Well, Modi won, with a clear mandate no less.
I’m Indian-American but married to a FOB. My husband is Aam Aadmi but it’s pretty obvious from FB that the rest of our family is 100% BJP…in spite of the fact that both my grandfather and his were Gandhians, socialists and separatist rebels. Things have changed a lot in India.
I’m curious to see how long Obama is going to wait to call him up.
I’m quite surprised at the size of the mandate. I was expecting him to win, but not by the margin he’s got. An absolute majority just for his own party beggars belief, given the kind of results India’s served up over the last decades. Well, at the very least he can’t claim compulsions of coalition if he screws up. To his credit throughout his campaign he has explicitly asked for a clear mandate so that he can be judged on performance.
I was again reassured by the messaging at the higher levels of the party regarding the Hindu-Muslim harmony thing. In numerous post-win interviews different members of the core leadership that is close to Modi stressed that they were determined to provide good governance to all sections of society regardless of creed, that no section of society need fear discrimination. At the end of the very first statement to his party workers after the victory party president asked them to ensure that there is ‘vinamrata’ or polite behaviour in victory, and that care should be taken to not create negative sentiments in any group.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating of course, but I expect them to try and live up to this kind of messaging, if only because there is so much scrutiny on the matter.
I expect the US will follow protocol in the matter of contacting him. They have been trying to thaw relations with him since February odd, when they sent the ambassador to call on him. That meeting seemed friendly enough. I personally hope he won’t hold a grudge against the US. In public at least, he has given every indication that he doesn’t.
(FOB?)
On the Aam Aadmi, I love their idealism and attitude, but their policy positions have always been so poorly thought out that I’ve never been able to bring myself to support them. And after their shameful month in charge of Delhi, I’m glad to have them in politics, but I think they’ve thrown away their chance to be a force in the near future.
“Fresh off the boat.” Usually derogatory term applied to recent immigrants to the US, though it’s okay when we say it. 
FOB and ABCD are the sometimes affectionate terms that Indian Americans have for each other (“fresh off the boat” and American-born confused Desi")
Ah. Thanks. Acsenray, I knew of ABCD, thanks. That’s quite well known in India, thanks to some movies on the topic 
Just saw Modi’s first post victory rally. He stressed at great length(it was the main body of his speech really) how government is for everyone, all 1.25 billion Indians, those who voted for him, those who did not, how no group is more or less dear to a good government, and how he would work for development for all. He did not explicitly mention any particular group(i.e Muslims), but that’s consistent with his attempt to differentiate himself from the approach of other parties.
He’s certainly talked the unity talk. We’ll find out if he walks it I suppose.
I’m also really surprised by the scale of the victory - considering that the last non-coalition government was elected back in 1984, on the back of the massive sympathy wave for the Congress after Indira Gandhi was assassinated. I wasn’t expecting Modi to have an absolute majority, and I’ve come across all sorts of reactions, from the “oh my god, it’s the end of the world and the apocalypse is come” to a much more pragmatic shrugging of the shoulders and waiting to see how it all turns out. I lean more to the pragmatic side of the equation myself, partly because not being able to vote has left me a bit detached from the reality of the election, but also because I’d prefer to hope rather than be despondent.
I don’t really think the problem is going to be the public statements that the BJP (or even the RSS) leadership make. My fear is really more (as I noted above) about what license this will give to other more radical organisations, and how they will be dealt with. Of course, in this, as in all other things, we shall see, and perhaps we will have a repeat of the Vjapayee-style moderation of the rhetoric and actions.
I have a lot of admiration for what Kejriwal has done, and how he has shaken up the manner in which elections and politics are approached, but I don’t honestly know if the AAP can make the transition from being a firebrand underdog opposition party to providing sensible governance. What happened in Delhi seems to bear that out, though of course they will mature as an organisation as time goes on.
The 2 posters above explained it-an ABCD is a 2nd generation NRI and when applied to an Indian, a FOB is a 1st generation NRI. But almost every immigrant community in the US refers to their 1st generation community as FOB, not just Indians. FOBs and ABCDs are mutually disdainful of one another, sometimes even while being married. Ha.
I think Modi is far too cunning to hold a grudge against the US…I mean, he takes regular trips to China.
I’d like to see AAP grow into a real party with solid experience in governance, or have Congress unshackles itself from the Nehru family once and for all. A mandate is great but a viable opposition party is necessary.
He’s incredibly intelligent, witty and snarky…I’ve seen his Youtube talk on the Delhi Jal Board corruption issues. The 49 day government depleted my faith in him, though. I hope this party matures.
On a side note, I’m truly disappointed with the NYTimes (particularly Ellen Barry’s) coverage on Modi. The bias has been distasteful. Every article attempts to present negatives more prominently, making constant references to his divisiveness or his ‘Hindu ideology’ and that Muslims are fearful of him, while ignoring entirely that he has made several attempts to address those fears. For example, her twitter feed just now covering his rally skips over the comments that I’ve noted in my post above and focus on his speech lead in and throwaway remarks towards the end.
The NYT and The Guardian both seem to have taken this attitude, which is a bit disappointing. I may not be the biggest fan of Modi, but I don’t think he’s a combination of Putin, Hitler, Stalin and Attilla the Hun, which seems to be the approach of some newspapers.
William Dalrymple wrote a great article in the New Statesman the other day, which you might enjoy. Narendra Modi: man of the masses
I think we are largely in agreement, although the spectrum of reactions that I’m aware of extends to ‘thrilled that he’s in charge’. I’m personally cautiously optimistic.
On the ‘problematic’ issue, I’m impressed because the party president pro-actively, as a priority, asked his party workers to be careful not to give offence to anyone. It augurs well. But of course, we will see what we will see.
I find large swathes of Kejriwal’s statements and actions to be very inspiring. He can bring up a lump in my throat. Then I go and read his version of the Lokpal bill, hear his poll promises in Delhi, look at his behaviour while in power and despair.
At any rate, I consider him to be a big positive, just because his party shook up the establishment so much.
Yeah right?
Are you being serious? (I’m not sure) Because that article is a brilliant example of Modi vilification that is not based in fact, but in bias. I can point out the factual inaccuracies if you’re serious?
The NYTimes has always been very obvious in their distaste for India’s nuclear aspirations as well as any political parties that lean to the right. You should have read the editorials they wrote in the 90s when India became a nuclear nation (outright) and the BJP coalition was voted in the last time. They’ve ALWAYS prefer the highlighting-of-beauty-in-poverty-and-filth-while-bemoaning-a-fractured-state narrative for India. A NYTimes reporter isn’t really happy unless s/he’s hand-wringing over a starving ethnic baby, anyway, it has nothing to do with India. WSJ has always been more “friendly” in terms of its reporting, if you mean towards right-wing parties anywhere, but because of the business focus of the newspaper at least they quit featuring India in the context of runaway monkeys and ethnic people squatting serenely by the side of the road with resplendent mustaches like 10 years before NYT did.
You CAN’T be surprised about The Guardian. I mean, come on. LOL.
I was actually being serious.
Someone like Pankaj Mishra here: Narendra Modi and the new face of India | Politics books | The Guardian clearly has an agenda, but I think Dalrymple is sounding a cautious rather than a vilifying note. I’d be interested to read the list of factual inaccuracies that you see in that article.
The internet wasn’t quiet such a big part of my life back then
Hahaha. This is such a bang on characterisation of their articles and photos on the topic. Nicely done.
Heh. I know of their bias, but I haven’t read any of their coverage on the Indian election/Modi at all.
It’s been the same old cheap shots and innuendo towards Modi from the usual suspects such as The Guardian, Independent and BBC. The words “blood on his hands” “hardliner” extremist" and “worrying developments” are invariably used to implicate him.
Hmm . . . What does that imply for relations with Pakistan and Bangladesh?
Personally, I expect him to go a bit more hawkish, but not to a ridiculous extent. I think the anti-Pakistan rhetoric from the BJP has calmed down a bit in recent years, mostly because the Indian economy has been the focus of so much attention, but also because there hasn’t been much change in the status quo in the last several years. I would like the current slightly-more-relaxed state of affairs to continue, but again, who knows?
With Bangladesh, it’s harder to tell. The illegal immigrant issue (or perceived issue) is certainly alive, but Bangladesh is also much less important economically and much less of a threat militarily, so he can afford to bluster a lot without it (perhaps literally) blowing up out of control.
Sure. I only caught these because I’ve wanted to know more about the issue and actually went and read the Special Investigative Team’s report myself a few weeks ago.
The first one that struck me -
He did not call a statewide strike. Bandhs were called by other groups, as they are in India for any number of reasons by any number of groups. Apparently, the Bandhs were illegal, and the government was at fault for not having stopped them from going ahead. But again, that happens in every state and city in India when groups call bandhs.
The investigative report(Sit Clos Voli 1-100 | PDF) has debunked the “parading of burned bodies” bit quite thoroughly. Here’s the text. The relevant sections are around page 63(of the report, 65 of the pdf. I’d copy paste, but it’s a pdf). They use call records, hospital records, testimony of hospital staff, family members of the victims to establish that the bodies were taken in the middle of the night to a hospital on the outskirts of Ahmedabad because most bodies were from Ahmedabad or nearby, the majority were collected by families and cremated at the hospital, and one group was from a village outside Ahmedabad, where they were delivered and then cremated. They were not ‘paraded around Ahmedbad’.
As for the incendiary speeches, you can click on the youtube link in my OP and decide for yourself. He does use strong language to describe the burning of pilgrims, but I see that as an attempt to express empathy. He follows it up with a powerful and unambiguous appeal for peace. I don’t consider that incendiary.
Next-
The SIT report again says that there is no evidence in mobile phone call records to back up this statement.
So Dalrymple makes no mention of the fairly solid grounds on which the SIT clears Modi(mobile phone records), but he does try to cast doubt on the report anyway -
Modi holds a series of meetings with the police(which somehow become hour by hour in Dalrymple’s next sentence), but in a state where there has been a large breakdown of law and order, an incident takes place at 3 pm, why is it implausible that he could not have known till late that evening?
He also makes no mention of the facts that there were several other allegations made against the Modi government that the SIT cleared. For instance it established that the army was called immediately for support but responded that it was unavailable immediately because it was deployed at the border because of tensions with Pakistan. There’s a detailed list of steps taken that’s summarised in this link http://www.manushi.in/articles.php?articleId=1688
Next-
Not only is there no long list of ancient Indian achievements, they do not exclude the period after the 12th century, and nor are they exclusively Hindu.
http://www.bjp.org/images/pdf_2014/full_manifesto_english_07.04.2014.pdf
These are just a few that I could easily spot based on what I already know. (The manifesto I checked out on a hunch, having never looked at it before)
I’ll also mark out some lines that scream bias. I’m actually surprised he’s so nakedly obvious about it.
There’s also the way he presents the Babri Masjid section. He associates Modi with it by saying he was responsible for organising the Gujarat leg. Then he goes on to spend two paragraphs about how the Masjid was demolished, the riots that spread through India, the thousands of killings that happened. And then he says Modi was rewarded for his work by being promoted. Do you think that’s an innocent description of events?