
A new India is emerging, and it is a country ruled by fear - akbarnama
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/08/narendra-modi-bjp-india
======
sharadov
The biggest issue is that there is no opposition to the BJP - which won the
election with a massive majority. This is never good in a democracy. But
Modi's policies have been abysmal failures - demonetization killed the rural
economy and actually ended up being a boon for the black money hoarders (
people ended up converting their black money to white). 99% of money was
returned back to the reserve bank, shows the dismal failure of the experiment.

[https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/af...](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/after-
almost-two-years-of-counting-rbi-says-99-3-of-demonetised-notes-
returned/articleshow/65589904.cms)

The economy is dragging

[https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/opinion-how-to-fix-the-
economy-...](https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/opinion-how-to-fix-the-economy-the-
message-is-clear-2112840)

The sad part is Modi goes around touting the India growth story,spinning
fabrications,people are seeing through this but unfortunately there are no
options.

~~~
devoply
Why can't you bring back Congress?

~~~
thewhitetulip
Because people have been brainwashed by media and BJP propaganda that there is
no alternative.

When Indira lost after emergency, there was no alternative either.

One would think that with technology, people would make well informed
decisions. They don't!

~~~
sharadov
I agree the media has rolled over and completely in bed with the BJP regime.
The economy has been robust until now, wait and watch once it starts going
downhill..which is now..

------
throwGuardian
This article is much FUD.

In India, people with opposing political views routinely peacefully coexist -
in fact, it is a necessity for a nation the size and diversity. Unlike what
this article paints, the country is not a two party system. Every shade of
opinion has a party that carries it, and it's typical in India to form
coalitions vs single party rule, inherently requiring compromises from all
involved.

In the US today, walking down the street with a MAGA cap on can lead to an
attack. Or the very least draw scorn from opposing viewpoints. In India, a
Modi fan can argue with a Rahul Gandhi fan, and then peacefully enjoy their
beers without fear of violence or discrimination.

Among my close friends in India, it was routine for differing political
opinions, religions backgrounds to debate, but it never got in the way of our
comraderie or fun. And I saw that play out at local, state and national
levels.

~~~
valarauko
>In India, a Modi fan can argue with a Rahul Gandhi fan, and then peacefully
enjoy their beers without fear of violence or discrimination.

I nodded along till the beer part.

Besides, these days it is incredibly hard to hold any public opinion, other
than a fawning admiration for the PM. If your family and friends don't
eviscerate you, the online trolls will.

~~~
screye
> I nodded along till the beer part.

Haha, probably peacefully enjoy Lassi or an Old Monk smuggled from Daman&Diu

------
rahuldottech
As an Indian, it bothers me how much blind faith people have in the Modi
government. The crap they pull never gets talked about, and if you bring it
up, Modi supporters will ridicule you and not even consider that maybe the
Modi government could actually be doing something bad.

It's reached the point where many media outlets/persons are afraid to
criticize the government because that leads to them getting trolled and
harassed by BJP/Modi supporters.

It's a big f-ing mess. Like another commenter points out, there's no real
opposition to the BJP. The only other major national party, the Congress, has
a very long history of corrupt practices, and the current leader is a
goddamned joke. I wasn't old enough to vote this year, but if I had been, I
know I'd have a hard time choosing the lesser evil.

------
thewhitetulip
They are now starting a NRC in the rest of India where government will "throw
out" infiltrators.

The ruling party launched said NRC in the state of Assam with much pomp but
after it realised that more Hindus were left out of NRC, even the Assam unit
of ruling party refused to accept it.

What's ironic is that the SC had ruled for an NRC and not the government and
even the govt had accepted that NRC doesn't mean people who don't get on it
will be expelled.

~~~
naruvimama
Pakistan & Bangladesh have a history of ethnic cleansing of non muslims. You
are suggesting that Indians should welcome undocumented muslim migration from
these countries at the cost & risk of the citizens.

I would like to find an example of another country in your liberal utopia that
is willing to do that. Europe? USA?

~~~
heraclius
There are a couple of problems with this argument.

The most important problem is that many people do not have documentation, but
have lived in India for a very long time—since birth, in some cases—and think
of themselves and live their lives as Indians.

More specifically:

First, India arguably also has a history of ethnic cleansing and more broadly
ethnoreligiously motivated violence, a history that is all too often
suppressed.

From the Sunderlal Report: “We can say at a very conservative estimate that in
the whole state at least 27 thousand to 40 thousand people lost their lives
during and after the police action. …Duty also compels us to add that we had
absolutely unimpeachable evidence to the effect that there were instances in
which men belonging to the Indian Army and also to the local police took part
in looting and even other crimes. During our tour we ga thered, at not a few
places, that soldiers encouraged, persuaded and in a few cases even compelled
the Hindu mob to loot Muslim shops and houses.”

Similarly, the Gujarat riots suggest state complicity. It is often suggested
that Muslims caused the violence. The truth is that the violence was initially
by Hindus, on the train, that some Muslims then unjustifiably burnt the train,
and then that the state compounded the tragedy by allowing Hindu mobs to
rampage across the state, if not actively encouraging them to do so.¹

(To be clear I do not endorse the silence of some parts of the Indian left and
liberal élite concerning Pakistan and Bangladesh; it is as abhorrent to me as
silence concerning the violence of the Sangh Parivar. And I should probably
say that if they had to be compared the Sangh Parivar is better than the
Pakistani army.)

Second, it’s not obvious where the “cost and risk” is. No evidence has been
produced to suggest that those left out of the NRC commit more crime or cost
the state more. Indeed, the implementation of the NRC itself costs the state
rather a lot, and threatens to encourage sedition in the northeast.

Third, all parties in India profess to reject two-nation theory. The RSS
itself claims that Muslims are also children of Mother India.² And of course
Congress claim to support a secular India. Since there is political consensus
on this matter of course the idea that loyalty to Bharat or India or whatever
conception thereof one supports should be determined independently of
religion.

Fourth, many European states indeed have welcomed large numbers of Muslim
migrants, often to much greater cost than what India has incurred—for example,
Germany and Sweden. These actions need not have been unsustainable had all
Europe helped; similarly, migration to India as a whole is not particularly
unsustainable because India is very large.

0\.
[https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl1805/18051140.h...](https://frontline.thehindu.com/static/html/fl1805/18051140.htm)

1\. Christophe Jaffrelot, “Communal Riots in Gujarat: The State at Risk?”
Working Paper, Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics
(Heidelberg: South Asia Institute, Department of Political Science, University
of Heidelberg, July 2003), [http://archiv.ub.uni-
heidelberg.de/volltextserver/4127/1/hps...](http://archiv.ub.uni-
heidelberg.de/volltextserver/4127/1/hpsacp17.pdf).

2\. [https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/the-saffron-
muslim/stor...](https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/the-saffron-muslim/story-
sxdXyHOdasvoBCnV858EWL.html)

~~~
naruvimama
The Razakars were armed and highly organised muslim milita supporting the
nizam in Hyderabad. They went on a killing spree against the natives who
though in numerical majority were unorganized villages. The report even if it
is true and is not politically motivated still pales in comparison to the
systemic and continues cleansing of 10s of millions that continue to this day
in Pakistan.

As for the European generosity they take a tiny fraction compared to India.
They insist on integration, which would be politically incorrect in India.
Some countries like France and Denmark have already banned the hijab.

Religion is a tiny fraction of a person's identity, but if it comes to eclipse
everything then your loyalty to your society that is pluralistic is suspect.

They knew all along that they were illegal migrants. Considering that some of
them have only been forced into islam in not more than three generations ago,
it is possible that they might convert back to their native roots and claim
asylum.

~~~
heraclius
On the Razakars etc.: the report is unimpeachable—Nehru commissioned the
report but it besmirches his claim to have unified India relatively
peacefully. And yes I acknowledged above that Pak is worse—10s of millions is
probably a high figure for ethnic cleansing at the moment but I can’t really
defend what’s happening in Balochistan.

Europe: because things have been so poorly managed reasonably high proportions
(~1%) have been accepted. Also I don’t see why integration is needed in India
given very great cultural proximity.

As for knowing they were illegal migrants, some don’t—the need for papers only
became apparent recently and some can’t find them. This is an unavoidable
problem.

------
panpanna
So what do Indians abroad (SF in particular) think of Modi and his bjp?

~~~
screye
The general consensus is that he is loved. I am more ambivalent towards his
Govt., but educated Indians absolutely love him. The numbers speak for
themselves: [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-
india-48366944](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-48366944) .

There is no question that the BJP is simply a better choice (least worst
choice?) than what every other national party in India offers today. This is
something even my most left wing peers agree to.

While the BJP govt. has a lot of problems, the anger around section 370 in
Kashmir is among the least justified. Section 370 was meant to be a temporary
provision in the constitution to better integrate Kashmiris. It failed
miserably and 370 itself made it really difficult for the federal govt. from
fixing it. Kashmiri local politicians have used the provision to hold Kashmir
hostage by playing friendly with separatists, and threatening secession
whenever convenient. The treatment of Kashmiris itself has not changed much
since Modi came in power. It sucked then, it still sucks now. But, for the
first time, the federal govt. has some power to change things. If anything, it
was absolutely necessary to remove 370 to even start fixing the sorry state of
the region. The house arrest of local leaders was seen as necessary by the
Govt, because they were the main inciters of separatist violence.

What you need to understand is that every loud mouth in India is a goon. This
is basically one group of goons complaining about the other taking power away
from them. If either the media or the politicians cared about the common
person, then they would step outside Srinagar for once interview a person in
the rest of Kashmir.

Indians understand the smoke and mirrors of the system, and know not to trust
empty words of the Congress and other left wing parties. This is exactly why
people do not like the shallow insights provided by people like Hasan Minhaj
or the author of this article, who was born in the 0.0001% of the country
(literally the son of the CEO of one of the biggest companies in the country)
and never lived any of his adult life there. It is impossible to understand
India from the outside.

That being said, there are some red flags with the Modi Govt.

1\. The literal red flag (saffron flag) : a pro Hindu agenda. It has not been
pushed as hard as the media might imply. But, it is undeniable that it exists.

2\. The consolidation of power. Modi is becoming the singular face of the BJP,
and such concentration of power is never good

3\. A thin cabinet, especially lacking competent statesmen <\- The biggest one
for me.

~~~
whydoyoucare
#1 I am not sure why everyone pees their pants when they hear "pro-Hindu"
agenda? It appears most world-media tries to paint this agenda with a ethnic
and racist brush, which it ain't so. I don't think anyone in India sees it
becoming less tolerant to other religions (except the western media, who lack
a full context and are largely motivated by selfish incentives than anything
else).

#2 Consolidation of power? Care to cite some data around this? Thank you.

#3 See #2 above. IMO, Modi's cabinet is the most competent of any party who
ruled India so far.

~~~
screye
#1

I was born hindu, and even I can see that they have a very narrow definition
of Hinduism. They support certain anti science fields like Ayurveda (not that
it doesn't have merit, but they do not follow any scientific rigor). The whole
cow thing they have going on is honestly a bit creepy. Some hindu nationalist
groups have become more violent and Modi has made no effort to extend an olive
branch to the Muslims.

#2

Major senior members in the BJP like Advani have been sidelined. Also, allies
of the BJP have lost power as they have lost seats. Lastly, the Reserve Bank
and the Judiciary have seen appointments (and firings like Raghuram Rajan)
that are BJP favored. Thus, slightly reducing the independence of the
different pillars of power.

#3

finance minister Arun Jaitley and former foreign minister Sushma Swaraj
literally died. They were both among the most qualified candidates in the
previous cabinet. Also, a lot of the cabinet members are career politicians
and not necessarily experts in their respective fields.

------
seamyb88
I'm from the North of Ireland. We had sectarianism and "troubles" with fear of
the "others". We should find a common factor <points elbow at British
Imperialism>.

------
naruvimama
Southern Europe & South America is clearly Catholic. Northern Europe &
Northern America is clearly Protestant. Starting from state support for church
funding through the tax system to political correctness of politics, christian
state holidays, laws, values and culture - Christianity forms the base of
"western society" or where christianity has come to "bless" the native
cultures.

Less said about the Islamic countries the better, where kaffirs have no rights
and religion commandments are above everything.

The poster children of liberals, France & Denmark have both banned the hijab.

Some facts about the history of religion in India.

India has been under Islamic invasions, raids and plunder for 700 years. The
vast majority of the ancient temples, universities & libraries in the north of
the country had been destroyed under this reign of terror.

When the European traders landed in India, India was producing 70% of the
industrial goods traded globally. The civilising mission and superiority
complex of christian evangelism is what allowed the colonial takeover by hook
or crook. The church is today the largest non governmental land owner in
India, so much for the myth of colonialism not favouring christianity.

In 1947, India gives up 24% of its territory to create Islamic Pakistan to
accommodate 10% of the Indian population. Pakistan immediately starts ethnic
cleansing, increasing the muslim population from 76% to 99% today. This
repeats in Kashmir in the 1990's where 76% muslim population is today 99.9%

India with a majority 80% Hindus today has remained secular, where minorities
enjoy special privileges. Hindus literally have millions of deities, like
music or food, it encourages creation of new gods. There are even 6 major
schools of atheism within hinduism. Other major religions like Sikhism,
Buddhism or Jainism which took root in the same culture have no significant
conflicts in contemporary India. Parsies, Syrian christians, native muslims
and others who have accepted India as their home and cultural centre have no
conflicts with the "majority" population.

The conflicts today only exists where a foreign church or the Islamic
brotherhood is involved. The church & the brotherhood which have no experience
living in peace in a pluralistic society need to reform themselves. They need
to accept the right for free, pluralistic societies and sane civil laws like
homosexuality and right to abortion. They can not continue using their
enormous economic & political capital to bully others into their narrow tunnel
vision.

------
whydoyoucare
Okay, so I read the article, and it is standard left-wing playbook often
copied by the likes of NYT, WaPo, Huffy Puffy, and Guardian. Get one Muslim to
speak against, get one Kashmiri to speak against, and make a giant cast.
Nothing new here from Guardian, and nothing unexpected.

A better understanding comes from polling a greater number of people, not
cherry-picking the ones to suit your agenda. But none of the western media is
interested in that, are they?

