The idea of Modi as PM in India is something similar to electing David Duke president of the United States. "We need to make this happen together" is a very strange motto to be used by a politician with Modi's record.

He has Muslim ministers in his cabinet and several Muslim members of parliament in his party who support him.

A lot of the stuff attributed to Modi was a part of Pakistan's disinformation campaign.

The riots were incited by Pakistani ISI (read the inquiry commission reports) by locking the doors of a Hindu pilgrimage train and setting it on fire. Several hundred Hindus died in that train which resulted in riots against Muslims.

Modi has been cleared of any wrongdoing by three separate independent inquiries.

As far as polygamy is concerned, it needs to be outlawed anyway but prior governments have not had the spine to stop it. Indian Muslims say it is allowed by Q'uraan but polygamy is not allowed in many Muslim countries like Indonesia, Malaysia or Egypt. Polygamy in India MUST stop by the full force of the law which Modi will bring about.

It's not like anybody on a Democratic message board has any reason to WANT this bastard to win.

Someone who refers to refugee camps for victims of religious persecution as "baby-making factories" is morally unqualified to lead a democratic government.

I realize this probably isn't your conscious intent, but that post read like the arguments of American and British rightists of the early 1930's who thought Hitler was just misunderstood. Hindu supremacism of the sort Modi advocates is different only in degree from Naziism(most Hindu supremacists backed Hitler back then), and all democratic and progressive people have a duty to oppose both.

Modi is also not a Hindu supremacist - some people in his party are. There are many quotes attributed to Modi which he never uttered. The Hindu pride movement came about in India because many Muslims purposely acted against India's national interests. They opposed birth control as opposed to Hindus and demanded a right to polygamy which is not allowed even in many Muslim countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Malaysia and Indonesia which has been widely seen as "population creep" to gain more power.

Many Muslims were caught openly supporting Pakistan and taking an active role in Pakistani terrorist attacks in India.

After centuries of Muslim invasions and terror, India's Hindu population is now becoming assertive. I don't see it as a bad thing. Go to any corner of India and you'll see Hindu temples and deities desecrated by Muslims. You need to learn more about Indian history and culture before forcing an American uppity attitude on people who have been oppressed in their own country for a thousand plus years.

What would you call the Hindu movements that backed Hitler in the 1930's, then?

And what about Hindu desecration of Muslim religious sites?

The vast majority of Indian Muslims are loyal Indian citizens, and have NEVER supported Pakistan(if they really supported Pakistan, they would move there), so it's wrong to imply that Indian Muslims as a group deserve to be treated as disloyal.

Your post is anti-Muslim hate speech.

expressing anti-British sentiments.

The Hindu supremacist movement came about BECAUSE of the nefarious creation of Pakistan which is a rogue, terrorist state and attacked India 4 times,losing all four wars.

If you studied Indian history, you'll know that Hindus have been oppressed for over a thousand years due to successive Muslim invasions, forced conversions, rapes and desecration of Hindu temples all over.

In fact, what you are espousing is hate speech against the oppressed Hindus.

Hindus have never desecrated a Muslim place of worship. The "Babri Masjid" instance you are referring to is about a mosque built by destroying a Rama temple that stood where Rama was born and a mosque built at that site. Most mosques in India were built over Hindu temples after destroying them. Hindus have decided that they simply won't put up with this anymore in their own country. The government had offered to move the Babri mosque at government's expense but the local Muslims refused to allow such a move. Hopefully, after Modi is elected PM, a Rama temple will be built there just the way it was before the nomadic Babur, a resident of Turkmenistan destroyed it.

Pakistan exists because tens of millions of Muslims believed, in that era, that they would never be treated as equals in a unified India. Others disagreed(or simply couldn't afford to move away). It's too late to unify the subcontinent now...and nothing would be better if Pakistan DIDN'T exist.

Hindus are the majority in India...they dominate all facets of life there...they've always held at least 80% of the seats in the Indian parliament...they dominate the business sector. What more could Hindus want?

The issue isn't how much Hindus have versus how much Muslims have...Muslims have as much right to be in India as Hindus do, contribute just as much to India's economy, governance and cultural life as Hindus do, and don't have any special privileges in Indian society that are denied to Hindus.

The cause of most of India's problems is the massive amount of wealth hoarded by India's English-speaking Hindu elite...by Brahmins, if you will. If India became a Muslimrein country tomorrow morning, every problem the country currently has would still exist, and at the same level of severity.

This is a progressive discussion board...you are supporting a right-wing extremist politician and espousing anti-Muslim bigotry. What you are posting here is an affront to democratic, progressive people and to humane values.

Creating Pakistan was not supported by most Muslim freedom fighters in India. The Brits manipulated the ego of one Muslim politician -- a whiskey drinking, cigar smoking, womanizer lawyer from Mumbai who was hardly following anything in the Q'uraan -- Mohammad Ali Jinnah -- and his ambition to be the PM. When He could not be the first PM of India (because he didn't have the votes) he collaborated with the Brits who were always willing to divide and conquer and partitioned India, resulting in the death and destruction of over 9 million Hindus.

I didn't know that being progressive meant bowing down to the oppressors and meeting all their demands all the time just to look good in your eyes while sacrificing one's personal experiences. Thank you for that lesson.

I am actually proud of my Muslim brothers in India. Azim Premji was India's richest man for about two decades. Most of the top movie stars in India are Muslim, as are many politicians, Chief ministers, members of parliament and even two presidents. One of those presidents, Dr. Abdul Kalam is someone I look up to and have learned from. I despised Northwest Airlines for profiling him and giving him a third degree security check despite his status as ex-President of India.

However, I am of the opinion that there should be one law in India for all its citizens and no special status for Muslims. They should abide by birth control guidelines and abolition of polygamy just like everyone else. If that is bad in your eyes, so be it.

How would THAT make any of the issues you've mentioned easier to deal with?

And you do realize that there's no way to UNDO partition at this point...right?

Finally, while it's a good thing to encourage everyone to practice some form of family planning, you can't really MAKE anyone "abide by birth control guidelines" without resorting to dictatorial methods. You took offense when I asked if you thought Muslims should be coerced into using contraception, but isn't that the logical conclusion of your argument on that point? It's not as if Muslims don't know about birth control now...everyone in the world has heard of condoms, diaphragms, and "the Pill".

Long live the prophet! Let's kill the Danish people who draw cartoons out of him!!

No, they shouldn't have been able to kill anyone either...but they did have the right to be angry(short of sounding homicidal)over those cartoonists' deliberate decision to draw the Prophet just for the sake of insulting them.

BTW, the ban on drawing the Prophet isn't about making him a figure above discussion or criticism...it's about discouraging idolatry, about making sure nobody sees the Prophet himself as an object of prayer. Muslims don't worship the Prophet...they just worship God.

I don't believe in giving ANYONE a pass...but it's not a choice between giving individual Muslims who do bad things "a pass" and whipping up hatred against Muslims as a group. As a group, they're simply another religion...no better or worse than any other.

You can't build a progressive, democratic society by treating one ethnic or religious group within it as "disloyal", as "the enemy".
Democracy requires some notion of everybody in a society accepting that everybody else who lives there has as much right to be there as people of "the majority". That's a battle still being waged here(ask anybody who's LGBTQ, African-American. Latino, Native American, female, or(like yourself I assume)an immigrant.

And you didn't respond to how undoing partition(something that isn't possible)would make anything better. Partition may have been a mistake...but it's too late to reverse it now. And if you did, what would you say to all of those extra Muslims who would now be Indian citizens...would you tell them to move to Bangladesh or Afghanistan?

Islam is just another religion like Buddhism?

Have the followers of Buddha being told to kill non-believers?

I'm not for undoing the partition. I'd rather see a balkanization into Baluchistan, Sindhudesh, Multan and Khalistan whilst giving all territory west of the Durand line to Afghanistan (this would include the Pashtun tribal areas in Waziristan.) THAT is a solution that will create several smaller and peaceful countries rather than Pakistan which exists for the hatred of India and is a rogue, terrorist state mostly ruled by its military. The balkanization started with the liberation of Bangladesh. Baluchistan is next.

Than you really can't complain if people argue(as some most likely do already)for the Balkanization of India as well. And you really have no right to be against the Kashmiris getting independence from BOTH countries(which is what most of them want

No country can legitimately argue that the country next to it is illegitimate.

As to believers killing non-believers....Hindus are doing as much of that as anybody else(as have Christians, of course). There isn't any religion(other than Buddhism)that can really claim moral superiority over all its rivals for belief.

If Gandhi could come back and read your posts, he'd ask somebody to shoot him again.

Since when?

Also, did you talk to all the Kashmiris? Kashmir is a state of India and has an ELECTED state government. The elections in Kashmir have over a 79% voter turnout. The so called Kashmir independence movement has died down since Pakistan stopped funding it at the same levels as before. Kashmiris on Indian side have a higher per capita income and far more freedoms than the part of Kashmir illegally held by Pakistan.

Your support of Pakistan and its terrorist apparatus is telling. Verbal jihad on DU is not new.

Last edited Mon Apr 7, 2014, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)

Especially ones like Modi's that are predicated on hatred.

I'd have preferred to see a non-partitioned India come into being in 1948, but that discussion is all over now. Pakistan is here and there's no possible way to break it up, even if breaking it up would be a good thing(you'd see at least four or five border wars start between the Balkanized remnants, and there's no way that would be good for anybody).

If Modi had achievements in Gujarat, he could have achieved ALL of them without treating Muslims as the enemy and without falsely equating being an Indian Muslim with being a fifth columnist for Pakistan. Indian Muslims and NOT Pakistanis and don't want to be. If they wanted to be, they'd just move TO Pakistan.

And Hindus who kill Muslims ARE killing "non-believers". There's no moral difference between a Hindu killing a Muslim and a Muslim killing a Hindu. Both are acts of unjustified hatred.

A vote for Modi and the BJP is a vote for authoritarian, Hindu-supremacist hate politics. India deserves better than that. And the big problem India faces is the hoarding of wealth among the English-speaking Hindu elite-something Indian Muslims bear no responsibility for whatsoever.

He reflects a party that is hostile to progressives.

as a right-wing Hindu nationalist.

if those guys found out that they didn't.

BTW, I didn't say this earlier, but it's wrong to punish Indian Muslims for what the Pakistani government does-they have no say in Pakistani politics or governance, and they aren't Pakistani citizens. They are just as Indian as you are.

If they supported Pakistan, they'd MOVE to Pakistan.

See post No. 17

They found a few tokens to say they backed Modi....there was no information showing widespread Muslim backing for the guy.

And they made absurd implications about the views of the Muslim community...such as the insinuation that Modi wants Muslim children to be educated but Muslims themselves DON'T want that(Indian Muslims aren't the Taliban, dammit).

Those links read like the articles South African government propagandists wrote about non-whites who supposedly supported apartheid(there were a handful, but they were basically economic "kapos" helping oppress their own people out of a mixture of greed and sadism).

The links don't prove anything about anything.

If he doesn't get the most votes that's when you should be asking that question.

His state of Gujrat where he has been chief minister for over a decade has had an annual economic growth rate of about 14% and boasts the world's largest oil refinery, the world's largest plastic fabrication operation, best public transportation in India, massive sanitation projects and green movement. The unemployment rate and literacy rates in Gujrat are higher than most Indian states and per capita income exceeds all but a couple of states by a very wide margin.

It is a pocketbook election - not a religious one.

In most countries, greens are progressive and anti-nationalist.

And Hindu supremacists all back megaprojects like the massive dams Arundhati Roy has campaigned against.

The only hope India has of remaining a democracy is to defeat Modi and his hate-based party. There is no excuse for anyone building a political movement on the theme that people are the enemy just because they are of a different religion.

The only hope for India to be an economically and politically stronger power is for Modi to win. Again, you are seeing things through uppity American eyes and not based upon ground reality in India.

Modi is supported by scores of Muslims and has always had Muslims in his party and cabinet.

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/debunking-the-facts-on-narendra-modi-and-muslims-1218661.html

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Muslims-for-Modi/465752763453294

https://www.facebook.com/IndianMuslimWithNarendraModi

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/why-should-muslims-be-scared-of-modi/20131222.htm

http://bilkulonline.com/features/articles/1873-gujarati-muslims-are-responsible-for-modi-s-victory

That's usually the phrase that's used to justify the rise of fascist hatemongers.

That was a time when Hindus treated Muslims generally as equals, and the values were secular and social-democratic.

Religious nationalism always ends up turning creating a reactionary society. Why on earth would you want India to become less inclusive, less tolerant and more right-wing? How does that help most people? It doesn't help the vast majority of Hindus who are, like most people in India, desperately poor.

And you are wrong...there were many pro-Hitler Hindu supremacists in the 1930's...Gandhi spoke out against them as passionately as he did against the British. And it was Hindu supremacists of the pro-Hitler type that murdered Gandhi(or is that what you call "getting assertive&quot .

It's fascist to treat Indian Muslims as though they have to be "put in their place". And frankly, there's little difference between your rhetoric about Indian Muslims and Hitler's rhetoric about those he wanted to exterminate.\

India's problems are based in the unjustified perpetuation of the caste system and the massively unequal distribution of wealth that creates. Nodi will never do anything about either of those things, because he's pro-caste and anti-social justice.

or anyone else for that matter as equals as long as they abide by the same laws and regulations as everyone else. Indian Muslims should not have a safe harbor from polygamy just because the prophet said so. Period. They should also engage in birth control as much as everyone else for the good of the nation. Equality should be complete and not just in some areas.

I have always been a staunch supporter of secularism and I'd be against a theocratic government whether it be in India or anywhere else. I don't want any religion to dominate another and all should leave peacefully while respecting each others' faiths. Hindus respect everyone's faith. Can you say that about Muslims? What happened to the Bamiyan Buddhas?

It's one thing to make contraception available to all who wish to use it...but how can you ORDER people to limit the size of their families? Would you impose a Chinese-style "one child policy"? Create a fertility police to enforce it?

Wouldn't it be far more effective to work for the more just transfer of wealth to those on the lower end of the caste system(both Muslim AND Hindu)since people tend to be more likely to limit the number of children they have as they become more prosperous?

And why do you let the ultra-wealthy Hindu Brahmin elite who hoard most of India's wealth totally off the hook for the country's problems?

It really sounds as though, at some level, you don't believe that Muslims have the right to be in India at all.

You are putting words in my mouth.

I said "guidelines" .. India had an educational program to teach people the benefits of having fewer children. The Muslim response was to not allow this education at all on religious grounds and massive campaigns to not engage in contraception.

This was done for political reasons under the guise of religion. Overall, Muslims are 16% of India's population. However, they are 31% of children under 10. Go figure.

It's all well and good to encourage people to use contraception, but it's never a sign of positive intent to raise alarums about an increase in the size of the population of a religious minority. It's not like the Muslims have some sort of a plot going to take over India.

And a doctrine that requires the rejection of all theories of minority conspiracy.

If you actually support Hillary Clinton, you'd be doing her a great favor if you removed her avatar from your posts. I seriously doubt she'd want to be associated with right-wing ethnic nationalists of any stripe.

that Muslims are actively plotting to "take over" India, LOL, by reproducing at a quicker pace than everybody else.

The percentage of Muslims in India has allegedly risen from 10 to 13,4 percent in 50 years. So, obviously, this proves - at least in the eyes of Hindutva fascists - that a Muslim takeover is on the horizon, even if it may take another 400 years or so.

That's why they think it's advisable to kill a few thousand Muslims every now and then:

Modi has been cleared of any wrongdoing by THREE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT investigations.

Eat your heart out.

Hindus, Buddhists, secular people and people of minority faiths, by the tens of millions throughout India, oppose Modi.

And btw...I don't "back Pakistan" or endorse Congress...I support the left parties in the election.

If Modi really cared about India, he'd admit that Indian Muslims are just as loyal to the country as Hindus are, and he and his supporters would stop equating opposition to his agenda with covert involvement in Pakistani plots.

Modi may win...but it isn't an endorsement by the people of India of his(and your)hatred and suspicion of Muslims. It's simply the official opposition in a parliamentary election increasing its support by default. In two or three years, when massive anti-Modi, anti-sectarian and anti-capitalist rallies will most likely be sweeping India, will you be calling on Modi to listen to the people, or will you cheer when he sends in the police and the army to break heads, all the while equating all dissent with being "pro-Pakistan"?

Some of us remember when this movie played the first time...in Munich in the Twenties and then in Berlin in the Thirties.

but... you just proved Godwin's law. Bravo.

Right-wing ethnic-or-religious supremacist nationalism that demonizes ethnic and/or religious minorities always has the potential to lead to something very much like the Third Reich.

And Hitler was able to present himself, in the early Thirties, as a reasonable guy who could "get things done". He had the New York Times fooled at the start(they initially backed him on "anti-communist" grounds, as did much(but, to be fair, not all)of the North American, British and European gentile capitalist elite of the era...and those that did didn't break with him until 1938 or so, by which time it was impossible to stop the bastard without a war.)

By the way, if you are going to make what you know is a bogus accusation that I support terrorism, than its only fair for me to point out, in response, that your posts speak about Indian Muslims(and Muslims in general)in language very very similar to that used by Nazi supporters(and before the, apologists for the Tsarist pogroms, the Inquisition, and the blood libel)to demonize Jews. That language is no longer acceptable in democratic society.

He's also aided by the ruling party being rife with corruption charges. Not all of his members are angels, but when you rule the light shines brighter.

The only question will be whether their "vote bank" GOTV operations in the villages and urban slums will be enough to overcome Modi's lead.

of the former pm ? from what i have seen sonia gandhi is the one who has the actual appeal in the family.

Plus she's very low in public approval right now because of some scandals.

Can't believe you actually dragged Russia into THIS thread, Josh...it's not like Russia and Putin are the only things that matter in the world.

After all, they always supported HER:



And if anyone was "pompous, xenophobic, homophobic" and "living in the 19th Century&quot as well as managing to be the most misogynistic woman since Phyllis Schlafly)it was Mrs T.

She saw Scotland as being indispensable to England, yet never saw them as equals. She destroyed their economy (industry).

She didn't say that much about the Welsh...but it's possible she didn't just didn't notice them.

The campaign ads just write themselves, don't they?