How to make sure that ipn response come from Paypal?

Can Modi make a difference?

• We are seeing a clash of the titans in the Indian political scenario now. At one side is Narendra Modi, and on the other side, the so called secular political parties. The argument being forwarded by the Anti-Modi brigade claims that Modi is communal, he was personally responsible for the Gujarat carnage post Godhra train burning and that all his claims of development in the state are faked. He is even ignominiously called "Feku Modi". Despite being cleared by multiple SITs, he still carries the stigma of a communal man, who elicits polarized response from the populace. Some background Although India follows parliamentary-style of democracy, the central election in India has boiled down to the Modi or no-Modi factor. In the political hue and cry, where the NAMO supporters clearly seem to have defeated Congress in the Internet warfare, one thing is completely being lost – India is a Westminster democracy, and Modi needs to win a majority number of seats in the Lok Sabha to form a government, or else his own individual popularity across India will come to naught. India – government structure The Modi-mania that is currently sweeping the country is clearly faulting on one particular aspect. India does not have Presidential form of government and instead of BJP the entire focus is on Narendra Modi. There is little doubt that if India had the Presidential form of government, Narendra Modi would have won by over 50% of the popular vote. Despite being a Westminster democracy, we are witnessing a phenomenon where the individual is being glorified over the political ideology of the party he represents or the collective decision-making of the political party’s high command. The scenario is reminiscent of the US political landscape, where the President holds an important position and his personal political and economic conviction can more or less align the political ideology of the party that he represents. The US – Europe factors Post the globalization in India, the Indian economy and mental faculty has been closely intertwined with that of the US, not solely because of the friendly chemistry shared by the leaders of NDA-I and the political cabal of George W. Bush, but because a lot of Indians now visit the US on the H1-B visa and going to the US is no more the enchanted dream of the few. The election of Barack Obama was closely followed in India because it represented a fresh air, when an underdog reached that exalted position. The inextricable link of the global recession of 2007-2009 and the US subprime market and the US government’s decisions to bailout its economy had been viewed positively in India. Additionally, the bitter partisan fights being played out in the US political landscape, where we are witnessing the power of the US President, who can authorize swift and decisive actions and arm twists the opponents to get the Obamacare and other social care legislation passed, has created an aura about a strong executive, who can make quick decisions. Comparing this scenario with the European Union, where we are still witnessing a bumbling along in the Euro zone, where the collective decision making has been faltering for the past few years and the foot dragging of various interest groups, has reflected poorly on the collective decision making system, that requires consensus building as the basic building block of political decision making. The bumbling Europe has so much things resembling India. In India, during the UPA-II, we are witnessing a paralysis of policy decisions, sudden vault face of special interest groups dragging the decision making process and the spectre of corruption, an inevitable nuisance of collective decision making process, which necessitates compromises, concessions and accommodations being  offered that create enough loopholes for scams of the 2G proportion. The bumbling nature of collective decision making process has made the role of a super CEO, who can issue quick orders very appealing and alluring in the eyes of an impatient educated minority, which is extremely vocal in the social media. This is where Modi becomes an attractive alternative to a lot of people. If we do a comparative analysis, we will notice that Modi’s popularity and rise in the Indian political landscape closely mimics the increased coverage of the US politics in the Indian media as well as the spread of Internet across India. With increased coverage of the US – the launch of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, bailout of major banks in the US, the US President’s solemn assurance that the US will work towards preventing the recurrence of economic crises of the magnitudes of the catastrophic 2007-2009 recession, the Indian media also covered the rise of a political leader in Gujarat, who overcame the stigma of being a pariah in the politics who claimed to offer good governance, development and economic growth in the state, which he runs. The digital and print media carried stories, subsequently repeated over and over again in the social media, of a charismatic leader who micromanages everything to root out corruption and delays in industrial projects and government decision making. The stories took a folk tale proportion with endorsement from industry stalwarts who heaped praise on the so-called Gujarat developed model, where industries can be swiftly developed without the arduous delays related to thousands of regulatory clearances and the nuisance of peasants demanding reparation for the land acquired for the development. The relocation of the Tata Nano factory to Gujarat only bolstered the claim of a government, which meant business. The media, unlike the tales of Narmada dam, never covered stories related to the plight of people who may have lost their land and livelihood. It was mere collateral damage, a sacrifice – cannon fodders in the path of development. A nation lost During the 2009-2011 period, when the Indian government was operating without a clue to what it wanted to do with the declining economic growth rate in India, the panics in the stock market and the apparent loss in the economic direction worldwide, when global leaders looked hapless in addressing the European crisis and the subsequent fallout effect in the Indian market, the development stories coming out a state, seemed like a torch in the gloomy darkness. The folk tales of Gujarat model took mythical proportions when development stories from Gujarat were being published and republished everywhere. Everyone needed good news to cheer them up and here was a leader, who overcame the communal stigma and guiding his state in the path of blazing glory. There were minor hiccups in the path such as the stories on the demolition of Islamic religious structures to widen roads, but they were soon countered by statistics on the demolition of Hindu temples and churches, which were undertaken in the name of development. The media and the new India, considering itself unshackled from the religious stagnation of the yore, cheered on. However, the tales of the proverbial darkness under the lamp, the subaltern story of people, who could not adjust to the pace of development and dropped out from the race on the way, were never addressed. After all, everyone wants to be the proud representative of a super power. No one is interesting in listening to the whines of a loser. Contribution of UPA-II The UPA-II government, which took ridiculousness to classical heights could not help but look on. To counter the Modi story, it tried to bring in policy changes, passed the food security bill (which, tragically countered its previous claims of a steady decline in poverty by the passage of this act), was hindered by the collective decision making system of the Westminster democracy. On the other hand, unshackled of the burdens of such nuisance, the social media paeaned Modi, glorifying him as a Messiah and began calling him NAMO (abbreviation of Narendra Modi and an endearment offered to Hindu deities). Change in the Indian psyche A paradigm shift in the Indian psyche has also contributed to the glorification of Narendra Modi. The mushrooming of the technology and management colleges in India has brought a revolutionary change in India. Unlike, in the past, when knowledge and access to knowledge was extremely limited to a small group of extremely meritorious, who came from a long lineage of such families, now we are witnessing first or second generation Indians entering the job market, earlier closed to most of the population. The resulting fall out is much open discussion, but the side effect has been the erosion of the long-revered practice of accommodation and consensus building in the thought process, which was the hallmark of scholarly and critical arguments. The first and second generation technocrats are impatient, are not ready for a gradual change and want instant gratification. The decisiveness and the strong Hindutva political ideology espoused by Modi chimes with this generation as it acknowledges the rustic background of this new generation, while addressing the impatient and decisiveness demanded by the newer generation. It is interesting to note that Narendra Modi commands higher popularity among the younger generation, than people who are in the above 45 age group. Coronation BJP, the centre-right political party in the Indian political spectrum, of which Modi is a member, has been out of power in the Central government for the past nine years. With the departure of Atal Bihari Vajpayee from politics, it had struggled to establish of strong cohesive opposition to Congress. It failed to project a unifying leader, who could carry the masses and be acceptable as a leader to its allies, was missing. The emergence of Modi changed this leadership vacuum. Buoyed by the adulation Modi received from the lower and mid-rung leadership, BJP anointed him as its prime ministerial Candidate for the 2014 Central Election. A leader, much tainted by one of the worst communal massacres in the history of India has finally come a full circle. Work style of Narendra Modi If media reports and the public relations news releases are to be believed, Narendra Modi is a workaholic and has a clear focus on the development of his state. He is a no nonsense person with a passion for his work and if social media is to be believed, seemingly incorruptible. There are even stories that he told industrialists that they should directly approach him in case they find any difficulty in receiving clearances and if bribes are demanded. This practically shows the work ethics of a one man army, with all the bucks stopping at his desk. However, it has serious ramifications, symbolizing the leader’s inability to delegate authorities and his apparent ignorance of the consensus building exercise so much important in a parliamentarian democracy. What is more troubling is that instead of developing incorruptible institutions, he has taken over the roles of various ministries, which should have been delegated to other leaders for quicker management. His departure from the centre of power in Gujarat may see the return of corruption and a paralysis in the governance as the bureaucracy and the political leadership had become accustomed to differing to him when making landmark decisions. Power sharing and the politics in Delhi If BJP manages to win enough seats in the coming Lok Sabha election to form an alliance with local satraps to form a government in Delhi, Modi is destined to be the new prime minister of the country. He will be faced with a different dilemma here. So far, he has been the one man army in BJP’s arsenal with him claiming the votes, not for the party but for him. Once the government is formed, he will have to adjust the diversity of India, take up responsibilities of bridging the gulf between political thinking of his allies; mollify the local satraps, for whom local political equations hold more value than the welfare of the state. He will have to resort to the much maligned consensus building process, adjust to the vault face of associates and offer concessions, which may in the short term have adverse effect on the country. He will have to accommodate political ambitions of smaller parties and their relentless pursuit of plum ministries, who will demand that policy making in those ministries must stay out of the ambits of the group of ministers (GoM) and extended group of ministers (EGoM) councils. Modi, who had been the one man army in his state, where he had been able to make sweeping decisions without consulting his ministers will have to make compromises, delaying policy decisions or risk the fall of the government. If he plays his cards well, he may be able to put the blame on his coalition partners, but there will be a time when the aura of an invincible leader will take a beating and he will be held accountable for every failure and crisis his government encounters, much like what Dr Manmohan Singh faces today. He will be reduced from the demigod he is today to a mere mortal, unless he risks losing power and faces a revolt from the senior members in the party, who will prefer to make accommodations to stay in power. Such a scenario may play in both ways – Modi remaining uncompromising and losing power and being side lined in his party or Modi risking his political capital and image to grow into a parliamentarian politician, who takes on the task of consensus building to achieve political goals but loses out to his core supporters who want a decisive and super CEO as their political leader. He will be reduced to another political leader who has to work his way out of the labyrinth of parliamentarian democracy, not the haloed presence being presented today. The Indian political landscape will have to wait and watch which path Modi chooses, but one thing is certain, the consensus building, bumbling democracy of India or the continental Europe cannot be wished away, if one desires to make an impact on the country. It is an institution built over the years, which can topple or accommodate a person, based on the road he takes.

• Answer:

  In order to make an observable/notable difference in our country's politics or the way government functions, Modi requires a carte blanche which is possible only if BJP gets sufficient no. of seats in LS. This is the situation in Gujarat where BJP has formed the government on it's own. The possibility of BJP getting atleast 272 seats is very less. BJP will be getting seats in the range of 166 - 210. Lets presume that BJP gets 210 seats still it has to form alliance with some others parties to have government at the centre. But if BJP gets the required number , Modi surely can make a lot of difference.