My definition of secularism is simple, India first, Narendra Modi tells ove

[Guynextdoor2]

Just explain in lay man terms - how is telling "I consider nation first and everyone should do that" a bad thing or even a populist thing ?

The inscription in IMA says “The safety, honour and welfare of your country comes first, always and every time. The honour, welfare and comfort of the men you command, come next. Your own ease, comfort and safety comes last, always and every time.”

So are they also populist ?




No it is rather you guys, who are saying that this is just Hindutva in disguise when no one has even claimed it. You have started blaming them even before they did any such thing. Hindutva or no Hindutva, India first should be our motto. Look at the message , not at who is saying tat.



Unfortunately, the alternative to UPA is NDA and to NDA is UPA..lets not even think about third front..

nation is not just geography, it is also a people. When you reacted to my sentence, you did't bother/ feel it necessary to say that there is no hindutva implication- instead you said 'Jai Hindutva', so you are in agreement with my interpretation of his statement. And the problem with 'jai Hindutva'- leaves out 20% of the people of this country.

 

[naseem shah]

Narendra Modi I think will lead india well.

sooch lo baad mai tum logo nai hi is ko bura bhala bolna hai

 

[KS]

nation is not just geography, it is also a people.

Ok..I dont see how considering nation first, contradicts or diminishes the value of the people residing in that nation. It just means the foremost loyalty should be to the nation and not to any idealogy..Infact every nation encourages its citizens to think nation first. Any community that places nation first before the idealogy would have no problem with that. I have no problem with that.

When you reacted to my sentence, you did't bother/ feel it necessary to say that there is no hindutva implication- instead you said 'Jai Hindutva', so you are in agreement with my interpretation of his statement. And the problem with 'jai Hindutva'- leaves out 20% of the people of this country.

I said, if being nation first is the meaning of Hindutva, then Jai Hindutva. You understand English and if..then..structure right ?

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I think modi is taking a big gamble when he says - "my definition of secularim - India first".

With such a stance he is, or rather hopes to score brownie points with the majority community. But such signals will clearly alienate the minorities. Moreover, the hindu majority is not known to vote together as one cohesive unit.

I really don't see much merit in talk of Modi storming Delhi. At best, he can hope for a senior role in the government via outside support to a shaky alliance in Delhi. But I doubt he will leave Gujarat for anything less than the post of PM.

In case NDA manages to come to power abd if Rajnath Singh manages to scheme his way to become PM, Modi'll probably become deputy PM. If anyone else becomes PM (Sushma, jaitley etc.) Modi will feel it beneath him to be lesser than them. All of this is dependent upon NDA coming to power in the first place- something that's unlikely considering both UP Satraps are against it. Even if someone like Mayawati decides to support NDA, she will explicitly ask for Modi to be dropped from PM ship in return, considering that his leaderhsip style is dictatorial and she'll not give in to anything/ expect the guy in the centre to keep her pleased.

 

[rubyjackass]

Just explain in lay man terms - how is telling "I consider nation first and everyone should do that" a bad thing or even a populist thing ?

The inscription in IMA says “The safety, honour and welfare of your country comes first, always and every time. The honour, welfare and comfort of the men you command, come next. Your own ease, comfort and safety comes last, always and every time.”

So are they also populist ?

No it is rather you guys, who are saying that this is just Hindutva in disguise when no one has even claimed it. You have started blaming them even before they did any such thing. Hindutva or no Hindutva, India first should be our motto. Look at the message , not at who is saying tat.

This has happened in the past and there is no reason to believe that it will not happen again. Read how the champiions of Hindutva count their chips.
'Only Hindutva helped CM win' - Times Of India

I believe in exactly what you are saying. We should look at what one is saying and also what one is not saying. Modi faces questions on secularism consistently because of some reasons. Instead of facing of those questions he waves his hands and says 'Secularism is India first'. What does that mean?

Again, what most people want to hear from him is very little. Let him say once that he tried his best to stop the riots. That will keep many like me silent. But no, he will not explain his actions. There can be only two reasons for this. Either he does not want to lie or he did try hard to stop the riots but is just too arrogant to say so. Both reasons seem dreadful.

Unfortunately, the alternative to UPA is NDA and to NDA is UPA..lets not even think about third front..

At least we both agree on this. The lack of alternatives is what is squeezing us. Your first priority is to teach a lesson to the hereditary scions and my first priority is to not give hopes of revival to parties which sell communalism. We cannot do both with a common alternative.Hence the conflict.

 

[CZAR]

All Modi haters should first ask their choice where is the Human rights and Justice for victims of 50 riots in UP after 2002, Assam Riots, West Bengal Riots, and most importantly, of Sikh Genocide.

And don't give me two wrongs doesn't makes it right. Selective Amnesia much ?

Where is your moral compass and self righteousness and a Muslim DSP is shot dead at point blank range, when your soldiers are beheaded and you give security to PM of that same nation, making fun of our soldiers' sacrifice.

When your PM says we have done this and that for minorities, based on religion, a Dalit asks what is my fault that I belong to majority but I am oppressed and live much poor life without an NGO fighting my human rights whereas minorities on religious ground enjoy special treatment.

Does religion makes a person special ? Why this distinction based on religion ? Poverty doesn't care about religion, caste etc.

So what's wrong with Nationalism is Secularism. Doesn't it mean that no matter what religion you belong to, it doesn't matter when state makes policies for people of India, and put nation above everything ?

On the face of it - there is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement.

But since when has it been advisable to take what politicians have to say at face value? Let's not pretend to be blind. The oh-so-obvious fine print, whereby he has sought to assure a potential votebank that consists of a crowd that borders being titled as "hindu supremacists" - is worrying.

You may choose to not take cognisance of it, but there is no questioning the fine-print. And let's not insult the intelligence of others on PDF by trying to place a halo over the "india-first" comment.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Ok..I dont see how considering nation first, contradicts or diminishes the value of the people residing in that nation. It just means the foremost loyalty should be to the nation and not to any idealogy..Infact every nation encourages its citizens to think nation first. Any community that places nation first before the idealogy would have no problem with that. I have no problem with that.



I said, if being nation first is the meaning of Hindutva, then Jai Hindutva. You understand English and if..then..structure right ?

ha ha Nice comeback but the essence of what i said remains- BJP's idea of nationalism (as verbalised by them) is based on Hindutva- that leaves 20% of India out. Unless BJP publicy gives up this notion, the logic stands.

Why do you assume that all Modi criticizers are supporters of dynastic politics or Congress? Reminds of Mamta Banerjee calling every other guy a communist.

-i think we need to be a bit lenient towards her. in her state, every other guy really is I guess

 

[Backbencher]

Do you think that if Modi becomes PM, he will go to Pakistan?

He wont go to Pakistan but Pakistanis will go to India once he becomes our Leader

 

[naseem shah]

this modi will take india make india alot worst than now

 

[Guynextdoor2]

The more MODI speaks, the more I love this guy. I really hope the youth propel him to the forefront. Fuk Rahul


Oh plz....but dynasty politics is fine by you for India? Get real buddy, dynasty politics means a failure of democracy. We are currently under a Banana Republic.

Again- I'm the FIRST to say RG is an @$$hole. But let me tell you- Most Indian parties are dynastic because Indian people LIKE dynstyism. They think that if someone else gets the gaddi, it is an usurpation- All that the congress is doing is use that to prevent internal power mongering. You think there aren't ambitious people in the congress?

 

[KS]

This has happened in the past and there is no reason to believe that it will not happen again.
'Only Hindutva helped CM win' - Times Of India

So you are quoting what VHP, those guys who actually sided with GPP and even Congress in the Gujarat elections to defeat modi, to prove a point about Modi ? low blow bro, low blow.

This is what Modi said after the elections

After a landslide on December 20, chief minister Narendra Modi had proclaimed how voters have risen above caste politics and embraced the development agenda.

I believe in exactly what you are saying. We should look at what one is saying and also what one is not saying. Modi faces questions on secularism consistently because of some reasons. Instead of facing of those questions he waves his hands and says 'Secularism is India first'. What does that mean?

Secularism has no official definition in Indian constitution. So his definition is as good as any one else.

And the full content of his quote was "I consider nation first..everyone should consider nation first and not their idealogies". Nation is above any idealogy..does not look communal to me..So what is not communal is only secular..

Either he does not want to lie or he did try hard to stop the riots but is just too arrogant to say so. Both reasons seem dreadful.

His actions to stop the riots are well documented. Actions speak louder than words. That has always been his mo and thats the way people like it.

At least we both agree on this. The lack of alternatives is what is squeezing us. Your first priority is to teach a lesson to the hereditary scions and my first priority is to not give hopes of revival to parties which sell communalism. We cannot do both with a common alternative.Hence the conflict.

What is conflicting in that ? Congress is undoubtedly one of the most communal party in India..certainly more than the BJP..about 900 documented riots have taken place in India under Congress watch and more people have died in that. . Much much much much larger than under BJP. Infact Congress has actively started many riots while the complaint on BJP may be they have not done enough to stop the riots

ha ha Nice comeback but the essence of what i said remains- BJP's idea of nationalism (as verbalised by them) is based on Hindutva- that leaves 20% of India out. Unless BJP publicy gives up this notion, the logic stands.

You have still not explained how the words "Nation comes first, not any religion or idealogy" transaltes into Hindutva..I'm just not able to understand your precious logic..

Im afraid are you insinuating that Muslims and christians dont consider nation first ? Is that what you mean by saying "that leaves 20% of Indians out" ?

 

[axisofevil]

Again- I'm the FIRST to say RG is an @$$hole. But let me tell you- Most Indian parties are dynastic because Indian people LIKE dynstyism. They think that if someone else gets the gaddi, it is an usurpation- All that the congress is doing is use that to prevent internal power mongering. You think there aren't ambitious people in the congress?

I dont think ppl like dynasty politics. I think its a sham and its forced on the ppl due to lack of control in politics by the people. The media and politicans will spin it so, but it does not serve in the best interest of India nor her citizens. RG is not the only dynasty polticians in India either. There are other examples in other seats of power, but RG is certainly in the highest and mos t powerful post as PM. I think our democracy needs a RESET. We have modelled it based on the British system but that is a flawed concept. We need to improve it considerably for our India and her population.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

So you are quoting what VHP, those guys who actually sided with GPP and even Congress in the Gujarat elections to defeat modi, to prove a point about Modi ? low blow bro, low blow.

This is what Modi said after the elections



Secularism has no official definition in Indian constitution. So his definition is as good as any one else.
And the full content of his quote was "I consider nation first..everyone should consider nation first and not their idealogies". Nation is above any idealogy..does not look communal to me..So what is not communal is only secular..



His actions to stop the riots are well documented. Actions speak louder than words. That has always been his mo and thats the way people like it.


What is conflicting in that ? Congress is undoubtedly one of the most communal party in India..certainly more than the BJP..about 900 documented riots have taken place in India under Congress watch and more people have died in that. . Much much much much larger than under BJP. Infact Congress has actively started many riots while the complaint on BJP may be they have not done enough to stop the riots

So much of BS man. All defenitions of secularism will have an element of equality. And all that he did as his 'actions' is to make sure that it 'looked' like he acted. In general he has used his political power to snuffle and mislead the investigations. The only man in Modi's cabinet to have decided to speak against him was Haren Pandya. He was mysteriously assasinated and no one has been able to find who's responsible- a little too convenient an assasination don't you think? Insinuations were that Modi got it done to shut him up. any man ready to kill to keep his job is bad news. If that doesn't send your alarm bells ringing, I don't know what will.

 

[CZAR]

Why would saying Nation First alienate the minorities (I think you were referring to muslims and christians) ? Why would anybody have a problem in saying "nation first" ?

You don't want to see why or you are unable to see why?

Let me break it down. Think logically, coming from, to say the least, a right leaning hardliner - with India's 80% of the population being hindu - no "India First" policy can be possible without the approval of Hindu masses. Meanwhile, "India First" is possible without the minorities. Hence, the likelihood of angst within the minority community - as they have been offered a power sharing agreement, by a potential PM candidate, whereby their voice and approval would no longer be critical to decision making.

Hope this helps.

 

[KRAIT]

On the face of it - there is absolutely nothing wrong with the statement. But since when has it been advisable to take what politicians have to say at face value? Let's not pretend to be blind. The oh-so-obvious fine print, whereby he has sought to assure a potential votebank that consists of a crowd that borders being titled as "hindu upremacists" - is worrying. You may choose to not take cognisance of it, but there is no questioning the fine-print. And let's not insult the intelligence of others on PDF by trying to place a halo over the "india-first" comment.

Funny you said that because you don't see targeting of vote bank by Congress.

Congress do this by saying we have done this and that for minorities, which clearly mentions only and only about Muslims.

When they target farmers in previous elections and turns out AP farmers are selling their organs while money is given to undeserving ones.

Funny you say that because you find he targeted Hindu supremacists, because no where he said anything about Hindus or Muslims, just Indians.

Funny you say that because he asks for National Interest and following Secularism which means no special tretment religion wise but special treatment to the needy ones.

A person in India Today Conclave said, I don't know what people say about Modi whether he has done this and that but when I see Gujarat canals and electricity to 18,000 villages, I don't see whether a Hindu or a Muslim drinks that water or a house of a Hindu or Muslim is lighten up for 24 hours.

Hunger, poverty, illiteracy, don't differentiate with religion, I wonder why Govt. differentiate on basis of religion ?

So stop finding hidden meaning everywhere in case of Modi and ignoring direct differentiation by Congress on basis of religion.

For once, tell me where is the justice for Sikhs ? Where is the Secularism respected by Congress ?

To hell with your majority, minority on basis of religion, I want it to be on basis of economic distribution. Similar to reservation not on basis of caste but economic distribution.