What's new

BJP: India's main opposition party appears to be returning to Hindu nationalism

BJP should change its attitude towards Bangladesh. Why is the party creating Bangladeshi hatred for getting votes in Assam? If BJP wants to send back 50 million Bangladeshis then who will do all developments in India?

Indians, duh!

There illegal Bangladeshis usually occupy the lowest strata of the work force, mostly labours, housemaids, rickshaw drivers and stuffs.

Apparently The Economist, The Guardian and The Washington Post are not so confident that Modi is not guilty of the offences alleged against him.

Neither do they run any judiciary bench, nor any inquiry committee.
 
.
@MBI Munshi Why shouldn't it be a Hindu Nation? After-all it's their country and they will decide what they want.

I love it when Indians shed their mask and accept that they are not a secular nation. Modi fanatics almost invariably dismiss their opponents as "sickular" and admit that Modi is the antithesis to secularism.

The progressive secular elements in India are under siege from the Hindutva supporters, and Modi's rise is a barometer of the shift from secularism towards Hindutva extremism.
 
.
Actually what you want Mr.@MBI Munshi ?Too much anti -BJP thread.
India is our country we Indians will decide about our government .Other dont need to bother about it
India is a Hindu Majority nation .So BJP will show some favour to Hindus .But only within our Constitution.We are Indians first ,religion always come second for Hindus.BJP also supported by large number of minorities including Muslims.I know that because I am an Indian.
 
.
Indians, duh!

There illegal Bangladeshis usually occupy the lowest strata of the work force, mostly labours, housemaids, rickshaw drivers and stuffs.

India should allow Bangladeshis. Bangladesh is over populated. The country can handle maximum 5 crore. So obviously rest will go to India since India is surrounding BD from all sides. When a glass is full the water will obviously spill out. India can not stop illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Its not possible for India.
 
.
Can anyone stop Narendra Modi?
He will probably become India’s next prime minister. That does not mean he should be
From the print edition



WHO does not marvel at the prospect of India going to the polls? Starting on April 7th, illiterate villagers and destitute slum-dwellers will have an equal say alongside Mumbai’s millionaires in picking their government. Almost 815m citizens are eligible to cast their ballots in nine phases of voting over five weeks—the largest collective democratic act in history.

But who does not also deplore the fecklessness and venality of India’s politicians? The country is teeming with problems, but a decade under a coalition led by the Congress party has left it rudderless. Growth has fallen by half, to about 5%—too low to provide work for the millions of young Indians joining the job market each year. Reforms go undone, roads and electricity remain unavailable, children are left uneducated. Meanwhile politicians and officials are reckoned to have taken bribes worth between $4 billion and $12 billion during Congress’s tenure. The business of politics, Indians conclude, is corruption.


No wonder that the overwhelming favourite to become India’s next prime minister is the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Narendra Modi. He could not be more different from Rahul Gandhi, his Congress party rival. The great-grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first premier, Mr Gandhi would ascend to office as if by divine right. Mr Modi is a former teaseller propelled to the top by sheer ability. Mr Gandhi seems not to know his own mind—even whether he wants power. Mr Modi’s performance as chief minister of Gujarat shows that he is set on economic development and can make it happen. Mr Gandhi’s coalition is tainted by corruption. By comparison Mr Modi is clean.

So there is much to admire. Despite that, this newspaper cannot bring itself to back Mr Modi for India’s highest office.

Modi’s odium

The reason begins with a Hindu rampage against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, in which at least 1,000 people were slaughtered. The orgy of murder and rape in Ahmedabad and the surrounding towns and villages was revenge for the killing of 59 Hindu pilgrims on a train by Muslims.

Mr Modi had helped organise a march on the holy site at Ayodhya in 1990 which, two years later, led to the deaths of 2,000 in Hindu-Muslim clashes. A lifelong member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu nationalist group in whose cause he has vowed lifelong celibacy, he made speeches early in his career that shamelessly whipped up Hindus against Muslims. In 2002 Mr Modi was chief minister and he was accused of allowing or even abetting the pogrom.

Mr Modi’s defenders, and there are many, especially among the business elite, point to two things. First, repeated investigations—including by the admirably independent Supreme Court—have found nothing to charge their man with. And second, they say, Mr Modi has changed. He has worked tirelessly to attract investment and to boost business for the benefit of Hindus and Muslims alike. Think, they say, of the huge gains to poor Muslims across India of a well-run economy.

On both counts, that is too generous. 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.

The lesser of two evils

“Dog-whistle” politics is deplorable in any country. But in India violence between Hindus and Muslims is never far from the surface. At partition, when British India fractured, about 12m people were uprooted and hundreds of thousands perished. Since 2002 communal violence has died down, but there are hundreds of incidents and scores of deaths each year. Sometimes, as in Uttar Pradesh, the violence is on an alarming scale. The spark could also come from outside. In Mumbai in 2008 India suffered horrific attacks by terrorists from Muslim Pakistan—a nagging, nuclear-armed presence next door.

By refusing to put Muslim fears to rest, Mr Modi feeds them. By clinging to the anti-Muslim vote, he nurtures it. India at its finest is a joyous cacophony of peoples and faiths, of holy men and rebels. The best of them, such as the late columnist Khushwant Singh (seearticle) are painfully aware of the damage caused by communal hatred. Mr Modi might start well in Delhi but sooner or later he will have to cope with a sectarian slaughter or a crisis with Pakistan—and nobody, least of all the modernisers praising him now, knows what he will do nor how Muslims, in turn, will react to such a divisive man.

If Mr Modi were to explain his role in the violence and show genuine remorse, we would consider backing him, but he never has; it would be wrong for a man who has thrived on division to become prime minister of a country as fissile as India. We do not find the prospect of a government led by Congress under Mr Gandhi an inspiring one. But we have to recommend it to Indians as the less disturbing option.

If Congress wins, which is unlikely, it must strive to renew itself and to reform India. Mr Gandhi should make a virtue of his diffidence by stepping back from politics and promoting modernisers to the fore. There are plenty of them and modernity is what Indian voters increasingly demand (see article). If, more probably, victory goes to the BJP, its coalition partners should hold out for a prime minister other than Mr Modi.

And if they still choose Mr Modi? We would wish him well, and we would be delighted for him to prove us wrong by governing India in a modern, honest and fair way. But for now he should be judged on his record—which is that of a man who is still associated with sectarian hatred. There is nothing modern, honest or fair about that. India deserves better.

India’s election: Can anyone stop Narendra Modi? | The Economist
This Bs article its only ellaborate views of the particular elite class of britain who still mourn about indian independence from hands of british .point here is that these so called class ever respected about views of indian citizens.
 
.
I love it when Indians shed their mask and accept that they are not a secular nation.

As far as my understanding of this thread goes, the guys have not objected to India being a Hindu state, rather than accepting India as a state that is not secular. Baffling to see a think thank consultant failing to see the difference between the two.
 
.
India should allow Bangladeshis. Bangladesh is over populated. The country can handle maximum 5 crore. So obviously rest will go to India since India is surrounding BD from all sides. When a glass is full the water will obviously spill out. India can not stop illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. Its not possible for India.

You're breeding habits like rabbits, is none of our concern.

The day stringent orders comes from Delhi, then not a bird can pass through the border.
 
.
I love it when Indians shed their mask and accept that they are not a secular nation. Modi fanatics almost invariably dismiss their opponents as "sickular" and admit that Modi is the antithesis to secularism.

The progressive secular elements in India are under siege from the Hindutva supporters, and Modi's rise is a barometer of the shift from secularism towards Hindutva extremism.
No we oppose "secularism" of congress which is nothing but minority appeasement and Hindu Bashing. Do you know they even declared Lord Ram as fake in an affidavit filed in Supreme Court. The PM openly reclared that Muslims have first right to nation's resources. The HM talked about releasing all Muslim terrorists. In Shah Bano case the congress changed the law going against a Supreme Court judgement just to curry favours from the mullahs.

I can go on and on but you should get the drift. Congress is not secular but pseudo secular.

For us the definition of secularism is India First. Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas. Development for all and appeasement to none
 
.
Can anyone stop Narendra Modi?
He will probably become India’s next prime minister. That does not mean he should be
From the print edition



WHO does not marvel at the prospect of India going to the polls? Starting on April 7th, illiterate villagers and destitute slum-dwellers will have an equal say alongside Mumbai’s millionaires in picking their government. Almost 815m citizens are eligible to cast their ballots in nine phases of voting over five weeks—the largest collective democratic act in history.

But who does not also deplore the fecklessness and venality of India’s politicians? The country is teeming with problems, but a decade under a coalition led by the Congress party has left it rudderless. Growth has fallen by half, to about 5%—too low to provide work for the millions of young Indians joining the job market each year. Reforms go undone, roads and electricity remain unavailable, children are left uneducated. Meanwhile politicians and officials are reckoned to have taken bribes worth between $4 billion and $12 billion during Congress’s tenure. The business of politics, Indians conclude, is corruption.


No wonder that the overwhelming favourite to become India’s next prime minister is the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Narendra Modi. He could not be more different from Rahul Gandhi, his Congress party rival. The great-grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first premier, Mr Gandhi would ascend to office as if by divine right. Mr Modi is a former teaseller propelled to the top by sheer ability. Mr Gandhi seems not to know his own mind—even whether he wants power. Mr Modi’s performance as chief minister of Gujarat shows that he is set on economic development and can make it happen. Mr Gandhi’s coalition is tainted by corruption. By comparison Mr Modi is clean.

So there is much to admire. Despite that, this newspaper cannot bring itself to back Mr Modi for India’s highest office.

Modi’s odium

The reason begins with a Hindu rampage against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, in which at least 1,000 people were slaughtered. The orgy of murder and rape in Ahmedabad and the surrounding towns and villages was revenge for the killing of 59 Hindu pilgrims on a train by Muslims.

Mr Modi had helped organise a march on the holy site at Ayodhya in 1990 which, two years later, led to the deaths of 2,000 in Hindu-Muslim clashes. A lifelong member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu nationalist group in whose cause he has vowed lifelong celibacy, he made speeches early in his career that shamelessly whipped up Hindus against Muslims. In 2002 Mr Modi was chief minister and he was accused of allowing or even abetting the pogrom.

Mr Modi’s defenders, and there are many, especially among the business elite, point to two things. First, repeated investigations—including by the admirably independent Supreme Court—have found nothing to charge their man with. And second, they say, Mr Modi has changed. He has worked tirelessly to attract investment and to boost business for the benefit of Hindus and Muslims alike. Think, they say, of the huge gains to poor Muslims across India of a well-run economy.

On both counts, that is too generous. 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.

The lesser of two evils

“Dog-whistle” politics is deplorable in any country. But in India violence between Hindus and Muslims is never far from the surface. At partition, when British India fractured, about 12m people were uprooted and hundreds of thousands perished. Since 2002 communal violence has died down, but there are hundreds of incidents and scores of deaths each year. Sometimes, as in Uttar Pradesh, the violence is on an alarming scale. The spark could also come from outside. In Mumbai in 2008 India suffered horrific attacks by terrorists from Muslim Pakistan—a nagging, nuclear-armed presence next door.

By refusing to put Muslim fears to rest, Mr Modi feeds them. By clinging to the anti-Muslim vote, he nurtures it. India at its finest is a joyous cacophony of peoples and faiths, of holy men and rebels. The best of them, such as the late columnist Khushwant Singh (seearticle) are painfully aware of the damage caused by communal hatred. Mr Modi might start well in Delhi but sooner or later he will have to cope with a sectarian slaughter or a crisis with Pakistan—and nobody, least of all the modernisers praising him now, knows what he will do nor how Muslims, in turn, will react to such a divisive man.

If Mr Modi were to explain his role in the violence and show genuine remorse, we would consider backing him, but he never has; it would be wrong for a man who has thrived on division to become prime minister of a country as fissile as India. We do not find the prospect of a government led by Congress under Mr Gandhi an inspiring one. But we have to recommend it to Indians as the less disturbing option.

If Congress wins, which is unlikely, it must strive to renew itself and to reform India. Mr Gandhi should make a virtue of his diffidence by stepping back from politics and promoting modernisers to the fore. There are plenty of them and modernity is what Indian voters increasingly demand (see article). If, more probably, victory goes to the BJP, its coalition partners should hold out for a prime minister other than Mr Modi.

And if they still choose Mr Modi? We would wish him well, and we would be delighted for him to prove us wrong by governing India in a modern, honest and fair way. But for now he should be judged on his record—which is that of a man who is still associated with sectarian hatred. There is nothing modern, honest or fair about that. India deserves better.

India’s election: Can anyone stop Narendra Modi? | The Economist
The article doesn't say anything about the dozens of charges filed against him as you have said in your earlier post. Rather it is comedic, the writer, wants him to accept a crime he didn't commit, and things like not wanting to wear Muslim cap is a show of his Muslim hate?? The article is biased to such a high degree that it is plain stupid.
 
.
India is a nation for Indian whether it be Hindu, Muslim, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhist.... Today most people give little care about what the party is for, BJP can call on the Hindus if they want, in the end only thing matters is that, ifthey able to deliver on their promises. To those who say that only Hindus support BJP, I will say they are completely wrong. I am a Christian, and I firmly support Modi, I might not have the same feelings toward other BJP members, but I support him because he has shown capability as someone who can help improve India's ailing economy. The whole idea of secular culture is already flawed in India, it is nothing but a tool used by politicians to gain votes from the minorities, and most people (educated middle class) people have already caught up to it. The parties who taut strongly about secularism in the country are the first one who create the gap in the nation by dividing the nation along religious lines.
noppe......India is land of only those religions which originated here i.e hindus, sikhs, buddhists and jains, muslem terrorists can go to pakistan
 
.
The HM talked about releasing all Muslim terrorists.

I cannot recall any such instance. Though yes, he did say something along the lines of 'The police should stop fabricating Muslim youth for crimes not committed by them', which is true.

But I may have missed something I guess.

noppe......India is land of only those religions which originated here i.e hindus, sikhs, buddhists and jains, muslem terrorists can go to pakistan

Please don't embarrass India mate.
 
.
noppe......India is land of only those religions which originated here i.e hindus, sikhs, buddhists and jains, muslem terrorists can go to pakistan

India is a land for Indians who were born in India, and uphold the value and honor of the country. the moment you bring in religion into the equation is when we turn into Pakistan. And let's just hope that day never comes.
 
.
Why does it takes over a month to run an election in India?

Don't they have computers there?

Or do they count the votes with punch cards like Florida?

Someone from a country with 30 million population can't fathom what it is like holding elections in a country of 850 million.

So don't spend time trying to understand it.

Apparently The Economist, The Guardian and The Washington Post are not so confident that Modi is not guilty of the offences alleged against him.
I see you are still boot licking white men and their newspaper. Looks like Independence never really came to Bangladesh
 
.
No we oppose "secularism" of congress which is nothing but minority appeasement and Hindu Bashing.

I guess you don't know that the vast majority of affirmative action and government favors go to lower caste Hindus.

But, of course, it's easier to play the victim card and blame Muslims.

The PM openly reclared that Muslims have first right to nation's resources.

Evidence?
 
.
India is a land for Indians who were born in India, and uphold the value and honor of the country. the moment you bring in religion into the equation is when we turn into Pakistan. And let's just hope that day never comes.
really? muslems particularly are threat for our country, we had muslems before independence and they took our land which is now called pak and bd, today muslems in our country are involved in terrorism and are killing innocents, we learn from Russias example, judt because of its muslem population it was broken up in 90, but the same cannot happen in US because it treats its muslems as third class citizens,
 
.
Back
Top Bottom