Comments on A Lover's Journal: India's New Face: Narendra Modi in The Atlantic

I like your display of understanding and confidenc...

2011-10-28T20:33:44.280-07:00

I like your display of understanding and confidence in the article ,dude/dudette.

I am a hardcore Modi supporter,but,all said and done, I was pleased that you didnt blindly supported your views for Modi. You put up some really strong points .

After such a long time,i have read & enjoyed a good piece of article.
Cheers mate.
Regards.

Some of the recent comments are taking the focus a...

2009-05-04T23:49:00.000-07:00

Some of the recent comments are taking the focus away from the subject of this post - Mr Narendra Modi. I regret contributing to that. Readers who want to call me names or comment about my opinions are welcome to do so on other posts on this blog. Let's keep the focus of this post on Mr Modi. Check out his recent 3-part interview on Rediff.com. Impressive vision and articulation. Even more impressive when he presents the facts and figures about Gujarat's development. Comes across as a sincere, no-nonsense politician.

Narendra Modi Rediff Interview - Part 1

Narendra Modi Rediff Interview - Part 2

Narendra Modi Rediff Interview - Part 3LL

RM, You keep using the word bigot. I don't think ...

2009-05-04T22:24:00.000-07:00

RM,

You keep using the word bigot. I don't think it means what you think it means. Bigots don't talk about inclusion. Bigots don't want everybody to come together and participate in the national life. Bigots want to keep certain people excluded. If my blog post above sounded like I want to exclude Muslims or anybody else form the national life, there's some serious comprehension issues.

Not that this is anything new. Those who advocate the equal rights for all citizens as spelled out in the Uniform Civil Code have been similarly labelled bigots by Indian pseudosecularists for several decades now. Perhaps you are continuing in the same mindless tradition of incomprehension.

LL

Don't bother, Where did the reference to Jay Leno...

2009-05-04T22:15:00.000-07:00

Don't bother,

Where did the reference to Jay Leno of The Tonight Show come from all of a sudden? What is the context? Were you confused by my reference to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show in the previous comment? Don't worry. Everybody makes mistakes - some more than others.

As for why Jon Stewart is the pimp-daddy of all American journalists and why said journalists piss in their diapers when The Daily Show puts them in the cross-hairs, consider the following:

Exhibit 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZEA couple of typical journalists invite Jon Stewart to CNN's Crossfire show. Jon is so devastatingly effective in calling out their hypocrisy, shortly after this episode, CNN completely cancels Crossfire.

Exhibit 2 - http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=CNBC-Gives-Financial-AdviceIn one relentless week in March 2009, Jon destroyed the credibility of CNBC's financial 'journalists' and their shows. He pretty much ran their asses through a meat grinder and handed it back to them. A few days later, MSNBC's Jim Cramer came on The Daily Show, acted like a complete pussy, licked Jon's shoes and crawled away.

Exhibit 3 - http://blog.indecisionforever.com/2008/08/25/breakfast-with-jon-stewart-part-one/At the height of the US Presidential election campaign last year, Jon Stewart invites a bunch of prominent journalists (from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, The Associated Press and other important news organizations) for breakfast, tells them why they are a bunch of dumb hypocrites who are not doing their jobs well and they all listen with rapt attention, literally fawning on them.

That's Jon Stewart for you. Consider yourself educated this evening.

Gosh, many things to talk about, but for one, app...

2009-05-04T21:36:00.000-07:00

Gosh, many things to talk about, but for one,
apparently, Jay Leno is an "informed" media commentator now. Too bad we were all on the wrong side of the world more than half our lives.

RM & Visitor, There seems to be a misundersta...

2009-05-04T19:58:00.000-07:00

RM & Visitor,

There seems to be a misunderstanding about my post and subsequent comment - my statements are not about an 'entire community'. My statements are specific to people who have 'withdrawn into their communities' as the Kaplan article put it, and feel that they are not included in the mainstream life of the state or nation. Wasn't that obvious from the context of the post?

I am not quite so stupid that I'd paint 100% of any group the same color. But I was stupid enough to assume that my readers would know the most important rule of generic statements: exceptions are implied and 100% applicability is not. I did not think it necessary to list all the exceptions starting from ex-President Abdul Kalam to someone's friend's father to the hardworking Muslim family that was a tenant in the house I grew up in.

As for me being a bigot - isn't that the classic response of pseudoseculars when one says anything unflattering about a 'particular community'? What next? Call me a chaddi?

BTW, 'particular community' is the phrase many Indian journalists use to refer to Muslims in the media. Apparently, even calling them Muslims would be bigotted in the eyes of these eminent seculars. If these worthies had done their job right in the first place, I wouldn't even have had to publish this blog entry. The best episodes of The Daily Show are the ones in which Jon Stewart kicks mainstream media's ass from coast to coast, calling them out on their substandard reporting. If there was a Daily Show in India, it would be the same story, if not worse. 'Nuff said about Indian journos and the quality of their reporting.

Oops! There I go again, making generic statements about members of an entire profession, ignoring great reporters like someone's friend's ex-RSS dhal-mate. Apparently, I will never learn!

LL

I just want to quickly respond to some of your poi...

2009-05-04T19:07:00.000-07:00

I just want to quickly respond to some of your points.
1. In your original post, you mention that no one has clearly come out with "what it was that Modi and his administration" were supposed to do over the course of his riots. Well, he sure wasn't supposed to say even as the riots were unfolding: "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narendra_Modi#Criticism . This is well documented as you probably know. So, you are right--there's never been a clear account of what he could have done to prevent the riots, but unless you have an unforgiving bias, you will agree that that's not simply callousness; it's a murderous statement. Just to conclude this point, your call for proof will likely never be met -- it's the standard of proof that results in most rape and murder cases remaining unsolved. So, my point is simply that people in authority who make such remarks during the course of the violence need to be held accountable.

2. I think you make good points about Narendra Modi's performance in terms of development. I agree it's unfortunate that it's not discussed as much as it should be. I'll be honest and admit that I don't know enough to comment on his performance. But I've heard good things, so you are probably right.

3. You write: "This is a phenomenon that is observed in most countries where Muslims exist in substantial numbers, but are not the majority. They form ghettos and don't mingle with the other communities, don't take active participation in national life and discourses." What's the evidence? In fact, recent research suggests(I'm actually unable to get my hands on the latest report) that Muslims are well-integrated in the US. In any case, you can take a look at this. This is a slightly older report. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6680939.stm
Sure, there are issues in other parts of the world--in England, for instance, research suggests that Muslims aren't very well integrated. However, at the very least you've got to admit that your statement is a dangerous and naive generalization that doesn't help in the healing. If you read the history of the first 10 years of this country--read the Constituent Assembly debates for instance--you'll be stunned at the wisdom with which India's major leaders built the country. There was a lot of give and take and that's what ensured India remained a democracy. It's probably what we need today.

4. You want Muslims to 'get on with it' {at least that's what I understood from your response to one of the comments-- "Is anybody asking the people who whine about being excluded (be it Muslims or generic slum-dwellers or any other such countless groups in India) from mainstream life, what they are doing for themselves and their own families, forget about the country?"}. I have Muslim friends in India and I don't think any of them really need to be told to 'get on with it'. I think they manage just fine. They do take care of their families, more or less, and they do what the average Ram or Hari does for the country. I know you probably would defend yourself saying that you aren't necessarily only pointing the finger at Muslims, but the tone of your entire piece seems to suggest otherwise.

5. There's a couple of other points that I would like to add, but I'm out of time. Keep the posts coming.

Oh, I didn't say I was part of any debate. You see...

2009-05-04T18:30:00.000-07:00

Oh, I didn't say I was part of any debate. You seemed to imply you were.

I can't respond to everything here because clearly I made the choice not to be a "real" journalist either, but perhaps someone else will defend me? My charge was of bigotry and you just prove it by calling an entirely community (some of them invested as much in government and national building) who are nevertheless insular (like all other minorities or castes, or communities) "whiners." I certainly do not disagree that Modi's work has been undermined. However, to use the "whiners" card as a counterargument is hypocritical. There was a massacre and yes, the minority vote has always determined who gets into power and so there is bound to be coddling. But, you forget that some people actually witnessed the Bombay riots and have first-hand experiences. And the idea of alienation from the "mainstream" of course, in this case, clearly refers to you and me-- i.e. the elite. If you actually spoke to an on-field journalist (whom I do happen to know and can put you in touch with and was a former Sanghi), you'd know that more nation building happens in chai shops in Bihar than on blogs and that includes Muslims and Dalits.

And, those "barbs," btw, are completely true. Journalism doesn't consist of lifting quotes out of context, responding to them, and weaving a bigoted argument out of them. It consists of first-hand on-field experience. Journalism school does teach you that.

You'll probably dish up the same drivel again in response, so I'll rest my case. You're free to think you've made your point, which you have anyway.

When I posted this blog entry, I knew that I could...

2009-05-04T09:39:00.000-07:00

When I posted this blog entry, I knew that I could expect some knee-jerk reactions. Only surprised that it took so long for one to roll in.

Let me reproduce the part of the article where I talk about ghettoization:

Quote from Kaplan article: What I encountered in interviews with victims of the 2002 violence was not so much radicalization, but alienation from India, evidenced by their withdrawal into their own communities, their reluctance to venture among Hindus.

And I wrote: What Mr Kaplan does not seem to realize is that this withdrawal and ghettoization of Muslims does not have anything to do with Mr Modi or the Gujarat riots. This is a phenomenon that is observed in most countries where Muslims exist in substantial numbers, but are not the majority. They form ghettos and don't mingle with the other communities, don't take active participation in national life and discourses. This has been observed in UK, France and other Western countries also. Where is Mr Modi's influence in those countries? Was there a 2002 Gujarat riot in those countries also?
Now my response to your comment:
1. Is any of the above factually untrue? No doubt, there are thousands of Muslims who are actively engaged in Indian national life. And, there are certainly millions more Hindus (including myself) who are not. That still does not change the fact about people who withdraw into their own communities and then complain that they are not being included in mainstream life. THAT is the context in which this comment was made. This is a very real problem in many parts of the world where Muslims live. Not just in India. There are some Muslim ghettoes in UK and France and Australia where even the local cops are afraid to go alone late at night. These places appear less like UK, France and Australia and more like some backward middle-eastern town where honor killings still happen!

2. My above comments about Muslim ghettoization do not preclude anybody else (for example Blacks, Hispanic, even Indians in UK & some parts of US) from the phenomenon of ghettoization. So, why even bring that up? In fact, my comment is less about ghettoization per se. It is more about the hypocrisy in keeping oneself away from mainstream life and complaining that one does not feel included. If Indians in the US withdraw themselves from public life and then complain that they are not included, I will call them out on that.

3. The point is that, there is nobody specifically or systematically keeping a whole community of Muslims from developing and living a good life in India. I am sure there are exceptions to that, but there is no systematic bias or discrimination, that is comparable to apartheid in the old US or more recent South Africa. More to the point of Kaplan's article, 2002 riots or Modi are NOT the root cause for ghettoization of Muslims in Gujarat. Even your own comment admits that ghettoization is a more generic phenomenon.

4. I don't know your friend's father, but I am certainly glad you bring him up. Muslims like him prove the point I am making above: "Don't whine, if you truly want something, just go out there and do it." When a John F Kennedy says, "Ask not what the country can do for you; ask what you can do for the country", it becomes a quote repeated across the world, over decades. Is anybody asking the people who whine about being excluded (be it Muslims or generic slum-dwellers or any other such countless groups in India) from mainstream life, what they are doing for themselves and their own families, forget about the country? No. Instead, such whiners get prime spots on the pages of newspapers and magazines, national and international.

5. "Live in India", "be a REAL journalist", "people who are bigoted", "what are YOU doing for the country?" are all petty barbs not worth dignifying with a response. Debates are elevated by sticking to the subject of the debate. Not by getting petty and personal.

Muslims are not into public life? My friend's fath...

2009-05-04T08:03:00.000-07:00

Muslims are not into public life? My friend's father is a high court judge and they are more into nation building then you are, for sure.

Ghettoizing is a big part of a lot of Indian communities. Who is not insular? Isn't caste insular? For God's sake, either live in India or be a REAL journalist or stop talking. It certainly is your blog, but I really think that political debate is beyond the repertoire of people who are as bigoted as the other side is.

http://renjithmn.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/general-...

2009-04-24T01:42:00.000-07:00

http://renjithmn.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/general-election-2009-bjp-vs-congress/

LL, I have heard so-called secularists talking ...

2009-04-21T13:18:00.000-07:00

LL,
I have heard so-called secularists talking about "fascism" when it comes to Hindus but keeping silent when Muslims perpetrate violence. So far I have only read biased accounts on Mr.Modi which hold him responsible for Gujarat riots...As you pointed out all these started with the Godhra incident.

India is what She is only because of Hindu majority and Hindu tolerance and liberalism.

Your quote from Kaplan:
"Modi’s entire governing style is antidemocratic, albeit quite effective, emphasizing reliance on a lean, stripped-down bureaucracy of which he has taken complete personal control"

Well this what managers in organizations do: take ownership of problems, and lead the leanest teams towards success. Too much democracy won't help - opinions need to be listened to but there is only one leader. Or else there is chaos.

On an unrelated note you wrote:

"..This is a phenomenon that is observed in most countries where Muslims exist in substantial numbers, but are not the majority. They form ghettos and don't mingle with the other communities, don't take active participation in national life and discourses..."

And in countries where they form the majority, in general they try to convert, kill or otherwise marginalize the minorities - and impose Islamic rule on them.

Priya.

very nice artical, every one wants be a good leade...

2009-04-19T17:24:00.000-07:00

very nice artical, every one wants be a good leader for nation, but the disadvantege of democracy is bad people will not get a good leader. if the people of nation are aware about his leader than must be nation will get a leader like modi.