As Narendra Modi becomes India’s second-longest consecutively serving Prime Minister, we look at how he compares with Indira Gandhi across four key dimensions.
This is the biased negative approach of the writer and there upon the comments made by the other people.
Mr Tufail has never bothered to write about the plight of the Exiled hapless Kashmiri Pandits by the Pakistan sponsored Kashmiri Muslim terrorists why does he not ponder over the religious based appeasement policy of Political Party for Vote bank, which ruled our country for over six decades. Can he dare to discuss about the disasrous policy of the First PM of India about Kashmir and China which is the root cause of the present turmoil in Kashmir.
We expect reply from Mr. Tofail.
Nice Article by Tufail…..he needs to answer these as well very seriously and just not hide behind the mask of scholarly writings.
If India is a secular country & Indian Muslims are as Indian as Hindus, why do they never feel bad about or criticise Mughal atrocities? Why do they oppose renaming of historic monuments and roads named after Mughal invaders? Why do they hate the state of Israel, an Indian ally?
Indian Muslims often corner Hindus on why do they hate Mughals more than Britishers when both of them were equally brutal invaders. That’s cuz most Britishers are not very proud of their country’s colonial sins whereas Indian Muslims proudly call Mughal terrorists their heroes.
1. The allegation the Prime Minister is racist simply reveals the authors own highly prejudiced outlook of our polity. Is it not possible to level criticisms without ‘going low’?
2. The evidence to substantiate his allegation is weak without stretching ones imagination to connect various incidents across this vast nation into one common devious ‘grand plan’ by the PM. The sheer scale of India seems lost on academics when attempting to fit circumstances to meet their already settled political conclusions.
3. Would this author propose in New York, that Christian Evangelicals, Mormons or even Muslims be allowed to practice their personal laws as per their holy books? Why is it, India must remain a special case in their minds, where a level playing field in our laws is not possible? It’s shocking to see countries in the Middle East reforming their personal laws faster than India can even agree to hold a vote in Parliament. Calls for a Select committee for the Triple Talaq Bill sounds like another attempt to delay bringing India into the modern age.
4. Our highly rigid polity, constrained by leftist thought for many decades, has left India lacking in a set of principles or even rigorous debate on the political right of the spectrum. Perhaps had previous governments not practiced such baltent “though control”, there would be genuinely diverse streams of political expression in the country today. As a consequence, the current govt is attempting to patch something together whilst in motion. This is not ideal but it still holds out the prospect of change rather than the status quo leftist dominated framework which has controlled India since independence- the results of which are visible for everyone to see around us.
5. Law and order is a state subject and all states including those ruled by the opposition have failed to enact laws to professionalize the police forces. The resulting lack of genuine capacity within police forces has more to explain for various ‘incidents’ going out of control, than the BJPs unique political outlook.
6. India is a democracy not a one party state such as China. Reform happens slowly not at breathneck speed- the proverbial elephant- and the PM must work diligently to reform India within the system that elected him. He’s doing a reasonable job. If one doesn’t like his performance, they are free to vote the BJP out of power in 2019. Citizens of India shall decide that is. The rest shall have to contend with voicing their frustrations on the internet.
It’s strange logic. Prevention of cruelty to animals act was vile and withdrawing it was vicious. Modi criticises vigilante when victims are Dalits ? How exactly did you come to this conclusion
To the contrary, there could be no greater act of Constitutional Propriety than to implement the DPSP as India’s founding fathers eventually hoped would be done.
Attacks of this nature only embolden the old guard to protect outdated social structures, where the word of imans hold weight over that of judges, where women’s rights are subjected to a religious test rather than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I support the BJP’s bill against Triple Talaq. I condemn those whose think we should continue to live by Muslim personal law in this century.
I respectfully disagree with all points of this article. I take strong exception to the accusation our Government is racist – The so called leader of the free world- right there in Washington DC- deserves that title. I wonder if the author would dare suggest abolishing religious laws in favor of laws made by a democratic parliament, is racist, in the USA?
The template of this article follows an all to familiar script!
Yet, whilst others remain trapped in their straight jacket political outlook, our Prime Minister continues to prove age or past ideology are no barrier to breaking out the mould. That his evolution has erked the RSS and leftist bastions alike, suggest he’s doing something right!
PS- Has The CM of UP actually engaged in communally charged conduct since taking the helm of the office? The attempt to give color where there is no recent evidence of it, is perhaps why so many refuse to move out of their boxes. We keep looking for the familiar ‘bad guys’ and miss countless opportunities to build bridges to the future. Please, let’s move on to better ideas for India.
This article’s only observation worth commending; “India is a diverse democracy, which cannot be squeezed into “isms” easily for too long.” True that!
The rest I’m afraid is hyperbole. Stitching together a few facts with projected bias and promoting victimology amongst certain groups does not constitute taking the democratic debate forward in a meaningful way.
On the subjects of polygamy and triple talaq, which Mr Ahmad describes as “Hindu political issues” I would kindly suggest he study the directive principals of state policy as contained in Part IV (Article 36-51) of the Constitution of India.
I appreciate The Print publishing this article, which is a sign of of our healthy democracy.
On the article itself, I do take issue with the authors selective portrayal of certain incidents as being aligned with the agenda of the PM. In a country as large as ours, with a substandard law enforcement apparatus, it would be easy to point fingers at whoever was the PM through many incidents of concern in history as well.
The Q that should concern us is if Modi is using his political capital for a strategic reform of Indian institutions, despite the tactical set backs on the ground from time to time. This is the yardstick I shall judge PM Modi on in the next election.
I’m not convinced the author has presented any more convincing a case than those that ran a vicious overseas and domestic campaign against Modi when he was CM of Gujarat.
As for the PMs silence in the face of certain pressure points, there is an old Russian saying, loosely translated, “it is sometimes better to be seen as guilty then impotent”.
This is the biased negative approach of the writer and there upon the comments made by the other people.
Mr Tufail has never bothered to write about the plight of the Exiled hapless Kashmiri Pandits by the Pakistan sponsored Kashmiri Muslim terrorists why does he not ponder over the religious based appeasement policy of Political Party for Vote bank, which ruled our country for over six decades. Can he dare to discuss about the disasrous policy of the First PM of India about Kashmir and China which is the root cause of the present turmoil in Kashmir.
We expect reply from Mr. Tofail.
Impatient of Humpty Dumpty (modi shah combo) will risk the exhaustion of HINDUISM it self…
Nice Article by Tufail…..he needs to answer these as well very seriously and just not hide behind the mask of scholarly writings.
If India is a secular country & Indian Muslims are as Indian as Hindus, why do they never feel bad about or criticise Mughal atrocities? Why do they oppose renaming of historic monuments and roads named after Mughal invaders? Why do they hate the state of Israel, an Indian ally?
Indian Muslims often corner Hindus on why do they hate Mughals more than Britishers when both of them were equally brutal invaders. That’s cuz most Britishers are not very proud of their country’s colonial sins whereas Indian Muslims proudly call Mughal terrorists their heroes.
1. The allegation the Prime Minister is racist simply reveals the authors own highly prejudiced outlook of our polity. Is it not possible to level criticisms without ‘going low’?
2. The evidence to substantiate his allegation is weak without stretching ones imagination to connect various incidents across this vast nation into one common devious ‘grand plan’ by the PM. The sheer scale of India seems lost on academics when attempting to fit circumstances to meet their already settled political conclusions.
3. Would this author propose in New York, that Christian Evangelicals, Mormons or even Muslims be allowed to practice their personal laws as per their holy books? Why is it, India must remain a special case in their minds, where a level playing field in our laws is not possible? It’s shocking to see countries in the Middle East reforming their personal laws faster than India can even agree to hold a vote in Parliament. Calls for a Select committee for the Triple Talaq Bill sounds like another attempt to delay bringing India into the modern age.
4. Our highly rigid polity, constrained by leftist thought for many decades, has left India lacking in a set of principles or even rigorous debate on the political right of the spectrum. Perhaps had previous governments not practiced such baltent “though control”, there would be genuinely diverse streams of political expression in the country today. As a consequence, the current govt is attempting to patch something together whilst in motion. This is not ideal but it still holds out the prospect of change rather than the status quo leftist dominated framework which has controlled India since independence- the results of which are visible for everyone to see around us.
5. Law and order is a state subject and all states including those ruled by the opposition have failed to enact laws to professionalize the police forces. The resulting lack of genuine capacity within police forces has more to explain for various ‘incidents’ going out of control, than the BJPs unique political outlook.
6. India is a democracy not a one party state such as China. Reform happens slowly not at breathneck speed- the proverbial elephant- and the PM must work diligently to reform India within the system that elected him. He’s doing a reasonable job. If one doesn’t like his performance, they are free to vote the BJP out of power in 2019. Citizens of India shall decide that is. The rest shall have to contend with voicing their frustrations on the internet.
It’s strange logic. Prevention of cruelty to animals act was vile and withdrawing it was vicious. Modi criticises vigilante when victims are Dalits ? How exactly did you come to this conclusion
To the contrary, there could be no greater act of Constitutional Propriety than to implement the DPSP as India’s founding fathers eventually hoped would be done.
Attacks of this nature only embolden the old guard to protect outdated social structures, where the word of imans hold weight over that of judges, where women’s rights are subjected to a religious test rather than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I support the BJP’s bill against Triple Talaq. I condemn those whose think we should continue to live by Muslim personal law in this century.
Wow! The article is humbug of course but it’s great to see the wide spectrum of opinions on this website. Long Live a free press!
It’s a curious academic who claims reforming divorce by verbal utterance, is a form of racism. Curious indeed.
I respectfully disagree with all points of this article. I take strong exception to the accusation our Government is racist – The so called leader of the free world- right there in Washington DC- deserves that title. I wonder if the author would dare suggest abolishing religious laws in favor of laws made by a democratic parliament, is racist, in the USA?
The template of this article follows an all to familiar script!
Yet, whilst others remain trapped in their straight jacket political outlook, our Prime Minister continues to prove age or past ideology are no barrier to breaking out the mould. That his evolution has erked the RSS and leftist bastions alike, suggest he’s doing something right!
PS- Has The CM of UP actually engaged in communally charged conduct since taking the helm of the office? The attempt to give color where there is no recent evidence of it, is perhaps why so many refuse to move out of their boxes. We keep looking for the familiar ‘bad guys’ and miss countless opportunities to build bridges to the future. Please, let’s move on to better ideas for India.
This article’s only observation worth commending; “India is a diverse democracy, which cannot be squeezed into “isms” easily for too long.” True that!
The rest I’m afraid is hyperbole. Stitching together a few facts with projected bias and promoting victimology amongst certain groups does not constitute taking the democratic debate forward in a meaningful way.
On the subjects of polygamy and triple talaq, which Mr Ahmad describes as “Hindu political issues” I would kindly suggest he study the directive principals of state policy as contained in Part IV (Article 36-51) of the Constitution of India.
I appreciate The Print publishing this article, which is a sign of of our healthy democracy.
On the article itself, I do take issue with the authors selective portrayal of certain incidents as being aligned with the agenda of the PM. In a country as large as ours, with a substandard law enforcement apparatus, it would be easy to point fingers at whoever was the PM through many incidents of concern in history as well.
The Q that should concern us is if Modi is using his political capital for a strategic reform of Indian institutions, despite the tactical set backs on the ground from time to time. This is the yardstick I shall judge PM Modi on in the next election.
I’m not convinced the author has presented any more convincing a case than those that ran a vicious overseas and domestic campaign against Modi when he was CM of Gujarat.
As for the PMs silence in the face of certain pressure points, there is an old Russian saying, loosely translated, “it is sometimes better to be seen as guilty then impotent”.