Sachin=GOD Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 ]Muslims will not vote for BJP in that case as well. We hear about Modi's future presence in UP polarizing the state but Advani' date=' one of the main saffron leaders during Babri is acceptable ?[/b'] Is that because he praised Jinnah, the main architect of the divide between Hindus and Muslims in the entire subcontinent ? That sounds like a messed up idea. Its just Modi-phobia that makes other parties start respecting Advani as some secular leader. the reason as to why Advani is seen as more acceptable to the allies and event o many people is because he doesn't have a dictatorial style and is seen as someone who can actually run a coalition Govt and has the ability to take everyone together. Also, his name doesn't instil fear in the minds of the minorities like Modi's name does.
Clarke Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 the reason as to why Advani is seen as more acceptable to the allies and event o many people is because he doesn't have a dictatorial style and is seen as someone who can actually run a coalition Govt and has the ability to take everyone together. He's acceptable to the allies maybe in comparison to Modi but nowhere as an absolute. The same communal card could be played if he assumes leadership of the campaign. Also, his name doesn't instil fear in the minds of the minorities like Modi's name does. Gets you zero additional muslim votes. What makes him better in the eyes of the muslim voter with the Ayodhya baggage in his hand and the secular bandwagon opposing him ?
ravishingravi Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Muslims will not vote for BJP in that case as well. We hear about Modi's future presence in UP polarizing the state but Advani, one of the main saffron leaders during Babri is acceptable ? Is that because he praised Jinnah, the main architect of the divide between Hindus and Muslims in the entire subcontinent ? That sounds like a messed up idea. Its just Modi-phobia that makes other parties start respecting Advani as some secular leader. I am not denying that. But perception matters in politics. I guess you are right thought. Dont see too many muslims voting for BJP either ways. Although 25% of muslims in Gujarat did vote for him. But I guess they were water boarded to do that.
Sachin=GOD Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 He's acceptable to the allies maybe in comparison to Modi but nowhere as an absolute. The same communal card could be played if he assumes leadership of the campaign. Gets you zero additional muslim votes. What makes him better in the eyes of the muslim voter with the Ayodhya baggage in his hand and the secular bandwagon opposing him ? Sharad Yadav said at the time of splitting with BJP that JDU may later on consider joining NDA again if AdvaniJi is the leader. Even in case of potential allies like Patnaik, Mamta or even Mayawati, Advani's name would be much, much more acceptable than Modi. But in case of Modi there's now a very real risk of a substantial polarization of Muslim votes (even the Intelligence Bureau reports are saying so) and that means a big advantage to Cong. Since the early 1990s Advani seems to have worked to make himself acceptable and he is certainly not seen as the poster boy of Hindutva now - an image which Modi has currently. In such a scenario its not that big a surprise that he's more acceptable to the minorities than Modi.
Sachin=GOD Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 I am not denying that. But perception matters in politics. I guess you are right thought. Dont see too many muslims voting for BJP either ways. Although 25% of muslims in Gujarat did vote for him. But I guess they have were water boarded to do that. I can't say for the rest of the country but at least in UP the Muslims just do not like the idea of Modi coming to power and this has resulted in probably the most substantial polarization and communal tensions since the early 1990s.
ravishingravi Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Sharad Yadav said at the time of splitting with BJP that JDU may later on consider joining NDA again if AdvaniJi is the leader. Even in case of potential allies like Patnaik, Mamta or even Mayawati, Advani's name would be much, much more acceptable than Modi. But in case of Modi there's now a very real risk of a substantial polarization of Muslim votes (even the Intelligence Bureau reports are saying so) and that means a big advantage to Cong. Since the early 1990s Advani seems to have worked to make himself acceptable and he is certainly not seen as the poster boy of Hindutva now - an image which Modi has currently. In such a scenario its not that big a surprise that he's more acceptable to the minorities than Modi. What has Modi done to promote the Hindutva image ? I would say Advani talks about Ram temple and uniform civil code more openly. From what I have been able to gather, Hindutva voters are disappointed in Modi and seriously question his hindutva credentials. This is a media and secularist created image. And yes, they have done a very good job of it.
The Outsider Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 I am not denying that. But perception matters in politics. I guess you are right thought. Dont see too many muslims voting for BJP either ways. Although 25% of muslims in Gujarat did vote for him. But I guess they were water boarded to do that. Source? saneindian was asking in another thread why the Vanzara and CD case are not being discussed on ICF - with rabid supporters of Modi as shown in the last few posts, what is the point? Chalo, even for a moment one accept that Sohrabuddin and many others were terrorists and killing them off through a criminal act is okay, where does Kaiserbi fit into it? Modi has all the hallmarks of fascism, and yet the so called educated class of India gives him support.
Crookbond Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 A Conversation With: Goa Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar from NY times India blog I am a perfect Hindu, but that is my personal faith, it has nothing to do with government. India is a Hindu nation in the cultural sense [Hindus are 82 percent of the population]. A Catholic in Goa is also Hindu culturally, because his practices don’t match with Catholics in Brazil [a former Portuguese outpost like Goa]; except in the religious aspect, a Goan Catholic’s way of thinking and practice matches a Hindu’s. So Hindu for me is not a religious term, it is cultural. Wow! :hatsoff:
randomGuy Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva According to a 1995 Supreme Court of India judgement the word Hindutva could be used to mean "the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos".
The Outsider Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 Wow! :hatsoff: The level of lunacy is astounding, but what is more astounding is that they can't even decide on a definition - one person says all Indians are Hindus, another says that he was born a Hindu and is a nationalist, so he is a Hindu Nationalist. :hysterical:
randomGuy Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 1. Culturally more Hindu than Christian - perfectly fine comment. 2. By Hindu-Nationalist, Modi meant a Nationalist who is a Hindu.
asterix Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 1. Culturally more Hindu than Christian - perfectly fine comment. 2. By Hindu-Nationalist, Modi meant a Nationalist who is a Hindu. A nationalist is a nationalist... Does religion matters?
The Outsider Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 1. Culturally more Hindu than Christian - perfectly fine comment. What is Christian culture? Christianity is a religion spread across different cultures. 2. By Hindu-Nationalist, Modi meant a Nationalist who is a Hindu. LOL! So a girlfriend is a friend who is a girl? :hysterical:
Crookbond Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 The level of lunacy is astounding' date=' but what is more astounding is that they can't even decide on a definition - one person says all Indians are Hindus, another says that he was born a Hindu and is a nationalist, so he is a Hindu Nationalist. :hysterical:[/quote'] From what I understand, Parrikar is saying that his culture and/or religion has got nothing to do with his ideology for the government. He is trying to make an assertion that catholics in Goa are more Hindu than a Portuguese. Reading between the lines, I think Parrikar tries to mention that politics should be kept separate from personal beliefs/faiths. I do not want to get into the discussion of what is Hinduism (for the very fear that the great Chomsky's on our bulletin board will then try to market it and prove "mine is bigger than yours" to derail the discussion) but I like that someone is mentioning something like separation of religion and state. This is much better than the typical "yatra" and "hamara dharm brasht ho gaya" brigade who will look at every opportunity to belittle other personal faith/religions.
The Outsider Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 From what I understand' date=' Parrikar is saying that his culture and/or religion has got nothing to do with his ideology for the government. He is trying to make an assertion that catholics in Goa are more Hindu than a Portuguese. Reading between the lines, I think Parrikar tries to mention that politics should be kept separate from personal beliefs/faiths. I do not want to get into the discussion of what is Hinduism (for the very fear that the great Chomsky's on our bulletin board will then try to market it and prove "mine is bigger than yours" to derail the discussion) but I like that someone is mentioning something like separation of religion and state. This is much better than the typical "yatra" and "hamara dharm brasht ho gaya" brigade who will look at every opportunity to belittle other personal faith/religions.[/quote'] How is it even remotely segregation of religion and state when he brands Hinduism as a culture and Christians as Hindus? Hinduism is not a culture, regardless of what the Supreme Court says. It is a religion. There is an Indian culture or a Goan culture but they cannot be interchanged with a "Hindu culture". Forget about India, even within Hinduism you will struggle to find a uniform "culture". Even some of the very basic tenets of that "culture" like non consumption of beef is not followed by a significant number of the Hindu population.
Crookbond Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 How is it even remotely segregation of religion and state when he brands Hinduism as a culture and Christians as Hindus? Hinduism is not a culture' date= regardless of what the Supreme Court says. It is a religion. There is an Indian culture or a Goan culture but they cannot be interchanged with a "Hindu culture". Forget about India, even within Hinduism you will struggle to find a uniform "culture". Even some of the very basic tenets of that "culture" like non consumption of beef is not followed by a significant number of the Hindu population. You're right that is up for discussion. I just liked the fact there is some talk towards it both ways - it may be total populist mechanism to drive votes.
randomGuy Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 What is Christian culture? Christianity is a religion spread across different cultures. culture (in any country in the world) where there is dominant influence of their Christian population on their way of life. And if you consider all such countries, you will find substantial commonality in their cultures. Goan Culture as per Parikar, is similar to the rest of India(where the dominant influence is of Majority Hindu population) LOL! So a girlfriend is a friend who is a girl? :hysterical: A nationalist is a nationalist... Does religion matters? Someone asked him - Is he a Hindu-nationalist? . He says yes because he is a Hindu and a nationalist :cantstop:. Now I am not endorsing his definition but obviously, he doesn't mean that he thinks India should be for Hindus only.
The Outsider Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 culture (in any country in the world) where there is dominant influence of their Christian population on their way of life. And if you consider all such countries, you will find substantial commonality in their cultures. What is common between the culture of Uganda and Italy? Goan Culture as per Parikar, is similar to the rest of India(where the dominant influence is of Majority Hindu population) Goan culture is vastly different from Punjabi culture. Someone asked him - Is he a Hindu-nationalist? . He says yes because he is a Hindu and a nationalist :cantstop:. Now I am not endorsing his definition but obviously, he doesn't mean that he thinks India should be for Hindus only. Well, the question is about his definition, which quite frankly is rubbish. Hindu Nationalist can and has been interpreted in different ways, yeah, but being born a Hindu and being a nationalist as being the same as a Hindu Nationalist is certainly not one of them till Modi applied his genius to it.
randomGuy Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 What is common between the culture of Uganda and Italy? I don't know anything about Ugandan culture, I know there's substantial commonality in North American, European, South American and even Filipino way of life... Anyways with globalization, we are slowly moving towards evolution of all cultures to more common cultures around the world. Goan culture is vastly different from Punjabi culture. There are cultures within culture. Maybe he meant that it is similar to what is shown on TV, movies n stuff and what broadly comes across as representative of indian culture(in terms of values, food, attire, festivals, rituals etc) to the outside world as well as to us Indians Well, the question is about his definition, which quite frankly is rubbish. Hindu Nationalist can and has been interpreted in different ways, yeah, but being born a Hindu and being a nationalist as being the same as a Hindu Nationalist is certainly not one of them till Modi applied his genius to it. sure, but dont kill him for mis-understanding a term.
saneindian Posted September 5, 2013 Posted September 5, 2013 the reason as to why Advani is seen as more acceptable to the allies and event o many people is because he doesn't have a dictatorial style and is seen as someone who can actually run a coalition Govt and has the ability to take everyone together. Also' date=' his name doesn't instil fear in the minds of the minorities like Modi's name does.[/quote'] Advani's time is over. Should have gracefully conceded defeat and retired after 2009 rather than being a petulant patriarch that he's become now. With Advani as PM candidate in 2009 and pitched against a govt facing a lot of incumbency and battling multiple issues (price rise and terrorism being the main ones), Advani successfully got the BJP to its lowest tally since 1989. Ran a completely insipid campaign with the cadre in large areas not at all enthused, doing minimal work on strengthening the organization in the run up to the elections despite being named the PM candidate 12+ months in advance. Also, unlike last time, this time the BJP is focusing on strengthening the booth committees with the aim to have a committee of 10 people per booth on at least 350+ seats it has won at some point in last 3 elections. And going by reports in the media, in states like Maharashtra, Rajasthan, UP, Bihar the work is making a good progress. They seem to have at least a a focused strategy (though very formative) for their key battle states like UP, Bihar and Rajasthan. Majority view in the party is to ensure they get to 170-180 seats first. With Advani, Sushma , Jaitley or anyone else, there's simply no chance of that happening. Modi gives the BJP a fighting chance of breaching that mark.
Recommended Posts