4 ms·

I disagree with the Modi and Hindutva project almost entirely, not only politically, but on a personal level coming from a minority community (Christian) in Ind

by anon291 3mo ago

I disagree with the Modi and Hindutva project almost entirely, not only politically, but on a personal level coming from a minority community (Christian) in India. However, India is in what basically amounts to a perpetual state of war with Pakistan and has always been this way. India rarely agresses Pakistan and Pakistani terror groups do operate with seeming impunity in India (Pakistan doesn't even maintain a 'no-first-use' nuclear option, and is currently run by a military dictatorship... they're f'ing nuts). While all these actions are obviously crazy and in my opinion overbearing, people in the West don't understand how awful radical Islam is, especially of the South Asian variety. I'm not sure many Americans would react differently to the extremism of South Asian Islam to be honest. To put it in perspective, many Indians (of all religions) died and fought in a bloody war to secure Bangladesh's (then East Pakistan's) freedom from what was a genocidal regime in West Pakistan. Decades later, the typical Bangladeshi muslim still hates Indians because any non-muslim Indian they consider 'Hindu', thus polytheist, and thus worthy of death. One thousand five hundred Indian soldiers died only for their neighbor to hate them in return for the 'crime' of not being born part of their religion. While Hindu nationalists are fucking insane, I honestly think many have been driven to it by the insanity of South Asian Islam. Meanwhile, America has a relatively peaceful and cooperative neighbor (Mexico), which only has a crime problem on the border, and the average American seems ready to give up almost every civic right to deal with that. There are barely any terror attacks of note coming from these Mexican gangs, and congress has already ceded many constitutional rights (such as the right against unreasonable search and seizure) near the border zones. Anyway, imagine Mexicans hated everyone in America for the crime of being 'gringos' (even the non-whites) and that's basically what India has with all their neighbors. If people in the west want India to liberalize, which we really should want to do, Western nations need to work on dismantling Pakistan and limiting Islamic extremism in the region.

epestr 3mo ago
Largely uncited and generalised exposition of Bangladeshi's misses other factors which could be involved in their decision towards distrust of India. India's initial decisions need not be merely humanitarian but also political. https://scroll.in/article/1081784/why-are-bangladeshis-turning-against-india https://scroll.in/article/1081784/why-are-bangladeshis-turni.... This article explains that it's due to an increasingly unequal interactions as sowing distrust. Explaining the Hindutva moment as a genuine counter reaction to anti-Hindu sentiment rather than a politically motivated movement seems to be misguided, even if not actively propogating the propaganda.
- anon291 3mo ago
  > Largely uncited and generalised exposition of Bangladeshi's misses other factors which could be involved in their decision towards distrust of India. It's reasonable to distrust a neighboring country with distinct interest, even if they went to war for you, sure. You don't owe them anything. Similarly, it's actually also normal for India to have concerns about illegal migration, similar to Europe, America, Australia, and Canada. But the propaganda coming out of Bangladesh is purely religious in form, and it's pretty clear that that is the main reason why they dislike India. Pakistan literally slaughtered them and they're all bhai-bhai with them now. The article cites the CAA as a reason for Bangladeshi distrust, except the data show that India is acting as a humanitarian in this disaster. Non-muslims are physically persecuted in both Bangladesh and Pakistan. Pakistan particularly is an apartheid state where non-Muslims have fewer political rights. Bangladesh is slightly better but violence against non-Muslims is rampant. People like to paint India as having high rates of religious violence, which is true, compared to America, but not true compared to Pakistan or Bangladesh. Pakistan regularly executes Christians for blasphemy. India doesn't. Non-Muslim refugees should qualify for extra protection from secular nations given the on-the-ground realities of South Asia. Literally the cited reason for the creation of Pakistan is that South Asian muslims constitute a distinct nation from every other religion in the subcontinent. Neither the Jews nor the Parsis nor the Christians ever made such an argument. Well regardless, countries cannot get angry over other countries making immigration policy (and yes, this also applies to Indian migrants to America, blah blah blah) > Explaining the Hindutva moment as a genuine counter reaction to anti-Hindu sentiment rather than a politically motivated movement seems to be misguided, even if not actively propogating the propaganda. If you read about the history of Savarkar, then I think this is exactly what you see. He was kind of meh about everything until he witnessed anti-Hindu extremism from Muslims, and then went off his rocker. Before that, he was a relatively benign nationalist and humanitarian. Well anyway, more to the point of it really being just the Muslims, Savarkar was defended by an Indian Christian barrister. Are you an American or South Asian, out of curiosity? I feel like Americans don't really have the ability translate South Asian politics. Not that I'm some expert, but I can report personal on-the-ground experiences.
  - hamper653 3mo ago
hamper653 3mo ago
> India is in what basically amounts to a perpetual state of war with Pakistan and has always been this way. You mean, since India and Pakistan were invented 79 years ago?
- sieve 3mo ago
  I wonder what is it with this denial of the existence of India prior to 1947. If people were specific and said that they were referring to the Republic of India as the successor state to British-controlled India, then it would at least make some sense. Otherwise it sounds completely insane. If India was invented 79 years ago, then you need to explain the various East India companies established in the 1600s, and all the references to India and the Indians by the Romans and the Greeks and the Persians and the Chinese before the Abrahamization of Europe. Europeans were literally looking for ways to India and ran into the West Indies and North America by accident.
  - adityaathalye 3mo ago
    There was no unified political entity prior to 1947---technically, 26 January 1950---because it took that long for Sardal Patel's program of political unification of sovereign princely states to conclude, so that the now-unified political entity would govern itself under common constitutional, and common law, with democratic universal franchise. The East India Company, and then the British Raj, held power because they were able to broker deals with opposing (and warring) princely states and kingdoms. They used contractual leverage to make those sub-sub-regions keep each other in check. The British Raj was a kingdom of kingdoms, in addition to being a protectorate. These are literal legal facts [0]. The word Hindu is literally an exonym. A name given to a people by foreigners. Our very collective identity was conferred upon us by outsiders. [0] Obligatory Wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#British_India_and_the_princely_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#British_India_and_... In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions in Section 18: (4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India. (5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.[1] Who agreed to the legal terms? The rulers of the sovereign princely states and kingdoms.
mdgld 3mo ago
>people in the West don't understand how awful radical Islam is Do you remember that time two dozen or so years ago when a couple buildings collapsed in NYC? After some planes rammed into them?
- anon291 3mo ago
  And that is relatively benign compared to the constant barrage of foiled or successful terror attacks that India faces. Also, no one really cared when America went forward with a giant war of aggression against those people America labeled possible perpetrators
vivzkestrel 3mo ago
its amazing you are actually getting downvoted for speaking facts
- adityaathalye 3mo ago
  I upvoted that comment because it's obvious tin foil hat "oooh look at the boogeyman" speech. That fact along with its critique contributes to the discourse on HN.
  - anon291 3mo ago
    I merely pointed out that India's banning of satellite communications is a mirror to the American response to 9/11 except that India faces more 9/11 like situations on a regular basis. This is hardly some boogeyman. Most countries predictably start clamping down on free speech when they feel threatened. Not sure what conspiracy you're trying to foist on me, but I assure you it's not there. I myself am pretty much a free speech absolutist.
    - vivzkestrel 3mo ago
      we have more attacks in 1 year than they have in 10
      - anon291 3mo ago
        And like clockwork, a single terror attack in Berlin and you'll find redditors from western countries calling for solutions much worse than anything india has ever proposed. https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1v6k8vq/several_injured_in_incident_at_berlin_lgbt_event/ https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1v6k8vq/several_injur...
        vivzkestrel 3mo ago
        - the sad part is when multiple attacks happen every year and most of them ignore it like "hey its not in my backyard" - the moment it comes to their backyard once in a while, they are willing to go full nuclear on it
6stringronin 3mo ago
I find it telling you blame India's lack of modernization on Pakistan. A reflection of the times. Maybe dismantle the caste system first. You need a civil rights movement. This is India's biggest hurdle but it seems too ingrained in the society. All peoples should have the same opportunity, but the structure of power in India likes the way things are. Next work on how you treat women.
- anon291 3mo ago
  Hmm... I said nothing of modernization; I was talking about Indias police state tendencies. These are orthogonal issues. Indians lack of economic development is due to severely lacking general government funded education and over regulation. As countries such as Norway and China show, you can have development with or without a police state. The issues have nothing to do with each other

by anon291 3mo ago

epestr 3mo ago

Largely uncited and generalised exposition of Bangladeshi's misses other factors which could be involved in their decision towards distrust of India. India's initial decisions need not be merely humanitarian but also political. https://scroll.in/article/1081784/why-are-bangladeshis-turning-against-india https://scroll.in/article/1081784/why-are-bangladeshis-turni.... This article explains that it's due to an increasingly unequal interactions as sowing distrust. Explaining the Hindutva moment as a genuine counter reaction to anti-Hindu sentiment rather than a politically motivated movement seems to be misguided, even if not actively propogating the propaganda.

anon291 3mo ago
> Largely uncited and generalised exposition of Bangladeshi's misses other factors which could be involved in their decision towards distrust of India. It's reasonable to distrust a neighboring country with distinct interest, even if they went to war for you, sure. You don't owe them anything. Similarly, it's actually also normal for India to have concerns about illegal migration, similar to Europe, America, Australia, and Canada. But the propaganda coming out of Bangladesh is purely religious in form, and it's pretty clear that that is the main reason why they dislike India. Pakistan literally slaughtered them and they're all bhai-bhai with them now. The article cites the CAA as a reason for Bangladeshi distrust, except the data show that India is acting as a humanitarian in this disaster. Non-muslims are physically persecuted in both Bangladesh and Pakistan. Pakistan particularly is an apartheid state where non-Muslims have fewer political rights. Bangladesh is slightly better but violence against non-Muslims is rampant. People like to paint India as having high rates of religious violence, which is true, compared to America, but not true compared to Pakistan or Bangladesh. Pakistan regularly executes Christians for blasphemy. India doesn't. Non-Muslim refugees should qualify for extra protection from secular nations given the on-the-ground realities of South Asia. Literally the cited reason for the creation of Pakistan is that South Asian muslims constitute a distinct nation from every other religion in the subcontinent. Neither the Jews nor the Parsis nor the Christians ever made such an argument. Well regardless, countries cannot get angry over other countries making immigration policy (and yes, this also applies to Indian migrants to America, blah blah blah) > Explaining the Hindutva moment as a genuine counter reaction to anti-Hindu sentiment rather than a politically motivated movement seems to be misguided, even if not actively propogating the propaganda. If you read about the history of Savarkar, then I think this is exactly what you see. He was kind of meh about everything until he witnessed anti-Hindu extremism from Muslims, and then went off his rocker. Before that, he was a relatively benign nationalist and humanitarian. Well anyway, more to the point of it really being just the Muslims, Savarkar was defended by an Indian Christian barrister. Are you an American or South Asian, out of curiosity? I feel like Americans don't really have the ability translate South Asian politics. Not that I'm some expert, but I can report personal on-the-ground experiences.
- hamper653 3mo ago

hamper653 3mo ago

> India is in what basically amounts to a perpetual state of war with Pakistan and has always been this way. You mean, since India and Pakistan were invented 79 years ago?

sieve 3mo ago
I wonder what is it with this denial of the existence of India prior to 1947. If people were specific and said that they were referring to the Republic of India as the successor state to British-controlled India, then it would at least make some sense. Otherwise it sounds completely insane. If India was invented 79 years ago, then you need to explain the various East India companies established in the 1600s, and all the references to India and the Indians by the Romans and the Greeks and the Persians and the Chinese before the Abrahamization of Europe. Europeans were literally looking for ways to India and ran into the West Indies and North America by accident.
- adityaathalye 3mo ago
  There was no unified political entity prior to 1947---technically, 26 January 1950---because it took that long for Sardal Patel's program of political unification of sovereign princely states to conclude, so that the now-unified political entity would govern itself under common constitutional, and common law, with democratic universal franchise. The East India Company, and then the British Raj, held power because they were able to broker deals with opposing (and warring) princely states and kingdoms. They used contractual leverage to make those sub-sub-regions keep each other in check. The British Raj was a kingdom of kingdoms, in addition to being a protectorate. These are literal legal facts [0]. The word Hindu is literally an exonym. A name given to a people by foreigners. Our very collective identity was conferred upon us by outsiders. [0] Obligatory Wikipedia... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#British_India_and_the_princely_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#British_India_and_... In its Interpretation Act 1889, the British Parliament adopted the following definitions in Section 18: (4.) The expression "British India" shall mean all territories and places within Her Majesty's dominions which are for the time being governed by Her Majesty through the Governor-General of India or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India. (5.) The expression "India" shall mean British India together with any territories of any native prince or chief under the suzerainty of Her Majesty exercised through the Governor-General of India, or through any governor or other officer subordinates to the Governor-General of India.[1] Who agreed to the legal terms? The rulers of the sovereign princely states and kingdoms.

mdgld 3mo ago

>people in the West don't understand how awful radical Islam is Do you remember that time two dozen or so years ago when a couple buildings collapsed in NYC? After some planes rammed into them?

anon291 3mo ago
And that is relatively benign compared to the constant barrage of foiled or successful terror attacks that India faces. Also, no one really cared when America went forward with a giant war of aggression against those people America labeled possible perpetrators

vivzkestrel 3mo ago

its amazing you are actually getting downvoted for speaking facts

adityaathalye 3mo ago
I upvoted that comment because it's obvious tin foil hat "oooh look at the boogeyman" speech. That fact along with its critique contributes to the discourse on HN.
- anon291 3mo ago
  I merely pointed out that India's banning of satellite communications is a mirror to the American response to 9/11 except that India faces more 9/11 like situations on a regular basis. This is hardly some boogeyman. Most countries predictably start clamping down on free speech when they feel threatened. Not sure what conspiracy you're trying to foist on me, but I assure you it's not there. I myself am pretty much a free speech absolutist.
  - vivzkestrel 3mo ago
    we have more attacks in 1 year than they have in 10
    - anon291 3mo ago
      And like clockwork, a single terror attack in Berlin and you'll find redditors from western countries calling for solutions much worse than anything india has ever proposed. https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1v6k8vq/several_injured_in_incident_at_berlin_lgbt_event/ https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1v6k8vq/several_injur...
      - vivzkestrel 3mo ago
        - the sad part is when multiple attacks happen every year and most of them ignore it like "hey its not in my backyard" - the moment it comes to their backyard once in a while, they are willing to go full nuclear on it

6stringronin 3mo ago

I find it telling you blame India's lack of modernization on Pakistan. A reflection of the times. Maybe dismantle the caste system first. You need a civil rights movement. This is India's biggest hurdle but it seems too ingrained in the society. All peoples should have the same opportunity, but the structure of power in India likes the way things are. Next work on how you treat women.

anon291 3mo ago
Hmm... I said nothing of modernization; I was talking about Indias police state tendencies. These are orthogonal issues. Indians lack of economic development is due to severely lacking general government funded education and over regulation. As countries such as Norway and China show, you can have development with or without a police state. The issues have nothing to do with each other