4 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoJust 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 ago100+ 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 agoFirst, 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.
- srean 5y agoI cant see how this leads to a number of 100+ political opponents. Seems playing fast and loose.
- baybal2 5y agoPolitical activists, and party workers count as political opponents by a definition.
- srean 5y agoJust to be sure I am full agreement with the incidents of violence that you mentioned, at least those that happened after I matured enough to follow news. Some you mention are older than that. You may or may not agree but having lived through both I find that Modi regime (both at the state and the center) has seen not less, but more concentrated violence, not so much on political opponents, (Haren Pandya being a debatable case), but on minority citizens and citizens who have a different view.