Educated Indians' support for Modi is a sad let down

Opinion polls from Bihar only confirm what one already suspected for the country as a whole, namely that while the peasantry is not much enamoured of Narendra Modi, the urban middle class is. Since the weight of the educated segment is greater among the latter, it would appear that Modi has considerable appeal even among the educated, a fact that is also confirmed by the kind of reception he gets from professionals of Indian origin in the Silicon Valley and elsewhere who are basically urban-educated émigrés.

This appears intriguing at first sight. The educated segment in any society is supposed to defend, more than any other section, the foundational principles of that society -principles around which the constitutional order of that society is built. In the current Indian context, this segment would have been expected to be the one most concerned with the preservation of democracy, secularism, fundamental rights and the autonomy and sanctity of academic institutions.

Those who currently hold Modi in adulation may soon change their attitude as the hollowness of his promise of "development" becomes increasingly evident, which inevitably would. But such a change would then have occurred for an altogether different reason from the one I am discussing. The abdication by the educated elite of its role as keepers of our constitutional conscience would not have been negated by it.

In other words, the composition of the educated elite has been heavily biased in favour of those coming from the upper castes, the upper and upper-middle income groups, and from the majority religious community. The prejudices these class members imbibe from childhood are not broken in the course of their passage through the education system of the country, which explains why their commitment to the founding constitutional principles of the modern Indian nation remains less than lukewarm.

This is an extremely untenable situation. Antonio Gramsci had emphasized that a new social order required its own group of "organic intellectuals" for its sustenance. The purpose of the education system in post-Independence India should have been the creation of a group of "organic intellectuals" of the post-colonial order who would have remained committed to the basic agenda of the anti-colonial struggle that was enshrined, in however refracted a form, in the Constitution. A glaring failure of post-Independence India has been that it has not created such a group of "organic intellectuals"; and this poses a serious threat to the sustenance of a democratic and secular polity.

Shortly after Modi came to power, an American professor of philosophy had remarked that his success was, above all, an indictment of the Indian education system. She was right. And the persisting enthusiasm for Modi among large sections of the educated elite, that too after a year marked by serious attacks on the secular foundations of India's polity, constitutes an even more damning indictment of the Indian education system.

SomeProfile wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:lololol@this asswipe dinosaur's views taken from his wiki link:

Prabhat Patnaik is a staunch critic of neoliberal economic policies, Hindutva and is known as a social scientist of Marxist-Leninist persuasion.^[5] According to him, in India, the increase in economic growth has been accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of absolute poverty. The only solution is to alter the class orientation of the State.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prabhat_Patnaik

this is the kind of organic dung matter comrade reddy fills his brain with and tries to dump on SUCH during brief interludes from x-posting wapo blog links, while posing as an intellectual.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Someone who deserves the "ink treatment"

confuzzled dude wrote:

Opinion polls from Bihar only confirm what one already suspected for the country as a whole, namely that while the peasantry is not much enamoured of Narendra Modi, the urban middle class is. Since the weight of the educated segment is greater among the latter, it would appear that Modi has considerable appeal even among the educated, a fact that is also confirmed by the kind of reception he gets from professionals of Indian origin in the Silicon Valley and elsewhere who are basically urban-educated émigrés.

This appears intriguing at first sight. The educated segment in any society is supposed to defend, more than any other section, the foundational principles of that society -principles around which the constitutional order of that society is built. In the current Indian context, this segment would have been expected to be the one most concerned with the preservation of democracy, secularism, fundamental rights and the autonomy and sanctity of academic institutions.

Those who currently hold Modi in adulation may soon change their attitude as the hollowness of his promise of "development" becomes increasingly evident, which inevitably would. But such a change would then have occurred for an altogether different reason from the one I am discussing. The abdication by the educated elite of its role as keepers of our constitutional conscience would not have been negated by it.

In other words, the composition of the educated elite has been heavily biased in favour of those coming from the upper castes, the upper and upper-middle income groups, and from the majority religious community. The prejudices these class members imbibe from childhood are not broken in the course of their passage through the education system of the country, which explains why their commitment to the founding constitutional principles of the modern Indian nation remains less than lukewarm.

This is an extremely untenable situation. Antonio Gramsci had emphasized that a new social order required its own group of "organic intellectuals" for its sustenance. The purpose of the education system in post-Independence India should have been the creation of a group of "organic intellectuals" of the post-colonial order who would have remained committed to the basic agenda of the anti-colonial struggle that was enshrined, in however refracted a form, in the Constitution. A glaring failure of post-Independence India has been that it has not created such a group of "organic intellectuals"; and this poses a serious threat to the sustenance of a democratic and secular polity.

Shortly after Modi came to power, an American professor of philosophy had remarked that his success was, above all, an indictment of the Indian education system. She was right. And the persisting enthusiasm for Modi among large sections of the educated elite, that too after a year marked by serious attacks on the secular foundations of India's polity, constitutes an even more damning indictment of the Indian education system.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1151020/jsp/opinion/story_48898.jsp

A well written piece. Author was right on the money with his observations of urban elite and the failure of our education system.If one has doubts then one has to go no farther than reading the posts of Modi supporters on this board.

.... is known as a social scientist of Marxist-Leninist persuasion.^[5] 

Kris wrote:

.... is known as a social scientist of Marxist-Leninist persuasion.^[5] 

>>>>Ok. I sensed this with the "organic intellectual" creation -gibberish.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:

confy dood and whinedrinker must be exactly the type of cage free, farm fresh organic intellectuals this guy's pining for

Kris wrote:
>>>Actually, this guy is mouthing anachronisms. What does "the creation of a group of "organic intellectuals" of the post-colonial order who would have remained committed to the basic agenda of the anti-colonial struggle" mean? The colonists left about 70 years ago. These "organic intellectuals" would have insistently defined the country in terms  of this colonial past. It would be kinda like Pakistan defining itself as "not india" and having no other idea of itself. Besides, who will create these "organic intellectuals"? This guy's political stripes are showing. The philosophy professor is also blabbering. Could we then posit that the election of a Bush or an Obama, depending on your party affiliation, is an indictment of the American education system? What is his point? If Rahul Gandhi had been elected, that would have been a splendid affirmation of faith in the Indian education system? People vote in leaders whom they think will be beneficial to them and if they don't measure up, they get voted out. At a minimum, they vote in people whom they think would do better than the incumbent party, if that party's performance is abysmal.

Kris wrote:

.... is known as a social scientist of Marxist-Leninist persuasion.^[5] 

>>>>Ok. I sensed this with the "organic intellectual" creation -gibberish.

ashdoc wrote:the more the educated , the more the support for modi .

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Actually, this guy is mouthing anachronisms. What does "the creation of a group of "organic intellectuals" of the post-colonial order who would have remained committed to the basic agenda of the anti-colonial struggle" mean? The colonists left about 70 years ago. These "organic intellectuals" would have insistently defined the country in terms  of this colonial past. It would be kinda like Pakistan defining itself as "not india" and having no other idea of itself. Besides, who will create these "organic intellectuals"? This guy's political stripes are showing. The philosophy professor is also blabbering. Could we then posit that the election of a Bush or an Obama, depending on your party affiliation, is an indictment of the American education system? What is his point? If Rahul Gandhi had been elected, that would have been a splendid affirmation of faith in the Indian education system? People vote in leaders whom they think will be beneficial to them and if they don't measure up, they get voted out. At a minimum, they vote in people whom they think would do better than the incumbent party, if that party's performance is abysmal.

Anachronisms? How many of these educated urbane elite would let a dalit eat along with them on their dining table or have him sleep on the bed in their guest bed room?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

.... is known as a social scientist of Marxist-Leninist persuasion.^[5] 

>>>>Ok. I sensed this with the "organic intellectual" creation -gibberish.

Isn't this stereotyping, very similar to your views on moderate muslims?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

SomeProfile wrote:

confy dood and whinedrinker must be exactly the type of cage free, farm fresh organic intellectuals this guy's pining for

Stop whining, will ya? If you recall the discussions from election days,  Merlot, did (sincerely) give a chance to Modi and thought he was the better alternative until he realized the fakeness of Feku.

confuzzled dude wrote:

ashdoc wrote:the more the educated , the more the support for modi .

I don't thinks so. You may not have noticed but Modi euphoria has been on the wane. Many NRIs, I personally know, who were staunch supporters of Modi, have been disappointed and are losing their hopes.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Actually, this guy is mouthing anachronisms. What does "the creation of a group of "organic intellectuals" of the post-colonial order who would have remained committed to the basic agenda of the anti-colonial struggle" mean? The colonists left about 70 years ago. These "organic intellectuals" would have insistently defined the country in terms  of this colonial past. It would be kinda like Pakistan defining itself as "not india" and having no other idea of itself. Besides, who will create these "organic intellectuals"? This guy's political stripes are showing. The philosophy professor is also blabbering. Could we then posit that the election of a Bush or an Obama, depending on your party affiliation, is an indictment of the American education system? What is his point? If Rahul Gandhi had been elected, that would have been a splendid affirmation of faith in the Indian education system? People vote in leaders whom they think will be beneficial to them and if they don't measure up, they get voted out. At a minimum, they vote in people whom they think would do better than the incumbent party, if that party's performance is abysmal.

Anachronisms? How many of these educated urbane elite would let a dalit eat along with them on their dining table or have him sleep on the bed in their guest bed room?

>>>Non sequitur much? I don't know he answer to your question. What does the  post colonial order have to do with this?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Non sequitur much? I don't know he answer to your question. What does the  post colonial order have to do with this?

How so? Do you think all these attacks on minorities and the calls for Hindu Rashtra (for the past 16-17 months) are mere coincidence? Should an educated person approve of such acts? One can conveniently choose to ignore the fact the BJP is not a republican nor a democratic party rather a communal party which was the basis for author's argument.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Actually, this guy is mouthing anachronisms. What does "the creation of a group of "organic intellectuals" of the post-colonial order who would have remained committed to the basic agenda of the anti-colonial struggle" mean? The colonists left about 70 years ago. These "organic intellectuals" would have insistently defined the country in terms  of this colonial past. It would be kinda like Pakistan defining itself as "not india" and having no other idea of itself. Besides, who will create these "organic intellectuals"? This guy's political stripes are showing. The philosophy professor is also blabbering. Could we then posit that the election of a Bush or an Obama, depending on your party affiliation, is an indictment of the American education system? What is his point? If Rahul Gandhi had been elected, that would have been a splendid affirmation of faith in the Indian education system? People vote in leaders whom they think will be beneficial to them and if they don't measure up, they get voted out. At a minimum, they vote in people whom they think would do better than the incumbent party, if that party's performance is abysmal.

Anachronisms? How many of these educated urbane elite would let a dalit eat along with them on their dining table or have him sleep on the bed in their guest bed room?

>>>Non sequitur much? I don't know he answer to your question. What does the  post colonial order have to do with this?

How so? Do you think all these attacks on minorities and the calls for Hindu Rashtra (for the past 16-17 months) are mere coincidence? Should an educated person approve of such acts? One can conveniently choose to ignore the fact the BJP is not a republican nor a democratic party rather a communal party which was the basis for author's argument.

Kris wrote:>>.The basis for the author's argument is his obsession with colonialism which has nothing to with the current day problems.

Kris wrote:
Your thesis seems to lay every current day problem at the feet of partisan politics and makes it sound as though communal politics and clashes started just yesterday in India. Kashmiri pandit cleansing/ Anti-sikh violence anyone?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Actually, this guy is mouthing anachronisms. What does "the creation of a group of "organic intellectuals" of the post-colonial order who would have remained committed to the basic agenda of the anti-colonial struggle" mean? The colonists left about 70 years ago. These "organic intellectuals" would have insistently defined the country in terms  of this colonial past. It would be kinda like Pakistan defining itself as "not india" and having no other idea of itself. Besides, who will create these "organic intellectuals"? This guy's political stripes are showing. The philosophy professor is also blabbering. Could we then posit that the election of a Bush or an Obama, depending on your party affiliation, is an indictment of the American education system? What is his point? If Rahul Gandhi had been elected, that would have been a splendid affirmation of faith in the Indian education system? People vote in leaders whom they think will be beneficial to them and if they don't measure up, they get voted out. At a minimum, they vote in people whom they think would do better than the incumbent party, if that party's performance is abysmal.

Anachronisms? How many of these educated urbane elite would let a dalit eat along with them on their dining table or have him sleep on the bed in their guest bed room?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:>>.The basis for the author's argument is his obsession with colonialism which has nothing to with the current day problems.

I interpreted his commentary as system which failed create individual who can fight against the kind of oppression that Indians have suffered under British and the tactics of BJP (oppression/alienation of minorities) are very similar.
I interpreted his commentary as our system's failure to create individuals who can fight against the kind of oppression that Indians have suffered under British and, the tactics of BJP (and its educated supporters)  i.e. oppression/alienation of minorities are very similar to what we had experienced under British rule.

Kris wrote:
Your thesis seems to lay every current day problem at the feet of partisan politics and makes it sound as though communal politics and clashes started just yesterday in India. Kashmiri pandit cleansing/ Anti-sikh violence anyone?

Huh!  Anti-sikh violence! Is this an attempt to create a false moral equivalence? Do you see a pattern of anti-sikh violence or a systematic approach to eliminate Sikhs? OTOH, BJP, for the past 25 years has been instigating riots to polarize the voters along communal lines and causing damage to the country's secular fabric.

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Actually, this guy is mouthing anachronisms. What does "the creation of a group of "organic intellectuals" of the post-colonial order who would have remained committed to the basic agenda of the anti-colonial struggle" mean? The colonists left about 70 years ago. These "organic intellectuals" would have insistently defined the country in terms  of this colonial past. It would be kinda like Pakistan defining itself as "not india" and having no other idea of itself. Besides, who will create these "organic intellectuals"? This guy's political stripes are showing. The philosophy professor is also blabbering. Could we then posit that the election of a Bush or an Obama, depending on your party affiliation, is an indictment of the American education system? What is his point? If Rahul Gandhi had been elected, that would have been a splendid affirmation of faith in the Indian education system? People vote in leaders whom they think will be beneficial to them and if they don't measure up, they get voted out. At a minimum, they vote in people whom they think would do better than the incumbent party, if that party's performance is abysmal.

Anachronisms? How many of these educated urbane elite would let a dalit eat along with them on their dining table or have him sleep on the bed in their guest bed room?

Are you going to recommend me to an award or something because I met all of your criteria.  Your live in a self deluding confused world.  World is a more complex place than your simplistic  'Jagan good. Very good. CBN bad. Very bad.'    While caste discrimination still exists,  many Indians stepped out of the box and believe all human beings are equal.

confuzzled dude wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:>>.The basis for the author's argument is his obsession with colonialism which has nothing to with the current day problems.

I interpreted his commentary as system which failed create individual who can fight against the kind of oppression that Indians have suffered under British and the tactics of BJP (oppression/alienation of minorities) are very similar.
I interpreted his commentary as our system's failure to create individuals who can fight against the kind of oppression that Indians have suffered under British and, the tactics of BJP (and its educated supporters)  i.e. oppression/alienation of minorities are very similar to what we had experienced under British rule.

Kris wrote:
Your thesis seems to lay every current day problem at the feet of partisan politics and makes it sound as though communal politics and clashes started just yesterday in India. Kashmiri pandit cleansing/ Anti-sikh violence anyone?

Huh!  Anti-sikh violence! Is this an attempt to create a false moral equivalence? Do you see a pattern of anti-sikh violence or a systematic approach to eliminate Sikhs? OTOH, BJP, for the past 25 years has been instigating riots to polarize the voters along communal lines and causing damage to the country's secular fabric.

Kris wrote:
>>>Your position with regard to the BJP has a 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' tone to it. The BJP is a party that has wingnuts but the presumption that  the people who voted them in are idiots or are gunning for minorities is outlandish. It pretends as though the voters have no other concerns in their minds like personal economic well being or fatigue with the previous party.

Kris wrote:P.S. I noticed that you sidestepped the Kashmiri Pandit cleansing issue.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>Your position with regard to the BJP has a 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' tone to it. The BJP is a party that has wingnuts but the presumption that  the people who voted them in are idiots or are gunning for minorities is outlandish. It pretends as though the voters have no other concerns in their minds like personal economic well being or fatigue with the previous party.

My dear Kris, BJP is a political arm of the people who espouse Hindutva ideology out and out, in other words, a wingnut party. Checkout their manifesto. It talks about protecting cow & building Ram Mandir. And Modi is a thoroughbred RSS activist and the man wears Hindutva on his sleeve err.. coats and he spoke about pink revolution at every opportunity he got to rile up ordinary folk. So the suggestion that educated BJP supporters are borderline communals is not far-fetched at all.

http://www.bjp.org/images/pdf_2014/full_manifesto_english_07.04.2014.pdf

Kris wrote:P.S. I noticed that you sidestepped the Kashmiri Pandit cleansing issue.

What about it? Didn't the govt. send the army to remove the foreign actors that were causing trouble and fought a war over it? They did the same thing in Amritsar, didn't they?

Kris wrote:
So the takeaways seem to be:

1) The majority who voted in BJP were motivated by their need to gang up on minorities and concerns about their own economic circumstances and the malaise under the previous regime were but secondary, if at all. There were no communal issues in India till this government took power. 

Kris wrote:
2) The BJP has no agenda but to be an Indian KKK, but has been able to bamboozle superpowers and multinational concerns into engaging them on matters of trade, foreign relations etc. They have also managed to pull the wool over the eyes of religious minorities within their fold.

3) The Kashmir pandit issue was started and caused solely by a few foreign actors and once they were engaged by the army and thrashed, the pandits' well-being was restored.

truthbetold wrote:" 
You make up your own facts and then feel happy about your arguments. Your efforts to lump me together with other RSS supporters indicate your intellectual laziness. 

truthbetold wrote:" You also respond to Kris in a similar way. Your one size fits all criticism of RSS followers does not stand the test of originality. Get out of your cocoon and see the real world.  Stop parroting political inanities.

Hellsangel wrote:Comrade Reddy Garu, was the support for dynastic rule of the previous party in power not an indictment of the educated Indians that they wanted a kingdom rather than a democracy?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
So the takeaways seem to be:

1) The majority who voted in BJP were motivated by their need to gang up on minorities and concerns about their own economic circumstances and the malaise under the previous regime were but secondary, if at all. There were no communal issues in India till this government took power. 

I hope you realize that BJP, the political party, is about 35 years old (i.e. not counting the good old Jan Sangh) and the turning point in modern India (in terms of of communal polarization) is Babri Masjid/Ram Mandir.

Kris wrote:
2) The BJP has no agenda but to be an Indian KKK, but has been able to bamboozle superpowers and multinational concerns into engaging them on matters of trade, foreign relations etc. They have also managed to pull the wool over the eyes of religious minorities within their fold.

3) The Kashmir pandit issue was started and caused solely by a few foreign actors and once they were engaged by the army and thrashed, the pandits' well-being was restored.

We will discuss this further when current administration engages army to deal with the current issues instigated by pro-hindutva elements, until then your attempts to create a moral equivalence do not hold water.

Kris wrote:
1) Do you have problems with people voting for the democratic party because it was the party of the solid (racist) south once?

Kris wrote:
2) Are you of the opinion that the people who voted for BJP were driven by minority- hatred and economics and being tired of the previous admin's policies had nothing to with it?

Kris wrote:
3) I am frankly confused  by your moral equivalence point. I am not making one. I was stating a fact about the pandits' experience. In your earlier post you seemed to be saying this was the work of outsiders (!)and the army took care of it (!!). Now you are predicting a soon-to-happen unleashing of fury  of a pro-hindutva army on "current problems" (whatever they may be). Aside from the huge leaps of faith in this scenario- i.e. not knowing whether this will happen or why or directed at whom?- how does this negate the pandits' plight?

I don't think I understood the aforementioned bold senetence, In any case, Pandits fate or, the fate of muslims in Muzaffarnager or Ahmadabad who were displaced is no different. It is emblematic of failure (of respective administration's handling of the situation) very different from ruling party's active involvement or support of anti-minority violence.

Rrawemotions wrote:

I don't think I understood the aforementioned bold senetence, In any case, Pandits fate or, the fate of muslims in Muzaffarnager or Ahmadabad who were displaced is no different. It is emblematic of failure (of respective administration's handling of the situation) very different from ruling party's active involvement or support of anti-minority violence.

It has become a fashion for folks to dish out opinions about matters, they know nothing about. 

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rrawemotions wrote:

I don't think I understood the aforementioned bold senetence, In any case, Pandits fate or, the fate of muslims in Muzaffarnager or Ahmadabad who were displaced is no different. It is emblematic of failure (of respective administration's handling of the situation) very different from ruling party's active involvement or support of anti-minority violence.

It has become a fashion for folks to dish out opinions about matters, they know nothing about. 

One shouldn't butt into the topics that one hasn't read or understood.

rawemotions wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Rrawemotions wrote:

I don't think I understood the aforementioned bold senetence, In any case, Pandits fate or, the fate of muslims in Muzaffarnager or Ahmadabad who were displaced is no different. It is emblematic of failure (of respective administration's handling of the situation) very different from ruling party's active involvement or support of anti-minority violence.

It has become a fashion for folks to dish out opinions about matters, they know nothing about. 

One shouldn't butt into the topics that one hasn't read or understood.

It is clear you could not even figure out why your so called opinion is Hogwash.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
1) Do you have problems with people voting for the democratic party because it was the party of the solid (racist) south once?

Wrong analogy. Democratic party does not indulge nor incite such activities but BJP does even today.

Kris wrote:
2) Are you of the opinion that the people who voted for BJP were driven by minority- hatred and economics and being tired of the previous admin's policies had nothing to with it?

Consensus on this very board (right after the election results) was that "reverse polarization" was the main reason for BJP's victory.

Kris wrote:
3) I am frankly confused  by your moral equivalence point. I am not making one. I was stating a fact about the pandits' experience. In your earlier post you seemed to be saying this was the work of outsiders (!)and the army took care of it (!!). Now you are predicting a soon-to-happen unleashing of fury  of a pro-hindutva army on "current problems" (whatever they may be). Aside from the huge leaps of faith in this scenario- i.e. not knowing whether this will happen or why or directed at whom?- how does this negate the pandits' plight?

I don't think I understood the aforementioned bold senetence, In any case, Pandits fate or, the fate of muslims in Muzaffarnager or Ahmadabad who were displaced is no different. It is emblematic of failure (of respective administration's handling of the situation) very different from ruling party's active involvement or support of anti-minority violence.

Kris wrote:
>>>>1) No. The analogy is not as far off as you  are suggesting. I can show you southern democrats who were in favor of segregation in our lifetimes. Robert Bryd once recruited for the KKK. Should we taint the democratic party with broad strokes on that basis and demand no one vote for them? What of the muslims in the BJP? Why are countries like the US engaging this party if they are all what you make them out to be? Would they not avoid that, even if it only for self-serving PR reasons? 

"In other words, the composition of the educated elite has been heavily biased in favour of those coming from the upper castes, the upper and upper-middle income groups, and from the majority religious community."

Kris wrote:
2) This board with a sample size of about 20, most of whom who live on the other side of the planet? You are concluding based on this sample that a nation of one billion had no concerns about economics (despite the previous administration's performance or lack of an economic platform with gravitas) ? 

Kris wrote:
3) I didn't understand the bolded concept either, but you were the one who made a point of it. In any event, you seem convinced that the current party is involved in and in fact has its main focus violence toward minorities. There are minorities within this party who don't presumably share your views. You also seem to brush away any past communal violence as though this is a new thing in India. Unless you believe some victims are more equal than others, the latter does not seem to be a defensible position and neither  the case based on it to indict just one party, much as you may dislike it.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>1) No. The analogy is not as far off as you  are suggesting. I can show you southern democrats who were in favor of segregation in our lifetimes. Robert Bryd once recruited for the KKK. Should we taint the democratic party with broad strokes on that basis and demand no one vote for them? What of the muslims in the BJP? Why are countries like the US engaging this party if they are all what you make them out to be? Would they not avoid that, even if it only for self-serving PR reasons? 

"In other words, the composition of the educated elite has been heavily biased in favour of those coming from the upper castes, the upper and upper-middle income groups, and from the majority religious community."

What's the general perception of the Republican party base, especially in the minds of minorities in the US? and how does the above sentence (quoted from the article in OP) differ from that?

Kris wrote:
2) This board with a sample size of about 20, most of whom who live on the other side of the planet? You are concluding based on this sample that a nation of one billion had no concerns about economics (despite the previous administration's performance or lack of an economic platform with gravitas) ? 

Consensus was not based on members personal opinions rather based on the collective research of theirs. BTW, the point was not about 1 billion people of India, of which only ~500 millions were eligible voters; Overall voter turn out was about 60% but in the cities, where the majority of these educated elite are located, has always been lower than the national/state average (for example, turnout in Hyd was about 50% as opposed to 60% state-wide) and then we're talking about upper caste educated elite's biases. And the BJP's vote share was barely 31% (of the 50% turnout) , so now do the math and let me know what that number translates to. I bet the number of the educated voters that chose not to vote for the BJP for their communal agenda is much higher than those did vote.

Kris wrote:
3) I didn't understand the bolded concept either, but you were the one who made a point of it. In any event, you seem convinced that the current party is involved in and in fact has its main focus violence toward minorities. There are minorities within this party who don't presumably share your views. You also seem to brush away any past communal violence as though this is a new thing in India. Unless you believe some victims are more equal than others, the latter does not seem to be a defensible position and neither  the case based on it to indict just one party, much as you may dislike it.

Not sure where you're going with this. The gist of my point was, will the current administration make a gutsy call of engaging the army on the Hindu majority, should a similar situation arise. That was an hypothetical question no need to make it as a statement or a fact.

3) Your original point .....

"I bet the number of the educated voters that chose not to vote for the BJP for their communal agenda is much higher than those did vote."

Kris wrote:
1) Your question about republicans may be a truism, but it doesn't address my question which is about democrats. Given the history with southerners (whose main problem with the GOP was that it was the party that freed the slaves), would you recommend that it be seen as tainted?

Kris wrote:
3) Your original point was educated voters going the BJP route and the sadness therein. The following point contradicts it.

"I bet the number of the educated voters that chose not to vote for the BJP for their communal agenda is much higher than those did vote."

Hellsangel wrote:

3) Your original point .....

"I bet the number of the educated voters that chose not to vote for the BJP for their communal agenda is much higher than those did vote."

Comrade never let facts get in the way of his opinions.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
1) Your question about republicans may be a truism, but it doesn't address my question which is about democrats. Given the history with southerners (whose main problem with the GOP was that it was the party that freed the slaves), would you recommend that it be seen as tainted?

Current BJP leaders openly indulge and support these activities, Do the Dems do the same?

Kris wrote:
3) Your original point was educated voters going the BJP route and the sadness therein. The following point contradicts it.

"I bet the number of the educated voters that chose not to vote for the BJP for their communal agenda is much higher than those did vote."

Nope, I wasn't. I said majority of educated are non-bjp voters.

Kris wrote:
1) I guess its your word against the millions who voted for them and the minority members of the BJP and the international leaders and businessmen who want to do business with them. 

2) Then why the original heartache over educated voters voting for the BJP?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
1) I guess its your word against the millions who voted for them and the minority members of the BJP and the international leaders and businessmen who want to do business with them. 

2) Then why the original heartache over educated voters voting for the BJP?

If that is your measuring stick, they do business with China, Saudi and Pakistan too, right?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:Comrade Reddy Garu, was the support for dynastic rule of the previous party in power not an indictment of the educated Indians that they wanted a kingdom rather than a democracy?

HA, I don't particularly care for the Congress party but humor me, was PVN part of the dynasty or MMS?