Narendra Modi vs the Dynasty: Contrasting Ideas of India

[Sanku]

and to add to it, he also had tea with some one who did not pray five times to sita ram goel every day -- shudder.....

Mirchi Lagi

So have burnol

[Sushupti]

So, whether rabid Islamists like Aazam Khan or suave Naqvi, they will be at ease with Hindus only if they promise to be a Dhimmi.

Could Modi be grounded before take off?

By Saeed Naqvi,

http://muslimmirror.com/eng/could-modi- ... -take-off/

[VikramS]

If people here feel that building temples instead of toilets is a higher priority, then perhaps I am in the wrong group.

And I am dead serious about it.

It is one thing to have a strong connection with religious icons, and asserting the right to have a respectful place in society. It is a totally different to take umbrage in these words.

Further, I see it as down-right elitist. Along the same lines as the Delhi-Billis that we so love to hate.

This is not about the secularati crowd or appeasing minorities.
This is not about taquiya.
This is not about power.

It is about basic human values.

The path to salvation lies in providing a respectful life to all, including those who have no option but to do it in the open.

That is the one reason why missionaries are so successful. They offer tangible benefits.

If the so called elders do not get it, then I can see why Indic civilization is where it is; and perhaps where it is heading.

[nachiket]

let me remind that when asked about his most favorite book (at the peak of RJB) Advani's answer was "How to make friends...".

and to add to it, he also had tea with some one who did not pray five times to sita ram goel every day -- shudder.....

Indeed, such conspiracy theories are quite unnecessary. Advani acted like any other power hungry politician when he smelled a chance to use Modi to reach the PM's chair. People expected better of him but he disappointed them. That's it. We like CT's too much on BR.

[chaanakya]

So, whether rabid Islamists like Aazam Khan or suave Naqvi, they will be at ease with Hindus only if they promise to be a Dhimmi.

Could Modi be grounded before take off?

By Saeed Naqvi,

http://muslimmirror.com/eng/could-modi- ... -take-off/

Interestingly he uses the term "scared “secular” formations" and Mopping up operation of INC. Its dead giveaway of the real fears of Rag-a-tags.

[Shanmukh]

If people here feel that building temples instead of toilets is a higher priority, then perhaps I am in the wrong group.

Temples and toilets do not belong in the same sentence. Or is that so hard for you to grasp? Why do you insist on illogically conjoining the two? Please explain to me the connection between the one and the other, given that the government has no business in temples (or any other religious structures, for that matter). How many people do you know who insist on building temples when they do not have a toilet?

[Sushupti]

Modi is Shivaji, not Mirza Raja Jai Singh (Advani and Vajpayyes of the world) in the service of Aalamgeer (Nehru Dyansty).

[VikramS]

If people here feel that building temples instead of toilets is a higher priority, then perhaps I am in the wrong group.

Temples and toilets do not belong in the same sentence. Or is that so hard for you to grasp? Why do you insist on illogically conjoining the two? Please explain to me the connection between the one and the other, given that the government has no business in temples (or any other religious structures, for that matter). How many people do you know who insist on building temples when they do not have a toilet?

The people who do not have toilets, do not have the resources to build temples either. They do not matter.

It is people who have resources to build temples, who need to be asked that question.

Ask those who do not have access to toilets whether they would want a new temple built in their area or toilet facilities.

The connection is obvious to me:

The same energy & money which is spent in building temples is better spent in building toilets. While religious icons have their place, they are in no way a substitute for basic dignity.

[jimmyray]

If people here feel that building temples instead of toilets is a higher priority, then perhaps I am in the wrong group.

And I am dead serious about it.

It is one thing to have a strong connection with religious icons, and asserting the right to have a respectful place in society. It is a totally different to take umbrage in these words.

Further, I see it as down-right elitist. Along the same lines as the Delhi-Billis that we so love to hate.

This is not about the secularati crowd or appeasing minorities.
This is not about taquiya.
This is not about power.

It is about basic human values.

The path to salvation lies in providing a respectful life to all, including those who have no option but to do it in the open.

That is the one reason why missionaries are so successful. They offer tangible benefits.

If the so called elders do not get it, then I can see why Indic civilization is where it is; and perhaps where it is heading.

++100

[Sushupti]

[Agnimitra]

If people here feel that building temples instead of toilets is a higher priority, then perhaps I am in the wrong group.

And I am dead serious about it.

It is one thing to have a strong connection with religious icons, and asserting the right to have a respectful place in society. It is a totally different to take umbrage in these words.

It is about basic human values.

The path to salvation lies in providing a respectful life to all, including those who have no option but to do it in the open.

Well said!

Modi's catchphrase"pehle shaucalaya phir devalaya" says loud and clear that sanitation is the foundation and temple is the crown of Bharatiya civilization.

OTOH, Jairam Ramesh's comment was just plain contempt for the cultural idea enshrined in temples.

Those who cannot understand this difference may or may not be bothered about the woeful lack of adequate 'sanitation' in India, but they themselves certainly lack 'sanity'.

[Shanmukh]

It is people who have resources to build temples, who need to be asked that question.

Ask those who do not have access to toilets whether they would want a new temple built in their area or toilet facilities.

The connection is obvious to me:

You are seeking to impose a false dichotomy here. Why is it either a temple or a toilet? Do you seriously believe that people who donate to temples will not donate to civic amenities? Or that people have the resources only for the one, and not for the other?

And, in any case, much of the lack of toilets stems not from the lack of the toilets themselves but from the development of slums in urban areas (which is a failure of government planning and policy) or else, from a lack of sanitary network in place in rural areas (again a government failure). If the governments fix the two problems, you will see much of the problem vanish. And temples are not hindering the governments solving either.

The same energy & money which is spent in building temples is better spent in building toilets. While religious icons have their place, they are in no way a substitute for basic dignity.

Asked your missionary friends if they are building only toilets, and not churches? Or is the injunction not to build any more temples until there are adequate toilets for everyone (who will certify it, by the way?) only imposed on the Yindoos?

[Agnimitra]

You are seeking to impose a false dichotomy here. Why is it either a temple or a toilet?

Its not a dichotomy in the way Modi meant it. It is the media mischief that is projecting this false dichotomy.

[Shanmukh]

Its not a dichotomy in the way Modi meant it. It is the media mischief that is projecting this false dichotomy.

If it is, he stepped into it quite willingly. He should have known better than to conjoin temples and toilets. My last comment on this issue. Modi made a faux pas when he tried to conjoin the two. It was reckless and unnecessary at best, and the descent into `secularism' at worst. I sincerely hope it was a careless throwaway remark, and not meant as an attempt to link the two, and even more fervently do I hope that it is not the beginning of the degradation into a twisted caricature of his original self, the way LKA and SS have been destroyed today.

[VikramS]

It is people who have resources to build temples, who need to be asked that question.

Ask those who do not have access to toilets whether they would want a new temple built in their area or toilet facilities.

The connection is obvious to me:

You are seeking to impose a false dichotomy here. Why is it either a temple or a toilet? Do you seriously believe that people who donate to temples will not donate to civic amenities? Or that people have the resources only for the one, and not for the other?

Do you think we live in a world with infinite resources? If people had resources for everything then why dont people have toilets?

And, in any case, much of the lack of toilets stems not from the lack of the toilets themselves but from the development of slums in urban areas (which is a failure of government planning and policy) or else, from a lack of sanitary network in place in rural areas (again a government failure). If the governments fix the two problems, you will see much of the problem vanish. And temples are not hindering the governments solving either.

And? So if Modi says that I want my energy to be focused on that and not on temples what is wrong with it?

The same energy & money which is spent in building temples is better spent in building toilets. While religious icons have their place, they are in no way a substitute for basic dignity.

Asked your missionary friends if they are building only toilets, and not churches? Or is the injunction not to build any more temples until there are adequate toilets for everyone (who will certify it, by the way?) only imposed on the Yindoos?

The converts got to the church because they get some tangible benefits out of them. Of course it is a failure of the state to provide them which the church fulfills.

I see Modi's words as a call to action and a shift in focus on what truly matters.
If I have a choice to donate to a temple's construction versus building toilets I will chose to build toilets. And I see toilets as a metaphor. It represents the most basic need; there are others we need to worry about too.

[Agnimitra]

If it is, he stepped into it quite willingly. He should have known better than to conjoin temples and toilets. My last comment on this issue. Modi made a faux pas when he tried to conjoin the two. It was reckless and unnecessary at best, and the descent into `secularism' at worst. I sincerely hope it was a careless throwaway remark, and not meant as an attempt to link the two, and even more fervently do I hope that it is not the beginning of the degradation into a twisted caricature of his original self, the way LKA and SS have been destroyed today.

If you could stop "hoping fervently" and start thinking coolly, you might see it in a different light. Step out of the "sacred" mode of thought and step into the "classical" mode of thought.

I for one am pleased to see in Modi what appears as a dipole (or dichotomy) to people. It tells me that he is well balanced in the sacred and classical modes of Indic thought - not stuck in either. Past failures of Indic political and spiritual movements have been because its leaders were either (a) stuck in a "sacred" passion that is great for mobilization and consolidation but not good for actual edification and instruction of society, OR (b) stuck in a "classical" intellect that considered itself too aloof from sacred fervour, and therefore devolved into elitism, esotericism and spiritual vaccuum.

It also shows me that Modi has the self-assurance and self-belief to speak what he believes (he has been using this catchphrase for months now). He is cautious, but not pusillanimous. He carries and cultivates his constituency to ideologically maturity, rather than speaks like a mere 'chankian' manipulator of electoral profit. It should be pointed out to the Macaulayite media talking heads that this is what even Western philosophers like Locke and Hume would have wanted to see in a politician.

nageshks ji, I am sure you, too, understand perfectly well what Modi meant, and that it was NOTHING like Advani's Djinnah-secular gaffe or point scoring. So instead of allowing YOUR own twisted nightmares about this stance by Modi cloud your moral vision, why not understand it for what it is, and then calmly but firmly defend it to those whose minds that may have been slightly disturbed by all the media-generated noise? JMT.

[sudarshan]

Hmm, maybe it would be good to stay away from this thread for the next five to ten pages until this temple/toilets issue has been (hopefully) thrashed out in all its aspects and nuances. Lack of any other substantial news is probably the issue here.

[harbans]

A question: There is a Village of 500. A person from the Village who has moved away and made good money wants to give back to the village. He wants to give 10 Lakhs as grant to the Pradhan/ Panchayat or use it himself. The temple and the Shauchalaya will cost the same about 10L. What would you like the Pradhan/ yourself to invest the money into? A Temple or a clean Shauchalaya system?

Actually raising this issue makes sense. As the people move away from villages and do well they do want to invest in the same. I know friends of mine investing in a school. a hospital, a temple, an animal shelter. Toilets are not making it in the larger investment picture. NM is trying to change that. So let me rephrase the question in a simple poll:

You have 10 L each year you want to invest in your remote village and the cost of building these basics is around 10 L. What would you like to build year after year in priority order?

1. A Hospital/ Clinic
2. A School
3. A Temple
4. An Animal shelter
5. A Clean Toilet system.

Please spell out order for 5 years 1st to last.

[harbans]

My order would be: 1,5,2,4,3 for example. What is your order preference?

[SaiK]

1,2, 5 at equal priority and schedule.
3,4 at secondary priority, and definitely scheduled!!

[Agnimitra]

Actually raising this issue makes sense. As the people move away from villages and do well they do want to invest in the same. I know a friends of mine investing in a school. a hospital, a temple, an animal shelter. Toilets are not making it in the larger investment picture. NM is trying to change that.

Great point! That is EXACTLY the constituency Modi is instructing. I find that Leftist types working in villages often lecture the people about "seva ziyada aur pooja kam", and that tends to sway the younger, semi-educated members of the community. Modi steals that from them and redirects it properly.

You have 10 L each year you want to invest in your remote village and the cost of building these basics is around 10 L. What would you like to build year after year in priority order?

1. A Hospital/ Clinic
2. A School
3. A Temple
4. An Animal shelter
5. A Clean Toilet system.

Please spell out order for 5 years 1st to last.

I would first build a very small hand-made temple for the village deity - or most likely use the pre-existing sacred place as a focal point for gathering and consecration of activities. Then:

2. School (lays down comm lines for knowledge dissemination)
5. Toilet and Sanitation (prevention is better than cure & creates more sattvik atmosphere)
1. Hospital Care - Primary / Secondary/ Tertiary (beats having to travel to nearest available facility)
4. Animal care & local tree planting
3. Build a bigger spacious temple and community center for the grama-devata

[harbans]

SaiK you don't have equal priority options. One after another only you have funds. So in 5 years you will have all..only you have to specify the order of preference. Please do take time to think what you would like. Remember there are no wrong answers in this.

[Shanmukh]

Do you think we live in a world with infinite resources? If people had resources for everything then why dont people have toilets?

Well - the people in my dad's village do not have either a temple or a toilet, and it is not for the lack of resources for either. If they spent a tenth of what they spend on gambling or drinking in one year, they would have both toilets and temples. Look - you seem to believe that whatever the temple gains needs to be at the expense of the toilet and vice versa. I am telling you that it is exceptionally poor logic, since it is not borne out by facts. You are seeking to impose a false choice here. Even when there are temples and no toilets, it is not the resources expended on temples that hindered the construction of toilets,, and temples and toilets are not in opposition to each other. The reasons for lack of toilets have most often nothing to do with the existence of temples (lack of associated infrastructure which has to be provided by the government, lack of civic sense, and lack of education are generally more likely reasons, than resources spend on temples) and that is the flaw in your reasoning.

And? So if Modi says that I want my energy to be focused on that and not on temples what is wrong with it?

Modi, the public servant, has nothing to with temples. He should focus on building toilets, and leave the temples to private citizens and their organisations. Consequently, there is no need for him to even speak of temples, much less in connextion with toilets.

The converts got to the church because they get some tangible benefits out of them. Of course it is a failure of the state to provide them which the church fulfills.

People also go to temples (which do run schools and toilets, often, by the way) for tangible benefits. Yet, I did not hear your injunctions to Christians to stop building churches, and focus on toilets. Such condescension (toilets, not temples) is reserved for Yindoos, is it not?

[Karan M]

Having said that, I have two points to make here. If some of the Hindus who are offended by this comment would actually compare it to the sustained assault we have suffered from decades of "secular" regimes... from Shah Bano to Swami Laxmananand to Sadvhi Pragya, from Malegaon witch-hunt to Muzzaffarnagar massacre... then they need to get a sense of perspective.

Absolutely. There is no comparison to the evils perpetrated by the successive secular regimes. In blunt terms, we are being ruled by Aurangzebs since 1947 (I am not exaggerating here - just make a cold blooded comparison of the policies of Aurangzeb and Congress, and you will find shocking similarities - which might also explain the desperate attempts by Congressi historians to label Aurangzeb as secular), except for one short period of respite under Vajpayee. History basically returned to 1700 in 1947, and the neo-Marathas, neo-Lachit Borphukans, and neo-Guru Gobind Singhs have been fighting it with everything they have and can dredge out of the bottoms of their souls. If just that and nothing else, the BJP and RSS (Modi being one important leader in that struggle) deserve our heartfelt thanks.

Second point: if you (or anyone else) feels offended by Modi's shauchalaya comment... tell him so. In a unique system of governance, Modi has completely opened the channels for feedback from ordinary citizens like ourselves. He not only requests, but considers and acts upon feedback that is offered to him via the internet, telephone and conventional mail. So call, write or email his office to let him know that you feel a certain way about his statement. He will consider your feedback, as well as feedback from others, to help determine the best course of action in future.

This is what distinguishes Modi from ALL the other leaders: Sushma Swaraj, L K Advani, Sonia Gandhi or Manmohan Singh. He will listen to our concerns and at least give them an honest hearing; those others would not even give us the time of day.

It is not so much that I am offended by Modi's remarks. It is the history of leaders who go to Delhi that worries me. It is what SS, and LKA have become that makes me worried about Modi's remarks. Take a look at what LKA was in 1991, or SS in 1998. If LKA's bold yatra for Ramjanmabhoomi in 1990 or Sushma's spirited fight against Sonia in 1998 degrade into what they have become today, what will Delhi do to NaMo in five years? Delhi has a way of corrupting our best leaders into caricatures, hollow shells of themselves. Can you imagine the Advani of 1990 giving Jinnah a certificate for secularism? If just at the beginning of his sojourn in Delhi Modi feels the need to appease the `secularists', what will he become a few years down the line? This appeasement of secularists is an extremely dangerous and slippery slope. Give them an inch and they will take the proverbial mile. And they will offer him seductive blandishments - you just have to become secular and power and influence will be yours. I would strongly prefer that Modi not appease the secularists, and be in their bad books, if for no other reason than retaining his own sense of direction.

To quote the Roman poet Lucius Accius, `Let them hate us, as long as they fear us'. I prefer Modi hated by the secularists, as long as they fear him. If at any time Modi is not hated by the secularists, then he is doing something wrong, and it is time to take a step back and re-evaluate.

I understand where you are coming from. Yes, its a bit worrisome to think that the power brokers cabal can break/mold even the most well intentioned of leaders.

That apart, "In blunt terms, we are being ruled by Aurangzebs since 1947 (I am not exaggerating here - just make a cold blooded comparison of the policies of Aurangzeb and Congress, and you will find shocking similarities " - please do elaborate.

I am not kidding. The big problem with the nationalist side is that those who are articulate (like you) who have dug up such details or come to such realizations, internalize the data and don't disseminate it. If you were to catalog it, it might make a difference in how many Indians understand what has happened to them, and what they need to do to change how they are treated

[harbans]

Carl, the small deity one places for congregation aside i guess your preference is: 2,5, 1, 4, 3. Which is fine. As i said there are no wrong answers here.

[Agnimitra]

To quote the Roman poet Lucius Accius, `Let them hate us, as long as they fear us'. I prefer Modi hated by the secularists, as long as they fear him. If at any time Modi is not hated by the secularists, then he is doing something wrong, and it is time to take a step back and re-evaluate.

So why don't you folks also apply that to yourselves? Why fear the pseudo-secular sultanate this much that you go blue in the face everytime you hear their shrill and gleeful smear campaigns to distort a plain and simple catchphrase of Modi's? Instead of turning on your own, confront the fellows calmly and explain to them exactly what was meant, and exactly how it is understood by us.

No need to fear becoming like the sultanate. Rather, you will become what you fear if you don't become what you clearly love and understand. Better to focus on the positive-Hindutva and refine and disseminate its understanding, rather than focus on a negative-Hindutva and focus on fear and hatred for the sultanate.

[SaiK]

I liked to be remained in the previous wrong answer.

[Rudradev]

I would start with

Year 1:
for a kaccha clinic with basic supplies: 2L
for a kaccha schoolhouse but hire qualified teachers and basic supplies: 2L
however much toilet/sanitation facilities I could get for 6L

Year 2:
Expand toilet/sanitation facilities to full capacity with 4L
Improve clinic with another 4L
Improve school with another 2L

Year 3:
Improve clinic with another 2L
Improve school with another 6L
Begin basic animal welfare schemes with another 2L

Year 4:
Announce construction of temple for 5L
Improve animal welfare centre for 5L

Year 5:
Improve animal welfare centre with 3L
Finish a grand temple for 5L plus an extra gopuram for 2L

Thus I make sure I allocate funds to all social needs but in the end have 12L (2L more) to give to the temple

[Karan M]

Agni-ji, err, we do do that already.
If Modi is not anti-Hindu, and a good admin, that in itself is a big improvement over the current dispensation (personal view onlee and as you can see my expectations are pretty limited) but of course people who expect more have their own view too.
Eitherways, this entire stuff is a distraction and can't believe it has hogged up so much discussion already.

[harbans]

Saik ji, unfair . You must get an order of preference. But another option that i would like folks here to think through is this. You are a Mullah in Taliban territory who has struck an extra income 10 L equivalent a year (through Poppy or AK 47 sales or whatever) and would like to invest back in his village. What would his priority order be? So basically tell me your order of preference as a Dharmic and your order of preference thinking as a Mullah investing in that Village.

[harbans]

Rudra Ji, those extra clever slip out options are not permitted.. (But your order of preference does come through)

[Karan M]

Guys, can we return back to regooolar programming please. This discussion seems to have taken over the thread.

[harbans]

Karan ji, an introspection into that order will settle this toilet debate.

[sudarshan]

Karan ji, an introspection into that order will settle this toilet debate.

Yes it will settle the toilet vs. temple debate, and your efforts to settle that are commendable and much appreciated.

However, the larger (?) debate of: is this what Modi really meant - if so, did he mean only "temples" by "devalaya," or did he include churches and mosques - if so, what's wrong with Jairam Ramesh and how is he different from Modi - if not, Modi is targeting Hindus - oh noooo! the last savior of hindutva is turning sickular before our eyes - I knew it, Modi was too good to be true - he said he won't do taqqiya, now see, see, he's doing taqqiya - endless rona dhona - can go on forever.

That line of debate can only abate if we all hold fire.

[brihaspati]

I think NM is appearing to try too hard. The "devalaya-vs-toilet" comparison is a mine which should not have been stepped onto. Modi cannot convince all the self-proclaimed seculars who have as much fanaticism and dogma of belief in what they want to belief - as the people who they bash as communal - that he will ever be sincere in his remarks about prioritizing supposed "secular" concerns.

So he can never play to that gallery. Whatever he says or does, the standards will be upped for ever, and the goalposts will be constantly shifted by the extremely high integrity and honesty of self-proclaimed "secularists". Trying to appease them, he degrades his own projected sincerity.

On the other hand, now he has given a weapon in the hands of the "seculars" who never ever even mumble about the super-fast growth rate [unlike them - I am not associating it with any religion] of church or mosque building - to bay in unison whenever any temple comes up that the required quota and target of sauchalayas have not yet been reached and no temple can be built before Modi kept his promise of covering the land with sauchalayas.

A better quip perhaps would have been that building sauchalays should get preference over building houses for religions.

Ironically, making it less "Hindu" specific in phraseology/word choice - he would actually appear more secular and give less of a wind to the secularist-pretenders.

[Agnimitra]

^^^ B ji, IMHO its not the fanatic pseudo-seculars, its the vast section of fence-sitters (who are subject to relentless media fear-mongering about "saffron Taliban rule") who would derive confidence from Modi's catchphrase.

[SaiK]

when you give into the word secularism, you can't come out of that scope. it is better to remove that word from policies. another way to administer is having a proxy.. i.e. secularism is a state-of-mind. period. [if that state if maintained, then it may not be possible in the future for someone to address it as "utter non-sense"]

[brihaspati]

I am also not that happy with taking the "dehaati aurat" as an insult. The dehaati aurat is one hell of a tough cookie - a staunch and loyal mother, wife and daughter. Just because she is often illiterate, or dirty from lack of facilities - does not mean that she is any less or base. I would have proudly accepted this as a compliment for my mother. Taking it as an insult is pandering to the Islamist and the Paki - whether it was real or imaginary from the jihadi Nawaz.

[brihaspati]

^^^ B ji, IMHO its not the fanatic pseudo-seculars, its the vast section of fence-sitters (who are subject to relentless media fear-mongering about "saffron Taliban rule") who would derive confidence from Modi's catchphrase.

again they will always remain fence sitters, regardless of what NM does or says. It s adifferent psyche that drives fence-sitting.

[SaiK]

dehati paki aurat should be different from dehati indic aurat.. nah?