So the largest democratic exercise in the world is underway, and a man named Narendra Modi is the frontrunner. What little knowledge and discussion of this event there is on the board tends to be along these lines
, so I figured I should try and provide a thread for discussing the issue, instead of hijacking threads about Jesus’s wife
For the uninitiated, Modi became chief minister of a large Indian state, Gujarat, in late 2001 and about five months into his tenure, a railway coach with Hindu pilgrims was burnt by a Muslim mob. Over the next three days, riots in the state claimed the life of about 700 Muslims and 300 Hindus. The view of many in the media was that Modi was complicit in letting the riots take place. This view has also been largely echoed by the international media, but I’ve never seen any substantial evidence for this point of view. My response to Phillyguy is quoted below
What are your thoughts on the election, Modi, questions otherwise?
Modi’s a neofascist murderer. My cite is, oh, I dunno, just about every Indian person I’ve spoken to on the matter since 2002. (I’m ethnically Indian, Tamil to be precise, and I have a lot of relatives in the old country, and follow politics there with some degree of interest). Hindu nationalism was founded as a quasi-fascist movement modeled after the Nazis- down to having their own Hitleresque salute, and that really tells you all you need to know.
I expect absolutely nothing good from a BJP administration- as far I’m concerned the party should have been permanently banned years ago as a hate group- and I don’t know whether to be more contemptuous of Modi personally or of the people who are probably going to vote for him.
As for the remarks about toilets and temples, what do you expect him to say? And as for the Supreme Court finding him innocent, this is a country notorious for judicial and political corruption. And of course this is the same supreme court that just upheld a ban on male homosexual activity, so hardly one I expect to be full of wisdom and fair mindedness.
When he supposedly represents the “religious” right, I don’t expect him to touch the topic of temples and toilets with a 10 foot pole. Nor do I expect his administration to go around demolishing illegal temples by the score, as it has done in his state. I suppose the very fact that he is thought of as the representative of the religious gives him greater leeway in these matters.
And India’s courts are widely admired for their independence. They are rightly criticised for their (lack of) efficiency, but as far as institutions go, India’s supreme court is among the best you can get, particularly in the developing world. The decision on homosexuality, though I personally found it appalling to begin with, was legally very sound. The court has rightly referred the matter to the legislative instead of legislating from the bench. Not to mention that attempting to argue from one off instances of judgements that you disagree with is as unsound as, I dunno, “my cite is every Indian person I’ve met”
Well, he certainly seems tarred byassociation, if nothing else.
The first might be excused as just some minister whose dealings were unrelated to his own, despite being part of his cabinet for a couple of years. But the second seems a little more hinky, given the supposed closeness of the relationship and the fact that Modi purportedly doesn’t seem all that disturbed by the killings. Now I can certainly understand feeling that some folks just need killing, especially serious criminals. But even a hint of a wink and a nod towards extrajudicial police killings seems a little egregious in an elected official.
That aside I also must admit a general mild distaste for ethnic/religious nationalism as a matter of course, Indian or otherwise. So I’d probably not be inclined to support anybody in the BJP or similar parties for elected office. If I had a vote, which I don’t ;).
I believe Kodnani is being prosecuted by the Gujarat government. In fact, that his administration has actually moved to prosecute people and secured convictions counts as a plus for me. This is not a usual occurence in India, and it hasn’t happened in other riots that took place post 2002 (Assam). Amit Shah is murkier.
I also find religious nationalism to be distasteful and counterproductive, and have in the past been wary of the BJP. Their campaign this time around though, has has nothing in it that I’ve found objectionable. It has completely ignored religious issues. Not only does that make it a more palatable choice, votes are not cast in a vaccuum. The BJP and Modi are not ideal, but you have to choose from among what you have. You would have to weigh your distaste for religious nationalism against your views on poor governance.
This is a guy who could have control of dozens or even hundreds of nukes, which coincidentally happen to be targeted at my country. He is a fundamentalist, fanatic.
If your country tried to get rid of its fanatics instead of trying to use them to further its aims, things would be a lot better in the region don’t you think?
Anyway, what’s your basis for calling him a ‘fundamentalist, fanatic’?
I don’t know much about his politics, and I don’t know whether he was directly involved in the Amit Shah affair. Having said that, his willingness to endorse Shah’s actions is disturbing.
It’s not clear to me at all that he’s ‘endorsing’ Shah’s actions in that speech. He is reiterating what he often says - if there is evidence that he’s done something illegal, the central government(which is his political opposition, so it’s not like we can suspect them of trying to cover things up for him) should prosecute him, instead of making allegations. I find that to be a reasonable stance.
He is defending the police force of Gujarat, by saying that they’ve killed a terrorist. Extra judicial killings of terrorists are not OK in my book, but they’re also not something that make or break my opinion on a candidate. Barack Obama ordered hundreds of terrorists killed without trial, and was re-elected to a second term quite handily.
India has very restrictive laws when it comes to electoral speech, particularly where it strays into the territory of inciting hatred or violence against other communities. It’s a legacy of the lingering animosity between sections of Hindus and Muslims post partition, and the fact that the government machinery is relatively weak and overburdened. I tend to generally agree with them.
The restriction on ‘appeals to religion/caste’ doesn’t make sense to me though, considering how so many parties implicitly (and many Muslim parties explicitly) canvass based on religion and caste anyway.
In Tamil nadu foreign anti-India interests with so called intellectuals created hatred between different communities. Missionaries in the name of service converted some communities. They don’t want harmony between communities. The hatred is going too far. They may demand separate country based on language. Basically sahaja dharma thinks the whole world is one family. Save the world.
I can’t see that happening. Based on previous state election results in Karnataka, (I’m from Bangalore, so I follow Karnataka politics more closely than other states), a BJP victory only emboldened Hindutva-focussed organisations like the Sri Ram Sena.
If Modi wins, I expect a wide range of juvenile crowing and much chest-thumping from the online Hindu brigade (which I can roll my eyes at and tolerate) but I also fear a lack of restraint from Sangh Parivar and associated idiots, both in terms of pushing a BJP government towards a more intolerant stance, as well as causing actual violence.
I hope I’m wrong, but I’m cynical enough about the Hindutva movement to believe that this is possible.
Anything other than that one incident in Mangalore?
It’s certainly possible, but I think a fair bit of the social media onslaught is campaign driven. I think if he wins, that aspect at least will cool off, and leave us with a ‘normal’ amount of crazy.
No, Brahmin oppression created hatred between different communities. That’s the simple story and the true one.
I have no idea what ‘sahaja dharma’ is, but you should be aware that you have those hated missionaries to thank for a lot of hospitals, schools, universities and other social services.
In some ways it’s a pity that the south didn’t become a separate country, if only so that we wouldn’t face the prospect of being ruled by people like your buddy Modi.
We? You’re only Indian origin aren’t you? You certainly have a number of vehement and generally wrong opinions about India that seem like they can only come from distance and selective knowledge.
Opinion piece suggesting that there has been an increase in violence by groups associated with the Sangh Parivar because of the BJP government: http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2008/10/2386
Nineteen incidents of violence across south-eastern Karnataka around March 2011:
Bombing in Hubli in 2008 linked to Hindutva group, 2009:
Attacks on Christians, 2011:
Sudden rise in violent attacks by Hindutva groups, 2012:
The BJP was in power in Karnataka from 2008 to 2013, under three different Chief Ministers. I haven’t done a comparative study of the statistics to see how much communal violence there was during the previous government, and how much there has been since, but my impression, and one borne out by the links above, is that Hindu extremist violence seemed to be on the upswing during this period.
