Taj,

Thanks for your inputs on the Punjab scenario. You are bang on target
right about Akali Dal being not strong development oriented in Punjab
and which helped Congress in elections. Akali Dal is a SAD party in
punjab and has lots of introspection to do.

However, you still didn't answer my curious question about how Sidhu
managed to win again. I think you know Punjab better than I do. Which
is why I'm asking you.

And the NDA also lost in 2004 because they didn't do much for rural
development and went with India is shining tag which only urban people
could relate to and backfired badly on them.

Regards,

-- Bharat | http://twitter.com/shettyb



On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Sirtaj Singh Kang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 17-May-09, at 11:39 PM, Bharat Shetty wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> The NDA also delivered stunning growth despite the economic sanctions
>> imposed by the Clinton government back then.
>
> I'd like nothing more to see some evidence that the vast majority of the 50%
> of the country that bothers to vote gives a flighted turd about that. So
> far, most of the country votes on what can only be described as a very
> narrow form of (enlightened?) self-interest with little thought given to the
> larger picture (a luxury allowed only to those who are fed, educated, secure
> and relatively comfortable).
>
> Witness -
>
> - Justice for 2000 dead matters less than jobs
>
> - Any state government that tries to roll back the free electricity and
> water given to farmers in Punjab WILL lose the election, no matter that it
> has bankrupted the wealthiest state in the country.
>
> - My entirely unscientific man-on-the-street discussions in Chandigarh
> across various socio-economic levels suggest that the main difference
> between the SAD and INC in Punjab is that the Congressiyas will take their
> bribe and get the job done, while the Akalis will keep you moving up a
> pyramid of bribes where each level has longer arms to reach deeper into your
> pockets, with unclear likelihood of getting what you paid for.
>
>
> -Taj.
>
>

Reply via email to