The blame game

The Chindu provides opportunities for "leaders" of "secular parties" and other organizations to voice their opinions from time to time. Sometimes there's rational writing by people like Shashi Tharoor, but then again it provides people like Amar Singh an opportunity to rant.
Check out this editorial under Leader Page Articles
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/13/stories/2008031355651000.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not against leaders voicing their opinions, just that they do it themselves, not allow some-one in Anna Salai to fill in the paragraphs. Take for example this line here:

"and facilitated the increase of U.S. influence and hegemony in South Asia."

This is Chindu-speak for UPA government did not get approvals from the Chinese mandarins before discussions with the US.

Then the article goes into a tailspin ranting against Ms. Mayawati's government with lines like,

She is bent on creating a chaotic model of governance wherein governance and public policies are getting highly personalised.

The next person to face the axe of Mr.Singh is the unfortunate Mr.Pawar, the minister of Agriculture. His success in making Indian Cricket a flourishing enterprise (not that me or you could do a worse job given the demand) is held against him.

The self proclaimed leader of the farmers, Mr. Singh puts the blame squarely in the UPA government for not briding the divide. The significant waiver of the loans by the UPA government is not even mentioned.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check his earlier comments after the budget:
http://www.hindu.com/2008/03/02/stories/2008030260031000.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then Mr. Singh decides to finish off with a flourish taking on the foreign policy of the UPA government. He claims,

In the bargain, we also seem to have lost interest in managing good relations with our neighbours and traditional friends.

Now who are these neighbours and when did we have good relations with them?
Of course he must mean the confederation as defined by his party, Samajwadi Party which:

favours a confederation of India-Pakistan-Bangladesh.

Not to mention the democratic standings of the Samajwadi Party (as stated in its official website)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is the party run?
Yadav's standing ensures that he is in overall command. There is no challenger in sight. His wish is the Samajwadi Party's command.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts. Good night and good luck.