This article has some scathing stuff. If true, these paint Modi govt in a very bad light. Sounds like complete abuse of power with no checks and balances.
> Analysis of the more than 1,000 mostly Indian phone numbers selected for potential targeting by the NSO client that hacked Kishor strongly indicate intelligence agencies within the Indian government were behind the selection.
> The phone number of a woman who accused India’s then chief justice of sexual harassment was selected shortly after her claims became public, along with 10 other numbers linked to her including those used by her husband and two other family members.
> Forensic analysis detected Pegasus activity as recently as this month on a phone used by Sushant Singh, a journalist who investigated a controversial billion-dollar contract awarded to one of Modi’s close allies in business to build a fleet of fighter jets with the French manufacturer Dassault.
> The Wire reporter Rohini Singh is facing civil and criminal defamation charges over an investigation she produced into the finances of the son of India’s home minister, Amit Shah. She was selected as a target over the two years ...
If the Radia tapes[1] didn't affect the Congress/UPA government, why would this affect Modi?
> Sounds like complete abuse of power with no checks and balances.
There are checks and balances. They are called elections.
The Indian constitution grants the government of the day an extraordinary amount of power. But the government is eventually formed by elected members of parliament.
If government uses its powers to suppress the opposition and prevent criticism of itself, then elections are not a check.
Elections also aren't a check for people who have already suffered from the oppression.
Governments operate under the rule of law and respect for democracy and human rights. 'To protect those rights, governments are instituted among men.' They serve the people with power delegated to them by the people. They aren't elected as temporary gods or kings.
> If government uses its powers to suppress the opposition
In what way is the opposition being suppressed? Other than the Congress which is suffering from a self-inflicted, mortal wound, the smaller parties are doing quite well in their own states.
> prevent criticism of itself
This statement has no basis in reality. The Hinduphobic left and their friends in media have done nothing but abuse the Modi government for seven straight years with zero consequences.
> people who have already suffered from the oppression
Who is being oppressed? In what way?
> Governments operate under the rule of law and respect for democracy and human rights.
Sure. That explains the benevolent nature of the Chinese/Iranian/Pakistani governments. And also why the US government keeps overthrowing other democratically elected governments, interfering in foreign elections and invading foreign countries to spread democracy while carpet bombing the local population.
Please.
Governments are entities that exercise a monopoly over violence within a certain territory. The nature of the government depends on those in power and those who get them there.
> Governments are entities that exercise a monopoly over violence within a certain territory. The nature of the government depends on those in power and those who get them there.
If you look at advanced democracies worldwide, which operate under the powers delegated to them, the rule of law and fundamentally exist to protect human rights, that's evidently not the case.
The question is, why would you want to believe differently? Why not embrace the great news that democracy works and prospers? Yes, it's not perfect yet - we have work to do to create a more perfect union. But certainly work on a grand project isn't accomplished by destroying it and starting over.
Journalists, professors (Kappan, Teltumbde) languishing in jail without trial on trumped up charges, and planted evidence indicates otherwise. A 84 year old Parkinson's patient (Stan Swamy) who couldn't feed himself water arrested on trumped up charges, held without trial, dying in jail indicates otherwise. Rampant doctoring and planting of evidence indicates otherwise. Lack of progress in investigations in killings of critics (Gauri Lankesh) indicates otherwise. Lack of progress in criminal proceedings against perpetrators of violence against JNU students caught on camera indicates otherwise.
I could keep going on giving examples till the cows come home.
> Journalists, professors (Kappan, Teltumbde) languishing in jail without trial on trumped up charges
Can you please tell the HN audience whether Teltumbde was able to approach the Supreme Court of India for relief and what the SC told him? Or are you also casting aspersions on the Supreme Court?
> A 84 year old Parkinson's patient (Stan Swamy) who couldn't feed himself water arrested on trumped up charges, held without trial, dying in jail indicates otherwise.
He died in a hospital.[1]
He was able to present his case before a court multiple times.
> I could keep going on giving examples till the cows come home.
A lie here, a half-truth there. I am sure you can find an infinite number of similar "examples."
The Supreme Court has been far from impartial (especially relevant, because one can see from this news story that calling Supreme court judges out for sexual harassments gets surveillance spyware installed on your devices). I am sure you know that Stan Swamy was denied bail although he posed no flight risk, was denied straw to drink water with because he could not hold tumblers without spilling all of the water and that he had been complaining about his health and that he was taken to hospital by the time his health had irreparably deteriorated, thanks to lack of attention to his medical complaints.
If your defense is picking on my shorthand to describe dying while in legal custody of a jail where he was being held without trial, under ludicrous trumped up charges, denied of bail, then I don't have much to add.
This is the exact reason a strong opposition is required. The opposition in India at the national level is an amalgamation of parties with no common interests or ideologies, other than that of being against the government in power. It is a travesty that the best policies are that of the government in power, despite all its overreaches
> the best policies are that of the government in power
Taking away Indians' freedoms, brutalizing minorities, upending the rule of law, promoting corruption ... I don't believe for a moment that Modi's policies are 'best'. India did very well under Congress before his election.
Unfortunately doing bad and good things is not mutually exclusive when talking about a single person, let alone when it's a group of people.
Whether the bad parts should be tolerated because of the good parts it's another matter (and given the things you're listed, I personally don't care about what good policies you do if that's the price to pay). that said we must be able to talk about policies and outcomes it their own right without tainting them with who has brought them.
> we must be able to talk about policies and outcomes it their own right without tainting them with who has brought them
I disagree. First, these are policies. Second, I don't care about the other policies unless human rights, including freedom and self-determination (democracy) are maintained.
This is exactly what I said in my comment (the part in parenthesis), but not phrased against the impersonal policies but against the people who happen to put forward awful things along with policies that would be otherwise good.
I think you don't really disagree, because disagreeing would mean that once somebody does something against human rights, everything else they touch must be also bad by definition, thus depriving all future generations of the possibility of doing something good just because they accidentally mentioned it? When it's claimed that Mussolini made run trains on time (which it's very likely a myth, but it doesn't matter for this argument), does it mean that having trains that run on time is a bad idea that can no longer be pursued least we associate ourselves with fascism? That would clearly be silly.
> disagreeing would mean that once somebody does something against human rights, everything else they touch must be also bad by definition, thus depriving all future generations of the possibility of doing something good just because they accidentally mentioned it
what on earth is this argument? to simplify this for you: if you deprive a subset of your population human rights and freedoms and allow a different subset to benefit from that injustice, it isn't a net good - it's supremacist.
It seems you're intentionally misunderstanding me.
Let me try again: Mr X invents the lightbulb, then kills his wife. I'm not saying Mr X invention of the lightbulb excuses him for having commited murder; I'm saying that the ligthbulb is a good invention despite the person who invented it and that other people can keep using it (while the inventor rots in jail).
This is an intentionally silly example because nobody sane will cancel a useful invention because of where it came from, but when we're talking about social policies they are often inextricably tainted by who proposed them and embraced them.
You're free to say "I don't care about this subtle point you're making because I'm so concerned about this freak depriving people of human rights that we don't have time to talk about this crap you're talking about". Fair enough. What I don't accept is that you're insinuating that I'm defending this kind of behaviour just because I'm making point you're not interested in.
Nationalist in the European context is clearly one language, one religion and one culture.
In the India context, nationalism is a unifying force finding a commonality beyond the hundreds of diverse languages and cultures that India is made of.
> In the India context, nationalism is a unifying force finding a commonality beyond the hundreds of diverse languages and cultures that India is made of.
You skipped the key plank of nationalist Indian politics - religion. Who are the new Jews of India? The backstabbers of the nation?
2. Indian muslims don't think of Hinduism as culturally superior
3. The vast majority were not forced at all. There have been only very few events of this nature.
Conservatism, all over the world, follows the same methodology. Fake and fantasy made up "history", identification of the "other" that must be eliminated, innate sense of superiority of the in group that the state must enforce, innate belief in hierarchy with little sympathy for those at the bottom.
3. The vast majority of conversion from native animist and dravidian religions also happened under hindu rule. Same holds for Buddhism in India. Islamic rule was not colonial.
1. Jews are semite people, you are confusing nationality with ethnicity.
2. ....... a significant percentage of xtian/Muslims mention somewhere around 30%
3. Syrian Christians in India pre date Christianity in Europe, yet it was insignificant until colonization. Buddhism in my view is a subset of Hinduism.
Islamic rule involved massive destruction of heritage, universities, libraries, temples, tributes to Perssia and the Caliphate, genocides and impossition of Persian script and Arabic, imposition of jizya.
He has overwhelming popularity because he is good at lying to people.
When it comes to state elections the Modi government has been getting creamed because his subordinates at the state level are not as good as lying to people.
I'm not saying the opposite or otherwise supporting Modi.
I was trying to make a more subtle point about our ability to discuss things without always being reminded of the all too important political struggles we all have to pay attention to. Your comment seems to prove my point that we all have this instinct of making sure everybody is reminded that if you just hint that somebody awful could perhaps accidentally have stumbled upon a policy that could make sense, you should never talk about that, otherwise you'll give your opponent a validation. I know, that's how we humans work. I'm just saying that sometimes it's a bit unfortunate that we do work that way.
Please look at the nick names of who makes comments. I was not the one bringing up the positives, I have no idea about anything in Indian politics, not indian, not living there either. I was just pointing out a logical fallacy in one replay because this is a forum of nerds and nerds love to pick nits. The world would be such a nicer place if people political fumes wouldn't intoxicate brains of otherwise sensible people.
In fact, my experience is the opposite with right-wing nationalist populists (Modi, Netanyahu, Orban, Trump, Boris Johnson to a significant degree, etc.): People don't talk about the political catastrophes; they talk about everything else.
One reason is that if you try to talk about the political catastrophes, people try to shut you down.
> could perhaps accidentally have stumbled upon a policy that could make sense
'but how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?'
> I'm not saying the opposite or otherwise supporting Modi.
I just said that it's a bit unfortunate that most of these discussions never really touch whether what GP said is true or false, i.e. whether the policies of the government are indeed best. Instead the answer points out how other policies are awful.
Now, I personally agree that those things listed are awful and I'd never support such political party.
But, logically, that is not an argument against what original GP said. I find it unfortunate that we are unable to talk about those things candidly.
> India did very well under Congress before his election.
Congress, is corrupt to the T. Everyone had enough of these vampires. BJP was the only other viable national party. But I agree the situation is not ideal. I pity the residents of this country they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Congress ruled from 1947 - 2014 for all but about 10 years. I cannot measure the scale of corruption, but an objective assessment of Indian governance would certainly say, which Political party casts a dark shadow.
Again, my goal is not misdirection, if BJP/Modi did anything stupid they should face the music. To paint Rahul, his mommy as some innocent by standers of a hawkish regime makes me laugh.
What Sonia did to Narasimha Rao was enough for me, to judge what her character or lack of it is.
care to explain what exactly Modi did? are you talking about some genocide like what Congress did during anti Sikh riots? Or how thousands of Kashmiri Pandits were raped and slaughtered? Or how about chemical castration during emergency Indira Gandhi did? It all happened during Congress rule.
> What Sonia did to Narasimha Rao was enough for me, to judge what her character or lack of it is.
Rao is one of the greatest prime ministers India has produced. He provided political cover to the liberalization policies that ended the Licence Raj in India (often attributed to Manmohan Singh alone). And this while running a minority government.
A brilliant man who was treated very badly by the Gandhis as well as the Congress party.
> India did very well under Congress before his election.
I was very young when I saw (and still remember) Congress party goons setting fire to Sikh homes in New Delhi. I heard stories of how congress party workers in Delhi butchered countless Sikhs. Please note that I am not defending Modi in any way and I despise right wing fascism everywhere.
Yeah. And then two people hijacked a plane to free Indira gandhi. This is the definition of terrorism as it is using violence for political purposes. Congress have those two party tickets and backed them in elections.
I also dislike that we have to constantly add "we are not defending modi". It comes from their belief that the only ones who criticize Congress are hindutva nationalists bigots. As if congress did nothing to receive the ire of the people.
Congress represents the dynastic aristocrats of a colonial vintage.
The BJP was built by the likes of Advani & Vajpayee many who were refugees of the Islamic partition of India, these are people who had built their own life from scratch.
Not to mention Modi the son of a tea seller, who rose to power on his own merit.
The BJP wins because it knows the grassroots where they come from, the congress and the left are elitist completely out of touch with reality.
I'd say... people were so sick, and tired of congress, that they voted in BJP for the lack of any alternative.
That's why @mynameismon is very correct. When the Congress finally crashed in nineties, there was no contender even for an empty seat. Even Basu (a freaking totalitarian himself,) who almost got the seat, himself decided against at the last second.
Congress too was a very authoritarian party in the past, as much as almost everybody else in the political arena. Indian politics were very violent prior up until 200x. There were no "good" party.
If you have no credible, genuine opposition, you will not have a choice in between good, and bad, but in between bad, and bad.
Take a good look on Indian political landscape in post-independence history, and you will understand that India, though all its 74 years of independent existence never had anything coming as an alternative to the Congress, that wasn't as authoritarian as Congress:
— JD, and United Front were stillborn, putting literally nothing on the table other than not being the Congress. Radiagate, Ranjan Bhattacharya.... list goes on.
— In WB, Basu was ordering hit jobs on the opposition, and his own fellow commies almost weekly.
— "In the liberal South" they had constant Blue/Red, and Hindu/Tamil violence, because local parties had nothing but the same caste/religion/race cards the BJP plays today.
— Maharashtra politics — gangsterland. It was, and still is
Just remember how blood the political violence in WB was during his reign. You think of hundred+ of political killings of Basu's opponents, and none were his doing? ...
First, their first wetwork began even before they assumed power. Hemantha Basu, Ajit Biswas, Sain family. CPI is still the prime suspect, killing their own leftwinger allies for the primacy in the red camp.
I have no coverage of seventies, but bloody must it be if it was described "a step away from civil war," with Naxals, CPI, Congers, and armed East Bengal refugees engaging in a free for all deathmatch.
Eighties were not less violent. Marichjhapi Massacre was not a political violence per-se, but a violence on behalf of CPI nevertheless. Then, we know Bijon Setu massacre, repeated against other novelty groups, with CPI being prime suspect through their obstruction of investigations.
Just to be sure I am full agreement with the incidents of violence that you mentioned, at least those that happened after I matured enough to follow news. Some you mention are older than that.
You may or may not agree but having lived through both I find that Modi regime (both at the state and the center) has seen not less, but more concentrated violence, not so much on political opponents, (Haren Pandya being a debatable case), but on minority citizens and citizens who have a different view.
Depends on your leaning. Modi is moving India away from the Socialist Democracy it used to be. And a lot of policies such as Land Acquisition act, Labour codes, Farm laws etc are progressive if you're capitalist leaning but probably retrograde if you're socialist.
It's possible we are seeing a global political shift, where that is exactly what identifies your leaning. We have seen an increase in authoritarianism (and support for authoritarianism) over the past 10 years [0][1].
Do you have citations? I don't see how any of those have been affected more so than any of the previous Congress governments. If you're talking about the various protests, the fact that they happen is proof that democracy is working. Just because someone doesn't agree with a government's policy doesn't mean democracy is dead. There hasn't been a Tianenmen square in New Delhi.
Modi’s policies uniformly have the same pattern: big announcement followed by a massive PR campaign, initial delivery, but later once media attention fades, either a quiet retraction or absent follow through.
This is either a pattern of grabbing media attention. Or its a symptom of an administration that has a single power center (Modi) and once his attention shifts, the policies and programs get ignored.
By policies, I mean
1. GST (Goods and Services Tax)
2. Revamp of Farm and agricultural laws
3. Revamp of the Education policies in favour of a more progressive policy
4. Promise of reforms of Land policies
and of that ilk.
Commonly cited as the reason for Indias economic decline along with demonetization.
> 2. Revamp of Farm and agricultural laws
There is no consensus that this is a good thing. Certainly not any good for farmers. Certainly very good for corporate farming, namely Ambani and Adani. Will the customers benefit? No idea!
> 3. Revamp of the Education policies in favour of a more progressive policy
??? Academic independence has been compromised. A 2000 crore pseudoscience ministry has been set up. Pseudoscience practitioners will now perform surgery. Indias top level research institutes are being granted generous funding for performing cow research. Texts praising Indian cows over Jersey cows are being distributed amongst school children, with claims of gold in Indian cows.
> 4. Promise of reforms of Land policies and of that ilk.
At this point it should be clear to you that you have made up your mind to speak favorably of Modi and are exhaustively searching for straws that will support your position.
If we end democracy, it doesn't matter. Dictators with good policies are just dictators - and historically, many have used their supposed beneficence and wisdom to justify themselves. And of course, who is to disagree with their policies - you're not allowed to.
And on top of that, looking around the world, there is no doubt what form of government correlates with good policy - power in the people's hands has by far the best record. And who can legitimately take it from us and impose their preferences on what the people want?
This government’s hare brained policies are the reason why Indians today are poorer than they were 5 years ago. At this point, there is no factual evidence at all to any claim that the government’s policies are actually effective
> Analysis of the more than 1,000 mostly Indian phone numbers selected for potential targeting by the NSO client that hacked Kishor strongly indicate intelligence agencies within the Indian government were behind the selection.
> The phone number of a woman who accused India’s then chief justice of sexual harassment was selected shortly after her claims became public, along with 10 other numbers linked to her including those used by her husband and two other family members.
> Forensic analysis detected Pegasus activity as recently as this month on a phone used by Sushant Singh, a journalist who investigated a controversial billion-dollar contract awarded to one of Modi’s close allies in business to build a fleet of fighter jets with the French manufacturer Dassault.
> The Wire reporter Rohini Singh is facing civil and criminal defamation charges over an investigation she produced into the finances of the son of India’s home minister, Amit Shah. She was selected as a target over the two years ...