I realized five years ago, when the Congress Party came back into power after everyone had seemingly given them up for dead, that Indian politics is way too complicated to try and predict, especially from the outside.
Still, I wonder if readers have been coming across insightful articles or websites that explain what is happening in individual states or regions of the country, or analyze trends in a useful way. If so, could you put your recommendations in the comments below?
Here are two things I’ve read in the past day that I thought were interesting: the New York Times, on Narendra Modi, and Soutik Biswas, at the BBC, on why the 26/11 terrorist attack in Mumbai is not likely to be a national election issue.
This time around, it seems impossible to read too much into what is happening on any given day. Nor does it seems necessary to pay all that much attention to the to and fro between the Congress Leaders, the BJP leaders, and third front leaders. It doesn’t seem particularly consequential in terms of how people vote. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing remotely similar to the glut of daily tracking polls we had in the U.S. with the elections last year, nor are there websites like 538.com, which synthesized all the polling data coming in. (Are there such polls and websites? Have I simply been missing them?)
It does seem clear that the steady, incremental shift from national to regional politics is continuing in the current election. On the one hand, that is bad, because it means that whatever government comes to power at the center will be inherently weak and coalition-based. On the other hand, that weakness at the center can also be a good thing in terms of maintaining overall stability — not always easy in a country with 1 billion people. Even if a far-right or far-left party comes into power next month, they will not be able to do anything too drastic for fear of losing coalition support.
Second, it seems like “Hindutva” has seemingly lost some of its force as a national issue. The BJP and its allies might still prevail, but they’re playing the “nationalism” card more than the communal card.
Third, caste politics seems to be more prevalent than ever. I find that to be one of the most depressing and deadening things about Indian politics.
Fourth, Varun Gandhi is Ram, Shashi Tharoor is on bail, and Sanjay Dutt’s daughter in New York is pissed at him.
Satayjit, I don’t condone genocide of any kind whatsoever, I don’t think Pakistan is the realm of God. In fact, from the sound of things, I’m more liberal and secular than you. I’m not a Modi-apologist, and I’m not trying to pretend that what happened in Gujrat was some law and order problem and that poor Mr. Modi just didn’t know what to do. It was a genocide, a pogrom, and there’s no getting out of that. The BJP is a fascist party, and I hope they never get to achieve their Hindutva vision for India. I admire India and Indians very much and am very cognizant of the fact that South Asia historically has had a vibrant syncretic civilization.
No one sensible would deny that Pakistan has huge problems, but the Washington Post and the New York Times generally manage to write about these problems in context and in a senstive manner. People like you just spew vitriol against an entire country and people because it suits your ideological perspective.
somebody wasn’t actually listening to bajrangi’s testimony.. whoopsie..
hasty retreat, i see. bye bye.
not any more, as you admitted, he is just an incompetetent git who let a 1000 people, mostly muslims, die under his watch. pity that he has to lie about his being a paragon of efficiency – the crux of the case he makes for electability.
Also, I didn’t bring up the word “zionist”, you did. So that says more about you than it does about me.
Pakistan is not going to be taken over by the Taliban. Most Pakistanis (particulary in Punjab) know that that would be a horrible thing for the way of life that they want to lead. Plus, the US is not going to let that happen.
Hmmm, yet in comment #55 you accuse me of:
I don’t know where this accusation came from and when I pointed out to you that I had actually said exactly the reverse on another thread (the Nilekani one) where I had also commented that my specific interest based on doctoral research was on rural poverty and state programmes to alleviate it like the NREGA – there was a deafening silence from you. One individual on this thread actually has made a comment to the effect that people in states like UP “deserve†to live the way they do; yet strangely nobody bothered to say anything about that. So much for the chest-thumping nationalists who are quick to slag off others for somehow desiring that Indian live in backward poverty but keep mysteriously schtum when such sentiments are openly expressed.
Also I don’t see where I have repeatedly “chastised the BJP” as you say; in fact if you bothered to read my comments on the thread the bulk of them attack Congress not the BJP as far as centralising tendencies go. My point was simply to say that no national party respects federalism effectively for a number of reasons – hence why regionalisation is a positive development imo.
My role isn’t to act as advocate of the BJP or the Congress – it is simply to answer some of the issues raised by Amardeep on elections here and the developments that have happened. I am not a lobbyist for any political party and I don’t subscribe to your attitude of “well if he is against the BJP he must be a Congress supporter†attitude. The blunt fact is that none of the major parties really are effective vehicles for their constituents; while this remains the case you should cast your vote for either the local candidate or for that party which puts forward the policies you agree with. This will mean voting for different parties in different elections. It isn’t my role to go and tell people what party to vote for – that is up to them based on what values and policies they favour personally. I detest the idea that we all have to adhere to one side or another; this us versus them mentality needs to change.
Re: issues, I am not saying that those issues are unimportant, I am just saying that they are irrelevant for the 70% of the population that lives outside the major cities and urban areas. Look at any CSDS poll if you don’t believe me. Rural India which is where elections are fought and won, does not by large care too much about these issues.
Conrad,
I think you actually have to cite specifics from those authors’ works instead of a blanket recounting of names after the debate is over
I have posted information about Brahma Chellaney (whatever you may be inclined to say, his credentials are not in doubt), and anyone who knows anything about Indian intelligence is familiar with B.Raman. Ajai Sahni and Wilson John are other great experts who have written extensively on Bangladeshi migration. Kanchan Lakshman for Pakistan/Taliban/Afghanistan, among many, many others. Harsh Pant also has some good general viewpoints (mostly about the state of the Indian Military) from time to time. I have read works by Alistair Lamb and V.K. Singh. Irrespective, your newly discovered sources don’t really change key ideas about national interest or basic IR theory.
Either way, always glad to know what others say they are reading. thanks for the recos. Here’s what I recommend for you:
India Emerging Power, Stephen P. Cohen The Asian Juggernaut,Brahma Chellaney India 2020, APJ Abdul Kalam A Military History of Ancient and Medieval India, General Gurcharn Singh Sandhu Politics Among Nations, Hans Morgenthau the Arthashastra, Kautilya The Art of War, Sun Tzu On War, Carl von Clausewitz History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides
Also consider Pragati National Interest. I have posted other links previously: The Foreign Affairs piece on the Indian Ocean rivalry is one example.
Anyhow, I know Kabir loves to read me sign off this way, so “adieu”…
Whoever he is, probably some IT guy somewhere, he clearly knows nothing about Pakistan so I would appreciate he leave the country alone.
So do you think IT guys should not have any opinions on Pakistan ?. And all IT guys know nothing about Pakistan.
wry-ji, still eagerly waiting for education that you promised me. have your gurus given you your lines yet?
i am always enchanted by your grace and honesty too, wry-ji.
Satyajit Wry,
I wouldn’t worry you have little knowledge or IR theory and as for national interest, well I find it hard to take such concepts seriously from someone, who uses the American Civil War ( a civil war FFS) to argue unproblematically that there is a commonly understood concept of what exactly constitutes the “national interest”.
Ponniyin, I take that comment back. I was upset with Satyajit’s pretentious claims to knowledge, and was unnecessarily snarky. Of course, IT guys have a right to hold opinions about Pakistan, but they shouldn’t claim that they are IR experts. Basically when Satyajit is faced with people who disagree with him, he claims that they know nothing about IR, while he does. Now, I’m no IR expert myself (I’m actually a literature student), from reading Mr. Wry’s views it is clear he is a BJP apologist, probably has never been to Pakistan and equates all Pakistanis/Muslims with “Taliban”. Problematic, no?
Most Afghans knew what a horrible thing it would have been too but here we are no?
It doesn’t take much to screw over a country. A small and determined minority can do a lot when the rest of society is too busy fighting amongst themselves. Look at how few people it took to keep Iraq as a clusterfuck for the better part of a decade. You mean to say the average Iraqis on the street didn’t want peace? Of course they did, but they’re not the ones making decisions.
It’s hilarious that you think false dichotomies and gussied up versions of “I know you are, but what am I” are really going to be winning and points for you. Might I suggest you peruse this here site so we don’t have to sit through another “Greatest hits of fallacious reasoning” session?
It’s 2 am where I live, sweetie. If you crave me so much, I will be back tomorrow.
Hahaha! link
Yoga Fire, I think the rest of the society is waking up and realizing that the small minority is really a threat to the country as a whole. People in Pakistan and Pakistanis in the dispora are not fans of the Taliban or their version of Islam. They want to lead normal lives, get jobs, study, entertain themselves, whatever. Plus, as I said, the US is not going to let Pakistan be taken over by the Taliban, it’s too important to US interests, and unlike Afghanistan is a nuclear state.
good to know that you are a fervent reader of the rev. moon. scoundrels of the world, unite!
ooh such big words… you must be sooo educated. i think it is very clear what i stand against, and what you and lupus and wry-ji and modi stand for.
you mean like premature ejaculations of “congress supporter!, congress mole!” 🙂 you should know.
That’s just the problem. They don’t have to formally conquer Pakistan and run the country. All they need to do is make life miserable enough to spark a refugee/internal-displacement crisis. Or to turn the one sympathetic general who can put uranium in their hands to make a dirty bomb. They don’t need to conquer the country, they just need to turn it into hell on Earth. Once that happens they will have won.
I’m sure the Afghans might have thought the same thing. Let’s face it we can’t hide behind Lady Liberty’s skirt forever. And Pakistan’s importance to American interests diminishes as the government and civil society become more unstable. All the US needs is Balochistan on its side for access into Central Asia. Is Pakistan comes apart the US will have that. Sure the US wouldn’t like it if Pakistan came apart, but that doesn’t mean they’d be willing to lift a finger to save her.
And like I said. It doesn’t matter what they want. What matters is what they’re willing to fight for. I’d like a normal life and a job and entertainment too. But defending my country means I would have to give that up to take up arms. So it’s not “do they want a normal life.” The question is, “do they care enough to take up arms, give up their shot at a normal life, and fight the Taliban?”
If there was a decent enough leader active in Pakistan who could unite the disparate non-Taliban people maybe they would. But as it stands, riven by regional, ethnic, and religious conflicts and a paranoia about India who is going to do it? Who are the people who want to take up arms rally behind?
It’s clear against whom you stand. What isn’t clear is why you stand against them. Opinions are like assholes, the substantiation that backs the opinion up is what is worthwhile in a discussion and you have brought very little to the table aside from glib generalizations, fallacious reasoning, and ad hominem attacks.
When you have only two realistic options to choose from smart one, the dichotomy isn’t false.
That’s the crux of the problem: the lack of decent political leadership in Pakistan. I totally agree with you that the paranoia about India is so stupid when the people who are actually attacking are the Taliban. Plus, at this point, what would India actually gain by reconquering Pakistan even if they wanted to?
I think though, people are starting to realize that the Taliban are the real enemy. Yes, there’s a lot of anti-Americanism, and no one likes the drone attacks, but I don’t think most Pakistanis (esp. the urban middle classes) underestimate the seriousness of the Taliban problem.
However, what really are policy alternatives. Should the US (or India) invade Pakistan and take out their nukes? To me that seems foolish. If you read the recent “Room for Debate” column in the NYT most of the experts asked to talk about the issue advocate focusing on development. I don’t know what the right course of action is (though I don’t think an invasion of Pakistan would be especially productive). What am against though is the tendency to paint every Pakistani with the same brush and act as we are all “enemies” of India. This is just a process of simple “Othering” and anyone who’s studied any social sciences would realize it’s completely counterproductive
pity your brain is as addled your metaphors.. but maybe you know better about backed up assholes.
That’s alright, Conrad. Considering the gaping holes in your knowledge, your opinion of my understanding of IR isn’t really all the meaningful, let alone accurate. Much easier to just trot out accusations with no basis, which was pretty much you M.O. during the debate.
Yes, deafening silence on NREGS when we already exchanged our views on a previous thread, and NREGS didn’t even figure in our debate on this thread. But that’s ok, change the subject dude. I’m sure you can compose that face-saving exit at some point.
Regarding the BJP, that’s precisely the point. You say they all stink, and regionalism is good. I say you don’t know what you’re talking about, BJP is better for the country as a whole, and regionalism is bad. So either you support the congress, SP, or BSP tacitly but don’t have the courage to say so, or you don’t even know what you’re arguing in favor of anymore and are just trying to save face as you exit the debate. Wriggle as you will, dude, doesn’t change the fact that your position doesn’t make sense.
Really Conrad, at this stage, the your flailing just seems sad. Yes, omg, the American Civil War is not an example of a country recognizing national interest in fighting against secessionism…bad bad bad example. But wait, who did most of the fighting? Poor men. Poor men voted against the democratic party in the north, which represented their economic interest in order to fight for the future of the Union, which the Republican Party at that time took a strong stand on in the name of national interest. There must not be a clear understanding of national interest ever, right? Thank god for your imaginary IR expert friends. Wherever would we be without them…
you mean hindustan, i guess. emphais on hindu, of course. let’s all gird up our chaddis for a mosque demolition program led by advaniji and a good ol’ “venting” led by modiji. yeehaw!
Conrad, regarding you saying that the Modi wouldn’t appeal to the UP because the UP values agricultural development.
I can’t think of a single instance of an economy developing by focusing inputs on agriculture. In every instance of economic development the development comes from reallocating labor from the farm to non-farm activities. This is why in every single developed country the agricultural sector actually operates at a loss, surviving at the scale that they do only due to exorbitant subsidy schemes.
There are a variety of reasons why you might want to channel resources into the agricultural sector. You might like the idea of people farming. You might want to have a reserve for farm labor. Your culture might emphasize some spiritual connection with the land. You might want the food security that comes from producing all your food internally. You might just plain want to raise the living standards of farmers. These are all valid and worthy reasons by themselves. What we should not do, however, is fool ourselves into thinking that pouring money down there is going to develop the economy or provide us with any long-term returns.
You need investments in education, health, and sanitation to do that. These are all matters of public service provision and it is something Modi has had a pretty decent record of. Gujarat has the second lowest rate of teacher absenteeism in the country, for example (PDF of the World Bank Report). Hate on the guy all you want, but I will credit the Indian peasant with enough intelligence to know that modest public services that are actually provided trump grandiose promises that never materialize. The only challenge is convincing them that they will, in fact, be provided. They have been a thousand times bitten and are shy by nature on that front.
Surely the point is that why would I spend valuable time and money studying something that was designed to alleviate poverty if I wasn’t interested in alleviating poverty? How does this square with your accusation in #55 that somehow I want Indians to remain poor – I am really interested to see how you square this, and I am not running away from anything it is you who is dodging the question repeatedly.
You really are pathetic – so becuase I don’t cravenly support the BJP I must support – I give you credit here you have now widened it to include the SP and the BSP as well as the Congress. PMSL! No I don’t support them either, don’t worry. The SP in anycase isn’t really a party more like a mafia and anybody interested in rural poverty will know that Mayawait has little intrest in tackling it.
I am confused here, clearly your intellect leaves me behind, so there is always a “national interest” and that is whatever you say it is or what the winning side is or whatever holds the state together – is that your position? Interesting…..
If it was practical I would say go for it. The nukes are dangerous tools to be left out in that sort of situation. Of course, it isn’t practical for the simple reason that Pakistan keeps its arsenal on a hair trigger and any major invasion is going to prompt a full scale strike. The big problem is that Pakistani nationalists are proud of their nuclear capability. Those bombs are to Pakistani national identity what Canada’s healthcare system is to the Canucks.
Pretty much our only shot is hoping the Pakistani leadership has the decency to relinquish the nukes unilaterally if it comes down to that, but I won’t hold my breath.
Kabir, you see the problem don’t you? You say you get annoyed when people automatically brand all pakistanis as taliban supporters but treat all bjp supporters as apologists for fundamentalism… as if somehow, bjp supporters are incapable of talking to people, when many such commenters have exchanged views from people from all ends of the political spectrum.
My comments were suitable responses to equally snarky commenters. I don’t know if you neglected to mention that simply because you tacitly support their views or because of their rosy picture about pakistan, but that doesn’t really matter to me. Just because I have a more realist view about Pakistan and its jihadi-military complex, does not mean that I do not have any problem speaking politely to moderate, apolitical individuals such as yourself. As for my most recent comment to you, I think it was in line with the initial tone and tactics you took with me.
Now if you want to have a polite conversation discussing what I’ve said about Pakistan, fine. Just don’t make blanket statements about what I am or am not. If you would like to converse about that, or take issue with something I said, please point out specifics, instead of just trying label me as you did above. Thank you.
Yoga Fire –
You are correct; no country can develop just by relying on agriculture and this goes for states too. UP’s problem though has been underinvestment in public infrastructure on agriculture and regional imbalances. There is also a problem with rural labour in terms of wages and conditions; as well as you say food security. These would need to be addressed but successive UP govts have allowed the PDS to become ineffective and just a way for the privateers to pilfer it for the black market – UP has the highest diversion/loss rates outside the NE for the PDS and as for minimum wage legislation the less said the better. Neither the BSP or the SP are all that interested in it and these need to be addressed.
I have no problem in giving Modi credit for whatever he has accomplished; I don’t have any direct knowledge of the schemes the state runs. I had access to the data collected by the MRD on the various schemes they were running – the NREGA of course but also the Rajiv Gandhi Drinking water Scheme, health insurance, PMGSY, NGP and the other Bharat Nirman schemes. Gujarat performed as a middling state – actually the BJP ruled states of Rajasthan and MP did much better; of course you could say that this was because Gujarat has a lower level of rural poverty than other states which is fair but then has this shown a downward trend since Modi came to power – I am uncertain. Some notable academics who have spent their careers studying industrial and rural labour in Gujarat like Jan Breman, don’t see any improvement in labour conditions but just more exploitation. However this is a pan-Indian trend and unless there is some macro-data it is difficult to say what exactly is going on.
Conrad, dude, really, you’re not helping your case at all. Just call it a night, and who knows, you might one day make a half decent argument rooted in fact…perhaps on a new Sepia post on a new topic. With any luck, you might even have some examples too so you don’t have to smear experts and talk about how you know everything under the sun about a failed, corrupt Congress Party public initiative so everyone must therefore bow before your insight.
I never said anyone has to support the BJP, I’m just pointing out how now you’re not talking a stand on anything. My remark in 55 about how your ignorant comments coupled with your (seemingly though unadmitted) tacit support for the congress would probably be in line with congress party policy since they want to keep as many voters as possible as ignorant as you are. Since you have now (unconvincingly) denied your support for congress, it now appears that you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. “All national parties are bad. Regionalism is good. Anarchy, corrupt regional parties and development go hand in hand.” Or so you appear to be saying. And I’m still saying, you don’t know what you’re talking about. BJP is good for India. That’s my point.
That you cannot understand the US National interest dictated keeping the Union together, is not really my problem. Perhaps you should convene an immediate council of your Imaginary IR Experts…If they aren’t having an existential debate on national interest, they might be able to help you tease some of these details…
Satyajit wry –
So no you are backpeddling and trying to project bullshit views that I have never anywhere espoused onto me. I just want to see where have I have repeatedly chastised the BJP on this thread? Most of my criticism have been directed at the Congress which I have repeatedly attakced as well as the Family – mysteriously you somehow see these attacks as me supporting the Congress. When I say that I clearly don’t you label this as “unconvincing” bascially calling me a liar baed on what I don’t know. This is most bizarre as you seem desparate to prove thatI support this party at all costs no matter how stupid it makes you look.
You sir, are just embarassing yourself.
Dear Satyajit, I have one simple question: How is BJP good for India? Isn’t BJP (from what I understand) strictly a Hindu Nationalist party? Isn’t India a secular state (which actually has the second largest population of Muslims in the world). Is there not a problem here? How is a Muslim or Christian Indian less “indian” than a Hindu Indian? For a major party in a secular state to advocate such exclusionary rhetoric is clearly problematic. I don’t know whether you personally support Modi (though from some of your comments it seems that you do). But however efficient he is as an administrtor, it doesn’t mitigate the fact that he (or his government) were in place during one of the most significant pogroms against Muslims. I don’t see how one can vote or him or his party without tacitly condoing that incident. I realize that Congress is not perfect, but if it’s the only alternative to a facist party, I’ll take it any day.
You know, if I were West Virginian I’d vote for Sen. Byrd despite the fact that he was in the KKK just because he’s been really effective at bringing home the bacon.
Of course now he’s a doddering old man but whatever. Sen. Byrd is still a pretty cool guy. He builds huge windmills and doesn’t afraid of anything.
Conrad, beta, now you’re just getting petty. You tried to smear, Arun Shourie, then backtracked, tried to claim that islamic fundamentalism among bangladeshis migrants isn’t problem then dropped the topic, tried to make it seem as though a rising china isn’t a worrisome issue for india (really, just so shockingly ignorant) and then lied through your teeth to justify it when anyone with basic knowledge of current affairs knows how serious a challenge china is….have you no shame, sir?
I know you don’t like to take the time to read about security issues, and we already know the quality of your imaginary IR/national security council, but I really think you should just take the face-saving exit you’ve been offered to at least salvage some shred of credibility and dignity for a future sepia post…adieu
Please don’t call me beta, it sounds even more condescending that you think it does. I didn’t backtrack any of my claims about Shourie, I think he is a political idiot and still say so; I just corrected your misquote of me (a common occurrence for you) I also didn’t say that Islamic fundamentalism “isn’t a problem amongst Bangladeshi migrants” – the claim that I made this statement is another lie peddled by you; I said that it won’t be an insurmountable problem in the wake of an ecological disaester that would destroy Bangladesh’s existence as a viable state – a rather different statement than the one you again mistakenly attribute to me. I nowhere ‘dropped’ the issue as you claim. I never said that a rising China isn’t a “worrisome” issue I just said their internal problems will be greater than ours. I have nowhere engaged in telling any falsehoods here; though you have just reiterated 3 lies in your above comment.
I think it is pretty clear to anybody reading this thread, who is lying and who isn’t
Kabir, thank you for your polite post. Here is my answer:
The BJP is the best political party because it has a vision for national security, poverty reduction and development for all indians and india as a responsible global power The BJP is not a fascist hindu party. It is a nationalist party that does have hindu groups as part of its support base (like the republican party and christian conservatives) It is a party for all Indians, however, it does take strong stands against the minorityism of the congress. Indian would be a secular state if it had a Uniform Civil Code. It does not. It has a separate personal law for Muslims (administered by a Muslim personal law board). So many aspects of Sharia (triple talaq and polygamy) and other special privileges are legal and operative in India.
The Congress party is not a secular party. It has simply equated special minority privileges with secularism. That is why Rajiv Gandhi overturned the Supreme Court decision in the Shah Bano case, why it has sponsored Bethlehem and Haj pilgrimmages from state funds (and created a culture of religious rent seeking). In fact, as you may note from my post to garv, the Congress Party actually butchered 3,000 sikhs in 1984. So I guess it’s only secular if you practice the religion of their vote bank The congress party has also perpetrated evangelical activities under the national and state governments (See Y. Samuel Rajasekhar Reddy, CM of Andhra Pradesh) and has even gone so far as to stamp Jerusalem crosses on the 2 Rs coin and now 10 Rs coin (not exactly secularism) The Congress Party has overturned national laws to fight terrorism and has completely abdicated any responsibility from tackling terrorism. It just has its politicians give speeches after innocent people are killed. Lastly, the Congress Party has no vision for a strong India committed to protecting and developing its people. It only exists for the Nehru Gandhi family. Sonia Gandhi controls the Congress Party and by default rules India. She is a former Italian (who speaks no Indian language) au pair with only a high school education who married her way into power. Accordingly, much has been written about how she has tacitly retained her Italian citizenship (sorry garv, nice try). Could any right thinking Indian support a government led by her and a party that has suborned itself to her? No. BTW, she is not Barack Obama. Obama had some prior political experience and was a constitutional law professor. Sonia Gandhi has nothing approaching that, only a name and a marriage certificate…
BJP supporters by and large want a strong India for all people: hindus, muslims, sikhs, christians, jains, buddhists, parsis, and jews. However, because the BJP takes strong stands against minorityism, it has become fashionable to call the BJP communal and fascist.
Finally, Kabir, it’s easy to just brand parties as fascist without understanding them. The congress party butchered sikhs mercilessly when it killed 3000 sikhs. In contrast 300 hindus died in the gujarat riots–not the same as a Congress party sponsored pogrom in 1984. Muslims initiated many of those riots and tragically, many innocents, of both religions died. By your logic, should everyone not vote for the Congress Party because of the Nehru Gandhi family’s complicity? Rajeev Gandhi justified the massacres by saying that when a big tree falls the whole earth shakes…how disgusting. Or are you saying that only muslim lives matter so we must ignore the crimes of the congress party?
Either way, I appreciate your polite question, and hope that I have answered it. Later.
Conrad, dost, in our last post you definitely dropped pakistan and your point about Shourie just doesn’t change the fact that you tried to smear as an idiot. Whether you call him a political idiot or an idiot, you’re still calling him an idiot and trying to discredit my point about how he emblematic of the BJP which does have a national vision, and that’s why the BJP is good. And your points about Bangladesh are still ill informed. Right, an ecological disaster that may happen in the next 20-50 years will prevent the mass influx of muslim bangladeshis from being manipulated by fundamentalist imams who will join them or who are already in India….brilliant. The point wasn’t whether bangladesh would continue to function as a state. The point was whether 100 million bangladeshis would flood into india and be manipulated by the islamic fundamentalist imams or the ISI (as is happening now). You attempted to skirt the issue then dropped it to focus on other inane topic.
The fact that you called China “a potential strategic adversary” whose internal situation you are more worried about instead of an existing one that has dangerous strategic designs on India, only goes to show just how fact impoverished your comments are. Now you backtrack by saying that you “never said that it wasn’t worrisome”…
So yes, it is clear who is lying. Between the smears of experts like Brahma Chellaney and the attempted dialectical acrobatics…it is you…
Dear Satyajit, Thanks for your answer to my question. I just have a problem with the BJP’s rhetoric and their association with VHP and RSS. It’s kind of the equivalent of the PML-N’s association with Islamist groups.
I don’t know how I feel about a uniform civil code. While in many respects it makes sense and would be truely secular, Muslims should have freedom to practice their religion, even if that includes elements that the majority culture finds distasteful like polygomy. Anyway, I can see why that policy would alienate a lot of people from Congress.
I don’t throw around terms like fascist easily. But when someone like Varun Gandhi can say the things he said and the BJP does not repudiate them, It certainly seems like a fascist, “India for Hindus only” type of party. Also, let’s not forget the destruction of the Babri Masjid.
“The BJP is not a fascist hindu party. It is a nationalist party that does have hindu groups as part of its support base (like the republican party and christian conservatives)”
Take your hindi and your hindutva and shove it where the sun dont shine.
Kabir, If we Americans were to invade Saudi, knock down the Kaaba, and put up a giant Mickey-Mouse statue in its place, you’re telling me that it’d be wrong for the Saudis, in say 2200, to knock down the Mickey-Mouse statue and re-erect the Kaaba? Why do you think Hindus are not entitled to any historical memory/cultural integrity? Oh, I know–their religion is all myths, as opposed to Semitic Sky-God version 3.
Kabir, no, thank you for your polite question. The problem is trolls like Sri Sri and garv throw off the tone of the debate or pour oil on it cause they have nothing to offer. Although, you and I may not agree with each other, we can still exchange ideas in a friendly dialogue as we just did.
I know rob just touched on your point about the babri masjid, but if I may approach it from another direction. To hindus the Mughal Empire is a bittersweet period. We look at Akbar’s enlightened rule, urdu poetry, and Aurangzeb’s crushing victory over the British (which I gleefully recounted above) and swell with pride. Anyone who enjoys hindi movies, knows all the songs consist of beautiful urdu lyrics composed by Javed Akhtar and Gulzar et al. At the same time, we look at the destruction of temples and forced conversions which often characterized the rule of Mughal Emperors (notably Aurangzeb) and are upset. To Sikhs, the Mughal period is even more oppressive for reasons that are well known. Indeed, Sikhs suffered grievously for protecting hindus from the more intolerant Mughal Emperors.
The Babri masjid was built upon the foundations of a Hindu Temple that Zahiruddin Babar destroyed. Ayodhya, as you probably know is one of the holiest cities in hinduism (second only to Varanasi, where Aurangzeb destroyed the then famous Kashi Vishwanath temple), as it is the Birthplace of Rama. The Babri masjid had not been in use for quite some time, and was not (it was locked up) when hindus began lobbying for its dismantlement for reasons already stated. The ulema considered it a waqf property and so refused to negotiate. This then encouraged far right groups to clamor for its outright demolishment rather than a respectful dismantlement for relocation. After the VHP and affiliated groups destroyed the Babri Masjid (no one died in the demolishment), many riots were sadly initiated by far right members of the muslim community in Mumbai, which naturally gave strength to groups like the Shiv Sena who were more than happy to join the battle in retaliation. Dawood Ibrahim then cooperated with the ISI to unleash a campaign of terror in Mumbai. The riots were finally controlled and ended by the Indian Government, but as always, both innocent hindus and muslims suffered here.
As you probably know, countless temples in Pakistan and Bangladesh were demolished even in the lead up to the Babri Masjid’s demolition, and countless were demolished in revenge, with unspeakable actions against hindu women. So I’m sorry, but the narrative that people like Arundhati Roy attempt to concoct saying that everything started with Babri, rings hollow to many hindus. Finally, for every Varun Gandhi, how many Syed Bukharis (Shahi imam of the Jamia Masjid in Delhi) are there? If there are fewer Bukharis and Hafeez Syeds, I guarantee you, there will be fewer Varun Gandhis.
Anyhow, look I know it must be tough for moderate/liberal Pakistanis such as yourself to read about what’s happening in your homeland every day, but I think if you consider it from the Indian perspective, you’ll start to understand why many moderate hindus feel that their only choice is to vote for the BJP. If you read my debate with Conrad (way back when we were actually exchanging ideas instead of epithets), you’ll see all the security issues that India is facing and why the Congress party is morally and politically bankrupt. It is for all these reasons that the BJP is the best choice for India’s next government.
Satyajit Wry,
You are doing yeoman’s work, my friend (although I’m more with Ponniyin on the language front–the only Indian language I speak fluently is Tamil–my Hindi/Punjabi is just good for, well, you know. . . .), but you clearly need covering fire–so, let me take this opportunity to label your comment that:
as dhimmi–for shame!!
😉
Best, rob
Rob,
Hahaha. damn… and I worked so hard for that saffron merit badge… ;-)… jk
Don’t get me wrong, hats off to Rana Pratap, the Sikh Gurus, and Shivaji, and I’m def more about the Mauryas and Marathas than the Mughals, but I think we can give credit where credit is due. Akbar tried to keep it real (except of course for that one uncharacteristic post siege massacre at Chittor that he authorized), but that was nothing in comparison to his other relatives. For the most part, he was better than the rest and did preside over a period of good interreligious relations and administration. That he ended up being an apostate is beside the point I suppose…heh
As for Aurangzeb, his victory over the British was the only credit, because his rule was oppressive and disgraceful. A pity that Dara Shukoh could not secure the throne instead…
Anyhow, I’m just trying to create a moderate ground for dialogue with Kabir. I hope this wasn’t my equivalent of LKA’s Jinnah moment…;-)
lates
1.Mughal Rule: “We look at Akbar’s enlightened rule, urdu poetry, and Aurangzeb’s crushing victory over the British (which I gleefully recounted above) and swell with pride.”
On the topic of Mughal rule, I see that even pro-Hindutva folk like Satyajit-wry have been influenced by the one-sided nature of the History we have been taught in India.
There has been no agreement what so ever between historians of various hues on the real nature of Akbar’s reign.One school says that Akbar stands for tolerance, inclusiveness, and enlightened rule.The other school says that Akbar was a realist who played the religion card well.A large number of historians however say that Akbar started as a ghazi, and turned into a Kaffir towards the end.But if you study in India, you will learn only the white-washed parts about not just Akbar, but all the Mughals.
If you are interested, please read this.Sarvesh Tiwary writes in a convoluted manner, but worth a read for he summarises the perspective of various ideological schools, and adds his own to the mix.
2.Af-Pak:
If it is not obvious to any one, the taliban is one step ahead of US, and seem to have a better Af-Pak strategy than US.IMO, China has its own ideas on how the whole conflict in the region should develop, and is basically waiting for the eventual US pullout, to drive its gameplan through Pak Army and Govt.
Yes, many ordinary Pakistanis are realizing that it is stupid of Pakistan to worry about India when the danger is from within..Again, there is no consensus on what % of the Pakistani population thinks this way, and whether these people have any real chances of influencing the course of events.
It has become tiresome to see this pattern: US mentions aid; Pakistan warns US that without aid, the country’s gonna collapse;talk about safety of the nukes;zardari/kayani visit or meet high ranking US officials, even the President;fresh evidence of pak Army actually fighting and killing some Taliban forces;aid and weapons transferred to Pak establishment.
I am amazed to actually read a defence of ‘polygamy’ on this blog.Is it Kabir’s intention that millions of Muslims don’t progress beyond the medeival ages in their customs and treatment of women?Do you seriously believe in the right to polygamy of a Muslim?Isn’t there something called a natural civil law?
Regarding the elections, I can do no better than share two links:
–Ramesh Ramanathan of Janagraha asks Rahul Gandhi to live up to his surname. -But in Punjab, Rahul makes a divisive statement and plays the ‘sikh card’ (dragging poor Manmohan into the gutter along with him and where his first cousin is already looking for lost marbles).
Talk on the satta street is that UPA still has an edge, though NDA is fast catching up.
Satyajit Wry,
I made a specific point about Shourie, if you don’t like it because he somehow encapsulates your “vision” for the nation or whatever that is fine; it doesn’t give you the right to make up crap. Whether you like Shourie or not isn’t the point; the point is that misquoted what I said, then lied about it and now seem to think “well I like Shourie and the BJP” is an adequate defence – is this the kind of attitutde they encourage in your party; I am not surprised.Secondly, I never concentrated on any “inanity” as you claim, Bangladeshes’ collapse and a mass refugee influx will place huge strains and create pressures on stretched resources – just not the kind of ones that you claim will occur but that is because you seem to want to see Muslim violence everywhere. Ignoring the fact that despite all this “jihadi infilitration” you claim is occurring that the main practiitioners of violence in the border states of Assam and West Bengal are ULFA and the other nativist outfits and the CPM; as anybody who actually lives in these states will be able to tell you. I made no comment on Chellaney except to say that figures like him have little electability value, a relevant point in a discussion about Indian elections (this is the 4th lie you have interjected here). As for China, I think China’s collapse will be a huge problem and I think it is a serious danger; funnily enough for someone who claims to be a beleiver in the bare branches theory and who has bizarre views on how it can be assuaged, you should be agreeing with me here but then consistency has never been a feature of your arugements in this whole disucssion. You put forward a specific claim about what I said about China, which was false; instead of addressing it; you fall into your old tactic of claiming I said it when I actually said something else.
Basically your tactic is make up a lot of bullshit about what someone has said and then go on insisting that this is what they have done, even when they have shown it is not.
Kumar –
There is an excellent book by Krishnan Kumar called “Pride and Prejudice” that looks at history writing by examining the textbooks used in India and Pakistan and has a very thoughtful analysis of the historiorgraphy in both countries and how history is selectively distorted to suit the ends of nation-building.
The Mughal period is artificially divided as you say to load all the positive attributes onto Akbar and all the negative ones onto Aurangzeb while the reality is more mixed. The underlying problem however, was the high amount of taxation and the agrarian surplus that the whole revenue system extracted from the countryside which set off an economic and a political crisis. The mansabdari system was also very exploitative and led to overexactions; while well set up for a Central Asian kingdom geared primarily for war-making, it was poorly set up to establish a viable state system in a settled agrarian economy like India, imo.
Both Arun Shourie and Manmohan Singh are not mass leaders.Yet, they have their uses, and are patronised by political parties.Manmohan Singh has been more successful in utilizing the possibilities for power that arise from such patronage.Largely because it is easier to do so in Congress.All one needs is to show unquestioning loyalty to the first family, and be seen as ‘harmless’.
And whether Brahma Chellaney is electable or not is not at all of any relevance.Chellaney is a security affairs analyst, unlike Shourie and Manmohan who belong to specific political parties.
Btw, I am sure there is significant support here for Dr.Binayak Sen.I just have one question:What do we make of Manmohan Singh’s statement that he is embarassed about the treatment we have meted out to Mr.Quattrocchi, by not closing the cases, and that the world is looking at us’?AFAIK, no one in the whole wide world have put pressure on Indian Govt to unfreeze Q’s Bofors millions and cancel Inerpol red alert.However, over 20 lobel laureates, among other intellectuals and political leaders have been requesting India to do justice to Dr.Sen.
Thanks.Yes, I have heard of this book.Will try to read.
Conrad,
The centralisation of tax collection and fund allocation may have started during Mughal era, but it did not really drain the country.What the Brits devised in a much more efficient way to take away as much wealth as they can.Sadly, they did not just take away the wealth.The whole tax regime (and the system of funds flowing down from top)broke the spirit and self-respect of the natives.Post-colonial govts, while paying lip service to Panchayat Raj, have never seriously devolved taxation related powers down to the village level.In fact, the movement has been on the opposite side.
It is telling that none of the political parties in India make such issues as part of the political debate.BJP does talk about review of the constitution, but has not really articulated the specifics.
This is true; it was Indira Gandhi who started the trend of picking up what were effectively technocrats and specialists and appointing them to political positions. Lack of a political base is obviously seen as desirable for service to the Family. For Manmohan Singh it doesn’t matter too much since the Congress will never really rely on secondary leaders for electability and policy is ultimately decided elsewhere; for Shourie it is more of a problem in the sense that as I outlined in an earlier comment I don’t think his ‘vision’ will appeal to large sections of the electorate and in so far as the BJP push this line, it won’t get them very far. For example, in UP politics revolves very much around caste equations and politics and how you manage these social divisions, everything else comes a distant second. Trying to paper over these divides with developmentalism, Hindutva etc. – won’t work imo.
100% agree with you, it wasn’t me that introduced Chellaney into this discussion; the simple point is that experts can say whatever they want; they aren’t the ones facing elections and so won’t be the ones making decisions. Which is why I think they are peripheral to any discussion on elections; some people for some reason seem to have difficulty accepting this idea – don’t mean you here obviously.
What exactly does that mean?
Well, I think we know what this means really; not surprised that Manmohan Singh is moving to close the Q inquiry asap. If one is going to run afoul of the State in India, the kind of connections that Q has are far superior to the support of Nobel Laureates and public intellectuals as can be seen by the relative amounts of jail time the two have suffered and are undergoing. I didn’t know that many political leaders have made noises about Sen; I know the Left parties have expectedly kicked up a little fuss but though most others were either silent or hostile. The adivasi formations should really have said something, given how much effort Sen has expended on their behalf, but I guess their leaders are too busy minting money to worry about anything else.
Of course, IT guys have a right to hold opinions about Pakistan, but they shouldn’t claim that they are IR experts. Basically when Satyajit is faced with people who disagree with him, he claims that they know nothing about IR, while he does. Now, I’m no IR expert myself (I’m actually a literature student), from reading Mr. Wry’s views it is clear he is a BJP apologist, probably has never been to Pakistan and equates all Pakistanis/Muslims with “Taliban”. Problematic, no?
I think you give too much importance to IR experts. Most of the time even they have no clues. They probably get paid for their views whereas the IT guys don’t. That’s the difference. 🙂
Having said that we can do a safe guesswork based on the history of a country and its leaders and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. The history of Pakistan is such that it acts a good client state to the western bloc from day one.
When jihadis were freedom fighters for US in the fight against Soviet Union it supported the jihadis in full force. When the same folks became terrorists for US, the Pakistani state claims the same and puts on a show as if they are attacking the jihadis and collects the money. But now Pakistan is in a bind. In the previous war when jihadis were freedom fighters their political / financal goals aligned with the religious goals (it’s a win win) but that is not the case now.
In my view I don’t subscribe to the ‘drain theory’ as the major cause behind arrested development; Mughal expenditure was also draining and there was a large outflow of the surplus accumulated spent on such things as horses, steel and weaponry. I the flow of specie was very much outward with regard to Central Asia and West Asia and there was a booming trade in several things mostly of a military nature but the effect was the same – to their credit I think, from what I remember it was under the Mughals that the export and trade in slaves was stopped. I think it was Jehangir who ended it formally but am not sure.
British policy was more damaging by effectively forcing the de-industrialisation of regions like Bengal and Tamilnad which had a flourishing textile industry and with which the fabled Lancashire industry could not compete with. Some of the means adopted to do this, such as the mutilation of weavers, was very bloody. The adverse trade restrictions, effectively undermined the base of much Indian manufacturing that existed at the time and set it back by generations.
As I said earlier this is because of the lack of the democratic and representative nature of the parties themselves – they won’t like real devolution because it will decentralise power within the party itself as political competition will heat up at the grassroots level. IMO though, this will happen anyway, there has been a slow but painful progress towards establishing PRI and eventually we will see effective taxation and spending powers being devolved on them as well. This should end the rule of the civil service in the districts; where the structure of adminsitration based on the IAS and subordinate officers is still bascially colonial.
Conrad, you realize at this point you just sound like a little kid pouting because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and everyone in the class just found out. You continue to invent reasons to talk about electability for Arun Shourie or Brahma Chellaney, when these are moot points. Chellaney is renowned security expert. He’s the type of guy that get’s appointed as NSA not elected as an MP–so they do make decisions, beta, even though they don’t get elected. But you keep busting out the canard of electability even though I never even brought it up. Keep hiding… My comments on China stand–you still don’t know what you’re talking about. Bangladesh, keep fighting it dude. ULFA was coopted by the ISI a long time ago, that’s why their primary targets are now bihari hindus and not bangladeshi muslims. Don’t worry though, I’m sure your imaginary IR experts can write an imaginary book that you can cite at the end of this to save face…class dismissed
Here = Sepia Mutiny.And I do think there is support for Dr.Binayak Sen across the board even in India.Not because we all agree with his politics.He is a citizen who has been incarcerated in prison for a long time, without good reasons.
But as you said no political party has come forward actively to support him.It is not as if everyone is in cahoots with the MNCs and Salwa Judum.The reason no one is concerned about this issue is because Dr.Sen belongs to one extreme of the political scale.
IMO, Dr.Sen is unfortunate that he is not a Pakistani terrorist or a fraudulent IT tycoon.Kasab gets chicken biryani, perfumes in jail, and there was even an attempt to show that he is actually a juvenile, and so should be let go with 3 years sentence.And he gets charged under IPC like a common criminal.Varun Gandhi, for all his alleged divisive statements (which did not cause any communal riots any where, btw) is seen as a bigger criminal and gets charged under the National Security Act.
Dr.Sen and Varun Gandhi are polar opposites in terms of ideology.But they both are citizens of India.I might dislike both their politics, but their rights need to be defended, if we were to hold on to liberal values.
And if even such high profile people can’t get justice, what is the fate of the common people of India?