

--> This is a valid criticism of Indira Gandhi, but you are now talking about something that happened in the 1970's. Those days are long gone.

by Guest Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:17 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> Why should i ask you for a translation of your Telugu posts? Why this hedging and pussyfooting around on the simple question: are you for United Andhra or for Separate Telangana?
What are you scared of? That your popularity would get diminished if you express unpopular views?
You didn't need to ask for a translation. You could have just looked whether I expressed any views on this topic, before you made bombastic claims that I avoided expressing an opinion and proceeding to speculate about why I did that! If you didn't look for that information, then you are a lazy person who shoots his ignorant mouth off; if you did look for it and still said what you said, then you are a liar.

PS: If after I showed you proof from three years ago, you repeat the above claim as you are wont to do in Goebbels fashion, then that will be another confirmation that you are a liar.

--> I looked at all your posts but i could not find the information i was looking for: do you support Separate Telangana or are you for United Andhra. Its pretty obvious why you would want to hedge and pussyfoot around and obfuscate by giving me links to your past posts (many of which are in telugu) rather than just answer the simple question that i ask. The explanation is that you crave cheap popularity and do not wish to annoy the United Andhra Telugus at any cost.
Liar, liar, pants on fire.

https://such.forumotion.com/t2271-the-case-against-regional-parties#19448

After seeing this, you keep repeating the lie... what shamelessness! They should replace Diggy with you.

--> Shameless fellow, after making me read your suchforum posts--many of which were in telugu--to answer a simple question of mine: are you for Separate Telangana or United Andhra--are you not ashamed to come up with a link to a three year old sulekha post?

by charvaka Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:19 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> This is a valid criticism of Indira Gandhi, but you are now talking about something that happened in the 1970's. Those days are long gone.

The days of Jahangir are long gone too, but we don't let that get in the way of our obsessions, do we?

Your stupid arguments against regional parties can be applied much more effectively to national parties.

The bottomline is this. You haven't made any case against regional parties. All you have done is give speculative answers to hypothetical questions. I am happy to wait for your upcoming blog on the topic, where you will use the example of the Soviet Union to prove why regional parties are a bad idea!

PS: Yes, I am laughing out loud as I type this! lol!

by charvaka Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:24 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> Shameless fellow, after making me read your suchforum posts--many of which were in telugu--to answer a simple question of mine: are you for Separate Telangana or United Andhra--are you not ashamed to come up with a link to a three year old sulekha post?

Losing control, are we? Go right ahead and abuse my mother and father. The fact remains that there are only two options for you: (a) you are a lazy person who doesn't even bother to look up whether what he repeatedly claims is true, or (b) you are a downright liar who repeatedly claims what he knows to be untrue. Take your pick.

You repeatedly claimed on this thread that I haven't expressed what I want on the Telangana issue. I was amused by your stupidity and let you go along until you made a complete fool of yourself. Now I guess the only option for you is to abuse me. Go right ahead.

by Guest Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:24 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> This is a valid criticism of Indira Gandhi, but you are now talking about something that happened in the 1970's. Those days are long gone.
The days of Jahangir are long gone too, but we don't let that get in the way of our obsessions, do we?

Your stupid arguments against regional parties can be applied much more effectively to national parties.

The bottomline is this. You haven't made any case against regional parties. All you have done is give speculative answers to hypothetical questions. I am happy to wait for your upcoming blog on the topic, where you will use the example of the Soviet Union to prove why regional parties are a bad idea!

PS: Yes, I am laughing out loud as I type this!

--> The days of Charvakas are also long gone. But that hasn't stopped you from hero worshipping them. The fact of the matter is that national parties are a lot more sensitive to corruption allegations rather than regional parties. As the examples of people like Yeddy and Laloo demonstrates.

--> With respect to my upcoming blog on Soviet Union, it is amusing to see you employ Charvaka Spin again. My blog will focus on the reasons for the breakup of the Soviet Union. One of these reasons was regionalism and regional chauvinism. There can be regionalism and regional chauvinism without the presence of regional parties.

--> Having exposed your idiotic side, i am laughing right along with you.

by Guest Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:29 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> Shameless fellow, after making me read your suchforum posts--many of which were in telugu--to answer a simple question of mine: are you for Separate Telangana or United Andhra--are you not ashamed to come up with a link to a three year old sulekha post?
Losing control, are we? Go right ahead and abuse my mother and father. The fact remains that there are only two options for you: (a) you are a lazy person who doesn't even bother to look up whether what he repeatedly claims is true, or (b) you are a downright liar who repeatedly claims what he knows to be untrue. Take your pick.

You repeatedly claimed on this thread that I haven't expressed what I want on the Telangana issue. I was amused by your stupidity and let you go along until you made a complete fool of yourself. Now I guess the only option for you is to abuse me. Go right ahead.

--> Why did you give me links to your suchforum posts(many of which were in telugu) when i asked for your opinion on the simple question: are you for United Andhra or for Separate Telangana? This despite you knowing very well that your suchforum posts did not answer my question.

--> Not only are you a lazy person--and you have admitted to this in the past--but you are also a liar as has been demonstrated in the past. For instance, your action of giving links to suchforum posts when i asked for a simple question: are you for Separate Telangana or United Andhra and when none of those posts contained the information i wanted. Then you come along and give a link to three year old Sulekha post. And then now you go ballistic that i did not read your Sulekha post.

--> Why all this tomfoolery instead of answering my simple question: are you for United Andhra or Separate Telangana?

by charvaka Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> The days of Charvakas are also long gone. But that hasn't stopped you from hero worshipping them.

I haven't exactly spent half of my CH posts defending Charvakas, if you know what I mean. Your relationship with Diggyji is rather special, not on the order of anything I have here.

Rashmun wrote:--> With respect to my upcoming blog on Soviet Union, it is amusing to see you employ Charvaka Spin again. My blog will focus on the reasons for the breakup of the Soviet Union. One of these reasons was regionalism and regional chauvinism. There can be regionalism and regional chauvinism without the presence of regional parties.

That's a cop-out. You introduced Soviet Union into a discussion of regional parties, and now you are saying regional parties have nothing to do with the Soviet Union!

by sambarvada Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:38 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> although Lalu was eventually acquitted he did end up in jail (like Raja, Kanimozhi, et al) for some time. He was sent to jail at a time when he was chief minister of Bihar. Just before or during the time he was in jail, he handpicked the person who would succeed him as chief minister--his own wife, Rabri Devi. Lalu's example only strengthens my argument against regional parties.
Indira Gandhi was convicted of election fraud, but her national party never replaced her. If India were part of a world-state, and there were global parties instead of national parties, perhaps world leaders could have put pressure on her to quit. This is the case against national parties. QED, thanks to Rashmun Method.

--> Charvaka Spin at work again: she was convicted of electoral fraud by a single judge bench of a high court but then that decision was overturned by the supreme court.

===> When the Allahabad high court pronounced that Indira Gandhi committed a fraud, she declared emergency but did not dissolve the parliament. Then she got the Congress party to pas a law that a PM cannot be convicted of election fraud or something akin to that.

So the Supreme court of India ruled in her favor based on the new law.

by Guest Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:40 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> The days of Charvakas are also long gone. But that hasn't stopped you from hero worshipping them.
I haven't exactly spent half of my CH posts defending Charvakas, if you know what I mean. Your relationship with Diggyji is rather special, not on the order of anything I have here.

--> Did you not tell Currer Bell once that your coinage of the handle name 'Charvaka' was your tribute to the Charvakas? The term 'hero worshipping' is something you used first. My claim is that my admiration for Diggy is no different from your admiration of the Charvakas.

[quote= "Charvaka"]

Rashmun wrote:--> With respect to my upcoming blog on Soviet Union, it is amusing to see you employ Charvaka Spin again. My blog will focus on the reasons for the breakup of the Soviet Union. One of these reasons was regionalism and regional chauvinism. There can be regionalism and regional chauvinism without the presence of regional parties.

That's a cop-out. You introduced Soviet Union into a discussion of regional parties, and now you are saying regional parties have nothing to do with the Soviet Union!
[/quote]

--> Its not a cop-out. It is possible for regionalism and regional chauvinism to exist without the presence of regional parties. But regional parties have the potential to accentuate the regionalism and regional chauvinism.

by charvaka Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:41 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> Why did you give me links to your suchforum posts(many of which were in telugu) when i asked for your opinion on the simple question: are you for United Andhra or for Separate Telangana? This despite you knowing very well that your suchforum posts did not answer my question.

I am disappointed you haven't begun the mother-father abuse yet.

Rashmun wrote:none of those posts contained the information i wanted.

You are wrong.

Rashmun wrote:--> Why all this tomfoolery instead of answering my simple question: are you for United Andhra or Separate Telangana?

Because it is amusing. The case against regional parties - Page 2 3077217049

by Guest Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:43 pm

sambarvada wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> although Lalu was eventually acquitted he did end up in jail (like Raja, Kanimozhi, et al) for some time. He was sent to jail at a time when he was chief minister of Bihar. Just before or during the time he was in jail, he handpicked the person who would succeed him as chief minister--his own wife, Rabri Devi. Lalu's example only strengthens my argument against regional parties.
Indira Gandhi was convicted of election fraud, but her national party never replaced her. If India were part of a world-state, and there were global parties instead of national parties, perhaps world leaders could have put pressure on her to quit. This is the case against national parties. QED, thanks to Rashmun Method.

--> Charvaka Spin at work again: she was convicted of electoral fraud by a single judge bench of a high court but then that decision was overturned by the supreme court.

===> When the Allahabad high court pronounced that Indira Gandhi committed a fraud, she declared emergency but did not dissolve the parliament. Then she got the Congress party to pas a law that a PM cannot be convicted of election fraud or something akin to that.

So the Supreme court of India ruled in her favor based on the new law.

--> u have to understand that electoral fraud is something every political party in India engages in at some level. It is not possible to win elections without electoral fraud. Here is a simple example: There is an upper limit on how much money a candidate can legally spend while fighting Lok Sabha or Assembly elections. But it is the norm for every winning candidate to exceed that maximum amount.

by Guest Sat Jul 30, 2011 10:47 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> Why did you give me links to your suchforum posts(many of which were in telugu) when i asked for your opinion on the simple question: are you for United Andhra or for Separate Telangana? This despite you knowing very well that your suchforum posts did not answer my question.
I am disappointed you haven't begun the mother-father abuse yet.

--> i shall do so if you begin mother-father abuse yourself. my record on this is very clear. be decent and i shall be decent. be rough and i shall be likewise.

Charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:none of those posts contained the information i wanted.
You are wrong.

--> if i am wrong then where was the need to give a new link to a three year old Sulekha CH post rather than give a link to one of those suchforum posts of yours which you made me read.

Charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> Why all this tomfoolery instead of answering my simple question: are you for United Andhra or Separate Telangana?
Because it is amusing.

--> now that your fraudulent has been side exposed, that's all you can do. Keep laughing even after someone punches you on your face or kicks you on your balls lol!

by artood2 Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:04 pm

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 bet en business as usual for him and also for the Reddy brothers.

Corrupt politicians survive because people vote them to power again and again. If BJP expells them and they get anough seats as a regional party in 5 years, both bjp and congress will be lining up to get their support as people will forget all about in 5 years. Hardly a case against regional parties.

If people stopped voting for corrupt folks, even the associate of regional party heads will realise that their political future is at stake and they will break away to bring him down.

by charvaka Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:53 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> if i am wrong then where was the need to give a new link to a three year old Sulekha CH post rather than give a link to one of those suchforum posts of yours which you made me read.

It's not an "if." You are just plain wrong. Anybody who knows Telugu will be able to confirm that for you. I gave you the old CH link to show how much of a liar you are.

Rashmun wrote:--> now that your fraudulent has been side exposed, that's all you can do. Keep laughing even after someone punches you on your face or kicks you on your balls

So how did you expose my "fraudulent side" again? You do realize that with every further step you are getting your foot lodged more and more firmly down your throat, don't you? Laughing

by charvaka Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:56 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> u have to understand that electoral fraud is something every political party in India engages in at some level.

Before you dissemble any more in defense of the Royal Family, you have to understand that imposing emergency and suspending fundamental rights is not something any other political party in India engaged in at some level.

by charvaka Sat Jul 30, 2011 11:59 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> if i am wrong then where was the need to give a new link to a three year old Sulekha CH post rather than give a link to one of those suchforum posts of yours which you made me read.

I gave you both, and you are still repeating your lies! Some people are beyond hope, I suppose. lol!

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Jul 31, 2011 12:13 am

rashmun is wrong on the details during the Emergency times, and Indira Gandhi was a total crook and actually the founder of dynastic politics in India.

In any case, I am not commenting on if Rashmunullah Akbari is a liar or abuses mothers, wives, and sisters of posters, and I will leave it to Charvaka and others to conclude.

But, he is completely doing a Diggy on Emergency..

just saying...

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:41 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:PS: I agree with Rashmun's point that in a country of shameless politicians, a regional party has nothing at stake in clinging on to power even in the face of proven corruption charges. Whereas a national party will fear loss of moral ground at the federal level and electoral disadvantage in other states and will therefore press the discredited local leadership to quit.

you and rashmun make a good point but you are eternal optimists. so if yeddyurappa has been discharged, you assume another corrupt BJP minister will not take his place? in jharkhand bjp had similarly dismissed babulal marandi on corruption charges. in came another BJP apointee -- arjum munda. he too was dismissed on similar charges! should it not be the bjp national leader resigning in recompense now? what is this inter-state vote-bank fascination or farce that you speak of? in bengal buddhadeb realized before his tenure was over that he his going to be dismissed. so he relinquished his charged to hardliners. what is the difference between what the bjp is doing and what the cpim did?

Maybe. I'm not arguing that national parties have covered themselves in glory. But regional parties are worse because there is no outside pressure whatsoever for a change in leadership.

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Jul 31, 2011 2:43 am

artood2 wrote:If people stopped voting for corrupt folks, even the associate of regional party heads will realise that their political future is at stake and they will break away to bring him down.

Yes, but until we - as a people - achieve this level of enlightenment, it helps to have an outside force that can be shamed into forcing discredited local leaders to step down.

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:16 am

charvaka wrote:It is naive to assume that there would be no dispute over river waters, etc. between regions if only all regions were ruled by national parties.

I'm not assuming that and said nothing to that effect. My point was that regional disputes get further vitiated when it becomes a do-or-die issue for a party whose sole reason for existence is the single-minded advocacy of their region's interests to the detriment of everyone else. That makes a negotiated settlement that much more difficult.

charvaka wrote:The first regional dispute in India occurred when Madras state was ruled by Congress; after Andhra separated, both states were ruled by Congress. People who were using similar reasoning to deny the Andhra people a state of their own realized after Andhra state was formed, and things didn't go to hell as they predicted, that that model is actually a good one. So they went ahead and formed the states reorganization commission, and broke up the unwieldy Madras and Bombay states.

I didn't quite understand the point you are making. This episode only goes to show that regional developmental aspirations need not suffer under a national party and that regional parties are not the only way to address the issue.

by artood2 Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:24 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
artood2 wrote:If people stopped voting for corrupt folks, even the associate of regional party heads will realise that their political future is at stake and they will break away to bring him down.

Yes, but until we - as a people - achieve this level of enlightenment, it helps to have an outside force that can be shamed into forcing discredited local leaders to step down.

The problem is the opposite one, there is nothing to shame the top level national leaders of the party to stand down. India with a billion people is too huge to have all power concentrated in one hand. Having a national party president dictate the appointment of state CM is institutionalisation of cronyism and complete disregard of local aspirations. A purely national party based system is incomplete in absence of internal party democracy.

Congress as a national party is purely dynastic. BJP top leadership swings to the tunes of chaddis. CPM (not sure if it is still a national party in EC definition) has its next generation leadership appointed by the previous one. A national party only system needs internal party democracy to create checks and balances.

by artood2 Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:26 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
charvaka wrote:It is naive to assume that there would be no dispute over river waters, etc. between regions if only all regions were ruled by national parties.

I'm not assuming that and said nothing to that effect. My point was that regional disputes get further vitiated when it becomes a do-or-die issue for a party whose sole reason for existence is the single-minded advocacy of their region's interests to the detriment of everyone else. That makes a negotiated settlement that much more difficult.

charvaka wrote:The first regional dispute in India occurred when Madras state was ruled by Congress; after Andhra separated, both states were ruled by Congress. People who were using similar reasoning to deny the Andhra people a state of their own realized after Andhra state was formed, and things didn't go to hell as they predicted, that that model is actually a good one. So they went ahead and formed the states reorganization commission, and broke up the unwieldy Madras and Bombay states.

I didn't quite understand the point you are making. This episode only goes to show that regional developmental aspirations need not suffer under a national party and that regional parties are not the only way to address the issue.

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.

by artood2 Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:32 am

charvaka wrote:The first regional dispute in India occurred when Madras state was ruled by Congress; after Andhra separated, both states were ruled by Congress. People who were using similar reasoning to deny the Andhra people a state of their own realized after Andhra state was formed, and things didn't go to hell as they predicted, that that model is actually a good one. So they went ahead and formed the states reorganization commission, and broke up the unwieldy Madras and Bombay states.

The state reorganization was a mistake. It created linguistic barriers instead of encouraging assimilation. It prioritized small regional identity over a national identity. It just created another barrier on top of caste and religion. I wish they had made straight line boundary states ala USA.

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:42 am

charvaka wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:in a country as diverse as india, the regional parties play an important role in protecting local political interests. for example, if it wasn't for the role of the kazhagams in the 60s in TN we'd all be speaking hindi now forever forsaking our glorious linguistic and cultural heritage. i'm certainly thankful for that.
I agree. I would go further to say that regional parties play an important role in protecting national interests against those of the largest region. It is thanks to the regional parties in the '90s that the Indian polity successfully countered and blunted the threat of right-wing radicalization, which had taken root in the largest region. Without regional parties, the madness of militant Hindutva that took over northindia in the '90s would have done much, much more damage that it did.

Yeah, I agree with this bit - regional players can be an effective check on national parties that get into imperialistic mode. But they don't need to be regional to do that. All it requires is for a party to independent - making regionalism the only viable alternative platform is a sub-optimal solution. Given the schizophrenia in both of today's truly national parties, there is enough space for alternatives at the national level. The left itself, if it could shed its dogma and reinvent itself to be relevant today, could be one.
But to Max's point, opposition to imposition of Hindi pre-dates all regional parties and even the states' reorganization. Back in the 30s and 40s, it was the outcome of a social movement that eventually grew into today's regional political parties. So if any credit is due, it is to the cultural pride instilled by leaders of that social movement and not to present-day opportunists who use parochial jingoism for self-preservation.

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:53 am

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.

by Merlot Daruwala Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:56 am

artood2 wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
artood2 wrote:If people stopped voting for corrupt folks, even the associate of regional party heads will realise that their political future is at stake and they will break away to bring him down.

Yes, but until we - as a people - achieve this level of enlightenment, it helps to have an outside force that can be shamed into forcing discredited local leaders to step down.

The problem is the opposite one, there is nothing to shame the top level national leaders of the party to stand down. India with a billion people is too huge to have all power concentrated in one hand. Having a national party president dictate the appointment of state CM is institutionalisation of cronyism and complete disregard of local aspirations. A purely national party based system is incomplete in absence of internal party democracy.

Congress as a national party is purely dynastic. BJP top leadership swings to the tunes of chaddis. CPM (not sure if it is still a national party in EC definition) has its next generation leadership appointed by the previous one. A national party only system needs internal party democracy to create checks and balances.

I agree with you. 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.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:33 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> if i am wrong then where was the need to give a new link to a three year old Sulekha CH post rather than give a link to one of those suchforum posts of yours which you made me read.
I gave you both, and you are still repeating your lies! Some people are beyond hope, I suppose.

--> You gave the sulekha forum link much after you gave the suchforum links. And the suchforum links never did answer my question. Your credibility is now in the mud. Now that you have been exposed, please keep on rolling in laughter like a clown.

--> It is in fact for me to lol!

and for you to put your head down in shame.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:33 am

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.

--> Well said.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 8:00 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> if i am wrong then where was the need to give a new link to a three year old Sulekha CH post rather than give a link to one of those suchforum posts of yours which you made me read.
It's not an "if." You are just plain wrong. Anybody who knows Telugu will be able to confirm that for you. I gave you the old CH link to show how much of a liar you are.

--> The point is why should i read your telugu posts in the first place? Unless you are a fraud and a scoundrel, why did you not answer my simple question--are you for Separate Telangana or United Andhra?--instead of giving links to your english and telugu suchforum posts. Since the english suchforum posts did not answer my question, you now say that i should have asked for a translation of your telugu suchforum posts. Long after you engaged in the suchforum fraud--after many other posts had been exchanged--you gave a link to three year old Sulekha CH post and then went ballistic when i did not read this post.

Charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> now that your fraudulent has been side exposed, that's all you can do. Keep laughing even after someone punches you on your face or kicks you on your balls
So how did you expose my "fraudulent side" again? You do realize that with every further step you are getting your foot lodged more and more firmly down your throat, don't you?

--> I exposed your fraudulent side when it was seen by all that instead of simply answering my question--are you for separate Telangana or United Andhra--you gave links to english and telugu suchforum posts. The english posts did not answer my question and then you proclaimed yourself to be a fraud when you said i should have asked for a translation of your telugu posts. lol!

--> It is in fact you who is getting your foot lodged deeper in your throat. Careful, lest you hurt that twisted tongue.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:06 am

Merlot, looking across all your posts in this thread, I will respond to them in one post.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Ultimately, it's a new sub-regional entity that is spearheading the agitation.

Merlot Daruwala wrote: if any credit is due, it is to the cultural pride instilled by leaders of that social movement

Where regional parties serve a legitimate purpose that national parties cannot (or did not), you attribute that to the underlying identity that those parties are based on. But where they might have accentuated identity politics, you blame the regional parties but not the existence of the underlying identities. 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!

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!

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I didn't quite understand the point you are making.

My point is that regional parties serve a very useful purpose in a diverse polity (and that point applies beyond India.) 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. At the end of the day, there is no grand case against regional parties that Rashmun sought to make. 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.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:11 am

artood2 wrote:
charvaka wrote:The first regional dispute in India occurred when Madras state was ruled by Congress; after Andhra separated, both states were ruled by Congress. People who were using similar reasoning to deny the Andhra people a state of their own realized after Andhra state was formed, and things didn't go to hell as they predicted, that that model is actually a good one. So they went ahead and formed the states reorganization commission, and broke up the unwieldy Madras and Bombay states.

The state reorganization was a mistake. It created linguistic barriers instead of encouraging assimilation. It prioritized small regional identity over a national identity. It just created another barrier on top of caste and religion. I wish they had made straight line boundary states ala USA.

I disagree, and here is why. I don't see why the identity of being a Madrasi ("belonging to Madras state") was any better than the identity of being a Tamil or Telugu. What you see as linguistic barriers are languages that have existed for many centuries, and are part of the heritage of the people which there is no reason to give up in the interest of "assimilation." Once you admit that those languages are here to stay, it is more efficient to organize linguistic states where there is critical mass, and have the citizens served in their own languages.

by artood2 Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:15 am

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.

A new sub-regional entity is still a regional entity. The allowance for a regional entity allows for a sub-regional entity to emerge when needed. It allows folks like Mamta to break away when the national party is too busy hobnobbing with the enemy for national interests. Or a Patnaik/Naidu to provide viable alternative. It allows local issues to be focussed on when the central leadership is busy with "india shining" or "garibi hatao" naarebaazi while real issues are ignored.

Creation of linguistic states is a legacy of the original state reorganization and not an offshoot of *regional partyism*. Tribal loyalty in politics extends to caste/religion etc and is not limited to regionalism.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:20 am

Rashmun wrote:The point is why should i read your telugu posts in the first place? Unless you are a fraud and a scoundrel, why did you not answer my simple question--are you for Separate Telangana or United Andhra?--instead of giving links to your english and telugu suchforum posts.

Shameless liar, you asked me: "would you care to name any telugu on this forum to who you have disclosed in the past (on CH) whether you are for United Andhra or for separate Telangana."

So I gave you the posts I exchanged with Telugus on CH on the topic. Instead of seeking to understand what was on there, you assume that it means what you want to mean, and keep repeating your lies. Even after you have been given clear proof that you were wrong.

If I had any doubts about your dishonesty and lack of integrity, this thread proves it again. It is human to err the way you did about whether I expressed an opinion on the Telangana issue; once it is shown with evidence that I had expressed an opinion, it would have been human to recant. However, you choose to continue your lies without acknowledging your mistakes.

Rashmun wrote:when it was seen by all

I thought you didn't care about other posters... or were you simply lying about that too?
lol!

PS: It is easy to respond with "you are a liar" in response to accusations that you were lying. It is also easy to respond with "Charvaka Method" when someone calls your faulty logic "Rashmun Method." But often it is a childish admission of the accuracy of the other person's claims, and people will see it for what it is. It is not without reason that you have lost credibility with most CHers.

by artood2 Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:23 am

charvaka wrote:
artood2 wrote:
charvaka wrote:The first regional dispute in India occurred when Madras state was ruled by Congress; after Andhra separated, both states were ruled by Congress. People who were using similar reasoning to deny the Andhra people a state of their own realized after Andhra state was formed, and things didn't go to hell as they predicted, that that model is actually a good one. So they went ahead and formed the states reorganization commission, and broke up the unwieldy Madras and Bombay states.

The state reorganization was a mistake. It created linguistic barriers instead of encouraging assimilation. It prioritized small regional identity over a national identity. It just created another barrier on top of caste and religion. I wish they had made straight line boundary states ala USA.
I disagree, and here is why. I don't see why the identity of being a Madrasi ("belonging to Madras state") was any better than the identity of being a Tamil or Telugu. What you see as linguistic barriers are languages that have existed for many centuries, and are part of the heritage of the people which there is no reason to give up in the interest of "assimilation." Once you admit that those languages are here to stay, it is more efficient to organize linguistic states where there is critical mass, and have the citizens served in their own languages.

The identity in being a Madrasi other than that you belonged to a region rather than to a language. It encouraged you to think beyond a linguistic identity and identify yourself with other communities as well. A marathi living in Madras would not be an outside just because he does not know Tamizh.

You never lost your heritage or cultural identity. Different cultures could co-exist within the framework of state. Citizens could be served in different languages within a state based on critical mass in a particular region. It would help smaller languages as well.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:29 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The point is why should i read your telugu posts in the first place? Unless you are a fraud and a scoundrel, why did you not answer my simple question--are you for Separate Telangana or United Andhra?--instead of giving links to your english and telugu suchforum posts.
Shameless liar, you asked me: "would you care to name any telugu on this forum to who you have disclosed in the past (on CH) whether you are for United Andhra or for separate Telangana."

So I gave you the posts I exchanged with Telugus on CH on the topic. Instead of seeking to understand what was on there, you assume that it means what you want to mean, and keep repeating your lies. Even after you have been given clear proof that you were wrong.

--> Mr Pussycat, I asked you if you had disclosed your views on United Andhra vs Separate Telangana to any telugu on this forum long after my repeated efforts to elicit your opinion on this matter met with hedging, equivocation, and pussyfooting around.

--> The point is why were you so desperate to conceal your views on controversial issues? Why give links to your suchforum posts which are in english and telugu to the simple question--are you for Separate Telangana or for United Andhra? And when your english posts do not tell me the answer to your view on this issue, why get angry that i did not bother to ask for a translation of your telugu posts?

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:29 am

artood2 wrote:Citizens could be served in different languages within a state based on critical mass in a particular region. It would help smaller languages as well.

It sounds good in principle, but the multi-language states didn't really do this. One of the original complaints of Telugus within the framework of Madras state was this. It was when that need wasn't met that the issue snowballed into a mass movement and eventually resulted in states reorganization.

artood2 wrote:The identity in being a Madrasi other than that you belonged to a region rather than to a language.

Let's say for a moment that a regional identity is somehow more desirable than a linguistic identity (which I don't buy.) Had those regional identities gotten stronger, they could have posed a more potent danger to India's integrity. Southern India as a whole is much more of a viable nation-state than Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu by themselves.

Your point about minorities holds even within linguistic states. A Tamil or Marathi speaking person living in Hyderabad can identify with Andhra Pradesh, without having to identify with Telugu.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:34 am

Rashmun wrote:why get angry that i did not bother to ask for a translation of your telugu posts?

Shameless liar, I wasn't angry; I was laughing at your antics, and that unnerved you to the point of fantasizing about kicking me in the balls and such.

Rashmun wrote:why were you so desperate to conceal your views on controversial issues?
Why give links to your suchforum posts which are in english and telugu
to the simple question--are you for Separate Telangana or for United
Andhra?

Keep lying that I was trying to conceal something that I happily revealed many times over the last few years. Now that your original argument has been taken apart threadbare, these antics are all you got. Keep them coming, shameless liar.

by artood2 Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:38 am

charvaka wrote:It sounds good in principle, but the multi-language states didn't really do this. One of the original complaints of Telugus within the framework of Madras state was this. It was when that need wasn't met that the issue snowballed into a mass movement and eventually resulted in states reorganization.

I am not contesting the problem just the solution. A different solution other than state reorganization should have been pushed. The problem was there due to one language dominating the other but a different solution could have been tried.

charvaka wrote:Let's say for a moment that a regional identity is somehow more desirable than a linguistic identity (which I don't buy.) Had those regional identities gotten stronger, they could have posed a more potent danger to India's integrity. Southern India as a whole is much more of a viable nation-state than Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu by themselves.

Your point about minorities holds even within linguistic states. A Tamil or Marathi speaking person living in Hyderabad can identify with Andhra Pradesh, without having to identify with Telugu.

No those regional identities would not pose any threat as there common theme would have been a "part of India" rather than language. You are ignoring the point on minority. It is the same as the original Madras state problem that you mention: domination of the majority. A linguistic minority is not considered local even though they may have lived there for 5 generations.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:41 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> if i am wrong then where was the need to give a new link to a three year old Sulekha CH post rather than give a link to one of those suchforum posts of yours which you made me read.
I gave you both, and you are still repeating your lies! Some people are beyond hope, I suppose.

--> You gave the sulekha forum link much after you gave the suchforum links. And the suchforum links never did answer my question. Your credibility is now in the mud. Now that you have been exposed, please keep on rolling in laughter like a clown.

--> It is in fact for me to and for you to put your head down in shame.

Shameless liar, the evidence was out there all the time. You could have easily looked it up, before you made repeated false claims. The fact that you made the false claims so many times, without once bothering to look on old CH for my views, shows how shameless you are. I gave you one piece of evidence, and then another, and you still keep repeating your lies.

Well, like I said elsewhere, keep lying.

by Guest Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:42 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:why get angry that i did not bother to ask for a translation of your telugu posts?
Shameless liar, I wasn't angry; I was laughing at your antics, and that unnerved you to the point of fantasizing about kicking me in the balls and such.

--> I was only mocking your posting LOL's in even serious discussions as a trick to somehow unnerve your interlocutur. I have no wish to even meet you in person.

Charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:why were you so desperate to conceal your views on controversial issues?
Why give links to your suchforum posts which are in english and telugu
to the simple question--are you for Separate Telangana or for United
Andhra?
Keep lying that I was trying to conceal something that I happily revealed many times over the last few years. Now that your original argument has been taken apart threadbare, these antics are all you got. Keep them coming, shameless liar.

--> The posts are there for everyone to see. 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? So, who is the shameless liar now?

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:47 am

artood2 wrote:I am not contesting the problem just the solution. A different solution other than state reorganization should have been pushed. The problem was there due to one language dominating the other but a different solution could have been tried.

I don't know what real alternatives there are. (I am assuming your
suggestion of drawing straight lines on a map was facetious.)

artood2 wrote:No those regional identities would not pose any threat as there common theme would have been a "part of India" rather than language.

I am not so sure. Back in the day before Andhra state was formed, Dravidian activists wanted an independent southern India, rather than an independent Tamil Nadu.

artood2 wrote:You are ignoring the point on minority. It is the same as the original Madras state problem that you mention: domination of the majority. A linguistic minority is not considered local even though they may have lived there for 5 generations.

No, no... I do see your point on minority language groups in a linguistic state. I guess I don't see any credible alternative where that problem wouldn't exist. At the end of the day, anybody who doesn't speak the dominant language of a region does feel left out -- even if the language in question is not the language of the state. For instance, Telugu folks who moved to Hyderabad used to constantly complain about Urdu being the language of the city.

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:51 am

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?

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!

by charvaka Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:54 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:rashmun is wrong on the details during the Emergency times, and Indira Gandhi was a total crook and actually the founder of dynastic politics in India.

But, he is completely doing a Diggy on Emergency..

Yeah, his subterfuge is clear for anyone to see. He first responds saying Indira was acquitted by the Supreme Court. Then he repeats the claim -- until I bring in the Emergency. His defense of the Congress party and its Royal Family is just as shameless as your defense of Modi, Varun and assorted chaddis tends to be.

by Sponsored content