The Instigator
rjayx8
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jay-D
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Bhartiya Janta Party is a communalist party

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Jay-D
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,583 times Debate No: 58275
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (3)

 

rjayx8

Pro

Rules:
Round 1 is for acceptance
Round 2 is for arguments
Round 3 is for counter-arguments / rebuttal
Round 4 is closing statements and may be used to extend rebuttal

The character limit is 10,000 as this topic would require a detailed and comprehensive debate. Both Pro and Con have good cases to make and this is one of the very pressing issues as the BJP govt. has just come into power with an absolute majority.

The Bhartiya Janta Party (referred to as the BJP) is one of the two political power blocs of the India, the other is the Indian National Congress which has otherwise dominated the elections in the past.

The Burden of Proof will lie upon the one arguing for the resolution that BJP is communalist.

Definition of Communalist in this context: Allegiance to one’s own ethnic group rather than to the wider society

eg: issues such as Punjab violence and communalism

Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...;

Hopefully this should go in as one of the best debates on Indian Politics on debate.org, looking forward to a great debate with someone who makes the perfect opponent, an admirer of the BJP. So any Modi/RSS lovers, any responsible and informed Indian Citizens out there accept this challenge.
Jay-D

Con

I graciously accept the instigator's challenge. I shall be on the side of Con for this debate.

Going with the context presented by my opponent, I'll argue that the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), an Indian political party, is NOT communalist i.e. the BJP professes its allegiance to the wider society than to its own ethnic group, which is, of course, the Hindus of India.

If any of my assumptions are wrong, I request Pro to correct them immediately at the beginning of round 2. I look forward to a well-contested debate.
Debate Round No. 1
rjayx8

Pro

Judges please note: This round is only for arguments, no rebuttals or counter arguments of any kind are to be made in this round, failure to comply by the rules would be infringement of conduct and would result in penalty of all 7 points.

To understand what the BJP is, it is imperative first to understand the RSS (commonly referred to as the Sangh/an organized group of people with a shared aim or interest; an association or other organization)

The Sangh Parivar (Family of Organisations) refers to the family of organisations of Hindu nationalists which have been started by members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) or are inspired by its ideas. The Sangh Parivar represents the Hindu nationalist movement.[1] It includes the RSS and several dozen smaller organisations, whose members' expressed opinions have been diverse over a range of topics.[2] Nominally, the different organizations within the Sangh Parivar run independently and have different policies and activities..

[1] Saha 2004:274

[2] Thakurta & Raghuraman, 2004:91

There are no qualms about the fact that the RSS is the forefather of the BJP. After all the BJP is nothing but a political wing of the RSS, one of its many affiliates.

RSS

BJP (Political Wing)

VHP (Religious Wing)

Seva Vibhag (Service Wing)

Bajrang Dal (Militant Wing)

Seva International

Seva Bharati

Vikas Bharati

Sanskriti Bharati

To prove what I have stated above I would quote an example to illustrate the example of the Sangh’s influence on the BJP.

Eg: Advani’s downfall in the BJP, Advani was once a revered politician of the BJP and a star inspiration for RSS aspirants as he had made it to the top of the BJP. However during his visit to Pakistan he talked about how Jinnah was a secular figure and that he saluted him, this move was political suicide he was sidelines with the Sangh furious at him for making anti-national statements by praising the enemies of the country. The man served the BJP and RSS for more than 50 years and doesn't enjoy a single portfolio. That's what the you get for crossing RSS.

Another way to demonstrate the same would be by quoting examples top-brass politicians of BJP who “just happen to be RSS members”

Shivraj Singh Chouhan: Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, a central Indian state. He joined the RSS in 1972, as a 13-year-old. He has been a five-time Member of Parliament, representing Vidisha in the Lok Sabha since 1991.

Atal Bihari Vajpayee: A hardliner Hindu nationalist and former Prime Minister of India. He was a lifelong member of RSS. Vajpayee was a full-time RSS worker before he was "released" for BJP (formerly Jana Sangh) activities. In one of his Hindi poems, Vajpayee proclaims: "Hindu Hindu mera parichay"-my only identity is Hindu.

Harsh Vardhan: Union Health Minister and BJP’s CM candidate in Delhi elections is also a long-time RSS member.

L.K Advani: He served as the Minister of Home Affairs; he additionally served as Deputy Prime Minister of India from 2002 to 2004. He was the Leader of the Opposition in the 10th Lok Sabha and 14th Lok Sabha (lower house of Parliament). He was the BJP’s PM candidate in the 2009 elections in the general elections. And yet again, I am afraid I will have to point out that it is strange that even Advani began his political career as a volunteer of RSS.

Saving the best for the last,

Narendra Modi: 15th and current Prime Minister of India who has lead the BJP to an unprecedented victory is also a member of RSS. Modi at the age of eight came in contact with RSS and he began attending its local shakhas (branches) where he came in contact with Lakshmanrao Inamdar, popularly known as Vakil Saheb, who is known as his political guru and mentor. Inamdar inducted Modi as a balswayamsevak, a junior cadet in RSS and he went on to become a pracharak then eventually rising in the ranks of the BJP from Gujarat’s Chief Minister for 3 consecutive terms to the most coveted political office that the country has to offer.

Mind you, these are only a handful of names, there is a whole list of politicians from BJP whose roots can be traced to the RSS.

The basic guidelines of communalism and the communal approach of the RSS were laid down by Golwalkar in We (Golwalkar is one most respected figures in the BJP), where the Muslims were portrayed as a perpetually hostile and alien element within the Indian body politic and society, who must either accept total subordination to the Hindus or cease to be Muslim, as will be evident from the following quotation...``In Hindustan exists and must needs exist the ancient Hindu nation and nought else but the Hindu nation... So long, however, as they (Muslims and other non-Hindus) maintain their social, religious and cultural differences, they cannot but be only foreigners ... There are only two courses open to the foreign elements, either to merge themselves in the national race and adopt its culture, or to live at the sweet will of the national race ... The non-Hindu peoples in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion ... in one word, they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment - not even citizen's rights ... in this country, Hindus alone are the Nation and the Muslims and others, if not actually anti-national, are at least outside the body of the Nation.'

Babri Masjid Demolition: In 1990, BJP's president Advani started the ,rathyatra', a rally through the whole country to agitate for support for the Ayodhya campaign and to call anti-Muslim sentiments in the society. The BJP election manifesto from 1991 comprised the lines: “It [the BJP] seeks the restoration of Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya only by way of a symbolic righting of historic wrongs.” The Ayodhya campaign can not only be seen as “the most radical phase in the party's evolution in terms of ideological stridency, but also its most militant phase.”, Dr. Sebastian Schwecke, a scholar on Indian history states in his work “New cultural identitarian political movements in developing societies: the BharatiyaJanata Party” from 2011, that the BJP govt. in the state had made a commitment to the Supreme Court that the Babri Mosque would not be harmed, not only did the mob accompanying Advani demolish the mosque, after doing so there were rallies celebrating the victory of the ‘nationalists’ and communal riots which left 2000 dead, most of which were of course Muslims.

You see the perks of being a minority in a democracy.

Godhra Riots of 2002: Gujarat’s very own and special holocaust which accounts for 2000 corpses. Some independent scholars claim, the well-orchestrated, and premeditated communal riot had met the ‘legal definition of genocide’

One person to speak out was Harsh Mander, then an IAS officer, (civil servant) who wrote in Outlook (March 19, 2002) soon after the killings:

“I force myself to write a small fraction of all that I heard and saw, because it is important that we all know or maybe also because I need to share my own burdens.”

“What can you say about a woman eight months pregnant who begged to be spared? Her assailants instead slit open her stomach, pulled out her foetus and slaughtered it before her eyes. What can you say about a family of nineteen being killed by flooding their house with water and then electrocuting them with high-tension electricity?”

“What can you say? A small boy of six in Juhapara camp described how his mother and six brothers and sisters were battered to death before his eyes. He survived only because he fell unconscious, and was taken for dead.” 3
[3] Outlook Magazine

In 2007, Tehelka published a hidden-camera interview with Babu Bajrangi, a man known to be an aide of several BJP biggies, which showed the Bajrangi talking about how he organized the killings of Muslims during the Naroda Patiya massacre during the 2002 Gujarat riots:

“We didn't spare a single Muslim shop, we set everything on fire, we hacked, burned, set on fire, we believe in setting them on fire because these bastards don't want to be cremated, they're afraid of it, I have just one last wish, let me be sentenced to death, I don't care if I'm hanged, just give me two days before my hanging and I will go and have a field day in Juhapura where [seven or eight hundred thousand] these people stay, will finish them off, let them die.”

In the video Bajrangi claimed that after the killings, he called the home minister (BJP politician) and the VHP general secretary Jaideep Patel, and told them about the killings, he said they were happy to know that all of it had carried out smoothly. He also claimed Narendra Modi tried to subvert the judicial process.[5]

[5] Tehelka.com

It should be unstated that the relationship between BJP and RSS is integral in understanding the context which has been stated above. BJP has never in any of its election campaigns adopted the tag of secular in order to appease and form a Hindu vote bank on whose votes (as per data by election commission)they have come into power in 2014.

Their ideology is that “the non Hindupeople..must adopt Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and revere Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but the glorification of the Hindu nation,....they must cease to be foreigners or may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation….”

L.K Advani in his autobiography explains hindutva as a vision- the problem of non-Hindus was not the problem of faith, it transcends the barriers of faith and worship, and tends to create political tensions in the anti-national perspective. It is difficult to bring non-Hindus into mainstream politics and that hence the only answer is Hindutva which would serve common interests for all.

Other sources include

  1. 1. The Lost Years of the RSS by Sanjeev Kelkar
  2. 2. RSS Constitution
  3. 3. BJP 2014 election manifesto

Jay-D

Con

I thank my opponent for posting his argument. I agree with the terms mentioned by the instigator.
Since Pro has raised no objections to my statements in round 1, I take it they're all valid throughout the course of this debate.

It is now the time for me to initiate my argument.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Founding Statements

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), along with other allied organizations such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Shiv Sena (SS), Bajrang Dal (BD) and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) among others, is constantly accused of being violent, extremist, and most of all, communal.

This, however, is largely due to the propaganda of mainstream media in India. There are many instances where the BJP (and/or allies) has indulged in acts that would be classified as, in every sense of the word, secular. I shall demonstrate these in later arguments.

The leadership of the Bharatiya Janata Sangh, which was the predecessor of the BJP, was formed from the RSS brass. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that many top BJP members are also RSS members.

The leaders and workers of the BJP openly support "Hindutva". This has led millions of people, including my opponent, to believe that the BJP is communal. However, to insinuate such a thing is no more than a classic example of ignorance and incomplete knowledge of the truth, which also I am about to explain.

Another main focus of my arguments will be a clarification of the BJP's (and/or RSS's) role in "recent" incidents of communal violence, most prominently the 1992 Babri Masjid Demolition and the 2002 post-Godhra violence.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Opening arguments

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Roots of communal allegations: M.S. Golwalkar

M.S. Golwalkar was an early leader of the RSS, who in his published works, condemned Muslims and encouraged upliftment of the Hindus. He was openly of fascist views, and spoke of converting all non-Hindus to Hindus. As a result, he was widely criticized.

However, Golwalkar's influence ends in the RSS. Being the forefather of the "Sangh Parivar" (lit. family of organizations), he is still respected, but his views have no place in the BJP manifesto.

In fact, while he was Prime Minister of India in 2002, Atal Bihari Vajpayee openly denounced Golwalkar's views, saying that "Golwalkar's views were his own", and that the BJP never gave him its stamp of approval.


This shows that even though Golwalkar was respected in his time, and probably still is in the RSS, his ideals have no place in the BJP.

As a matter of fact, a much more respected figure in the BJP (and RSS) is Swami Vivekananda, who had nothing to do with communalism.
Babasaheb Apte (a prominent RSS leader) used to say all the time that "Vivekananda is like Gita for the RSS".


------------------------------

Mainstream media's anti-BJP propaganda

This is the principal reason for people questioning the BJP over communalism. Ever since the breakout of the paid news scandal, it is no secret that many news network honchos are constantly under the thumb of the Indian National Congress.

-----
Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://india-herald.com...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
-----

Another reason of the media acting against the BJP is because the BJP follows a strictly no-appeasement policy. This does not go well with mediapersons, who are by now used to getting fringe benefits in exchange for coverage.


Ultimately, media enterprises are nothing more than business ventures. Since their demands are not entertained by the BJP, they often tend to crticize the party.

------------------------------

Babri Mosque demolition (1992)

The media played an important role in attacking the BJP during the Babri masjid violence of 1992. The Liberhan Commission was deployed by the government to investigate the events. The credibility of the commission's report comes under question for two factors:

1) The commission ran for 17 years from 1992 to 2005, and cost Rs. 80 million. It is India's longest running commission ever.
2) Certain aspects of the final report were selectively leaked by the media.

-----
Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://twocircles.net...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
http://archive.indianexpress.com...
-----

The fact that the commission took 17 years to compile a report has drawn widespread criticism and speculation over it being biased. By the time the report was finally released, the INC-led UPA government had been in power for 5 years.


The leak came at a time when the entire opposition, chiefly involving the BJP, was united against the UPA government.
As it is well-known, the UPA government was under heavy fire at the time.

Obviously, the Liberhan report leak comes across as a bit too convenient in implicating BJP leaders.


------------------------------

2002 Gujarat riots (post-Godhra violence)

These riots came as a direct response to the burning of train in Godhra, which resulted in the deaths of 58 Hindus. The official death toll is now 1180, which includes over 250 Hindus and 850 Muslims (excluding the train burning victims).
The BJP state government, which, at the time, was led by Narendra Modi, came under heavy censure for allegedly abetting the riots, citing that the state government did little or nothing to quell the violence.

However, there is still NO PROOF of Modi's involvement in the riots. The allegations against BJP have recently gained new impetus, only because it was election season not too long ago, and the UPA government was getting more and more desperate.

-----
Sources:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
http://blogs.wsj.com...
-----

Moreover, the BJP claimed to have made official statements appealing to end the riots. But this was never made known to the people at large. One doesn't have to think twice to deduce that the media is, once again, responsible.

Ultimately, people continue to correlate Modi and the BJP with the riots.


------------------------------

Actual meaning of Hindutva

The BJP (and other members of the Sangh Parivar) have constantly been saying that they favour "Hindutva" (lit. Hindusim). This leads most people to believe that their allegiance is to the Hindu ethnic group, which in turn makes them think that the BJP is communalist.

What they DON'T realize is the fact that the BJP DOES NOT PROFESS HINDUISM IN A RELIGIOUS, BUT A NATIONALIST MANNER.

One of the old names of India is Hindustan. Therefore, a Hindu isn't one who worships the gods of the Hindu pantheon. EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN HINDUSTAN (INDIA) IS A HINDU in BJP's eyes.


As a matter of fact, the origin of the word "Hindu" is not religious, but territorial. It comes from the river Sindhu (Indus).

Originally, "Hindu" meant "those that live to the East of the Sindhu".


-----
Source:
http://en.wikibooks.org...
-----

This has been reiterated time and again by senior BJP leaders, but sadly, not many listen.
Hindutva is, IN NO WAY, A COMMUNAL CONCEPT. It is, in fact, secular.


-----
Five different sources to support my claim:

Analysis by senior lawyer & politician Ram Jethmalani - http://www.sunday-guardian.com...

Report by Supreme court of India - http://www.newsanalysisindia.com...

Freedom fighter and nationalist Veer Savarkar explains how "Hindutva" is not "Hinduism" (pdf file) - http://www.savarkar.org...

VHP offers its views on Hindutva - http://vhp.org.uk...

Views of vedic scholar Swami Shraddhananda - http://www.shraddhananda.com...
-----

BJP has never been against Muslims as a whole. BJP is against anyone who threatens the integrity of Hindustan, which is India. Anyone who spreads corruption, vice, or terror, is an enemy of the BJP, and, by extension, the Sangh Parivar.


Hindutva as advocated by the BJP is NOT communal fanaticism of the Hindus; It's a nationalistic sentiment for a secular, virtuous, and safe India. This ought to quell most doubts over BJP's alleged "communal" nature.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Summary

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

- Hindutva is not a communal/religious concept, but a secular and nationalist one.

- As such, the BJP is allied not with the Hindu who worships Krishna, but with the man who lives in Hindustan.

- Senior BJP leaders have often been persecuted by the media for their strict no-appeasement policy, as well as for monetary gains.

- BJP's alleged "role" in communal violence is largely a result of smear campaigning. The view of the party, as a whole, has never been communalist, but nationalist.


- M.S. Golwalkar was one of the Sangh Parivar's original stalwarts, but the BJP is influenced much more by Vivekananda, a known secular and nationalist reformer.


I eagerly await my opponent's response in round 3. I'm looking forward to presenting my own rebuttals to Pro's arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
rjayx8

Pro

rjayx8 forfeited this round.
Jay-D

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited his round 3 argument. This is his own fault; rjayx8 is known to play with the argument deadline on a regular basis. Although he attributes this to “excessive schoolwork”, the risk was his very own to take, and he has held himself accountable in his communications with me.
After some discussion, Pro and myself have arrived at an agreement regarding the issue. I would like the judges to take careful note of the following:

-Pro has posted his round 3 argument in the comments section. It is to be considered valid.

-All aspects of the argument, including grammar, sources, conduct etc. must be taken into consideration.

-Pro’s forfeiture shall NOT be forgotten. Pro has agreed that he’s guilty of disorderly conduct, and is fine with losing points over it. Judges are free to deduct points for the same as they see fit.

Pro has agreed to all the above details, and I request the judges to do the same. I shall now proceed with my round 3 argument.


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rebuttals
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pro claimed in round 1, that:
Golwalkar is one most respected figures in the BJP

Furthermore, in his rd3 (comments), he has said:

Golwalkar has a place in something bigger, in the ideology and roots of the BJP and BJS.

I refuted this in round 2. A.B. Vajpayee, one of the BJP's foremost stalwarts, has been quoted as saying "weh unke apne vichar the" (those were his own views). He further went on to dismiss Golwalkar's views, saying the BJP never approved.


Pro also cites:
Atal Bihari Vajpayee, India"s former Prime Minister, almost never used to sit on a chair when he was in the presence of "Guruji" Golwalkar in a room...

In the RSS, Golwalkar was known for much more than his views.
He preached the vedas, explained sanyas, gave guidance to the fledglings, worked for tribal welfare etc. No wonder the organization respected him.


This DOES NOT mean that everyone agreed with his fascist views.


Though almost no one agreed with his genocidal objectives, even Hitler was respected for his many other qualities by his contemporaries.
Golwalkar's case isn't very different; only those that were close to him knew the other aspects of the man's life, and, as a result, ended up respecting him.

----------------------

Pro's statements regarding Vivekananda's influence in the RSS:

Judges this is a rather preposterous claim...
... the man was just a preacher of Hinduism, trying to spread the message of Hinduism, if my opponent says the RSS was influenced by Vivekananda,
he in turn is saying, the RSS" ideology is that of a hindu nation, he has managed to prove what I argued...

Not very sportsmanlike. I see 3 possibilities here:


1) & 2) Pro either failed to notice (unlikely), or completely ignored, my ostentatious explanation of the words "Hindu" and "Hindutva" in round 2.

3) Pro is resorting to semantics to prove his point, by choosing the popular interpretation of "Hindu" over the original one (which, by the way, also happens to be the one used by the BJP).

All cases seem quite distasteful.
In case someone didn't notice, I'll reiterate: The Hindu nation is the one that lies to the east of the Indus river i.e. the modern-day India, and NOT a country dominated and ruled by followers of the Hindu religion. This has been explained in ornate detail in my rd2 argument.

----------------------

Pro's remarks on my claim of media undermining BJP:

Come on, my opponent has resorted to churlish means, especially when the media has been so sympathetic to BJP...
...
it has projected its leader Modi as the champion of the people, and Congress as a corrupt organization.

The poor punctuation aside, I think it is pretty obvious why the media jumped to the BJP's ship from the Congress' : the Congress' ship was sinking.

In the wake of MULTIPLE scams related to corruption, it was obvious that the media stood to gain more from supporting Modi rather than perform damage control for the UPA government.

-----
Reference for UPA's scams:
http://www.raftaarlive.com...
-----


Pro further states,
Just because of a single scam, my opponent made a claim that the integrity of Indian media, whether electronic or print is compromised since time immemorial.

Well, I didn't imply "time immemorial", but I also didn't say there was only a "single scam". Here are a few:


1) The media gave little coverage to the death of Madhavrao Scindia (mainly, just the funeral), who were seen as major obstacles in Sonia Gandhi's path to power. He died in a helicopter crash. Rajesh Pilot's case is similar.

2) Sonia Gandhi wasted nearly half an hour in then-PM Indira Gandhi's treatment after she was shot. This may well have cost Indira Gandhi her life. However, Sonia's irresponsible actions were never made known to the people at large.

3) Subramanian Swamy's letter to erstwhile president APJ Abdul Kalam, which ultimately resulted in Manmohan Singh's appointment as Prime Minister, was never given any mainstream coverage.
The letter, which pointed out that Gandhi is Italian, destroyed her claim to the PM's seat.

-----
Respective sources numbered 1 to 3:

1: http://gulfnews.com...
2: http://missionsecrets.blogspot.in...
3: http://satyabhashnam.blogspot.in...
-----
I'm sorry, Mr. Pro; it is not a single scam, but MANY, that point out to the media's affinity to Sonia Gandhi and the INC.

----------------------

Pro on my statement about BJP refraining from appeasing the media:
Nice joke, now sir would you dispute the fact that the BJP doesn"t appease the Hindus.

Well, Pro has misunderstood me. I round 2 was referring to the BJP's no-appeasement policy in the context of THE MEDIA. I think it was pretty clear from my language.

Now either Pro has been victim to a slight misunderstanding, or he's resorting to semantics (possibly for a second time).

I never said that BJP doesn't appease the Hindus. If a party doesn't appease the largest ethnic group in the nation, how can it even think of winning the elections?

As a matter of fact, BJP appeased everyone in the nation, not just Hindus. Be it Hindu or Muslim, most of the nation voted for them and now they're in power with an overwhelming majority.


Pro "asks":

My question is simple were a day to come where the BJP had to decide between a policy favourable for Muslims or favourable for Hindus it is no secret they would opt for the latter...

I see neither the question nor the question mark; but that aside, what sort of policy is it which, when passed, is favourable for Hindus, and when rejected, is favourable for Muslims?

Now, THAT is a question.

----------------------

Pro's response to my statement pointing out the Liberhan commission's leak:
Again sir, you are not questioning the media here, you are questioning the integrity of the Indian judiciary, an independent wing which is bereft of any influence from the executive or legislature.

No, I'm not questioning the judiciary. The judiciary wasn't responsible for the LEAKING the report. The media was.

The commissions" full report is available on the internet, read it...

Again, I'm talking about the LEAK of the report. It was conveniently leaked at a time when the UPA government was under severe criticism in the parliament.
The objective, clearly, was to shift focus away from the UPA's debacles, and towards speculation over BJP's role in the riots.

I offered multiple sources regarding the same. I would advise my opponent to go through my round 2 argument once more.

----------------------

Pro's quotation of my statement:
My opponent cleverly states, "BJP has never been against Muslims as a whole"
I believe that is enough to say it all, what does he mean? Is the BJP against the Muslims selectively?

No, I meant that certain individuals in the BJP MIGHT be against the Muslims. But that does not matter, since the BJP, as a whole, is not against the Muslims; it's not allied only to the Hindus either. It is allied to India.

Referring to my Hindutva argument in round 2, this becomes clear.
What it means in the big picture, is that the BJP is not communalist.

----------------------

Pro's closing statements:
Sir your Hindustan argument is ridiculous, what the BJP actually says that the minority should accept the majority"s supremacy or should be exiled of what is Hindu-sthan...

How can it be ridiculous when I gave you the actual etymology of Hindustan?
It seems that Pro simply didn't get my explanation regarding the meaning of Hindustan.

Yes, it refers to India.
Yes, it means "land of the Hindus".
NO, it does not mean that Christians and Muslims are not welcome.

I reiterate: the original word "Hindu" is NOT bound by religion, but by territory. PLEASE go through my rd2 again.
And it is THIS meaning of Hindu that the BJP has always considered. The BJP considers every Indian as a Hindu, not just the worshippers of Krishna and Shiva.

BJP claims that the forefathers and the ancestors of this land were Hindu...
Yes, they were, according to BJP's adopted (and the original) definition of Hindu.

...therefore the son of this soil should be a hindu, not a Christian, Muslim or Parsi.
No, it shouldn't. Thee BJP doesn't believe in this. Hindustan was once occupied by Mughals. Even they come under the original definition of Hindu.

----------------------

Nationalist is euphemism for hindu nationalism....

And Hindu nationalism preaches secularism and religious tolerance, because "Hindu" is nothing but "Indian", as I explained earlier in round 2.



That will be all for now. I believe I have convincingly refuted my opponent's arguments as well as his rebuttals to my arguments. I await Pro's final word in round 4.

Debate Round No. 3
rjayx8

Pro


Loopholes in Pro’s case:


I believe my opponent made an evasive case by using arguments like ‘the media is biased’ and ‘portraying hindutva as a peaceful ideology’.


He cleverly avoided my questions, citing reasons such as ‘I don’t see a question mark there’


“How can it be ridiculous when I gave you the actual etymology of Hindustan?”


I do not disagree with your etymology; I disagree with your justification, because the context in which the BJP uses this ‘definition’ is dangerous.


If the BJP is so saintly in its approach why doesn’t the RSS admit Muslim members?


“No, it shouldn't. Thee BJP doesn't believe in this. Hindustan was once occupied by Mughals. Even they come under the original definition of Hindu.”


Wrong. BJP says the Hindus had inhabited the entire stretch of the Indian subcontinent for thousands of years. BJP argues that it was the Hindu forefathers who had established standards and norms and had fought against the foreign invaders, hence claiming that only the Hindu had a right “to be a child of this soil”.


Religious minorities were hence counseled to pledge allegiance to the Hindu symbols and restrict practicing their own religious beliefs to their private spaces.


BJP believes that Hindus who chose to convert to Islam or Christianity were forced not only to change their mode of worship, but also their style of dressing, names, culture, value system and lifestyle. It noted that conversion had caused a simultaneous change in the nationalism and that was the root cause of concern and all their problems. They believe the problem of non-Hindus was not the problem of faith, alleging that it transcends the barriers of faith and worship, and tends to create political tensions in the anti-national perspective.


The BJP goes on to call non-hindus contributing to the anti-national sentiments, is this not communal?


Thus while “the nationals of this nation may have religious faith, they all have to subscribe and pledge supremacyto Hindutva or Hinduness which is the cultural ethos of the nation. In this view, a Hindu is “any person born in this country” but, Lord Rama and Krishna are seen as national heroes.


Source: The BJP And The Compulsions Of Politics In India (pg: 220, 221)


" ’Hindu’ is nothing but ‘Indian’ ”


See, this is a very dicey statement, the RSS is known for making hindu nationalism “Bharitiya (Indian) Nationalism” yet the two are not synonymous.


The main difference is, according to the BJP, majority rule is democracy, they majoritarianism should prevail over anything else in a democratic state, which defies the basic fundamental principle of the constitution that all citizens to be treated as equals, the minorities also are to protected because they are guaranteed protection and equal rights under the constitution.


When BJP talks about Kashmir they talk about Kashmiri pandits, not the Muslims in the valley. In 2002 they talk about the 250 hindus that died, not the 750 Muslims.


One more thing about 2002 riots, after Modi was election campaign chief, he made a statement when asked whether he regretted the killings that took place, this is what he said, “ when someone else is driving a car and we're sitting behind, even then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not? Of course it is. “


Here he says he was not in control of his state when the riots took place, and compares Muslims to puppies which came under the wheel”.


This is the kind of language he uses and attitude he adopts towards the Muslims of the country.


And my opponent cannot say the media projects him in such a light, this was an interview with Reuters, therefore the credibility of my source stands and is not subject to any scams, scandals or political influence, also it should be noted, even a reputed organization like Reuters calls Modi a Hindu Nationalist.


Source: http://goo.gl...


Few communal incidents that have taken place after BJP’s victory at Lok Sabha


There is a city called Moradabad, in the city there is a communally volatile area Kanth, which has a Muslim majority, the BJP workers in order to challenge the majority installed loud speakers in their local temple and called for a mahasabha which had been specifically banned by the state govt. owing to the area’s sensitive nature, but the BJP leaders were hell-bent on having the mahasabha in order to prove their dominance, and as a consequence there were clashes between the police and BJP workers who had defied the ban on mahasabha.


Source: http://goo.gl...


A young techie named Mohsin Shaikh was murdered by the Hindu Rasthra Sena which is an outfit of the Sangh Parivar in Maharashtra, beaten to death on the road. This man was killed just because he shared his dismay after Modi’s appointment as PM.


And the govt. is still contemplating whether this fascist group needs to be banned or not.


Source: http://goo.gl...


AMIT SHAH


The latest developments further show that Mr. Amit Shah, who has accused of orchestrated the extrajudicial killings of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kauser Bi and his associate Tulsiram Prajapati, has been made the President of BJP.


Just imagine a man who has been involved in murder cases of, mind you, Muslims, has been elevated or rather awarded the BJP President post. It doesn’t bother the party that the man has a tainted record.


While the party says it was because of his performance during elections in a state of India where he secured 71 out of 80 seats, but it should be understood that this man again is from the RSS, and was even banned by the EC, (election commission, which ensures free and fair elections) from campaigning in the state when he stirred up controversy by giving a speech in an area where Muslims and Hindus had rioted just a few months earlier, calling the election one of "honor and revenge", the EC in their press release banned him from making public statements and called his remarks– inflammatory.


Also, the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation, like FBI in America) special judge who was presiding over the case of these fake encounter cases was transferred after he rejected Amit Shah’s plea to be exempted from court hearing, and guess what Amit Shah didn’t turn up for those hearing and roams free without consequence.


Sources:


http://goo.gl...


http://goo.gl...



I believe I have satisfied my criteria of proving and quoting incidents where the BJP has acted in a communal spirit, and therefore satisfied the resolution.


My opponent on the other hand has failed to display the secularism of the BJP.



Jay-D

Con

My opponent makes claims like I'm making an evasive case, or that I'm avoiding his questions.

The facts remain:

-I've backed up my arguments with adequate justifications and external sources.
-In the instance which Pro is referring to, there really was no question to be found. ALSO, I countered Pro's assertion (which he thinks is a question) with an actual question, which, by the way, he has NOT answered.
-Pro started his argument (rd4) with what is supposed to be a focus on the loopholes in his own (Pro's) case. That looks like a REALLY careless typo, and it speaks volumes about how little thought my opponent actually put into the couple of jibes that followed.

I request the judges to please make note of this, and not believe in my opponent's hollow remarks.

My opponent's argument is based almost wholly on half-baked "truths" and inflammatory allegations. I shall now debunk Pro's claims and conclude this debate.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Rebuttals
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Pro questions BJP's nationalist intentions when mentioning "Hindustan":

I disagree with your justification, because the context in which the BJP uses this ‘definition’ is dangerous...
...If the BJP is so saintly in its approach why doesn’t the RSS admit Muslim members?

I just can't believe my opponent did that. This is an outrageous statement, which is not only immature, but also FALSE.

Not only does the RSS admit Muslim members, the Sangh Parivar actually has a Muslim wing.

Also, more and more Muslims are joining the RSS these days, says spokesman Mohan Bhagwat.
-----
Source:
http://www.loksatta.com...
(Video in marathi, summary in English right below the embed)

-----

The Muslim Rashtriya Manch (MRM, lit. National platform for muslims) is the Muslim wing of the RSS. It is over 100000 strong, and its members constantly strive for intercommunal harmony.

-----
Sources:
Official site - http://www.muslimrashtriyamanch.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
-----


Pro's statements display a shocking ignorance, bordering on blind prejudice. The fact that my opponent could insinuate the RSS not even admitting Muslims, calls into question both his credibility and his preparation.

------------------

Pro's response to my statement referring to Mughals as "Hindus":

Wrong. BJP says the Hindus had inhabited the entire stretch of the Indian subcontinent for thousands of years. BJP argues that it was the Hindu forefathers who had established standards and norms and had fought against the foreign invaders, hence claiming that only the Hindu had a right “to be a child of this soil”.

I don't know where Pro is getting all these inflammatory statements from, but unless he quotes a source supporting his remarks, I must remind the judges that THEY CANNOT BE BELIEVED.

Religious minorities were hence counseled to pledge allegiance to the Hindu symbols and restrict practicing their own religious beliefs to their private spaces.

Again - when did this happen? These are baseless allegations. I would very much like Pro to cite sources that support his claims, but then again, he's had his last word.


BJP believes that Hindus who chose to convert to Islam or Christianity were forced not only to change their mode of worship, but also their style...
...They believe the problem of non-Hindus was not the problem of faith, alleging that it transcends the barriers of faith and worship, and tends to create political tensions in the anti-national perspective.

Who believes this, Mr. Pro? The BJP? Or you?


I have simply no obligation to respond to this. I could just as easily claim that the BJP answers to the English, who were former rulers of India. Would that make it true?
I hope the judges get my point.

As a rebuttal against the above remarks made by my opponent, I would like to demonstrate instances where the BJP and the Sangh Parivar have supported other ethnic groups, and other ethnic groups have supported BJP.
And yes, I WILL provide sources to back up my arguments.

The Seva Bharati is a member of the Sangh Parivar devoted entirely to welfare work and upliftment of the less privileged. It does not discriminate between religions. (1)(2)

The RSS did some relief work in the Sunderbans (West Bengal), where a large number of Muslims resides. This didn't impede them in any way. (3)


I've provided a few examples of the Seva Bharati's relief work. Any and all instances are listed on their official website. (4)(5)(6)


-----
Sources:
(1)Official website - http://www.sevabharathi.org...

(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3)RSS relief work in Sunderbans - http://www.sewabharathi.com...;

(4)Seva Bharati flood relief - http://karsewak.blogspot.in...
(5)Most notable instances - http://sewabharti.org...

(6)Summary of Seva Bharati's work - http://sewabharti.org...
-----


Since the BJP is a member of the Sangh Parivar, and my opponent hasn't hesitated to introduce RSS when mentioning BJP's ideals, any mentions I make of the Sangh Parivar, RSS and Seva Bharati also count.

------------------

Muslims (among other ethnic groups) supporting BJP

The belief of many people about the BJP being communalist stems from their alleged "hatred" of Muslims.

I would like to pose the following question:
If the BJP hates Muslims, then why would the Muslims vote for them?

Yes, indeed. Recent poll data shows that a large number of Muslims in India voted for the BJP led by Narendra Modi. The BJP won 71 out of 80 seats in Uttar Pradesh, India's largest state, which also happens to have Muslims constituting over 20% of the state population.

-----
Sources:
http://indiatoday.intoday.in...
http://www.theguardian.com...

http://thediplomat.com...

------------------

The BJP goes on to call non-hindus contributing to the anti-national sentiments, is this not communal?

I really don't think this qualifies as "communal". Going against anti-national sentiments is, by definition, NATIONALIST, and not communalist.

Thus while “the nationals of this nation may have religious faith, they all have to subscribe and pledge supremacyto Hindutva which is the cultural ethos of the nation. In this view, a Hindu is “any person born in this country” but, Rama and Krishna are seen as national heroes.

Pro has backed this up with a source (which I can't access, by the way), but I don't think that this opposes my argument. A national hero can be anyone. APJ Abdul Kalam (a Muslim) is viewed as a national hero by many.


As far as pledging supremacy to Hindutva is concerned, I've already explained that Hindutva is a nationalist concept, that preaches religious tolerance. In that light, I don't see anything communal in these views, and neither should anyone else.

------------------

When BJP talks about Kashmir they talk about Kashmiri pandits, not the Muslims in the valley. In 2002 they talk about the 250 hindus that died, not the 750 Muslims.

Now, this is not quite right. All I've ever heard about 2002 is the 750 Muslims. Well, it's my word against Pro's, but a
death toll is a death toll.

Pro's remarks on Modi's "puppy" analogy:

...compares Muslims to puppies which came under the wheel”.
This is the kind of language he uses and attitude he adopts towards the Muslims of the country.

I consider this an extremely biased analysis. Would Pro rather have Modi say that a tiger came under the wheel?

It's glaringly obvious that Modi was referring to daily life; it's common for puppies to die under the wheel.

Also, puppies are innocent and cute. Does this mean that Modi also considers Muslims as innocent and cute?


What Pro has done here is selective criticism, nothing more.

it should be noted, even a reputed organization like Reuters calls Modi a Hindu Nationalist.

Then, I suppose, Reuters understands the original and proper definition of Hindu Nationalism. I'd say that's a really good thing.

------------------

Murder of Mohsin Shaikh

This is a case of fanaticism. A few people beat up a man to death because he offended their hero(es). I don't see this as anything more than a case of motivated assault.
The acts of a few bad men cannot be attributed to the ideals of the entire organization.


Amit Shah's elevation to BJP presidency

I would like to point out that most of India's leaders have serious criminal records.

If Pro's insinuation is that giving a post of power to an ex-criminal is wrong, then almost the entirety of India's political leadership needs to be dissolved, which is absurd, as the people elected this leadership in the first place.


-----
Sources:
http://idiva.com...
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...
-----


Also, there are nothing more than accusations against Shah, just as there are nothing more than accusations against Modi, which, by the way, Pro has done nothing to prove even after promising the same in round 3.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I believe I have conclusively shown that my opponent's claims are false and mostly speculative.
As a result, there is not enough reason to call the BJP a "communalist" organization.
I have provided a total of 33 external sources supporting my arguments.


I leave the rest up to the judges. Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
Con's claims were all accurate and I agree Con deserves a full victory. I also agree with his position. Interestingly, though, Con uses a source from Savarkar, who was, in fact, a politician with somewhat communalist ideologies personally, leading to great disagreement with the then Indian center-left, such as Gandhi, Nehru and the then INC [though the INC's ideology changed vastly after the death of Indira Gandhi].
Posted by Jay-D 2 years ago
Jay-D
edit: there's no reason for me to "not" counter it :p

I hope I have sufficiently clarified any doubts, and also that rjayx8 does not indulge in any more deplorable behaviour. I only posted this because he provoked me to.
Posted by Jay-D 2 years ago
Jay-D
And since my opponent put in an extra word, there is absolutely no reason for me to counter it.

In the sources that I've already provided in my arguments, if you visit them you'll find that the MRM was founded by RSS members.
Also, if you go to the Sangh parivar page on wikipedia, the MRM is clearly listed as a member organization.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

A senior leader of the RSS, Mohan Bhagwat, said it himself that the RSS admits Muslims, and that their membership is actually increasing. This was ALSO among the content of the sources that I provided.

This is shameful behaviour from my opponent. Not only does he overstep the boundaries of the debate which he instigated HIMSELF, but also he resorts to lies (or maybe he simply doesn't know the truth) to take away points which Ragnar so painstakingly justified.
Posted by Jay-D 2 years ago
Jay-D
@rjayx8:
I'd like to say only 2 things here.

1) I provided sources (yes, more than one) to support my claim.
2) How dare you continue the debate after it is over? You've had your final word and I've had mine, so you'd do well to be quiet. I'm well within my bounds to ask the judges to penalize you for this. You don't see me bitching about Ragnar's criticism of my arguments, do you?
Posted by rjayx8 2 years ago
rjayx8
@Ragnar: Sir your reason to vote on conduct is justified, but I believe my arguments weren't good to the eye, but were factual and logical, and Con was factually inaccurate on his contention of Muslim Rashtra Manch.
Posted by rjayx8 2 years ago
rjayx8
JUDGES NOTE: My opponent's claim about Muslim Rashtriya Manch is FALSE, IT IS NOT A WING OF RSS, it is an autonomous organization, it does not come under the AMBIT of the Sangh or RSS! My opponent again evaded my points regarding Amit Shah and Mohsin Shaikh, terming it 'usual business' in Indian Politics. It should be understood, a debate should be judged on its merits not on the number of irrelevant external sources.

I said RSS does not ADMIT MUSLIMS. My point still stands, when I said he uses evasion, this is what I meant, he did not refute my point but made an irrelevant new argument.

And Pro says I am basing my argument on my opinion, this is incorrect I quoted my source under the paragraph, the book written by a famous psephologist and BJP strategist was my source.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
---RFD continued---
"Nationalist is euphemism for hindu nationalism, BJP is highly communal, has been and will be." This is a great point, as the definition of nationalist is (from Merriam-Webster) "a member of a political group that wants to form a separate and independent nation," which goes hand-in-hand with the agreed communalist definition for the debate "Allegiance to one"s own ethnic group rather than to the wider society" and of course con's own points about Hindu referencing people by race instead of of it being about religion.

Oh when trying to make a case, never compare someone you're defending to Hitler, it's a very negative pathos appeal against yourself.

"The letter, which pointed out that Gandhi is Italian, destroyed her claim to the PM's seat" Sounds very communal, that an Italian cannot serve (I am not however convinced such is the fault of the party in question).

"I round 2 was referring to the BJP's no-appeasement policy in the context of THE MEDIA. I think it was pretty clear from my language." Good catch, and that annoyed me as well.

...

Another suggestion: Never set your whole argument to bold (or a font that looks bolded by default).

...

"If the BJP is so saintly in its approach why doesn"t the RSS admit Muslim members? " Could be a defining point of this debate... Actually, that ends up being a clear point giving con a lead, as he was able to back up there being Muslim members in the RSS.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
---RFD---
This is a blind vote, as I know little to nothing about Indian politics.

Suggestions (each debater should know if this applies to them):
In future provide website URLs for the sources, as that's probably where you got the information anyway. "[5] Tehelka.com" would not meet this either, because I as a voter will only judge it by the very first article on it, which right now is about the drug problems "Breaking Bad In Punjab," rather than every possible article ever featured on it.
Ease down on the mixing bold and underlining information. One or the other tends to work well.Oh and same with RANDOM BOLD ALL CAPS.
Source bombing is quite annoying, if one source says something, three more saying the same thing are just frivolous (use the most respected one of course). I also suggest direct quotes from the sources, rather than just saying somewhere on there it supports you.
When handing quoted text, "double quotation marks" are ideal, but if there's a "quote within a quote, the marks change to just 'quotation marks.'" (note a total of three marks used to end that bit) This mainly applies to quoting someone quoting someone, and comes up frequently when quoting your opponents.

"who was suffering from cancer, knew when he was going to die and had prepared himself to welcome death. It is a rare ability acquired only by those with lifelong ascetic practices" This is a so what? type point. That someone is not atheist, does automatically equal a communalist.

"full report is available on the internet, read it, it implicates many..." 10,000 character limit per round, that is plenty of space to include the relevant section. Demanding the audience read the entire report... Not going to say it.

"BJP claims that the forefathers and the ancestors of this land were Hindu, therefore the son of this soil should be a hindu" great counter point, as the communalism need not be religious.
Posted by Logical-Master 2 years ago
Logical-Master
Busy now. Will vote within 10 days.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
As can consented to the argument being posted in the comment section, I will still read it. However the merit of it will me decreased by a small margin (using an analogy: if it'd been a touchdown and field goal, it'll be awarded the majority of the points as if just a touchtown).
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 2 years ago
Logical-Master
rjayx8Jay-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: CON. Pro appears to admit that his forfeit makes him worthy of losing the conduct vote. Since CON didn't commit any conduct offense throughout the debate, I'll give it to him. Spelling/Grammar Tied. Both debaters need to work on their presentation style. The way the arguments were organized, I had to go back and reread paragraphs at various times. Arguments: CON. Pro argued that the BJP was communilist based on their prejudice/rejection of muslims. As CON showed, this was a very careless argument as as the BJP has an entire muslim wing. That alone is enough to warrant a vote against his ENTIRE CASE. Obviously, the BJP isn't communilist if it endorses and supports muslims. Sources: CON. Personally, I was going to make this a tie until I read the last round. CON's muslism counter-argument source was just too powerful. Good debate. If either party has any questions, feel free to ask!
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
rjayx8Jay-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and arguments to CON because of PRO's forfeited round and CON's less incoherent arguments, respectively. This was a strange debate, and there were some things on both sides that might merit reconsideration for both debaters. Among them, the use and incorporation of sources, spelling and grammar and argumentative structure.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
rjayx8Jay-DTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: More in comments... CONDUCT: Forfeited round hurt pro, allowing it in the comments aided con (wish I could award conduct twice). S&G: Flawed on both sides. ARGUMENTS: While I ended up generally agreeing with pro, they sound pretty communalist, I must vote from an objective standard of the quality of arguments as presented. That pro was so misinformed to do a cross examination question claiming there are no Muslims within... Well the presence of Muslims in said group was caught by con and used very effectively. SOURCES: While this leans toward con, the mild source bombing lessens the value of what was presented.