Indian elections and Narendra Modi

What are the other ‘bad acts’ that Modi is accused of? I’m not aware of any. Enlighten me. I have, in my OP, linked to an article that the US visa denial was a political action brought about by a coalition of Indian Americans and conservative Christian politicians after the 2002 riots. It gives you no special insight into his role in the riots because the people who worked to bring about the ban had no special insight into the riots.

You’re getting me wrong. Blame the BJP all you like, and for specific actions in its history, it does deserve blame. But trying to apportion this blame by throwing in meaningless scare words about ‘Hindu nationalism’ or Hindutva is wrong and counterproductive.

It means nothing to me, and I’m trying to ascertain what it means to people who either use it or agree with its usage. It appears to be used by people, particularly in the western press, to present a negative connotation, but it’s usage is certainly not based on any of the explicit platforms of the BJP, so I can’t understand it, and I’m trying to get people who use it or agree with it to spell out their positions clearly so we can have a debate.

You of all people would be aware that the BJP has been in power in India before, from 1998/99 to 2004. Those five years saw incredible acceleration in terms of globalisation in India. They saw many peace overtures made to Pakistan(it’s a different matter that Pakistan cannot control its own army and they came to naught), and a deepening of the friendship with the US. I reject the thesis that they were anti-globalisation at any point in the last 15 years at least. Anti western thought? If you qualify or expand on that statement I can examine it. They certainly claim that India should seek cultural inspiration from its own history, I see nothing exceptionable in that.

I agree with this statement obviously, but what I don’t agree with is the prior that they wouldn’t, or that they’re a hair trigger away from genocide. They’ve governed India before. Modi himself has 12 years(11 and a half of which were continuously peaceful) of experience governing 60 million people, 10% of whom are Muslim. I think it’s needless fear mongering to go on about how he and the BJP are ‘Hindu nationalists’ and Muslims are afraid of him/them. As I noted in the OP, in the most recent municipal elections in Gujarat, the BJP won in areas that have Muslim majorities.
Nor do India’s so called secular parties have a better record of either promoting unity within India or of protecting Muslims when violence breaks out.

I’m unaware of the comment made, and your link doesn’t take me to it, but I am at a loss to understand why you think a secular party that believes in an all encompassing ideology of love and unity cannot have the Ram Temple be an issue! They may not be a Hindu nationalist party, but they have a constituency to which they have committed they will attempt, within the law, to construct a Ram temple in Ayodhya. How would a “secular” party in the west handle a conflict between two religious groups over holy ground? Like the west has done with Israel?

If all they do is quietly maintain a hardline stance while having brandy with their buddies, while they maintain in their public speech and actions a moderate stance, that’s fine. I think what you mean is that their public actions shouldn’t be inflammatory. I agree.

And this is where we differ. I think we have enough evidence to take them at their word instead of presuming them to be guilty at the outset. It’s not like India’s a black box where they can carry out their malafide agenda in secret while claiming all is well, and fool everyone.

That’s nonsensical. Give me, for sake of argument, that Modi is a moderate element in the BJP(and his entire campaign has been moderate-centrist through and through). Are you saying that voting for him would strengthen the hardliners? On the contrary, it would show hardliners that the moderate approach is popular and works. If the moderates lose after campaigning on a moderate agenda, that’s when hardliners would be emboldened.

Sorry - this statement “BJP reiterates its stand to explore all possibilities within the framework of the constitution to facilitate the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya.” was from the 2014 manifesto.

I’m not trying to pretend to know more about this than I do. I’m just going from wikipedia. But it suggests there have been a number of incidents involving anti-Muslim comments and actions, and he was also denied visas in the EU and the UK. I have not examined each claim and controversy–maybe they would all vanish upon inspection.

Now that Modi has won such an emphatic victory, I certainly hope he will waste no time in getting the economy back on rails. There is no remote control to obey and no midnight phone calls from Italian barmaids to answer.

I also hope he will tackle the festering, oozing sore on the face of the planet, a place called Pakistan.

What is the Indian government supposed to do about Pakistan?

Here’s an example of the references provided in that article for his ‘significant’ use of anti Muslim rhetoric.

Islamic terrorism and its ties to Pakistan are a perfectly legitimate poll plank in India, which suffers from a great deal of Pakistan sponsored terrorism. But because it’s Modi, it becomes anti Muslim.
I maintain that there is more bias than fact in reporting of that nature, and I’ve laid out a lot of evidence for that in the thread. Go through it, and see if you believe it more than you believe Wikipedia. I don’t have much of a stake in this, I’m not a Modi supporter. I just dislike the way he’s been constantly vilified without evidence, and use of phrases like “Hindu nationalist”, and the one sheep he fucked.

Bomb it! With atum bums!

Heh. But yeah, if the US can’t get them to behave, India can’t either. I just hope we keep building that fence, and don’t rush into anything. They’re remarkably bad at holding up their end of a deal.

Here’s a scathing interview with Delhi-based researcher Thomas Crowley.

<shrug> More opinion that’s low on evidence and high on bias.

As a matter of fact, there is good reason to believe he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Prime examples

Something very similar to that? Utter nonsense. The major tax reform that has been spoken about in India is not levying retrospective taxes, which the last government has been attempting to do, has been challenged in the courts, and which even the most dyed in the wool liberal agree are a bad idea. The other reform is trying to implement a nationwide tax regime to create a single market and avoid taxation issues at state borders.

He then directly compares the Gujarat riots in 2002 to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots( which were instigated and supported by the main opposition the Congress.

Bold mine. How clueless is this guy? The very riots he’s comparing the Gujarat riots with led to more than twice as many deaths than Gujarat
2002 Gujarat riots

1984 Riots

I’m befuddled at how/why someone who knows so little is being interviewed. If I had to guess, it’d be that he’s the only American based in India who was both in the Salon journalist’s network and who could be found in time for the deadline.

The only bio I can find about this ‘expert’ says

So…not really an expert at all then.

Sorry. link http://www.edustation.co/faculty/thomas-crowley/

Here are the views of an actual expert. M J Akbar, a respected senior Indian journalist and politician who was a harsh critic of Modi after the 2002 riots, but has changed his mind over time, and recently joined the BJP.

That bio makes him sound like an expert.

Having a de facto one party democracy is preferable if the other main party is made of religious fanatics (as is also the case with Turkey) to either having the other party win much of the time or having an outright dictatorship .

Maybe he is, on philosophy(which he has his degree in), religion(in which he professes to do research) and ecology(which is what his current research is apparently about). He clearly doesn’t know shit about contemporary Indian history or politics, as evidenced by zilch on the bio, and his glaringly erroneous views in the interview you linked to.

ETA: I’m really confused. What about the bio makes you think he’s someone whose views you should give credence to on the topic about which he’s speaking?

Wait, you have to have a degree in the B.J.P. to have valid, informed information and views about the B.J.P.?

Yeah, well, according to this piece in The Nation:

Also:

Look, I understand your poor country has been going to Naraka since the Brits cut you loose, but this is no way to deal with it! Trust me, we’ve tried a combination of business-friendly economic neoliberalism and cultural reaction/bigotry here! It never does any good!

BTW, about the “Triumph of the Will” thing – from that Salon interview with Thomas Crowley:

And this is the same culture that produced Gandhi . . .

Journalist M.J. Akbar has no “degree in” the BJP (nor any other degree) so far as I can tell from that linked article, he’s a member of the BJP. Which means his views on it are informed the way Boehner’s or Cruz’ views on the GOP are “informed.”