India politics thread

[berbatrick]

Sending my son Aatish Taseer to exile is not just wrong but evil
I have to say that I am truly horrified that this was done without my even being given a hearing. Of course, as the BJP’s Twitter trolls tell me gleefully, I could go to court.

As I sit down to write this, I still find it hard to believe that a prime minister whom I have openly supported for more than five years has allowed his government to exile my son. When the notice arrived from the home ministry, three months ago, asking Aatish to explain why his status as an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) should not be revoked on the grounds that he had not revealed that his father was Pakistani, my first reaction was to call the home minister.
[...]
I thought if I explained all this to the home minister, he would be supportive.
My calls to the home minister were ignored. So I then tried to call Hiren Joshi who, as the prime minister’s man in charge of the media, has an obligation to at least return the calls of a journalist. He refused to come on the phone. I wrote him several e-mails.

They were also ignored. It was then that I realised that somebody very high up wanted revenge on Aatish. This had been a niggling fear at the back of my mind ever since he wrote that article in Time magazine that appeared on the cover with a distorted sketch of Narendra Modi and the words, “Divider in Chief”.

I remember telling Aatish, then, that the article was inaccurate and ill-timed because this was in the last week of the Lok Sabha campaign and there were clear indications to me that Modi would be winning a second term. The title of the piece was offensive but the content should have offended Rahul Gandhi more than Modi because in it the then Congress President was described as “an unteachable mediocrity”.

Modi’s troll army on Twitter went ballistic and it was not long before Aatish was being described not just as a Pakistani but as an ISI agent and a jihadist.

[...]
Financially, the only support I had was the job that MJ Akbar gave me in The Telegraph as soon as I returned home and told him I needed work.
[...]
And, my sister and my friend, Vasundhara Raje, helped financially whenever I was too broke to get through the month.

She has been worshipping BJP and markets and hating NREGA, RTI, and any welfare measure since I started reading Express in 2005. Couldn't have happened to a nicer person.


It's a little late for this:

But, I am not sure that I can afford to spend the next 10 years fighting a legal battle against the mighty Indian state. Even as I write these words, my heart goes out to those people whom the home minister calls “termites” who may actually be Indian “termites” but will probably spend the rest of their lives in detention centres because if I cannot afford a legal battle, how can they.

The best decision Modi has made. Get fecked Tavleen, the only bad thing is that it's your son and not you.

 

[VidaRed]

No proof a temple was demolished to build the mosque.
Demolition of Mosque was illegal.
Lets build a temple there and give the muslims 5 acres of land somewhere else.

That tracks.

They further say there is no proof that the structure under the mosque was a temple. Infact, they rely on the travelogue of a european who says the hindus used to worship in the outer courtyard whilst ignoring the part where he further said that aurangzeb demolished a fort and built the mosque.

One out of the way. Next Kashi and Mathura.

Hope the nation moves forward with peace and prosperity. Time to put this to bed and focus on other important issues.

Nah, don't think so, there's nothing like the movement for Ram Jhanmoobi associated with either. Next is probably UCC.

I actually think in the grand scheme of things this is a good decision. For most Hindus, this was a massive sore point and, with its resolution, people can move on - I hope.

The Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) on Saturday described the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute as a "decisive step" towards construction of a "grand" Ram temple and urged the central government to take speedy steps on the directions issued by the top court.

Kumar lauded the judgement and described it as one of the "greatest" judicial verdicts in the world and added that the Supreme Court judges discharged their responsibilities very well.

VHP working president Alok Kumar said at a press conference when asked if his outfit will now raise the Kashi (Varanasi) and Mathura issues, "About Kashi and Mathura, I must make it clear that Supreme Court judgement is not the end of the story, it is the beginning," Kumar said.

https://www.news18.com/news/india/s...ion-of-ram-temple-in-ayodhya-vhp-2380241.html

My take on this issue is simple.

If the site was taken illegally due to Moghuls exerting their power then it should be handed back to its rightful owners despite the passing of time. Masjids should never be built on places sacred to other religions and prayers never allowed on disputed land.

Umar (RA) set a precedent

"It has been recorded in the annals of Muslim chronicles, that at the time of the Noon prayers, Sophronius invited Umar to pray in the rebuilt Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Umar declined, fearing that accepting the invitation might endanger the church's status as a place of Christian worship and that Muslims might break the treaty and turn the church into a Mosque"

If the Masjid still stood and worshippers frequented the prayers this outcome of the judges would have been different. Lets' hope this does not serve as a precedent for right-wing fundamentalists claiming other places of worship and peace and tranquillity prevails between communities. The most important issue is worship. Muslims need to build a Masjid in a prominent location where worship of God actually takes place than expanding its energy on land where it has been abandoned for decades. Even if the ruling was different my limited information is there are not many Muslims in the vicinity to frequent prayers even if the ruling had been different.

Agreed. However, the verdict itself says there is no proof that a temple was demolished to build a mosque.

Neither side could prove the ownership of the land though.

This was a title suit wherein the court decides who the owner is. If all the parties before the court could not prove ownership then the land goes to the state.

All the govt records show the plot on which the mosque was situated as a mosque which automatically makes it a waqf property. What the court actually said was that since neither party could prove ownership they will decide the case on the basis of possession which was to be deciphered on the basis of prayer. It said the muslims could not prove they prayed at the mosque since its construction in 1528 to 1857, however it accepted that muslims prayed from 1857 to 1949 (from the records produced by the muslim side) whilst hindus side word that they have been praying since before 1857 in the outer courtyard was accepted without any proof. Even if this is accepted it is clear that hindus only had possession of the outer courtyard and not the inner courtyard which is where the mosque actually stood. But without any further explanation the entire plot was given to the hindu side.

 

[RedTiger]

She has been worshipping BJP and markets and hating NREGA, RTI, and any welfare measure since I started reading Express in 2005. Couldn't have happened to a nicer person.


It's a little late for this:


The best decision Modi has made. Get fecked Tavleen, the only bad thing is that it's your son and not you.

That last bit takes the piss, as if she never bothered to think of them before.

 

[RedTiger]

People are deluded if they think this is an end to all the conflict. Let's have a sweepstake on the caf about which mosque will be next on the demo hitlist:

Shahi Idgah mosque
Quwwat ul-Islam mosque
Gyanvapi mosque
Kamal Maula mosque
Nawab Ali mosque
Or a left field pick like the Taj Mahal.

 

[VidaRed]

She has been worshipping BJP and markets and hating NREGA, RTI, and any welfare measure since I started reading Express in 2005. Couldn't have happened to a nicer person.


It's a little late for this:


The best decision Modi has made. Get fecked Tavleen, the only bad thing is that it's your son and not you.

You forgot the part where sonia gandhi gave clothes to her and she's been bitching about the gandhis for years. She just seems like a very selfish person in general.

 

[VidaRed]

People are deluded if they think this is an end to all the conflict. Let's have a sweepstake on the caf about which mosque will be next on the demo hitlist:

Shahi Idgah mosque
Quwwat ul-Islam mosque
Gyanvapi mosque
Kamal Maula mosque
Nawab Ali mosque
Or a left field pick like the Taj Mahal.

The Jama masjid in delhi is also on the hit list.

 

[berbatrick]

You forgot the part where sonia gandhi gave clothes to her and she's been bitching about the gandhis for years. She just seems like a very selfish person in general.

all her political views are because she had a falling-out with sonia in the early 00s and then became a committed bjp supporter. i've been hate-reading her articles for 15 years and the first one i remember, from 2005, was called something like "wake up bjp, the country needs you."

 

[VidaRed]

all her political views are because she had a falling-out with sonia in the early 00s and then became a committed bjp supporter. i've been hate-reading her articles for 15 years and the first one i remember, from 2005, was called something like "wake up bjp, the country needs you."

So basically a toned down female subramanium swami.

 

[Sultan]

The Jama masjid in delhi is also on the hit list.

People are deluded if they think this is an end to all the conflict. Let's have a sweepstake on the caf about which mosque will be next on the demo hitlist:

Shahi Idgah mosque
Quwwat ul-Islam mosque
Gyanvapi mosque
Kamal Maula mosque
Nawab Ali mosque
Or a left field pick like the Taj Mahal.

I heard from a lawyer on "India Today" quoting a law built in the constitution something to the effect not to demolish or exchange any place of worship. Ayodhya was the only place of worship exempt from this above law.

 

[VidaRed]

I heard from a lawyer on "India Today" quoting a law built in the constitution something to the effect not to demolish or exchange any place of worship. Ayodhya was the only place of worship exempt from this above law.

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 -> http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.pdf

It is a separate statue (and not part of the constitution) and like any other statue can be challenged in courts and set aside on the ground that:-
(a) It is unconstitutional.
(b) The legislature exceeded its authority.
(c) The fundamental right of hindus to practice there religion is violated if they cant worship at there holy sites.

 

[Sultan]

The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 -> http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.pdf

It is a separate statue (and not part of the constitution) and like any other statue can be challenged in courts and set aside on the ground that:-
(a) It is unconstitutional.
(b) The legislature exceeded its authority.
(c) The fundamental right of hindus to practice there religion is violated if they cant worship at there holy sites.

Thanks!

 

[VP]

People are deluded if they think this is an end to all the conflict. Let's have a sweepstake on the caf about which mosque will be next on the demo hitlist:

Shahi Idgah mosque
Quwwat ul-Islam mosque
Gyanvapi mosque
Kamal Maula mosque
Nawab Ali mosque
Or a left field pick like the Taj Mahal.

There's can be a thin line between optimism and delusion but I don't think the movement to replace other mosques will resonate anywhere near as strongly with Hindus as Ayodhya did. Ram is a hugely important figure for Hindus which was why the BJP was so successful in mobilizing a movement around it.

In an ideal world, this move could drain the communal insecurities driving BJP's popularity and force the party to focus on development etc.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

India has never been a secular country, it has finally shed it's disguise and reveals itself.

Hindutva is the bane of Hindus.

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

The rulings and the grounds for them (I've only read summaries and excerpts, of course) seem very very biased towards Hindus.

This decision doesn't seem to be based on facts. It was more of a 'I believe you more than I believe the other guy'. Advani, Uma Bharti, VP Singh and Co should all be imprisoned for their atrocities if the demolition is considered illegal.

The very people who demolished the mosque and were responsible for riots that killed thousands are now declared victors and have been given the responsibility to build their own temple.

I laugh when I see Twitter trends stating 'India' won. Or people who say 'everyone has accepted this decision with such grace'. It's because when the Muslim leaders speak out, you set your propaganda machines and media after them and brand them traitors. You cut their communication, house arrest their leaders and set the army after them.

I am a Hindu Brahmin from an orthodox family. I have strong beliefs and participated in many rituals of Hinduism. And I am convinced Hindutva is evil, it's political propaganda for fascists who rule the country.

No party result truly respected secularism in India. Congress wanted to divide and rule. BJP takes the majority and squashes the minorities. Only the Supreme Court held the balance. And now even that has failed.

There will be a backlash. We need to be wary of it. The country will not move on from this. This chapter is far from over, I'm afraid. I live between Ahmedabad and Hyderabad these days, and I will not venture into the Old City territory in either place for a while.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

India has never been a secular country, it has finally shed it's disguise and reveals itself.

Hindutva is the bane of Hindus.

The difference is that we had a vision of secularism earlier even though it's implementation at times was sorely lacking. Now we don't even have that.

Had anyone been surprised by the views of people they actually know? Because, I'm genuinely surprised to see anti Muslim / extremist nationalistic views from well educated and intelligente people around me who I would otherwise admire.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

The rulings and the grounds for them (I've only read summaries and excerpts, of course) seem very very biased towards Hindus.

This decision doesn't seem to be based on facts. It was more of a 'I believe you more than I believe the other guy'. Advani, Uma Bharti, VP Singh and Co should all be imprisoned for their atrocities if the demolition is considered illegal.

The very people who demolished the mosque and were responsible for riots that killed thousands are now declared victors and have been given the responsibility to build their own temple.

I laugh when I see Twitter trends stating 'India' won. Or people who say 'everyone has accepted this decision with such grace'. It's because when the Muslim leaders speak out, you set your propaganda machines and media after them and brand them traitors. You cut their communication, house arrest their leaders and set the army after them.

I am a Hindu Brahmin from an orthodox family. I have strong beliefs and participated in many rituals of Hinduism. And I am convinced Hindutva is evil, it's political propaganda for fascists who rule the country.

No party result truly respected secularism in India. Congress wanted to divide and rule. BJP takes the majority and squashes the minorities. Only the Supreme Court held the balance. And now even that has failed.

There will be a backlash. We need to be wary of it. The country will not move on from this. This chapter is far from over, I'm afraid. I live between Ahmedabad and Hyderabad these days, and I will not venture into the Old City territory in either place for a while.

Completely agree.

Also, I think the SC just went for the decision which would cause least disturbance. This decision is only branded as fair and balanced because had it gone the other way, I can't even imagine the backlash from BJP and their goons.

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

Completely agree.

Also, I think the SC just went for the decision which would cause least disturbance. This decision is only branded as fair and balanced because had it gone the other way, I can't even imagine the backlash from BJP and their goons.

I'd like to think that the SC realized the country is too far down the saffron road to go against BJP's juggernaut or the Hindutva goons. They couldn't go against Modi, but they understood it was because of communal talking points like this that Modi came into power. This ruling ensures there can't be another Advani for Ayodhya. We may end up with an equivalent of 'Mandir Wahi Banega' elsewhere, but not for Ayodhya, not anymore.

They're taking away BJP's religion-based vote-generators and hoping that this will divert attention to economy and development. I'd like to think that, yep.

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

The difference is that we had a vision of secularism earlier even though it's implementation at times was sorely lacking. Now we don't even have that.

Had anyone been surprised by the views of people they actually know? Because, I'm genuinely surprised to see anti Muslim / extremist nationalistic views from well educated and intelligente people around me who I would otherwise admire.

Yep, I've encountered this too. My research advisor, a very well educated man who I had taken to be extremely liberal (he heads the Mental Health panel at college, and is defending the rights of his research student who's taking time off to go through a female-to-male transition) is suddenly very pleased and vocal about how our religious beliefs have been upheld by the ruling. He states how many temples were destroyed under Mughal rule, and talks how he's glad we're not going down the Democrat route of moral posturing when trying to defend our beliefs. Absolutely baffling.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Because, I'm genuinely surprised to see anti Muslim / extremist nationalistic views from well educated and intelligente people around me who I would otherwise admire.

My history lessons in schools had a chunk of Muslim kinds invasions into India. So when BJP presents this as Hindus taking their stuff back people don't see real nonsense and buy into it's just a balancing act idiocy.

 

[Mindhunter]

The rulings and the grounds for them (I've only read summaries and excerpts, of course) seem very very biased towards Hindus.

This decision doesn't seem to be based on facts. It was more of a 'I believe you more than I believe the other guy'. Advani, Uma Bharti, VP Singh and Co should all be imprisoned for their atrocities if the demolition is considered illegal.

The very people who demolished the mosque and were responsible for riots that killed thousands are now declared victors and have been given the responsibility to build their own temple.

I laugh when I see Twitter trends stating 'India' won. Or people who say 'everyone has accepted this decision with such grace'. It's because when the Muslim leaders speak out, you set your propaganda machines and media after them and brand them traitors. You cut their communication, house arrest their leaders and set the army after them.

I am a Hindu Brahmin from an orthodox family. I have strong beliefs and participated in many rituals of Hinduism. And I am convinced Hindutva is evil, it's political propaganda for fascists who rule the country.

No party result truly respected secularism in India. Congress wanted to divide and rule. BJP takes the majority and squashes the minorities. Only the Supreme Court held the balance. And now even that has failed.

There will be a backlash. We need to be wary of it. The country will not move on from this. This chapter is far from over, I'm afraid. I live between Ahmedabad and Hyderabad these days, and I will not venture into the Old City territory in either place for a while.

Just curious. What would you have liked to see as the ruling?

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

Just curious. What would you have liked to see as the ruling?

It wasn't a choice from one or two options going one way or the other. A ruling along the lines of building a public library or a monument in memory of all those who have struggled and died in the communal struggle for Ayodhya would have been a far more secular result.

Of course our Saffron Clad goons would have torn that down, too. So the SC folded.

 

[milemuncher777]

Taj Mahal 'built on Hindu temple', claims Indian MP
Member of India's ruling BJP party calls for destruction of the monument in Agra, saying a temple should replace it.



https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018...-temple-claims-indian-mp-180206104944929.html

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Yep, I've encountered this too. My research advisor, a very well educated man who I had taken to be extremely liberal (he heads the Mental Health panel at college, and is defending the rights of his research student who's taking time off to go through a female-to-male transition) is suddenly very pleased and vocal about how our religious beliefs have been upheld by the ruling. He states how many temples were destroyed under Mughal rule, and talks how he's glad we're not going down the Democrat route of moral posturing when trying to defend our beliefs. Absolutely baffling.

I mean, I'm not even bothered by Hindus who are happy with this ruling. But I know extremely well educated elders whose views/sentiments are grating to hear. The dislike for Muslims is apparent and abhorent. I guess it was always there. Now the veil has been lifted.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Just curious. What would you have liked to see as the ruling?

• First choice would be to go for a joint venue with 50/50 given to each side to build their own structure. It would have been fair with the facts available, and could have been an iconic place and a message of unity.
• I love the idea of a school or hospital being built there to be honest. It would disappoint both sides and be absolutely ridiculous. But also the most intelligent outcome, really.

I suppose none of the above are realistic but then this whole debate/case is a whole lot of bafoonery. Were fighting for a 2.7 acre land because stuff and people we made up and got really invested in. Religion FFS.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

My history lessons in schools had a chunk of Muslim kinds invasions into India. So when BJP presents this as Hindus taking their stuff back people don't see real nonsense and buy into it's just a balancing act idiocy.

They've done exactly what Trump has done in the US - made the majority feel like the minority/betrayed/hard done by. Intelligent people lapping up Modi as a statesman who will bring development while RSS reshapes the country in the background with their rubbish ideology.

 

[VidaRed]

India has never been a secular country, it has finally shed it's disguise and reveals itself.

Hindutva is the bane of Hindus.

Being a minority i can attest that India was a secular country once upon a time. Although one could argue it wasn't secular in the european sense since the state wasn't irreligious. Our secularism meant pandering to all religions which makes more sense since most Indians are religious while most europeans aren't. That all changed in 1992, im a 80's kid and i know how things changed in the 90's and then in the 00's (9/11 and 2002). My parents and there generation faced nothing of the sort that was faced 1992 onwards.

Yep, I've encountered this too. My research advisor, a very well educated man who I had taken to be extremely liberal (he heads the Mental Health panel at college, and is defending the rights of his research student who's taking time off to go through a female-to-male transition) is suddenly very pleased and vocal about how our religious beliefs have been upheld by the ruling. He states how many temples were destroyed under Mughal rule, and talks how he's glad we're not going down the Democrat route of moral posturing when trying to defend our beliefs. Absolutely baffling.

I mean, I'm not even bothered by Hindus who are happy with this ruling. But I know extremely well educated elders whose views/sentiments are grating to hear. The dislike for Muslims is apparent and abhorent. I guess it was always there. Now the veil has been lifted.

I have hindu relatives in my family, they have told us things about our common family friends that we wouldn't have otherwise believed to be true. Even my friends who are hindus tell me no one is going to say it to your face but behind your back most detest muslims.

Just curious. What would you have liked to see as the ruling?

The findings of the SC say no one could prove ownership based on title therefore they decided ownership based on possession. The court said hindus worshipped in the outer courtyard and therefore had possesion of the outer courtyard while the muslims worshipped in the inner courtyard. Therefore, they should have given the outer courtyard to the hindus and the inner courtyard to the muslims. However, the hindus claimed that ram was born in the inner courtyard (no proof was presented) therefore, for the sake of future cordial relations the court could have switched it up and given muslims the outer courtyard and hindus the inner courtyard.

However, the court said it cant do this legally because it was a title suit and not a partition suit. However more, using the same legal restriction the court could also not have given another patch of land to the muslims in a title suit because in a title suit the court can only adjudicate on the property in dispute and nothing else. Since the court isn't already following technical legalalities it could have might aswell partitioned it like the allahabad hc.

 

[VidaRed]

Meanwhile...

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Meanwhile...

Godi media

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Being a minority i can attest that India was a secular country once upon a time. Although one could argue it wasn't secular in the european sense since the state wasn't irreligious. Our secularism meant pandering to all religions which makes more sense since most Indians are religious while most europeans aren't. That all changed in 1992, im a 80's kid and i know how things changed in the 90's and then in the 00's (9/11 and 2002). My parents and there generation faced nothing of the sort that was faced 1992 onwards.
.

If you don't mind me asking what has been the difference pre and post 1992. You can PM me as I'm genuinely interested to know.

As for the relatives bit, I heard one say Modi has been terrible but one great thing he's done is that he's "put Muslims in their place". Then there's the WhatsApp brigade who keep receiving anti Muslim propaganda from BJPs IT cell and keep lapping it up while exposing their own disappointing agendas. I don't know if you listened to this, but there's an audio clip supposedly of Laxmi Mittal speaking complete and utter bigoted baloney about how he believes India being a Hindu nation (Rashtra) is correct etc It got applause from a few people I know. Naturally I did some low level investigation for all of 2 minutes and it turned out to be fake and there's a tweet made by Arselor Mittal confirming it's not their CEO (obviously ).

 

[berbatrick]

Meanwhile...

This picture should be remembered for a while, really. It is the perfect symbol of Modi's India. Desh badal raha hai, aage bad raha hai.

 

[RedMachine03]

 

[anant]

No its not. I've been in Noida since 2016 and this is the worst I've ever experienced. Its fecking incredible that nothing is being done about this.

Yeah, I agree now. Never had irritation in eyes and all due to this, which I'm having this year

 

[RedMachine03]

 

[VidaRed]

 

[VidaRed]

 

[Suv666]

Yeah, I agree now. Never had irritation in eyes and all due to this, which I'm having this year

Yeah man its real bad. Today was a bit better though.

 

[Suv666]

Urban Naxals is a term used by right wing Twitter to describe anyone who is a critic of the current goverment.

 

[VidaRed]

If you don't mind me asking what has been the difference pre and post 1992. You can PM me as I'm genuinely interested to know.

There's a good book called "mothering a muslim" which should satiate your curiosity.

 

[RedMachine03]

 

[berbatrick]

A Lincoln moment: What PM Modi has in common with the former US President
Like Lincoln, Modi too needed an iron-will. Lincoln had to be ruthless with racial fascism in his time. For Modi, it was, to quote Bashir Assad in his book K File, masla-e-Kashmir is no longer political; it is about Nizam-e-Mustafa; it is a pan-Islamic movement now. Lincoln didn’t have any choice. Neither did Modi.

Abraham Lincoln put an end to slavery in the American South through the historic Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. He had always believed that slavery was against the basic tenets of the American Constitution. His resolve to end it was fortified by an open letter published by eminent thinker Alexis de Tocqueville in 1856 in the pro-abolition paper Liberty Bell. “I am pained by the fact that the freest people in the world maintain slavery”, Tocqueville had written.


It was not an easy journey for Lincoln. He was severely criticised not only by the pro-slavery leaders of the South, but also by a number of others including prominent liberals in the US and Britain. Even the Papal establishment was against his decision. Civil war had erupted, forcing Lincoln to resort to strong measures like the declaration of emergency, deployment of army and the censorship of media. Liberals had a good opportunity to accuse him of degenerating American democracy into a military despotism. He was called an aspiring tyrant, a hypocrite who used slavery as an excuse to exert the North’s authority over the South. Lincoln was also accused of provoking civil war, violating civil liberties and even destroying the Republic.

Laboulaye, who was credited with the conception of the famous Statue of Liberty, was one scholar who had analysed Lincoln’s actions very well. Historian Helena Rosenblatt, in The Lost History of Liberalism, writes about Laboulaye’s analysis of Lincoln: “Lincoln’s use of emergency authority, he [Laboulaye] concluded, was the very model of crisis government. Lincoln had responded to the emergency without undermining the Constitution or the rule of law. He had suspended habeas corpus, but only to save the Constitution. Most importantly, Lincoln had engaged in moral uplift. In all these ways, then, Lincoln was a great leader of liberal democracy. In making such a man president, the United States had vindicated not only the Constitution, but liberty, democracy, and humanity itself.”


Narendra Modi’s actions in Kashmir will be seen in similar light in the future. In ending a constitutional provision that was coming in the way of civil rights, political rights and dignified living of the ordinary people of Kashmir — and one that was promoting terrorism and secessionism — Modi, like Lincoln, had to demonstrate some toughness.

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/a-abraham-lincoln-moment-narendra-modi-6124545/