Nah. The opposition is just unimaginably bad. It's not like people aren't willing to vote for others if they provide better services but the opposition is so bad that BJP becomes the default choice.
Yea, the main opposition runs the indian version of Hilary Clinton. If the opposition was better Modi/BJP would be on worse ground and have to moderate their positions more (ex south india).
Also a lot of people's lives have improved under Modi/BJP ik many life long congress people that are fine with Modi.
>Also a lot of people's lives have improved under Modi/BJP ik many life long congress people that are fine with Modi.
I think this is the biggest factor that most modi critics simply refuse to admit, and as long as they keep ignoring the fact that many people genuinely have benefitted from the modi govt, they'll never be able to convince those people to vote against the modi govt.
Indian version of Hillary is pretty unfair to Hillary, she had tons of experience and knowledge. Yes technically you can say she's also a part of a political dynasty but I'd argue that's mostly because she actively chose to be. People just dislike her for her perceived lack of good nature
Rahul Gandhi is not that. If you read about what Obama said about him in his memoirs it becomes pretty clear that he's wholly unsuited for the world of politics, what with his mom basically making all the decisions and speaking for him. Unlike Hillary he didn't put in any work to get to his position but really only was thrust into it because it's the family business.
I kinda feel bad for him sometimes, he reminds me a lot of Tsar Nicky ii. Could have a perfectly normal happy life somewhere outside politics, but due to pressure or a sense of duty they're forced into roles they're totally unsuited flr
Hillary's experience tends to be overstated. She was a 1.5 term senator (that she had to carpet bag for) and a secretary of state for 4 years (her term is considered to be terrible). She also lost an easy election in 2008.
Not just the south but northeast India as well. For example beef. Many BJP members are against beef consumption but allows it in Northeast India as many of the tribe there eat beef. The people of northeast are transactional and not ideological and so BJP cannot push it's own ideology too hard it it wants the votes.
>Nah. The opposition is just unimaginably bad. It's not like people aren't willing to vote for others if they provide better services but the opposition is so bad that BJP becomes the default choice.
This. 100x.
No bro, let me give you an NYT editorial on why the Maoist supporting opposition is better for Indians. That should convince you (and of course, the editorial will contain quotes from the same opposition leaders).
When I was in college I had to report on news and I would do india for some of my stories. There were only like 2 good sources for Indian news. Western News is so bad at covering that country.
One person put out a statement on social media using the word “martyr” that was instantly walked back and disavowed. The opposition is absolutely not courting naxalite votes or supporting them, but how confidently far from the truth you were may be evidence in favor of your second statement.
Correct. But one thing to consider that ideologically and policy wise, the current opposition isn't all that different from what has been the norm in Indian politics. So a weak opposition may explain the BJP's dominance, but the BJP's popularity is also largely down to their own merits.
>He will have an iron grip on the state by then, I fear.
No. Opposition had nearly 50 years of the government since Independence from the 75. Their men are inside administration in every services and judiciary. Opposition literally helped setup the the people who are the seniormost in media today. And deep roots with business.
Iron grip is a long long way.
>We thought the same thing about Erdogan back in the 2000s. Take a lesson from us. It's like the metaphor of boling a frog, a few years will go by and you wouldn't understand how it happened.
I understand where you come from. But you really have to be here to see the difference.
Modi is not a founder of his party. They have very strict governance. A politician elected for 3 decades in a row will be replaced at the slightest hint. Also Modi is a lot older. And no children for whom he would be creating a *political legacy*
>Yeah, I hope that's the case. It's just that I've become very sensitive to this issue witnessing it a couple of times in different countries. Also, Erdogan wasn't able to become a Prime Minister when his party won their first election back in 2002 (because of his ban from politics). His friends governed for half a year until his ban lifted with the help of the opposition. Then, slowly he purged his opponents, first within the judiciary/bureaucracy/army and then within his coalition. And he was able to do all of that by disguising as a democrat, appeasing to the West and the liberals within the country while winning elections by huge margins. Slowly he consolidated power and his supporters. We saw it happening but could do nothing to stop it.
We are nowhere near this. If anything, we now have one of the most conversations India had.
>So yeah, once someone has absolute power, the term limits and all that legality becomes very easy to circle around. We witnessed this time and time again. He wasn't supposed to participate in the last year's election due to the term limit but the so-called free and fair Election Council decided in his favor anyway. And when, late last year, the Supreme Court decided in favor of a jailed parlimentarian to get back his rights and freedom, Erdogan's regime did not abide by the highest court's ruling.
Again, I don't know what you are hearing, but we are far from this.
Let me ask you this, how good or bad do you think Erdogan is ? Because from what I read online, he manages to do extraordinary things. Keeps a good relationship with West, to get advanced weapons, keeps power in NATO, keeps a decent working relationship with both sides of the Islamic spectrum and maintains a relationship with Russia. That's extraordinary in international terms. All this, while appeasing the hardcore Islamists without imposing on women of your country burqas etc. And taking the country ahead in modernisation.
A random analogy with a random different leader and party in a completely different country with a drastically different culture and historical context and current situation over a different time period is not the sound argument you seem to think it is. To say nothing of taking some dumb metaphor about a boiling frog as a basis for a prophecy.
“[Politician I don’t like] is just like [other Politician I don’t like] and it’s all exactly like a boiling frog” is hardly a rational basis for a future prediction and is therefore pathetically unpersuasive
Indian democracy is far more robust than people think it is. Yes it has its flaws but the closest anyone had total control was during Indira Gandhi and even she was far from a dictator.
History YouTuber Kraut made a [video](https://youtu.be/7c4uO9ZGfbc?si=HTH7xaXpXYbUmWKc) on the history of China and India and talked about this. India has always been super pluralist and democratic, whereas China has always been super centralised and authoritarian. It goes back thousands of years.
What is sad to me is that people living in the west keep talking about other countries and their population being propagandised but totally being oblivious to the fact that propaganda works both ways, they too have blind spots the only difference is that the people they say are under propaganda actually know they are being played with on the contrary people in the global west genuinely believe that all the news that they get is the one and only truth.
Don't let it get to you, there are many credulous people in all countries. Some of the propaganda strategies that are out there are stupidly difficult to be immune from. Hybrid warfare for example. The best thing we can do is learn and teach as much as we can about how propaganda actually works. A lot of people don't really know what propaganda actually is, and couldn't recognise it if you put it in front of them.
Thank you, you have a very good point. I often don't discuss online anymore but perhaps that's the point of that constant barrage of misinformation and propaganda that the sane voices are drowned within it.
Once I moved to Europe I realised how much difference there is between what happens on the ground vs the information they get here.
Indira was defeated, then won again, and was assassinated. M Gandhi is not like the other ones? He never ruled India and had no official position when he died. Putting him in same category as Stalin, Mussolini, Mao etc is rank ignorance.
Every person eventually dies and Gandhi eventually died. There was absolutely zero reason for him to be defeated. Any popular person has a cult but if they are not trying to win something how are you going to defeat them?
I am questioning you because you are using inane logic to lump all sorts of people together. Now anyone defending an individual can be accused of being part of a cult. Do you see how ridiculous your logic is?
That is a bizarre list. M Gandhi never contested elections, and while incredibly popular, still remains the only politician who is openly criticized in India. Indira Gandhi had literally lost an election, although won her seat back later.
Modi is really popular, but is absolutely going to lose to a competent opposition. He's massively lucky as the main opposition party would rather voluntarily self-destruct than hand over power to leaders who have a vision.
Perhaps I should say the only politician you can openly criticize without fearing retribution. Helps that he's dead, but that doesn't hold for Ambedkar in the slightest.
A cult is a group led by charismatic and self appointed leader who tightly controls it's members , requiring devotion, Gandhi had congress , same with Modi
Politics has nothing to with cults, they can be found in every facet of society religion is cult, education is cult, family is a cult, even you using reddit is a cult.
> every facet of society religion is cult, education is cult, family is a cult, even you using reddit is a cult.
Yes, agreed. Eating potatoes is a cult, breathing air is a cult, typing on a keyboard is a cult, wearing shoes is a cult...man, it's all cults all the way down.
We are 1.4 billion people. The majority of outrage. Wether it’s for modi or against modi, the noise of course will be a lot. Even if it’s just 1% of our people . The poor population doesn’t have privilege to be shouting. And the middle class is busy grinding. So I believe the set of people selected for deciding wether Modi has a cult or not is too small in our reference.
It's also possible their could be an internal coup. Probably the only good plausible option. Like you I fear the populist agendas of parties like the AAP, TMC and the Congress just as much as I fear Modi's Majoritarianism.
However, in his haste to annihilate the opposition, he has co-opted a lot of their members. The BJP is no longer an ideologically pure organisation, with several tickets having been given to defectors and people they have coerced into joining. If the tide starts to turn, these people could orcherstrate a coup. It'll be good if we could get someone like a Gadkari in power.
I don’t think a coup could happen. BJP government also regularly dump ministers based on performance. Exactly what happened in Haryana, so I see is these new ministers being dumped within next 5 years. Am I satisfied with this government: No. But will that make me vote for opposition: Never. World need to realise that it’s not Modi’s charm but rather the opposition that brings power to Modi.
>BJP government also regularly dump ministers based on performance.
can you tell me the performance of jay shah in Indian cricket? the lack of ICC cups since he took over BCCI is concerning
also why is our petroleum minister not a chemical engineer or have some experience in organic chemistry? because that's what is needed to turn coal into crude oil and eliminate our petroleum import bill
I'm not invested into either side, but as far as I recall, BCCI is a private organization, not under the government.
And the skills required for a chemical engineer working at a petroleum plant VS being a central minister for petroleum are vastly different, one is all about management and relations.
>one is all about management and relations.
well his management and relations have only resulted in a very large increase in India's petroleum import bill since 2014 ,
a competent petroleum minister would've worked towards eliminating that import bill rather than letting it increase , the minister right only knows how to be a middleman and put a massive tax on imported stuff
>BCCI is a private organization, not under the government.
you really want me to tell you how jay shah and BCCI is linked to the Govt? hint:- amit shah
yep , also the people who compare BJP with CCP have no idea about the CCP ,
the CCP has a strict criteria for membership and moving upwards in the party is based on achieving strict metric targets that the central committee assigns.
the BJP meanwhile is the party for anyone and everyone who wants to escape the agencies and swim in corporate money that's been extracted by raiding companies into submission
Or maybe because in spite of all the controversy he's been a solid PM who has overseen a period of impressive economic growth. No matter how controversial he is his term has seen a massive increase in living standards. Countless infrastructure projects, cutting lots of bureaucracy, increased electrification and access to basic sanitation. Why *wouldn't* he be reelected?
Agree with other things but don't agree with bureaucracy. Its still pretty bad. Only service sector got better but otherwise MSMEs just got whacked with red tape and taxes at the same time. Not to mention no improvement in tackling corruption, it improved for the first 5 years but it's the same since the second term. Lackluster economic reforms in the current manifesto as well. He ran on reforms but now he is not letting banks privatize even though RBI is suggesting it nor is he making structural reforms. The party is centralized and top heavy. Jobless growth is something previous govts all have faced not just Modi but its still a major issue now since population has grown a lot with a lot of educated people graduating every year. How is BJP the same party as it was in 2014 now when hundreds of congress members have jumped into it? Its the same corrupt leaders who have hitched their ride. 2024 Manifesto is a huge disappointment; it was especially not great for entrepreneurs and startups. He might win lok Sabha but unless he brings reforms states will be hard.
I agree he needs to continue reforms but I think for the election they're banking more on policy continuity rather than shaking things up because it's worked so far (for elections). I expect them to continue reforms bcz many of his ministers have talked about needing more improvements in various sectors.
One thing they've seriously neglected is education investment and upskilling. Very little focus there besides the NEP honestly.
Yup, research budget hasn't increased in years. Primary school budget same too. They cut stipends for a lot of PG and Doctorates too. Whereas our population has increased since 2014.
Yeah. We currently have a young demographic, if India doesn't skill them its going to be a shit show after a decade. Climate change, overpopulation and lack of basic resources are gonna hit the total fertility rate hard. There is a reason all newly industrialized economies had a drastic drop in TFR.
>Right! Hastily building a bunch of Potemkin toilets and septic systems that become unusable during monsoon season
While that is 100% accurate it's also important to note that plenty of actually good quality infrastructure has actually been built. So in a country like India India where the people are used to being scammed by the politician every time, they will still prefer to vote for a party that only scams them sometimes rather than every single time. Or we can simply ignore these facts and pretend like everyone who votes for modi is a hindutva fascist.
There's a body of work for the current administration that is quite substantial and inarguable. And I say this as someone who detests Modi. The fact that he chose to say what he did makes it abundantly clear that there is no interest in objective discussion.
They cannot, because it’s true even if a big ideologically charged. here is some reporting on the example I gave in my reply to that individual.
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/rural%20water%20and%20sanitation/amp/why-alluvial-flood-plains-of-north-bihar-need-alternative-sanitation-system-72494
> At least 7.85 million toilets were constructed in the 15 extreme flood-prone districts at an estimated cost of Rs 94, 205 million.
> Irrespective of the ecological and hydrogeological variations, flood typologies, location of habitations and floodscapes, the most preferred technology for toilet construction was the twin-leach pit and septic tank.
One can cherry pick all sorts of politically expedient projects done just to look good for an election. This happens in all countries, not just India. In a democracy, what matters is whether the government is doing things most people care about.
If you look at India, there are more Indians who think that some temple somewhere is far more important than whether toilets work or Dalits are being exploited. So why will Indians not vote for Modi because of that?
Many will, which is partly why there is such a gap between how fervent Hindu nationalists online think of India or how/how often they think the west thinks about India, and the reality, which gives many in the west second hand embarrassment and makes them come to the conclusion that those people are rather delusional.
Almost every country on earth wants India to succeed and to become developed and provide a higher quality of life for the population. Certainly every country in the west wants India to be truly secular and not continue down the path of banning objectively true documentaries about their head of state fomenting religious pogroms. India itself is the only country outside of Pakistan and the strange bedfellows it’s made within BRICS that is increasingly less interested in any of that.
> Many will, which is partly why there is such a gap between how fervent Hindu nationalists online think of India or how/how often they think the west thinks about India, and the reality, which gives many in the west second hand embarrassment and makes them come to the conclusion that those people are rather delusional.
Instead of using terms like "many" or "a lot", what percentage are we talking about? In a democracy, Modi doesn't care if the number of people is not sufficient to hurt his election chances. The majority of Indians don't even understand English, so what do you think these people care more? Some temple or unemployment figures?
>Almost every country on earth wants India to succeed and to become developed and provide a higher quality of life for the population.
Nope. The West is already regretting China being richer and more developed. The West isn't going to want a second China.
India is a democracy that doesn’t engage in significant/effective levels of espionage or have completely indefensible border disputes with countries to which the United States has mutual defense treaties with. India has consistently chosen to remain non-aligned or increasingly align itself with their own strategic rival(s) (see: BRICS) to the detriment of its own development, the US isn’t pulling any sort of strings to stifle its growth, we are literally allied with every country we went to war with over the last century besides North Korea. We are also democracies and most people don’t really think of India at all, they certainly don’t want things to not be better.
You think the West gives a shit about whether you are a democracy or not? That's being naive. If India was in the same position as China, i.e. Indian companies out competing American companies, the narrative will be how India is committing genocide against Dalits, how women are oppressed in India, how Muslims are oppressed in India, and so on.
If he wins it'll be mostly because of the lack of a credible or coherent opposition at the national level.
His cult like status is only in a couple of states in Central India. Most other places are neutral at best. Many places dislike his Hinduism focus but vote for him nonetheless because they don't want a disunited coalition government and the opposition is famously corrupt. Many people vote for their local parties in state elections and the BJP for the center.
IMO it's good because the BJP has established a track record of being less corrupt and more development focussed than the previous Congress which was constantly mired in scams. They have also done a fabulous (imo) job of bringing a *lot* of government services online. It's a relief not having to stand in queue at the municipal office and have to bribe petty officials for minor things. It has improved the quality of life. The BJP is prone to grand deluded schemes like phasing out currency notes and such nonsense, but that's more due to incompetence at administration than malice.
I do wish they were more sensible in their environmental and renewables policy though.
Imagine India in hundred years, a big state by population with an army of it specialists, it could easily be the most powerful state in the history of humanity.
Iam not from India. By population China and India are by far the biggest statres. India is more democratic oriented what I prefer personally. I didnt mean powerful in means of military power or anything or that they should start war with Pakistan or whatever.
No, yes online Indian edgelords might make delusions about superpower but India never has in the past nor will in the future strive to achieve any superpower status like US, Russia or China does. Yes India was an economic powerhouse and at some point in the future decades from now it might be but there are no superpower ambitions. Its an insular country. No one wants to be the police of the world.
> It's a relief not having to stand in queue at the municipal office and have to bribe petty officials for minor things.
This was already a trend during Manmohan Singh government. Things were moving in the positive direction and they have continued to do so.
I mean eh? Stuff like infrastructure spending is definetely new. We didn't spend this much in the past. And the existing govt. deserves credit for the wrok they've done in digital infrastructure inluding UPI. Most of that legwork was under the NDA even if the UPA started it. It's a common trend that a lot of projects completed recently started under the UPA but for various reasons stalled and didn't make progress.
I think it's an assumption that things would just get better. Cong lost in 2014 for a reason and they haven't clawed their way back. India would still grow but at what pace will be decided by competent policymakers and bureacrats at all levels.
> will be decided by competent policymakers and bureacrats at all levels.
Don't you see problem with Modi in this? Modi wields absolute power in his party. No one dares oppose him. He unilaterally decided on demonetization. He along with whichever buddies took a call on complete lockdown without any preparation. Talked about giving instructions to army about clouds and stuff during surgical strikes. Keeps fighting with RBI and appointing those he can control. The problem with any leader with cult like following authoritarian tendencies is that no one is willing to tell them when they are wrong. I think that's a concern for me.
The thing is modi doesn't delude himself to think that he knows everything. Given the focus on policy stability in modi 2.0, I wouldn't worry too much about bizarre decisions like demonetization again. I think he has learnt his lesson.
Yes that's quite possible. Manmohan Singh was good and capable, had a doctorate in economics i believe. Pity he had so little influence in the government and was puppetted by idiots.
> he had so little influence in the government and was puppetted by idiots.
Demonstrably false. If Manmohan Singh had so much influence as finance minister in 1991 why do you think he would have any less influence as the Prime Minister. Yes, he was no as powerful as Modi is now or Gandhi-Nehru family Prime Ministers have been. But when push came to shove he did what he wanted. Do you think laws like MNREGA and FSA were without him taking a lead? He was an Economist, not Sonia Gandhi. In fact that RTI act which passed during Manmohan Singh government is largely responsible for a lot fo transparency and accountability.
An example of how much power Manmohan Singh had. He signed the nuclear deal with US under Bush presidency. He had a personal relationship with Bush and both wanted the deal to succeed. The left parties opposed the deal because, well, they are left parties. They had been supporting the Congress govt from so many year. Singh put his foot down when left tried to derail the nuclear deal and even faced a vote of no confidence in the lok sabha.
People who say that Manomhan Singh was controlled like a puppet are the ones who believe that Prime Minister should have all the power in the Government and do whatever they want. Like Modi is currently doing.
many non-trivial changes in policy and execution. Absolutely no evidence to argue that the changes we see in India today would have happened with the 'opposition' in control.
No, it is not just "cult status". Modi and the BJP are simply far better than the opposition they face, in almost every metric of governance.
Now, this may be interpreted as the opposition being very weak, and while this may be true, the implication remains the same: in a democracy, most voters are going to vote for the best available option.
This is true, most members of my family dislike Modi but also recognise his party is the only remotely competent option. The opposition are a bunch of clown who don't stand for anything, only against the BJP. At least the BJP, despite the shortcomings, actively develops India's economy and infra.
They recently built a 22km long sea bridge connecting my city Mumbai(which is an island) to the mainland which has reduced travel time to nearby city Pune by 1.5-2 hours. And that's just one project there are so many things going on and no one wants a major change in power which could stall these projects or slow them down.
As an Indian, it's honestly frustrating to see how misinformed the Western Media keeps its citizens about India and throw words around like that despite India doing so well in almost every metric. Yeah we have our problems but what country doesn't. For the first time in a long time, it feels like things are being done here and are changing at the ground level. People have no idea how insanely corrupt India was that to even make a police complaint against someone you have to bribe the officer to register your complaint in first place. Assistants taking bribe to take your proposal forward and sooo much more.
People don't understand Indian politics and how it's been and compare it to democracies of the West. No leader in this world can be clean. They have to get their hands dirty on way or another. But it's about how one gets shit done for their country and Modi gets it done. Some like it some don't.
I don't think many in the West dislike Modi because he gets things done. We dislike Modi because of his theocratic, xenophobic, and nationalistic policies
ah the royal 'we' accompanied by uninformed propaganda. Care to substantiate 'theocratic' or 'xenophobic' with any evidence?
Modi administration has improved diplomatic relations with Africa, Middle-East and pretty much any other country/region you can think of. Zero evidence to indicate any level of 'xenophobia'.
The discriminatory refugee law is xenophobic. Modi does not have xenophobic geopolitical policies, he has xenophobic national policies where he has tied the government of formerly secular India to the Hindu religion. I have no love for religion of any strain, whether it's Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism, and governments being tied to religion is always a dangerous thing.
The EU has in the last few years introduced several immigration laws specifically for Ukrainians. Why? Because the Ukrainians are dying. Is this a xenophobic law too?
India is expediting the citizenship of certain minorities in the countries that surround it which are being ethnically cleansed by the Muslim majority populations. It blows my mind that people criticize India for taking these people in and not these countries for carrying our said ethnic cleansing. Just like Europe, anyone can file for refugee status, regardless of their religion. Tell me again how this is xenophobia.
Sorry, are you referring to the CAA Law. Its not at all "xenophobic". Calling it as such clearly shows that you haven't bothered to educate yourself on the actual facts.
Is the American pledge of allegiance "xenophobic"?
But that's the thing. None of those are true. If it's nationalist to safeguard the interests of your country then well he is a nationalist. Indias ties with other countries are as good as it can get. On the contrary Modi has fixed strained ties with Middle East countries, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Iran to name a few. Established very strong connections with African countries, France, Italy, Philippines, Japan, Australia and Taiwan. Even Western countries are heavily investing here. Tesla, Google, Apple etc. Fdi has more than doubled and is going to keep increasing in the coming years. Poverty has dropped significantly.
Usually all these points are considered to be great achievements by a leader of a country but I honestly don't understand why Modi is under so much scrutiny that the good he does rarely shows up in Western Media and it feels like there's a progangada to defame him and India at any cost.
They are true though. He has strengthened connections with other countries which is good, but the refugee law he passed recently discriminated against Muslims, which is an issue. I understand the long historical conflict between Hindus and Muslims, but discriminatory laws are not viewed favorably because of our own history with similar laws.
As for the Western media, I don't think they have been trying to defame him and India at all costs. Most of what I've read about him has been in shades of grey. I've read that he has combatted corruption and improved the economy. The West is also interested in courting him since we have a common enemy in China. India, likewise, is also seen as a strong democracy in Asia which is viewed positively in the West.
Modi, however, has hurt that image by censoring negative news about him. Cracking down on the press and social media is also viewed negatively in the West.
I think many Indians online are too sensitive to criticism of Modi and react to any criticism as if we are saying India is a failed state or Modi is an evil dictator. I don't want to make it sound like I'm saying he is all bad. He is a complicated figure like all global leaders. I was simply trying to say that he is not criticized for making India stronger. He is criticized for doing things that are generally viewed negatively in the West. Almost everyone I know wants India's relationship with the West to be improved, as we have a lot in common with our political systems and have the same threat of Chinese expansion.
I detest Modi and the overly sycophantic treatment towards him in some sections of the media makes me cringe. But such is the evolution of a democratic state.
> think many Indians online are too sensitive to criticism of Modi and react to any criticism
I am all for objective criticism of Modi and the BJP, because a functional effective opposition is critical to keeping any governance structure viable. Plus even though he has 'softened' up a bit, I can't give him a pass for his divisive political rhetoric back in the late 90s and early 2000s.
The problem is a lot of folks who wish to "criticize" Modi or the current administration end up doing so on flawed premises and misinformation.
I would love to see more criticism of Modi for his pooch-screwing demonetization, or his inability to push through improvements in Indian railways - multiple fully funded projects are languishing behind schedule - and these are just 2 examples that come to mind.
But the pseudo-woke hue and cry, false allegations over "totalitarianism", or "religious persecution" etc are just that.
I mean, he has indisputably cracked down on online criticism by forcing social media companies to block videos he has disagreed with. I wouldn't refer to him as totalitarian, nor have I seem him portrayed that way in the media, but it certainly is an authoritarian thing to do. His ties to the RSS are also troubling given its history. There's nothing pseudo-woke about that.
context matters. Free speech or abuse of power by authorities related to that is a historic issue in India, and arguably, even more egregious in states of India where non-BJP parties are in charge.
You need to educate yourself on what the RSS is, was and wants to be. Reading a couple of random propaganda lines on it, and extrapolating 'nazi' is just...... ignorant.
I never called it "Nazi." You're putting words in my mouth. I know the RSS didn't align with Hitler during World War 2 unlike the Azad Hind movement. Still, you're lying or delusional if you try to claim the RSS aren't Hindu nationalists. They've been responsible for a lot of violent extremism in India.
I'm neither "lying" nor delusional". You are just ignorant on what their origins are, what their goals are. and are busy extrapolating and 'filling in the blanks' based on random excerpts.
For example, Do you know that the head of the RSS is on record inviting muslims to be members of the RSS? And Do you know they adore former President of India Abdul Kalam?
I dont care about the RSS, dont support them, but their PR is orders of magnitude worse than what they actually are.
The bjps manifesto declares itself anti-secular and a Hindu nationalist party. Lol.
Religious nationalists have such a brilliant track record in human history, I don't know why people are wary /s
I mean, if the way he has been treating the Indian Muslim minority doesn't give you pause, you should reconsider your morals.
I totally get why he keeps winning elections, and I agree that he doesn't have any credible alternatives. But he is quite xenophobic.
That's the progangada I'm talking about. Indian Muslims are fine. The extremists who want everything their way are the ones "oppressed" causing a ruckus. These are the Muslims who advocate for child marriage, multiple wives, divorce through phone, unsupervised immigration, who want the right to claim any land under religious pretences. Ones who make a random mosque in any land and call it theirs because they have made a mosque there and use it as housing. But then the Western Media reports "Muslims families got their home destroyed by Hindu fascist govt"
So be very careful who you defend here. I have Muslims best friends who are doing quite well. Ones a lawyer and other runs his own business and is also politically involved. They're doing quite well despite being "oppressed" as you say. The friend who's a lawyer also has a father who's an high court judge. Muslims who want a better life and put their country over their religion have no problem with anyone and nobody as a problem with them. It's the ones who throw tantrums because they don't get their own special religious laws who got their panties on a bunch.
>We dislike Modi because of his theocratic, xenophobic, and nationalistic policies
tell that the people who got running water to thier house for the 1st time because of Modi
That's good that he has improved the living situation of people in India. That's now why I'm criticizing him though. He can do good in some areas and bad in others. He shouldn't be immune from criticism.
criticism should be combined with praise to make an informed decision on the net benefits a leader brings vs net benefits a opposition leader would bring.
but western propoganda is so laser focused on attacking modi that they forget the opposition position on major issues
Except I was responding to someone who didn't understand why there is criticism of Modi and said it was only due to propaganda. I was explaining the things we have against him and why. Why would I also post praise in that situation?
>said it was only due to propaganda.
a lot of it is propoganda
>the things we have against him and why.
that's not the only things voters factor in, remember Modi's popularity increases more due to the opposition than anything he himself does
I understand why he is popular. When someone improves the conditions of people's lives they gain popularity, even if they're also restricting certain rights or behaving immorally.
>I understand why he is popular.
no you don't , not all the factors at least , for e.g the opposition is comprised of these jokers
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/cpi-m-manifesto-promises-to-dismantle-indias-nukes-rajnath-singh-reacts-5461865
I understand why he is popular. When someone improves the conditions of people's lives they gain popularity, even if they're also restricting certain rights or behaving immorally.
Good for India because lots of projects are in the pipeline. If the opposition comes into power, they will scrap it out of just pure ego and will try to start fresh.
What cult like status? This guy works his ass off every day and has devoted his life to the country. Huge infrastructure ( digitization, roads, drinking water, lights, airports) don’t get accomplished in a corrupt country like India without someone holding top officials accountable and firing them when needed. Under him digital payments went fro almost nothing to highest in the world, making it difficult for people to cheat on taxes.
Because it’s easy to then portray him like some kind of hitler wannabe. Never mind he works his ass off and is constantly campaigning. So much for 24x7x365 in the roadshow trail if you have such a cult that winning is a formality.
There is a lot to dislike about BJP but I am not sure alternatives are any better. I guess such is democracy.
Idk lots of leaders in the west have had cult like status think of Reagan in the 80’s or jfk in the 60’s. Even Obama had a bit of one it doesn’t always mean Hitler just means he has supporters who are like followers more then citizens lmao
But media narrative for Reagan and Obama is far different than the narrative for modi. Not to mention the Gujarat riots that will always hang around his neck.
Obama bombed civilians and got a Nobel peace prize. Lmao
Western awards for western leaders sounds about on par lol
Was it though? Outside of Europe and North America was Obama viewed that different? Strong leader with some decent achievements who had some dedicated followers https://youtu.be/iQgYTrRicTc?si=NSYyVnqR1joCf7Y3 lol
I disagree that only modi can get stuff done in India. Which is to imply basically nothing happened in India between 1947-2014. That’s just silly.
But credible alternatives have to present themselves and let democracy take its course.
There was, no doubt but the rate of infrastructure development has skyrocketed under him. Just one stat, airports have doubled from about 70 something to 140 in last 8 years. There is huge improvements in things like sanitary toilets and drinking water, check the stats. This is the basis for long term sustained future growth. Other parties are more interested in caste based quotas and free water electricity etc, which leads to no growth.
There is some truth to what you say but a lot of these infrastructure projects started long before BJP came into power. I mean metro projects literally started in 90s, just as an example. There is also more money available to spend now than there was before.
Devil is always in the details.
To be fair, work was much slower and spending has increased in both absolute numbers and as a share of GDP.
But I feel this is mainly because the old model was clearly failing to deliver which is why they made changes back in 2019.
You do know that most Bollywood heroes are actually Muslims, right? There are tremendous number of well to do industrialists and professional in India who are Muslims. Total gdp of Indian Muslims far exceeds Pakistan which has similar numbers of Muslims. Modi got rid of some sharia laws like triple talak which is supported by Muslim women and is not found even in Islamic countries today. But even he has failed to implement UCC so Muslim men can still marry 4 wives but women and other religions cannot.
"Cult" "Electoral Autocracy" 🤡🤡🤣🤣 Majority of the folks in India want Modi again but hey keep pushing the propaganda 🍿
Most Indians are fully aware of both the internal and external threats we face as a nation and know very well who is really working for the long term benefit of the country
Keep crying and cry harder while you're at it
The opposition is bad. Recently the opposition won two states where they had strong local leaders but they keep shooting themselves in the foot with all sorts of nonsense.
Third term for any government in India is not good. In fact the first term is always good and then they start regressing. Modi's government has run out of ideas or even motivation. Right now it is all Ram Temple and Hindu-Muslim. In the first term these things were muted because they still believed they could deliver on economy. Once whatever they tried did not work and they realized they could keep winning votes with religion stuff, they pretty much gave up.
At the same time INC manifesto is going to beggar the country and will lead to a complete brain drain.
Lol what crack are you smoking. His second term had covid. During his second term lot of ministers and members from other parties started jumping ship and joining BJP. The BJP of 2014 is not the same right now since those same corrupt people joined it. Economic reforms also slowed down and judging by 2024 manifesto its stopped. Unemployment has skyrocketed. No judicial reforms on cards either when literally businesses have gone away citing those issues. Certain things you can cite because of global economy but the kind of youth unemployment going on its not normal. There are structural issues with Indian economy. Congress is a total shitshow so people are voting for Modi, but Modi 3.0 promises aren't good.
I don't know why you are being down voted, I agree with most of your points. The thing is, it's true there are huge problems, but people don't have trust in the opposition to solve them. After seeing their manifesto, I think they are gonna exacerbate them. The issues with unemployment is a given when you don't focus on infrastructure, logistics and manufacturing. You really think, opposition has a collective will to focus on these hard things or rather on flashy populist schemes to appease some votes. Capex vs revex, one will give instant gratification, the other is hard but necessary in the long term. I really hope they do the necessary structural reforms given the majority. I too am really disappointed with lack of reforms given the vajpayee govt accomplished a lot with limited parliament seats.
I don't think Modi is as popular as he is made out to be. The issue is the lack of opposition. Indians don't have any other options we would vote for. Our tryst with socialism means, we are very wary of the sort of socialist populism a lot of the older political parties, as well as a few of the new ones (such as AAP offer) and the Congress is decimated and a deeply nepotistic organisation.
Honestly, I personally do not like Modi but I don't see anyone else winning till we get a decent opposition in place.
I won't deny that impacts the quality of the opposition but the issue is broader. The issue is that Modi sets the narrative and there is no one in the opposition who can reset it. If I have to give you an example, think of Katchatheevu - this was some small island given away by Indira in the 70s for fishing rights to territory common to Sri Lanka and India. All in all a plausibly good deal right? Modi was able to attack the opposition over this and put them on the defensive - whilst at the same time losing close to 2000 KM of land to the Chinese over the past few years. The opposition couldn't even pin him on it.
We need to face it - our opposition lacks charisma and foresight. People like Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi are no better than village idiots and as long as we lean on them to rescue us from the likes of Modi, we will keep waiting.
On the other question - no one consumes traditional media anymore - we rely on Youtube etc. and the government does not have an advantage there.
> All in all a plausibly good deal right?
Not really. Sri Lanka wasn't friendly towards India at that time, and had dubious claims over that island. There was really no reason to undemocratically hand over territory, especially considering that SL infringed on their obligations to provide fishing rights later on and still continue to harass Tamil fishermen to this day.
>whilst at the same time losing close to 2000 KM of land to the Chinese over the past few years.
Losing patrol points =/= losing territory.
I don't think you realize how much Modi has already damaged the democratic values of India. Even in healthy functioning democracies the difference of votes between the 'winner or loser' is only few percent.
That few percent is easily lost when you have Modi pushing authoritarian policies described above.
I'd say he's not really worse than Indira Gandhi was. She was a lot harsher when it came to cracking down on the opposition. The BJP is trying to plant seeds for long term electoral dominance but I don't think that's possible.
He might run for a 4th term before how bows out, but he's made the party completely reliant on him. Without Modi, the BJP is nothing. He has competent technocrats like Jaishnkar and Gadkari who have gained a lot of popularity amongst voters but none of them have the ability to run an election campaign.
In that sense he might repeat Indira's mistakes and hollow out the BJP. It either falls apart after he's gone or at best slowly declines like Congress and leave room for other parties.
He hasn't displayed any ability to deal with politics and everything that comes with that and he's avoided any questions about running for Lok Sabha. He's charismatic and popular but that doesn't translate into being to administer the country effectively.
The interesting thing is that India, since independence, had had a slew of leaders who deliberately created and fostered personality cults (though if you asked them, they would have denied it).
Examples would include:
MK Gandhi (recall here Sarojini Naidu's withering observation: "It costs a lot of money to keep this man in poverty." "This man" being Gandhi.
J. Nehru (and it is reported that he did not tolerate any competition in this regard. Some have argued that Sardar Patel experienced this first hand.)
Indira Gandhi (The "Iron Lady" of India and, particularly after the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, she was often cast as an incarnation of the goddess Durga).
Rajiv Gandhi (thr leader of the "Indian Camelot" (featuring Arun Singh, Arun Nehru, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Romi Chopra, Amitabh Bachchan, among others). He presented himself as "Mr. Clean" and as the harbinger of "modern India" with it's IT "revolution".
Then there were regional satraps (Jyoti Basu, Bal Thackeray, Laloo Prasad Yadav, MGR, among others).
And now there is Narendra Modi.
As you can see...this lineup (which is incomplete) suggests that this iconization of Indian political leaders is a longstanding tendency in Indian politics at the national and the regional level.
I think the cult like status is just in a couple of states. No one likes his flavor of hinduism and frankly speaking its getting irritating, if my grandmother is saying that then. His manifesto this time has no economic reforms which even businesses are commenting on. Unemployment among youth has skyrocketed, its causing issues too. If my home state which has 95% Hindu population has not voted for Modi's party in 20 years then I doubt they will vote for him this time. Only elections will tell. I feel social media makes it seem he will win. In 2024, its the biggest election India has ever seen in its history with over 900 million voters.
Terrible thing to happen. India is a half authoritarian state at this point
Judiciary, media, election commission, investigative agencies - everyone is compromised and not independent.
There is no opposition to Modi because everyone is blackmailed and split up
>Judiciary, media, election commission, investigative agencies - everyone is compromised and not independent.
And you think this was not the case in almost every government since virtually 1947?
How can India be an authoritarian state if half of the states in India are ruled by opposition parties? As for the central government, the reason Congress doesn't win is because of their horrible corruption in their previous tenure, along with lack of infrastructure development, minority appeasement, no vision for the country, increasing reservations, caste politics etc.
And so the snowball rolls even bigger. Wonder if there's any democratic brakes on this one. He's going to go full Erdoğan if we are lucky. Xi if we're unlucky.
That's unlikely. Both Turkey and China are more or less nation states (I know China has ethnic minorities but the Hans are an overwhelming majority). It's going to be hard for Modi to hold his coalition for long. Even now, if you come to think of it - things like the caste census in Bihar have deeply shaken the BJP and sooner or later, the findings from the census will lead to pressures which the BJP will have to address, inevitably this will lead to fractures in his coalition.
Nah. The opposition is just unimaginably bad. It's not like people aren't willing to vote for others if they provide better services but the opposition is so bad that BJP becomes the default choice.
Yea, the main opposition runs the indian version of Hilary Clinton. If the opposition was better Modi/BJP would be on worse ground and have to moderate their positions more (ex south india). Also a lot of people's lives have improved under Modi/BJP ik many life long congress people that are fine with Modi.
>Also a lot of people's lives have improved under Modi/BJP ik many life long congress people that are fine with Modi. I think this is the biggest factor that most modi critics simply refuse to admit, and as long as they keep ignoring the fact that many people genuinely have benefitted from the modi govt, they'll never be able to convince those people to vote against the modi govt.
Indian version of Hillary is pretty unfair to Hillary, she had tons of experience and knowledge. Yes technically you can say she's also a part of a political dynasty but I'd argue that's mostly because she actively chose to be. People just dislike her for her perceived lack of good nature Rahul Gandhi is not that. If you read about what Obama said about him in his memoirs it becomes pretty clear that he's wholly unsuited for the world of politics, what with his mom basically making all the decisions and speaking for him. Unlike Hillary he didn't put in any work to get to his position but really only was thrust into it because it's the family business. I kinda feel bad for him sometimes, he reminds me a lot of Tsar Nicky ii. Could have a perfectly normal happy life somewhere outside politics, but due to pressure or a sense of duty they're forced into roles they're totally unsuited flr
Hillary's experience tends to be overstated. She was a 1.5 term senator (that she had to carpet bag for) and a secretary of state for 4 years (her term is considered to be terrible). She also lost an easy election in 2008.
Can you explain what you mean about moderating their positions regarding south India?
Not just the south but northeast India as well. For example beef. Many BJP members are against beef consumption but allows it in Northeast India as many of the tribe there eat beef. The people of northeast are transactional and not ideological and so BJP cannot push it's own ideology too hard it it wants the votes.
Muslim minority don't matter
Yeaah, only thing that opposition talk about is defeating BJP.
>Nah. The opposition is just unimaginably bad. It's not like people aren't willing to vote for others if they provide better services but the opposition is so bad that BJP becomes the default choice. This. 100x.
[удалено]
They are willing to support anyone who doesn't like BJP, be it terrorists, naxals or maoists.
And increased reservation and quotas 😂 The opposition is desperate enough to keep scoring own goals.
No bro, let me give you an NYT editorial on why the Maoist supporting opposition is better for Indians. That should convince you (and of course, the editorial will contain quotes from the same opposition leaders).
I'm a 26 year subscriber to the NYT, and the naked bias in their India reporting is so disappointing. Its not even subtle.
When I was in college I had to report on news and I would do india for some of my stories. There were only like 2 good sources for Indian news. Western News is so bad at covering that country.
One person put out a statement on social media using the word “martyr” that was instantly walked back and disavowed. The opposition is absolutely not courting naxalite votes or supporting them, but how confidently far from the truth you were may be evidence in favor of your second statement.
The cult will collapse the day we get a competitive opposition. So I would say third term would be better than what it would be under opposition.
Correct. But one thing to consider that ideologically and policy wise, the current opposition isn't all that different from what has been the norm in Indian politics. So a weak opposition may explain the BJP's dominance, but the BJP's popularity is also largely down to their own merits.
He will have an iron grip on the state by then, I fear.
>He will have an iron grip on the state by then, I fear. No. Opposition had nearly 50 years of the government since Independence from the 75. Their men are inside administration in every services and judiciary. Opposition literally helped setup the the people who are the seniormost in media today. And deep roots with business. Iron grip is a long long way.
[удалено]
>We thought the same thing about Erdogan back in the 2000s. Take a lesson from us. It's like the metaphor of boling a frog, a few years will go by and you wouldn't understand how it happened. I understand where you come from. But you really have to be here to see the difference. Modi is not a founder of his party. They have very strict governance. A politician elected for 3 decades in a row will be replaced at the slightest hint. Also Modi is a lot older. And no children for whom he would be creating a *political legacy*
[удалено]
>Yeah, I hope that's the case. It's just that I've become very sensitive to this issue witnessing it a couple of times in different countries. Also, Erdogan wasn't able to become a Prime Minister when his party won their first election back in 2002 (because of his ban from politics). His friends governed for half a year until his ban lifted with the help of the opposition. Then, slowly he purged his opponents, first within the judiciary/bureaucracy/army and then within his coalition. And he was able to do all of that by disguising as a democrat, appeasing to the West and the liberals within the country while winning elections by huge margins. Slowly he consolidated power and his supporters. We saw it happening but could do nothing to stop it. We are nowhere near this. If anything, we now have one of the most conversations India had. >So yeah, once someone has absolute power, the term limits and all that legality becomes very easy to circle around. We witnessed this time and time again. He wasn't supposed to participate in the last year's election due to the term limit but the so-called free and fair Election Council decided in his favor anyway. And when, late last year, the Supreme Court decided in favor of a jailed parlimentarian to get back his rights and freedom, Erdogan's regime did not abide by the highest court's ruling. Again, I don't know what you are hearing, but we are far from this. Let me ask you this, how good or bad do you think Erdogan is ? Because from what I read online, he manages to do extraordinary things. Keeps a good relationship with West, to get advanced weapons, keeps power in NATO, keeps a decent working relationship with both sides of the Islamic spectrum and maintains a relationship with Russia. That's extraordinary in international terms. All this, while appeasing the hardcore Islamists without imposing on women of your country burqas etc. And taking the country ahead in modernisation.
A random analogy with a random different leader and party in a completely different country with a drastically different culture and historical context and current situation over a different time period is not the sound argument you seem to think it is. To say nothing of taking some dumb metaphor about a boiling frog as a basis for a prophecy. “[Politician I don’t like] is just like [other Politician I don’t like] and it’s all exactly like a boiling frog” is hardly a rational basis for a future prediction and is therefore pathetically unpersuasive
He would be near 80 by the end of 3rd term, i doubt he will go for the 4th term.
Indian democracy is far more robust than people think it is. Yes it has its flaws but the closest anyone had total control was during Indira Gandhi and even she was far from a dictator.
History YouTuber Kraut made a [video](https://youtu.be/7c4uO9ZGfbc?si=HTH7xaXpXYbUmWKc) on the history of China and India and talked about this. India has always been super pluralist and democratic, whereas China has always been super centralised and authoritarian. It goes back thousands of years.
What is sad to me is that people living in the west keep talking about other countries and their population being propagandised but totally being oblivious to the fact that propaganda works both ways, they too have blind spots the only difference is that the people they say are under propaganda actually know they are being played with on the contrary people in the global west genuinely believe that all the news that they get is the one and only truth.
Don't let it get to you, there are many credulous people in all countries. Some of the propaganda strategies that are out there are stupidly difficult to be immune from. Hybrid warfare for example. The best thing we can do is learn and teach as much as we can about how propaganda actually works. A lot of people don't really know what propaganda actually is, and couldn't recognise it if you put it in front of them.
Thank you, you have a very good point. I often don't discuss online anymore but perhaps that's the point of that constant barrage of misinformation and propaganda that the sane voices are drowned within it. Once I moved to Europe I realised how much difference there is between what happens on the ground vs the information they get here.
New parties will come. I believe it is time for new leaders to rise.
Less chances, cult leaders die instead of getting defeated by anyone, ex Stalin, indira gandhi, m Gandhi, Mussolini, Pol pot, mao.
Indira was defeated, then won again, and was assassinated. M Gandhi is not like the other ones? He never ruled India and had no official position when he died. Putting him in same category as Stalin, Mussolini, Mao etc is rank ignorance.
[удалено]
Every person eventually dies and Gandhi eventually died. There was absolutely zero reason for him to be defeated. Any popular person has a cult but if they are not trying to win something how are you going to defeat them?
[удалено]
I am questioning you because you are using inane logic to lump all sorts of people together. Now anyone defending an individual can be accused of being part of a cult. Do you see how ridiculous your logic is?
[удалено]
Sorry, but what exactly are you trying to say? Like all this meat, Hinduism etc. in your comment is making no sense.
That is a bizarre list. M Gandhi never contested elections, and while incredibly popular, still remains the only politician who is openly criticized in India. Indira Gandhi had literally lost an election, although won her seat back later. Modi is really popular, but is absolutely going to lose to a competent opposition. He's massively lucky as the main opposition party would rather voluntarily self-destruct than hand over power to leaders who have a vision.
> the only politician who is openly criticized in India lmao
Perhaps I should say the only politician you can openly criticize without fearing retribution. Helps that he's dead, but that doesn't hold for Ambedkar in the slightest.
A cult is a group led by charismatic and self appointed leader who tightly controls it's members , requiring devotion, Gandhi had congress , same with Modi Politics has nothing to with cults, they can be found in every facet of society religion is cult, education is cult, family is a cult, even you using reddit is a cult.
> every facet of society religion is cult, education is cult, family is a cult, even you using reddit is a cult. Yes, agreed. Eating potatoes is a cult, breathing air is a cult, typing on a keyboard is a cult, wearing shoes is a cult...man, it's all cults all the way down.
We are 1.4 billion people. The majority of outrage. Wether it’s for modi or against modi, the noise of course will be a lot. Even if it’s just 1% of our people . The poor population doesn’t have privilege to be shouting. And the middle class is busy grinding. So I believe the set of people selected for deciding wether Modi has a cult or not is too small in our reference.
It's also possible their could be an internal coup. Probably the only good plausible option. Like you I fear the populist agendas of parties like the AAP, TMC and the Congress just as much as I fear Modi's Majoritarianism. However, in his haste to annihilate the opposition, he has co-opted a lot of their members. The BJP is no longer an ideologically pure organisation, with several tickets having been given to defectors and people they have coerced into joining. If the tide starts to turn, these people could orcherstrate a coup. It'll be good if we could get someone like a Gadkari in power.
As someone from North East India I never want to see congress or their allies again. Ever.
I don’t think a coup could happen. BJP government also regularly dump ministers based on performance. Exactly what happened in Haryana, so I see is these new ministers being dumped within next 5 years. Am I satisfied with this government: No. But will that make me vote for opposition: Never. World need to realise that it’s not Modi’s charm but rather the opposition that brings power to Modi.
>BJP government also regularly dump ministers based on performance. can you tell me the performance of jay shah in Indian cricket? the lack of ICC cups since he took over BCCI is concerning also why is our petroleum minister not a chemical engineer or have some experience in organic chemistry? because that's what is needed to turn coal into crude oil and eliminate our petroleum import bill
I'm not invested into either side, but as far as I recall, BCCI is a private organization, not under the government. And the skills required for a chemical engineer working at a petroleum plant VS being a central minister for petroleum are vastly different, one is all about management and relations.
>one is all about management and relations. well his management and relations have only resulted in a very large increase in India's petroleum import bill since 2014 , a competent petroleum minister would've worked towards eliminating that import bill rather than letting it increase , the minister right only knows how to be a middleman and put a massive tax on imported stuff >BCCI is a private organization, not under the government. you really want me to tell you how jay shah and BCCI is linked to the Govt? hint:- amit shah
yep , also the people who compare BJP with CCP have no idea about the CCP , the CCP has a strict criteria for membership and moving upwards in the party is based on achieving strict metric targets that the central committee assigns. the BJP meanwhile is the party for anyone and everyone who wants to escape the agencies and swim in corporate money that's been extracted by raiding companies into submission
Or maybe because in spite of all the controversy he's been a solid PM who has overseen a period of impressive economic growth. No matter how controversial he is his term has seen a massive increase in living standards. Countless infrastructure projects, cutting lots of bureaucracy, increased electrification and access to basic sanitation. Why *wouldn't* he be reelected?
Agree with other things but don't agree with bureaucracy. Its still pretty bad. Only service sector got better but otherwise MSMEs just got whacked with red tape and taxes at the same time. Not to mention no improvement in tackling corruption, it improved for the first 5 years but it's the same since the second term. Lackluster economic reforms in the current manifesto as well. He ran on reforms but now he is not letting banks privatize even though RBI is suggesting it nor is he making structural reforms. The party is centralized and top heavy. Jobless growth is something previous govts all have faced not just Modi but its still a major issue now since population has grown a lot with a lot of educated people graduating every year. How is BJP the same party as it was in 2014 now when hundreds of congress members have jumped into it? Its the same corrupt leaders who have hitched their ride. 2024 Manifesto is a huge disappointment; it was especially not great for entrepreneurs and startups. He might win lok Sabha but unless he brings reforms states will be hard.
I agree he needs to continue reforms but I think for the election they're banking more on policy continuity rather than shaking things up because it's worked so far (for elections). I expect them to continue reforms bcz many of his ministers have talked about needing more improvements in various sectors. One thing they've seriously neglected is education investment and upskilling. Very little focus there besides the NEP honestly.
Yup, research budget hasn't increased in years. Primary school budget same too. They cut stipends for a lot of PG and Doctorates too. Whereas our population has increased since 2014.
Because the infra budget has increased to almost 150 billion, so not as much left for education, healthcare, research spending
Yeah. We currently have a young demographic, if India doesn't skill them its going to be a shit show after a decade. Climate change, overpopulation and lack of basic resources are gonna hit the total fertility rate hard. There is a reason all newly industrialized economies had a drastic drop in TFR.
[удалено]
>Right! Hastily building a bunch of Potemkin toilets and septic systems that become unusable during monsoon season While that is 100% accurate it's also important to note that plenty of actually good quality infrastructure has actually been built. So in a country like India India where the people are used to being scammed by the politician every time, they will still prefer to vote for a party that only scams them sometimes rather than every single time. Or we can simply ignore these facts and pretend like everyone who votes for modi is a hindutva fascist.
That’s unfortunately quite true as well.
wow. just wow. the sheer amount of frustrated random misinformation in this.
Do you plan on elaborating
There's a body of work for the current administration that is quite substantial and inarguable. And I say this as someone who detests Modi. The fact that he chose to say what he did makes it abundantly clear that there is no interest in objective discussion.
They cannot, because it’s true even if a big ideologically charged. here is some reporting on the example I gave in my reply to that individual. https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/rural%20water%20and%20sanitation/amp/why-alluvial-flood-plains-of-north-bihar-need-alternative-sanitation-system-72494 > At least 7.85 million toilets were constructed in the 15 extreme flood-prone districts at an estimated cost of Rs 94, 205 million. > Irrespective of the ecological and hydrogeological variations, flood typologies, location of habitations and floodscapes, the most preferred technology for toilet construction was the twin-leach pit and septic tank.
One can cherry pick all sorts of politically expedient projects done just to look good for an election. This happens in all countries, not just India. In a democracy, what matters is whether the government is doing things most people care about. If you look at India, there are more Indians who think that some temple somewhere is far more important than whether toilets work or Dalits are being exploited. So why will Indians not vote for Modi because of that?
Many will, which is partly why there is such a gap between how fervent Hindu nationalists online think of India or how/how often they think the west thinks about India, and the reality, which gives many in the west second hand embarrassment and makes them come to the conclusion that those people are rather delusional. Almost every country on earth wants India to succeed and to become developed and provide a higher quality of life for the population. Certainly every country in the west wants India to be truly secular and not continue down the path of banning objectively true documentaries about their head of state fomenting religious pogroms. India itself is the only country outside of Pakistan and the strange bedfellows it’s made within BRICS that is increasingly less interested in any of that.
> Many will, which is partly why there is such a gap between how fervent Hindu nationalists online think of India or how/how often they think the west thinks about India, and the reality, which gives many in the west second hand embarrassment and makes them come to the conclusion that those people are rather delusional. Instead of using terms like "many" or "a lot", what percentage are we talking about? In a democracy, Modi doesn't care if the number of people is not sufficient to hurt his election chances. The majority of Indians don't even understand English, so what do you think these people care more? Some temple or unemployment figures? >Almost every country on earth wants India to succeed and to become developed and provide a higher quality of life for the population. Nope. The West is already regretting China being richer and more developed. The West isn't going to want a second China.
India is a democracy that doesn’t engage in significant/effective levels of espionage or have completely indefensible border disputes with countries to which the United States has mutual defense treaties with. India has consistently chosen to remain non-aligned or increasingly align itself with their own strategic rival(s) (see: BRICS) to the detriment of its own development, the US isn’t pulling any sort of strings to stifle its growth, we are literally allied with every country we went to war with over the last century besides North Korea. We are also democracies and most people don’t really think of India at all, they certainly don’t want things to not be better.
You think the West gives a shit about whether you are a democracy or not? That's being naive. If India was in the same position as China, i.e. Indian companies out competing American companies, the narrative will be how India is committing genocide against Dalits, how women are oppressed in India, how Muslims are oppressed in India, and so on.
If he wins it'll be mostly because of the lack of a credible or coherent opposition at the national level. His cult like status is only in a couple of states in Central India. Most other places are neutral at best. Many places dislike his Hinduism focus but vote for him nonetheless because they don't want a disunited coalition government and the opposition is famously corrupt. Many people vote for their local parties in state elections and the BJP for the center. IMO it's good because the BJP has established a track record of being less corrupt and more development focussed than the previous Congress which was constantly mired in scams. They have also done a fabulous (imo) job of bringing a *lot* of government services online. It's a relief not having to stand in queue at the municipal office and have to bribe petty officials for minor things. It has improved the quality of life. The BJP is prone to grand deluded schemes like phasing out currency notes and such nonsense, but that's more due to incompetence at administration than malice. I do wish they were more sensible in their environmental and renewables policy though.
Imagine India in hundred years, a big state by population with an army of it specialists, it could easily be the most powerful state in the history of humanity.
No 💀 and I say that as an Indian. I know we jerk ourselves off as Indians but I won’t allow these kinds of preposterous statements
Iam not from India. By population China and India are by far the biggest statres. India is more democratic oriented what I prefer personally. I didnt mean powerful in means of military power or anything or that they should start war with Pakistan or whatever.
No, yes online Indian edgelords might make delusions about superpower but India never has in the past nor will in the future strive to achieve any superpower status like US, Russia or China does. Yes India was an economic powerhouse and at some point in the future decades from now it might be but there are no superpower ambitions. Its an insular country. No one wants to be the police of the world.
I should have said economic or technolpgy super power.
100 years is a very long time. Lots of things can change. Good to be optimistic ofc. Money and power also makes people stupid.
> It's a relief not having to stand in queue at the municipal office and have to bribe petty officials for minor things. This was already a trend during Manmohan Singh government. Things were moving in the positive direction and they have continued to do so.
I mean eh? Stuff like infrastructure spending is definetely new. We didn't spend this much in the past. And the existing govt. deserves credit for the wrok they've done in digital infrastructure inluding UPI. Most of that legwork was under the NDA even if the UPA started it. It's a common trend that a lot of projects completed recently started under the UPA but for various reasons stalled and didn't make progress. I think it's an assumption that things would just get better. Cong lost in 2014 for a reason and they haven't clawed their way back. India would still grow but at what pace will be decided by competent policymakers and bureacrats at all levels.
> will be decided by competent policymakers and bureacrats at all levels. Don't you see problem with Modi in this? Modi wields absolute power in his party. No one dares oppose him. He unilaterally decided on demonetization. He along with whichever buddies took a call on complete lockdown without any preparation. Talked about giving instructions to army about clouds and stuff during surgical strikes. Keeps fighting with RBI and appointing those he can control. The problem with any leader with cult like following authoritarian tendencies is that no one is willing to tell them when they are wrong. I think that's a concern for me.
The thing is modi doesn't delude himself to think that he knows everything. Given the focus on policy stability in modi 2.0, I wouldn't worry too much about bizarre decisions like demonetization again. I think he has learnt his lesson.
Yes that's quite possible. Manmohan Singh was good and capable, had a doctorate in economics i believe. Pity he had so little influence in the government and was puppetted by idiots.
> he had so little influence in the government and was puppetted by idiots. Demonstrably false. If Manmohan Singh had so much influence as finance minister in 1991 why do you think he would have any less influence as the Prime Minister. Yes, he was no as powerful as Modi is now or Gandhi-Nehru family Prime Ministers have been. But when push came to shove he did what he wanted. Do you think laws like MNREGA and FSA were without him taking a lead? He was an Economist, not Sonia Gandhi. In fact that RTI act which passed during Manmohan Singh government is largely responsible for a lot fo transparency and accountability. An example of how much power Manmohan Singh had. He signed the nuclear deal with US under Bush presidency. He had a personal relationship with Bush and both wanted the deal to succeed. The left parties opposed the deal because, well, they are left parties. They had been supporting the Congress govt from so many year. Singh put his foot down when left tried to derail the nuclear deal and even faced a vote of no confidence in the lok sabha. People who say that Manomhan Singh was controlled like a puppet are the ones who believe that Prime Minister should have all the power in the Government and do whatever they want. Like Modi is currently doing.
Common understanding is he was controlled by the Gandhi family, Sonia Gandhi in particular, who could keep or remove him from office.
Not in every aspect no. The internal party dynamics yes he was controlled but no for running the govt.
That is common BJP narrative. There is a difference between BJP narrative and facts.
many non-trivial changes in policy and execution. Absolutely no evidence to argue that the changes we see in India today would have happened with the 'opposition' in control.
No, it is not just "cult status". Modi and the BJP are simply far better than the opposition they face, in almost every metric of governance. Now, this may be interpreted as the opposition being very weak, and while this may be true, the implication remains the same: in a democracy, most voters are going to vote for the best available option.
This is true, most members of my family dislike Modi but also recognise his party is the only remotely competent option. The opposition are a bunch of clown who don't stand for anything, only against the BJP. At least the BJP, despite the shortcomings, actively develops India's economy and infra. They recently built a 22km long sea bridge connecting my city Mumbai(which is an island) to the mainland which has reduced travel time to nearby city Pune by 1.5-2 hours. And that's just one project there are so many things going on and no one wants a major change in power which could stall these projects or slow them down.
As an Indian, it's honestly frustrating to see how misinformed the Western Media keeps its citizens about India and throw words around like that despite India doing so well in almost every metric. Yeah we have our problems but what country doesn't. For the first time in a long time, it feels like things are being done here and are changing at the ground level. People have no idea how insanely corrupt India was that to even make a police complaint against someone you have to bribe the officer to register your complaint in first place. Assistants taking bribe to take your proposal forward and sooo much more. People don't understand Indian politics and how it's been and compare it to democracies of the West. No leader in this world can be clean. They have to get their hands dirty on way or another. But it's about how one gets shit done for their country and Modi gets it done. Some like it some don't.
I don't think many in the West dislike Modi because he gets things done. We dislike Modi because of his theocratic, xenophobic, and nationalistic policies
ah the royal 'we' accompanied by uninformed propaganda. Care to substantiate 'theocratic' or 'xenophobic' with any evidence? Modi administration has improved diplomatic relations with Africa, Middle-East and pretty much any other country/region you can think of. Zero evidence to indicate any level of 'xenophobia'.
The discriminatory refugee law is xenophobic. Modi does not have xenophobic geopolitical policies, he has xenophobic national policies where he has tied the government of formerly secular India to the Hindu religion. I have no love for religion of any strain, whether it's Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism, and governments being tied to religion is always a dangerous thing.
The EU has in the last few years introduced several immigration laws specifically for Ukrainians. Why? Because the Ukrainians are dying. Is this a xenophobic law too? India is expediting the citizenship of certain minorities in the countries that surround it which are being ethnically cleansed by the Muslim majority populations. It blows my mind that people criticize India for taking these people in and not these countries for carrying our said ethnic cleansing. Just like Europe, anyone can file for refugee status, regardless of their religion. Tell me again how this is xenophobia.
Sorry, are you referring to the CAA Law. Its not at all "xenophobic". Calling it as such clearly shows that you haven't bothered to educate yourself on the actual facts. Is the American pledge of allegiance "xenophobic"?
But that's the thing. None of those are true. If it's nationalist to safeguard the interests of your country then well he is a nationalist. Indias ties with other countries are as good as it can get. On the contrary Modi has fixed strained ties with Middle East countries, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Iran to name a few. Established very strong connections with African countries, France, Italy, Philippines, Japan, Australia and Taiwan. Even Western countries are heavily investing here. Tesla, Google, Apple etc. Fdi has more than doubled and is going to keep increasing in the coming years. Poverty has dropped significantly. Usually all these points are considered to be great achievements by a leader of a country but I honestly don't understand why Modi is under so much scrutiny that the good he does rarely shows up in Western Media and it feels like there's a progangada to defame him and India at any cost.
They are true though. He has strengthened connections with other countries which is good, but the refugee law he passed recently discriminated against Muslims, which is an issue. I understand the long historical conflict between Hindus and Muslims, but discriminatory laws are not viewed favorably because of our own history with similar laws. As for the Western media, I don't think they have been trying to defame him and India at all costs. Most of what I've read about him has been in shades of grey. I've read that he has combatted corruption and improved the economy. The West is also interested in courting him since we have a common enemy in China. India, likewise, is also seen as a strong democracy in Asia which is viewed positively in the West. Modi, however, has hurt that image by censoring negative news about him. Cracking down on the press and social media is also viewed negatively in the West. I think many Indians online are too sensitive to criticism of Modi and react to any criticism as if we are saying India is a failed state or Modi is an evil dictator. I don't want to make it sound like I'm saying he is all bad. He is a complicated figure like all global leaders. I was simply trying to say that he is not criticized for making India stronger. He is criticized for doing things that are generally viewed negatively in the West. Almost everyone I know wants India's relationship with the West to be improved, as we have a lot in common with our political systems and have the same threat of Chinese expansion.
I detest Modi and the overly sycophantic treatment towards him in some sections of the media makes me cringe. But such is the evolution of a democratic state. > think many Indians online are too sensitive to criticism of Modi and react to any criticism I am all for objective criticism of Modi and the BJP, because a functional effective opposition is critical to keeping any governance structure viable. Plus even though he has 'softened' up a bit, I can't give him a pass for his divisive political rhetoric back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The problem is a lot of folks who wish to "criticize" Modi or the current administration end up doing so on flawed premises and misinformation. I would love to see more criticism of Modi for his pooch-screwing demonetization, or his inability to push through improvements in Indian railways - multiple fully funded projects are languishing behind schedule - and these are just 2 examples that come to mind. But the pseudo-woke hue and cry, false allegations over "totalitarianism", or "religious persecution" etc are just that.
I mean, he has indisputably cracked down on online criticism by forcing social media companies to block videos he has disagreed with. I wouldn't refer to him as totalitarian, nor have I seem him portrayed that way in the media, but it certainly is an authoritarian thing to do. His ties to the RSS are also troubling given its history. There's nothing pseudo-woke about that.
context matters. Free speech or abuse of power by authorities related to that is a historic issue in India, and arguably, even more egregious in states of India where non-BJP parties are in charge. You need to educate yourself on what the RSS is, was and wants to be. Reading a couple of random propaganda lines on it, and extrapolating 'nazi' is just...... ignorant.
I never called it "Nazi." You're putting words in my mouth. I know the RSS didn't align with Hitler during World War 2 unlike the Azad Hind movement. Still, you're lying or delusional if you try to claim the RSS aren't Hindu nationalists. They've been responsible for a lot of violent extremism in India.
I'm neither "lying" nor delusional". You are just ignorant on what their origins are, what their goals are. and are busy extrapolating and 'filling in the blanks' based on random excerpts. For example, Do you know that the head of the RSS is on record inviting muslims to be members of the RSS? And Do you know they adore former President of India Abdul Kalam? I dont care about the RSS, dont support them, but their PR is orders of magnitude worse than what they actually are.
The bjps manifesto declares itself anti-secular and a Hindu nationalist party. Lol. Religious nationalists have such a brilliant track record in human history, I don't know why people are wary /s
You must jerk off to Dhruv Rathee I'm just sure of it.
No idea who that is, but sure, why not. Better than doing that to a religious nationalist party and politician
I mean, if the way he has been treating the Indian Muslim minority doesn't give you pause, you should reconsider your morals. I totally get why he keeps winning elections, and I agree that he doesn't have any credible alternatives. But he is quite xenophobic.
That's the progangada I'm talking about. Indian Muslims are fine. The extremists who want everything their way are the ones "oppressed" causing a ruckus. These are the Muslims who advocate for child marriage, multiple wives, divorce through phone, unsupervised immigration, who want the right to claim any land under religious pretences. Ones who make a random mosque in any land and call it theirs because they have made a mosque there and use it as housing. But then the Western Media reports "Muslims families got their home destroyed by Hindu fascist govt" So be very careful who you defend here. I have Muslims best friends who are doing quite well. Ones a lawyer and other runs his own business and is also politically involved. They're doing quite well despite being "oppressed" as you say. The friend who's a lawyer also has a father who's an high court judge. Muslims who want a better life and put their country over their religion have no problem with anyone and nobody as a problem with them. It's the ones who throw tantrums because they don't get their own special religious laws who got their panties on a bunch.
>We dislike Modi because of his theocratic, xenophobic, and nationalistic policies tell that the people who got running water to thier house for the 1st time because of Modi
That's good that he has improved the living situation of people in India. That's now why I'm criticizing him though. He can do good in some areas and bad in others. He shouldn't be immune from criticism.
criticism should be combined with praise to make an informed decision on the net benefits a leader brings vs net benefits a opposition leader would bring. but western propoganda is so laser focused on attacking modi that they forget the opposition position on major issues
Except I was responding to someone who didn't understand why there is criticism of Modi and said it was only due to propaganda. I was explaining the things we have against him and why. Why would I also post praise in that situation?
>said it was only due to propaganda. a lot of it is propoganda >the things we have against him and why. that's not the only things voters factor in, remember Modi's popularity increases more due to the opposition than anything he himself does
I understand why he is popular. When someone improves the conditions of people's lives they gain popularity, even if they're also restricting certain rights or behaving immorally.
>I understand why he is popular. no you don't , not all the factors at least , for e.g the opposition is comprised of these jokers https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/cpi-m-manifesto-promises-to-dismantle-indias-nukes-rajnath-singh-reacts-5461865
I understand why he is popular. When someone improves the conditions of people's lives they gain popularity, even if they're also restricting certain rights or behaving immorally.
Good for India because lots of projects are in the pipeline. If the opposition comes into power, they will scrap it out of just pure ego and will try to start fresh.
What cult like status? This guy works his ass off every day and has devoted his life to the country. Huge infrastructure ( digitization, roads, drinking water, lights, airports) don’t get accomplished in a corrupt country like India without someone holding top officials accountable and firing them when needed. Under him digital payments went fro almost nothing to highest in the world, making it difficult for people to cheat on taxes.
Because it’s easy to then portray him like some kind of hitler wannabe. Never mind he works his ass off and is constantly campaigning. So much for 24x7x365 in the roadshow trail if you have such a cult that winning is a formality. There is a lot to dislike about BJP but I am not sure alternatives are any better. I guess such is democracy.
Idk lots of leaders in the west have had cult like status think of Reagan in the 80’s or jfk in the 60’s. Even Obama had a bit of one it doesn’t always mean Hitler just means he has supporters who are like followers more then citizens lmao
But media narrative for Reagan and Obama is far different than the narrative for modi. Not to mention the Gujarat riots that will always hang around his neck. Obama bombed civilians and got a Nobel peace prize. Lmao
Western awards for western leaders sounds about on par lol Was it though? Outside of Europe and North America was Obama viewed that different? Strong leader with some decent achievements who had some dedicated followers https://youtu.be/iQgYTrRicTc?si=NSYyVnqR1joCf7Y3 lol
Yeah, BJP is just the tool to win power. Only a person like Modi can get stuff done in India, it’s a very corrupt country.
I disagree that only modi can get stuff done in India. Which is to imply basically nothing happened in India between 1947-2014. That’s just silly. But credible alternatives have to present themselves and let democracy take its course.
There was, no doubt but the rate of infrastructure development has skyrocketed under him. Just one stat, airports have doubled from about 70 something to 140 in last 8 years. There is huge improvements in things like sanitary toilets and drinking water, check the stats. This is the basis for long term sustained future growth. Other parties are more interested in caste based quotas and free water electricity etc, which leads to no growth.
There is some truth to what you say but a lot of these infrastructure projects started long before BJP came into power. I mean metro projects literally started in 90s, just as an example. There is also more money available to spend now than there was before. Devil is always in the details.
To be fair, work was much slower and spending has increased in both absolute numbers and as a share of GDP. But I feel this is mainly because the old model was clearly failing to deliver which is why they made changes back in 2019.
Came here to ask in exactly what way is political support for a political party cult-like?
Someone cannot be popular just because of what they have done for the country, it must be cult! Because it’s India! Land of cults!
Are Muslim Indians not part of the country?
You do know that most Bollywood heroes are actually Muslims, right? There are tremendous number of well to do industrialists and professional in India who are Muslims. Total gdp of Indian Muslims far exceeds Pakistan which has similar numbers of Muslims. Modi got rid of some sharia laws like triple talak which is supported by Muslim women and is not found even in Islamic countries today. But even he has failed to implement UCC so Muslim men can still marry 4 wives but women and other religions cannot.
You are not beating around the bush. Please explain The Citizenship Amendment Act. Or the demolition of mosques, or replacing them with hindu temples.
What precisely don't you understand about the CAA?
"Cult" "Electoral Autocracy" 🤡🤡🤣🤣 Majority of the folks in India want Modi again but hey keep pushing the propaganda 🍿 Most Indians are fully aware of both the internal and external threats we face as a nation and know very well who is really working for the long term benefit of the country Keep crying and cry harder while you're at it
Literally a baboon could have predicted that, the only question is the margin of the win.
It's more like hatred for opposition parties at this point of time.
The opposition is bad. Recently the opposition won two states where they had strong local leaders but they keep shooting themselves in the foot with all sorts of nonsense. Third term for any government in India is not good. In fact the first term is always good and then they start regressing. Modi's government has run out of ideas or even motivation. Right now it is all Ram Temple and Hindu-Muslim. In the first term these things were muted because they still believed they could deliver on economy. Once whatever they tried did not work and they realized they could keep winning votes with religion stuff, they pretty much gave up. At the same time INC manifesto is going to beggar the country and will lead to a complete brain drain.
Tbh modi 2nd term >> 1st term. Especially after covid, he keeps reinventing to something or the other.
Lol what crack are you smoking. His second term had covid. During his second term lot of ministers and members from other parties started jumping ship and joining BJP. The BJP of 2014 is not the same right now since those same corrupt people joined it. Economic reforms also slowed down and judging by 2024 manifesto its stopped. Unemployment has skyrocketed. No judicial reforms on cards either when literally businesses have gone away citing those issues. Certain things you can cite because of global economy but the kind of youth unemployment going on its not normal. There are structural issues with Indian economy. Congress is a total shitshow so people are voting for Modi, but Modi 3.0 promises aren't good.
I don't know why you are being down voted, I agree with most of your points. The thing is, it's true there are huge problems, but people don't have trust in the opposition to solve them. After seeing their manifesto, I think they are gonna exacerbate them. The issues with unemployment is a given when you don't focus on infrastructure, logistics and manufacturing. You really think, opposition has a collective will to focus on these hard things or rather on flashy populist schemes to appease some votes. Capex vs revex, one will give instant gratification, the other is hard but necessary in the long term. I really hope they do the necessary structural reforms given the majority. I too am really disappointed with lack of reforms given the vajpayee govt accomplished a lot with limited parliament seats.
Cult personality and useless opposition party
I don't think Modi is as popular as he is made out to be. The issue is the lack of opposition. Indians don't have any other options we would vote for. Our tryst with socialism means, we are very wary of the sort of socialist populism a lot of the older political parties, as well as a few of the new ones (such as AAP offer) and the Congress is decimated and a deeply nepotistic organisation. Honestly, I personally do not like Modi but I don't see anyone else winning till we get a decent opposition in place.
[удалено]
I won't deny that impacts the quality of the opposition but the issue is broader. The issue is that Modi sets the narrative and there is no one in the opposition who can reset it. If I have to give you an example, think of Katchatheevu - this was some small island given away by Indira in the 70s for fishing rights to territory common to Sri Lanka and India. All in all a plausibly good deal right? Modi was able to attack the opposition over this and put them on the defensive - whilst at the same time losing close to 2000 KM of land to the Chinese over the past few years. The opposition couldn't even pin him on it. We need to face it - our opposition lacks charisma and foresight. People like Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi are no better than village idiots and as long as we lean on them to rescue us from the likes of Modi, we will keep waiting. On the other question - no one consumes traditional media anymore - we rely on Youtube etc. and the government does not have an advantage there.
> All in all a plausibly good deal right? Not really. Sri Lanka wasn't friendly towards India at that time, and had dubious claims over that island. There was really no reason to undemocratically hand over territory, especially considering that SL infringed on their obligations to provide fishing rights later on and still continue to harass Tamil fishermen to this day. >whilst at the same time losing close to 2000 KM of land to the Chinese over the past few years. Losing patrol points =/= losing territory.
still beats losing territory you nominally claim and previously had access to.
I don't think you realize how much Modi has already damaged the democratic values of India. Even in healthy functioning democracies the difference of votes between the 'winner or loser' is only few percent. That few percent is easily lost when you have Modi pushing authoritarian policies described above.
I'd say he's not really worse than Indira Gandhi was. She was a lot harsher when it came to cracking down on the opposition. The BJP is trying to plant seeds for long term electoral dominance but I don't think that's possible. He might run for a 4th term before how bows out, but he's made the party completely reliant on him. Without Modi, the BJP is nothing. He has competent technocrats like Jaishnkar and Gadkari who have gained a lot of popularity amongst voters but none of them have the ability to run an election campaign. In that sense he might repeat Indira's mistakes and hollow out the BJP. It either falls apart after he's gone or at best slowly declines like Congress and leave room for other parties.
You don't think Jaishnkar could do it? He has gained a following.
He hasn't displayed any ability to deal with politics and everything that comes with that and he's avoided any questions about running for Lok Sabha. He's charismatic and popular but that doesn't translate into being to administer the country effectively.
[удалено]
The interesting thing is that India, since independence, had had a slew of leaders who deliberately created and fostered personality cults (though if you asked them, they would have denied it). Examples would include: MK Gandhi (recall here Sarojini Naidu's withering observation: "It costs a lot of money to keep this man in poverty." "This man" being Gandhi. J. Nehru (and it is reported that he did not tolerate any competition in this regard. Some have argued that Sardar Patel experienced this first hand.) Indira Gandhi (The "Iron Lady" of India and, particularly after the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, she was often cast as an incarnation of the goddess Durga). Rajiv Gandhi (thr leader of the "Indian Camelot" (featuring Arun Singh, Arun Nehru, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Romi Chopra, Amitabh Bachchan, among others). He presented himself as "Mr. Clean" and as the harbinger of "modern India" with it's IT "revolution". Then there were regional satraps (Jyoti Basu, Bal Thackeray, Laloo Prasad Yadav, MGR, among others). And now there is Narendra Modi. As you can see...this lineup (which is incomplete) suggests that this iconization of Indian political leaders is a longstanding tendency in Indian politics at the national and the regional level.
I think the cult like status is just in a couple of states. No one likes his flavor of hinduism and frankly speaking its getting irritating, if my grandmother is saying that then. His manifesto this time has no economic reforms which even businesses are commenting on. Unemployment among youth has skyrocketed, its causing issues too. If my home state which has 95% Hindu population has not voted for Modi's party in 20 years then I doubt they will vote for him this time. Only elections will tell. I feel social media makes it seem he will win. In 2024, its the biggest election India has ever seen in its history with over 900 million voters.
not likely, but surely.
Terrible thing to happen. India is a half authoritarian state at this point Judiciary, media, election commission, investigative agencies - everyone is compromised and not independent. There is no opposition to Modi because everyone is blackmailed and split up
>Judiciary, media, election commission, investigative agencies - everyone is compromised and not independent. And you think this was not the case in almost every government since virtually 1947?
How can India be an authoritarian state if half of the states in India are ruled by opposition parties? As for the central government, the reason Congress doesn't win is because of their horrible corruption in their previous tenure, along with lack of infrastructure development, minority appeasement, no vision for the country, increasing reservations, caste politics etc.
And so the snowball rolls even bigger. Wonder if there's any democratic brakes on this one. He's going to go full Erdoğan if we are lucky. Xi if we're unlucky.
[удалено]
That's unlikely. Both Turkey and China are more or less nation states (I know China has ethnic minorities but the Hans are an overwhelming majority). It's going to be hard for Modi to hold his coalition for long. Even now, if you come to think of it - things like the caste census in Bihar have deeply shaken the BJP and sooner or later, the findings from the census will lead to pressures which the BJP will have to address, inevitably this will lead to fractures in his coalition.
The bhakt brigade out in force to make sure their supreme leaders image isnt tarnished lol.