That is Indian politics for you.

Yesterday, Salman Khursheed said in a public meeting that Modi is impotant even if not culprit for Godhra riots. All right, Vir Bahadur Singh of Congress remained Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh from 24 September 1985 till 25 June 1988. He was appointed Union Minister of Communication in 1988, by Rajiv Gandhi. Does anyone remember that Meerut in Westren UP faced the worst ever communol riots in 1987 that has ever happened in India. No one uttered a word about Delhi government or other governments wherever the massacre of Sikhs happened in 1984 under congress led governments.

http://aajtak.intoday.in/story/external-affairs-minister-salman-khurshid-says-narendra-modi-is-impotent-1-755917.html

No one likes to be reminded about their own mistakes. They are only interested in pointing out the mistakes of other people. Anyway this is politics and congress will go to any measure to oppose BJP and especially Modi.

All these are not highlighted and all these seems to suggest there is a consolidated campaign to malign Modi, but he converts all those stones thrown at him to milestones.

During election times, leaders knowingly or unknowingly cross the limit of decency. However 'impotence' is also used idiomatically. If you are unable to deliver goods, this is impotence. The word used by Khurshid need not be taken literally but understood in the sense or context in which he used. He just meant that the BJP P.M. candidate may not be himself guilty but he was unable (impotent) to curb the meanace. It would be better to use the word 'unable' instead of 'impotent'. But then everyone will have to read pre written text and not able to speak extempore.

Incidentally, Khurshid has confirmed the sense in which he used the term.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/only-used-impotent-to-question-modis-political-competence-khurshid/454425-37-64.html

Absolutely, impotent used in literary meaning the second meaning can be justified, but using such words can be termed as slangs in parliamentary languages, it seems

Absolutely, impotent used in literary meaning the second meaning can be justified, but using such words can be termed as slangs in parliamentary languages, it seems

Parliamentary language ? Is it there? I thought it died of suffocation ever since the Congress took the reins of this country.

Absolutely, impotent used in literary meaning the second meaning can be justified, but using such words can be termed as slangs in parliamentary languages, it seems

Parliamentary language ? Is it there? I thought it died of suffocation ever since the Congress took the reins of this country.

You mean it went with Brits? No, it has happened ever since we have given importance to politics based on dividing people into groups in place of citizen of this country and allowing reservation on demand. Now, people are using all kind of languages to influence groups. They do not address citizen of a country but groups in particular, according to their choice even if they are from ruling party. Thanks a lot, the thread is locked.