9 comments

[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 32.7 ms ] thread
For the uninitiated , Narendra Modi was the CM of gujarat when gujarat violence happened

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gujarat_violence

...and held his position since...
And the point is? He has done a lot for his state. Which is India's most progressive and prosperous.
Gujarat may be prosperous (this is open for debate), but I'm not sure a place that still has alcohol prohibition is India's 'most progressive' state.
You're right. It's disappointing to see that people have a short memory about this just because his state has done well economically.
Its a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

Given a choice which one would you choose - A skilled and able administrator with a dodgy past or a corrupt, bureaucratic and sycophantic bunch of people who have a history of such incidences spread over half a century.

Yes Modi has his faults but he is preferable over the alternative, though I would be loath to see he become more autocratic - a distinct possibility .

Given how low internet penetration is in India , this kind of thing cannot have much of an impact at the grassroot level.
You're right that internet penetration is low, but I believe that is quickly changing. Almost every person under the age of 35 I know in India (which is a lot, I have a lot of family there) regularly uses the internet, and anyone in the middle class can afford 3g (which is ~1-3 dollars a month).

Also, there's a matter of who is being targeted; you could probably draw strong parallels with Obama's strategy of targeting the young and educated.

(comment deleted)