I have no mention there was no need to enlarge a discussion on a point which was very centric and concentrated. I will provide short replies to other points so as to keep this relevant to the topic in the thread.
I did, reluctantly, to avoid any aspersions on the military professionals who are our members; please see #28.
I did read the post #27, #28 being my post, but I could find no relevance. I found the comparison amounting to clutching for straws. Allow me to explain why.
What happened in 71 took place in an active civil war zone, which you can imagine is not normal under any circumstances, it was compounded by known active external support, such situations tend to heighten sensibilities, and common sense usually gets thrown out of the window.
It was also a period when Pakistan was under martial law, effectively dictatorship, and without knowing your actual example because it is yet to be made clear, the environment at the time was in no way glorification of any individual or entity, it was an environment of survival.
The situation in India is now prevailing under normal rules of governance, society and state. Under a "democratic" setup, secular constitution and open source media whether that be social or mainstream media. plus we live in more enlightened times, where the masses are far more educated and aware then they were in 71. These things being as they are, it makes such example far worse.
I think it is an unfair and an incorrect comparison.
On that, it is a horrific prospect, and one whose advent strikes fear into the heart of all Indians whose morality is not mortgaged to the Sangh Parivar and its way of thinking.
Yup, I would hope it does, I think these are the concerns being highlighted by members on PDF, because to them sometimes it seems, the fears you describe are not taken seriously or dismissed as a passing fad.
Here, there is some confusion, I think.
As far as Indian members will interpret this, a very dicey slogan was used, that personifies the country as a goddess. We have had very clear opposition to this from those who are not Hindus, and the courts have ruled that neither opposition to this nor a refusal to stand for the national anthem may be punished under any law that is in the books at the moment.
Again, Indian members will be uncomfortably reminded that the military greeting 'Jai Hind' is universally acceptable, even among civilians. Whoever that man was, who was trying to cheerlead those poor rescued students, he was very clumsy and his approach was very politicised.
I was not referring to the Mata slogan, just the religious connotations regarding political authority. I know why the Mata slogan was created, why it is being used, and the religious or lack thereof meaning behind such slogans, and this one in particular.
My point regarding this has been addressed in the above reply.
As for this, 36% of the electorate that voted in 2019 voted for the Sangh Parivar and its allies.
This should remind us that, notwithstanding the sweeping generalisations that we sometimes encounter, about Indians, about Hindu Indians, and even about Muslim Indians, 64% of the electorate did not vote for this lot now in power.
The overpowering presence in Parliament is clear and visible from electoral statistics.
The Sanghis won, in UP, Bihar and Himachal and Uttarakhand, very many seats with very narrow margins. In the rest of India, they got few seats. Most of that 36% comes from the moronic heartland.
An explanation; in terms of demographics, the Sangh Parivar has enormous backing among the spoilt, techno-coolies spawned in training centres that are laughably called institutions of higher learning. They get good paying jobs, can afford the middle-class basics of life, speak a kind of English that is recognisable as English, own home computers or pads or smart phones, and are present in overwhelming numbers on line. That gives the world an impression that what this trash thinks and writes defines India. It does not.
I can explain the situation among our officers as well, to whoever might be interested.
I will leave this entirely, because it just enlarges the discussion, touching on topics beyond the scope of this thread.
But, I will add this much, I completely disagree with the conclusions, the percentage of votes cannot be used to explain the support for political Hinduism or political religiosity in India. I think it is a dangerous approach, because it aids in hiding the facts, and discolours the actual conclusions.