The following is a comment that I had posted below the FT View.
The problem with the Edit is that it reflects poor homework and it is self-contradictory. Unsurprisingly, the charge of ‘Hindu fundamentalism’ has been casually but deliberately tossed into the Edit:
“His Bharatiya Janata party, with its strong links to Hindu fundamentalism, has done nothing to dismantle or ameliorate the system, nor is it likely to.”
Many questions arise:
(1) What is Hindu fundamentalism?
(2) How pervasive it is, in reality?
(3) Has BJP really embraced it and, if so, how?
(4) What is its connection to solving the caste-based reservation problem?
(5) What exactly is the insinuation here? Is it that the Prime Minister comes from a backward caste and hence, won’t remove caste-based reservation? Or, is there an insinuation that the BJP is a party dominated by upper-caste Hindus and hence would not remove caste-based discrimination and hence, reservations too would remain a problem? I do not see the connection at all.
(6) Earlier, in the Edit, there is a sentence, which is strangely devoid of any reference to those who did it.
“Unwisely, in 1990 caste privileges were extended to another category, “Other Backward Classes” (OBCs), which took the proportion of reserved government jobs to 50 per cent. Further extensions have been made since.”
Did it happen spontaneously? It was done by a government, which was a coalition of the so-called secular parties that claimed to be far removed from the FT definition of ‘Hindu fundamentalism’ (whatever it means).
In other words, that exposes the banality and the vacuity of the reference to Hindu fundamentalism and its supposed link to caste-based reservations.