The Invictus

The most recent figures show a significant economic recovery in the current fiscal year.

* GDP growth rate is set to break-out of the "hindu growth rate" mould (4-5%) and settle into a 6 - 6.5% range.

* Industrial growth is now into the second consecutive year.

* Inflation rates are on the downward curve.

* Stock markets rally has continued for the most part of the year.

* Exports continue to grow at double-digit levels.

* Foreign investments have been boosted by the steady portfolio flows.
And the foreign exchange reserves are enough to cover imports for as much as sixteen months.

* Relationships with Pakistan are seen to be improving; China has for the very first time recognised Sikkim as an integral part of India, rather than as an independent country.

* There is a sense of "practical reality" that has been brought into the Indian foreign policy - today, India does not shy away from evaluating global developments or bilateral relationships from a point of view that, for the first time again, puts India's interests in front and asks "What's in it for India?" (even if it means taking a less than "high ground", as has been defined in the decaying minds of half-baked nehruvian "secularists").

This is seen from the way how India continues to engage both Israel and Palestine, US & the former Iraq. Before you slam this as a dichotomy of sorts, let it be understood that political diplomacy is indeed based on such dichotomies! A good foreign policy in always one that benefits the country framing that policy, and not the other way round..There are no "wholes" or "absolutes" in foreign policy; A defence co-operation with Israel doesn't automatically imply a co-operation across all areas; A country is entitled to talk to Israel while talking defence, and talk to Palestine while talking International peace. It's perfectly natural. It isn't a zero-sum game either.

And for the first time, India's foreign policy has started to acknowledge this universal fact.

* On the vexed issue of "Hindu fundamentalism", I thought the fact that the supposedly "right-wing" ("non-secular" is yet another commonly used description - you may suit yourself with any of these) NDA was in power actually helped keep the real fringe elements at bay..Surprised? well, ask yourself when did Dec 06th 1992 happen? Despite being in power, has there been any major or further disruption on this issue? While conceding that Gujarat was indeed a blot (about which I am deeply ashamed of), I might also want to ask if what happened in Gujarat could have been prevented by any other non-NDA government...Well, we saw the "mother" of all communal disruptions - the babri masjid demolition - happen under the Congress government (and why didnt PVN dismiss Kalyan Singh's BJP government in the state?).

Now try asking yourself if a non-NDA government could have been succesful in reining-in these fringe elements?

Importantly, ask yourself, will the non-NDA government that will soon be hoisted on us be able to rein-in the vindicated fringe elements.

* On the "corruption" front, it is clear that for the first time in Indian politics we got to see a "less-corrupt" governance - not withstanding Tehelka (the top-layer of government still came out unscathed by Tehelka...Unlike, Harshad Mehta & his "suitcase" or Lakhubai Pathak or his "suitcase" gifts to PVN)

* Again for the first time, somebody bothered to talk about development, giving us a break from caste / religion / reservation and such other highly flammable issues.

* For all the criticism, one cannot escape acknowledging the fact that there was some amount of attention - if not progress - towards basic infrastructure.

So, does all this mean India did Shine? I don't know and I cannot comment. I cannot comment, coz I refuse to be yet another arm-chair intellectual who sits in his air-conditioned office and comments on the vast - and mostly drought-affected - population of India. But I can indeed comment on the 250m odd Indian middle-class, and how the last few years have seen the middle-class explode in size, and income levels.

So, why did "iNDiA not shine" at the hustles?

1. The India that shined - that's us, You and I - are too big to be bothered about elections or voting. So did you vote? Neither did I.

2. The India that did not shine - the rural mass - as always ensured that they voted. And they voted against the government(s) that stopped distributing free power, that reduced subsidies.

Thats not really surprising; thats human nature. Remember Herzberg and his "Hygiene vs Motivators"??

If you are happy with a product, do you talk about it? on the contrary, if you are NOT happy with the product - you are disgusted and angry about it - what do you do? You go and make yourself heard. That's exactly what they did. They made themselves heard - in Italian, I sincerely hope, for their own good.

Now thanks for hearing me out...Signing out, disgusted.

PS #1: Can't comment about others, but for me, I am disgusted at the prospect of being ruled by an Italian. Yes, I consider her an Italian, and not an Indian. If you have doubts about that, please ask her why she chose NOT to be an Indian herself for 15 years - yes, she applied for Indian citizenship in 1983 after 15 years of being in India. Wasn't that her disgust?

PS #2: The constitution created this monster called Election Commission, and gave it such far-reaching powers with absolutely no accountability to anyone, that every election time, this monster decides to rear its head - albeit in all TV channels, print media and what-have-you. Now, can they be held accountable on grounds of "Dereliction of duty" for excluding nearly 30% of the eligible voters from the electoral rolls? Isn't that denial of fundamental right? The way I look at the issue is that in a country as diverse in geography, in culture, in language, in social status etc etc, the fundamental right to exercise my vote is my ONLY national identity. And the EC just denied me that identity.

Can I ask why I should pay my taxes then?

I hope, the EC realises that its destiny lies not in the TV channels, but in that less-glamorous job called "fair and free elections".