Categories India
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
Hindutva does not belong to Modi nor his party, it belongs to the people as a unifying, decolonial ideology similar to pan-Africanism or Yugoslavism.
His own brand of "positive secularism" is even milder - deepening special rights and welfare schemes for religious minorities.
After the disbanding of the Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh, Hindutva as a political ideology does not even exist, except as a bogeyman in the minds of the Anglophone elite.
Even the BJP gave up Hindutva for civic nationalism, Gandhian socialism, and positive secularism in 1980s.
Under Modi, there has been compete policy continuity on minority rights and welfare from the Congress era, with little to no "Hindutva agenda" coming to see the light of day.
The most radical policy they can dream of is religion-neutral laws and equal rights for equal citizens.
Hindutva was essential in forming a national consciousness, but was abandoned with time. The modern BJP refuses to self-identify as a Hindutva movement, adopting moderates like Sardar Patel, Deendayal Upadhyay, and JP Narayan as their icons, rather than Savarkar or the Mahasabha.
When they say Hindu Rashtra, all they mean is an "Indic polity".
When British India was partitioned into a Muslim homeland and a Dharmic homeland, one state became a 'Ghazi' garrison state, and one the successor state to the Indic
His own brand of "positive secularism" is even milder - deepening special rights and welfare schemes for religious minorities.
I'm not entirely comfortable with Modi's "Hindutva".
— Onye Nkuzi (@cchukudebelu) February 2, 2021
I know many of my Indian followers will come at me, angrily - but let me just say this out.
I'm not sure it is a great model for democracy in a diverse, multi-cultural developing nation.
After the disbanding of the Hindu Mahasabha and Jana Sangh, Hindutva as a political ideology does not even exist, except as a bogeyman in the minds of the Anglophone elite.
Even the BJP gave up Hindutva for civic nationalism, Gandhian socialism, and positive secularism in 1980s.
Under Modi, there has been compete policy continuity on minority rights and welfare from the Congress era, with little to no "Hindutva agenda" coming to see the light of day.
The most radical policy they can dream of is religion-neutral laws and equal rights for equal citizens.
Hindutva was essential in forming a national consciousness, but was abandoned with time. The modern BJP refuses to self-identify as a Hindutva movement, adopting moderates like Sardar Patel, Deendayal Upadhyay, and JP Narayan as their icons, rather than Savarkar or the Mahasabha.
When they say Hindu Rashtra, all they mean is an "Indic polity".
When British India was partitioned into a Muslim homeland and a Dharmic homeland, one state became a 'Ghazi' garrison state, and one the successor state to the Indic
1/n) This is one of the reasons why India never went with either F-16 of F/A-18 for MMRCA and will continue to have doubts over buying F-21/F-35/F-18 etc.
2/n) Sanctions (after Pokhran-2) or cutting off military aid in the past (see thread by Tanvi) meant that US could unilaterally cut of military supplies to toe their line
3/n) Even though India signs a deal in future for let's say MMRCA 2.0 but if the administration in D.C. changes or if the administration in power suddenly decides to shift course India will be left hanging in the wind.
4/n) IAF which is in a precarious position over squadron strength would be dealt a body blow if supplies were halted something like CAATSA
5/n) If the US is serious about deepening a long term strategic relationship with India in face of an ever aggressive China it needs to see that measures like CAATSA do more harm than good.
3/ Comes from India seeing US
— Tanvi Madan (@tanvi_madan) January 19, 2021
- cut off supply of mil equipment, parts in 1960s in midst of a crisis
- stepping back in 1971 from promises to help India if China attacked
-post-nuclear test sanctions
India-US rels might hv \u201csurvived\u201d those but they were significant setbacks
2/n) Sanctions (after Pokhran-2) or cutting off military aid in the past (see thread by Tanvi) meant that US could unilaterally cut of military supplies to toe their line
3/n) Even though India signs a deal in future for let's say MMRCA 2.0 but if the administration in D.C. changes or if the administration in power suddenly decides to shift course India will be left hanging in the wind.
4/n) IAF which is in a precarious position over squadron strength would be dealt a body blow if supplies were halted something like CAATSA
5/n) If the US is serious about deepening a long term strategic relationship with India in face of an ever aggressive China it needs to see that measures like CAATSA do more harm than good.
