Hacker News Reader

Comment by nabla9 | Hacker News Reader

Hindu nationalism is just like any nationalism. It harms liberties.

India: Arrests of Activists Politically Motivated https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/16/india-arrests-activists-...

Under Modi, India's Press Not Free Anymore https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/world/asia/modi-india-pre...

Critics of India’s Modi Government Face Sedition Charges https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/critics-of-indias-modi-gover...

Is free speech under threat in Modi’s India? Activists, journalists, lawyers and academics are concerned that free speech in India is deteriorating (2017) https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2017/08/03/is-free-speech...

View on HN

> Hindu nationalism is just like any nationalism.

There is a fundamental difference Indian nationalism and other countries nationalism. Indian nationalism is all about bringing back the "varna system" which advocates stratification of society based on the birth and access to education is only allowed for the brahmins(priestly caste). This was the system implemented strictly before the Britishers arrived to India.

   No country to my knowledge does denies education to its own people in the name of nationalism.
   In contrast in other countries the nationalism is not about stratification of society or honoring privilege by birth.

You seem to know more about the natives it seems; where are you quoting this from?

"Indian nationalism is all about bringing back the "varna system" " ---- You have done a Phd in the subject-- any links?

citation would be great

I assume you are probably an NRI. This is well know to natives. Most of the BJP leaders are former RSS members including modi. Source https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-29593336

RSS ideology is to make india a hindu religous state. Hinduism is based on the vedic books which advocate varna system.

Hindu Nationalism and Indian Nationalism are not the same thing.

Do you have any evidence to back your premise that Indian nationalists want to bring back the varna system? That’s an extraordinary claim that requires sourcing.

From what I’ve seen it’s like any other nationalist movement.

Yes. The BJP government is backed by the RSS and most of the members of the BJP party including Modi is former member of RSS. RSS is a religious organization supporting the varna system.

Not discounting the negative effects of the nationalism, but I don't think caste system is behind the current rise of nationalism. The prime minister himself is from the lower caste.

Modi himself added his trader community to backward caste for reaping benefits while he was running for CM of Gujarat using BJP govt at centre. Modh-Ghanchis are a middle caste which is a beneficiary of caste system and is by no means an OBC.

> The prime minister himself is from the lower caste.

This does not change anything. Modi is just a pawn. He does not have any original ideology, he is there for power.

Look at the number of brahmins and non-brahmins in the key position in the BJP. Look at the analysis here https://theprint.in/politics/ambedkar-on-its-agenda-but-bjp-...

If you are still not convinced, look at what "Subramanian swamy" had to say when every one in BJP party was changing their twitter profile last name to "chowkidar"(meaning soldier or protector). He said he is a brahmin and its brahmins duty to advice how the country should be run and not be a soldier as vedas consider brahmins as superior to all the other varnas.

https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/lok-sabha-2019/story/can...

The point is the ideology that is driving BJP is all about bringing back the privilege based on the birth.

Subramanya Swamy is 81 yrs old. A person who has remnants and values of old-school of casteist thought.

I don't expect him to be post-modernists egalitarian.

However at the same it doesn't mean he can't say his casteist comments openly. ;)

After all, its better if people say it openly so that they can be criticized for their casteist comment. The likes of him is politically insignificant as he is NOT competing in elections.

See my reply comment to him

Subramanian Swamy always denounced birth based caste system and always said anyone with 3 qualities - knowledge, sacrifice, courage should be considered as a brahmin and he has also said in many places that as per this Dr.Ambedkar is a brahmin and Nehru is not.

Don't just rely on Indian fake news media.

Would it surprise you to hear that there are many women in India who support for existing misogynistic aspects of traditional culture?

It's hard for people to understand how deeply woven caste-based motivations are in Indian society. At a large scale it may seem like some globally stratified layer cake. On the ground, it devolves into regional tribes.

The "caste associations" rural people associate themselves with in rural areas are loosely formed tribes of 10 thousand to 100-thousand strong members.

The perspective of many who choose to be invested in this system - which is most people living in those areas (what else are you gonna do? not support your tribe? who else is gonna have your back if there's trouble?) - is one of trying to gain status for their caste/tribe over others.

Caste rivalries are often regional, and localized.

Identifying India's current PM as not coming from one of the well-recognized "higher castes" is really meaningless. It'd be sort of like saying "yeah, this politician is unlikely to be a hardline christian dominionist, he's a 7-th day adventist, which is clearly a minority sect".

which women, and which "misogynistic aspects"?

Guess I'm not allowed to interrogate vague claims..

I agree with you on all the points except the last and in no way I am saying the there are no caste based discrimination in India. In fact caste based discrimination and the effects of it is one of the main reasons of India being "developing country" forever, I think. My point is that the current rise of nationalism is not because of the caste system, but rather in spite of it. I see many people from lower caste(including my relatives) being active in the local rightwing politics and RSS.

>> which advocates stratification of society based on the birth

Not a unique to Indian nationalism. American nationalism is very similar. See the "birther" movement. Or the president's push to withdraw birthright citizenship, a concept that would deny far more than just education. Or the references to "anchor babies". The location of one's birthplace, and the birthplace of one's parents, is of fundamental importance in US nationalist movements just as in India.

Ironic given that Donald Trumps grandfather was an immigrant - and German immigrants where subject to discrimination.

How is that ironic?

Nativists campaigned against incomers from Europe

So basically you never become a native regardless how many generations you stay in a country, thus nationalism is valid point of view.

I didn't say that :-)

I was commenting on the use of nativism by a politician whose grandfather was an immigrant.

Though over time some groups formerly seen as undesirables become honoury whites Irish German Catholics etc.

It wasn't that long ago that having a catholic president Kennedy was seen as problematic

Sure, but how is it ironic? That is what I'm trying to figure out.

irony "a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result."

Rich immigrants and poor immigrants are seen often as totally different categories.

Don't think Initially Donald's granddad was that rich.

And to follow up German immigrants where not liked as the liked their beer and some where gasp Catholic

Birthright citizenship is pretty unique to America though. Nowhere in Europe you would find such a thing, although most people won't count Germany, France, Netherlands, Sweden etc. as human right violators.

Also Canada, Mexico, and almost all of South America. Only a few other countries elsewhere, none of them developed.

Maybe I missed something or forgot how citizenship works here in France (since I learned how it is acquired as a student), but birthright citizenship seems pretty similar to what we have here

France has a mixture of jus soli and jus sanguinis, like most countries. Pure jus soli, as in the American case, is in fact quite rare.

Just checked the wiki, looks like France defines something called double jus soli, which means a person who was born in France to a parent who themselves is born in France (even though they might not be a French citizen) gets the citizenship.

That's a bit closer to birthright citizenship that what we have in Germany, but nowhere as liberal as USA laws, which give citizenship to anyone born in the USA even if their parents entered the country one day before the birth and left next day after the birth. That is something that doesn't exist anywhere in Europe to my knowledge.

It seems I didn't look closely enough at the details, thanks for the clarification

Where and when did this govt deny education? Do you have any evidence or are you just grappling with straws here?

Its trying its best https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-tn-govt-scraps-order-t...

Isn't that the responsibility of the state-govt to ensure that people are educated?

What is central-govt doing to "DENY" education and that based on "caste" ? I still didn't find any evidence.

The idea of the new policy of introducing public exams for the 5th and 8th grade is to discourage students to go to school. Once the govt school has the exams they are forced to fail few percentage of the students and very likely they will discontinue the school. This is the reason in the past till 9th students were promoted in tamilnadu which has the highest college goers because the students who were not performing in the mid school got a chance later.

The important question is what is driving this educational policy. Its the belief of the vedas that for a society to function well not everyone should have the same opportunity and access to education. Everyone has duty based on the family they were born and should not be allowed to change.

You're conflating nationalism with a cultural supremacy movement. They're similar to outsiders, they often overlap, but they are not necessarily the same thing.

The field of Political Science does not treat nationalism as inherently bad, nor does it use "nationalism" and "ethnic nationalism" interchangeably. There are a million real-life examples of even ethnic nationalism that people generally consider good.

Hindu nationalism is certainly way different, it is an umbrella term that encompasses all Indic cultures, tradition and systems that have evolved for thousands of years.

This is against a mostly one book, one god/no god, one agenda and one power centre ideology being enforced on the people - Marxism, Christianity, Islam, "Atheism", "Feminism"

Especially in a country with a million gods and small unique communities, it falls on the government to protect them from ideologies with a track record for violence and genocide.

This is correct.

> Political liberalism in India is now under assault. The current right-of-center government, dominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), appears intent on transforming India's pluralistic, open, and secular state into an ethnic and illiberal democracy. To that end it has sought to place ideologues in key governmental institutions, attempted to curtail academic freedoms at a leading university, and made efforts to curb an otherwise feisty mass media. A weak political opposition, which had in any case failed to demonstrate much mettle when in government prior to the BJP's 2014 electoral victory, now appears utterly incapable of stemming this illiberal tide. As a consequence, India's future as a liberal democracy appears to be at some risk.

> Kumi Naidoo, the secretary-general of Amnesty International, takes a different view, decrying an official effort to "[crush] dissent by demonizing and criminalizing activists, lawyers, and journalists working for some of the poorest and most marginalized communities in India." Amnesty International India has itself been targeted: Its bank accounts have been frozen, and police in Bangalore have accused it of sedition.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/713724

From the Journal of Democracy (Jan 2019)

This is all motivated reporting. India has such a strong and independent judicial system which does its job. If any charges are put incorrectly then courts will grant relief. India is democratic country.

>India has such a strong and independent judicial system which does its job.

Eh... no it does not. The Supreme Court has capitulated; it rubber stamps anything coming out of Modi Inc. Do you not follow whats going on?

Why don't you address all of the issues that the parent poster bought up?

According to AlJazeera, Afzal Guru is just a "Kashmiri separatist". I guess they missed the part where he was convicted for attacking the Indian parliament[1]. Interesting that Amnesty International questioned the way he was tried and punished[2].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Indian_Parliament_attack

2. https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/india-ne...

Also interesting that they did not find a shred of evidence in that case. In fact the order mentioned that he was convicted to placate the “conscience of the nation”.

when was he hanged?

Supreme court had concluded that he arranged logistics and explosives for the attackers. I am not sure how they arrived at that conclusion without a "shred of evidence".

https://scroll.in/article/805427/the-quick-guide-to-sar-gila...

I meant that all the evidence was circumstantial, which was admitted by even the court.

Isn't this the entire reason we need groups like Amnesty International present, or do you think they're bias/compromised as well?

“The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender.”: [1]

[1] https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/parliament-attac...

But Afzal was hanged when India was ruled by Congress. And all parties including Far left supported it. So that case cannot be used to measure judiciary sleeping with present government.

My comment did not talk about the judiciary. It was more about just calling Afzal Guru a separatist.

I don't think the judiciary is sleeping with the government. In recent times, they have given verdicts like the decriminalization of homosexual relationships and abolishing of Triple Talaq. I do agree that they should be more proactive. One reason for them being a bit soft on the government is that the current government has stuff like NJAC in their arsenal, which threatens to dilute the power of the judiciary. While NJAC was declared unconstitutional by the SC some years back, the current leadership can still bring it back by mobilizing support for it.

Ah yes the very same independent judicial system whose last Chief Justice is now a member of parliament. yes sir, very independent indeed.

After seeing what this organization did when Bolsonaro got elected here in Brazil, unfortunately I can not say I believe anything that comes out of it. It's a politically biased organization, therefore you always must take any stance they take with a lot of grains of salt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com