monu nalapat, son of that nutty woman the neo-muslima kamala das suraiyya, has written a rather good, although slightly optimistic, column. i don't necessarily see the end of the nehruvian stalinist state yet. maybe the beginning of the end, but not the end. they have too much money flowing in from china, the vatican, the baptists and saudi arabia.
manju's comment is related to monu nalapat being at manipal university.
unfortunately, nalapat is right about vajpayee. the ELM kept calling him a mask: and he was -- a mask for nehruvianism, although personally a good man (actually nehru was also a good man, for he had the decency to die of shame when the chinese raped him in 1962, but he was also a USDA Grade A prize idiot). he wanted to be seen as a 'good guy', PLU (people like us) by the damned ELM and other communist/christist cabals.
there were several other pracchanna-nehruvians (crypto-nehruvians) in the BJP government, so that they spent a lot of their time sucking up to the ELM and to the mohammedans. modi is the one guy who doesn't give a rat's ass for nehru and his bullshit and is bold enough to say so; he doesn't give two hoots about nehru's offspring either, and treats the reigning nehru family empress with the respect (or lack thereof) that she deserves.
modi reflects a new india: one that is not impressed by white people or by the semitic cults.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Manju
Manipal is strong Hindu Nationalist place in coastral
karnataka.
A Hindu backlash hits Sonia Gandhi
MANIPAL, India, Dec. 26
M.D. NALAPAT
Column: Future Present
Since the advent of the rule of the Mughals a
millenium ago, central policy in India has
discriminated against the Hindu majority within the
country. The Mughals favored those of Turko-Iranian
origin, followed by those who converted to Islam. The
British, during two centuries of rule, implemented
policies that deprived all except those of European
origin of basic human rights.
Much has been made in Indian history texts of the
cruelty of the 1857 mutineers against colonial rule,
who killed around 300 individuals of European descent
during a brief spasm of violence. But little mention
is made of the retribution that followed, in which an
estimated 65,000 natives were killed, some from the
mouths of cannon. Several "rebel" villages were
torched, usually together with their inhabitants.
Neither has there been much reflection on the manner
in which British rule reduced India to poverty. From
around one-fourth of global output at the start of the
19th century, the share of the subcontinent fell to
one-tenth of that by the time the British flag was
lowered in New Delhi in 1947.
Independent India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal
Nehru, had been educated from boyhood in Britain. He
was so insecure after the British left that he
requested the last viceroy of India, Louis Mounbatten,
to remain as "free" India's first governor-general and
commander-in-chief of the armed forces. British
control over the Indian army helped to prevent the
full takeover of Kashmir by India in 1948, creating in
the process a sore that has festered ever since.
Nehru also relied on British economist Nicholas Kaldor
to fashion tax policies that punished the very
merchant class that had funded the Congress Party's
decades-long struggle against the British. Ironically,
the new government was as hostile to Indian
entrepreneurship as the colonial power had been, and
the country's economy was soon straitjacketed by a
"socialist pattern of society."
While laws were passed that overrode Hindu customs (
including, it must be said, retrogressive ones such as
caste), Nehru took care to exclude the Muslims and
other minority groups from such legislation, thus
retaining the separatist mindset which had resulted in
the creation of the "Muslim" state of Pakistan out of
"Hindu" India.
As a consequence of carrying forward policies that saw
the Hindus as a threat and therefore sought to place
them on a level below those of the minorities in
India, while Hindu temples are subject to state
control, churches, mosques and other minority houses
of worship remain free. Several ancient temples are
now administered by atheists or other non-Hindus in
states across the country, and the donations that pour
into them from Hindu devotees are sequestered by the
state. In education, while Hindu managements face
severe restrictions and controls, managements that are
Christian or Muslim escape almost all such
state-mandated limitations on their freedom.
Since Sonia Gandhi took over the governance of India
in 2004 and appointed a prime minister from a minority
faith, there has been an explicit bias in policy
favoring minority groups at the expense of the Hindu
majority, and a conscious effort to sideline officials
seen as "practicing Hindus" -- those who regularly
visit temples -- on the grounds that they are "Hindu
fanatics."
By contrast, almost none of the numerous bomb
explosions that have taken place in Congress-ruled
cities across India -- such as Mumbai, Delhi and
Hyderabad -- have been traced to the perpetrators,
because of an informal prohibition against
"stereotyping" that prevents the police from intensive
investigations in the mainly Muslim localities where
the perpetrators are believed to be sheltering.
Such "partial" secularism, in which only Hindus are
expected to be secular while Muslims and other
minorities remain free to practice exclusionary
practices, has led to a Hindu backlash across India.
This found its first major expression in the Dec. 23
verdict of the electorate of Gujarat state, who
re-elected the state's chief minister, Narendra Modi,
despite a well-funded rebellion within the ranks of
his own party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, as well as
the enmity of almost the entire television and print
media.
The media correctly see him as posing a possibly fatal
challenge to the Nehruvian policies that were embraced
by the first BJP prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee,
who was as deferential toward Sonia Gandhi's interests
as members of her own Congress Party had been in the
past. Modi thus challenges not only Sonia Gandhi but
the Vajpayee cohort in his own party, who have for
decades enjoyed a cozy and lucrative relationship with
the Nehrus.
Despite occasional public posturing, in practice, the
present crop of BJP leaders has been content to share
in the spoils of the present Nehruvian state system.
All, that is, except Narendra Modi, who defied his
party leadership in making Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan
Singh -- both of whom, being Christian and Sikh
respectively, belong to minority groups -- the target
of his verbal barbs, despite strictures from the
Sonia-friendly Election Commission.
Wresting Gujarat from this potent challenger was
crucial to the continued salience of Nehruism, but the
strength of the Hindu backlash against policies that
penalize the majority community ensured a handsome
win. The results have led to apprehension throughout
the Nehruvian establishment, including almost the
whole of the English-language media, that "Moditva"
may spread to other states.
It may even within the next five years lead to a
takeover of the central government by the Gujarat
chief minister, who comes from near the bottom of the
Hindu caste ladder, but who has emerged as the
favorite of tens of millions of Hindus irrespective of
caste, who seek parity with the minorities in running
their houses of worship or educational and other
institutions.
As Malaysia has shown, the advent of globalization and
the demonstrated ability of Hindus to compete with the
rest of the world have led to a renewal of confidence
in a community of 840 million that has been kept at
the margins for more than a millennium. The message of
Gujarat is that the cry for parity by the Hindu
community in India has become a political wave that
could upset the Nehruvian system of partial secularism
that has prevailed in India since 1947. Dec. 23, 2007
is a genuine turning point in the politics of the
world's largest democracy.
From: Manju
Manipal is strong Hindu Nationalist place in coastral
karnataka.
A Hindu backlash hits Sonia Gandhi
MANIPAL, India, Dec. 26
M.D. NALAPAT
Column: Future Present
Since the advent of the rule of the Mughals a
millenium ago, central policy in India has
discriminated against the Hindu majority within the
country. The Mughals favored those of Turko-Iranian
origin, followed by those who converted to Islam. The
British, during two centuries of rule, implemented
policies that deprived all except those of European
origin of basic human rights.
Much has been made in Indian history texts of the
cruelty of the 1857 mutineers against colonial rule,
who killed around 300 individuals of European descent
during a brief spasm of violence. But little mention
is made of the retribution that followed, in which an
estimated 65,000 natives were killed, some from the
mouths of cannon. Several "rebel" villages were
torched, usually together with their inhabitants.
Neither has there been much reflection on the manner
in which British rule reduced India to poverty. From
around one-fourth of global output at the start of the
19th century, the share of the subcontinent fell to
one-tenth of that by the time the British flag was
lowered in New Delhi in 1947.
Independent India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal
Nehru, had been educated from boyhood in Britain. He
was so insecure after the British left that he
requested the last viceroy of India, Louis Mounbatten,
to remain as "free" India's first governor-general and
commander-in-chief of the armed forces. British
control over the Indian army helped to prevent the
full takeover of Kashmir by India in 1948, creating in
the process a sore that has festered ever since.
Nehru also relied on British economist Nicholas Kaldor
to fashion tax policies that punished the very
merchant class that had funded the Congress Party's
decades-long struggle against the British. Ironically,
the new government was as hostile to Indian
entrepreneurship as the colonial power had been, and
the country's economy was soon straitjacketed by a
"socialist pattern of society."
While laws were passed that overrode Hindu customs (
including, it must be said, retrogressive ones such as
caste), Nehru took care to exclude the Muslims and
other minority groups from such legislation, thus
retaining the separatist mindset which had resulted in
the creation of the "Muslim" state of Pakistan out of
"Hindu" India.
As a consequence of carrying forward policies that saw
the Hindus as a threat and therefore sought to place
them on a level below those of the minorities in
India, while Hindu temples are subject to state
control, churches, mosques and other minority houses
of worship remain free. Several ancient temples are
now administered by atheists or other non-Hindus in
states across the country, and the donations that pour
into them from Hindu devotees are sequestered by the
state. In education, while Hindu managements face
severe restrictions and controls, managements that are
Christian or Muslim escape almost all such
state-mandated limitations on their freedom.
Since Sonia Gandhi took over the governance of India
in 2004 and appointed a prime minister from a minority
faith, there has been an explicit bias in policy
favoring minority groups at the expense of the Hindu
majority, and a conscious effort to sideline officials
seen as "practicing Hindus" -- those who regularly
visit temples -- on the grounds that they are "Hindu
fanatics."
By contrast, almost none of the numerous bomb
explosions that have taken place in Congress-ruled
cities across India -- such as Mumbai, Delhi and
Hyderabad -- have been traced to the perpetrators,
because of an informal prohibition against
"stereotyping" that prevents the police from intensive
investigations in the mainly Muslim localities where
the perpetrators are believed to be sheltering.
Such "partial" secularism, in which only Hindus are
expected to be secular while Muslims and other
minorities remain free to practice exclusionary
practices, has led to a Hindu backlash across India.
This found its first major expression in the Dec. 23
verdict of the electorate of Gujarat state, who
re-elected the state's chief minister, Narendra Modi,
despite a well-funded rebellion within the ranks of
his own party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, as well as
the enmity of almost the entire television and print
media.
The media correctly see him as posing a possibly fatal
challenge to the Nehruvian policies that were embraced
by the first BJP prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee,
who was as deferential toward Sonia Gandhi's interests
as members of her own Congress Party had been in the
past. Modi thus challenges not only Sonia Gandhi but
the Vajpayee cohort in his own party, who have for
decades enjoyed a cozy and lucrative relationship with
the Nehrus.
Despite occasional public posturing, in practice, the
present crop of BJP leaders has been content to share
in the spoils of the present Nehruvian state system.
All, that is, except Narendra Modi, who defied his
party leadership in making Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan
Singh -- both of whom, being Christian and Sikh
respectively, belong to minority groups -- the target
of his verbal barbs, despite strictures from the
Sonia-friendly Election Commission.
Wresting Gujarat from this potent challenger was
crucial to the continued salience of Nehruism, but the
strength of the Hindu backlash against policies that
penalize the majority community ensured a handsome
win. The results have led to apprehension throughout
the Nehruvian establishment, including almost the
whole of the English-language media, that "Moditva"
may spread to other states.
It may even within the next five years lead to a
takeover of the central government by the Gujarat
chief minister, who comes from near the bottom of the
Hindu caste ladder, but who has emerged as the
favorite of tens of millions of Hindus irrespective of
caste, who seek parity with the minorities in running
their houses of worship or educational and other
institutions.
As Malaysia has shown, the advent of globalization and
the demonstrated ability of Hindus to compete with the
rest of the world have led to a renewal of confidence
in a community of 840 million that has been kept at
the margins for more than a millennium. The message of
Gujarat is that the cry for parity by the Hindu
community in India has become a political wave that
could upset the Nehruvian system of partial secularism
that has prevailed in India since 1947. Dec. 23, 2007
is a genuine turning point in the politics of the
world's largest democracy.
5 comments:
Rajeev,
Gujarat gave us a Gandhi a century ago. It needs to make up for that mistake. It now owes us a Modi.
Sadly, I have to agree with nizhal yoddha. In fact I am even more pessimistic. I actually think that there is a chance that Modi could get whacked. He's way too dangerous now to the maino clan. The mainos have a lot of very dangerous people on their payroll and in cahoots with them. What else can the mainos do? Modi is a pretty big obstacle to their goals, and what do the mainos do to people who get in their way?
The media will make everyone forget.
Kaunteya
Exactly my thoughts… Gujarat gave us a Gandhi and a Jinnah, two scoundrels responsible for partition and death of millions of Hindus/Sikhs. So now it is trying to make up for that blunder by giving Hindus a no nonsense leader like Modi. Can he live up to the expectation? Can he go to the top and reverse the rot created in last 60 years? Only time will tell. Atleast he is moving in the right direction.
Just like there are well-dressed foolish ideas, there are well-dressed fools. Nehruvian socialism/secularism are in the former category, while numerous Kaangressis/Sardessis (TM) are in the latter - the latter propping up the former.
Modi speaks for the voiceless millions, who've recognized that Nehru's children are "All Hat and no Cattle" and won't take the crap dished out by them anymore. This is just the beginning, as Rajeev says. Since turkeys have never voted for Thanksgiving, expect this idea-yuddh to be long and hard- fought. Satyameva Jayate!
gujarat just didn't give gandhi & jinnah but also sardar patel.
coming to the demise of the nehruvian/secular/marxist cabal, i agree with rajeev, it is still a long haul. These guys wont go away so easily. and dont forget that gujarat is just one state. the rest of the states are ruled by a bunch of nerds, more or less.
Post a Comment