A new India is emerging, and it is a country ruled by fear
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/af...
The economy is dragging
https://www.ndtv.com/opinion/opinion-how-to-fix-the-economy-...
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.
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!
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.
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.
Haha, probably peacefully enjoy Lassi or an Old Monk smuggled from Daman&Diu
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.
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.
But tell us, what is your position on the Muslims in India.
No offence intended
NYT and WaPo is an echo-chamber of left-leaning (well, ultra-left as in Antifa may be a stretch, I do agree) liberals who advocate open-borders, increased illegal immigration, increased Government oversight in all aspects of life.
I would like to find an example of another country in your liberal utopia that is willing to do that. Europe? USA?
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...
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....
2. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/the-saffron-muslim/stor...
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.
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.
This isn't about illegal migrants, it's about Muslim migrants
And p.s. Assam NRC excluded an ex President's son and an Army Major who fought in Kargil, both Muslims.
The way matters more than the idea.
Having said that, surface level information I see displays similarities between Modi's nationalist policies/agenda and Trump's nationalist policies/agenda. As an outsider, being anti-Trump and pro-Modi seems conflicting to me is all. I could be wrong.
Then again, there’s also that group of “Hindus for Trump,” so what do I know.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/11/07/hindus-for-tru...
Issues they do care about, and which is likely true of most immigrant groups: - Immigration laws. A lot of Indian arrivals are quite educated, yet struggle with the current system to enter the US. Many favour the Trump plan for a merit based visa regime. - Foreign policy towards India and Pakistan.
Modi's popularity is a distinct formulation, and has to do with complex ideas of identity within multi-ethnic India. Only a tiny sliver of Modi's popularity has to do with his policies, and more with his Strongman persona.
This has been a major sticking point for me. I absolutely despise Trump and could never imagine supporting the GOP. (literally over my dead boy)
But, I acknowledge that Trump has had an agenda that objectively speaking, benefits Indians.
Democrats have favored Pakistan in many situations, despite them routinely supporting jihadist militia & terrorists in both Afghanistan and India + hosting some of the most wanted men in the US (literally Osama). The US generally has a trigger happy tendency to jump to conclusions about human rights violations in other nations, without any nuanced understanding of the ground reality. So, I would rather a trigger happy group that favors us, than one that doesn't.
I am in favor of more taxes, but as someone on an H1B, I can literally not access any of the social safety nets the extra taxation would afford. I am already near $100k in debt from student loans, and none of the loan forgiveness/ free education programs will be of assistance to me.
Democrats speak of open borders and welcoming immigrants, but have done nothing to solve the problems faced by Indians who come to the US in the most legal way possible -> Highly educated, high skill. The waiting period on green cards is a minimum 40 years for Indians. At the very least, Trump (or the one smart guy in the cabinet) has changed the way the h1b lottery works to favor highly educated immigrants. It still sucks and some things have gotten worse, but the democrats certainly haven't helped.
Lastly, for some reason, South Asians are not seen as a "minority" in the US (also faced by east Asians to some extent). There is a non-trivial amount of racism and internalized insecurities faced these groups and Democrats make no effort to talk about them, despite being loud about the same thing for hispanic and black communities. Jokes against Indians are not considered racist. Every popular Indian in US media is an awkward funny guy and lets not even talk about the "unsexiness" of Indian men.(Don't want to go into it too much, because it makes the comment sound like an incel. Even secure and well groomed Indians fully notice this, but will never speak of it outside male Indian circles, because honestly no one like complainers. Black women have this exact same problem in media, but they are slowly getting their voices heard and the representation they deserve). There is a reason a good chunk of Indians either borrow the 'preppy white person' or 'black rapper' identity, and that is because Indians have not found a way to be comfortable in their own culture yet. This is a hurdle that east asians seem to be getting past this generation. The school admission scandals have only further exacerbated this issue.
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.
#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.
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.
Proof please?
Source : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Part_XXI_of_the_Constitution_o...
Wikipedia is a perfectly acceptable source when I am quoting something that is common knowledge.
The title of section 370 is literally : "Temporary provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir"
Here is the constitution itself : https://www.india.gov.in/sites/upload_files/npi/files/coi_co...
A ctrl+F on 370, and it is right there in the index.
I don't trust wikipedia. Anyone can make any edit
My parents' generation on the other hand range from moderate supporters, who have "some qualms" about e.g. Kashmir/Assam, to fervent supporters of his nationalist identity and agenda.
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.
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?