It’s always darkest before the dawn
1. The Department of Financial Services advised Banks/IBA vide it's letter dated 16.1.2016 to start next wage revision talks so as to conclude new settlement before 1.11.2017. Four reminders were issues. IBA in its strategy was right not to act upon the said directive, as it was aware of precarious financial difficulties in store & coming out in succeeding quarters that would help them make that a pad to plead of financial difficulties and no paying capacity or affordability. Unions were in loop. They had an 'hawk eye' only on their 'levy'. In case settlement is reached timely, there won't be any arrear and so no levy. Just look, if wage talks had started by June, 2016, Bankers had the Balance Sheets for FY 2015/2016, which were substantially good enough to debase their plea of financial difficulties or affordabilities, which they have been holding on their chest from 2018/ 2019. If IBA was silent on Govt directive, they have genuine purpose to do so, but what made Unions to follow suit is a stark question to their prudence? Take it as first blunder of Bank Unions, strategic failure and defeat of prospects.
2. On 2% wage hike offer of IBA, Unions made second blunder to listen and continue with parleys. It was a golden opportunity, that they missed, to strike back IBA by boycott & no return to IBA office. They should have gone on protest actions to bring IBA on knee. Just, Unions should have stressed to know whether 2% increase had any concurrence of Govt or just it was made as teaser. Unions should have made a condition not to sit any more with IBA in their office. But it needed guts & spine as well, which was found missing.
3. One of biggest Union slipped out a circular on 9% increase offer, terming it money wise greater than the last settlement. It was a spike in wheel. Was it deliberate or by ignorance or in good faith, we can't say, but it signaled IBA, offer was taken by Unions as better than last settlement. Other hand, it doled out a note of satisfactory offer to bank men. Purpose of this act is shrouded by mystery. Was there any need to give affirmative note, we say not at all.
4. UFBU underwent a hegemony war and to establish supremacy two wings quashed & purged apart. One side of 2 went on 2 days strike. Other side of remaining 7 joined by IBA polarised themselves into one to teach a lesson to warring 2 Unions. IBA played a card that if workmen Unions were ready, IBA would like to settle with them the issues and whatever parameters were applied in workmen matter, on same basis officers issues would be settled. On this 5 workmen Unions agreed, leaving no option before officers Unions to succumb to tactics and surrender. Our AIBOC friends were very angry on our forecast that they would flee like sparrow and have a knee climb to IBA stairs. Happened so happened, let us forget. Even today there is no compact.
5. Most ugly scenario, UFBU spread across banking fraternity about the poor financial health of Banks, which strengthened IBA plank of no money for wage revisions, banks being in red. Govt or the management was never seen so worried of difficult financial health of Banks, as were seen Union leaders. Quite strange & sinical as well, they started behaving as owner of the Banks.
Financial difficulties were/are ownership issues, well, we see govt pumping lakhs of crores as capital to PSBs to manage capital exigencies. Unions represent workers. Workers have gone in Bank for livelihood. Poor financial health doesn't mean, workers shouldn't be given legitimate wages or denied periodical incremental growth. Poor financial health doesn't mean that workers should be asked to bring money from their homes to set off banks liabilities.
Could anybody answer, for poor financial reasons whether banks can curtail rent or do not renew rent lease of premises or increased electricity bills, taxes etc can't be paid? Unions erred to become owner, disappointing their prime constituency.
6. Unions vociferously ruled out Pension Revision issue. With much more vigor and force, than IBA it has been Union leaders who blown up this issue beyond proportions. They themselves first hand ruled out any scope of Pension revision, since it would need huge funding. Had they made any study of cost implications? Even IBA has imaginary & unexamined cost implications hypothesis. If examined, Unions should bring the same on record. Further, how Pensioners/ Pension optees are responsible to Fund problems. Pension Scheme was a quid pro quo deal. Pension optees fulfilled their obligations. How Banks can now shirk from their obligations?.
Policy makers were quite clear that simply employers' PF share won't be enough to meet pension obligations, that's why onus of funding was put on employers shoulders. Pension Funds are assessed by Actuaries on 31st of March every year and reported inadequacies are replenished by respective Banks.
Policy makers had in mind that Bank Pension Scheme would undergo changes as and when Central government/ RBI Pension revisions were done. It was not exgratia, fixed in nature, but pension based on Central govt/ RBI pension rules. Pension Agreement had itself the terms of revision linked to RBI. Not only this, in Regulations, 1995 one time revision was made from 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987.
Therefore, one need not to be confused in this regard as very spirit of revision did exist from day one, but now the same is denied. Why?
It's all above is void and fake, if people at the helm of affairs do rise to reality and do what's expected of them. They shouldn't repeat the past mistakes and read the issues as they are: wages & pension is one, inseparable, one for working life while other for post working time. They shouldn't treat themselves as masters of PSBs, act faithfully for fraternity to which they belong. They shouldn't betray any more. If they can't address the well-being of banking fraternity, better they withdraw from the front and let time take it's own decision.
( J. N. Shukla)
National Convenor
Forum of Bank Pensioner Activists,
Prayagraj 211 004
30.1.2020
(Hindi version follows)
सफलता के पीछे
1. The Department of Financial Services advised Banks/IBA vide it's letter dated 16.1.2016 to start next wage revision talks so as to conclude new settlement before 1.11.2017. Four reminders were issues. IBA in its strategy was right not to act upon the said directive, as it was aware of precarious financial difficulties in store & coming out in succeeding quarters that would help them make that a pad to plead of financial difficulties and no paying capacity or affordability. Unions were in loop. They had an 'hawk eye' only on their 'levy'. In case settlement is reached timely, there won't be any arrear and so no levy. Just look, if wage talks had started by June, 2016, Bankers had the Balance Sheets for FY 2015/2016, which were substantially good enough to debase their plea of financial difficulties or affordabilities, which they have been holding on their chest from 2018/ 2019. If IBA was silent on Govt directive, they have genuine purpose to do so, but what made Unions to follow suit is a stark question to their prudence? Take it as first blunder of Bank Unions, strategic failure and defeat of prospects.
2. On 2% wage hike offer of IBA, Unions made second blunder to listen and continue with parleys. It was a golden opportunity, that they missed, to strike back IBA by boycott & no return to IBA office. They should have gone on protest actions to bring IBA on knee. Just, Unions should have stressed to know whether 2% increase had any concurrence of Govt or just it was made as teaser. Unions should have made a condition not to sit any more with IBA in their office. But it needed guts & spine as well, which was found missing.
3. One of biggest Union slipped out a circular on 9% increase offer, terming it money wise greater than the last settlement. It was a spike in wheel. Was it deliberate or by ignorance or in good faith, we can't say, but it signaled IBA, offer was taken by Unions as better than last settlement. Other hand, it doled out a note of satisfactory offer to bank men. Purpose of this act is shrouded by mystery. Was there any need to give affirmative note, we say not at all.
4. UFBU underwent a hegemony war and to establish supremacy two wings quashed & purged apart. One side of 2 went on 2 days strike. Other side of remaining 7 joined by IBA polarised themselves into one to teach a lesson to warring 2 Unions. IBA played a card that if workmen Unions were ready, IBA would like to settle with them the issues and whatever parameters were applied in workmen matter, on same basis officers issues would be settled. On this 5 workmen Unions agreed, leaving no option before officers Unions to succumb to tactics and surrender. Our AIBOC friends were very angry on our forecast that they would flee like sparrow and have a knee climb to IBA stairs. Happened so happened, let us forget. Even today there is no compact.
5. Most ugly scenario, UFBU spread across banking fraternity about the poor financial health of Banks, which strengthened IBA plank of no money for wage revisions, banks being in red. Govt or the management was never seen so worried of difficult financial health of Banks, as were seen Union leaders. Quite strange & sinical as well, they started behaving as owner of the Banks.
Financial difficulties were/are ownership issues, well, we see govt pumping lakhs of crores as capital to PSBs to manage capital exigencies. Unions represent workers. Workers have gone in Bank for livelihood. Poor financial health doesn't mean, workers shouldn't be given legitimate wages or denied periodical incremental growth. Poor financial health doesn't mean that workers should be asked to bring money from their homes to set off banks liabilities.
Could anybody answer, for poor financial reasons whether banks can curtail rent or do not renew rent lease of premises or increased electricity bills, taxes etc can't be paid? Unions erred to become owner, disappointing their prime constituency.
6. Unions vociferously ruled out Pension Revision issue. With much more vigor and force, than IBA it has been Union leaders who blown up this issue beyond proportions. They themselves first hand ruled out any scope of Pension revision, since it would need huge funding. Had they made any study of cost implications? Even IBA has imaginary & unexamined cost implications hypothesis. If examined, Unions should bring the same on record. Further, how Pensioners/ Pension optees are responsible to Fund problems. Pension Scheme was a quid pro quo deal. Pension optees fulfilled their obligations. How Banks can now shirk from their obligations?.
Policy makers were quite clear that simply employers' PF share won't be enough to meet pension obligations, that's why onus of funding was put on employers shoulders. Pension Funds are assessed by Actuaries on 31st of March every year and reported inadequacies are replenished by respective Banks.
Policy makers had in mind that Bank Pension Scheme would undergo changes as and when Central government/ RBI Pension revisions were done. It was not exgratia, fixed in nature, but pension based on Central govt/ RBI pension rules. Pension Agreement had itself the terms of revision linked to RBI. Not only this, in Regulations, 1995 one time revision was made from 1.1.1986 to 31.10.1987.
Therefore, one need not to be confused in this regard as very spirit of revision did exist from day one, but now the same is denied. Why?
It's all above is void and fake, if people at the helm of affairs do rise to reality and do what's expected of them. They shouldn't repeat the past mistakes and read the issues as they are: wages & pension is one, inseparable, one for working life while other for post working time. They shouldn't treat themselves as masters of PSBs, act faithfully for fraternity to which they belong. They shouldn't betray any more. If they can't address the well-being of banking fraternity, better they withdraw from the front and let time take it's own decision.
( J. N. Shukla)
National Convenor
Forum of Bank Pensioner Activists,
Prayagraj 211 004
30.1.2020
(Hindi version follows)
सफलता के पीछे
असफलताओं का दौर भी होता है.
वित्तीय सेवा प्रभाग, वित्त मंत्रालय, ने 16.1.2016 को बैंकों के कार्यपालकों को पत्र लिख आदेशित किया कि अगले वेतन समझौते की प्रक्रिया शुरू कर दी जाये, ताकि 1.1.2017 के पहले नया समझौता संपन्न हो जाये. विभाग ने 4 स्मरणपत्र भी लिखे.
भारतीय बैंक संघ ने अपनी रणनीति के तहत उक्त पत्र पर कोई कदम नहीं उठाया, क्योंकि उसे ज्ञात था कि आनेवाली तिमाहियों में बैंकों की वित्तीय स्थिति बद से बदतर होनेवाली है, जिसे वे और वेतन न दे पाने का आधार बना सकेंगे. यूनियनें अंधेरे में रहीं. उनकी 'गिद्ध नजर' केवल उस 'लेवी' पर टिकी रही जो वे एरियर पर लेते रहे हैं. उनका सोचना था कि अगर नया समझौता समय पूर्व हो जाता है और 1.11.2017 से लागू हो जाता है तो कोई एरियर नहीं बनेगा और जब एरियर नहीं बनेगा तो लेवी भी नहीं बनेगी.
अब गौर कीजिए, यदि वेतन वार्ता जून 2016 तक शुरू हो जाती, तो बैंकों के पास वित्तीय स्थिति के लिए वर्षांत 2015/2016 के तुलनपत्र होते, जो संभवतः ठीकठाक थे और बैंकर्स वित्तीय संकट की तख्तियां सीने पर लटकाये न मिलते जो वे 2018/2019 से लटकाये फिर रहे हैं. सरकार के निर्देश पर चुप रहने के पीछे आईबीए की सोची-समझी रणनीति थी, लेकिन यूनियनों के चुप बैठे रहने के पीछे कौन सी रणनीति थी, एक बड़ा सवाल है, यूनियनों ने कभी मुंह नहीं खोला.
आईबीए के 2% वेतन वृद्धि के प्रस्ताव पर, उसे सुनना और उस पर आगे वार्ता जारी रखना यूनियनों की दूसरी भूल थी. यह आईबीए को पीटने का सुनहरा अवसर था, जो वे वार्ता का वहिष्कार करके कर सकते थे, जिसे यूनियनों ने गवां दिया. आईबीए को घुटने पर लाने के लिए, यूनियनों को प्रतिकारात्मक कार्यवाइयों पर उतर जाना चाहिए था. आक्रामकता जरूरी थी और अच्छा खासा मौका हाथ लग भी गया था.
यूनियनों को यह सवाल खड़ा करना चाहिए था कि क्या 2% वेतन वृद्धि का प्रस्ताव सरकार कि सहमति से आया था, या आईबीए ने ऐसी हरकत यूनियनों को चिढ़ाने के लिए किया था. यूनियनों को आगे की वार्ता आईबीए दफ्तर में न करने का भी एलान करना चाहिए था और समझौता आईबीए दफ्तर के सामने चौराहे पर करने की शर्त ठोक देनी थी और करना भी ऐसा चाहिए था.
एक बड़ी यूनियन ने आईबीए के 9% के प्रस्ताव पर एक परिपत्र जारी कर यह कह दिया कि धनराशि की दृष्टि से यह प्रस्ताव पूर्व समझौते की राशि से ज्यादा है. इसे चलती गाड़ी के पहिए में कील ठोकना कहिए! ऐसा जानबूझकर किया गया या अज्ञानतावश या फिर वाहवाही में, हम कह नहीं सकते, लेकिन इसने आईबीए को यह संदेश जरूर दिया कि यूनियनों ने उसके प्रस्ताव को पिछले समझौते के प्रस्ताव से बेहतर मान लिया है.
दूसरी तरफ, बैंककर्मियों में भी इससे सकारात्मक संदेश देने का प्रयास किया गया. इस परिपत्र का मकसद संदेहों के घेरे में है. क्या इस तरह का सकारात्मक संदेश देना जरूरी था, हमारे हिसाब से कदापि नहीं.
यूयफबीयू आंतरिक वर्चस्व के संघर्ष से भी गुजरा. दो धड़ों के टकराव से बिखराव भी हुआ. दो यूनियनें दो दिन की हड़ताल पर गईंं. बची सात यूनियनें और आईबीए एकजुट होकर दो यूनियनों को सबक सिखाने की ठान ली.
आईबीए ने चाल चली कि यदि कर्मचारी यूनियनें वार्ता और समझौता को तैयार हैं तो आईबीए उनके साथ वार्ता और समझौता करेगा और जो भी समझौते के मानदंड कर्मचारियों के लिए तय होते हैं उसी के आधार पर अधिकारियों की मागों का भी निस्तारण कर दिया जायेगा. 5 कर्मचारी यूनियनों ने सहमति व्यक्त कर अधिकारी संघों के पांव के नीचे की जमीन खींच ली. दबाव और फिर आत्मसमर्पण.
एबाक के हमारे मित्र हमारे आंकलन से बहुत आक्रोशित थे कि एक दिन वे घुटने के बल आईबीए की सीढ़ियां चढ़ने पर मजबूर कर दिये जायेंगे. जो हो गया सो हो गया. उसे भूल जाना ही बेहतर है. यहां तक कि आज भी कंपैक्ट नहीं है.
यूयफबीयू ने बैंकिंग फ्रैटर्निटी में बैंकों के खराब आर्थिक हालत को लेकर बेहद बदसूरत स्थिति फैलाया, जिसने आईबीए को मजबूत किया कि बैंकों के पास वेतन वृद्धि के लिए पैसे नहीं हैं, सभी घाटे में हैं. सरकार या प्रबंधन बैंकों की खराब स्थिति को लेकर कर कभी इतना हायतौबा करते नहीं दिखा, जितना यूनियनें करती दिखीं.
अजीब दीवालियापन, यूनियनें बैंकों के मालिक की तरह व्यवहार करती दिखीं. वित्तीय कठिनाइयां मालिकाना समस्या है, ठीक भी है, सरकार ने कई लाख करोड़ जरूरत के अनुरूप बैंकों को पूंजी दिया.
यूनियनें कामगारों का प्रतिनिधित्व करती हैं. कामगार बैंकों में आजीविका कमाने गये हैं. खराब वित्तीय स्थिति का मतलब यह तो नहीं कि कामगारों को उचित वेतन और सामयिक अभिवृद्धि न दी जाये. खराब वित्तीय स्थिति का मतलब यह तो नहीं कि कामगारों से घर से पैसा लाकर बैंकों की देयताओं को पूरा करने को कहा जाये! क्या कोई बता सकता है कि खराब वित्तीय स्थिति की आड़ में क्या बैंकों का किराया, लीज का नवीनीकरण, बिजली, पानी, कर आदि की अभिवृद्धि और उसके भुगतान को रोका जा सकता है? यूनियनों ने मालिकाना जूता पहन कर गल्ती की, जिसका खामियाजा पूरी कमुनिटी भुगत रही है.
आईबीए से कहीं ज्यादा ताकत और मुखर होकर यूनियनों ने पेंशन रिवीजन की संभावना को निरस्त कर रखा है. इस मुद्दे को जरूरत से ज्यादा विस्फोटक बना रखा है. इन्होंने सबसे पहले इस बिना पर रिवीजन की संभावना को नकार दिया कि रिवीजन के लिए बड़ी राशि की जरूरत पड़ेगी. क्या इन्होंने लागत की कोई गणना किया है?
यहां तक कि आईबीए काल्पनिक आधार पर बड़ी धनराशि की बात करता रहा है. अगर यूनियनों ने कोई गणना कराई है तो उसे बैंककर्मियों के संज्ञान में लाना चाहिए.
पुन: फंड समस्या को लेकर पेंशनर या पेंशन आप्टीज की क्या जिम्मेदारी बनती है? पेंशन स्कीम की बुनियाद लेन-देन पर टिकी है. पेंशन आप्टीज ने अपना दायित्व पूरा किया है या कर रहे हैं. अब बैंकें अपनी जिम्मेदारियों से पल्ला कैसे झाड़ सकती हैं?
पालिसी बनानेवालों का स्पस्ट मानना था कि मात्र सेवायोजकों के पी.यफ.हिस्से की राशि सें पेंशन की देयताएं पूरी नहीं हो सकेंगी. इसीलिए फंडिंग का दायित्व बैंकों के कंधे पर डाला गया है. पेंशन फंड का आंकलन हर वर्ष 31 मार्च को एक्चुअरीज से कराने की व्यवस्था है और पेंशन फंड में आई किसी तरह की अपर्याप्तता को बैंकों को अपने लाभ-हानि खाते से देने की बाध्यता है.
पेंशन नीति बनानेवालों का यह भी मानना था कि बैंक पेंशन नीति में केन्द्र सरकार/रिजर्व बैंक पेंशन में आये बदलाव के आलोक में परिवर्तन होंगें. यह कोई अनुग्रह राशि नहीं कि एक बार तय कर दी गई हो, बल्कि केन्द्र और रिजर्व बैंक पेंशन नीति के आधार पर बनी पेंशन है. पेशन समझौता पेंशन रिवीजन की शर्त को रिजर्व बैंक पेंशन से जोड़ता है.
इतना ही नहीं, पेंशन रिगुलेशन्स, 1995, ने 1.1.1986 से 31.10.1987 के दौर की पेंशन को रिवाइज किया है. अत: भ्रमित होने की कोई गुंजाइश नहीं है, क्योंकि पेंशन रिवीजन की मूल भावना पहले दिन से रही है, लेकिन अब इनकार किया जा रहा है. क्यों?
उपरोक्त सब शून्य और बेमतलब है, यदि जिम्मेदार लोग सच्चाई से वह करते हैं, जिसकी उनसे अपेक्षा है. उन्हे पूर्व की गलतियों को दोहराना नहीं चाहिए और मुद्दों को यथावत समझना चाहिए: वेतन और पेंशन एक विषय हैं, अभिन्न हैं, एक कार्यकाल के लिए है तो दूसरा सेवोपरांत का है. वे खुद को बैंकों के स्वामी न समझें, उस समुदाय के लिए ईमानदारी से काम करें जिनके वे हैं. उन्हें अब और दगा नहीं देना चाहिए. यदि वे बैंकिंग समुदाय की खुशहाली का ख्याल नहीं रख सकते, तो उन्हें मोर्चे से हट जाना चाहिए और समय को अपना निर्णय लेने देना चाहिए. किसी सफलता के पीछे असफलताओं का दौर भी होता है.
(जे.एन.शुक्ला)
राष्ट्रीय कंवेनर फोरम आफ बैंक पेंशनर एक्टिविस्ट्स प्रयागराज 211 004
30.1.2020
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
A must read:
Dilip Apte
A Bangalore girl has written an open letter (questioning Rahul Gandhi), which is going viral on social media. She asks Rahul Gandhi himself to decide whether he can be compared with PM Narendra Modi...
"Dear Mr. Rahul Gandhi,
Millions of people follow Narendra Modi as their leader. They accept him as their role model.
How many people in our Country consider you, Rahul Gandhi, as their role model?
The Country which doesn’t want to be recognised as dynastic followers, elected Narendra Modi, but you represent the same dynasty which was rejected by the people. Apart from having a Gandhi tag, what is your achievement in any sphere of life? In fact, the masses have been deceived for too long - remind us - what exactly did you achieve?
Every year Narendra Modi, on his birthday, meets his mother and she gifts him with a copy of the Bhagvad Gita, as an indication to follow the right path.
What does your mother do?
Narendra Modi, when he entered the Parliament for the first time, touched the floor of the House, and called it the Temple of Democracy. Do you also consider the same? Have you ever respected the Parliament this way?
After becoming PM, when he resigned as the Chief Minister of Gujarat, he donated Rs.21,00,000 of his salary amount to the Children's Education Fund, for the children of Government employees.
Have you ever contributed anything to the country Rahul?
Under PM Modi's leadership - in a span of 4 years -+ 600 terrorists have been eliminated.
How many terrorists were killed when your Government was in power?
Since Independence, more than 30% of poor people could not get a Cooking Gas connection, but in a span of 4 years Modi has given Cooking Gas connections to over 50 million people. Same on electricity supply to villages.
Why could your Congress Government not do it while in power?
Modi doesn’t entertain any family favours or nepotism, but your family has dominated the entire party and considers the party as their
personal property. Why? How did Robert Vadra get so many favours when your government was in power?
The Doklam issue did not start after PM Modi's Government came to power. It started many years ago, when your Government was in power. It's PM Modi who made the Chinese withdraw their troops.
Were you and are you capable of doing that?
During a span of 4 years, there isn’t one corruption case against PM Modi or his Government.
Can you show any period during over six decades (60 years) of Congress Government when there was no corruption? No!
You and your party people mock PM Modi as chaiwala. He accepts that he sold tea. We do not consider anything wrong with that and with earning an honest living.
Can you accept what you sold, and tell us if/what have you done to earn an honest living?
Narendra Modi travels to different countries for the benefit of the Nation.
Can you tell us for whose benefit do you go abroad?
PM Modi cleared OROP for soldiers, he got bulletproof jackets, helmets & other safety/professional equipment for our soldiers. What did your Government ever do for them?
He included more than 300 million people into Jan Dhan Yojana within 3 years. Why wasn’t it possible during your party's 10 years rule?
In order to save the girl child, PM Modi started "Beti Bachao, Beti Padao" Campaign.
What has the congress (you) done to save the girl child in the country Rahul?
Mr Modi started MUDRA Life insurance schemes, which are benefiting tens of millions of people in the Country. How many schemes did the congress bring during 10 years for benefit of the people of this Country?
Modi took a brave decision to conduct surgical strikes in Pakistan, Burma and Bhutan to protect our borders. What did your party do to protect our borders during Congress Government?
Appreciating PM Modi’s work and leadership, he was invited by US, Britain, Australia, Canada, Bhutan, Srilanka, Afghanistan, Nepal and Japan to address their Parliament. How many countries invited you when you were in Government?
In just 4 years, PM Modi became the most influential person in the World and was named "Times Person of the World". You are in politics since 2004. What have you achieved so far?
Narendra Modi, in front of 22,000 people in Madison Square Garden, New York, declared that we are not a Nation of beggars and snake charmers, but a Nation of rulers.
Do you have the guts and spine to praise our Nation like that Rahul? Congress Govt. run by your family since independence was always busy in saying "Gareebi hatav" & was always successful in proving our India is a very poor country. Did your Govt. ever try to improve our nations pride & impression abroad? How could Modoji bring that change in just 4 years inspite of your non cooperations in every field to pull him down.
PM Modi works for 18 hours a day. He sleeps on flights to save time and money.
How many hours do you work for the country Rahul?
PM Modi has no strong political background. With sheer hard work and commitment, and dedication, he became the Prime Minister of the Country.
Are you capable of relinquishing the Gandhi tag and achieving something with your capabilities and hard work?
At the age of 18 years, Modi left his house and joined RSS, to serve the Country.
What were you doing at the age of 18 Rahul Gandhi?
Every citizen of this country would dream to achieve something like PM Modi.
How many would want to follow you and become like you?
It is not just the Gandhi tag that is required to run this country Rahul, but a person who can show the will and commitment to take the country forward.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment