Times Magazine has interests of west in mind. If FDI is allowed liberally, the P.M. will be considered strong.

Although, BJP is using Time report to malign the P.M., Congress has drawn attention to Times comment on Atal Behari Vajpayee. The magazine had similarly commented on Vajpayee.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/time-s-evaluation-of-pm-sparks-slugfest-between-cong-bjp_786494.html

When we talk of strong P.M., we ignore bare facts of parliamentary democracy and argue on the beaten track mindlessly.

A strong government and strong P.M. emerges from convincing parliamentary majority only.

Unless you vote Congress to 300 Lok Sabha seats and give two third majority, neither Sonia nor Rahul nor Man Mohan Singh nor any one can be strong P.M. or form a strong government.

Similarly with BJP. Without adequate parliamentary seats, neither Modi nor Adwani, nor Jetli nor sushma can be strong P.M.

Unless you give strong mandate to any nation level party, you have no business to 'desire' for a 'strong P.M. or government'.

Times Magazine has interests of west in mind. If FDI is allowed liberally, the P.M. will be considered strong.

Although, BJP is using Time report to malign the P.M., Congress has drawn attention to Times comment on Atal Behari Vajpayee. The magazine had similarly commented on Vajpayee.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/time-s-evaluation-of-pm-sparks-slugfest-between-cong-bjp_786494.html

When we talk of strong P.M., we ignore bare facts of parliamentary democracy and argue on the beaten track mindlessly.

A strong government and strong P.M. emerges from convincing parliamentary majority only.

Unless you vote Congress to 300 Lok Sabha seats and give two third majority, neither Sonia nor Rahul nor Man Mohan Singh nor any one can be strong P.M. or form a strong government.

Similarly with BJP. Without adequate parliamentary seats, neither Modi nor Adwani, nor Jetli nor sushma can be strong P.M.

Unless you give strong mandate to any nation level party, you have no business to 'desire' for a 'strong P.M. or government'.

Thats very true ! But in the present political scenario this may never happen since there are far too many parties .The only solution probably would be to merge all the smaller parties ..

Times Magazine has interests of west in mind. If FDI is allowed liberally, the P.M. will be considered strong.

Although, BJP is using Time report to malign the P.M., Congress has drawn attention to Times comment on Atal Behari Vajpayee. The magazine had similarly commented on Vajpayee.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/time-s-evaluation-of-pm-sparks-slugfest-between-cong-bjp_786494.html

When we talk of strong P.M., we ignore bare facts of parliamentary democracy and argue on the beaten track mindlessly.

A strong government and strong P.M. emerges from convincing parliamentary majority only.

Unless you vote Congress to 300 Lok Sabha seats and give two third majority, neither Sonia nor Rahul nor Man Mohan Singh nor any one can be strong P.M. or form a strong government.

Similarly with BJP. Without adequate parliamentary seats, neither Modi nor Adwani, nor Jetli nor sushma can be strong P.M.

Unless you give strong mandate to any nation level party, you have no business to 'desire' for a 'strong P.M. or government'.

Thats very true ! But in the present political scenario this may never happen since there are far too many parties .The only solution probably would be to merge all the smaller parties ..

The smaller parties are regional. You cannot convert regional to national by mere merger. The only way to get a strong P.M. or strong and effective government is to choose from the alternatives- (1) Congress (2) BJP (3) Left

I don't think Time Magazine did it with any such ulterior motive. It's stretching imagination too much! Why we can't accept any fair evaluation with an objective mind. I would attach greater importance to the study itself than bringing in extraneous element of which party benefits or its far-fetched motives!

Times Magazine has interests of west in mind. If FDI is allowed liberally, the P.M. will be considered strong.

Although, BJP is using Time report to malign the P.M., Congress has drawn attention to Times comment on Atal Behari Vajpayee. The magazine had similarly commented on Vajpayee.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/time-s-evaluation-of-pm-sparks-slugfest-between-cong-bjp_786494.html

When we talk of strong P.M., we ignore bare facts of parliamentary democracy and argue on the beaten track mindlessly.

A strong government and strong P.M. emerges from convincing parliamentary majority only.

Unless you vote Congress to 300 Lok Sabha seats and give two third majority, neither Sonia nor Rahul nor Man Mohan Singh nor any one can be strong P.M. or form a strong government.

Similarly with BJP. Without adequate parliamentary seats, neither Modi nor Adwani, nor Jetli nor sushma can be strong P.M.

Unless you give strong mandate to any nation level party, you have no business to 'desire' for a 'strong P.M. or government'.

Thats very true ! But in the present political scenario this may never happen since there are far too many parties .The only solution probably would be to merge all the smaller parties ..

The smaller parties are regional. You cannot convert regional to national by mere merger. The only way to get a strong P.M. or strong and effective government is to choose from the alternatives- (1) Congress (2) BJP (3) Left

Not necessarily ! there are parties like BSP,SP,DMK,JDS,JDU and many more who are all contesting the Loksabha elections also winning a few seats and they get a lot of clout in a coalition government often able to call the shots and even help bring down the government !

Times Magazine has interests of west in mind. If FDI is allowed liberally, the P.M. will be considered strong.

Although, BJP is using Time report to malign the P.M., Congress has drawn attention to Times comment on Atal Behari Vajpayee. The magazine had similarly commented on Vajpayee.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/time-s-evaluation-of-pm-sparks-slugfest-between-cong-bjp_786494.html

When we talk of strong P.M., we ignore bare facts of parliamentary democracy and argue on the beaten track mindlessly.

A strong government and strong P.M. emerges from convincing parliamentary majority only.

Unless you vote Congress to 300 Lok Sabha seats and give two third majority, neither Sonia nor Rahul nor Man Mohan Singh nor any one can be strong P.M. or form a strong government.

Similarly with BJP. Without adequate parliamentary seats, neither Modi nor Adwani, nor Jetli nor sushma can be strong P.M.

Unless you give strong mandate to any nation level party, you have no business to 'desire' for a 'strong P.M. or government'.

Thats very true ! But in the present political scenario this may never happen since there are far too many parties .The only solution probably would be to merge all the smaller parties ..

The smaller parties are regional. You cannot convert regional to national by mere merger. The only way to get a strong P.M. or strong and effective government is to choose from the alternatives- (1) Congress (2) BJP (3) Left

Not necessarily ! there are parties like BSP,SP,DMK,JDS,JDU and many more who are all contesting the Loksabha elections also winning a few seats and they get a lot of clout in a coalition government often able to call the shots and even help bring down the government !

They win some seats in Lok sabha and get berth in cabinet highly disproportionate to actual strength. It is predominance of these parties that gives rise to weak Prime Minister.

I don't think Time Magazine did it with any such ulterior motive. It's stretching imagination too much! Why we can't accept any fair evaluation with an objective mind. I would attach greater importance to the study itself than bringing in extraneous element of which party benefits or its far-fetched motives!

I agree! Also, the basic and most important measure of any good government is the well being of the common and poor people. I don't care much about the correct procedures involved ins electing any PM or president or anything such, but I do understand that if a government is really doing well, then the number of people that go hungry every day should be less. In India, there are millions of people dying from hunger and malnutrition while at the same time millions of tonnes of grains rot due to mismanagement. This may be something that is not related within the scope of a PM's role, but ultimately all such issues indirectly fall under the government as whole and its policies!

When we think of such and more issues, he has failed miserably!!

I don't think Time Magazine did it with any such ulterior motive. It's stretching imagination too much! Why we can't accept any fair evaluation with an objective mind. I would attach greater importance to the study itself than bringing in extraneous element of which party benefits or its far-fetched motives!

I agree! Also, the basic and most important measure of any good government is the well being of the common and poor people. I don't care much about the correct procedures involved ins electing any PM or president or anything such, but I do understand that if a government is really doing well, then the number of people that go hungry every day should be less. In India, there are millions of people dying from hunger and malnutrition while at the same time millions of tonnes of grains rot due to mismanagement. This may be something that is not related within the scope of a PM's role, but ultimately all such issues indirectly fall under the government as whole and its policies!

When we think of such and more issues, he has failed miserably!!

Good governance cannot come in a vacuum or by wishful thinking. Nor you can get a government that works strongly and effectively by pious intentions alone. Strong majority of any national level party is essential condition for getting a government that works. Otherwise, you will get only a weak P.M. and weak coalition government subject to blackmail by all and sundry. Such government can hardly be expected to perform.

[quote]Good governance cannot come in a vacuum or by wishful thinking. Nor you can get a government that works strongly and effectively by pious intentions alone. Strong majority of any national level party is essential condition for getting a government that works. Otherwise, you will get only a weak P.M. and weak coalition government subject to blackmail by all and sundry. Such government can hardly be expected to perform. [/quote]

Asking for good governance and food can NEVER be wishful thinking. The party politics and majority, minority of parties in alliance etc etc is something that a common man will never understand and will not want to. What he will want to understand is why he is unable to put enough food on the table for his children even when he is working at back breaking labour for 18 hours any given day and when there is a bountiful food and crops cultivated in his country every year! A good governance will instead of indulging in party politics will feed the man that works hard to provide food to those party officials! This is a very simple logic and where a government fails to do that, the ruling supremo of that government is a loser!

I don't think Time Magazine did it with any such ulterior motive. It's stretching imagination too much! Why we can't accept any fair evaluation with an objective mind. I would attach greater importance to the study itself than bringing in extraneous element of which party benefits or its far-fetched motives!

I agree! Also, the basic and most important measure of any good government is the well being of the common and poor people. I don't care much about the correct procedures involved ins electing any PM or president or anything such, but I do understand that if a government is really doing well, then the number of people that go hungry every day should be less. In India, there are millions of people dying from hunger and malnutrition while at the same time millions of tonnes of grains rot due to mismanagement. This may be something that is not related within the scope of a PM's role, but ultimately all such issues indirectly fall under the government as whole and its policies!

When we think of such and more issues, he has failed miserably!!

Good governance cannot come in a vacuum or by wishful thinking. Nor you can get a government that works strongly and effectively by pious intentions alone. Strong majority of any national level party is essential condition for getting a government that works. Otherwise, you will get only a weak P.M. and weak coalition government subject to blackmail by all and sundry. Such government can hardly be expected to perform.

I would question the very formulation that a a brute majority at the centre can ensure good governance. Historically speaking it has not been so.Talking about corruption more Congress ministers and chief minister are found to be corrupt and what has been the role of Mr.Manmohan Singh? Good governance can be ensured by public pressure through pious intentions or whatever you prefer to call it! This country could not have known existence several scams and scandals, had not the Supreme Court and public pressure been there. Dr. Singh won't be shining in glory when history records his conspiratorial efforts to sweep the dirt under the carpet!!