For the past four and a half years, India has had a classy, educated, honest Prime Minister in Manmohan Singh. He’s often been criticized for not seeming forceful enough, but he did score a major success against both left and right in the nuclear deal and subsequent vote of no-confidence, and will probably join a relatively small number of Indian PMs in finishing out a complete five-year term. (Quick quiz: how many have there been?)
One person who is being talked about as a viable candidate for India’s next Prime Minister couldn’t be more different — Lalu Prasad Yadav. Yadav is the ex-Chief Minister of Bihar, where he rose to power in the “Mandal era” by mobilizing what are referred to as backward caste voting blocs in the state. Once in power, Yadav became nationally notorious as a rampantly corrupt figure, who embezzled at least $267 million in the “Fodder Scam”. He was eventually forced out of office, but was able to continue effectively running the state after he installed his wife, Rabri Devi, as Chief Minister in his stead. Starting in the late 1990s, Lalu Prasad Yadav became the punchline of many Indian jokes; even saying his name in some circles leads people to start smiling, in expectation of the joke to follow. (Another quiz: what are the names of his nine children?)
During the current UPA (Congress) administration he has had a second political life as the National Railways Minister — and he’s had remarkable success in turning around a huge government operation that had for decades been dominated by inefficiency and losses for the government. During its tenure (1999-2004), the NDA (BJP) had even been making noises to the effect that the only solution would be privatization, or failing that, raising ticket prices aggressively. But under Yadav, in 2008 alone the Railways earned profits of $6 billion — without raising passenger ticket prices at all. He may have been incredibly corrupt (and may still be corrupt), but he has been remarkably effective at turning around a major government agency.
I mention Lalu Prasad Yadav as a Prime Minister possibility as a reflection of the chatter I was hearing, mainly from relatives, as I was traveling in northern India last week. I have no idea whether it’s a real possibility, and I’m certainly far from thrilled about the possibility of someone so corrupt becoming Prime Minister. But it would nevertheless be interesting, partly because it would involve the country making a clear departure from the Nehru family and western-educated elites, in favor of someone with a strikingly different profile.
He may or may not become Prime Minister, but it does appear that while Lalu Prasad Yadav is still the butt of a few jokes, many Indians are starting to utter his name with newfound respect.
It is a tragedy of Indian political system, that we are even thinking of Laloo as PM of India after he has screwed up the whole state of Bihar during his regime. How does it matter what caste he is. Bunch off bullshit.
What, Tom Friedman is from Amnesty/HRW?
Ok. According to the links, it must be also be the “official” US worldview that the “official” US govt does bad things them.
Well before 2001, HRW has described the Kashmiri militants as Pakistan backed. Anyways, this is my last comment on HRW, I don’t see how claiming they have an “American worldview” has anything to do with whitwashing Modi.
And Pakistan has always been US backed. So criticism of Pakistan before 2001 misses the point entirely.
I posted that as an example of a supposedly neutral organization letting politics get the better of an objective analysis of the situation. Anyway here is a more relevant article saying HRW has been more about politics than human rights. Many of the inaccuracies and assumptions pointed out by SAAG also exist in the reports put out by the USICRF, so that provides us with a direct link to the US political scene.
161 脗路 Amit said
There’s a whole bunch of mudslinging in that report, and a lot of “yes, Gujarat was wrong, but…. it was only in response to provocation” style apologia, which I find utterly pointless. And I still don’t know what this has to do with Modi’s complicity. Seems a regular pattern that exists definitely among some commenters on this blog, but certainly not isolated to them., that any criticism of the Sangh is debated not on its merits, but on the imputation of motives to the critics.
In any case, I am sure there exist organizations that put out long reports explaining why it is clear that the moon landing was really on a NASA soundstage (or, deny the existence of the h—–, as Ahmedinejad does – don’t scream Godwin, I only meant homosexuals), and as an affirmed pseudosecularist, I have to treat the screed you link to with about the same credibility that pseudoscientists treat alien sighting reports.
HRW has criticized the US well before 2001, in its support of non-democratic institutions. In fact, even pre 2001, HRW’s reports specifically mention how the arms pipeline set up by the CIA to arm Afghan Mujahideen was been siphoned off for Kashmiri militants by the ISI. Further, your sentence above makes it seem like Pakistan has no agency of its own, and is merely an unwilling/unwitting puppet controlled by its American handlers.
130 脗路 khoofia said
khoof, is this the youthful you?
Dont mock the hair brother.
there are worse ways for saying a happy new year. 馃檪
What’s sauce for the goose (HRW supporters) is sauce for the gander.
Well, you posted a link from HRW to somehow imply that Modi was complicit. I am posting material to show HRW is not credible or secular.
165 脗路 Amit said
An acolyte of the Alberto Gonzales/Laura Bush school of equivalence, I see.
Hey, I never denied that was your intent, as I explained in #162.
Like I said when it comes to your comments, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I don’t see you refuting that HRW is either careless or is playing a political hatchet game with respect to the Sangh. They went so far as to claim that the 1984 anti-Sikh riots were caused by the Sangh after all.
168 脗路 Amit said
Sorry, not interested in playing that game with deniers who insinuate nebulous “American world views” and believe that allusions to Tom Friedman and a vast left-wing pseudosecular conspiracy make an argument for Modi’s innocence.
Actually, if you read the report, they never claimed anything of that sort in the least. This is just a convenient and completely baseless lie perpetuated in this Saag or Palak or whatever tikka masala report you linked. For your convenient reference, here is the full HRW 2002 report. If you search for the word Sikh, you will see that the word occurs on Page 5, where the Congress party is explicitly fingered for the riots.
But, as that Aloo Gobi report says, HRW demonstrates “a clear bigotry against Hinduism itself”, so clearly Modi is innocent. That’s all. The End.
Anyways, I’ll go watch Oliver Stone’s JFK for a more fun conspiracy theory now…
Yes, they did in their 1999 report. I quote below –
Clearly they are have been either careless or had political motives against the BJP/Sangh since prior to their 2002 report.
170 脗路 Amit said
So, what is your issue with the 2002 report?
Also, what is your issue with the 10 pages of facts in the HRW report, outside of this one clause?
Not to mention investigations by Tehelka, the US Council on International Freedom, and so many others. Wow, so many people who present an existential threat to Hinduism!
Yes, they did in their 1999 report. I quote below –
Christians are not the only minority to be targeted by the sangh parivar. Violence against Sikhs in northern India in 1984 and against India’s Muslim community nationwide in 1992 and 1993 also stemmed from the activities and hate propaganda of these groups.
He..he.. Blame everything on the Hindutvadis. If not for Kasab being caught alive, the Mumbai attacks would have been attributed to Modi by the “secular” crowd. 馃檪
161 脗路 Amit said
Amit, you have to be the singularly most intellectually challenged commentator I have ever come across on SM, and that’s saying a lot. Of course HRW and groups that believe in human rights ideology are influenced by U.S./E.U./etc. interests – they’re part of a political economy and have funders and their staff travcels in social circles etc. But if your argument is to pit the credibility of HRW/Amnesty/etc. as documenting organizations against the sangh’s own documentation of the Gujarat events and after effects, I’m afraid you’re going to lose not just in my opinion, but more broadly. Moreover, the criticism from Indian NGOs and activists and places like Tehelka has been as strong, as corroborative, and as damning as anything that came from abroad – so playing the nationalism/neocolonialism card to try to exculpate mass murderers is just a crap argument, aside from being – well, kind of disgusting.
In closing, I hope that you are willing to change your name to Muzaffar Ali and live in Ahmedabad for a while (or really many places in India) and get back to us on how you feel about Hindutva and Islam then.
147 脗路 nm said
To put it in real shorthand – being a dalit like mayawati (the chief minister of UP) is imo about as much evidence of casteism being dead as Barack Obama being elected is evidence of racism being dead in the U.S. But as someone else pointed out, ‘caste’ in India is a really complicated thing and if everyone was as honest as you are about not undersatnding it (which I don’t either as well as I’d like to), it would be a good thing, so thanks.
What I’ve figured out so far, as a working hypothesis: Caste is social, legal, political, economic, and a language that people have talked in and do still talk in, and it operates differently in each of these realms, and the way it works differs from place to place as well, and, like you point out, intersects with other things like how much money you make, etc. If you’re interested, I would recommend Susan Bayly’s book as an intro the history of caste and Marc Galanter’s writing on reservations if you want to understand how the government after independence has dealt with caste/untouchability. But there’s a lot of other writing out there – Jonathan Parry’s essay “Two Cheers For Reservation” is really good – it’s about a steel plant in Chattisgarh and a local dalit group.
The spectre of Laloo Yadav becoming the PM is something that sends shivers down the spine of many right thinking Indians and does indeed put many a dhoti and Khaki chaddis in a twist. It is eminently possible in case of a hopelessly hung house, and is slightly worse than Mayawati and slightly better than Karat as PM. After the sterling example of the humble farmer, anything goes.That the noted anti national Mulla-yam Singh Yadav suceeded in becoming the defence minister speks volumes about the rot in our system. I would favour Advani as PM, Modi as home minister, Yashwant Sinha as finance minister, Jaitly as Defence Minister and Uma bharti as minorities minister…(ducks the tamatars and ande thrown by outraged lefties)
Many of the issues are documented in the SAAG report. What’s fair for you is fair for me if I say I don’t care to spend my time on HRW or USCIRF reports since its all the same thing. I am not the fundamentalist trying to run an out of court trial of Modi.
178 脗路 Amit said
you have produced 6 words in one old report in response to reams and reams of cited and documented evidence, as a figleaf for supporting your denial. as i said, your analogy holds as much water as alberto gonzales.
177 脗路 Lupus Solitarius said
Is this like fascist day? wtf is going on? why are you people allowed to have computers?
you have produced 6 words in one old report
Hmm.. Isn’t Bush ridiculed and lambasted by the left for 17 words in the Niger-Uranium report a few years back?. Is it ok to lie if it is just 6 words in 10 pages?. 馃檪
Actually Bush’s 16 words..
I realize that logic is a strange realm for a basis of discussion with deniers, but “fairness” and “sauce” would actually entail an examination of the very detailed and documented evidence in the reports, not nebulous ad hominem attacks of “american worldviews” and invocations of tom friedman. After all, HRW is not just saying he belongs to the BJP, or alluding to just his “hindutva worldview”, and saying that is enough of an argument for modi’s complicity. saag and you seem to believe that those 6 words are all the evidence it needs to supports its paranoia of hrw’s marinated bigotry against hinduism, which is the repeated pattern of behavior by the hindu right and their thugs whenever anybody as much as questions their rancid behavior, let alone document it.
as i said earlier, anybody can produce screeds, but when one lens these screeds as much credibility as earlier documents on 9/11 being a zionist conspiracy, or denial of your favorite h—–, it tells you much more about the person than the topic.
anyways, this back-and-forth has dead-ended for a long time, since i have a constitutional incapability to be civil to apologists and deniers. you can have the last word.
181 脗路 Ponniyin Selvan said
yes, that is all bush is ridiculed and lambasted for, and clearly these situations are analogous.
181 脗路 Ponniyin Selvan said
i do not know the provenance of that phrasing in the 1999 report, and i doubt that you do either, but their 2002 report does not lie, and makes explicit the congress complicity in 1984. if those 6 words – which is all has been produced so far – were such evidence of hrw’s malfeasance, shouldn’t the 2002 report make the hrw white as snow?
i think the 1999 report is also biased for the sangh because it does not give the bjp credit for its coming out party in the bhagalpur riots and blindings in 1989. so, if hrw says so many horrific things in 2002, with this clear pro sangh bias, i cannot even imagine how much worse things must have been in reality.
HRW’s website and its detailed documentation of American excesses in South America, the abuses in the war on terror, and so on and so forth are there for all to see. It is pretty evenhanded in criticisms of American abuses of power, just as it has repeatedly mentioned all offenders in the terrorization of minorities in India, as well as the pernicious effects of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan, Kashmir and so on. Whenever anyone, and there have been several at this point – be it tehelka or hrw or uscirf or any of the gazillion other non-fringe orgs, has raised issues about sangh atrocities, or documented evidence, the only response has been to attribute sinister motivations, and never are the actual points tackled, even when the evidence is not some generalized smear job, but a litany of documented details. these accusations might’ve held water the first, second, or fifth time, but at this point, they should be recognized for what they are – intentional intimidation, distraction and vile ad hominem to avoid accounting for one’s vile sympathies.
in this entire discussion, there has been not even an attempt to talk about the 2002 report, just production of some screed that spends acres of print space denouncing hrw’s purported anti-hinduism and saying “but the muslims, they did it too”, and 6 words in a dated report – words that are more than negated by clear statements in the 2002 report.
SAAG has a rather large report, so it’s not just six words.
Nope, that’s your claim, HRW probably just ideologically dislikes the Right in India just as they would dislike the Right in the US. Since you posted a link from HRW to support your argument that Modi is complicit, I am pointing out that HRW has political motives against Modi/BJP that predate 2002. Further, since they have had trouble keeping things straight with respect to India prior to 2002, their credibility is doubtful.
So now the South Asia Analysis Group is part of the Sangh? Maybe in the same way as the HRW and USCIRF are part of the US and EU political system?
Perhaps it would help if you read the SAAG report? They do not excuse the Gujarat government’s behavior while documenting HRW’s political motives. I quote from their report –
By your standards (based on out of court documentation), not all of the Indian NGOs and activists are above board either.
Tsk, tsk, so we’re having to resort to ad-hominen right off the bat now?
1.A train gets attacked by local Muslims spurred on by a local Muslim congress leader; a bogie gets burnt, killing 56 people, mostly Kar Sevaks.
2.The already sensitive communal situation gets out of hand, and results in communal riots at multiple places.
3.A large number of people get killed in the riots – more than 1000 muslims and a few hundred Hindus die.
4.Unlike earlier riots, these riots see the active participation of Gujarati Hindu middle class – in looting and arson.
5.The Government fails in its duty to quickly restore normalcy; it takes a few days before the situation comes under control.
6.An enquiry leads to Police men being dismissed, and dozens of people arrested.
There have been NO major communal riots in the State since that day;a majority of the Muslims who left their homes return within the year to resume a normal life.The State continues to grow at around 11%, better than even China, and Asian tigers.It scores high on every developmental aspect, and the government gets re-elected on a ‘development plank’.
The issue of 2002 riots is raked up all the time, but the common people have moved on.Tehelka’s ‘sting’ backfires.A Muslim activist who worked with Teesta Setalvad files a case against her; it becomes known that CPM donated Rs. 1 Lakh to each of the ‘eye witnesses’.It also comes to light that most of the ‘eye witnesses’ have not even read their ‘sworn statements’.
The enquiry commission finds fault with the way the Govt has responded to the crisis, but exonerates the CM and the Cabinet of any malafide intentions.
Bottomline: It is fine if some people prefer to have a Lalu (who stands for casteist violence, communal vote bank politics, criminal-politician nexus, and CORRUPTION) as the PM. Lalu has assiduously cultivated the brand image of being a ‘secular’ politician.
In return, those people should understand why some others would prefer a Modi (who stands for a clean government, inclusive development,no nepotism, and an effective governance) because Modi is essentially seen as honest.His government messed up in 2002 and he has admitted it himself.His party has also admitted that fact of ‘inefficiency’.And Modi has ensured a peaceful and vibrant Gujarat since then.Even after the Ahmedabad blasts, there was nary a concern about any chance of communal riots.
Just because one prefers some one who ‘delivers results’ and can ensure peace and freedom in a sustainable mode, one doesn’t become a fascist.Modi may not have the perfect resume, but on balance, he is better than any Lalus or Manmohan Singhs of this world.And if enough people in India make this democratic choice in April/May 2009, it will mean just one thing – the people of India know what they want.
@ Rahul:
As I interpret it the complaint isn’t that HRW has an American worldview. It’s more that these groups tend to dominated by the worldviews of Davos Men. As a result, that they would disseminate a position that basically mirrors the opinions of the internationalists in the Indian media is not surprising, but for one who does not necessarily subscribe to the ideals of the Davos Man, not all that persuasive. You can’t just rest on the laurels of HRW’s good name in this case since the information they’re getting is the same information as the Indian press. It is, in most cases, coming from said press. Insofar as having people doing investigative work there I doubt one of them has actually accessed any documentation first-hand and they would be unlikely to take anything coming from Modi’s supporters at face value the way they would take statements from his detractors.
In terms of complicity in the Godhra riots, from what I have seen he was guilty of willfully dragging the feet of the government in putting a stop to them. That’s bad news and it’s not something that should go unpunished. But it’s also not the same as implying that he masterminded some sort of Krystalnact. That’s a bit farfetched.
NaraVara, I am aware of the recent political history and realignments of regional, caste and religious forces in India which has resulted in the rise of people like Mr. Laloo Yadav. Like you, I also have a lot of respect for the Late Shri. Narasimha Rao, who deserves most of the credit for the changes in the economy (Shri. Manmohan Singh was finance minister, but there was little he could have done if Mr. Rao had not chosen to adopt and support the policies of economic reform). My comment was limited to a comparison of Mr. Yadav and Ms. Mayawati. Personally, the both of them are people I would
shudder to see as Prime Minister. They both have a great capacity for destruction.
Lalu, Mayawati? My oh my… BJP or Cong is same for me, I slightly lean to Cong, just as long as the left front is kept away from power. I too doubt that someone not from Cong will be UPA:s PM.
I’ve understood that BJP:s choice is Advani and no one else. Third Fronts coice will definetly be Mayawati. Cong will chose one of Sonia, Singh or Pranab.
Of all these choice I think I prefer Pranab, probably because my parents live close to his flat in Dhakuria.
krishna
On Narashima Rao and the economic reforms, my guess is that India would never have reformed under Congress unless The Soviet Union had not crashed. Narashima Rao was a most unwilling reformer, he did what he did because India was not for from default. I remember how India turned to the NRI:s to borrow money, if it wasn’t for the NRI:s Rao/Singh would have had to turn to IMF.
Dr Amonymous said
Yet he calls me the fascist 馃槈
i do not know the provenance of that phrasing in the 1999 report, and i doubt that you do either, but their 2002 report does not lie, and makes explicit the congress complicity in 1984. if those 6 words – which is all has been produced so far – were such evidence of hrw’s malfeasance, shouldn’t the 2002 report make the hrw white as snow?
What we do know is that HRW reports tend to propagate lies sometimes. 馃檪
You are giving a benefit of doubt to HRW in case of 1999 report for the 6 words that propagate a lie. Is it wrong for someone to treat the few words in 2002 report showing Modi in bad light to be a continuation of the lies propagated by the HRW.
HRW depends on folks in India to prepare the reports. And if those folks are biased, it is likely that the reports are biased and not reflect the TRUTH.
1.A train gets attacked by local Muslims spurred on by a local Muslim congress leader; a bogie gets burnt, killing 56 people, mostly Kar Sevaks. 2.The already sensitive communal situation gets out of hand, and results in communal riots at multiple places. 3.A large number of people get killed in the riots – more than 1000 muslims and a few hundred Hindus die. 4.Unlike earlier riots, these riots see the active participation of Gujarati Hindu middle class – in looting and arson. 5.The Government fails in its duty to quickly restore normalcy; it takes a few days before the situation comes under control.
Nice summary. I’d add the context being that Indian parliament was attacked and Indian and Pakistani troops were staring at each other in the border. It was a tense period. And Modi became a chief minister just 4 months back.
To blame the riots/killings on Modi is like finding a scape goat to assign all the blame. (more like HRW report of 1999 assigning Sikh killings to Hindutvadis. 馃檪 )
Hindus and Muslims have been at each other’s throats for decades/centuries. Esp. In Gujarat where we have the famous folklore of the exploits of Mr.Muhammad of Ghazni, I think it is inbuilt into the psyche of every person (at least in Gujarat). Modi is not the first(and definitely not the last) to prevent insane mass slaughter in the name of God/religion in India.
Reading the diatribe and propaganda against Modi over the years it would seem like Modi in his 4 months of power had turned an otherwise peace loving Muslims to roast a cabin full of passengers and equally he turned peace loving hindus to indulge in mass killings.
Hey, Ponniyin, if it takes visions of a global anti-Hindu conspiracy fed by liberal media bias to ignore mountains of evidence from several independent organizations – and even Babu Bajrangi, who must clearly be in on it, and feed your reality distortion field, so be it.
Tell ’em Rahul!
Poniyan’s premise was that HRW is a biased organization. He tried to back that assertion on the basis that HRW made up facts to smear the Hindu right. When you disiputed the facts (by looking at a incorrect source), he produced the correct source. And
So I guess you are following the old adage, if you can’t agrue the case, argue the facts; if you can’t argue the facts too; then just argue ! (I must say you so with unsurpassed wit and eloquence)
Every news organization has a bias. They all make mistakes. They retain their honesty by admitting their mistakes and puplishing corections and retractions and by shunning sources who feed incorrect information. The organizations that do not do so might be sucessful but lose credibility.
The Indian media used HRW as a source. HRW has been shown to make up numbers and stories. The Indian media contines to use HRW as a source and runs articles with wrong informtion all time time. I can either conclude that they are inherently dishonest, or I would expect an avalance of retractions and the blackballing of the individuals and organizations that fed them the incorrect information.
Looking at at your comments, and your mocking of anyone who speaks against the bias, I guess you must be waiting with bated breath for the retractions. Since they have’nt come for years now, you must have amazing lungs. I guess that explains the hor air in your comments.
A must read post with several interesting comments (and of course, nonsense from both sides of the debate too).
Thank you.
Y’know, it does get funny the millionth time yet another organization that dares to question the vile behavior of the sangh is accused of being part of the cohort threatening the Hindu way of life.
And here I was being told that HRW used Indian media as a source – which I didn’t even bother to rebut, because it was clearly being made by people who had made up their mind without even reading the report.
But given both these claims, I guess the vicious cycle must have been snapped by the immaculate autogenesis of the original stories from the swirling vortex of anti-Hindu bias that envelops India. What Maya!
I don’t even know what this means… as if arguing facts were somehow an ancillary inconvenience to be dismissed with, rather than the underpinning of a case. Although I guess, the “case” is what is being argued here with blanket claims of HRW bias against Hindus as saag takes great care to remind us in every other sentence.
Actually it’s Amit, Thanks Amit.
Now you’ll be bracketed as a Hindutvadi. Welcome to the club. 馃檪
201 脗路 Ponniyin Selvan said
You know, this argument would hold water if HRW was the only organization saying what it said against a welter of countervailing evidence. When the facts are never questioned, but the modus operandi of rebuttal is just insinuating sinister motives of organization after independent organization after independent organization, one who operates in the evidence/reality-based world does have to wonder about paranoia, just plain denial, or the compelling need to carry water for mass murderers.
Does this matter, when they subscribe to the same school of thought and if their staff goes to the same “school” in their formative years? They have their POV which differs from the POV held by other people. Merely claiming to be independent then does nothing to buttress their or your claims.
Right, here’s another article, this time from Adiga the Booker prize winner. Now, as everyone knows the Congress/UPA is ruling in Mumbai when the Taj was attacked. So why is this fellow blaming “xenophobic Hindu nationalists” unless he is looking to push a particular point of view?
Rahul, I can’t speak for our entire, diverse ( 馃槈 ) membership in the VHP-A (let alone the VHP), but personally, I strongly suspect that the reaction you’re observing is (largely) a reaction to the (as I take it) fact that (1) yes, elements of the Sangh have committed violence, but (2) why is this fact so (happily?) harped upon endlessly in order to (allegedly) discredit any Hindu-rightism/revivalism when (3) the violence of other political movements in South Asia (e.g., Congress v. Sikhs in ’84, Naxalites vs. anyone they can get their hands on today, Pakistani and Bangla gov’ts vs. Hindus over decades, etc.) somehow is not enough to “tar” those groups the way the violence of some elements in the Sangh (allegedly) tars any Hindu-rightism/revivalism. Speaking solely for myself, I’m not going to let some violence by some elements of the Hindu right shut up the entire Hindu right. What more do you want, other than an admission that, yes, some have committed violence in our name. The fact remains that our “wounded civilization” still stands in need of revival.
192 脗路 Sanjay said
That may be true. I don’t know enough about his personal thoughts and feelings to say either way. But with historical figures I subscribe to Batman’s adage. It’s not who he is underneath. It’s what they do that defines them.