India needs sound policies and not a growing personality cult

I do not understand what you mean by two sides of a coin. Please elaborate your usage of the idiom in this context. After this is clarified I will give a detailed response to this part of your argument. (I can only rebut this point if I am sure of what my opponent means) My opponent says: "The Economic Freedom of the States of India report 2013 has shown that the Narendra Modi helmed Gujarat remains at number one. This is an index that measures governance, growth, citizens' rights, and labour and business regulation among the country's 20 largest state. Of course this cannot be proven wrong. If you check it up, it clearly shows that Gujarat is one of the best developed states of India and the credit goes to Modi." Firstly, I think that giving a single person credit for all the successes of Gujarat, is not fair. It would be impossible for Narendra Modi to do everything single-handedly. Secondly, if you give Modi credit for all the development in Gujarat, then you must deem him responsible for all the failures and shortcomings of the Gujarat Government as well. After all, responsibility always goes both ways. It took three days for the Gujarat Riots to be contained. Eyewitness reports confirm, that even members of the police force took part in the slaughtering, raping, and lynching of muslims on a large scale. The police force comes under the direct supervision of the Chief Minister of the State. Narendra Modi lost control of not only his people, but his own police force. Don't you think he should be held accountable for this disastrous lapse of security? He never took any responsibility for this lapse. Even when the Prime Minister of India asked him to resign, he did not. A true human being in such a position would have taken responsibility for such a disaster. Recently, the South Korean PM resigned due to his government's failure to respond effectively to an accident. Does my opponent condemn Modi's refusal to resign? http://edition.cnn.com... My opponent says, "He only believes in Less government and more governance and does not decentralizes power." Centralization of power is very dangerous to a country in all respects. Since my opponent says that Narendra Modi does not de-centralize power(essentially it means he centralizes power), then it is in her/his own words clearly a negative aspect of Modi's governance. Since you quoted 'The Economic Freedom of the States of India report 2013', I will quote the 3rd chapter from the same report. "The Problem of Excessive Centralisation There are some issues that the Commission on Centre-State Relations called Constitutional Governance and the Management of Centre-State Relations. The Constitution has one list of subjects that are under the jurisdiction of the states and yet another list of concurrent subjects involving the joint jurisdiction of the union and the states. This raises several issues. First, it has often been the case that even when subjects are in the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule, the union has not effectively consulted states on key issues, such as the drafting of legislation before introduction in Parliament. Second, the Inter-State Council provided for in the Constitution has not functioned efficiently. Third, there is a strong case for moving non-tax-related residuary powers from the Union List to the Concurrent List. As of now, all residuary powers vest with the union. Fourth, when a bill has been passed by a state legislature and sent to the state governor, and the governor in turn refers it to the President, there are no time limits prescribed. The system is completely open-ended, and this empowers the President"who acts on the advice of the union government"to put off approval or disapproval for as long as the union government feels like it." I have quoted only four points. There are nine points in total. For further reading go to : www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/economic-freedom-india-2013/economic-freedom-states-of-india-chapter-3.pdf I feel that I have rebutted all of my opponent's points except the one I asked clarification for. If my opponent cannot elaborate on the particular point, then I will be forced to rebut to his/her argument with my own understanding of her/his words. Thank you.