And the good stuff.
1. timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Australian-PM-likely-to-ink-uranium-deal-with-India/articleshow/41639836.cms
Local media POV.
For the Australian POV:
- businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/9/5/national-affairs/india-threat-no-one-abbott
- news.malaysia.msn.com/regional/india-australia-to-sign-nuclear-deal-as-abbott-visits-4
Quote:Updated: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:44:37 GMT | By Agence France-Presse
India, Australia to sign nuclear deal as Abbott visits
Australia's prime minister on Thursday hailed a uranium deal he is due to sign with India as a "sign of trust", following a long-standing ban on selling the fuel to the nuclear-armed nation amid proliferation fears.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott speaks at the University of Mumbai, on September 4, 2014 - by Indranil Mukherjee
Tony Abbott is expected to sign the agreement allowing uranium sales to India when he meets the new Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a fellow conservative, in Delhi on Friday, during a visit aimed at boosting trade ties.
Australia, the world's third biggest uranium producer, had previously ruled out such exports to energy-starved India because it has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
But Abbott said his government has now received the necessary commitments from New Delhi about only using the ore for its civilian nuclear programme.
"India has an absolutely impeccable non-proliferation record and India has been a model international citizen," he told reporters in Mumbai, on the first leg of a his two-day visit.
"India threatens no one, India is the friend to many, India is the world's emerging democratic superpower. This is an important sign of the mutual trust that exists between Australia and India."
India and Australia kick-started negotiations on uranium sales in 2012 after Canberra lifted a long-time ban on exporting the valuable ore to Delhi to meet its ambitious nuclear energy programme.
Both India and its neighbouring rival Pakistan are nuclear-armed, and along with Israel and North Korea are the only countries not signed up to the non-proliferation treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
Australia's nuclear cooperation agreement for peaceful power generation will potentially ramp up India's plans for more nuclear power stations, with only 20 small plants at present and a heavy dependency on coal.
India is struggling to produce enough power to meet rising demand amid its 1.2-billion strong population as its economy and vast middle-class expand. Nearly 400 million still without access to electricity, according to the World Bank, and crippling power cuts are common.
- 'Abundance of opportunities' -
At the start of his visit, Abbott told business leaders in Mumbai that there was an "abundance of opportunities" in India, where Modi swept to power in May promising to open up Asia's third-largest economy to foreign investment.
"The purpose of this trip, as far as Iââ¬â¢m concerned, is to acknowledge the importance of India in the wider world, acknowledge the importance of India to Australiaââ¬â¢s future," Abbott said.
After laying a wreath at a memorial for victims of the 2008 attacks on the city, he visiting Mumbai University to launch a scheme designed to get more Australians studying in the country.
(Ugh, with the escalation of love jihad in India, that's not advisable. Indian islamaniacs will go after western women more readily. Even locally where I reside, there have been attacks against western females by subcontinental islamaniacs.)
While about 40,000 Indians study in Australia each year, "regrettably right now there are just a few tens of Australian students studying in India," said Abbott.
"That must change and that will change as a result of the New Colombo Plan," he said, referring to the scholarship programme that will be rolled out across the Indo-Pacific region.
The premier also met Indian cricketing great Sachin Tendulkar and former Australian stars Adam Gilchrist and Brett Lee, ahead of Australia's hosting of the World Cup next year.
Analyst and former Indian diplomat Neelam Deo said all eyes will be on the nuclear deal, which has been in the works for years and will boost future exports and heralds closer strategic ties.
"The signing of the deal removes one of the only challenges to closer ties between the countries in the region," Deo, director of Mumbai-based think-tank Gateway House, told AFP.
Sanjay Bhattacharya, Indian foreign ministry joint secretary, said on the eve of Abbott's arrival that "significant outcomes" were expected from the visit.
"For us, Australia is a major supplier of resources, particularly energy necessary for our development needs."
Australia's decision to overturn its ban on sales to India followed a landmark 2008 deal between Delhi and Washington for the United States to support India's civilian nuclear programme.
Note how the spineless KKKangress govt never commanded any respect from anyone - despite Mad-Moron Stink ("Manmohan Singh") going about desperately prostrating to everyone and even telling Britain that colonialism was good for India.
What about those thorium reserves in India that people said was near/at the Sri Rama Sethu site or something. Instead of selling that off, can't India try to be more autonomous using it? Or at least not sell it off? (I know less than nothing about nuclear materials and processing by the way, in case matters aren't that simple.)
2. timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Narendra-Modis-Hindispeak-abroad-hits-its-mark-at-home/articleshow/41468974.cms
Quote:Narendra Modiââ¬â¢s Hindispeak abroad hits its mark at home
The author has posted comments on this article
Deeptiman Tiwary, TNN | Sep 2, 2014, 03.40AM IST
NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday addressed a conference of reporters and businessmen in Japan in Hindi even as he continued his preference for the national language in bilateral talks with Japanese leaders. The last time an Indian leaderââ¬âAtal Bihari Vajpayee as foreign minister ââ¬â chose Hindi over English in an international conference in 1970s, it made waves. Modi's speech, say experts, may have more impact though in terms of assertion of Indian identity and promotion of Hindi in his own country.
Modi had only recently addressed a gathering of Isro scientists in English betraying no problems with the language even if he is seen more comfortable in Hindi. Thus his choice of language in Japan looks more a deliberate attempt tugging at his political constituency at home. It's an effort to break down language-linked walls that has won the hearts of many in an aspirational India.
Commentator Santosh Desai said, "From an international perspective there is nothing significant about Modi's speech in Hindi. All world leaders speak in their mother tongue in bilaterals or international foras. But at home, he is breaking the presumptive hierarchy that existed earlier. It is indicative of a shift in power equation of people who run governance in India."
When Vajpayee spoke in UN general assembly in Hindi in 1977, it was seen by many as an Indian leader's expression of personal love for Hindi. However, India has changed much since then and is now a force to reckon with in a multipolar world due to its rising economic power. With that background when a PM speaks in Hindi at an international conference, it has more significance, say many.
Academic Pushpesh Pant, however, says Vajpayee's speech as the first such instance was as significant and historic. "But Modi's speech is significant on two aspects. First it shows that he is free from mental slavery (to the colonial legacy). Two, it has great potential to help Hindi at home. When the youth, in some ways besieged by the importance of learning English, hears its icon speaking in Hindi in a foreign country, it will embrace the language more freely. The humiliation heaped on Hindi by Nehru must change," says Pant.
Desai, however, says Modi was not promoting Hindi alone. "Modi does not give any particular currency to Hindi on the world stage. But it sets precedence for the local Indian language. Tomorrow there could be a prime minister from Tamil Nadu and he could speak in Tamil in a foreign country," says Desai.
This is pure brilliance. Not only because Modi sets an example for Indians to be more comfortable with their native tongues, but for that other important reason: there is no need for representatives of 2 populations (and especially non-western, heathen populations), neither of which are native-English speakers, to speak in English with each other. Interpreters aplenty, give them employment. Also, E Asians are NOT all magically fluent in English (and even those
characters in E Asian dramas who are supposed to be educated in English, be it Japanese, Taiwanese, Chinese, or Korean dramas) are played by actors who are
not fluent and
not comfortable with it, as is obvious from the few lines that dot these dramas. [They still sound attractive of course. It's a great plus-point that E Asians are fluent in their own languages and many protagonists don't speak English at all and are looked-down upon by the better-educated but always snobby and frequently evil antagonists for it. Great ode to heathenism.] To force S/E Asian dignitaries to speak English when they can be far more expressive and natural in their own language does an injustice to them, even as Hindu officials more fluent in their own tongue having to speak in English does an injustice to themselves. Modi's choice to speak an Indian tongue would allow his Japanese counterparts to speak theirs as well if they preferred to, promoting native languages all round.
Also, let's be honest, in Asia, whose ancestral language is English? No one. Why should heathen Asian officials give a hoot about English when conversing with each other? This is the opportunity to speak one's one language. Asian officials, when among themselves can relegate English to interpreters, where it belongs. And that seems to me to be exactly what Modi has done from his end: shown English its place in a setting of heathen Asians meeting each other.
Automatic audio translation is becoming possible as per Rajeev2004 (reminiscent of the Universal Translator in Star Trek!) and in the future it could be available for many of the world's languages, so everyday Asian populations can communicate with each other in their native tongues too, without interpreters.
Negative comments at TOI tried to argue that Modi should have spoken Gujarati and asked why he spoke Hindi. Obviously because, since he can speak both languages, he could pick the one understood by more Indians back home who may be watching a broadcast. And/or, even more likely: he picked Hindi to inspire Hindus back home to learn multiple Indian languages, not just their mother tongue, and to not be uncomfortable as an Indian in speaking the ancestral language of another Indian state. His speaking in Japanese may similarly have inspired who knows how many Indians to start learning Japanese.
The Rajeev2004 blog also had an entry on Modi playing the Taiko drums. Many Hindus are fans of Taiko drums and join classes. So Modi's drumming may inspire more Hindus in India to listen to (or learn) Taiko drumming and learn the Japanese traditions associated with it. (E.g. IIRC playing for days on end during some matsuris at Shinto Shrines.)
There's no fault to find with Modi's sense of business/improving the economy/raising prosperity, or his development vision (but build humanure toilets, not regular western ones that use up lots of water) or his feeling comfortable in being a Hindu and an Indian. Also, unlike Chinese officials who are all corrupt and care only about their own careers and not the people they are ruling - as according to Chinese citizens themselves - Modi looks toward the general welfare of his country (i.e. what people call nationalism) and not himself.
But he *needs* to do much more. That's what many Hindus voted him for. It's too late for Hindu rulers not to do something for protecting Hindu religion among *Hindus*. That is,
- he
needs to put down the sexual jihad and rape jihad. Although even one case is too many, it is spiralling to staggering numbers, dwarfing what's happening to the Yezidi women. In Kerala alone, as per HK, and just in one month (June or July, IIRC),
200 Hindu women had been abudcted by islamania and requested help. Now consider all the cases
in that month in that state that did not get a chance to contact anyone for help. And then consider all the other states, since the sexual jihad is happening all over the country now. So that even christomedia has been forced to mention it on occasion. E.g. 2 cases in Jharkhand, 2 cases in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar: 5 cases just in the last few days that the christomedia *TOI* chose to mention:
- timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Love-Jihad-in-Madhya-Pradesh-Two-booked-for-forcing-wives-to-embrace-Islam/articleshow/41327699.cms
- timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Another-love-jihad-case-comes-to-light-in-Jharkhand/articleshow/41150754.cms (This after the case of Sportswoman/Shooter Tara Shahdeo)
- timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Girl-allegedly-abducted-in-Bihar-forcibly-converted-to-Islam/articleshow/41533216.cms
- even if Modi cannot be seen to be rebuilding a Sri Rama Kovil at Ayodhya - and I'm sure there are already many communistists and pseculars hoping for riots to create a frenzy - it needs to happen somehow. That KKKangressi who - as per the Rajeev2004 blog - invited Modi, immediately after the latter's election, to build the Rama temple: Modi should ask that *KKKangressi* to take charge of the project. After all, the KKKangressi suggested it, which essentially means he volunteered himself. The chance of islamic rioting and christocommunists raising hysteria about the matter will be less if it is not Modi, and any that happens will be in KKKangress' court, while Hindus will still get their Sri Rama Mandiram.
- the terror threat from christoislam is real. Development needs to be secondary to securing the safety of native traditions.
- temples are under serious threat and many are pushed to utter poverty by the christian govts' laws draining temple wealth into christoislam. This has to be reversed, not merely halted.
- protection of Hindu leaders: way too many have been murdered (and they
cannot be replaced). Modi has done very little about it, but express condolences. TN cops only recently bothered to catch some islamaniac murderers behind some of these massacres. The culprits will probably be released when the political climate changes again, just as many islamic rape jihadists and gangrapists declare they are underage and let of the hook. E.g. see timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Girl-allegedly-abducted-in-Bihar-forcibly-converted-to-Islam/articleshow/41533216.cms and Mohammed Afroz, the islamic rapist-murderer of Jyoti Pandey, also got away scott-free for being underage with just 3 months in juvenile detention not even the original 3 year sentence.
- promoting Buddhism in India or Nepal - even if aimed at foreign tourists - is a
Bad Plan (lots of historical Hindu rulers ended up strengthening Buddhism and hence promoted Buddhist missionising that way, and Hindus had to pay for it later and others were left to clean up the mess). And Indian Hindu officials (and Hindu laity) promoting Buddhism among E Asian nations should be
forbidden.
- Need to protect cows and implement laws harshly punishing anyone harming them: Hindu-owned cows are deliberately being kidnapped by christoislamania and butchered. It is a deliberate attack on Hindu religion, which is why the laws to curtail this must be very deliberate as well.
- Etc.
Post 1/2
Archiving Time's interview of Modi.
A lot of important parts look pretty bad (some of it gutting). Wish it were doublespeak, but I'm certain he's entirely being sincere in all these too. <- Which is the scary bit.
time.com/3849492/narendra-modi-interview/
Exclusive Interview With Narendra Modi: 'We Are Natural Allies'
Nancy Gibbs @nancygibbs Zoher Abdoolcarim @ZAbdoolcarim Nikhil Kumar @nkreports
May 7, 2015
Why Narendra Modi Matters
Time Magazine Cover
Photograph by Peter Hapak for TIME
How Narendra Modi Wants to Change India
Behind TIME's Cover With Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi
On May 2, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi sat down for an exclusive two-hour interview with TIME editor Nancy Gibbs, Asia editor Zoher Abdoolcarim and South Asia bureau chief Nikhil Kumar in New Delhi. Speaking mostly in Hindi, Modi talked about everything from his ambitions for India to the global war on terrorism to what personally moves him. Translated and condensed highlights, followed by the full interview:
More
Maoist Rebels in Central India Release 250 Hostages, Kill 1
German Ambassador to India Urges Support of International NGOs
On what he has learned so far about -running India: The biggest challenge was that I was new to the federal government structures. Different departments tend to work in silos-each department seems to [be] a government in itself. My effort has been to break these silos down, [so that] everybody ... looks at a problem in a collective manner. I see the federal government not as an assembled entity but as an organic entity.
On how he sees the U.S.: We are natural allies ... [It's not] what India can do for the U.S., what the U.S. can do for India ... The way we should look at it is what India and the U.S. can together do for the world ... strengthening democratic values all over.
On India's sometimes tense relations with China: For nearly three decades there has been, by and large, peace and tranquility on the India-China border. Not a single bullet has been fired for over a quarter-century. Both countries are showing great maturity and a commitment to economic cooperation.
On the possibility of the Taliban's returning to power in Afghanistan: The drawdown of U.S. troops is, of course, an independent decision of the American government, but in the interest of a stable government in Afghanistan, it would be important to hold consultations with the Afghan government to understand their security needs as the U.S. troops draw down.
On tackling the threat of terrorism: We should not look at terrorism from the nameplates--which group they belong to, what is their geographical location, who are the victims. These individual groups or names will keep changing. Today you are looking at the Taliban or ISIS; tomorrow you might be looking at another name.
We should pass the U.N.'s Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. At least it will clearly establish whom you view as a terrorist and whom you don't. We need to delink terrorism from religion'to isolate terrorists who use this interchange of arguments between terrorism and religion.
Several countries used to see terrorism as a law-and-order situation of individual countries. We should see it as something that is a fight for human values.
On whether economic reforms have gone far and fast enough: [This time] last year, nothing seemed to be happening in the government. There seemed to be a complete policy paralysis ... There was no leadership. My government's coming to power should be viewed in the context of the developments of the 10 years of the last government vs. 10 months of my government ' The whole world is, once again, excited and enthusiastic about India and the opportunities that India represents. Whether it is the IMF, the World Bank, Moody's or other credit agencies, they are all saying in one voice that India has a great economic future.
(Read TIME's cover story about Narendra Modi)
On whether he would like to have the kind of authoritarian power that China's leader has: India is a democracy; it is in our DNA. As far as the different political parties are concerned, I firmly believe that they have the maturity and wisdom to make decisions that are in the best interests of the nation. So if you were to ask me whether you need a dictatorship to run India, No, you do not. Whether you need a powerful person who believes in concentrating power, No, you do not. If you were to ask me to choose between democratic values and wealth, power, prosperity and fame, I will very easily and without any doubt choose democratic values.
On India's religious diversity, which some citizens believe is under siege: My philosophy, the philosophy of my party and the philosophy of my government is Sabka saath, sabka vikas-"Together with all, progress for all." Take everybody together and move toward inclusive growth. Wherever a [negative] view might have been expressed [about] a minority religion, we have immediately negated that. (But where's the inverse?) So far as the government is concerned, there is -only one holy book, which is the constitution of India. (Wait that christowestern lawbook? Oh well, dreams of reforming that under Modi is down the drain too.) The unity and the integrity of the country are the topmost priorities. All religions and all communities have the same rights, and it is my responsibility to ensure their complete and total protection. My government will not tolerate or accept any discrimination based on caste, creed and religion.
(I'd say his govt tolerates attacks on Hindu temples - and the christomedia silencing news on this - pretty well.
And also christomedia's discrimination in its reporting on attacks on temple versus in inciting hysteria over a measly 5 churches that moreover self-inflicted attacks. Contrasted with 145 temples attacked by christoislam in the same period of time.
And has Modi's govt negated Owaisi's threats of genocide against Hindoos? Or that christian Bishop who threatened to turn Kerala into the next Kashmir? Or the brutal genocide in India's northeast. Again, Modi speaks only of how he defends the minorities.
And why doesn't he bring Owaisi et al up to TIME which only cares about the monotheists, I mean the minorities. And isn't it *Indian* christomedia/psecular terminology to use "minority" to refer to the belligerent religions in India? Did the west - as seen in TIME - teach Indian psecular mouthpieces?
Good for Modi that the west is commending him: But it's not a sign of a good leader if the nation's enemies commend him - or even if neutral outside nations do - while his own people critique him for demonstrable neglect.)
On what influences him: [Chokes and tears up.] This touches my deepest core. I was born in a very poor family. I used to sell tea in a railway coach as a child. My mother used to wash utensils and do lowly household work in the houses of others to earn a livelihood. I have seen poverty very closely. I have lived in poverty. As a child, my entire childhood was steeped in poverty. For me, poverty, in a way, was the first inspiration of my life ... I decided that I would not live for myself but would live for others.
(Great. A leader who will show his sentimental side to the public. Advertise to the world - and especially enemies of the nation - that India elected a shove-over, will ya?
Never came across a political leader getting all teary eyed.
I have nothing against adults going all sniffly - go ahead. But not in public if you're India's elected leader.)
***
Read the full interview:
Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi: Welcome to India, first of all. This is your first visit to India and I am delighted that on your very first visit we have a chance to meet. I hope this opportunity, this visit of yours, will also provide you an occasion to return to India more often.
TIME: Thank you, we hope so as well. I should start by wishing you a happy anniversary. It is almost one year now in office. So, I am curious about what has surprised you most. You often talked about being an outsider. Now that you are the ultimate insider, what have you seen about the strengths and the opportunities and the obstacles that you face in the program that you are hoping to pursue?
Modi: For more than forty years now, I have had an opportunity and chance to travel all across India. There would perhaps be more than 400 districts of India where I have spent a night. So I am fully aware of the strengths of India, I am fully aware of the challenges that we face, I am not unaware of them. What was relatively new to me was the Federal government structures, the systems, the way we operate at the Federal level. That was a part which I was not aware of till I entered the government here.
Ivan Dmitri'Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images
1942: The US held loose relations with "The British Raj" before Indian independence. Yet the Western nation did maintain an Airfield base in Dinjan,India during this time. (Photo by Ivan Dmitri/Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)
1 of 12
The biggest challenge I think was that I was new to the Federal government structures. They were new to me, I was new to them, so there was a question of understanding each other's perspective. But within a very short time I have bridged the gap through very focused and concentrated actions. There is now a meeting of minds. I understand them very well, they understand me very well. Because of that, within a very short period of time, we have been able to establish a smooth, seamless working mechanism within the Federal structure.
I was Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat for a long period of time. I knew very well what the Central government thought about the States of India and what State governments thought of the Federal government. I wanted to change this thought process, the fundamental thought process as to how the Federal Government and the State governments perceive each other. I wanted the Federal Government and the State Governments to work together for the country. I basically wanted to bring about a complete change in the thinking that Federal government is a giver to the State government, and the State government is a recipient of the largesse from the Federal government. And I think within a very short period of time, I have managed to achieve that objective to a very large extent.
I coined a term for that, which I call cooperative Federalism. I took it actually a step further and called it cooperative competitive Federalism. Essentially the concept is that it would encourage different State governments to compete with each other for the growth of the country. What essentially I have tried to do, and I think we have managed to do that, is to convert the country from a single-pillar growth nation to a nation that has 30 pillars of growth; these are the 29 States of India and the Federal centre.
Similarly, it was my experience after I entered the Federal government that different departments of the Government of India tend to work in silos. Each department seems to work as a Government in itself. The reason for that is that for the last three decades, there has not been a majority government at the Federal level; there have essentially been coalition governments, which has had a major impact on the government systems which created silos. My effort has been to ensure that these silos get broken down, that there is a collective thought process which is brought about in the Federal government. And I think we have managed to achieve that in a short period of time wherein everybody thinks together as a collective, everybody works together. And also it has invigorated the administrative system of the Federal government which looks at a problem in a collective manner rather than as individual silos.
I see the Federal government not as an assembled entity but as an organic entity so that each one understands the problems of the other and can collectively work together to address those problems.
(PHOTOS: Behind TIME's Cover With Narendra Modi)
TIME: Moving on to the US, the US-India relationship, President Obama has spoken very highly of you including on the Time 100 very recently. As you go transforming India, transforming the government as you say, how do you think the US should see you - as a partner, as an economic competitor? Would "Make in India" for example mean that jobs from the US would come here? So, the debate that we had on the service sector, would that not switch to manufacturing sector? How should the US see you?
Modi: I am extremely grateful to President Obama for the thoughtful and generous manner in which he has described me. What he has written in TIME magazine recently, I am also very grateful to him.
(Obama lied about Modi's nation - the religious tolerance of Hindus. Ought to be more worried about that than cutesy flattery or personal insults.
How quickly Modi forgot.)
If I have to describe the India-US relationship in a single word, I will say we are natural allies. I think the relationship between India and US, and the two countries in themselves, have played an enormously important role and continue to play an important role in strengthening democratic values all over the world.
What should the India-US relationship be, what India can do for the US, what the US can do for India, I think that is a rather limited point of view to take. I think the way we should look at it is what India and the US can together do for the world. That is the perspective in which we approach our relationship with the United States.
(Read Barack Obama's tribute to Narendra Modi)
TIME: You have visited 16 countries already in this year. Who would you say are your other natural allies?
Modi: I think this is an expected question from a journalistic point of view! I think each country has its own importance and each relationship has to be viewed in its own perspective. There are several countries of the world with which India has strategic partnerships. There are several other countries with which we have a relationship that is comprehensive in some other respects. There are some which are perhaps born to be there as natural allies, but there are still gaps to be covered in order for us to become natural allies. So I think it is important for us to see each relationship in an overall perspective and also how India approaches that relationship with each country.
If you look at the India-US relationship for example, the role that the Indian diaspora has played in the relationship is extremely crucial. Yes, we share democratic values but there is also the great role that the Indian diaspora has played in strengthening the bond of friendship between India and the US, and of course in underscoring the democratic values between the two countries.
Also our worldview... in addition to our shared democratic values, there are convergences in our worldview on different situations in the world. So, if I were to describe the relationship with other countries, I would say that each relationship of India with other countries has to be seen in a context and a perspective that is different from each other.
TIME: Prime Minister, you will be visiting China very soon. China is increasingly assertive and influential on the world stage including in the South Asia region. China and India have fought a border war before, and sometimes the relationship, the atmosphere can be tense. With your visit to China and your meeting with China's leaders, what kind of relationship do you want to forge with China? Do you think you can do business with China's leaders? Can India and China ever be friends?
Modi: After the India-China war in 1962, in the early 90s, India and China agreed on a framework for peace and tranquillity on the border. Further, since nearly last three decades until this time that we have entered into the 21st century, there is by and large peace and tranquillity on the India-China border. It is not a volatile border. Not a single bullet has been fired for over a quarter of a century now. This essentially goes to prove that both countries have learnt from history.
In so far as the India-China relationship is concerned specifically, it is true that there is a long border between India and China and a large part of it is disputed. Still, I think both countries have shown great maturity in the last couple of decades to ensure and commit to economic cooperation which has continued to grow over the last 20 to 30 years to a stage where we currently have an extensive trade, investment and project related engagement between the two countries. Given the current economic situation in the world, we are at a stage where we cooperate with China at the international stage but we also compete with China when it comes to commerce and trade.
(Scary when losses are counted as good points. Apparently China can run away with yet more Indian land as long as it continues dangling economic cooperation.)
You referred to the increase in Chinese influence in the region and in the world. I firmly believe that there is not a single country in the world, whether its population is one million or much more, which would not want to increase its influence internationally. I think it is a very natural tendency for the nations to increase their influence in the international space, as they pursue their international relations with different countries. I firmly believe that with due regard to international rules and regulations, and with full respect for human values, I think with these two perspectives in mind each country has the right to increase its presence, its impact and influence internationally for the benefit of the global community.
TIME: I just wanted to ask a follow-up question. On the eve of your visit to China, would you wish to send a special message to President Xi? Would you like to say something to him on the eve of your visit?
Modi: I firmly believe that the relationship between two countries, the India-China relationship as you are referring to, should be such that to communicate with each other there should really not be a need for us to go through a third entity. That is the level of relationship that we currently have.
TIME: The US is gradually drawing down its forces in Afghanistan. I am wondering whether you worry about the Taliban returning to power, and about the threat from ISIS and how you see that.
Modi: There are two different perspectives to the question that you asked and I would try and answer each of those two separately. The first refers to the India-Afghanistan relationship. It is well known that India and Afghanistan have enjoyed ancient ties and a very close relationship. People talk of infrastructure development these days. But if you go back in history, you'll see that one of the former kings in the region Sher Shah Suri is the one who built the Kolkata-Kabul Grand Trunk Road.
The closeness of the India-Afghanistan relationship is not a new phenomenon. It has existed since time immemorial. And as a close friend, ever since India's Independence, we have done and will continue to do whatever is required to be done to see Afghanistan grow and progress as a close friend.
President Ashraf Ghani was here last week. We had a good meeting and extensive discussions. One of the key points of discussions was the roadmap for development and progress in Afghanistan. We have in the past committed extensively to that. In fact, India's assistance to Afghanistan is close to about 2.2 billion dollars for reconstruction and development. We have made further commitments to do whatever is required to be done for Afghanistan's development. And not only have we made commitments, we are also taking concrete and specific steps to implement those commitments.
In so far as the drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan is concerned, this is a point on which I had extensive discussions with President Obama when I visited the US in September last year. I mentioned to him that the drawdown of troops is of course an independent decision of the American government, but in the interest of a stable government in Afghanistan, it would be important to hold consultations with the Afghan Government to understand their security needs as the US troops draw down. And I did mention to him that we should all try to meet the security needs of Afghanistan post drawdown of American troops. Rest of course is a decision that is for the US Government to take. But our interest is in ensuring peace and stability in Afghanistan; and whatever is required to be done for that, we will do that.
In so far as the Taliban and the ISIS issue which you referred to is concerned, I firmly believe that there is a need for the international community to undertake a detailed introspection of the overall perspective, the way they have looked at terrorism internationally. Till 1993, for example, there were several countries that did not fully understand the full force of this evil. They used to see it and they used to appreciate it purely as a law and order situation of individual countries rather than as an evil force internationally.
If you actually analyze the situation closely, what is needed perhaps is for the countries that believe in human values to come together and fight terrorism. [size="5"]We should not look at terrorism from the nameplates - which group they belong to, what are their names, what is their geographical location, who are the victims of terrorism...[/size] I think we should not see them in individual pieces. We should rather have a comprehensive look at the ideology of terrorism, see it as something that is a fight for human values, as terrorists are fighting against humanity.
So, all the countries that believe in human values need to come together and fight this evil force as an ideological force, and look at it comprehensively rather than looking at it as Taliban, ISIS, or individual groups or names. These individual groups or names will keep changing. Today you are looking at the Taliban or ISIS; tomorrow you might be looking at another name down the years. So it is important for the countries to go beyond the groups, beyond the individual names, beyond the geographical location they come from, beyond even looking at the victims of the terrorism, and fight terrorism as a unified force and as a collective.
TIME: So, what would we do differently if that coming together happened, if we looked at this threat more in the way you are describing; what would change in the way the threat is addressed?
Modi: I think as a first step what the international community can definitely look at is passing the United Nations Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism which has been with the United Nations for the last several years. I think that could be the first step for us to take. At least it will clearly establish who you view as terrorist and who you do not view as terrorist. The definitional aspects of terrorism will get addressed.
The second thing which is important to do is not to analyze or look at terrorism from a purely political perspective but also view it from the perspective of the way it attacks human values, as a force against humanity, the point that I made earlier on. If you view terrorism in Syria from one perspective and terrorism outside Syria from another perspective, it can create problems. If you view terrorism in categories such as good terrorism and bad terrorism, that too can create its own challenges. Similarly, if you view Taliban as good Taliban or bad Taliban, that creates its own problems.
I think we should not look at these questions individually. We should address this problem in one voice, not in segmented voices - something which diffuses the international focus when it comes to the problem of terrorism. I believe that this can be easily done.
[size="5"]I think the other thing that we need to undertake as a focused measure is to delink terrorism from religion.[/size]
(Yikes.)
When I met President Obama both in September last year and in January this year, in September last year particularly, I did request him to lead the charge in delinking terrorism from religion. I think if we are able to achieve this and if we go down this path, it would at least put an end to the emotional blackmailing which is inherent in this particular concept. It would also help us additionally to isolate the terrorists completely who tend to use this interchange of arguments between terrorism and religion.
(Wait, was it Modi that scripted Obama's "islam's not to blame for jihad" speech, and that it is entirely unrelated to religion no matter that AQ, ISIS, Al-Shabaab all say they're mass-murdering and raping for allah?
"Thanks Modi!")
Another aspect which is important in our collective fight against terrorism is the question relating to the communication technology, the communication methodology that the terrorists use, and the modes of financing. Terrorists are linked to money laundering, dirty money, drug dealing, arms trafficking. We have to ask ourselves, where do terrorists get their weapons from? Where do they get their communication technology from? Where do they get their financing from? These are some of the aspects where I think the entire international community needs to come together and put a complete stop to access to these three key aspects by the terrorists which assist them in terms of easy access to communication, finance and weapons.
If we pass the UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism and if we take the steps that I have just listed out, it will help the international community, help all of us to isolate those countries that stand in support of terrorism.
TIME: Prime Minister, you were mentioning about delinking terrorism from religion. You mentioned Taliban, you mentioned ISIS. The other two groups that are creating a lot of headlines worldwide with their activities are Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab in Africa. All of them claim to be doing what they are doing on behalf of Islam. Do you think that the Islamic world, Islam's world leaders should be doing more in their own communities to moderate those who are radicals, to do more on the education front and to cooperate more to fight these?
Modi: When the initial question was asked there was reference to Taliban and ISIS. That is why when I framed my reply and I started my response, I basically prefaced it by saying that we have to look beyond individual groups. I did not respond specifically to the Taliban or to ISIS, but I responded to the need for the international community to look at this problem from a larger perspective and not from the individual perspectives of the nameplates or the groups that I referred to.
I think terrorism is a thought process. It is a thought process that is a great threat to the international community. I am also not linking it to any particular religion or to the actions of religious leaders. I think it is something that, as I mentioned, the countries that believe in human values need to come together and fight as a collective and not looking at individual groups from the perspective of individual religions.
(Translation of Modi: All go back to sleep now. Let's continue to ignore the elephant in the living room.
No wonder he does nothing for W Bengal Hindoos being genocided by islamania.)
TIME: If I could go back to two things that you said earlier, Prime Minister, you said that every country tries to increase its influence, sphere of influence. Sometimes that is obviously not very positive. One was what the US and India can both do together in the world. But one thing that the US is doing right now is trying to counter Russia's influence in Ukraine. Do you support international sanctions against Russia?
Modi: This issue was raised in the G20 Summit. President Obama was present there, President Putin was present there, and I presented my viewpoint in the presence of both the Presidents. My view was that there are United Nations guidelines, there are provisions in the United Nations; and I think whatever is agreed within the framework of United Nations, the international community should follow it.
TIME: Another big international issue that is coming up is the Paris Climate Summit later this year. Will India specify a peak for its emission, a cap on its emission?
Modi: In the entire world, if you analyse very closely the cultural and the civilizational history of different countries, particularly looking at the lifestyle which they have followed over decades and centuries of their history, you will find that this part of the world, India in particular, has advocated and pursued economic growth in coexistence, in close bonding, with Nature for thousands of years of its history. In this part of the world, in Indian civilization in particular, the principle value is that exploitation of Nature is a crime, and we should only draw from Nature what is absolutely essential for your needs and not exploit it beyond that.
If I may, in a somewhat lighter vein, recount a practice that is very common in the Indian cultural frame... it is that when you wake up in the morning and get off the bed, you step on to mother earth, causing it pain. What we teach our children is that earth is your mother that provides; she's a giver. So, please first ask forgiveness from the mother earth before you step on to it and cause it pain.
We also teach in our cultural history that the entire universe is a family. For example, Indian bedtime stories - including school books - are quite replete with references to the Moon as maternal uncle and Sun as a grandfather. So when we view these aspects purely from the perspective of a family, our association with Nature is much deeper and of a very different kind.
Insofar as the question specifically related to COP21 is concerned, I think if you look at the whole world, and the whole issue of climate change, if there is one part of the world which can provide natural leadership on this particular cause, it is this part of the world. Insofar as my specific role and responsibility is concerned, I am acutely conscious and aware of that. In fact, when I was the Chief Minister of Gujarat, my government was probably the fourth State government in the world to establish a Climate Change Department within my particular State. And we closely linked its work to the growth policy that we adopted in the State.
In future too, in terms of initiatives that we are going to take, there is going to be a heavy focus on using energy that is environment friendly. For example, we have launched a huge initiative in the field of renewable energy by setting a target for ourselves of 175 GW from renewable sources - 100 GW from the solar sector and 75 GW from the wind sector. It is really an immense and huge initiative of my government.
I have undertaken another mission mode project that we call Clean Ganga Mission. It is essentially on the re-invigoration of the river Ganges. River Ganges has a flow line of about 2,500 KM. Roughly 40 per cent of India's population is either directly or indirectly linked to this river. It is not merely a Clean Ganga Initiative, not just cleaning of a river; it is actually a huge developmental initiative whose primary focus is to undertake development that is environment friendly.
In fact - and I say this to the entire international community - that those who believe in undertaking environment-friendly development in their own countries, I invite them to come and be partners in the cleaning of river Ganges which I think, as I said earlier, is essentially an environment-friendly growth and development model focussed on preservation of environment.
I have undertaken these mission-mode environment preservation steps in several layers. One layer, for example, pertains to the saving of energy. We have made it a nation-wide campaign to distribute and to ensure popularity of LED bulbs - something which essentially reduces the carbon emission and carbon footprint of energy consumption nationally.
For the farmers in India, I have launched an initiative called the Soil Health Card. It is essentially a system through which we inform the farmer of the toxicity in the soil which he is cultivating. The idea is to approach this entire issue in a scientific way and advise the farmer about his next steps in terms of reduced use of chemical fertilizers, in terms of increased use of organic fertilizers so that the fertility of the soil is preserved. Naturally, this reduces the environmental burden of agricultural cultivation within the country. For the Himalayan region of India, I want to convert it into the organic cultivation capital for the entire world.
I will talk of another measure which may seem like a small measure but which has a great environmental impact within the country. In India we provide to the households subsidized LPG gas cylinders for cooking. Sometime ago, I requested the rich and the wealthy to give up their gas cylinder subsidy to free up the usage of the cooking gas cylinders. Within a short period of time, about 400,000 families gave up their subsidized gas cylinders. My objective is to pass on the freed-up gas cylinders to the poor families which will help us achieve three objectives. Firstly, they would stop using the forest wood for cooking purposes which will prevent the degradation of the forests. Second, it will reduce carbon emissions because burning of the forest wood has a higher carbon footprint. Third, it will also reduce the health problems which are caused in poor families when they burn forest wood for cooking. So, essentially we try to achieve all the three objectives - reduce carbon footprint, reduce forest degradation, yet improve the health of the poor families through this very simple environment friendly measure.
Another decision that we have recently announced clubs together two concepts - providing rural employment and increasing the green cover in rural areas; we have provided a quantum of Rs. 40,000 crore (approx. $ 6.7 billion) to afforest the rural land, provide employment in rural areas, leading to conservation of environment.
Another measure we have taken is to build Metro mass transportation facilities in 50 cities of India. Similarly, in 500 cities of India, we have started elaborate waste water treatment and solid waste management plans. The idea is to build these facilities through public private partnerships by using global competitive aspects. All these measures which I have described have been taken in the last 10 months with the principle objective of ensuring that our economic growth is environment friendly.
The second aspect that I keep pointing out but perhaps international community is still not ready to focus on it or does not focus on it yet, is the need to change our lifestyles. I think the throw-away culture, the culture of disposables, causes a huge burden on the environment. I think recycling, or the re-usage of the resources of the earth, is an important aspect which should be ingrained in our daily lifestyle. I think it is important to change our lifestyles.
TIME: Prime Minister, you have talked about the economic and development reforms that you have been introducing in India, but there are other benchmarks of progress. President Obama said earlier this year that for India to succeed, it is critical that the nation does not splinter along religious lines. What would you make from President Obama's remarks?
Modi: India is a civilization with a history that is thousands of years old. If you analyze the history of India carefully, you will probably not come across a single incident where India has attacked another country. Similarly you will not find any references in our history where we have waged war based on ethnicity or religion. The diversity of India, of our civilization, is actually a thing of beauty, which is something we are extremely proud of. Our philosophy of life, something that we have lived for thousands of years, is also reflected in our constitution. Our constitution has not come out of any abstract insularity. It essentially reflects our own civilizational ethos of equal respect for all religions. As Indian scriptures say, "Truth is one but sages call it by different names". (The Vedam never included the missionary religions in that. If it's all the same, why don't people convert to christoislamania already?) Similarly, Swami Vivekananda, when he travelled to Chicago for the World Congress of Religions, had said that respecting religions is not simply a question of universal tolerance; it is a question of believing that all religions are true. So it is a positive approach and aspect that India and Indian civilization take towards religion. If you look at one of the micro minorities of the world, the Parsi community, it has probably flourished the maximum in India. One of our Chiefs of Army Staff has been from the Parsi community. One of our biggest industrialists is from the Parsi community. A Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was from this micro minority community. So for us, the acceptance of all religions is in our blood, it is there in our civilization. It is ingrained in our system to work together, taking all the religions along with us.
(Translation: don't worry, we'll keep dying silently by christoislam and continue to never retaliate.)
My philosophy, the philosophy of my party and the philosophy also of my government is, what I call "Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas", which essentially means, "Together with all, progress for all". So, the underlying philosophy and the impulse of that particular motto is to take everybody together and move towards inclusive growth.
TIME: As we are heading to the US political campaign, a lot of America's political leaders are talking about the role that their faith plays and their views of themselves as leaders. Could you talk a little about what your faith of Hinduism means to you as India's leader?
Modi: Religion and faith are very personal matters. So far as the government is concerned, there is only one holy book, which is the Constitution of India.
In fact, if I look at the definition of Hinduism, the Supreme Court of India has given a beautiful definition; it says that Hinduism is not a religion, it is actually a way of life.
If one looks at my own belief, I think I have grown up with these values which I mentioned earlier, that religion is a way of life. We also say "Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam" - the entire world is one family, and respect for all religions. Those are the values I have grown up with.
(So if the entire world is one family, do you have to roll over when some of your "family members" try to murder you? Why don't *they* treat you as family members - not until you convert, yet try to kill you if you don't?)
Essentially the crux of Indian philosophy, the Hindu philosophy, is that all should be happy, all should be healthy, all should live life to the fullest. It is not something that is specific to a particular religion, or to a particular sect. It's a philosophy, it's a way of life which encompasses all societies.
And Hinduism is a religion with immense depth and vast diversity. For example, [size="4"]the one who does idol worship is a Hindu and one who hates idol worship can also be a Hindu.[/size]
(I.e. "christoislamics are Hindus too.")
TIME: Mr. Prime minister, some members of your party have said some unkind things about minority religions in India and we do understand that Muslim, Christians, some others have worried about the future of their practicing their faith in India and we are trying to understand that you are saying that under your leadership, they should not be worried?
Modi: In so far the Bhartiya Janata Party and my government are concerned, we absolutely do not believe in this type of ideology. And wherever an individual view might have been expressed with regard to a particular minority religion, we have immediately negated that. (But where's the inverse?) So far as BJP and my government are concerned, as I mentioned earlier, there is only one holy book of reference, which is the Constitution of India. For us, the unity and the integrity of the country are the top most priorities. All religions and all communities have the same rights and it is my responsibility to ensure their complete and total protection. My Government will not tolerate or accept any discrimination based on caste, creed, and religion. So there is no place for imaginary apprehensions with regard to the rights of the minorities in India.
TIME: Prime Minister, if I could go back to your election last year. A key thing and the most important was the economy that was spoken about. But here on, a lot of investors have begun to ask questions about the pace of reform, is it fast enough? That the economy basically benefitted from falling oil prices... What you make of those questions about the pace at which you have reformed and what reforms you are planning as you are going to your second year?
Modi: If you were to pick up the news papers for the period March-May 2014 last year and read them, you will actually get the context and key aspects of the context in which we were approaching the elections at that time. One of which was that nothing seemed to be happening in the Government. There seemed to be a complete policy paralysis at that time. Two, corruption had spread throughout the system. Three, there was no leadership; it was a weak government at the centre. That was the context and the background in which I was elected. My election, my government's coming into power last year in 2014, should be viewed in the context of the developments over the last ten years in the country before May 2014. So you need to see ten years of the last government versus ten months of my government.
You will actually see that, internationally, the whole world is, once again, excited and enthusiastic about India and the opportunities that India represents. Another way to look at it is that, at the start of the 21st century, the term BRIC was coined to represent the four major emerging economies. The assessment was that the BRIC countries will drive international economic growth. Six-seven years before 2014, a view started emerging that 'I' in the BRIC had perhaps become less relevant or perhaps even a drag on the BRIC grouping.
In the last 10 months, the 'I' has reclaimed its position in the BRICS. Internationally, whether it is the IMF, the World Bank, Moody's or other credit agencies, they are all saying in one voice, that India has a great economic future. It is progressing at a fast pace and has again become a factor of growth and stability in the international economic system. India is now one of the fastest growing economies in the world.
The last ten months clearly prove that so far as the expectations of the people are concerned, both in the country and internationally, we are moving very rapidly to fulfil those expectations.
I have in my mind a very clear outline of the framework of what we are going to do in the next five years. What we have done in the last one year is precisely as per that plan. And in the next four years, we have step-by-step measures that would unfold as we go along. So far as the reform process in the last eleven months is concerned, it is not simply a question of policy reforms that my government has taken. We have also undertaken focused administrative reforms. To establish (i) ease of doing business; (ii) making government more accountable; (iii) reforms at the level of technology and governance; (iv) reforms at all layers of the government, whether it's local government or state government or central government. We have essentially taken the reform process to an entirely different level where both the Federal and the state level respond through a policy-based and administrative reform system.
The biggest reform since India's independence in the field of taxation that is coming up is the GST and it is our expectation that we would start implementing it from the 2016 fiscal year.
Another example is increasing the Foreign Direct Investment cap in the field of insurance to 49%. This was stuck for the last 7 - 8 years and was not making any progress. We ensured that it was passed by the parliament within the first year of our government.
TIME: Prime Minister, when some people compare China and India's economic development, there are some people who say that China has been much faster and much more successful because it is a one-party state in which the leader of the party can basically dictate his and his Cabinet's policies. India of course is a democracy. You have a mandate in the Lower House of Parliament. You do not have a majority in the Upper House. Things like for example your new Land Acquisitions Law can run into obstacles because of the system that India has. Do you sometimes think that you would love to have President Xi's power to push things through?
Modi: India by its very nature is a democracy. It is not just as per our Constitution that we are a democratic country; it is in our DNA. In so far as different political parties of India are concerned, I firmly believe that they have the maturity and wisdom to make decisions that are in the best interests of the nation. I firmly believe that for us, democracy and belief in democratic values, are a matter of faith, which are spread across all political parties in the country. It is true that we do not have a majority in the Upper House. Despite that, if you look at the productivity of the Parliament, it has actually been quite an achievement under our government. In Lok Sabha, the Lower House of the Parliament, productivity has been about 124% whereas productivity in the Upper House has been about 107%. Overall, it conveys a very positive message of legislative action. In all, about 40 bills have been passed in the Parliament. So if you were to ask me whether you need dictatorship to run India, no, you do not. Whether you need a dictatorial thought to run the country, no, you do not. Whether you need a powerful person who believes in concentrating power at one place, no you do not. If anything is required to take India forward, it is an innate belief in democracy and democratic values. I think that is what is needed and that is what we have. If you were to ask me at a personal level to choose between democratic values on the one hand, and wealth, power, prosperity and fame on the other hand, I will very easily and without any doubt choose democracy and belief in democratic values.
TIME: One of the aspects, one of the pillars of a democracy is freedom of speech. Earlier this year, the authorities in India banned a documentary about the terrible rape case that took place in December of 2012. Why did the authorities do that and what are to you the limits of free speech? Do you think free speech should have some limits?
Modi: There are two different things which are dealt in this question and I will try to address them both. But, first in a somewhat lighter vein, if I could just recount a well-known episode about Galileo. He had propounded the principles of revolution of the earth around the sun but in the societal paradigm at that particular time, those principles were against what was enshrined in the Bible and a decision was taken to imprison Galileo at that time.
Now India is a civilization where the principle and philosophy of sacrifice is ingrained as part of our upbringing. If you take that as a background and look at our history, there used to be another great thinker of the time called Charvaka who propounded a theory of extreme hedonism which was contradictory to the Indian ethos. He essentially said that "You do not have to worry about tomorrow, just live, eat, make merry today". But even he with those extreme thoughts, which were totally contradictory to the Indian ethos, was equated to a sage and accommodated and given space to express his views in the Indian society.
So in so far as freedom of speech is concerned, there is absolutely not an iota of doubt in terms of our commitment and our belief in that.
If you look at the issue related to the telecast of the documentary that you referred, it is not a question of freedom of speech, it is more a legal question. It has two or three aspects. One aspect is that the identity of the rape victim should not be revealed which would have happened if this interview was allowed to be telecast. Two, the case is still sub judice and the telecast which features the interview of the person who is alleged to have committed the crime could have impacted the judicial process. Three, it is also our responsibility to ensure protection of the victim. If we had allowed such a thing to happen, in effect, we would have violated the dignity of the victim. So I do not think it is a question of freedom of speech, it is more a question of law and respecting the victim and the judicial processes in this particular case. In so far as freedom of speech is concerned, as I mentioned earlier, there is absolutely no issue. It is something that we greatly respect as an important aspect of our democratic values.
(Though answered on the defensive, the answer is passable and certainly represents the actual reasons the BJP govt curtailed the transmission of the documentary in India.)
TIME: I wonder if I might ask one last question before we turn you over to Peter, who is very eager. We talk a lot about influence and in the Time 100, these are people who we think right now are exerting an enormous influence on the world stage, can you tell us who has influenced you the most?
Modi: The question that you have asked actually touches my deepest core. I was born in a very poor family. I used to sell tea in a railway coach as a child. My mother used to wash utensils and do lowly household work in the houses of others to earn a livelihood.
I have seen poverty very closely. I have lived in poverty. As a child, my entire childhood was steeped in poverty. For me, poverty, in a way, was the first inspiration of my life, a commitment to do something for the poor. I decided that I would not live for myself but would live for others and work for them. My experience of growing up in poverty deeply impacted my childhood. Then, at the age of 12 or 13, I started reading the works of Swami Vivekananda. That gave me courage and a vision, it sharpened and deepened my sensitivities and gave me a new perspective and a direction in life. At the age of 15 or 16, I decided to dedicate myself to others and till date I am continuing to follow that decision.
^ Full Modi TIME ragazine interview article.
Post 2/2
time.com/3849492/narendra-modi-interview/
Quote:Exclusive Interview With Narendra Modi: "We Are Natural Allies"
Nancy Gibbs @nancygibbs Zoher Abdoolcarim @ZAbdoolcarim Nikhil Kumar @nkreports
May 7, 2015
Why Narendra Modi Matters
[...]
My philosophy, the philosophy of my party and the philosophy also of my government is, what I call "Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas", which essentially means, "Together with all, progress for all". So, the underlying philosophy and the impulse of that particular motto is to take everybody together and move towards inclusive growth.
TIME: As we are heading to the US political campaign, a lot of America's political leaders are talking about the role that their faith plays and their views of themselves as leaders. Could you talk a little about what your faith of Hinduism means to you as India's leader?
Modi: Religion and faith are very personal matters. So far as the government is concerned, there is only one holy book, which is the Constitution of India.
In fact, if I look at the definition of Hinduism, the Supreme Court of India has given a beautiful definition; it says that Hinduism is not a religion, it is actually a way of life.
If one looks at my own belief, I think I have grown up with these values which I mentioned earlier, that religion is a way of life. We also say "Vasudhaiv Kutumbkam" - the entire world is one family, and respect for all religions. Those are the values I have grown up with.
Essentially the crux of Indian philosophy, the Hindu philosophy, is that all should be happy, all should be healthy, all should live life to the fullest. It is not something that is specific to a particular religion, or to a particular sect. It's a philosophy, it's a way of life which encompasses all societies.
And Hinduism is a religion with immense depth and vast diversity. For example, the one who does idol worship is a Hindu and one who hates idol worship can also be a Hindu.
"With friends like these...."
Quote:TIME: As we are heading to the US political campaign, a lot of Americaââ¬â¢s political leaders are talking about the role that their faith plays and their views of themselves as leaders. Could you talk a little about what your faith of Hinduism means to you as Indiaââ¬â¢s leader?
Writing's on the wall for heathenism in India. While christoislamaniac politicians wear their monoronist ideology masquerading as religio on their sleeve (as seen in TIME's own question), the one thing Indians can't do is remain heathen - as seen in Modi's answer, for example, but in so many other things.
Said Modi:
Quote:And Hinduism is a religion with immense depth and vast diversity. For example, the one who does idol worship is a Hindu and one who hates idol worship can also be a Hindu.
I.e. by that definition, not just the anti-Heathen movements like the christianised Brahmo Samaj and more-islamic-than-islam Agniveer*, but christoislamism itself is "Hindu" too. So, at the very least, Hindu just means Indian now. Never mind that the word Indian has already come to mean christoislamics "too", and there was therefore no necessity to re-fit yet another word to convey the meaning of anything and all things of or in India.
* Agniveer is a movement claiming inspiration from Arya Samaj, but IIRC no actual dispensation. In any case, the very very recently invented Agniveer cult, which pretends it is Vedic religion, says that both Hindus and islamics are idolators, and are quite vituperative in their comments against the "idolatry" of the Hindus. (Kinda like the modern degeneration of Brahmo Samaj, though the degeneracy was already inherent in it.) AV further wants to be a major force of conversion in India, i.e. yet another missionary anti-Hindoo cult.
But with Modi's statement on the range that defines a 'Hindu' - from idolator to iconoclast - the transformation of the meaning of the term (as far as this can be done from the Hindu end) is complete, pushed through by none less than the elected leader of "Hindu nationalism". All that's required now is for christoislamics to lay claim on the term, and then -eventually- to start laying exclusive claim on it.
Then again, since Hindoos=heathens were slowly forced to "share" the word with all and sundry - Buddhists, Jains, the now post-Hindu Sikhs, various kinds of Indic atheists and plain Indian atheists and that most trivial kind of all, Charvakans too - may as well include christoislamics in the term, surely, and in time willingly or unwillingly donate it to the latter. The initial crime was committed before now, and not by christoislamics,
- but by unheathen others who wanted to forcibly include themselves in the term in order to lay claim on the achievements of Hindoos' heathenism.
- And of course, not to forget, by those "Hindu" vocalists supposedly batting for heathenism, who denied that such a thing as Hindoos' heathenism even existed and that it was deserving of a word.
Modi is not the only one to blame. But he has publicly expressed - and thereby legitimised - a nice novelty: that not just the "idolator" and those neutral to idolatry, but also those who *hate* idolatry (i.e. the iconoclasts) are now "Hindu".
To compare the full meaning and gravity of that statement, consider if "paganism" was to be rewritten to mean all those who worshipped idols
and the iconoclasts. I.e. that paganism means both the Hellenes
and the christians. How different history books would read hereafter.
Things to look forward to.
The interview does explain more about why Modi will never - and doesn't want to - rebuild the Sri Rama Mandir at Ayodhya.* Nor does he care to protect Hindoo temples from the ongoing
massive attack against them, which genocide has been carefully silenced by the christomedia to protect its own christian culprits. All because rebuilding the Sri Rama temple at Ayodhya would offend those so-called "Hindus" who hate idolatry. Apparently Modi imagines they were part of his votebank, or at least w/could be in the future.
Which leads me to the question: Modi must have seen the ~2011 census data - the data his govt refuses to make public, for what other reason can it be than BJP's conspiring against the remaining Hindoos, whose usefulness BJP has already discarded - and Modi must have seen that the Middle-Eastern monotheisms now surely constitute at least 30% of India. Would explain his growing nurturing of christianism and his transparent apathy for Hindoo heathenism. He and his govt have maybe realised that the inevitable demographics of the future India is very different from what had existed until recent times, and have decided to ingratiate themselves to it whatever this turns out to be in times to come, including the inevitable monotheist takeover (inevitable thanks to BJP's turn to apathy=secularism=switching sides). I think they're mentally preparing themselves - or even prepared - to lead an ever increasingly monotheistic India with their "Hindu" -as Modi curiously defined it- "nationalism". Why even bother with the word Hindu in 'Hindu' nationalism. Just make it 'Indian' already. Can put an end to the playacting.
[On another matter of potential christian victory in India, the Joylolita has also broken free from prison and is re-instated/about to be re-instated to queen bee status yet again. Did christianism promise to free her in return for her total allegiance to its conversion agenda in TN? <- Have to ask, since Joylolita's criminal record stacked against her was to have kept her behind bars for a long, long time. So it sounds rather like a "miracle" of the usual kind that she got out.]
And
brilliant title for the interview, by the way.
Exclusive Interview With Narendra Modi: ââ¬ËWe Are Natural Alliesââ¬â¢
Indians will never learn. People who can't recognise the enemy deserve to get murdered. India
deserves to be extincted for being able to produce only "Hindu nationalist" leaders like this.
Hmmm, another relation: decrease of heathenism is directly tied to increase of disintegration/extinction of the (once-heathen) nation.
Great TIME cover title too: "Why Narendra Modi matters" (to the west, since he hasn't done much/anything for Hindoos yet and promises not to). Had the west known he would ignore, negate and thereby bring Hindoo heathenism down fast as lightning all on his own (thanks to his obvious disinterestedness in the plain-as-day plight of Hindoo heathendom), the west might have been nicer to him from the start. Or maybe they had known exactly how to work on him, and thus merely manipulated him into a corner.
So whatever the west is doing - and it's clearly on to a winning formula (for itself) with the present BJP - it should keep doing it. A few more attempts and Modi & gang will cave, cave, cave further still. Maybe, by the end of this very term, he'll Be All That He Can Be (=US army recruitment advert from the 90s or so).
* Sri Rama temple in Ayodhya will not be re-built by the BJP if it were up to Modi. (And christoislam will ensure it never gets rebuilt hereafter.)
BJP govt apathy in that one matter itself should have given away the low regard they have for their Hindu votebank or the nation's Hindu identity, let alone any Hindoo-ness on their own parts. But
Wow how the traitors in India and their masters in the west didn't even have to do
anything this time to prevent the Ramar kovil from being built: even the party calling itself "Hindu nationalist" went and decided for itself it wouldn't rebuild the temple. It will do zip-all about the massive number of Hindoo temples vandalised each month, the moorties of the Gods residing there kidnapped, their sacred items stolen, Sadhus at temples murdered, etc.
Today apathy. Tomorrow self-circumcision/self-baptism. There's little trajectory left in the evolution of Hindu heathenism to Hindoo Nationalism to Hindu nationalism to Hindutva='Hindu' nationalism~>secularism to cryptochristianism to christianism. They've already reached secularism. Just two more steps. When shall it be? (Though BJP in Goa is already at cryptochristianism.) Must say, Hindutva was an effective sham (say what anyone will, it would *always* have devolved into this, specifically since it was formulated as a replacement for heathenism, which is the genuine intrinsic nationalism). The Hindutva con nicely pulled one on Hindoos and now India has a secular govt that calls itself "Hindu nationalist". <- And - to top it all off - this plain vanilla secularism is apparently the best, the closest thing to 'heathen', that modern India can produce and Hindoos can hope for.
Am so glad the self-destructive militant 'tolerance for intolerance' - summarised by Modi invoking "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" etc, in order to tie christoislamic genocidal intent against heathenism as a noose around Hindu heathens and their aspirations for independence from this same relentless persecution by the monotheisms - am so glad it's going to get genocided soon along with the native population, sharing the same fate as the hapless heathens. If heathens won't kill the modern 'tolerance for intolerance' meme, then heathens will have to be extincted in order to wipe it out.
Bij Donder, the stupidity is relentless. (And still can't believe Modi's "let's not name islam in jihadi terrorism, let's ignore the religion component and be all vague about the perpetrators' identities and their victims" - isn't that last what the christomedia does too?)
The malady of secularism - now firmly entrenched in so-called "Hindu" "nationalism" - is going to get Bharatam brutally murdered. Who's betting?
I blame gangrene. Gangrene was the fatal stabwound administered to heathenism in India. Gangrene weakened heathenism itself, so that it got transmuted into secularism, and now nothing but secularism is even produced in "Hindu" "nationalist" parties. Their greatest aims are secular. Clearly the only reason they still use the word "Hindu" for the party's descriptive was to get votes from the dwindling majority. More fool Hindoos. Not that they had any other choice. It was KKKangress/AAP or BJP. BJP turned out to what others call the KKKangress B-team.
I really hope other Asian heathens learn from Bharatam's I mean India's decline and downfall. And, for the record, the cause - as it was in Rome too - is
christianism. Not islam. Hindoo heathens would have brutalised islamania in response to any islamic violence, had it not been for christianism tying Hindoos' hands to prevent justified retaliation. Islam should therefore thank christianism. And it will in its own way: by brutally genociding christianism in India in return - a la in Pakistan. Subcontinental christians totally deserve that.
Wish Modi had given this interview before his election.
The previous post contains Modi's TIME interview. The problems evident in it speak for themselves.
hudder:
This post was just spam.
1. Can't remember if I archived this or not.
indiafacts.co.in/myanmar-retaliation-modis-finest-hour/
Quote:Myanmar retaliation: Modiââ¬â¢s finest hour
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made a breach with the past.
Ravi Shanker Kapoor
Commentary | 10-06-2015
The unprecedented surgical strike inside Myanmar by the special forces of the Indian Army will go a long way asserting Indiaââ¬â¢s right to safeguard its interest in south Asia. The elite commandoes liquidated about 20 insurgents of the groups that had ambushed and killed our 18 soldiers in Manipur a few days ago. That this was done without any casualties on our side underlines the efficiency and effectiveness of our armed forces. Actually, the capabilities of our military were never in doubtââ¬âit was the weak-kneed political leadership that never took such a bold decision. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made a breach with the past. It was the best decision that he has taken since he took over the reins in May 2014.
[...]
Very well done. Liked several of the suggestions in the comments too.
And this next comment contains something actually optimistic (at long last, some
oxygen, forgot what that felt like), but it sources the RSS (not BJP) which is still Hindoo:
Quote:Radha Rajan ââ¬Â¢ 4 days ago
Yes the best decision and the most decisive. Full marks not just to Modi but also to Manohar Parikkar. Parikkar gave our wonderful men and women in uniform the free hand to demonstrate how wonderful they are. Now Modi and Parikkar should turn their eyes East. The RSS said recently that India's map has been drawn and redrawn several times and it will be redrawn again. I sincerely hope this means what Hindu nationalists think it means.
(Well, RSS gets marks just for intending it.)
6
ââ¬Â¢
Reply
ââ¬Â¢
Share ââ¬Âº
2. Can't recall if there's an education thread.
This next would belong there as it contains a very ... out of the box suggestion. Not sure if there won't be surprise drawbacks - and times must surely be desperate - but
indiafacts.co.in/plea-for-a-native-national-ideal/
Quote:SamDidymus ââ¬Â¢ a day ago
India's Grand Narrative is held hostage to a nexus of vested interests. This includes Nehruvian socialists, leftists, the Church, Islamists, "caste"-politics practitioners, and the general Tamas of the Hindu population - males and females (Dr. MS - please don't make this a gender warfare - it is NOT). Hindus need to first envision what India's Grand Narrative is, before we explore ways to confront the anti-Indian nexus in the manifestation of the same. Those of us who have toiled for many years in cobbling together an Indian Grand Narrative recognize that it involves the fusion of pre-history, oral history, astronomical observations, genetic information, archeology, history, culture, arts, math, sciences, philosophies, languages, and many such dimensions - ALL of which are currently hostage to spuriously-manufactured narratives by different members of the nexus that has been named.
In the absence of a "Hindu-Eco-System" that can support scholarship in these areas, award Ph.Ds, provide research and employment opportunities for such graduates, the task is all but impossible. No matter how much thousands of outraged Hindu internet activists will write showing the bizarre paradoxes and errors of the current narratives, no matter how many books are published by neo-Hindu-intellectuals - including scholars such as you, Rajiv Malhotra, Koenraad Elst, Vamsee Juluri, Sitaram Goel, Arun Shourie, and others, the narratives will not budge one bit! Any attempt to change the discourse in academia without the "credentials" of "self-serving-academia-clubs-where-Hindus-are-outsiders", will be met with a blitzkrieg of canned, pigeon-holed propaganda that we are "Hindu-fascists", "saffron history", "Hindutva", and so on.
The Hindu intelligentsia should focus on the methods used - bizarrely enough - by the Christian fundamentalists pushing "creation" in school textbooks in USA. The Christian fundamentalists have their foots in the door by legislating (e.g., Christian-convert-Jindal's state of Louisiana) that textbooks should contain either both sides of the creation/evolution debate, or they should have a stamp that the "theory of evolution" is just a theory. This way, they live to fight on another day.
Much as I utterly and organically detest the Christian fundamentalists, there is a lot to be learnt from their methods of organization and activism.
I propose that the Modi govt should mandate that all textbooks used across the nation, should include alternate narratives, in addition to the current false leftist narrations, and pose them as debating points for the students. The center should take over education from the states for this to happen. Let the students learn about the paradox of an out-of-India origin for Hindus versus a living tradition that includes astronomical observations dating back 8000 to 10,000 years, encoded in the Puranas. Let the students learn the paradox of small-pox and black-plague and disease ridden, fundamentalist-Christian-ruled, anti-science-Church-ruled, unhygienic-no-bath Europeans "suddenly" experiencing the so-called "renaissance", and plagiarizing hundreds of items of Indian knowledge destructively obtained by the invading Muslims, and injected into Spain in the Abbasid era, and thereon to Europe. Let Indian students be exposed to millions to pieces of indic-knowledge, that appears to have been the forerunners of today's knowledge systems. Thus studying these side-by-side is in the BEST traditions of our own knowledge systems, using purva-paksha. This also dove-tails neatly into the so-called Western methods of using "hypothesis-devise test-measure-experiment-draw conclusions" methodology.
After many years of battling the anti-Indian narratives, I have come to this conclusion to raise Indic-scholars from WITHIN the current leftist biases, merely by the govt legislating the study of BOTH systems critically. I hope the Modi govt will do this sooner, rather than later.
2
ââ¬Â¢
Reply
ââ¬Â¢
Share ââ¬Âº
Hmmm. Good, but have to ask:
What's to stop christoislamania from insisting that "its" versions of every historical event and personage be presented equally too? "Let's hear apologetics about Aurangzeb or Tipu. Or the Paki version of Indian history."
Suppose one could insist that only pre-christoislamic eras are given the native, alternative versions of events. (Though christianism is even encroaching on the Sangam era of Tamizh regions to christianise this, by bringing that period further forward in time, and throwing itself further back in time. Then we'll hear - the very recent christian invention - of how that fiction St Thomas originally taught Tiruvalluvar and that Tiruvalluvar and his work was therefore christian etc. <- I don't think that is taught in schools yet.)
Yet if alternative versions are only to be given in the even-more-obviously pre-christoislamic/pre-invasion era, then there is still the threat of Shramanists suddenly agitating to peddle their ur-Shramanism theory as an alternative version. And if enough of them don't insist on it, am sure leftists would.**
Besides, it is *known* - from countless examples littering the web itself - that the concocted ur-Shramanism theory will be far Far More Popular among modern "Hindus" than the Hindu version of ancient history. (And that's not even counting the number of Hindus who would swear by the Buddhist tradition of multiple Buddhas [or Teerthankaras], yet will easily forswear longer-standing Hindu traditions regarding Hindu Gods. :Ugh
Can even consider the number of Hindus who would prefer to imagine the Tiruvalluvar/Tirukkural and Adigal/Silappadikaaram to be "Jain" (or "Buddhist" or whatever),
even when the same eventually acknowledge that most of the contents of these works are Hindoo onlee with only patches (also) applicable to anything else.
And what's to stop Hindus from telling other Hindus that PIE must be true/resistance is futile/surrender to appointed=better judgement, as some do? Or, as Rajiv Malhotra once did - before he lately joined the bandwagon (and thereafter got projected as an original/pioneer): in projecting that any Hindus resisting AIT were obsessed by it
(post 454 of DNA thread). (I guess by that very late time when Malhotra
finally bothered to take note and then started writing Breaking India, his new obsession was now suddenly fashionable, or not an obsession any more when he does it, because in his case it magically becomes scholarly, a.o.t. previous scholars on the subject on whose
'midget'/obsessed shoulders he surely would not have stood? Still galling.)
Don't know, for every suggestion I can already see a countermove by enemies and naysayers or
something to rain on the parade.
With today's Indians/India, I've learnt to look out for doom and gloom, rather than continuing to be caught off guard by just this. 'Cause in their hands, it practically never fails to rain on any party, even when the prospect initially looked bright and promising. So better come up with umbrellas or alternate activities, just in case things blow up in Hindus' face
Yet Again.
** Can't underestimate the possibility of this. When the Sri-Rama-janmabhoomi issue came up, out of
nowhere neo-Buddhist whinies and Jain Minority Forum vocalists propagated articles on the web screeching that it was originally a "Buddhist nay Jain nay Buddhist" temple site, illegally commandeered by Hindus, else that there never was a Hindoo temple there, only a Jain/Buddhist/Jain one and that Rama's temple must have been in Pakistan no Afghanistan no Urheimat.
Besides, Shramanists - not even the fringe - have worked *hard* on the ur-Shramanism theory. Anyone who thinks the Shramanist minority groups will not take the opportunity of having ur-Shramanism taught at last - and otherwise insist their minority rights are being oppressed - is likely to get a rude shock. (Even the major Vipassana peddler insisted that Hindus must acknowledge the ur-Shramanism nonsense and wanted to rope in established authorities on Hindoo heathenism to issue such nonsense.) But I suppose it will be a nice occasion - if Hindus were ever up for it - for exposing the Shramanist lies to the public. All their idiotic and nasty, petty claims - starting from reading themselves into the Vedam and using this to play victim - will be shown up for the lies they are. And if there's one thing the Shramanists *don't* like is being shown to be inveterate liars, after which they are liable to end up in a embarrassed silence. So perhaps they should 'bring it on', instead of passive-aggresively peddling it about the internet in an unofficial manner, as they're doing now, since it can for now still be dismissed as 'merely their opinion/(late) theology' if called out on it? Then again, Hindu Nationalists will remain silent and insist other Hindus do too, to not "offend" the Shramanists and their missionary ploy known as ur-Shramanism. And nothing causes more damage to the Hindoo psyche than rolling over to even those immediately higher up in the food chain, which trick once learned is then naturally repeated in response to those at the top (christoislam).
Items of interest were:
1. indiafacts.co.in/myanmar-retaliation-modis-finest-hour/
2. The interesting suggestion in the comment by "SamDidymus" at:
indiafacts.co.in/plea-for-a-native-national-ideal/
![[Image: CDgEUk0UkAAS3Zw.jpg]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDgEUk0UkAAS3Zw.jpg)