Imran Khan's UNGA Speech on Hindutva, Islamophobia and Kashmir (Urdu)

[Riaz Haq]

How was Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan's UN General Assembly speech received? Was he right to tell the audience that Prime Minister Narendra Modi belongs to RSS, the right-wing Hindu Supremacist organization whose member killed Mahatma Gandhi? Does the world know that RSS founders were inspired by Nazism and Fascism? And the RSS members admire Gandhi's murderer Nathuram Godse? Is it hypocritical of Modi to exploit Gandhi's name in his UNGA speech and elsewhere in the West? Do Hindutva followers want to have it both ways? Benefit from Gandhi's name in the West while destroying Gandhi's legacy in India?

Why did Imran Khan talk about the connection between US war on terror after 911 and the rise of Islamophobia? How have countries like India exploited the war on terror to defame genuine Kashmiri resistance movement as terrorism?

What will happen when Modi lifts restrictions on 8 million Kashmiris living under total lock-down since August 5, 2019? Is Modi riding the tiger and afraid of getting off of it? Is Imran Khan right to fear a massacre by nearly million-strong Indian forces? Will India call it "cross-border terrorism" and blame it on Pakistan? Will Modi again try to pull a Balakot? Could it start India-Pakistan war? Would it escalate into a nuclear conflict killing billions around the world?

ALKS host Faraz Darvesh discusses these questions with Sabahat Ashraf (ifaqeer) and Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com)

https://youtu.be/Kz8S8z-ax1o

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

South Asia Investor Review

Rape as a Political Weapon Used By Hindutva

Hindu Nationalism Inspired By Nazism, Fascism

Rise of Islamophobia After Sept 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks

700,000 Indian Soldiers Versus 7 Million Kashmiris

Modi's Kashmir Blunder and India-Pakistan Nuclear Conflict

Is India a Paper Elephant? 

Howdy Modi Rally Exposes Indian-Americans to Charges of Hypocrisy

Modi's Extended Lockdown in Indian Occupied Kashmir

Hinduization of India

Brievik's Hindutva Rhetoric

Indian Textbooks

India's RAW's Successes in Pakistan

Riaz Haq Youtube Channel

VPOS Youtube Channel

[Riaz Haq]

'Colloquially Speaking, BJP is Fascist': Karan Thapar Interviews Pratap Bhanu Mehta
In an outspoken and hard-hitting interview, the former Vice Chancellor of Ashoka University speaks at length about Modi 2.0 and says that this government is “more insidious” than Indira Gandhi’s government of 1975-77.

https://thewire.in/video/karan-thapar-pratap-bhanu-mehta-interview


https://youtu.be/5hiDcd2GiDA

n an outspoken and hard-hitting interview, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the former Vice Chancellor of Ashoka University and one of contemporary India’s most highly regarded political thinkers, has said the Narendra Modi government, “colloquially speaking, is fascist”.

Mehta said even though the government is committed to winning elections to secure power, “in every other way it ticks the checklist of fascist qualities”. After specifying in detail what these are, Mehta concludes that “colloquially speaking, this is a fascist government and it is, therefore, not incorrect to use that term”.

Asked whether it was justified or exaggerated to compare the Modi government with Indira Gandhi’s Emergency, Mehta said that in many ways this government is “more insidious” than Indira Gandhi’s government of 1975-77. He said this was clearly discernible when you look at the intent behind the behaviour of the two governments. In the 1970s, Indira Gandhi’s intent was to secure her position and consolidate her individual authority. Today, Modi’s intent is to push his majoritarian and authoritarian agenda as well as Hindutva.

In a 60-minute interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, his first for television in recent years, Mehta spoke at length about the second Modi government.

He said: “India is governed by a regime whose sole raison d’etre is to find an adversarial rallying point and crush it by brute force… It now legitimises itself, not by its positive accomplishments, but by using the enemy as a rallying point. Three consequences flow from this. First, the government’s strategy is to divide people and remain in power. The government’s strategy is not to solve old issues; it is to divert attention by bringing in new adversaries in the hope that we remain divided.”

“The second consequence is the government’s intolerance of those who disagree with it or oppose it. “All that matters is the crushing of real and imaginary enemies, by hook or by crook… The state will… encourage violence against anyone who is not in tune with it,” he said. “Finally, the third consequence is the impact such a government has on the people of the country. It annihilates our will, our reason, our spirit, so that we all become willing supplicants in its ideological project.”

Mehta said that he feared that the clear and obvious majoritarian and authoritarian agenda of the Modi government would change the sort of people we are and he was not sure that it would be easy or even possible for some future governments to reverse the process and return India to what it used to be.

Asked what India would look and feel like two-three years down the road if things continue like this, Mehta said that he believed we are going back to the 1970s. India is exhibiting the same divisiveness, the same protests and the same lack of confidence in our future. At another point in the interview he said that for the first time after decades he couldn’t say with confidence that younger generations would lead a better life than our generation.

Mehta said that at this critical point, India’s elite are letting down the country. They are either complicit in what is happening or unwilling to stand up, possibly out of cowardice. He first spoke broadly about the middle class but then, specifically, about the Courts and business leaders whose silence was emboldening the government. Speaking about the Supreme Court, Mehta said that it has simply failed to stand up for the constitutional values and principles that it’s committed to uphold. In particular he spoke about the court’s failure to hear habeas corpus cases which he said define the core of a democracy. He said this is “inexplicable”.