Calling Modi "pro-business" seems like a bit of an over-simplication. He's a member of the RSS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh ), which is arguably a violently anti-muslim paramilitary group, as well as leading the BJP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party). It's not unreasonable to call the BJP centre-right on economic/business issues ... but they have other policies as well, some of which are rather disturbing.
I'm not Indian and have no connection to the sub-continent. But it does not fill me with the warm fuzzies to read in wikipedia that:
"In 2005, Modi was denied a diplomatic visa to the United States. In addition, the B-1/B-2 visa that had previously been granted to him was also revoked, under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which makes any foreign government official who was responsible or "directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom" ineligible for the visa."
2. If the "BJP has other policies, which are disturbing", please enlighten us. Just lobbing an attack and walking away doesn't do any good.
3. The US denies visas to all sorts of people; including people like Nelson Mandela. He (Modi) was investigated for the 2002 riots by Supreme Court of India, and given a clean chit.
That is maybe just a little too generous to the RSS. It's a big organization, so it does a lot of things.
Some well-known events to contextualize the RSS:
1949: A member of the RSS (EDIT: perhaps lapsed, perhaps active), Nathuram Godse, assassinates Mahatma Gandhi for being too partial to Muslims.
1992: The RSS organizes a rally of 150k activists at the Babri Mosque, as part of a campaign to get the government to demolish it and replace it with a Hindu temple. The activists riot, and destroy it.
2002: The Gujarat riots. The RSS played a key role in the violence, organizing communal reprisals against Muslims for a terrorist attack against Hindu pilgrims[1] returning from a trip to the aforementioned demolished mosque.
There are several other of these, along with smaller things that still make you raise an eyebrow (e.g. claiming the infamous gang rape in 2012 happens only in cities and because of malign foreign influences).
Overall, the RSS is a little bit darker than a Hindu-flavored version of the Red Cross.
Correction: Nathuram Godse was not a member of RSS when he assassinated Gandhi. RSS did not agree with his radical views and hence he left RSS to start his own organization.
2002: Muslim mob burned 59 people alive on a railways station. Riots were mostly a response to this incident.
edit: Right, why am I getting downvoted for this??
What's your response to the Economist article that was posted here [1]? To quote:
"One reason why the inquiries into the riots were inconclusive is that a great deal of evidence was lost or wilfully destroyed. And if the facts in 2002 are murky, so are Mr Modi’s views now. He could put the pogroms behind him by explaining what happened and apologising. Yet he refuses to answer questions about them. In a rare comment last year he said he regretted Muslims’ suffering as he would that of a puppy run over by a car. Amid the uproar, he said he meant only that Hindus care about all life. Muslims—and chauvinist Hindus—heard a different message. Unlike other BJP leaders, Mr Modi has refused to wear a Muslim skullcap and failed to condemn riots in Uttar Pradesh in 2013 when most of the victims were Muslim."
Happened to my comment too and it's the first time here on HN I'm getting down voted like this and can't think of any other than solely political reasons. It's a bit disturbing to see this happening here of all places.
But don't worry getting down voted by people with negative (didn't know that's a thing) karma should turn your actual Karma into something positing positive if my math isn't completely off.
If the parent is guilty of over simplification, you are guilty of obfuscation.
While technically the RSS may have a Muslim wing tucked away somewhere with some token members, it was, is and will remain the umbrella organization for advancing the Hindu (religious) viewpoint. It has been violent many times in its history, and even today stands accused of engineering everything from riots to bomb blasts. And always with an anti-Muslim agenda.
Mind you I'm not saying Modi will follow the RSS agenda (I don't think he will, he's far too shrewd and smart for that. He will not compromise his ability to stay PM for 10-15 years for short-term Hindutva agendas).
A former colleague of mine just wrote a magisterial account of the RSS' history and future in India for Caravan magazine. I'd recommend those who want to understand more about RSS, BJP and yes, Narendra Modi too, give it a read at leisure. It is a long piece.
I was associated with more than 10 years or so and I still do not know what this "Hindu religious viewpoint". I have always been pure atheist while I worked for RSS.
I was close to higher ups in RSS and I do not know the "agenda" you are talking about. Communist, Church and Muslim organizations and very constantly write unsubstantiated bs about RSS in amagazines like Caravan.
There are many things wrong with RSS, I would rather listen to Dr. Koenraad Elst's critic of RSS rather than something written by a intern at Caravan magazine.
I was part of the RSS shakhas. My family has been, for generations, part of RSS. Advani stayed at my house at the time of emergency.
> I do not know the "agenda" you are talking about.
Have you ever read any of the autobiographies of RSS 'sanghsarchalaks' (leaders)? I am not even talking about Gowalikar. Any recent ones? Have you ever read any issue of RSS mouthpiece magazine? Have you ever visited http://rss.org ?
> Communist, Church and Muslim organizations...
In short, the evergreen enemies of RSS and Hindu Nation.
> write unsubstantiated bs about RSS...
Do you have any backing beside RSS mouthpiece magazines?
> I would rather listen to Dr. Koenraad Elst
Because a true nationalist listens to outsiders who agree than nationals who disagree?
I am not sure what your point is. Which "sanghchalak" has written an "autobiography" ? The minor books like a bunch of thoughts are pretty vague and rarely discussed in detail at any of the camps. Not to mention these books are not considered as holy as the communists would consider Stalin's work for example.
Both The founder Hedgewar and Guruji were pretty clear the the objective (or agenda) of the organization is "hindu unity for the sake of unity". There was not agenda related to politics, other communities or religions which the OP seemed to imply.
The left-liberals in India generally reduce to that group Communists, Church and Secular. That is known. For example US denying visa to Modi is not some grand moral stand by US but rather an appeasement of fractional religious groups in US itself.
I could have mentioned Ram Swarup, Sitaram Goel, Harsh Narain and many more. But unfortunately their work relatively old compared to Dr. Elst.
So I have been downvoted even though all I offered was facts.
You appear to have been miffed by the word "autobiography". But I think you know which volumes of books I am talking about.
> Not to mention these books are not considered as holy as the communists would consider Stalin's work for example.
First of all, these books are not discussed in detail at any camps just like Vector Algebra is not discussed in any nursery. What is your point? The leaders of RSS have consistently espoused a bigoted and fascist agenda which you have convinietly skipped over while wondering what "Hindu religious viewpoint" people are clamoring about. Please be clear: being against RSS is not being against "Hindu religious viewpoint", it is being against 'muslims are breeding like rabbits we need to control them like a pest' and 'Hindus are being attacked we must rally and unite behind a common cause of controling muslims like a pest' mentality. Let me know if you think RSS disagrees with this ideology and I will stop this discussion right here.
Also, Stalin's work? You meant Marx? I have yet to meet a liberal (which is what RSS means when they talk about commies) that has ever read Marx.
That _should_ shatter your understanding of whatever you have understood about 'commies'. Imagine how much wrong you just might be about the rest of it.
> and Secular.
And what are the characteristics of these 'secular'? A politically loaded term that has no place in a discussion grounded in reality.
> For example US denying visa to Modi...
F*ck US visa who cares about it?
I find it amazing the attitude that the 2002 Gujarat riots should be brushed under the rug. There is still plenty of controversy about what happened there and Modi's and the states role in those riots, regardless of what any Supreme Court ruling has said. But I guess we should just let bygones be bygones and forget the 1000+ deaths and 100,000s of displaced lives due to riots that are widely believed to have been encouraged, if not caused, by the state.
As I said, riots are far too frequent in India; even 1 riot is 1 too many.
I was in Delhi in 1984. I saw the result of Congress goons going after Sikhs. And yet there was no Supreme Court enquiry. The Prime Minister (Rajiv Gandhi) was never held accountable, since Delhi was a UT at that time.
I don't think you understand how this works. It's not "Congress gets one communal violence pass free, it's only fair if the BJP gets a communal violence pass too!"
If you are going to hold someone to a standard, then hold EVERYONE to that standard. You can't just hold someone to an arbitrary standard just because you don't like them.
> If you are going to hold someone to a standard, then hold EVERYONE to that standard.
True. However, the question is, does it need to be stated explicitly every time someone gets criticized, or asked to be held accountable for something.
> You can't just hold someone to an arbitrary standard just because you don't like them.
I don't think that was happening here. Modi wasn't being held to an "arbitrary standard" because he wasn't "liked". His actions were the point of discussion here.
I'm more than happy to condemn Narendra Modi and Rajiv Gandhi equally. Hell, I'll say Rajiv Gandhi was much worse. Neither of them would have gotten my vote in the last election. The former because he was complicit in communal violence in 2002, the latter because he was complicit in communal violence in 1984 and not running and dead.
This. and the fact that Modi was actually praised that Gujrat did not have any riots after 2002/3 and the stable socio-economic climate. Other secular/pro-muslim governments were unable to prevent quite a few during that time
As a voter I care more about better roads, 24 hour electricity, less government interference in my life than some 1000 people died in a riot 10 years ago.
Those who want to take a moral position by preferring few pamphlets of secularism over real development are free to do so but I think the probability that I will remain alive and prosper is a magnitude higher than under the corrupt Antonia Maino government.
There was government involved. Maya Kodnani, who was a part of the BJP government at that time (2001) and later on made the Minister for Women and Child Development (in 2007) in Gujarat was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
Looks like you deleted your parent post. To provide for future readers, the parent post claimed that the Government was not involved with the riots at all. My reply provides an example of a Minister of the Government who was convicted for murder and conspiracy to murder in a case involving the riots.
I think the problem with Modi, like extreme politicians (e.g. Le Pen in France or the Tea Party) in other democracies is that some of his utterances are contradictory to Enlightenment humanist ideals. It remains to be seen if the subset of his views that can be considered to be extreme are just rhetoric or if he intends to act on them. Historically, such politicians resemble the nationalistic polities of pre-1945 Europe and post-colonial South America.
The bright side about India is that its sheer diversity and the existence of regional leaders (who do not belong to Modi's party) serve as checks and balances. As an example, regional parties organized on linguistic and non-traditional ideologies (communists, anarchists, etc.) basis have captured close to 140 seats in the parliament, including clean-sweeps in several States such as Tamil Nadu (population ~70 million), Odisha (population ~40 million), Seemandhra/Telangana (population ~85 million), and West Bengal (population ~90 million).
Why single out BJP? Why not the Congress, which _was_ in power when the High Court judgment came out, and could have passed a law legalizing homosexuality?
Actions, as they say, are louder than words. Congress was in a position to enact change; but decided not to.
You wanted an example, I gave you an example - I guess you need to move the goalposts as you can't actually deny that Modi and the BJP have spoken out against homosexuality many times. As far as I'm aware, the Congress Party have pledged in their manifesto that the rights of sexual minorities will be protected.
If you want to have a reasoned and rational debate, then fine. If you're just going to try to employ cheap debating tricks to win an argument, then I have no real interest in that. Support who you want, makes little difference to me, beta.
Nobody is moving the goalposts; pointing out fallacies in your argument is called "shedding light" or "exposing the duplicity of BJP's critics".
You talked about "stance on homosexuality". Why is the BJP's stance a negative, while the Congress's stance not? Congress was the one that decided to defend the law and argued in court against homosexuality; and yet you find BJP more reprehensible?!?
Why do you keep trying to detail the conversation, beta?
Let's recap.
1. You asked for some other examples of disturbing BJP policies. You didn't qualify that in any way.
2. You get provided with an example
3. You're then all "Oh, but other people do that too, why single out my guy?"
4. Your attempts to move the goalpost is called out.
5. You then decide to use the word "fallacy" incorrectly and continue to try to derail.
I think Gandhi was a shit. I think Modi is a shit. I think people like you, who continue to prop up the corrupt power structures in India are directly responsible for the mess that India is in. And I think it's reprehensible that all you can do is try to protect a corrupt, bigoted shit with the defence that someone else was a shit too.
In future, choose your words and questions more carefully, and don't cry when you get an answer that you specifically asked for.
When you say, "I find X disturbing", that means you are saying "X is not the norm; and I find that deviation upsetting". I am saying that _every_ major political party has that norm in India; otherwise, the 100+ years old laws against homosexuality would not have survived. If you find BJP's stance against homosexuality 'disturbing', then you must be having apoplectic fits at the Congress Party, which has governed India for 50+ years. If they were for gay rights, why didn't _they_ do something?
"I think Gandhi was a shit. I think Modi is a shit." ... LOL. Instead of bleating like a goat about the problems, offer a solution. The main reason people support Modi is that he can govern; and he has shown that in Gujarat. However low the bar may be, he is the only one of the current crop of "leaders" who has cleared it.
People want good governance, not platitudes. And sure as hell they don't want weed-smoking pseudo-intellectuals who couldn't survive a day doing real field work.
There's no "argument from authority". The OP said he was not Indian; and I replied I was. Maybe you should try to read your own Wikipedia link?
Instead of unnecessary blather, why not post some informative links? Educate us all, instead of trolling from behind a keyboard.
RSS is no more "violently anti-muslim" than the Congress Party is "violently anti-Sikh". Read up about the 1984 riots, and learn something for a change.
There's the not minor point that Congress has formally apologized for its role in the 1984 riots, while Modi and the BJP have offered none for their role in 2002, instead comparing the murdered Muslims to puppies that sometimes happen to get run over by cars.
What good is an apology from Congress when they stonewall any attempts for an independent inquiry into the 1984 riots and still harbour known instigators and accomplices at a high level within the party?
On the other hand, several senior BJP officials were tried and convicted for their part in the 2002 riots.
Like it or not Pro-business is probably why Modi was elected. Every economic indicator in India went downhill since the BJP has been out of power for the last decade[1][2] - IMO the single biggest contributing factor to get Modi elected.
Indians have a short memory, the 2002 riots and other religious issues are not as relevant to the people as they used to be.
Very good point. Ultimately economics wins. Poeple of india are aspiring to raise, they want to work hard and lead a honest and good life. Congress party never helped people to grow, their main agenda is always divisive ( religion ) and populist.
2009 - 8.5% (Congress is re-elected for another 5 years)
2010 - 10.3%
2011 - 6.6%
2012 - 4.7%
2013 - 4.8%
Average GDP growth during Congress government - 7.51%
Considering that Narendra Modi has frequently pushed the GDP growth he achieved as the Chief Minister of Gujarat in his election campaigns, I think it is fair to recognise that on a whole, that atleast in terms of GDP, Congress did much better than BJP.
(I voted for neither BJP or Congress, so I'm unbiased on this)
Do you have numbers for the inflation as well?, which has more direct impact on the people than GDP. I know people were scandalized when onion prices increased 300-400% last year. For right/wrong reasons, congress got blamed for that.
He is alleged to have failed to stop the riots. He wasn't involved in inciting them. By those standards, Bush should be tried for war crimes for the thousands of innocent civilians that died in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. But nope Obama was given a peace prize when there was war going on in Afghanistan
One can't say he didn't try.
The day after the riots started, the state government sent urgent letters to the 3 states surrounding it, pleading with them to send police reinforcements. But all of the 3 states (not coincidentally, ruled by the Congress Party) refused. Even the Army was not sent (by the Central government, again ruled by Congress Party) for several days as they were "busy".
Let's just think about it: if he was indeed so "anti-muslim", why weren't there more riots in Gujarat after 2002? There have been many riots in other states, but none in Gujarat.
Similar views were expressed when Vajpayee was elected in 1998. Vajpayee's term was one of best times India ever experienced. Lets see whether such things become true.
Modi also wants to turn Nepal into a Hindu state[1]. The only people who should be deciding if Nepal becomes a Hindu state or a secular state are Nepali citizens.
I would slightly disagree. To maintain relations, move forward discussion, a US visa would be helpful. And US has already been changing their stance since the last few months as they were aware of the possible Modi victory.
But I totally agree that its not a benchmark of character.
Sorry US visa doesn't prove anything. If at all, it simply shows someone visa officer's understanding of Modi in 2002, thats all. The election is much better and neutral judgement of someone's character. Obviously the views of 500million people are better than one person sitting in a foreign country.
If you are outsider please don't form opinions what is stated in media. Indian media is by large same as US media. Outsiders only see what is stated by shills and may not be true.
If you think it is over-simplification then what you call US/UK ? Tyranny ? Politics is extremely complex in India than any other country in the world. I guarantee you US and UK will now be in queue to get appointment with him.
Also, after all comments posted here I get sense that how narrow people from US / UK are. You may not like him but victory is in your face. So chill and enjoy.
It's been obvious for months that Modi would win. So, feel free to engage in empty triumphalism.
Meanwhile, I wish India the best, and I hope Modi makes a concerted effort to bridge religious divides and remember that India is a diverse, multicultural society. I hope his election does not instigate any communal violence of any sort, and I hope he realizes he has a special responsibility, given his history, to make sure it doesn't happen.
I assume this supposed to show that his party did well in districts with large Muslim populations?
I am not sure what you are trying to say with this. If you are claiming that this means that he can't be that anti-Muslim then I think that's far from the only possible explanation.
For one, you are showing every district with at least 20% Muslim population. So even if every one of them had voted for the opposition, the 80% non-Muslims would have still decided the election.
Also can someone explain what bi-polar means in this context (best guess so far, single party majority in voting district)?
It looks very distinct: http://ibn.gramener.com/live?Bi-polar=Bi-polar
>>>But it does not fill me with the warm fuzzies to read in wikipedia that:<<<
My friend, you are being misguided by the agenda of anti-modi (I would rather call them anti-indian) people over here. Nevertheless in a democracy like ours, everyone is free to have his opinion and speak out about it.
I'm not Indian and have no connection to the sub-continent. But it does not fill me with the warm fuzzies to read in wikipedia that:
"In 2005, Modi was denied a diplomatic visa to the United States. In addition, the B-1/B-2 visa that had previously been granted to him was also revoked, under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which makes any foreign government official who was responsible or "directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom" ineligible for the visa."