Why Gujarat Voted for Modi?

In this season of 2014 Parliament it seems that all parties not fight against the ruling party but fight against the opposition party. Most Parties attack on Narendra Modi lead BJP. They attack more on the “Gujarat Model” instead of past government works.

Before understanding the reason why Gujarat voted for Modi, we quickly see that why opposition attacks on Modi. Here are some reasons.

1> whether they accept on public or not but they believe that the mood of the nation is in fever of Modi and not Congress.

2> They believe that if Modi lead BJP then its difficult to work under him while they can easily blackmail Congress lead UPA as seen in past 10  years.

3> Many regional party leaders want to become PM and in MODI lead BJP it’s never possible.

Now we will see why Gujarat Voted for Modi 3 times.

“Hindutva” is the biggest issue in 2002 for people of Gujarat to vote. After 2002 Modi become “Hindu Hraday Samrat” and for that large number of Hindu vote for Modi.In later elections it was not a big issue and many who support him 2002 for Hindutva not give him vote for that.

Another bigger issue is rehabilitation or advance development in Kutch after earth quake. People know the good work under Modi government and that’s why they voted for him.

In 2007, Modi came with agenda of development. Many people feel the development under him. The major developments under his government are electricity, Water, Roads and security. At the same time Modi made his image as a strong leader who acted hard against terrorism. People want to came out of the ghost of the 2002 riots. But congress not understand the mood of the people. There is no major issue, especially on development against Modi so congress and their supporters starts to blame Modi on 2002 riots. Even Hindus want to forget 2002 issues but congress’ appeasement politics not let them to do so. The statements like “Maut Ka Saudagar” add petrol in fire. And Modi starts to blame congress leaders on “So called Secularism”. Ultimately this all things help Modi and he win again in 2007.

As time passes, People feel more development in infrastructure and industries. Even Rural areas of Gujarat got 24hour electricity. Women Empowerment and safety is largely improved in Gujarat as compare to other states. People see stability  in BJP government, There was negligible cases of BJP leaders which disturbs daily life of people. But still congress not understand the mood of people. As they  went far from power they went far from real public issues and blaming more and more on 2002 issue. And as a result large number of people make their strong bond with Modi and they voted for Modi irrespective of who is local candidate. And as a result the big leaders of Congress like Modhwadia, Shaktisinh Gohil loose in 2012 assembly election. After 2012 election congress became very weak in Gujarat as its large number of leaders and workers joined BJP.

Those who blame Gujarat model are far away from actual reality. There are some lies on corruption and etc but at least in Electricity, Road, Water, Women empowerment & safety, Industries, Development in tribe area, Health sector in urban area, Transport facility, Advancement in governance technology no one can blame Modi. And if they blame their condition will not different from Congress after 2014 in Gujarat.

Author: Tejash Patel

Secularism in India

What is secularism means? May be it is different for different peoples and even sometimes it is totally opposite of actually what it should be,

In India most of the people use word “Secularism” as per their requirement and take meaning of it as per their requirement. Two main parties BJP and Congress mostly use it for their vote banks. Other local parties also uses it and change the meaning of the word as per their requirement. We taught in schools and even all books say India is secular country. But there is no clear definition of secularism at any place.

Most of the people understood that if person is from BJP is not secular because they believe in Hinduism and the persons from congress side are secular because they are not following Hinduism. For many people and most of the politicians, secularism means ” A person who follow every religion especially a religion which is in minority, is called secular person. ” For congress, secularism means Muslim appeasement. For them a person who not follow Islam or speak something against Islam (irrespective of whether it is true or false) is not a secular. Congress accept this thought to secure their vote Bank.

According to my thought Secularism means not to follow all religion but follow any religion which he/she like and respect other religions. A secular person never stopping or forcing others to believe or follow any religion. To follow or not follow other religions are depends on one’s personal view.

But recently many things are changed. Many issues of religions make headlines. A persons who commented on an individual politicians or insulting Islam  are immediately get punishments. But even though a ministers or other persons insults Hinduism are not punished. You can watch video in below link. A person targeting to Hindu religion and even insulting India. But he is not punished. Even media is silent on that issue. But if anyone from BJP or Hindu community speak like this he will definitely get jailed. Salaman rashdi , who is Muslim him self, write ” setanik versis ”  is not allowed to india because Muslims protests against him. But M.F.Hussein get honor even he many times insulting Hindu gods and goddesses. In M.S. university each year many students insulting Hindu goddesses, but noting happen. why? because they insulted Hindu gods and not Muslims?

I think we should re think on this secularism. We must stop appeasement of any of the community/religion in shadow of secularism. We must stop vote bank politics. The laws must be equal for all community and they must not as per their religion. For Hindu second marriage is crime. Good thing, and it must be. But for Muslim it is not crime ..??? they can marriage four time simultaneously. You not think we should change this?


કોંગ્રેસનું જુઠ

ગુજરાતના ૨૦૦૨ નાં ગોધરા હત્યાકાંડ પછીના તોફાનો માટે કોંગ્રેસ હમેશા નરેન્દ્ર મોદી ઉપર નિશાન તાકતી આવી છે પરંતુ અહી એ જ કોંગ્રેસનું એક જૂઠ રજુ કરવામાં આવ્યું છે. કોંગ્રેસના નેતાઓ હંમેશા એવું કહેતા આવ્યા છે કે તોફાનો વખતે ખુદ ભાજપના જ વડાપ્રધાન અટલ બિહારી વાજપેયીએ નરેન્દ્ર મોદી ને રાજધર્મ ના પાલન ની શીખ આપવી પડી હતી. પરંતુ હકીકતમાં વાજપેયી એ એવું કહ્યું હતું કે નરેન્દ્ર મોદી રાજધર્મનું પાલન કરી રહ્યા છે એવો તેમને વિશ્વાસ છે. અહી નીચેના વીડીઓમાં આ હકીકત દર્શાવી છે.

:: તેજશ પટેલ ::

Congress backs discredited cop

August 05, 2011 11:36:46 PM
If the former Telecom Secretary’s statements are meant to be brushed aside as discredited nonsense, why should a discredited IPS officer be taken seriously?
As it finds itself increasingly beleaguered, the Congress is talking itself into one trap after another. Two recent instances stand out.In the midst of the telecom scandal trial, Mr Siddhartha Behura, former Telecom Secretary, told the court of a crucial meeting that apparently took place on December 4, 2007. The meeting, Mr Behura claimed, was attended by Mr P Chidambaram, then Finance Minister, and Mr D Subbarao, then Finance Secretary. This meeting decided upon the pricing of 2G licences, he has said. His contention is that he, as Telecom Secretary, only implemented the decisions taken at this meeting. In a sense, he has sought to expand the ambit of culpability.

Responding to Mr Behura’s charge, Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal was dismissive. “We have looked into records,” he said, “the records show that there was no such meeting. Neither Mr Chidambaram nor Mr Subbarao

remembers any such meeting.” He also warned of “the danger of taking arguments made on behalf of an accused, and treating them as evidence and gospel truth”. Mr Behura, the Telecom Minister added, would attempt to save himself “even on the basis of non-existent facts”.For all one knows, Mr Sibal may be right. Perhaps Mr Behura is indeed lying and attempting to implicate others in a show of desperation and bravado. If that is the case, the UPA Government needs to oppose him tooth and nail.

Now consider another example. In Gujarat, Mr Sanjiv Bhatt, an officer of the Indian Police Service, has spoken of a meeting at the Gandhinagar residence of Chief Minister Narendra Modi on February 27, 2002. This was on the evening of the Godhra train incineration. Mr Bhatt has alleged Mr Modi asked that Hindus be allowed to “vent out their anger” and wanted Muslims to be “taught a lesson”.

Potentially this is explosive stuff. A police officer is actually saying a Chief Minister asked his administration to back off and allow a state-backed massacre of innocent people. However, the Modi Government has denied Mr Bhatt was in the meeting of senior police officials that the Chief Minister called on February 27, 2002. The then State police chief has refuted Mr Bhatt’s contention that he was in the room that day. Mr Bhatt, it is said, was simply too junior to have attended the meeting.

It has also been established that Mr Bhatt has been in touch with activists such as Ms Teesta Setalvad and with the Congress’s Leader of the Opposition in the State Assembly. In e-mail correspondence that is now before the court, he is offered legal support and coaching for his deposition before the Special Investigative Team by Ms Setalvad. He exchanges documents with the Congress leader, Mr SS Gohil, and asks him for a Blackberry phone. He tells another police officer to find out where Haren Pandya, a Minister in the Gujarat Government who was later assassinated, was on February 27, 2002.

The SIT, set up by the Supreme Court to look into the Gujarat violence, had asked Mr Bhatt if Pandya was present at the meeting. Presumably, Mr Bhatt was so engrossed in listening to his Chief Minister that he didn’t notice who else was around. Alternatively, could it be concluded Mr Bhatt wasn’t around himself?

Mr Bhatt has had a controversial career. He faces court cases for misuse of official authority. He has been involved in land-grab cases. In one incident, he was charged with framing a person who had a property dispute with a then judge of the Gujarat High Court. The National Human Rights Commission passed strictures against Mr Bhatt in this matter and fined him for “falsely involving a person in a criminal case … (and violating) fundamental human rights”.

Disciplinary action was taken against the judge as well. The judge appealed before the Supreme Court, but unsuccessfully. The judge’s lawyer, as it happened, was Mr Chidambaram, now Union Home Minister. Today, of course, Mr Chidambaram glosses over that old association and his party praises Mr Bhatt’s “courage”.

Mr Bhatt’s history has led to him having run-ins with the Gujarat Government. He has also been denied a promotion. His career is at a dead-end. Isn’t there enough reason for him to resort to desperate measures and attempt to resurrect himself “even on the basis of non-existent facts”, to borrow Mr Sibal’s expression?

If Mr Behura’s statements are meant to be brushed aside as discredited nonsense, why is Mr Bhatt supposed to be taken so seriously? Does the Congress believe all non-existent meetings are irrelevant but some non-existent meetings are less irrelevant than others?

In another episode, the Jan Lok Pal Bill activists led by Anna Hazare released preliminary findings of a survey they said they had conducted in Delhi’s Chandni Chowk Lok Sabha constituency. The survey apparently showed overwhelming support for the activists’ version of the Lok Pal Bill. To be fair this proved nothing. The Hazare-driven Jan Lok Pal Bill is severely flawed and will end up creating a bureaucratic monster.

However, what was worth noting was the Congress’s reaction. Mr Manish Tiwari, the party spokesperson, invited Mr Hazare to contest the 2014 parliamentary election from Chandni Chowk (now represented by Mr Sibal) and essentially convert that battle into a referendum on competing versions of the Lok Pal Bill.

This is an interesting methodology, one that places primacy on the democratic process and reduces all debate to judgement only by the electronic voting machine. It is worth considering whether Mr Harsh Mander can be put up as the National Advisory Council candidate from Madha or Baramati, take on Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, and convert a constituency contest into a referendum on competing versions of the Food Security Bill.

Alternatively, Ms Setalvad (or even Mr Bhatt) could be the joint Opposition candidate from Maninagar in the December 2012 Gujarat Assembly election. This could then be presented as a referendum on alternative narratives on Gujarat in the past decade.

Those two final suggestions may sound facetious and silly. They are; yet no less offensive is Mr Tiwari’s mocking invitation to Anna Hazare to join electoral politics. Indeed, it is the Congress’s sudden belief in the purity and integrity of the political process that is so astonishing. In Gujarat, it has used extra-political means to fight its opponents. With the NAC, it has used extra-political mechanisms to draft and push through legislation. Having built the kitchen, it suddenly can’t stand the heat. How convenient.