Eat your words dude,it not the first time a right wing govt.
But as far as your worry about Mr. Modi's foreign policy drawing closer relationship with Eastern block is certain,the western interests are at loosing side no matter how many anti-India,anti-Modi articles you publish. The West does not have the stomach to digest the fact that this is an inflection point for India. They will no longer have an India which can be sweet talked, coerced and forced upon with agendas that are ill-suited for Indians.
Library Hub Discover
Is that even a smart foreign policy? There has been a systematic propaganda about belittling the identity of Hindu. Decades of Muslim appeasement has done enough damage to the country. Where they are majority e. Middle East , they literally bulldoze the minority religions. What on earth are you supporting? Uniform civil code is a step forward towards a developed state, currently Muslims in Kashmir have more rights than the average Indian outside Kashmir.
- Bibliographic Information.
- Data Protection Choices.
- Hindu Nationalism and the Social Welfare Strategy.
As long as Kashmir remains a volatile part of the country, terrorism can never be truly contained. And we truly feel for you. All these years, the Church has mass converted Hindus in rural areas, now which may not be that easy. Many of the Muslims have grown smarter. They have been in destitution all these decades being treated as vote bank cattle.
In many regions of northern India, the sort of decisive mandate to Modi would not have been possible without Muslims voting for Hindu candidates. Politicians who still play the secular-communal card to mask their inability to govern will be irrelevant after ten years, when significant electoral populace are young, aspirational and urban and need to earn a respectable standard of living irrespective of their caste, creed or culture.
The whole world should start to abandon the idea of soil-blood nationalism, which has been mainly developed in Europe, from particular time and geopolitical situations. If the trend keeps going on, the wars in Africa will not cease, and India and China are still in the ongoing process of building one "nation", painfully, especially to the minorities.
- Organizational Change and Strategy: An Interlevel Dynamics Approach.
- Financing for Development: Proposals from Business and Civil Society (UNU Policy Perspectives);
- About the author.
- The Procrastinators Guide to Financial Security: How Anyone Over 40 Can Still Build a Strong Portfolio--and Retire Comfortably: How Anyone Over 40 Can ... a Strong Portfolio - and Retire Comfortably;
- Hindu Nationalism: A Reader!
- Account Options.
- Hindu nationalism - Wikipedia.
- Hindu Nationalism: A Reader.
- India Tomorrow part 2: the politics of Hindu nationalism?
- Hindu Nationalism;
Nationalism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, the only excuse to suppress others or kill people that people can still safely talk about in public. Not mentioning that, we could predict that it is a concept doomed to have no future. Nation, an imagined community, has its values only because there is still no global political structure that works, and is creating so many problems: inaction on climate change, food shortage Working in research community, moving from country to country, I start to feel that "being a national" of one country does not mean much after all, just more paper work each time I moved.
OK there is no replacement yet for the "social management" now national governments perform, but we got to start to move our ideas away from nationalism, and start to accept new ideas and new concepts, which eventually open to new possibilities for the new generations. What's the difference between Hindu nationalism and Hindu fanaticism? It was exactly this that caused the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi on 30 January , the Ayodhya riots on 6 December and other acts of communal and religious violence all over India.
Abrahamic religion which claim that they are right and "only they are right" and follower of such will certainly have a hard time understanding Hinduism. Hinduism never did crusades for its expansion rather gave the world two more beautiful paths Buddhism and Jainism centuries before there was any alleged birth to god's son Jesus. Please read your history before you make the statement about Mahatma Gandhi.
You not being Hindu definitely fear the power shift from "Christian" centers to non-chistian centers, hence your tantrum about "Hindu Fanaticism". As long as fanaticism is christian, its all okay from your point of view. Nationalisms are rarely pretty. Hindu nationalism looks little different from the European or Muslim sorts. And how do Muslim Indians define themselves?
Is their religious identity shameful too for its exclusiveness? Why is Hindu nationalism being discussed here? Nationalism is nationalism, why is the west and media giving it a religious colour is beyond me. Does the author of this blog know, that Hindus have a faith called carvakas, who are atheists? What would you call them? Hindu nationalists or atheist nationalists?
What is Hindu nationalism. As an Indian and a lifelong atheist, let me explain that it's the desire to see the tribal factionalism and the divide-and-rule opportunist politics which seeks to exploit tribal so-called "caste" divisions, replaced with the saner politics of nationhood. India's problems today are entirely rooted in the persistence of tribal factionalism and the divide-and-rule politics which seeks to pit various tribes so-called "castes" against each other, entirely for the profit of dishonest politicians who only wish power and privilege for themselves over the masses, while delivering little or nothing to them in return.
Shop now and earn 2 points per $1
In other words, India is in a pre-nation-state situation, and still exists as a collection of tribes, and has not yet graduated to nationhood. The persistence of tribal factionalism continues to be the main vehicle for corruption and kleptocracy, whereas by contrast nationalism is the bedrock of civics. Indians seek national consolidation in order to escape the trap of tribal factionalism, which socialist kleptocrats desperately seek to preserve in order to keep their own class-warfare politics afloat.
Indians are fed up with the 67 years of lies and broken promises of the Left, and that's why they've voted en masse to express their desire for development, economic reforms, and job creation. Atlas Has Shrugged, and the political gods have tumbled from their perches in the sky. The end of Marxism in the 3rd world is at hand. My answer to that is that the Economist are the remnants of a previously admired and influential publication now reduced mainly to prostituting themselves as shills for Brussels, and consequently spreading distortions about anyone and everyone in ways that promote misunderstanding, misperception and ignorance.
They're not really even British anymore, except superficially. Very smart. To prove and corroborate your point you first chose to change your religious affiliation and called yourself an atheist. In my eyes, you more sound like a RSS guy. Is it true? You certainly sound like an Abrahamic religious bigot that claim only their desert cult is the TRUE one! Can we get any more fascist than this? So basically, you intend to accuse anyone of being "RSS guy".
See, that's why we all voted for Modi - because we knew you'll accuse everyone of being "RSS" anyway.
Economists are a bunch of white old men who are unable to see the change happening in the world. They are jealous of China, Brazil, India, Russia etc. They are secular and are scared of any faith based political party and conjure up imaginary fears.
They are afraid of the Turkish Justice party as well. India had the good fortune to have Nehru as it's first prime minister and founding father. He was pretty much an atheist, and not really that much of a Hindu. Like many of Americas founding fathers, he was generally contemptuous of religion. Unfortunately, Nehru was a Fabian socialist who believed the state could hold the "commanding heights" of the economy.
Also, Nehru was nicknamed the "Banyan Tree" not a compliment because he cast a long shadow in which nothing else was allowed to grow. Indian political pluralism was suppressed by him and further generations of party apparatchiks in order to keep his Congress Party in power for all these decades. If you knew more about Indian history than the Sangh Parivar pamphlets, you will realize that no one played a more important role than Nehru in nurturing democratic institutions in India and what you called the culture of political pluralism.
PART 1. Introduction: The Invention of an Ethnic Nationalism
His economic ideas may have been misguided, but they were common among many leaders at that time. The fault lies with Indira Gandhi who doubled down on socialism even when it became obvious that it was not working for India. The legacy of Nehru is mixed at best. India had to pay a heavy price for his statesmanship, which mostly came at the cost of Indian interests. From refusing Maharaja of Nepal's offer of accession to the union, relinquishing India's special rights in Tibet, abdicating a UN security council seat in favour of China to complete misjudgement of Chinese intentions before the war - Nehru led India from one colossal blunder to the other.
Lingustic division of states was another disaster. And for all his tolerance, Nehru infact did ban the RSS and imprison several of its leaders despite no evidence of its involvement in Gandhi's murder. His one redeeming contribution, as you have pointed out, was in promoting democratic institutions in India. But then, he was not the sole Indian leader to do so. Linguistic reorganization of states was a disaster? You must be talking about some other country, not India. It was among India's biggest success stories.
In fact, it completely took care of the language issue almost. Look at neighboring countries to see how explosive that issue can be, if handled unwisely. I agree in foreign policy Nehru's excessive idealism and anti-Westernism was costly. He not only nurtured democracy after Patel he was the supreme leader, so he may not have needed to, but he did, but he was among the most genuinely secular of India's leaders.
Both Indira and Rajiv used religion for political purposes, not Nehru. Of course Sangh Parivar fanatics hate him the most because he was the principle obstacle to their extremist and exclusivist political vision. Linguistic reorganisation was one of the biggest mistakes in independent India's history. It led to creation of states which initially functioned as little more than personal fiefdoms for the regional leaders and later became a source of polarisation in Indian society. You now have local goons like Raj Thakrey who leverage parochialism for their selfish interests and to the detriment of the country.
Infact, Nehru himself was initially against this division, but later had to succumb to pressure from local leaders. Besides, the various language issues were solved through an iron hand, and not by giving in to regional demands. And the problem has not completely gone away yet - various insurgencies still raging the north-east act as constant reminders to the fact. Regardless of what Congress propaganda might say, it should be remembered that RSS was instrumental in foiling a coup to overthrow the Nehru government. More recently, it has contributed hugely in times of natural disasters like Uttarakhand floods and Gujarat earthquake.
To dismiss such an organisation as a bunch of loons would be paltering with the truth. Its a shame for humanity to have an "atheist" ruler of "religious" people. How can a person who does not even belive represent believers. And we feel proud that these non-representatives were in power?
Isnt a representative supposed to represent the people and thier beliefs and aspirations. He was quite a buffoon and a narcissist. Certainly, he banned RSS by pinning the blame on them for Gandhi's assassination - when in fact the reality is that Godse was formerly a member of not only RSS but also the Congress Party.watch
Hindu Nationalism: A Reader
Linguistic reorganization of the states was the best thing that happened as far as Indian democracy is concerned. It was a recognition of India's diverse cultural heritage and allowed it to flourish. And to clarify, the people who campaigned for states along linguistic lines were campaigning against the Congress, at a local level, not centrally. Look up Potti Sriramulu, whose fast to death lead to the creation of the Andhra state, clearing up the lines for creation of states along linguistic lines.
If anything, this reorganization strengthened the foundations of a newly created country like India, which, according to political experts in the s and s would not last for more than 15 years without breaking up into smaller nation states. Hinduvta is really Hindus who pray to their gods and practice their culture and tradition while being raised up in families with moral and ethical lessons passed on to generations so that the best way of life can be lived with concern for the environment and other religions.
Muslims and Christians are Abrahamic religions where the rules made by their priests are neither flexible nor justifiable in the 21st Century. Therefore this is more akin to several people using fear to garner their people to follow the rules mostly male biased or face the wrath of god. Most western nations already have empty churches because people there understand that god or god's men cannot be cruel.
Middle East still uses fear and punishment as a tactic to follow their beliefs. In India, Hindus have no bickering with any minorities but many times, the leaders of the so called minorities use their powers to extract very powerful favourable terms from the corrupt political rulers such as Congress Party in return for Voting power by their people.
This is called Vote Bank politics. For too long, India having the majority Hindus have been unfavourably cast aside in their own country whether for seats in Universities or Jobs in Civil Service despite being academically bright.
Hindu Nationalism: A Reader - Google Livres
Buy eBook. Buy Hardcover. Buy Softcover. FAQ Policy. About this book The representation of the Muslims as threatening to India's body politic is central to the Hindu nationalist project of organizing a political movement and normalizing anti-minority violence. Show all. Politics of Fear Pages Anand, Dibyesh. Show next xx. Services for this book Download High-Resolution Cover.