Narendra Modi

Indian Prime Minister Modi's Useful Idiots in America Should Now Condemn Him

His brutal response to the protests against his anti-Muslim initiative reveal him as a Hindu nationalist, not a reformer.

|

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is using an iron fist to smash protests over his latest effort to erode the citizenship rights of Indian Muslims. He, and many of the state governments that his party controls, have suspended the internet in many cities, dispatched paramilitary forces to storm Muslim colleges and beat up students, and imposed a ban on protests, including in Bangalore, where police roughed up and arrested one of India's most renowned historians, Ramachandra Guha. The death toll of the protesters has now reached 25.

Modi is out of control. Even China's authoritarian rulers have shown more restraint in dealing with the Hong Kong protesters.

It is high time that Modi's admirers in the West—politicians, business leaders, and Hollywood celebrities who fawned over him—admit that they made a profound mistake. They embraced him despite clear warnings that his high-minded talk about turning India into an economic and technological powerhouse masked a sinister Hindu nationalist agenda.

He is not a hero of progress and development but a blood-and-soil nativist arguably more dangerous than any in the West.

Let us remember what we once knew but seem to have forgotten: Modi cut his political teeth in the RSS, the militant wing of a party obsessed with avenging historic slights—real and imagined—that Hindus endured under Muslim rule centuries ago. One of the RSS's members assassinated Mahatma Gandhi, whom some Hindu nationalists regard as a Muslim "appeaser." Modi himself has a long history of anti-Muslim animus. In 1992, he rode a chariot in the Hindu procession that marched to the iconic Babri mosque and razed it. His feelings morphed into actual bloodletting in 2002, when he was the chief minister of the state of Gujarat. Hindu thugs, some connected with his party, went on a rampage and slaughtered 1,000 Muslim men, women, and children as the state police stood by.

Modi expressed not an iota of remorse for the events in Gujarat when he ran for the prime minister's office in 2012, even comparing the murdered Muslims to "puppies" run over by a careless driver.

Yet after he became prime minister, the world gave him the benefit of the doubt. The man who had been banned from many Western countries, including America, because of his role in the Gujarat pogrom became an international sensation.

A campaign-style extravaganza that Modi held in Madison Square Garden to celebrate his victory was attended not only by 18,000 gushing Indian Americans but also 40 U.S congressmen. Hugh Jackman introduced him, and he applauded heartily when Modi recited Sanskrit shlokas or verses calling for world peace.

President Barack Obama went beyond ordinary diplomatic protocol in welcoming Modi during that visit. He hosted a White House dinner for Modi and invited him to stroll to the Martin Luther King memorial with him. A year later, when Obama went with first lady Michelle to India for a state visit, he commended Modi's "legendary work ethic" and his fashion sense, even joking about wearing a kurta shirt to imitate Modi's sartorial style.

The silencing effect that Obama's chumminess had on Modi's critics cannot be overstated. If the first black American president who fully understood the struggle for minority rights could endorse Modi, they reasoned, then Modi naysayers were just paranoid hysterics whose hatred was blinding them to his manifold virtues.

President Donald Trump, who isn't shy about hobnobbing with odious leaders, has unsurprisingly taken things to a whole new level in a naked bid for the Indian American vote. At the #HowdyModi rally held in Houston this summer to celebrate Modi's re-election, Trump warmed up the crowd for Modi, calling him "his friend" and "a great man and a great leader." A whole throng of Texas leaders from both parties, including Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson, stood behind Modi on stage like a hallelujah chorus.

Even more disheartening has been the reaction of U.S. industry leaders. Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg got the ball rolling five years ago when he enthusiastically served up Modi agitprop, holding a townhall event for him at his company's headquarters. Zuckerberg asked Modi such pointed questions as how much he loved his mother and how he planned to use his mastery of social media to transform India. Two weeks after this lovefest, India experienced the first in what was to become an epidemic of beef lynchings under Modi. Hindu cow vigilantes stormed a Muslim family's home in Dadri, a village not far from Modi's home in New Delhi, and pulled the old patriarch from his bed and bludgeoned him to death. Modi the transformative leader's response? Days of silence.

Zuckerberg was unfazed. He reiterated during Modi's #HowdyModi visit that he "deeply appreciates PM Modi's commitment to Digital India." This was one month after Modi shut down the internet in Kashmir and imposed central rule on this Muslim-dominated state, arresting its leaders and scrapping its constitutionally guaranteed autonomy. That shutdown is now in its fourth month, earning Modi, the vaunted digital leader, the great distinction of engineering the longest internet shutdown in a democracy.

That still hasn't deterred Zuckerberg's fellow tech luminaries from piling encomiums on Modi.

Microsoft founder Bill Gates bestowed his foundation's prestigious "Global Goalkeeper Award" on Modi this September for his "Swaatch (Clean) India" campaign and for expanding access to toilets in the country. This elicited howls of protest from human rights groups. Muslim artists Riz Ahmed and Jameela Jamil pulled out of the awards ceremony. But Gates defended the award, calling Modi "brave" for tackling the issue of toilets.

Then there is Bridgewater Associates co-founder Ray Dalio, who opined last month, after India's economic growth hit a 10-year low and unemployment a 45-year high, that "Prime Minister Modi is one of the best, if not the best, leaders in the world." And Qualcomm Chairman Paul Jacobs proclaimed that Modi's leadership is "really moving in the right direction." And Unilever CEO Paul Polman declared that he was "very confident about the Modi government."

The effect that such endorsements have in emboldening Modi and undermining the internal points of resistance to him is incalculable. Try criticizing Modi to his supporters, and they'll instantly throw all his international awards and accolades in your face. But whatever the excuse of these leaders for issuing such deluded statements in the past, there can't be any now that Modi is taking the gloves off. Just because a fanatic has changed his tune doesn't mean he has changes his mind.

The least these leaders can do now is condemn Modi's campaign of persecution. It has been painful for many of us who believe in India's pluralism and democracy to watch Modi transform himself from an international pariah to an international star with the help of Western elites. He may be unstoppable at this stage. But he is also a profoundly vain man, a publicity hound who craves international attention and respectability. So their condemnation now may well make a difference. Who knows how far he is prepared to go to advance his Hindu nationalist project?

The protesters in India are putting their lives on the line to stick up for their constitution and the nation's minorities. It is their fight and they are fighting it. But it is not too much to ask that Modi's useful idiots in the West acknowledge their mistake.

A version of this column appeared in The Week.

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: December 23, 1745

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We need to bring all that here.

    1. Trump is already cribbing off of Modi (and Modi is cribbing off of Trump, just like Hitler and Stalin cribbed off of each other for terror-state tactics to keep their respective political opponents suppressed). So it’s already here, just at a lesser degree. The other day my best friend was caught on an ICE spy camera, unknowingly pressing an elevator button so as to “aid and abet” (criminally assist) an illegal sub-human. My friend is now serving hard time!

      So it’s already here! Merry Christmas, Happy New Year!

      1. No part of what you say makes any sense or is even somewhat believable.

      2. Stalin was an international socialist, Hitler was a national socialist. Both were ideologues, neither were populists.
        Trump and Modi are none of these things, your analogy is retarded.

        1. Hitler scapegoats = jews, Gypsies, gays, handicapped, un-Aryans. Stalin scapegoats = “capitalists” and “wreckers”. Modi scapegoats = Muslims and illegal sub-humans. Trump scapegoats = Muslims, un-Americans, and illegal sub-humans. Different scapegoats, same game.

          1. Yeah, Trump and Modi are none of those things, Mary.

          2. You are believing your own propaganda. Trump has no reason to scapegoat anyone. Have you looked at the economy since he took over. The only scapegoating I see is people blaming their own failures on “the Russians” and everyone else.

        2. And in both cases the government was telling everyone how to run things and killing anyone who put up significant resistance.

  2. India sounds like a real shithole.

    1. This would explain why Shecky is an expert thereof.

    2. Glad Shikha warned us!

      We need to stop all that immigration from India!

      1. My. Dan Davis. You can take that xenophobic attitude and……..come again!

  3. There is a worldwide trend against global elites and their push for mass migration from the third world into welfare states. People like tradition, they like getting to vote who is and is not allowed in their countries, they like to control the pace of “progress”.

    The harder you push your globalist narratives the uglier it’s going to get. The only sad part is that currently, people still blame the migrants. Eventually people will start to blame people like you, and it will be a long time coming. Enjoy your bubble before it bursts.

    1. “There is a worldwide trend against global elites and their push for mass migration from the third world into welfare states.”

      Wrong.

      You need to pay attention to Nick Gillespie. If you did, you’d know more Americans than ever agree with the statement “Immigration is a good thing.” That proves the Koch / Reason open borders agenda is widely popular. Anecdotal evidence supports this conclusion too; literally all my friends want open borders.

      1. I’m a libertarian that doesn’t support open borders. I don’t want criminals, people with contagious diseases, terrorists, people looking to live off welfare, or people who want more government to take care of us accepted into the country. Otherwise, I’d like a lot more immigration, mostly because without it and the growth it creates, the government will renege on its Social Security and Medicare promises (programs I’d like to see phased out giving our responsibility and freedom back to us).

        The correct approach here, is to get the laws changed, but Democrats don’t want to even meet with Trump and have walked out of negotiations with him multiple times. If Trump starts enforcing immigration laws and starts deporting a lot of people (Obama deported more) is it the Democrat’s fault or Trump’s fault?

        The way I see it, Trump is willing to accept more immigrants if Democrats allow them to be better immigrants, rather than chain migrations of welfare families who vote for Democrats. His bluster about deporting illegals is more about enforcing the law, and both Democrats and the GOP agree that immigration needs to be reformed, but Democrats refuse to meaningfully work to change the law.

      2. ” If you did, you’d know more Americans than ever agree with the statement “Immigration is a good thing.” ”

        I pretty much ignore statements that are such a blatant effort to mislead, if for no other reason that I react poorly to having my intelligence insulted.

        For one thing, no reference above to the source for that quote. For another thing, it ignores the actual issue, which is ILLEGAL immigration.

        1. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian is a parody account.
          Although, I know it’s hard to tell nowadays with posters like Laursen, Chemjeff, Tony, Buttplug and Kirkland.

        2. Legal immigration GOOD, illegal immigration BAD? Then issue the “magic papers” to the illegal sub-humans, and the problem is SOLVED! Bad has been turned to good! What better thing could you ask for?

          For those with an open mind, see https://www.cato.org/blog/14-most-common-arguments-against-immigration-why-theyre-wrong
          The 14 Most Common Arguments against Immigration and Why They’re Wrong

          1. You sure hate those “illegal sub-humans”, don’t you, Mary.

            1. You sure hate being humane to your fellow humans, don’t You, Fancy-Pants-in-His-Own mindlessness?

              1. How many are you housing personally?

              2. I spend my weekends working a foodbank. What do you do aside from shrieking on the internet?

      3. If you did, you’d know more Americans than ever agree with the statement “Immigration is a good thing.”

        Until it shows up at your doorstep, uninvited!

      4. This is like when Americans were asked “Do you support free trade?” and they answer “yes” but when asked “Are you in favor of NAFTA?” they answered “no.”

        Yes, Americans are OK with immigration, they think its “good.” They also are against illegal immigration, support quotas on immigration, support immigration that favors skilled workers, immigrants that learned English, etc etc.

        You get past the vague, abstract question and into practical substance, the stuff of real policy, and they disagree with libertarians.

        Details, details.

  4. “Hindu cow vigilantes”

    OMG! It seems Modi has unleashed rampaging gangs of hateful extremists. Much like Drumpf has done in the US, as demonstrated by the attempted modern-day lynching of Jussie Smollett. Did you know his attackers — who are still at large — proclaimed “This is MAGA country”?

    Well, there’s only one solution. As Koch / Reason libertarians, we must encourage India’s entire Muslim population to immigrate to the US.

    #OpenBorders

    1. “Hindu cow vigilantes”
      Don’t we have enough religious strife without animals taking sides?

      1. I’d just like to point out that it sounds like an excellent name for a rock band.

      2. “Hindu cow vigilantes”
        It is ALREADY HAPPENING!!!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbXvn2RNI
        Cows With Guns – The Original Animation

  5. Indian Prime Minister Modi’s Useful Idiots in America Should Now Condemn Him

    Wherein Shikha admits to being a useless idiot.

    1. I knew someone would immediately make this connection.

    2. If Shika’s against Modi, then he’s probably doing the right thing.

      1. Exactly the way I was leaning.

      2. Shikha is The Mole, sent to discredit Globalism with her asinine articles in support of it.

      3. Almost certainly. And India has a lot of problems with their Muslims.

    1. #TheyHaveToGoBack

  6. All this must be fake news. I have it on good authority that both Islam and Hinduism are religions of peace.

    1. Hinduism has no problem defending itself against Islam

  7. It’s a good thing India values education and relatively free markets. But Freedom House rates it as “free” with a score of 75 out of 100 (while the US is 86 by comparison). Further, some seats in the legislature are set aside for different castes and tribes, rather than treating everyone equally as individuals. Per Wikipedia “According to a 2016 Walk Free Foundation report there were an estimated 18.3 million people in India, or 1.4% of the population, living in the forms of modern slavery, such as bonded labour, child labour, human trafficking, and forced begging, among others.”

    Over the past several decades, India has gotten freer and more prosperous (but average incomes of $8,400, not so hot). I agree Modi is taking a step backwards away from individual freedoms towards tribal superiority for his tribe the Hindus which comprise 80% of the population). On the other hand, he has favored “privatisation and small government” per the Wikipedia article on him, and is quite popular among the voters. He also cut spending on welfare, “lowered corporate taxes, abolished the wealth tax, increased sales taxes, and reduced customs duties on gold, and jewellery” and “deregulated diesel prices.” Perhaps he’s popular because of the Islamic terrorist killings there, such as the 11/2008 deaths of 172 people, and the 7/13/2011 killing of 26 people in Mumbai (just to choose 2 of the many attacks).

    And while the Indian constitution provides equal rights to all citizens, Muslims have to follow “Muslim Personal Law” and per Wikipedia “However, attempts by successive political leadership in the country to integrate Indian society under common civil code is strongly resisted and is viewed by Indian Muslims as an attempt to dilute the cultural identity of the minority groups of the country.”

    You can’t have freedom unless you’re willing to give it to others, and India has a way to go, with Muslims contributing to the problem. I don’t think the problem is as one sided as Dalmia makes it.

  8. “Microsoft founder Bill Gates bestowed his foundation’s prestigious “Global Goalkeeper Award”

    Not a tad over-arrogant. Nope. Global gatekeeper. GTFOH.

    All kinds of non-deserving people get awards and accolades.

    See Obama with peace prize or Greta with Time. It’s even worse in the arts from Oscars to Pulitzers.

    Awards and awards ceremonies are mostly a racket.

    Anyone who has had to sit through your kid’s school ceremonies know it has a lot to do with ‘who you know’ and ‘lobbying’ and the like.

    Cynical yes but a reality too.

    1. The FAG awards are coming up soon too. Look for lots of self righteous, PC, self congratulatory, ant Trump, communist bullshit.

  9. what did *he* promise Ukraine?

  10. Conflating illegal Muslim migrants with Indian citizens in 3, 2, 1…

    Here’s an actual, accurate report of the law.

    https://www.ft.com/content/b96a33c4-247e-11ea-9a4f-963f0ec7e134

    Important point: this law does not strip citizenship from current Muslim citizens. It qualifies citizenship for non-citizen refugees from NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES and it excludes Muslims for AUTOMATIC citizenship. Protip: they can still apply for citizenship. The law is intended to address century-old displacement issues during the multiple Indo-Pakistan wars.

    1. Clarification: this is regarding automatic eligibility. All the non-Muslim refugees will be able to apply ASAP. Muslims have to go back and apply the normal way.

    2. Shikha rejects the concept of “citizenship”.

    3. awildseaking : “Here’s an actual, accurate report of the law”

      awildseaking : “Clarification: this is regarding automatic eligibility. All the non-Muslim refugees will be able to apply ASAP. Muslims have to go back and apply the normal way”

      Why stop there? Some further clarification :

      (1) People worry this law will be applied in lockstep with another provision currently being tested in the northeast state of Assam. There, all people were require to prove their citizenship with official documents, which has led to 2 of 33 million people finding their legal status revoked. Many native-born Indians were never documented at birth.

      (2) The Indian Home Minister, Amit Shah, has vowed to expand that law across the country, saying it would purge India of “infiltrators” and “termites”. Per The Telegraph of India, there are currently six detention centers in Assam for the newly disenfranchised, with at least ten more in construction and many more planned.

      (3) Then (to clarify) every poor or rural Indian who never had papers could quickly be granted citizenship, except for Muslims. In theory they could “apply the normal way” from their internment facility, but the Modi government’s steady drift towards tyranny doesn’t suggest they’d get a fair hearing.

      1. Okay, so then they apply for citizenship. The law doesn’t read “produce the docs or go to Pakistan.” The rest of your argument is preconceived notions and an irrational fear you have of any degree of nationalism. Yeah, how dare they detain economic migrants…who don’t want to live in Islamic Republics despite being Muslim…and who expect India to have blanket policies accepting Muslims despite the fact that Muslims create such awful societies at a national level that even Muslims would rather be subjected to minor animus in India than live in Bangladesh or Pakistan. Or, God forbid, maybe you can acknowledge the holes in your assumptions for once and realize that they actually don’t give ten shits about cultural values because they’re economic migrants who want to reap the benefits and transform the culture to their fancy.

        1. Also, let’s not forget the irony of discussing this subject on the heels of yet another Paki professor who was literally just sentenced to death a day ago for blasphemy. Yeah, let’s import THOSE people. What’s next, a fucking Nazi resettlement program in the Upper East Side?

          1. You’re missing the point in a big way. The Pakistani government and society is built around tribal identity (in the general sense) : Only Muslims (and only the approved kind of Muslims) have full rights as citizens.

            The Indian government has traditionally sought the exact opposite : A pluralistic society where every group enjoys equal respect and favor under government and law. Has it always worked out that way? Not a bit; but that was the goal & objective of the Indian state….. until now.

            Modi wants a Hindu version of Pakistan : A state of one religion having privileged status. Granted, as means to personal power, this is a proven winner : Appeal to the mob; harp on their scapegoat enemy, lead them to “triumph” over their scapegoat enemy. That always works, even after every economic promise you’ve made is a bust. People just don’t care about those kind of pesky details when they can “triumph” over their scapegoat enemies.

            Of course this sabotages generations of Indian rulers who tried to steer the state above its sectarian divisions, but if there’s cheap political gain to be made by a petty hack tyrant, why quibble over that? Instead of simply sneering at the “bad Muslims” of Pakistan, awildseaking, you might ask why you applaud India when it heads down the same road…..

            1. This really is just the illegal immigration debate rehashed. You believe that filtering Muslims defies the standards of a pluralistic society and turns India into Hindustan. I believe that filtering Muslims is the only way to protect the standards of a pluralistic society and keep India from becoming Pakistan. That’s why everyone except Muslims are included.

              If it is un-Libertarian to enforce demography that values and protects Libertarian values, then Libertarianism cannot exist because it will always be conquered by authoritarians and I would rather have a couple radicals here call me authoritarian for advocating force to protect the Constitution and BoR than have an actual authoritarian performing summary executions, nationalizing industry, censoring media, genociding problem populations, etc.

              1. I generally believe in individualism and believe that the greatest societal welfare is achieved through free exchange and pursuit of self interest, but I also recognize that strong nation states are necessary to protect our borders and demography, which prevents the erosion of such values.

                All Modi has done is recognize that all these other non-Muslim groups need protection from Muslims. He’s making it easier for the persecuted and harder for the persecutors. This is common sense and before you go on about other persecuted Muslims, nobody said they can’t come or that they will be turned away. Let’s deal with facts and not fiction. There are massive populations of minorities in India. All the minorities want to go there. Places like Pakistan and Bangladesh have ethnically cleansed their minorities. Just like with American illegal immigrants, let’s stop pretending that the country everyone wants to go to is a bigoted Fourth Reich in the making.

                1. That argument falls flat when you apply the context of recent history. He’s pulled every trick out of the nazi playbook and then some:

                  1. forced sterilization of non-hindu women
                  2. mandatory birth rate population control in non-hindu territories
                  3. mandating a language spoken by only 60% of the population and read/written by even fewer be the ONLY government language and the official language of signage and documentation
                  4. pushed laws that challenged the citizenship status of non-hindus
                  5. Gutted the currency via demonetization and offered aid only to hindu/like states. This also aided dark money in flooding into the economy because of sub-par currency validation controls, that funded terrorist attacks on non-hindus

                  The list is too long to enumerate, honestly. The reality however is that NaMo represents the majority of Indians. It’s just the 60-65% majority he considers to be “the good kind of Indian.” The rest, well, let’s just say there are already internment camps…

      2. People worry this law will be applied in lockstep with another provision currently being tested in the northeast state of Assam.

        The idea that the National Register of Citizens is being “tested” in Assam is deeply disconnected from reality. That effort was mandated by the 1985 Assam Accord, and still took six years to complete after India’s Supreme Court began supervising it in 2013. Modi’s been explicit that there are no plans to expand it beyond what was forced by the Assam Accord, whatever the Home Minister might have said.

        Which is to say, there have been violent riots in India over peoples’ fantasies that the current government might take actions directly contrary to what the PM has said is going to happen.

        And now, efforts to stop these continuing riots over fantasies are subsequently being touted by India’s socialist opposition (including Ms. Dalmia, who previously wrote an article in Reason praising a full-on Marxist) as evidence that Modi is an authoritarian.

        1. DRM : “evidence that Modi is an authoritarian”

          You mean aside from mass arrests without charges in Kashmir? Region-wide suspension of civil rights? Bans against people meeting in groups? Government imposed communication blackouts across whole areas?

          You mean yhat kind of “evidence that Modi is an authoritarian”

          1. In the face of communal rioting? The complaints coming from people who are simultaneously complaining he wasn’t sufficiently hard-line about suppressing the Gujarat communal riots?

  11. Not that any country wouldn’t be better off without Islam.

  12. FFS, Shikha, go back and fix it.

  13. I’m just here for the comments. Also, better tell the Indians I work with every day that they’re supposed to be cowering in fear of the jackboots. Boy will they be surprised!

  14. Great gutsy move! Moslems are an unarguable 5th Column, ask Eurabians about it… We sure don’t need any more here!

  15. Is it wrong to say that I don’t give a shit about how India, and China, and anywhere else deals with Islam?

    Maybe I’d care if so many Muslims weren’t so hot and heavy about being all explodey and what not.

    Take the Uyghurs–what’s going on there? Is it like Falun Gong?

    Or were the Uyghurs trying to take part of China for their own? Kill their way into their own version of Pakistan?

    When aggressors lose the war of conquest they started why do we immediately treat them as if they’re innocents?

    1. That is some fine weapons grade soviet-style whataboutism you have there.

  16. ” President Donald Trump, … , has unsurprisingly taken things to a whole new level in a naked bid for the Indian American vote. ”

    Worst. Nazi. Ever.

  17. A lot of issues in the mix here, and the author wants us to be equally upset about all of them.

    I’m not a Hindu, but I agree with Hindu nationalists that the situation in Kashmir which discriminated against Hindus and prevented them moving there was BS, and the claim that its going to “ethnically cleanse” Kashmir if Hindus voluntarily move there is also BS.

    Yet the author wants me to accept the ethnic discrimination that took place in Kashmir before it lost autonomy, because I might not like the way Modi is repressing the dissent.

    1. I estimate that India will either have one of two things in the next 20 years:

      1. Civil War
      2. Mass secession back to roughly pre-colonial tribal regions
      Bonus: And even more war after that

      Or maybe both simultaneously, who knows. Honestly, the only reason we have to about the worlds most irresponsibly reproducing democracy is because of how much danger they represent to the rest of the world, both intellectually and environmentally.

  18. I stopped reading after: “Even China’s authoritarian rulers have shown more restraint…”

    HAHAHAHA.

    This is why I utterly despite liberal reporters. Most of them suffer from terrible blindness regarding socialist/communist governments. China killed several times more folks than the Nazis did in their great purge, but that is OK. China has growing concentration camps for over 3 million Uighur’s, but that is OK. China can be the new colonial rulers in Africa, but that is OK. China can abduct folks from other nations, but that is OK. China can completely ruin the environment and forcibly dump goods on international markets but that is OK. China can send hundreds of thousands of Fentanyl packets with gross abuse of the Obama signed USPS deal (reverted by Trump recently) and kill Americans in large numbers, but hey that is OK.

    When a democratic government enforces the laws on its books and makes voluntary citizenship for refugees fleeing religious persecution, that is NOT OK.

    1. China is the model the Globalists want for the world. Dictatorship of the Party.

    2. That was some tasty kool-aid, huh? Ooooh quick, pull out some childish names for people who matter, unlike yourself.

  19. President Donald Trump has unsurprisingly taken things to a whole new level in a naked bid for the Indian American vote.

    You mean like Omar went for the Somali vote? Like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict playing out in Congress? When we bring in populations from countries with ethnic or political problems, those populations bring their conflicts with them. And then these people try to misuse the US military and US politicians to do their bidding for them. That’s we we want to limit immigration.

    That’s why people like you, Shikha, people who obviously still haven’t been able to separate themselves from their sh—hole countries of origin and have little to contribute to US society, shouldn’t be here in the first place.

  20. APJ Abdul Kalam sir once said everyone in India to dream India will be a developed country in 2020.

    <a href="https://www.tricksbliss.com/yowhatsapp-apk-latest-version-on-android-device/&quot; Latest Version of YoWhatsApp Apk

  21. APJ Abdul Kalam sir once said everyone in India to dream India will be a developed country in 2020.

    Latest Version of YoWhatsApp Apk

  22. “We” once knew that the whole point of splitting off Pakistan was that both brands of mystical fanaticism worship the initiation of deadly force, before, during and after the Raj. That sufficed to not give a rat’s ass what they do to each other over there. This latest reprint from the looter press makes the lot of them as attractive as Guiteau, Czolgosz, John Flammang Schrank, Alexander Berkman and the entire gang of bomb-throwing communist anarchist anarchist and amok mystical berserkers. The Saudi hijackers were quite sufficient, thanks.

    1. Sadly, by importing people like Shikha, the US keeps getting dragged into this crap. And corporate media like Reason actually give this nonsense a platform.

  23. TL:DR – Modi’s new laws and policies have theoretically legitimate reasons, but people have good reason to fear they’re actually going to be used for ethnic cleansing of Muslims.
    ———–
    I just came back from India, the fear from people who oppose Modi isn’t so much the automatic citizenship for non-Muslim refugees, as the new implementation of the citizenship register. Theoretically, every citizen was supposed to be registered since 1955, but that just plain didn’t happen. In 1955 a large percentage of people in India didn’t have any kind of govermment identification documents at all, millions of people don’t have the necessary documents to prove their citizenship, and they’re already setting up detention centers for ‘illegal immigrants’ who may have been born tjere.

    So while theoretically there’s nothing wrong with cleaning up the citizenship rolls and finally getting a proper registry of citizens as they were required to for 60 years ago*, it’s assumed that he’s going to concentrate on getting rid of muslims and making sure that Hindus and other non-muslims aren’t being rounded up en masse.

    The automatic citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from neighboring Muslim countries also isn’t necessarily so terrible. Basically it’s saying that non-muslims in places like Pakistan are de facto assumed to be oppressed and legitimate refugees and eligible for citizenship, which is pretty close to the truth, while Muslims aren’t automatically going to face automatic discrimination by other Muslims for being Muslims, which makes sense.

    Of course it’s more complicated than that. For starters making a law that specifically excuses muslims, while doing lots of actions and speeches that give Indian muslims legitimate fears about being discriminated against looks bad and raises tensions. If he’ll exclude muslims from the refugee, what expectation is there of him treating them fairly with the citizenship law? Plus people feel that it’s unfair because there are sects subgroups of muslims in these countries that are also discriminated against and could arguably be legitimate refugees, making the non-Muslim part of the law illegitimate. And the refugee law seems like it could be a way to avoid deporting non-muslims with inadequate citizenship documentation, while deporting muslims.

    Deporting illegal immigrants isn’t inherently wrong, or even if you think it is, it’s something nearly every country does. Deporting millions of people for lack of proof of citizenship when the records proving citizenship are extremely sketchy and inadequate, and concentrating on only deporting Muslims, and setting up detention centers where millions of harmless people may wind up being kept indefinitely, because there’s no evidence that they’re citizens of another country either, so can’t be deported and railing against Muslim infiltrators while doing that would be pretty bad. That hasn’t quite happened yet, but it’s looking pretty likely and people are legitimately afraid it will happen, hence the protests and riots.

    *Even if a country had open borders, it’s not a crazy idea to know who is a citizen and who isn’t. I’m sure there are people on this forum who would explain why even that is too much government intrusion, but at the least it’s not a radical or especially dangerous idea as far as current, non-theoretical governments go.

    1. I think the intent behind a lot of Modi’s policies make sense but the implementation of them are problematic.

      So, for example, even the fact that they don’t appear to be written in a way that is facially neutral. Rather than specifically excluding Muslims, the law could have been written in a way to include groups determined to be legitimately suffering persecution and which couldn’t find refuge in neighboring countries.

      In any case, I wish reporting on India were more neutral rather than the usual liberal freakout about nationalism; we could then have an honest discussion and public debate and people could decide for themselves which aspects of Modi’s policies are right and which are wrong. And Americans being Americans, I suspect we would all come to the right conclusions. Instead, reporting is driven too much by politics.

      1. groups determined to be legitimately suffering persecution

        FROM Muslims.

        From Muslims. He’s letting in non-Muslims because Muslims actively oppress them. As a matter of fact AND law in places they control.

        And he’s not saying so in a way that allows them to maintain face.

        Too fucking bad.

        Stop being medievalist shitheads and maybe you’ll get treated better.

    2. I just came back from India, the fear from people who oppose Modi isn’t so much the automatic citizenship for non-Muslim refugees, as the new implementation of the citizenship register.

      Note, again, that Modi is explicitly on the record that they don’t plan to expand the register effort, that the effort was only carried out in Assam to adhere to the 1985 Assam Accord.

      And if you actually look at the reports from where there’s actual rioting, the rioting’s anti-Bangladeshi, by Assamese nationalists, on the grounds that Modi is subverting the citizenship register by making it too easy for Bangladeshi refugees to become citizens.

      But, “Modi takes stern measures to suppress anti-refugee riots by local ethnic bigots” isn’t useful propaganda for India’s leftists, so they talk up a fantasy where Modi might be lying about what he’s going to do in the future, and try to pretend those fantasies are the central issue in the violent “protests”.

      1. “Note, again, that Modi is explicitly on the record that they don’t plan to expand the register effort, that the effort was only carried out in Assam to adhere to the 1985 Assam Accord.”

        That may be the case, but expanding the register effort is what people I talked to were afraid of, regardless of whether it’s what he is actually going to do. (Of course some people supported him too, but the ones against him were afraid of that.) And it would be hard to argue that his history gives muslims good reason to trust his restraint towards them.

        Hopefully, it turns out to be less of a problem than people fear, and the reaction far overblown. I can’t exactly blame people for not trusting Modi’s word on the matter.

    3. Excluding the fact that India is secular and the oversight is at the very least a violation of its constitution. And modi is absolutely not doing anything sketchy like turning off the internet to hide the activities and abuses his “peacekeepers” execute, nor is he going to cut communications and power, or force all personal documentation and signage in the country to Hindi, a language which isn’t intelligible to a significant portion of the population. I mean, he’d never do any of those things.

      Oh wait, he did all of those things. How exactly is that a good or defensible look? Democracy in India looks an awful lot like mob rule.

  24. Though as for people being useful idiots for talking to Modi, he’s not great, but he’s the legitimately and popularly elected leader of the second biggest (soon biggest) country on earth, and all the fears of ethnic cleansing are still only fears, not something that has happened or is enshrined in law.

    Nobody should mistake him for a nice or moral leader, but we deal with people like Xi, who has done far, far worse in the rest of China outside of Hong Kong.

    Also, who exactly are the Modi cheerleaders? She mentions Obama and Trump, and I assume there are various state department and other officials whose job it is to interact with India, but in the public perception our relationship with India and its leader is so far from people’s awareness you’d need the Hubble to see it.

    I assume she just means Presidents and other diplomats, for whom established good relationships with friendly countries is part of their job description.

    Of course being a representative Democracy, there are other conflicting duties in their job, such as representing our moral feelings not just our desire for personal benefit, so it could be correct to call out problematic actions on Modis part. But he’s very far from the worst leader we’ve been friendly with. Write about the useful idiots backing the monster Xi (for all I know she has, I don’t follow her), and then we can be concerned with Modi.

    1. That’s deflection and whataboutism. 1 tyrant at a time. Modi doesn’t show half the restraint that Xi does, and he’s a religiofascist on top of that. We’re also not looking to open the floodgates to millions of people who are exploiting our employment and educational visa system. The fact that millions of Indian Americans have more loyalty to the India is a significant problem given the population disparity. Everyone at all of his rallies is guilty of violating their oath of citizenship.

  25. I don’t recall the last time Hindus attacked America.

    1. They haven’t. The issue is a humanitarian concern for people in other countries, not American self interest. (though of course how valid and important that humanitarian concern is, is debatable)

    2. You’ve obviously never work in technology.

  26. Shika Dalmia’s inane response to a a bill whose entire purpose is literally to ACCEPT HINDU AND CHRISTIAN REFUGEES reveals her as a retard, not a libertarian.

  27. Modi is such a sh1t heel. Honestly, I’m truly afraid of the nationalized Indian Americans who attended in the 40,000 strong at houston and other events he’s held here who obvious hold stronger loyalties to India than the US. That type of religionationalist tendency is something we’ve long sought to purge from our country and now we’re importing it and giving it both monetary and political power. For every Pramila Jayapal, you’ve got 5 Ajit Pais. It’s only a matter of time before they become the new Republican party. Terrifying.

  28. The muslims in India are quietly seeking to implement sharia law. Yet at partition in 1947, many years ago, India was the Hindu nation and Pakistan the Muslim one. Since then Pakistan has virtually eliminated all non-Muslim citizens, while India is simply saying that they don’t want any more Muslim citizens.

    The treatment of Pakistan’s non-muslim citizens is far, FAR worse than India’s treatment of non-citizen muslims, yet where are your far, FAR more justified complaints about Pakistan?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.