Congress Party Concedes Defeat as India Backs Modi

[cosmicone]

Last edited Fri May 16, 2014, 03:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: NY Times

NEW DELHI — Election officials on Friday morning began counting the more than 550 million votes cast in the country’s five-week general election, which was expected to culminate in a commanding victory for the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party and its leader, Narendra Modi.

Preliminary results from India’s election commission suggested that Mr. Modi’s party would win enough seats to form a government without brokering a coalition deal with one of India’s fractious regional leaders.

If his party receives more than 272 seats, Mr. Modi will take power with the strongest mandate of any Indian leader since Rajiv Gandhi of the Indian National Congress took office in 1984, riding the wave of sympathy that followed the assassination of his mother, Indira Gandhi, who preceded him as prime minister.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a spokesman for the governing Indian National Congress, told NDTV, a television channel, that the party would not concede defeat until 11 a.m., three hours after counting began.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/17/world/asia/india-elections.html?_r=0

---

Yay for Modi ... hopefully India will go away from brutal socialistic policies of the corrupt congress party now. The stock markets in India are already up by 5%. It is also a long awaited end of the Gandhi/Nehru dynasty and end of Rahul Gandhi's political future. Rahul should try working for a living instead.

[golfguru]

1. Modi is leader of BJP party

BJP is for free markets and privatization.
Indian gov't under congress party is vastly bureaucratic and runs too many industries.

Good news from world's largest democracy.

[Ken Burch]

2. How is privatization good?

Nothing progressive or positive can come from giving away the people's wealth to the 1%. And it's going to be a nightmare for the low-caste people as social services are cut to nothing...as it will also be a nightmare for India's Muslim minority, who will be collectively and falsely demonized as Pakistani agents by the Modi government. Muslims will be treated like Europe treated the Jews in the 1930's and 1940's.

Gandhi would weep at this result.

Remember Gujarat!

And may India get the strong antifascist movement it's going to need.

[Ken Burch]

18. Anybody know who's post that was that got auto-removed?

And what it was that they said?

[golfguru]

67. I grew up in Gujerat surrounded by Muslims!

And my neighbor Muslim kids were some of my best friends. There was never any religious skirmishes that I can remember.

The incident of 1000 Muslims killed in Gujerat riots had origins in massacre of old Hindu pilgrims on their way to Varanasi on a train. When the train stopped at a station, hundreds of pilgrims were murdered for no reason. That caused Hindu's in Gujerat to riot.

During my years in India, almost all major industries were run by the government. Railroads (India has the most miles of rail track in world and predominant mode of travel), Airlines (Air India), Banks, Insurance, Cement, Steel, Telephone manufacturing and services, electricity generation, machine tools manufacturing (HMT), aircraft manufacturing (HAL), Post office, among others.

Every industry was inefficient, unprofitable, with rampant nepotism and corruption. On my subsequent visits to India, lot of these same industries are now privately owned. Huge difference in service and cost! Instead of waiting 2 hours at the bank for a transaction, I could get it done in minutes. Instead of requiring 2 or 3 visits to the booking office to buy airline ticket, I could get it in one visit.

So my observation is privatized businesses run much more efficiently. Middle class in India has grown rapidly after privatization. India GDP has been growing at 5-8% per year in recent years. It all started when BJP won majority few years back. They began privatization. I hope the new BJP will be as good as the old one.

[Ken Burch]

70. 69 died in the train fire...not "hundreds"

And to this day, the cause of the fire hasnot been determined(Modi didn't send anyone out to examine the burnt-out rail car until it had sat out in the elements for two whole months. Despite this, Modi publicly labeled the fire as arson only hours later and had the bodies of the fire victims placed on public display in one of Gujarat's largest cities. In addition several Gujarati police officers have stated that Modi ordered the police to "Let the Hindus vent", rather than protecting the innocent Muslim residents from attack.

[golfguru]

73. Like I said, I grew up with Muslims

My neighborhood was predominantly Muslim. There was never any religion based fights. My friends and I did not care what religion we were born in.

There are something like 150 Million Muslims in India. How many religious skirmishes have you heard of? How many Terrorists trace India origins? 150 million Muslims is larger than populations of most middle-east countries combined.

There are Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Bahai's, Parsi's, and few other religions all living peacefully in India.

[JI7]

88. what part of gujarat are you from ?

[golfguru]

90. Vadodara

also known as Baroda.

[Ken Burch]

3. The last thing India needs is Hindu nationalism mixed with Reaganism-Thatcherism.

And I hope you'll join in denouncing the anti-Muslim pogroms when Modi starts inciting them.

All that is good and beautiful in India is now dying. May Modi be stopped before it's too late.

[DeSwiss]

4. Brutal capitalist policies, anyone?

- In my experience, corruption has no political allegiance except to itself. And Capitalism has always been worst of a bad lot.

''What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?'' ~Mahatma Gandhi

[Warpy]

30. I almost posted that last night but I'd have been spitting nails.

Here in the US, we've got extensive experience with deregulated capitalism and the privatization of essential government services.

It. does. not. work.

[dipsydoodle]

5. Guardian live updates here

"The mood is utterly jubilant" at the BJP's headquarters in Delhi Anu Anand reports above the sound of fire crackers.

The party has hired two elephants, painted with lotus symbols, to celebrate the victory, she reports. "They haven't spared any cost or symbolism to project just how well they have won," she said in a phone update.

Anu said she was surprised by the range of support expressed for the BJP including from young and old women and members of minority communities. "People feel the biggest issue is the lack of jobs and the lack of growth and Mr Modi has convinced them that he is the best option to get India's economy moving," she said.

There are reservations among Muslims who hope that Modi will govern for the whole of India not just Hindus, she said. "But people are ready for change no matter who is going to bring that change," she added.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/16/india-election-2014-results-live

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. They are also ANTI GAY

Seems like that's OK too in your mind?

http://www.workerspower.net/global-day-of-rage-against-indias-anti-gay-law

[golfguru]

68. Anti-Gay laws have been in place for decades

The newly elected BJP did not install those laws.

[fasttense]

7. Anti- Muslim, anti-gay, a "free" trader much like those here in the US

who have brought us NAFTA and CAFTA and now SHAFTA (TPP). He wants to sell off most of the country's infrastructure to for-profit corporations who will bleed them dry then dump them, leaving them in shambles. But the 1% are sure happy to have conned so many people into voting for him.

"He is blamed by many of India’s Muslims for failing to stop bloody religious riots that raged through his home state in 2002, leaving more than 1,000 people dead. Others fear he will try to quash dissent and centralize authority in a capital."

[cosmicone]

9. he is neither anti-muslim nor anti-gay

he is painted as such by the opponents.

[Ken Burch]

19. Why are you on a progressive board if you support a far-right party?

The BJP are the political wing of the RSS...the people who murdered Mahatma Gandhi.

What is your issue with multiculturalism and equality?

[cosmicone]

25. Because I am a progressive

just as Narendra Modi is a progressive by US standards.

Neither party is against secularism but BJP is against pandering and giving more rights to religious minorities than others.

In India, under congress, muslims were allowed to marry 4 women but no one else was. Parts of India had sharia law imposed which was atrocious to women and many Indian women politicians from that culture opposed the sharia but congress pandered and gave it to them anyway.

By the way, RSS did not kill Mohandas Gandhi but a special elite unit of Indian government did and not because Gandhi was a liberal but because he was insisting on actions that were detrimental to the national interests of India. Just because the person who pulled trigger happened to be from the RSS doesn't mean all of RSS was behind it.

I am for equality for all -- no pandering, quotas and special welfare subsidies to people just because they belong to a particular caste, religion or creed. I have no problem with government helping poor people regardless of their origin -- but to give money to a dalit despite him/her being rich and not helping a poor brahmin just because he/she is a brahmin is not progressive.

[Ken Burch]

28. Interesting thing to note from the Google Elections site

Modi's alliance only took about 37% of the vote(a surprisingly large 32% went to parties who aren't allied with anybody, most of which are center-left or independent left. Congress and its allies got 23% and the rest went to minor parties).

Modi only has a "landslide" because of the anti-democratic nature of the first-past-the-post electoral system...if India had proportional representation, Modi's alliance would be having to make deals with other parties to put together a government, and the discriminatory measures he supports would have to be watered-down or abandoned.

Modi's party will have an overall majority in the Lok Sahba even though over 60% of Indians rejected his hate agenda.

Modi does NOT speak for the people of India...he speaks only for his hate mob. He will end up breaking out the RSS thugs when the going gets rough for him in a couple of years.

[cosmicone]

31. that is a Rush Limbaugh argument

where he said only 40% voted for Bill Clinton, 21% for Ross Perot and 39% for Bush 41, so Clinton had no legitimacy.

[Ken Burch]

33. Bill Clinton, however, was not running on a religious and ethnic-supremacist platform

The point I was making there is that 60% or more of India's voters rejected Modi's anti-multicultural, pro-corporate agenda. This matters a lot, since Modi's supporters are going to spend the next four or five years insisting(often violently) that anypne who opposes Modi and his pro-greed, anti-coexistence agenda is "anti-Indian" or a Pakistani agent. It won't surprise me if Arundhati Roy is imprisoned or forced into exile, if not killed.

The overwhelming majority rejected Modi and all that he stands for. This matters, sine Modi's agenda is ugly, vindictive and bound to cause mass suffering.

[cosmicone]

34. like I said.. a Rush Limbaugh argument.

Arundhati Roy is just a woman looking for attention. She will be ignored. She has no support in India anyway.

[Ken Burch]

35. She helps the disposessed fight for their rights-she's a people's hero

Again, how can you call yourself a progressive if you back the rich against the poor and support the environmentally devastating megaprojects Arundhati works against?

The weirdest thing is, for all your talk of "Rush Limbaugh arguments" Modi would be Rush's dream candidate...Ted Cruz arrogance mixed with Mike Huckabee/Pat Robertson religious sanctimony, combined with a Sarah Palin-on-bath salts resource extraction policy. Modi has no humane, inclusive, tolerant or forward-looking policies on anything.

Modi's election is the death of all that Mahatma Gandhi stood for. Why would any "progressive" celebrate it? Or are pogroms no biggie as long as you can make a profit?

[cosmicone]

37. now you are doing what faux news does

that is, repeating a lie over and over and over and over until the narrator and his/her audience start believing the lie.

Arundhati only works for Arundhati and exploits people for attention.

Modi is not arrogant, has no religious sanctimony, his resourse utilization is environmetally sound and there never were any "pogroms" as determined by three separate independent inquiries.

But, keep on repeating the lies over and over.

By the way, Indira Gandhi was as decisive as Modi. Someone has to take a tough stand against Pakistan sponsored terrorism. Too bad Indira Gandhi died before she could complete her dream of balkanization of Pakistan.

[Ken Burch]

38. Destroying Pakistan is not a legitimate objective of Indian foreign policy

I'd have opposed partition at the time, but that discussion is over. The Pakistani people would be massively immiserated and no real good would come to India. Besides which, no country anywhere has the right to destroy another country.

And, if you really went there, you'd find as many reasons to balkanize India as you would to balkanize Pakistan.

Muslims in India are as Indian as Hindus, and they do not take collective orders from the Pakistani government. They are just as loyal to India as Hindus are, and have just as legitimate a right to be considered trusted and honorable members of Indian society. To insist that they are nothing but Pakistani agents, and to insist that Pakistan exists solely to fight India, are far greater "Faux News lies" than anything you've accused me of.

India needs a progressive, humane economic system run from below...not crony capitalism of the sort Modi will impose. Look at how ugly Thatcher's UK got, then multiply that by 20 or so...that's what Modi has to offer. He will leave the poor to rot and he will demonize Muslims as the Europeans of the Thirties demonized Jews. And it looks to me, from all the anti-Muslim poison you've spread in your posts, that you'd defend him all the way.

[cosmicone]

45. Again, you are fighting demons that are in your own mind.

I never said Indian muslims are any less than Indian hindus or that all Indian muslims are agents of Pakistan. From Cpl. Abdul Hamid to Lt. Haneefuddin, thousands of Indian muslims have given lives for India in wars with Pakistan and my head bows for them. But, you cannot forget the Pakistan sponsored SIMI and IM which are supported by some Indian muslims. Several terrorist acts have been committed by them with a loss of hundreds of innocent lives.

However, Pakistan, which exists solely on the basis of an Islamic identity under the two nation doctrine of the Brits is a world-wide migraine (as said by Madeleine Albright) and it doesn't serve the needs of the people of Pakistan.

Look at Bangladesh which was balkanized out of Pakistan by Indira Gandhi and how well it is functioning. So would Baluchistan, Sindhudesh, Multan, West Punjab and Khalistan. They would prosper by free trade with India and massive Indian investment that will result once the threat of war is gone.

By the way, a free Baluchistan and Sindhudesh have always been a long term foreign policy objective of India and it was suppressed because of US pressure and the weakness of Manmohan Singh. Under Modi, India won't sit idle while US funds, arms and intelligence are used by Pakistan weekly in order to kill Indians.

By the way, India will never balkanize -- the Indian identity is now rooted deeply in all corners. Pakistan tried with the Khalistan movement helped by Col. Ollie North -- but Indians put an end to it tout suite.

[Ken Burch]

42. Arundhati works for and with those who have no voice.

That's the kind of thing progressives are supposed to support. Progressives are never supposed to take the side of corporations against the powerless and the dispossessed. We're never supposed to support things like dam project that lead to massive numbers of people losing their homes without compensation, and being moved away from their homes by the use of police violence.

It's NEVER progressive to crush the poor.

[cosmicone]

46. Arundhati Roy only works for herself.

She is just a little cockroach that is best ignored.

[Ken Burch]

48. She stands with the poor...why would you call someone who does that "a cockroach"?

Why would you dehumanize one of the most positive, life-affirming people on the entire planet?

Is it because she's a woman who "doesn't know her place"?

Arundhati Roy gains nothing personally from her support for human equality and the end of the caste system.
It doesn't sell her books(in fact, it probably causes her massive losses in book sales in India itself). She does what she does because she believes it is the right thing to do. How can you call yourself "progressive" and hate her? No one but the extremely wealthy in India and the rest of the world have anything to gain from the things Arundhati opposes.

If she gets arrested for her views, will you call for her release?

If the rSS beats her or rapes her(as right-wing men in India feel entitled do to women on a regular basis), will you denounce that?

[cosmicone]

50. you will never be able

to see this obj,ectively. You have made up your mind and no amount of data will change it.

No point debating with you.

[Ken Burch]

52. You've offered no "data" on this particular point.

You've simply made the assertion that Ms. Roy is in it for herself.

Calling a human being "a cockroach" isn't debate...it's invective. And Arundhati has done nothing to deserve your derision.

If you have any actual data on this point, please feel free to present it.

[golfguru]

69. India is NOT a 2 party system!

Have you observed our local statewide elections when half a dozen candidates are running? It is normal for the winner to get 30-40% votes. India has a dozen political parties. Votes are divided among many candidates. The Congress party who has been in power for 90%+ years since independence did not receive majority votes either.

[Ken Burch]

72. I'm aware that India is a multi-party state, and that Congress did much worse than the BJP

My point was that 31.7% of the vote does NOT entitle Modi to claim to represent either "the only true Indian" point of view or even to speak as the voiceof the Hindus.

And there's a major flaw in an electoral system that gives a party less than a third of electorate choose an outright majority in parliament.

[golfguru]

74. If it gives you some comfort...

note that state of Gujerat has lots of Muslim population.
It has common border with Pakistan. The largest city in Gujerat is Ahemedabad...obviously a Muslim origin name.

Under Modi's leadership, Gujerat has prospered and created many new jobs. I am guessing his party won because people all over India want the Gujerat model duplicated. India is basically a poor country and jobs are priority one. Social issues are not as important as in more developed countries like USA. I don't know this dude, but I will be shocked and surprised if he follows any anti-Muslim agenda. India is one of the most successful model of secular country with a dozen religions co-existing peacefully.

[sabbat hunter]

80. proportional representation

is not perfect either. It can lead to unstable coalitions, lack of will to get needed reforms done and extremist coalitions. Just look at Israel and Italy for two examples.

The last time BJP was in power (over a decade ago) lead to increased growth of the middle class, higher GDP, lower inflation. Recently India has had problems with stagflation, corruption rife throughout the Congress party.

Also last time BJP was in power and began to lose that power they did not break out any thugs, nor do I think this will happen this time.

Under congress there were a limited number of families that had control over many industries and markets, so I would not exactly call their policies socialist in nature.

Modi does have links to a number of crimes against Muslims in India so he is not what I would call an ideal candidate for PM.

[fasttense]

59. Of course he is anti-Gay and anti-Muslim

just look at what he represents and how his leadership has lead to many deaths.

Just because you say otherwise does not make it so. No matter how much you want to believe your own words.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. How will the country change under Narendra Modi?

Modi campaigned on a platform of development and growth. He promised to offer a “red carpet” for investors and not more red tape. Large parts of the corporate world, both domestic and international, have supported his rise.
...
There is a clear cultural element contained within Mr Modi’s Hindu nationalist party’s plans. Under the last BJP government, school text books were changed to reflect a certain view of history and that is likely to happen again.

The manifesto also promises to build a temple in dedication to Hindu deity Lord Ram at a disputed site in Uttar Pradesh, that was once the location of a mosque. The mosque was pulled down in 1992 leading to widespread clashes between Hindus and Muslims. The BJP has also vowed to introduce a “Uniform Civil Code” that would end the use of traditional laws by religious communities. It also plans to scrap so-called Article 370 of the Constitution, which gives special status to Kashmir.
...
Mr Modi has never escaped the accusations levelled at him over the 2002 killings in Gujarat but his supporters point out there have been no communal clashes there since. During the campaign he largely stressed development and growth and said all communities would benefit form them. However, a number of his senior colleagues made communal comments and were accused of fomenting tension.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-election-2014-how-will-the-country-change-under-narendra-modi-9382268.html

Narendra Modi's journey to the front step of the prime minister's office in the heart of New Delhi has been long – and unlikely. Born in a small town in Gujarat, the western state two hours' flight from the capital, Modi comes from a caste near the bottom of the tenacious Indian social hierarchy. His parents were poor and conservative and the future prime minister helped out on the family tea stall after school. At around the age of 10 he started attending meetings of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a vast and influential Hindu revivalist conservative movement that has been banned three times in India. He only joined formally at a later date.
...
The charges that he allowed or even encouraged mob violence in 2002 in Gujarat – which he denies and which a supreme court investigation found were not supported by the evidence it was able to examine – reinforce his status as a man who is separate from the political establishment. Around 1,000 people, largely Muslim, died after 59 Hindu pilgrims were killed in an arson attack. A similar stain on a reputation would have finished the career of some – and indeed for many years he was a political pariah, internally as well as internationally. Only in the last two years have the UK, the EU and finally the US ended boycotts.

Hartosh Bal Singh, political editor of Caravan magazine, argues Modi's record, in 2002 and subsequently, boosted his appeal to a large rightwing Hindu constituency who “are not unsympathetic to the view that [Hindu] culture has not received its due and that here is a man who can stand up for Hindus and assert that they can and will rule in their country”. If Modi largely escaped judicial censure, at least one close aide was convicted of having a role in the violence, and some campaign rhetoric fuelled fears that India's likely new leader might either be prejudiced himself or happy to exploit the prejudices of others.

But there are many other factors that have contributed to Modi's victory. There is the unprecedented organisation and technical proficiency of his campaign. There is the support of the RSS, which has mobilised its millions of members to canvass as for no other candidate. There is massive funding too, which opponents say is coming from businesspeople who are close to Modi or the BJP. And there is his opposition – a Congress party that is tired after 10 years in office, tarred by successive corruption scandals and faltering growth, whose campaign has been led by the uninspiring and inexperienced Rahul Gandhi, the 43-year-old great-grandson, grandson and son of former prime ministers.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/16/narendra-modi-profile-indias-new-prime-minister

Sad to see a DUer saying "Yay for Modi", when he's a clear conservative, and talking about "brutal socialistic policies" of his opposition - that's the rhetoric of the Republicans.

[cosmicone]

10. the socialism in India was not helping anyone

but the corrupt politicians.

I formed a subsidiary in India and it is not selling any goods or services yet but has had to spend millions of rupees on nothing but red tape and archaic forms that serve no purpose at all and burn years.

Modi got rid of most of the bottlenecks in Gujrat and shown a 14% growth each year for ten years with wage increases, increases in housing and food supplies and the lowest unemployment in India.

[Ken Burch]

20. OK, so you just admitted you're a right-wing corporate type.

Last edited Sat May 17, 2014, 12:25 AM - Edit history (1)

Again, what are you doing on a progressive talk board?

Even HRC isn't down with the kind of thing Modi stands for.

Privitization is always a tragedy for workers and the poor. They always end up losing what little they had.

Congress is a bad party(I'd probably have voted for the Left Front, and while they did badly, the unallied parties that took 32% of the vote overall are generally left-of-center and could easily unite by the next election to form a progressive alternative to the far-right BJP)but the BJP are still running on the fascist assumptions that Muslims aren't really Indians and that Pakistan(even after sixty-four years)has no real right to exist.

It's a party that just wants to settle scores and hurt people.

[AnalystInParadise]

62. Yeah that's what he admitted

[Ken Burch]

64. That's what everything in his post demonstrated.

That's what ranting about "socialism" and cheerleading for privatization(which always leads to crony capitalism and misery for the poor) means.

You can't be progressive and a Reaganite/Thatcherite on economics at the same time. Especially if you also spread hatred against people of a different religion.

[AnalystInParadise]

65. Yep

You nailed him, putting words into his mouth.....You must be very proud of your mind reading abilities.

[Ken Burch]

66. I didn't put words in his mouth...it was all there.

He likes Modi because Modi helps him make money-pogrom be damned. What other interpretation is there? Certainly none that correlates to the possibility of having any recognizably progressive views. Readall this guy's posts...it's there.

Why on earth are you defending him?

[AnalystInParadise]

75. Because so far he has been a lot more fair

and impartial than you. You label people based on a post. How open minded and progressive of you. Don't respond back, you have pretty much unmasked yourself enough for most rational people.

[Ken Burch]

76. he's been spouting this right-wing anti-Muslim line in DOZENS of posts

It's not just that one.

All I'm "unmasked" as is an opponent of bigotry, right-wing nationalism, and greed.

[AnalystInParadise]

89. Well if that is true

then you are saying PBO is a supporter of bigotry, right-wing nationalism and greed since PBO just invited Mr. Modi to Washington. Is that what you are trying to say? Strange........

[Ken Burch]

91. I'm saying this woulkdn't be the first time

A U.S, president put corporate profit before human rights and the need to protect religious and ethnic minorities from persecution.

I support President Obama generally, but reject the idea that something is ok just because he's the one doing or saying it.

[IronLionZion]

11. Except for the minorities, women, gays, etc. who will be forcibly left out?

Any guesses as to which is the most right wing, murderous, anti-woman state in the country? The dude claims to "get things done" and "cut red tape" and "create jobs" but at heart he is a cruel callous old bastard.

If he actually does improve the infrastructure, sanitation, and jobs situation then we'll see. I'll believe it when I see it. In the meantime life may be a grim nightmare for certain groups of people.

[cosmicone]

13. Amazing that you have seen the inside of his heart.

What is amazing is that all this criticism is coming from people outside India who don't understand the ground reality. Minorities (dalits and muslims) are a majority in electorates especially in a state like Uttar Pradesh and no one can win without their support. So - obviously, the "minorities" that you speak of supported him because his party won almost every seat in the state of Uttar Pradesh. His party even won in majority muslim constituencies.

Indians of all creeds, colors and religions supported him and are excited about his victory.

So, regardless of the lament and despair in some quarters of DU, Modi's election has been a victory for the common man in India whose life is slated to improve with this election.

[IronLionZion]

14. He has as much heart as Dick Cheney

I don't trust the BJP. And they didn't do very well in the South or the Northeast.

http://www.google.co.in/elections/ed/in/results

We'll see what happens. I don't have high hopes.

[Dawson Leery]

15. Thanks for the link.

[Ken Burch]

17. It's not a victory for the common man that the 1% will get the people's wealth

at cut-rate prices.

[Ken Burch]

23. Here's a clue to what's in Modi's "heart".

When asked if he felt bad about the deaths of innocent people in the anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat, Modi said he felt bad in the same way a person would feel bad about a puppy being hit by a car.

Think about that.

May India someday move past Modi's blood-soaked hate politics.

[cosmicone]

26. It is not all about muslims

there are other people whose lives and opinions are also worth listening to.

Modi had no hand in the riots and he has been cleared by THREE separate independent inquiries. There was no pogrom - it was Pakistani propaganda. Modi has and always had muslim ministers in his cabinet and no less that 34 MPs from his party are of Islamic faith.

Modi's party also won a majority of muslim vote in Uttar Pradesh.

But don't let facts affect your visceral reactions.

[Ken Burch]

39. One of those "inquiries" was just a guy writing down what Modi said, without questioning any of it.

Why should we trust those "inquiries", especially since most of them were conducted while a previous BJP government was in power?

[Dawson Leery]

12. It depends. If he goes the direction of Bob Hawke and Lula

Last edited Fri May 30, 2014, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

India will see great economic improvements that will benefits the vast majority. If he goes the route of Reagan, he will be the worst Prime Minister in the nations history.

[Ken Burch]

24. There's no possible way a right-wing nationalist

could go the way of Bob Hawke and Lula.

Bob Hawke's "way" wasn't particularly pleasant, btw....his way was to abandon everything the Australian Labor Party stood for and essentially endorse the "constitutional coup" that forced the previous Labor prime minister, Gough Whitlam, out of power even though Whitlam still had a solid majority in Parliament. Whitlam privatized, bashed unions, and denouced the New Zealand Labor government for its heroic pro-peace stand in refusing to allow nuclear warships to dock at its harbors.

[cosmicone]

27. "right wing nationalist" hahahahaha

Use canned labels much?

[Ken Burch]

43. What else would you call a privatization addict who's a lifelong member of the rSS? n/t.

[tarheelsunc]

21. You get what you vote for. Enjoy it, India.

Too bad the American government won't do the right thing and uphold his visa ban. But it all depends on what country you're from I guess.

[cosmicone]

29. Obama Invites India's New Leader Modi to Visit US

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-sends-congratulations-indias-modi-23752174

Fortunately, Obama has more sense than some elements of DU.

[Ken Burch]

40. Obama is just doing what the corporations told him to do on this.

Modi will make the global rich richer and help them go on stealing India's storehouse clean, so what's the deaths of 2,000 innocent people and years of hate speech against that?

[Laelth]

32. k&r for exposure. This is significant. n/t

-Laelth

[LeftishBrit]

36. Horrible news

This is a hardline Hindu nationalist, who (at best) stood by when over 1000 people, mostly Muslims, were massacred in communal riots.

Yes, Congress are horribly corrupt and nepotistic; but that doesn't make it good news for India to get a prime minister, who looks like being at best a Pat Buchanan and in the worst-case scenario a Milosevic.

[fujiyama]

41. I don't really think it makes sense to view this victory in an an American or Western context

and it's really difficult to understand the complex history of India. While he's a "Hindu Nationalist", the labels of left and right are difficult to throw around in India. Sure, the Congress party is considered "left", but that hasn't stopped Indian politicians like Indira Gandhi from being authoritarian in the past. In this election, I don't think it was relevant to most Indians what Modi's ideology was.

More than ever, there was an overriding feeling of disgust for the sense of entitlement the Nehru-Gandhi family showed for the people. When interviewed, Rahul even claimed "poverty was a state of mind". Talk about out of touch! The corruption of the past several decades had basically reached its tipping point.

Ultimately what Modi did was give voters their own sense of empowerment - with a track record to run on. Constant promises of hand outs for farmers and the poor by Congress were not panning out and weren't sustainable ways to bring hundreds of millions out of poverty. Inflation had eaten away at many of the gains made over the past two decades. The cost of vegetables (in a nation of many vegetarians!) had climbed over 300% in a matter of ten years. Red tape and arbitrary and unpredictable taxation policies were discouraging foreign investment and entrepreneurship. On top of that, the country was reeling after a series of scandals.

From what I've read Modi ran a skilled campaign that addressed those concerns. This was an unusual election for India in that one of the parties' candidates actually had a previous record of achievement to run on (a more US-presidential style election). Since his handling of the riots in '02 (which I find pretty appalling and I think he was complicit in allowing targeted killing to occur regardless of the SC ruling there), he did prove to be a capable administrator and leader. He was wise enough to mostly focus his efforts on the economy after that. Whatever his other policies (very few in India are interested in sectarian, or as they would call it "communal" politics), the economy in Gujarat has had a growth rate of over 10% and Modi has focused his efforts on rural electrification and infrastructure development - fairly basic things. He has also attracted major corporations to invest in his state (like TATA when they built the Nano plant there).

It's impossible for us in the US and other Western countries to understand the psychology in India and many other nations. And it's also amusing to hear British and US politicians or journalists bring up the riots every time without also bringing up the train that was torched by Islamist mobs. Did that justify riots? Of course not. But it's important to give these events context. The violence didn't start in vacuum. The visa ban was also incredibly stupid - at the time, some mid ranking state department official probably needed to give cover to the Bush administration to look like they weren't just sanctioning those attacking Christians, so they found some state leader that seemed too extreme to matter nationally. So they slapped a ban - the same British and American governments that were bombing and droning the shit out of civilians in Iraq.

If Modi is smart, he'll focus on development and not be beholden to lunatics in his party that want to push a more extreme social and sectarian agenda. He'll crack down on the rampant corruption or introduce ways to combat it. India is still a socially conservative and patriarchal society and political changes won't transform how the society treats minorities and women overnight. The interesting thing is that Modi also attracted a lot of younger voters. These people aren't interested in a socially divisive agenda. They want jobs, dignity and a better infrastructure (electricity, water, and roads). Whether he can deliver on these promises remains to be seen.

[Ken Burch]

44. Opposing Modi doesn't mean being an apologist for the Congress Party

or the Nehru/Gandhi dynasty(btw, for those who don't know this, in India, having the last name "Gandhi" doesn't mean you're related to Mohandas K. Gandhi, the spiritual leader of the Indian independence movement and the creator of the concept of nonviolent resistence as we currently know it..."Gandhi" is pretty much as common a name in India as "Smith" or "Jones" is here).

Other opposition parties, many of them to the left of Congress, made significant gains in the election.

And it must be emphasized that popular support for Modi's party is much, much lower than their showing in the seat count would indicate. The BJP only took about 31.7% of the popular vote. The reason they won an outright majority of seats is that their support was concentrated heavily in a fairly small number of strongholds, the most Hindu-supremacist areas of the country(such as Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh). They won no seats in Kerala, a traditional progressive secular stronghold, and were rejected in many secular/progressive/multiculturalist areas. If India's parliament was elected by the democratic method of proportional representation, rather than the anti-democratic "first-past-the-post" system India inherited from the British tradition, Modi would need to form a coalition with several other parties, and would have to be much more moderate than he will be now.

I suggest that everyone study the history of the rSS(the "provisional wing" of the BJP...in other words, its shock troops)to see the kinds of tactics Modi's supporters are likely to use in the next couple of years as massive discontent with Modi's far-right policies erupts. It's going to get ugly, and free speech may not exist in India after a few more years.

And as to the "train that was torched by an Islamist mob"...to this day, the cause of the train fire has not been determined. Therefore, blaiming any "mob" for the fire is a demogogic lie. And even if such a mob had set such a fire, none of the 2,000 people killed in the subsuquent anti-Muslim pogrom that Modi refused to send out the police to stop had anything to do with that mob. They were just ordinary people who happened to be Muslim. You can't blame ALL Muslims for what a "mob" of a few may have done, anymore than you can blame all Hindus for the anti-Muslim pogrom that followed(many Hindus denounced the pogrom and those who committed it, and millions of Hindus across India refused to vote for Modi).

[cosmicone]

47. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Many on DU just parrot the Pakistani talking points and cannot see beyond riots.

In my experience, Indian muslims are wonderful people and I consider them my brothers and sisters. We share the same DNA because almost all Indian muslims are forcibly converted hindus in the 13th through 16th centuries. As long as they (and everyone else) keeps their faith within their family and their houses of worship, there is no problem. Just like in the US, when they try to ram their faith down other people's throats, problems occur.

The West cannot understand that like the Bamiyan buddhas, several Hindu holy sites were desecrated and mosques built in their place in the 13th through 16th centuries. Hindus have every right to rebuild those sites the way they were and move the mosques a block away, with taxpayers paying for the move.

[JI7]

49. you seriously think mosques should be destroyed because of what happened hundreds of years ago ?

and hindu temples built in it's place with tax payer money.

[cosmicone]

51. i didn't say they should be destroyed

But moved a block away at taxpayers' expense.

Hindus can pay for rebuilding the temples the way they were before the brutal and illegal desecration.

[JI7]

53. that's stupid

[Ken Burch]

56. You can't punish Muslims now for what was done six to nine centuries ago.

No Muslim today is responsible for that, and forcibly moving their mosques is desecration. It's the best way to whip up religious warfare(which the thuggees in the rSS would like, since they see it as their chance to create a Muslimrein India).

If Modi is proposing the destruction of mosques today because of act that occurred hundreds of years ago, he's far from simply a well-meaning technocrat seeking economic growth for all.

[cosmicone]

58. moving a mosque from holiest

of Hindu sites where temples once stood is NOT desecration of a mosque. Moving the mosques a half a block or a block should be welcome to most muslims in the interest of brotherhood with hindus.

Unlike a temple, a mosque doesn't contain any idols to desecrate. It is just a building for worship.

The only people that oppose this are the ones who want the mosque to remain on top of what is sacred to the Hindus.

[JI7]

61. it sure isn't sacred to me, i find a lot of those holy men to be frauds , one reason india is a mess

[Ken Burch]

54. None of this has anything to do with Pakistan.

It's not as if the only possible positions are pro-Modi or pro-Pakistan. And you don't have to be pro-Pakistan to oppose the anti-Muslim pogrom Modi abetted in Gujarat by making spurious claims as to who was responsible for a train fire.

Over 62% of the voters rejected Modi's alliance in this election. Are you saying that 62% of the votes cast in the Indian general election were cast by Pakistanis?

I deeply dislike the current Pakistani government. But it's silly and offensive to say that, because that government is bad, Pakistan shouldn't exist as a unified country. Pakistan exists because its population wishes it to exist. The answer is to support democratic forces in Pakistan, NOT to wipe Pakistan off the map. Please move on on that point already.

[Ken Burch]

55. Muslims are Muslims because they wish to BE Muslims.

It's silly to say somebody forced them to be Muslims.

It's likely that there are a lot of Hindus who are descended from people forced to convert from other faiths(such as Zoroastrianism) or forced back into Hinduism after converting to other faiths(as probably happened to a lot of people descended from Indian Buddhists or Christians or Jews).

Islam is not an illegitimate religion, and has no monopoly on theological conversion.

You reveal your bigotry with every post. Do go on. The mask slips a little more each time.

[cosmicone]

57. you call historically accurate statements

as bigotry!

Hinduism is the oldest religion in South Asia if not the world. There is no mechanism to convert someone to become a Hindu. One becomes a Hindu by birth.

Buddism arose out of Hinduism and the two share common philosophies. Buddism is far younger in time than Hinduism.

The history of atrocities committed by muslim invaders in India with rapes, plunder, brutal bloodbaths and genocides are well documented.

Google Babur, Mohammad Gaznavi, Shiraz ud Daulah, Sher Khan, Qutubuddin Aibak, Nadir Shah, Ahmed Shah Abdali and Malik Q'affur. you'll see what Islamic invaders did to India, something that all history texts should describe in detail. In comparison, the British and other Europeans only looted and left the religion pretty much alone.

In any event, the area was vastly resides by Hindus in 1000 ACE and it went from 0 to 12% muslim in 200 years. You think it happened without force and brutality despite historical evidence of forced conversions?

[JI7]

60. hindus rape also, look at what is going on now, but you claim the rape going on is pakistani talking

points.

[cosmicone]

77. I was writing about systematic

and collective rape as a tool of war and religious conversion which is predominantly used by invading muslim armies historically.

In what is now Bangladesh, Pakistani soldiers raped 3 million women for example.

In this context, "Hindus rape also" is a junior-high type argument.

[JI7]

81. it makes you upset when horrible things done right now to women are brought up

as for systemic , look at the difference in birth rate of boys and girls. when you have a mentality of viewing females as less i guess you can excuse the rape and other horrible treatment.

instead go back hundreds of years and try to make yourself into some victim and blame people today for it.

the way wingnuts always do when they bring up some stupid shit to excuse their current hate.

[cosmicone]

83. You are just throwing mud at the wall hoping something will stick.

I didn't write "systemic" - I wrote "systematic" and historically, muslim invaders have used rape as a weapon of war far outweighing all other invaders. The brits also invaded India but didn't systematically rape Indian women like the Muslim invaders did.

The shoe fits. You may not like it but that is historically correct. Read up on the muslim invaders of India on google and historical accounts of how Hindus were forcibly converted.

[JI7]

84. so now you justify treating women like shit because it was worse hundreds of years ago

when muslims did it.

that's some fucked up shit

[cosmicone]

86. when did I justify treating women like shit?

I have never stated that sista. I am against sharia law which the Modi government will probably ban alongwith bigamy which is currently allowed for Indian muslims. That protects women.

[JI7]

87. oh, so you blame HINDUS huge difference in boy and girl births on Shariah Law

HAHAHAHHAHHA

[AnalystInParadise]

63. Seriously???

Wow..............

http://www.ibtimes.com/pakistans-hindus-outraged-over-forced-conversions-young-girls-islam-1556112

Yep......silly

[cosmicone]

78. +1,000,000 nt

[golfguru]

71. You show remarkable knowlede of India..congrats!

Modi succeeded in this election because what he accomplished for the state of Gujerat as chief minister. (which is same as governor in US).

People in India obviously wanted the Gujerat model duplicated for the whole country.

[KamaAina]

79. So you're cool with a violent racist?

Who was once denied a visa to enter the U.S.? Because you like his economic policies?

[cosmicone]

82. He is neither violent nor a racist

The visa was denied because of Pakistan's whining. He has been cleared of any wrongdoing by three independent inquiries including one by the Indian Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, Pakistan told the lie often enough that many people have become closed-minded about it. What is not told is that the riots started because Pakistani and some local muslim terrorists killed about a hundred Hindu pilgrims by setting fire to their railway coach and locking the doors from outside at Godhra. Modi had nothing to do with the riots.

Hindu-Muslim riots are not uncommon in India and are usually triggered by some muslim nutcases/terrorists desecrating a Hindu idol or temple. It is not much different from the Rodney King related riots in South Central LA. Did anyone hold the governor of California responsible for those riots or the Watts riots?

[Ken Burch]

92. This has nothing to do with Pakistan.

And your insistence on equating anti-Modi feeling with Pakistani sympathies is a form of McCarthyism.

Remember, over 62% of the voters in India rejected Modi's electoral alliance, including a large bloc of Hindu voters.

[cosmicone]

93. Indians overwhelmingly elected Modi

and his party .. with an outright majority unseen since the sympathy election of 1984.

All across India there were jubilation in all quarters -- people celebrating Modi's swearing in today like it was Diwali. Live with it and move on ... Sympathizing for Pakistan on DU will no good because even Nawaz Sharif (PM of Pakistan) attended the swearing in of Modi accepting India as the de facto regional leader. My unsolicited advice is "get over it."

[Ken Burch]

94. Again, I don't sympathize with Pakistan, and neither do any of the anti-Modi majority in India.

And you know it.

[AnalystInParadise]

85. Must not be that big a deal

PBO just invited him to Washington...........I sense these charges were overblown if they are even true. PBO would not invite a violent racist to the White House, unless you are claiming he is? Mahalo for reading.