Skip to main content

Modi a mediocre leader, efficient in riots, economic adviser Subramanian had told US: BJP hardliner Swamy

Arvind Subramanian
By A Representative
Close on the heels of the appointment of Urjit Patel, formerly with International Monetary Fund (IMF) and Reliance Industries Ltd, as the new Reserve Bank of India (RBI) governor, hardline BJP leader Subramaniam Swamy has stepped up his attack on Arvind Subramanian, chief economic adviser (CEA) of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Swamy, who controversially criticized outgoing RBI governor Raghuram Rajan's alleged allegiance to the US being a green card holder, tweeted on Sunday that Subramanian called Prime Minister Narendra Modi “a mediocre leader, efficient in riots” and “asked the US to grill India in World Trade Organization for drub companies market access.”
Ending with the exclamation mark “tolerance!”, Swamy's tweet is followed by his supporters wondering as to why was Subramanian appointed CEA when he had “appealed to the US to initiate disputes against India before the WTO”. Another tweeted, “It's okay if he berated an individual not if he acted against Indian interests.” A third one called Subramanian a “US infiltrator”.
Others wondered why “blame Jaichands when they are being given a free run with open eyes rather than being nipped in the bud”, warning, this type of “tolerance” would “lead to intolerance by people in 2019”, so it would be “better to throw out” Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, the man who supposedly brought in Subramaniam “before people throw-out BJP”, and that Modi “blindly trusts Jaitley” or is “being blackmailed.”
Urjit Patel
This is the second time Swamy has attacked Subramanian. He had tweeted on June 22, “Who said to US Congress on March 13, 2013, the US should act against India to defend US pharmaceuticals interests? Arvind Subramaniam! Sack him!!”
Interestingly, Urjit Patel – known for long to be a protagonist of his predecessor Rajan – was spared of any criticism from Swamy, who said it would be “idiotic” to attack the new appointee. Swamy is known to have be in the front rank of those who attacked Rajan, who is has spoken out loudly against the atmosphere of “intolerance” in India under Modi.
Meanwhile, top British weekly “The Economist” August 20, 2016 has commented that Modi's decision to appoint Patel as RBI was “belated”, pointing out that appointment came “nine weeks after Rajan, the respected incumbent, surprised everyone by announcing he wouldn’t stay on the job for a second term.”
Saying that Patel, who was appointed as one of four RBI deputy governors by the previous UPA government in 2013, “The Economist notes, “Patel is thought to be of similar ilk to his current boss”, which should be “reassuring for investors”, who are “still baffled as to why Rajan, a former IMF chief economist with a good record as head of the RBI, was effectively sacked by Modi.”
The weekly says, “Patel’s remit at the RBI has been to help shape monetary policy”, adding “The newish inflation-targeting framework, which has been successful in stemming rising prices (helped by outside factors such as falling oil prices), is as much his as Rajan’s.”
It further comments, “Though he lacks the stature of Rajan, which probably helped fend off inevitable calls for lower interest-rates from ministers and industrialists, Patel is seen as just as hawkish as the outgoing governor. His appointment should alleviate fears that Rajan's exit was a ploy by Modi to hobble a fiercely independent central bank.”
Wondering, however, whether Patel “keeps the same amount of pressure on the banks” as Rajan did, wich would be “a vital test of the early stages of his three-year mandate” as new RBI governor, “The Economic” concludes, “Many hope the new governor will simply be a clone of the incumbent. But that would raise questions as to why Modi didn’t just stick with the original.”

Comments

  1. This guy Suwarmanian Swamy lives up all the time to the acronym - BJP: Barking Jokers Party, a barking Joker in it indeed. poopmocnin(read reverse)was never been proved right. Just dikless impotent invented manufactured imaginations farted from mouth and speak from the fart place.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

NOTE: Hateful, abusive comments won't be published. -- Editor

TRENDING

Sardar made up his mind on Pakistan in Dec 1946 "before" Mountbatten's Partition Plan

By Hari Desai* One has to be extra cautious while dealing with the history of towering personalities of the Indian freedom struggle, especially that of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (October 31, 1875 - December 15, 1950). Present-day politicians prefer to "pronounce” on his life and quote him according to their convenience like a blind person describing an elephant.

The Guardian controversy and the moral question of 12 years of Modi's leadership

By Mohd Ziyauallah Khan    A recent opinion article published in The Guardian , titled "Can Narendra Modi Accept Any Medal?", reignited a fierce debate about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's international recognition and the moral legacy of his leadership. The article argued that while Modi has received numerous state honours and awards from foreign governments, a more fundamental question remains unanswered: Can a leader be celebrated internationally while presiding over growing concerns about democratic decline, social polarization , and civil liberties at home? The controversy quickly spread across political and media circles. Supporters dismissed the article as biased, while critics argued that it reflected concerns already expressed by international democracy watchdogs , human rights organizations, and sections of the global press. Yet beyond political loyalties lies a deeper question: How should the success of a government be measured, especially when it...

Beyond the Ayodhya theft: A tainted system, a crisis of trust

By Martin Macwan*   Recently, the issue of "theft of offerings at the Ayodhya Ram temple" has taken centre stage on social media. Whether "no theft occurred," or "this is the first such incident," or "the theft was limited only to cash" are now secondary questions, because the evidence has come not from the opposition, from people of other faiths, or from foreigners, but from ordinary devout believers, from saints and monks, and from sincere workers of the ruling party itself.