A remote hamlet In Ladakh finally gets electricity for first time after 73 years of darkness

 Photoksar village in Leh district, nestled between two major high altitude passes of the Union Territory of Ladakh, finally got electricity for the first time since independence.

The life-changing event has triggered tremendous joy among the residents of the village.

ladakhzanskartrekking

As cities across the country adopt the latest technological advancements, residents of this hamlet are celebrating the advent of electricity for the first time since Independence.

Chairman and Chief Executive Councillor (CEC) Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC), Leh Tashi Gyalson inaugurated the NHPC powergrid line for Photoksar village on Sunday, Power Development department (PDD) officials said.

A village resident, whose joy knew no bounds, said the electricity supply will help his children do well in their studies.

"We are very happy now that we finally have electricity in our village. Now our children can study well and progress in life," he said.

Tashi Gyalson said it is because of the visionary initiatives of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who launched the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gram Jyoti Yojana, and the energetic efforts of Ladakh MP Jamyang Tsering Namgyal that after 70 years of darkness, a village like Photoksar got electrified.

After seventy long years of darkness, finally Photoksar village is light up and connected with northern grid under DDU Gram Joyti Yojna.

Thank you Hon'ble Prime Minister Sh. Narendra Modi Ji and also to MP Ladakh JTN. #Thanks PDD officials and TATA project.

Tashi Gyalson
CEC pic.twitter.com/PaMS7SWTT7

— Tashi Gyalson (@tashi_gyalson) November 30, 2020

"We thank PM Modi and our MP for electrifying this remote village. I feel very lucky to inaugurate this power line within one month of becoming the councillor of the area and later CEC," he said.

He also assured to electrify five more hamlets - Yulchung, Nyraks, Skyumpata, Lingshed and Dipling - in the coming years.

(Source: India Times)

Rajinikanth in Bandipur Tiger Reserve, to feature in ‘Man vs Wild’ with Bear Grylls

Speaking to The New Indian Express, a senior forest department official said permission for the shooting has been given for six hours in a day for January 28 and 30 with a special guest each day.

Popular movie star Rajinikanth is now busy and so is Bandipur Tiger Reserve. The actor and a team of documentary makers from the popular international series Man Vs Wild are in the tiger reserve to shoot the documentary since Monday evening. The shooting is scheduled for six hours on Tuesday and again on Thursday.

After PM Modi, Rajinikanth to shoot ‘Man vs Wild’ with Bear Grylls. (Photo | PTI)

The series caught Indian attention after Prime Minister Narendra Modi shot for the series in the forests of northern India with British adventurer Bear Grylls.

Speaking to The New Indian Express, a senior forest department official said permission for the shooting has been given for six hours in a day for January 28 and 30 with a special guest each day. On Tuesday it is with Rajanikanth and on 30th noted Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar is also expected.

"Permission for the shooting has been given for Sultan Batteri highway and ranges of Mulleholle, Maddur and Kalkere ranges. They will be shooting in the non-tourism zones. If permission to was given to Wild Karnataka shooting, then this is also permitted and besides chief wildlife warden has given permission. Also, no tourism or regular forest patrolling and fire line creation activities will be affected. The shooting Wil be done under special forest protection and no one will be aware of the locations," the official said.

The permission for the shooting of films and documentaries inside forest areas of Karnataka is only increasing, the department must exercise caution, this will only lead to more man-animal conflict, said, conservationists. 

(Source: TNIE)

Article 370 gone, Modi govt draws up plan to reopen 50,000 temples closed in Kashmir

The BJP's latest assertion comes on the back of the abrogation of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir. The Centre had claimed that a large section of people was being subjected to injustices due to the special status to the state which did not allow the schemes meant for the rest of India to be implemented in the state.

The Narendra Modi-led government at the Centre has set up a committee to survey around 50,000 temples that were closed in Jammu and Kashmir. Informing about the move, Union Minister G Kishan Reddy said that the central government has set up a committee to survey a number of closed schools in Kashmir valley and will reopen them. “Around 50,000 temples were closed over the years, of which some were destroyed, and idols were defaced. We have ordered a survey of such temples,” the minister said while addressing a press conference in Bengaluru.

He, however, stopped short of saying that the survey has been ordered to reopen or re-build all the closed or destroyed temples. When asked about the existence of 50,000 temples in the Valley, the minister said: “Yes, there are 50,000 temples including villages…and almost all of them have been closed.” When asked whether the government would re-open all of them, the minister while nodding his head said: ”We are conducting a survey — how many temples were there, of which how many of them are open, how many of them have been destroyed. We are doing a survey of all schools, temples and cinema theatres that are not open and working.”

In October 2012, the Jammu and Kashmir government run by Congress-NC had claimed that only 208 temples were damaged in the Valley. In a written reply to the state assembly in response to the question by a BJP MLA, the state government said that there were 438 temples in the Valley and out of these only ”208 had been damaged over the years”. It said that 57 temples were damaged in Srinagar, followed by Anantnag where 56 temples were damaged. However, the Kashmiri Pandits, who were driven out of their homes in the peak of militancy, claims that thousands of temples have been destroyed since the 1990s.

The BJP’s latest assertion comes on the back of the abrogation of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir. The Centre had claimed that a large section of people was being subjected to injustices due to the special status to the state which did not allow the schemes meant for the rest of India to be implemented in the state. Arguing that Article 370 was always a temporary measure, the Centre decided to divide the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union territories – Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh — putting the region under the direct control of the central government.

(Source: Financial Express)

Israel ready to help India in dealing with water shortage

At a time when large parts of India are facing excessive water crisis and drought, Israel has extended support in dealing with desertification and water management.

t a time when several parts of India are facing acute water shortage and drought situation, Israel has expressed its keenness to share its experience in dealing with desertification and water management, in which it is a world leader.

Israel, with over 60 per cent of its territory being a desert and another 20 per cent semi-arid land, has developed a variety of solutions to desertification through desert agriculture, irrigation, desalination, aquaculture, afforestation and management of water resources.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and and his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu at the Olga beach in 2017. (Representative Image/File Photo)

The country is one of the world's leading nations in desert technologies and methods of dealing with desertification.

"As part of our growing partnership with India, Israel is keen to work together and share all its experience and cutting edge technology in our joint fight against desertification, including a strategic partnership on water management and water security," said Israeli Ambassador to India Ron Malka in a statement.

His statement came in the context of World Day to Combat Desertification, which is observed on every June 17 to promote public awareness of international efforts to combat desertification.

The statement assumes significance as it comes at a time when several parts of India are facing acute water shortage and drought situation.

A statement issued by the Israeli Embassy said MASHAV, the country's Agency for International Development Cooperation, places special emphasis on development cooperation and assistance in the fight against desertification and drought by introducing international programs of capacity building, training, project development and research.

MASHAV's approach is based on Israel's experience in facing harsh climatic conditions, combines the transfer of adaptable technology, research and development, and a hands-on experience originating from leading Israeli experts and institutions, it added.

Under the Indo-Israeli Agricultural Project with the federal and state governments of India, the centre of excellence for date palms in the heart of the desert in Bhuj, Gujarat introduced Indian farmers to date palms suitable for arid conditions made more common by desertification, the statement said.

Date palms are ideal value crops for farmers in arid conditions that can be found in India and Israel alike, it added.

(Source: India Today)

Modi Unites All: Did TIME magazine change stance after BJP's landslide win?

In a new article, the TIME magazine has called Narendra Modi the Prime Minister who has united India like no other PM.

With its May 10 issue, the TIME magazine, landed in a controversy by calling Narendra Modi India's "Divider in Chief". The TIME cover story came in the middle of the Lok Sabha elections and riled up Modi supporters across the country. Now, days after the election results gave Modi a thumping majority, TIME has come up with another article, but this time it says Modi has united the country like no other Prime Minister.

The opinion piece titled "Modi has united India like no Prime Minister in decades" has been written by Manoj Ladwa, who managed the campaign "Narendra Modi for PM" in 2014.

The latest article was published on the TIME website on Tuesday. The articles states, "A key factor is that Modi has managed to transcend India's greatest fault line: the class divide".

The writer, Manoj Ladwa, has credited Modi's emergence as a unifier to his origins in a backward caste -- a factor missed or deliberately omitted by Western media obsessed with what they call upper caste domination.

"Narendra Modi was born into one of India's most disadvantaged social groups," he explained. "In reaching the very top, he personifies the aspirational working classes and can self-identify with his country's poorest citizens in a way that the Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty, who have led India for most of the 72 years since independence, simply cannot."

"Yet despite the strong and often unfair criticisms levelled at Modi's policies both throughout his first term and this marathon election, no Prime Minister has united the Indian electorate as much in close to five decades," he said referring to Indira Gandhi's massive 1971 victory.

This story stands in contrast to the one published earlier this month. The story published by journalist Aatish Taseer slammed the Modi government for the several lynching cases, Yogi Adityanath's appointment as the Uttar Pradesh chief minister among other things.

The previous story turned into a major election issue as the Opposition sided with the author for calling Modi a "divider".

The BJP, on the other hand, picked on Taseer's background and said he is a Pakistani, nothing better can be expected of Pakistan.

However, in the latest story, Ladwa writes about Modi: "Through socially progressive policies, he has brought many Indians, both Hindus and religious minorities, out of poverty at a faster rate than in any previous generation."

Ladwa is the founder and CEO of Britain-based media company India Inc., which publishes India Global Business.

(Source: India Today)

Has Narendra Modi ended dynastic politics in India?

Narendra Modi's landslide win proves that his story of a humble tea-seller who rose through the ranks of his party to become India's prime minister continues to resonate with people.

People love stories - even more so when it's a David and Goliath kind of story.

And that's what Mr Modi represents.

In his own words, he struggled to make ends meet, sold tea to make a living and lived in poverty while growing up. His story is similar to that of millions of Indians who fight every day to make a living, and are often marginalised by the elite.

People saw him as one of their own, as somebody who would fight for them and speak for them.

Mr Modi says he fought against all odds - big politicians, rich people and, above all, dynastic politics - to get the country's top political job.

During the campaign for his first term in 2014, he would often call Congress party president Rahul Gandhi a "shehzada" (prince).

It was a reference to the Nehru-Gandhi family that ruled India for much of its history since independence in 1947.

Now the tables have turned.

The "prince" is now looking at an uncertain future after his party received another humiliating drubbing in the elections.

To make matters worse, Mr Gandhi lost his family stronghold, Amethi, to Smriti Irani of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

But the results were not so bad for other dynasts.

Around 30% of the elected MPs are from political families, up from a quarter on average from elections between 2004 and 2014, a study by Trivedi Centre for Political Data suggests. But it's the defeat of Mr Gandhi and several other prominent dynasts that has raised questions if family ties still work in Indian politics.

Akhilesh Yadav, the former chief minister of India's most populous state of Uttar Pradesh, once told me that he would have to look for another job if his Samajwadi Party (SP) lost the 2019 general elections.

He did everything to win it.

He formed an alliance with his party's bitter rival, Mayawati, chief of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP).

Akhilesh Yadav (L) and his wife, Dimple Yadav, campaigned hard - but their party failed to defeat the BJP

He won his seat, but the coalition failed to stop the Modi juggernaut as the BJP won 62 of the state's 80 seats. This is his second major defeat. He also lost the state assembly elections in 2017 against the BJP.

His wife Dimple Yadav lost in Kannauj.

He is the son of political strongman Mulayam Singh Yadav, who served as India's defence minister and is also a three-term chief minister of UP.

The senior Yadav's legacy now hangs in the balance. Akhilesh Yadav wrestled control of the party from his father in a public family drama two years ago - father and son became estranged.

But Mulayam Singh came to his son's defence just before the 2019 elections and held rallies for him. That proved counterproductive because the BJP attacked the Yadav family precisely on this point.

It told people not to trust a party that only promotes people from a single family and referred to the Yadavs as the Gandhis of UP.

And the electorate appears to have received the message.

Rahul Gandhi said he respected the electorate message

But dynastic politics is not limited to India. It has been a longstanding feature in other south Asian countries including Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

And in the west, both George Bush Sr and George Bush Jr served as US presidents. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre Trudeau, also served as the country's PM.

But Mr Modi is a master of controlling narratives - and that became a differentiating factor.

Pratyush Rao, associate director for South Asia at Control Risks consultancy, says the right kind of messaging is very important in politics.

"Modi has upended the political order by cleverly tapping into his humble beginnings to craft a compelling tale of an outsider taking on the political establishment made up of elites," he says.

Mr Rao adds that "family names went a long way in the first few decades of India's independence".

"The relationship between political leaders and the electorate was still very much akin to that between a monarch and his or her subjects. This often translated to a certain deification of the ruling class. The ground has fundamentally shifted in today's India, where an aspirational electorate maintains a more transactional relationship with political leaders. If Mr Gandhi's defeat in his family borough of Amethi tells us anything, it is that leaders can no longer treat their constituencies like feudal pockets," he adds.

The neighbouring state of Bihar also saw its local dynastic family been handed a humiliating defeat.

Tejashvi Yadav, the son of former federal minister Laloo Prasad Yadav, took control of his Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) party when his father was jailed in a corruption case.

PM Modi thanked India for a second term

But politics wasn't his first choice.

Tejashvi Yadav first tried his hand at professional cricket. He played a few games as a middle-order batsman for his state team, and was also included in the Delhi Daredevils squad of the Indian Premiere League tournament.

Many at the time said he was selected because of his political legacy and not for his talent.

Though his cricket career ended without much glory, Tejashwi later became restless and eager to follow in the footsteps of his father.

The irony here is that Laloo Yadav's story is similar to that of Mr Modi's. He also rose from humble beginnings and was known for his rustic and grounded lifestyle.

Bihar's electorate connected with him because he came across as one of their own. But Tejashvi's political career is a work in progress, especially after his RJD party failed to win a single one of Bihar's 40 seats.

The once formidable RJD now has to revive itself to stand up against a resurgent BJP and its regional partner, the Janata Dal-United.

The story is not very different in other states.

Tejashwi Yadav's party failed to win a single seat in Bihar

Jyotiraditya Scindia, who comes from the erstwhile royal family of Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh state, also lost his seat. His father was one of the top leaders of the Congress party, and the family considered Guna constituency its political fortress.

It was the same story for the Gehlot family in In Rajasthan state, and the Deora family in Mumbai city.

In southern India, Nikhil Kumaraswamy, the son of Karnataka state chief minister H D Kumaraswamy, lost.

In Indian politics, it's not often that the sons of current and former ministers lose an election. These defeats reinforce the fact that Mr Modi's brand of politics - personality-driven, vocal and nationalistic - is here to stay.

But the BJP also has its own dynasts - and they fared slightly better.

Anurag Thakur, the son of former Himachal Pradesh chief minister Prem Kumar Dhumal, has won his Hamirpur seat.

Jyotiraditya Scindia lost in Guna

Elsewhere, YS Jaganmohan Reddy's YSR Congress party swept both the assembly and parliamentary elections in the southern state of Andhra Pradesh. He is the son of former chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy, who died in a helicopter crash in 2009.

Jagan Mohan Reddy inherited his father's legacy but quit the Congress party when they didn't accept his bid to take over his father's role. Instead he formed his own party and a decade later, he is on course to become chief minister like his father.

MK Stalin, the son of Tamil Nadu's former chief minister M Karunanidhi, also led his party to a resounding victory.

But Mr Reddy and MK Stalin are exceptions in this election. A majority of the dynasts have lost.

So is the era of dynastic politics over in India? And has it become an obsolete political term?

Pratyush Rao says yes, "but only for a while".

"It's premature to announce the end of political dynasties in India. Even now, political parties across the spectrum, including the BJP have such figures. But what these results do indicate is that leaders can no longer rely solely on the brand appeal of their family names to get past the finish line.

"It can still be a potent tool to attract voters if it is accompanied by a coherent narrative and actual delivery," he adds.

(Source: BBC)

Narendra Modi: The Bachchan of screen and Kohli on field

Modi, at the moment, is larger than life who many believe can take on inimical neighbours single-handedly, vanquish the corrupt and liberate the country from poverty.

Votes were cast. Ballots counted. The verdict is out. It’s time now for the nation to get back to work. Known to be a workaholic, none would know better than Prime Minister Narendra Modi about how hard he must work if he is to meet the challenges that await him. Being re-elected in a country notorious for being harsh on the incumbent has been no mean feat and credit is certainly due to the prime minister. But the euphoria over the stunning electoral victory must not cloud or distract from what is genuinely expected of the top elected official of 1.3 billion people.

For one, the position of prime minister is not a partisan one and Modi must now attempt to heal what has increasingly become a polarised society. This election has particularly been a bruising and divisive contest, and the nation is thirsting for reprieve from the rabid rancour it spewed and spread. It’s about time to put the political differences behind and close ranks.  Whatever be the ideological differences, the victor deserves both our good wishes and support in the true spirit of democracy. Modi too must reciprocate, rising over party considerations and giving the nation a government that serves all.

Half-measures will not do. Though Modi’s rhetoric and demeanour gave a sizeable majority of us a lot of hope in his first term, the jury is still out on what his real achievements have been. Modi’s renewed mandate gives him another opportunity to put the record straight and silence the sceptics. Among everything else, Modi and his cabinet must address the issues of rural distress and burgeoning unemployment, made infinitely worse by the lack of relevant skills, correct a croaking banking system, make better use of unproductive assets and whip into shape a rather bloated and ineffectual bureaucracy. Things that are awaiting his urgent redressal will obviously be endless.

To fix such myriad tasks in the next five years is a tall order. But as this election has shown, Modi has the unique ability of turning adversity to his advantage. Despite the best efforts of the Opposition, however disparate, he succeeded in scripting his own narrative that finally found favour with the majority. Modi, at the moment, is larger than life who many believe can take on inimical neighbours single-handedly, vanquish the corrupt and liberate the country from poverty. He is both Amitabh Bachchan of the screen and Virat Kohli on the field – heroes with few parallels.

As our prime minister, we can only hope and pray that Modi lives up to popular imagination. Even though the expectations around him could be high and a tad scary, they are not entirely misplaced. India, for far too long, has been patiently expectant of a rule that’s underpinned by the principles of good governance and development driven by an economic agenda of growth and self-sufficiency.

It would be foolhardy to believe though that Modi and his BJP will stop pursuing their core political beliefs and turn a new leaf the second time around. Neither will the Congress and the Opposition. It is very likely they will continue to oppose and obstruct the ruling party.  But it would be in everyone’s interest that ideological distractions are not allowed to derail growth and hold the country’s true potential hostage. Party affiliations should, after all, never be considered a greater priority than India’s collective prosperity.

(Source: Outlook)

Why 'liberals' fully deserved to lose this battle

Because their liberalism was fake, elitist, dishonest and out of touch with reality

So, as sociologist Yogendra Yadav said in an interview to Mint a few days ago, India is “entering a long and dark tunnel" for the next five years. Journalist Kapil Komireddi wrote in The Guardian that Narendra Modi, if re-elected, will take the country into “a dark place". Activist Ruchira Gupta has written in Thenation.com that in these Lok Sabha elections, “for democratically minded Indians, the stakes couldn’t be higher", and “a Modi victory [will put] India’s 200 million Muslims in danger". These are just three recent examples out of dozens of opinion pieces by “liberals" in the last few months predicting doom if the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) returned to power.

But the writers of most such pieces reveal their illiberalism much too easily. By implying that “democratically minded Indians" would not want Modi back, Gupta gives herself the prerogative to decide who among her countrymen believe in democracy. It is astounding that she can’t understand how elitist and undemocratic that is. Yadav, in his interview, said that “if Mr Modi forms the government…we would be taking many steps towards… electoral authoritarianism…a regime where… everything other than elections that a democracy needs does not exist".

Yadav surely knows that Jawaharlal Nehru banned umpteen films and books, and jailed several journalists and authors, including the eminent Gandhian thinker and historian Dharampal. The very first amendment to the Constitution, which Nehru pushed through, within 18 months of India becoming a republic was to curb press freedom. He even allegedly barred a speech by the then-president Rajendra Prasad from distribution. I need not waste any words on Indira Gandhi.

The Modi government did not ban a single book or film. In fact, Haider, which openly advocated azaadi (freedom) for Kashmir, won five National Film Awards, including Best Screenplay, in 2015. As for “electoral authoritarianism" at work today, Yadav must be aware that Mamata Banerjee has been presiding over a reign of terror and potentially incendiary communal politics in West Bengal, where the police force has been emasculated, where Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officers were arrested when they tried to question the then police commissioner of Kolkata for his links to a massive financial scam, and the commissioner—surely a unique event in the history of the Indian Police Service—sat on a dharna with the chief minister. Yet, Yadav circulated a video asking people to vote for any party other than the BJP. What are the values he stands for?

The truth is that many of the world’s “liberals" are the most illiberal people around. Research studies in the US show that candidates without left-liberal leanings have little chance of getting a faculty job in the humanities departments in most American universities. And one thought that being liberal meant being open to ideas.

The other insidious disguise that “liberals" in India adopted during the first Modi regime was that of “fact checkers". While they did a splendid job of tracking down hundreds of fake news items spread by the BJP and its supporters, they were completely silent on the other side. For instance, Rahul Gandhi claiming that Modi had given Anil Ambani ₹30,000 crore when the whole Ambani contract is worth just ₹800 crore. Or saying that the government had passed a law allowing security forces to shoot tribals indiscriminately. Or the electronic voting machine hacking allegations, when it is absolutely clear if you care to listen to the facts that the devices cannot be hacked, either remotely or manually. That is plain dishonest.

What these fellow-travellers do not understand—and this is an across-the-world phenomenon—is that they are out of touch with reality. They are increasingly confined to their echo chambers and all they have left is frustration, cant and self-righteous rage. They love the unwashed masses when they vote as they—the “liberals"—would like them to; otherwise, they are idiots. Their stated belief in democracy is a mask for their elitism, intellectual hubris and intolerance.

Obviously, the BJP and its ecosystem have many very dangerous people. I am frightened by what even some highly educated BJP supporters say, and seriously believe they need help. But the way to fight them is not through just a negative campaign and offering nothing as an alternative. It only showed your ideological and intellectual bankruptcy, and common Indians, who you will now brand as fools, could see that.

As for “200 million Muslims in danger", the BJP could never have won so many seats without a large number of minorities voting for it. In her piece, Gupta calls for India’s return to “policies intended to uplift the lives of the poor" instead of communal politics. She may be in for a surprise here. On the day the exit poll results were revealed, the one pollster who got the National Democratic Alliance numbers exactly right said on TV that in his travels around the country, he could not find a single poor rural household that had not been touched by some central government scheme. That is why Modi won so big. He couldn’t have done it only by invoking narrow sectarianism.

(Source: Live Mint)

India election results 2019: Narendra Modi secures landslide win

Indian PM Narendra Modi has secured another five-year term after winning a landslide general election victory.

His Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) looks set to win about 300 of the 543 seats in parliament, in what Mr Modi hailed as "a historic mandate".

The main opposition alliance, which is headed by Rahul Gandhi's Congress party, has admitted defeat.

The vote had been widely viewed as a referendum on the prime minister's Hindu nationalist politics.

"We all want a new India. I want to bow down my head and say thank you," Mr Modi said in a victory address to BJP supporters on Thursday evening.

More than 600 million people voted in a marathon six-week process.

Mr Modi has not just exceeded exit poll predictions but has also won a larger share of the vote than the 2014 elections, partial results show.

At a press conference in Delhi, Mr Gandhi conceded the general election as well as his Amethi seat in Uttar Pradesh, which he had held since 2004 and his family had held for decades.

What are the numbers?
Partial and declared results show Mr Modi's BJP is projected to win 300 seats on its own, and combined with the party's allies, this number reaches nearly 350.

The main opposition Congress party is expected to win fewer than 60.

A party or coalition needs at least 272 seats to secure a majority in the 543-member lower house of parliament, or Lok Sabha.

In 2014, the BJP won 282 seats - the biggest victory by any party in 30 years - and with its allies it secured 336 seats in that parliament.

The Congress, which won just 44, suffered its worst defeat in 2014 and with its allies took up just 60 seats in the lower house.

Many viewed the election as a referendum on Mr Modi (L) who won a landslide in 2014

This year 900 million voters were eligible to take part in seven rounds of voting, making it the largest election the world has ever seen.

The final result may not be known for several hours or longer.

An election all about himself
Narendra Modi made this an election all about himself.

He should have faced some anti-incumbent feeling. Joblessness has risen to a record high, farm incomes have plummeted and industrial production has slumped.

Many Indians were hit hard by the currency ban (also known as demonetisation), which was designed to flush out undeclared wealth, and there were complaints about what critics said was a poorly designed and complicated uniform sales tax.

The results prove that people are not yet blaming Mr Modi for this.

A combination of nationalist rhetoric, subtle religious polarisation and a slew of welfare programmes helped Mr Modi to coast to a second successive win. He also mined national security as a vote-getter in a manner never seen in a general election in recent history.

"It is all right if there's little development, but Modi is keeping the nation secure and keeping India's head high," a voter in the eastern city of Kolkata told me.

Mr Modi is a strongman, and people possibly love him for that.

What has the response been?
"This election was fought not by politicians but the people of this country - but it's the people of this country who have emerged victorious," Mr Modi told thousands of supporters at the BJP's headquarters in Delhi.

"We will never give up our ideals, our humility and our culture," he added.

Thank you India! The faith placed in our alliance is humbling and gives us strength to work even harder to fulfil people's aspirations.

I salute every BJP Karyakarta for their determination, perseverance & hardwork. They went home to home, elaborating on our development agenda.

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) 23 May 2019

Party members cheered, banged drums and set off fireworks when the results started to emerge. As the prime minister arrived, he was showered with rose petals.

Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj, a senior BJP leader, said in a tweet that the BJP had won a "massive victory".

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan congratulated Mr Modi for his victory on Twitter, and said he looked forward to working with him for "peace, progress and prosperity in South Asia".

The BBC's Zubair Ahmed in Delhi says Congress Party staff, who had been hoping for a much improved performance, looked lost for words.

Rahul Gandhi and his sister Priyanka had been hoping to improve on a dismal Congress performance last time

 Where were the key contests?
The BJP alliance is projected to win more than 50% of the vote in the huge northern state of Uttar Pradesh, which sends more MPs to parliament than any other state (80).

This took election observers by surprise as the party was expected to be seriously challenged by a tie-up between two powerful regional parties, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and Samajwadi Party (SP), which had previously been bitter rivals.

The BJP is doing better than expected in West Bengal, where it is projected to take 17 parliamentary seats - up from two in the last polls.

Four of India's five southern states - Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala - have long eluded the BJP and appear to have done so again in this election. They look set to take just three of the 91 seats up for grabs.

In this part of the country, the party contests few seats, relying instead on alliances with regional heavyweights.

What challenges does Modi face?
In his victory speech, Mr Modi said there were only two castes in India now. "The poor and those who want to work to bring them out of poverty. We need to empower both."

Growing unemployment and fears of a recession will see Mr Modi face demands to provide jobs for the millions of young people entering the labour market in coming months.

Under his first term, India's economy - the world's sixth largest - lost some of its momentum. A leaked government report this year put the unemployment rate at the highest it's been since the 1970s.

Farmers in India will also be hoping he will prioritise the agricultural industry, after a crop glut and declining commodity prices saw their incomes stagnate.

Many saw this election as a battle for India's identity and the protection of minorities. A strident - and at times violent - Hindu nationalism has become mainstream in the past five years, with increased attacks against minorities, including the lynching of dozens of Muslims accused of smuggling cows.

And national security was put into the spotlight after a suicide attack by a Pakistan-based militant group killed at least 40 paramilitary police in Indian-administered Kashmir in February. India then launched unprecedented air strikes in Pakistan, prompting it to respond in kind and bringing the two countries to the brink of war.

(Source: BBC)

Nasa: India's satellite destruction could endanger ISS

Nasa has called India's destruction of a satellite a "terrible thing" that could threaten the International Space Station (ISS).

The space agency's chief, Jim Bridenstine, said that the risk of debris colliding with the ISS had risen by 44% over 10 days due to the test.

However he said: "The international space station is still safe. If we need to manoeuvre it we will."

India is the fourth country to have carried out such a test.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the test - Mission Shakti - with great fanfare on 27 March, saying it had established India as a "space power".

In an address to employees, Mr Bridenstine sharply criticised the testing of such anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons.

India is the fourth country to have carried out an ASAT test. EPA

He said that Nasa had identified 400 pieces of orbital debris and was tracking 60 pieces larger than 10cm in diameter. Twenty-four of those pieces pose a potential risk to the ISS, he said.

"That is a terrible, terrible thing to create an event that sends debris in an apogee that goes above the International Space Station. And that kind of activity is not compatible with the future of human spaceflight that we need to see have happen."

A day after India successfully carried out its ASAT test, acting US defence secretary Patrick Shanahan warned that the event could create a "mess" in space but said Washington was still studying the impact.

Delhi has insisted it carried out the test in low-earth orbit, at an altitude of 300km (186 miles), to not leave space debris that could collide with the ISS or satellites.

"That's why we did it at lower altitude, it will vanish in no time," G Satheesh Reddy, the chief of India's Defence Research and Development Organisation, told Reuters in an interview last week.

Mr Bridenstine said that it was true that this would eventually happen. "The good thing is, it's low enough in Earth orbit that over time this will all dissipate," he said.

China provoked international alarm with a similar test in 2007. The Nasa chief said "a lot" of the debris created by that test remained in orbit. The US military is in total tracking about 10,000 pieces of space debris, nearly a third of which is said to have been created by the Chinese test.

Arms control advocates have expressed concern about the increasing militarisation of space. ASAT technology would allow India to take out the satellites of enemy powers in any conflict, and the test is likely to fuel the growing regional rivalry between India and China.

The announcement also angered opposition parties in India, who have accused Mr Modi of using the test as a political stunt ahead of a general election. Indians will begin voting in national elections on 11 April.

(Source: BBC)

Yes, Narendra Modi has changed India's foreign policy in four years. Here's how

Modi’s message to Pakistan has been heard around the world and will have serious ramifications for India’s global engagement, writes Hash V Pant on Daily O. Read on: 

Ever since the Modi government came to power in May 2014, there has been a debate in the policy and academic community about its foreign policy. While some argued that Narendra Modi is fundamentally altering the trajectory of Indian foreign policy, most disagreed. They said the government’s shift is only in style, not substance. Yes, Modi may be a more energetic and visible Prime Minister on the foreign policy front, but he has only tinkered with India’s long-held foreign and national security assumptions. The Modi government may not have uttered the word 'non-alignment' but, in practice, it is balancing between the US and China. It may have ignored Pakistan but, in practice, it has tried to find a modus vivendi with Islamabad.

It's not easy  to change foreign policy in four years.
But Modi has changed it. (Photo: PTI)

Calling Pakistan’s bluff
Modi may have changed the nomenclature from ‘Look East’ to ‘Act East’ but, in practice, India’s engagement with East and Southeast Asia is a continuation of the past.

It may want to be a big player on the global stage, but it lacks the ability to project its aspirations adequately.

Modi’s strong response to the terror strikes in Pulwama at the very end of his first term made it clear that despite his critics, he has managed to change the fundamentals of Indian foreign and security policy during his tenure.

The use of air power to target terror camps deep inside Pakistani territory was the first such act after the 1972 war.

It shattered the myth of Pakistani nuclear capability and has opened the possibility of India fighting a limited conventional war if need be.

It has put the onus back on Pakistan for escalation.

Modi’s message to Pakistan has been heard around the world and will have serious ramifications for India’s global engagement.

India has not only defined these air strikes as “non-military pre-emptive” action but has also taken Pakistan to the International Court of Justice and worked with the Financial Action Task Force to turn the screws on Pakistan, underlining the central difference between a ‘responsible’ India and a ‘rogue’ Pakistan.

India’s Pakistan policy has been altered, perhaps unequivocally.

Modi has also deftly handled major power relations at a time when they are increasingly in contestation. Modi challenged his senior diplomats “to help India position itself in a leading role, rather than [as] just a balancing force, globally.”

This was reflected in the Indian foreign policy bureaucracy’s evolving discourse. Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale asserted earlier this year in Delhi that “India has moved on from its non-aligned past. India is today an aligned state — but based on issues.”

Underscoring that it’s time India became part of the rule-making process, Gokhale argued: “In the rules-based order, India would have a stronger position in multilateral institutions.”

This is as much an assertion of India’s desire to play a larger global role as it is about India changing its approach to global engagement. While some Indian political intellectuals retain a somewhat reflexive anti-Americanism, Modi has used his decisive mandate to carve a new partnership with the US to harness its capital and technology for his domestic development agenda. He is not ambivalent about positioning India as a challenger to China’s growing regional might and assertiveness.

Strategic alignment
He signed the bilateral Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement with the US in 2016 to facilitate logistical support, supplies and services between the US and Indian militaries on a reimbursable basis and to provide a framework to govern such exchanges.

This was followed by the signing of Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement in 2018 to help access advanced defence systems and enable India to optimally utilise its existing US-origin platforms.

Under him, India agreed to be part of the resurrected quadrilateral
involving the US, Japan and Australia. (Photo: Reuters)

Modi has pursued strong partnerships with US allies — Japan, Australia and Vietnam — even as he stood up to China’s intransigence on Doklam. Under him, India agreed to be part of the resurrected quadrilateral involving the US, Japan and Australia.

Risk Pays
Discarding the ideological baggage of the past, Modi has anchored Indian foreign policy on its civilisational ethos and values.

‘Act East’ is as much imbued with a distinct soft power push as with a realistic appraisal of the need to expand Indian footprint in East and Southeast Asia.

In the Middle East, India has asserted itself like never before and was invited to the inaugural address of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation for the first time in its 50-year history.

Modi has redefined strategic autonomy as an objective that is attainable through strengthened partnerships instead of avoiding partnerships.

When India engages in the so-called ‘Quad’, it enhances its strategic autonomy vis-à-vis China. When it sits with Russia and China for a trilateral, it enhances its strategic autonomy vis-à-vis a Trump administration intent on challenging the fundamentals of the global economic order.

Foreign policies of nations don’t alter radically with changes in governments but Modi has ensured that some of the assumptions which had governed India’s foreign policy engagements have been fundamentally challenged. He has imbued Indian foreign policy with a certain amount of risk-taking, unlike the risk aversion of the past. India, from perpetually being a cautious power, is seemingly ready to take on a larger global role by being more nimble than ever in playing the great power game.

Lok Sabha 2019: Why I think the Congress is making an error by fore-fronting Priyanka Gandhi

There are strong reasons why to many Priyanka appears a reluctant politician. And the Congress looks pushed to the wall, pushing her to head its political war, writes L Aruna Dhir on Daily O. Read on: 

The climate is politically charged! In the capital city and other political hotbeds, there is an attempt to turn up the electoral heat — but there is also a collective shiver in people like us about what lies ahead, who will be in power soon, and, more importantly, what will they bring to the table in terms of welfare, advancement and growth once they get the new reins of power handed to them?

The air around politics is indeed as heavy and murky as Delhi’s ‘very poor’ AQI. And, ironically, ‘we the people’ have not much of a clue as to which way precisely the wind is blowing.

There are conspiracy theories being spun with feverish frenzy. 'Mahagathbandhans' are being churned out with as much gusto as was apparently put in during the mythological 'manthan' of the grand 'samundar'. Then, there is the great Modi wave. And there is also a growing ‘Modi-no-way’ wave. The fervour around the military and the recent air-strikes is a whole different saga in itself.

Amidst all this, the been-there-done-that grand old Congress is propping up its babalog and babylog like never before, clearly trying to give the upcoming polls their all, and scramble back into the general reckoning.

Pause the plunge? Perhaps it's time to stop and think. (Source: PTI)

The Congress' trump card so far has been that of the arrival of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra.

But, observing how things look, I personally think fielding Priyanka as the Congress' great hope is a terrible plan.

I am essentially apolitical and have no allegiance to any political party. I only support ideologies and people who can do something coherent and tangible for our country — the rest is simply hogwash for me.

Given this single-point focus, I feel the Congress forefronting Priyanka is a poor idea.

Here’s why.

The Dynasty Dragon
Any attempt to bring Priyanka into the picture drags the dragon of dynasty in as well yet again. Any sane, balanced person knows that a modern, democratic country simply cannot be treated as a fiefdom. We should collectively stop mocking the essence of democracy by encouraging hereditary politics. This sort of colonisation in fact should become a thing of the past.

Apparent Lack of interest
Up until now, Priyanka has apparently shown hardly any interest in hard political life. She has not chosen politics as her profession. She has helped her mother and brother in campaigning, yes, but not in the tough challenges of daily political life. Given this, why assume things will be very different now?

Push vs Pull
The Congress has burnt its proverbial fingers earlier when pushing someone to assume a role when they have apparently not felt an internal pull towards it.

Dr Manmohan Singh, of whom I am a fan, has been a great economist, intellectual and scholar. What Dr Singh achieved under the Narasimha Rao regime is written in golden letters — but what Dr Singh did under Sonia Gandhi is utterly miserable and in fact, in my view, quite forgettable.

The great economic mind, whom Barack Obama and several other global leaders looked up to, got reduced to a cruel caricature in Indian politics. He and his genius could have been used for great things towards the country. Instead, he was reportedly shoved into the role of a “seat warmer.”

The Congress' core focus still seems to be getting Rahul to power. So, why would the Congress repeat the folly of using another to do so? It goes beyond my reasoning or comprehension.

For party fanatics, it is the 'Indira likeness' that is creating a wave of
sycophancy for Priyanka. (Source: IndiaToday.in)

The Indira Hangover
Priyanka may be an Indira lookalike — but she is no Indira. The latter was tutored on the intricate nuances of politics in the very fine political climate that existed at that time, from a very young age and intensively at that. She learned the ropes of the trade from no less than her statesman father and cut her teeth in politics early on, taking on formidable challengers, fighting it out alone initially and triumphing against tough odds to rise to power.

The latter has been brought up by parents, both of whom were initially disinterested in politics, and both of whom were reportedly pushed into it against their will.

If anything, Priyanka appears to show the same sentiment. Why can't her party just respect that?

Sycophancy Syndrome
In the party and in the minds of the party fanatics, it is the seeming Indira likeness that is apparently creating such sycophancy towards Priyanka. In my view, she is being seen as the mythic Joshua by her flock — but what if she may turn out to be more akin the ever-embattled Moses, failing to herd her people into the Promised Land?

Strong biases against
Outside of her party and party followers, Priyanka is seen as a complete greenhorn. She is viewed more like a 'Lutyens’ resident' than as the denizen of a country whose hinterland holds its heart.

She is seen as having been fairly oblivious to the goings-on of the Congress in its UPA years particular and political matters in general. This impression works against her far more in fact than against her mother who is seen as having made a major effort to school herself in India's rough-and-tumble politics.

All lineage — no legacy
The chief reason for Priyanka’s name to be put up is her family background. The second chief reason is the weak footing her brother, Rahul Gandhi, finds himself on even now. Even though I think he has come a long way, he is still up against a veritable tornado.

But, while Indira Gandhi grew up amidst Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr Rajendra Prasad, Sarojini Naidu, Subhas Chandra Bose, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Maulana Azad and a host of such tall luminaries that India has known, Priyanka has grown up in a relatively insulated environment, bereft of any great political thinking and exemplary leadership.

Priyanka has been pulled in primarily, as many view it, because Rahul Gandhi
finds himself on a weak footing. (Source: Reuters)

Indira had the legacy of politics handed to her on a platter, yes, but with personal tutorials from the very finest minds of her time; Priyanka has been at a complete disadvantage here.

Country first, politics second, self last — or other way around?
Without being an idealist, and keeping in mind the flavour of petty, self-centred politics that exists around us today, I still feel that it must be country first, political agenda second and only then, the self.

While for most politicians, the order is exactly in reverse, with 'self' being on top, in Priyanka’s case, to many of her critics, it appears like it is only 'self' in terms of the Congress’s premier political family. There seems to be hardly any other agenda. In a tough political fight, why is the Congress limiting its own vision and its own offerings to the voters?

No small handicap
One of the most considerable political handicaps in fact for Priyanka is her husband. Robert Vadra has consistently been named in dubious deals and has the ED perpetually on his case.

Robert Vadra has been named in dubious deals. How will Priyanka
Gandhi deal with this? (Source: PTI)

For any individual, that is a very big drawback to have — while just beginning one's political innings.

No experience to offer
This is the biggest drawback in the case of Priyanka Gandhi Vadra.

At least Rahul Gandhi has been working hard to brush up his image, be close to the ground, challenge the government, rally the opposition, put his viewpoint across, carry the mantle of his party, be its face in India and abroad, pick up several hard lessons along the way and learn the art and science of politics.

But Priyanka?

All the hype and hoopla aside, where is the hard experience gained by such groundwork? Before claims are made to an exalted political status, should voters not expect to see at least some years of committed political learning? Even perhaps some service to society?

These, to my mind, are strong enough reasons to explain why the Congress is doing itself a disservice were it to obsessively focus on pushing Priyanka Gandhi as its biggest political draw this election season. But then, this is also the mad circus of Indian politics, riding on emotions, sops, false promises and nostalgia, often much more than on intelligence, reason, realistic expectations and the very reasonable demand to see political duties actually being fulfilled.

In this, despite the disadvantages I have enumerated above, who knows, Priyanka Gandhi too could find some favour. Indian voters, after all, are a naïve, forgiving and often forgetful lot!

Perhaps that's helping the Congress thus hedge its bets!

India Lok Sabha election: 11 things you need to know

India's general election will take place in seven phases between April and May, the Election Commission says.

Polls to elect a new Lok Sabha, or lower house of parliament, will be held from 11 April to 19 May. Votes will be counted on 23 May.

With 900 million eligible voters, India's election will be the largest the world has seen.

PM Narendra Modi's ruling BJP will be battling the main opposition Congress and a host of regional parties.

Leaders of two powerful regional rivals have formed a coalition against the BJP in Uttar Pradesh, India's most populous state, and a key bellwether state.

PM Narendra Modi remains his party's main vote-getter

The lower house has 543 elected seats and any party or coalition needs a minimum of 272 MPs to form a government.

So what makes these elections distinctive?

1. It's mind-bogglingly big
Everything about Indian general elections is colossal - the Economist magazine once compared it to a "lumbering elephant embarking on an epic trek".

This time, about 900 million people above the age of 18 will be eligible to cast their ballots at a million polling stations.

The number of voters is bigger than the population of Europe and Australia combined.

Indians are enthusiastic voters - the turnout in the last general election in 2014 was more than 66%, up from 45% in 1951 when the first election was held.

More than 8,250 candidates representing 464 parties contested the 2014 elections, nearly a seven-fold increase from the first election.

2. It takes a long, long time
The dates on which voting will be held are 11 April, 18 April, 23 April, 29 April, 6 May, 12 May and 19 May.

Some states will hold polls in several phases.

India's historic first election in 1951-52 took three months to complete. Between 1962 and 1989, elections were completed in four to 10 days. The four-day elections in 1980 were the country's shortest ever.

Elections in India are long-drawn-out affairs because of the need to secure polling stations.

Local police are seen to be partisan, so federal forces have to deployed. The forces have to be freed from their duties and moved all around the country.

Analysts believe the summer elections will largely be a referendum on Mr Modi

3. It costs a lot of money
India's Centre for Media Studies estimated parties and candidates spent some $5bn (£3.8bn) for the 2014 elections. "It is not inconceivable that overall expenditure will double this year," says Milan Vaishnav, a senior fellow and director of the South Asia Program at the US-based think-tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Compare it to the $6.5bn that the US spent on the famously free-spending presidential and congressional elections in 2016, and you realise how costly India's elections are.

Financing of political parties in India continues to be opaque despite the fact that they are forced to declare their incomes.

Last year, Mr Modi's government launched electoral bonds, which allow businesses and individuals to donate to parties without their identities being disclosed.

Donors have given away nearly $150m in these bonds - and the bulk of it, according to reports, has gone to the BJP.

4. Will women hold the key?
Indian women are voting in large numbers. So much so, that more women are likely to vote than men this time around, the first time ever in a general election.

The vote gender gap has already shrunk - in 2014, the turnout of women was 65.3% against 67.1% for men.

In more than two dozen local elections between 2012 and 2018, the turnout of women was higher than men in two-thirds of the states.

Political parties have begun treating women as a constituency and offering them more sops: education loans, free cooking gas cylinders, cycles for girls.

5. It's all about Narendra Modi
In 2014, Mr Modi led his BJP and its allies to a historic victory.

The BJP alone won 282 of the 428 seats it contested. It was the first time since 1984 a party had won an absolute majority in a general election. The BJP also picked up a third of the popular vote.

The staggering win was largely attributed to Mr Modi's ability to promote himself as a decisive, hardworking leader who promised to usher in corruption-free "better times".

Despite a patchy performance on several of his promises, Mr Modi remains his party's main vote-getter. He's also supported by a formidable and disciplined party machinery, run by his trusted and powerful aide Amit Shah.

Analysts believe the summer elections will largely be a referendum on Mr Modi.

The opposition campaign will be entirely targeted at the prime minister, a polarising leader who is loved and loathed in equal measure.

So expect a presidential-style faceoff in a parliamentary election. Whether Mr Modi remains a durable brand will be known when the votes are counted.

6. India's Grand Old Party will be hoping for a comeback
Can the 133-year-old Congress party step back from the abyss?

In 2014, the party suffered its worst defeat ever in a general election. It won a mere 44 seats - down from 206 seats - and picked up less than 20% of the popular vote.

The Congress is looking to stage a comeback

Things remained bleak as the party lost a string of state elections over the next four years. By the middle of 2018, the Congress and its allies ran only three state governments, while BJP and its partners ran as many as 20.

The party appeared to be in terminal decline. Its leader Rahul Gandhi, fourth generation scion of the famous Nehru-Gandhi family, became the butt of social media jokes.

But in December, the party seemed to seemed to have staged a revival of sorts.

Led by a more assured and energetic Mr Gandhi, the Congress wrested three key northern states from the BJP. Many attributed the recovery to anti-incumbency - two of the three states had been ruled by the BJP for years. But it would be churlish to deny Mr Gandhi and his party workers credit.

Clearly, Congress has got some of its old mojo back. Mr Gandhi has positioned himself as a more open and receptive leader in contrast to the forceful and take-no-prisoners leadership style of Mr Modi. And in a surprise move, his charismatic sister Priyanka has been formally inducted into politics to infuse some fresh energy into the party's campaign.Congress's revival has helped rejuvenate a fractured opposition, and promises to make the 2019 election more of a contest than what was believed it would be.

7. It's the economy, stupid
Under Mr Modi, Asia's third-largest economy appears to have lost some of its momentum.

Farm incomes have stagnated because of a crop glut and declining commodity prices, leaving farmers saddled with debt and angry.

The controversial 2016 currency ban - locally called 'demonetisation' - and a complex and badly executed new uniform goods and services tax hurt small and medium businesses and threw many out of their jobs in India's huge informal economy.

Exports have dropped. Joblessness has risen, and Mr Modi's government has been accused of hiding uncomfortable jobs data. To make matters worse, some of India's state-owned banks are drowning in bad loans.

Yet, inflation is in check. Increased government spending in infrastructure and public works has kept the economy moving. Growth is expected to be 6.8% this fiscal year.

But the fact is that India's GDP needs to grow at a rate faster than 7% for the country to continue to pull millions out of poverty.

Mr Modi has said reforming the economy is a work in progress. The elections will prove whether people are willing to give him more time.

8. Parties are banking on populism
Economist Rathin Roy says India is moving from a "development state to a compensatory state" where governments are putting cash in the pockets of the poor to cover up for the deficiencies of the state.

The result is competitive populism.

Mr Modi's government has announced direct cash transfers to farmers and waivers of farm loans. It has also promised job quotas for the less well-to-do among the upper castes and other religions.

Rahul Gandhi has promised to guarantee a minimum income for the poor if his party wins the elections. Others will be showering the voters with freebies ranging from TV sets to laptops. There is no clear evidence to show that sops win votes.

9. But nationalism could tilt the balance
Mr Modi's muscular nationalism and his party's majoritarian politics have left India a deeply divided and anxious nation, say critics.

But his supporters say it has energised and consolidated his base. They believe there's no need to be apologetic about political Hinduism because India, well, is an overwhelmingly Hindu nation.

Unfortunately the nationalist rhetoric has emboldened radical rightwing groups to lynch Muslims suspected of smuggling cows. Hindus consider the cow sacred. Thanks to aggressive enforcement of anti-slaughter laws, the cow has become a polarising animal.

People critical of radical Hinduism have been labelled anti-nationals. Dissent is frowned upon.

India's 170 million Muslims, many say, have become the "invisible" minority. The BJP has no Muslim MPs in the lower house - it fielded seven candidates in 2014 and all of them lost.

Indians celebrated on hearing news of the strikes on Pakistan

10. And India's attack on Pakistan could bolster Modi's strongman image
The tit-for-tat aerial bombings by India and Pakistan at the end of February following a deadly suicide attack in Indian-administered Kashmir triggered more nationalistic chest thumping.

Mr Modi has made it clear he would not hesitate to retaliate if there was another attack on Indian soil provoked or sponsored by Pakistan-based militant groups.

What is clear now is that Mr Modi will make national security a key plank of his campaign. Whether this will work is not clear. The opposition has to still come up with a persuasive counter-narrative. Will the pull of nationalism override other issues and fetch swing votes for Mr Modi?

11. A battleground bellwether could decide the polls
The northern state of Uttar Pradesh has an outsize influence on Indian politics.

One in six Indians lives here and it sends 80 MPs to parliament. It is also one of India's most socially divided states.

The BJP won 71 of the state's 80 seats in 2014. Last time, Mr Modi's charisma and his party's ability to stitch together a rainbow coalition of castes contributed to the rout of powerful regional parties, Samajwadi Party (SP) and Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP).

Ms Mayawati, who heads the BSP, is an icon to millions of low-caste Dalits, a fifth of the state. She has now joined hands with her arch rival Akhilesh Yadav of SP, a nominally socialist party. Together they hope to win more than 50 seats and halt the BJP's march to Delhi.

It is an opportunistic alliance - bitter foes turned strange bedfellows - but could end up hurting the BJP's prospects in the state. It will be pinning its hopes on Mr Modi to neutralise the alliance.

(Source: BBC)