W(h)ither BJP?

Re: # 30 DM
//....BTW neither of them represents Indian Muslim identity or even claim to represent Indian Muslims....//

What exactly is ``Indian Muslim Identity``? And why can`t Kalam or Naqvi represent Indian muslims? .....Is there also a ``Indian hindu identity``? If so, who represents that?

What`s wrong with you people? .....Why do you left-wing m0r0ns bent on creating and promoting this mythical ``Indian Muslim Identity``? ..... When are you going learn the lessons and understand that this is the reason why things are so f**ked as far as communal relations are concerned?.....

How much more damage has to be done to the body-politics before you fools learn not to create and promote bullsh!t ``identities`` out of thin air?

dw#28:

I think that pmishra has said most of what I wanted to say. Yes, democracy in India is almost limited to having elections every five years and let the rascals loot them during the interim. If democracy means empowerment of the people in matters that are of daily concern to them, even China may be more democratic than India; people may not be free to mouth off obscenities at their leaders and there may not be a freewheeling media, but in matters of daily importance, Chinese may have more say within the parameters of the communist party local unit than Indians do.

And that arya samaji was not representing too many Indians. Most of the educated Indians I meet are full of admiration for MM Singh.

re:#21
to ajeya
your questions are so ridiculous and insanely stupid that i don`t feel like answering them

Mohar11#23:

``According to one story - Sardar Patel wanted to dismantle Congress after independence - specifically for this reason....``

I think that it was Mahatma Gandhi who wanted to dismantle Congress; I don`t know if Patel also wanted the same. We all blame Nehru for catering to Muslim obscurantists but, in truth, he was merely saddled with something that Gandhi started, as Mantolives keeps reminding us. Gandhi might have been a Mahatma but he was no democrat. He prevented left-wing Bose from remaining a duly elected president of the Congress Party; later on, he prevented Patel from becoming the Prime Minister of India even though he was the overwhelming choice of provincial congress committees; this was again to please the deobandi supporters of the Congress party. I should add however that Patel was unacceptable to all muslims, not just deobandis. The point is that India was saddled with Nehru`s brand of socialism not because the majority of the Congress Party believed in socialism but because Gandhi saddled India with Nehru and his fabian fantasies.

harimou#24:

``Nope. Just like the US had banned the CPUSA, India should ban anybody associated with Communism, Socialism and any similar leftist ideologies, put them under surveillance, hound them out of jobs and make life intesely miserable for them.``

I don`t think that the communist party is banned in the USA. Even during the Mcarthy era, people like Paul Sweezy were allowed to function. And even today, Noam Chomskys and Michael Moores are allowed to flourish in the USA.

But Naxalites are a different case. Their activities are outside the pale of constitution and they cannot be accorded the same latitude.

#28 dehliwala

You have way too much ``respect`` for gora log. I have heard 10X more racist and hateful comments about leaders in USA and UK from their residents. Your arya samaji bigot is NOTHING compared to these guys.

There are always nasty comments about leaders in any open setup. That is the nature of democracy.

I agree with your points about local elections. That is where there is some real difference between western democracy and india. Real information is available at the local level about spending. money, taxes, road repair, etc. Some of this has started happening in various regions in India - more so in south, also in some cities.

Read about Madhu Kishwar`s experiments in true local democracy:

http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=306026

Re: # 28 dw
//...hardly anybody votes for policies rather than their indivdual preferences i.e. caste/region/ethnic group etc...//

Not everywhere. Caste may be a major factor in UP/Bihar - but not everywhere. I can speak of the state I come from - Orissa. Caste is not a factor there - by and large people vote for personalities and to some extent, policies......It`s just bad luck that people of orissa had never got the calibre of leaders they deserved - which is why the state is in a bad shape....

pmishra#19:

I agree with most of what you say, except that I think that the BJP should/will not survive as is for the next 2-3 elections.

``Here is another topic: the poor quality of right-of-centre discourse in India. Generally speaking, the people on the left have been very much more effective. While there are plenty of left-wing fanatics (ashok mitra, praful bidwai), you can also find many reasonable and achieving people (Amartya Sen, Romila Thapar). Any thoughts on why/how this is the case?``

In the kind of political environment during the Nehruvian era when rightwing discourse was almost a heresy, it was not possible for right-wing talent to develop. Even Manmohan Singh had to claim that he was not deviating from Nehru`s socialism when he introduced his economic reforms back in 1993. The situation is likely to change now. For example, I have seen Arun Shourie take on the likes of Thapars and better them in a academic-type discussion.

Ajeya#20
``So according to you the BJP HAS NOT YET accepted ``that Indian Muslims have an identity of their own, which is an integral part of the composite Indian identity``.

In other words appointing a muslim as the President of the country was just an eyewash? And Naqvi?``

Appointment of Kalam - in my opinion India`s best ever President - or Naqvi are correctly perceived as an act to placate Muslim sentiments. BTW neither of them represents Indian Muslim identity or even claim to represent Indian Muslims. But it is more than a matter of appointing a Muslim or two in important positions, the Party has to purge itself of the openly anti-muslim elements if it wants to have credibility among Muslims.

``1) I have tried to read up on the Gujarat Riots. On Chowk, it seems that it is taken for granted that he was in some ways complicit in the Gujarat riots. Could you point me in the direction of the source of your information (not reporters` opinions, but facts) that led you to this conclusion?``

I am sorry that I do not have access to any other sources than news reporters or NGOs who have have gone to the spot and studied the situation. But I am aware that the Modi government has been repeatedly chastised by the Supreme Court for its attempts to cover up the prosecution of the accused in the Gujarat riots.

``2) Also, could you contrast that with the Congress Government`s role in the anti-sikh riots, and explain to me the difference.``

The Congress role was every bit as reprehensible as that of the Modi government.

``3) Could you quote some of the ``extremist views`` that Modi has propounded?``

I am not privy to any private statements of Modi, except those he has frequently made calling all Muslims ``mian musharraf`` insinuating that they are traitors.

Re: # 28

``Even though we have elections but hardly anybody votes for policies rather than their indivdual preferences i.e. caste/region/ethnic group etc. ``

i too believed that in u.s. policies matter more than individual preferences until Bush was elected the second time. the conservative/bible belt south voted for Bush, it didn`t matter to them about his policies regarding medicare, iraq. what mattered to them was that he was anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage.

Re: # 25
DM Sir,
My $.02, India does not have a proper democracy that is deeply rooted in it`s culture as in Western world. Even though we have elections but hardly anybody votes for policies rather than their indivdual preferences i.e. caste/region/ethnic group etc. India despite being the largest working Democracy in the world is far from being what the Greeks and Romans envisaged for their “Demos”. By far and large an Indian views elections as the means to end a bad government or to elect a leader of their choice, nothing more. Watching American elections in actions at state and federal level opened my eyes to this subtle difference, in a town in America you can elect a councilman or police chief or any town administrator position by simply looking on a board where the main questions are listed along with candidate’s leanings. How easy! In USA people vote for Fed/State policies that are actually listed on a ballot form. For e.g in MA, while voting for Kerry/Bush you also had to pick local councilmen and some other municipality laws. You clearly knew where the candidates will head if elected.

In India, it is hardly the case.

For e.g. Millions of voters who elected Congress Party in India during last year were shocked when a Sikh MM Singh became PM, they felt that they were cheated.
One Hindu-Khatree-Arya Samaji neighbour`s comment was ``Eh kithon Sardar nu PM banna ditta, sadde vote wapis karo``.

Till every Citizen of India has read basic Civic Shastra in his/her schoolroom and understands the working politics and the procedures we will have these corrupt people to rule India who would manipulate as much as they like.

When one speaks of perceptions, the question always is: ``Whose perceptions?``

To limit oneself according to some other people`s perceptions is to hand them too much power over oneself.

In many situations, that is neither healthy nor safe.

During all this discussion, did it occur to any of the interactor that rise of BJP in India is due to Islamic Pakistani politics??

RSS and BJP combine is the India`s answer to JUI and ML of Pakistan. I was asked this question while travelling in a train by a Hindu fanatic.
``Why can`t India have a Hindu government when Pakistan can have Islamic government?``
BJP/RSS combine compares itself to CDP of Germany, Republican Party of USA and some other conservative groups in Western World, where they have democratically elected religous parties and the nations are overwhelmingly ``SECULAR``.

I am not a supported of RSS/BJP but I do like Vajpayee as a national leader, he is probably the only person who is retainable in the BJP/RSS league.

rahulmal#18:


``1) Why should govt. of a secular country allocate money for religious activities of a community?``

It should not.

``2) Why shouldn`t all citizens of a nation follow the same set of laws, when the constitution professes equality?``

They should. A non-communalist BJP would have the strength to demand a uniform civil code without being accused of having a hidden agenda.

``3) Should some part of country be given same rights as other parts, without having to fulfil the same obligations as others?``

Could you please elaborate this point?

4) Is Hindu Rashtra enshrined in the constitution of BJP or RSS? If yes, what does it mean?

I do not know if the RSS has a constitution but it is certainly part of its agenda, as enumerated by the likes of MS Golwalkar (Guruji). As for the BJP, it is not part of its official platform, but as long as it is associated with the RSS, it would be perceived to have such an agenda. And politics is all about perceptions.

Ref dost-mittar #12

[The pea-brained Hindu secularists and anti-Hindu communalists have to be provided their space in the democratic spectrum. Democracies survive because they are tolerant of even intolerant viewpoints, thus providing safety valves to those who would otherwise be inclined to subvert the system.]

Nope. Just like the US had banned the CPUSA, India should ban anybody associated with Communism, Socialism and any similar leftist ideologies, put them under surveillance, hound them out of jobs and make life intesely miserable for them. One man-one vote has survived in the USA despite such tactics and would survive in India too.

Naxalites should be hunted like vermin and exterminated. If necessary, do what the British did to the Scots in the 18th century: burn down entire villages and force them into the forests and then hunt them down.

Re: # 19
//...the poor quality of right-of-centre discourse in India. ....Any thoughts on why/how this is the case? ...//

Good question. The reason is - post-independence, Congress Party wanted to be everything to everybody - they tried to encompass the entire spectrum of politics. They gave no space for legitimate center-right politics....

According to one story - Sardar Patel wanted to dismantle Congress after independence - specifically for this reason....People like Sardar Patel are good center-right leaders who would have given the much needed balance during those early days of political evolution....That would have led to good quality of center-right politics and a safety valve for ultra-right freaks....

But that didn`t happen - because Nehru opposed the plan to dismantle Congress....So there were never any legitimate/popular center-right leader to begin with... RSS were freaks, they were never accepted in the mainstream, so they could never fill the void....

So once again, blame it on Chacha Nehru :)) .... God, I hate to blame the old b@stard all the time .... I actually like the guy in some ways [ especially the way he sticked up that big fool jinnah] - but he really screwed up India`s chances of a balanced politics and economics...

Ref delhiwala #4

[What India really need is a Progressive Democratic Front that is a mix of BJP/CONG/Commie etc.]

No. what India needs is the equivalent of the Moral Majority, backed by the equivalent of Fox News with commentators like Bill O`Reilly, Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto with a Edward Teller-like nuclear scientist who will lead a nuclear establishment that would develop thermonuclear weapons and test 1000 of them, with the armed forces led by someone like Curtis LeMay.

That ought to keep the Wahhabi fcukers in Saudi Arabia in check and Pakistan would keep its tail shoved up its butt.

Re: #15 by dost-mittar


[contra#7:

I did not forget Modi. If the BJP splits, he would be a natural leader of the extremist group. But in my opinion, if Modi wins elections in Gujarat again, it wouldn`t be because of his extremist views...]


Three questions:

1) I have tried to read up on the Gujarat Riots. On Chowk, it seems that it is taken for granted that he was in some ways complicit in the Gujarat riots. Could you point me in the direction of the source of your information (not reporters` opinions, but facts) that led you to this conclusion?

2) Also, could you contrast that with the Congress Government`s role in the anti-sikh riots, and explain to me the difference.

3) Could you quote some of the ``extremist views`` that Modi has propounded?




I would really appreciate it.

Thanks,

Ajeya