Bharat Rakshak

pgbhat wrote:SeeYenYen stateside already at it.
Does Narendra Modi threaten secular and liberal India?

One postor below, probably the writer herself in mufti, claims that we don't rebut the author on her facts. Wrong again. CNN does not publish unbiased, objective analyses, so there is no point in sending Opinion Pieces unless they fit their lifafa policies. But here is why Sunny Hundal and CNN are nonsense: 

1. Hundal is a "British Asian". Why on the morning after the world's greatest election, does CNN post an Opinion from a British Asian, not from an Indian voter? See anything there to suggest the bias of their policies? 


2. Much of the (false) criticism of Mr. Modi has "focused on 2002". Hundal goes on to hope that "possibly thousands" of Muslims were "butchered by Hindus" despite 12 years of clear factual evidence that the death toll was around 1000, of which at least 250+ were Hindus, and many of the dead of any religion were law enforcement personnel. The riots started because of the horrible action by a mob of 4000 Muslims who stopped a sleeper train, stoned it, then started an uncontrollable fire and bolted the steel bogies from outside to burn 58 innocents (of all reglions!) to death while they danced in glee outside. In what country would that have gone without violent reaction? In a quake-devastated Gujarat of 2002, with most of India's army on the frontlines against Pakistani terrorism, there was no chance. The facts have been proven. Dishonest entities STILL parrot the same propaganda on CNN. Why is this not blatant nonsense and dishonesty? 


3. "Modi said 19-year-old Ishrat Jahan was a terrorist before she was convicted". So what? The evidence is that Ms. Jahan was part of a terrorist gang. The Gujarat police stopped yet another terrorist attack before it happened. I too would have preferred that Ms. Jahan be tried, convicted and then hanged, but Modi is by no means the only leader who has expressed opinions on terrorist suspicions. So does CNN, regularly. Of course CNN is no model..


4. So the facts in that case is that "Supreme Court investigated" - no charges ever stood up in court. So Modi WHO is it that is pronouncing guilt without evidence? Modi or Hundal/CNN?


5. Mr. Modi has not agreed with Dr. Praveen Togadia on anything since 2001, nor have the Indian voters voted for Dr. Togadia. Hundal's citing Togadia is sheer false propaganda. 


6. Hundal whines about other states vs. Gujarat. But India has a vibrant, free press (otherwise why lament that it is in danger?) So why do Indian voters associate good development with Gujarat more than them? The elections were national, and from east to west and from Jammu to Thiruvananthapuram, people voted for Modi.


7. Hundal says there have been "accusations" of this or that in Gujarat. Not in other states? Isn't this deliberate bias on Hundal/CNN's part?


8. "Rising tide of intolerance". Wrong again! The majority in India are Hindus. The tolerance is mostly from this majority. What has been wrong in the past 10 years is a huge tsunami of intolerance from the vote-bank politics of the foreign-funded, foreign-controlled, dynasty cronies in Delhi. Now on their way out of their privileged, illegally-occupied Delhi palaces. 


9. The "RSS" wants to put the interests of Indians above those of others in India. Yes, I sure hope they put the interests of Indians above those of so-called "British Asians" who still dream of a "British Asia".

Satyam Eva Jayate. Not Hundal.

Shreeman wrote:Conratulations, from Washington DC

But perhaps most worrying for Modi’s critics are fears that his rise could worsen sectarian tensions between India’s majority Hindus and its 138 million Muslims. For much of the last decade, Modi has been haunted by allegations that he did nothing to stop communal riots in his home state of Gujarat that killed 1,000 people, most of them Muslim.

The United States refused to issue him a diplomatic visa in 2005. Britain cut ties after three of its citizens were killed in the riots. But over the last two years all that slowly changed as Modi relentlessly campaigned on a platform of economic revival.

The son of a tea seller, Mr. Modi rose through the ranks of the Hindu nationalist movement before becoming chief minister of the western state of Gujarat. In 2002, religious riots ripped through his state killing more than 1,000 people, most of them Muslims. Critics accuse Mr. Modi of not doing enough to stop the violence, allegations he denies. A court last year said there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute him.

But the next prime minister’s strongman image has compounded alarm about his political rise among India’s Muslim minority, which makes up 19 percent of the population. Many Muslims worry about Modi’s ties to the RSS, a radical group that envisions India as a sacred nation to which only Hindus truly belong. And they recall that he was Gujarat’s chief minister in 2002, when Hindu rioters massacred 2,000 Muslims.

Suspicions that Modi did not do all he might have done to stem the violence have cast a shadow over his political standing. The United States has refused him a visa since the massacre on the grounds that he bore “responsibility for the performance of state institutions” such as the police.

Rudradev wrote:(cf the Berkley Haas cauldron that's brewing).

shiv wrote:Conratulations, from Washington DC

But perhaps most worrying for Modi’s critics are fears that his rise could worsen sectarian tensions between India’s majority Hindus and its 138 million Muslims. For much of the last decade, Modi has been haunted by allegations that he did nothing to stop communal riots in his home state of Gujarat that killed 1,000 people, most of them Muslim.

The United States refused to issue him a diplomatic visa in 2005. Britain cut ties after three of its citizens were killed in the riots. But over the last two years all that slowly changed as Modi relentlessly campaigned on a platform of economic revival.

These are the words of a fair skinned individual living in a developed counntry looking at the people of a faraway land, browns skinned, or alien cultures, and thinking that they cannot be civilized wnough not to simply burst out and start killing each other. Of course, there is blindness and denial of all the ways in which the "civilized" land the author views India itself suffers from or promotes murder and mayhem.

Problem is - with 90% of Indians not being literate enough to sniff the nuances in this oiseaule's words it is left to the few of us who are to fight and point out the patronizing language.

A dark chapter of violence against Muslims on Modi's watch in Gujarat has mattered less and less to many, including a ballooning middle class alarmed by dwindling purchasing power and job opportunities as the economy slumped to sub-five percent growth in the last two years.

Not so long ago, the prospect of a Modi-led government would have seemed a remote possibility to many, especially in the then-Congress bastion of New Delhi. Shortly after he took office as chief minister, bloody sectarian riots broke out in Gujarat in 2002, in which more than 1000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed. Modi’s critics blamed his administration for not doing enough to stop the anti-Muslim wave of violence as it unfolded; some alleged that he had a role in inciting it. Modi has always strongly denied any wrongdoing or involvement in the tragedy, and Indian courts have cleared him of the same. But the controversy has followed him. The BJP heralded today’s results as a victory over caste- and religion-centric politics, but many Muslims both in and outside Gujarat continue to harbor deep apprehensions about Modi’s leadership.

The U.S. has, since 2005, denied Mr. Modi an entry visa on the grounds that he has been linked to curtailments of religious freedom in the context of the 2002 Gujarat riots.

In 2005, the United States denied Modi a visa because of his alleged role in anti-Muslim violence in 2002 in Gujarat state, where he was chief minister.

More than 1,000 people were killed, mostly Muslims. A Supreme Court-ordered investigation in India absolved him of blame last year.

Modi, a Hindu nationalist politician, is (until he becomes the prime minister) head of the government in the Indian state of Gujarat. He held that job in 2002 when fierce rioting between Hindus and Muslims broke out. In that capacity, it is alleged, he encouraged — or did nothing to stop — vigilante violence against Muslims and police complicit with the violence. More than one thousand people, most of them Muslims, died. Prosecutions of those accused in the killings have been minimal.

The author is ICSSR Fellow Nehru Memorial Museum and Library. She is India coordinator for London School of Economics research project on Study of Elections in India.

shiv wrote:These are the words of a fair skinned individual living in a developed counntry looking at the people of a faraway land, browns skinned, or alien cultures, and thinking that they cannot be civilized wnough not to simply burst out and start killing each other. Of course, there is blindness and denial of all the ways in which the "civilized" land the author views India itself suffers from or promotes murder and mayhem.

Problem is - with 90% of Indians not being literate enough to sniff the nuances in this oiseaule's words it is left to the few of us who are to fight and point out the patronizing language.

Gerard wrote:Narendra Modi and the BJP bludgeoned their way to election victory

Narendra Modi's landslide victory shatters Congress's grip on India

Until relatively recently, Modi was widely seen as a polarising and distrusted figure, even within his own party. His role in the pogrom against Muslims in Gujarat may not yet have been punished by the Indian courts (and now looks like it will never be,) but his culpability in terms of presiding as chief minister over the state in which they occurred and not punishing the guilty is still evident.

The "communal peace" that has supposedly prevailed in Gujarat since then has been achieved at a tremendous cost to the minorities, essentially by terrorising them into submission. Muslim families and individuals are increasingly ghettoised, finding it impossible to buy or rent accommodation in dominantly Hindu areas. Muslim youths are not only discriminated in employment but much more exposed to being picked up, interrogated and even imprisoned on mere suspicion of being terrorists. Bank loans are hard to come by for people from minorities, and intercommunity social mingling, particularly between young men and women, is frowned upon.

That this "peace of the graveyard" may be extended across India is a frightening prospect. Already during the election campaign the signs of things to come were evident. In the early stages of the campaign, the focus was more on the defects of the current United Progressive Alliance government and the supposed material progress of Gujarat under Modi, however illusory such progress may have been for most of its citizens. The attempt was to show him not as divisive, but decisive.

India election results 2014: Modi vows to rule for all after stunning victory
Andrew Buncombe

Delhi
Friday 16 May 2014

India's controversial Narendra Modi vowed to work for the development of all Indians after securing a huge, landslide victory against the ruling Congress party. He looked set to enjoy the biggest win in an Indian election in three decades, while the Congress party – the party of Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru - endured its worst ever performance.

“There are no enemies in politics and democracy, only competitors. That’s the beauty of democracy,” Mr Modi, 63, told huge, roaring crowds in the city of Vadodara, a constituency he personally contested and won with a margin of more than 500,000 votes. “The strength of democracy lies in taking everyone together. Despite a clear mandate, we want to keep everyone together.”

Exit polls published earlier this week had predicted Mr Modi, the son of a tea seller who rose to become the chief minister of Gujarat and the candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), was likely heading to victory. But on Friday morning, as officials began counting the results of 550m ballots cast in 1.5m million voting machines located inside 930,000 booths, it became clear Mr Modi and his slick, professional campaign was heading for the sort of landslide only his most optimistic supporters could have dreamed of.
As of 9.30pm last night, the Election Commission of India’s official tracker had the BJP having won or being ahead in 272 seats, compared to just 44 for the Congress, India’s oldest party and the one which has ruled it for the bulk of its years as an independent nation. Most television channels were predicting that with his traditional coalition allies Mr Modi will hold a total 339 out of 543 seats.

India’s main stock market, the Sensex, leaped to a record high, jumping more than six per cent and passing 25,000 points as news of the BJP’s performance hit the markets.

Mr Modi’s victory broke many records. It was the first time a party other than the Congress had won a clear majority and the scale of his win was reckoned to be the largest since 1984 when Rajiv Gandhi won a landslide of 400 seats on a wave of sympathy and anguish following the assassination of his mother, Indira Gandhi. Mr Modi pointed out that for the first time, India was to have a prime minister born after the country secured independence in 1947.


But aside from the records, the scale of Mr Modi’s victory underscored the sheer effectiveness of his campaign and attractiveness of his message, especially compared to the faltering, half-hearted way in which the Congress had fought to hang on to power. Many questioned whether Rahul Gandhi, who led the Congress campaign, truly wanted the job.

Indeed, when Mr Gandhi and his mother, Sonia, who heads the Congress party, appeared at their headquarters to acknowledge their defeat, they did so in front of sepia-toned images of Mrs Gandhi’s assassinated husband Rajiv, and Indira Gandhi. Compared to the dynamic, professional campaign carried out by Mr Modi and his supporters, the Congress’s paternalistic effort felt like it belonged to an earlier, black-and-white age.

“The Congress party has done pretty badly. There is a lot for us to think about,” said Mr Gandhi, who, like his mother, held onto his own seat, though with a greatly reduced margin. “As vice-president of the party I hold myself responsible. I wish the new government all the best.”

Most analysts similarly held Mr Modi responsible for the BJP’s stunning performance. Appearing at more than 450 rallies across India and clocking up more than 200,000 miles in the air, Mr Modi relentlessly pushed a message of growth and development. He claimed he could replicate the so-called Gujarat model he had overseen in his own state across India.

An Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) supporter hold an cutout of Narinder Modi with the lotus party symbol outside the BJP headquarters in New Delhi An Indian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) supporter hold an cutout of Narinder Modi with the lotus party symbol outside the BJP headquarters in New Delhi (Getty Images)
It did not matter that in truth Gujarat had always been more developed than other parts of India or that the growth that took place on his watch as chief minister had been bettered by several other states, including Tamil Nadu and Kerala; the message that got through to countless people in cities, towns and in remote villages across the vast spread of India was that he could make things better. Exit polls had shown that first-time voters aged 18-22 were among Mr Modi’s strongest supporters.

“I spent a year in Gujarat working. I have seen it,” said Alok Mishra, a student, shouting to be heard above he noise of drums and chanting at the BJP’s headquarters. “The roads are better there, there is less corruption, he has more investors.”

Milan Vaishnav, an expert on Indian politics form the Carnegie Endowment in Washington, said Mr Modi’s message of development and jobs had struck a chord with hundreds of millions of Indians who were anxious about the state of the economy, corruption and a lack of opportunities. He said it had helped the BJP that the Congress had failed to put up a clear leader, given that the party had declined to name Mr Gandhi as its prime ministerial candidate.

“There was a pan-India sense of dissatisfaction with the economy. And Mr Modi’s relentless campaign message about jobs and development proved to be so effective,” he said.

As world leaders from David Cameron and Nawaz Sharif telephoned Mr Modi to congratulate him on his victory, the scale and nature of his win continued to sink in.

BJP supporters look on near a Rangoli decoration showing a portrait of Narendra Modi BJP supporters look on near a Rangoli decoration showing a portrait of Narendra Modi (Getty Images)
In the huge, sprawling state of Uttar Pradesh, many analysts had predicted that traditional factors such as caste and communalism and the strength of regional parties would step in Mr Modi’s way. But last night, the BJP looked set to win 71 out of 80 seats. It currently holds just 10. Congress appeared set to win just three, including those of Mrs Gandhi and her son.

Mr Modi had long been boycotted by the West because of the killings of hundreds of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. He always denied accusations that he did insufficient to stop the slaughter and a judicial probe found no evidence to hold him responsible.

Yet large numbers of Muslims remain sceptical of him. Muhammad Kaiser, 34, who runs a type repair shop in south Delhi, said he supported the Congress party, though he had not been registered to vote. As of Mr Modi’s victory, he said: “Now he has been elected, he has to do a good job for everybody.”

KrishnaK wrote:

shiv wrote:These are the words of a fair skinned individual living in a developed counntry looking at the people of a faraway land, browns skinned, or alien cultures, and thinking that they cannot be civilized wnough not to simply burst out and start killing each other. Of course, there is blindness and denial of all the ways in which the "civilized" land the author views India itself suffers from or promotes murder and mayhem.

Problem is - with 90% of Indians not being literate enough to sniff the nuances in this oiseaule's words it is left to the few of us who are to fight and point out the patronizing language.

It is indeed the literate english speaking patriots on this forum who're keeping india free for those not so well educated, non english speaking ppl that you said will be working with HAL, DRDO etc doctor saab.

..what is even more worrying for the US is that the population of Latinos is increasing and by 2040 will outnmber the whites. Latinos with their low educational status and involvement in crimes threaten to rip the secular fabric of the USA asunder

shiv wrote:Why was Rahul Gandhi looking so happy and relieved as he made his one liner announcement taking responsibility for defeat?

shiv wrote:Rudradev - I think all checked in bags are X-rayed (and possibly sniffed) before they are put on an aircraft - at least by Indian carriers even if they are abroad.

Pratyush wrote:

shiv wrote:Rudradev - I think all checked in bags are X-rayed (and possibly sniffed) before they are put on an aircraft - at least by Indian carriers even if they are abroad.

An SPG protected person is exempted from such checks.

shiv wrote: It is extremely odd that humans get fooled time and time again by buzzwords that are outright lies. Like someone claiming "xyz means peace" even if xyz represents the worst of violence. The Congress party, Mulayam and Mayawati divided people while claiming that they were uniting them and accusing the BJP of being divisive. Yesterday (or the day before) - I loved Amit Shah's response to a mohterma who asked him if Muslims had voted for the BJP. He replied that it was wrong to refer to Indians as Muslims or this community or that. They are all Indians and should be seen that way.

Congress particularly used this tactic most viciously and cynically. They had Muslims fooled by saying 'Oh we are united with you Muslims. It is the BJP that is trying to divide you and us". But after Pakistan, it was always the Congress party that was dividing Indians into "you Muslims" and "us Hindus" rather than people of the country. The BJP and Modi pulled that off. They have called the Congress' bluff.

By By MJ Akbar

16 May 2014

This election victory wasn’t just a Modi wave but a revolution: it has lifted India out of the politics of the last century and liberated it from the feudal rule of the Congress Party’s Gandhi dynasty.

One of the most important reasons for the implosion in the Congress vote is the very deep anger people feel against the Gandhi family. The young, who have suffered from a jobless economy for the past decade, looked at them and asked: “Are they going to be in power for ever? Haven’t we had enough?”

The Congress-sponsored elite in Delhi spread the notion that this election was about partisan sentiment, but that’s rubbish: this is a victory of Indians for a new India. This election was about hunger, jobs, aspiration and opportunities and an end to tokenism towards our minorities. It was a rejection of the partnership between power and corruption. It established a simple and even obvious fact: that the stomach was more important than caste and creed.

It was about the young who will create India over the next 30 or 40 years rather than those who ruled for the past 60 and were unable to rid India of its worst curse, poverty. India won freedom from the British in 1947 but it has still not been able to win freedom from that curse called hunger. We can’t blame the British for that.

India seeks to be a modern state, that’s what the young want, but we cannot be modern as long as we have poverty. A modern state must have gender equality and freedom of faith.
Related Articles

Seven things you need to know about India's new leader
16 May 2014

India election results 2014: five reasons why Narendra Modi won
16 May 2014

Narendra Modi wins India election with landslide victory
16 May 2014

Indian Bullet Train to top Modi’s priority list
14 May 2014

The big challenge in the immediate future will be to revive a comatose economy. India needs 15 million new jobs per year for our growing working population but in the last 10 years of Congress government, only 15 to 18 million jobs were created in the whole decade. Now you can understand the extraordinary levels of anger among the young.

A young person who was 20 when Congress came to power in 2004 is 30 now, and probably married, but still staring at a hopeless future — that’s the reason for the anger that has demolished the Congress. This is the first time since elections began in 1952 that a party other than the Congress has a won a simple majority in the Lok Sabha.

The central theme of the BJP campaign was governance and jobs, and our victory brings economics back to the forefront of Indian debate.

Indian supporters of Bharatiya Janata Party's Prime Ministerial candidate and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi (EPA)

The responsibility on Narendra Modi to deliver is daunting. He recognises this. In his first speech after victory he called himself the “First Mazdoor”, or “First Worker”, of the nation — a description in sharp contrast to the royal airs adopted by the Gandhi dynasty. He has to create a business-friendly, job-friendly India, a nation secure on the borders as well as from terrorism and home-grown crime — you can’t have rape in a modern nation.

He has both the comprehension needed to understand India’s problems and the ability to find solutions. After all, in the same decade and in the same environment during which Congress dragged India’s economy from an 8 per cent-plus growth to around 4.4 per cent, Modi turned Gujarat into a template of economic success. Indians saw this, believed in him and made a man who began life as an employee in a wayside tea shop into the prime minister of India.

One of the big setbacks for the Congress was the scale of support for the BJP among India’s Muslims.

The first analysis of this computerised election shows more than 30 per cent of Muslims in Rajasthan voted for Narendra Modi. You can’t get this kind of sweep of states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar without a strong percentage of Muslim votes coming your way. Our manifesto spoke of the condition of the minorities, their education, jobs, the protection of their heritage and the threat to them from corruption. Muslims will not get jobs because they are Muslims but as equal citizens in a free nation. They have as much right to the benefits of economic development as anyone. They want equal opportunity but the Congress only offered them tokenism. They make one Muslim a party president, another vice-president and think they have satisfied the aspirations of a community. That tokenism was rejected along with the feudal, dynastic family which promoted it.

One of the great problems of the Congress Party is that they do not understand that royal dynasties can’t exist in a modern state. The Gandhi family’s claw-like grip over India’s most venerable political institution is like the heirs of Winston Churchill being in control of Britain’s Tories.

The descendants of Indira Gandhi failed to tackle poverty and instead converted a major political party into a rotten family borough. It is a crime on democracy — the Congress has become a decayed feudal party and dynasty is not a vote-winner any more. It had a tremendous history but now has no future.

MJ Akbar is a former press secretary to the Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and is now a spokesman for the BJP.

I predict that at some point in NaMo's career, there will be a conventional or at least a subconventional conflict with pakistan.

"When we return we will send them a Cold Blunt Note".

We MUST Bomb Pahkissthaan!

^ Why 5 oh the sage from Gobi desert ? I always thought that peace could be achieved by TSP splitting into 4, so that there is no problem with finding 4 pious muslims.
Where is this 5th Ba$tard son coming from ?