Indian election: Modi wins
The current leadership in India, described as “nationalist” (hmmm, there’s a lot of that going around), has been re-elected in a convincing victory:
Early election results indicate a landslide victory for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu Nationalist party.
It looks like the Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and allies will receive around 350 out of 542 seats, well over the 272 majority mark.
India’s grand-old socialist Congress party, which ruled the country for 54 of its 67 years since independence, may pick up around 80 seats, slightly better than its worst ever showing in the 2014 elections. The electoral landscape has mostly wiped out India’s other left-wing and Communist parties, traditionally strong in the eastern and southern states.
Following his election victory five years ago, Modi has pursued social conservative policies at home, investing in rural development, sanitation, and poverty elevation. Apprehensive of China’s growing influences in the region, he sought closer ties with Western allies, building strong personal relationships with President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
So this seems to be part of a worldwide trend.
The following reportage also seems to be a trend:
Modi’s reelection came as a shock to the mainstream media, which have long shown criticism of his supposed “anti-Muslim” agenda.
“India’s minorities fear return of Modi,” CNN claimed. The BBC parroted the sentiment, reporting: “India’s Muslims fear for their future under Narendra Modi.” The UK broadcaster added that with “an increase in hate crimes against Muslims in India in recent years, some fear the world’s largest democracy is becoming dangerously intolerant under the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).”
India has a history of some terribly dark episodes of religious violence—and the Muslim/Hindu portion involved an extraordinary amount of Muslim violence early on, although it’s not been limited to that side. It’s way beyond the scope of this post to describe the history of bloody interactions as well as peaceful co-existence between the two groups in India, but let’s just say that it’s occurred many times and sometimes on a very large scale.
During the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent…Muslim rulers massacred Hindus, Jains and Buddhists while attacking temples and monasteries, while also forcing them to convert including on the battlefield. Most of the great temples in Northern Indian subcontinent were destroyed during the Muslim rule. Will Durant calls the Muslim conquest of India “probably the bloodiest story in history”, consequently between the years 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of the Indian subcontinent decreased from 200 to 125 million.
Skipping ahead to the Indian drive for independence from British rule during the early-to-mid-20th Century, many activists on both the Hindu and the Muslim side were for a unified India. But the divisive forces won, creating the bloodbath resulting from the partition of colonial India into a predominantly Hindu “India” portion and the predominantly Muslim nation of Pakistan:
The partition displaced between 10 and 12 million people along religious lines, creating overwhelming refugee crises in the newly constituted dominions; there was large-scale violence, with estimates of loss of life accompanying or preceding the partition disputed and varying between several hundred thousand and two million.
That’s an enormous simplification of the long and complex history of the interaction between Hindus and Muslims in the area. But suffice to say it often was far worse in the past than it is today, and that conflict between the groups certainly wasn’t invented by Modi and his party.
So, is it true that India’s Muslims (who are still very numerous, although a definite minority) have anything special to fear from the election of Modi? Doing a quick Googling now, I can see just from the headlines that the leftist media is covering the fear angle heavily (“How Narendra Modi Seduced India With Envy and Hate” in the NY Times, for example).
Is the increasing enmity in India for real? It does seem as though something’s going on that appears to be worsening and polarizing relations between the two communities, but its cause (is it Modi or something else?) and its extent are very unclear.
India has had 30 good years. Real income per capita has trebled, 70% of the population is literate, life expectancy at birth is now over 60, and a one-party dominant system has been replaced with thoroughly competitive politics. Here’s hoping for another 30 good years.
It is always a surprise to the political left of any country when the people through them out. “Don’t they know what is good for them?”
One of my brightest and prettiest medical students was an American -Indian girl whose last name was “Jain.” Her parents were both doctors and met through an Indian dating web site. She told me her father was the only man to submit a color photo and maybe that was why her mother chose him. She had a steel trap mind which she concealed under a “Valley Girl” personna.
throw, not through.
Mike K: in my experience, Indian MDs are either superb or less than mediocre, with very few falling in between.
As to Indian Muslims, their bleating of victimhood is echoed by the entire world of minorities, all of which despise the white European heritage which made all their lives so very much better these last 400 years.
Sorry, but i am too concerned with the election in indonesia, actual riots, and chinese hiding wondering if they are going to be slaughtered like the prior two times…
How extensive KGB operations were in India during the Cold War?
maximum operational effort by the KGB in a Third World country during the Cold War was in India and that the number of KGB agents in India during the 1970s was the largest outside the Soviet Union.
The more sensational disclosures include:
Indira Gandhi, codenamed VANO by the KGB,was sent suitcases of money meant for the Congress coffers. On one occasion, a secret gift of Rs 2 million from the Politburo to the Congress(R) was personally delivered by the KGB head in India Leonid Shebarshin. Another million rupees were given on the same occasion to a newspaper supporting Mrs Gandhi.
In 1978, the KGB was running over 30 agents in India, 10 of whom were Indian intelligence officers.
In 1977, KGB files identified 21 non communist politicians (four union ministers) whose election campaigns were subsidised by the KGB.
The CPI was funded in many ways, including transfer of money through car windows on Delhi roads.
In 1959, CPI general-secretary Ajoy Ghosh agreed on a plan to found an import-export business for trade with the Soviet bloc. In little more than a decade its annual profits grew to over Rs 3 million.
During 1975, a total of 10.6 million roubles was spent on active measures in India designed to strengthen the support for Mrs Gandhi and undermine her political opponents.
V. Krishna Menon, as defence minister, was persuaded to buy Soviet MiGs and not British Lightnings. His election campaigns in 1962 and 1967 were funded by the KGB.
By 1973, the KGB had 10 Indian newspapers on its payroll plus a press agency. During 1975 the KGB planted 5,510 articles in Indian newspapers.
Promode Dasgupta, the communist stalwart,was identified by the KGB asan Intelligence Bureau (IB) informant in the Indian communist movement.
Like many places in the U.S., my medical facility has a significant number of ethnic Indians on the professional staff (Many Vietnamese at subordinate levels as well).
While hospitalized a few years ago a Nurse told me in conversation that her family were Christians in India. I asked how they fared with the Hindu and Muslim populations. She said they lived in insular enclaves for the most part. In many parts of the world, Christians and Jews are usually the ones who are really caught in the middle when religion based hatreds are evident.
The conflict over Kashmir is rooted in ethnic and religious politics, and is always simmering just below armed conflict–except when it actually erupts. The Hindus may still be a bit angry over Mumbai as well.
Artfldgr:
That is interesting, KGB and India, some of the local big wig politicians in Seattle appear to be of Indian extraction and are decidedly left (commie). But then Seattle has been pretty much leftist for a long time IMO. J.J. may have some insight about it.
Actually the group that suffered the most per capita from the partition were the Sikhs
I have mixed feelings about the Modi government. The BJP policies have, in fact, made life a lot better for a whole lot of Indians. I spent a couple of years there about a dozen years ago. Unless you have seen it, it is hard to imagine the poverty and filth. Policies which promote enterprise and ensure property rights help people not only to live better, but to live, period. Even the government’s program of installing toilets and septic systems in rural areas makes a difference unimaginable here — unless one has seen the people living on the streets in San Francisco or LA.
On the other hand, a lot of BJP supporters are radical Hindu nationalists. It’s not only Muslims who are targeted — and we may lack sympathy with Muslims, but it is true that the large majority of them in India are poor. I knew Christians who were beaten and who knew Christians who had been killed. Mobs are easily whipped up to brutal assaults. Two millennia and counting of a caste system, plus resentment of the history of Mughal brutality, and the resistance to the lower castes’ desire to leave the system for Buddhism or Christianity, are hard to eliminate.
On the other hand, a lot of BJP supporters are radical Hindu nationalists. It’s not only Muslims who are targeted — and we may lack sympathy with Muslims, but it is true that the large majority of them in India are poor. I knew Christians who were beaten and who knew Christians who had been killed. Mobs are easily whipped up to brutal assaults. Two millennia and counting of a caste system, plus resentment of the history of Mughal brutality, and the resistance to the lower castes’ desire to leave the system for Buddhism or Christianity, are hard to eliminate.
Was there more or less inter-communal violence in India prior to 1998?
To simply echo Oldflyer above…
India isn’t such a great place to be a Christian these days. If the Bishop of Truro’s report to the UK Foreign Secretary is any indication…lots of the world is pretty hard on those of Christian faith.
But India has had a very prosperous last couple of decades and I reckon Modi is still part of the upward trend.
It’s hard to quantify “how much.” It has always been present. It certainly does not originate with Modi or with the riots in Gujarat.
I watched some of an episode of a British TV show, Grand Designs, in which the host of the show spent two weeks living in Mumbai’s largest slum. Only made it through part of it because it was darn hard to watch. It’s up on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im0tHRs9Bng
When were in in India, there was the train bombing in Mumbai, to our southwest. Then there was a bombing about 50 miles to our northeast. My husband said if there was another, we’d leave. There was one, a mile or so from us! — but it turned out to be a business dispute. The culprit tried to pass off destroying a rival on sectarian violence. After we had left, we discovered that a violent Hindu radical group had been centered just a mile from the house where we were living. We walked past it on the way to a coffee shop on weekends. Several times, the security people at my husband’s workplace called to tell me to stay in the house for the day because there were Dalit riots not far away. The whole country is chaotic and sectarian strife is the norm, not an aberration.
Ann, I have seen the slum in Mumbai. Unimaginable, for Americans.
As I recall, we were told that Duarte in the Philippines was evil incarnate. Then it was Bolsonaro in Brazil. In none of these countries am I currently hearing about conditions in those countries getting worse. In fact, it appears that they are becoming more civil and more prosperous.
I don’t know much about India, but I do know that they have a long and bloody history of ethnic strife. If it hasn’t gotten worse with Modi yet, I see no reason it would get worse in a subsequent term.
The real issue is the manner in which the MSM plays with loaded words. From what I read, it is outrageous that they should be so blatant in their editorializing.
Promode Dasgupta, the communist stalwart,was identified by the KGB asan Intelligence Bureau (IB) informant in the Indian communist movement.
I just want to know which American politicians were KGB agents. The Venona files on that are still classified. Trump could open them up. We might see a few people run for the hills.
The British KGB agent s are pretty well known,. Michael Foot, etc.
Tony Benn ?
Tony Benn has been cited as being a key mentor to future leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn,
At this point in my life I’ve known many young people who wanted to go into either the field of science or the military. Back in the early 80’s it was all science. I was working on a degree at a major federally funded laboratory and got to know a terrific young staff scientist from Bengal India.
He had an American wife and both were mild mannered salt-of-the-earth types. After dinner one evening the conversation switched to what our career plans were when we were in high school. My Indian friend said he wanted to become a pilot in India’s Air Force.
Slightly surprised, I asked if he was really interested in flying, or was he primarily interested in serving his country. “Oh, no” he responded, “I really wanted to kill Pakistanis.” After the uncomfortable silence passed, someone asked what had happened to that plan. He said, “Well, I guess I grew out of it.”
TommyJay:
Great anecdote.
It’s hard to quantify “how much.” It has always been present. It certainly does not originate with Modi or with the riots in Gujarat.
Not really. Every major intercommunal pogrom during the post-war period occurred prior to 2003. That suggests something: that BJP’s public discourse is a weak vector in influencing the frequency of this sort of thing.
India and China are political projects wherein you have a government which embraces a whole world civilization. In China’s case, that world civilization is also a nation with a common written language and a spoken language which embraces 1/2 the population and a long history of common government. In India, you have every kind of social and cultural fissure you could imagine, but their political class has managed to keep the jalopy running without systematic despotism and with only sporadic inter-communal violence. It’s a remarkable performance in the realm of political coping.
To this, India added after 1990 rapid economic development.
I just want to know which American politicians were KGB agents.
None of them I would think. Names which it wouldn’t surprise me so much to see would be Vito Marcantonio, Robert Kastenmeier, Don Edwards, John Conyers, George Crockett, Ron Dellums, and Theodore Weiss. I think documentation has emerged over the years which indicates that I.F. Stone and Armand Hammer were assets of some sort. The notion that the Institute for Policy Studies was a Soviet front was bruited about ca. 1980, but I don’t think anything’s emerged since which demonstrates that.
Howard Zinn was a three-meetings-a-week member of the Communist Party ca. 1947 and known to the FBI for it. Never harmed his career in academe. It’s an interesting counter-example to the sort of narrative promoted by people like Ellen Schrecker and Andrew Kopkind about the implosion of the red haze after the 2d World War.
The scandal isn’t what the Soviets were up to. The scandal is what is and is not a respectable disposition in and amongst our intelligentsia. By and large, academe is run by people who are enemies of ordinary people.
…I asked if he was really interested in flying, or was he primarily interested in serving his country. “Oh, no” he responded, “I really wanted to kill Pakistanis.”
A coworker of mine is fond of saying that problems such as Pakistan and Indonesia are best handled from orbit. It’s a tempting thought, but according to the Bhagavad Gita, the full timeline of existence is sacred – including everything in it. That said, as depicted in the Gita, wars also happen. If one finds oneself caught up in such a conflict, Krishna counseled prosecuting war in a state of detachment from anger and devotion to one’s assigned duties. Lincoln’s solemn prosecution of the Civil War was close to this ideal.
Various vexing moral conundrums arise during Kali Yuga, a period of spiritual decline lasting several thousand years. How best respond to such challenges, especially when they involve vast populations? Forbearance and forgiveness, when possible – otherwise practice detached execution of duty.
The leadership of a nation is supposed to be nationalist.
Astonishing that this is cast as a negative.
Why are the Muslims still in India? You don’t hear about the plight of religious minorities in Pakistan after the partition because they all left like the Jews who left the Arab countries. The Muslims in India had two countries to which they could have migrated, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
As for “Avi’s” comment that “Actually the group that suffered the most per capita from the partition were the Sikhs” – well that is because the state of Punjab, where almost all the Sikhs live, was itself split in two. It also happened to be right in the middle of Pakistan to the left and India to the right. It wasn’t because of the Sikh religion but rather because of their geographical location that they suffered most.
Why are the Muslims still in India?
Because they weren’t forcibly expelled and there are costs as well as benefits to migrating.
Most of them live in six of India’s 36 provinces. They make up a quarter of the population in those provinces
Patriotism is labeled as nationalism, which is demonized altho only radical nationalism favors war over neighboring inferior countries.
Nationalism can mean, but doesn’t always, that one feels one’s country is “better” than another’s country.
What it always means is that one love’s one’s country; most often, knowing its flaws yet loving it for its good parts. Like those who love their own “hometown”.
Most elite cosmo folk do NOT love their country — nor their own hometowns.
“Nothing but the dead and dying in my little town” (S&G, or just Paul?)
I love my American country – and my new Slovak country. (When folk ask me: “How often do you go home?” I reply: “Every night.”)
Most elite cosmo folk do NOT love their country — nor their own hometowns.
“Nothing but the dead and dying in my little town” (S&G, or just Paul?)
Not checking, I think Garfunkel alone.
Tom Grey,
Personally, I think the value of nationalism may fade away in the future.
In my lifetime, I have seen a trend for people (and corporations) to be more and more mobile. They move to different cities or states quite often. As a result of this mobility, state and municipal governments have become very proactive in competing for the best citizens and companies. Part of this competition is providing the best services and environmental for the least cost.
This competition for our tax dollars has resulted in far more efficient delivery of services than ever before. As an example, I remember when a trip to the state DMV was usually a bureaucratic nightmare that would require hours of waiting in lines. Today, the DMVs are relatively easy to navigate.
Ultimately, I see this mobility evolving to the international level, and nations will compete with one another for the best taxpayers, knowing that they could easily take their business elsewhere.
Roy, I myself have been (prematurely?) following your example, moving around, and even settling in foreign country, a Slovakia where lots of expats are going (tho not as many as went to Prague). Did you know that Slovakia produces the most cars per capita of any country (only 5.5 million people, tho)? Because companies found “highest value” labor here — good workers low (er, now medium) wages = higher profits. Among Euro-zone countries in Europe, Slovakia still has the lowest average wages.
This truth is why I favor, have favored, and expect to favor, company investment in any and all countries. Their investment means that wages here are rising a bit faster than they otherwise would.
But “nationalism” is a form of tribalism, as is racism, sexism, religion, and gender identity “groupism”. People WANT, and thus perhaps even need (?) to belong to a group or groups, which both include some people and exclude some other people.
Those who are nationalist, wanting to support Americans because they’re American, or to support Slovaks (like in ice hockey!) because they’re Slovak — this desire to support the local folk, is NOT going away.
In fact, I’d claim as a reaction against the PC-Klan’s constant anti-nationalism drumbeat, becoming anti-PC increasingly means becoming more nationalistic, so we all see nationalism getting stronger. I now think it will keep getting stronger until the tide of PC-Klan SJ Despotism starts receding — by the PC-Klan elites losing “enough” elections.
Slovaks, but not me, are voting for Euro-Parliament today — most of the 30+ parties are mildly or strongly critical of the EU, despite liking many of the actual policies.
I did a research project in 1997 which incorporated some statistics on mobility and nativity among the states. IIRC, about 21% of those surveyed in 1995 had moved in from out of state in the previous 5 years. I cannot locate a data series online from the Census Bureau which replicates the one I used, but I notice that their current data has it that 3% of the population over 1 year of age have moved in from out of state in the previous year. Extrapolating, that would generate a churn wherein about 14% would move in from out-of-state in a 5 year period. Maybe I’m misremembering, but that’s certainly inconsistent with a thesis that escalating levels of cross-border mobility are going to be the norm.
(I know a man – data offline – who undertook a study of municipal level demographic churn in the Genesee Valley ca. 1830. His data indicated that perhaps 30% of the population present in 1825 in townships he studied were present there 10 years later).
As it was in 1990, about 65% of the population lived in the state in which they were born per Census data (i’m working from memory). Levels of nativity varied a great deal – north of 80% for Louisiana and Pennsylvania and barely 20% for Alaska. For 2017, I see 58% of the population was born in their state of residence. Between 1990 and 2017, the share born abroad increased from 8% to 15%. So, among those born in these United States, the share living in their native state declined from 71% (in 1990) to 69% (in 2017). I’m just not seeing a burgeoning population of light-foooted people (except when it’s an artifact of immigration policy).