Talk:Narendra Modi

Include criticism for maintaining silence on Manipur, Ladakh

https://thewire.in/politics/narendra-modi-talked-about-the-manipur-violence-but-did-he-really

https://thediplomat.com/2024/04/icy-desert-ladakh-turns-up-the-heat-on-modi-ahead-of-indian-elections/

The Manipur issue is not included anywhere in the article. Nor are any criticisms present for him maintaining silence on Ladakh issue. Requesting moderators to fix that. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Anywhere? The article does say "Modi has been criticised for his lack of reaction towards the violence" and "Modi has been criticised for maintaining silence over ceding about 2,000 sq km land to China since June 2020". Ratnahastin (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin when we are talking about ethnic violence(Manipur), it's unfair to sum it up in a line. An expansion is in order.

Ladakh issue isn't about China and china only. Sonam Wangchuk hasn't been mentioned. Nor how he was turned a deaf ear after several days making it the longest protest since Mahatma Gandhi Caesarian Cobol (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I was mentioning that the article does not ignore these aspects and has mentioned them. You can propose the wording or edit the article yourself per WP:BOLD. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin I cannot edit the article as it seems to be protected. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I also mentioned that you can "propose the wording". Consider doing that. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin I'm for favour of expanding these one liners to a paragraph atleast so as to include proper coverage. I'm not sure what you expect when you ask me to "propose the wording". Still I'll try giving my two cents.

Instead of just Modi has received criticism for his stance in Manipur whatever, we could make a dedicated section for Manipur violence, and take a collaborative approach to report on this complex issue.

For Ladakh criticism is virtually non-existent with a one liner.

It cannot be done by me, I don't have the editing rights, for those of who do, consider adding these parts. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

any updates? Caesarian Cobol (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Caesarian Cobol: what Ratnahastin is saying is you should propose the exact wording you'd like to see in the article and, assuming there are no objections, someone will modify the article appropriately. Be sure to include citations (see WP:RS). Expecting that someone will collect references and figure out the exact text is often expecting too much. You think it should be added so it is best if you do the leg work as well!RegentsPark (comment) 19:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

G20 consensus and Pakistan policy

Hello all,

This post is regarding my edit : where I mention about G20 consensus and Pakistan policy.

G20

Proposed edit: "India's leadership at the 2023 G20 Summit focused on consensus-building, inclusiveness, and promoting solutions despite geopolitical tensions. While the absence of leaders like Putin and Xi raised concerns, India successfully navigated the situation. Modi and his team worked through extensive negotiations to achieve consensus on divisive issues, notably the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Experts were of the view that Modi’s leadership emerged as a counterbalance to China’s influence, as India sought to enhance cooperation with both the developing world and the West. Xi’s decision not to attend further isolated China, allowing India and other leaders to shape the summit’s direction".

Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4

There was some concern by @Black Kite regarding the language of the edit, particularly that it might come across as promotional. However, the phrasing aligns with the conclusions drawn from credible sources. For instance, The Atlantic, a publication known for its analysis, reflects the views of experts on the matter. I have also attached more sources that state the same. However, please let me know how we could include this information in the article.

Pakistan Policy

Proposed edit: "Under Modi, India employed a set of policies aimed at diplomatically pressuring Pakistan, using geopolitical diplomacy. One of the moves by Modi’s government was raising the issue of Balochistan. In his Independence Day speech in August 2016, Modi explicitly mentioned Pakistan’s human rights violations in Balochistan, Gilgit, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). India sidelined the SAARC, in which Pakistan plays a key role, and instead focused on BIMSTEC. By excluding Pakistan from this regional grouping and focusing on countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka, India managed to limit Pakistan’s regional influence. India’s successful maneuvering resulted in the postponement of the 19th SAARC summit in 2016, as multiple nations pulled out in solidarity with India. India's diplomatic pressure led to listing of Masood Azhar, the leader of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), as a global terrorist in United Nations in May 2019, despite China’s previous oppositions. India worked to cripple Pakistan's economy by leveraging international financial institutions. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) placed Pakistan on its grey list for failing to combat terrorist financing, hampering Pakistan's ability to secure foreign investment and aid. Additionally, India lobbied the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to hold Pakistan accountable for its economic mismanagement and support for terrorism, which further worsened Pakistan’s economic standing"

Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4

The concern raised by @Black Kite was about the JSTOR source - published by World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues - where the first line states "Pakistan is meddling in Kashmir." I am confused to understand whether this initial statement affects the reliability of the source or if the journal itself is not acceptable for our purposes. It would be helpful to clarify what the specific issue is with this source.

Let’s collaborate to understand the objections and find a version of the information that reflects everyone’s viewpoints. We can work together to ensure the content is balanced, fact-based, and acceptable to all.

Thanks! SpunkyGeek (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• The sources used are not fit for purpose. The link you provide isn't to The Atlantic, a respected publication, but to the "Atlantic Council", a non-profit of unknown reliability. The JSTOR link is to a journal article whose grammar is so poor it casts serious doubts on its reliability. The language of the proposed edits is also seriously inappropriate; it presents as fact several claims whose veracity isn't known, and uncritically repeats government statements not supported by secondary sources. And the points of actual substance are so minor that most do not belong in the overview article at all, being more appropriate to the article about Modi's foreign policy. Both these proposals are non-starters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2024

2409:40F4:12E:50DB:B48A:B19D:5244:805C (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I request that you should add honorific suffix that he is a mp of india and PM

 Not done Can't add honorifics per WP:NCIN and MOS:HON policies. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

23 years back incident highlighted in lead

This was a 23 years old incident , when he was a cheif minister of gujarat state. Already in the body. Why need to highlight at the introduction paragraph ? Also it is saying that :A Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him. why should we need to add something 23 years back that too 'Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him' ?

His administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots, and has been criticised for its management of the crisis. According to official records, a little over 1,000 people were killed, three-quarters of whom were Muslim; independent sources estimated 2,000 deaths, mostly Muslim. A Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him. Hajpo (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Narendra Modi himself refuses to forget about that whole thing. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This Godhra train burning and not gujarat riot. That too in an election campaign.

It doesn't mean that Narendra Modi is thinking , talking daily on the incident occurred 23 years back that too 'Supreme Court of India in 2012 found no evidence to initiate prosecution proceedings against him'.

it is in the body and keeping that in the very first paragraph is giving a undue weightage and is nonsense. Hajpo (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I said "about that whole thing" which includes not only Gujarat riots but also its surrounding events. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is just a news during election campaign. H

Does that mean he is daily thinking , talking and discussing on this matter ?

This 23 years old thing should not be highlighted in the lead as it is 23 years old, when he was a chief minister ,as it is extensively in the body. Hajpo (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hajpo, Modi's alleged involvement in the Gujarat riots is a significant part of his career. Perhaps you are not aware of this but, because of these allegations, he could not travel to the USA and many European countries for a number of years. All this makes this a very significant part of his history and not including it would be tantamount to whitewashing.RegentsPark (comment) 15:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsPark okay, If that is the case you add this detail as well, the reason for the riot as it says 1000s of Muslims are killed. Saying that riots killed 1000s of Muslims is saying only one side of the riot, this is the beginning of the riots where Hindus are killed. :

(directly copied from Gujarat riot wikipedia article):

The burning of a train in Godhra on 27 February 2002, which caused the deaths of 58 Hindu pilgrims and karsevaks returning from Ayodhya, is cited as having instigated the violence. Following the initial riot incidents, there were further outbreaks of violence in Ahmedabad for three months; statewide, there were further outbreaks of violence against the minority Muslim population of Gujarat for the next year. Hajpo (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@RegentsPark Hajpo (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What caused the riot is not relevant for this article. — hako9 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

it is important. Hajpo (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Modi was controversial image due to Gujarat riots but wording of the sentences in the lead blaming him even the court has found no evidence. That needs to correct in wording. Also all the lead is filled with only criticism of Modi. We need more census and sources of last 3-4 years for democracy backsliding which is not reported and cited. Loveforwiki (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Importance ≠ Relevance. — hako9 (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

whole lead is biased, everything is written as a certain pov. Loveforwiki (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

India's Supreme Court cannot pass an injunction against the world media or wikipedia, to stop writing about the event. The SC saying it "found no evidence to prosecute" doesn't necessitate wikipedia to scrub its scholarly and academic citations that analyze that event. Hosni Mubarak was acquitted in 2017 against charges which included complicity in killing hundreds of protestors. The acquittal by Egypt's top court, doesn't invalidate criticisms of that acquittal by international media, and neither can it stop wikipedia editors from including any, in an article we write. We go by reliable sources only. Moot point, but a clarification regarding "found no evidence to initiate prosecution"; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Indian courts distinguish between acquittal (due to benefit of doubt) and honorable acquittal. @Vanamonde93:, can we have an FAQ like Talk:Elon Musk, on this page. I think there have been a lot of edit requests along these line. — hako9 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; legal liability, popular perception, and scholarly assessment, are all distinct; and we carefully cover all three. An FAQ wouldn't be a bad idea at all, but I currently lack the ability to help create one. If someone else would take the lead, I would pitch in as I could. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I am bad with templates, so I'd appreciate if someone wants to take a look. — hako9 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Hajpo: The details of the Gujarat riots are best left to that article. And, our text here is well supported by the sources. He is considered complicit, he has been criticized for his management of the crisis, and the Indian Supreme Court found no evidence against him. All three are well supported since plenty of sources consider Modi complicit and plenty of sources criticize him for not managing the riots properly. We can't reargue the details of the riots here, that's for the other article.RegentsPark (comment) 16:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  According to official records, a little over 1,000 people were killed, three-quarters of whom were Muslim; independent sources estimated 2,000 deaths, mostly Muslim.

  This is highlighted in the lead of Narendra modi article. If this is mentioned why not mention like ' His administration is considered complicit in the 2002 Gujarat riots,which started after the godra train burning incident where Hindus were killed, and has been criticised for its management of the crisis. Hajpo (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  Because the causes of the riots have nothing to with his alleged complicity in them. RegentsPark (comment) 21:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  He failed to contain the retaliation of Hindu wings towards Muslims. If he could contain that at the very beginning there won't be a communal riot.

  That is the crux.

  So adding that part is necessary Hajpo (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure we can say that. All we know is that Modi was a public servant, his job was to contain riots, and that reliable sources say that he exacerbated them rather than contained them. And that India's Supreme Court did not find enough evidence for prosecuting him. I don't think we should speculate on his motives, not without the weight of reliable sources.RegentsPark (comment) 22:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

  no I'm saying that these two incidents should be mentioned, like :

  .. in the 2002 Gujarat riots,which started after the godra train burning incident where Hindus were killed, Hajpo (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  That seems to suggest that Modi's complicity is because "Hindus were killed". I don't think that's a good idea because we don't have reliable sources that say that. RegentsPark (comment) 16:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  we have reliable sources :

  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-13170914

  here it is clearly saying - ' He also alleges that, in a meeting in the night before the riots, Mr Modi told officials that the Muslim community needed to be taught a lesson following an attack on a train carrying Hindu pilgrims.'.

  So mentioning of godra is important.

  Atleast in this form it should have a mention in the lead : .. in the 2002 Gujarat riots,which started after the godra train burning incident where Hindus were killed, Hajpo (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  also this from the article suggest strong argument in favor of to mention godra :

  In a sworn statement to the Supreme Court, he said that his position allowed him to come across large amounts of information and intelligence both before and during the violence, including the actions of senior administrative officials.

  to make the Wikipedia article neutral godra should be mentioned Hajpo (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah.. i agree neutrality of the whole lead is disputed. Loveforwiki (talk) 09:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Evaluation of Premiership

Hey guys, i think we need to update the premiership as it is very least updated since years. Need to add further actions. Kindly update. Loveforwiki (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)