Plot to kill Modi and many BJP leaders

[Joe Shearer]

Why people here think opposing Modi and BJP automatically means we are a supporter of Congress??



Yes sir, everybody who hates Modi is a traitor

Everyone who opposes Modi must be a Congress supporter, because the Modi bandwagon cannot handle the difficulties of explaining why neutral persons might not care for what Modi stands for, in terms of equitable governance, in terms of even-handed treatment of the communities, in terms of distortions of the state institutions to strengthen his political faction and matters like that. Those feet of clay are never to be mentioned. Instead, the only acceptable explanation is that all critics are Congress factionaries and therefore led to condemn anything positive from the Sangh Parivar.

 

[Joe Shearer]

See, people have a right to support or oppose anyone.

I don't go around branding anyone who supports any political group.

My post was specific to those who do all the branding and get personal and rude in the process of doing so.

I think Modi needs to be treated as just another politician. That he arouses such passions is mainly because of his haters rather than his supporters.

Excuse me, if you are referring to me, and there is hardly anyone else opposing Modi so strenuously, then let me point out that I have branded those persons who show blindness to Modi's misdeeds and never acknowledge them, and do not bother to go into what has been brought out about him.

Has a single one of you looked into the matters that are ranged against him, except in a cursory way, sufficiently to be able to enumerate them and show that you have looked at these issues? If you look at them seriously and are willing to discuss his role with these matters taken into account, to just the same extent as you take up in detail the misdeeds of that other set of scoundrels, the Congress, where would there be scope for branding? And if these supporters were not scurrilous in their approach towards other political leaders, then, even if I detest them personally, I believe that this is low behaviour and I believe in calling it low behaviour, and those indulging in it as lowly behaved.

Modi is not another politician. He is particularly bad for India. It is for this reason that I, personally, oppose him so vehemently, even while other politicians lurch around the political stage causing their own brand of havoc.

Consider this: he arouses passions because of his haters, and that is because he is hated for his misdeeds, which exceed those of others, even Advani and Rajiv Gandhi. He does not arouse passions because of his supporters; how can he, when they have nothing to say about him except to sing paeans of praise? What exactly does that last remark of yours mean?

 

[Joe Shearer]

So the killing of Kashmiri Pandits doesn't matter because "Not a single Buddhist was massacred"!

Since you have been taking a high moral stand about my views and statements and methods of argument, don't you think it is low down to distort mine and to put words in my mouth?

Some jerk mentioned that Hindus and Buddhists had been killed by the Muslims, and I pointed out, in response to that, that he was exaggerating for effect, as is quite typical with political polemicists, and that no Budddhists had been killed.

From that, how did you get to the point where I imply that the killings of Pundits did not matter because no Buddhists were killed? You have been quick to condemn branding and labelling and seem to be sensitive to criticism of Modi's bad faith with regard to the minorities, and even more, of criticism of his supporters; why are you yourself being dishonest in dealing with the words of others?

If you want to criticise what you see as my habit of branding and labelling and what you believe is my distortion of the views of others, you should come to that with clean hands.

these were the slogans being shouted from mosque loudspeakers:

These were ****** and debased, and animal-like in their import. I am aware of them, and have told my Kashmiri Muslim interlocutors that they were utterly wrong and contemptible in doing these things. If you wish, you can look up these exchanges: references will be provided. Where are you on such fora, when I take on the Kashmiri Muslims for majoritarian barbarism just as I take on Hindu bigots on PDF? Just because you don't know what I do elsewhere and what I say to bigots other than Hindu, you think that you have the right to run me down? None of you brave ones has the guts to confront those people on their own turf and tell them that they were wrong, so why do you think that you are such heroes? Because you have a clear run on PDF?

Of course it was all the fault of the Pandits and "Mr. JagMohan Malhotra, that arch-bigot"!

And of course you say this from your own deep study of the situation, not from an assumption of probity for all actors on one side, and of bad faith of all those on the other side.

Many politicians are accused of so many things.

The genocide claim is political and is not proven in courts. At best the legal case could be about ineffective response and many examples can be given of other state governments being much more ineffective and worse.

Anyway, it seems it is almost impossible to be just factual about him.

So what do you suggest? That all politicians be given a free pass? Or that they and their actions and their relatives and their actions should be constantly subjected to close scrutiny?

You don't like Modi under close scrutiny. What about the others? Do we treat all of them the way you people want to treat Modi? with kid gloves? Have you actually thought through your position?

 

[Joe Shearer]

The problems with mishandling kashmiri pundit issue is not solved by bringing in another person who is equally violent but in the opposite strain.

And I did not mean this, but something direct.

There is a body of opinion, among high-ranking administrators who are establishment people themselves, that Jagmohan engineered the whole thing to create a sense of crisis, or to heighten a sense of crisis and enable him to take harsher measures. This senior IAS man, who was later adviser to to the Chief Minister, and is now happily retired in Chandigarh, points to the mysterious provision of meticulously organised transport at every hamlet and settlement to take the Pundits out overnight.

It is this that I was referring to, and in doing so, I am not minimising the abominable role of the Kashmiri Muslims one little bit. I am saying that the vicious atmosphere was cleverly used by a known manipulator to bring about a state of affairs of his liking.

Suhrawardy had a major role in Calcutta killings on "direct action day".

He was the CM and the state machinery was used to organize the killings.

Did anyone deny that? If you are referring to bronxbull's stupid assertion, he was talking about Noakhali. Would you clarify what you meant?

I never said it does.

If you are pointing towards Modi, let's agree to disagree.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Firstly you can find somebody to hurl accusations but it does not make the accusations true.

Secondly even if what the most rabid accusers are shrieking is actually true, it is still much less than the Butchery and Holocausts perpetrated by the Congress.

Again, the Congress are guilty in their own way in their own case. That does not absolve Modi of what he is being accused of. You cannot excuse a murder by standing up in court and saying that there have been other murders. Such a stand would be deemed imbecile in an individual case; what makes you believe that it is any different in the case of a politician?

On another thread this Shearer fellow was actually defending the Congress in connection with the Sikh Holocaust. It is instructive to see how these viciously twisted and hateful folks go around pretending to be normal humans.

I deny that completely.

You are lying in your teeth.

 

[Vinod2070]

Everyone who opposes Modi must be a Congress supporter, because the Modi bandwagon cannot handle the difficulties of explaining why neutral persons might not care for what Modi stands for, in terms of equitable governance, in terms of even-handed treatment of the communities, in terms of distortions of the state institutions to strengthen his political faction and matters like that. Those feet of clay are never to be mentioned. Instead, the only acceptable explanation is that all critics are Congress factionaries and therefore led to condemn anything positive from the Sangh Parivar.

Let's not stretch it too far.

Calling them Congress supporter may be a manner of speaking and not to be taken literally, at least in my case.

I have just no issues with anyone being Modi opponent. In fact it is expected in a democracy.

I just have issues with these people trying to label others and Modi and subjecting him to criteria which is way different from all other politicians.

Unfortunately it is because of the way secularism has been defined in India, mainly by the Congress but also by most of the political class.

It just has come to mean abusing the majority community or people who speak up for it, even when it is not against anyone else.

A party is "communal" when it supports BJP and becomes secular as soon as it deserts it.

You have to pardon me if I (and many others) feel it is a sham and call it so.

 

[Joe Shearer]

See, highly opinionated people don't know many times when the tail starts wagging the dog.

They are unable to see facts objectively and filter out everything that is inconvenient.

"Denial" is a normal thing for every human being, some people take it to the extreme.

Again, you should examine the record. Rig Vedic is lying without compunction or shame. By endorsing his statement, you are sharing his position.

 

[Vinod2070]

Did anyone deny that? If you are referring to bronxbull's stupid assertion, he was talking about Noakhali. Would you clarify what you meant?

My point was not really obnoxious, even if that is all you have come to expect.

He may have been mistaken about which riots Suhrawardy was responsible for. The basic premise was correct.

I was just pointing out a fact, nothing else.

Again, you should examine the record. Rig Vedic is lying without compunction or shame. By endorsing his statement, you are sharing his position.

I may share some of his positions. I don't find anything wrong with it.

I share many of your positions as well, though obviously not all.

I share people's position (or vice versa) on specific issues, not necessarily with their ideology.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Let's not stretch it too far.

Calling them Congress supporter may be a manner of speaking and not to be taken literally, at least in my case.

Sorry for the harsh language that follows, since you are evidently very sensitive: are you not being hypocritical? You can call someone something that manifestly he is not, and has denied and proven by example again and again, but your own accusations are to be taken as in a manner of speaking and not taken literally? Different standards for different people?

Note that I have never called Modi a murderer, or guilty of genocide, but have always used the formula 'guilty of violating his oath to uphold the constitution' and 'aiding and abetting murderous riots', and 'conspiring to cause riots'. These are carefully chosen, not to blame him for things that he never did, but to show where and how he might have fallen short, and why we cannot trust him in a future position of authority.

I have just no issues with anyone being Modi opponent. In fact it is expected in a democracy.

I just have issues with these people trying to label others and Modi and subjecting him to criteria which is way different from all other politicians.

Could I ask for examples? From my mails and posts? I am not denying that others may have been intemperate, but I would like you to get down to brass tacks. Are you accusing me of labelling Modi and subjecting him to criteria different from others?

Unfortunately it is because of the way secularism has been defined in India, mainly by the Congress but also by most of the political class.

It just has come to mean abusing the majority community or people who speak up for it, even when it is not against anyone else.

A party is "communal" when it supports BJP and becomes secular as soon as it deserts it.

You have to pardon me if I (and many others) feel it is a sham and call it so.

And have I subscribed to that position? Have you not read my copious notes on the culpability of the Congress, and of Gandhi originally, in trying to deny the quest for identity of others than the majority Hindu upper caste? Incidentally, that also does not find favour with the Hindutvavadi, so perhaps you need to refine your accusation.

My point was not really obnoxious, even if that is all you have come to expect.

He may have been mistaken about which riots Suhrawardy was responsible for. The basic premise was correct.

I was just pointing out a fact, nothing else.

Surprising that you failed to notice that I was doing the exact same thing. How is it laudable in your case and worth criticising or correcting in my case?

I may share some of his positions. I don't find anything wrong with it.

I share many of your positions as well, though obviously not all.

I share people's position (or vice versa) on specific issues, not necessarily with their ideology.

I am sorry, but when you accept a lie told about me, that is not sharing a position, that is joining him in his lie.

Have you read me anywhere defending the Congress for their responsibility for the Sikh riots? Look up my record and my mails back to the beginning, and try to find a single example.

 

[Vinod2070]

Excuse me, if you are referring to me, and there is hardly anyone else opposing Modi so strenuously, then let me point out that I have branded those persons who show blindness to Modi's misdeeds and never acknowledge them, and do not bother to go into what has been brought out about him.

Has a single one of you looked into the matters that are ranged against him, except in a cursory way, sufficiently to be able to enumerate them and show that you have looked at these issues? If you look at them seriously and are willing to discuss his role with these matters taken into account, to just the same extent as you take up in detail the misdeeds of that other set of scoundrels, the Congress, where would there be scope for branding? And if these supporters were not scurrilous in their approach towards other political leaders, then, even if I detest them personally, I believe that this is low behaviour and I believe in calling it low behaviour, and those indulging in it as lowly behaved.

Modi is not another politician. He is particularly bad for India. It is for this reason that I, personally, oppose him so vehemently, even while other politicians lurch around the political stage causing their own brand of havoc.

Consider this: he arouses passions because of his haters, and that is because he is hated for his misdeeds, which exceed those of others, even Advani and Rajiv Gandhi. He does not arouse passions because of his supporters; how can he, when they have nothing to say about him except to sing paeans of praise? What exactly does that last remark of yours mean?

I grant you your right to think this way.

No hard feelings at all.

Would you grant me my right to look at things the other way? As long as the judiciary doesn't pronounce him guilty?

Would you grant that some people may be supporting him not due to the 2002 riots (and his supposed role in them) but because of his record and his image of a decisive and visionary leader?

And that they are entitled to that?

Or you would just keep on labeling them just because they don't see your point about him?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I grant you your right to think this way.

No hard feelings at all.

Would you grant me my right to look at things the other way? As long as the judiciary doesn't pronounce him guilty?

Would you grant that some people may be supporting him not due to the 2002 riots (and his supposed role in them) but because of his record and his image of a decisive and visionary leader?

And that they are entitled to that?

Or you would just keep on labeling them just because they don't see your point about him?

As it happens, independent of his role in the riots, I think that he is a bluffer and a charlatan. These are not major vices, others - Mamata Bannerjee most prominently - are guilty of this, but it has an influence on my thinking, as the only counter-vailing virtue to balance his bigotry suddenly looks very shadowy.

So long as you understand that these are two different kettles of fish.

Incidentally, I think I am entitled to be critical of those who wish to support him, not due to the riots and to his role but because of his (alleged_ record and his image, because it is preposterous to overlook such a huge defect and admire a man for the comparatively minor perfection. When you think of Nero the fiddler and Nero the tyrant, does your admiration of Nero's cultural ability and refinement overcome your revulsion at his vicious behaviour? Why do you think Modi deserves differential judgement?

 

[Iggy]

Firstly you can find somebody to hurl accusations but it does not make the accusations true.

The video was not accusation but gloating of one guy who did terrible crimes under the instructions of NaMo.

Secondly even if what the most rabid accusers are shrieking is actually true, it is still much less than the Butchery and Holocausts perpetrated by the Congress.

So Modi can start a riot just because congress has done it??

 

[Vinod2070]

Since you have been taking a high moral stand about my views and statements and methods of argument, don't you think it is low down to distort mine and to put words in my mouth?

Some jerk mentioned that Hindus and Buddhists had been killed by the Muslims, and I pointed out, in response to that, that he was exaggerating for effect, as is quite typical with political polemicists, and that no Budddhists had been killed.

From that, how did you get to the point where I imply that the killings of Pundits did not matter because no Buddhists were killed? You have been quick to condemn branding and labelling and seem to be sensitive to criticism of Modi's bad faith with regard to the minorities, and even more, of criticism of his supporters; why are you yourself being dishonest in dealing with the words of others?

May be you can revisit your post and see if I was mistaken about interpreting it this way.

If I was, I apologize.

If you want to criticise what you see as my habit of branding and labelling and what you believe is my distortion of the views of others, you should come to that with clean hands.

As above.

These were ****** and debased, and animal-like in their import. I am aware of them, and have told my Kashmiri Muslim interlocutors that they were utterly wrong and contemptible in doing these things. If you wish, you can look up these exchanges: references will be provided. Where are you on such fora, when I take on the Kashmiri Muslims for majoritarian barbarism just as I take on Hindu bigots on PDF? Just because you don't know what I do elsewhere and what I say to bigots other than Hindu, you think that you have the right to run me down? None of you brave ones has the guts to confront those people on their own turf and tell them that they were wrong, so why do you think that you are such heroes? Because you have a clear run on PDF?

I of course don't know what you do in your offline life. Same as you don't know about me. So that is immaterial to the discussion.

I have much less of a clear run than most people here. I am one of the most banned members.

And no, I have no intention of running "you" down. I have respect for your historical knowledge as well as your knowledge and perspective on many issues.

I definitely have issues with aspects of your views about Indian history and how you label historians of a certain kind (a small discussion about Rajiv Malhotra was an eye opener where you just went ballistic on him for no real reasons), but that is fine. Same for our respective views on secularism.

But yes, I do find your habit of labeling and denigrating people with opposite view point (especially for supporters of a particular political ideology) quite odd to put it mildly.

And of course you say this from your own deep study of the situation, not from an assumption of probity for all actors on one side, and of bad faith of all those on the other side.

I think you need to revisit the context of why I wrote this.

So what do you suggest? That all politicians be given a free pass? Or that they and their actions and their relatives and their actions should be constantly subjected to close scrutiny?

You don't like Modi under close scrutiny. What about the others? Do we treat all of them the way you people want to treat Modi? with kid gloves? Have you actually thought through your position?

Nothing of the sort.

Just don't get so hyper about Modi if possible.

If not possible, give him and his supporters the same space as given to all others.

Realize that others may not see him as the demon that he has been made out to be. For political reasons.

 

[GreenFoe]

Why people here think opposing Modi and BJP automatically means we are a supporter of Congress??



Yes sir, everybody who hates Modi is a traitor

and Everyone who doesn't love fascist italian gooondi is communal ?

 

[Vinod2070]

Sorry for the harsh language that follows, since you are evidently very sensitive: are you not being hypocritical? You can call someone something that manifestly he is not, and has denied and proven by example again and again, but your own accusations are to be taken as in a manner of speaking and not taken literally? Different standards for different people?

Is calling someone "Congress supporter" same as calling them bigots or worse!

Would "left supporters" make it any better? There is just no equivalence here.

Note that I have never called Modi a murderer, or guilty of genocide, but have always used the formula 'guilty of violating his oath to uphold the constitution' and 'aiding and abetting murderous riots', and 'conspiring to cause riots'. These are carefully chosen, not to blame him for things that he never did, but to show where and how he might have fallen short, and why we cannot trust him in a future position of authority.

Please don't.

May be you will win. May be others who have a different viewpoint will win.

Could I ask for examples? From my mails and posts? I am not denying that others may have been intemperate, but I would like you to get down to brass tacks. Are you accusing me of labelling Modi and subjecting him to criteria different from others?

Absolutely.

By harping in 2002 endlessly and ignoring several examples of worse negligence (or worse) you are doing exactly that.

And have I subscribed to that position? Have you not read my copious notes on the culpability of the Congress, and of Gandhi originally, in trying to deny the quest for identity of others than the majority Hindu upper caste? Incidentally, that also does not find favour with the Hindutvavadi, so perhaps you need to refine your accusation.

I seem to have missed this part.

Surprising that you failed to notice that I was doing the exact same thing. How is it laudable in your case and worth criticising or correcting in my case?

No issues then!

I am sorry, but when you accept a lie told about me, that is not sharing a position, that is joining him in his lie.

Have you read me anywhere defending the Congress for their responsibility for the Sikh riots? Look up my record and my mails back to the beginning, and try to find a single example.

I have not personally read this and I would be surprised if you did that.

You need to read my post in context of the discussion that was happening.