The Rise Of Fascism In India
	found on The Straits Times written by infernalpress, edited by Peter (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 5 Oct 3:09am
		"Hindutva" (Hindu-ness) and "Hindu Rashtra" (Hindu nation) are the cultural supremacist and political nationalist RSS dogmas and policy guides of the BJP. Their principal appeal is to the upper castes in India's socially debilitating and inhumane caste system, the worst excess of which, untouchability, Gandhi valiantly fought to eradicate. The man who killed Mahatma Gandhi in January 1948 for seeking conciliation with Pakistan, Nathuram Vinayak Godse, at one time belonged to the RSS. That's part of the Sangh's legacy. And it has not only spawned the VHP, but numerous other radical organizations backing the BJP, notably the Shiv Sena (Shiva's Army) party of Bal Thackeray, a self-declared Hitler fan." It is now repeatedly being called the Rise of Fascism in India. The ruling coalition party, the BJP, is effectively the political arm of the RSS, a Hindu-supremacist organization that has fueled a rise in anti-Muslim, anti-Christian and anti-Sikh violence. The caste system and the fact that the government is basically controlled by this Hindu-centric group means that such violence largely goes unpunished. Now, more sabre-rattling raises fresh fears of these two nuclear powers going to war, in a situation which worsens by the day. Every week brings stories of Muslim and Hindu murders, strife in disputed Kashmir and fresh connections to terrorism in Pakistan. The imminent war on Iraq is on everyone's mind, but an equally important issue is how a nation of one billion people is slowly slipping into fascism.

	Now, more sabre-rattling raises fresh fears of these two nuclear powers going to war, in a situation which worsens by the day. Every week brings stories of Muslim and Hindu murders, strife in disputed Kashmir and fresh connections to terrorism in Pakistan. The imminent war on Iraq is on everyone's mind, but an equally important issue is how a nation of one billion people is slowly slipping into fascism.

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 31 commentsbest: 7 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  contradictions   by AndrewDucker       at Sat 5 Oct 4:18am score of 2.5 interesting     What's interesting is that a few years ago I was reading about the increases in human rights in India which were occuring due to the money pouring into the country. Because the computing employers hired anyone with talent, including women and untouchables, it was causing class divisions to become slowly eroded. I suspect what we're seeing here is the swing against this, with the entrenched old-guard reacting against the 'uppity' egalitarians.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: contradictions   by autroc       at Sat 5 Oct 10:21am score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 1     even if it's true that the computer industry was breaking down the class and gendre divisions, i suspect that was pretty much limited to centres like bombay and bangalore. i haven't visited india that much, but even delhi gave me a much stronger sense of class, gendre and religious division than bombay, never mind the smaller and even more traditional towns.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Not surprising   by Norman108       at Sat 5 Oct 10:46am score of 2 astute     With 270-350 million below the poverty line, about a third of the worlds poor and malnourished, I'm surprised Facism hasn't taken a bigger foothold earlier. The situation needs to be watched closely, especially with the Pakistan/Hindu conflicts heating up. [I sometimes wonder if Mohandas Gandhi was correct in letting Pakistan split off from India. Perhaps he had no choice, but I think if they would have weathered through the initial conflicts, they may have ultimately been better off not separating.] India ultimately will always be India. Rajahs and Fascists will come and go, but ancient India will continue on long past our lifetimes. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  Re: Not surprising   by nittyG       at Sun 6 Oct 12:23am score of 1   in reply to comment 3     No, not perhaps he had no choice. He had no choice. Watch the movie Gandhi. It's as accurate as a movie will ever be. The British made a deal. THEY divided India. Gandhi would have NEVER allowed it if he had that kind of power.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: The Mahatma's choice.   by Norman108       at Sun 6 Oct 10:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Well that's the kicker. In watching the movie, and reading a little about the Mahatma, I think there may have been the slimmest of possibilities for a different outcome. May have been. Gandhiji had the ability to work miracles, a will of adamantine and the stubborness of a Rino. But this is not to say he didn't have his moments of weakness or his faults, of course he did, he was a man. A "great soul," but a man, nonetheless. I wonder if he would have kept to his course in this one thing, and said absolutely "No," what might have been. Only he could have pulled it off, if there was any way possible. All I'm saying is perhaps Gandhiji could have done it, if it was possible. But the impossible does exist as well. So what was said was just the tiniest peep of "perhaps," just a hummingbird's fart of a "perhaps." Doesn't matter though, he is in his next life, or in Heaven, and the world is the world, and the dance simply goes on. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Slipping?   by slickhipster       at Sat 5 Oct 1:13pm score of 1     baby they slipped a long time ago. I AM big, it's the cubicles that got small   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Re: Slipping?   by mad_clown       at Sat 5 Oct 1:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     And you'll note that Indira Ghandi was shot to death by her own bodyguards amidst massive political scandal. If anything, Indian politicians have done all they can to distance themselves from her and what she stood for. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Slipping?   by nittyG       at Sun 6 Oct 12:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Why don't you get your information from a more OBJECTIVE source. Even these people would strongly disagree that India is fascist. You should probably think a little before you post any shit you pick up.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Fascism is not necessarily a new trend in India.   by mad_clown       at Sat 5 Oct 1:45pm score of 3 scholarly     Subhas Chandra Bose is an interesting look at the mass-appeal that fascism -- or at least fascist-style government -- has had in the past in India. I'll quote a passage from Lawrence James' The Rise and Fall of the British Empire : After broadcasting propaganda from Berlin [in 1941], in which he denounced democracy and pilloried Britain as 'the impeccable foe to progress and evolution', Bose travelled by submarine to Tokyo, where he arrived in June 1943. Assuming the title of 'Netaji'(leader) of the INA (Indian National Army), Bose threw himself into its reorganization... The INA was involved in a series of largely unsuccessful attacks on British and Indian armies in India-Burma, but never really achieved much. Its existence, however, frightened the British, fearing that it would encourage men enlisted in the British army to defect or desert, as well as foment uprisings behind the lines. It seems important to note that in 1939, he won the leadership of the Indian National Congress, a clear sign of his popularity. Only Ghandi's meddling (let's not forget that Ghandi was a shrewd, backstabbing politician just like the rest of them) and influence with other members of Congress prevented Bose from actually doing anything besides forming the Forward Bloc and resigning in disgust. While his plans for India actually bore the most resemblance to Ataturk's methods in Turkey, he held talks with both von Ribbentrop and Hitler, as well as Tojo. From his selected speeches, his philosophy is evident: India does not suffer from one ailment. She suffers from so many political ills that only a ruthless dictator can cure her... India needs a Kemal Pasha. Of course, the question fascism largely died in India in 1945, when Bose was killed in a plane crash. Whether these new organizations are spiritual decendants of Bose or not, I'm not sure. They exist at radically different stages in India's history: Bose was fighting the British, Bal Thackeray and his ilk seem more concentrated on Muslims and Pakistan than anything else. But their sentiments aren't new. Unfortunately, political circumstances may put them in position to attain more autonomous power than Bose could ever have dreamed of, and one must wonder whether Bose's prescription for India's "political ailments" doesn't ring constantly in their ears. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Political Hyperbole   by NH4       at Sat 5 Oct 1:59pm score of 2.5 intriguing     The BJP is presently sucking up to Hindu extremists because it is in political trouble and it is trying to shore up its base. It is likely to lose the next election. Genuine fascist governments don't worry about losing the next election. Genuinely fascist societies also don't have journalists like Arundhati Roy saying whatever they please about the country's rulers in the media. * * * So, if Muslims decide to murder 58 Hindus, burning them alive in a train, it's regrettable but there's nothing the government can do about it, but if Hindus retaliate, India is going fascist? Just where does this Muslim idea that they can murder people with impunity come from? Certainly not from a God that calls for "an eye for an eye," right?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Re: Political Hyperbole   by grimgrin       at Sat 5 Oct 8:27pm score of 3 brilliant   in reply to comment 7     So, if Muslims decide to murder 58 Hindus, burning them alive in a train, it's regrettable but there's nothing the government can do about it, but if Hindus retaliate, India is going fascist? Just where does this Muslim idea that they can murder people with impunity come from? Certainly not from a God that calls for "an eye for an eye," right?   If the local police had arrested a bunch of muslims in connection with the attack, no one would be saying boo about this. Hell if there were riots resulted in people being killed but that were quickly calmed down by the local police who then proceded to investigate and try people involved in the massacare and subsequent rioting, it'd probably be remembered as just another unfortunate sectarian clash. But this is the thing, the "retaliation" in this case was a pogrom in which, at minimum, 900 Muslims were killed and close to 100,000 put in refugee camps It's also worth noting that some observers say that the attacks were planned in advance, that local police aided the rioters and that brutal sexual violence was also commonplace.   It's not the retaliation that people are saying smells of fascism, it's the organized, indeed in some cases sanctioned by local law enforcement, persecution of a minority group that has some people drawing parallels. The "If this was facism x wouldn't be able to do y" argument is specious as well. No ones saying India is fascist right now, they're saying that there are large, powerful organizations in india that seem to be driving towards fascism.   Finally, "Eye for an eye" does not mean "You take an eye, I kill you, burn your house, rape you wife, then do the same thing to everyone I can find who looks like you."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  No need to be alarmist   by severian       at Sat 5 Oct 2:50pm score of 5 informative     It's ironic that this discussion is taking place so recently after the previous article on the teaching of history. I think it illustrates the point about the subjective nature of history very well :-) In the interests of full disclosure, let me first say that I am an Indian American so you may assume I'm somewhat biased but take my assertions for what you will. First off, although I too am very concerned about the current spate of Hindu/Muslim/Christian violence and the ongoing troubles with the caste system, I think it's alarmist to say the country is slipping to fascism. The truth is, from its very inception, India has been a solidly democratic country, with elections that have some of the highest voter turnouts in the world, and it has never been under military rule (or even came close to it). This is indeed quite an accomplishment given its incredibly diverse populace and the internal divisions it faces, especially in comparison to other countries of the post-colonial world. The reason why I mention this is because democratic institutions are well established in the country. The chance of even a popular leader becoming a dictactor in India is very remote because democracy is so embedded in the society. As for the specific examples people have given so far, let me give you my analyses. First, people have mentioned Indira Gandhi and her imposition of Emergency rule as an example of fascist tendencies. Those were indeed dark days, but was never mentioned was that even during that time, national elections were held, and what's more, the people voted her out of office. She did regain power in later elections after the interim prime ministers could not form a stable government. However, she learned her lesson and stayed within the constraints of the Constitution from then on. She was assassinated by her bodyguards because of reasons related to the Punjab secessionist movement that was going on at the time. Even after that, the country didn't slip into a dictatorship. Rather, national elections were held and a new government was formed. Second, even with the current government, the issue is a lot more complicated than simply that the BJP is in power. Most people (including Hindus) do not like the BJP. But they do like Vajpayee, the current Prime Minister. He is considered one of the few statesmen in India with a presence to lead the country. He is not a radical communalist like Bal Thackeray or L.K. Advani who are also in the same party. The reasons for him being in the BJP are complex, but suffice it to say that people vote for the BJP in national elections because they want Vajpayee to be the Prime Minister. In fact, there are parties in his national coalition that are not communal, and they are part of the coalition simply because they feel Vajpayee is the best candidate for Prime Minister. These coalition members act as a stabilizing force because if the BJP really began fostering communal violence, the coalition members would withdraw support and the government would collapse. The BJP also knows well that if they foster communal violence, they will be voted out of power. they learned that lesson well after the Babri Masjid. The Babri Masjid, an ancient Muslim temple, was torn down by crowds of BJP party members and supporters because it was built on top of a sacred Hindu site. This sparked riots all over the country and many foreign observers worried that the whole country would rip apart. However, in the national elections that ensued, the BJP was soundly defeated and more secular parties gained power. Finally, with regards to caste politics, the lower castes are very well represented in government. They have some of the highest voter turnouts of any groups and as such, every politician bends over backwards to accomodate them. Indeed, they dominate politics in many states and exert considerable influence in the national scene as well. This is not to say that there aren't issues with caste discrimination and the such, but politically the lower castes have been and will continue to flex their muscle. So in conclusion, the India's internal divisions are indeed quite serious and cause a significant amount of friction. However, these divisions were even worse in the recent past, causing far more violence and bad feelings at a time when democratic institutions were much more fragile. India came out of that period intact and democratic and I believe it will remain that way. The people have a long tradition of voting out of power those politicians who do not believe in a secular and democratic state, and I see no reason why this won't continue in the future. In fact, I believe the BJP is facing serious election issues right now and I'm sure part of this is that people are punishing the BJP for the current communal violence.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  ...made the milk come out my nose...   by Militant Elvis       at Sat 5 Oct 5:15pm score of 1     I could not help but giggle when i read the title of this plastic entry. I know I am being narrowminded, but based upon the considerable number of Hindu-stanis I have worked and at times lived with over my lifetime, the idea of a "fascist Indian" sounds about as silly as the idea of a "Militant Elvis". I don't care if the roti have swastikas burned into them. If you don't want yours then gimmie before they get cold. And pass the chutney please. I suspect that you have very little hands-on knowledge of rape. --davidpalter   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: ...made the milk come out my nose...   by Eric Blair       at Sat 5 Oct 5:32pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 9     Yeah...but one thing is that many of the Indians you have seen were "nerds" who were recruited to come into the U.S because they were engineers, scientists, computer programmers, doctors, etc. You don't see the "militant" Indians because they for the most part were not recruited to come into this country. You see the "nerdy" Indians (hence the "nerdy Indian" stereotype that used to be seen in Budweiser commercials). You generally don't see the "militant Indian" type of person. I have been to India and was born there. There are quite a few "fascist Indian" and "militant Indian" types there.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: ...made the milk come out my nose...   by Militant Elvis       at Sat 5 Oct 8:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     All of them engineers, scientists, computer programmers, doctors you say? Well guess what mister, you are so... right. I suspect that you have very little hands-on knowledge of rape. --davidpalter   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: ...made the milk come out my nose...   by Silus       at Sat 5 Oct 7:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     I don't care if the roti have swastikas burned into them. If you don't want yours then gimmie before they get cold. And pass the chutney please. Actually... the swastika symbol that Hitler adopted for his Third Reich has been used in a variety of places throughout history. The Buddhists used it as a symbol of the growth of Buddhism. It is also found in native american art. sunt lacrimae rerum - Virgil, The Anied   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Attack of the child-killing sharks ?   by robozoid       at Sat 5 Oct 9:53pm score of 1.5 clever     This thread has the feel of the sensational stories of the past two summers, where the US was either beset by a plague of shark attacks or child abductions... The rise in power of the RSS/VHP/BJP is nothing new: this dates back at least to the late 80s/early 90s. If anything, some years of having the BJP in power as part of a coalition have demonstrated the party's inability to make good on its claimed 'hindutva' agenda, being forced to sacrifice its ideological purity at the alter of politics and democracy, much to the chagrin of its ideologue parent groups. What this rise in power of the fundamentalist groups has done is expose the pandering of earlier groups to other minorities (caste and religion). The Hindu groups are doing their own pandering, and this is probably again within the vote bank calculus - with 80% hindus, you can't go wrong !! I don't feel that the threat of fascism is any more real than it was earlier; however, atrocities like those that happened in Gujarat are forcing India to reexamine basic issues of identity that were muscled into place at independence and have gone largely unexamined... Karma Karma chameleon - you come and go, you come and go...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  chaos theory   by preetamrai       at Sun 6 Oct 1:27am score of 3 informative     Good evening to all of you on this board. I am an Indian (middle class, Hindu). I wish to say something about the issues pointed out here. I will not deny the existence of militant Hinduism, and though their activities may seem alarming, let me assure you that India will never become a fascist country. These are my reasons 1. There is a large percentage of people who do care about Hindu-Muslim or any of the other divisions. They are only too happy to get on with the business. 2. The people who are interested in these divisions are fickle. If you have to look for divisions in India, it is just too may. People who hate each other can find religion or ethnicity (Punjabi, Bengali, Tamil etc.) or caste and class. You can trust them to find another division a few days later. They may continue causing small troubles here and there; they will never be able to make it to the national scale. I come from a part of India on the western coast. The Portuguese came there in the late 1400s and they were surprised to find a thriving catholic community there. Lots of Hindus here attend the local church. There are Muslim here who have patronized Hindu temples. No one can ever remember any riots. I was there this August to attend a cousin's wedding. One evening, there was this whole group of youngsters (various faiths, casts, ethnicity etc.) partying in the house. The TV started showing some riots pictures from Gujarat. One of the guys commented that no TV channel ever covers our part of the country where people are happily living with each other. Multi-ethnic countries that fell apart (like Yugoslavia) had strong charismatic (or dictatorial) leaders or a strong ideology governing them (as in the case of communist countries). The strength of India is that it has not had anything like this and yet it has stayed together for almost 50 years. In India we have come to realize that people who want to hate each other will continue doing so, you can punish some of them, it will not solve the problem. This hatred is a part of growing pain and eventually either the stupid people will totally kill each other or learn to live together. Whatever happens there is a majority here that will always be there.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  Re: chaos theory   by Petronius       at Mon 7 Oct 6:32am score of 1   in reply to comment 20     Very good points. It seems to me that the situation in Yugoslavia was a point where vague and not very well articulated resentments were seized upon by ambitious politicians as an excuse to take power for themselves. They really don't give damn about "Greater Serbia" or "Greater Croatia" any more than the Nazis really gave a damn about "Greater Germany". Instead, these slumbering ethnic divisions provide the raw fuel for a mass movement led by the politicians themselves. This is certainly what is happening in much of the Muslim world, where anger with the West and Israel is encouraged to distract the people from the realization that their leaders are robbing them blind. A word about Fascism. Somebody above says that with so poor a populace, fascism is a danger in India. However, the history of real fascism shows that its leaders are generally either disaffected rich kids like Albert Speer or jumped-up failed bourgeois like the rest of the Nazi leadership. For a more modern example, look at the 9/11 bombers: not a poor person amongst them, all solidly middle class.Osama himself is from one of the richest families in the world. The poor provide the soldiers; the middle class provide the leaders. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  civilian supremacy   by CaptainHayal       at Sun 6 Oct 2:38am score of 1.5 succinct     Eric Hobsbawm wrote in 1994: "India, of course, remains at the time of writing by far the most impressive example of a Third World state that has both maintained unbroken civilian supremacy and an unbroken succession of government by regular and relatively honest popular election..." India has a strong tradition of democracy and this is what all the other third world countries need: Democratic tradition is everything, it gives you the know-how to cope with fascism.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  Re: civilian supremacy   by mad_clown       at Sun 6 Oct 1:16pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 22     India has a strong tradition of democracy and this is what all the other third world countries need: Democratic tradition is everything, it gives you the know-how to cope with fascism. Absolutely. You really hit the nail on the head, I think. Even before independence, when India was still a British colony, Indian politicians were actively involved in the Indian National Congress. By the time the British pulled out, Indians had been in charge of -- or at least intimitely familiar with -- most government positions for years, especially those all-important 'low-level' jobs like clerks and so forth... jobs that actually make the government run. Thus, when India was left on its own, it made a fairly smooth transition, since Jawaharlal Nehru and the men who came after him had some background in running a country. It's also important to note that it was largely Hindus that occupied government positions pre-independence, rather than Muslims, ensuring that the governing body of India would largely be more experienced than the people who would go on to fill the ranks of government in Pakistan. Pakistan, on the other hand, had virtually none of this. Yes, Jinnah was important, and had he actually lived long enough to make a difference in Pakistan's evolution, we might well be looking at a very different Pakistan today. As it stands, he died within a year of its formation, and that state has ever since been racked by political crises. The same can be said about much of the Middle East. After centuries of Ottoman domination, the men who came to power post-1918: Feisal, Abdullah, etc., really had no background whatsoever in democracy, and hence the states that emerged from them were dominated essentially by centralized authoritarian governments. The governments that replaced them in countries like Saudi Arabia (after it was unified) and Iraq (after King Feisal was overthrown by a military coup which lead to the present regime) followed much the same path. In fact, one could say quite the same about Russia, I think. Russia has no history of democracy -- in fact quite the opposite. Mongols, Tsars, Politburos... all of these were quite un-democratic governments, and obviously Russia's own transition into a stable democracy has not been a gleaming success. So, in short: you're absolutely correct. What nations around the world need isn't simply this Clintonian/Bushian idea of "democracy." What they need is a democratic tradition. Kudos to you for being astute enough to see that. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  An opinion   by satan 666       at Sun 6 Oct 3:27pm score of 1     First of all I will say that India is a democracy because the majority of it's population like it that way.. and the majority of it's population is Hindu.. that is the way it is.. So anyone curious why the BJP came to power in the first place?? It was not because Hindus suddenly became fascist... You see the parties that have been in power in India before give special concessions to minorities [muslims] to get their vote.. the BJP merely played the same game and appealed to the hitherto divided majority.. So are there fascist elements in India.. sure there are.. are there fascists in the US, canada, europe.. sure... so are there more fascists in India as a % of the population... I do not think so... So why is the Hindu population of India pissed of at Muslims? well apart from historical reasons.. including killing tens of millions of Hindus [infidels] in their own country since say the 8th century.. muslims in india as a group do not display tolerance for other beliefs, religions... something they expect [why??].. self appointed indian muslim leaders routinely call for jihad [surely you know the meaning by now] against hindus in India [wow]....their sermons are very well attended... like by tens of thousands of people.. and you do not hear even a few moderates at either a personal level [very few] to group levels [almost none] saying that such ideas are wrong.. and then there is the problem of lack of secular education... and willingness to delibrately piss people off...[too many ways to mention] and no one here mentions that other political parties do not even give decent lip service to the million odd kashmiri hindus, who had been in kashmir thousands of years before Islam ever existed have been terroized and cleansed from kashmir and been made refugees in their own country.. imagine if people of european descent living in and around detroit were slaughtered and otherwise forced to leave their homes and most material possesions by you know who... I wonder if there would not be a very severe backlash against muslims in the US... So before you pass judgement... think a little and most people in india have reached that stage where they do not care too much about what they perceive as pro-muslim anti-hindu opinions.. you see many people in india believe that their future/lives/ability to live a decent existence is being threatened by muslims in particular and people in india who support them and the world for not giving a hoot and being condescending because they are perceived to be brown-skined heathens.. Try arguing with people who believe that their existence and symbols of it are under threat...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Re: An opinion   by madison       at Mon 7 Oct 9:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     So why is the Hindu population of India pissed of at Muslims? well apart from historical reasons.. including killing tens of millions of Hindus [infidels] in their own country since say the 8th century. There is no legitimate reason anyone alive today should be mad at other people who are alive today because of things done in the 8th century. "Historical" reasons are attempts to rationalize bigotry. Political leaders who start referring to historical reasons are just trying to stir up trouble, as in Ayodhya. muslims in india as a group do not display tolerance for other beliefs, religions. Which Muslims? Do you mean preetamrai's friends. and you do not hear even a few moderates at either a personal level [very few] to group levels [almost none] saying that such ideas are wrong.. Do you mean leaders like Syed Shahabuddin editor of Muslim India?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  If India were to become truly fascist....   by Resonance       at Sun 6 Oct 3:31pm score of 1.5 interesting     ...it would have to deal with Kerala, the only elected socialist state in the world. Having spent 4 months in India, I could understand the presence of fascist sentiments rising and falling in popularity in tandem with certain events, but it feels highly counterinutituve to me that it would ever become a truly fascist country. Upon arrival in India, I was overwhelmed by the fact that this place is 4 times bigger than my own country, its culture is a dramatically older, and had the opportunity to take on all the accoutrements of the western world (British Empire), yet didn't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Caste and Country   by infernalpress       at Mon 7 Oct 8:58am score of 1.5 informative     It's very hard for non-Indians and indeed many Indians to understand the role that caste plays in Indian culture, especially politics. For example, lets take a look at the Brahmins, the "highest" caste of the Hindu religion: "In the senior echelons of the civil service from the rank of deputy secretaries upwards, out of 500 there are 310 Brahmins; of the 26 state chief secretaries, 19 are Brahmins;...of the 16 Supreme Court judges, 9 are Brahmins; of the 330 judges of the High Courts, 166 are Brahmins;...of the 438 district magistrates, 250 are Brahmins; of the total of 3,300 IAS officers, (Indian Administrative Service) 2,376 are Brahmins. A caste which accounts for 3 per cent of the population controls from 50 to 70 per cent of the country's key positions. In the fifty years since independence, Brahmins have fielded five out of eleven Indian president, six out of ten vice-presidents and six out of twelve prime ministers," (Patwant Singh, "The Sikhs"). When you understand that caste allows for absolutely no social mobility within its structure, terms like fascism seem appropriate. As for the "long history of democracy" line, I'm sorry but I do not agree. India only became a democracy in 1947. Before that, a history of the Indian subcontinent is a history of war, from the Aryan invasions through the rise of the Mauryan Empire, to the waves of invaders from Central Asia. Muslims were a minority, but the dominant political power from the 1500s until the mid 1800s and were brutal to the Hindus. The hegemony of the Raj (a relatively short-lived phenom) lasted roughly fifty years. India does not have a long history of democracy. The point of this sub, and of the articles I linked to was to point out the clear, obvious and direct collusion between this "democracy" and the genocides that have taken, are taking and will take place. The articles I linked to are detailed, concerned accounts from Indians in India. Alarmist? Perhaps, but only because they feel genuine alarm at this course of events. The contrary posts above address very few of the concerns raised by Roy and others, esp. in terms of government/police collusion in various genocides. Tens of thousands of people have been killed with the direct assistance of the Brahmin/Indian government. India is not a country any more than Africa is a country. India is a continent with over one billion people, dozens of languages, dozens of religions and dozens of clearly definable racial/cultural groups, each with tens of millions of adherents and a history of several centuries with a definable geographical location. Until these people achieve the self-determination that they deserve by any reasonable standard of granting statehood, the ruling Brahmins will continue to use whatever means are at their disposal to keep them under their thumb. Gandhi's objection to Pakistan had nothing to do with the right of self-determination. It was a pragmatic approach on two fronts. He didn't want Indians airing their dirty laundry until they had the British off their backs and could deal with the issue on their own. On top of that, the RSS was founded in 1925 with a specifically anti-Muslim stance, and Gandhi understood quite clearly that the vast majority of Hindus were vehemently opposed to handing over of part of "their" India to the hated Muslims. (An, as it turns out, that's exactly why Godse shot him.) Just as now, that same elite caste has trouble granting self-determination to the people of Andhra Pradesh, Gujart, Punjab and Kashmir, instead preferring to brutally oppress the people of those "states" in the name of Hindutva.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Learn About Gandhi   by frunchy       at Mon 7 Oct 9:49am score of 1.5 informative     1) Gandhi did NOT support the partition of Pakistan and India 2) While Gandhi DID seek to eradicate untouchability, he was a staunch supporter of the caste system. So using him as an example of the good 'ol days when India just wanted to be all one big happy family isn't entirely accurate.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Re: Learn About Gandhi   by nittyG       at Mon 7 Oct 9:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Gandhi supported the caste system? In what way? Explain yourself and back it up. If you mean he followed the passage in the Gita upon which the caste system is based, you're probably right. But did he "support the caste system", that is the birthright? There is a major difference.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Learn About Gandhi   by frunchy       at Fri 11 Oct 1:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 36     On Gandhi's view on the relationship between landlords and tenants (from the writings of B.R. Ambedkar): Mr. Gandhi does not wish to hurt the propertied class. He is even more opposed to a campaign against them. He has no passsion for economic equality. referring to the propertied class Mr. gandhi has quite recently said that he does not wish to destroy the hen that lays the golden egg. His solution for the economic conflict between the owners and the workers, between th erich and the poor, between the landlords and the tenants, and between the employers and the employeesis very simple. The owners need not deprive themselves of their porperty. All that they need to do is to declare themselves Trustees for the poor. Of course, the Trust is to be a voluntary one carrying only a spiritual obligation (p. 293) On Gandhi's support for the Hindu caste system, albeit devoid of untouchability: The social ideal of Gandhism is either caste or varna. Though it may be difficult to say which, there can be no doubt that the social ideal of Gandhism is not democracy. For whether one takes for comparison caste or varna both are fundamentaly opposed to democracy (p. 297). . . . Gandhism is a paradox. It stands for freedom from foreign domination, which means the destruction of the existing political structure of the country. At the same time, it seeks to maintain intact a social structure which permits the dominaiton of one class by another on a heriditary basis which means a perpetual domination of one class by another (p. 302).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  Caste in stone?   by Resonance       at Mon 7 Oct 12:21pm score of 1     To entirely remove the caste system would be shooting for the moon. To at least ease its influence on secular issues is the best India can hope for. A great Stalinesque attempt at social collectivization would lead to a massive disaster. India is very steeped in its traditions; one need only go to a Kumbh Mela to become overwhelmed by this fact.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  More thoughts   by satan 666       at Mon 7 Oct 12:34pm score of 1     Well so lets see what is new.. So Brahmins account for a disproportional number of people in power.. Has anyone considered that one of the obligations of being a brahmin is that one has to be educated and literate ??.. and guess what in the US the same could be said of WASPS [less today than say even 20 years ago]..but still and what about people of the jewish faith.. you know what ... some groups have a culture of excellence.. maybe the best way to beat them [if that is what you wanna do] is to be better than them... not target them... Yes so.. India was not a democracy till say the 1930's [internal government and stuff].. but municipal elections were in existence before that... and you might be aware that greece was not really a democracy [only rich free men voting.. I mean consensus.. yes.. democaracy as we know it no]... and the same can be said about all western countries till the 1930s-1960s.. [black voter registration in south US, rings a bell.. anyone??]. I think the important message here is that democracies are not perfect.. but they are better even in their most basic forms than any autocracy [kings, dictators etc]... The 'hegemony' of the raj lasted ~ 140 years [~1837- 1947.. get your facts right.. the same could be said of your numbers for the 'brahmin' domination of India.. quoting numbers that are 20 - 100 years old and calling them current is not honest The english language media in India is for the lack of a better words 'slavish'.. in that they will write and publish opinions that make many people in western countries feel better because they are told someone is doing worse than they are or is inferior to them [basic human nature].. the Indian english language media panders to this 'market' for bad news about India.. The US had such apologists too who write good things about european countries and denigrate the US cause 'gosh they are european so they must be culturally better'... never mind that all european countries except UK make efforts to not integrate their minorities and try to keep them economically underprivileged.. how many non-white senior management personnel are there in european countries.. compare that to the US and UK??.. Yes and about collusion between the democracies and "genocide".... maybe this subject should be discussed after examining the history of other countries like Nigeria, Pakistan, Sudan, ... and the list keeps on growing... and yes many of these countries are also "democracies".. well at least they claim they are.. So what is wrong with self determination for every group... that claims it deserves a separate state.. well for beginners.. bad currency, bad economics, multiple taxation, more nepotism, less standardization.. more poverty.. more corruption... and of course smaller, divided armies.. the reason why muslims could actually be militarily successful in India in the first place.. In conclusion... large countries with even half-decent democracies do far better than smaller divided... states.. and what about self-determination for people in gujrat.. which group wants it?? in Andhra pradesh.. well naxalites [communists] want to establish communism.. [yes.. in 2002]..punjab.. well have not heard that much lately as.. in the last 10 years.. Kashmir... refer to my last post...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]