8 ms·

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 o

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

wolverine876 5y ago
> 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.
- baybal2 5y ago
  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
  - srean 5y ago
    > In WB, Basu was ordering hit jobs on the opposition, and his own fellow commies weekly Source please. I say this in spite of being severely critical of Basu.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      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? ...
      - srean 5y ago
        100+ political killings of Basu's opponents, no I don't remember that. Care for a pointer, want to catch up on what I missed.
        baybal2 5y ago
        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. Mamata, and her entourage had their skulls crushed, as we all know. It was 100% a hit job to which the executor of the attack later admitted. https://images.newindianexpress.com/uploads/user/imagelibrary/2017/12/20/w600X300/Mamata_attacked.jpg https://images.newindianexpress.com/uploads/user/imagelibrar... In recent memory, 2003 panchayat polls, a body count of 35 anti-communist activists alone. Nandigram commotions 2007-2008 will amount to around 30. https://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2234.html https://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2234.html Sum all of this over his 23 years reign, and it will be way more than 100.
- programmer_dude 5y ago
  > 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.
  - srean 5y ago
    If you are arguing that BJP is any less corrupt, PM-Cares, Rafale deal, electoral bonds and the sudden wealth of Amit Shah's son indicates otherwise https://thewire.in/business/amit-shah-narendra-modi-jay-shah-bjp https://thewire.in/business/amit-shah-narendra-modi-jay-shah... https://www.altnews.in/no-the-wire-didnt-apologise-in-the-jay-shah-defamation-case https://www.altnews.in/no-the-wire-didnt-apologise-in-the-ja... (since there are a few accounts on HN that spread fake news that is friendly towards the ruling party in India) https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/france-begins-judicial-probe-into-rafale-deal-with-india-french-media https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/france-begins-judic...
    - programmer_dude 5y ago
      > Are you arguing that BJP is any less corrupt ? No, merely trying to explain why BJP was voted into power.
    - sremani 5y ago
      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.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        > if BJP/Modi did anything stupid they should face the music Stupid? How about brutal and oppressive to hundreds of millions (or the entire country). They clearly have. > my goal is not misdirection Then why are you talking about someone besides Modi?
- mynameismon 5y ago
  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.
  - random314 5y ago
    > 1. GST (Goods and Services Tax) 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. ??
    - mynameismon 5y ago
      Alright, 5. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 6. Digital India 7. PM Awas Yojna (Housing for all) 8. Motor Vehicle Act
      - random314 5y ago
        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. You are putting the cart before the horse.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    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?
- manishsharan 5y ago
  > 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.
  - sremani 5y ago
    The Anti-Sikh riots were not the only thing. The perpetrators of Anti-Sikh riots in 1984 became central ministers in the subsequent Congress cabinets. There are few redeeming things about Congress rule, but to call it very well run government is an exaggeration.
  - legolas2412 5y ago
    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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bholanath_and_Devendra_Pandey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bholanath_and_Devendra_Pande... 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.
- ithkuil 5y ago
  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.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > 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.
    - ithkuil 5y ago
      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.
      - trs8080 5y ago
        > 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.
- sreejithr 5y ago
  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.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Democracy, freedom, human rights don't depend on my leaning, unless you are against those things.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      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]. [0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10758216.2020.1757468 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10758216.2020.1... [1] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/05/10/450552/drivers-authoritarian-populism-united-states/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/20...
    - sreejithr 5y ago
      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.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        This looks like sea-lioning to me. This thread and the news are filled with examples.
  - puranjay 5y ago
    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. Neither of those two things does people any good.
- naruvimama 5y ago
  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.
- boruto 5y ago
  I feel really bad that India cannot have one decent national leader or party.
puranjay 5y ago
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
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
addicted 5y ago
Name a single decent policy since they were re-elected.

wolverine876 5y ago

> 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.

baybal2 5y ago
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
- srean 5y ago
  > In WB, Basu was ordering hit jobs on the opposition, and his own fellow commies weekly Source please. I say this in spite of being severely critical of Basu.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    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? ...
    - srean 5y ago
      100+ political killings of Basu's opponents, no I don't remember that. Care for a pointer, want to catch up on what I missed.
      - baybal2 5y ago
        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. Mamata, and her entourage had their skulls crushed, as we all know. It was 100% a hit job to which the executor of the attack later admitted. https://images.newindianexpress.com/uploads/user/imagelibrary/2017/12/20/w600X300/Mamata_attacked.jpg https://images.newindianexpress.com/uploads/user/imagelibrar... In recent memory, 2003 panchayat polls, a body count of 35 anti-communist activists alone. Nandigram commotions 2007-2008 will amount to around 30. https://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2234.html https://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2234.html Sum all of this over his 23 years reign, and it will be way more than 100.
programmer_dude 5y ago
> 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.
- srean 5y ago
  If you are arguing that BJP is any less corrupt, PM-Cares, Rafale deal, electoral bonds and the sudden wealth of Amit Shah's son indicates otherwise https://thewire.in/business/amit-shah-narendra-modi-jay-shah-bjp https://thewire.in/business/amit-shah-narendra-modi-jay-shah... https://www.altnews.in/no-the-wire-didnt-apologise-in-the-jay-shah-defamation-case https://www.altnews.in/no-the-wire-didnt-apologise-in-the-ja... (since there are a few accounts on HN that spread fake news that is friendly towards the ruling party in India) https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/france-begins-judicial-probe-into-rafale-deal-with-india-french-media https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/france-begins-judic...
  - programmer_dude 5y ago
    > Are you arguing that BJP is any less corrupt ? No, merely trying to explain why BJP was voted into power.
  - sremani 5y ago
    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.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      > if BJP/Modi did anything stupid they should face the music Stupid? How about brutal and oppressive to hundreds of millions (or the entire country). They clearly have. > my goal is not misdirection Then why are you talking about someone besides Modi?
mynameismon 5y ago
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.
- random314 5y ago
  > 1. GST (Goods and Services Tax) 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. ??
  - mynameismon 5y ago
    Alright, 5. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 6. Digital India 7. PM Awas Yojna (Housing for all) 8. Motor Vehicle Act
    - random314 5y ago
      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. You are putting the cart before the horse.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  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?
manishsharan 5y ago
> 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.
- sremani 5y ago
  The Anti-Sikh riots were not the only thing. The perpetrators of Anti-Sikh riots in 1984 became central ministers in the subsequent Congress cabinets. There are few redeeming things about Congress rule, but to call it very well run government is an exaggeration.
- legolas2412 5y ago
  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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bholanath_and_Devendra_Pandey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bholanath_and_Devendra_Pande... 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.
ithkuil 5y ago
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.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > 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.
  - ithkuil 5y ago
    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.
    - trs8080 5y ago
      > 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.
sreejithr 5y ago
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.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Democracy, freedom, human rights don't depend on my leaning, unless you are against those things.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    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]. [0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10758216.2020.1757468 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10758216.2020.1... [1] https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/05/10/450552/drivers-authoritarian-populism-united-states/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/20...
  - sreejithr 5y ago
    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.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      This looks like sea-lioning to me. This thread and the news are filled with examples.
- puranjay 5y ago
  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. Neither of those two things does people any good.
naruvimama 5y ago
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.
boruto 5y ago
I feel really bad that India cannot have one decent national leader or party.

puranjay 5y ago

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

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

addicted 5y ago

Name a single decent policy since they were re-elected.