Manmohan Singh is an Underperformer..

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!!

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!!

Majority in parliament is no guarantee for good governance. This is in fact a necessary tool for giving good governance. It is for the government to effectively use this tool for good governance. However, lack of adequate majority will not be a hindrance for governance and the government will not be in constant fear of blackmail by smaller parties.

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!!

Majority in parliament is no guarantee for good governance. This is in fact a necessary tool for giving good governance. It is for the government to effectively use this tool for good governance. However, lack of adequate majority will not be a hindrance for governance and the government will not be in constant fear of blackmail by smaller parties.

Media and the public have done a lot towards making the political system transparent to a certain extent ! Of course there is a lot going on inside that we may never come to know...A majority government, if it has the will can really work wonders for the country !

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!!

Majority in parliament is no guarantee for good governance. This is in fact a necessary tool for giving good governance. It is for the government to effectively use this tool for good governance. However, lack of adequate majority will not be a hindrance for governance and the government will not be in constant fear of blackmail by smaller parties.

Media and the public have done a lot towards making the political system transparent to a certain extent ! Of course there is a lot going on inside that we may never come to know...A majority government, if it has the will can really work wonders for the country !

I appreciate that my viewpoint on need for comfortable majority to a single party in parliament is understood. Needless to say, the industrial base and infra structure like roads, dams, basic industries like steel, cement, electricity could be set up and India played a very significant role in international affairs in early post independence era owing to comfortable majority by ruling party in center and states. We may well imagine what would happen in absence of such support. even integration of India would be next to impossible. The need for comfortable majority for ruling alliance can hardly be over stated. A government that depends for existence on numerous opportunist regional outfits can hardly prove effective whatever be the personal ability of Prime Minister pr ruling Party Chief.

I dont know about him more. Lets see what happen if he selected for the post of president. Wait and see

I dont know about him more. Lets see what happen if he selected for the post of president. Wait and see

This thread is about Man Mohan Singh. Prime Minister. He is not a Presidential candidate. So, your post is not understood. Please elucidate.

I dont know about him more. Lets see what happen if he selected for the post of president. Wait and see

This thread is about Man Mohan Singh. Prime Minister. He is not a Presidential candidate. So, your post is not understood. Please elucidate.

LOL :laugh: ...Most reviews and comments received by online news reports on the subject agree with this tag of Manmohan Singh being an Underachiever and Under performer.There is a sense of disappointment , over his capabilities being unused and sacrificed for political ambitions by his party and party leaders ..

I dont know about him more. Lets see what happen if he selected for the post of president. Wait and see

This thread is about Man Mohan Singh. Prime Minister. He is not a Presidential candidate. So, your post is not understood. Please elucidate.

LOL :laugh: ...Most reviews and comments received by online news reports on the subject agree with this tag of Manmohan Singh being an Underachiever and Under performer.There is a sense of disappointment , over his capabilities being unused and sacrificed for political ambitions by his party and party leaders ..

I think he is tied up to do or take his own decision.

I dont know about him more. Lets see what happen if he selected for the post of president. Wait and see

This thread is about Man Mohan Singh. Prime Minister. He is not a Presidential candidate. So, your post is not understood. Please elucidate.

LOL :laugh: ...Most reviews and comments received by online news reports on the subject agree with this tag of Manmohan Singh being an Underachiever and Under performer.There is a sense of disappointment , over his capabilities being unused and sacrificed for political ambitions by his party and party leaders ..

I think he is tied up to do or take his own decision.

It appears that many are not yet used to democratic way. They expect Prime Minister to work without any pressure from party colleagues, other ministers, party leaders etc. They criticize P.M. for not acting completely on his own but getting advice or even directions from Sonia Gandhi. It is high time all understand how a government functions in democratic set up. Prime Minister is actually answerable to parliament which effectively means ruling alliance collectively. In a coalition, he has to listen to all alliance partners and his own party. If he acts in this process, it makes no sense in calling him a 'weak' P.M. It show only the hidden desire of these critics to turn P.M. into a dictator.

I dont know about him more. Lets see what happen if he selected for the post of president. Wait and see

This thread is about Man Mohan Singh. Prime Minister. He is not a Presidential candidate. So, your post is not understood. Please elucidate.

LOL :laugh: ...Most reviews and comments received by online news reports on the subject agree with this tag of Manmohan Singh being an Underachiever and Under performer.There is a sense of disappointment , over his capabilities being unused and sacrificed for political ambitions by his party and party leaders ..

I think he is tied up to do or take his own decision.

It appears that many are not yet used to democratic way. They expect Prime Minister to work without any pressure from party colleagues, other ministers, party leaders etc. They criticize P.M. for not acting completely on his own but getting advice or even directions from Sonia Gandhi. It is high time all understand how a government functions in democratic set up. Prime Minister is actually answerable to parliament which effectively means ruling alliance collectively. In a coalition, he has to listen to all alliance partners and his own party. If he acts in this process, it makes no sense in calling him a 'weak' P.M. It show only the hidden desire of these critics to turn P.M. into a dictator.

I dont know about him more. Lets see what happen if he selected for the post of president. Wait and see

This thread is about Man Mohan Singh. Prime Minister. He is not a Presidential candidate. So, your post is not understood. Please elucidate.

LOL :laugh: ...Most reviews and comments received by online news reports on the subject agree with this tag of Manmohan Singh being an Underachiever and Under performer.There is a sense of disappointment , over his capabilities being unused and sacrificed for political ambitions by his party and party leaders ..

I think he is tied up to do or take his own decision.

It appears that many are not yet used to democratic way. They expect Prime Minister to work without any pressure from party colleagues, other ministers, party leaders etc. They criticize P.M. for not acting completely on his own but getting advice or even directions from Sonia Gandhi. It is high time all understand how a government functions in democratic set up. Prime Minister is actually answerable to parliament which effectively means ruling alliance collectively. In a coalition, he has to listen to all alliance partners and his own party. If he acts in this process, it makes no sense in calling him a 'weak' P.M. It show only the hidden desire of these critics to turn P.M. into a dictator.

Yes that makes sense to a certain extent, but the PM does have the last say in some matters at least, whereas Manmohan Singh seems to be content remaining in the background , while other stronger personalities are responsible for all the major decisions..