Here's a short summary to help others who haven't heard much about him.
Short background - Has been the Chief Minister (equivalent to Governer) of the Western Indian state of Gujarat for 14 years now.
The Good
---
* Achieved a very high GDP growth rate for Gujarat
* Made Gujarat a preferred destination for big industrialists to set up their factories since he gives land & clearances very readily.
* Developed infrastructure in Gujarat - built roads, highways, flyovers.
* Known to rule with an iron fist - a "my way or the highway" style of politician.
The Bad
---
* Accused of not practising all inclusive development. Critics point to poor performance of metrics such as child mortality rates, education, Human Development Index (HDI) etc.
* Many believe that he did not do enough to stop the Gujarat riots in 2001 where 1000 people were killed. After this incident, the governments of US and UK denied Modi a visa to enter their countries
* Describes himself as a "Hindu nationalist", has a history of making communally charged statements although seems to have cleaned up in recent years focusing on development.
The Ugly
---
* Believes homosexuality is unnatural and is against repealing an 100+ year old law which makes gay sex a criminal offence.
* Formed political alliances with leaders such as Yeddyurappa who has many cases of corruption pending and parties such as Shiv Sena who are notorious for using violence to target ethnic groups.
I no longer live in India but have a large extended family that does. Being in the minority, they are filled with paranoia about what this could mean. I'm still skeptical if anything bad will happen but I am also not living there.
there is nothing to worry about. India has always been a secular country/land from time immemorial. The idea of muslim hindu division is of recent times, starting from british rule.
India has been ruled for many centuries by muslims and christians (british).
I think Modi knows that indulging in any mischief will (a) hurt business prospects and (b) make him look more of a fanatic in the eyes of the broader world. If anything I see him pushing for development to erase the legacy of the 2002 riots from memory. He said in the campaign - and this is true - 'toilets not temples', a reference to the building of a temple over the razed site of one of the oldest mosques in India from the 1500s or so. Also, he knows that if he's fomenting discord and doesn't get substantial anything done, the voters will throw him out with the same gusto as they did the Congress, for the very same reasons.
EDIT: Why the hell is this getting down voted? Can't the RSS Internet wing engage in reasoned debate?
Yep, basically what I believe too. Also, if you look at history, a lot of the worst troubles for the minorities have come during Congress' rule(which further bolsters your argument that those in power want stability more than those not in power).
I'm actually more wary of vested interests other than Modi who want there to be riots so they can position themselves as the saviors of minority. These groups exist on both sides. Hopefully the saner people on both sides will keep them in check.
There was also a hidden camera operation which interviewed quite a few of the perpetrators who were leaders of VHP and Bajrang Dal (A few of the right-wing Hindu organizations). A bunch of them claim Modi's explicit approval for the riots.
The comments and the interviews are disturbing to say the least.
> Known to rule with an iron fist - a "my way or the highway" style of politician.
Under "The Good". I certainly wouldn't classify that as a good characteristic in a leader. You want someone who will get things done, yes, but someone who will ignore and bully minority opinions is not a good leader.
I agree with you (FWIW - I didn't vote for him), however it is often cited as one of his positive qualities by the Indian media since there is the perception that the outgoing Prime Minister Mammohan Singh was too soft and was unable to rein in his ministers and push through policy changes.
Calling Modi "pro-business" seems like a bit of an over-simplication. He's a member of the RSS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashtriya_Swayamsevak_Sangh ), which is arguably a violently anti-muslim paramilitary group, as well as leading the BJP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party). It's not unreasonable to call the BJP centre-right on economic/business issues ... but they have other policies as well, some of which are rather disturbing.
I'm not Indian and have no connection to the sub-continent. But it does not fill me with the warm fuzzies to read in wikipedia that:
"In 2005, Modi was denied a diplomatic visa to the United States. In addition, the B-1/B-2 visa that had previously been granted to him was also revoked, under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which makes any foreign government official who was responsible or "directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom" ineligible for the visa."
2. If the "BJP has other policies, which are disturbing", please enlighten us. Just lobbing an attack and walking away doesn't do any good.
3. The US denies visas to all sorts of people; including people like Nelson Mandela. He (Modi) was investigated for the 2002 riots by Supreme Court of India, and given a clean chit.
That is maybe just a little too generous to the RSS. It's a big organization, so it does a lot of things.
Some well-known events to contextualize the RSS:
1949: A member of the RSS (EDIT: perhaps lapsed, perhaps active), Nathuram Godse, assassinates Mahatma Gandhi for being too partial to Muslims.
1992: The RSS organizes a rally of 150k activists at the Babri Mosque, as part of a campaign to get the government to demolish it and replace it with a Hindu temple. The activists riot, and destroy it.
2002: The Gujarat riots. The RSS played a key role in the violence, organizing communal reprisals against Muslims for a terrorist attack against Hindu pilgrims[1] returning from a trip to the aforementioned demolished mosque.
There are several other of these, along with smaller things that still make you raise an eyebrow (e.g. claiming the infamous gang rape in 2012 happens only in cities and because of malign foreign influences).
Overall, the RSS is a little bit darker than a Hindu-flavored version of the Red Cross.
Correction: Nathuram Godse was not a member of RSS when he assassinated Gandhi. RSS did not agree with his radical views and hence he left RSS to start his own organization.
2002: Muslim mob burned 59 people alive on a railways station. Riots were mostly a response to this incident.
edit: Right, why am I getting downvoted for this??
What's your response to the Economist article that was posted here [1]? To quote:
"One reason why the inquiries into the riots were inconclusive is that a great deal of evidence was lost or wilfully destroyed. And if the facts in 2002 are murky, so are Mr Modi’s views now. He could put the pogroms behind him by explaining what happened and apologising. Yet he refuses to answer questions about them. In a rare comment last year he said he regretted Muslims’ suffering as he would that of a puppy run over by a car. Amid the uproar, he said he meant only that Hindus care about all life. Muslims—and chauvinist Hindus—heard a different message. Unlike other BJP leaders, Mr Modi has refused to wear a Muslim skullcap and failed to condemn riots in Uttar Pradesh in 2013 when most of the victims were Muslim."
Happened to my comment too and it's the first time here on HN I'm getting down voted like this and can't think of any other than solely political reasons. It's a bit disturbing to see this happening here of all places.
But don't worry getting down voted by people with negative (didn't know that's a thing) karma should turn your actual Karma into something positing positive if my math isn't completely off.
If the parent is guilty of over simplification, you are guilty of obfuscation.
While technically the RSS may have a Muslim wing tucked away somewhere with some token members, it was, is and will remain the umbrella organization for advancing the Hindu (religious) viewpoint. It has been violent many times in its history, and even today stands accused of engineering everything from riots to bomb blasts. And always with an anti-Muslim agenda.
Mind you I'm not saying Modi will follow the RSS agenda (I don't think he will, he's far too shrewd and smart for that. He will not compromise his ability to stay PM for 10-15 years for short-term Hindutva agendas).
A former colleague of mine just wrote a magisterial account of the RSS' history and future in India for Caravan magazine. I'd recommend those who want to understand more about RSS, BJP and yes, Narendra Modi too, give it a read at leisure. It is a long piece.
I was associated with more than 10 years or so and I still do not know what this "Hindu religious viewpoint". I have always been pure atheist while I worked for RSS.
I was close to higher ups in RSS and I do not know the "agenda" you are talking about. Communist, Church and Muslim organizations and very constantly write unsubstantiated bs about RSS in amagazines like Caravan.
There are many things wrong with RSS, I would rather listen to Dr. Koenraad Elst's critic of RSS rather than something written by a intern at Caravan magazine.
I was part of the RSS shakhas. My family has been, for generations, part of RSS. Advani stayed at my house at the time of emergency.
> I do not know the "agenda" you are talking about.
Have you ever read any of the autobiographies of RSS 'sanghsarchalaks' (leaders)? I am not even talking about Gowalikar. Any recent ones? Have you ever read any issue of RSS mouthpiece magazine? Have you ever visited http://rss.org ?
> Communist, Church and Muslim organizations...
In short, the evergreen enemies of RSS and Hindu Nation.
> write unsubstantiated bs about RSS...
Do you have any backing beside RSS mouthpiece magazines?
> I would rather listen to Dr. Koenraad Elst
Because a true nationalist listens to outsiders who agree than nationals who disagree?
I am not sure what your point is. Which "sanghchalak" has written an "autobiography" ? The minor books like a bunch of thoughts are pretty vague and rarely discussed in detail at any of the camps. Not to mention these books are not considered as holy as the communists would consider Stalin's work for example.
Both The founder Hedgewar and Guruji were pretty clear the the objective (or agenda) of the organization is "hindu unity for the sake of unity". There was not agenda related to politics, other communities or religions which the OP seemed to imply.
The left-liberals in India generally reduce to that group Communists, Church and Secular. That is known. For example US denying visa to Modi is not some grand moral stand by US but rather an appeasement of fractional religious groups in US itself.
I could have mentioned Ram Swarup, Sitaram Goel, Harsh Narain and many more. But unfortunately their work relatively old compared to Dr. Elst.
So I have been downvoted even though all I offered was facts.
You appear to have been miffed by the word "autobiography". But I think you know which volumes of books I am talking about.
> Not to mention these books are not considered as holy as the communists would consider Stalin's work for example.
First of all, these books are not discussed in detail at any camps just like Vector Algebra is not discussed in any nursery. What is your point? The leaders of RSS have consistently espoused a bigoted and fascist agenda which you have convinietly skipped over while wondering what "Hindu religious viewpoint" people are clamoring about. Please be clear: being against RSS is not being against "Hindu religious viewpoint", it is being against 'muslims are breeding like rabbits we need to control them like a pest' and 'Hindus are being attacked we must rally and unite behind a common cause of controling muslims like a pest' mentality. Let me know if you think RSS disagrees with this ideology and I will stop this discussion right here.
Also, Stalin's work? You meant Marx? I have yet to meet a liberal (which is what RSS means when they talk about commies) that has ever read Marx.
That _should_ shatter your understanding of whatever you have understood about 'commies'. Imagine how much wrong you just might be about the rest of it.
> and Secular.
And what are the characteristics of these 'secular'? A politically loaded term that has no place in a discussion grounded in reality.
> For example US denying visa to Modi...
F*ck US visa who cares about it?
I find it amazing the attitude that the 2002 Gujarat riots should be brushed under the rug. There is still plenty of controversy about what happened there and Modi's and the states role in those riots, regardless of what any Supreme Court ruling has said. But I guess we should just let bygones be bygones and forget the 1000+ deaths and 100,000s of displaced lives due to riots that are widely believed to have been encouraged, if not caused, by the state.
As I said, riots are far too frequent in India; even 1 riot is 1 too many.
I was in Delhi in 1984. I saw the result of Congress goons going after Sikhs. And yet there was no Supreme Court enquiry. The Prime Minister (Rajiv Gandhi) was never held accountable, since Delhi was a UT at that time.
I don't think you understand how this works. It's not "Congress gets one communal violence pass free, it's only fair if the BJP gets a communal violence pass too!"
If you are going to hold someone to a standard, then hold EVERYONE to that standard. You can't just hold someone to an arbitrary standard just because you don't like them.
> If you are going to hold someone to a standard, then hold EVERYONE to that standard.
True. However, the question is, does it need to be stated explicitly every time someone gets criticized, or asked to be held accountable for something.
> You can't just hold someone to an arbitrary standard just because you don't like them.
I don't think that was happening here. Modi wasn't being held to an "arbitrary standard" because he wasn't "liked". His actions were the point of discussion here.
I'm more than happy to condemn Narendra Modi and Rajiv Gandhi equally. Hell, I'll say Rajiv Gandhi was much worse. Neither of them would have gotten my vote in the last election. The former because he was complicit in communal violence in 2002, the latter because he was complicit in communal violence in 1984 and not running and dead.
This. and the fact that Modi was actually praised that Gujrat did not have any riots after 2002/3 and the stable socio-economic climate. Other secular/pro-muslim governments were unable to prevent quite a few during that time
As a voter I care more about better roads, 24 hour electricity, less government interference in my life than some 1000 people died in a riot 10 years ago.
Those who want to take a moral position by preferring few pamphlets of secularism over real development are free to do so but I think the probability that I will remain alive and prosper is a magnitude higher than under the corrupt Antonia Maino government.
There was government involved. Maya Kodnani, who was a part of the BJP government at that time (2001) and later on made the Minister for Women and Child Development (in 2007) in Gujarat was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
Looks like you deleted your parent post. To provide for future readers, the parent post claimed that the Government was not involved with the riots at all. My reply provides an example of a Minister of the Government who was convicted for murder and conspiracy to murder in a case involving the riots.
I think the problem with Modi, like extreme politicians (e.g. Le Pen in France or the Tea Party) in other democracies is that some of his utterances are contradictory to Enlightenment humanist ideals. It remains to be seen if the subset of his views that can be considered to be extreme are just rhetoric or if he intends to act on them. Historically, such politicians resemble the nationalistic polities of pre-1945 Europe and post-colonial South America.
The bright side about India is that its sheer diversity and the existence of regional leaders (who do not belong to Modi's party) serve as checks and balances. As an example, regional parties organized on linguistic and non-traditional ideologies (communists, anarchists, etc.) basis have captured close to 140 seats in the parliament, including clean-sweeps in several States such as Tamil Nadu (population ~70 million), Odisha (population ~40 million), Seemandhra/Telangana (population ~85 million), and West Bengal (population ~90 million).
Why single out BJP? Why not the Congress, which _was_ in power when the High Court judgment came out, and could have passed a law legalizing homosexuality?
Actions, as they say, are louder than words. Congress was in a position to enact change; but decided not to.
You wanted an example, I gave you an example - I guess you need to move the goalposts as you can't actually deny that Modi and the BJP have spoken out against homosexuality many times. As far as I'm aware, the Congress Party have pledged in their manifesto that the rights of sexual minorities will be protected.
If you want to have a reasoned and rational debate, then fine. If you're just going to try to employ cheap debating tricks to win an argument, then I have no real interest in that. Support who you want, makes little difference to me, beta.
Nobody is moving the goalposts; pointing out fallacies in your argument is called "shedding light" or "exposing the duplicity of BJP's critics".
You talked about "stance on homosexuality". Why is the BJP's stance a negative, while the Congress's stance not? Congress was the one that decided to defend the law and argued in court against homosexuality; and yet you find BJP more reprehensible?!?
Why do you keep trying to detail the conversation, beta?
Let's recap.
1. You asked for some other examples of disturbing BJP policies. You didn't qualify that in any way.
2. You get provided with an example
3. You're then all "Oh, but other people do that too, why single out my guy?"
4. Your attempts to move the goalpost is called out.
5. You then decide to use the word "fallacy" incorrectly and continue to try to derail.
I think Gandhi was a shit. I think Modi is a shit. I think people like you, who continue to prop up the corrupt power structures in India are directly responsible for the mess that India is in. And I think it's reprehensible that all you can do is try to protect a corrupt, bigoted shit with the defence that someone else was a shit too.
In future, choose your words and questions more carefully, and don't cry when you get an answer that you specifically asked for.
When you say, "I find X disturbing", that means you are saying "X is not the norm; and I find that deviation upsetting". I am saying that _every_ major political party has that norm in India; otherwise, the 100+ years old laws against homosexuality would not have survived. If you find BJP's stance against homosexuality 'disturbing', then you must be having apoplectic fits at the Congress Party, which has governed India for 50+ years. If they were for gay rights, why didn't _they_ do something?
"I think Gandhi was a shit. I think Modi is a shit." ... LOL. Instead of bleating like a goat about the problems, offer a solution. The main reason people support Modi is that he can govern; and he has shown that in Gujarat. However low the bar may be, he is the only one of the current crop of "leaders" who has cleared it.
People want good governance, not platitudes. And sure as hell they don't want weed-smoking pseudo-intellectuals who couldn't survive a day doing real field work.
There's no "argument from authority". The OP said he was not Indian; and I replied I was. Maybe you should try to read your own Wikipedia link?
Instead of unnecessary blather, why not post some informative links? Educate us all, instead of trolling from behind a keyboard.
RSS is no more "violently anti-muslim" than the Congress Party is "violently anti-Sikh". Read up about the 1984 riots, and learn something for a change.
There's the not minor point that Congress has formally apologized for its role in the 1984 riots, while Modi and the BJP have offered none for their role in 2002, instead comparing the murdered Muslims to puppies that sometimes happen to get run over by cars.
What good is an apology from Congress when they stonewall any attempts for an independent inquiry into the 1984 riots and still harbour known instigators and accomplices at a high level within the party?
On the other hand, several senior BJP officials were tried and convicted for their part in the 2002 riots.
Like it or not Pro-business is probably why Modi was elected. Every economic indicator in India went downhill since the BJP has been out of power for the last decade[1][2] - IMO the single biggest contributing factor to get Modi elected.
Indians have a short memory, the 2002 riots and other religious issues are not as relevant to the people as they used to be.
Very good point. Ultimately economics wins. Poeple of india are aspiring to raise, they want to work hard and lead a honest and good life. Congress party never helped people to grow, their main agenda is always divisive ( religion ) and populist.
2009 - 8.5% (Congress is re-elected for another 5 years)
2010 - 10.3%
2011 - 6.6%
2012 - 4.7%
2013 - 4.8%
Average GDP growth during Congress government - 7.51%
Considering that Narendra Modi has frequently pushed the GDP growth he achieved as the Chief Minister of Gujarat in his election campaigns, I think it is fair to recognise that on a whole, that atleast in terms of GDP, Congress did much better than BJP.
(I voted for neither BJP or Congress, so I'm unbiased on this)
Do you have numbers for the inflation as well?, which has more direct impact on the people than GDP. I know people were scandalized when onion prices increased 300-400% last year. For right/wrong reasons, congress got blamed for that.
He is alleged to have failed to stop the riots. He wasn't involved in inciting them. By those standards, Bush should be tried for war crimes for the thousands of innocent civilians that died in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. But nope Obama was given a peace prize when there was war going on in Afghanistan
One can't say he didn't try.
The day after the riots started, the state government sent urgent letters to the 3 states surrounding it, pleading with them to send police reinforcements. But all of the 3 states (not coincidentally, ruled by the Congress Party) refused. Even the Army was not sent (by the Central government, again ruled by Congress Party) for several days as they were "busy".
Let's just think about it: if he was indeed so "anti-muslim", why weren't there more riots in Gujarat after 2002? There have been many riots in other states, but none in Gujarat.
Similar views were expressed when Vajpayee was elected in 1998. Vajpayee's term was one of best times India ever experienced. Lets see whether such things become true.
Modi also wants to turn Nepal into a Hindu state[1]. The only people who should be deciding if Nepal becomes a Hindu state or a secular state are Nepali citizens.
I would slightly disagree. To maintain relations, move forward discussion, a US visa would be helpful. And US has already been changing their stance since the last few months as they were aware of the possible Modi victory.
But I totally agree that its not a benchmark of character.
Sorry US visa doesn't prove anything. If at all, it simply shows someone visa officer's understanding of Modi in 2002, thats all. The election is much better and neutral judgement of someone's character. Obviously the views of 500million people are better than one person sitting in a foreign country.
If you are outsider please don't form opinions what is stated in media. Indian media is by large same as US media. Outsiders only see what is stated by shills and may not be true.
If you think it is over-simplification then what you call US/UK ? Tyranny ? Politics is extremely complex in India than any other country in the world. I guarantee you US and UK will now be in queue to get appointment with him.
Also, after all comments posted here I get sense that how narrow people from US / UK are. You may not like him but victory is in your face. So chill and enjoy.
It's been obvious for months that Modi would win. So, feel free to engage in empty triumphalism.
Meanwhile, I wish India the best, and I hope Modi makes a concerted effort to bridge religious divides and remember that India is a diverse, multicultural society. I hope his election does not instigate any communal violence of any sort, and I hope he realizes he has a special responsibility, given his history, to make sure it doesn't happen.
I assume this supposed to show that his party did well in districts with large Muslim populations?
I am not sure what you are trying to say with this. If you are claiming that this means that he can't be that anti-Muslim then I think that's far from the only possible explanation.
For one, you are showing every district with at least 20% Muslim population. So even if every one of them had voted for the opposition, the 80% non-Muslims would have still decided the election.
Also can someone explain what bi-polar means in this context (best guess so far, single party majority in voting district)?
It looks very distinct: http://ibn.gramener.com/live?Bi-polar=Bi-polar
>>>But it does not fill me with the warm fuzzies to read in wikipedia that:<<<
My friend, you are being misguided by the agenda of anti-modi (I would rather call them anti-indian) people over here. Nevertheless in a democracy like ours, everyone is free to have his opinion and speak out about it.
To those very new to India's politics, there are few things to consider before forming an opinion of Modi's involvement in the 2002 riots.
(a) The Government in power at the center was the opposition party ( Congress) throughout the last decade. (2004-214). If they had the power to twist Supreme court's arm (appointment of judges etc), they would have most certainly done that, and influenced the outcome.
(b) The Government at the Center (2004-2014) has had at its disposal the main investigative body of the country (CBI) to do any arm-twisting against Modi.
(c)Despite this, and despite intense media scrutiny in India, if the Supreme Court- the highest court in India- has given Modi a clean chit on his involvement in the riots, then sufficient respect has to accorded to the same. It is significantly way,way,WAY more authoritative than any wannabe-investigative journalists airing their opinions non-stop on television or highly-viewed blog articles. Let that sink in.
If a thousand well-indexed news articles/ well followed blogs paint a different picture, that does not change facts.
The Supreme court of India has been known to be strong and independent,even openly rebuking the Center for it's stupidity and corruption ( Search for 2G-Spectrum scam). True we have a lot of corruption everywhere,but the arm-chair dismissal of Indian Supreme Court's weightage- by Indians ourselves- against top 10 google search results - pains me.
If Indians ourselves cant do that, how can we expect the global audience to form an informed opinion?
BJP (the party under Modi's leadership) allegedly spent 100 billion Rs on advertisement. Like cunning businessman they exploited a loophole in the law; the parties are exempted from disclosing the source of their income!
With this amount of money, every child in India could be educated for free. Imagine that for a second.
The huge spendings, presenting a lipstick-on-a-pig development model of Gujrat[1] and bogus-voting (with many people publicly claiming to do so[2] to no brunt by the law) BJP has won these elections.
The money input allegedly came from businessmen Ambani & Adani. They gained 1.5 billion dollars today itself![3] Adani has quadrupled in value over past 6 months.
A very sad day for the minorities indeed. But India is so huge that even if a thousand die, people are unaffected. People have a very weak memory and any deed, howsoever bad, is easily forgotten within days. Add to that the ignorance of people to indirect influence of any event; people wont respond until they get the heat directly. I have lost hope. I feel I don't understand the majority of my nation.
To put it another way, Majority of Indians don't understand or your share your beliefs either.
Simply put, Modi won because Indian people believed he represents a better alternative to anyone out there by wide margin.
I find it hard to put much credibility in the above ideas, when it is implied that somehow stock market going up and Ambani and Adani companies increasing their Market Cap is caused by them potentially donating money to an opposition candidate in an election and caused for concern!
Submitted in part because a Hacker News participant recently berated Americans on Hacker News for not being more aware of the election in India. (The person who wrote that comment is an American of Indian heritage, I'm pretty sure.) I was drawn to this article from the Google News news aggregator because it was listed as one of the "in-depth" articles. I was also startled by the title because until now I haven't heard most news reports as I have been following the election in India describing Modi as "pro-business." That's an issue I have no opinion about.
I will note for the record that I think a democratic election in a LARGE, multilingual country is an interesting process of human society. Participants here who dream of building startup businesses with truly worldwide reach will want to know how economic development is proceeding in the world's second-most-populous country. (Based on likely trends, India will eventually become the world's most populous country in my lifetime.) I think a free press and contested elections give India a lot of advantages over other countries and can serve as an example to China and other large countries still developing to higher living standards.
AFTER EDIT: Now that this is a breaking news story, I'll list a few other English-language reports on the election results here as I gather them from my usual news aggregator.
"Modi Brings India's Opposition Into Power at Last. Now What?" (BloombergBusinessweek)
> Submitted in part because a Hacker News participant recently berated Americans on Hacker News for not being more aware of the election in India. (The person who wrote that comment is an American of Indian heritage, I'm pretty sure.)
Thanks for submitting this.
Just so you know, my comment (that you refer to) was about the lack of awareness in the US of news outside the US (and a bit of Europe). The largest election in human history just happened to be the example that came to mind at the moment.
I include myself in that statement, for what it's worth. As it turns out, I myself am not as up-to-date on the news of this election as I should be, so I'm glad that you've posted all of this, both for my own benefit and so that others will see it.
There are many other significant world events that are even less visible in the US (but just as important), and I hope we all can become more aware of them, myself included.
There's a bit given little or no space in that article: Modi was denied a US visa as a result of the Gujarat riots. Will be interesting to see what happens here...
I'm not advocating the conclusions or opinions in the article (I simply don't know enough, and I know this article was controversial too), but it's an interesting read.
When I last used to be interested in Indian politics ( around 10 years ago). The man was supposed to be a local extreme right wing politician with genocidal tendencies. I am rather surprised that "pro-business" was the tagline the HN post finally went with. Has the man changed since?
It might also be worth mentioning the numbers here.
The BJP, party to which Mr. Narendra Modi belongs to, alone has got more than 50% of the seats in the Indian Parliament and nearly 60% with allies.
The INC (Indian National Congress) has suffered a historic defeat with not even 10% of the seats. Which also brings the interesting fact that the NDA will not have a Leader of Opposition as none of the other parties hold more than 10% of the seats.
What are his opinions on mass surveillance in India, which seems to have become about as aggressive as it is in US and UK in the past few years, or has that issue not even been raised?
The greatest trick Modi pulled is not convincing people that he is not responsible for the 2002 pogrom. Lots of people
believe that he is directly or indirectly responsible. But somehow he convinced people that it doesn't matter. Also
10 years of corrupt, incompetent congress goverment made people desperate for change. This reminds me of The Dark Knight quote "You crossed the line first,
sir. You hammered them and in their desperation they turned to a man they didn't fully understand".
The election battle looked like Kerry vs Bush. Rahul Gandhi looked so weak and incompetent to lead a country whereas
Modi projected himself strong(with 52 inch chest!). His PR machinery was so effective that, BJB couldn't have produced the same result with some other leader. My guess is even Modi/BJB was replaced in 5 years, the fallout of this
government will stay longer.
I find the Internet supporters of Modi/RSS/BJP a fascinating tribe. They are usually well-educated intelligent Indians, but with a marked tendency to turn off their critical-thinking faculties when the latter is mentioned. In addition, they expend enormous amounts of energy on the Internets trying in futility to paper over the obvious, and play the 'it's-all-a-aniti-hindu-conspiracy-card'. Hence the down votes for rather straightforward factual comments below.
It just tells you that we all have serious blindspots. These super smart people, if they took a step back one day to review their logic, they would probably be very embarrassed.
Correction : Certainly not historic , when you say historic would like to correct you that in 1984 , INC (2014 runner-up party) won 414 seats .
One of the party which was crowdsourced "AAP" won only 4 seats but certainly show a ray of hope when leadership has been tossed between both these parties since Independence .
People who claim Modi ia a pro development are ill informed. If Gujarat is a "model" than at least 5-6 states are in India which you can call "super model".
People of Gujarat were always pro business and evidence for the same is, people of Since independence, people of Gujarat are least dependent upon government jobs and having low un-employment rate always.
Now why Modi was elected. Reason is same the way congress was winning in last 50 years.
Media, Propaganda, Mix politics with religion and wrap all those into "Hope".
While economic development are very important, I hope Mr. Modi will not bend over backward for business interests just to return the favor. Excessive corporate tax cuts and environmental damage all set back the lives of the "lay people".
All day I've been wondering when this or something like this would make it to HN.
There's going to be polarization now - left wing or "secular" (believe me that is an overused term here in India) and so called liberals versus an opinionated group of people who believe in the Modi form of government and leadership.
Not only is this not a good topic for HN - it is about as bad as saying "Pro big-government Obama wins" or "Right wing Conservatives take Britain by storm!" or "Abbott defeats the Labour Party!" or "Merkel gains at the expense of leftists!" or any other such article.
Bottom line is: you can not be sure of what Modi or any other politician for that matter will do until he/she does it. Until today, we didn't even know he'd get such a landslide.
As for the technological impact of Modi's win - he loves solar & infrastructure(so go long solar & infra stocks) and it is probable that the internet penetration in India will increase - although whether that is credited to him/his party or not is a matter of debate.
This entire election is about a nationalist Indian party that has defeated a clutch of leftist parties (similar to other nationalist movements in many other nations) and there isn't a leftist versus nationalist debate in the world that deserves attention on HN.
For the record, I supported Modi's party in this election, so I maybe biased. Take with a pinch of salt.
EDIT: removed my comment about this not required on HN as in hindsight it seemed unimportant to me.
I've worked on many urban planning and transport infrastructure projects in India, since 2001, and have seen first-hand how the Congress government have sent the country into a mire in recent years (after what I regarded as a very promising start). Even when they were not actually corrupt, their decision-making processes became so poor that it was impossible to get anything done. I do have high hopes that Modi will change that.
At the same time, nationalism is dangerous in any form. I remember the last BJP government -- I was living in Ahmedabad in the run-up to the riots, and got out a few days beforehand, as it was increasingly clear that Something Bad was about to go down -- and I remember the way that Vajpayee would beat the war drums with Pakistan whenever anything he needed to divert attention from something on the home front. Hopefully Modi has learned that fanning the flames of communal and international tension is not, in fact, to India's benefit.
If Modi can stay focused on cleaning up the government, building infrastructure, and generally making the country a less difficult place to get things done, then India can resume its trajectory towards becoming one of the world's great powers. If, on the other hand, he goes for the cheaper and easier political points that one can score by slagging off Muslims, then I fear that India will tear itself apart, leading to far worse outcomes than Congress could have achieved. On balance, I'm optimistic that he will steer towards the former more than the latter, but I'll be watching carefully.
The sad reality is: there are riots in India with depressing frequency. The riots in Gujarat were not an aberration; such things happen all over the place. That doesn't answer your question; but I'm laying the groundwork.
The Congress Party (which has been ruling India for the vast majority of the time since India became independent) realized, early on, that Modi was a threat and to counter this threat, they made every attempt to tar him with the guilt of 2002. No other Chief Minister of any other state has ever been held to such standards. Bear in mind: this is the same Congress Party whose members went on a rampage in 1984, killing/burning 4000+ Sikhs in Delhi when Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her bodyguards. They even came out and said, basically, "meh, bad things happen". The large number of Sikh deaths was _directly_ a result of their deliberate inaction. I know; I was in Delhi at that time. The Army was not called out for days, just so the bloodletting could continue. For this party to turn around and accuse Modi of orchestrating the 2002 riots is a sick joke.
It is deplorable and a very tragic set of events. I wasn't there, so I had to depend on the media for my consumption of news.
The Supreme Court of India has declared Narendra Modi as legally not guilty of any crimes. From the news it certainly seems the Court has erred, although it is a constitutional body and as a citizen I need to abide by its judgement. There are of course Indian citizens who charge that the media is bought and paid for, just like other countries.
If you're asking why I voted for the BJP, in my city the local BJP leader is very good and the other party leaders are very corrupt.
> Please flag this off the front page - there are other more deserving stories.
I should learn not to upvote comments before I read them to the end. Oh well...
Anyhow, this election result isn't fascinating to me because he is or isn't right-wing/nationalistic/pro-business/whatever, it's interesting because it represents a very strong change of direction in the government. It looks like people were very dissatisfied with the ruling party/coalition, which is similar to what has been happening in some EU countries after the crisis (Hungary, Slovenia, Greece, ... - in some of these countries, like apparently in India, it was the Nationalist parties that gained most). To pull this off in a country with a billion people is even more fascinating. But at least democracy is working in the East, if not in the West (e.g. US).
But at least democracy is working in the East, if not in the West (e.g. US).
This is a little snarky and off-hand for HN. There are threads seemingly daily to discuss how and why the fraction of the electorate represented by HN commenters is not getting its preferred policy outcomes. There's no need to pull threads on other topics into that morass.
I mentioned the US because it has only 2 political parties, which have quite similar political programs and even more similar (in the course of my lifetime) governing styles. It's not much different in Slovenia; same politicians for the past 25 years, with little change possible.
An analysis of news reports suggests that you're mostly right, but there is a huge factor of the personal charisma of this man. Like Obama, he has played on the "hope & change" motto. Can he deliver, we will have to see.
You may downvote if you like, but I still do not see why this should be on the front page of HN!
"Commentators have sought to explain Modi to non-Indians, deploying numerous comparisons to do so; but the one that works best, in my opinion, is to see him as a kind of Indian (or Hindu) Ariel Sharon."
> Note that 'pro-business' is a politically empty phrase. After all, no candidate in any election would claim to be 'anti-business'.
Not sure I agree, for instance no candidate would claim to be 'anti-life', but that doesn't make 'pro-life' a politically empty phrase. In that case, you know exactly what someone means by it.
But pro-business is definitely vague. It might just as well mean 'friendly with industrialists' as wanting to spark wide-based growth.
I think in general it is a good rule of thumb to evaluate political statements by. There are elections coming up near me soon and several candidates like to claim that they will 'support the local community'. Strangely no-one is against that!
"No candidate" is too strong a word; around here we have a few that are certainly anti-business.
(EDIT: Note that I'm not an US citizen, and this is not a jab at anyone, it's a statement of fact. I can assure you that the candidate of the Reorganized Movement of the Party of the Proletariat is indeed anti-business)
A lot of people have turned into sulking mode and are claiming that Mr. Modi is some kind of draconian third world dictator who is now going to kill many people in India.
Even though it may appear to ordinary westerners please be assured that this is far far away from the truth.
After 60 years, just as Pakistan is unraveling with religious extremism that has permeated the fabric of society, India elects Modi, someone who has been a life long member of RSS, a fascist Hindu organization, and have often been accused of being complicit in Gujarat pogroms of 2002. An India, which was founded upon the principles of egalitarianism, a Pakistan which was to be a homeland for minorities.
60 years, and both of those principles falling to pieces in each of the states.
I usually do not write comments on politicians, but being an Indian I feel sad that someone like Narendra Modi has even been considered for the post of Prime Minister by my countrymen. Let alone the decision to elect him for the top job.
But so it is, he is now the PM, and I accept what democracy and fate has asked me to accept and go with.
Having said that I am yet to understand why the following murders by the Godman himself have remain unsolved so far:
To inform and remind people there are quite a few murders that have been carried out by Modi, Amit Shah and D. G. Vanzara:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haren_Pandya
This guy was the Home Minister of Gujarat and key witness to implicate Modi to confess former's role in execution of 3000 children and women in Godhra Kand.
6. and there are several hundred other cases which could and could not surface above Modi's close quarters.
Here is a video of a few criminals who proudly discuss how they went on killing entire families of a particular faith, and how Modi gave them the strength, protection and instruction to do so:
I am actually reassessing the value in the concept of democracy lately. I think tyrannies almost always figure out a way to come on the top. It's like seeded alongside the Third Law of Thermodynamics.
Yes. I believe in its (courts') efficiencies and mess. Wish you a happy life stuck in the same court you're thumping your chest upon. I am sure you know more about Indian courts, than I do.
They are supposed to be independent, but they're not. Rut flows through it in the form of cash or life threatening pressures. But obviously you're so happy about it, so I can't convince you -- unless you go through it yourself.
I know courts are slow, but the judicial system is by and large good. Especially the SC. Of course, as a moral citizen, if you have the evidence, go to the UN or the US.
Short background - Has been the Chief Minister (equivalent to Governer) of the Western Indian state of Gujarat for 14 years now.
The Good
---
* Achieved a very high GDP growth rate for Gujarat
* Made Gujarat a preferred destination for big industrialists to set up their factories since he gives land & clearances very readily.
* Developed infrastructure in Gujarat - built roads, highways, flyovers.
* Known to rule with an iron fist - a "my way or the highway" style of politician.
The Bad
---
* Accused of not practising all inclusive development. Critics point to poor performance of metrics such as child mortality rates, education, Human Development Index (HDI) etc.
* Many believe that he did not do enough to stop the Gujarat riots in 2001 where 1000 people were killed. After this incident, the governments of US and UK denied Modi a visa to enter their countries
* Describes himself as a "Hindu nationalist", has a history of making communally charged statements although seems to have cleaned up in recent years focusing on development.
The Ugly
---
* Believes homosexuality is unnatural and is against repealing an 100+ year old law which makes gay sex a criminal offence.
* Formed political alliances with leaders such as Yeddyurappa who has many cases of corruption pending and parties such as Shiv Sena who are notorious for using violence to target ethnic groups.