India 2022 assembly elections Feb/Mar and Nov/Dec

[CumbrianLefty]

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-objects-singapore-pms-remarks-about-criminal-mps-2022-02-18/

"India objects to Singapore PM's remarks about 'criminal' MPs"

Singapore PM Lee Hsien Loong gave a speech about being vigilant in preserving the strengths of the Singapore system made the point that India Nehru created now has 50% of its MPs with criminal cases.  The Indian government is up in arms but in the end, they could not deny the fact that what Lee said are actual facts. 

Functionally this is mostly a trend of the 1980s when to win elections political parties started to get local criminals forces to help them with booth management.  After a while, these criminal elements decided to get into the game directly.  Before the 1980s most rural voting was based on what the local landowners and village leaders indicated the right way to vote.  That is still true today but muscle power plays a much bigger role since the 1980s and winners of elections need a combination of both which leads to a high % of MP and MLA with criminal records.  In fact, there is a position correlation between candidates with criminal records and winning meaning having a criminal record makes it more likely you will win than if you did not have a criminal record, especially in rural areas.

"Booth management" sounds nicely euphemistic - does it mean the sort of thing you might imagine?

[CumbrianLefty]

Navjot Singh Sidhu resigns as Punjab INC Prez

That went well, then!

[CumbrianLefty]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-08-12/modi-s-india-prefers-to-ignore-75th-anniversary-of-independence#xj4y7vzkg

The British left behind in 1947 a ruling class that upheld liberal norms and institutions — and, in the Hindu nationalist worldview held by the New India’s foot soldiers, was also effete, deracinated and entirely Anglicized. Being ruled by Western-educated leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, independent India’s first prime minister, was no better than being ruled by the British or the Mughals, rendering “independence” meaningless.

Apparently liberals are now pro colonization also lol how they use the terms "old republic" throughout this piece like Modi is the Indian version of Palpatine

I do think BJP does need to think through its views on the identity of India.  They are clearly trying to create an Indo-Aryan Hindu identity as the Indian identity.  What is not clear is do they see this Indo-Aryan Hindu Indian state as a civilizational state or do they see it as a Hindu Rastra.  There are several stands within the BJP that seems to advocate for one or another.  One way to tell is to ask the question "Do you consider the Moghul empire as a part of Indian history"  Those for Indo-Aryan Hindu Indian state as a civilizational state would say "Yes" and those for Indo-Aryan Hindu Indian state as a Hindu Rastra would say "No".  On my few trips to India, I would ask people, especially those that I can tell are pro-BJP this question.   Some of the younger people I asked would get confused about what I would ask this question but some of the older people I asked that have thought about this issue quickly caught on what I was getting at and asking about.

Yah when this topic is brought up with family members, they do not consider the Mughal Empire to be Indian but rather a foreign power occupying India just like the British and many consider the Mughals to be worse than the British Raj as well .


 

Just curious, what part of India is your family from?

Gujarat

Interesting, the reason why I ask is that my family is originally from Bihar. Historically, most people in my family recognized the Mughal (and the British) as a part of our history. I think part of that is that Mughal culture/cuisine is more apparent than in Gujarat.

That being said the sentiment is changing.

Well we consider them part of our history but just as colonizers

Well, I think there's a bit more of a grey area than that. I won't whitewash the negatives of the Mughal empire, but I don't think people should attempt to also whitewash some of the contributions to Indian culture they brought, as well due to political interests. While the Taj Mahal and Red Fort aren't Hindu, they are uniquely Indian. The reason I also brought up cuisine was because its very obvious to see their impact. Imagine an India without Samosas or Gulab Jamun? Again, not native to India, but very uniquely Indian. It seems impossible to no matter how much they may try to remove them from textbooks https://www.firstpost.com/india/mughals-disappearing-from-textbooks-across-the-country-as-history-seems-subject-to-change-3903053.html. Is this not an attempt to go "woke"?

Oh I agree that they had some positive contributions as well but so did the British Raj and yes I happen to love Gulab Jamun and Samosas but I would say the debate more centers around : Were the Mughals Indian or were they a Colonial Power" and I would go towards saying they were a Colonial Power.

I would disagree with efforts to wipe them from history books though as even if they were colonial powers they are still part of your history.

Surely the nuanced (and nearest to the truth) answer is "yes they were a colonial power, but became over time a significantly assimilated one"? Aurangzeb's attempts to reverse that trend encountered widespread resistance, and its no coincidence Mughal power collapsed rapidly after his death.

[CumbrianLefty]

In other words, the politicians there are quite literally "bought and paid for"

[CumbrianLefty]

India really goes big on exit polls, don't they?