The bio makes it sound like he’s spent a long time studying India in general. Which makes him as qualified as anyone in the BJP (or the Congress) to comment on its politics, and probably more so than M.J. Akbar, whom you call “an actual expert” for no reason I can see and certainly no academic reason. If you want a better expert, that would probably be a political scientist.
Why don’t you tell me if Thomas Crowley’s bio reads like that of an expert?
This is laughable. Thomas Crowley is a philosophy graduate(i.e he hasn’t studied India/ modern Indian history at his university) who has lived in India for a few years doing research that, per the bio, is not related to the political landscape or history or any subject that could be related to the topic at hand. His most recent research project was about a slightly oversized park in New Delhi. He’s basically an American living in India with an opinion. Which would be fine if he weren’t presented as an ‘expert’.
And it’s not just his bio that I’m basing my criticism on. Had he known what he was talking about, he wouldn’t have made the egregious statements on tax reform and riots that I pointed out earlier.
M J Akbar on the other hand has spent a lifetime reporting on politics in India and is intimately acquainted with the political and institutional background of the country. He was a critic of Modi who has looked at and understood the evidence and changed his mind. If for you both of these commentators are equivalent in their knowledge on this topic, I want to know how many bridges you own.
Here’s his bio
Can’t you understand that the sole basis of Akbar’s “expertise” is also the reason why we must take anything he says with a salt mine or two? Again, his views on the BJP are “informed” like Boehner’s or Cruz’ views on the GOP are “informed,” i.e., to be considered but not trusted. He has a political agenda and it is the BJP’s agenda.
You can keep pointing me to biased opinion pieces all day long. I already know they’re out there, and in part it’s what prompted this thread. Come back when you can present some evidence, or if you come across an article that presents some evidence. Or when you’re willing to look at my evidence and argue its merits. Or when you’re willing to provide any constructive input really.
I find this comment to be in remarkably poor taste. I’d recommend that you do not try and tell Indians that our independence from the British was the point where things started going badly for us, and if you must do so, try not to be so patronising about it.
No, no, not “started.” Any country (including mine) where religion dominates politics is going to be in a bad way until it gets past that, and your country’s politics have been dominated by religion for at least three thousand years now. You need to get past it, and Modri and the BJP ain’t gonna help none.
He became the BJP’s spokesman in March 2014. Before that he’s been a career journalist who trades on his integrity, which no one has ever accused him of lacking. He has in the past been an outspoken critic of both the BJP and Modi. He’s looked at the evidence, and decided it allows him to reconsider his stance, and join them. You can take this with as many salt mines as you wish. I present it as evidence that people who actually know what they’re talking about consider that Modi is correct in his protestation of innocence on the 2002 riots and desire for Hindu-Muslim unity in India.
What does
mean then?
It means you were going to Naraka even before the Brits arrived, and all because your religion dominated your politics. The Brits, for all their faults, at least were not Hindu zealots. Nor (mostly) Christian zealots either, because that would have been in Bad Taste.
Ah, so you did mean what you wrote. Thanks, we’re done here.
No, we’re not, and you’re not.
Cite?
I am not sure by what measure you think Indian/subcontinental politics have been 'dominated by religion ’ for ‘three thousand years’. At least, to a greater extent than Europe. It seems to me that subcontinental politics have mostly been driven by a combination of class, caste, economic, power politics, and religious issues , same as anywhere else.
It’s possible that India has traditionally been a more religious place than China, say, but I don’t think it was, until maybe a hundred and fifty years ago , much more religiously driven than Europe.
Caste is religious in India. And religious differences have been dominating the country’s politics at least since the Muslims arrived, probably longer.
Caste is related to religion in the same way that a lot of social artifacts in India are, but caste in politics has nothing to do with religion. It plays out more like race-based or ethnicity-based politics.
I’m thinking it plays out more like American religious-right notions about the proper place of women.
Yeah, well, you’re wrong about that.
To be more specific, caste politics is about directing resources to whatever group manages to gain power. It has nothing to do with imposing religious beliefs on society.
BrainGlutton Caste is essentially a racial/ethnic signifier with economic overtones . Read Razib Khan on caste and genetics, he’s pretty good.
Just…no.
I don’t know whether this statement shows a deeper lack of understanding of conservative Christian understanding of gender roles , or of contemporary caste issues, but it’s just very deeply wrong.
If you think of caste as a sort of hybrid of race and premodern economic classes, probably more weighted toward the former, you’ll be much more correct.