Adolf Hitler and Narendra Modi, what are the similarities?

Published: March 16, 2014

The Gujarat chief minister, who claims that Takshashila is in Bihar and that Alexander the Great had been defeated by the Biharis (when the truth is that his army never crossed the Ganges) and who passes off his version of nationalism as secularism, cannot be that leader.

The Gujarat chief minister, who claims that Takshashila is in Bihar and that Alexander the Great had been defeated by the Biharis (when the truth is that his army never crossed the Ganges) and who passes off his version of nationalism as secularism, cannot be that leader. PHOTO: REUTERS The Gujarat chief minister, who claims that Takshashila is in Bihar and that Alexander the Great had been defeated by the Biharis (when the truth is that his army never crossed the Ganges) and who passes off his version of nationalism as secularism, cannot be that leader.

If there’s one thing that is common among all the great dictators and demagogues – from Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Slobodan Milosevic to Narendra Modi – it is their uncanny adroitness in garbling and falsifying facts so as to mislead the masses and thus, suit their nefarious designs.

It seems Hindu nationalist leader and Bhartiya Janta Party’s (BJP) prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi – who finds himself in hot water over his alleged involvement in the 2002 Gujarat riots – has learnt a lesson or two from Herr Hitler’s shenanigans.

When on April 1, 1920 Hitler changed his German Workers’ Party’s name to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, his supporters had thought that their Fuehrer would really be faithful to socialism and work for the salvation of the poor. In other words, they really believed in the “socialism” of National Socialism (Nazism).

But, alas, as I mentioned earlier, facts have little or no importance to such despots.

Hitler never believed in socialism in the first place, for he knew it was big industrialists and landlords who would pour money into the party coffers and he was supposed to work for their interests.

Who cares a fig about the wretched, poor masses?

Although the very name of the Nazi Party proclaimed it as ‘socialist’, Hitler was even vaguer on the kind of ‘socialism’ he envisaged for new Germany and thus, offered an outlandish, heretofore never-heard-of definition of a ‘socialist’ in a speech on July 28, 1922, which would make one hold his stomach and roll on the floor with laughter:

“Whoever is prepared to make the national cause his own to such an extent that he knows no higher ideal than the welfare of his nation; whoever has understood our great national anthem ‘Deutschland ueber Alles’ to mean that nothing in the wide world surpasses in his eyes this Germany, people and land – that man is a socialist.”

Ha! I, for one, do not know whether to laugh or cry at this ludicrous statement made by Herr Hitler, for this sounds more like a definition of a ‘German nationalist’.

Doesn’t it?

So therefore, in my opinion, we will not be doing injustice to the great dictator by assuming that for him nationalism and socialism was one and the same thing.

There’s apparently a big question mark over Modi’s secular credentials by virtue of his alleged role in the riots too. Time and again, he’s been asked to spell out his views on secularism and his idea of India. But, just like Hitler, he chooses to obfuscate and mislead the public and in this manner, tries to offer a bizarre method behind his madness.

“They want me to spell out my views on secularism. But, what is the definition of secularism? For me, my secularism is ‘India first’. This is my secularism,” Modi said while addressing a rally during his whirlwind election campaign.

Voila! That’s secularism. I get it.

Just like Hitler’s socialism, Modi’s secularism also sounds like ‘nationalism’. Doesn’t it?

Nevertheless, just to make sure that I heard him right, I looked for the definition of secularism in the dictionary so as to enlighten myself.

According to it secularism is,

“The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.”

That’s secularism for the whole world and I hope Modi gets a chance to read this. Comprehension of it maybe in question, but at least the definition is out there in the open for everyone to see.

Thus, the Indians, who might not have India as their first priority due to their religious beliefs or any other reason, would also be considered secular if they believed in the aforementioned definition of secularism and acted accordingly.

By not following Modi’s fantastic ‘India first’ secular doctrine, they will not become traitors.

But, why should facts bother the Hindu nationalist Modi. He’s been criticised so often by his opponents for staging ‘fake encounters’ with facts, but such criticism, unfortunately, roll off Modi like water off a duck’s back.

A pluralistic country like India needs a secular leader who will not discriminate against any fellow countryman because of his religious beliefs and will treat every Indian as an equal, not as a second or third-class citizen.

The Gujarat chief minister, who uses a puppy analogy while referring to the deaths in 2002 Gujarat riots, who claims that Takshashila is in Bihar and that Alexander the Great had been defeated by the Biharis (when the truth is that his army never crossed the Ganges) and who passes off his version of nationalism as secularism, cannot be that leader.

It’s time to ring the curtain down on Modi’s dissimulation.

Modi, however, will do a great service to himself and India by voluntarily casting off the cloak of ‘nationalism’ behind which he takes refuge, so as to hide his true self.

As Samuel Johnson stated on April 7, 1775,

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

Sapan Kapoor

Sapan Kapoor

A history buff and India-based journalist, the author has worked with the Press Trust of India. He blogs at and tweets as @dRaconteur.

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

  • someone

    The people who had religion as their first priority , were given land already. The ones who are left, they have to be Indian first than any other religious identity. If you can’t understand this simple logic , then I am afraid you don’t understand what secularism is. In its essence, secularism means that your religion is unimportant to state. For a state, you are just equal to any other citizen and no special treatment would be given to you just based on your religion. So whats is wrong if Mr. Modi says that he puts nation first before a religion. To me he is a true secularist.Still a better secularist than the parties crying for reservation for Muslims for the vote bank.By the way for the people , suspecting secular credentials of Modi, should check out the link below

  • zoro

    So what are you Mr Author ??? a Patriot??? orrrrr ??Recommend

  • Shail Arora

    He he… this is one of those pieces’ where the comments section would be more interesting than the article itself. Just waiting for the floodgates to open.

    Btw, please post this on one of the Indian blog sites too.Recommend


    If the definition of secularism is merely “The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education” then no political leader or party is true follower of secularism in India today and Modi is the nearest to this definitiion.

    You very conveniently forgot Modi’s famous words, “Government has only one religious book—the constitution and only one religion—nation first, India first!”Recommend

  • Manish

    Stupid article. India first is not about nationalism, but should be taken in the context of secularism practised in india which means minority appeasement for vote bank politics – they should have first rights over resources etc. In this context india first means not to consider religion in anything which is exactly the definition of secularism.Recommend

  • draj

    What reason in the world you have @etribune for even reading it …. As Publishing is Unnecessary and Beyond reasons ….. Talking about Pluralism from an Islamic Country!!! huh!!! #DoubleStandards #Liars .Recommend

  • Bency raghavan

    who is this guy?Recommend

  • Parvez

    I’m surprised that no one has commented as yet. To me, who has been reading on this subject on sites such as this, two things stand out :
    1. Whenever Modi is mentioned the Gujarat riots of 2002 comes up – 12 years ago, things change in much less time than that – don’t you think one should now get on with it.
    2. On the issue of being secular, what Modi thinks or does could also be election tactics ( getting votes by any means possible and playing on peoples sentiments is one way )…….the real meaning of secular, if I am not wrong, is enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
    All these articles, to me, look like Modi is being made out to be the guy a section of the media loves to hate. They don’t realise that when the alternative to Modi’s BJP looks anemic at best , this actually works in his favour.
    Modi may be bad for India but ground reality shows that he’s coming……….and IF he turns out to be good for India, there will be a lot of people with egg on their face.Recommend

  • Kemal

    Narendra Modi will vin the elections, as it doesnt matter what he is for or against, he is just following bjp principles, if you dont like that, then tough. Also he is a great leader of the Teli’s in a long time. He can fight with Pakistanis in wrestling, ya anytym..most welcom yeah. And he can bring down oil import cost from Iran, due to Teli corporation which is bigger than Aramco and Exxon combined.Recommend

  • cyborg man

    OK i read all of ur blogs, i understand u hate India First approach, tell me what we are supposed to do. vote for AAP,or rahul fakeGandhi, or Owaisi who threated to kill 90million hindus if police is removed from the streets for 15 minutesRecommend

  • Bearspaw

    Mr. Kapoor, you really do need to buff up on your history if you consider Milosevic to be among the “great dictators”.Recommend

  • Rangoonwala

    Modi has another Hitler characteristic, Enthralling and
    holding a hypnotized audience captive with his bombastic
    speeches. The Indian Pied Piper is leading a mesmerized
    near zombie state population towards a very uncertain future.Recommend

  • Indian

    Vote for AAP!Recommend

  • Indian

    Milosevic was indeed a demagogue, the man responsible for the ethnic cleansing of thousands of innocent people. Recommend

  • Indian

    A question for you – do you consider Modi a dictator? Remember Hitler was also voted to power by the German people.Recommend

  • Alann

    “That’s secularism for the whole world and I hope Modi gets a chance to read this.”

    Forwarding this article to Mr. Modi, so, when he becomes PM, he can take care of such “journalists” & send them packing to their beloved Pakistan & its flourishing democracy to live happily ever after, in their own imaginative ridiculous world.Recommend

  • Gratgy

    I would prefer secular nationalism over congress’s communal secularism. Mr Sapan Kapoor, you just dont get it… Pity!!Recommend

  • aXXo

    Pakistan out of all countries should be last to talk about secularism….

  • Kaur

    If modi is hitler than India desperately need hitler at this time. It is better to have hitler who is practical rather than idiot secularistRecommend

  • Undhyu Patil

    People are fed up of the scams and looting of resources by the congress. Can u compare this would be PM Rahul Gandhi with Indira Gandhi? I believe she used to go to bed at 02:00 am and wake up at 06:00 am. She stood upto Nixon. Just google Nixon and Indira Gandhi. You would know. We were die hard supporters of congress, but I told my family not to vote for congress anymore.Recommend

  • Arti Kapoor

    The analogy between Hitler and Modi is, at best, irrelevant and, at worst, a perversion of thinking that characterizes the author’s writing. Hitler committed a systematic racial genocide against the jews and started aggression against smaller European neighbours, setting in motion a chain of upheavals culminating in World War II; Modi, on the other hand, hardly has the Hitlerian personality; also, he has long been cleared through extensive scrutiny by all the court instances. Also, if you have this uncontrollable urge take potshots at Modi, without listening to the inner voice of a rational thinking man, for the Godra rioting, then it would be only fair to also pinpoint the cause of the riots which started when a trainful of Hindus was torched by extremist elements. The author has lost an objective stance: as a historian familiar with European and, particularly, German history, I daresay the analogy between the two men is completely irrelevant. I also believe that Modi’s first and foremost priority will be to place the entire emphasis on India’s economic development and business rather than focus on highly irrational and emotional issues of religion. And, of course, Modi should also provide a strong defence of the country against misplaced adventurism by certain elements. Good fences make good neighbours. That is a proven fact. Whether Pakistanis like Modi or not, is irrelevant to the 800 million plus Indian voters who will decide – and not Pakistanis – who or what is good for them. Finally, to add a footnote to the above comment: I am not exactly a Modi fan but I believe in objectivity and clinical verification rather than shooting from the hip because it is fashionable to do so! It is unprofessional on the part of the author to write a blog in the newspaper of a country whose only raison d’etre has been enmity against India.Recommend

  • Necromancer

    Modi is EvilRecommend

  • Anoop

    A lot of leaders have been compared to Hitler.

    Here is an article which compares Obama and Hitler.

    An article which compares Hitler and Bush.

    Castro Vs Hitler

    Vladimir Putin vs Hitler

    I can easily quote parts of Direct Action Manifesto and compare it passages with Mein Kamph and compare Hitler with Jinnah. Considering Jinnah appointed himself Governor General, I can compare it to Hitler being called the Feurer and how he usurped power. How Hitler rallied the crowd with slogans which resonated deep and
    exploited people’s feelings can be compared with the Two Nation Theory.

    But that would just be a childish attempt to force one’s worldview onto others.

    I have a question for the Author : Where are you going to keep all the brownie points you will be earning after this article?Recommend

  • Sam

    Wise sage Confucius say – ” by the time ‘truth’ gets up from his bed and wear his slippers, ‘lie’ has already gone round the world and come back.”Recommend

  • BlackJack

    Hitler’s rise to power needs to be seen in context of the lack of social and political legitimacy of the Weimar republic and absence of sufficient checks and balances in the German constitution that allowed him to invoke Article 48 within months of being appointed Chancellor. India has already gone through an Emergency and the results weren’t very good for the ruling party, so one must assume that the historical precedent makes repeating such a course of action unwise. I am not responding to the childish argument of equating personalities based on one or two distorted comparisons, but just adding a bit of history to this appalling piece of creative writing.Recommend

  • BlackJack

    Commenting on the blog itself is useless, and possibly more useless than the blog itself. There is nothing wrong in nationalism, just as there is nothing wrong in secularism. The problem is when nationalism becomes a pretext to grab territory or for racial purification, or when secularism becomes a cynical ploy to practice political apartheid. Modi has become synonymous with economic growth and development in his home state which is the reason that the electorate returns him to power repeatedly; he will need to deliver yet again on a much larger canvas, in case his party wins. This is unlike using the same garibi hatao line that your grandmother used 40+ years back to great effect, without seeing the sad irony in the subtext.Recommend

  • jssidhoo

    Kapoor , Akar Patel and Seema Mustafa all three went to the same schoolRecommend

  • jssidhoo

    His articles do not get published in India , so write where they get published Recommend

  • jssidhoo

    The other leaders on offer are RG, Lalu,Mulayam , Mamta , Kejri , Amma ,Mayawati,Nitesh , Hooda , Diggi & Karat . Anyone who wants India to prosper would not go anywhere near these guys Modi is by far the best choice .Recommend

  • Sane

    Both are similar except three things. Hitler born in Austria…Modi in India, Hitler aim was to clean Jews…..Modi to clean Muslims and non Hindu Minorities. Hitler is dead …..Modi is alive.Recommend

  • Sane

    How truth could be published in India specially if it is about Modi.Recommend

  • Sane

    Truth seekerRecommend

  • Shail Arora

    Janaab Sidhoo ji, I’m all in for an Army General to take over the governance, as we say in Punjabi – “Bandey dey putter banadu saariyan nu”. Democracy doesn’t seem to be working anyways.Recommend

  • Shail Arora
  • Parvez

    Would you kindly explain ….’ This is unlike using…………..that your grandmother used 40+ years back to great effect….’ I’m a bit lost here.
    On a more general note…..why so sour ??Recommend

  • KushKashyap

    He thought you were an indian national congress supporter.Recommend

  • BlackJack

    On the contrary, it is the lack of proper democracy that allows the kind of zero-accountability politics practiced in our country (this is not a pitch for AAP style mob politics btw). We have 543 elected representatives for 1.2 bn people, while we should actually have around 2000+. The US House of Representatives has around 440 members for a population of 300 mn. The UK House of Commons has 650 members for a population of 62 mn. When you have only a few individuals representing such a large voting population, it is natural that they will be removed from the electorate. By reducing their sphere of influence, they will become more accountable to the local population and also less prone to corruption. Removing democracy is no solution as a country as diverse as India will split along many fault lines in an authoritarian system.Recommend

  • BlackJack

    Ha ha.. sincere apologies for the confusion. Rahul Gandhi has been going around talking of Garibi Hatao recently and that sentence was in reference to his family’s hypocritical posturing across generations and how nothing has changed, including the garibi itself (Indira Gandhi stormed to power in 1971 using this slogan and Rajiv Gandhi also used it). The sourness is related to the quality of the blog – depressing that ET chooses to offer this substandard fare to its readers.Recommend

  • Shail Arora

    You’ve raised another important point, there are too many of us, considering that we have limited resources, 1.27 billion is an astronomical number. However, none of the political leaders/parties seem to be interested in this. In my opinion, quite a few ills in our country are a direct side effect of population.
    Btw, why is splitting such a bad thing, it can function like European Union does.Recommend

  • Sexton Blake

    I will not go into the second rate philosophical type discussions mentioned, but would like to briefly discuss the above writer’s ability to roll with laughter over Adolph Hitler’s socialist policy. When, in 1930s, almost the whole of Europe had fallen into perhaps the largest economic downturn ever and the world was starving, Hitler’s NAZI Party created an economic miracle, which made Germany the role model of how to run a country economically. Naturally, the other major Western countries did not approve of the competition so, as they have done so often, they demonized Hitler, and Mr Winston Churchill said in 1936, “We will force this war upon Hitler whether he wants it or not”. Britain kept to its word and declared war on Germany in 1939 with Mr Churchill as one of the main instigators. Being the winners of WWII, The UK/US/Zionism combo wrote the history books and Germany of the 1930s-40s has continued to be demonized ever since, with no mention of the oppositions war crimes. Obviously bad things happened in WWII on both sides, but historians who attempt to be even handed are either severely castigated, sent to prison or both in many European counties, and others such as Canada and Australia. Obviously, there are not too many revisionist WWII historians of both economic, military or humanitarian issues. The bottom line is that writers such as Sapan Kapoor cannot cover all aspects of the above topic in a small article, and he only wishes to explain the main points. However, he would do well to write in a more detached manner, without using cheap throwaway lines. .Recommend

  • Faraz Talat

    I don’t like Modi. I don’t like this article either, I’m afraid.

    Comparing any modern-day personality to a man responsible for over 6 million deaths, needs to be done with great caution. If the only link you found between Hitler and Modi was ‘nationalism’, then that’s like me comparing a certain Indian general with Stalin because they both had mustaches. Nationalism, unfortunately, is ubiquitous.

    Secondly, you have mistaken nationalism as the definitive absence of secularism. That’s not necessary. We know for a fact that Modi is not a secularist, but you made a poor argument by claiming that the “India-first” ideology somehow indicates lack of commitment to secular values.

    You have constructed a piece that invites easy rebuttals from BJP supporters, and that’s disappointing.Recommend

  • abhi

    Secularism is not cure all “ism” Indian constitution doesn’t declare it a secular country, it was inserted by Indira Gandhi during emergency, so no need to look into dictionary for it. A person who is not in favour of thinking India first, probably need not to bother about India anyway, if he is not happy with Modi being PM, he can settle in any other country where secularism is flourishing.Recommend

  • abhi

    Well said, Churchill was biggest scoundrel on earth.Recommend

  • abhi

    One more big difference, Name of Hitler was Adolf while name of Modi is Narendra.Recommend

  • abhi

    yes and Sapan Kapoort is live example of this.Recommend

  • Parvez

    ha, ha…….but I doubt that.Recommend

  • Parvez

    Got it now…….not unlike our senior Bhutto who cooked up the slogan of ‘ Roti, kapra aur makan ‘ and used it quite successfully for a long time.Recommend

  • gp65

    If you mean that no one in India can dare to publish anything negative about Modi, then you are simply unaware of the relentless hounding that he has undergone for the last 12 years by the English language media for the most part. This despite Supreme court finding him not guilty, despite the lies and fraud of his tormentors like Teesta Setalvad being exposed, this despite the fact that he has kept Gujarat riot free for last 12 years.

    In fact talking about Gujarat communal riots that happened 12 years back is the easiest game in town.Recommend

  • gp65

    But Aakar and Seema do get published in India and therefore despite their bias try to maintain a semblance of credibility. This person does not get published in India.Recommend

  • gp65

    What is the basis for your conclusion that no one is interested in overpopulation? Are you aware that the total fertiity rate in India is dropping like a rock? As of 2012, India’s TFR was 2.4 (2.1 is needed for population stabilisation) and it is expected that India will reach this level no later than 2017. OF course that does not mean population will stop growing – it will for a generation because of all the people who are already born who will have kids (concept called demographic momentum). Anyway, there is concerted focus on the states like Bihar, UP, MP which have relatively high TFRs and in fact it is in those states that the TFRs are dropping most rapidly.

  • gp65

    Which other non-Hindu minority has a problem in Gujarat? Jains? Parsis? Sikhs? Christians?

    Modi wants to cleanse India of Muslims so in Gujarat there have been no riots in 12 years? Do you understand what a riot is – two communities killing each other. Hindus were also killed in that very same riot – so is it your case that Modi wants to cleanse India of Hindus also?

    Do you know how many Muslims were killed in the 2002 riots? 750. Twice as many were killed in target killings in Karachi just in 2013. SO does that mean Qaim Ali Shah wants to cleanse Pakistan of Muslims?

    ET Mods – I have stated facts to rebut the illogical comment of ‘Sane’. Please publish.Recommend

  • gp65

    What is the guarantee that the Army general that takes over will govern well?

    If there is an incompetent leader in a democracy, they can be changed without bloodshed. How would you change an incompetent or corrupt leader when they are also backed by guns?Recommend

  • Srklover

    Kahan Modi Teli?Recommend

  • someone

    ON the contrary, every sate should be allowed to send only 2 or 3 MPs in Parliament so that every state has equal stake in decision making. They should just make laws for the country. No portfolios for these MPs. Also, there should be a limited number of ministries. Every party should declare its candidate for the ministry. Only the candidate won, should be given that ministry even when his/her party looses the overall majority. The elections manifestos should be made legal bindings and failing to fulfill those promises, the party should be made accountable. But then again, all this is wishful thinking. Who is going to bell the cat?Recommend

  • someone

    There are 200 million Muslims who are part of Indian society and no matter how fanatic a PM is, such a huge population can not be “cleaned” . I mean look at the situation in Pakistan. Despite every single government turning a blind eyes towards minorities, the Shia, Hazaras, Hindu, Sikhs, Christian are still living in Pakistan despite all that prosecution, although their condition is worse that any other minority in the whole world.Recommend

  • Gp65

    Incidentally Roti kapra aur makaan was the name of a blockbuster movie in 70s in India – precisely because that was also a promise within the umbrella of garibi hatao. Many similarities between Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Mrs. G’s policies and politics including disastrous privatisations. Also in their respective parties that have garnered sympathy votes on the basis of shahadat and also explotiting fears of a smaller group (Sindhis/Muslims) by creating resentment against a larger group( Punjabis/Hindus). – thus getting en bloc votes.Recommend

  • Gp65

    Not a fan of Churchill. A man who says ‘ i will not preside over he liquidation of the British Empire’ cannot be taken by any unbiased student of history as a champion of democracy. Having said that ordering 6 million jews o the gas chamber is a huge crime – regardless of Churchill’s motives for trying to discredit Hitler.Recommend

  • Gp65

    You say “we know Modi is not a secularist’. May i ask how do you know this? Are you aware that Gujarat was a communally sensitive state from pre-British days and there were at least a dozen riots in the state since 1947 before Modi came to power? Do you know that there has been none in the last 12 years – the largest in the history of Gujarat? Do you know hat Muslims have more than proportional representation in Gujarat police under Modi? Do you know that the 2002 riots were triggered by burning 58 Hindus by some fanatic Muslims? I regret the loss of every Indian who was killed in 2002 riots but do you know that Hindus and Muslims were killed in that riot. So if deaths of Muslims means that Modi wanted to cleanse Gujarat of Muslims, then death of Hindus should mean that He wanted to cleanse Gujarat of Hindus. Does that make sense? Do you know that the riots were ground to a halt on day 3 when the army came per Modi’s request? Do you know they would have stopped earlier if the neighboring Congress CMs had sent police reinforcements requested by Modi? Do you know that twice as many Muslims have been killed in target killing Karachi alone in 2013 than in Gujarat in the last 13 years? So would you then argue that Qaim Ali Shah wants to cleanse Karachi of Muslims?


  • Shail Arora

    Because I don’t see a single reference of anything close to this in their manifestos/speeches/interviews/debates.
    if they claim this to be a sensitive topic, then they are blatantly hypocrite since transparency goes out of the window.Recommend

  • Shail Arora

    Well, there is no guarantee. We’ve already tried democracy and after 66 years, it’s not something we are proud of either. While it was just a suggestion towards an authoritarian regime, because I find us fairly in-disciplined, I don’t really know what a reasonable solution is.Recommend

  • BlackJack

    My friend, rebutting Mr. Kapoor’s flawed arguments would mean taking him seriously. There needs to be some level ground for serious debate – an agreed set of basic principles after which people may have differing opinions. Here there is nothing, so it is as pointless as trying to explain delusion to someone who is delusional. As Sun Tzu says – On dispersive ground, fight not. On facile ground, halt not. This is dispersive ground. The only takeaway from this piece is that if one know very little, then he/ she may not be able to write very well.Recommend

  • Faraz Talat

    Nobody likes an apologist for the atrocities in Gujarat. And saying that both Hindus and Muslims died in the riots is like saying both Jewish and non-Jewish people died in the Holocaust, so there’s no reason for the former to receive any greater attention.

    And it was nice of Modi to invite the army after everything that happened. It would’ve been nicer to try to nip the chaos in the bud, not use inflammatory statements, and curb the illegal state-wide band that further provoked the hate.

    But Modi, for the fact of being Modi, can’t be faulted for anything, can he?Recommend

  • someone

    Whats the alternative? Army rule? Haven’t we learn anything from nearby examples? We don’t need to run the experiment again. Pakistan has been a test case for us for last 65 years. It is easy to criticize the democracy but difficult to bring the change within and people around.Recommend

  • Shail Arora

    Here is an amusing observation, there are 4 of us who’ve contributed to this,
    BlackJack thinks there are too few representatives,
    someone, i.e you think there are too many,
    gp65 just criticized my statement,
    While I just feel disenchanted with the whole concept.

    Just consider me a fool and ignore my comments and by the end of the week, among the 3 of you, discuss and let us know, what is the best way forward. Now, once you’ve reached a conclusion, just remember, there are ~30 million more (just considering the number of taxpayers for sake of simplicity), who have a perspective on this.Recommend

  • Shail Arora
  • Indian

    Ironic that this is coming from a Modi supporter who claims that Takshashila is in Bihar. Do you also think like that?Recommend

  • Ramsey

    Modi bhakts are showing fascist tendencies and I think it’s a worrying sign. A slight criticism of their leader is enough to make them wild with fury and rage. I have a piece of advice for the Modi bhakts – RELAX!Recommend

  • ak

    For the party
    a)whose leader changes his stance everyday?
    b)Who still hasnt spelled out any vision,policy?
    c)Or who loves dramas more than sincere governance?

    No chance.Modi it the only choiceRecommend

  • abhi

    So what is your opinion, is Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh or not?Recommend

  • Gp65

    You seem to imply that in August 2013 he made this anti-Sikh policy and 6 months later reversed himself as the elections draw near. While anything is possible, i think that interpretation is unlikely. This is because even at that time he was a leading contender for post of BJP’s PM nominee and even at that time BJP and Akali Dal were partners. It is more likely that some policy was misinterpreted and misreported earlier and clarified now. After all, we have Modi’s direct quote in the clarification but no quote which talked about Gujarat only for Gujaratis.Recommend

  • Gp65

    Riots are to be regretted not apolgized for especially when firm action was taken o stop them and prevent recurrence. The comparison to the holocaust is bizarre to say the least if you cannot see the difference in the scale (6 million vs 750, ghe government ordered slaughter in one case. And a murderous frenzy which the government tried to stop but took time to do so. The holocaust was ongoing, the riot was a one time event and finally are you telling me that during the holocaust the Jews also ordered some Germans with Aryan ancestry to the gas chamber – because you know in Gujarat 2002 Hindus killed Muslims and Muslims killed Hindus. In fact it was Muslims which killed Hindus first.

    I regret every Indian that was killed in a riot whether Hindu or Muslim or any other religion. Tit for killings cannot be justified since those that get killed for tit were not the ones that did the tat anyway. I just do not see Modi as being guilty of these pointless killings when there is enough evidence that he did everything in his power to stop them and has done what it takes to prevent recurrence.

    ET Mods- please allow rebuttals to these horendously flawed comparisons to the holocaust.Recommend

  • Indian

    Did Biharis beat Alexander? Now don’t contradict your Modi here.Recommend

  • Shail Arora

    This is the most striking observation from the first (older) news item – “Collector invoked the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1948 and froze the accounts of an unspecified number of non-Gujarati farmers. The farmers approached the Gujarat High Court, which ruled against the Collector’s action. But the State government decided to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court. The case will come up for hearing on August 27.” (sic)

    The state government chose to challenge not a lower court, but a High Court order. It was only when Punjab govt. intervened, Gujarat govt. changed it’s stance, which, does imply, to some extent, that either there was no merit in their challenge, or, they acted under pressure from allies, keeping the elections in mind.
    You might be a blind supporter of Modi, and that’s your prerogative, but you can not dismiss such facts as mere misinterpretations. if these are misinterpretations, then the state govt. acted in haste. To what end, I don’t know.Recommend

  • Rama Ratnam

    For the longest time it was fashionable to take Hitler’s name because of the shock value it provided. The comparison is now so abused that it lacks shock value. It makes Hitler look better than he really was. Considering the thousands of people who have been likened to him, being a Hitler is probably the norm rather than the exception.

    Perhaps we need to be a little more careful before brandishing the “Hitler” tag or the “Nazi” tag. Hitler was outside the scale of normal. He was truly a psychopath. He did not blink at gassing millions of jews and a lot of communists, gypsies, and homosexuals. He revelled in it, he took delight in it. He hated Jews and all the others he sent to the gas chambers or firing squads.

    Modi is a Hindu nationalist and he does not like Muslims very much. He was guilty of watching Muslims die on his watch in Gujarat and he did nothing about it. That puts him in violation of human rights if not actual murder. But he is a far cry from Hitler. Do not dilute the horror of Hitler’s deeds by comparing all and sundry to him. The only South Asians who came close to Hitler in terms of the scale of genocide were General “Tiger” Niazi and General Tikka Khan of the Pakistani army in their progrom aganst the East Pakistani’s in 1971. Modi is not a decent human being, but he is no Hitler.Recommend

  • Berlin

    A very good read:) I understand where you are coming from. It’s all about freedom. Isn’t it. I like in Britain. However, I was born indian and I still respect and follow my culture which the British government totally respects. That we call a secular society. When we are suppressing a particular section of the community either because of their religion or beliefs, in a name of the country. That I’m afraid is not secularism. That is pure hate!!!Recommend

  • satya

    Modi’s Angrezi might not be decent conventy with firang accent but his Sanskrit and native Gujarathi is much better than you and me. And that is what matters, because then Indians can communicate with him.

    He is honest and dedicated to common people. He rose from a mere chaiwala boy to mass leader to this level because of his character and not just because of alien books. Tamil tigers converted to Kristism to get arms and support from the West, Karunanidhi took alien fake Communist names such as Stalin and looted the masses.Recommend

  • Raakshasan

    If Modi says “India First!!” they one should ask what is his definition of “India”?

    A Hindu state?? also one should ask him the definition of Indian!! A Caste Hindu??Recommend

  • abhi

    Do you think Biharis are not Indians?Recommend

  • Ali Faheem

    Alexandar The Great was defeated by “Mullis” . An arrow piercedd in his heart as he climbed the wall of Castle “Sakha” near ancient Multan city of south Punjab, Pakistan. Multan name is after those Mulli tribe people. You can read Wikipedia for it.Recommend

  • Sanjeev Agarwal

    You must have read the History and you also must know the fact about “Hitler”; The hard core similarity between Adolf Hitler and Narendra Modi are :-
    1. Hitler had come up with a slogan to come to power— *Good Times will Come—Acche din aayenge!*
    2. Hitler used to think that people of certain religion were enemies of the country, Modi too (about Muslim)
    3. Hitler’s supporters could not tolerate any criticism against him, Modi’s too (they called as “Bhakt” in Hindi)
    4. Hitler used to paint and sell colours in his childhood, Modi used to sell tea/coffee
    5. All the means of publicity, newspapers, magazines were devoted to publicise Hitler, 99% of Indian media purchased by Modi
    6. Hitler had crushed all Labour movements; Modi too
    7. Hitler used to call his rivals anti-nationals/traitors, Modi too
    8. Hitler had joined the Nazi party as an ordinary worker and gone on to finish all his rivals and had become the leader of the party, Modi too (member of RSS)
    9. Hitler had come to power campaigning that he would end all problems in a jiffy, Modi too.
    10. Hitler, after he came to power could not manage to end any problems, but he certainly managed to destroy Germany, Modi too
    11. Hitler had not got married, Modi too
    12. Hitler’s party when it won, he went to the German Parliament for the first time and cried profusely, Modi too
    13. Hitler had come to power lying, Modi Too
    14. Hitler used to love dressing up and look good, Modi too (you must remeber Modi’s 9 Crore Suit)
    15. Hitler had the consummate art of making lies look like truth, Modi too
    16. Hitler always used to say, I, me, I, me, I, me always, Modi too (my 56 Inches chest)
    17. Hitler used to love giving speeches on Radio (there was no TV those days), Modi too (“Man Ki Baat” and many more)
    18. Hitler used to have a lover whom he used to get spied on, Modi used to spied all the opposition leaders and human right activists.
    19. Hitler always used in his speeches *”friends, friends”; Modi too (mitron, mitron)*
    20. Hitler used to love getting photographed, Modi too.Recommend

  • punya kapoor

    i want to write about the similarities between hitler and modi so can someone plz brief me about it.Recommend