I would like to ask Ravishankar to justify his statement that democracy in India is being compromised by Prime Minister Modi's nationalism. May I remind him that his election is actually living proof of the democratic system, where he was democratically voted in, by the overwhelming majority I might add, and not once but twice, and confidently expected to win a third time? And no election shenanigans either time, I might also add!
I've found it curious that supporters of democracy somehow limit their support only to times when it suits their narrative, a la Sam Harris (when he stated that there is justification for subverting elections if it is for the common good, and of course what constitutes "the common good" is not determined by the voting public, but rather intellectuals like Sam who, in their infinite wisdom, know what's best for everyone). We are apparently too ignorant to know this, and must needs look to the likes of Mr Harris to guide us.
And if that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
Your statement about some only supporting democracy when their "side" wins in on point. Look at the US and some of the blatantly un-democratic things being done with the full support of the same people who claimed American democracy was in peril because of Orange McBadman. And anytime "nationalism" is mentioned, it's a good bet that people like Ravi are going to interpret it in the worst way possible. It's lazy thinking from someone who should know better.
I would like to ask Ravishankar to justify his statement that democracy in India is being compromised by Prime Minister Modi's nationalism. May I remind him that his election is actually living proof of the democratic system, where he was democratically voted in, by the overwhelming majority I might add, and not once but twice, and confidently expected to win a third time? And no election shenanigans either time, I might also add!
I've found it curious that supporters of democracy somehow limit their support only to times when it suits their narrative, a la Sam Harris (when he stated that there is justification for subverting elections if it is for the common good, and of course what constitutes "the common good" is not determined by the voting public, but rather intellectuals like Sam who, in their infinite wisdom, know what's best for everyone). We are apparently too ignorant to know this, and must needs look to the likes of Mr Harris to guide us.
And if that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.
Your statement about some only supporting democracy when their "side" wins in on point. Look at the US and some of the blatantly un-democratic things being done with the full support of the same people who claimed American democracy was in peril because of Orange McBadman. And anytime "nationalism" is mentioned, it's a good bet that people like Ravi are going to interpret it in the worst way possible. It's lazy thinking from someone who should know better.