BJP-Congress Alliance in Sikkim: AAP lie nailed

It is a fact that Congress and AAP formed a government together in Delhi. AAP was supposed to stand alone and neither give or take support of any party. At least that is what their leader Kejriwal had promised. But being famous for his U-turns, he took it again and tied up with Congress and voluntarily quit the govt in 49 days.

Each time AAPtards are reminded of their time in bed with Congress, they always point to BJP-Congress alliance in Sikkim. They quote some media reports of alliance. Some of them can be accessed here and here.

Below are some AAPtard tweets:

BJP's lie exposed! BJP joined hands with Cong in 2009 in Sikkim to fight Sikkim Democratic Front http://t.co/uJ9JPOYQeK via @dilipkpandey
— Anjani Poddar (@ReclaimBharat) March 26, 2014

Blatant lies of @narendramodi, BJP+CONG had alliance in 2009 agnst #SikkimDemocraticFront,compromised for power,no?: http://t.co/tlxXIGrgev
— Dilip K. Pandey (@dilipkpandey) March 26, 2014

Let us analyze how much truth exists in these reports and AAPtard claims.

Report on 2009 election statistics report from Chief Electoral Officer, Sikkim can be accessed HERE. This is the primary source of reference for this blog and not some news reports.

Let's turn to page 5 of 48 (page#7 in the PDF file).

What you need to know before we go further.

1. Sikkim has 32 Assembly Seats.
2. SDF has almost always won all seats for a very long time.

Who contested 2009 Sikkim elections?

Many parties contested the election, with CPI(M), SDF, BJP & Congress being the recognized parties. I have taken a screenshot of the page 5 of 48(page#7 in the PDF file) (click photo to enlarge).

As it can be seen, out of 32 seats:

• Congress contested ALL 32
• BJP contested 11
• CPM contested 3

It is also seen that:

• SDF contested ALL 32
• SDF won all ALL 32

What is noteworthy is that if there was an alliance, Congress would not have contested on all the 32 seats and left some seats for the "alliance partner" BJP. But in reality, Congress contested all 32 seats. The above chart from Election Commission of India proves that BJP and Congress did not have any alliance.

AAPtard Counter Argument

AAPtards are likely to argue that BJP contested only 11 seats, CPM 3 so they each left the remaining 21 & 29 seats respectively for Congress to win. First of all, such an alliance never takes place. When an alliance happens, seat-sharing talks happen and seats are shared among the allies.

If there is even one seat where all "allied" parties contest, it automatically means that there is no alliance between them.

I move to page 43 of 48 in the document (page# 45 in PDF file). Below is the screenshot (click photo to enlarge).

As can be seen, in this constituency, BJP, Congress and CPI(M) all contested the election. Look at the number of votes BJP won - 1.58%. If there was an alliance, all the parties would not have contested this seat together. There are many more such seats.

Even if there was to be an alliance, BJP had to be a significant player in the region. BJP has < 2% vote share, which is of absolutely no help to Congress.

SDF Won

Sikkim is now ruled by SDF, which is a party different from Congress and BJP. So there is no "post-poll" alliance of BJP & Congress wither. When I told an AAPtard about SDF, he told me that SDF is "Congress and BJP ruling". I did not go to argue further.

To know more about SDF, visit the Wikipedia page.

Conclusion

AAPtards are spreading false news reports that say that Congress and BJP had an alliance in Sikkim. Election Commission data completely disproves it. Even the Wikipedia page on 2009 Sikkim Assembly elections doesn't talk about any alliance between BJP & Congress.

It is time AAPtards stopped spreading these lies, which we all know they won't. Facts do not depend on lies. Fact remains that BJP and Congress have never allied in any state or national level elections, but AAP and Congress have.

Modi Did Nothing for Gujarat. It Was Already Developed.

Already Developed

I talked to my cousin after a long gap of 1 year. Earlier, we used to converse very often though both of us are on different poles when it comes to politics. I stand on the right on economy and political leaning, and he stands on the left in both areas.

Since we caught up after about a year, I learned that he had found his political alternative he was desperately looking for in the form of the party of super clean souls in India. When I asked him about his views on Narendra Modi, he told me that he did not favor Modi because Modi had done nothing in the past 12 years in Gujarat as a CM. He told me that Modi was only about media hype. He said that Gujarat had already been developed much before Narendra Modi assumed the position of CM of the state.

No New Development

I understood that case here was to find a way out of supporting Narendra Modi by giving the reasons of "no development", because 2002 riots arguments won't fly in the backdrop of several judgements of the judiciary. But there was no easy way to counter in one shot, his argument - "Modi has done nothing, because Gujarat was already developed before he came in".

I therefore have penned this blog to list the items that Gujarat did not have before Modi assumed office. This blog piece will serve as a ready reference to educate people with specific details on what Gujarat gained by having Narendra Modi as the CM.

A Check Dam

The List

All of the below are new initiatives exclusively pioneered by Narendra Modi government, and did not exist before.

1. 24x7 Uninterrupted Power Supply across all of Gujarat's approximately 18,000 villages.
2. Statewide drinking water grid for efficient water distribution.
3. SWAGAT system for grievance redressal.
4. 5 lakh new check dams: Now Gujarat is the only state in India where water table is rising.
5. e-Governance through broadband connectivity of ALL government offices.
6. Digitization of PDS distribution through Biometric Raiton cards.
7. Transparency portal for targeted PDS.
8. Asia's biggest solar power farm.
9. Solar panel cover (experimental) for 1 km over the Narmada Canal.
10. State-wide adoption of micro irrigation technology.
11. Ahmedabad BRTS.
12. e-Dhara: Complete computerization of land records.
13. Sabarmati Riverront
14. Interlinking of rivers of Gujarat.

Note: This list will keep growing as I learn of more exclusive initiatives of Narendra Modi. If you know of more items that could be added to this list, please mention in the comments section with appropriate links to details.

Why AAP's Post-Poll "Referendum" Has Set A Dangerous Precedent

AAP recently introduced referendum for asking public if they should form a government in Delhi or not. This is the first time in India that a political party is going to "get" public opinion on what direction to take.

This move has received welcome from many corners and also has become butt of jokes for many. There has been some criticism of this move, citing the amount of money that will flow into the pockets of telecom providers at a standard rate of Rs. 2/SMS. However, there is one angle that people probably haven't looked at with respect to AAP.

This move to go to public for every (major) issue absolves AAP from having a clear stance on any issue before they go for elections. In the manifesto, AAP can skip taking a stance key policy issues. For example, when asked about the stance on issues like terrorism and national security, they can raise their hands and make an excuse saying "we will consult the people at the right time". This is a very likely scenario which could unfold in the days preceding Lok Sabha elections.

Why is this dangerous?
SMS polls or any referendum can be rigged, and is the most unreliable form of understanding public opinion. This will most likely culminate with party leadership pre-deciding their agenda on issues prior to elections and later conducting sham SMS polls or referendum to use it as excuse for decisions against public interest.

Because of this gimmick of direct democracy, for the first time in the history of India we could see educated masses supporting a party with anti-India agenda that has not been spelt out in their manifesto or in their policy documents. This is very dangerous for politics of the country where established parties with clear stance could be pushed to the back in favour of party with completely hidden ideological agenda feigning people's opinions.

This gimmick could also be used to pass the buck to public for decisions that backfire. But that is not much of a threat to India.

Discourage Sham Referendums
Any party that goes to elections has to clarify stance on key policy issues. They can go back to public for internal party policies before elections, but after the elections, any such attempt on key policy issues that doesn't go through election commission should be discouraged, because it will in all likelihood be a fraud played on people.

AAP's untrustworthy method of seeking of public opinion has set a bad precedent. Any party could use this modus operandi to impose unpopular decisions on public under the guise of "direct democracy".