There was a report in today's paper that Mamata was in the know about the Railway Minister's recent decision to hike fares (even if it was nominal). This came after all the hungama about the increase in fares and Mamata's public posturing about the PM needing to sack Dinesh Trivedi. Apparently even opposition leaders were in the know and it was thought that the hike was unavoidable, given the present condition of the Indian Railways. 

Why are our politicians afraid of coming out into the open about something that they secretly acknowledge is for the greater good? Are they afraid that people (read voters) will see them to be anti-poor, anti-middle class and anti-everything in general? As soon as Mamata started making noises one of the ideas doing the rounds was that Mamata privately agreed to the hike but was publicly raising a cry to maintain her pro-aam aadmi image. If this is not true then Mamata is indeed turning out to be a populist demagogue of the most dangerous kind. Our politicians should not shy away from public debate on issues like FDI in retail, deregulation of petrol prices and such issues. They should stop thinking that the aam aadmi cannot understand such issues. If that is the perception they should strive to educate them and then take executive decisions which are in the interest of the country.

Take FDI in retail for instance. Granted, there might be a community of shopkeepers who might get adversely affected at least in the short term. However the middle class (which also includes these shopkeepers) would stand to gain from reduced prices and greater efficiencies in the supply chain. Why does the government not highlight such issues?

Moving on, the Gujarat Congress is up in arms against two articles published recently in the US. One was by TIME magazine and the other by the Brookings Institution. These seem to have praised Modi for developing Gujarat into what it is today. This seems to be a very good example of sour grapes. India is a free country where we have an independent Election Commission. Modi is still winning support of the people. The riots constitute an ugly blot on our democracy. However till date no court has found Modi to be guilty of anything with regard to the riots. So does the Congress not believe in our courts? Is it not contempt of court to pre-judge the guilt of Modi? Naveen Patnaik is a person who has been facing spectacular success in Odisha (I do not like imposing one's language on others, I prefer Orissa) has a personally clean image and is said to be working for the development of the state. Today more and more the Indian voter seems to be voting for development rather than for anything else. The Congress however seems intent on tarring Modi with the communal brush at every available turn. Its leaders insist on minority appeasement (remember Salman Khurshid's claim about Sonia Gandhi shedding tears about the Batla House encounter? I believe his wife, Louise lost the election).Salman Rushdie targeted young leaders like Akhilesh Yadav and Rahul Gandhi. He pointed out how minority appeasement failed. Our politicians should realize this and develop more guts as far as national interest is concerned.