India conducted the largest election ever in the history of mankind. Narendra Modi is the man voluntarily elected as the leader by the largest number of people ever in history.
700 thousand polling stations, 800 million eligible voters, 620 million actual voters. Modi's party got some 300 million votes (guessed by me), but took 66% of the seats.
Repeatedly the Western media describe Modi as a Hindu Nationalist leader. It would be a fair description if it had consistently called Ronald Reagan a Christian Nationalist leader. Modi is very similar to Reagan. Courts business, projects an optimistic message, and does not hide seeking the support of the majority Hindu votes. India is a secular democracy, but the majority Hindu vote is split among many parties, but the Muslim vote is usually intact as a solid bloc. The ruling Congress party openly courts the Muslim vote, but it has enough credentials as a national party to garner a decent chunk of Hindu vote and gets over the top with Muslim support.
There is a place that is believed by Hindus to be the birthplace of Lord Rama, one of the most important Hindu Gods. Ram, Raman, Rama either alone or as a suffix or prefix forms a huge percentage of Indian names. When the Moguls conquered India they built a mosque in that town. Hindus believe the Moguls destroyed a pre existing Hindu temple to raise the mosque. There was a constant clamor by the Hindus to take the site back. In 1990s a huge group of Hindus stormed the site, overcame police barriers, court orders etc etc and tore down that mosque.
There was a backlash all over the world, there were many riots, Bangladesh and Pakistan demolished a few hundred Hindu temples in retaliation. That site is barricaded now. The mob has been prevented from erecting a new temple there, but constantly Hindus visit that town and hold solidarity meetings to show their intent to raise a temple at that site.
In 2002 a group of such Hindus visited Ayodhya and returned by train. A Muslim mob set fire to their train car and some 60 hindus perished. It happened in Gujarat, Modi was it newly elected chief minister, and there was a very large reaction by the Hindus. They rioted and killed some 1000 or more Muslims. Almost everyone accuses Modi of inciting the mob, and ordering the police to stand down, and allowed the rioters to rampage unimpeded.
It does really look like the police stood down. But I do not think it was Modi deliberately acting to incite the mob or ordered the police to stand down. In India the officialdom is very obsequious. The police chief did not know the true intent of the new Chief minister. The police probably assumed Modi would like them to stand down and let the rampage continue. It is possible the Hindus there have had it up to their neck by the appeasement policies by the previous Congress government, their guy had just won, so some of the Hindu activists were pumped up, and expected a little blind-eye from the police. Once the mobs start moving, it is difficult to stop or steer them. Such riots are not new to India, it had happened many times, mostly in Congress ruled states and Congress ruled times too. When the Congress party Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated, their gangs went on a rampage in Delhi and killed some 2000 sikhs. One of the largest riots in the history of mankind happened when Pakistan was partitioned from India. Some 10 million people died in 1947, neighbors killing neighbors. Even Gandhi could not stop it, he went on hunger strike, and he was assassinated by the Hindu side of the rioters. It is usually many series of small scale violence against the Hindus, and sporadic very large scale violence against the Muslims. That is the riot history in India.
But since 2002, in the next 12 years, there has not been any serious riot or official police action against the Muslims in Gujarat. Modi seems to be business friendly administrator who does not really want anything to impede the business. He uses eminent domain to take lands from peasants, Muslim and Hindus alike, and gives to corporations. Paradoxically he seems to be the least corrupt politician in India.
Most Hindus in India are disgusted by the appeasement attitude towards Muslims by most parties. That is what is generating the support for BJP. The Indian Muslims probably feel their leaders should tone down the rhetoric and let people get along. But the political incentives among the Muslim leaders of India are aligned with striking militant pose, projecting the image of the shield-of-muslims, swords-of-islam etc to be used as bargaining chips with the secular parties. So they are stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Most Democrats in America are close to the Muslims. Muslims are more denigrated, reviled and discriminated against in the USA. So the Democrats naturally support them. But the Muslims have friction with Hindus and this dates back some 1000 years. Accommodating both Muslims and Hindus in the party is very important for the Democrats. The only thing that is keeping Hindus from the Republican party is the open Christian support in the Republican party. If the Republican party makes the calculation to accommodate Hindus on the enemy-of-the-enemy principles, they might make big inroads into the Indian community in USA. Representative Keith Ellison is such a strong and ardent anti-Hindu activist in the Democratic party. Indians are quite upset with his actions. [Deleted four links that were apparently right wing hate sites. Will do new diary on Keith Ellison when I get time citing Indian American sources.] Unless the leadership controls him, there is very real danger of the Democrats losing the Indians. Indian-Americans are dominated by doctors, business executives, small businessmen and they are usually affluent. They would break with the Republicans easily if the Christians accommodate them.
Revison NOTE: deleted links to right wing hate sites,