Could we call Mr. Arvind Kejriwal a loser with respect to the 2014 Indian Election?

Answer by Anonymous:

I have always been anti-AAP and anti-AK and in all probability my comment will be downvoted (and not debated) by the AAP supporters for the obvious reason.

I am a Delhiite and a passionate follower of politics in India. I am in my early twenties and according to political stereotypes should have been a naive AAP supporters like my many peers but I am not and proudly so.

I will tell you why I do not support AAP and try to explain the historical, political and societal context for it. Hopefully, people (irrespective of whether they support AAP or not) read this answer.

********************************************************************************************

My take on AAP:

1) AAP banks on negative politics: AAP believes in criticism and lots of it. But it also believes in unaccountable criticism which people are increasingly finding difficult to digest. The problem with who AAP does it is:

a) Often the facts cannot be accounted for: Though many people do not dig deep but some do and at times find that AAP is trying to spread negative propaganda.

For example: the talk of Gujarat govt giving land to Adani for free in Gujarat is complete contradiction to Supreme Court's judgement which observed that Gujarat's land distribution policy is among the best in the country and should be followed by other states.

Obviously, AAP tries to attract people who would willingly believe all the nonsense that it spews and won't verify the facts individually. Much like what the Congress managed to do with the 2002 riots case against Modi.

b) They never follow it up with action: Example: the 300 page evidence against Dikshit has now disappeared and she has been appointed the Governor of Kerala and which means that without the approval of the central govt nobody will be able to even touch her. And AAP which is popular for dharna did not open its mouth or try to bring it to the notice of its people or even try to stop her appointment. Clearly, they are not serious about corruption at all.

c) They act the opposite of what they want the people to believe: They gave ticket to the person who replaced Khemka and who reversed his orders. Nobody understands what they were trying to achieve by it.

d) They take away the credit from other people: Subramanian Swamy is the one how is fighting the Congress in the Supreme Court. He is the reason why Kanimozhi and A Raja were put in jail though only for a short period of time. Other cases that he is involved in are: Black money, Sonia Gandhi's false affidavit about her education, and other scams.

He is actually the man, along with people like Khemka who are doing the real work, AAP is busy benefitting from the work that these patriotic and real anti-corruption crusaders are involved in.

My conclusion: it is all dirty negative politics against political opponent but has no substance and no follow up action.

********************************************************************************************

2) It has no vision: People will disagree with me but I want to remind them that an anti-corruption plank does not account for a vision. AAP is completely silent on many issues of national, economic importance.

i. Kashmir Issue: The irresponsible statements by AAP founders and sympathisers like Prashant Bhushan on referendum in Kashmir does not encourage support.

 People might state that he is not part of the AAP, but he is definitely part of the AAP's main ideological core group.Every party has an ideological group. BJP has the RSS, Congress has the family, and AAP too cannot be without one.

Now what is exactly wrong with the statement:

a) Many people consider that Kashmir is an integral part of India and find the idea of the referendum anti-national (being political correct is different but this what most feel and you cannot change how people feel)

b) But most importantly it does not address the real problem in Kashmir. Most people think that referendum is too simplistic a solution and India should work towards integrating the state with the nation instead of simply shirking its responsibilities towards the people of Kashmir.

c) The referendum of Kashmir is unethical. People have not forgotten about Hindu Kashmiri Pandits who were drive out from their own state. These people though living as refugees in other parts of the country are still the native and citizens of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the kind of referendum that Bhushan wants will deny these Kashmiris their voice. If you want a referendum you will have to give them back their homeland and then hold the poll. But you cannot return these people to their homeland, you completely lose the ethical right to conduct any referendum there.

ii. Silence on POTA: It seems that AAP does not care about the issue of national security. They have been completely mum about terrorism and that threat it poses to India.

iii. Party of closet maoists and anti-nationals. Many AAP's so called heavy weights are actually are anti-development and pro-maoist icons. Medha Patkar is anti-development who was driven out of Gujarat after stalling the Narmada project for years and even by the tribals she tried to visit in Chhattisgarh because of her support to the Maoist.

One of the guys from south held anti-nuclear projects. Many people who call themselves anti-war and pro-peace forget that the real intention with the project is to continue India's dependence on oil and gulf imports in the absence of alternate power source.

India is a very peaceful country and which is won't be using any of the power produced by the reactor for military purposes (and also because we are bound by agreements with other countries and will have sanctions imposed on us if we did). A safe production nuclear power is for the benefit of the nation especially in the absence of other alternate source of energy.

iv. Leftist ideology: Marx died and left crony capitalism behind i.e communist ideology. Most people are not aware of the fact that according Marxist ideology the only difference between capitalism and communism is that the the latter is the authoritative form of capitalism itself and because of the direct control of the government in all industrial enterprises, it leads to lots of corruption. And which is why communism is actually the crony capitalism that AAP accuses others of.

In fact, the kind of policies that AAP wants to implement in this kind will take us back to the 1950s and 60s and which is even worse than the 80s. Communism has failed in almost all countries. The disintegration of the Soviet Union is the most apt example of the failure of communist and leftist ideology which AAP wants to practice.

As for AAP, the less we talk about their subsidies on water and electricity the better. For people who are new to economics: you cannot sustain something for too long on just the initial capital, if you are not investing into something that continually leads to inflow of cash.

 That is, the subsidies which is the tax payer money, are short term measures. With no jobs for the middle class (who are the most affected because of the subsidies), the govt will soon have no money for the half-price and all that free stuff that AAP promises.

Remember, nothing is free, there are always invisible costs. A sensible person will always recognise those invisible and generate a ways to overcome that job. The best is generate jobs and have people pay for their own subsidies without govt interference. You pay for things you want from your own money and lead to lowering doing corruption in the public sector. Also, when you generate jobs, the middle class starts increasing because the poor start entering the middle class when they have jobs.

Communism is actually saying that if we cannot make the poor rich, we will make the rich poor and which is what AAP intends to do.

Having said this Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir wanted me to add:

Electricity and water companies weren't able to keep up with the sudden increase in electricity and water usage and Kejriwal threatened to cancel their permit; then he put the Delhi state government into huge debts because they couldn't pay the entire state's water bills and half the electricity bills… I wonder what would be the environmental impact if AAP had won the national elections… 

Something we must all ponder about I think. If AAP had won the national elections, they would have started earnestly for their ideal India i.e complete anarchy and massively poor.

v. AAP's treats technology like an untouchable: Technology simply does not exist in the dictionary of AAP and nor do they understand how best to make use it (except when they hire people sitting in the US to record private date of the users flouting all concerns for national security and citizen privacy).

For that matter, they encourage human factor over technology, and which is bound to increase corruption. For example: the stupid thing about sting operations and calling and reporting etc. AAP did not understand that it is not the job of the citizens to carry out investigations but the govt.

They could have easily installed CCTV cameras and set up surveillance in all govt offices but did not. It felt like as if AAP wanted that people increase giving and taking bribes.

All countries around the world are more or less equally corrupt, but the difference lies in providing an atmosphere (through technology) that discourages it. But AAP is completely not interested in it.

********************************************************************************************
3) Communal politics practiced by AAP.

a) Youtube videos photographs are available showing AK visiting the Batla colony and distributing pamphlets which said that the Supreme Court judgement was incorrect. Not only was he practices communal politics but also indulging in Contempt of Court.

b) The Shazia Ilmi episode must be fresh on everyone's mind. I do not feel the need to post the video where she said ,'Muslims need to be communal and vote for AAP as AK is for the muslims.' No matter how much silent AK might be on the subject but clearly this was all must have been conveyed to the minority community by the blessing of His Honesty Kejriwal.

c) Yogendra Yadav has been recorded by the press wanting reservations for the religious minorities and many other castes that haven's still been included in the OBC, SCs and STs. Clearly AAP is anti-progress.

For people, who are too naive, reservation only acts as an excuse by the govt for not providing its citizens with developmental. For understanding consider the following; instead of building colleges they say ,'we have given you reservation'. Instead of building hospitals they say, 'we have given you reservations' etc etc.

The govt should meet the demand why building the required infrastructure instead of dividing the prevalent infrastructure within different communities and leading to development of feelings of animosity among them.

d) AK visits temples and mosques to gain the tag of a true secular Indian style. The true meaning of a secular state is, 'state separate from religion', i.e politicians and govt servants should refrain from display of preference of religion (be it any, one  or more than one) in the public. And the exact opposite is what AK does.

The message that he give out, 'I am as backward as the most backward part of India. I believe in tokenism and religious appeasements.' Most people might not have a problem with this but I have. I feel the message should have been, 'religion and state are separate'.

Also, to most people, who are quite well read, this kind of behaviour show lack of intellectual integrity.

e) Another addition by Abhimanyu: AK explicitly said, "There is no question of banning the Khap panchayat." And, "The Khap is a cultural entity". The AAP representative at one of the Times Now debates even endorsed Sati and other such barbaric practices.

Clearly AAP practices vote bank politics and they are more like new bottle, old wine.

********************************************************************************************

4) Lies, lies and more lies, AAP's suspicious history:

i. Ground reports in Varanasi said that AAP distributed Rs 500 enclosed in 'topis' to the voters. Similarly, it was reported by people that it had also distributed bottles during Delhi assembly election.

People will ask for proof. Well, one you should keep your eyes and ears open, because most of such reports in MSM go under-reported if not unreported. But thanks to the downvotes by AAPtards, many such voices on social media also go unheard.

I read the former (Varanasi) on Quora where a guy from Varanasi had talked about. And the latter (Delhi) watched it on Ravish Show where a man from east Delhi openly spoke about.

Not at all surprising by AAP's low standards.

ii. How many people are aware that Yogendra Yadav was part of INC's NAC headed by Sonia Gandhi?

iii. How many people know that Somnath Bharti was found guilty of phishing scam in the United States of America?

iv. How many people know that Prashant Bhushan who donated 1 crore to AAP and has much ideological influence in the party fought a case that would prevent NCERT textbook from stop calling Bhagat Singh a terrorist, i.e according to Bhushan Bhagat Singh is not a martyr but a terrorist?

v. How many know know that AK's Kabir Foundation is the beneficiary of Ford Foundation? And so are many of the NGO's of all activists in the AAP party? Any AAPtard who would want to explain why all the NGO's of all AAP members are funded by Ford Foundation?

vi. The AAP and AK did not give the Indian people either the RTI or the Lokpal. For that matter RTI existed in India as Freedom of Information during the NDA term and the Lokpal was first introduced in the Uttaranchal govt during the BJP rule?

vii. How many know that AK has been accused of plagiarism for his book Swaraj?
(The case was accepted in the court though I do not know what came out of it).

viii. Abhimanyu adds: AK's dictatorial and censorious nature is quite clear when he threatened to censor the media and imprison journalists if he were to win the national elections. They even claimed a "boycott" of Times Now once, that debate was quite hilarious because an empty chair was kept visible throughout the debate with a caption referring to the AAP. Will any AAP supporter explain why AK and AAP are so much against Media and free speech? Does this not show a dictatorial attitude?

The AAP party is a of liars and build on lies.

Here is is video of Vajpayee speaking in favour of Jan Lok Pal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykpPZ8yzhyI

********************************************************************************************

There are many more issues that I would come up with but I would to stay up all night to write all those down.

Now, to answer your question. Most people did not vote for AAP in Delhi this time not because they understand the above issues. If they did, they would never given any seat to AAP in the Delhi Assembly elections.

Most people vote on the basis who is going to provide them with good roads, better infrastructure, development etc and which is why they voted for BJP which in much better position to fulfil those promises.

I would not say that AK has failed, any seat, any vote to AK is a vote against India. So for me he has actually won and which is not something I am happy about.

Lastly, I would like to add we have all seen that how AK quit Delhi government to contest national elections, ran a malicious campaign against one individual (i.e Modi when there are visibly corrupt people like Sonia Gandhi etc to attack), wanted the LG not to dissolve the govt, but took a U-turn when Congress refused support, held an apology drama, AK got himself locked in jail but continued to spread lies through his supporters (again amounting to Contempt of Court for which Yadav and Sisodia have been booked), finally paid the bail amount and now is back in town and I am sure devising a strategy to hog some more limelight. Should we be even willing to give even a gram panchayat to this thug and loose cannon, forget the nation?

Thank you Abhimanyu for your inputs. 🙂

I wish people took the above issues that I have highlighted more seriously and stop voting and supporting crooks like AK who are only here to make our lives worse.

Thank you for reading.

EDIT: Please share, email, repost on Quora. Everybody has all rights to reproduce this whole post without crediting me. Just state that this was an anonymous post you found.

View Answer on Quora

Advertisements

What is the official view of India towards Tibet? How does it differentiate Tibet with Kashmir?

Answer by Vineet Menon:

Official Indian Stand towards Tibet:
In 1913-14, Britain to settle the border disputes between (India) Raj and China set up a triparty settlement involving China, Tibet and India. In this accord,

Tibetwas divided into Outer Tibet and Inner Tibet. Outer Tibet, which is Tibet proper, was declared to be autonomous region over which China was to have nominal sovereignty or suzerainty, whereas Inner Tibet which has sizeable Tibetan population was to be under the full sovereign control of China. Shimla conference also approved Indo-Tibetan border, which was named McMahon line after a British official,who played a key role in Shimla conference.

Representatives from India and Tibet agreed upon this settlement but China didn't ratified this proposal. When in 1947, India got it's independence, she inherited this accord along with other British legacies. So, the official view of India vis-a-vis Tibet is of an autonomous region under Chinese govt.

Difference between Kashmir and Tibet
The main difference between both is that during the formation of Union of India , all the 500+ princely states were given an option to either accede to Pakistan or India or to remain independent. Vallabhai Patel along with his secretary V.P. Menon glued together all the states to forge one political India. A few princely states remained in limbo about what to do even after India got independence on 15th Auguest 1947. One such state was the province of Jammu and Kashmir.

As the story goes, Pakistan resorted to dirty means to have Kashmir inside their international boundary. They sent soldiers dressed up as villagers to instigate a revolt against the then King of Kashmir, Maharaja Hari Singh. He requested Pt. Nehru, then Indian Prime Minister to drive away the insurgents back to Pakistan. Nehru at the suggestion of Patel asked Hari Singh to first sign the Instrument of Accession, to which he agreed, and thus began Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. So basically, Kashmir became a part of India as soon as the instrument was signed by the Hari Singh.

On the other hand, Tibet and China were intermittently under different rule, have different ethnicity and as per Shimla Accord have been given autonomous region in Chinese administration. The situation is more complicated because of two claimers of Chinese government,

the government of the PRC contends that it has had control over Tibet since the Yuan Dynasty (1271–1368).The government of the ROC, which ruled mainland China from 1912 until 1949 and now controls Taiwan, had a cabinet-level Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission in charge of the administration of Tibet and Mongolia regions from 1912.

Soon after British left the subcontinent, in 1950 China invaded Tibet also referred to as the Invasion of Tibet, the Chinese invasion of Tibet, or officially in China as the Liberation of Tibet or Battle of Chamdo. It was a military campaign by the People's Republic of China against a de facto independent Tibet in Chamdo after months of failed negotiations. The purpose of the campaign was to capture the Tibetan army in Chamdo,  demoralize the Lhasa government, and thus exert powerful pressure to  send negotiators to Beijing to sign terms recognizing Chinese  sovereignty over Tibet. And since then, Tibet is under Chinese occupation.

Sources :

  1. Tibet Factor in Sino-India Relations
  2. Political integration of India
  3. Tibetan sovereignty debate
  4. Battle of Chamdo

View Answer on Quora