Narendra Modi for Prime Minister

Modi for Prime Minister.....[EDITED- HATE SPEECH]

I think that Hate speech by John may have been sarcastic :-)

Desh,

Kol hakavód! All honor to you! Straight talk without mincing words!

The Massacres

In the Gujarat riots, the break up of the killed was: Muslims - 790; Hindus: 254; 2,548 people were injured and 223 are missing. This is as per figures given by the Union Minister of State for Home Shriprakash Jaiswal (Congress Party) in Parliament on 11 May 2005. Some NGOs put the figure close to 2,000 but I have as much faith in Indian activist NGOs as I have in the used car salesmen in my city.

The figures in Delhi massacres in 1984 were: Sikhs: 2,733 killed in Delhi alone. as per Ahuja Committee, which submitted the report in August 1987.

The barbarity that one saw in both the areas was the same in the ways people killed each other.

Naturally, I'm not qualified to comment on your choice of politicians to lead India. I haven't a clue as to what these various gentlemen mentioned in your article stand for; and if I thought I did by merely reading your article (and others, combined with a stack of books to boot), I'd still be open to the charge that not having lived in India, I could not possibly understand what was being said.

So, I'll not pretend to talk about what I do not know. But I am a native English speaker, and I do understand plain English when it's put in front of me.

I have long contended here that if for no other reason, the barbarity arising out the sub-continent should give Desis pause before they seek to condemn Israel, Israelis or Jews (as in Neoconzix), charging them with "apartheid", "genocide", and other "atrocities" and "massacres".

And I've been roundly criticized, condemned and had my posts here censored and edited for stating that point of view. The Desi editors call it "blathering": they cannot stand to see home truths on the CRT screen. Others call it "hate speech" or "incitement".

Well, Desh, you state the truth straight up. You're a Desi, not some ignorant foreigner from a shallow culture.

"Massacre" - "barbarity" - out there for all to see, in front of G-d and everybody.

So, now, let's get to the money line. Just as I, an ignorant foreigner, cannot intelligently comment on Indian politics or culture, Indians who have never lived here, and who have no clue on the motivations of those of us who do - no matter who we are or what our nationality might be - cannot intelligently comment on what occurs in the Land of Israel. And most importantly, they cannot judge us - just as they resent me judging them.

Now, getting off my soap-box, I'll comment on your article. Well written as it is, someone not thoroughly conversant in Indian politics would have trouble understanding much of what you have written. You talk of persons, and only allude to the policies these individuals pursue. I stretch my neck out here to comment further, warily eying the axe held by others ready to come down upon it.

If the Indian constitution makes special provisions for Hindus of low/no caste, and then this provision is extended to some non-Hindus, then there can be no claim that India is a secular society. It is a Hindu society that is not theocratically run. This is not said as a criticism - and especially not in judgment. I merely extend the logic of the law to the society it attempts to govern. The same can be said of Israel; we are a Jewish society that is not theocratically run.

So calling for an abandonment of terms like "secularism" makes sense. I have never been part of an Indian community, so I dare not comment on terms like "communalism".

All in all, nice job and interesting to read....

Ayan,
The fact is that the unintelligent "moderators" on this board are so eager to apply their censorship, that they don't care what the commentator's intent was.

HERE IS A BETTER IDEA-[EDITED - HATE SPEECH]

AND THEN TO CELEBRATE THAT MOMENT CREATE A MONUMENT ON THAT PLACE TO HONOR JUSTICE.

PS. WE R OVER DUE ON SUCH A MONUMENT ON THE PLACE WHERE INDIRA GANDHI WAS EXECUTED.

In Surat, dozens of bombs were uncovered before they could go off and bring in another ware of terror - now that is solid proactive action to perfection. To be able to find and diffuse bombs in any major metro city is no joke - there are zillion nooks and crannies one has to search. I wouldn't say police in Gujarat is more efficient or smarter - but what made the difference is resolve and cooperation of people, their leaders and government administration. Modi is able to rally people behind him and people are able to rally behind Modi - and it is working, in taking up any challenge they face.

Good observations by Ashok Malik of The Pioneer.

How Gujarat did it.
By Ashok Malik
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=ashok%2Fashok145%2Etxt&writer=ashok

Very Good, Desh
What you said does make sense. Those who diagree need to discuss the facts and logic rather then make stupid meaningless comments. I am sure editors will not censor. I am with you.

I am not sure whether I agree with Ruvy's comment about comparision between India And Israel. If anything India is trying very hard to remain non-Hindu state and at times appear anti Hindu in order to prove their secularism regardless of the low caste provision in the constitution.

Morris,

I am not sure whether I agree with Ruvy's comment about comparison between India And Israel.

Actually, what you say about the Indian elite bending over backwards to be non-Hindu is very analogous to what happens here with the governing "secular" elite bending over backwards to be non-Jewish, and at times anti-Torah. But for all that, and for all of Israel's efforts to be "secular" and for all the trash the secular elite shoves down our throats trying to de-Judaize our society, this is still a very Jewish society.

From all that I've read, and from the Indians that I've spoken to, something very analogous is true about India. It is a Hindu society that does not have any pretensions to theocracy at all. In most instances, reading comments and articles here, for example, the referents are most often to Hindu ideas and cultural norms. It is true that Hinduism is much more a "big-tent" religion, way of life and way of thinking than Judaism, but it still has very distinct elements that mark it as separate.

desh:

very "spiritual"

full of brotherly love

any thoughts on a final solution for this?

temp:

Final solution would be to "terminate" terrorists on both sides :) be it secular terrorists or communal terrorists.

nice sarcasm btw :) fits your profile and intentions very well, good job!

reminds me of the anti-free speech load of cr** that you wrote up a while back.

as an attention seeking self confessed kahanite who tires not of declaring his non-knowledge of indian affairs (before merrily plugging away) the comments in # 3 and # 9 resemble this:

http://bc.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/PDS/PDS076/AA020883.jpg

aam khao
lassi piyo
khush raho

So, just because politicians are acting in self-interest, "secularism" becomes a meaningless word? Perhaps.

Another way of looking at it is that precisely because all politicians are playing lip-service to secularism while doing just the opposite, the policy of secularism is not at fault, but those in power.

Yet another way of looking at this issue that Modi is trying very hard and is successful at stopping riots, bombs going off in Gujarat since he is in power, and deperately trying to engage in a fast makeover of his beyond tarnished image. Again, "self-interest" and strategies of "self-preservation" that for the moment are in the right direction, but unintentionally so. When the political winds change, he will change to, because the name of the game is to cling to power. As it was for the Congress during the massacre of the Sikhs. As you correctly point out, the shameless irony of Manmohan Singh, a sikh, appointing Jagdish Tytler as a cabinet minister.

Finally, a logical question: if you sincerely believe that ALL politicians are driven by self-interest and nothing but, and anyone who believes otherwise is welcome to alice's wonderland, why on earth the exception for Modi? Is he a politician or is a divine entity, free from the trappings of politics? A logical contradiction of himalayan proportions, unless you really believe that Modi is truly beyond politics.

It might help if you lay out your real agenda rather than railing at concepts such as secularism and communalism. They are just concepts. A bit like the so-called war on "terrorism". One cannot attack adjectives.

Everyone - thanks for the comments. I will reply in detail later today.

CS:

Its the basic principle-agent relationship funda. The guy's who max portion of self interest matches national interest - and that guy has the guts and power to actionalize it.. that guy works for me.

Not all "he" does will work for me or everyone... but I am looking at the basics.

No word - secularism/communalism.. means ANYTHING if you leave out the CONTEXT. The context here is suspect. And that is why you see what I have to say.

Shame can be pernicious; but it can also be a useful tool of moral instruction. The question is whether, in some objective sense, the shame is merited or simply a function of impaired self-esteem.

I would argue that being ashamed of Narendra Modi is entirely appropriate and a sign of the moral health of Indian society.

mbjesq: Hmmm.. good point. So, who is ashamed? And who has the "right" to be ashamed?

Its the same scenario, my friend, who throws the first stone??

I am trying to point at the hypocrisy of ALL those whom we ALL are ashamed of.. in turn decide whom THEY should be ashamed of? As if..

Desh:

""The guy's who max portion of self interest matches national interest - and that guy has the guts and power to actionalize it.. that guy works for me."'

That's one way of looking at it.

Another, not implausible way of looking at it is that politics is never a one-person game. The so-called party with a difference the BJP was as, if not even more, corrupt than the Congress when they had a chance to prove themselves worthy of the esteem they so craved. There are many good folks within the BJP (Jaswant Singh etc. etc.), but there are rank communalists too. The same can be said about the Congress. Over the past couple of decades at least, both the Congress and the BJP have been vying with each other, taking on each other's planks on the issue of the economy and communalism. Like a "seew-saw" or "teeter-totter". The BJP had an opportunity, but blew it royally. Regardless of the fact that they had to pay attention the other parties that were supporting them, why did they NOT push ahead with a uniform civil code, do away with the Article 370 for Kashmir etc. etc? What would have happened? Probably nothing more than a few riots that would happen anyway. They did go ahead and change India's nuclear status when they were in a minority goverment, so why not the other stuff which was always part of their plank. Why not build a dozen mandirs in Ayodhya instead of not even one? The answer lies in your article: politics = self-interest. But politics can be and is indeed influenced by citizens. And the fact remains that in a multi-religious country like India, secularism is the only viable, workable solution. The fact that all political parties pay lip service to it while pandering to vote banks is not an argument against secularism. It is an argument in favour of enforcing the concept than doing away with it. If there are problems now, it is not clear why those problems would magically disappear just because one single indvididual is elected to power and he does away with secularism.

CS:

Good points. Ok, one thing first - Modi did not do away with secularism. There was NO secularism to begin with! It was just a make-believe concept that the politicians just created to take a high road.. without any concrete basis!!

Now, is secularism important in a society? Well tolerance is and so is acceptance. But one has to clearly define it.

Lakhs of kashmiri pandits were ethnically cleansed.... no one uttered a word! Now, when they get up and BJP (again self-interest) goes and helps them with it.. its "oh-such-a-big-deal"... REALLY? Has anyone even looked at them? EVEN out of self interest??

BJP and the Hindu parties haven't done any service to the Hindus and there I am with you. Some people have, though, worked hard when they came on. Despite all the lack of effort and mistakes - I still hold Vajpayee's Cabinet to be one of the best in Independence era.

Modi's admin is one of the best in modern times.. if the competition includes Dr. Singh/Nehru/Rajiv Gandhi/Indira Gandhi/CPM et al.

For on "soft areas" like secularism etc they have an IDENTICAL record.. where the latter failed us is in "Dial-tone" service... something that ONE expects as the MINIMUM possible!

CS:

Another point - the reason why the SHAM "secularism" was born and nurtured and grown in India is because we ACCEPTED it as the "real thing".

I am saying I REJECT it! I am not willing to be made a fool anymore. Those who want to continue to believe in this foolishness propagated by everyone in the media and politics.. so be it. But I REJECT IT! Either give me the REAL secularism .. or I dont want this sham anymore!

I am DONE with it.

Maybe, the real secularism may take birth then?

Desh:

""Either give me the REAL secularism .. or I dont want this sham anymore!

I am DONE with it.

Maybe, the real secularism may take birth then?""

Maybe! But secularism is not a cut and dried product like Coca Cola (the real thing?). It does mean a lot of different things in different contexts. Secularism in France is quite different from what it is in the US and quite different in Canada or Japan. You appear to be confusing a "concept" with "concrete reality". In hardcore philosophy, A. N. Whitehead's term, this is also known as "misplaced concreteness".

Let me put it this way: secularism, the way it is to be found in India, is no doubt a leaky boat full of holes and more. However, the alternatives to it do not even have a semblance of a boat or indeed anything else, apart from quixotic, non-historical references to a presumed golden age in the past, of the so-called battles between "dharma" and "adharma" etc. etc. Not of much help when dealing with complex issues of modernity rather than a feudal or non-feudal past. To re-cap: secularism may be a leaky boat, even a junk rather than a real boat, but those who want to junk it and hop on to new vessel, do not even have a clue about what vehicle they are banking on.

To let go of secularism, they must provide some tentative outlines of how exactly non-secularism will do the trick. What model are we talking about? And why would it work, assuming (a big assumption) that it worked a few hundred years ago, when the society and culture was quite different??

Nice, Temporal:

That photo of Swiss cheese reminded me of your arguments - cheesy and full of holes. You also got me hungry for a good cheese sandwich with mustard.

Cheers!

I leave you now to resume arguing the intricacies of Indian politics.... Do carry on.

CS:

Okay.. so how do we ensure that? By pretending that Buddadeb takes care of secularism? or Dr. Singh champions it?

And how does this secularism get saved? By denying Modi?

Now,come on..

CS
"A logical contradiction of himalayan proportions, unless you really believe that Modi is truly beyond politics."

I do not understand what you mean by this. They are all politicians. Modi appears to be performing better (albeit on the provincial level)and to consider him worthy of support is very logical. Where is the contradiction? I remember a blogger called him a Hitler. He is still free as leader of Gujarat. And some one brought in a word "shame". Shame for Modi or for guy named Tytler? I don't understand what in the world is going on there?

It seems like focus now is on muslim minority. What is wrong in making it overall. Am I wrong if I say that Modi does not have a focus of pleasing or displeasing muslim minority? Suppose BJP is in power, is the country likely to become a Hindu country? Would they change the constitution? Are they committed to that kind of agenda? I do not know much about Modi but whatever little I know (and I am speaking of facts) he seems to be a capable administrator.

CS - another thing... I think it IS beneficial to do away with concepts like secularism COMPLETELY! And this is why:

- lets talk about violence and deaths of innocents rather than these large envelopes called secularism or communalism. Because when we concentrate ONLY on deaths/hurt to anyone.. then EVERYONE is the same. But when Secularism becomes our goal - then it hides the hurt/death of one.. and accentuates that of another. It always becomes a formal and institutionalized HYPOCRISY!

- The examples are everywhere. When in Godhra train incident the kids, and women died. .. Teesta Setalvad is famous for having remarked "we cannot forget that they were kar sevaks". As if that justified the burning alive of a 3 yr old kid! But she DID justify!! Pray, explain how is that mentality ANY different from that of Bal Thackeray's or Rajiv Gandhi's??

- Of course, there is this HUGE qs of "whom" do you kill and STILL remain a secular and whom do you kill to tread across that line into communalism?? It is a real question! and I have asked it. Even if killing Muslims is communalism - then Pakistani Government and ISI and Al Qaeda are FAR bigger culprits than Modi, Thackeray, et al put together.. in fact at least 10 times over! And I am just talking WITHIN their own country!

Why should blood of one be covered by a useless concept and others be free of it?

Morris:

""I remember a blogger called him a Hitler. He is still free as leader of Gujarat..Suppose BJP is in power, is the country likely to become a Hindu country?""

1. I have never called him Hitler, so this is irrelevant when you address me directly. If not a deep red herring, surely a pink one.

2. "Suppose BJP is in power". A big supposition, since the party got a pretty big kick in the ass, and not by the "minority" but by a majority of the indian electorate. You either accept the results or you don't. So the "suppose" is just a pie-in-the-sky-before-you-die, or in local lingo, "khayali pulao". If the BJP is elected with an outright majority, so be it. India has gone thru many transition over the years, not a bit deal. Modi being a politician, will act, at the end of the day, for "self-interest" just as Desh points out. And he will be tamed by social realities, just as he is today, trying desperately to rush into a hyper image makeover, cosmetic political surgery. The good thing about democracy is that it comes with a built-in self-correcting mechanism, so I don't fear Modi or his acolytes. Sooner or later they and every politician runs up against basic commonsense of the average Indian, be they secular or martian.

Desh: ""I think it IS beneficial to do away with concepts like secularism COMPLETELY!""

I think sooner or later, you must face concrete realities which is that "secularism" is a concept and not a concrete reality like made of brick and mortar that you can demolish, like the demolition at Ayodhaya. Methinks you need to figure out the difference between "concepts" and "concrete" realities. "Secularism", "democracy" "capitalism"etc. etc. are not quite the same as the concrete reality of khajurao or the taj that can be swept away by bulldozers or cranes. You can try, but before that, try reading Cervantes'"Don Quixote"

Desh:

""- The examples are everywhere. When in Godhra train incident the kids, and women died. .. Teesta Setalvad is famous for having remarked "we cannot forget that they were kar sevaks". As if that justified the burning alive of a 3 yr old kid! But she DID justify!! Pray, explain how is that mentality ANY different from that of Bal Thackeray's or Rajiv Gandhi's??

- Of course, there is this HUGE qs of "whom" do you kill and STILL remain a secular and whom do you kill to tread across that line into communalism?? It is a real question! and I have asked it. Even if killing Muslims is communalism - then Pakistani Government and ISI and Al Qaeda are FAR bigger culprits than Modi, Thackeray, et al put together.. in fact at least 10 times over! And I am just talking WITHIN their own country!""

Rants that have little to do with the original post. Let me crystallize it to focus you mind:

Desh:

""Politics only works on Self Interest and I want to treat that as the only major currency of political interaction. Those who want to pretend otherwise, I dont want to join them in their "wonderland"... they are more than welcome to dance away the rest of their lives with Alice and her friends!""

Not an earthshattering discovery, but you can claim credit for this "orginal insight" since I represent only commonsense.

So, either Modi is:

1. A politician, hence acting out of self-interest.

2. Or he is an angel, parachuted out of outerspace to set everything right.

If #1, it won't work since he will ultimately resort to self-interest. If #2, there's no way he will ever get elected since #1, politics is about self-interest.

If you could disclose your real agenda, perhaps a rational discussion might be possible.

Are you upset that more action was taken on Godhra and not about the massacre of Sikhs? If so, do you want simlar atttention devoted to both, or no attention at all or what? Not quite clear from the post. The fact that the Congress is now pillorying BJB is not at all surprising for anyone who knows the ABC of politics. Since none of us is a professional politician (I assume, but I may be wrong), our job as citizens, is surely to pillory any government, regardless of whether it is BJP, Congress or Martian, in the interest, not of party politics, but for the common person, if not exactly commonsense :) Why must we take sides in party politics? Why can't we support basic commonsense (no, not me personally??) regardless of which party is in power?? Are we condemned to sectarian partisanship? Must it always be a question of pro-Hindu, anti-Hindu, pro-Muslim, anti-Muslim, pro-Sikh, anti-Sikh, as if there is no such thing as an Indian??

(I'm away for a while, so will not be able to respond)

CS:

I think I have been having a pretty rational discussion. To imply I have an agenda and you dont is quite audacious of you. I am protesting EXACTLY this self-righteousness!

As far as I am concerned, you are way off track on this now. So, take it the way you want to .. I am not going to argue on meaningless and useless semantics with someone who has made his mind and cannot stand a counter-idea of the world.

To me an Indian is an Indian is an Indian and "secularism" - the way it is defined and practiced belittles that. So, if you want to discuss the merits of secularism - then please pardon me. I am not into useless rhetoric or discussion. Its a waste of time.

You can go ahead and ascribe whatever agenda you want to on me.. I really dont care. I am anyways tired of the self-defined prophets of this world who have wrecked nothing but havoc!

take care,
-d.

Desh:

""To imply I have an agenda and you dont is quite audacious of you. I am protesting EXACTLY this self-righteousness!""

Strange. I am not implying at all that you have an agenda. I believe it is commonsense that everybody has an agenda, especially those who pretend otherwise. My agenda is to advance commonsense and to combact communalism. So there, my agenda is on the table, not that I was ever hiding it. So, what's yours? To say that one is apolitical, is of course, as commonsense tells us, an eminently political statement. You don't expect me to belive that you wrote this piece without an agenda? Perhaps you do expect me to believe it.

Desh:

""To me an Indian is an Indian is an Indian and "secularism" - the way it is defined and practiced belittles that.""

Pardon me, but I was snoozing while you appointed yourself as the thekedaar of over one billion indians. I have no doubt that you talked to each one of them before coming to the conclusion that all of them feel belittled by "secularism". So, who is playing with words and a warped sense of self-aggrandizement now??

Desh:

""I am not going to argue on meaningless and useless semantics with someone who has made his mind and cannot stand a counter-idea of the world.""

Suit yourself. "Counter-idea of the world"?? Such as quantum mechanics was invented in India? Semantics?? Such as playing around with the concept of "secularism"? "Made up his mind"? I don't have a mind to begin with....

Desh:

""So, if you want to discuss the merits of secularism - then please pardon me. I am not into useless rhetoric or discussion.""

Pardoned!! Not a problem. Pardon me for wrongly assuming that when you attacked "secularism", you might have expected a defence, however idiotic from your point of view, of its merits. What exactly did you expect then? Cheerleaders cheering you on without a hint of dissent?

Desh:

"" am not going to argue on meaningless and useless semantics with someone who has made his mind and cannot stand a counter-idea of the world.""

A fairly accurate description of yourself since you appear to have made up your mind and cannot tolerate any counter-idea to the ones you have proposed. And I thought you claimed you had monopoly on "tolerance", with a built-in "tolerantometer" to display your index of tolerance.

Desh:

Exhibit #1:

""I am not going to argue on meaningless and useless semantics with someone who has made his mind ""

Desh: Exhibit #2:

""I have had this firm realization now that words like Secularism and Communalism have NO meaning. They are bastardized words which people AGAIN use for their self interest...nothing more.""

In other words, "made up my mind" no iffs and no butts, even well-shaped butts...

cs:

please get hold of yourself and lay off desh-bhai

judging from his prior interactions here i find him an unbiased, accommodating, fair, balanced, spiritual intellectual always whirling in decency

just like his kahanite friend

hope you will find in your heart to be magnanimous and apologise for you indiscretions thus far

Temporal,

Hint taken and appreciated.

Desh Bhai, apologies for predictably going off my rocker yet again. Please don't take it personally since I am just trying to practicing my writing skills....no hard feelings (nor soft ones either :)

Desh Bandhu Bhai,

I wrote: ""since I am just trying to practicing my writing skills""

As you can well see, I can do with some extra practice (or was it practising?) Never mind. Good luck with trying to get Modi to be the PM.

CS #25
I did not say you called him a Hitler. I do not remember who did. I know for sure more than one person did it. If you participated in that discussion I wonder whether you expressed any thought about that comparision. Perhaps you did. I don't know.

I did not say BJP will acquire power. I have absolutely no idea about their strength. All I was trying to do is to ask you that if they did get power what terrible things they are likely to do. You answered very well. Not very much. That means Modi is not going to be able to do any of those nasty things which they are implying he would. That being the case my commonsense tells me that we need to support some one who has proven himself to be a very good administrator. I do not understand all those complicated arguments.

mbjesq

Brilliant. Being ashamed as a sign of the moral health of Indian society! All the more reasons to be more ashamed more often. And politics to be an art of creating and finding more things to be ashamed. I am all for moral health and moral police.

Desh: very rational thoughts... good going...
and Yes Modi really deserves to be the PM.

Thanks, PIndian.

CS:

I think you are assuming there has to be an agenda for everybody. I am writing because I feel like expressing my views and my frustration with the hypocrisy all around me. People with agenda believe they can "change" others. I have no such belief or goals.

-d.

Desh:

""People with agenda believe they can "change" others. I have no such belief or goals.""

Pardon me for taking you at face value. I thought your agenda for change was expressed quite clearly. And it was/is:

""My candidate for the Prime Minister of India would be Narendra Singh Modi."

CS:

Brilliant point!

I hate to bring this one up now, but tonight my *candidate* for dinner was a veggie burger with mustard and no mayo! Now, there you go.. obviously I have an *agenda* which is soo anti-mayo and pro-mustard! shhhh.. I should have told you my choice... it suddenly assumes "agendic proportions"!!

HAHAHAHA kya kahun? Jisse agendas and controversies hi dhoondni hai uska koi kya kare? Meri jaan - behas karo.. but at least dont become a caricature.... :-)

Go Chill.. have an "agenda-less" beer and enjoy the weekend..

-d.

Desh

Your post is interesting. Particularly the interesting manner in which you compare the issue of treating minorities. Clearly, no party seems to be saintly.

I dont know too much about Narendra Modi (Policy wise I mean). For example, Is Gujarat doing well because Gujjus are generally more enterprising than others or is it becasuse of hispolicy initiatives?

Secondly, I have my own list of 'national' problems that you have not talked about. What is NM's position on these-

a. Education - List out policies from NM and performance over the last 5 years or whatever data is available. Primary and Secondary Enrollment. Capacity in all types of colleges and growth over multiple years

b. Agri Produce-List out policies from NM and performance over the last 5 years or whatever data is available on key agri products

c. Operational effectiveness- List out atleast half a dozen major projects that have been delivered on time, within budget and generally accepted as of good quality

d. Governance-
i. Performance of police force - in terms of conviction rates. This will have to be compared over a 10 year period
ii. Number of outstanding cases in various courts
iii. Number of cases against Govt officials and how this compaes with other states and over a period of time
iv. Number of complaints againt police officials over a period of time

e. Infrastructure: Total road and rail capacity added, in terms of % and total renovations. Any customer feedback data will be very useful


The purpose of listing all the above points is to see if we have actual performance data to support your contention that NM can be PM. It does not matter if you donot have this data.

Chandra

If you attribute progress of Gujarat to Gujaratis being enterprising, than your benchmarks for education does not correlate well. We know that education merely produces clerks, technocrats and alienated Macaulite babus. If education were the key to generating enterprising spirit, we would have Bengal and Kerala to be the most enterprising states. In fact, more educated a person, more he will opt for seeking easy jobs. Success of Gujaratis come from having healthy contempt for over emphasis on education. It forces them to take risk in life to succeed rather than take easy way out and settle in cozy jobs, it makes them look beyond employment market. Most successful Gujarati businessmen I know attended schools and colleges for fun and frolick rather than pursuing serious textbook education, most of them never went beyond school. Guess what, if they can hire educated people to sweat for them, where is the need for them to cram books - its called division of labor. SO. Please do not create false benchmarks, they do not create progress.

Chandra

If you attribute progress of Gujarat to Gujaratis being enterprising, than your benchmarks for education do not correlate.

We know that macaulite education merely produces clerks, technocrats and Macaulite clones and alineated babus. If education were the key to generating enterprising spirit, we would have Bengal and Kerala to be the most enterprising states. In fact, more educated a person, more probable that he will opt for seeking easy jobs.

Success of Gujaratis come from having healthy contempt for over-emphasis on formal education. It forces them to take risks in life to succeed rather than fall back on easy way out and settle for cozy jobs, it makes them look beyond employment market for personal progress. Most successful Gujarati businessmen I know attended schools and colleges for fun and frolick rather than pursuing serious textbook education, most of them never went beyond school. Guess what, if they can hire educated people to sweat for them, where is the need for them to cram books - its called division of labor. So please do not create false benchmarks, they do not create progress. May be they are needed for communities and states that lack entreprenural spirit embedded in their cultural infra-structure - Modi has been able to revive and reinforce Gujarati cultural infrastructure which has been a bedrock of enterprising spirit embedded in it. That is what his campaign for Gujarati Ashmita, Gujarati pride are all about.

It is not that Gujaratis are so gifted that God has given them special enterprenural spirit. That spirit stems not from formal education or governmental programs either, it stems from its social and cultural infrastructure. That is what Modi has tapped into. And that is what we expect our national leaders to do - to tap into inherent strengths and pecularities of each region and locality and create a growth model from grass-root level and up. I would judge PM by such benchmark.

Kerty

Education does not imply just tertiary education. It also includes primary and secondary enrollment and attainment. I am sure many illiterates have also been successful but I am sure we agree that the odds are very low. I think the basic points that I raised are very important for any state or region. Even entrpreneurship of any sort needs rule of law, availability of skilled labour, availability of raw materials and food, basic infrastructure etc. So a basic framework will help a long way to utilise talented people effectively. Now, let us say, you donot care....
My question to you is, If Gujarat is more successful because Modi has better tapped into the social and cultural infrastructure of Gujarat, can you give us all some interesting examples. Thanks

regards,

Look at Gujarati immigrants in UK and USA if you want to see how lack of education(beyond SSC) has taken them to so many opportunities in small scale businesses. I am also into businesses in USA that are dominated mostly by Gujaratis and I socially interact with them on daily basis, and they beat me in business savyiness in spite of most of them being highly uneducated and unsophisticated (some of them can't even speak English well) and me having MBA.

No matter how you cut it, education in India implies indoctrination into Macauleyism and leftist ideological minefields - if you succeed in escaping them, than alienation into western minefields. One can see display of it on DC on regular basis.

I do not suggest that all communities should be forced to emulate Gujaratis. For other communities may lack cultural framework/infrastructure that works for Gujaratis. They have no choice but to fall back on whatever that education has to offer as an outlet for personal progress.

Society works on division of labor. You do not need everybody to be doctors or MBAs. Politics has to concentrate on providing opportunities to people whatever they want to become - but it should not make it compulsory for all or force some sort of benchmark as if it is a cure all. Most Gujaratis do not consider Macualism or leftism to be cure all, and shunning them has improved their odds for progress.

Desh,
Interesting arguments. The whole problem is that we forgot long back that "death is the great leveller"

our judgement is impaired by who is being killed and by whom. If the dead is Hindu or Sikh we have been Goebelized or should I say Setalvadized to ignore. Irrespective of the religion, class or creed, we should remember the dead are human beings first and as long as we don't reckon this in our sane mind, we could never find a solution.

As far Narendra Modi for the Prime minister's post the tilting scale in his favor is, his administrative skills in running a corruption free Governement for the third term in succession.

As far as EQ (efficiency quotient) he is unmatched, that's more than suffice for him to contest for the coveted post.

Desh #41


:)

Desh,

Seriously now. #41. You are confusing "agenda" with "hidden agenda". I may have meant the engagment diary :) "agenda less beer"? intrigued but on the wagon...

Kerty

You are avoiding answering my question on Modi's specifics that have led to an economic 'boom'. Secondly, I donot think Gujaratis are the only one's doing very well recently. Almost all states are. Yes, Gujarat has a head start for sure.

Chandra

I do not think any answer can satisfy you - because key to success rests in how many government programs and schemes one has done, how much money one has distributed under NREG scheme or tribal scams or other votebank dole-outs, how many would-be macaulites one has enrolled in high schools, and how many people police has been able to jail. Your bench marks no party or person in India can meet to your satisfaction. You are better off with Lalu or Mayawati. Since all states are doing fine, anybody would do just fine.

Kerty

What you say is rhetoric, not fact based argument.

Desh,

>> Secularism and Communalism have NO meaning

Really? Ask the Kashmiri pandits or people living under communal violence, people living under a Taliban rule as minorities etc if these words mean anything to them.

>> The barbarity that one saw in both the areas was the same in the ways people killed each other

True, both Gujarat 2002 and Delhi 1984 are communal barbaric acts.

>> It is quite obvious, that the 1984 killings were the biggest in scale and intensity ...

True, but the offenders repented and apologized for it and there no likelihood of a repetition. The same cannot be said of Gujarat 2002, which is a long term ideology that is consistently developed and sustained for many decades and continues to be so.

>> How do you define "Religious Fundamentalism" and Secularism?

Secularism is a state policy which allows freedom of religion/culture/tradition (as long it does not violate law/constitution). It seeks to define/establish law for welfare of citizens. Religious Fundamentalism, fascism, communalism, casteism, racism etc are similar in that they violate the rights of innocent law-abiding people on the basis of their religion, caste, race, region etc.

>> Is religious genocide when any ONE section of the society is targetted? Or is it when ONLY minorities are targetted? Or is it when ONLY one minority is targetted? Or is it when THAT ONE minority is targetted by ONLY one party??

It is a genocide when ANY section is targeted by ANY party on the basis of religion/caste/race/region etc. It matters though, if there is a genuine change of heart and if the offender apologized for it since.

>> Politics only works on Self Interest

Not necessarily. There are many politicians who have done enormous work of upliftment/empowerment/education/social reform etc.

>> Today, India's biggest threat is Terrorism

True, terrorism is an important threat. And in that fight, we will want all law-abiding secular, traditional people of all religions (including musilms) on the side of the nation and against the terrorists. Modi will be a disaster.

Kumar:

You need to re-read my stuff and get a bit updated on stuff.

Secularism that you are talking of is - at BEST - pretended secularism. And KAshmiri Pandits?? They have been fucked using the pretext of secularism!! Read this to understand it better:

http://www.drishtikone.com/?q=blog/victims-imaginary-virtue-cannot-be-expected-be-its-guardians

Second, WHO the heck ever apologize for 1984?? The victims retracted their statements last year EXACTLY at the time when the Best Bakery case was making waves! And I am sorry, but an "apology" for killing ~3000 people is NOT good enough, specially when at that time your goon is busy threatening the day lights out of the victims!

Third, name ONE POLITICIAN who has worked NOT on self interest??? If you are to name Gandhi.. then I am sorry, I will puke. Here is why:

- He forced a democratically elected Subhash Bose to step down to retain his leadership in COngress after Haripura using the usual hunger strike blackmail

- He forced Sardar Patel to step down in favor of his blue eyed boy Nehru - who ended up messing India's security after Kashmir and before China - despite counsel to the contrary.. because of his obsessions (from Krishna Menon to Idealism to Lady Mountbatten).

- He used hospitality of Birlas when he knew they used it to their commercial and business advantage. FYI, for 50 years of Tariff Raj, only two business houses were allowed to import and export stuff into and out of India - Tatas and Birlas. Basically conduits. At a rate of 2-3%.

I will not go deeply into philosophy to discuss the predominance of ego and self interest in every act of an individual...

But honestly, when I look for a virtue.. I look for a virtue in PRACTICE.. not an imagined one while practice is anything but!!

For such "virtues" remind one of a husband who swears love and faithfulness to his wife while cheats to his hearts content! So, the Seculars in India are habitually cheating husbands.

You may be a lover of kinky secularism.. I am not!

-desh

kumar

">> Secularism and Communalism have NO meaning

Really? Ask the Kashmiri pandits or people living under communal violence, people living under a Taliban rule as minorities etc if these words mean anything to them."

I have asked them and here is what I have found - that secular humanism is the root cause of Kashmir embroiglio and secular humanism is a jeckle, the twin face of Mullah- Missionary-Marxist/Maoist axis.

Ironically, secularists brand any resistance to Jehadis and Talibans, be it from Kashmiri Pandits or Hindus from India as communalism and oppose it with same tired secular humanist arguments instead of opposing Jehadism.

We have seen our secular humanists never miss any opportunity to demoralize and handcuff our Armymen fighting the separatists in Kashmir and brand them to be human right violaters and rapists every time Army has been forced to crack down on the jehadi agression and its network.

We have heard the twisted arguments from humanists that Pandits were not really driven out from Kashmir by Jehadis, but Pandits left the vally voluntarily just so they can embarrass the secular congress administration - that is why all so-called secular parties have treated Pandit refugees as persona non grata in India - if you remember, Sindhis who were forced out from Pakistan during partition were treated with similar contempt and neglect by secularists - they were never acknowledged or given helping hand by any congress governments at the center in order not to sully its secular credentials. Now history is repeating with Pandits.

Secualrists' refuge in laws, constitution and humanism is very convenient do-nothing dogmatism meant only to fool people with rhetorics, protect and appease Jehadis while using the painful fall out of Jehadism to bolster secular humanism. Its a win-win for both Jehadis and secular humanists and only losers are Indians

Main road blocks to having laws to procatively oe reactively deal with national integrity/security threats come mainly from secular humanists - Secualists would like to abrogate the fight against Jehadi communalism and separatisn in Kashmir to non-existent laws which they would not allow to be passed or enforced on the ground of secular humanism.

To use Kashmir pandits to bolster a case of secular humanism is a typical circular logic - we have the problem in Kashmir because our secular humanists have made it impossible for India to take any pre-emptive or defensive measures in Kashmir, surrendered to Jehadis to bolster secular humanism, rather than look after the welfare of Pandits or territorial integrity of India.

Desh (#54),

>> Secularism that you are talking of is - at BEST - pretended secularism.

What is the pretence in this? The fact is, we have people of diverse religions, cultures, race etc co-existing (in India and all over the world). The State takes the stand that it will have law/constitution that treats all citizens as responsible subjects of the law and all citizens will have their rights/freedom etc. I will rather live in a society like that any day, rather than some religious/cultural theocratic or fascist state.

>> And KAshmiri Pandits?? They have been .. pretext of secularism!!

Surely the islamists/terrorists who drove them away have nothing to do with secularism. They are against secular humanism, which is why they behaved like that. It is the secular humanist government that has sent in the army to reign in the radical elements.

>> WHO the heck ever apologize for 1984??

Well, many representatives of the Congress including the Prime ministers have expressed their apologies for what happened in 1984. The point is just that, in all fairness, the Congress never nurtured any anti-sikh communal ideology (they did use anti-sikh sentiment in the 1984 elections though). This is not at all a justification for their barbaric killings of 1984 and surely an apology is not good enough. Surely, the congress is not a saint.

>> name ONE POLITICIAN who has worked NOT on self interest??? If you are to name Gandhi.. then I am sorry

Though Gandhi may not exactly be a 'politician', I will surely include him and also Nehru, Ambedkar, Sardar Patel etc (also later PMs like Rajiv Gandhi, PV Narsimha Rao, Vajpayee etc) as people who have done significant good to the nation. Yes, electoral politics demands vying for political power, and that is normal. And yes, they all all have their limitations, black spots, etc, but that does not discount their contributions.

Kerty (#55)

>> Ironically, secularists brand any resistance to Jehadis and Talibans, be it from Kashmiri Pandits or Hindus from India as communalism

The government most certainly opposes the Jehadis and that is why there is large scale army presence in Kashmir. But if there is a supposed "reaction" to Jehadis which also indulges in similar activities, making provocative communal speeches, attacking/rioting etc, that behavior also demands use of law enforcing agencies. What else is the right response? Just because there are terrorist groups in Kashmir, it does not mean that the govt can allow similar communal misbehavior elsewhere.

>> secular humanists never miss any opportunity to demoralize and handcuff our Armymen fighting the separatists in Kashmir

It is the secular humanist government which has sent the army in the first place. But yes, every army in the world is also scrutinized for any high-handedness etc. Nothing unusual about it. In every democracy, there are human rights groups etc who look at role of army critically to report any misuse of the army power against innocents, sexual harassments etc. It does not mean that the positive role played by army is not appreciated.

>> so-called secular parties have treated Pandit refugees as persona non grata in India

There are always the usual governmental inefficiencies, sluggishness etc (as with almost everything in our country) but I do not think there is any deliberate mis-treatment of Pandits by any government.

>> Secualrists' refuge in laws, constitution and humanism is very convenient do-nothing dogmatism meant only to fool people with rhetorics

Not at all! You will know the value of secular humanist democracy if you every have to live in any other form of government (like some theocracy, shariah etc) anywhere in the world, more so as some minority.

Kerty:

""that secular humanism is the root cause of Kashmir embroiglio and secular humanism is a jeckle, the twin face of Mullah- Missionary-Marxist/Maoist axis.""

secular humanism is the root cause of Kashmir? so what pray, is the root cause of this bloated rhetoric and hyperbole that has absolutely not roots in reality but plenty of roots in spreading prejudice and in widening the divide between indians?

Kumar

"The government most certainly opposes the Jehadis and that is why there is large scale army presence in Kashmir."

This government only opposes separatism, but not Jehadism. It is only trying to contain separatism rather than crush Jehadism. Army is present there for that limited role.


"But if there is a supposed "reaction" to Jehadis which also indulges in similar activities, making provocative communal speeches, attacking/rioting etc, that behavior also demands use of law enforcing agencies."

And I thought problems in Kashmir is due to Jehadis. Now we know that the Kashmir problem exists because of all those non-jehadis who react provocatively to Jehadis by living in Kashmir.

"What else is the right response? Just because there are terrorist groups in Kashmir, it does not mean that the govt can allow similar communal misbehavior elsewhere."

When Pakistan was created over dead bodies of millions of Indians, Indians were asked the same things - do not react - any reaction was branded as communal mis-behavior. Not only our hijra government watched mutely the genocide of epic proportion, but it asked people also to do nothing.

Now Kashmir is bleeding on the same lines. And once again, our secular government has do nothing approach. And once again our secular humanists are telling Indians not to mis-behave but take it lying down.

Tommorrow, when Assam becomes ripe for Kashmir-style Islamic separatism because Jehadis there are on the verge of gaining numerical majority, thanks to infiltration from BD, and we can see our secular government is watching the developments there with amusement and glee - because those votebanks keep them in power there, We would once again be asked to do the same things - behave.

Unfortunately, if our secular government and its humanist lobby behaves as they should to protect India from Jehadi menace, people in India would have no need to misbehave.

"It is the secular humanist government which has sent the army in the first place."

And that doing everything to undercut its mandate. It is doing it because political cost of not doing is too great and it must appear to do something to fool the people in India.

"But yes, every army in the world is also scrutinized for any high-handedness etc. Nothing unusual about it."

Army is a war-making machine and not a traffic police. You can not apply civilian standards that apply to police force to army - Army is trained to kill and defeat, it plays by different set of rules and its mandate is to crush the enemy by all means - Army in combat does not run to courts to get search warrant before it barges in, nor wait for signed orders from superiors to shoot, nor ask for evidence and testimony before it can nab an enemy combatant. What secular humanists have done is to demote army into cops and cops into peons, creating a vaccume in India's defense apparatus. They can't stand India have strong army, strong government, strong nation, strong culture, strong ideology. Remember our beloved Nehru? He wanted to do away with Indian Army altogether. He is the one who saw strategic importance for secularism in keeping Kashmir burning under Jehad. Army exists because they can't get rid of it politiclly but they have played every trick in the book to make it ineffective and demoralized. They want Army to lose war against Jehadis, and if our army happens to win it by chance against all odds created by secularists, our secular humanists will be there to give it all away when defeated Jehadis sign a meaningless surrender/peace treaty - and one would wonder who surrendered to whom - but rest assured, the national uphoria of military victory would drown out what our traitorous secularists actually did behind close doors.

Kerty # 59. Amen. Secular Humanism may perhaps be the root of all evil, from Kashmir to Assam, and perhaps global warming and people shitting and pissing on the streets too. All due to secular humanist conspirators!

Perhaps it might be too much to expect some tentative alternatives to secular humanism. Yes Desh and Man Singh can pitch in to help define how a non-secular anti-humanism might be of help to deal with practical issues that confront our and any other country.

Kerty # 59. Amen. Secular Humanism may perhaps be the root of all evil, from Kashmir to Assam, and perhaps global warming and people shitting and pissing on the streets too. All due to secular humanist conspirators!

Perhaps it might be too much to expect some tentative alternatives to secular humanism. Yes Desh and Man Singh can pitch in to help define how a non-secular anti-humanism might be of help to deal with practical issues that confront our and any other country.

kerty (#59)

>> When Pakistan was created over dead bodies of millions of Indians, Indians were asked the same things - do not react

Well, when there are large scale riots and killings, what would any sensible person say? To keep on killing more and get killed more? Any sensible person would ask all parties to show restraint.

>> if our secular government and its humanist lobby behaves as they should to protect India from Jehadi menace, people in India would have no need to misbehave

Can you clearly specify what exactly you are referring to? The govt. bans extremist outfits, put them in jails etc and that is going on. If fact the terrorists claim that too many arrests are made without evidence and use it to suggest that Indian state is against muslims and so on.

>> Army is a war-making machine and not a traffic police. You can not apply civilian standards that apply to police force to army

Well, in contexts where they are deployed to protect civilian population, there are some standards (in fact even in a full-scale war there are some standards). They cannot indulge in say, sexual exploitation/ rape of civilians using their muscle power. So, while the work of the army is appreciated, there are also those who watch out for such things. Also sometimes, the state may use army crackdown with unreasonable level of brutality/force, or some people may think that it is unreasonable, so they express their opinion and so on. These are all natural part of democratic society. Just because some one opines that army is used excessively, the govt, is not going to withdraw. The govt. will make it own independent assessment of strategically how much force to use and so on.

commonsense (#61)

>> Perhaps it might be too much to expect some tentative alternatives to secular humanism. ..define how a non-secular anti-humanism might be of help to deal with practical issues that confront our and any other country

Right! Secular humanist democracy is by far the best form of governance known to us. It allows all basic human rights/freedom etc, has in0-built mechanism of self-correction and accountability to people. At the same time allows justifible use of police, army, courts etc against the violators of rights of people. There are challenges like religious radicals, radical Islamists, terrorists, separatists etc. It is as much an ideological battle that must be won in favor of secular humanist democracy. Ideologies such as Hindutva rule, islamist rule, fascist rule etc needs to be defeated.

Kumar,

The only alternative to secular humanist democracy is of course some version of theocracy, authoritarianism, dictatorship that only compounds the problems that might and that do, from time to time, crop up in secular democracies. However, the solution to these problems is in fact MORE of secular democracy rather than less.

I would really be interested to hear from the kertys and the deshs, as to what exactly they have in mind as VIABLE (not pie-in-the-sky) alternatives that have no basis in reality. Kerty challenged DC readers for examples of secular humanist democracies (he was convinced that it is a figment of some loony left imagination), but has not responded to my list of real societies that do practice it, despite the warts. Perhaps they can now, if they can, point to their models of how multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-lingual societies ought to be organized, if NOT as secular democracies. I predict:

1. Deafening silence.

2. Another volley of hyperbole and polemical invectives against the usual suspects.

3. A totally out of touch recitation of presumably how India used to be until it was corrupted by "monotheism".

None of which allow us to deal with the fact of where to go from here. If one is committed to democracy, even a non-secular one, nothing can b done about the fact that a majority of Indians are simply unwilling to elect, with a majority, the likes of Modi or virulent VHP types to the centre. Hence the antipathy of the kertys and the deshs (perhaps even morris who knows) to secular democracy. I challenge them to come up with even a hint of a tentative alternative. Secular humanist democracies might be like leaky ships now and then, but such leaks can and usually are plugged. These merchants of prejudice and hatred do not even have a plan of an alternative boat or ship. Yet, they talk big. But then that's what cyberdemocracy is all about.

Kerty:

"">> Secularism that you are talking of is - at BEST - pretended secularism.""


So what is your alternative? (Yes, Desh and Man Singh are allowed to answer too if Kerty is dumbstruck)

CS:

Saari raat ramayan (or Bible) padi .. aur subah poocha ki Ram (Jesus) kaun tha??

I am CHALLENGING .. YOU, KUMAR, and whoever wants to comment - to NAME... just NAME.. and HONESTLY.. just ONE person who characterizes "Secular Humanism".

I am all for an ideal in a book if that has and is being translated! I am saying... Secular Humanism has STAYED in the books.. it has been USED as a plank! JUST those who have sweared by Muslim interests have dashed the future of their youth by not giving an alternative to the same age old religious madrasas!

If you want people PRETENDING to value Secular Humanism.. that is YOUR choice. I am NOT going to delude myself!

Heck even Bush and Cheney have cited one of the greatest Pacifist that walked the planet while attacking the innocent!

I am AGAIN challenging you (and I have MADE a case to the contrary pretty rationally above in my post) to cite that who has the RIGHT and the HONESTY to throw the FIRST stone against those who have betrayed Secular Humanism!

Taking high road... mouthing high sounding words.. swearing by stuff that one never intends to even uphold is very easy... any body can do that.. the track record of those who stand on that high road is what counts! You can call me or others whatever you want (its YOUR prerogative), but unless you get this basic fact - the Secularist of words only (and deeds to the contrary) is as good as a Playboy at the marriage altar!

-desh

desh:

there is no need to throw challenges

;)

i will offer a traditional long bearded man abdul sattar edhi

even though some call him "maulana" with respect, this man is secular
this man is a humanist
this man is a doer
this man is much more ....

all one has to do is to remove the blinkers, the coloured lenses and look at what he does without inbuilt and inherited prejudices

temp bhai - i know that guy... but yahan context hi different hai! Its like offering the name of Hassan Sardar, when one is talking of Indian cricket

;-)

sorry desh:

i did not know secular humanism and other deft definitions discussed here were not universal but localised

me bad!

:)

T

We are told that in a secular humanist paradigm, nothing can be universal, not even secular humanism. To each their own rules.

We are told that in a secular humanist paradigm, nothing can be universal, not even secular humanism. To each their own rules - except that Hindus can't have that either.

Desh,

Like Temporal I am puzzled too. Just secular humanists or only local, desi ones? As well, please don't throw challenges; you never know when you might need them.

Local: Nehru (enough to invite torrents of taunts and insults from the non-secular inhumanists for the next two days or so)

Non-Local/Extra Local: Mandela

I can expand on the list ad infinitum, but enough for the day.

I still wait to hear about an alternative to secular humanism that might have any chance of being viable in a multi-religious, multi-ethnic society.

T:

""We are told that in a secular humanist paradigm, nothing can be universal, not even secular humanism. To each their own rules.""

Pray tell us the rules for anti-secular inhumanism?

Kerty:

""To each their own rules - except that Hindus can't have that either.""

back to thekedaari for "Hindus", with a dose of faux persecution complex. Go ahead, create a party and fight the elections, and if you win you can do what you want, within the constitution. Or even amend the constitution. Ooops, the sangh parivar already tried this! much of this hand-wringing is a result of the fact that such thekedaars feel they own a community called "the Hindus" as their own private herd of sheep. However most of "the Hindus" unsurprisingly can think for themselves and do not need any thekedaars. Tough luck, try again! Instigate some riots, burn some buses and after all the mayhem, the lesson will still be the same: rioting can never be a full time occupation, whether it is the Hindus, Muslims or Martians.

Still waiting for an alternative for secular humanism. OK, the bar is lowered: even a non-viable alternative will do! Just a tentative glimpse!

Desh as far as the "rationality" of your article goes, all i could find was that the politicians in india sometimes do not practice what they preach. (surprise!). and then an endorsement for Modi to be PM (good luck on that one). No thought thru, or even unthinking alternatives, apart from critiques of double-talk and hypocrisy of politicans (well of most eveyone, except Modi, since apparently he has been parachuted from the non-secular heavens and is therefore not a politician)

CS:Still waiting for an alternative for secular humanism.

Modi for PM.

CS:Still waiting for an alternative for secular humanism.

Modi for PM

If one has to choose between two evils, a good alternative would be to pick lesser of the two evils as an alternative - that would make Modi to be a perfect secular Hanumanist.

Secular Humanism can not work in its present form and dire condition. It needs to be rescued from Ravana's clutches. Ravanists have hijacked it and made it into something that is antithesis of secular humanism and made it a captive to further Ravanic interests. We need a secular Hanumanism to rescue it. After it is rescued, secular humanism will be purified by fire, and than it will be made pure and good for good, and we will all live happily ever after until Ravana rears its ugly head(darn, it has too many heads) once again, and screws it back again, and than we will repeat the rescue operation all over again.

To think in terms of alternatives is misguided - which springs from mindset of absolutism and its divine inevitability. When one looks at it in terms of rescue and purification operations, it leads to, yes, you guessed it, more pointless discussion. Fullstop.

Kerty:

""Secular Humanism can not work in its present form and dire condition....To think in terms of alternatives is misguided - which springs from mindset of absolutism and its divine inevitability....etc. etc.""

In other words, just deafening silence, despite the pompous verbiage.

Final Comment on the Article by Desh.

It seems as if the author is pretty confused and struggling to find his own views and how to voice them. The "argument", as far as I can detect any seems to be this:

1. Rajiv Gandhi and the later Congress were not punished enough for the anti-Sikh riots.

2. Modi apparently, in comparison to the issue above, has been apparently disporportionately penalized for the mayhem in Gujarat.

3. The above to incidents apparently "prove" that failure of secular humanism.

4. The above demonstrate, not politics as usual, but apparently the total failure of secular democracy.

4. Hence it is time to make Modi, PM. ("If wishes were horses....""). Not sure IF he were to be the PM (a big IF) what kind of non-secular animalism as opposed to secular humanism he might institute. But as I said, "if wishes were horses, commonsense would fly"


Something like: democracy has been frequently subverted and misused by pressure groups, lobbies and corporate interests in America and elsewhere. Therefore, it's high time to do away with democracy, and institute dictatorship. No point trying to do away with those real subversions of democracy because that apparently simply won't work. Might as well enjoy anti-democratic dictatorship.

Cs #89

You don't mind similar rationale to scrap lots of things from Indian society. Than what is wrong if your secular humanism is subjected to similar treatment? Why have you become knee-jerk thekedar of secular humanism?

Cs #79

You don't mind similar rationale to scrap lots of things from Indian society. Than what is wrong if your secular humanism is subjected to similar treatment? Why have you become knee-jerk thekedar of secular humanism?

Cs #79

You don't mind similar logic and rationale to scrap lots of things from Indian society. Than what is wrong if your secular humanism is subjected to similar treatment? Why have you become knee-jerk thekedar of secular humanism?

CS:

I am not replying to you since you have stopped making any sense now!

You may call a monarchy as a democracy.. I dont! You may call killing fields of Communists and Congress as democracy.. I DONT!

I am saying ALL are EXACTLY the same!! No difference. And I am NOT .. SIMPLY NOT going to buy your or others ability to differentiate the blood of a Sikh and a Muslim... and say that the killer of a Sikh ... was bad-but-ok-and-no-dictator but... well the killer of a Muslim was a DARN-DICTATOR!

I am AGAINST such shameful and absolutely nauseating Secularism.. and I will NOT fall for all sort of sh*t that you or others are going to say in defence of Rajiv Gandhi/Tytler/Buddhadeb and dump Modi with a straight face!

Shame on YOU for that.

Again, I want to stop my comments with this. Either you get it or you dont. I dont care either way anyways.

-desh

Does Gujarat need India? Will Gujarat be better off if it were an Independent nation?

calm down desh. have a charminar cigarette.

and when you are sufficiently calm, you might even notice yet another contradiction, or a confused thinking:

desh to CS:

""I am not replying to you since you have stopped making any sense now!""

And then you go on to respond to me in volumes, in capitals and the use of delicate terms like shit. Please make up your mind and clear up your thoughts first. Think first what you want to say before saying it:

""You may call a monarchy as a democracy.. I dont! You may call killing fields of Communists and Congress as democracy.. I DONT!....etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.""

So, are you responding to me or not? If you are planning not to, please ignore me.

Go out and get some fresh air, or read some new book on how quantum mechanics is really a plagiarized version of our ancient wisdom, facilitated by the mullah-macaulay-marx-mao-secular-humanist combine. Better still, set up a conference call with Kerty and Man Singh, if you haven't already done so.

Kerty:

""Than what is wrong if your secular humanism is subjected to similar treatment?