It houses one-fifth of humanity. Within its borders live approximately a billion Hindus and over 100 million Muslims. Its history traces back over five centuries. It has 20 languages and innumerable dialects. It is by any manner of counting the world's largest democracy. It is... Uruguay.

No, obviously I am speaking of India. (Although why it is still CALLED India, when most of the Indus River is now in Pakistan, is beyond me.)

We in the "West", especially those of us old people who took our World History courses way back when Indira was running the show, may be a little out of date as to what day-to-day life is like in India. Obviously there is no one answer to the question; the country is enormous, and as with most countries I am sure conditions vary wildly as one travels about this ancient and storied land. But since we do (as I have been pleased to note) have an increased subcontinental presence here at FT, I would like to ask the above and related questions:

Is any possible resolution of the Kashmir issue foreseeable in our lifetimes?

What is the real agenda of the BJP? After Vajpayee, what?

What with the recent rise of religious fervor (and here I speak not only of "Islamism" but also of "Hindutva") what if any may one expect the effects to be within India itself?

Whither Pakistan?

We hear of Kerala and Bangalore becoming high-tech enclaves and to some extent the Silicon Valley of the east. Is this true, and to what extent may this be expected to spread to the rest of the country?

Coolupway, I think I'll first answer your question of the BJP's agenda. These day, the BJP is more or less a confused lot with no clear ideology, and isn't sure who supports it and who doesn't. The only person in its upper leadership I have some respect for is Vajpayee, beyond him I can't see any hopeful leaders within the party's rankings. They have a hopeless Deputy Prime Minister, who was caught on film leading the procession that demolished the Babri Masjid in 1991, a party president who keeps getting criticized for his big mouth. They have a variet of chief ministers in the states, and one particularly foul-mouthed one, namely Narendra Modi of Gujarat. They are also fast losing support on the Hindutva issue, the hardline Vishwa Hindu Parishad has now officially boycotted the BJP. Knowing all these circumstances, it's difficult to imagine the BJP coming into power in the next General Elections.

Not that the Congress (the main opposition party) is any better...

This is going to be a really long post.....


Somehow I don't share the Skepticism of Harish with respect to BJP.

The question is NOT whether the BJP is the best party - the question is the best alternative.
Of all the Parties, BJP has done more for this country in the last 5 years than the Congress governments of 50 years.

Before I am accused of being a 'Hindutva' boy - let me get this clear.

Political

As Harish said Vajpayee is the only man most people admire. But the road doesn't end there. Some of the most interesting and highly performing ministers like Arun Shourie, Arun Jaitley, Jaswant Singh etc are in the BJP.

the Congress is , at best,a joke. The party still believes in the India of 1947. They still think the Nehru-Gandhi will sell. Jeez......

Economic

10 years ago, we didn't have enough Foreign exchange to buy a pair of decent underwear. Look at FE reserves now......

GDP has grown by an average of 4 - 6% for the last 5 years. This despite the fact that massive sanctions were imposed on India after the Pokhran blasts. (Which, incidentially, is one of the highlights of the Indian tale)

The sign of a good economy is the presence of the Service sector. Service, now, contributes 50 - 52 % of our GDP.

Law and Order

How many major Communal riots did we have in the last 5 years?
1 at Godhra.

Foreign relations

At least the BJP hasn't made the same colossal blunders that Nehru made in his foreign policy.
Our relations with U.S, Europe, China has been better than ever before.



Hindutva

India has suffered more from Islamic fundamentalists than any country in the world. Right from 939 A.D, Hindus and Sikhs have been butchered.

The problem with any democratic country is that the majority's rights aren't considered rights.

1)
The mass butchering of Kashmiri Pandits and Sikhs is rarely condemned by the Pseudo-Secularists of this country.
2)
The Godhra Communal Riot started with a group of Moslems burning a railway coach containg Hindu workers. Burned alive...
Yet I didn't hear any condemning or protest against mindless violence against Hindus.

Quote:

---

They have a hopeless Deputy Prime Minister, who was caught on film leading the procession that demolished the Babri Masjid in 1991,

---

L.K Advani is never going to be an Indian PM - he doesn't have the support of other coalition partners.

P.S: Which was more gruesome? The 1975 Emergency Fiasco or the Babri Masjid + riots.

I am not saying either of them is acceptable in a democracy but the fact is Congress seems to have Conveniently forgotten the summer of '75.

It is imperative that one judge a government by the hard facts, not by the rhetoric spread by a few.


Kashmir


Somehow here all parties are the same - incompetent or is that manipulative?
There are acceptable solutions to both parties and everyone KNOWS it. But then who will you make your enemy?

Excuse me, ace, but I'm sorry to have to bring to your notice that the riots that followed the Godhra incident took a lot more lives, and that targeting the entire community just because of a few of them being involved in Godhra is just not fair. The riots were pre-planned, and those rioters were just waiting for some excuse to let them do all their killing stuff. Also, all these people you call 'pseudo-secularists' did speak out against Godhra, except they had much more to speak out against following the riots. Not that I'm calling you a Hindutva-supporter, but I think the riots in Gujarats deserve much more attention than the Godhra incident, they were much more widespread, and a lot more damage was done.

I don't think we Hindus have suffered much except for the Kashmiri Pundits and those who suffered in Godhra. Also, I mustn't forget, the 1991 Bombay Bomb Blasts. However, this is just a small fragment of the Muslim population that's stirring up all this, and I think most of it is the handiwork of people across the western border...as a result of which the majority of the Muslim population of India is living in fear today. So basically, what I'm trying to say is that the damage done in the post-Godhra riots was much worse and more gruesome and widespread than the train incident.

Again, don't get it wrong, I am not calling you a Hindutva-vadi...

About the Congress, yes, I agree, it's hopeless, and I would much rather prefer a BJP government in power than a Congress one. It's just that in Coolupway's first post he had asked what people thought of the BJP government, so I gave my views in brief. I would never want to see that Sonia Gandhi occupying the PM's chair, I think this Nehru-Gandhi family thing has gone too far now, and I hate family having anything to do with anything but purely family matters. I think it's time for the Congress to move forward.

About the BJP, though, I don't think they have much leadership capabilities beyond their current generation of Vajpayee, Jaswant Singh, Advani, Sinha, and co. Their next generation is busy focussing mainly on Hindutva-based politics, take the example of Uma Bharati and Narendra Modi. (or can Modi be classified as being in the older generation?). Venkaiah Naidu is fast losing support from within the party because of his comments on Ayodhya, and Pramod Mahajan...wait..he's just another one of those corrupt politicians.

However, the Congress, doesn't seem to be doing any better, and all the current leaders are (or at least act like they are) 'Sonia madam''s pet dogs. And the NCP isn't any better, their fellows are just plain corrupt...

Anyway, once again, I reiterate, I am NOT saying that you are a pro-Hindutva person.

And now, maybe a smile ( ), or maybe two ( ) to end this very long, controversial post...

Harish, I am not justifying the 'Godhra' incident (Incidentally Godhra refers to the whole communal riots of Gujarat, Not just what happened at Godhra)

What I meant is that the BJP (now at least) doesn't rake up past mistakes by Congress for cheap political mileage
though I can't say that for Congress.

Again I gave you facts on how the country has developed in the past 5 years.

In 1990, our PCI was lower than the Pakistani one but today it is an entirely different story. (Of course, credit must go the only leader of intelligence left in the Congress - Manmohan Singh).

Godhra

Look at the Godhra - don't you think the BJP did a wonderful job at preventing it from spreading into other areas.

Again, Congress keeps on saying that Modi was the chief culprit of Godhra (and that they would have NEVER allowed that to happen)
**********************************

1984, Delhi - The aftermath of Operation Bluestar

Who instigated mindless violence against the sikhs?

**********************************

Future BJP leaders

1) Arun Jaitley (40+ age)

Widely accepted as the 'new face' of BJP. I would be surprised if you haven't heard of him

2) Arun Shourie (50 - 55)

The man who had the guts to stand up against Indira Gandhi during the Emergency (As the editor of 'The Indian Express').
Today the most performing of all Vajpayee's men.


Note even the opposition don't say much against them


BJP then and now

BJP of 1990 was manipulative, the leadership was concentrated amongst the RSS goons, who had no goal and aim.

BJP of 2000 is markedly different from that. The 'Vajpayee' word is most important (Naidu made that idiotic statement trying to project Advani as the new chief and we all saw what happened after that).

The main two issues of RSS agenda was

1) Swadeshi goods

2) Hindu temples drive

Look at the BJP response to both those issues.

Far from Swadeshi, we are on a Disinvestment and privatisation drive, irking the RSS bigwigs no end.

Don't you think the BJP is doing a better job controlling Hindu fascist groups?


Somehow when someoen supports BJP, he/she is considered as 'communal' but BJP is no longer a communal party. It is baseless propaganda by the opposition parties. They don't have anything else to attack BJP.

Hindutva


Somehow the 'Hindutva' concept is not what most Indians believe it to be. It has NOTHING Hinduism as a religion. Hindutva means Hinduism as a way of life or a culture.


Look at the Hinduism history...

It is one of the oldest religions in the world and a religion filled with 'fallacies'.

But Hinduism has suffered because of its ability to incorporate new ideas into its thought.

The Aryans invaders (believed to be the founders of Hindu religions) had only male Gods. Where did they get the female Gods?

From the Dravidians

Again, Hinduism was able to survive the Islamic onslaught by incorporating features from them.

Hinduism survived not by fighting new ideas but by incorporating them.

That is the TRUE meaning of Hindutva. Yet the opposition parties want to project the 'Hindutva' of VHP and RSS (which is so much different from the true Hindutva)

To understand the true meaning of Hindutva, One has to read the Musings of Vajpayee on Hindutva, not Togadia's or
Singhal's or Sudarshan's version of 'Hindutva'

In Kerala, BJP hasn't be able to win even a single seat at the legislative assembly (leave alone sending one to Delhi)

In fact, In the panchayat elections, thy were able to win only 4 - 7 seats (out of 1000+ seats)

Which just shows, This communal rhetoric never works in a state where People can read their newspapers.

I agree that in Certain states, the BJP state level organisation is bad.
But for every Modi, there is also have a Parrikar.

Quote:

---

Arun Jaitley, except I have this thing against him, for the support he has given to a certain Mr. Narendra Modi,

---

Did you know that Vajpayee also supported Modi during that time?

It wasn't just Modi's fault but Congress played into his hands by excessively harping about his 'role'.
The guy may had a role but not to the extent that others made it into.

(B/w: By playing the communal card, Modi could have won just a simple majority at Gujarat - by looking at the religion distribution in the state)

The elections were held only after the EC determined the 'Society' was no longer polarised. (Despite pressures from the centre)

So to win that many seats at the Assembly, it couldn't have been all 'communal' card.

Quote:

---

whole disinvestment thing, at the awfully slow pace

---

We are going at a pretty decent pace..... These things can't be hurried into. I doubt anyone else would continued with the drive.

Quote:

---

Swadeshi Movement

---

the Swadeshi movement, like the Commi movement, just plays for one's instincts.

It won't help the economy in any way. It just makes the state plunge into deeper crisis.

Quote:

---

reservations should be based on the economic situation

---

Which educated person supports this caste based situation?

Only the 'creamy layer'....

Again the Caste based reservation was a political gimmick by V.P Singh. (To win Votes...)

Yup, I'm glad the communal rhetoric hasn't worked in Kerala. The only problem being, instead, a bunch of communists have come to power. No that I have anything against communism, in fact, I consider myself a socialist, but it's just that with such a government, productivity levels don't get to their best. I could be wrong here, though, I could bet Kerelaiites are the most well-off in general.

Yes, I agree with you, the Goa BJP seems to be doing a rather good job, but then Goa is just a tiny state inthis vast country, and I can't think of any other states where it is doing well. I live in Maharashtra, where it is as bad as it gets, it depends on the Shiv Sena to come to power, which, in my opinion, is the worst party in the country, which has been having a lot of confusion with their 'Mee Mumbaikar' (I, a citizen of Mumbai of Maharashtrian descent) campaign, with various leaders making contrasting statements, and hence, I think that the BJP's state leadership leaves a lot to be desired.

Quote:

---

Did you know that Vajpayee also supported Modi during that time?

---

Yes, Vajpayee supported him, only so that his party could come to power. And I do believe that by defending the rioters, Mr. Modi didn't do any less than the actual fellows who committed the crimes.

About divestment, I don't think all our poor, exploited people in the rural areas will survive one little bit if it goes on. Like I said in the previous post, let's wait another ten years or so.

Quote:

---

the Swadeshi movement, like the Commi movement, just plays for one's instincts. It won't help the economy in any way. It just makes the state plunge into deeper crisis.

---

I don't think so, but if there was some decent competition from within the country, and the standards of indegenously produced goods were increased, then the Swadeshi movement would be not as bad as you say it. At present, it just needs a little encouragement to lift itself to the standards of the multinationals. Not too much though. More than that we Indians should not instinctively go for MNC goods, and should give our Swadeshi goods a chance.

Quote:

---

Which educated person supports this caste based situation?

Only the 'creamy layer'....

Again the Caste based reservation was a political gimmick by V.P Singh. (To win Votes...)

---

Sorry, but I don't get your point. My knowledge of modern Indian history isn't particularly good.

Quote:

---

there was some decent competition from within the country

---

The principles of effective management would dispute this.
What did 45 years of Swadeshi rule get us?
55% of the people couldn't even afford even one square meal a day (at the end of the closed door policy), leave alone shelter.

Today that number is reduced to 26%

The Swadeshi movement was started as a result of the Gandhian principle to boycott British goods. There was a reason to why he asked us to do this.
The Britishers bought raw materials from India at a pathetically low rate and then sold the finished goods at obscene prices here.

By maintaining a closed door policy, the only advantage is that we don't get affected by the International markets.

About the internal competition, In theory it sounds good. Just like Communism but it doesn't work that way. To achieve maximum efficency, concepts called 'Economies of scale' and 'cost benefits' will come into play.

Why should I buy a more expensive Indian product (assuming quality is same)when I can get a cheaper Foreign product?

The money saved can be invested in our country. Everyone is more bothered about how much the other person is getting rather than looking at the benefits for us.

If Swadeshi movement existed today, there would have been NO IT or bio-technology success stories in India.


In 1990, V.P Singh implemented the recommendations of the Mandal commission despite wide spread protests. This was primarily done so that he could improve his vote share amongst the Dalits.

In 1996 (or 1997), the Supreme Court passed an order asking the Governments (including State Govts) to seperate the Creamy Layer from this list.

Creamy Layer refered to the affluent Dalits who were reaping all the benefits of reservation.

Some states did so, But some are still lagging.....

Since I don't know much about the Swadeshi movement, I guess I'll agree to all your facts without any fight. Just one point I want to make clear: We Indians should give up the habit of looking for the 'imported' label on goods of which the quality manufactured in India is just as good. For example, take the example of adverts targeted at kids. A very common phrase is 'Now in India' which is just there to attract these close minded kids for whom anything foreign is necessarily better than Indian stuff. That's it. Like I said, I don't know much about this movement, so I'll just keep quiet about it.

On a slightly different tack:

I was googling about for some background on an Indian politician named Piloo Mody, whom I understand once stood in Parliament to ask (not entirely tongue-in-cheek) why it was that Indians were economically successful in every country in the world except India.

I came across this article, about humor in India.

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/feb02/sh1.asp

Good god! A stereoptype of which I was unaware... will wonders never cease?

I had always found Indians to be in the main rather dry and acerbic, along the lines of Gandhi's thoughts about Western civilization (his feeling was that "it would be a good idea"). Indeed, the rose-and-thorns metaphor atributed elsewhere in the article traces back to Mohammed Ali Jinnah, if memory serves. I will also give the subcontinent credit for the brothers Naipaul, despite their birth in Trinidad; Theroux's book "Sir Vidia's Shadow" shows them both to be wildly funny, if often derisive and shockingly politically incorrect.

Where are all these allegedly unfunny Indians?? Hiding out in Uttar Pradesh? Skulking in Bihar?

I'm thousands of miles from the area's being discussed but only two miles from educational centres that are teaching Gujurati, Punjabi etc etc etc to children so they can talk to their grandparents who can't speak English! The actual regional differences tend to get forgotten when you so far from the home-land. I've seen all the religions and faiths coming together in one centre in Leicester, They all said hello to me - the only white face in existence and that was the last word that I understood! Please don't get me wrong - I was the first one that they offered the tea or coffee, I was an honoured guest even though my visit was on official buisness but it was only when we got into the office that the language changed to english.

Harish, I'm not making light of your argument but If I were to support the Angles against the Saxons and forget my Viking ancestry then I'd expect to receive a lot of comical replies.
That was then, this is now and we all have to accept that countries are no longer single nationality/religion/faith/politics/beleifs etc etc etc....
I just hope you can feel the same way that I do and accept that someone else has a different viewpoint!

Fosse4, I'm not very sure what you mean, but if you're saying that I believe that India is a country only for Dravidians/Aryans/Muslims, then i think you have misunderstood me. I was just trying to nullify the main argument of the Hindu fundamentalists in favour of a Hindu Rashtra (a Hindu nation).

What! We were discussing Indian Politics and Where have I been?
Taking the discussion a little backwards to the Original Questions:

Is any possible resolution of the Kashmir issue foreseeable in our lifetimes?
No, unless we have an Iron leader who has the guts to declare war on Pakistan. Vajpayee did not do it, I still wonder why?

What is the real agenda of the BJP? After Vajpayee, what?
I would Support (In fact I still do) L.K Advani to be the next PM of India. He's tough-talking and straightforward. I dont give a damn to his intention of building a mandir. The Mandir won't be built anyway otherwise the BJP won't have an issue to raise in the next elections.
As for the Congress: Its hopeless.

What with the recent rise of religious fervor (and here I speak not only of "Islamism" but also of "Hindutva") what if any may one expect the effects to be within India itself?
Wait till after the general elections in 2004. It'll die out afterwards.

Whither Pakistan?
Go to hell.

Some More Views:

>Narender Modi is not a Hitler he's just another Laloo (ineffecient/power hungry). Many of us have forgot what he was before becoming the chief minister of Gujarat. He was the modern young face of the BJP along with others. He was Vajpayee's right hand.

> Arun Jaitley: People who watch CNN will know about him now after Cancun.
Spokesman of Delhi University Students Union-----> Spokesman of BJP------------> Spokesman of India-----------------> Spokesman of the Developing World------------->?????

> Arun Shourie: He's a great politician but he lacks the support base among masses.

> Sonia Gandhi- 'Maaaaaaaaa kuuuuuuuuch Nahin Kahanaaaaa Chaaata" (ooops who wrote my script today?)

> Actually i don't think we have a proper government system. We should be like the US. Ministers should be specialists in there fields not people who have a particular caste, religion or surname and get the votes.

> India without Democracy would progress much faster.

By the way Ace I played your Hindu extremism quiz sometime back and I certainly don't agree with you that the BJP is a Hindu Extremist Group.


PS: I am not a Hindu.

Quote:

---

Narender Modi is not a Hitler he's just another Laloo

---

As much as I have absolutely no liking or respect for Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav, I feel by comparing him to Modi you are doing great injustice. Sure, Modi is no Hitler or Pol Pot, the atrocities commited by him aren't as bad. However, I'm unlink Mr. Modi, Laloo has never prevented the police from taking action against people who were deliberately killing hundreds of innocent people and injuring several others, this within a span of a few days.

Quote:

---

I certainly don't agree with you that the BJP is a Hindu Extremist Group.

---

And why not? The BJP has two main poll planks, the first being Hindutva, and the second - the anti-incumbency factor. If it weren't for the opposition, they'd have recently passed a bill banning cow slaughter. (They're now using this as an excuse to call the opposition 'anti-Hindu', and gain political mileage in view of the 2004 nation-wide polls, and the upcoming elections in four states.) A Hindu temple would have been built by them, if it wasn't for the opposition by their allies in the NDA. Look at their governemnts at state level - in Gujarat they've got ol' Modi, and in Maharashtra they've got an alliance going with the Shiv Sena, possible the most extreme Hindu party. The BJP's vote bank is composed, to a large extent, by Hindu fundamanetalists, and organisations like the VHP and Bajrang Dal, without whom they wouldn't have managed to come to power.

Quote:

---

We should be like the US. Ministers should be specialists in there fields not people who have a particular caste, religion or surname and get the votes.

---

Well said, Manvinder, very well said indeed! What does Mr. Shatrughan Sinha (a former Hindi film star) know about 'health and welfare'? What does Mr. Ajit Singh know about 'agriculture' (which directly affects 68% of the indian population)?

Harish, I'm sorry you didn't understand my post.
Britain has a long and varied history where different races/creeds/religions have ruled over the country at some time. The Angles and the Saxons were two of the races who fought for supremacy (as a matter of interest WASP - abbreviation for White Anglo-Saxon Person), The Vikings invaded and conquered a large proportion of Britain, The Romans conquered a large portion of Britain and in recent history there have been large influxes of immigrants from around the world (In Leicester there is a large Asian and Afro/Asian population stemming from the expulsions from Uganda by Idi Amin) Apart from the extremist political parties (BNP for example) there are no demands for seperate enclaves for each race or religion or demands that the country should be Muslim or Buddhist (and there's a fair proportion of the country who want the split of Church from State).
What you are saying equates to one of the counties declaring it's independence from Britain and saying it will not have anyone within it's boundaries that doesn't agree with it's policies.

COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC!
(I can just see SOTHC's reply to this one - Yorkshire have been doing it for years!(LOL)

Fosse, what do you mean when you say "policies"? Do you mean religious policies, favouring of a particular religion by the governement?

Either I still don't understand you or you don't understand me, but I am not saying that India is a country of any particular religion. It is a diverse country with all sorts of religions, cultures, races, and ways of living, which I have no probelms with. It is officially a secular country.

It is the politicians who are confusing the people, for their own gain. On one hand, the BJP is using their Hindutva policy to capture votes of Hindus, by saying that "India is a country only for Hindus, they were the original settlers of India", which is why I used the Dravidian argument to counter this.

On the other hand, there are the pseudo-secularists, like the Congress, which talk about secularism at some places, and banning cow-killing at other places (to appease the Hindus there).

The BJP then manages to call the Congress "anti-Hindu", and then Congress uses its petty arguments to label the BJP. The Indian political scene eventually boils down to cow-protection, a politician's cake, the temple at Ayodhya; the bigger, more important issues like finance, agriculture, etc., get pushed into the background.

None of these two have any clear ideology, and vary it according to the scenario or the area in which they are. In this way the average voter gets confused, with both parties trying to outdo each other with words, and conflicting ideologies used by the same party in different states.

All this confuses the average voter.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood you...

Harish I was referring to political policies, as I said the UK as a whole (Exclude Northern Ireland) doesn't divide by religion, race or creed. Each of the religions/races and creeds divides into the political parties.
As I've said in Leicester there is one of the greatest mixtures of faiths in the UK. If you take for example the Muslim faith you will find there are supporters of the Labour Party, The Conservative Party, The Liberal Democrats, a host of smaller parties and those who consider themselves Independents (In UK politics that is someone who isn't affiliated to any political party) The same can be said for the Christians, Buddhists etc etc.
At an election you can have two people from the same faith debating a subject from opposite sides - but I can assure you that if anyone tries to play a this nationality is better than that one OR it's better to be EG Muslim than Buddhist or Sikh the publicity that they would get would demolish any chance of them winning the election.

A little earlier in this thread, I think I had talked about how the communal forces in India are influencing the writing of text-books. I very interesting (and yet scary, I am learning history from one of the guilty text-books! ) article: http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2018/stories/20030912000807400.htm

Up.

From now onwards, let's confine serious discussions and debate related to the sub-continent to this thread, and have all the rest in the 'Interesting India' thread.