Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
More information about this article...
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.



Contents

[edit] Excuse Me

Andhra Pradesh is not economically stagnant. Check your facts before posting idiocy. Yes the Defeat of TDP was the reason NDA couldn't survive. But the TDP was defeated because of other reasons. Such as farmers felt Chandrababu Naidu didn't care about them and the Congress promised Free Electricity which they've failed to withhold. --138.88.117.66 18:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


One of the BJP's slogans is "true Hindus vote BJP". Recently the prime minister got into a controversy for saying that Hindutva and Indianness are the same. They recently got re-elected in Gujarat using the Hindu nationalist platform. To the BJP, Hindutva doesn't conflict with secularism, Hindutva is secularism. A screwed up world view, but that's how it is. -- Arvindn

  • isn't this is pseudo-secular view?
    • isn't the very term 'pseudo-secular' a pro-Hindutva POV term? --Soman 04:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How so, Abdul Kalam is a Muslim. But he is respected widely among the BJP. As a matter BJP offered support to him in the first place. Actually all BJP wants to unity among Hindus and Indians.--71.163.68.87 00:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV to justify politics

The article currently says, "It [the BJP] has allied with regional parties to roll back the left-of-centre tendencies formerly endorsed by the Congress Party, which dominated Indian politics for four decades." This is clearly a point of view meant to justify the BJP's random alliance with parties of disparate ideological orientations merely to get hold of power, after it failed to secure a majority of its own. Such statements tend to bias the neutrality of the article concerned. --fredericknoronha 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bjp is the best party in INDIA

more you come to know about BJP the more you like it unless you are a hypocrite.It is a party which supports sentiments of Nationalism with development and provides respect to the suppressed Hindu feelings of The Hindu people who are forbidden from respecting their religion in their own country as some people want to be Secular. "I am a secular but I love my religion more than the other" what 's wrong with this????????

I also love BJP!!!! Jai BJP!!!! DaGizza Chat (c) 00:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Very ironic. Someone whining Muslim suppressed hindus and then cheering up when BJP bring religion to governmnent. WTF? Looks like something is wrong only if it oppress you.
I agree with DaGizza. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Gizza and Nobleeagle know where its at.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It is your POV

BJP doesn't consider itself to be "Hindu nationalist." You consider it to be so. According to BJP, Hindutva and Indianness are the same. That is exactly the point here. They consider themselves to be Indian Nationalist party. Abdul Kalam, a Muslim became the President of India thanks to them. Please leave out politics and post only facts.


Political science also classifies the BJP as hindu nationalist party. -- till we *) 12:24, Dec 20, 2003 (UTC)


Shouldn't someone mention the violence in Gujarat? The BJP was accused of condoning it or even supporting it. mr100percent 7:51, May 14, 2004 (UTC)

Well, some white supremacists are members of the US Republican Party. Should we mention that in the Republican party page? It was done by people who just so happened to be members. Also, it is propaganda calling the BJP "Hindu nationalists" Doesn't the republicans have a Christian nationalist agenda?

[edit] Slight confusion

In the second paragraph after the list of presidents, it says:

The BJP considers itself to be a secular party and [...] However the BJP is considered by some to be a secular party.

Either the 'however' should be reworded, or something else got mixed up. Iaen 14:03, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)

[edit] ideology?

So is the party left-wing, right-wing, socialist, centerist or what?


  • Some would claim that it is fascist. Obviously the BJP and it's supporters would dispute that. But it resists analysis in terms of left/right. It's a nationalist party.
Which by the way, is a classical fascist rhetoric. All major fascist movements have used the claim of "neither left nor right, just for the nation".
When writing the article, in order to keep it non-biased it should include both criticism as well as the self-describtion of BJP themselves. However, when discussing the party ideology the article would be incomplete without a through presentation of BJP's roots in BJS, relations to RSS/Sangh Parivar, role in fueling communal clashes, etc. --Soman 07:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, calling the BJP fascist. A nice pinko tactic. Perhaps Brinda Karat used that no?Bakaman Bakatalk 21:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
1. I'm sorry to point it out to you, but it is a historically correct statement. Mussolini and other always claimed to be neither leftwing nor rightwing (which to some extent can be explained by the incorporation of both left and right ideas into Fascist ideological construct). 2. However, I did not call BJP fascist in my preceding remark. I just wish to point out limitations of "resists analysis in terms of left/right" (left/right is virtually never an issue of self-identification. If the economical policies of BJP are to be studied, then BJP places itself firmly on the rightwing flank of Indian politics). Also I question the logic of seeing nationalist and fascist as mutually exclusive categories. After all virtually all fascists are nationalists, whereas not all nationalists are fascists. 3. I hope you're aware that 'pinko' is not a very swadeshi term. --Soman 06:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Read the article. They pride themselves on being conservative.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] use of Bharat

Some of the latest versions of the page use Bharat in place of India in the text. As the Bharat article redirects to the India one, i think it would make sense to replace 'Bharat' with 'India' in most cases since India is the term most commonly used in English Vino s 13:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)



[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:


[edit] POV

This is way too pro-pov. There is no mention of the BJP's repeated attempts to rewrite history [1] and their numerous antisemitic comments. This group claims that Hindu civilization began 111.5 trillion years ago... a few trillion before the big bang. KI 03:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention of BJP in the link you gave above. I consider tagging the article as POV as an act of vandalism and I am hence removing the tag. --Deepak|वार्ता 03:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caste system in India and BJP

Though India is Democratic and Republic all the Political parties supports Caste system and Religion. There is no scientific progress and thinking and all political parties also support reservation on caste system. vkvora 04:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article seems to be sustained by BJP

This is no NPOV article - It only contains BJP Propoganda.They should mention Gujarat and also the rioting as a show of Model BJP ruled state.

[edit] RSS VHP BJP were created by BRAHMIN MAFIA to see that only brahmins rule india and only upper castes become wealthy, educated & progressive

A.B. Vajpayee (Ex.P.M.) is a brahmin.

--Anirudh777 07:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah thats why we have Bangaru Laxman and other smart former dalits in power in the BJP right? Yeah, that's why we have vice-president of BJP a muslim right?

[edit] Question

Bakasuprman will no doubt be able to justify his recent revert of my careful editing of some recent uncited additions? Hornplease 04:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changed Wording

I changed the word orgy to the word outburst as I did not find orgy to be an appropriate word to use within this context.


[edit] I'm a bit surprised

How is it that the Gujarat riots are mentioned in this article while the US Republican Party article talks nothing about KKK et all.

Wikipedia is overrun by Congress fans trying to destroy BJPs good image if anything.--Milki 22:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you feel the KKK deserves a place in the Repulblican Party article, please add it there. The Gujarat riots are here because they were a significant development that occurred while the BJP was in power at both centre and state. Note that the Congress article clearly mentions the 1984 riots.Hornplease 01:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You tell me, do or do they not deserve a place. Along with that I have no problem in adding that the Democrats once supported slavery and Republicans oppose it.--Milki 13:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont think they do, but there's a difference in my eyes between the KKK and the Gujarat riots. More to the point, if you think they deserve a place, this isnt where you should discuss it.Hornplease 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
What's the difference between these really ? Although the Gujarat riots have happened during our tenure, there is no proof to show our direct involvement (and the statement is non sourced). The KKK activities however have showed solid links towards the Republican Part and many Southern Democrats (in mid 1800s) clearly supported Slavery.--Milki 19:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The only sites that support the BJP-Riots-Godhra-Gencide conspiracy theory are left-wing soapboxes. This is like blaming the British for the Moplah massacre. Bakaman Bakatalk 01:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)



[edit] A few words and Gujarat Riots (Please Read if you have anything to say about it)

I'm removing the Gujarat Riots reference. The Congress page doesn't talk about the attacks on Bombay. The Republican Party page doesn't talk about KKK or White Supremacy and The Democratic Party page doesn't say anything about their pro-slavery stance (in the past). So Why should an unsourced statement made by some Congress fanatic be part of the BJP Page unless someone can convince me otherwise.

  • If you are changing anything please state it here and say Why ?
  • Please Sign all your comments with ~~~~--Milki 01:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The article specifically does not blame the BJP. That section details the achievements of the second Vajpayee government in some detail; it also includes what was definitely one of the most newsworthy events of that period, the Gujarat riots. Let's look tat the passage:
"The BJP was severely discredited by the 2002 Gujarat riots, where the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi of the BJP was accused of protecting Hindu mobs and obstructing the work of police to stop violence against the Muslim minority. Many BJP activists and party members were accused of orchestrating the violence. Over 2,000 innocent people, about eighty percent Muslims and the remainder Hindus were killed and tens of thousands displaced in the riots. Though the BJP attempted to defend and justify Modi's leadership, the moderate wing of the party was embarrassed and weakened by the effects of the fiasco on the party's image and its efforts to woo Muslim voters. International reprimands followed including the controversial revocation of Mr. Modi's US visa."
(a) can we disagree that the BJP was 'discredited'? I expect some qualifier of that is permissible; however, the BJP uptil that point had made much of the fact that communal riots had never taken place in a State where it was in power. The Gujarat riots caused that statement to rebound. The Prime Minister himself said that it embarassed him everywhere he went [2]. Second, the fact that Modi was accused of protecting mobs and obstructing the police is on record. The allegations may have been baseless, and the only people still saying it may be the Left, but at the time, all news sources, even rediff.com, carried accusations of this. That BJP activists were similarly accused is also true. That the BJP attempted to justify Modi's leadership was also true - see Vajpayee's Goa speech. That he was embarrassed we already have seen. Can you suggest what in particular you would like changed? The passage cannot of course, go entirely. That it affected the BJP's standing and it's moral superiority over the post-1984 Congress is unquestionable, and also that it dominated the discourse within the country and within the NDA itself for some time. Hornplease 05:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes Modi "protecting the mobs" and other BJP leaders being involved was "on record" but like you said, It happened when the Left was in Power (in Centre). Modi's leadership was justified however him protecting the mobs have never been proven and Vajpayee never praised or approved Modi here. These kinds of incidents happen all the time. What I don't understand is, Riots worse than these have happened under several leaderships in several countries. Why is Indian Leadership being picked on here ? What I want to see is either all Party pages being updated to reflect criticism or this being dropped in the BJP PageMilki 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect. The Left was not in power at the Centre. The BJP was in power at both the centre and the state levels, and hence the party's reputation suffered. That Modi genuinely supported the mobs is not stated, merely that there were accusations - from many, including Chandrababu Naidu, who was an ally of the BJP's at the time. It is specified that VAjpayee {The "moderate leadership") was particularly embarassed. Note also that the Congress party page specifies that many human rights orgs believe the Congress was responsible for the 1984 riots. If you feel that other leaderships articles in other countries do not reflect accusations that they mismanaged riots under their administration, edit those articles, not this one. Hornplease 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean it like that (about Power). What I tried to say was When the accusations from the media started to surface (which was a year or two ago) the Congress led coalition of UPA was at Power. There are several 100s Party Articles. Editing each of them would be a herculean task, I just want to know Why the BJP (and Congress) was (were) targeted towards these kinds of things ? OfCourse Chandra Babu et all criticised him; That's what Politicians do, They gang up on people who seem to be involved in a controversy.Milki 23:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the accusations actually died down after the reports began to be made public and people concentrated on lapses at the local level. The anti-Modi sentiment was strongest early on, when the BJP was still in power at the centre. A look at rediff's articles on Gujarat confirms this. I dont think anyone is ganging up on the two major Indian parties; there have been no major riots elsewhere in the past twenty years that I can think of immediately, other than a few; the French riots in suburban Paris is one example, and they are mentioned prominently in the short article on the French ruling party, the Union for a Popular Movement. So I dont think that it is completely fair to say that the BJP and Congress have been singled out. Hornplease 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absence of Criticism section!!!

Most of non-science related pages at wikipedia have criticism section why its not here, it should be added and filled with criticism BJP faces but in neutral langauge.
My POV: BJP is a party with a Roadmap, 21'st Century road and 10'th Century map ;-)
Vjdchauhan 11:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the criticism is there in the article. Read it closely. Bear in mind that criticism of the Indian National Congress has the same issue.Hkelkar 11:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Criticism in a separate section is different from criticism in the story itself. The one in story can be laced with pre and post sentences to make in fully ineffective whereas that will not be the case if a separate Criticism section is added. I don't have any problem of having 'criticism' section in Indian National Congress or any other page, also I think such section will survive in 'INC' page. Be open to criticism. Regards, Vjdchauhan 06:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC).
Actually, I can guarantee that it won't, the leftist wikipedians will call you names and mass-revert all your changes.What I suggest is that you select the sentences from the BJP article that are critical and post them here in the talk page, then perhaps we can build up a criticism section (including responses) and then put it in the article. Bear in mind that this will be a watering hole for POV-pushers and other extremist wikipedians so we all need to be careful.Hkelkar 07:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and there is no criticism section on Democratic Party (United States), Republican Party (United States),All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam,Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and many others. Isn;t that interesting?Hkelkar 07:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Generally speaking, separate 'Criticism' sections just lead to bad articles. A balanced discussion about a party should prevail throughout the article. --Soman 10:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/h/a/Talk%7EBharatiya_Janata_Party_c347.html"