Indian Far-right

[kepler37b]

12 minutes ago, zen said:

Where there is a will, there is a way. If India cannot do much even in subcon to safeguard Hindus, people will begin to look at this as election drama. 
 

BJP Stooges have become out of control as well. There was a tweet on Rahul where he spoke about Jalebi factories where factory is used to refer as a place where something is made. The tweet focused on a mundane aspect such as he does not even know that Jalabis are not made in factories. These guys on social media keep hitting new lows.

I see a bleak future for bhaarat. The optimistic nationalists are often the ones cozying up in their 3000sq ft San fransisco homes. With a green card and a OCI card in their document files.

 

The caste fault lines have widened and retards like Congressis will clamour for forced wealth transfer from GCs to other castes. They are already asking for a rise in reservations from 50 percent.

 

 

 

 

 

[zen]

4 minutes ago, kepler37b said:

I see a bleak future for bhaarat. The optimistic nationalists are often the ones cozying up in their 3000sq ft San fransisco homes. With a green card and a OCI card in their document files.

 

The caste fault lines have widened and retards like Congressis will clamour for forced wealth transfer from GCs to other castes. They are already asking for a rise in reservations from 50 percent.

 

 

Another potential issue for BJP is that it could have begun to sideline RSS, which does work on the ground. 
 

I won’t be surprised if BJP seats fall below 200 in next elections unless some special event happens. 
 

The opportunity to unite people based on Hinduism is probably slipping away. No wonder people will divert their attention on the region, caste, cities, etc. 
 

 

[coffee_rules]

5 hours ago, kepler37b said:

I am not sure it is going to change.

 

Diversity breeds low trust and low trust results in inward looking petty selfishness.

 

As I see now, there are groups that are exploiting the hindutva sentiment. A group of people that are promoting their economic interests under the garb of Swadeshi sentiment. 

I am looking beyond BJP for Hindutva. Inse nahi ho payega. There is a strong undercurrent that Hindutva will unite the country. Hopefully BJP breaks and a garam-dil faction takes over in 10-15 years. Start looking beyond caste to begin with. 

[Lannister]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

I am looking beyond BJP for Hindutva. Inse nahi ho payega. There is a strong undercurrent that Hindutva will unite the country. Hopefully BJP breaks and a garam-dil faction takes over in 10-15 years. Start looking beyond caste to begin with. 

What exactly does Hindutva mean? How do you envision India under Hindutva? Could you elaborate further. 

[zen]

At the moment, there are too many bad apples and stakeholders to move the country in any new direction. India will remain more or less in status quo in the near future.
 

If you call yourself a party for Hindus (by and large depending on Hindu votes), you cannot discriminate among Hindus. When Hindus in BD are in deep trouble, you make them foreign citizens (and do the CAA drama to show that persecuted minorities in the subcon are welcomed by India. And when a crisis erupts, depend on excuses including citing reasons such as X scheme expired and so on). 
 

In Manipur, Hindus become Manipuris when they are being targeted by other groups. 

“We can’t do anything right now” is the line and then look for some excuse and/or scapegoat, forgetting that where there is a will, there is a way. 

 

When voted in power, a party has a choice to either become an administrator or a leader. BJP showcased itself as leader but acted as an administrator.

 

Talking about administration, the issues with corruption, inflation, etc., crop up!

Needs to pull up its socks! … In the 3rd consecutive term, people could judge you with even higher standards. 

Edited October 6 by zen

[coffee_rules]

4 hours ago, Lannister said:

What exactly does Hindutva mean? How do you envision India under Hindutva? Could you elaborate further. 

Starting with nation building. Pakistan was formed in Islamic character. India should have formed a with stronger bond based on a civilizational heritage. Don’t call Hindu Rastra if you don’t like, but a nation with a strong cultural heritage that unites all Indians and they rally behind. The secularists were interested to accommodate the Muslims left behind. Hindu kingdoms always was a plural society where all religions were treated equally (not secular) . Install mutual respect the basis of coexistence.  One law for all religions and no appeasement of anybody. Society  should be casteless, reservations for 2 generations only. This is the definition of Hindutva by many early thinkers and many Dharmics of that generation totally decayed by secularists. 

[Muloghonto]

18 hours ago, Lannister said:

Hyper-nationalism, religio-fascism and the dismantling of democratic norms and institutions are just a few examples.

So then your islamists and church cabaal. Noted. 

Thank you for outing the real menace to the world and India. 

 

[ravishingravi]

Perhaps I shared this already. 

 

There was someone like @Lannister , a french lady, who loved India but detested the fact that it was controlled by far right. But like OP, her reasoning couldn't go beyond vomiting the same talking points. 

 

Here is a history lesson for @Lannister. The term far right stems from post world war Europe and the new world order set by US. The synopsis for Europe was that extremism ( whether communism or nationalism ) was the root cause. In order to avoid future rise of extreme power, they should build moderate left and moderate conservative who should alternatively occupy power to prevent rise of discontent. 

 

So, in France, Marie La Penn, is considered far right by this establishment which believes it wants moderation. When I asked the french lady, tell me one policy of Marie Le Penn which makes her far right, she couldn't mention one. She said immigration but no specifics here. When asked why Melonchon from LFI ( leftist communist wing ) is not called far left, she didn't have an answer. 

 

Now for the India question, I asked her if a party in India bans the law that allows of divorce of married muslim woman without guarantee of alimony or a party that has done largest welfare program in the country's history, the party which is asking for equal rights and same civil laws for people of all religions i.e. UCC, would you call that party a far right party. She said no. But said look at what is being done to Muslim. My questions, what is being done to Muslims ? Highest hajj subsidy in recorded history ( not in france ), highest govt scholarship ever, 40% beneficiary of all welfare of schemes from central govt in India. Ok there could be an incident here or there but I could sight two other incidents from other side for every such incident. Data doesn't support any major shift. 

 

Lets be honest. People are dumb and zombies. Programmed early to work on emotion and guilt. It takes serious intelligence to cut through narrative and focus on facts. Not to win the argument, but just seek the truth. 

Edited October 7 by ravishingravi

[diga]

1 hour ago, ravishingravi said:

Perhaps I shared this already. 

 

 

Now for the India question, I asked her if a party in India bans the law that allows of divorce of married muslim woman without guarantee of alimony or a party that has done largest welfare program in the country's history, the party which is asking for equal rights and same civil laws for people of all religions i.e. UCC, would you call that party a far right party. She said no. But said look at what is being done to Muslim. My questions, what is being done to Muslims ? Highest hajj subsidy in recorded history ( not in france ), highest govt scholarship ever, 40% beneficiary of all welfare of schemes from central govt in India. Ok there could be an incident here or there but I could sight two other incidents from other side for every such incident. Data doesn't support any major shift. 

 

 

 

Another example being Kashmir... Central govt established biggest AIIMS hospital. Built lakhs of houses for poor. Gave farmer subsidy worth 1000s of crores. Rail & road projects worth 1000s of crores. Free LPG cylinders. Included Kashmiri as official language. Still 3% voteshare according to exit polls 

 

 

 

[Lannister]

13 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Starting with nation building. Pakistan was formed in Islamic character. India should have formed a with stronger bond based on a civilizational heritage. Don’t call Hindu Rastra if you don’t like, but a nation with a strong cultural heritage that unites all Indians and they rally behind. The secularists were interested to accommodate the Muslims left behind. Hindu kingdoms always was a plural society where all religions were treated equally (not secular) . Install mutual respect the basis of coexistence.  One law for all religions and no appeasement of anybody. Society  should be casteless, reservations for 2 generations only. This is the definition of Hindutva by many early thinkers and many Dharmics of that generation totally decayed by secularists. 

Why would a secularist oppose the implementation of a uniform law? The BJP has been in power for over 10 years and hasn’t enacted it yet. Blaming ordinary people for corrupt politicians is childish.

 

Regarding reservations, I believe in meritocracy and I certainly don’t support reservations in the private sector. But for this to work, you should first convince SC and ST communities as they make up a significant portion of the population.

 

As for culture, I don't see anything wrong. We’re moving in the right direction and the concerns you raise seem to be more imagined than real.

[BacktoCricaddict]

22 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Pakistan was formed in Islamic character. India should have formed a with stronger bond based on a civilizational heritage.

Pakistan was formed in Islamic character. See how that turned out.

 

India should stay focused on just 3 things - development, development, development. 

 

While taking pride in heritage and past accomplishments of people we never met is all well and good, pride in today's nation should come from one thing: economic upliftment of today's people. Increased industrial productivity, freedom from disease, agricultural yields and strong basic living standards for all. Culture and everything else will take care of itself.

 

Edited October 7 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

29 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Pakistan was formed in Islamic character. See how that turned out.

 

India should stay focused on just 3 things - development, development, development. 

 

While taking pride in heritage and past accomplishments of people we never met, pride in today's nation should come from one thing: economic upliftment of today's people. Increased industrial productivity, freedom from disease, agricultural yields and strong basic living standards for all. Culture and everything else will take care of itself.

 

Strongly disagree. There is no evidence that a Hindu Rashtra means Hindu Pakistan. This is the ghissa pita Shahshi Tharoor argument. Not all relgions are same and not all extremisms are equal, not all nationalisms are evil. There is no evidence that Hindu armies went on a rampage and converted widespread population to Hinduism. 
 

We are talking about how strong nations are built around pride and identity. It is the basic ingredient missing in Indians in general. No issue on focus on development development development. We can focus development while building some strong National bonds. It is only supplemental 

Edited October 7 by coffee_rules

[BacktoCricaddict]

18 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Strongly disagree. There is no evidence that a Hindu Rashtra means Hindu Pakistan. This is ghissa pita Shahshi Tharoor argument. Not all relugions are same and not all extremisms are equal, not all nationalisms are evil. There is no evidence that Hindu armies went on a rampage and converted widespread population to Hinduism. 
 

We are talking about how strong nations are built around pride and identity. It is the basic ingredient missing in Indians in general. No issue on focus on development development development. We can focus development while building some strong National bonds. It is only supplemental 

 

I would imagine that we could build national pride around what we do for people today. Not to the exclusion of culture and heritage, but those latter items don't need to be at the forefront, IMO.

 

 

[zen]

38 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

India should stay focused on just 3 things - development, development, development. 

For 70+ years, people have been saying the same thing. After 70 more years, it could still be the line. A better focus could be to control the population that is putting enormous pressure on resources and opportunities.

 

Focusing on those topics does not mean that people not worry about their culture, religion, nation, etc. 

 

The focus for many is on living in a good cultural society whether the country is developed or underdeveloped. 
 

 

Edited October 7 by zen

[BacktoCricaddict]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

The focus for many is on living in a good cultural society whether the country is developed or undeveloped. 

 

I have a much more utilitarian view.

 

Real power, real pride comes from economic upliftment and improving standards of living. That includes limiting population growth, reduction of pollution (not just CO2), providing running water, electricity, and good sanitation facilities for all, decreasing infant and maternal mortality and rates of infectious diseases, and giving the opportunity for all to make a decent living, own property etc. etc.

 

India is already making strides, and while there is a long way to go, those strides should be our main point of pride and unity. That doesn't mean we should give up culture, but when people are prosperous, culture, arts etc will thrive.

 

I guess I am not into glorifying the past. Let's focus on building a glorious future.

 

 

[zen]

19 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

I have a much more utilitarian view.

 

Real power, real pride comes from economic upliftment and improving standards of living. That includes limiting population growth, reduction of pollution (not just CO2), providing running water, electricity, and good sanitation facilities for all, decreasing infant and maternal mortality and rates of infectious diseases, and giving the opportunity for all to make a decent living, own property etc. etc.

 

India is already making strides, and while there is a long way to go, those strides should be our main point of pride and unity. That doesn't mean we should give up culture, but when people are prosperous, culture, arts etc will thrive.

 

I guess I am not into glorifying the past. Let's focus on building a glorious future.

 

 

There is no this or that. One can do this and also that. One cannot wait to finish X to do Y. 
 

Let’s say India does not develop like it should for the next 200 years, should people ignore their culture, religion, etc.?  So in 200 years everything is gone!
 

After 200 years, there would still be a need to develop - some new version of iPhone (or equivalent) could be coming out in 201st year, a new technology to filter water could have made the current system obsolete and relatively unhygienic (and unable to prevent a new waterborne disease), and so on.  
 

The development game is like a carrot behind which the hare keeps on running. It loses its focus on life because it has to develop. The destination never arrives.

 

Edited October 7 by zen

[coffee_rules]

32 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

I would imagine that we could build national pride around what we do for people today. Not to the exclusion of culture and heritage, but those latter items don't need to be at the forefront, IMO.

 

 

 

This is a euro-centric view. National pride is not wrong. It will stop the arguments of our nation's character rather than statements like India was never a country before 1947. We didn't drop out of heaven in 1947 and started a new country. Exceptionalism is the basis of all strong counties. Developed counties have done it in the past and in the post-modern world they preach about losing national boundaries so that the developing world stays developing. China has negated such narrative and have gone ahead with their own exceptionalism.

Edited October 7 by coffee_rules

[zen]

4 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It will stop the arguments of our nation's character rather than statements like India was never a country before 1947.

India was never a country before 1947. It was a region. The British India included Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc.

[coffee_rules]

1 minute ago, zen said:

India was never a country before 1947. It was a region. The British India included Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, etc.

 

Yes, India was never a country before 1947, but we were a cultural Rashtra having a strong bond to sanatan dharma values. Post-1947 we don't start afresh like Pakistan did in 1947, we base our values on the Indian civilizational state. There was no reason to forget that. Having a common cultural identity doesn't mean we negate all religions. We go with the same mutual respect. The Bristishers didn't civilize us as believed by many here.

[zen]

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

 

Yes, India was never a country before 1947, but we were a cultural Rashtra having a strong bond to sanatan dharma values. Post-1947 we don't start afresh like Pakistan did in 1947, we base our values on the Indian civilizational state. There was no reason to forget that. Having a common cultural identity doesn't mean we negate all religions. We go with the same mutual respect. The Bristishers didn't civilize us as believed by many here.

Rashtra = nation

Sabhiata = culture 

Dharam = religion 

 

Many European countries share similar culture and religion. Therefore, having common culture and religion does not make those European countries a single nation. 
 

The region was never a one nation. Many times, there were empires that covered a large part of the region such as the Mughal Empire, the Maurya Empire, etc. 

 

One of the reasons the British could rule over the region is because it was made up of many small nations.