Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party

Criticism

This article is terrible, this talk page is terrible, and this entire subject is severely in need of neutral voices. It seems that the entire collective editing this article is composed of party supporters. This is not acceptable. I am not an expert and cannot personally contribute, but someone should.

There should at minimum be a clearly defined "criticism" section. --Jammoe (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideology vs. Objectives/Policies

I do not see any reason that both sections are needed in this article. They can be easily combined into one consistent section highlighting party ideology and listing the primary objectives of the ideology. I just wanted to know if anyone disagreed with me before I made any attempt at it. --Rahulpat (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

may god save you indians from religion based fanatics & terrorist escorts. was there a single paragraph which didnt offer speculative bjp favourable views & which through omission of glaring realities tried to portray as if bjp was a unlucky loser which deserved to win!! Ksense (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

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!!!! Template:DaGizza/Sg 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)

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 pro da calling the BJP "Hindu nationalists" Doesn't the republicans have a Christian nationalist agenda?

Agree. The Wikipedia article should reflect the official stance of the party and not the perceived one. Salilb (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

ideology?

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

• Some would claim that it is t. 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 t rhetoric. All major t 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 t. 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 t ideological construct). 2. However, I did not call BJP t 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 t as mutually exclusive categories. After all virtually all ts are nationalists, whereas not all nationalists are ts. 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)

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)

Template:Election box metadata

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)

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)

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.

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?

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)

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.

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)

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 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)

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)

Derecognition on charges of inciting hatred

I have added the section [[3]] on recent unprecedented derecogntion issues faced by BJP in the wake of Election CD controversy. [4].See also [Special Report], [After CD row, BJP releases provocative advertisement ] [Fight BJP politically: Derecognition will make it a martyr] Terminador 02:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Balancing other BJP pages on wiki

Dear friends,

It seems that the honorable Sri Narendra Modi, the best CM in India, has had his page Hijacked by some Bangladeshi and some American Congressman. I ask you to step up and bring balance to his article. Thank You - Jai Hind. Tri400 12:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet run for the United States House of Representatives. Hornplease 15:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

unexplained removals

Can anyone explain why all references to the UP election as well as the threat of derecognition have been removed? If not, I will restore it. Hornplease 23:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The 1984 Anti-Sikh riots are not covered in the Indian National Congress article, and the threat of derecognition had very little impact on the election.Bakaman 18:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Why are certain members removing edits without any explanation?

Why are certain members removing edits without any explanation? And they have removed it at least three times without any explanation. --TomCat111 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it is an out-of-context quote that really adds nothing to the page.Bakaman 03:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Can you share with us why or how the addition of ‘Thackeray’s call to form suicide squads in India’ under the “controversy” section could be considered as ‘out of context’? 2. More importantly, do you think if it's appropriate to leave some remarks/explanation as to why you are removing certain edits? Please look at the history of this page, you will find yourself removing certain edits without any explanation at all. --TomCat111 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Riots ...?

Why is their no mention of the Gujarat Riots in this article? The article on Indian National Congress mentions the Anti-Sikh riots. Amit@Talk 09:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Anybody?? Amit@Talk 10:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There is no reason for the inclusion.Bakaman 20:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Any other reason against including it? A notable event, one would have thought. Relata refero (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely, the event is notable by itself, the Anti-Sikh riots instance was just meant as an example. Also, just two headings above, Bakaman himself conveniently forgot WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Amit@Talk 05:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny. Well, go ahead and add it. Relata refero (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Did it. Amit@Talk 07:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Congress and Left riots

Editors are requested not to add their POV about the comparision of riots under various dispensations, and to edit the articles of the respective parties for the same. Thanks. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Political accusations

I think the 'Political accusations' chapter should be removed, my empirical understand is that such chapters just function as an open invitations of opponents of the party in question to post their own pov queries. Gujarat 2002 is a notable event, and should be mentioned in the history chapter with a link to main article, but should be kept brief as per WP:UNDUE. --Soman (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While I see your point, IMHO we should keep the section as it is fairly breif and hasn't been inordinately expanded so far. Also, this format is used in the Indian National Congress as well. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate

The less known reason seems to be the fact that BJP, considering the humiliating defeat and further annihilations suffered by medieval deccani dynasties like chalukyas etc at the hands of the powerful and imperialist ancient tamil royal races of cholas and pallavas,sees an oppurtunity now centuries after the demise of the above mentioned tamil royalties, to make up for those humiliations

Should this (and more) be there in the article? ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Its rambling OR. I've reverted it before but the author is keen on its addition.KBN (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive anon

Can't we block the anon who keeps adding content llike

"BJP's politics also give a probably correct impression that it has to be regarded as a contemporary legatee of many medieval deccan dynasties..." etc.

--ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Opinions

Wow - this entire article reads like an opinion piece with almost NO sources for the contents. In serious need of re-write to remove the bulk of the statements. Triage (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

User's Reasons

Hi this is User: Political Dweeb's explanation. The reason I took away the article on this talk page called the "BJP's position" is because no one seemed to want to talk to me about it so I put up the paragraphs under the title called Secret advertisement so anyone or the representatives of the Indian Peoples Party could clarify for me this position. Therefore does the Indian Peoples Party represent conservative ideologies on the right but support or oppose extreme forms of discrimination like anti-Semitism, Nazism, Holocaust denial and the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party which used the Indian Peoples Party banner on their links page?--Political Dweeb (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They're right-wing but not in the manner you seem to think they are. Please see Hindutva for details of their ideology. The link-banner was probably an error of some sort. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you User: Relato refero for that reply I will now give you one answer and two questions. Firstly from what I have learned from the Wikipedia page on Hindutva ideology it does seem to be a personal but constructive form of ideology on the right wing that accepts different traditions and religons of India even if they are not part of it.

However Relato refero my two questions are

(1)Is it possible so it can be clarified for safety's sake if you can communicate with a representative of the BJP to see if they oppose the LNSGP and the other extreme forms of discrimination that I previously been talking about?

(2)This second question is about why was the article called "Secret advertisement" that I made taken away from the Wikipedia page on the Indian Peoples Party? Because I learned recently as far as I know that underneath an editing box like this there’s a small rectangular box with the words Edit summary above it. So did I just need to write in it to explain why I changed the BJP article by adding extra text/paragraph’sPolitical Dweeb (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Political Dweeb, you can see the edit history of the page to see the reason why your edit was removed. Although you had correctly stated that the site http://www.nazi.org has a banner of BJP on their site, but this is in no way relevant to the current article. My guess is that BJP is unaware of this development. Also, we, Indians do not exactly fall under the races which are the support base (however small) of NAZIs. Hope this clears your doubt. Else, please feel free to write to me in my talk page. Shovon (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you User: Shovon76 for your reply. I found on the history of the edits made to the page on the BJP that Relato refero said that the point I made about the link between BJP and LNSGP was unsourced. However I had shown the link called http://www.nazi.org where the BJP link banner was on so I do not understand what Relato means when he says I have not sourced it.Political Dweeb (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The banner ad is not considered a reliable source, per Wikipedia policy (see WP:RS), especially since there is no article along with the ad that serves as a reliable source. That is why it was claimed that the link was unsourced. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 00:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Questionable recent edits

In the past few days there have been some questionable, unsourced edits to this article. At first I tried to remove them, but realized that I couldn't decifer between what was the recent POV edits and older material, as some was sourced. I would like to help with the editing of this article, but will wait for some more experieced editors to comment and/or edit first. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you were right when you had reverted the edits of the other editor. But apologising does not soleve any purpose. This guy, according to his own admission, is a BJP suporter (BTW, I have never voted for another party than the BJP), and as such his edits are full of POV materials supporting BJP. You'll have to ignore his edits, if you are really going to restore the balance. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edit history and agree with you. The past edits were referenced with BJP.org and had no reliable sources for the statements made. I will continue to watch the article for such unsourced POV. Thank you for your response. Ism schism (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Downsizing the article

Frnds, I intend to trim down the article a bit. I hope to begin with the criticism / controversies portion which is quite big, it seems, with allegations and refutations. I request your invaluable opinions, and suggestions. --Karimpuli (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Criticism. Restructuring of the section is a good idea; the material should be incorporated into the normal narrative of the BJP's history. The section on "responsibility" for Kargil is too long, for exmaple, and should contain a third-party RS indicating that criticism of the BJP on these grounds received political traction. (If none is to be found then it should not be in the article at all.) --Relata refero (disp.) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The BJP, along with the INC is a very controversial party. Eliminating redundancies is of course a great thing, but there has been so much criticism levied against it that we have to document at least the basics. That said, incorporating it into the article itself would make the content less unbalanced.Pectore^talk 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

I thought the BJP was a fascist party that helped Gujarati rioters pour petrol down the throats of Muslim men and set it alight after raping their female family members in front of them. Couldn't this article have a bit more detail about this? It seems to be written by the wrong people