Hats off to India for conducting the largest democratic election in human history.

[Recursion]

800 million registered voters, of whom projections report 700 million voted. Think about that for a second. Could you imagine if the US had that kind of turnout?

Some of these people literally had to walk 10-20 miles through swamps and jungles to get to the polling station. Asking for an ID for voting is illegal here per federal law; voters state their name and registration locality, vote, and have their finger marked with indelible ink. The paper ballots are sorted by top-ticket vote for immediate results (ie, the prime minister election) and then sorted and counted for lower house votes (India has an appointed upper house, like our Senate used to be). (Also, some urban areas like Mumbai and Kolkata are doing electronic ballots, with all of the same shadiness that they have here in the US.)

For those of us on the left, the exit polls don't look that good. Still, I have to congratulate India. The largest election in human history has just been conducted, with frankly fewer irregularities per capita than we have in the US. There's hope.

[Fred Sanders]

1. Absolutely, hats off. And shame on the American meda for barely covering it, isn't democracy what

America wants to bring to the world? Or was that only applicable to countries with oil and bananas?

[Recursion]

2. John Oliver said it well

I mean, seriously: on the one side, we have the scion of probably the greatest political dynasty of the 20th century, on the other side, we have a literal rags to riches story of a tea-seller who worked his way up. Like Oliver said, don't tell me this isn't interesting! This is one of the most amazing campaigns I've ever seen.

Not to mention, from a purely self-interested standpoint, the bilateral trade between the US and India is hugely important, and a lot of how it works is possibly about to be changed because of this.

[pampango]

3. War, violence - those are news. 500 million voting in a democracy - ho, hum. Plus

there is little way to give the US credit or blame for this so it does not really exist.

[Recursion]

4. Sadly, you're exactly right

I wish I had a counter-argument...

[scarletwoman]

5. I've been aware of the election, but know nothing about the issues in play.

NPR had something about the candidates for prime minister a couple weeks ago or so, but all I remember is that one of them (the likely front runner?) is a Hindu nationalist with some questionable conduct in the past. I can't remember what was said about the other candidate.

I'd love to hear what you know and which candidate(s)/parties would be the best news for the left.

Thanks in advance!

[Recursion]

7. So, my very basic description

India has been under a Congress Party government IIRC continually since independence. The Congress party has been more or less ruled by the "Nehru-Gandhi" family (which, oddly enough, is completely unrelated to Mohandas Gandhi; though he was also a Congress party member. India, with four times the population of the US, has only 1/5th as many last names.

Rahul Gandhi stands for the Congress ticket, and basically makes the argument that he is the scion of the country's most important political family. That sounds awful, but when he makes it it makes sense. He has the contacts, experience, etc. You can imagine where that goes.

Modi, on the other hand, is an absolutely electric rags to riches story. He literally used to sell tea in a tea stall by the side of the road, and now he's about to be Prime Minister.

In terms of their policies, frankly, economically there's not much difference: India is a socialist state and always will be. Modi does seem to actually deal with corruption pretty well (except where it involves wanton violence against muslims).

So, to answer your question; I think the technocrats will continue planning the economy no matter who wins. But you'll see more of a push for starting businesses under Modi, as well as more of a push for mobs of Hindus killing Muslims. I wish that didn't sound so flippant, but there we are...

[scarletwoman]

9. Thank you. It's certainly interesting that the Congress party might get displaced after 66 years.

Modi sounds interesting, too. On the other hand, Hindu mobs killing Muslims, not so much

Thanks again!

[Recursion]

11. I'll let you know as the official counts come in

I'm an optimist, you know?

[scarletwoman]

12. Thank you again.

I started a love affair with India way back in college in the late 60s. I took Indian philosophy classes, studied the Upanishads and the Vedas and other ancient texts. I also took an Anthropology of India class, and learned about all the various ethnic groups, and the different regions of India, and which groups lived where.

On my own I began studying Yoga, and got further into the spiritual texts and the various streams of spiritual traditions. I learned Sanskrit chants, and about the rules governing ragas. I also got into the archeology of India, learning about the Harrapan culture, and the ancient pre-aryan sites like Mohenjo Daro.

In short, I was sort of India-obsessed for a number of years into the early 80s.

Yes, I got to travel there once, in 1982, but was only there for a few days before leaving for my main destination, Nepal. But even those few days were amazing and delightful for me. Although I knew no Hindi, with all my exposure to Sanskrit, I found I could often understand bits and pieces of Hindi - and everything felt like I had lived there before, like I was coming home.

I was so caught up in my love of Hinduism that when I saw Hindu temples that had been defaced and destroyed during the Moghul Empire, I felt a deep resentment toward Islam. I can well imagine why such poisonous hatred of Muslims runs so deep in Hindus. Not that I condone it, just that I understand it, having felt it myself on a strictly abstract level.

It sounds like the BJP has likely won - listening to the BBC news on NPR. I can only hope that this does not lead to Hindu on Muslim bloodshed.

[seveneyes]

16. wanton violence against muslims

What is the driving force behind this violence? Were there trigger events that led up to it, or is it mostly because of the beef with Pakistan?

[Recursion]

17. Communal violence is just kind of a thing here

The spark is usually one community's religious festival getting in the way of the other's; I think the Gujarat one was started when the Muslims ritually slaughtered a cow.

[Laelth]

20. That is the correct word to use.

The religious violence and antagonism in India is a product of what Gandhi called "communalism." It chaps my hide to see Western media refer to Modi as a Hindu nationalist. Modi (if you want to disparage him) is a Hindu communalist, not a nationalist. Frankly, nobody can run India as a communalist, so these kinds of attacks on Modi are silly, imo, but there is no doubt that a number of Hindu communalist parties are allied with Modi's BJP.

Gandhi, himself, was an Indian nationalist ... seeking independence and self-governance for India. He opposed the partition of India because of his nationalism. He wanted to see India self-governing and united in all its multicultural and multireligious glory. But he opposed communalism ... that political tendency to favor religious/caste/state/regional interests over and above the health of India as a whole.

-Laelth

[LittleBlue]

6. And all of it totally meaningless

because their politicians are corrupt beyond the point of being democratic.

I see the right-wing Hindu nationalist BJP is winning. Sigh

[Recursion]

8. You think so?

I see the 20th/21st century's greatest political dynasty being displaced democratically, if these exit polls hold up.

Maybe that doesn't mean much to you.

[LittleBlue]

10. Don't get defensive. I agree with Vinay Sahasrabuddhe

In a book entitled “Beyond A Billion Ballots,” author Vinay Sahasrabuddhe boldly states that democracy is fragile and decaying in the country. "Democracy in India is more impressive in form than substance," he said. "People no longer believe that politicians pursue politics for some great cause.” Part of the problem lies with deeply-entrenched and unmovable leadership in the top rungs of party hierarchies. Indeed, of the more than four-dozen officially recognized political parties currently operating in India, only three – the right-wing nationalist BJP and two far-left parties, Communist Party of India (CPI) and Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) – are not controlled by dynastic rulers or dominated by one charismatic leader.

http://www.ibtimes.com/india-really-democracy-1553441

It's an entity which appears as a democracy but which really isn't very democratic.

I don't think people merely going to the polls and voting makes a country democratic, not when the government operates for the interests of a very few at the expense of the interest of the people.

[lsewpershad]

13. Like in the USA.

[JI7]

22. but the Dynasty is about to lose this election, so isn't this a good thing ? it shows that voting

does work and that they can get rid of those in power and replace them with others.

and maybe this will mean that Congress will start working on putting others at the front of their leadership.

[Laelth]

14. Let me just thank you for posting on this subject on DU.

I intend to launch an "educational" thread on the election later today, but it saddens me that Americans pay little attention to politics in other countries (especially ones as important as India). That said, your average American barely has the time and energy to pay attention to American politics (because we work ourselves to death--ours being the most productive workforce on Earth), so I have to cut Americans a little slack on this.

Either way, thanks for the OP.

-Laelth

[Laelth]

15. Adding as follows:

Turnout will be around 65% of registered voters, and that's pretty good for India, but it's nowhere near the 87.5% you indicate with your figures above (700 million voting out of 800 million registered voters).

I am nit-picking; I know. The election was a triumph for democracy, regardless of the actual turn-out percentage.



-Laelth

[Recursion]

18. Huh. That was from the Times of India

I'll look into that...

[Laelth]

21. Guardian says 551 million (66%).

Shortly after polls closed for the last time, the election commission gave final figures for the world's biggest election, saying 551 million had voted – 130 million more than in 2009 – with turnout also at a record high of 66.38%. "These numbers may still go up marginally because of postal ballots and other factors," said Akshay Rout, director general of the election commission. Official results are due on Friday.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/indian-election-modi-bjp-crush-congress-party?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

just fyi ...

-Laelth

[brooklynite]

19. Your assessment is incorrect...

First, the Indian population DOES NOT vote for Prime Minister. The ONLY election held was for parliament, and each voter voted for a single seat candidate. This is the only reason that paper ballots are practical if you want a fast count. Imagine California, where you vote for President, Senator, Congressperson, State Legislator, maybe local officials, and then vote for 10-20 ballot resolutions.