Given the timelines involved, I'd say it's more likely that not that Modi is following in the footsteps of Xi Jinping. In fact most of Asia is in the hands of some kind of ethno-nationalist leader, from Duterte in the Phillipines to Suga in Japan, Xi in China or Jae-In in S. Korea. Modi is not really exceptional when viewed on the scale of other asian leaders. But Asia has always had a much more ethno-nationalist bent, so it may be surprising to people who compare Indian politics to those of Western Europe. Even western darlings like Aung San Suu Kyi, once in power, turned out to be of a strong ethno-nationalist bent, which I'm sure shocked a lot of her supporters in the West.

Wait, do you really think president Moon of S. Korea is ethno-nationalist of all things? You have no idea what you're talking about - he's just your run-of-the-mill liberal.

You really need to be careful generalizing the whole Asia region to fit your narrative. S. Korea was already a bit culturally ethno-nationalist not because of reasons like 'racism' or something like Western populist politics, but because of the more complex history of being colonized and almost assimilated by Japan. And diplomatically S. Korea's has always been pro-US for pragmatic reasons (military protection) and would probably stay that way for some time. (That doesn't mean there isn't any anti-US sentiment among citizens, it's just that it hasn't been materialized into anything significant in actual global relations.)

+1 to this. Grandparent comment greatly reduces Asian politics. Even the bit on Aung San Suu Kyi is way too simplified.

That's a really interesting take. History must have had a role to play here, although I wonder in what way that could've influenced the current outlook and mindset of the peoples.

I am from one of the countries mentioned, and I am not sure I have any idea of what you're talking about.

He’s talking about the fact that India’s ruling class for a long time has been western-educated and rejected the people’s populist instincts: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial...

> Nehru and Jinnah led India and Pakistan to independence as the brown-skinned Westerners Thomas Macaulay had envisioned a century earlier. South Asian in appearance and pedigree, the leaders of these two nations nevertheless personified a fundamental truth about the Western orientation of the new Asian states.

We had the same in Bangladesh. Westernized university-educated people like my dad trying to impose secular democracy on a deeply Muslim country. Didn’t last.

Common Hindu nationalist trope to associate everything they don't like with colonialism.

As a Hindu, it deeply saddens me these people have been making temples the issue of forefront while ignoring every duty Dharma assigns to them.

It's a sad attempt to rescue the reputation of a modern nationalist movement the poster sympathises with by imbuing it with the moral righteousness of the independence movements of the 20th century.

Search for "pseudo liberals India" and you will find a lot of articles talking about this topic. To be clear I'm not talking about any of them being right or wrong, just that that's the term which has historically been used.

Considering that these brown sahib had been voted in by the same masses previously, I am not sure what point are you making.

Populist/fascist leaders like ones in India's regime come and go. Trump isn't the president still. If you think BJP will be in power for the next 50 years, then I'd say you should check up on fascist history.

You're overestimating Trump. India under Modi is in the process of trying to build an authoritarian Hindu nation-state with a completely alternative model compared to the secular, western-inspired mode it has run on up until now.

Trump, despite tricking a few LARPers into thinking he had some kind of great agenda was just a TV show host. He was about as likely to rebuild the US in some kind of new image as a televangelist is in bringing the kingdom of god to earth.

India has always been run on a far more authoritarian model than the U.S. Yes, it's a true democracy but freedom and democracy are not the same thing, and the legacy of the former colonizers is very much there still. Modi is just pushing the overall authoritarian stance of Indian institutions in a different direction that anyways provides him with a lot of shallow, surface popularity.

I’d say it is less by Modi directly and more by the nazi inspired organization called the RSS that’s shaping up India lately. The only difference is that they won’t be repeating the hubris/mistakes of a Fuhrer style set up with a single point of failure.

All other things aside, Modi’s first term started in 2014, Trump’s in 2016. Even assuming that one is similar to the other, it raises the question of who’s following whom...

Definitely, if not consciously - I saw earlier today that Trump and his minions propagated the meme that says

"In reality, they're not after me, they're after you. I'm just in the way"

well after Modi, and in the time since it's been adopted by Netanyahu as well. I often wonder why these people are called "nationalists"...