Modi 1.0 : the Performer-In-Chief !

The oxymoron of the season is that Indian economy was found sputtering in the recent past just before the election & yet India delivered a historic win to Modi - unprecedented pro-incumbency !

So even as almost all Indians go about celebrating, should we worry? More so since Modi did not unleash high intensity reforms and so India's growth rates remained below potential?

Well one can worry in the absolute vacuum, just like the media folk like to - but not in reality.

At the onset, we must understand where India was when Modi got first sworn-in on 26th May 2014.

India's ranking in the World Bank monitored Easy Of Doing Business index was a shameful 140 on 190; now it is 77, huge leapfrogging over a five year period.

India had then also found itself in the disgraced The Fragile Five economies list. Today, in the expanded The Troubled Ten economies list, India's name is absent.

The global rating agencies too have upped India's grade. 

Finally, Indian banking system was on the brink of a collapse due to the all time high non-performing assets, where most loans to corporates were given away in an undeserving & unqualified ad hoc manner, rendering the system to be soaked in corruption. 

Today, because of Modi's strong arm tactics, there's a beeline among the corporate head honchos to return the money or face loss of company ownership. And yes, some have lost their companies.

Sure, Modi did self-impose ( some dubbed it as self-goals) tough measures like a) Demonetisation (rendering 86% of printed circulating cash as trash if earned illegally or to be exchanged for new notes if legitimate ) and b) GST.

Both of these resulted in withdrawal symptoms and so did act as major speed breakers as bulk of India worked in the informal economy. 

But in view of the above two blows, while many lost money, some were grudgingly forced into the formal sector.... & are now learning to pay taxes. 

That also resulted in the obviously unethical coming together of 22 opposition parties - a motley mix of arch rivals under the banner of "Mahagathban" or the great collaboration.

Notwithstanding the hardship & the counter view presented by the army of opposition parties - most Indians understood that the said two measures were good for the economy in the long run.

The world agreed too !

India earned it's highest Foreign Direct Investment & Foreign Portfolio Investment ever, pumping it's reserves to an all time high. At the time of the results coming in, the Indian stocks are found to be at an all time high.

So even when last election quarter showed a big drop in the corporate earnings, the government yet had a windfall tax collection - a clear harbinger of the things to come. The number of new tax payers have also galloped their way in.

Considering the pain, the Indian public has demonstrated an unusual and rare human trait & endowment i.e patience & maturity respectively - missing so much in that "of-for-by the people" system of electioneering.

They actually voted in a guy, that imposed austerity of sorts, took away money from many and imposed tight measures. 

Unlike Venezuela which also tried some things similar & failed, India saw no riots nor strikes - otherwise typical of developing nations in such times. 

Looking outside, in the last 5 years, we see not one country in the world where the animal spirits have been unleashed & economy is running on all cylinders fired up to the max, even when it wasn't suffering as much as India was when Modi ascended to the prime minister's chair.

So let's get it straight - 114 countries were growing at a GDP growth rate of 5% or higher, until the global financial crisis that hit in 2008.

Notwithstanding the promises at G-20, all major countries came up with lose monetary policy to spruce up their economy and covertly began looking inward to protect jobs at home i.e. slow poisoning globalization. 

The IMF's regular downward revision & good natured euphemistic language since the last few years gives us a clue - global economy is definitely crawling it's way closer to a recession.

Today, less than ten nations are growing at 5% or higher growth rates. 

China's GDP growth of about 14% at one time i.e. prior to the global economy collapse in 2008 to now less than half of that over a decades time can always be used as a bell weather as she is, unlike India, largely integrated with the global trade. 

Her forex reserves are down - already lost over a whopping USD 1 trillion from it's peak. 

Every leader in the world wants local manufacturing and for that, the inducements are a plenty - the obvious being lowered taxes. The Trump induced trade war is a manifestation of the reality. 

For most part India has ducked the slowdown trend - that's a huge achievements considering where she started five years ago and what it was suffering from. Modi did not allow the Indian economy to happily slide into the slow but sure IMF's trap and then do things as dictated by the external lenders - he saw it coming and did what he must. 

That's leadership 101 !

Also, Modi delivering a clean corruption free term is a welcome change. Modi 1.0 was in a consolidation phase, Modi 2.0 should do much better, as unlike the first term - in about 24 months he could have a control of the upper house too, allowing him to free the tiger, caged until now.

Mai aisa kyun hoon?

A moral person will not kill.

A soldier, guided by ethical duty, may kill in combat.

A person with principles uses both morality and duty as foundations for action and judgment. Thus, a soldier may kill enemy combatants on the battlefield, but not treat captured prisoners the same way; in fact, he feeds them and gives first aid when they are wounded, including an honerable funeral if the person dies in line of duty!

We all begin life Idealistically. 

As God’s children our minds are a clean slate, and humanism feels natural. Then experience reshapes us. We learn that the world is tilted - duniya sachme tedhi hai, and that trying to walk perfectly straight on a crooked street makes us stumble.

Our “lens” - the way we see and want to fix the world is fabricated by our past: our lineage, surrounding, and experiences. 

From that lens, three broad responses typically emerge: 

Idealist A (Centralist)

Some people cling stubbornly to that childlike moral straightness. They assume the world will follow the standards of fairness and equality. When faced with war or real conflict, they collapse: their idealistic offerings are unprepared for harsh realities. They fail to get it that they've left the kindergarten behind. Now, treating unequal as equals is itself unfair. 

Often seen as impractical or misfits, they remain correct but ineffective, achieving far less than their potential.

Idealist B (Left of Centre)

They decide that the system itself is corrupt. They believe elites have compromised morals and dominate unfairly. To fix injustice, they favor bottom‑up upheaval and are willing to sacrifice some morals temporarily to mobilize the disenchanted. 

Their aim is to destroy the existing order and rebuild a new ethical system. Short-lived revolutions often follow: they burn the old faster than they can create the new, and outcomes sometimes contradict their original ideals.

Idealist C (Right of Centre)

They conclude that they have had a raw deal due to the system that takes them for granted. To bring change, they require power. 

They rise within the existing order, adopt its principles where useful, and then when they get hold of the levers of power, they show their true colors, and begin reform from above - pruning what weakens the system and consolidating authority. 

They build disciplined institutions and enjoy long‑lasting structures, but their centralization can marginalize and silence the weak. 

All three share a common goal -improving the system, but they differ in means. 

Each has strengths and failure modes: 

Category A often produces mediocrity as personal correctness is without any social impact with everyone else racing ahead of them, which in some cases leads to frustration, even despondency, and in extreme cases they become self‑destructive.

Category B can mobilize change rapidly, but extreme versions resort to mass violence; history shows revolutions and persecutions that cost millions of lives.

Category C creates durable systems; in excess, it breeds belligerence toward dissent and can justify extraordinary measures, sometimes overriding law in the name of a greater good.

One thing is certain: Utopia does not exist. 

Across scriptures, history, and the present world, you will not find a single society untouched by sin, injustice, or violence.

Socrates was made to drink poison, Jesus was crucified, Galileo was condemned to spend his life under house arrest, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, Gandhi was eliminated, and Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered.

History reveals a recurring pattern: societies often punish most severely those who challenge established norms - whether philosophical, religious, scientific, political, or social.

The method changes with the age, but the resistance remains constant.

Why?

Morality has little chance of either instant acceptability or long-term survival on its own.

Whatever is on offer, it has to be skillfully offered in a manner that suits the existing sociocultural context and realpolitik conditions before it can be found acceptable by the general public. 

Those who were killed, may have been right, but were obviously deemed unacceptable to whoever - thus, their offerings can be considered as beyond the prevalent knowledge, context, or even impractical on a societal scale.

We can conclude that depending on where one is on the timeline or moral scale, one needs to be appropriate before being right.

And so history offers mixed examples: radical leaders who destroyed as much as they claimed to save, and reformers who suspended norms to preserve a nation.

These are not merely political classifications; they are attitudes toward life, living, and liberty that one believes can be imposed through institutions and administrators.

Ask yourself the fundamental question: Main Aisa Kyun Hoon?

Which lens shapes your decisions - moral purity, revolutionary change, or principled consolidation?

The Black Man in a White House - a journey

The world was transfixed by one man: Barack Hussein Obama!

His rise began during the 2004 election and soon grew into a global story - not simply about American politics, but about the prospect of the first African‑American president of the United States. That destination he eventually reached. 

But the victory itself, while historic, tells only part of the story. The deeper elements of his journey - how he captured public imagination and overcame entrenched skepticism are themselves worthy of admiration.

By the mid‑2000s, American power had begun to look reckless in moral and ethical terms. The nation that emerged triumphant from the Cold War had lost goodwill through a string of scandals and policy failures. Osama bin Laden remained at large despite massive resources. President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky had eroded trust in political leaders, and the U.S. launched the Iraq War without United Nations approval. The subsequent “war on terror,” driven by George W. Bush, proved costly and poorly defined. Then came the financial meltdown following Lehman Brothers’ collapse and the largest bailout in history. Public cynicism toward career politicians ran high.

It was into this dark backdrop that Obama stepped onto the stage. He quickly became a focal point for the world’s hopes. International observers, unable to vote but free of partisan bias, cheered as he spoke. 

At first glance, Obama seemed an unlikely contender. He was a slender Black man with an unfamiliar name and a Muslim middle name at a time when America was embroiled in conflict with parts of the Muslim world. Born in remote Hawaii, with limited political experience, little wealth, and no political godfather, he barely registered on the national press radar. Yet he used his gift of speech, intelligence, and an affable dignity to outmaneuver opponents. 

Only two major rivals remained: Hillary Clinton and John McCain - both formidable.

Hillary Clinton brought familiarity, experience, and political clout. As former First Lady and a long‑serving senator, she had the resume of someone ready to become the nation’s first woman president. 

John McCain offered seasoned leadership: a respected bipartisan figure, Vietnam POW, and proven patriot - qualities voters prized amid wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a resurgent Russia. McCain’s simple slogan, “Country First,” captured that mood.

The Democratic primary offered a pivotal moment. Struggling financially and under pressure, Clinton reportedly suggested Obama withdraw in exchange for the vice presidency. Obama refused and prevailed, leaving Clinton politically and financially depleted.

Obama then focused on McCain. He built a refreshing, reassuring brand that positioned him beyond the usual political mold. He surrounded himself with talented strategists who sweated the details. Even cultural gestures mattered: when India’s Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw died, Obama promptly sent condolences, winning favor among NRIs who might otherwise lean Republican. Sensing public disdain for career politicians, Obama converted grassroots anger into a positive force. His one‑word campaign slogan was “Change" - captured the yearning of a nation. 

He also refused donations from large lobby groups, relying instead on small donations that made supporters feel invested; grassroots fundraising helped him raise roughly $650 million, about twice McCain’s total and far more than Clinton’s exhausted campaign. 

Obama’s campaign offers a leadership case study: he chose innovation over security, stayed authentic, showed grit and restraint, learned continuously, listened actively, and spoke with eloquence and conviction.

When the votes were counted, Americans, by demanding change - put country first. Voters chose character and vision over familiar identities and made history: they sent a Black man to the White House!

The rest is history, and the moment remains a triumph of the human spirit. 

Barack Hussein Obama - Yes He Did!

Bolo Vansh-wadi Politics Ki .... Hai Ok Please !

Yashwant Sinha said that "My son is incompetent, thus was removed from the finance ministry"

Harvard Business School educated son Jayant Sinha, who has been entrusted the mammoth task of the newly launched UDAN Scheme to connect entire India by low cost flights said "My father is from older generation, he simply doesn't understand the new economy of New India' - a free lance consultant, a time shared person or an Uber driver are unemployed according to my father."

This tells us that what's consuming the Indian public - not a debate on the economy or their future, rather it's just plain vanilla ill will among father & son duo that's spewing out in the public domain under the media glare.

That brings me to my ponder. 

The Mulayam and Akhilesh fuelled 'parivar me diwar' gave Modi his bigger than expected victory. 

And then we have Lalu Prasad Yadav, supposedly a shrewd person with a keen political acumen, who, for the love of his son Tejaswi, threw away the last straw of power he was holding - c/o Nitish Kumar.

And how can India's privileged raja-beta be forgotten? 

In America, RaGa-baba justified dynastic rule by giving examples of the fractured & bruised and also his lost UP election partner Akhilesh Yadav. To add poverty to his already poor example, he cited the supper flop son Abhishek Bachhan of the evergreen performer Amitabh Bachhan and said "This is how India works".

The compromised media & a few gullible lapped it up and put their approval stamp on the meaningless trip of the child-man. Some termed it as a success, as he made only a partial fool of himself !

It is altogether a different matter that perhaps all the regional parties may have taken an excuse & buried their guilt - of promoting their own family members, after witnessing the rotten practice of Congress, the oldest party of India & supposedly belonging to the freedom fighter creed.

Enter the stage Narendra Damodardas Modi and the man changed the rules of the game. One of the first rules that the New India's PM made for BJP functioning, is that - no two persons from the same family shall simultaneously hold any position of power.

RaGa-baba's examples are akin to pointing at a broken down clock, which also shows the correct time twice in a day.

And the round the clock working PM is showing them all - on how India should really be working by making himself, the first citizen, as an example worthy of emulating. 

Bolo Bharat Mata Ki.... Jai Ok Please !

Bolo Vansh-wadi Politics Ki .... Hai Ok Please !