BJP can do course correction.. Here it is..


Well-Known Member

He's asking that the sample size for VVpat be increased from the present one per constituency to 25%

the sample size of ‘one polling station per Assembly Constituency’ is statistically unsound not only in terms of its size but also because the various polling stations in the constituency are not similar and the sample drawn may not be truly representative of the constituency as a whole. There is an imperative need for stratified sampling with a random sample of one or more polling stations drawn from each of the following ‘strata’: urban; semi-urban; rural; those in remote hilly/desert/forest areas; those with very heavy voter turnout (> 80%); those with moderate voter turnout (50% to 80%); those with low voter turnout (<50%); those about which a large number of complaints were received, and so on.

We, therefore, suggest that VVPAT slips must be simultaneously counted for a sample size of at least 25% of the polling stations in an Assembly Constituency with the samples drawn randomly from the different strata and verified with the electronic count. If any variation is found then the entire VVPAT slips in the constituency should be counted and tallied with the electronic count before declaring the result. We believe this is a direction that can be issued by your office for the upcoming 2019 general elections, in order to a greater standard of fairness and transparency in the electoral process.

He also wants the failure rate of vvpats to be brought down from 25% to 2-4% which is the accepted rate of EVM failure currently

The man in question


Well-Known Member
Fascinating interview with the PM

Sine the opposition likes to take shots on the jobs front here's what he had to say

Swarajya: We will discuss some of these issues. But the challenge No 1 is jobs. Where are the jobs? The opposition is finding traction in asking this question…

Modi: On this issue, more than a lack of jobs, the issue is a lack of data on jobs. Our opponents will naturally exploit this opportunity to paint a picture of their choice and blame us. I don’t blame our opponents for blaming us on the issue of jobs, after all no one has an accurate data on jobs. Our traditional matrix of measuring jobs is simply not good enough to measure new jobs in the new economy of New India.

Swarajya: So, how do we measure jobs? Where do we go from here?

Modi: When we look at the trends in employment in our country, we need to keep in mind that today, the interests and aspirations of our youth are diverse. For example, there are close to 3 lakh village-level entrepreneurs who are running Common Service Centres across the country and also creating more employment. Start-ups are working as job multipliers and there are around 15,000 start-ups, which the government has helped in some way and there will be many more operational. Aggregators of various kinds employ thousands of youth.

If we look at numbers for employment, more than 41 lakh formal jobs were created from September 2017 to April 2018 based on EPFO payroll data. According to a study based on EPFO data, more than 70 lakh jobs were created in the formal sector last year.

Now, you know that informal sector constitutes around 80 per cent of all jobs. We also know that job creation in the formal sector can have a spinoff effect on job creation in the informal sector too. If 41 lakh jobs were generated in the formal sector in eight months, how much would be the total formal plus informal sector jobs?

Swarajya: But experts still doubt this way of measuring jobs…

Modi: India had around 66 lakh registered enterprises from Independence till July last year. In just one year, 48 lakh new enterprises got registered. Will this not result in more formalisation and better jobs?

More than 12 crore loans have been given under Mudra (micro loans). Is it unfair to expect that one loan would have created or supported means of livelihood for at least one person?

More than one crore houses have been constructed in the last one year; how much employment would this have generated? If road construction has more than doubled per month, if there is tremendous growth in railways, highways, airlines, etc, what does it indicate? Is it possible without employing more people in equal proportions?

A recent international report showed how quickly poverty in India is declining. Do you think that is possible without people having jobs?

Swarajya: But your opponents doubt the data…

Modi: There is a lack of consistency in the political debate around job creation. We have data put out by state governments on employment. For example, the previous Karnataka government claimed to have created 53 lakh jobs. The West Bengal government said it created 68 lakh jobs in the last term. Now, if states are all creating good numbers of jobs, is it possible that the country is not creating jobs? Is it possible that states are creating jobs but the Centre is creating joblessness?

On minimum govt and max governance.

Swarajya: Before 2014, you talked of minimum government, maximum governance? Can you expand on how you have moved towards this goal? What exactly did you mean by this phrase?

Modi: I have always believed, and said it on multiple occasions, that less dependence on governments is the way ahead.

A government needs to maximise productivity and optimise processes. It has to play the role of an enabler and not an obstructer.

We have translated this philosophy into action over the last four years. Technology plays an important role in achieving this aim.

The end objective of ‘minimum government, maximum governance’ is to make the lives of people hassle-free, often by removing the hindrances a government can create and to let people achieve their full potential.

Swarajya: Can you give us examples?

Modi: Take, for example, the move of making self-attestation for submission of document copies. Earlier, people had to look for notaries or gazetted officers and request them for attestation. Often, they even ended up paying a Rs 50 or 100 for this. Now, we have shown that the government trusts its people, we reduced a layer of government and it was a relief to crores of people.

While many governments are proud of making new laws, I am proud of abolishing archaic laws. More than a thousand archaic laws have been done away with.

We also scrapped interviews for Class 3 and Class 4 jobs in the government. One less layer of government, one less avenue for nepotism and corruption, and a boost to honest candidates.

We abolished the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) and most of the FDI approvals happen through the automatic route.

Swarajya: What about ease of doing business?

Modi: For ease of doing business, the earlier mandatory 56 registers maintained under various labour laws have now been replaced by five common registers and 36 forms have been reduced to 12. All the existing labour laws are being simplified, rationalised and amalgamated into four labour codes.

Processes for incorporating a company have been simplified and it is now possible to get it done in 24 hours.

Building approval procedures from municipal authorities has been reduced – from 24 to eight in Delhi and 37 to eight in Mumbai. The entire process of application and approval at all stages of construction has been made online and no personal visit or contact is necessary. Requirement of affidavit has been done away with and replaced by e-undertaking. This is being extended to all urban local bodies.

We have started a system of online application and approval for environmental clearances which used to be stuck in delays earlier.

GST has been designed to eliminate Inspector Raj with the help of information technology. From returns to refund, everything happens online.

On the Shram Suvidha portal, multiple labour compliances can be logged at one place. Labour inspectors are also disallowed from swooping down on companies, instead they are now guided by a computerised system that sends them on inspections based on objective criteria.

In most government schemes, we have eliminated a layer of government by making fund transfers through DBT (direct benefit transfer) or cash transfers.

I can go on and on about such measures, but perhaps you will have space constraints. So, let’s move to the next question.


Swarajya: A year ago you launched the GST claiming it as a good and simple tax. We believe it is certainly a good tax, but is it really simple? Your critics say the tax should ideally have had only one single rate with just a few items in an upper and lower merit slab.

Modi: It would have been very simple to have just one slab but it would have meant we could not have food items at zero per cent tax rates. Can we have milk and Mercedes at the same rates? So, when our friends in Congress say that they will have just one GST rate, they are effectively saying they will tax food items and commodities, which are currently at zero or 5 per cent, at 18 per cent.

Swarajya: What are the benefits so far, according to you?

Modi: Let me start with some numbers. The number of enterprises registered from Independence until now was 66 lakh. In just one year after the introduction of GST, the number of new enterprises registered is 48 lakh. Around 350 crore invoices were processed and 11 crore returns were filed. Would we be looking at such numbers if GST were indeed very complex?

Check-posts across the country have been abolished and there are no more queues at state borders. Not only are truck drivers saving precious time but also the logistics sector is getting a boost and thereby increasing the productivity of our country. Would this be happening if GST was complex?

Swarajya: Why do we still hear so much criticism from business and economists?

Modi: GST was a massive change, requiring a complete reset of one of the world’s largest economic systems. The reform merged 17 taxes, 23 cesses into one single tax. When it was finally introduced, it was our endeavour to make it simple and ensure sensitivity of the system. There are often teething troubles seen when a reform of this magnitude is carried out, but these issues were not only identified but also addressed in real time.

Swarajya: GST is still a work in progress even after one year...

Modi: GST is an evolving system and we calibrate it based on feedback from state governments, people, media, etc. A lot of feedback from the people, traders, etc. has been incorporated.

GST has seen Indian cooperative federalism at its best. We consolidated the states and developed proactively a consensus where earlier governments had failed.

Swarajya: Will we see rates coming down further?

Modi: Talking about rates, earlier many taxes were hidden. Now, what you see is what you pay. Government has reduced taxes on nearly 400 groups of items. Around 150 groups of items have zero per cent tax rate. If you look at the rates, for most of the day-to-day commodities the rate has actually come down. Be it rice, wheat, sugar, spices, etc, total tax levied has been reduced in in most cases. Large number of items of daily usage are either exempted or in 5 per cent slab. Some 95 per cent items fall in/below the 18 per cent slab.


Well-Known Member
So they had their no confidence show. 325 disagreed the govt should go. As a health check at this point it looks like the NDA is healthy

no confidence.png

Interesting speech by TDP MP from Guntur, Jaydev Galla

Modi screwed AP and he is letting the world know


Well-Known Member
Interesting interview with James Crabtree on Modi

Your assessment of Prime Minister Modi, in the last chapter of your book, is something many may agree with.
You mention that for a man who came to power with such a thumping majority his decisions till now have been timid.
You also refer to his huge preoccupation with winning an election, which exceeds all else.
Isn't that a depressing scenario given that Modi can have several terms in office and if his focus is always on the next election, there isn't going to be too much exciting that he will do for India in between?
There is also the fear that he might become a much more autocratic kind of figure, with time.

I think the idea that Modi will have what you might call a radical second term -- he will do all he can in the second term -- is very unlikely.

Once a relatively cautious politician always a pretty cautious politician.

But I think Indian liberals tend to worry that Modi is going to turn into a kind of Putin figure.

Or a Recep Tayyip Erdogan?

Or (Turkish President) Erdogan. I think that is also quite unlikely.

The most likely scenario is that Modi returns as a much weaker, second-term, prime minister.

It is going to be very, very hard for him to return with a comparably large majority.

Now I don't know what it is going to happen in the election and nobody else does.

Most likely scenario is Modi comes back with either a much smaller majority and no majority at all and a coalition.

Very hard to imagine him doing better than he did last time. He will then be a weaker prime minister.

So this idea -- the scenario on which Modi becomes a real autocrat, those would be very worrying scenarios -- but I don't think they are likely.

It is much more likely that the problem we will have with Modi's second term is that he is less able to do the things he needs to do than he was in his first.

That means the things that India really needs to do are still not going to happen for ten years at least?

Not at all. Modi has been a reasonable effective administrator of the Indian economy.

Putting demonetisation to one side -- which was a disaster and one the dumbest things any leader has done in a long time -- most of the rest of the stuff he has done has been fairly reasonable on the economy.

One can argue that he should have done faster and he should have done more, but he hasn't made many mistakes.

So I would expect the same to be true in the second term -- relatively steady, sensible economic progress, but probably not the kind of radical reforms that India needs.

That's not to say that nothing is going to happen. It is just that it won't happen as quickly as one might like.


Well-Known Member
People are referring to the recently concluded state elections as a semi-final for the general election next year.

Elections in the Hindi belt – Why the BJP should be worried

if less than 5000 voters had preferred the BJP over the Congress in Madhya Pradesh, for instance, the former would have had an absolute majority of the seats
This margin just blows my mind for a state like MP. MP is not small. These are state elections not city corporation elections.

Argument presented is BJP lost safe seats in the hindi heartland and it needs those seats if it wants to retain power. So whatever it thinks is safe may in fact not be.

My question is to what extent can we extrapolate the results of a state election to the general ? people's motivations to chose one party over another differ in these two instances.

Nalapat isn't very charitable to the BJP's recent performance either.

3 - 0 is 3 -0 how so ever way you want to cut it.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
^ agreed. This election was wayy too close. congress will lose like it did in telangana if they become complacent. They did absolutely ****k all last4 years but suddenly came with mahakutami which flopped hard


om nom nom
So no congress member in history will ever write anything true, and EVERYTHING that ANY bjp member says is truth?


om nom nom
Funny, but people don't respond as negatively when it's the bjp members spouting nonsense.

A congress guy writes an actually coherent and logical article and it's treated with suspicion. If someone actually went through the content, they would maybe realise...


Well-Known Member
So no congress member in history will ever write anything true, and EVERYTHING that ANY bjp member says is truth?
I'm more sensistive to critiques by BJP followers of their party's performance than the opposition. If Congress were in office i would be following congress watchers. Simple.

Listen to what Nalapat has to say. According to him unless some big fish are hauled in within the next few months the BJP is as good as gone. He even talks about Modi being in the opposition next time. Which MSM media will dare say that.

No, Chritsian Michel is not enough.


om nom nom
I got both @Pat & your points, but what i'm saying is just because someone's talking about the opposition doesn't make it 100% unlikely to be true.

Haven't watched the video yet, maybe later, but i think they will try to get mallya because he was the biggest fish till chota modi and choksi. For some reason the media has completely forgotten about the other two and hounding mallya.

I was never a fan of mallya, (even though i drank kf), but the media trial is ridiculous. I almost have sympathy for the dude. Not for the fraud he did but how the case is being handled now.


Well-Known Member
People go on about corruption in politics but look at the record in India and compare it with the US.

What are the chances of a party to get re-elected at the centre ? 50%

What are the chances of a US president getting a second term ? higher

Since WW2, leaving out the Nixon era. Other than Carter & HW Bush every other president got a second term. This means the incumbent party has strong patronage networks and the opposition is at a disadvantage.

Not so in India where the mood changes at the drop of a hat for whatever reason. I've seen people on this very board that voted for Modi in 2014 but today will find any frivolous excuse not to vote for him again.
Last edited:


Well-Known Member
This 'congress mukht bharat' line got put out at the end of the last general election. Suggesting that BJP will somehow cleanse India of the Congress party. Nonsense.

What is the primary reason for the decline of the Congress party ? Not the BJP (!)

It's the rise of regional parties. Those parties co-opted the Congress agenda wholesale and put a local guy up front. Why do you need some guy from Delhi when i can do it and i also speak your language.

This robs Congress of its primary USP in states that have such parties. Where there are no regional contenders you find Congress & BJP pretty much neck & neck with reversals now and then.


Well-Known Member
This article and its tone particularly the last para is precisely why Modi has to win in 2019. It would mean stability of policy which would boost the stock market.

To lose would mean a stock market crash and uncertainty as a hodge podge of parties gets together with no other interest than their own and extracting pounds of flesh for every vote regardless of national interest. If it is to be the case i hope that Rahul's economics is better than his mothers. Nalapat seems to think it is, we will see.


om nom nom
Err, good policy is exactly what this govt. lacks. Not talking about ripping off the public via various means, but normal policies which any govt. worth it's salt should be able to implement, these guys have made a mess of pretty much everything. The economy is in shambles, and don't go blaming the rest of the world for it. Our primary problems are from within.

Your last para is pretty accurate though, sadly.