Regressive influence of Facebook in Indian Politics and Psyche

atanu said:

Social service and democracy both are pointless if you try to impose a nationalism based on race or religion on a population which is 80% A and 20% B. A country cannot function with such a division when A and B are indoctrinated to fight each other continuously. It is a corrupt ideology.

You have to do some reading of your own, if you are interested, to find how this concept of a nation with 'dominant ruling Hindus and subservient others' is alien to India. It is based on Hitler's idea of purity of the so-called Aryan race and Hitler's idea as to how the minority race is to be treated. It was proposed by Mr Savarkar and Golwallkar. Today, this concept is abominable. You have no idea of the depth of the indoctrination and depth of division in society. No one is born hating the 'other' based on colour, race, religion. It is taught.

I believe that a true teacher first points to the non-dual source of all diversities rather than continuously harping on a system with 'Two nations' wherein one group rules over the another. You can see Mr Yogi's (CM of the state UP) speech in the video included in the OP to verify whether I am truthful or not. If you are averse to seeing the video I can cite some foundational writings, although I guess that you may not wish so.

This divisive agenda is political- majoritarianism and has nothing to do with Hinduism.

...

Click to expand...

If you want to see how not to treat minorities, look at China, or Sri Lanka, or Myanmar. If life is so harsh, where are all the refugees? But I digress. I will be out.

Edited to add ... This shows the 'plight' of India's minorities.

India - highest wealth index by religion 2014 | Statista

Vinayaka said:

If you want to see how not to treat minorities, look at China, or Sri Lanka, or Myanmar. If life is so harsh, where are all the refugees? But I digress. I will be out.

Edited to add ... This shows the 'plight' of India's minorities.

India - highest wealth index by religion 2014 | Statista

Click to expand...

Yeah. No system on earth is perfect. But there are two kinds of philosophies: unitive and divisive. I must for the sake of record, note here the philosophy that powers the so called Hindutva. Otherwise the significance of my words will be lost.

In 1937 at the open session of the Hindu Mahasabha held at Ahmedabad, Mr Savarkar in his presidential address asserted : "India cannot be assumed today to be Unitarian and homogenous nation, but on the contrary there are two nations in the main - the Hindus and the Muslims." (Vide writings Swatantrya Veer Savarkar, Vol. 6 page 296, Maharashtra Prantiya Hindu Mahasabha, Pune). In 1945, he had stated "I have no quarrel with Mr. Jinnah's two nation theory. We, the Hindus are a nation by ourselves, and it is a historical fact that the Hindus and the Muslims are two nations." (vide Indian Educational Register 1943 vol. 2 page 10). It was this sentiment of separate and irreconcilable identities of the followers of these religions that led to the formation of Pakistan.

The followings are the prominent declarations of the Hindutva votaries.

“From the Indus to the Himalayas, from the Himalayas to Tibet, from Tibet to Burma and from Burma to the Southern and Western seas run the lines of the boundaries of our Land.”, V D Savarkar, ABHM 21st Session, 1939;

“The foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment – not even citizen’s rights.”, M S Golwalkar, 2nd RSS chief (1940-1973), 1938;

“…if we Hindus in India grow stronger in time these Moslem friends of the league type will have to play the part of German-Jews … India must be a Hindu land, reserved for the Hindus.”, V D Savarkar, ABHM 20th Session, 1938;
...

I will certainly be called an agent of Pakistan or of China for this post.

My point is that the perception of separation is very evident to everyone. It is not required that religion be employed to further highlight the differences. The religions, on the other hand, teach us to know the underlying common reality.

...

You are talking of Hindu Mahasabha which has never had any political representation either in the two houses of Parliament or in any state legislature. It is an insignificant organization. Who cares about them? Even as a staunch Hindu I do not care for it, because its deranged mad ambitions. It wants a greater India comprising of Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. I do not know why are you even talking about it? Probably because you have no other thing to talk about.

atanu said:

My point is that the perception of separation is very evident to everyone.

Click to expand...

This is not something which cropped up during Modi's time. It was always there, it caused the creation of Pakistan. It started with the demise of Moghul empire or what was left of it in 1857.

Aupmanyav said:

Modi is doing all that is necessary for India with the kind of problems that he faces.

Click to expand...

I've heard that tune before.

You will hear it again in 2024 General Elections. Don't let it surprise you.

Tambourine said:

I've heard that tune before.

Click to expand...

Thank you. May I request you to elaborate please?

atanu said:

Thank you. May I request you to elaborate please?

Click to expand...

The idea that authoritarian or constitutionally dubious measures are being taken not as a power grab, but out of sheer necessity to combat a looming crisis, is a fairly standard argumentative tool of authoritarians from all over the world.

Tambourine said:

The idea that authoritarian or constitutionally dubious measures are being taken not as a power grab, but out of sheer necessity to combat a looming crisis, is a fairly standard argumentative tool of authoritarians from all over the world.

Click to expand...

Late reply but necessary.
Can any one point to an unconstitutional act by the current Indian government? "Dubious measure" is ambiguous. "Dubious" in someone's view, "not dubious" in someone else's view. If anything was unconstitutional, people would have taken it to Supreme Court by now.

Aupmanyav said:

Late reply but necessary.
Can any one point to an unconstitutional act by the current Indian government? "Dubious measure" is ambiguous. "Dubious" in someone's view, "not dubious" in someone else's view. If anything was unconstitutional, people would have taken it to Supreme Court by now.

Click to expand...

I find it telling that you apparently have no problem with accusations of authoritarianism, and are instead focusing exclusively on questions of the legality and constitutionalism of said authoritarianism.

As with looking at any country's politics from the outside or the inside, it's a challenge to decide who to listen to. Often there is polarization, and few neutral sources. The US election is a perfect example. So called neutral observers rank media sources on a left to right scale. Other countries. like India, don't really fit on that scale. The term 'authoritarianism' has morphed into a pejorative term just as terms like 'terrorist' and extremist' were in prior times. Once these terms turn primarily pejorative, I find them without substance. What exactly is 'authoritarianism'?

Here's a site that analysed all countries on the democratic to authoritarian scale ...
Democracy Index - Wikipedia

India fares rather well, in comparison to the western media's take on it, often with an anti-Hindu bias.

But I don't know. I've learned to distrust all sources without further exploration, and can rarely make conclusions I feel completely comfortable with.

Tambourine said:

I find it telling that you apparently have no problem with accusations of authoritarianism, and are instead focusing exclusively on questions of the legality and constitutionalism of said authoritarianism.

Click to expand...

@Vinayaka has replied to your accusation.
What is according to Constitution and law of the country, IS NOT, I repeat, IS NOT, authoritarianism.

It is the democratically elected representatives of the people of India in the two houses of the Indian parliament who according to the requisite majority (normally 50%+, but 66.6%+ in case of an amendment of the Constitution) and the assent of the President of India, under the eyes of Indian Supreme Court, who make laws. We have sufficient checks in our system.

Has Modi done anything against Indian Constitution or law?

Vinayaka said:

As with looking at any country's politics from the outside or the inside, it's a challenge to decide who to listen to. Often there is polarization, and few neutral sources. The US election is a perfect example. So called neutral observers rank media sources on a left to right scale. Other countries. like India, don't really fit on that scale. The term 'authoritarianism' has morphed into a pejorative term just as terms like 'terrorist' and extremist' were in prior times. Once these terms turn primarily pejorative, I find them without substance. What exactly is 'authoritarianism'?

Here's a site that analysed all countries on the democratic to authoritarian scale ...
Democracy Index - Wikipedia

India fares rather well, in comparison to the western media's take on it, often with an anti-Hindu bias.

But I don't know. I've learned to distrust all sources without further exploration, and can rarely make conclusions I feel completely comfortable with.

Click to expand...

So basically you don't like my conclusion, and so you conclude that I must simply not know what I'm talking about when I talk about authoritarianism and authoritarian populism.

Okay, suit yourself.

Modi's competitors want the heir of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, Rahul Gandhi to rule India. First thing, he and his family are being investigated for financial irregularities. Secondly, here is what Barack Obama says about Rahul Gandhi:

The former president wrote Rahul Gandhi — they met at least twice — in 2015 and 2017 — has “a nervous, unformed quality about him, as if he were a student who’d done the coursework and was eager to impress the teacher but deep down lacked either the aptitude or the passion to master the subject”, according a direct quote in the NYT review.
‘Eager to impress...’: Barack Obama’s book on Rahul Gandhi

That is no surprise to Indians. We call him "Pappu", which means 'a stupid boy' (though he is 50 year old). His party recently lost election in Bihar. They insisted on getting 70 seats in a coalition but could win only 19, which is 8 seats less than what they won in 2015 (27). He is a darling of India's enemies, Pakistan and China.

So now that the election is over, you're speaking for one billion Indians again?

It depends on what I am speaking about. If it is politics, then all Indians do not think the same. the Ruling Combine got a razor thin victory in Bihar. People like Rahul, Sonia and Priyanka for their politics as well as looks (similarities with Indira Gandhi). But Congress has slipped down so low in most states and is now a terminal case. Kapil Sibbal and 22 other important leaders want change, but the family does not want to change.

Among many things, Obama has this to say about former Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, "... More than one political observer believed that she'd (Sonia Gandhi) had chosen Singh precisely because as an elderly Sikh with no national political base, he posed no threat to her forty year-old son, Rahul, whom she was grooming to take over the Congress Party," Which is true and most of the politically conscious Indians have long known that. That is the reason why Dr. Pranab Mukherjee was not chosen as Prime Minister.
Sonia Gandhi chose Manmohan Singh because he posed no threat to Rahul Gandhi: Barack Obama

For all her grooming for the last 16 years, Rahul still remains a "Pappu". We have a very apt description of him in a Hindi proverb: "Jahan jahan padat pair santan ke, tahan tahan bantadhar" (Where ever the feet of some saints go, there are calamities)". Candidates do not want him to canvass for them, because that makes them loose elections. If Rahul says that there will be an earthquake, you can take it for granted that there will sure be an earthquake. He is a doom's-day politician.