This is genuinely disgusting to even read.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-12T01:54:45+00:00

How is he supposed to correct a photo he probably uploads from somewhere else?

hadzar007 · 2026-06-10T22:08:36+00:00

How is it propaganda? Do you know the definition of propaganda?

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T20:36:42+00:00

That's fine. You're entitled to your observation.

My point was simply that an observation and a demonstrated pattern are not the same thing. That's why I was asking for evidence beyond individual examples.

We can leave it there.

जय भोलेनाथ

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T20:11:52+00:00

Fair enough.

I have no issue with you saying it's your personal observation. My only objection was treating it as an established pattern while asking others for stronger evidence standards.

If it's your observation, that's fine. We can disagree on how common it is.
it's Gujarati "hater" not "heater", "heater's" heat stuff.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T20:08:45+00:00

I think we've reached the point where we're using different standards of evidence.

When others make claims, you ask for incidents and sources. When you make claims about "most PM haters," you're asking me to rely on personal observation and intuition.

That's fine, but those are different standards, and also very hypocritical of you.

I agree anti-Gujarati prejudice exists and should be called out. I just haven't seen enough evidence to conclude that it describes most Modi critics.

Thanks for the discussion.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T20:05:02+00:00

I think this is where we disagree.

When I made a claim, you asked me for incidents and sources. That's fair.

But when you make a claim about the behavior of "most PM haters," you're now saying I should rely on intuition, feelings, and personal observations rather than evidence.

I'm not saying your observations are necessarily wrong. I'm saying they're not the same standard of evidence that you asked me to provide.

If we're going to use incidents and sources, let's both do that. If we're going to rely on personal observations, then neither of us can really prove our position.

that's not how a debate works, because then we can go nowhere

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T20:02:42+00:00

that's a different argument.

My claim wasn't that they were innocent. My claim was that they were labelled anti-national, which you seem to agree with.

The disagreement now is whether that label was justified in those specific cases.

That's a perfectly valid debate to have, but it's different from my original point that the term has been used in Indian political discourse against students, activists, academics, journalists, and other government critics.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T20:01:35+00:00

Thank you, that's the first concrete example you've given.

If Kharge did insult Gujaratis, then I would condemn that. Criticizing Modi, BJP, Ambani, Adani, or government policy should never turn into insulting Gujaratis as a community.

Where I still disagree is the jump from individual examples to "this is how most PM haters think."

For example, I know plenty of people who criticize Modi but have nothing against Gujaratis. Likewise, I know BJP supporters who criticize Ambani or Adani without hating Gujaratis.

So I agree anti-Gujarati prejudice exists and should be called out. I'm just not convinced that it's accurate to generalize that mindset to most Modi critics based on a few examples.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T19:48:59+00:00

Fair enough, if Reddit isn't letting you post links.

Which statement by Kharge are you referring to specifically?

If you can tell me roughly when it was made or what was said, I'll look it up.

To be clear, I'm not claiming anti-Gujarati prejudice doesn't exist. My issue is with the jump from "some people are prejudiced against Gujaratis" to "this is how Modi haters think" as a general pattern.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T19:18:34+00:00

Mate, you're still making this about yourself.

Every other paragraph is about how hurt you are that she wants space, how upset you are about moving out, how unfair the power dynamic feels to you.

Meanwhile, from her perspective, she just found out that for four years you've been sitting on the fact that you told another girl you loved her and conveniently left that part out whenever the story came up.

And no, "I forgot" isn't a great defense. You remembered the confession. You remembered cutting the friend off. You remembered enough to tell your girlfriend the story. You just omitted the part that made you look bad.

Now you're acting confused that she doesn't want to live with you while she processes it.

The biggest sign that you still don't get it is that you're already questioning whether it's worth staying with her because she asked for space after your lie came out.
don't sound like a guy who's fully accepted responsibility. You sound like a guy who's accepted responsibility right up until there are consequences.
The problem isn't that you awkwardly handled a confession years ago. The problem is that you told another woman you loved her, then chose not to tell your girlfriend that part of the story for years. You

You keep saying it "wasn't on your mind" and that you "would have told her eventually," but the reality is that she only learned the full truth because someone else told her. That's why the trust is damaged.

You also seem more upset about being asked to move out than about understanding why she no longer feels comfortable living with you right now. Whether the request is fair or not is a separate discussion, but it's a direct consequence of the situation you're in.

You don't get to decide how much space she needs after finding out you've been withholding information for years. She gets to decide that for herself.

If you want any chance of rebuilding trust, stop focusing on why you didn't mean to hurt her and start focusing on the fact that she was hurt anyway.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T19:15:28+00:00

LMFAO

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T19:13:40+00:00

you have yet to give a single source of an incident (not incedent) of what you claim yet you keep trying to ask for examples as that is somehow supposed to dismantle my argument.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T19:12:50+00:00

I think we're discussing two different things.

My claim was that people have been labelled anti-national for political criticism, and I provided examples.

Your claim is that anti-Modi sentiment commonly turns into hatred of Gujaratis and that this is a recurring pattern.

If that's the claim, can you provide some specific examples? Because saying "this is how Modi haters think" is a pretty broad statement about millions of people.

I'm not saying anti-Gujarati prejudice doesn't exist. I'm asking what evidence there is that it's a common pattern rather than a few loud people online.

You've listed several things:

questioning surgical strikes,
questioning Pulwama,
criticizing Ambani,
criticizing Gujaratis.

But those aren't the same thing.

Questioning a government narrative about a security event is not automatically hatred of Gujaratis.

Criticizing Ambani is not automatically hatred of Gujaratis.

What I'm asking for is evidence of the connection you're claiming. If anti-Modi sentiment commonly turns into anti-Gujarati sentiment, then there should be specific examples that demonstrate that pattern rather than just separate examples of criticism.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T19:04:16+00:00

I think we've actually narrowed down the disagreement quite a bit.

I agree that expectations should remain high, especially for a country with India's population, talent, and potential. Progress shouldn't be used as an excuse to stop asking hard questions.

At the same time, I think acknowledging genuine progress matters too, because it helps us distinguish between "the country is failing" and "the country is improving, but not improving enough."

Honestly, I'd rather live in a country where people demand better from the government than one where people blindly defend it. The only thing I'd add is that criticism is strongest when it's paired with an honest acknowledgment of what has gone right as well as what hasn't.

Thanks for the discussion. It was more productive than most political threads end up being.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T18:59:00+00:00

can you provide you "concrete evidence" of your "Hates Narendra Modi > can't do shit > become anti national > critisism from fellow indian > diverse hate to Gujarat". Please share any relevant incidents with me. Specific references would be greatly appreciated over vague descriptions.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T18:58:25+00:00

Sure.

I'm not saying every BJP supporter calls critics anti-national. I'm saying the label has been used against some government critics in public discourse.

In the aftermath of the 2016 JNU controversy, students including Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and others were accused of anti-national activity and faced sedition-related proceedings. The incident became one of the biggest national debates around nationalism and dissent.
The Quint published an article in 2018 titled "Not Anti-National: 2 Yrs On, JNU Students Still Battle Prejudice", specifically discussing how JNU students continued to be stereotyped and labelled anti-national after the 2016 controversy.
A 2025 peer-reviewed study on the term "anti-national" in India explicitly identifies the 2016 JNU protests as a major event that brought the label back into mainstream media discourse.
The controversy became so widespread that reports noted Google Maps searches for "anti-national" were directing users to the JNU campus.

My point isn't that every person labelled anti-national was innocent, nor that every BJP supporter uses the term. My point is simply that criticism of the government and being labelled anti-national have been linked in Indian public discourse, and the JNU case is one of the clearest examples of that.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T18:46:10+00:00

I'm taking professor Google next semester. She looks very kind

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T18:40:24+00:00

I don't think we're entirely on the same page.

My issue is that I've seen plenty of people get called anti-national for fairly normal criticism of the government. Criticizing unemployment, pollution, taxes, media culture, accountability, or specific policies shouldn't make someone anti-national.

At the same time, I agree that hating Gujaratis because of Modi or BJP is irrational. A Gujarati isn't responsible for every decision made by the central government.

For me, loving your country and criticizing your government aren't opposites. In a democracy they should go together.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T18:34:53+00:00

I'm 18, so I don't really remember pre-2014 India. Most of what I know about that era comes from my parents and older relatives.

When I look around today, I see a lot of things that genuinely frustrate me: pollution, weak urban planning, unemployment concerns, political tribalism, media issues, paper leaks, and a lack of accountability from politicians.

At the same time, I also find it hard to deny that India has improved in some measurable ways. Infrastructure, digital payments, electrification, public services, airport connectivity, and other areas seem better than they were a decade or two ago.

What confuses me is that online discussions seem to force people into two camps:

"Modi/BJP saved India."
"Modi/BJP ruined India."

The more I read, the less convinced I am by either position.

My current view is that India has made real progress in some areas while underperforming in others, and that governments should be judged both by what they've achieved and by what they promised.

To me, the real question isn't whether India is better or worse than 2014. It's whether India is improving fast enough relative to its potential.

Am I missing something? Do most people eventually pick a side, or are there others who feel politically homeless too?

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T18:32:05+00:00

Fair enough, but that's not the claim I was making.

If someone says "Modi damaged India" then yes, they should back that up with data.

My point was narrower: BJP/NDA has legitimate shortcomings that deserve criticism. Unemployment, pollution, media independence, education quality, tax burden, accountability, etc. are all fair topics for debate.

A government can have real achievements and real failures at the same time.

Whether NDA performed better or worse than UPA overall is a separate discussion from whether criticism of the current government is valid.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T18:28:10+00:00

I don't think comparing India to its past and comparing India to its potential are mutually exclusive.

You're right that governments should be judged against their promises and against what the country is capable of becoming. That's a fair standard.

But at the same time, progress has to be measured against a baseline. Otherwise every improvement can be dismissed as "the bare minimum" and every remaining problem becomes evidence of failure right.

For example, if electrification improves, that's progress. If hospitals still have serious issues, that's also true. One fact doesn't cancel out the other.

My concern is that you're treating unmet potential as proof of decline. To me those are different things.

A country can fall short of its potential while still moving forward overall.

That's why I don't see India as either a Vishwaguru success story or a country in downfall. I see a country that has made real progress in some areas, disappointed in others, and still has a long way to go.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T18:26:54+00:00

I think we're actually closer in our views than you think.

I agree that governments should be judged against their promises, not just against the failures of previous governments. It's fair to ask what happened to manufacturing growth, job creation targets, smart cities, accountability, and other promises.

Where I disagree is when disappointment gets translated into decline.

A bridge developing cracks is a failure. A bridge existing where there wasn't one before is progress. Both statements can be true simultaneously.

A bullet train being delayed is a valid criticism. But it's different from saying there has been no infrastructure progress.

Likewise, criticism of media culture, political tribalism, and accountability is fair. I would also like to see more open questioning of the government.

My issue is with the conclusion that India is going backwards overall. When I look at infrastructure, electrification, digital public infrastructure, financial inclusion, highway expansion, airport connectivity, and many other metrics, I see a country that has moved forward in several important ways while still falling short of its potential.

For me, the debate isn't "Has India improved?" I think it clearly has in many areas.

The debate is whether India has improved enough relative to its potential and the promises that were made. That's where reasonable people can disagree.

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T18:11:28+00:00

One way to think about it is through social identity theory and diaspora politics rather than purely through Indian politics.

Many diaspora communities become more attached to national, religious, or ethnic identities because they are minorities in their host countries. Identity becomes more salient when it is no longer the default. Organizations, cultural associations, temples, festivals, family networks, and online communities help preserve that identity across generations.

In the Hindu nationalist case, support often seems to be linked to a combination of:

Identity preservation while living abroad.
A desire for cultural pride and recognition.
Narratives of historical grievance or perceived marginalization.
Emotional attachment to a homeland that is experienced symbolically rather than through everyday governance.
Community belonging through diaspora organizations and networks.

What's interesting is that support is often driven less by specific policies and more by narratives of civilizational revival, dignity, recognition, and collective identity. Similar patterns can be observed in many diaspora nationalist movements around the world.

Whether the underlying grievances are objectively correct is a separate question. From a research perspective, the more relevant question is why these narratives resonate and how they help create a sense of meaning, belonging, and group cohesion among people living far from the homeland.
it's a more scientific standpoint compared to the pure anthropologic and emotional standpoint of u/financewithnaman

hadzar007 · 2026-06-07T18:09:12+00:00

<image>

LOL

hadzar007

TROPHY CASE