Indian Elections 2024

[Barrister]

"The primary glue remains their Islamophobic viewpoint," says Mukhopadhyay. "On the one hand, they say everybody is free to follow their own faith in this country, but they also say everybody is a Hindu: the culture of this land is essentially Hindu."

You can have any religion you like provided it is Hinduism.

It's slightly different then that from what I recall.

The BJP are much more tolerant of Sikhism and Buddhism because both originate from within India, whereas Islam comes from outside and is seen more negatively.

[Valmy]

"The primary glue remains their Islamophobic viewpoint," says Mukhopadhyay. "On the one hand, they say everybody is free to follow their own faith in this country, but they also say everybody is a Hindu: the culture of this land is essentially Hindu."

You can have any religion you like provided it is Hinduism.

It's slightly different then that from what I recall.

The BJP are much more tolerant of Sikhism and Buddhism because both originate from within India, whereas Islam comes from outside and is seen more negatively.

I know in the old days the idea that Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism were different religions would have seemed like a bizarre concept so maybe when they mean something like that when they say "everybody is a Hindu".

[Josquius]

Aren't they pretty dodgy with Sikhs what with the Canada killing and the whole sikh independence movement?
I've heard stories of Christians getting a rough time too.
A lot seems to be diet related with the hindu nationalists trying to spread this idea of India as a vegetarian country despite most Hindus never mind others not being vegetarian.

[Barrister]

Aren't they pretty dodgy with Sikhs what with the Canada killing and the whole sikh independence movement?
I've heard stories of Christians getting a rough time too.
A lot seems to be diet related with the hindu nationalists trying to spread this idea of India as a vegetarian country despite most Hindus never mind others not being vegetarian.

So I am certainly no expert on hindu nationalism!

I think the issue with sikhs is more political - as you say the demand for a "Khalistan" - an independent Sikh homeland, and not particularly religious.

Christians - again arose from outside of India.

And let me be clear - I only said "more tolerant" - because the BJP is not at all tolerant of Muslims!

[Sheilbh]

So I am certainly no expert on hindu nationalism!

I think the issue with sikhs is more political - as you say the demand for a "Khalistan" - an independent Sikh homeland, and not particularly religious.

Christians - again arose from outside of India.

And let me be clear - I only said "more tolerant" - because the BJP is not at all tolerant of Muslims!

So I recently listend to a podcast on Savarkar by author of a new book on him and she said basically the same about coming from outside of India. In part because if you have a Hindu of India then by definition they are converts as it comes from outside and traitors to a Hindu India (rather than that they themselves are in some way foreign).

Also apparently with Savarkar there is also a view that Islam has a particular drive to sovereignty which makes it a threat in a way other faiths aren't. Obviously, also relevant, is that Muslims are just practically the largest religious minority in India. But it adds to what I've seen online of the very weird, very strong overlap between the Indian internet and European or Israeli far-right which are all very Islamophobic.

[Admiral Yi]

The BJP are much more tolerant of Sikhism and Buddhism because both originate from within India, whereas Islam comes from outside and is seen more negatively.

I've always thought that Islam being the religion of the conquerors has something to do with it.

[crazy canuck]

And yet people in the west still look at India as a counter to China rather then the next problem after China

I think it's a shift in power. In 1945 Europe and the US accounted for about 75% of the world economy, they're now about a third. China and India are a rising share of that and think (not unreasonably) that with that should come a share of world power which is still very Atlantic.

I'm not sure the US or Europe is particularly keen or willing to share that power (for different reasons and in different ways) but they need to accommodate India and China in some way - and soon, hopefully, they'll also need to accommodate a rising Africa.

I think that is the charitable version - it is closer to the truth that the West viewed both China and India as untapped markets.

Genuine question - is it more charitable to think it was to do with trade and the economy, or bloodless realpolitik?

I'm not sure - I think it's difficult to talk of the "West" in relation to either China or India. The UK almost immediately recognised the PRC, because of Hong Kong it needed a relationship with the mainland government and couldn't pretend the ROC was the "real China". A little later but France and Italy were also realist and, especially Italy, very early into China's economy.


I don't think economics was really the motive for the US dealing with Mao's China because I don't think that was a realistic goal in engaging with Mao and betting on "reform and opening" would have been very bold in 1972. I think it was a combination of factors. The US vetoing the PRC from entering the UN in favour of Taiwan was not sustainable, I think there was a countering the Soviets angle and I also think there was ego and excitement from Nixon and Kissinger of doing something historic. To flip it though - and I've no basis for this whatsoever (I have found a book on Zhou and will get it) - the reason you want to engage with the US is its cash. I slightly wonder if for Zhou opening the US to Mao's China was, like getting Mao to rehabilitate Deng and other leaders of "reform and opening", a way to orient the Chinese leadership on a path and checkmate the Gang of Four posthumously (not that he knew he was ill at that point - but was it part of that fight)?

With India I think Pakistan and the war on terror and China have all been as important as any econommic motivations. I also think, again to flip it from something the West does to something where Indian leaders are making choices, that the last bit of the Gandhi-Nehruvian consensus is non-alignment. I think India's state ideologically opposes power blocs and will not become part of one, but will work with different countries in different ways on an issue by issue basis. Which I think is something the US and the West find a little confounding, but is India's approach.

Having said all of that I think lots of Western countries and companies basically assumed massive market ???? PROFIT and have been shocked to discover that actually Indians and Chinese are also very good capitalists and not only able to make money in their own markets but to compete globally.

I think the idea is we worked to give both a reason to support the current state of things. It didn't work with China...or at least not to the extent we would have wanted. No matter how weird things get inside of India is there any reason to believe they are going to be some kind of anti-Western force?

Well what China and India will want is a say in the "rules based liberal order" which is commensurate to their heft economically and politically. I don't think the US is willing to countenance that for one second.

I think in general the areas and forums where those countries feel they have a say and a voice will be ones where they work wtihin the international structure that exists. In areas where they don't (e.g. finance) they will seek to revise the international order.

there's the whole extrajudicial murders in foreign states thing, that doesn't bode well.

I saw a fascinating article from an Indian commentator on that. It basically said that aside from whether or not it was right, it marked the rise of India as a great power because there were no consequences. He argued basically that India, like Israel or the US, could extrajudicially murder people overseas and no-one would or could do anything about it. No sanctions, no pariah status.

He didn't say this but basically it was a rather grim coming out party.

Yes, I think it is more charitable to say that the west brought India and China into an alliance system rather than to say they were simply trying to exploit them economically.

And of course, the west has been exploiting both India and China since The age of sail.

[Barrister]

The BJP are much more tolerant of Sikhism and Buddhism because both originate from within India, whereas Islam comes from outside and is seen more negatively.

I've always thought that Islam being the religion of the conquerors has something to do with it.

Isn't that saying the same thing?

[grumbler]

The BJP are much more tolerant of Sikhism and Buddhism because both originate from within India, whereas Islam comes from outside and is seen more negatively.

I've always thought that Islam being the religion of the conquerors has something to do with it.

Also that converts were likely to come from the lower castes, which was viewed by many Hindus as an attempt to escape karmic justice, since being born low caste was a result of misdeeds in previous lives.

[Admiral Yi]

The BJP are much more tolerant of Sikhism and Buddhism because both originate from within India, whereas Islam comes from outside and is seen more negatively.

I've always thought that Islam being the religion of the conquerors has something to do with it.

Isn't that saying the same thing?

Indonesia was not conquered by Muslims.  China, Japan and Korea were not conquered by Buddhists.

[grumbler]

Indonesia was not conquered by Muslims.  China, Japan and Korea were not conquered by Buddhists.

But it is true that many Chinese classical Buddhist scholars argued that "Gautam Buddha" was Chinese, and there are still sporadic outbreaks of the claim in modern times.  Attempts to recast popular "foreign" religions as essentially domestic are numerous.

[Barrister]

The BJP are much more tolerant of Sikhism and Buddhism because both originate from within India, whereas Islam comes from outside and is seen more negatively.

I've always thought that Islam being the religion of the conquerors has something to do with it.

Isn't that saying the same thing?

Indonesia was not conquered by Muslims.  China, Japan and Korea were not conquered by Buddhists.

So?

If you're a hindu nationalist it doesn't matter what happened in Indonesia or east asia.

Christianity didn't conquer a lot of areas that later became Christian.  But the Brits did come to control India, so Christianity is seen as a foreign influence.

[Admiral Yi]

So?

So it's not the same thing.

[Jacob]

Yi's point is that the set [foreign faiths] and [the faith of the invader] are not a perfect one to one. [Foreign faiths that came here peacefully] are still [foreign faiths], but not [the faith of the invader].

Yi gave examples of foreign faiths that arrived peacefully - Islam in Indonesia, Buddhism in China, Japan, and Korea.

[Barrister]

Yi's point is that the set [foreign faiths] and [the faith of the invader] are not a perfect one to one. [Foreign faiths that came here peacefully] are still [foreign faiths], but not [the faith of the invader].

Yi gave examples of foreign faiths that arrived peacefully - Islam in Indonesia, Buddhism in China, Japan, and Korea.

Again, so I'm hardly a BJP apologist nor member.

As I understand it (and I can be wrong) though if you're a hindu nationalist you only care about India.  Islam (and to a much lesser extent Christianity) were brought in by outside invaders.  Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism are native Indian religions, not brought by outside invaders.  What happened in other countries is immaterial.

(No idea what they think of Zoroastrians who arrived as refugees, but given the incredibly tiny numbers it hardly matters)

Oh - I came across the term they use - "Dharmic religions".  Which basically just means what I said - religions that originate in India, and are hinuism, buddhism, sikhism and jainism.  The fact that buddhism is probably more popular outside of India than inside of it again just doesn't factor in to it.


Edit: pretty sketchy stuff (Quora) suggests that Zoroastrians are actually on pretty good terms with the BJP due to mutual antipathy with muslims.  Sigh.