What's new

Mourn idea of India, but don’t forget that the idea of people is changing too

Yea - people change castes in india all the time - right ? what kind of pathetic liars are you.
Actually they can. Though you cann't get reservation or caste based advantage handed out by the government unless you can prove that you forefathers belonged to a scheduled caste or tribe. To be honest, the constitution does not even allow you to ask or differentiate based on someone's caste. Only government has that privilege. Meaning, your caste is your own business and only government can determine if you have historically faced a caste based disadvantage.

PS : I used to belong to Charmkaar caste. Mine is now a Brahmin caste. I am even married to a Brahmin.
 
Last edited:
Waaay too often. Christian Missonaries used to come to my father's village and convert people by telling them how they are going to hell because they are worshipping stone. Their conversion activities were protected by secular free speech laws even if they are openly mocking Hindu religion. Try that against Islam in Pakistan and swift hand of law will snap you into two. Eventually a large number of neighbours bought into that drama and they pushed us out of neighborhood as it had become a christian neighbourhood.

Even after anti-conversion laws, there is seldom any arrests or convictions. So long they are cursing Hinduism, its all kosher under secular framework of Indian laws.

That really is not a good example. The government is not forcing people to convert to another religion. People are converting out of their own free will.
 
And he is right... hence overwhelming support from masses. His ideology resonates with the person on street.



Not limitation but a downfall of an artificial narrative that was made.





writer is again chasing the same folly that got india where it is today. The idea of self "intellectualism" "imposed liberalism" and then use of big chewy words, "political traditions" "contradiction of constitutional values". This all goes good on paper but on ground what happened is history....

Modi is nothing but a mirror, reflection of indian society at large. And as the saying goes. "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."



It's funny to read such self projecting, self reflection articles portraying oneself as a sole true representative; defying the will of majority and calling oneself soul of Indian fabric. No wonder such traction of RSS ideology by masses.

brother I think modi is a murdering psychopath leading a party of murdering , psychopathic , cowards whoseem to be able to standup in a mob but once they meet a force, even a weaker one, their so called power weathers away.Case and point 56 inch chathi shrinks to 6 inches facing Chinese forces.

the change in India has happened over the past 20,30 years mostly because of common man losing out to nepotism! When unworthy kids tried to take power and merit like mumohan Singh and atal Bhadur vajpai were lost. Being a Pakistani it gives me great joy that Modi will break India due to his Nazi ways.....

Said all this I wish that we not judge an entire nation with the same pen. we still have to live with them in one form or other. Judging an entire nation in one brush leads to racism which weakens one from within. Muslims ruled over India for a thousand years and inshallah will do so again for ten thousand more. We should never forget to be just and respect all nationalities with humility as garoor/ pride is only for Allah
K
 
That really is not a good example. The government is not forcing people to convert to another religion. People are converting out of their own free will.
Will government in Pakistan allow such conversion activities? If not, then why does Indian government allow it? Because it is secular and overly tolerant.
 
Last edited:
Will government in Pakistan allow such conversion activities? If not, then why does Indian government allow it? Because it is secular and overly tolerant.

Why is the comparison being made only to Pakistan? Why can't the comparison be made with the USA or Germany?

But coming back to the point, have you questioned why people would want to convert out of Hinduism?
 
Why is the comparison being made only to Pakistan? Why can't the comparison be made with the USA or Germany?
Simply because India has more in common with Pakistan and way less common with USA or Germany. The two countries were born out of the people who lived together since antiquity. It was foolish for Nehery, Gandhi, Ambedkar to force western ideals on a society that simply isn't ready or willing for that.

But coming back to the point, have you questioned why people would want to convert out of Hinduism?
Yes, many reasons. Primary is that they are PAID and enticed with favours to do so. They are poor people after all. Secondary is that they are intimidated with imagery from hell to do so.
 
Simply because India has more in common with Pakistan and way less common with USA or Germany. The two countries were born out of the people who lived together since antiquity. It was foolish for Nehery, Gandhi, Ambedkar to force western ideals on a society that simply isn't ready or willing for that.

While India shares many cultural and historical similarities with Pakistan, that does not mean that governance should mimic each others. If that was the case, why aren't you asking for military rule?

Yes, many reasons. Primary is that they are PAID and enticed with favours to do so. They are poor people after all. Secondary is that they are intimidated with imagery from hell to do so.

Well, Hindus can pay them more not to convert. It is as simple as that. When will the treasures of Tirupati and Travancore be used?
 
That is a dishonest comment. This is what came before and after the sentence torn out of context:



Reading the sentence that preceded it makes it clear that the allusion is to irrational positions - Islamophobia and Islamophobic violence in violation of the law - merely because this is done by the majority, and these sentiments - nothing rational or legal about them - must be respected because those holding them are members of the majority community.

The following sentence, on the idea of the people, makes it clear that popular sentiment should not drown out more serious social problems.


If you're living among Hindus, respect their beliefs. It's quite simple.

Same if you're living among Muslims.

India and Nepal are the only countries with a Hindu majority. Let them have the space for their culture to flourish.

Islamophobia - what does that mean? Is there Kaffirophobia in the Quran?
 
Last edited:
If you're living among Hindus, respect their beliefs. It's quite simple.

Same if you're living among Muslims.

India and Nepal are the only countries with a Hindu majority. Let them have the space for their culture to flourish.

Islamophobia - what does that mean? Is there Kaffirophobia in the Quran?

That 'explanation' doesn't help; respecting the beliefs of Hindus should not come at the cost of withdrawing respect from others. Further, whose definition of beliefs of Hindus are we to go by? A narrow clique of upper-caste hegemons? or the Dalit classed as Hindu, the tribal with no Hindus in the vicinity other than those that have trampled the laws of the land to deprive the tribal of his historical and traditional ambience, the caste Hindu in some southern states who doesn't give a flying f for the beliefs so unctuously mouthed by northern (and southern) bigots...even in Nepal, there is clearly no longer any respect for the rubbish that is sought to be shoved down everybody's throat, so what does this formula mean?

Furthermore, the image of clearly demarcated 'Hindu' zones and 'Muslim' ghettos smacks of the raw, naked fascism that colours much of the thinking of the religious right. What happens in areas that have a combined population of Hindus and Muslims? What happens, in short, if there is no clear majority or minority? Whose views prevail?

At least those hell-hounds Kapil Mishra, Anurag Thakur and their hooligan bands had no such double-speak; their message was clear, there is no space for anyone other than that sliver of uppercaste Hindus.
 
'High IQ pseudo-liberals' are having nightmares after nightmares these days. I will surely vote for a leader projecting himself as 'Sewak' rather than 'Ruler' anyday. There is no question about it. These 'outdated self-certified Liberals' should get out of their age-old 'Babu' culture asap.
 
Mourn idea of India, but don’t forget that the idea of people is changing too
Modi’s new India is a new idea of the people. And politicians and intellectuals must bow to it unquestioningly.
HILAL AHMED 26 August, 2020 8:31 am IST


BJP party supporters at a rally (Representational image)
File photo | BJP supporters at a rally | Mitesh Bhuvad/PTI

In all the ongoing intellectual debate on the idea of New India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, there is a new uncritical celebration of the ‘people’ as the ultimate authority, and as rational agents. This ‘idea of the people’ — now represented in the politics around Ayodhya bhoomi pujan and Sabarimala — is one which both politicians and public intellectuals must bow to unquestioningly.
The idea of the ‘people’ is critical to any makeover that the idea of India gets.

Modi often likes to project himself as the unmediated implementer of the will of ‘sawa sau crore Bharat-wasi’. Or when he was the chief minister, he called himself the “hanuman for 6 crore Gujaratis” in 2012 and often referred to the Gujarati asmita (pride). He mounts his politics on this imagined will, wound, pride and prejudices of the people. But there has been little political and intellectual scrutiny of how Indian politics has used ‘the people’ trope over time.

Our public debates rest on a romantic view of the people. After the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s stunning 2019 Lok Sabha election victory, liberals began accepting their limitations to evolve a people’s language and some intellectuals bemoaned how they may have lost the tools to understand the people. The unspoken idea is that the politicians and intellectuals do not dare question the people. It is from here that majoritarian politics emerges. Modi’s political project of New India actually survives on this imagination of the people as real, authentic and, above all, responsive citizens.

But this political portrayal of the people as unquestionable rational agents not only goes against the political traditions evolved out of the national movement but also contradicts our constitutional values.

Also read: Modi redefined secularism with Ram Mandir as Hindu voters were fed up of Sonia-Left version
The Indian story of ‘the people’
The will of the people as a governing principle is a recent phenomenon. Major streams of the Indian national movement tried to create a balance between social reforms and an ideal imagination of an egalitarian political order. M.K. Gandhi’s constructive programmes, B.R. Ambedkar’s criticisms of the caste system and Bhagat Singh’s emphasis on class division of Indian society were deeply rooted in the tradition of social reforms of the 19th century. There was a consensus that political action would remain meaningless if society was not reformed.

The Indian Constitution was the logical outcome of this belief. It recognises the people as the real sovereign and ensures that their individual and collective rights are adequately protected. However, it does not fully endorse the will of the people and, for that matter, the majority rule. Instead, it sets out certain principles for the political class to evolve what Ambedkar called constitutional morality.

The Nehruvian state introduced a series of radical social reforms in the 1950s through legal constitutional means. The people, in this framework, were to be educated and reformed by the State to make them fully democratic and adequately modern. Indira Gandhi reinterpreted the Directive Principles of State Policy to legitimise her authoritarian rule. She even justified the Emergency (1975-77) in the name of people’s welfare.

The economic liberalisation in the 1990s, however, was a turning point. The idea of the people as an extremely rational collective began to take shape only in the 1990s around the time of economic reforms and the explosion of popular private entertainment. Two years after economic reforms, the Babri Masjid was demolished as a demonstration of avenging collective Hindu wounds.

As the economy privatised and expanded, the State redefined itself as a political regulatory entity. It was established that society and economy are autonomous self-governing spheres and the primary function of the State is to reconcile competing interests through redistributive policies. This led to a new political narrative of inclusion. A series of policy initiatives were taken to address the specific needs of different marginalised groups — Dalits, OBCs, women, Muslims, and adivasi—without evolving any comprehensive vision for social transformation.

Hindutva politics challenged this political correctness in two ways. They invoked Hindu victimhood to attract the middle-class upper-caste groups; and at the same time, they came out with the idea of authentic and responsive people — who give priority to the nation and do not believe in any other identity. The New India of Narendra Modi actually rests on this hyper-nationalist version of the people.
Also read: Secularism gave up language of religion. Ayodhya bhoomi pujan is a result of that
The people — voter/citizen/aam aadmi
There are at least three features of the people in contemporary India. In a more direct political sense, the people are defined as voters and consumers who must be wooed.

Modi’s New India is about participative democracy and responsive, proactive citizenry, one that can be enlisted in a Kennedy-style call to use toilets, build temples and statues, pay taxes, and queue up to get rid of dirty cash. For Modi, ‘New India is the era of Responsive people and responsive government’. Even as Modi appropriates the people’s will unto himself while platitudinising that the voter is always right, he/she has to accept the authority of the government to facilitate the working of the political system.

Arvind Kejriwal and the Congress’ ‘aam aadmi’ (common man) is the third feature of the people. The aam aadmi is defined as a morally sincere, gullible, vulnerable and politically weak entity. We are told that despite having a right to vote, the aam aadmi does not have adequate resources to deal with the corrupt system. He/she, therefore, is expected to abide by the ethos of nationalism to create what Arvind Kejriwal used to call swaraj. This person is also a morally committed nationalist and a responsive citizen who can be called upon to give up car travel in winter to reduce air pollution or to not pay the illegal water and electricity bills.
Also read: Not vikas, Modi’s 2019 election was built on politics of vishwas
Political use of ‘the people’
These popular portrayals of the people contribute directly to political arguments now. The reluctant responses of the political elites on the Sabarimala issue and their over-enthusiasm for bhoomi pujan in Ayodhya underline the fact that political parties do not want to go against what they view as the will of the majority.

A liberal politician like Shashi Tharoor justified standing with community beliefs and the temple in the Sabarimala row by saying he was representing his public. This line of argument also empowers the Hindutva forces to justify anti-Muslim violence as the natural reaction of the people/Hindus. In fact, a strong impression has been created that the sentiments, views and beliefs of Hindus must be respected because they are the majority or the authentic people.

The idea of the people, when elevated as rational, homogeneous entity, is highly dangerous — it hides the inherent class-caste-gender contradictions and empowers the political class to justify electoral majoritarianism.

We must learn from Ambedkar: democratic politics won’t work if we do not question the foundational structures of our society.
And now, as public intellectuals urge us to re-imagine our engagement with the people and restore what they consider the broken link, it can be a slippery slope towards imagining the people as the all-knowing and unquestionable monolith majority.

The author is Associate Professor, CSDS, New Delhi. Views are personal.


@niaz
@fatman17
@SQ8

@Arsalan
@AgNoStiC MuSliM
@saiyan0321

@Jungibaaz
@Chak Bamu
@Indus Pakistan

@peagle
@ps3linux
@Dil Pakistan
@Longhorn
@R Wing
@Mutakalim
@Mustakshaf
------------
@MilSpec
@T90TankGuy
@Nilgiri
@jamahir
@Syama Ayas
@Krptonite
@xeuss
@cloud4000
------------
@DalalErMaNodi
@Bilal9
@Xerxes22

Lot of mental diarrhoea. These sort of writing has lost its relevance in modern india. if you want to be recognised, write something which makes sense. pseudo secularism and pseudo liberalism to protect limited group of hypocrites is outdated now. No wonder I couldn't continue reading after first paragraph
 
Lot of mental diarrhoea. These sort of writing has lost its relevance in modern india. if you want to be recognised, write something which makes sense. pseudo secularism and pseudo liberalism to protect limited group of hypocrites is outdated now. No wonder I couldn't continue reading after first paragraph

@Joe Shearer

Basically he wants you to spew hate against Muslims and others that go against the wishes of his Fuhrer
 
Lot of mental diarrhoea. These sort of writing has lost its relevance in modern india. if you want to be recognised, write something which makes sense. pseudo secularism and pseudo liberalism to protect limited group of hypocrites is outdated now. No wonder I couldn't continue reading after first paragraph

I'm so glad you couldn't read after the first paragraph; it might have impelled you to make the kind of despairing statement that a sense of defeat seems to infuse into all our sometime patriots who can now see for themselves that the game is up.

Just a thought: isn't it odd that the very people who want to reintroduce the most vicious characteristics of older ancient Indian society through the back door now seem to want relevance to "modern India", whatever weird construct that might be? Ironic.
 
@Joe Shearer

Basically he wants you to spew hate against Muslims and others that go against the wishes of his Fuhrer

Basically, like all others of his persuasion, he wants to avoid any commentary at all, as their position becomes daily more vulnerable and laughable.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom