#BJP allies

[newspaper12]

Nitish Kumar speaks of 'friendship' with BJP leader, ally plays down remark - Times of India

Nitish Kumar speaks

Nitish Kumar speaks :- MOTIHARI: Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar on Thursday whereas pointing in the direction of a BJP chief from the stage stated "All of the folks we've right here, are our pals. You'll stay linked to me so long as I dwell." Nitish was talking on the convocation ceremony of Mahatma Gandhi Central College in Motihari. "All of the folks we've listed here are our pals. We're completely different, you're completely different, does it imply our friendship will finish? You'll stay linked to me so long as I dwell. We are going to all work collectively. President, we're very pleased that you're right here. We want you to maintain coming right here. We are going to present you the whole Champaran as soon as, the land of Mahatma Gandhi," Nitish Kumar stated. The RJD, an ally of Nitish Kumar, nevertheless, performed down the feedback saying the Bihar chief minister was talking of his private relationships. "Radha Mohan Singh (of BJP) was sitting in entrance, so he spoke about his private relationship. There isn't a point out of any occasion. Individuals interpreted him incorrectly" stated RJD's Shakti Yadav. The BJP additionally distanced itself from the feedback and stated it has no connection any extra with Nitish Kumar. "Nitish Kumar has left, we've requested him to go away. BJP clearly believes that we're collectively in growth however there's a struggle on rules. Amit Shah has stated that he has no reference to Nitish Kumar" stated Saket Choudhary the state BJP chief. President Droupadi Murmu and governor Rajendra Vishwanath have been additionally current on the stage. Immediately is the second day of President Murmu's go to to Bihar. President Droupadi Murmu had on Wednesday inaugurated the state's fourth agriculture highway map geared toward enhancing agriculture manufacturing in Patna. In her deal with, she acknowledged that agriculture is a vital a part of the people tradition of Bihar and the premise of its financial system. Whereas launching the Krishi highway map President Murmu stated that farmers of Bihar are identified for adopting new experiments in farming noting {that a} Nobel laureate economist had referred to as the farmers of Nalanda "larger than scientists". "Because of the implementation of the final three agricultural highway maps, the productiveness of paddy, wheat and maize within the state has virtually doubled. Bihar has additionally turn into a number one state within the manufacturing of mushrooms, honey, makhana (fox nuts) and fish. The launch of the fourth Agriculture Highway Map is a vital step in the direction of taking this effort ahead," President Murmu stated. The President urged farmers of Bihar to reap the benefits of the rising demand for natural merchandise. #Nitish #Kumar #speaks #friendship #BJP #chief #ally #performs #comment #Instances #India Nitish Kumar speaks of 'friendship' with BJP chief, ally performs down comment - Instances of India Read the full article

[reasonsforhope]

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is, by some measures, the most popular leader in the world. Prior to the 2024 election, his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) held an outright majority in the Lok Sabha (India’s Parliament) — one that was widely projected to grow after the vote count. The party regularly boasted that it would win 400 Lok Sabha seats, easily enough to amend India’s constitution along the party's preferred Hindu nationalist lines.

But when the results were announced on Tuesday, the BJP held just 240 seats. They not only underperformed expectations, they actually lost their parliamentary majority. While Modi will remain prime minister, he will do so at the helm of a coalition government — meaning that he will depend on other parties to stay in office, making it harder to continue his ongoing assault on Indian democracy.

So what happened? Why did Indian voters deal a devastating blow to a prime minister who, by all measures, they mostly seem to like?

India is a massive country — the most populous in the world — and one of the most diverse, making its internal politics exceedingly complicated. A definitive assessment of the election would require granular data on voter breakdown across caste, class, linguistic, religious, age, and gender divides. At present, those numbers don’t exist in sufficient detail. 

But after looking at the information that is available and speaking with several leading experts on Indian politics, there are at least three conclusions that I’m comfortable drawing.

First, voters punished Modi for putting his Hindu nationalist agenda ahead of fixing India’s unequal economy. Second, Indian voters had some real concerns about the decline of liberal democracy under BJP rule. Third, the opposition parties waged a smart campaign that took advantage of Modi’s vulnerabilities on the economy and democracy.

Understanding these factors isn’t just important for Indians. The country’s election has some universal lessons for how to beat a would-be authoritarian — ones that Americans especially might want to heed heading into its election in November.

-via Vox, June 7, 2024. Article continues below.

A new (and unequal) economy

Modi’s biggest and most surprising losses came in India’s two most populous states: Uttar Pradesh in the north and Maharashtra in the west. Both states had previously been BJP strongholds — places where the party’s core tactic of pitting the Hindu majority against the Muslim minority had seemingly cemented Hindu support for Modi and his allies.

One prominent Indian analyst, Yogendra Yadav, saw the cracks in advance. Swimming against the tide of Indian media, he correctly predicted that the BJP would fall short of a governing majority.

Traveling through the country, but especially rural Uttar Pradesh, he prophesied “the return of normal politics”: that Indian voters were no longer held spellbound by Modi’s charismatic nationalist appeals and were instead starting to worry about the way politics was affecting their lives.

Yadav’s conclusions derived in no small part from hearing voters’ concerns about the economy. The issue wasn’t GDP growth — India’s is the fastest-growing economy in the world — but rather the distribution of growth’s fruits. While some of Modi’s top allies struck it rich, many ordinary Indians suffered. Nearly half of all Indians between 20 and 24 are unemployed; Indian farmers have repeatedly protested Modi policies that they felt hurt their livelihoods.

“Everyone was talking about price rise, unemployment, the state of public services, the plight of farmers, [and] the struggles of labor,” Yadav wrote...

“We know for sure that Modi’s strongman image and brassy self-confidence were not as popular with voters as the BJP assumed,” says Sadanand Dhume, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who studies India. 

The lesson here isn’t that the pocketbook concerns trump identity-based appeals everywhere; recent evidence in wealthier democracies suggests the opposite is true. Rather, it’s that even entrenched reputations of populist leaders are not unshakeable. When they make errors, even some time ago, it’s possible to get voters to remember these mistakes and prioritize them over whatever culture war the populist is peddling at the moment.

Liberalism strikes back

The Indian constitution is a liberal document: It guarantees equality of all citizens and enshrines measures designed to enshrine said equality into law. The signature goal of Modi’s time in power has been to rip this liberal edifice down and replace it with a Hindu nationalist model that pushes non-Hindus to the social margins. In pursuit of this agenda, the BJP has concentrated power in Modi’s hands and undermined key pillars of Indian democracy (like a free press and independent judiciary).

Prior to the election, there was a sense that Indian voters either didn’t much care about the assault on liberal democracy or mostly agreed with it. But the BJP’s surprising underperformance suggests otherwise.

The Hindu, a leading Indian newspaper, published an essential post-election data analysis breaking down what we know about the results. One of the more striking findings is that the opposition parties surged in parliamentary seats reserved for members of “scheduled castes” — the legal term for Dalits, the lowest caste grouping in the Hindu hierarchy.

Caste has long been an essential cleavage in Indian politics, with Dalits typically favoring the left-wing Congress party over the BJP (long seen as an upper-caste party). Under Modi, the BJP had seemingly tamped down on the salience of class by elevating all Hindus — including Dalits — over Muslims. Yet now it’s looking like Dalits were flocking back to Congress and its allies. Why?

According to experts, Dalit voters feared the consequences of a BJP landslide. If Modi’s party achieved its 400-seat target, they’d have more than enough votes to amend India’s constitution. Since the constitution contains several protections designed to promote Dalit equality — including a first-in-the-world affirmative action system — that seemed like a serious threat to the community. It seems, at least based on preliminary data, that they voted accordingly.

The Dalit vote is but one example of the ways in which Modi’s brazen willingness to assail Indian institutions likely alienated voters.

Uttar Pradesh (UP), India’s largest and most electorally important state, was the site of a major BJP anti-Muslim campaign. It unofficially kicked off its campaign in the UP city of Ayodhya earlier this year, during a ceremony celebrating one of Modi’s crowning achievements: the construction of a Hindu temple on the site of a former mosque that had been torn down by Hindu nationalists in 1992. 

Yet not only did the BJP lose UP, it specifically lost the constituency — the city of Faizabad — in which the Ayodhya temple is located. It’s as direct an electoral rebuke to BJP ideology as one can imagine.

In Maharashtra, the second largest state, the BJP made a tactical alliance with a local politician, Ajit Pawar, facing serious corruption charges. Voters seemingly punished Modi’s party for turning a blind eye to Pawar’s offenses against the public trust. Across the country, Muslim voters turned out for the opposition to defend their rights against Modi’s attacks.

The global lesson here is clear: Even popular authoritarians can overreach.

By turning “400 seats” into a campaign slogan, an all-but-open signal that he intended to remake the Indian state in his illiberal image, Modi practically rang an alarm bell for constituencies worried about the consequences. So they turned out to stop him en masse.

The BJP’s electoral underperformance is, in no small part, the direct result of their leader’s zealotry going too far.

Return of the Gandhis? 

Of course, Modi’s mistakes might not have mattered had his rivals failed to capitalize. The Indian opposition, however, was far more effective than most observers anticipated.

Perhaps most importantly, the many opposition parties coordinated with each other. Forming a united bloc called INDIA (Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance), they worked to make sure they weren’t stealing votes from each other in critical constituencies, positioning INDIA coalition candidates to win straight fights against BJP rivals.

The leading party in the opposition bloc — Congress — was also more put together than people thought. Its most prominent leader, Rahul Gandhi, was widely dismissed as a dilettante nepo baby: a pale imitation of his father Rajiv and grandmother Indira, both former Congress prime ministers. Now his critics are rethinking things.

“I owe Rahul Gandhi an apology because I seriously underestimated him,” says Manjari Miller, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Miller singled out Gandhi’s yatras (marches) across India as a particularly canny tactic. These physically grueling voyages across the length and breadth of India showed that he wasn’t just a privileged son of Indian political royalty, but a politician willing to take risks and meet ordinary Indians where they were. During the yatras, he would meet directly with voters from marginalized groups and rail against Modi’s politics of hate.

“The persona he’s developed — as somebody kind, caring, inclusive, [and] resolute in the face of bullying — has really worked and captured the imagination of younger India,” says Suryanarayan. “If you’ve spent any time on Instagram Reels, [you’ll see] an entire generation now waking up to Rahul Gandhi’s very appealing videos.”

This, too, has a lesson for the rest of the world: Tactical innovation from the opposition matters even in an unfair electoral context.

There is no doubt that, in the past 10 years, the BJP stacked the political deck against its opponents. They consolidated control over large chunks of the national media, changed campaign finance law to favor themselves, suborned the famously independent Indian Electoral Commission, and even intimidated the Supreme Court into letting them get away with it. 

The opposition, though, managed to find ways to compete even under unfair circumstances. Strategic coordination between them helped consolidate resources and ameliorate the BJP cash advantage. Direct voter outreach like the yatra helped circumvent BJP dominance in the national media.

To be clear, the opposition still did not win a majority. Modi will have a third term in office, likely thanks in large part to the ways he rigged the system in his favor.

Yet there is no doubt that the opposition deserves to celebrate. Modi’s power has been constrained and the myth of his invincibility wounded, perhaps mortally. Indian voters, like those in Brazil and Poland before them, have dealt a major blow to their homegrown authoritarian faction.

And that is something worth celebrating.

-via Vox, June 7, 2024.

[wherestoriescomefrom]

Seldom before has there been so much joy in the shadow of defeat. But as the results of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections began to trickle in on Tuesday morning, the smiles and good cheer began to heat up an already sultry day. Not since the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act in 2019 has India allowed itself what former US President Barack Obama described as the audacity of hope.

Of course, even though the Bharatiya Janata Party has fallen short of a majority, Narendra Modi has taken it close enough to the halfway mark to form the new government. However, in its enfeebled state, propped up by allies who know the precise cost of their support, the new BJP administration will be forced to temper its bluster and contain its malevolence against those it considers its enemies. Among those the BJP has considered its adversaries are independent journalists, several of whom have been jailed and prosecuted simply for doing their jobs.

This result will undoubtedly trigger a tectonic shift in the BJP. There is no telling how the pieces will fall. As long-supressed aspirations in the Hindutva party shoot to the surface, perhaps even more hardline leaders will assume prominence.

But as reports from the ground have pointed out, this mandate is a rejection of the illiberal agenda, both social and economic, that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has advanced over the past decade. By ignoring Modi’s provocations of mangalsutras, machli and mujras, Indian voters – especially the most marginalised – have decisively rallied to the defence of the Constitution.

The battle to reclaim the idea of an equitable India is far from being won. But as Tuesday demonstrated, there are many who dream of reinforcing the foundations of a Republic based on the values of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. For now, India can breathe again.

— The Audacity of Hope, Scroll Editor's Note.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Hannah Ellis-Petersen at The Guardian:

Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata party has lost its parliamentary majority, dealing an unexpected blow to the prime minister and forcing him to negotiate with coalition partners in order to return to power. With all votes counted early on Wednesday morning, it was clear that the landslide for the BJP predicted in polls had not materialised and instead there had been a pushback against the strongman prime minister and his Hindu nationalist politics in swathes of the country. The party lost 62 seats, bringing its total down to 240, below the 272 required for a parliamentary majority. It is the first time since Modi was elected in 2014 that the BJP has not won a clear majority on its own. Nonetheless, together with its political allies, known as the national democratic alliance (NDA), its win amounts to about 292 seats, which is enough to form a majority government to rule for the next five years and return Modi to office for a third term.

Meanwhile, the opposition alliance, which goes by the acronym INDIA, far outperformed expectations, collectively winning more than 230 seats. The alliance, formed of more than 20 national and regional opposition parties, had come together for the first time in this election with the aim of defeating Modi.

Incumbent Indian PM Narendra Modi and his right-wing BJP won the most seats, but not enough to gain a majority on its own in the recent election in India. Modi is likely to remain PM, as his coalition partners National Democratic Alliance are likely to cobble a majority.

[nando161mando]

remember that brahminism is a form of colonialism too and savarnas can't just move past caste merely by losing their last names, supporting affirmative action, voting out modi/bjp or being allies to the oppressed generally: they have to give up the wealth they stole, and power over territories they have violently occupied.

they have to change their relationship with the oppressed materially, by actively transferring assets they have stolen from bahujan communities and the surpluses they have "earned" by enslaving them for centuries, and by resisting other savarnas who come in the way of this.

[tomorrowusa]

This is a good idea...

Ban fossil fuel ads to save climate, says UN chief

Tobacco ads were banned on TV and radio in the early 1970s in the United States. That began a process of denormalization of tobacco which has continued in the years since then.

Climate change likely played a role in India's national election.

The hidden story behind India’s remarkable election results: lethal heat

The Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), led by India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, has won more seats than the opposition alliance, and yet its victory tastes of defeat. Why? In the days leading to the election, the BJP’s main slogan had been Abki baar, 400 Paar, a call to voters to send more than 400 of its candidates to the 543-member parliament. This slogan, voiced by Modi at his campaign rallies, set a high bar for the party. Most exit polls had predicted a massive victory for the BJP – and now the results, with that party having won only 240 seats, suggest that the electorate has sent a chastening message to the ruling party and trimmed its hubris. [ ... ] People in Patna voted on 1 June, the last day of the seven-phase polling schedule. In Patna, the temperature had hovered above 40C. Local newspapers carried government ads exhorting voters to exercise their franchise, as well as half-page ads from the health ministry offering advice about how to avoid heatstroke. In the days leading to the voting in Patna, there were reports of personnel at polling stations dying from the heat. In the nation’s capital, Delhi, there were protests over water shortages. Last week, the temperature in Delhi hit 49.9C.

For the Celsius-challenged, 49.9° C = 121.8° F. That's just 0.2° F short of the all time record high temperature in Phoenix, Arizona which reputedly has "dry" heat.

As it turned out the ruling BJP did win the election but will be able to govern only with the help of electoral allies. The BJP had been boasting about getting 400 seats in the 543 seat Lok Sabha - the lower house of parliament. It ended up with just 240 with its allies winning 53 for a total of 293 seats. It is a modest working majority but is way down from the 353 seats won by the BJP & allies in the previous election.

Climate was certainly not the only issue in the election but experiencing a severe heat wave in which people were dropping dead at polling places is bound to have an impact. Politicians in India may now be more open to moving away from fossil fuels. The opposition would be wise to make climate change a bigger issue.

[mariacallous]

India’s election calculus is tricky. When Narendra Modi led the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to power in 2014, he increased his party’s parliamentary seat tally to 282 from 116, essentially by gaining 12 percentage points of the popular vote. It was the first time since 1984 that a single Indian party won enough seats to form a government on its own.

The Indian National Congress party led the ruling coalition that Modi and the BJP defeated in 2014; the party’s vote share fell by 9 percentage points, but its seats dropped from 206 to a mere 44. Five years later, the BJP’s vote share rose again, to 37 percent, giving Modi’s party 303 seats. Congress increased its number of seats to 52, but as in 2014, that wasn’t even enough to merit a formal leader of the opposition in parliament.

In the six-week national election that concluded this month, the BJP’s vote share dropped only marginally, to around 36 percent, but its number of seats fell dramatically, to 240—causing the party to lose its majority. Although Congress’s vote share rose modestly to around 21 percent, its seats increased to 99. As a result, India will have an official leader of the opposition for the first time in a decade. Rahul Gandhi, the Congress party leader and heir to India’s most illustrious political dynasty, may well play that role.

That may seem like a small achievement for India’s beleaguered opposition—and the election result was still the third-worst performance for Congress since India’s first vote in 1952—but it represents a change surprising and seismic enough for some analysts to conclude that Modi’s latest victory was “Pyrrhic,” and that the opposition now has a foundation to win in 2029. As the former British Prime Minister Harold Wilson quipped, “A week is a long time in politics”—and five years an eternity.

In 2029, Modi will be 78 years old, but this year, he still ran a campaign based on his own record and personality. The BJP’s manifesto included more than 50 photographs of Modi. Much commentary about the results has focused on Modi’s declining popularity. Given his political dominance, it is natural for his critics to enjoy a moment of schadenfreude. On the campaign trail, Modi’s rhetoric sounded more shrill, critical of minorities, and insulting toward his opponents; during the election, he even implied that he was divinely ordained to lead India.

This year’s election has also undermined the argument that Modi’s main rival, Rahul Gandhi, is a political lightweight overwhelmed by India’s complexities. Gandhi is descended from three former prime ministers, including India’s first, Jawaharlal Nehru. (His mother, Sonia, serves in the upper house of parliament.) Now 54, Gandhi has been a member of parliament since 2004, winning six of the seven elections that he has contested. Yet the BJP has carried out a relentless and remarkably effective propaganda campaign against him. Modi has described him as a shehzada, or crown prince, while BJP ministers have dismissed him as Pappu, a pejorative term for a young boy of limited intelligence.

Unlike Modi, Gandhi does not assert that he has all the answers; he listens, an approach that may have helped him during the election. He likes to engage the public, and since September 2022 he has led two long marches across the country—the Bharat Jodo Yatra (Unite India March) and the Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra (Unite India for Justice March)—that electrified the masses and transformed his image. According to some estimates, Gandhi wrested 41 parliamentary seats from areas where he marched. He talked to constituents, listened to voters, and spoke about social justice, women’s emancipation, empowering the weak and the dispossessed, and bringing people together.

Those topics may seem mawkish, but India’s last decade has been a period of considerable strife. Discrimination against Muslims has grown, with mosques targeted or claimed by Hindus, homes bulldozed, and interfaith marriages discouraged. The triumphal inauguration of a Hindu temple—sanctioned by the Indian Supreme Court—on the site of a mosque razed in 1992 only further alienated Muslims. The BJP’s policy of imposing the Hindi language in states where it is not spoken widely has fueled animosity. Youth unemployment has risen in many parts of the country, along with inequality.

As in the past, Modi’s campaign focused on divisive issues—but more voters than in the last two elections seemed to listen to Gandhi this time around. These voters likely don’t care about more Indians being listed in global rankings of billionaires; they are uninterested in gleaming high-rises and malls, speedier trains, superior airports, or toll roads connecting long distances. Their concerns are for more access to water, food, electricity, jobs, and justice. Gandhi seemed to fashion the Congress manifesto to respond to those concerns.

This is not to suggest that, if elected to power, the Congress party would meet these perennial needs. Having ruled India for 54 of its 76 years since independence, Congress must bear the blame for India’s lack of development. The party deserves credit for introducing economic liberalization in 1991, but its support for free-market reforms has often been cautious rather than enthusiastic. Furthermore, although Gandhi speaks of harmony, there have been several disturbances under Congress party rule in India—the most notorious being the massacre of Sikhs in 1984 in retaliatory violence after the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, Rahul’s grandmother.

Nonetheless, Gandhi’s spirited campaign, decency, and collegiality stood in marked contrast to Modi’s personalized and abrasive style. Gandhi seemed to avoid a personality cult by building a consensus-driven campaign and not projecting himself as the face of the opposition alliance. In the leadup to the election, he continued to be ridiculed as an entitled politician, but he focused on his message. And wherever he marched, he chipped votes away from the BJP. One analysis showed that between 600,000 and 700,000 votes going the other way in 30 constituencies would have led to a different outcome.

The BJP has portrayed itself as pro-business, and analysts sympathetic to the BJP have described Congress as leftist, with BJP leaders reinforcing the link. Indeed, Congress introduced many welfare schemes for the poor—but the BJP has not canceled any of them during its time in power and has increased support for some programs. Historically, Congress was a centrist or center-left party reliant on the support of Indian businesses that pursued a prudent fiscal policy. The party was distrustful of private capital and free-market economics. But it was also Congress that took early steps in liberalization, invested in technology, and boosted India’s telecoms network.

For Congress, the road ahead remains long, but its rejuvenation raises interesting possibilities. Most Indian voters are too young to remember a Gandhi—or Nehru—as prime minister. Now, there could soon be three Gandhis in parliament: On Tuesday, Rahul Gandhi’s sister, Priyanka, announced that she would contest one of the two seats that her brother won during this election. Some observers see Priyanka as more charismatic and savvier than Rahul.

Furthermore, a sizable segment of India’s population is under the age of 30, and this generation has rising expectations and aspirations—including an impatience to get rich. Can Congress reinvent itself as India’s so-called banyan tree party that includes everyone under its shade? The BJP offers a muscular nationalism with angry overtones; Gandhi promises that he wants to revive an older idea of India, based on equality and tolerance. Do these younger voters want a calmer, gentler India?

Indian politics has entered a new phase, and the time to ignore Rahul Gandhi may be over. He may still never become India’s prime minister—after all, it seems unlikely that someone from the Gandhi family would want to lead a shaky coalition. But even if he simply persists in emphasizing equality, justice, and empathy, Gandhi will have played a transformative role in Indian politics.

The last decade has shown India’s angry and assertive side, but its founding fathers built the country’s reputation as a soft power that punched above its weight. Reclaiming such moral authority has its virtues. The rules are changing in India, and Gandhi may not only be the son who rises, but also the son who surprises.

[chappellrroan]

Bjp still won, yes, with the support of the allies and not by themselves but they still won, and that's what matters. Go fuck yourself, bitch

aww i would've neveeeerrr guessed that with the way you're crying in my inbox baby

[his-heart-hymns]

Sooo what is your opinion on today's election results??👀

I was really surprised! I didn't have any idea that the INDI alliance would win around 230 seats. I think they are surprised too. 😂And we still don't know what the outcome is going to be, because BJP unlike 2019, doesn't have that 273 majority mark all alone. It's dependent on Nitish Kumar, Naidu, and other smaller parties. And Nitish Kumar is not a reliable partner at all,he can change sides at any moment😁and Naidu is an old Congress ally. So the INDIA alliance has some chances. Even if they don't form a government, at least we would have a strong opposition. And the most important thing is now BJP doesn't enjoy that elbow room because they don't have a majority of their own; they cannot pass bills arbitrarily. They now have to satisfy all of their allies, something BJP doesn't like. In short, authoritarianism would be under control.

Aur political opinion puch rahe ho,anonymous rehke,bade shaane ho.Matlab kuch honga toh mujhe honga.🤣🤣🤣

[votermood]

Yogi Adityanath’s slogan speaks to the BJP’s support base, but the party’s allies fear consolidation of minority communities behind the Opposition.

[newspaper12]

Nitish Kumar speaks of 'friendship' with BJP leader, ally plays down remark - Times of India

MOTIHARI: Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar on Thursday while pointing towards a BJP leader from the stage said "All the people we have here, are our friends. You will remain connected to me as long as I live." Nitish was speaking at the convocation ceremony of Mahatma Gandhi Central University in Motihari. "All the people we have here are our friends. We are different, you are different, does it mean our friendship will end? You will remain connected to me as long as I live. We will all work together. President, we are very happy that you are here. We would like you to keep coming here. We will show you the entire Champaran once, the land of Mahatma Gandhi," Nitish Kumar said. The RJD, an ally of Nitish Kumar, however, played down the comments saying the Bihar chief minister was speaking of his personal relationships. "Radha Mohan Singh (of BJP) was sitting in front, so he spoke about his personal relationship. There is no mention of any party. People interpreted him incorrectly" said RJD's Shakti Yadav. The BJP also distanced itself from the comments and said it has no connection any more with Nitish Kumar. "Nitish Kumar has left, we have asked him to leave. BJP clearly believes that we are together in development but there is a fight on principles. Amit Shah has said that he has no connection with Nitish Kumar" said Saket Choudhary the state BJP chief. President Droupadi Murmu and governor Rajendra Vishwanath were also present on the stage. Today is the second day of President Murmu's visit to Bihar. President Droupadi Murmu had on Wednesday inaugurated the state's fourth agriculture road map aimed at enhancing agriculture production in Patna. In her address, she stated that agriculture is an important part of the folk culture of Bihar and the basis of its economy. While launching the Krishi road map President Murmu said that farmers of Bihar are known for adopting new experiments in farming noting that a Nobel laureate economist had called the farmers of Nalanda "greater than scientists". "As a result of the implementation of the last three agricultural road maps, the productivity of paddy, wheat and maize in the state has almost doubled. Bihar has also become a leading state in the production of mushrooms, honey, makhana (fox nuts) and fish. The launch of the fourth Agriculture Road Map is an important step towards taking this effort forward," President Murmu said. The President urged farmers of Bihar to take advantage of the rising demand for organic products. #Nitish #Kumar #speaks #friendship #BJP #leader #ally #plays #remark #Times #India Nitish Kumar speaks of 'friendship' with BJP leader, ally plays down remark - Times of India https://static.toiimg.com/thumb/msid-104552951,width-1070,height-580,imgsize-24530,resizemode-75,overlay-toi_sw,pt-32,y_pad-40/photo.jpg Read the full article

[follow-up-news]

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi suffered a surprise setbackTuesday, with his majority in doubt as he claimed to have secured a rare third term at the helm of the world’s most populous country after a divisive decade in power. His Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and allied parties appeared to have secured almost 300 of 543 seats in Parliament,early election results showed, which would give them a simple majority. But the BJP may fall short of a majority on its own, with the opposition performing better than expected after exit polls had suggested Modi’s alliance would win by a landslide. That result would weaken Modi, whose dominance over India has steadily grown since he gained power in 2014, and leave him dependent on forming a coalition to remain in power. Even that could be in doubt, as Rahul Gandhi, leader of the opposition Indian National Congress, left open the possibility that he may try to form a coalition with two parties allied with the BJP that used to be Congress’ partners. This is not how the election was supposed to go for Modi, who has a vast base of supporters both at home and among the large Indian diaspora who see him as responsible for India’s rocketing economy and rising confidence on the world stage. According to Morning Consult, Modi is by far the world’s most popular leader, with an approval rating of 74%. Critics say Modi has also eroded human rights in India, the world’s largest democracy, and stoked religious tensions, particularly against India’s Muslim minority, with Modi and other BJP candidates accused of hate speech and other inflammatory rhetoric during the campaign. India is also struggling to provide enough jobs for its 1.4 billion people, despite being the world’s fastest-growing major economy. 

[colonelrajyavardhanrathore]

Col Rajyavardhan Rathore Calls for Congress to Clarify Its Stand on Article 370

The political landscape of India is often shaped by powerful discussions that touch upon sensitive and pivotal issues. One such issue that has remained in the national spotlight is Article 370 of the Indian Constitution — a provision that grants special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Recently, Col Rajyavardhan Rathore, the Member of Parliament and prominent leader from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), called on the Congress Party to clarify its position on Article 370. Rathore’s statement has sparked a wave of political debates and discussions across the country.

Understanding Article 370: A Historical Context

Article 370 was originally included in the Indian Constitution to provide special autonomy to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The provision, drafted in 1949, gave the state a certain degree of independence in its governance. It allowed Jammu and Kashmir to have its own Constitution and significant powers to make laws on most matters except defense, foreign affairs, finance, and communications.

This provision was meant to recognize the unique circumstances under which Jammu and Kashmir had acceded to India post-independence, following the partition. While this article was intended to safeguard the cultural identity, autonomy, and distinctiveness of the region, over the years, its application has been controversial.

The Repeal of Article 370: A Turning Point in Indian Politics

On August 5, 2019, the BJP-led government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, made a historic decision to revoke Article 370. This move effectively revoked Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and bifurcated the state into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. The government’s action was backed by the belief that this would lead to greater integration of Jammu and Kashmir with the rest of India and promote economic development and security in the region.

This bold step, however, led to widespread protests and opposition from several political parties, including the Indian National Congress (INC). While the BJP and its supporters hailed the move as a necessary step for national unity, opposition parties, particularly the Congress, raised concerns about the constitutional propriety and the potential for escalating tensions in the region.

Rajyavardhan Rathore’s Statement: The Call for Congress to Clarify Its Stand

In the wake of this ongoing debate, Col Rajyavardhan Rathore took to social media and public forums to demand clarity from the Congress Party regarding its position on Article 370. Rathore, who is known for his vocal support for the BJP’s stance on national security and Jammu and Kashmir, questioned why the Congress Party had not taken a definitive stand on the issue after the revocation of Article 370.

The former Olympic medalist turned politician pointed out that Congress had historically maintained a position of favoring autonomy for Jammu and Kashmir, but with the revocation of Article 370, the party’s silence was no longer acceptable. According to Rathore, Congress needed to either support the government’s decision or present a well-thought-out alternative.

Political Implications of Rathore’s Statement

Rathore’s remarks highlight the divisive nature of the debate surrounding Article 370. On one side, the BJP and its allies have staunchly supported the revocation, arguing that it was a necessary step to ensure that Jammu and Kashmir is treated as an integral part of India. On the other side, opposition parties, led by Congress, have been more cautious in their response. They argue that the move violated constitutional norms and undermined the democratic process by bypassing the local legislative assembly in Jammu and Kashmir.

For Congress, this issue presents a political conundrum. The party has traditionally supported the concept of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy, but it must balance this with its broader political agenda. The demand for clarification by Rajyavardhan Rathore places pressure on Congress to decide whether it will continue to oppose the government’s decision or if it will reassess its stance.

Congress Party’s Position: Supporters and Critics

Proponents of Autonomy: Congress’ Historical Stance

The Congress Party has long been associated with advocating for a special status for Jammu and Kashmir. During its tenure in power, Congress often sought to maintain the status quo of Article 370, viewing it as a pillar of the region’s autonomy. The Congress leadership, especially under Jawaharlal Nehru and later Indira Gandhi, viewed the provision as a means to protect the unique cultural and religious identity of Jammu and Kashmir.

However, in the years following the 1990s insurgency and the rise of militancy in the state, Congress’s position on Article 370 became more nuanced. Some within the party advocated for reforms, while others continued to support the idea of maintaining the special status.

Critics of Congress’ Stance on Article 370

The critics of Congress argue that the party’s hesitation to take a firm stand on the revocation of Article 370 is a sign of political inconsistency. They point out that Congress, while in power, never took bold steps to address the issue and allowed Kashmir to remain an unresolved political challenge. According to these critics, Congress’ lack of clarity in the post-revocation period only complicates the political discourse around Jammu and Kashmir and hinders efforts at national integration.

What Does Clarity from Congress Mean for India?

The demand for clarity on Article 370 is not merely a matter of political rhetoric. The issue directly impacts the future of Jammu and Kashmir and its people. The region has been a flashpoint for political tension, and the revocation of Article 370 was viewed by many as an opportunity to bring economic development, political stability, and security to the state.

However, the situation remains highly sensitive, and any further delay in addressing the concerns of the people of Jammu and Kashmir could exacerbate tensions. Clarity from Congress could play a key role in bridging divides, and it would be important for the party to present a constructive and pragmatic approach to Jammu and Kashmir’s future.

The Role of Political Leadership in Shaping National Policy

Rajyavardhan Rathore’s call for Congress to take a clear stance highlights the role of political leadership in shaping national policy. It underscores the need for transparent, decisive leadership on critical issues that affect India’s democratic and constitutional fabric. While Congress continues to deliberate on its position, the public’s expectations from political leaders, across party lines, are clear: they want clarity, transparency, and a vision for a united and prosperous India.

Conclusion

The issue of Article 370 remains one of the most consequential matters in India’s political discourse. With the revocation of this provision in 2019, the question of Jammu and Kashmir’s future remains at the forefront of national debate. Col Rajyavardhan Rathore’s call for Congress to clarify its stance on the matter adds another layer to this ongoing discussion.

As India continues to evolve, it is essential for political parties, especially Congress, to take a stand that reflects the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir while upholding the values of national unity and constitutional integrity. Only through clarity, dialogue, and a commitment to democratic principles can India hope to navigate the challenges that lie ahead.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Zack Beauchamp at Vox:

I met Raqib Naik, a journalist who had fled his native India, at a coffee shop in suburban Maryland. We sat at the same metal table where he once discussed the prospect of his assassination with FBI agents.

Naik is a Muslim from Jammu and Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state. In August 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi revoked the state’s longstanding self-determination rights and temporarily imposed martial law. Indian officials arbitrarily detained thousands of Kashmiris, including many journalists. Through it all, Naik did his best to convey the reality in Kashmir to the outside world — a firsthand account of what was really going on in what’s often termed “the world’s largest democracy.” On August 15, 10 days after the crackdown in Kashmir began, Naik received the first of three visits from Indian military intelligence officers who interrogated him about his reporting. The harassment forced him underground; he eventually fled to the United States in the summer of 2020. But Modi wouldn’t let him go that easily. In September 2020, an Indian military official sent Naik a message saying “i have invited your father for a cup of tea.” In November 2020, a second intelligence officer said he too had contacted Naik’s father, vowing that he and Naik would “meet in person” even though Naik had moved to America. While traveling in another country in June 2022, Naik received an anonymous text message saying “you are being tracked and will be prosecuted.” He flew back to the US as quickly as possible.  [...]

India’s plot against America

I have spent the past several months investigating stories like Naik’s: critics of India who say the Indian government has reached across the Pacific Ocean to harass them on American soil. 

Interviews with political figures, experts, and activists revealed a sustained campaign where Narendra Modi’s government threatens American citizens and permanent residents who dare speak out on the declining state of the country’s democracy. This campaign has not been described publicly until now because many people in the community  — even prominent ones — are too afraid to talk about it. (The Indian government did not respond to repeated and detailed requests for comment.)  India’s efforts include a handful of high-profile incidents, most notably an assassination plot against American and Canadian activists. But more commonly, India engages in subtle forms of harassment that fly under the public radar. An American charity leader who spoke out on Indian human rights violations saw his Indian employees arrested en masse. An American journalist who worked on a documentary about India was put on a travel blacklist and deported. An American historian who studies 17th-century India received so many death threats that she could no longer speak without security. Even a member of Congress — and vocal critic of the Modi regime — said she was concerned about being banned from visiting her Indian parents.

[...]

And while Russian involvement in the 2016 election swayed few votes, there’s good reason to believe India’s campaign is working as intended — muting stateside criticism of India’s autocratic turn under Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

An American academic warned me that they couldn’t speak openly about India out of concern for family. An American think tank expert described numerous examples of censorship and self-censorship at prominent US institutions. These two sources, and many others, would only share their personal stories with me anonymously. All were concerned about the consequences for their careers, their loved ones, or even themselves — and they weren’t alone. “Indian Americans who are against the BJP, or oppose the BJP, have been intimidated and as a result routinely engage in self-censorship. I have heard them say as much to me,” says John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “There are prominent Indian American intellectuals, writers, [and] celebrities who simply will not speak out against Modi because they are afraid that by doing so they will subject themselves to a torrent of online abuse and even death threats.” As a result, one of the most important developments of our time — Modi pushing the world’s largest democracy toward an authoritarian future — is receiving far less scrutiny in the United States than it should, especially at a time when Modi is running for a historic third term. 

India’s willingness to go after critics outside its borders — a practice political scientists call “transnational repression” — is a symptom of this democratic decline. Most sources told me that Indian harassment of Americans began in earnest after Modi took office in 2014, with most reported incidents happening in the past several years (when the prime minister became more aggressively authoritarian at home). Modi, a member of a prominent Hindu supremacist group since he was 8 years old, seems to believe he can act on the world stage in the same way he behaves at home. Despite the brazenness of India’s campaign — attacking Americans at home in a way that only the world’s worst authoritarian governments would dare — the Biden administration is putting little pressure on Modi to change his ways. Judging New Delhi too important in the fight against China, the US government has adopted its own unstated policy of avoiding fights with India over human rights and democracy. [...]

Modi’s “new India”

India was founded in 1947 as a secular democracy, with formal equality of all citizens enshrined in its constitution. But even before then, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) had begun laying the groundwork for an alternative Hindu nationalist state. Narendra Modi has been a part of this fight since 1958, when he first got involved in his town’s RSS branch.

The RSS’s ideology, called Hindutva, holds that India must be a state principally for Hindus. It treats non-Hindus, especially Muslims, as foreign imports at best and invading forces at worst. The BJP is the RSS’s political wing, and it has worked extensively to bring the Indian state in line with Hindutva principles.  Making this dream into reality has been the purpose of Modi’s political career. Since becoming prime minister, he’s proven remarkably adept at it. The revocation of Kashmir’s autonomous status, and the subsequent crackdown that swept up Raqib Naik, is just one of many Hindutva victories during his tenure.  His government recently inaugurated a major new Hindu temple in the city of Ayodhya, on the site of a mosque that was torn down by an RSS-aligned mob in 1992. It passed the Citizenship Amendment Act, a law that, among other things, set up discriminatory immigration rules for Muslims. In states across the country, local BJP governments have passed laws restricting interfaith marriage between Hindus and Muslims.

Vox exposes India’s siccing of Americans critical of its authoritarian turn under PM Narendra Modi.

[metamatar]

https://www.roundtableindia.co.in/bahujans-and-progressive-brahmins-adversaries-not-allies/

I assume you're the same anon going around trying to be inflammatory lol.

But here is the good faith response you don't deserve. Yes, most of the indian left continues to have a horrific blindspot on caste. The anger is understandable. Privilege discourse about identity politics in rarefied institutions obscures historical class-caste antagonism by focusing on individuals. This piece also pretends an antagonism between Ambedkar and Socialism that doesn't exist? See Teltumbe linked below, he was deeply influenced by Fabian Socialism, the disagreement was with Marxist conceptions of history and the necessity of revolution. It is not clear from the piece if its endorsing Deweyan liberalism as Ambedkar did by the end, bc that is not a panacea that is immune to elite capture. I wish the piece addressed the ongoing project of Brahmanisation by the BJP and its success at defanging caste politics, the renewed popularity of 'Dalit Capitalism' but I get the focus. India's parliamentary left tends to be a moribund zombie.

Unfortunately I continue to be a communist, and I do not think any serious historical materialist or even like, intellectually honest liberal historian would attribute the failure of the USSR down to it refusing to addressing "social" antagonisms because of some vulgar economist interpretation of reality. Like, yes a lot of the left has been bad at race, gender, caste and the not traditionally economically understood axes of oppression. But at this point, social reproduction theory is several decades old.