Where competition possible govt must privatise,where only monopoly is possible avoid privatisation seems to the guiding principle of AAP - Mediacrooks take on `AAPnomics` ! The Devil in Disguise! Old principle at Tennis events: The ball-boys are most efficient when they arenâ€™t seen at all. Try explaining this as best as you can: â€œWhere competition is possible govt must privatise, where only monopoly is possible we should avoid privatisationâ€. Thatâ€™s a loose translation of what Arvind Kejriwal said in his speech in Hindi to CII on February 17, 2014. That statement went over the heads of the educated audience at CII. It also went over the heads of media morons. Rajdeep Sardesai quoted this statement with a clip on his show on the same night and asked his panellists to comment on it. None bothered to examine the stupidity of this statement. Seriously, is there any business or industry that can be inherently â€œmonopolisticâ€ by nature? Monopoly is imposed by the govt or illegitimate practices of a business house or a group. It speaks poorly of the business community at CII that they need a special event and a speech to discover any economic vision of AK. Blunt fact is he doesnâ€™t have any. Letâ€™s sample some mundane crap from AK in his speech: "We are not against capitalism; we're against crony capitalism... It's a wrong perception that AAP is against business. Of course we need businesses," Mr Kejriwal attempted to explain what his political vision, popularly called "Aapnomics" is, and why corporate India should not be running scared of his party despite several decisions that his government took in its 49 days in power in Delhiâ€¦ During his brief term as Chief Minister, Mr Kejriwal increased subsidies for power and water. His cabinet overturned the previous government's decision on FDI in retail... "The government has no business to be in business, it should be left with the private players. License and inspector raj has to end... A small section of industrialists who are not industrialists but are looting the country" he said. NDTV grandly says AKâ€™s â€œpolitical visionâ€ is popularly called â€œAapnomicsâ€. Really? First of all, nobody is commonly using a term like Aapnomics (except probably Barkha Dutt and her seven white dwarfs at NDTV). And why is a â€œpolitical visionâ€ associated with some term that should represent economics? Govt shouldnâ€™t be in business? That sort of mundane statement uttered by many a politician is AKâ€™s new economic vision for India? This is how not just AK but the media also fools people. It doesnâ€™t matter that AK doesnâ€™t know economics from an Eskimo Igloo but our media charlatans will tell you that they saw vision in his speech. At the end of it Adi Godrej is reported to have said â€œ"It is very important that we fight corruption, reduce corruption. But it is also very important that we have a good economic policy that creates development and jobs in the country. And I think the Aam Aadmi Party should improve their views in that direction". But Godrej is stating an optimistic view. It should now be evident to any observer that AK and AAP are neither interested in politics nor in eliminating corruption. The whole drama is scripted to perfection, including AKâ€™s resignation on February 14. His street dharna as a CM is clearly the most disgusting conduct by a man in power. His desire for instant justice, with cronies like Somnath Bharti, doesnâ€™t reflect any great belief in democracy or processes. In short, other than being a Congress puppet to garner votes to keep the BJP out there is nothing in his armoury that can be seen as vision. Add to all this his frequent U-turns and lies and you have a motley crew of people who just want power to satisfy their lust and nothing more. Remember, the CPM has rarely had any allegation of corruption against it; maybe even none. Yet, the CPM has not only committed political murders but also destroyed Bengal where economy is concerned. Fighting and reducing corruption can only be one part of an agenda. It can never be the only plank. I have earlier compared Sonia Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal to Eva Peron of Argentina. That woman (and her husband who was president) screwed the good economy of Argentina with their freebies and doles. That country degenerated into a dictatorship and economic ruin. AK is nothing but Sonia Gandhi in pants and shirt. Sonia just maintains some decorum in public. He should have been on her NAC (probably wanted too as well). Someone has drawn another parallel between AK and the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. The similarities are indeed striking. Letâ€™s patiently watch Deepak Singhâ€™s (@Smarket) analysis in his video (14.37 mins): [video]http://www.youtube.com/feature=player_embedded[/video] Commies are historically known to prey on the poor and their poverty. For the poor the illusions the Commies create is a straw to clutch on. They get fooled over and over again out of sheer lack of opportunities. We have seen the total failure of CPM in Bengal and we have seen the lies, deception, U-turns and murder of political opponents world over by Commies. We have seen that from AK and AAP too except the mass murder part. But our media would have you believe that AK is on TV again because he is â€œavailableâ€ and answers questions as Rajdeep and Barkha foolishly believe and would have you believe: It doesnâ€™t occur to these two Congress propagandists that AK is available because he doesnâ€™t want to work. He has never had any interest in sincere work throughout his career. Most other CMs are busy with serious work and cannot afford to be on stupid TV channels all the time. Worse, AK even found time in his short stint as CM to do a "loving-it" interview with Barkha at the Delhi Litterfest on February 9. For a new CM thatâ€™s the priority stupid media people applaud. As for Rajdeep, his lipstick for himself and AK never runs out of stock. Hereâ€™s what a Google search shows; itâ€™s quite fascinating: Itâ€™s almost like Rajdeep is running a permanent beauty salon for AK with a â€œbefore and afterâ€ show. There was one before becoming CM, one after he became CM with Malala scarf and all. Then again the â€œfirstâ€ after resigning without the Malala look but with a better-managed haircut and appearance. Looks like Rajdeep has been like a â€œwaiterâ€ who has been waiting on AK for everything he does â€œfirstâ€. And RS explains his stupidity (as does Barkha) that itâ€™s because AK â€œanswers questionsâ€. You know, birdfeed questions where AK gets to call everyone corrupt except himself and his gang. Hugo Chavez once called George Bush a â€œdevilâ€ in his UN speech. AK is not very far off in the language he uses for all his opponents. Hereâ€™s a summary of Chavezâ€™s speech in 2006: "Those who want to go directly to hell can follow capitalism... and those of us who want to build heaven here on earth will follow socialismâ€¦ The Devil is right at home. The Devil, the Devil himself, is right in the house. And the Devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the Devil came here. Right here. And it smells of sulphur still today. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the Devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world." Well, ladies and gentlemen, I donâ€™t know about people but Hugo Chavez did meet his maker in March this year; at a relatively young age of 58 (or maybe went to hell as he predicted some would do). I mentioned â€œSponsored Revolutionsâ€ in an earlier post. There isnâ€™t doubt anywhere that AKâ€™s so-called revolution is sponsored by both external and internal forces. The Congress cronies in the media like it because they want AAP to win as many seats as possible in the LS since all those eggs would invariably end up in the Congress Omelette. Nothing in his 49-day stint as CM has shown AK has any political decorum or vision or any idea of economics. Cheap populism and street level â€œgoondaâ€ behaviour is what we have seen. And what questions did AK answer? Actually none! He just used the platform to make claims about how his govt had done more work in 4 days than any other since Independence. By what real measure? Any question on such a dubious claim? None! He also grandly claimed corruption in Delhi had come down in his 49 days as CM. This spurious claim also went unchallenged. Rajdeep is probably another gullible AAPSucker who buys this nonsense. Seems, the claim was also made by Shazia Ilmi quoting Transparency International reports. The other member of the Unholy Trinity Hindustan Times grandly published Shaziaâ€™s nonsense too without any verification. Turns out Transparency International issued a denial of any such report and AAP had to apologise for their lies. This is the interview of opportunity that both Rajdeep and Barkha peddle as â€œavailableâ€. The ball-boys at a tennis match are trained and gifted. They run around with speed, collect and transfer balls with methodical grace. Often you donâ€™t even notice them. That is when they are supposed to be most efficient; when they arenâ€™t seen at all. Govts are meant to be like that: work and operate so efficiently that they arenâ€™t seen at all. The only signs of govt that people should usually see are the traffic cops or the regular police on the beat. But propagandists Rajdeep and Barkha would have you believe that â€œnetasâ€ should be on TV as often as they can. There has to be someone to put lipstick on I guess. I have written before that in his entire career so far AK has left everything unfinished. He takes up one task or campaign and moves on to another like people move on from on one song to the next popular one. â€œI doubt AK ever wanted to be a CM. He probably wanted to create a revolution and be a high authority like a Lokpal or a CJI (He canâ€™t be CJI though) or the CIC by which he could dispense instant justice, haul anyone before his court and sentence anyone without proper hearing. He wants to play Dirty Harry. The Congress calculations forced him to settle for something less like a CM position. He has used people as â€œtoolsâ€ in his public life but for once he has become a tool himself for the Congress. Iâ€™m sure his mirror will tell him that. He could have been an honourable public figure doing great service. He chose the evil path and evil always gets defeated in the endâ€. Chavez called everyone he hated the â€œdevilâ€. AK does the same; everyone but him is corrupt. In reality, a closer look at his silly actions and claims only tells us heâ€™s a proxy for some external and internal political forces. People like Rajdeep and Barkha are used to be being propagandists for the devil and the corrupt; that is one measure of why the devil appears on their channel so often. It is just that they believe others canâ€™t see the devil in disguise too and are as blind as they are.