In what way? It seems to me like a pretty explicit rejection of the idea of excluding people based on their faith. Where are you seeing the ‘but…’?
[
In the case of a country as diverse and fractious as India, I think the advantages in terms of representation outweigh the disadvantages in terms of accountability.
The sort of unwieldy coalitions that we’ve traditionally seen, whatever their disadvantages, had the advantage that they helped hold the country together, by giving lots of regional and caste-based parties a stake in the outcome. That’s evidently a thing of the past, now that the BJP alone has 52% of the seats (in spite of the fact that two out of three people voted for a party other than the BJP). It’s very surprising, when you come to think of it, that a country as diverse as India should have held together over the past 65 years or so, and I think those fractious coalitions had a lot to do with it. Now that one party, alone, can form a government, I’m concerned (regardless of any concerns over their ideology), that the two-thirds of the country that didn’t vote for Modi is increasingly going to feel aggrieved.
As for the Hindu nationalist thing: I don’t know Modi’s personal beliefs, although his remarks about manual scavenging in his book were disgusting, but he absolutely is the leader of a party that’s associated with Hindu nationalism, he is personally a member of the RSS, about which I’m sure I don’t need to say more, and in the eyes of a lot of people he is and always will be associated with Hindu nationalism and with the 2002 riots, whether or not he is personally responsible. If nothing else, his election is going to invigorate and embolden the people who are legitimately Hindu nationalists.
Re: Contrary to what its detractors say, and as the Supreme Court itself has decreed, Hindutva is not a religious or exclusivist concept.
You could probably redefine ‘Lebensraum’ to mean something innocuous and pacific, but you can’t blame Jews for freaking out when they hear the word. In the same way, there is absolutely zero reason for any Muslim, Christian, low-caste Hindu, or secularist, to feel comforted by people redefining ‘Hindutva’ into something warm and fuzzy.
No need. See here.
I’ll go ahead and add this to the list of your curious notions about India that are far removed from fact. We have only ‘traditionally’ seen fractious coalitions in power in India in the last twenty or so years. By the time coalition politics became important in India, pretty much all separatism had died down, barring Kashmir. There was still some in the North East, but they had no part of the coalition governments at the centre, and these days, North Eastern militancy(if not separatism) has also cooled off. Interestingly, the BJP has done quite well in the North East in these elections.
No governing coalition has at any point in the past twenty years garnered higher vote share than the current coalition that has been voted into power. So this argument holds no water.
As for feeling aggrieved at the government in power - that is every Indian’s right, and if they do indeed feel let down by the current government, they should vote them out of power. It’s how democracy works.
[/quote]
First off, I don’t see how his remarks on manual scavenging, no matter how distasteful, would have a bearing on his or his party’s Hindu nationalism. All you’re achieving by introducing them is to try and throw in a random smear, in which aim I think you’re selling yourself short. I mean, you’ve already called him a neo-fascist murderer. What’re a few distasteful remarks to that? 
Secondly, I knew nothing of the book that you refer to. After reading about it, apparently it was a collection of inspirational speeches made to bureaucrats of which 5000 copies were printed and which were withdrawn when the remarks came to light. I can only find reporter’s translations. What I want to see is the remark and its context for myself. I’ve seen far too much misreporting and bias when it comes to Modi to believe these things without cites. If you can point me towards it, I would be obliged. If he has made distasteful remarks about manual scavengers that make no sense in context, fie on him.
What does Hindu nationalism(the term) mean when you use it?
That article is not helpful at all. It is so all encompassing as to include Gandhi, the Indian National Congress, and various movements that no modern user of the phrase would be thinking of. So, yes, there is a need. Why I’m asking is that I always see it thrown in by people writing/talking in the media when referring to him and to the BJP. I’ve followed the campaign, listened to his speeches, and I see no part of the BJP’s agenda or campaign devoting any space to anything I could classify as ‘Hindu nationalism’. On the contrary, they often explicitly note that they do not see India as a religious or purely Hindu country. When asked if he is a Hindu nationalist, Modi said he is a Hindu and he is a nationalist. Is that enough for you to refer to him as a Hindu nationalist? Would you refer to Obama as a Christian nationalist?
Can you identify for me the definition of Hindutva that should cause Muslim, Christian, low caste Hindu or secularists to feel threatened?
See post #57 – it’s not the definition, it’s the history.
Then the statement should be about the specific history, not about the concept, especially since the history is not about creation of a Hindu nation. That not only allows people to tar with a wide brush, it backfires since it’s treated by them as vilification both of an essentially pluralist religion and their founding concept, which, again has evolved to be largely pluralist(although in some founding versions it did exclude Christianity and Islam from its definition)
That is a pointless nitpick; it is the BJP itself that by its actions has made the Hindutva brand name scary to Muslims, seculars, etc.
While I am somewhat disturbed by Modi’s success, I am also somewhat pleased that 60 years of de facto one party rule (yes, I know the Congress Party has mostly formed coalition governments lately) are at an end.
On the contrary, I think it’s an important distinction. Some of BJP’s past and some of the actions of its supporters should be criticised. But to blindly extend that criticism to its governing philosophy is wrong headed. And its supporters can(and do) rightfully claim victimisation when that happens, because it wouldn’t in other cases. As a clear parallel on the other side of the divide, when terrorists blow up the World trade towers, you, personally, would be fighting any vilification of Islam.
Even more pleasant is that Indira Gandhi’s dynasty was at the helm for the humiliation.
(Actually, that’s what disturbs me about Modi. I worry that he’s too much like Indira in terms of his liking for concentrating power. Hopefully he will prove me wrong)
Compare the American situation: If the moderate bizcons of the GOP are going to get in bed with Tea Party and religious-right wingnuts, it is perfectly reasonable to be scared of the whole GOP for that reason, perfectly reasonable to tar the whole party with that brush, and it does discredit their “governing philosophy.”
Reasonable for a partisan perhaps. I disagree that it’s reasonable. I think it’s wrong and counterproductive.
That doesn’t strike me as a very good analogy. It’s true that someone’s claim to act in allegiance with some ideology may be true or false, and the bad deeds of self-identified supporters ought not taint a cause if the cause rejects those deeds. But that’s about as far as the analogy will take you. From my limited understanding, I had thought that in the case of the BJP the bad acts were those of elected officials of the party, including Modi himself. That’s like saying Mullah Omar shouldn’t be blamed for the actions of Osama Bin Laden.
No(in the case of Modi) it’s like saying the Aga Khan shouldn’t be blamed for the actions Osama Bin Laden. In the case of Hindutva, it is precisely the analogy of Islam and terrorists who are acting in its name.
I’ve laid out at length in this thread why I(and the investigation team appointed by India’s Supreme court) think there is no evidence that Modi was involved in the 2002 riots. Do you have any?
No. I only know what wikipedia tells me on the subject. But, of course, the 2002 riots are not the only bad acts Modi has been accused of. IIRC, they were not even the basis of the U.S. visa denial.
The point is that Modi is in the leadership of BJP. That makes his relationship to BJP quite different from the relationship between Al Qaeda and Islam, not to mention the important differences between a nationalist political party and a religion with 1.6 billion adherents. Even if blaming BJP for the acts of its officials and ministers is somehow wrong, it’s an order of magnitude more reasonable than blaming Islam for the acts of individual Muslims.
Of course it’s reasonable, because it means you can’t vote Republican without voting for and strengthening the party that includes the RR and the Teabaggers. And you can’t vote for the BNP without voting for the worst of it.
There is nothing analogous on the Dem side – LW radicals among the Dems are too few to matter, and Dennis Kucinich, who is not at all scary, pretty much defines the outer limits of the Overton Window there.
If I might turn this around for a moment, what does the term mean to you ;)?
It does appear that the BJP is backing down a bit from some of their more extreme positions they have held in the past ( not just in terms of ethnic nationalism, but also past expressions of anti-Western thought and anti-globalization ). I think most non-extremists in this world would hope for a sane, rational government to helm India and BJP now has a chance to prove they can deliver that. We can only hope they come through on that hope.
But see, here’s my difficulty. While it is all well and good to label yourself as a secular party and declare Hindutva as all-encompassing ideology of love, unity, compassion and a diverse One India, there are niggling little issues. Tossing aside decades-old rhetoric, what is one to make of BJP party-head Rajnath Singh weighing in on the ( as he purportedly did just a few years back ) Ram Temple mess in an apparently uncompromising factor. That is not exactly what one expects from a “secular” party in the west. And it makes one question just how committed the party is to their boilerplate.
Which is always problem, because, well, politicians lie :). There are simply far too many past incidences when figures associated with the BJP have been associated with inflammatory causes or struggles for me to feel comfortable with them. And moderating your stated platform to gain broader popular support to win elections, while quietly maintaining a more hardline stance when you are enjoying a brandy at home with your buddies, is a pretty standard tactic.
Now could be I am being needlessly cynical. Hopefully that is the case. But whatever their platform claims, I’m going to take it with a grain of salt until they prove otherwise.