The Narendra Modi thread

[FischerTal]

Oh you are back again. "I am right because it is me, you are wrong because it is you despite the evidence suggesting to contrary". There are politicians who visit Ayodhya without a sound of noise and controversy. But just because he is Modi, let's make it controversy. And Modi himself is not going there yet, you still loving it. And if just going to Ayodhya means communal, you sir are a big communal there. And I know you will not get that you do not get it.

ask who opened the gates of the temple back in 1989 and all you will get is silence. :giggle:

[someone]

This thread is getting more silly everyday, the detractors are simply looking out for any reasons to spread hatred. They will create/translate/spin anything. An non-issue becomes a controversy and that's been the general summary here. The Raj Dharma is perhaps of the biggest misinformation created and sold by many here and the media. x5W3RCpOGbQ

[ganeshran]

Oh you are back again. "I am right because it is me, you are wrong because it is you despite the evidence suggesting to contrary". There are politicians who visit Ayodhya without a sound of noise and controversy. But just because he is Modi, let's make it controversy. And Modi himself is not going there yet, you still loving it. And if just going to Ayodhya means communal, you sir are a big communal there. And I know you will not get that you do not get it.

Evidence :hysterical::hysterical: Please post more of your pro-Modi articles as "evidence" while at the same time dismissing all criticism as kanspiracy by the liberal paid media. If you believe that this particular occasion of going to Ayodhya and meeting VHP leaders just after his elevation as poll chief had nothing to do with the communal angle of the disputed site, you are being plain naive which isnt that surprising tbh Like I said, the best place for you is on twitter where like minded dimwits can circle jerk to Modi and warn the rest of the world on how all criticism of Modi is one big liberal-Muslim-Congress kanspiracy

[ganeshran]

No question of believing' date=' it is an actual occasion.[/quote'] My question is not whether it is an occasion or not. It is whether you think that Modi's going to the disputed site with VHP leaders, just after his elevation has a poll chief has any communal significance or not.

[Mariyam]

Correction. There was anniversary of a saint in Ayodhya.

So, he has declined the invitation. Can we consider him secular ? Funny how the discourse in the country has been reduced to ad hominem arguments than ground realities and issues.

How is that a correction? It was mentioned in the article. But the meet in Ayodhya wasn't just about that. Modi's agenda was not only meeting the saint, eating his share of the cake and bursting balloons. He was also to hold a meeting with senior members of the VHP ( some of whom were instrumental in the demolition of the disputed structure, and finally pray. Don't think any sane person finds his eating or singing "Happy Birthday" even remotely communal. What people may find communal is being a part and addressing an entourage who have been at the forefront of the demolition of Babri Masjid at the same very spot. Hypothetical situation: The Sunni Waqf board was awarded a third of the disputed area. Tomorrow if Abu Azmi decides to call a prayer meet at the place, would you find that move rousing communal passions? I certainly would. Even if he just prayed there.

[ravishingravi]

How is that a correction? It was mentioned in the article. But the meet in Ayodhya wasn't just about that. Modi's agenda was not only meeting the saint, eating his share of the cake and bursting balloons. He was also to hold a meeting with senior members of the VHP ( some of whom were instrumental in the demolition of the disputed structure, and finally pray. Don't think any sane person finds his eating or singing "Happy Birthday" even remotely communal. What people may find communal is being a part and addressing an entourage who have been at the forefront of the demolition of Babri Masjid at the same very spot. Hypothetical situation: The Sunni Waqf board was awarded a third of the disputed area. Tomorrow if Abu Azmi decides to call a prayer meet at the place, would you find that move rousing communal passions? I certainly would. Even if he just prayed there.

So, to the moot point. Now that he has declined, can we consider him non communal ? And to the bold portion, merely addressing is not enough. What exactly was he planning to address is also critical. It is actual speech that might have aroused communal passion. Just being invited there for occasion and saying few words isn't enough to pass judgement. Some might say he is in good terms with Mohan Bhagvat. Now that makes him communal. Where does one draw the line ? How arbitary is definition ?

[adi B]

So, he has declined the invitation. Can we consider him secular ? Funny how the discourse in the country has been reduced to ad hominem arguments than ground realities and issues.

+1

[Mariyam]

So' date=' to the moot point. Now that he has declined, can we consider him non communal ?[/quote'] Why ask me? But since you've asked, now that he's declined, he's returned back to the same earlier threshold of being 'non communal' as he's been all these years. The definition needn't be arbitrary at all. Being a friend of who ever doesn't making a person communal. Faust after all, was also a friend of Mephisto :winky: But having a friend who is an ideologue of a stream of thought that is very dubious and to an extent: divisive in nature, and using the same ideology to better one's political clout is playing communal politics. (Not saying that Modi has done that)

[bulbul]

I wish Modi should have accepted the invitaion , as any way some ICFrs won't consider him secular at any cost.

[adi B]

I wish Modi should have accepted the invitaion ' date=' as any way some ICFrs won't consider him secular at any cost.[/quote'] i dont care a sh1t what the icfers think,its the large indian public mainly rural which concerns me.as for cancelling the ayodhya yatra,it makes sense,no need to bring up old tormented issues to hamper u from the mainstream issues of development..media and some part of our janta would have brought up the old ayodhya issue to rip apart modi but not to be

[Mariyam]

Not really. You are missing the whole point, the argument presented here and a lot of Modi detractors is on visiting Ayodhya for Modi which is referred as if he is working on that Hindutva and thus communal. Yet,this visiting of religious sites logic for many other leaders doesn't get questioned. That's what I termed as double standards and thus flawed logic. As stated earlier, these were cleverly done articles which removed the purpose and only mentioned the site location. And being associated with VHP or various Muslims organizations, doesn't necessary make one communal. You are reading too much and making a big deal out of nothing. That phenomenon actually pretty common among Modi haters. And Modi himself is not going there now.

Are you implying that I'm a Modi hater? Not agreeing to or questioning any action of Modi = Modi hating? I think I'm finally coming to terms with the Orwellian logic at display here. Anything NaMo = good Everything Amul baby = bad Anything BJP = good Everything Congress = bad

[adi B]

Are you implying that I'm a Modi hater? Not agreeing to or questioning any action of Modi = Modi hating? I think I'm finally coming to terms with the Orwellian logic at display here. Anything NaMo = good Everything Amul baby = bad Anything BJP = good Everything Congress = bad

point 2 and 4 are valid tbh :P

[FischerTal]

point 2 and 4 are valid tbh :P

:giggle:

[bulbul]

Are you implying that I'm a Modi hater? Not agreeing to or questioning any action of Modi = Modi hating? I think I'm finally coming to terms with the Orwellian logic at display here. Anything NaMo = good Everything Amul baby = bad Anything BJP = good Everything Congress = bad

Actually this logic started after the original logic, which is exactly opposite to what you typed :winky:

[someone]

Evidence :hysterical::hysterical:

That's poor again from you. If you read the last few pages, you would have seen a lot of substance and in particular the SIT report and ground work. But clearly, now either you are blind or simply just want to turn a blind eye to them. You are like a typical Congress bully, it's me and my logic, everything else is wrong. Even if I choose to ignore your flawed logic which is a big if. You still stand poor as you lack any sort of consistency. You talk about Modi doing XYZ but when the same question arises on that for another person A, you simply choose to ignore and thus remain silence. This lack of consistency which can also be termed as double standards is shocking. You can keep carrying on with this. Some day, if you get lucky or unlucky depending on the viewpoint, you might get to work as one of the many unofficial Congress spokesperson. And get paid to spread hatred and your delusional thoughts. Good luck.

[Crookbond]

What Modi wants you to believe and what Sardar Patel really said about RSS Kaanspiracy theory by Congress! :whine: http://blog.tehelka.com/what-modi-wants-you-to-believe-and-what-sardar-patel-really-said-about-rss/

In case you missed it (although it is highly unlikely that APCO and other propaganda machinery, paid for by the public money of hardworking Gujaratis, would have let you miss any news about the recently appointed campaign committee chief (CCC) of the Bharatiya Janata Party), a 182 metre tall statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel is coming up in Bharuch, Gujarat. The project is estimated to cost Rs 2,500 crore, in a state that ran a fiscal deficit of Rs 17,831 crore in 2012-13. Sardar Patel, as we all know, is one of the tallest national leaders from the Congress party. Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, he joined the Congress party in 1917 and remained a member till his death as India’s Deputy Prime Minister in 1950. As a leader of the party fighting for India’s independence alongside Gandhi and Nehru, he spent several years in the prisons of British India. Of course, no comparable leader of the RSS participated in any of the major movements for India’s independence, be it the Non-Cooperation movement, the Civil Disobedience movement or the Quit India movement. It is hard to miss the irony that the CCC of the BJP, who talks of creating a Congress-free India has to cling on to one of the tallest leaders of the Congress party for his personal gains. But what better can one expect from a person whose entire propaganda is built on such duplicity? *** The CCC of the BJP is a very proud member of the RSS and the events of the last few days have demonstrated that the RSS openly controls the functioning of the BJP. Here is what Sardar Patel thought of the RSS. In his letter of July 18, 1948 to Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee after Mahatma Gandhi’s murder, Sardar wrote: “… as[a] result of the activities of these two bodies[the RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha], particularly the former, an atmosphere was created in the country in which such a ghastly tragedy became possible. There is no doubt in my mind the extreme section of the Hindu Mahasbha was involved in this conspiracy. The activities of the RSS constituted a clear threat to the existence of the Government and the State.“(Sardar Patel’s correspondence; Vol. VI, p. 323, Navjivan-1973) In his letter of 11 September 1948 to Sarsangh Chalak of the RSS, Sardar Patel wrote: “The speeches of the Sangh leaders are poisonous. It is as a result of this venom that Mahatma Gandhi has been assassinated. The followers of the Sangh have celebrated Gandhiji’s assassination by distributing sweets.” (“R.S.S. Kaal, Aaj, Udyaa”, p. 71, RSS-1983) Going even further, in his response in the Lok Sabha on 2 August 1950 to the Hindu Mahasabha members, after introducing the Defence of India Rules, 1950, Sardar Patel said: “You must remember that when the Father of the Nation was murdered, it was by a group of people who belonged to that organisation [Hindu Mahasabha]. I am ready to prove to anybody that there was a group of people there who were determined to take his life. They were not satisfied even after taking his life. He tells me that the Magistrate did not know who was the Minister to be murdered. He wants to know it. Well, I shall meet this challenge. The Minister meant was the Prime Minister of India.” (The Penguin Book of Modern Speeches, p. 664, Penguin Books-2007) *** Leave alone what Sardar Patel thought of the RSS. Certain groups have been trying to create a myth that Sardar Patel was a partisan and communal Hinduist, who acted against the Muslims during and after the partition. While Sardar was strongly opposed to the divisive and hatred-ridden politics of Jinnah (as were almost all leaders of the Congress including Nehru and Maulana Azad) and was a practicing Hindu in personal life, he was not anti-Muslim by any means. During the days of the partition, as the Home Minister of the country, Sardar Patel visited the Nizamuddin Auliya Dargah area in Delhi, where thousands of Delhi Muslims feared attacks. He prayed at the shrine, visited the people (where a couple of bullets were fired at him from a nearby building) and reinforced the presence of police in Muslim-populated areas. That the Sardar publicly warned police and government officials against partiality and neglect during that tumultuous period is on record. His iconic speech to Sikhs and Hindus at Amritsar during the same period asking them to “Pledge the safety of Muslim refugees crossing the city” is recorded in the annals of history. Should we even compare this to what happened in the state of Gujarat in 2002 under the watch of the CCC of the BJP? Or with the speeches made by him in the aftermath of one of the worst anti-Muslim riots in independent India’s history? *** We cannot also forget that Sardar Patel headed the panel on minorities in the Constituent Assembly. He pioneered Clause 18 (now Arts. 29 and 30 of the Constitution) on safeguarding the cultural and educational rights for the minorities and personally introduced it on 1 May 1947 in the Constituent Assembly. The BJP’s stance on safeguarding the cultural and educational rights of the minorities is well-known. Gujarat government has been shunning a national scholarship scheme for minorities(which has been held constitutional by the Gujarat High Court and denied a stay by the Supreme Court), allowing the central funds to lapse. So much for respect for Sardar Patel and the ideals he stood for and espoused in his life. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel is a national figure who cannot be allowed to be denigrated by the proponents of the same ideology he fought during his life. Sardar was never a member of the RSS or the Hindu Mahasabha. He was not a communal leader. As is evident from various debates in the Constituent Assembly, he believed in a secular India. It is due to his effort that we have constitutionally safeguarded the cultural and educational rights of the minorities. Those opposed to the Sardar in ideology, thoughts, deeds and action have no right to misappropriate him for petty political gains.

Like I said in the earlier thread - I find it a disgrace that petty politics are played on the name of this great man!

[bulbul]

Gandhi told congress to disband after Independence.

[Sachin=GOD]

[Modi Bhakt] so you've got all from the biggest Modi bashers Tehelka and you believe in it :hysterical: [/Modi Bhakt]

[Tiger80]

The reason RSS or right wing hindu's support Patel because unlike Gandhi and Nehru he was no friend of muslims .

Sardar Patel and Indian Muslims By Rafiq Zakaria Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Pages: 118 Price: Rs.125 Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, the Iron Man of India, has, rightly or wrongly, always been viewed with suspicion not only by Muslims-for his ambiguous attitude towards them-but also by secularists and leftists, for similar reasons. Even today, 50 years after Independence, his image has hardly changed. A number of books have been written to assess his contribution to the freedom struggle, but no one has focused on Patel's attitude towards the Muslims. Rafiq Zakaria, a noted scholar, has made an earnest attempt in this book to refurbish Patel's image. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (centre): Ambiguous stand Whatever one's view, Patel was certainly not as generous towards the Muslims as Mahatma Gandhi was. An episode from the diary of Gandhi's secretary Mahadev Desai, quoted by Zakaria, should suffice to prove this: "This morning we happened to talk about a certain Muslim leader. Vallabhbhai said, 'He also took a narrow communal view in the time of crisis and asked for a separate fund for Muslims and a separate appeal for it.' Bapu said: 'He is not at fault on that score. What amenities do we offer Muslims? They are mostly treated like untouchables. If I wished to send Amtus Salam to Deolali, could I ask ... (the diary doesn't give the name) to put her up? Indeed it is up to the Hindus to take a step forward. The bitterness can be mitigated only if the Hindus wake up and break down the barriers they have erected.' Vallabhbhai said, 'But the manner and customs of Muslims are different. They take meat while we are vegetarians. How are we to live with them in the same place?' Bapu replied, 'No sir. Hindus as a body are vegetarians nowhere except in Gujarat. Almost every Hindu takes meat in the Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Sind.'" This needs hardly any comment and shows the narrow view which Patel took of Muslims. But having said this, it is also unfair, as Zakaria points out, to conclude that Patel was an inveterate opponent of Muslims. Quoting numerous sources to prove his point, Zakaria shows that while Patel may not have been like Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru in his attitude towards Muslims, he was far from being their enemy. But there can be no argument that Patel was a good administrator, and when it came to enforcing administrative measures, he spared neither Hindu nor Muslim. Besides, Patel did not remove Muslim officers from key posts. One of his confidants was the inspector general of the special police force, who was a Muslim. The first chief commissioner of Delhi he appointed was Khurshid Alam Khan.Excerpt Patel felt that Muslims by following the League were digging their own graves ... Patel's understanding of Islam was also limited; I don't think he ever read any book to acquaint himself properly with its tenets. He learnt about it from his contact with Muslims, many of whom were hardly the true representatives or even followers of its teachings ... His knowledge about Hinduism was also not too deep. One day (he) asked Mahadev Desai who Swami Vivekananda was. There are a number of reasons, however, why Patel came to acquire an anti-Muslim image. In the beginning of his political career he was a great supporter of the Khilafat movement, even when many Hindus viewed it as obscurantist. He also had great respect for the Ali brothers. But as Zakaria shows, his attitude changed with Jinnah's obduracy and with the Muslim League's playing the communal card. Patel's anger over the Pakistani authorities' failure to protect the lives and property of Hindus, and the plight of Muslims due to communal riots in north India to a great extent strengthened his anti-Muslim image. The difference between Gandhi's attitude towards Muslims and that of Patel was like the difference between Akbar and Aurangzeb's attitude towards Hindus. Patel sometimes took a tit-for-tat view of the communal problem. In a letter of June 22, 1947, he wrote, "We may also be able to afford some protection on the basis of reciprocity in regard to treatment of minorities.'' This is definitely the language of an administrator, not of a statesman. Mahatma Gandhi in his place would have said it is our sacred duty to protect our minorities, irrespective of whether Pakistan does it or not. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/book-review-sardar-patel-and-indian-muslims-by-rafiq-zakaria/1/274059.html

[Muloghonto]

The reason RSS or right wing hindu's support Patel because unlike Gandhi and Nehru he was no friend of muslims .

Not being a friend of Muslims does not equate to being anti-Muslim. Sardar Patel was no friend of hindus either. Or sikhs or jains or Buddhists or Christians. he had one and only one friend: the state. Sardar Patel was as legalist as they came- who believed that state authority and realities of state & inter-state dynamics trumps all considerations- moral, religious & financial. Sardar Patel wouldnt blink an eye at the slaughter of muslims if it meant security of the state. He wouldnt bat an eyelash at the slaughter of hindus if it meant the same. Legalists care about one thing only- that is authority of the state. He pretty much had one rule - get in the way of India and whats best for India and expect to get bulldozed. Didnt care a whit if it was a masjid or a temple blocking the way. Obviously, Sardar Patel stood for 'tit for tat'. Most legalists would, since tit-for-tat is the most successful policy towards co-existence of the trust game. Its been proven on a computer simulation level too. PS: Gandhi was not entirely right when he said 'tit for tat leaves the whole world blind'. His quote is applicable in a world populated by hippies, buddha, etc. In the real world, where cheats exist, eye for an eye and tit for tat is the most sucessful survival strategy- to the point that many species have developed social responses as tit-for-tat or tit-for-two tats.