5 ms·

> I'm not Indian and have no connection to the sub-continent. I am, so allow me. 1. The RSS is not "violently anti-muslim", despite what you read on teh inter

> I'm not Indian and have no connection to the sub-continent. I am, so allow me. 1. The RSS is not "violently anti-muslim", despite what you read on teh internets. They have a Muslim wing, so to speak: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/the-saffron-muslim/article1-1174455.aspx http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/the-saffron-muslim/... 2. If the "BJP has other policies, which are disturbing", please enlighten us. Just lobbing an attack and walking away doesn't do any good. 3. The US denies visas to all sorts of people; including people like Nelson Mandela. He (Modi) was investigated for the 2002 riots by Supreme Court of India, and given a clean chit.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- discardorama 12y ago
  There's no "argument from authority". The OP said he was not Indian; and I replied I was. Maybe you should try to read your own Wikipedia link? Instead of unnecessary blather, why not post some informative links? Educate us all, instead of trolling from behind a keyboard. RSS is no more "violently anti-muslim" than the Congress Party is "violently anti-Sikh". Read up about the 1984 riots, and learn something for a change.
  - sergers 12y ago
    I would say the congress party is/was more anti-sikh than RSS is anti-muslim. Sure they put a sikh in power, but he was just a puppet figure in recent years in taking no action. I very much remember 1984 riots being a Sikh and being there during it. I welcome modi as a change, NRI Sikhs definitely despise the gandhis
  - scarmig 12y ago
    There's the not minor point that Congress has formally apologized for its role in the 1984 riots, while Modi and the BJP have offered none for their role in 2002, instead comparing the murdered Muslims to puppies that sometimes happen to get run over by cars.
    - mands 12y ago
      What good is an apology from Congress when they stonewall any attempts for an independent inquiry into the 1984 riots and still harbour known instigators and accomplices at a high level within the party? On the other hand, several senior BJP officials were tried and convicted for their part in the 2002 riots.
DangerousPie 12y ago
edit: Right, why am I getting downvoted for this?? What's your response to the Economist article that was posted here [1]? To quote: "One reason why the inquiries into the riots were inconclusive is that a great deal of evidence was lost or wilfully destroyed. And if the facts in 2002 are murky, so are Mr Modi’s views now. He could put the pogroms behind him by explaining what happened and apologising. Yet he refuses to answer questions about them. In a rare comment last year he said he regretted Muslims’ suffering as he would that of a puppy run over by a car. Amid the uproar, he said he meant only that Hindus care about all life. Muslims—and chauvinist Hindus—heard a different message. Unlike other BJP leaders, Mr Modi has refused to wear a Muslim skullcap and failed to condemn riots in Uttar Pradesh in 2013 when most of the victims were Muslim." [1] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21600106-he-will-probably-become-indias-next-prime-minister-does-not-mean-he-should-be-can-anyone http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21600106-he-will-proba...
- mxfh 12y ago
  Happened to my comment too and it's the first time here on HN I'm getting down voted like this and can't think of any other than solely political reasons. It's a bit disturbing to see this happening here of all places. But don't worry getting down voted by people with negative (didn't know that's a thing) karma should turn your actual Karma into something positing positive if my math isn't completely off.
shas3 12y ago
I think the problem with Modi, like extreme politicians (e.g. Le Pen in France or the Tea Party) in other democracies is that some of his utterances are contradictory to Enlightenment humanist ideals. It remains to be seen if the subset of his views that can be considered to be extreme are just rhetoric or if he intends to act on them. Historically, such politicians resemble the nationalistic polities of pre-1945 Europe and post-colonial South America. The bright side about India is that its sheer diversity and the existence of regional leaders (who do not belong to Modi's party) serve as checks and balances. As an example, regional parties organized on linguistic and non-traditional ideologies (communists, anarchists, etc.) basis have captured close to 140 seats in the parliament, including clean-sweeps in several States such as Tamil Nadu (population ~70 million), Odisha (population ~40 million), Seemandhra/Telangana (population ~85 million), and West Bengal (population ~90 million).
datacog 12y ago
> They have a Muslim wing Dint know about that. Thanks for sharing
efuquen 12y ago
I find it amazing the attitude that the 2002 Gujarat riots should be brushed under the rug. There is still plenty of controversy about what happened there and Modi's and the states role in those riots, regardless of what any Supreme Court ruling has said. But I guess we should just let bygones be bygones and forget the 1000+ deaths and 100,000s of displaced lives due to riots that are widely believed to have been encouraged, if not caused, by the state. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-17200961 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-17200961
- discardorama 12y ago
  As I said, riots are far too frequent in India; even 1 riot is 1 too many. I was in Delhi in 1984. I saw the result of Congress goons going after Sikhs. And yet there was no Supreme Court enquiry. The Prime Minister (Rajiv Gandhi) was never held accountable, since Delhi was a UT at that time. How come no tears are shed for my Sikh brothers?
  - 3apo 12y ago
    This. and the fact that Modi was actually praised that Gujrat did not have any riots after 2002/3 and the stable socio-economic climate. Other secular/pro-muslim governments were unable to prevent quite a few during that time
  - scarmig 12y ago
    I don't think you understand how this works. It's not "Congress gets one communal violence pass free, it's only fair if the BJP gets a communal violence pass too!"
    - discardorama 12y ago
      No, I don't think you understand how it works. If you are going to hold someone to a standard, then hold EVERYONE to that standard. You can't just hold someone to an arbitrary standard just because you don't like them.
      - 12y ago
r0h1n 12y ago
If the parent is guilty of over simplification, you are guilty of obfuscation. While technically the RSS may have a Muslim wing tucked away somewhere with some token members, it was, is and will remain the umbrella organization for advancing the Hindu (religious) viewpoint. It has been violent many times in its history, and even today stands accused of engineering everything from riots to bomb blasts. And always with an anti-Muslim agenda. Mind you I'm not saying Modi will follow the RSS agenda (I don't think he will, he's far too shrewd and smart for that. He will not compromise his ability to stay PM for 10-15 years for short-term Hindutva agendas). A former colleague of mine just wrote a magisterial account of the RSS' history and future in India for Caravan magazine. I'd recommend those who want to understand more about RSS, BJP and yes, Narendra Modi too, give it a read at leisure. It is a long piece. http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/rss-30 http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/rss-30
- tn13 12y ago
  I was associated with more than 10 years or so and I still do not know what this "Hindu religious viewpoint". I have always been pure atheist while I worked for RSS. I was close to higher ups in RSS and I do not know the "agenda" you are talking about. Communist, Church and Muslim organizations and very constantly write unsubstantiated bs about RSS in amagazines like Caravan. There are many things wrong with RSS, I would rather listen to Dr. Koenraad Elst's critic of RSS rather than something written by a intern at Caravan magazine.
  - cubancigar11 12y ago
    I feel I should plunge into this mud puddle. I was part of the RSS shakhas. My family has been, for generations, part of RSS. Advani stayed at my house at the time of emergency. > I do not know the "agenda" you are talking about. Have you ever read any of the autobiographies of RSS 'sanghsarchalaks' (leaders)? I am not even talking about Gowalikar. Any recent ones? Have you ever read any issue of RSS mouthpiece magazine? Have you ever visited http://rss.org http://rss.org ? > Communist, Church and Muslim organizations... In short, the evergreen enemies of RSS and Hindu Nation. > write unsubstantiated bs about RSS... Do you have any backing beside RSS mouthpiece magazines? > I would rather listen to Dr. Koenraad Elst Because a true nationalist listens to outsiders who agree than nationals who disagree?
scarmig 12y ago
That is maybe just a little too generous to the RSS. It's a big organization, so it does a lot of things. Some well-known events to contextualize the RSS: 1949: A member of the RSS (EDIT: perhaps lapsed, perhaps active), Nathuram Godse, assassinates Mahatma Gandhi for being too partial to Muslims. 1992: The RSS organizes a rally of 150k activists at the Babri Mosque, as part of a campaign to get the government to demolish it and replace it with a Hindu temple. The activists riot, and destroy it. 2002: The Gujarat riots. The RSS played a key role in the violence, organizing communal reprisals against Muslims for a terrorist attack against Hindu pilgrims[1] returning from a trip to the aforementioned demolished mosque. There are several other of these, along with smaller things that still make you raise an eyebrow (e.g. claiming the infamous gang rape in 2012 happens only in cities and because of malign foreign influences). Overall, the RSS is a little bit darker than a Hindu-flavored version of the Red Cross. [1] http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/04/29/india-gujarat-officials-took-part-anti-muslim-violence http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/04/29/india-gujarat-official...
- tn13 12y ago
  Correction: Nathuram Godse was not a member of RSS when he assassinated Gandhi. RSS did not agree with his radical views and hence he left RSS to start his own organization. 2002: Muslim mob burned 59 people alive on a railways station. Riots were mostly a response to this incident.
chatman 12y ago
RSS is a nuisance organization, mostly advocating equivalent of "hindu terrorism".
anu_gupta 12y ago
> If the "BJP has other policies, which are disturbing", please enlighten us. Just lobbing an attack and walking away doesn't do any good. Well, its stance on homosexuality, for one. It's not really hard to work out why many people are disturbed by the BJP, and even more so by Modi.
- discardorama 12y ago
  Why single out BJP? Why not the Congress, which _was_ in power when the High Court judgment came out, and could have passed a law legalizing homosexuality? Actions, as they say, are louder than words. Congress was in a position to enact change; but decided not to.
  - anu_gupta 12y ago
    You wanted an example, I gave you an example - I guess you need to move the goalposts as you can't actually deny that Modi and the BJP have spoken out against homosexuality many times. As far as I'm aware, the Congress Party have pledged in their manifesto that the rights of sexual minorities will be protected. If you want to have a reasoned and rational debate, then fine. If you're just going to try to employ cheap debating tricks to win an argument, then I have no real interest in that. Support who you want, makes little difference to me, beta.
    - discardorama 12y ago
      Nobody is moving the goalposts; pointing out fallacies in your argument is called "shedding light" or "exposing the duplicity of BJP's critics". You talked about "stance on homosexuality". Why is the BJP's stance a negative, while the Congress's stance not? Congress was the one that decided to defend the law and argued in court against homosexuality; and yet you find BJP more reprehensible?!?
      - anu_gupta 12y ago
        Why do you keep trying to detail the conversation, beta? Let's recap. 1. You asked for some other examples of disturbing BJP policies. You didn't qualify that in any way. 2. You get provided with an example 3. You're then all "Oh, but other people do that too, why single out my guy?" 4. Your attempts to move the goalpost is called out. 5. You then decide to use the word "fallacy" incorrectly and continue to try to derail. I think Gandhi was a shit. I think Modi is a shit. I think people like you, who continue to prop up the corrupt power structures in India are directly responsible for the mess that India is in. And I think it's reprehensible that all you can do is try to protect a corrupt, bigoted shit with the defence that someone else was a shit too. In future, choose your words and questions more carefully, and don't cry when you get an answer that you specifically asked for.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

discardorama 12y ago
There's no "argument from authority". The OP said he was not Indian; and I replied I was. Maybe you should try to read your own Wikipedia link? Instead of unnecessary blather, why not post some informative links? Educate us all, instead of trolling from behind a keyboard. RSS is no more "violently anti-muslim" than the Congress Party is "violently anti-Sikh". Read up about the 1984 riots, and learn something for a change.
- sergers 12y ago
  I would say the congress party is/was more anti-sikh than RSS is anti-muslim. Sure they put a sikh in power, but he was just a puppet figure in recent years in taking no action. I very much remember 1984 riots being a Sikh and being there during it. I welcome modi as a change, NRI Sikhs definitely despise the gandhis
- scarmig 12y ago
  There's the not minor point that Congress has formally apologized for its role in the 1984 riots, while Modi and the BJP have offered none for their role in 2002, instead comparing the murdered Muslims to puppies that sometimes happen to get run over by cars.
  - mands 12y ago
    What good is an apology from Congress when they stonewall any attempts for an independent inquiry into the 1984 riots and still harbour known instigators and accomplices at a high level within the party? On the other hand, several senior BJP officials were tried and convicted for their part in the 2002 riots.

DangerousPie 12y ago

edit: Right, why am I getting downvoted for this?? What's your response to the Economist article that was posted here [1]? To quote: "One reason why the inquiries into the riots were inconclusive is that a great deal of evidence was lost or wilfully destroyed. And if the facts in 2002 are murky, so are Mr Modi’s views now. He could put the pogroms behind him by explaining what happened and apologising. Yet he refuses to answer questions about them. In a rare comment last year he said he regretted Muslims’ suffering as he would that of a puppy run over by a car. Amid the uproar, he said he meant only that Hindus care about all life. Muslims—and chauvinist Hindus—heard a different message. Unlike other BJP leaders, Mr Modi has refused to wear a Muslim skullcap and failed to condemn riots in Uttar Pradesh in 2013 when most of the victims were Muslim." [1] http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21600106-he-will-probably-become-indias-next-prime-minister-does-not-mean-he-should-be-can-anyone http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21600106-he-will-proba...

mxfh 12y ago
Happened to my comment too and it's the first time here on HN I'm getting down voted like this and can't think of any other than solely political reasons. It's a bit disturbing to see this happening here of all places. But don't worry getting down voted by people with negative (didn't know that's a thing) karma should turn your actual Karma into something positing positive if my math isn't completely off.

shas3 12y ago

I think the problem with Modi, like extreme politicians (e.g. Le Pen in France or the Tea Party) in other democracies is that some of his utterances are contradictory to Enlightenment humanist ideals. It remains to be seen if the subset of his views that can be considered to be extreme are just rhetoric or if he intends to act on them. Historically, such politicians resemble the nationalistic polities of pre-1945 Europe and post-colonial South America. The bright side about India is that its sheer diversity and the existence of regional leaders (who do not belong to Modi's party) serve as checks and balances. As an example, regional parties organized on linguistic and non-traditional ideologies (communists, anarchists, etc.) basis have captured close to 140 seats in the parliament, including clean-sweeps in several States such as Tamil Nadu (population ~70 million), Odisha (population ~40 million), Seemandhra/Telangana (population ~85 million), and West Bengal (population ~90 million).

datacog 12y ago

> They have a Muslim wing Dint know about that. Thanks for sharing

efuquen 12y ago

I find it amazing the attitude that the 2002 Gujarat riots should be brushed under the rug. There is still plenty of controversy about what happened there and Modi's and the states role in those riots, regardless of what any Supreme Court ruling has said. But I guess we should just let bygones be bygones and forget the 1000+ deaths and 100,000s of displaced lives due to riots that are widely believed to have been encouraged, if not caused, by the state. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-17200961 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-17200961

discardorama 12y ago
As I said, riots are far too frequent in India; even 1 riot is 1 too many. I was in Delhi in 1984. I saw the result of Congress goons going after Sikhs. And yet there was no Supreme Court enquiry. The Prime Minister (Rajiv Gandhi) was never held accountable, since Delhi was a UT at that time. How come no tears are shed for my Sikh brothers?
- 3apo 12y ago
  This. and the fact that Modi was actually praised that Gujrat did not have any riots after 2002/3 and the stable socio-economic climate. Other secular/pro-muslim governments were unable to prevent quite a few during that time
- scarmig 12y ago
  I don't think you understand how this works. It's not "Congress gets one communal violence pass free, it's only fair if the BJP gets a communal violence pass too!"
  - discardorama 12y ago
    No, I don't think you understand how it works. If you are going to hold someone to a standard, then hold EVERYONE to that standard. You can't just hold someone to an arbitrary standard just because you don't like them.
    - 12y ago

r0h1n 12y ago

If the parent is guilty of over simplification, you are guilty of obfuscation. While technically the RSS may have a Muslim wing tucked away somewhere with some token members, it was, is and will remain the umbrella organization for advancing the Hindu (religious) viewpoint. It has been violent many times in its history, and even today stands accused of engineering everything from riots to bomb blasts. And always with an anti-Muslim agenda. Mind you I'm not saying Modi will follow the RSS agenda (I don't think he will, he's far too shrewd and smart for that. He will not compromise his ability to stay PM for 10-15 years for short-term Hindutva agendas). A former colleague of mine just wrote a magisterial account of the RSS' history and future in India for Caravan magazine. I'd recommend those who want to understand more about RSS, BJP and yes, Narendra Modi too, give it a read at leisure. It is a long piece. http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/rss-30 http://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/rss-30

tn13 12y ago
I was associated with more than 10 years or so and I still do not know what this "Hindu religious viewpoint". I have always been pure atheist while I worked for RSS. I was close to higher ups in RSS and I do not know the "agenda" you are talking about. Communist, Church and Muslim organizations and very constantly write unsubstantiated bs about RSS in amagazines like Caravan. There are many things wrong with RSS, I would rather listen to Dr. Koenraad Elst's critic of RSS rather than something written by a intern at Caravan magazine.
- cubancigar11 12y ago
  I feel I should plunge into this mud puddle. I was part of the RSS shakhas. My family has been, for generations, part of RSS. Advani stayed at my house at the time of emergency. > I do not know the "agenda" you are talking about. Have you ever read any of the autobiographies of RSS 'sanghsarchalaks' (leaders)? I am not even talking about Gowalikar. Any recent ones? Have you ever read any issue of RSS mouthpiece magazine? Have you ever visited http://rss.org http://rss.org ? > Communist, Church and Muslim organizations... In short, the evergreen enemies of RSS and Hindu Nation. > write unsubstantiated bs about RSS... Do you have any backing beside RSS mouthpiece magazines? > I would rather listen to Dr. Koenraad Elst Because a true nationalist listens to outsiders who agree than nationals who disagree?

scarmig 12y ago

That is maybe just a little too generous to the RSS. It's a big organization, so it does a lot of things. Some well-known events to contextualize the RSS: 1949: A member of the RSS (EDIT: perhaps lapsed, perhaps active), Nathuram Godse, assassinates Mahatma Gandhi for being too partial to Muslims. 1992: The RSS organizes a rally of 150k activists at the Babri Mosque, as part of a campaign to get the government to demolish it and replace it with a Hindu temple. The activists riot, and destroy it. 2002: The Gujarat riots. The RSS played a key role in the violence, organizing communal reprisals against Muslims for a terrorist attack against Hindu pilgrims[1] returning from a trip to the aforementioned demolished mosque. There are several other of these, along with smaller things that still make you raise an eyebrow (e.g. claiming the infamous gang rape in 2012 happens only in cities and because of malign foreign influences). Overall, the RSS is a little bit darker than a Hindu-flavored version of the Red Cross. [1] http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/04/29/india-gujarat-officials-took-part-anti-muslim-violence http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2002/04/29/india-gujarat-official...

tn13 12y ago
Correction: Nathuram Godse was not a member of RSS when he assassinated Gandhi. RSS did not agree with his radical views and hence he left RSS to start his own organization. 2002: Muslim mob burned 59 people alive on a railways station. Riots were mostly a response to this incident.

chatman 12y ago

RSS is a nuisance organization, mostly advocating equivalent of "hindu terrorism".

anu_gupta 12y ago

> If the "BJP has other policies, which are disturbing", please enlighten us. Just lobbing an attack and walking away doesn't do any good. Well, its stance on homosexuality, for one. It's not really hard to work out why many people are disturbed by the BJP, and even more so by Modi.

discardorama 12y ago
Why single out BJP? Why not the Congress, which _was_ in power when the High Court judgment came out, and could have passed a law legalizing homosexuality? Actions, as they say, are louder than words. Congress was in a position to enact change; but decided not to.
- anu_gupta 12y ago
  You wanted an example, I gave you an example - I guess you need to move the goalposts as you can't actually deny that Modi and the BJP have spoken out against homosexuality many times. As far as I'm aware, the Congress Party have pledged in their manifesto that the rights of sexual minorities will be protected. If you want to have a reasoned and rational debate, then fine. If you're just going to try to employ cheap debating tricks to win an argument, then I have no real interest in that. Support who you want, makes little difference to me, beta.
  - discardorama 12y ago
    Nobody is moving the goalposts; pointing out fallacies in your argument is called "shedding light" or "exposing the duplicity of BJP's critics". You talked about "stance on homosexuality". Why is the BJP's stance a negative, while the Congress's stance not? Congress was the one that decided to defend the law and argued in court against homosexuality; and yet you find BJP more reprehensible?!?
    - anu_gupta 12y ago
      Why do you keep trying to detail the conversation, beta? Let's recap. 1. You asked for some other examples of disturbing BJP policies. You didn't qualify that in any way. 2. You get provided with an example 3. You're then all "Oh, but other people do that too, why single out my guy?" 4. Your attempts to move the goalpost is called out. 5. You then decide to use the word "fallacy" incorrectly and continue to try to derail. I think Gandhi was a shit. I think Modi is a shit. I think people like you, who continue to prop up the corrupt power structures in India are directly responsible for the mess that India is in. And I think it's reprehensible that all you can do is try to protect a corrupt, bigoted shit with the defence that someone else was a shit too. In future, choose your words and questions more carefully, and don't cry when you get an answer that you specifically asked for.