My definition of secularism is simple, India first, Narendra Modi tells ove

[Paan Singh]

Not in this life time- maybe with a 'reincarnation'

as u believe ,keep on

 

[Mritunjaya]

I am replying only to the relevant quotes.

ABV was a huge dam standing between the crazy elements of BJP and the government. Not crossing the LOC was not a moderate policy. It was the only practical policy given the nuclear overhang and international pressure. But credit should be given to the government for not listening to the extremist elements in BJP and allies who asked for total war, though it was an easy decision.

Is this fiction writing competition ? Here is video of your beloved ABV encouraging RSS members to go to Ayodhya for ...you know what ....This is the man you are saying protected India against 'extremist elements in BJP' ?

That "huge dam called ABV" responded to parliament attack by massing Indian Army on the borders and made a laughing stock out of our Defense forces, just so that he could show the world what a great 'statesman' he was.

1874 Indian soldiers died during that standoff , and more than 100 more were injured. Around 100 soldiers were killed in the initial phase of laying mines, another 250 were injured.

Not to mention the Kargil war during his time and the Kandahar fiasco where Terrorist were released and Indians were made laughing stock before the world media.

Vajpayee was a disaster and its hilarious to see 'secular' Indians support him but criticizer Narandra Modi


It will be safe to say Narendra Modi will never make such ridiculous mockery of our will and determination to defend ourselves.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Is this fiction writing competition ? Here is video of your beloved ABV encouraging RSS members to go to Ayodhya for ...you know what ....This is the man you are saying protected India against 'extremist elements in BJP' ?

That "huge dam called ABV" responded to parliament attack by massing Indian Army on the borders and made a laughing stock out of our Defense forces, just so that he could show the world what a great 'statesman' he was.

1874 Indian soldiers died during that standoff , and more than 100 more were injured. Around 100 soldiers were killed in the initial phase of laying mines, another 250 were injured.

Not to mention the Kargil war during his time and the Kandahar fiasco where Terrorist were released and Indians were made laughing stock before the world media.

Vajpayee was a disaster and its hilarious to see 'secular' Indians support him but criticizer Narandra Modi


It will be safe to say Narendra Modi will never make such ridiculous mockery of our will and determination to defend ourselves.

I'd have liked to believe that there was at least one BJP leader who was a great one- bue since you're trying to give conclusive evidence to the contrary, I'll revise my stand and accept that all of them are trash. In any case the myth making fac tory around Modi is definitely in full swing.

 

[KRAIT]

Watched Modi's speech. I don't know who has vision. A 40 year old Silver Spoon Fed Child with Dimple on Face and Blemish on Youth of India or 59 year old Born from Soil, Drenched in Sweat, Thrashed from right , left, center from not only the so called Morally Righteous Air Conditioned people in India and in rest of the world and taking the beating, opponents going to all extent to knock him do, but instead of whining, cribbing, rose up every single time, day in day out. He could have either accepted a blame on what he didn't do and cave into his shell.

Rocky Balboa's inspirational speech to his son. - YouTube

 

[Mritunjaya]

I'd have liked to believe that there was at least one BJP leader who was a great one- bue since you're trying to give conclusive evidence to the contrary, I'll revise my stand and accept that all of them are trash. In any case the myth making fac tory around Modi is definitely in full swing.

........you are a muslim bigot who will never vote for BJP even when hell freezes over. I don't care what you believe .... you can continue to live in denial. I would enjoy your discomfort more when Narendra Modi wins.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

........you are a muslim bigot who will never vote for BJP even when hell freezes over. I don't care what you believe .... you can continue to live in denial. I would enjoy your discomfort more when Narendra Modi wins.

I thought i asked you to stay away from my threads

 

[CZAR]

What is this heavily loaded 'line that distinguishes majority from the minority along religious lines' ? Please me more explicit in your comment instead of hiding behind vague comments (also know as shadow boxing). What is this 'LINE' that Modi has drawn which remains invisible to most of us but is clearly visible to you ?

The only line here is 'India First' .......



Please give evidence of Modi proposing such a divide. In absence of such proof its is to be viewed as a malicious attempt at character assassination of Narendra Modi.

In fact there is evidence that Modi has taken steps to actively eliminated such a divide.

Muslims best off in gujarat: just look at the statistics



Also describe what you mean by "Hindu supremacists" so that we can better understand your allegation to see that it goes beyond name calling.



If Muslims and christians want to be heard in BJP govt. they can strengthen hands of BJP muslim leadership i.e. of course assuming they do not have faith in the Hindu Leaders of BJP based on your/their personal animosity to Hindu leaders.

Here is some of their names
1. Tanveer Ahmed (National President)
2. Ms Munawari Begum (National General Secretary)
3. Mr Syed Abdul Kareem (National General Secretary)
4. Shafaat Husain (Uttar Pradesh President)
5. Dr Iftikhar Ahmed Javed (Uttar Pradesh General Secretary)
6. Nazar Abbas Naqvi (Allahabad Dist. President)
...etc...

The cheap shot about persona non grata is in poor taste. The last time India needed the white mans approval was in 1947. Maybe you still need their approval , but do not make the mistake of assuming the rest of India is also into 'white worship'.

I never had any doubts about 'your position' ....that was always been clear to me. As I said earlier, logic cannot overcome synthetic fear/anger. My objective is to debate/expose 'secular Indians' and claims of 'self righteousness'.

Firstly, let's calm down. Your "one-man-BJP-army" routine only ends up infusing humor into this debate.

As for the question about the "line" - one needs to appreciate the subtle nuances of a statement or a speech. Let's begin by turning the argument around - Congress presents an agenda of showering the followers of Islam with talk of quotas, reservations, haj subsidies, allocates funds, etc. On the face of it - its difficult to argue against center-state sponsored schemes that target a minority which due to socio-cultural biases has been unable to keep pace with the development of others. But we all have come to understand and loathe the overarching approach of the Grand Old Party that allows, allegedly undue, concessions to the community. Therefore, it would be naive to not consider the political tone and tenor and take such statements from the Congress at face value.

Similarly, I don't find merit in arguments that propose cutting Modi slack by assuming that his comments were merely restricted to invigorating the youth with a sense of national pride. When subjected to the same scrutiny, given that one of the primary criticisms against Congress is that it bends over backwards for minorities, it is quite clear - as I have explained in earlier posts - that his thinly veiled message was one that sought to assure the hindu majority of his commitment and also one that sought to relegate the minority to the bench.

His power sharing formula, where "India First" necessarily includes the majority but does not necessarily include the minority, could theoretically allow anti-minority policies, as long as the majority grants its approval. India is a diverse country, and decision-making, necessarily, cannot be as simplistic as seeking approval of the majority - especially in treating sensitive and volatile issues such as religion. Why would the minorities, who are equally Indian, desire a scenario where their well being is contingent on the will of the majority?

This is what I describe as drawing the line - on religious grounds. The only thing that is debatable is to what extent Modi is likely to push - a passive approach or a hard-line adversarial approach.

As for Modi bridging the divide - surely there are better indicators that you can resort to, to back your claims. You pointed out an article that claimed the there are more Muslim cops now. Similarly I could argue that in 2012 polls in Gujarat - in the 182 seat assembly - Muslims have merely two representatives. In fact, never under Modi, has any BJP Muslim candidate ever won a seat in Gujarat. So it appears, that your list of Muslim candidates needs to be served to Modi and the BJP high command.

As for your claim about the cheap shot. I'm assuming that you are referring to the Wharton incident. You will appreciate that "persona non grata" is also used more widely than mere diplomatic jargon, to label someone as unwanted or unwelcome. My taunt was so much more than just a jibe at the Wharton incident. True, he is not looked at favorably by a number of countries and institutions - but my claim was in reference to a maybe less vocal, but equally disenchanted lot, here in India.

Their numbers, are large enough to disallow Modi a chance to storm into 7 RCR. The BJP, outside of Karnataka (which has a strong anti-incumbency sentiment) has no presence in South. BJP also lacks strength in the eastern parts of the country. Moreover, despite the clamor against the scams and poor governance of the current government and Modi mania reaching a crescendo, the BJP has proved itself grossly incompetent in realizing the gains. Despite the high decibel campaign, the BJP has barely manage to hold its own in the assembly elections over the last 18-24 months, with a slim margin in Goa being an exception.

So I just don't see BJP getting a strong mandate of 200-220 seats to be able to any of the moves that his supporters claim that he could.

 

[KRAIT]

@CZAR These people are hurting the entire cause. Instead of people discussing of development based politics and attracting all political parties to do the same, it has become Secularist vs Hard Liner Hindus.

Modi is trying to move the focus of Indian politics from Religion, but these idiots are giving Congress advantage.

Imagine if all parties propose development based manifesto, talk about just this, no matter who wins, it will be finally a first step away from Vote Bank Politics.

 

[axisofevil]

Agreed. Congress is WRONG in shielding JT and co from not being accountable for the Sikh riots. They should be both prosecuted and hanged. But that doesn't become a jestification for what happened during the Gujarat riots. You can't say- we can accept Guj riots because congress has also rioted. That's STUPID.

YOu cant pinthe blame on the Modi for the Gujurat riots. The events that took place are quite misfortunate but it is not his fault. Congress has been using it to scapegoat a potential adversary from taking office. its politic at the end of the day.

 

[Developereo]

All Modi haters should first ask where is the Human rights and Justice for victims of 50 riots in UP after 2002, Assam Riots, West Bengal Riots, and most importantly, of Sikh Genocide.

Not ONE single person had mentioned riots in this thread until YOU brought up the topic. And then you will whine that people attack Modi on riots.

When your PM says we have done this and that for minorities, based on religion, a Dalit asks what is my fault that I belong to majority

I am surprised that you, as an Indian, don't know that the vast majority beneficiaries of reservations in India are Hindus, not the evil Mooslims.

Reservation in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You need to park your obsession with Muslims and return to reality.

 

[Mritunjaya]

Firstly, let's calm down. Your "one-man-BJP-army" routine only ends up infusing humor into this debate.

No more humorous that your attempts to hear the 'unsaid'

As for the question about the "line" - one needs to appreciate the subtle nuances of a statement or a speech. Let's begin by turning the argument around - Congress presents an agenda of showering the followers of Islam with talk of quotas, reservations, haj subsidies, allocates funds, etc. On the face of it - its difficult to argue against center-state sponsored schemes that target a minority which due to socio-cultural biases has been unable to keep pace with the development of others. But we all have come to understand and loathe the overarching approach of the Grand Old Party that allows, allegedly undue, concessions to the community. Therefore, it would be naive to not consider the political tone and tenor and take such statements from the Congress at face value.

Your example of congress minority appeasement exposes the communal politics of congress. Thank you for bringing that up and backing my claim of congress being the most communal party in India. (..and yet here you are going against your 'first priority' )

You still have not given evidence of your claim of "line that distinguishes majority from the minority along religious lines". All you have done is make additional claimed to have amazing ability to understand "subtle nuances of a statement". It would have been funny if its was not so annoying. We are still waiting for evidence of your earlier statement.

So here is two amazing abilities you have ,

1. To hear the "unsaid"
2. To understand "subtle nuances of a statement" which others dont understand.

This looks like more evidence of Paranoia and schizophrenia. Am i debating with a Nut case ?

Similarly, I don't find merit in arguments that propose cutting Modi slack by assuming that his comments were merely restricted to invigorating the youth with a sense of national pride. When subjected to the same scrutiny, given that one of the primary criticisms against Congress is that it bends over backwards for minorities, it is quite clear - as I have explained in earlier posts - that his thinly veiled message was one that sought to assure the hindu majority of his commitment and also one that sought to relegate the minority to the bench.

Here we go again .........more evidence of what Modi "did not say" but you with your special abilities have "heard and understood".

This whole debate is turning into a joke.

His power sharing formula, where "India First" necessarily includes the majority but does not necessarily include the minority, could theoretically allow anti-minority policies, as long as the majority grants its approval. India is a diverse country, and decision-making, necessarily, cannot be as simplistic as seeking approval of the majority - especially in treating sensitive and volatile issues such as religion. Why would the minorities, who are equally Indian, desire a scenario where their well being is contingent on the will of the majority?

This is what I describe as drawing the line - on religious grounds. The only thing that is debatable is to what extent Modi is likely to push - a passive approach or a hard-line adversarial approach.

So what you are admitting here is for all Hindus in India it is "Nation First", but for certain Muslims and Christians its "Religion First"........................ In this scenario certain policies against "Anti-Nationals" will also become "Anti-Minority" due to the fact that these minorities put "religion first".

That being the case, the line on religious grounds have already been drawn by these minorities who put "Religion First". Why blame Modi for it ? He is not the one who drew that line, its the minorities who drew that line. If anything Modi would be trying to eliminate that line, and you are arguing for keeping that religious dividing line intact. This is the same person who claimed his "first priority would be to discourage parties with communal politics" The only person playing along communal lines is you. The only person who is supporting "drawing lines - on religious grounds" is you, not Modi.

As for Modi bridging the divide - surely there are better indicators that you can resort to, to back your claims. You pointed out an article that claimed the there are more Muslim cops now. Similarly I could argue that in 2012 polls in Gujarat - in the 182 seat assembly - Muslims have merely two representatives. In fact, never under Modi, has any BJP Muslim candidate ever won a seat in Gujarat. So it appears, that your list of Muslim candidates needs to be served to Modi and the BJP high command.

Under Modi, Gujarat BJP has won 12 of 19 seats where Muslims are the determining factor. No better proof can be shown of social empowerment and power sharing. He has empowered Gujarati muslims more than just giving token seats. His empowerment is not empowerment of a few muslim leaders but of the entire muslim citizens of Gujarat. You seem to have a problem with that this muslim empowerment was under "Hindu Leadership", but that only exposes your own religious hatred and need for one-up-man-ship over hindus. Kindly leave Modi out of this toxic logic.

Moreover in the Salaya municipality in the Jamnagar district of Saurashtra, where 90 per cent of the population is Muslim. For the 27 seats at stake, the BJP put up 24 Muslim candidates, who were all won. This comprehensively discredits your argument that "under Modi no Muslim candidates won a seat in Gujarat". Maybe its your prejudice that gives you 'selective blindness'.

....BTW my list of muslim candidates is part of BJP high command. I have given their party designation to prevent this selective amnesia.

As for your claim about the cheap shot. I'm assuming that you are referring to the Wharton incident. You will appreciate that "persona non grata" is also used more widely than mere diplomatic jargon, to label someone as unwanted or unwelcome. My taunt was so much more than just a jibe at the Wharton incident. True, he is not looked at favorably by a number of countries and institutions - but my claim was in reference to a maybe less vocal, but equally disenchanted lot, here in India.

"persona non grata" is used in diplomatic circles to indicate people not allowed into the country by foreign govts. US denial of visa for Modi is the obvious conclusion to be made when you made this disingenuous comment. Wharton is/was a non issue. By your logic and definition, Rahul Gandhi is also "persona non grata" to many Indians

Their numbers, are large enough to disallow Modi a chance to storm into 7 RCR. The BJP, outside of Karnataka (which has a strong anti-incumbency sentiment) has no presence in South. BJP also lacks strength in the eastern parts of the country. Moreover, despite the clamor against the scams and poor governance of the current government and Modi mania reaching a crescendo, the BJP has proved itself grossly incompetent in realizing the gains. Despite the high decibel campaign, the BJP has barely manage to hold its own in the assembly elections over the last 18-24 months, with a slim margin in Goa being an exception.

So I just don't see BJP getting a strong mandate of 200-220 seats to be able to any of the moves that his supporters claim that he could.

I leave this realms of speculation to "political pundits" like you. It is not really the point of this debate.


On last point ....we are still waiting for your definition of "Hindu supremacists" to your claims for the same.

 

[KS]

All defenitions of secularism will have an element of equality
And all that he did as his 'actions' is to make sure that it 'looked' like he acted. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ If that doesn't send your alarm bells ringing, I don't know what will.

This worn-out rhetoric still does not explain how the words "Nation first, above all other idealogies" make it non-secular or Hindutva as you were initially claiming.

Are you going to explain the unique logic behind that or going to continue your bluster with wornout rhetoric we have been hearing for 10 years ?

 

[KS]

Let me break it down. Think logically, coming from, to say the least, a right leaning hardliner

That is your opinion. Lets not confuse opinions with facts.

- with India's 80% of the population being hindu - no "India First" policy can be possible without the approval of Hindu masses.

Agreed.

Meanwhile, "India First" is possible without the minorities.

How is that possible ? I dont get it. Do minorities dont include themselves in the definition of India ? If they include themselves then automatically India first wouldnt be a problem for them.

What he said was crystal clear - India should be first, nation above all idealogies. All idealogies meaning ALL idealogies. No minority no majority. Everyone considers nation first. This is such a simple, straightforward concept, the basis of modern nation states and you people are twisting it too much because of your bias.

For example, when one obtains the citizenship of USA he has to pledge alliegiance to US and put US first.I dont see any minorities here having a problem with that ? Why are India's minorites so special that they get insecure at about just everything under the sun ?

Hence, the likelihood of angst within the minority community - as they have been offered a power sharing agreement, by a potential PM candidate, whereby their voice and approval would no longer be critical to decision making.

.

No it doesnt help. This whole logic being trotted out only amounts to a soft confession that many among the Muslims and Christians dont consider Nation First and place the interests of their idealogies above that of the nation.

Then what you are saying is possible - that their voice be drowned out by those who consider nation first. If muslims and christians do consider nation first, then what is the problem ? where does the contradiction arise ?


=================

Ok since you have a problem with that - let me ask you, in your opinion, what should have he said ?

 

[KS]

The Congress now owns up the incident. They did not do it(the owning up thing) voluntarily. Now it is Modi's turn to own up. Instead he does not even explain what happened around him.

Congress nver did own up or even issue an apology. It was a Sikh (MMS) who ironically apologised for the actions on his own community. Neither Rajiv nor Sonia nor Rahul nor Priyanka have even give one word of regret to that.

And you know what ? the difference is the Sikh riots were provoked, started, executed and completed by the Congress mobs while the Gujarat riots were not started by Modi or BJP (actually many of the Godhra convicts were Congressis) and neither did they execute it. So why should they own up for a fault that was not of their making ?

There is a world of difference between these two riots. Actually 1984 was a one sided pogrom while 2002 was a communal riot.

By the way I'll tell you why he should not apologise - because people like CZAR, no offense, who think even saying "India first" is communal would take that as an admission of guilt and again renew the agenda. There is nothing moralistic about the 2002 riots. Its pure politics. It is kept alive and will be kept alive by interested parties to corrall the Muslims into one herd/flock and make them mass vote for 'that' party.

You can't say- we can accept Guj riots because congress has also rioted. That's STUPID.

That's not what being said -

what is being "asked" is how can Congress which engineered and perperated the worst communal pogrom in independent India be called secular by the intellectual airheads while BJP be labelled communal for one riot (and the last riot in Gujarat) in 2002 ?

 

[KS]

Read my earlier post. I said the sad thing would be that Hindutva champions will count Modi's points as theirs. I proved my point with a quote. How exactly is that a low blow?

The thing is nature abhors vaccuum. If the pseudo-secularists castigate Modi for their agenda then automatically people who oppose the hypocrisy of the pseudos will make him their champion. It is not limited to hindutvadis only. I seen plenty rational, atheistic people support Modi just for the sake of opposing the hypocrisy spewn by our intellectuals.

Strawman argument. I never said what Modi said regarding 'nation first' was communal.

I misread your initial post.

Though you did not say it was communal, you said it was populistic. True it is designed to appeal to the nationalistic fervor the people.

Nothing wrong in being populistic unless it does not divide the society (like religion based reservations) or drains the coffers (like the food security bill)..dont your agree ?

Wow. You are the one who insists we take people's words at face value(which I totally agree with). So now you want the man to not even bother to say anything!!

I said his actions spoke louder than words..The riots were quelled within 3 days and Army was called the first day. Moreover the rioting was also controlled to areas around Amdavad and some tribal tracts in North Gujrat..

What I meant is instead of grandiose words, I would prefer people actually do it..

And one more thing..as I said, anything, literally anything Modi says on the riots will be used against him..People in guj have moved on bro..its time the intellectuals and politicians in the rest of the country move on too..

.

I have no business defending Congress. But the fanboy notion about the 'only complaint against BJP' is completely false.

Well you said on party is dynastic and another is communal. I just said Congress has more blood on its hands and hence its unfair to absolve it of communalism too..