There are a lot of news clips out there about last week’s Mumbai atrocities but this particular Sky News segment manages to hit a couple of angles particularly well –
- A new-to-me video clip where the train station mob unleashes some old skool justice on the lone surviving terrorist
- Photographer Sebastian D’souza provides the frame-by-frame narrative for how he captured his now famous pictures of the terrorists & repeats his assertion that terminal cops didn’t intervene
- The correspondant recreates the sea-borne attack route used by the terrorists to gain frontdoor access to the hotels
<
p>
Update: Another video – taken from CCTV inside the station – shows the terrorists at work. It also, however, clearly show a couple of cops engaging them and shooting back with a single rifle between them –
200 · T.I Cycle said
I didn’t say “Wah! Kya facts!”, I said “Wah! Kya logic!”. Logic usually refers to a set of statements of the form A -> B. Even granting A, which I don’t necessarily do for all the cases mentioned, I can dispute the statement A -> B.
199 · Rahul said
Methinks LK has direct facial similarity to Cheney.
192 · Harbeer and His Mental Ilk:
Whatever dude. I said nothing of the kind. Thamizhan wanted to compare the US to India and I pointed out that her/his analysis was incomplete without considering India’s more recent colonial history. Then I made some jokes and tried to temper Bozo’s blood lust. What is this, beat up on Harbeer week?
I think one of the very very few intelligent things Carlos Mencia ever said was that we should never lose our ability to laugh at most situations…But sometimes, some some some times – be more empathetic.
Man, a lot of Indians just died for no reason.
Thanks for the awesome band name!
There are many things I would like to say, that would be mediated by the moderator, but I guess someone as intelligent as you can analyze my metalanguage to get what I think of you 🙂
…Oh and Dr. Am, I wasn’t referring to you, sorry if it seemed so.
The Guns Vs Bread and butter has always been a major factor in all our wars against Pakistan from 1947-Kargil. India has traditionally preferred short wars, because of of their impact on the economy.
The result has been mixed. We see this when we notice that Pakistan despite all its mismanagement and a frightening population explosion has a per capita income almost the same as India’s (some $830 Vs $770 PPP). My take on the reason is below:
On the pro side we have had long periods of relatively peaceful growth. On the Con side, the effect of wars launched on other’s terms has been costly. The 1962 war had a big impact on the economy. We have also lost a lot of influence and the economic clout that comes with it. In contrast China has been brilliant on exploiting military power for long term economic. Also a substantial part of the unrest in India depends on outside — and India spends far too much resources on this front. The Risk perception also increases, with the effect on the economy.
Due to their proximity and size Pakistan, Bangladesh, and China will always have many interests that go against Indian interests. Since low intensity warfare is a cheap way of tying India up, they will continue unless there is some sort of a disincentive. A stepping up of military such as limited strikes) or covert action provides this disincentive.
There are risks, the neighboring countries are also current and future partners, but continued inaction will only make things worse slowly until we are caught in a situation with few options.
I am not suggesting abandoning the bread and butter part of the equation, but I feel there is a need to pay more attention to the other side.
P.S. Thanks for the Shourie article. (Although it saddens me to think that when he joined politics, India lost its best journalist.)
200 · T.I Cycle said
I have not read the source article referenced above but I have first hand experience of Pak education system (of 70s and 80s) and I can, sadly, confirm that certain aspects of “history” taught in Pak education system at that time indeed promoted anti-india sentiments. The picture painted of pre-partition Hindu-Muslim and post partition Pak-India relationship in Pak text books was indeed biased. Having said that, I will also assert that what was being taught was NEITHER FALSE NOR LIES. Historical circumstances and events which lead to partition of India and Pak were very nuanced, with many religious, social and political agendas playing their part. And can very easily be interpreted in many different ways. Post partition riots and violence had perpetrators from ALL sides. In short, it is not difficult at all to paint a NEGATIVE picture without resorting to outright lies.
193 · DizzyDesi said
Got fascism? You must actually be really dizzy, because basically, your argument is that the only way to stop murder is to support politics that will produce far more murders, while ignoring the myriad things in India and Pakistan which kill or maim or otherwise harm far more people than bombings connected to “Islamic terrorism.” It is you and Modi and Al Qaeda and Bush on one side, and the remainder of us on the other. Have fun!
203 · RahulD said
Um, the only reason I’m responding to your meta cuss-out is because I think you misunderstood me. My new band name is “Harbeer and His Mental Ilk” not “A lot of Indians just died for no reason.” I’m crass and irreverent but I’m not that obnoxious.
Metta Thumbing My Metta Nose at Metta You
Can someone explain the politics behind people like Modi and Thackeray?
Dr Amonymous
Got Democracy
Hmmm…
while india’s 9-11 is an odd formulation, there does appear to be a different reaction to this terrorist act than what we’ve been accustomed to. in the past, the establishment, the national govt, even the bjp despite thier rhetoric, really just wanted to treat these acts as crimes, appease the terrorists and reap the short-term gains of acquiescing to their demands, and simply move on…arguably creating a vacuum for demagogues.
but there appears to be a epiphany moment here. whether it lasts or not i don’t know but whatever it was–perhaps the sheer spectacularity of the event–the magnitude of islamic terrorism appears to be dawning on everyone. the most serious issue of course is the doomsday scenario: they acquire biological or nuclear weapons, something president obama is thankfully keenly aware of. there’s also the destruction a low level war could do to india’s economy. as she emerges from decades of mindnumbing poverty, the last thing we need to do is scare off foreign investment.
but i think the increased globalization of islamic terrorism, as symbolized by the targeting of the jewish center, has woken a lot of people up. islamists are acquiring the grievances of far away muslims, adding to their already exaggerated sense of victimization. a similar thing happened to various white supremacist movements, but the islamists are far larger and more importantly find sympathetic figures within right-wing authoritarian islamic regimes.
i think even on the american side, this, along with the obvious ethnocentrism of seeing westerners targeted, led to the overwhelming coverage, one that we didn’t see with the mumbai blasts. what was once thought off as merely a regional conflict is now being viewed for what it has been for some time: part of an international fascist movement.
210 · Howard Rourk said
Wasn’t this “got democracy” a.k.a “rule of majority” is/was the theory behind partition of India and Pakistan, that India will be a Hindu majority nation where the majority (Hindus) will prevail over its minority (Muslims) hence Muslims need their own nation etc etc. ?
I am not too familiar with internal politics of India or what BJP is all about, but from the superficial awareness via blogosphere, if the objectives of BJP types are to assert and establish India as a Hindu nation rather then continue to evolve as a secular republic then it fits in very very well with what the jihadis of yesterday and today present India as to their followers.
Got “Clash of Civilizations” ?
209 · nm said
In a nutshell, mainstream Pakistanis accept the Two Nation theory but are still allowed in polite company. Modi & Thakeray also vigorously support the two nation theory but are “not cool” and can actually be taken to task by Pakistanis without any sense of irony. For the record I hate Modi & Thackeray but I feel it is necessary to put them in context.
The word is “promote”, not “accept”. They are the people who wanted, and carved out, the two nations. Now the Hindu extremist fringe wants two nations, and as you point out, that is not considered kosher. The idea is not appealing to me either, but I am also not sure why that is the case. I suspect most people who feel it is not kosher really don’t know why that is so, but some cook up reasons (like “fascism”) to justify the non-kosher-ness. The Pakistani state, on the other hand, try to take political advantage of this general Indian sense of discomfort about two nations.
BTW, historical context is lost on most people who write on this blog. As has been pointed out numerous times, this is an American blog. That also means the standard American treatment of things non-American, which is glance-and-move-on. Most people here know more about the context of the American Civil Rights movement than the Partition. Which is as it should be. But they also passionately argue about events that flow from the Partition. Which mostly sounds a bit, um, idiotic. But hey, it is an American blog! 🙂
So, those who accept that history cannot be rolled back should also support fascism/theocracies? Interesting logic. I personally was always fond of inquisitions, witch burnings, and heads on stakes. Bring ’em back, I say!
212 · s harpasand said
Your logic is that, if anyone votes for the BJP it is because they are a Hindu fascist who wants his/her fellow Hindu fascists to come to power? Is everyone who votes Republican is a racist redneck and everyone who votes Democrat is an America hating Hippie? Rule of the majority? 2% Of Indians are Sikhs…
India was never a Hindu Country in its entire history, and it will never be. South India as a block will never vote for Modi or a Single Party, so the whole fear-mongering about him being a national leader is bogus. How is the BJP’s agenda anywhere near those of everyone from the Imam of the Macca Masjid to the LeT is to make India a Muslim nation. And as much as I hate to be in agreement with the guy earlier who was tooting the BJP secular-credential horn, it is very true in a case like the “Uniform Civil Code” which is a huge part of the BJP agenda…both on the surface and its criterion the UCC is more secular and egalitarian than the prevailing law.
Since you said that your political knowledge is limited…try this out for expanding it http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB79/
And if you are bringing in Huntington’s cliches lets explore the logical extensions of his theory like the fact that…if you are prepared to equate the BJP and its loud mouth to Jihadists and their bombs and guns…then you should follow that logic of Huntington and use the extrapolation of Jihadists to ALL Muslims. Otherwise, try a better way to make your point…
Now lets let the other people discuss the problem in question.
Modi is probably a two nation kind of guy. But Thackeray is more like a 35 nation theory. Or at least a “Marathis are better than other Indians.”
I am not sure why you brought up this particular article in reference to BJP and Jihadis. But since you have brought it up, lets make it relevant to this thread and the recent attacks on Mumbai 🙂
The referenced paper states that Mukti Bahni was using India as the base for its operations in Bangladesh (east pak at that time) and this (fact?) was 1 of the main reasons Indo-Pak went to war in 1971. It also states that Mukti Bahni was considered a terrorist organization by Pak but India considered them Freedom Fighters. Now compare this to the (fact?) that Indians call orgs like Lashker terrorist organizations and Paks consider them Kashmiri freedom fighters.
There was genocide of Bengalis at the hands of Pak forces which, according to the referenced paper, fueled the fire of insurgency by Mukti Bahni WHICH India supported. If I am not wrong, 1 of the 10 gunmen who last week carried out the terrorist attacks on Mumbai called some TV or radio station in the middle of the attack, and apparently there are first hand accounts by hostages, that the gunmen claimed their act was in retaliation to destruction of Babri Masjid and mass murders in Gujrat and Kashmir by Hindus.
So am I reading you correctly, you consider PAK SUPPORT for these effing Jihadis and their insurgent brethren carrying out the Jihad in Kashmir as legit and kosher ?
A lot of that depends on how you view the world and what commonalities (and on what basis you want to want find those commonalities) you perceive. For example the Two Nation Theory…that’s valid only if you see things as black/white and Muslims/NonMuslims as two discrete, separate entities. But that’s just one perspective. I think the case could be made that Punjabi Muslims had much more in common pre-1947 (and even today) with Punjabi NonMuslims than either had with Sindhi Muslims (or Sindhi NonMuslims for that matter). Certainly the Urdu-speaking migrants to Pakistan (the Mohajirs), who left Delhi, U.P., Hyderabad, etc, and settled in Karachi, are quite different culturally and temperamentally from people who are indigenous to the geography of the regions which became Pakistan (i.e. the Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtos, et al). Pakistan (and the Two Nation) theory make no sense when you factor in the cultural, ethnic, and linguistic diversity within Pakistan, and the fact that NonMuslims native to that region had much more in common with their Muslim co-regionalists than any of them had with outsiders. I don’t think it made sense that NonMuslim Punjabis had to leave Pakistan for example (despite being identical in most respects to Muslim Punjabis) while the Muslim Punjabis decided to form a nation (based on Islam) with Muslim Sindhis, Pashtos, Baloch, and Urdu migrants. But then again I’ve met Punjabi Muslims who amazingly (and appallingly) have claimed they would feel more comfortable in an Indonesian or Nigerian Muslim village than in an Indian Punjabi (NonMuslim) village. So what do I know.
Basically, these young Jihadis from rural Punjab should have been allowed to focus more on beautiful stuff like this , which is part of their culture, instead of on mindless violence and hatred which was imported in.
Well, well..I don’t think using the two nation theory is the correct way to define Modi’s or Thackeray’s politics.
Hindutva ideology is that Bharat (not India or Hindustan)has been from the ancient times, a predominantly Sanaatan Dharmic society (Sanaatan Dharma was later christened as Hinduism by invaders and traders, and the country got its name India/Hindustan by external sources). Dharma is the bed rock of Bharatiya society.And this Dharma makes the people tolerant to other faiths. So, all those who live in this country have to abide by this Dharma, which means all religions must be treated equally, with the country coming first (which again is Dharma).
Got it?
If at all Modi& Thackeray have a theory about the sub-continent, they subscribe to the idea of a unified Indian sub-continent, and not 2 nation or 10 nation theory.
Pakistan is living proof of the 2-nation theory being accepted by Muslim elite and Congress leaders of pre-Partition India.There were no elections, no referendum on this question.Just a handful of rich Muslims led by Jinnah, and Congress led by Nehru (MK Gandhi’s ideals were exploited cynically).And of course, the Brits played their role.
Millions of Muslims did not buy the 2 nation theory.They don’t buy it now as well (in both India and Paksitan).But the elite still rules Pakistan, and they may have successfully indoctrinated large sections of Pakistani society through Islamisation.
However, even rabid Jihadists like LeT do not believe in the 2 nation theory. They feel that the Brits and Congress have cheated the Muslims of the sub-continent.According to them, Indian subcontinet was an Islamic monarchy before the Brits arrived, and should have become an Islamic Republic when the Brits left.LeT and its ilk are convinced about the ‘legal right’ of Muslims to be the rulers of the sub-continent.
One could say that both the Jihadists and the Hindu right believe that the sub-continent should be a single political entity.The difference is that Jihadists want rule of Sharia where as Hindu rightists want ‘Sarva Dharma Samabhava’.Common sense tells me that true secularism as per the Dharmic way is the best bet for India and the sub-continent moving forward.The % of Muslims and other minorities has increased in India since 1947, whereas in Pakistan and Bangladesh, minority population has come down in terms of % drastically.Even in Kashmir valley.
Take your pick as to what appeals to your sensibilities.Inclusive ‘Dharma’ OR Taliban-style rule.
“So am I reading you correctly, you consider PAK SUPPORT for these effing Jihadis and their insurgent brethren carrying out the Jihad in Kashmir as legit and kosher ?”
Good job, that was quite a stretch too and you pulled it off…Now lets talk about the American revolution…
To put it another way, Hindutva folks feel: India is tolerant and secular because of the tolerant and secular nature of its Hindu majority.For India to regain its glory and become a global power, India needs to stick to Hindu Dharma.Which means, freedom of religion without appeasement of any group.And a Uniform Civil Code.And a my country comes first attitude. And a balance between globalisation and swadeshi, with the single criterion for any decision being the ‘Indian National Interest’ as a whole.
Bal Thackeray is essentially a Hindutva vadi.However, he and his ilk have resorted to ‘Maharashtra first’ as a technique to claim political space.It is not a constructive approach, but then India is a federation with antiquated taxation laws.Some people see the ‘Marathas first’ or ‘Kannadigas first’ kind of movements as a democratic response to the strongly unitary taxation and ‘grants’ structure in India.Nothing wrong as long as innocents are not victimised.But then Indians have been ill-served by its politicians since pre-independence times (there are some exceptions of course), and one can only hope that this generation and the next ones, succeed in establishing a more meaningful and constructive political culture in India.
223 · Kumar_N said
That sure does sound tolerant, secular, and most of all non-contradictory. I do hope they get an early start on their outrage for next year’s “War on Diwali” being fought in your neighborhood grocery store.
@ gruntin ball scratcher,
I have explained (in my words) the perspective of the Hindu right.And in the earlier post, I have also explained what is meant by ‘Dharma’ – Sarva Dharma Samabhava means ‘ability to treat all faiths equally’.
Do you still have a problem with that idea?
The one good thing that seems to have come out of these Mumbai massacres is that Indian Muslims have come out in lareg numbers castigating Pakistan, and shouting ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’.In Patna, the Muslim crowds have burnt Pakistani flags and asked Pakistan to just lay off.
I predict the BJP coming back to power next time around.And even Muslims voting for BJP at several places.
If this is true I would love to send it to a few friends of mine. Do you have any source on it that’s a little more substantial than “some guy in a comment board on a blog?”
225 · Kumar_N said
bjp and fellow travelers certainly do not have this ability.
@Naravara:
This was shown on TV this morning. These protests happened in Mumbai, Patna and a few other places.
I found a link on the Net (Rediff) showing the Patna incident. We need to highlight such shows of Indian unity.Please do fwd the link to as many as you can.
http://ishare.rediff.com/filevideo-Indian-muslims-protest-against-Mumbai-at-id-522203.php
Just read this.
I am quitting posting on this site. It is entertaining, but just pointless yakking.
The time of opinion is past, the world is moving too fast for opinions to matter.
Better to try and do something to keep your head above water. And if you can, help others do that.
Bye!
One more link:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/04mumterror-muslims-denounce-terror.htm
Excerpts (emphasis mine):
The appeal has been endorsed by a number of Muslim clerics including those from All India Organisation of Imams of Mosques, Dar-ul-uloom Wariseya, Lucknow, and the Ameen-i-Shariat Education Trust, Gujarat.
‘As a mark of protest, we the Muslims of India call our community to come together to mark a symbolic protest on Eid ul Zoha on Tuesday (December 8). This is a day that celebrates sacrifice. This year, let us turn this celebration into a commemoration,’ a joint press release issued by them said.
‘Let all Indian Muslims wear a small black arm band while going to pray in the morning, let this be a silent protest against the mercenaries who spread terror in our janmabhoomi,’ the appeal said.
227 · gruntin’ ball scratcher said
Oh look! It’s almost like the politicians in India are all hypocrites and crooks. Weird!
231 · Naravara said
I don’t think the BJP are hypocrites. They practice what they preach. Often to chilling effect.
Well I do prefer my villains to be of the moustachio twirling, maniacally laughing variety. It’s just a great deal more honest than saying “Hey. We’re going to take your land and leave you destitute. If you complain we’ll kill you. But it’s for your own good!” And wither the mention of the Congress party’s thuggery? You’ve got sitting MPs on the hook for everything from extortion, racketeering, and blackmail, to murder. So no shortage of thugs and rapists in there either.
At the end of the day if all you have to choose from is one type of bastard or another, you vote for the bastard who looks out for you.
233 · NaraVara said
First of all, it depends on what you mean by “you”. And second, whether you believe that this strategy actually will play out beneficially in the long term, even if you are willing to ignore all the damage, violence and death wreaked on innocent bystanders making a Quentin Tarantino movie look like a Disney matinee.
So what was the death count during the BJP regime versus the current UPA regime? It seems to me like with the exception of Godhra BJP governments usually are better at keeping a lid on communal strife. This is partially because they tend to have coalition partners at the national level that don’t put up with that sort of crap and also just because actually being in power means you have responsibilities to adhere to.
It does depend on the “you.” But the more a government insists on drawing lines between people and meting out patronage based on this communal membership or that you’re going to get a proliferation of “you’s” duking it out. Emphasis on the principle of having one nation undercuts all the emphasis on identity politics and communalism. The “one nation” tendencies can go too far at times, but India is far far faaaaar away from even being in sight of that line, let alone crossing it.
It’s just delusional to claim that if you could just wish the BJP away communalism would disappear with it. Hindutva is, at its core, a reactionary movement. That implies that its outlook is defensive, not offensive. It’s motivated by a sense of feeling threatened or besieged. The BJP taps into that for electoral advantage just as the Congress and its UPA partners try to paint their adversaries as fascists who are out to kill you and take away all your rights, but that doesn’t make the emotions and concerns of the people any less real or legitimate.
Riots aren’t terrorism. They’re not organized or planned. They’re spontaneous outpourings of rage and frustration. In the short term dealing with them is a law and order issue. In the long term it’s an issue of having a political system that can effectively let off some of the pressure before it all goes BOOM. If you want to stop communal riots the right way to do it is to actually address the concerns of these voiceless people who are taking to the streets. Dismissing their concerns by calling them fascists or painting them with whatever broad brush you care to pick up does nobody any good.
Address those concerns and you will find the BJP will magically find itself a much more moderate party as will the Congress. It’s simply Duverger’s law in action.
235 · NaraVara said
Ok.
Ok.
I will now go and leave those cookies for Santa.
236 · gruntin’ ball scratcher said
Hey! There’s an example of blithely dismissing legitimate concerns and how it’s liable to provoke anger and resentment right there! Well done.
237 · NaraVara said
babri masjid? gujarat riots? either you’re not smart or you think that i am not very smart. i just chose the latter, so as to not provoke anger and resentment in you. if you’d prefer the former…
my previous comment was in response to “Riots aren’t terrorism. They’re not organized or planned. “
also, i don’t see why i can’t, in this sentence say:
If you want to stop communal riots the right way to do it is to actually address the concerns of these voiceless people who are taking to the streets.
If you want to stop communal terrorism the right way to do it is to actually address the concerns of these voiceless people who are forced to resort to such extreme measures and willing to lose their lives in the process.
(don’t worry, i think that is a shitty idea too).
I did mention the Godhra riots. Nobody died in the actual demolition of the Babri Masjid. The deaths came in the riots that ensued. The first was a backlash from Muslim hardliners and then the second was a backlash against the backlash from Hindu hardliners.
If any of the communal riots were adequately planned I guarantee you they wouldn’t be using machetes and stones. There are no organizations designed to train people in the art of rioting and whipping mobs of villagers into frenzies. There actually needs to be some sort of spark to instigate that outpouring of rage. After that all you need is someone to step over the line or an agent provocateur of some kind to instigate the already furious mob into going over the edge.
There is nothing strategic or planned about that.
Terrorism, however, is an entirely different animal. Rather than just creating havoc for havoc’s sake terrorism actually aims at achieving political objectives. That’s actually how terrorism is defined.
Ok, I needed some appropriate-for-the-times humor and luckily found one here.
I read the post, laughed a bit because I thought the author was joking about the Fatwa.Then I realized that the joke was on me.What the author says is true.The Ulema is still investigating the matter. I hope they take the right decision and do not ban yoga.
So, you don’t know about Indian National Congress and their record in Hyderabad communal riots during the early 90s?
It went like this: Congress wins the Assembly elections and 3 leaders (MCR, NJR and YSR) vie for the CM’s post. MCR is the oldest and becomes the CM.NJR and YSR are unable to stomach this.YSR transports criminals from his hoem district to Hyderabad to start a riot.400 dead and another 400 injured.Congress high command dismisses the CM as he was ineffective in law&oder management.YSR hopes to be made CM.But Congress high command now makes NJR the CM.YSR is incensed now.But he patiently waits for the Ganesh Utsav next year, and brings his goons to Hyderabad again.Riots on a massive scale – around 300 die.NJR is asked to resign.YSR hopes to be made CM, at least now.But Congress high command goes for KVBR 🙂
Moral of the story: India’s politicians, are perfectly capable of instigating riots when they need.Not all of them stoop to that level, but some do.And they end up becoming CMs and Union Cabinet Ministers.
Ok..I have deliberately not mentioned another incident engineered by a political party’s followers in the country’s capital city, targeting a specific minority and causing endless grief.The perpetrators have walked free.
It is you and Modi and Al Qaeda and Bush on one side, and the remainder of us on the other.
That’s mostly right with a small change. I think I am on the side of Modi and Bush in regards to Islamic terrorism and you are on the side of Al-qaeda. But Generally I agree with the concept you have introduced “Us and Them”. 🙂
In a nutshell, mainstream Pakistanis accept the Two Nation theory but are still allowed in polite company. Modi & Thakeray also vigorously support the two nation theory but are “not cool” and can actually be taken to task by Pakistanis without any sense of irony. For the record I hate Modi & Thackeray but I feel it is necessary to put them in context.
he..he.. That’s right. Come on. Even you want to be “cool” by dismissing Modi and Thackeray. For the record, I support Modi and Thackeray.
B.Raman (ex-RAW director) says -‘Make them Pay’. He raises a lot of questions relevant to USA’s war on terror.
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20081203&fname=indiapak&sid=2
Have a good day, folks !
naravara, i think my reality has a “pseudosecular” bias, so i guess we will just have to degree on the notion of riots as organically generated.
modi and thackeray deserve the same kind of justice that the isi and army goons in pakistan do, and the same goes for their footsoldiers on either side. i do not see common ground with anybody who thinks that what either side does is acceptable. they and organizations that are supportive of their ideas are all culpable in mass murder or apologists for it, and must be treated with the respect due to such morality.
210 · Howard Rourk said
<
blockquote>Dr Amonymous
So because the electorate of Gujarat was willing to vote for Modi, I have to pretend that I don’t think that his politics are fascist? It’s not like fascism doesn’t have mass appeal – if it didn’t it wouldn’t work, like any other political ideology not based exclusively on force.
Thanks for bringing this up. These two things are linked – in order to industrialize, as I noted above, you need to find a way to accumulate and direct vast resources while at the same retaining enough popular support to prevent political claims from bringing down the economic regime. This incarnation of Hindutva might be described as such, but in a particularly virulent and anti-Other form – just like the U.S. had/has anti-Black policies and anti-poor country policies so that the people at the top can direct the resources where they need to go to maintain stability for their economic and political agenda. So you can see why overfocusing on an attack like this might be useful for him/other murderers / manipulators.
But there are other ways of going about it – I would also describe Nehruvian state capitalism along the same lines (as it operated, not as it always presented itself). I personally don’t think any of them are “good,” but they are certainnly preferable this kind of bs and other people have strong affinities to more moderate forms of popular mobilization where they’re possible.
btw, it’s cute–and dangerous–that he now talks about inclusive growth. Presumably, it doesn’t include Muslims or dalits who reject Hinduism or leftists.
243 · Ponniyin Selvan said
Yes, I agree with “us” and “them” but it’s not based on ideology – it’s based on decency. Anyone who wants to kill mass numbers of people without any need for it and with no ostensibly good or decent results for anyone is a dick (and there are times when force is inevtiable and there are uses of it that are helpful – but almost never when it’s said to be). So regardless of whether you want to paint me as such, I am NOT on the side of Al Qaeda – I am on the side of the victims of Al Qaeda, just as I am on the side of the victims of Bush. This is because I am on the side of people who like to look at things in reality and not in preestablished (false) discourses based on false constructions of eternal enmity that are MADE real and intractable by people like Modi – and you in this case.
Hence we form a residual category – the people who think you’re dipshits. Thankfully, someone has given us a voice. Enjoy your bankrupt ideology.
118 · dizi izle said
Yeah, tell that to the people who used to live in the 9th ward in New Orleans and see what they say 😉
214 · Feathers said
This is utterly oversimplifying issues. Some examples: 1) Jinnah and others understood Muslims as a socio-cultural group rather than a religious group, though obviously there was overlap among the broader Pakistan movement. On the other hand, RSS/VHP are religious fundamentalists and have always been so, though the sangh as a whole traverses the range from “moderate” Hindutva politics to complete and total assholes – the real battle is probably between whether you support Modi as the leader of the Sangh or someone who is still problematic from my vantage point but would potentially do far less harm. 2) Jinnah was ready to tear up the partition, but Nehru was not. 3) There was no consensus in Pakistan before or after 1947 that there would be 1, 2, or 7 Muslim states – though there were competing ideas. 4) The partition in the East – which never gets discussed – was voted for by the mostly Hindu elite but opposed by the mostly Muslim elite.
This was all about grappling for power and different elites and groups mobilizing popular sentiment on the basis of preexisting religious identities / sentiments to try to secure their place as the British left. If the Cabinet mission plan had been adopted, you would see a very different South Asia today – not geographically as much (though perhaps West Bengal would be part of what is now Bangladesh) but in terms of the dynamics of religion and violence.
Today, the difference is that there is no question of whether or not there will be separate Muslim-majority states – unless you advocate for “Greater India” which some Indian nationalist chauvinists might – that power battle is (hopefully) over. The real question that is at play in Modi’s and BJP’s and Rahul Gandhi’s and other politician’s politics is – what will be the nature of Indian politics. And it has and always will vacillate on this question of religious identity from soft Hindu (like the U.S. is soft Christian) to Hindutva (like the U.S. has Hagee and Ann Coulter and whatnot). As a resullt, aside form the material issues that Pakistan presents – which are of relevance for those who care about the Indian state, especially but not only in Kashmir and not only in terms of security but in other respects as well – it is frequently used as a bogeyman, the same way that India is used as a bogey man in Pakistan. In the process – a lot of other issues, regardless of your ideological predilections and whether you’re interested in political stability or social justice or other issues – are sidelined – and I can only assume that this is because India still hasn’t escaped the dynamics that were initiated during colonialism, the Cold War, and most recently after 9-11 – albeit in different forms in all three.