Consider what every Modi hater would say about Narendra Modi a couple of years ago:
He is just a PR creation. APCO is backing him.
He has support only on internet, can only become Prime Minister of Twitter.
He may win Gujarat, but India is not Gujarat.
Now consider what many BJP supporters say about Arvind Kejriwal of late:
He is just a media creation. Lutyens media is backing him.
He has got only army of AAPtards trending hashtags, no ground support.
He may win Delhi, but India is not Delhi.
Does it sound like Arvind Kejriwal is on his way to become the next Prime Minister of India after winning Delhi thrice, just like Modi won Gujarat thrice earlier? And, well, technically he has won Delhi twice already!
The BJP has to realize that the “bhagoda” Kejriwal is here to stay for the long race. They can continue to reject him like Modi haters used to reject Modi, and thus help Kejriwal become the next Prime Minister of India, or analyze this phenomenon and learn their lessons.
In this article, I try to analyze what made Kejriwal click with Delhi’s audience and why BJP’s strategies failed.
Almost a week has passed since 12 employees at French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were killed in a terror attack, and since then we have seen widespread condemnations of the attack, fringe celebrations of the attack, critique of the magazine’s cartoons, and a unity rally by some world leaders.
While widespread condemnations and fringe celebrations have now become “natural reactions” to any terror attack (yes, that’s the world we live in), the new aspect this time was critique of the cartoons drawn by those mercilessly murdered, which was virtually victim blaming.
And it was done almost immediately, almost as a natural reaction, not as an afterthought.
Earlier today, Charlie Hebdo released front page of their next issue, which is a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad – very mild and constructive by their acerbic and disruptive standards – and people are critiquing that too.
“People voted for Narendra Modi because they wanted development, they didn’t have any Hindu agenda in mind.” is the latest muse of people who earlier religiously believed that “a vote for Modi means crossing the moral point of no return”.
They are the same people who thought that Modi, with help of Amit Shah, “polarized” Uttar Pradesh to sweep the general elections. Now they think that the elections were won on development agenda.
This U-turn by these alleged “intellectuals” is not surprising as they are experts in shifting goalposts; however, what is consistent are their generalizations.
Earlier a vote for Modi was a vote for fascism, and now a vote for Modi has become a vote for development.
This post is not to analyze what a vote for Narendra Modi meant, because many alleged journalists are analyzing that by writing fat books, hoping to make a fat impression and preferably fat money.
Much has been written and spoken about “Love Jihad” in the political and media circus, I mean, circles, so I thought one more by me won’t be such a bad idea.
Out of dozens of articles there, including a ridiculous “data backed” NDTV report, I would start with pointing out two articles to which I largely agree with. These are by R Jagannathan and were published on Firstpost.
The first one argues that the theory that Muslim groups, in an organized way, are targeting Hindu girls to hurt or convert them is logically not sound, for it will be fraught with risks of failure when compared with other means of organized attempts at religious conversions.
The second one concedes that there could be small and isolated attempts, but Hindus first need to worry about their own failings – such as patriarchy, casteism, and lack of efforts to propagate Hinduism – and put their own house in order before losing sleep over something called “Love Jihad”.