Didn't read the other posts, so am just responding to this one
Originally posted by: atominis
I have often heard people say Modi and BJP have restored pride of Hindus or Hindus were in bad conditions earlier.
May I know how was condition of Hindus bad earlier and why Hindus kept electing same INC, UPA if it was so bad and why was BJP hardly elected earlier except for ABV term?
It was in that after partition, laws that were created by successive governments from Nehru on down were done w/ the purpose of appeasing minorities at the cost of Hindu rights. Take for instance religious places. Muslims have their waqf boards, Sikhs have the Gurudwara Prabhandak Committees, Christians have the Church council of India. Hindus have nothing like that, and our temples are all government controlled. Donations that Hindus make to them go to the government, which uses them not for the improvement of temples or for strengthening Hindu society, but for any secular function it feels like. Read any of the books of Nehru. He made it a point to underplay the pre-islamic achievements of Hindus, and would rebrand it as 'Indian' whatever eg calling Hindu numerals Indian numerals
There were a bunch of reasons that 'Hindus' kept electing the same INC. First of all, after Gandhi's assassination, there was not only a crackdown on Hindu groups nationwide but a sustained campaign to tarnish all who supported the Hindu cause w/ Godse. Also, there were no Hindu parties w/ a well defined agenda: Hindu Mahasabha was on the ropes, and it's worth noting that neither the Jana Sangh nor the BJP considered or even today consider themselves Hindu parties. If you are a Hindu wanting to vote for a Hindu party and you see no party openly calling itself that, and the one party that is there carrying the baggage of the association w/ Godse, what would be a good reason not to vote NOTA or even not vote?
Also, it was the era before social media, so any propaganda that was fed down by the government was the default narrative. There was no way one Hindu sitting in Varanasi could discover another Hindu sitting in Pune who shared his or her political views. Until 1990, all we had was Doordarshan: I remember Star appearing in India in 1990, we started w/ 4 channels when there started to be alternatives. Today, just watch a YouTube video by someone you politically agree w/, and you'll find in the comments section a whole lot of people who you find yourself in agreement w/. That was impossible from the 50s to the 00s.
Originally posted by: atominis
I would genuinely like to know why is it said BJP has restored Hindu pride? Was it down earlier?
Yeah. In the years before 1990, Hindus never voted as Hindus, and political parties did everything to split them by caste and fight elections along those lines. In most of the Hindi belt states, parties would come up w/ caste formulas of forming a coalition of certain castes and muslims to come to power. In that environment, BJP had no chance. Note that BJP was founded in 1980, and in 84, it got only 2 seats due to the sympathy wave after Indira Gandhi's assassination. In 1989, it got some 87 seats, iirc, and was one of the supporting parties of VP Singh. It was the announcement of the Mandal commission recommendations on caste based reservations that prompted the BJP to publicly support the Ram mandir campaign, b'cos it needed to unite the Hindus since it was perceived as an anti-muslim party and was never gonna get muslim votes
I think the reason it is said that the BJP restored Hindu pride was the repeal of Article 370, thereby ending the state of discrimination against Hindus (and Buddhists) in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. The judgement on the Ram temple was a Supreme Court judgement, but many believe that any other government would have sabotaged the ruling, just like Rajiv Gandhi sabotaged Shah Bano. Combine that w/ all the work done in Varanasi to make Hindu pilgrim sites appealing, and it reinforces Hindu pride
Originally posted by: atominis
I remember Indira Gandhi had won 1971 war and was hailed for being strong leader. Some loved her for sending army and IAF at Punjab and Mizoram also. She was also religious and wore rudraksha malas openly, prompted yoga. She wore her faith on sleeve.
And yet she was the person who inserted the term 'Secular' into the Indian constitution, which was never there earlier. On her being religious, there was nothing she didn't do w/ political calculations in mind. It's very similar to Rahul Gandhi embracing almost every religion he comes across whenever he's on any of his tours. The Jagannath temple in Puri recognized her as a non-Hindu and successfully barred her from entry
Also, regarding the 1971 war, looking at Bangladesh today, where Hindus are persecuted, I happen to think that it was a mistake to liberate that country: what we should have done should have been to take in all Hindus, Buddhists and Christians, but leave the Bengali muslims and Pakistani muslims to fight among themselves. Today, Bangladesh is an easier holding station for jihadist elements to infiltrate Bengal and Assam and launch terror in India. Which is why when I see Hindus supporting secessionist movements in Pakistan such as Sind, Balochistan and Pashtunistan, I am aghast, since those people too persecute Hindus to this day, w/ trafficking in non-muslim girls and so on
Originally posted by: atominis
Atal Behari Vajpayee was also a BJP leader. Why is only Modi and current govt credited for restoring pride of Hindus?
Asking genuinely. Please avoid personal attacks or fights. I would genuinely like to be educated on why Modi govt alone is seen as restoring Hindu pride.
Vajpayee was a BJP leader all right, but his NDA government was a coalition government that agreed on a minimum common program. Forget the Ram temple, even Article 370 could not be touched, since none of the BJP allies, except the Shiv Sena, would have agreed to it. It's the reason why Vajpayee had limited success - w/ Pokhran 2, war on terror (after 9/11) and was defeated in 2004.
Incidentally, like I said earlier, the BJP doesn't see itself as a Hindu party, and looking at things, I agree that it is not. For instance, on repealing Article 370, it's disappointing that if Ladakh could be separated from the state, same should have happened to Jammu and Panun Kashmir, so that Kashmir Pundits could have a state to return to w/o jihadist threats, and Dogras would have Jammu to themselves. Similarly, had the BJP been a Hindu party, it would have repealed the Places of Worship Act of 1991, which freezes the status of every Hindu temple that was destroyed and a mosque built in its place, of which there are at least 2000 documented cases. It's not done it. Also, the way the party handled the post-poll violence in Bengal, the Shaheen Bagh incidents and so on, and put NRC on the backburner was disgraceful: if India has to keep accepting unlimited number of muslims from Bangladesh, why don't we just walk in and annex that country? Also, the way it acted on Nupur Sharma and T Raja Singh was disgraceful, as well as its inaction after several murders of Hindus who supported either Nupur Sharma online, or her right to say it
So I don't agree that the BJP or Modi are the ones responsible for restoring the pride of Hindus, although it's hard to imagine that the developments that have taken place in the last 8 years could have happened w/ the Congress or any of the secular parties, which increasingly resemble the Muslim League of the 1940s. I think what has restored Hindu pride has been a lot of the research and discoveries done over the last 8 years. For instance, it has been discovered that contrary to what we were taught in school, neither was Rana Sangha defeated by Babur at Khanua, nor was Rana Pratap defeated by Akbar at Haldighat: a new book called 'Maharanas' by Dr Omendra Ratnu reveals all this, and covers the entire history of the Mewar dynasty from the Arab invasion of Sind to Aurangzeb. Similar other discoveries have been made about other Hindu kingdoms and rulers, which are not covered in school. The discovery of a Shiva linga at the Gyanvapi has strengthened the case for Hindus to get that back, as well as other temples that were destroyed at the alter of jihad
So while I do agree that Modi has been better for allowing a climate where Hindus can re-discover everything great we did in history and work on building on that success, I am not a supporter of his. In fact, he has been trying to appease muslims in his own way, and unfortunately, all that has resulted in is a wave of terror that has culminated in yesterday's ban on the PFI. I do think that attempt by the BJP needs to be arrested, and the only way that can happen is if a new Hindutva party emerges. Since it takes long for a party to establish a foothold, I think that practically, the only way that can happen is if the BJP splits b/w a pro-Modi secular faction and a more Hindutva faction, and the two duke it out in the elections, alongside Congress, AAP and others
So this is how I see it, and apologies for being a tad long winded
comment:
p_commentcount