This thread is shit
Discussion about politics and religion always end up in shit! That's why most of the forums don't allow such topics.
Do you think Modi can bring change if given chance?
- Thread starter avi
- Start date
- Status
Discussion about politics and religion always end up in shit! That's why most of the forums don't allow such topics.
blr_p
Oracle
If you look at communal riots over the years, the wisdom of how best to handle them is if a fire catches, then let it burn itself out, on its own, in the place it started. It must not be allowed to spread to other parts of the country under any circumstances and continue to burn as then we end up with an uncontrollable situation. Containment is the goal.
This invariably leads to charges of collusion by the incumbent, instigation, non-action, irresponsibility etc. What good is the state if it cannot protect its people from themselves. People ask where is the justice in all of this. There is no good answer here. The only metric i can think of in such an explosive situation is reducing death counts. And unfortunately its turns out that some have to be sacrificed so that more do not suffer the same fate. Cold, heartless, whatever you want to call it.
If the state moves in, they will be very heavy handed. This leads to people saying they were too harsh and caused more damage than the riots on their own. Photos & videos will circulate all over the media & web. What is happening in India, bla, bla, this only happens in police states and not in usually peaceful democratic countries. The media coverage will happen either way.
The most important point is it will create groups with an incentive to attack the state over what the state did to protect its people. So the state moving in actually complicates the situation more times than not with repercussions into the future dredging up old scars and restarting the situation again. What is the cost to the state of action vs cost of inaction. Right now & into the future. Very difficult call to make.
Riots will continue to happen from time to time, people will die, articles like the above will be written but we try to come out of it with the least downsides.
Yeah, I know about that too. I've pointed out before too that Congress is a selectively communal party who hide under the pretext of secularism.
The second link however; makes completely baseless assumptions and reeks of communal bias. Are you a Hindu fundamentalist? All your posts are whataboutery.
Superbad
Herald
no I am no fundamentalist white, black, saffron or otherwise.
all I mentioned is that there will always be two sides to the same story.
here the SIT which is not under the control of the Gujarat government does not name modi as an accused.
that is derived out of the 2nd link.
srkmish
Forerunner
smAsh
Forerunner
Modi has already brought enough change(chillar) by charging 5/- per head to attend his rallies. 
red-devil
Forerunner
Why do I get this feeling that Modi is just a highly paid PR hype and nothing more?
All the talk of having done so much for Gujarat seems like all those websites using top tier SEO to hit a great page rank etc
All the talk of having done so much for Gujarat seems like all those websites using top tier SEO to hit a great page rank etc
Well of course, its very obvious that its mostly PR hype. Was there ever any doubt about it? He has hired good PR managers who are effectively using various media, especially internet and more importantly social networking to project him as the messiah who is going to change the face of the nation.
As I said earlier also, our politicians and their parties are all one and the same type although the agenda they use for votes keeps changing. We really have no choice there. The only thing people can do is to not give any single party enough time to get too comfortable in destroying the country. So, the best people can do is keep alternating in every election like changing a baby's dirty diapers. Congress is a dirty diaper now, so many people think that changing it for BJP would be good. But BJP too would end in same place after a few years and it would be congress turn again.
red-devil
Forerunner
Yes but the PR hype is ultimately not going to help him win a general election. The way I see it, people "like" Modi related posts on FB or Retweet stuff on Twitter and these are pretty much the same people who won't go out to vote/can't vote (people living in a different state and not registered on electoral rolls or some other reason) - so ultimately he's getting nowhere with this sorta 'marketing'
And your analogy about the diapers is correct - or sounds correct.
The only problem is that you're assuming that the current diaper's replacement is a clean one... I'll give you an example from my state (Karnataka):
Before BJP came to power, Karnataka was ruled by either Congress or the Janata Dal (not the new age JD(S) cr@p)
I personally felt the 5 years from SM Krishna were very good for the state in general and Bangalore in particular. Yes he was hit hard by the drought in different regions and that eventually resulted in his govt getting the boot. Then came the Congress+JDS and JDS+BJP and then BJP.
This last 3 phases were perhaps the worst years in any state.
Another example :
West Bengal booted out the commies and instilled Mamata B and as an outsider, I think she's taken the state to the dogs.
Now going back to your diaper analogy, it appears that to replace one dirty diaper, the alternatives are 2 or 3 different dirtier diapers.
Voting NOTA or AAP or some smaller regional party will not help in the short, medium and long term.
All I hope from this election is that one of the 2 parties gets a clear majority and can form a govt on its own. I'd hate it if Mayawati, Mulayam Singh, Ram Vilas Paswan, Laloo Yadav, Mamata Bannerjee, the DMK's, Sharad Pawar, Andhra/Telangana folks, Deve Gowda, Thackeray's, Chautala's, AAP etc end up playing any significant role in Govt formation.
blr_p
Oracle
Intent was not to defend anybody but to offer an observation when it comes to dealing with riots big or small. Success here is defined by not letting the riot spread. It begins and ends in the place it started. Think any riot over the years and this is the game plan.
I'd prefer to use the term chauvinist instead of fascist because its real tricky to define fascism.
What is a facist ?
Ad-hominem
Ad-homimen would be when I would've accused you (or anyone else) of being one, without presenting any counter-arguments.
Also, it is not a modern political movement. Go and read RSS's ideologies and see what they are. Being ignorant and saying the same things over and over achieves nothing. All RSS sympathisers are fascists, hiding under the pretext of religious nationalists, which in itself is another dangerous trait. When you've found the link between fascism and nationalism, you'll understand about it more succinctly. One can be a chauvinist and fascist at the same time; they're not mutually exclusive.
Moreover, you've quote-mined the article and presented the only lines which support your argument. There are multiple views from multiple persons presented over there. Personally, I think all kinds of -isms are bad as it is hard to generalize everyone into a broad category.
As far as your observation regarding the spread of riots goes, what does that have to do with state machinery participating in the riots and supporting one group over the other?
Last edited:
blr_p
Oracle
Have read a bit about them, from supporters and detractors, very difficult to get an accurate take on what the RSS is. So i tend to be sceptical when either of the two groups try to define them. One wants to make it look like they are bigger than they are and the other wants to say they are worse than what they are. Hype.
Modern in the sense, RSS only managed to become relevant since the late 80s. I know they started off in 1925 but they were minority for most of the time they've been around.
So what is your definition of fascism in this context ?
from the BBC article it would seem you're using a LCD definition for a right wing group by generalising what the radicals of that group believe in and applying it to the rest. In fact the radicals of the RSS don't manage to stay in the group they get shunted off to the side ie VHP, bajrang dal and other assorted spin offs, among which some are more influential than others and may have the RSS ear but they don't make policy within the RSS.
Difficulty in proving said collusion and the extent as to how high up that collusion goes.
How much progress has been made in proving the above since the last decade ?
If you look at the 1984 riots, there have been over 15 committees making recommendations with very little to show. The state is complicit either in not acting or supporting one group over the other. The state has a job to ensure stability first & foremost. Since they cannot stop the fire when it begins the only thing left is to contain it.
As far as the topic goes, the political marketplace right now is incredibly competitive. Very difficult for one ideology to dominate let alone radicals. To get into power involves compromises which will moderate whoever gets into office. This idea comes from how extreme left parties in the former warsaw pact behaved after the fall of communism.
biozen
Contributor
I have. And you know this may sound silly, but I've actually found some of their concepts more modern and practical than some seemingly liberal organisations and movements. The Left that dominates the 'intellectual space' calls their idea of India as Hindu majoritarianism regressive and communal. Which is what a lot of us living in the Republic of South Delhi or South Mumbai or Electronic City believe is true. They are right-wing, I'll acknowledge that. But that's not the same as being fascists or Nazis or Hindu equivalents of Jihadis.
I'd like to ask you, what's you source of info of RSS ideology? Please do not quote articles, editorials or op-eds in newspapers. But if you do, please link to those articles that indicate proven cases of RSS misdeeds. And no Nathuram Godse wasn't RSS.
- Status