|
March 31, 2009
Gujarat: Meeting in Support of Mallika Sarabhai's Election Campaign
CITIZEN'S MEETING IN SUPPORT OF
DR. MALIIKABEHN SARABHAI
DATE- 5-4 09 SUNDAY TIME- 9.30 A.M.
PLACE- GAJJAR HALL. LAW GARDEN [Ahmedabad?]
The invitees are Prakashbhai Shah, Ms. IlaabehnPathak, Digantbhai Oza, Gautambhai Thaker,MukulSinha, Dilip Chandula,Suvarnabehn,Dwarika Nath Rath,S.M.Pirzada,Prof. Ratibhai Dave,Ms. Harbala Chndulal.Rasik Shah,Ibrahim Sheikh,Mohammed Siddigi,N.R.Maullik,,Jayesh Patel. Bhavik Raja,R.R,Soman,Dashrath Srimali,Dilip R. Babu,Hemant Mehta, BabulalSheth,Meenakshi Joshi, Sandhya Trivedi, Apoorva Trivedi, Ambalal Khatri , Fr. Cedric Prakash, Prof Ghanshyambhai Shah, Aurobindo bhai Desai and many others----
March 30, 2009
Violent Gods: Hindu Nationalism in India's Present; Narratives from Orissa
Violent Gods: Hindu Nationalism in India's Present; Narratives from Orissa
by Angana P. Chatterji
This book is an erudite and elegiac exploration of Hindu nationalism in India today. It offers a revealing account of Hindu militant mobilizations as an authoritarian movement manifest throughout culture, polity, and economy, religion and law, class and caste, on gender, body, land, and memory. Tracing the continuities between Hindutva and Hindu cultural dominance, this book maps the architectures of civic and despotic governmentalities contouring Hindu nationalism in public, domestic, and everyday life. In chronicling concerted action against Christians and Muslims, Adivasis and Dalits, through spectacles, events, public executions, the riots in Kandhamal of December 2007 and August-September 2008, the planned, methodical politics of terror unfolds in its multiple registers. At the intersections of Anthropology, Postcolonial, Subaltern, and South Asia Studies, Angana P. Chatterji asks critical questions of nation making, cultural nationalism, and subaltern disenfranchisement. As a Foucauldian history of the present, this text asserts the role of ethical knowledge production as counter-memory.
ANGANA P. CHATTERJI is associate professor of Social and Cultural Anthropology at the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco. Her work spans issues of cultural survival, nation/nationalisms, gendered violence, and postcolonial critique. Her recent writings include two forthcoming books, Land and Justice: The Struggle for Cultural Survival, and a co-edited volume, Contesting Nation: Gendered Violence in South Asia; Notes on the Postcolonial Present.
Cover: Arpana Caur. in the name of god. 2008.
©Three Essays Collective, March 2009
xvi, 470 pages
Hard Cover: India Rs. 800; Elsewhere $ 35; ISBN 81-88789-45-3
Paper back: India Rs. 500; Elsewhere $ 25; ISBN 81-88789-67-4
The book can be purchased from various dealerships and directly from http://www.threeessays.com/titles.php?id=40
Three Essays Collective
B-957 Palam Vihar, GURGAON (Haryana) 122 017 India
Phone: 91-124 2369023, +91 98681 26587, +91 98683 44843
info@threeessays.com Website: www.threeessays.com
Mallika Sarabhai's Public Meeting in JNU on 31st March, 2009
Dear All
Mallika Sarabhai the famous activist and artist, who is contesting against
Mr LK Advani from BJP in Ahemdabad Lok Sabha will be speaking at a Public
Meeting at JNU.
You are invited at the meeting to lend your support in the fight against
communalism.
At
Sutlej Mess, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Time: 3:30 pm
On Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Asit (Citizen’s against Communalism)
Faisal Khan (Asha Parivar)
Putul(PPF)
Vijay Pratap (Peoples Political Front(PPF)
Mallika Sarabhai the famous activist and artist, who is contesting against
Mr LK Advani from BJP in Ahemdabad Lok Sabha will be speaking at a Public
Meeting at JNU.
You are invited at the meeting to lend your support in the fight against
communalism.
At
Sutlej Mess, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Time: 3:30 pm
On Tuesday, 31st March 2009
Asit (Citizen’s against Communalism)
Faisal Khan (Asha Parivar)
Putul(PPF)
Vijay Pratap (Peoples Political Front(PPF)
Absence of legislation dealing with “hate speech”
Indian Express
March 27, 2009
Who’ll silence Varun?
by Soli J. Sorabjee
In India there is no specific legislation dealing with “hate speech” as such. The closest is Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code which prohibits speech or writings which promote enmity, hatred, ill-will or disharmony inter alia between different religious groups or communities. A related provision is Section 153B which proscribes imputations that any class of persons cannot be loyal citizens because they are members of a religious group or community. Speech and writings which “with deliberate and malicious intention” insult the religion or the religious beliefs of any class of citizens are prohibited by Section 295A. Punishment for contravention of these provisions is imprisonment for three years or a fine or both.
The rationale underlying these provisions is that in our country religious passions can be easily ignited by inflammatory speeches. These sections impose restrictions on the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, a freedom subject to reasonable restrictions under the head of public order as specified in Article 19(2). Our Supreme Court has upheld their constitutionality.
Legal principles which emerge from judicial decisions construing these sections are:
— The speech or writing must be construed as a whole and not by stressing isolated passages torn from the context.
— If the speech or writing has the inevitable consequence of promoting communal disharmony between religious communities it is not a defence that the speaker or the writer did not intend to do so.
— The fact that no communal disturbances have taken place as a result of the speech or writings is immaterial.
— Criticism in moderate language of the religious practices or customs of a religion or its tenets is not prohibited.
For example, it is not an offence to condemn the practice of untouchability and sati and to urge for their total abolition. It is not impermissible to criticise the practice of triple divorce amongst Muslims or the punishment of stoning a woman for adultery. It is not an offence to doubt the divinity of Christ or the authenticity of miracles in the Bible, nor is it an offence to characterise religion as the opium of the people and priests and pujaris as exploiters of people’s credulity and superstitions.
Undeniably, the feelings of Hindus, Muslims and Christians would be hurt by these statements. However, such criticism cannot be equated with hate speech and cannot be criminalised; otherwise debate and discussion would be impossible in a free democratic society and social reforms cannot be effectuated. The overriding principle is that criticism should be rational and expressed in moderate language and should not degenerate into reviling or abusing any religion or its founders. This is the legal position irrespective of the announcement of elections.
Before elections are announced, by the issuance of notifications required under the Representation of the People’s Act (RPA), neither the model code of conduct nor the RPA ‘s provisions are triggered.
Afterwards, however, Section 125 of the RPA makes it an electoral offence for any person to, in connection with the election, promote feelings of religious enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens. Further, under Section 123 of the RPA, the election of a candidate can be invalidated on the ground of corrupt practice, if a charge of appealing to religion in the course of his election is proved.
The vexed question is: what happens during the interregnum? Can a person go on making inflammatory speeches with impunity, vitiating the atmosphere until his conviction? As the law stands at present, the Election Commission (EC) cannot debar such a candidate from contesting an election. Election petitions and criminal trials take a long time; irretrievable damage may be caused if a person is not meanwhile restrained. Can a criminal court or the EC injunct a person or a potential candidate from indulging in making provocative speeches?
The view that the EC can pass such a restraining order is problematic. The necessity and urgency of preventing inflammatory speeches which disturb communal harmony are indisputable. Therefore, the appropriate course of action would be to promptly promulgate an ordinance to amend Section 153A IPC and the RPA and confer express power to injunct a person from making inflammatory speeches — provided of course there is sound factual basis and reasonable grounds for passing such an order.
If the statements attributed to Varun Gandhi have in fact been made by him, they are prima facie violations of the law. One can certainly defend Hinduism or Hindu society against unwarranted and malicious criticism — so long as that does not translate into reviling and ridiculing members of another religious community. It is unfortunate that the EC did not give reasonable time or a personal hearing to Gandhi to establish his defence, for whatever it is worth. The country would not have been aflame if a week’s time were granted. That would also have obviated grievance on account of paucity of time and breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play.
The EC, conscious of its limitations under the existing law, has correctly not debarred Varun Gandhi from contesting. It has, however, chosen to give gratuitous advice that the BJP should not field Varun Gandhi as its candidate. This has generated a furious controversy. The EC’s advice was certainly beyond its purview and is not legally binding. However, there is a distinction between legality and political morality. It was heartening that the BJP initially disapproved of the utterances attributed to Varun Gandhi. It is disheartening that subsequently it has decided to field him as its candidate from Pilibhit and also to feature him in its election rallies. It cannot be overemphasised that maintenance of communal harmony is vital in our country. It is far more important than the impetuous Varun Gandhi and the legality or otherwise of the EC’s advice. Unfortunately, these aspects have apparently not been kept in mind by the BJP.
The writer is a former Attorney General for India
March 27, 2009
Who’ll silence Varun?
by Soli J. Sorabjee
In India there is no specific legislation dealing with “hate speech” as such. The closest is Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code which prohibits speech or writings which promote enmity, hatred, ill-will or disharmony inter alia between different religious groups or communities. A related provision is Section 153B which proscribes imputations that any class of persons cannot be loyal citizens because they are members of a religious group or community. Speech and writings which “with deliberate and malicious intention” insult the religion or the religious beliefs of any class of citizens are prohibited by Section 295A. Punishment for contravention of these provisions is imprisonment for three years or a fine or both.
The rationale underlying these provisions is that in our country religious passions can be easily ignited by inflammatory speeches. These sections impose restrictions on the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, a freedom subject to reasonable restrictions under the head of public order as specified in Article 19(2). Our Supreme Court has upheld their constitutionality.
Legal principles which emerge from judicial decisions construing these sections are:
— The speech or writing must be construed as a whole and not by stressing isolated passages torn from the context.
— If the speech or writing has the inevitable consequence of promoting communal disharmony between religious communities it is not a defence that the speaker or the writer did not intend to do so.
— The fact that no communal disturbances have taken place as a result of the speech or writings is immaterial.
— Criticism in moderate language of the religious practices or customs of a religion or its tenets is not prohibited.
For example, it is not an offence to condemn the practice of untouchability and sati and to urge for their total abolition. It is not impermissible to criticise the practice of triple divorce amongst Muslims or the punishment of stoning a woman for adultery. It is not an offence to doubt the divinity of Christ or the authenticity of miracles in the Bible, nor is it an offence to characterise religion as the opium of the people and priests and pujaris as exploiters of people’s credulity and superstitions.
Undeniably, the feelings of Hindus, Muslims and Christians would be hurt by these statements. However, such criticism cannot be equated with hate speech and cannot be criminalised; otherwise debate and discussion would be impossible in a free democratic society and social reforms cannot be effectuated. The overriding principle is that criticism should be rational and expressed in moderate language and should not degenerate into reviling or abusing any religion or its founders. This is the legal position irrespective of the announcement of elections.
Before elections are announced, by the issuance of notifications required under the Representation of the People’s Act (RPA), neither the model code of conduct nor the RPA ‘s provisions are triggered.
Afterwards, however, Section 125 of the RPA makes it an electoral offence for any person to, in connection with the election, promote feelings of religious enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens. Further, under Section 123 of the RPA, the election of a candidate can be invalidated on the ground of corrupt practice, if a charge of appealing to religion in the course of his election is proved.
The vexed question is: what happens during the interregnum? Can a person go on making inflammatory speeches with impunity, vitiating the atmosphere until his conviction? As the law stands at present, the Election Commission (EC) cannot debar such a candidate from contesting an election. Election petitions and criminal trials take a long time; irretrievable damage may be caused if a person is not meanwhile restrained. Can a criminal court or the EC injunct a person or a potential candidate from indulging in making provocative speeches?
The view that the EC can pass such a restraining order is problematic. The necessity and urgency of preventing inflammatory speeches which disturb communal harmony are indisputable. Therefore, the appropriate course of action would be to promptly promulgate an ordinance to amend Section 153A IPC and the RPA and confer express power to injunct a person from making inflammatory speeches — provided of course there is sound factual basis and reasonable grounds for passing such an order.
If the statements attributed to Varun Gandhi have in fact been made by him, they are prima facie violations of the law. One can certainly defend Hinduism or Hindu society against unwarranted and malicious criticism — so long as that does not translate into reviling and ridiculing members of another religious community. It is unfortunate that the EC did not give reasonable time or a personal hearing to Gandhi to establish his defence, for whatever it is worth. The country would not have been aflame if a week’s time were granted. That would also have obviated grievance on account of paucity of time and breach of the principles of natural justice and fair play.
The EC, conscious of its limitations under the existing law, has correctly not debarred Varun Gandhi from contesting. It has, however, chosen to give gratuitous advice that the BJP should not field Varun Gandhi as its candidate. This has generated a furious controversy. The EC’s advice was certainly beyond its purview and is not legally binding. However, there is a distinction between legality and political morality. It was heartening that the BJP initially disapproved of the utterances attributed to Varun Gandhi. It is disheartening that subsequently it has decided to field him as its candidate from Pilibhit and also to feature him in its election rallies. It cannot be overemphasised that maintenance of communal harmony is vital in our country. It is far more important than the impetuous Varun Gandhi and the legality or otherwise of the EC’s advice. Unfortunately, these aspects have apparently not been kept in mind by the BJP.
The writer is a former Attorney General for India
March 29, 2009
Gorakhpur the Hindutva Hub and 2009 Parliamentary elections
The Hindu
March 30, 2009
Saffron power in Gorakhpur
Gorakhpur in Eastern Uttar Pradesh is famous for the Gorakhnath temple from which it derives its name and Yogi Adityanath, the young, fire-spewing head priest of the Gorakhnath mutt and the Bharatiya Janata Party’s three-time Member of Parliament from the constituency. The yogi is also the driving force behind the Hindu Yuva Vahini, a volatile youth force involved in many incidents of violence against Muslims.
If the yogi is held in god-like reverence by many Hindus, with Muslims, the sentiment works in reverse. They live in fear of the next communal incident that could rock the tenuous peace. Tensions tend to reach a peak on election eve and both communities know that the mahant will contrive to produce a communally surcharged situation conducive to splitting the votes along the Hindu-Muslim lines.
Go anywhere in the constituency and the words you hear over and over are that the yogi is invincible. For Hindus, voting Adityanath is a matter of “aastha” (faith). They accept his role in inciting communal passions matter-of-factly and nod approvingly when reminded that his activities have sent him to jail. Some even add helpfully, “Yes, before the 2007 Assembly election. He was arrested for destroying a Muslim tomb.”
What helps Adityanath additionally is the strong association between the mutt and the Lok Sabha seat. For three successive terms between 1989 and 1996, the seat was held by his predecessor, Mahant Avaidyanath. Like his protégé, Avaidyanath was worshipped and feared in equal measure.
Yet this time, Adityanath is up against two tough contenders, both young and popular in their own ways. Bahujan Samaj Party’s candidate Vinay Shankar Tiwari is the son of Hari Shankar Tiwari, erstwhile “don” and Minister in Mulayam Singh’s government, whose muscle and facility with the gun are the stuff of folklore in these parts. The other candidate is Samajwadi Party’s Manoj Tiwari, a Bhojpuri film hero, whose music is a rage with the youth. The Congress, late as always, is yet to decide among a horde of ticket seekers.
Prima facie, the stars appear to be with the yogi. His principal opponents are both Brahmin Tiwaris. However, in the past 10 days, Adiyanath’s BSP opponent has swiftly, and unexpectedly, emerged as someone to watch in an election treated thus far as a mere formality. Up until now, the yogi, himself a Rajput in a constituency with a sizeable Brahmin population, has ridden to victory on Hindu unity. This unity might have cracked, judging by the snowballing Brahmin response to Mr. Vinay Shankar Tiwari. Gorakhpur’s Muslims have also lined up behind the BSP candidate.
The verdict? If Mr. Tiwari splits the Hindu vote, Adityanath could be in trouble.
If, as many people predict, the yogi achieves a Hindu-Muslim polarisation, he will sail through, demonstrating once again the power of the Gorakhnath mutt.
Varun Gandhi and other perverts of the hate speech club
Kashmir Times
29 March 2009
Editorial
VOTARIES OF HATRED AND COMMUNAL VIOLENCE
When people like Varun Gandhi make hate speeches, it is obvious that they are baring their fanatic streak and pervert communal politics that sow the seeds of divisions. At a certain level, their act of exposing themselves as votaries of hatred and fundamentalism, comes as no surprise. It is much on expected lines. But what alarms is the response of a section of an audience which not only accepts and justifies such hate rhetoric, it even finds a reason to take great pride in it. Equally shocking is the reaction of a spineless state in acting against such doses of venom being liberally sprinkled in the country to vitiate the atmosphere. Varun Gandhi's hate discourse is not the first of its kind. The country abounds with people like Narendra Modi, Lal Kishen Advani, Sadhvi Rithambara, Praveen Togadia, Bal Thackeray and Raj Thackeray who have burnt midnight oil to spread venom and poison the society with their lethal recipe of communal and xenophobic speeches. None of them has ever been taken to task, not even strongly condemned. They make no secret of their Muslim bashing and manage to do it with the impunity they enjoy.
Worse still, they manage to garner enough public support to find their way into the parliament, state legislatures or seats of power which is a telling comment on how much communalised the mindset of society in this secular country is becoming. Narendra Modi's crime of resorting to hate rhetoric, propaganda and engineering, encouraging and perpetrating mass violence against Muslims in Gujarat has been forgotten and he has eventually been turned into a hero, remembered only for turning Gujarat into an economic might and his contribution to the social and development sector in his state. As if his efforts for development can atone for his sins of brutal mass genocide that took place just seven years ago. His repeated outburst against Muslims and his equally parochial economic development that seeks to benefit only a certain section of society is overlooked. Instead, people like Mukesh Ambani and Rattan Tata certify him as pure nationalist. Support from men who head the leading business houses of the country and play a crucial role in Indian politics has long term repercussions and is indicative of the growing perverse mindset in this country where icons like Gandhi are being fast replaced by fanatics like Modi. Their encouragement by influential people further speeds up this process, creating a situation where hatred and stereotypes forbid masses to be guided by any sense of reason. Rather public willingly begins to take great pride in 'hatred' and communal violence but they deem it as collective assertion of a majority community, mistakenly defined as a nation.
Pakistan and Muslims do not only become arch enemies, they become synonymous to each other and to terrorism. This kind of narrow parochial and partisan mindset forbids anyone to make a distinction between a Muslim and a terrorist. They are both rolled into one single distorted logic, perpetuated by manufactured consent glorifying divisive politics, making them appear like mirror images. While the public, especially the majority upper caste Hindus, gladly accept the hate soaked rhetoric of demonising Muslims, their appearance and even their names, as something unobjectionable, stories of Hindutava terror don't register in their sub-conscious. Gujarat is a forgotten story. So is Babri mosque demolition, an event that spiraled up the graph of divisive politics in India and also the entire South Asian region. No different is the case of Mumbai riots, though bomb blasts are deeply etched in the memory and consciousness of the majority community of the country. Malegaon is still something that everyone is in absolute denial of. Amir Kasab is the country's most hated person but Sadhvi Pragya and Col. Purohit arrested and charged with the same crime are not. In fact, the latter may in due course of time be recalled as heroes. While entire Muslims are branded terrorists for a crime perpetrated by one person of that community, the Hindu involved in a similar crime is instead rewarded and praised for what eventually is deemed as valour-not terror.
This is not to deny presence of elements within the minorities including Muslims who too conveniently find such divisive politics fodder to further their own narrow-minded and fanatic interests. Indeed, they do exist but as Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, had rightly warned against this majoritarian communalism that we are witnessing today, rising fanaticism within the majority community is of potential threat to country's secularism. But in a land where Mahatma Gandhi and his ideology has been appropriated by the Gandhigiri of Varun Gandhi, how can one find space for the logic and wisdom of statesmen like Nehru?
29 March 2009
Editorial
VOTARIES OF HATRED AND COMMUNAL VIOLENCE
When people like Varun Gandhi make hate speeches, it is obvious that they are baring their fanatic streak and pervert communal politics that sow the seeds of divisions. At a certain level, their act of exposing themselves as votaries of hatred and fundamentalism, comes as no surprise. It is much on expected lines. But what alarms is the response of a section of an audience which not only accepts and justifies such hate rhetoric, it even finds a reason to take great pride in it. Equally shocking is the reaction of a spineless state in acting against such doses of venom being liberally sprinkled in the country to vitiate the atmosphere. Varun Gandhi's hate discourse is not the first of its kind. The country abounds with people like Narendra Modi, Lal Kishen Advani, Sadhvi Rithambara, Praveen Togadia, Bal Thackeray and Raj Thackeray who have burnt midnight oil to spread venom and poison the society with their lethal recipe of communal and xenophobic speeches. None of them has ever been taken to task, not even strongly condemned. They make no secret of their Muslim bashing and manage to do it with the impunity they enjoy.
Worse still, they manage to garner enough public support to find their way into the parliament, state legislatures or seats of power which is a telling comment on how much communalised the mindset of society in this secular country is becoming. Narendra Modi's crime of resorting to hate rhetoric, propaganda and engineering, encouraging and perpetrating mass violence against Muslims in Gujarat has been forgotten and he has eventually been turned into a hero, remembered only for turning Gujarat into an economic might and his contribution to the social and development sector in his state. As if his efforts for development can atone for his sins of brutal mass genocide that took place just seven years ago. His repeated outburst against Muslims and his equally parochial economic development that seeks to benefit only a certain section of society is overlooked. Instead, people like Mukesh Ambani and Rattan Tata certify him as pure nationalist. Support from men who head the leading business houses of the country and play a crucial role in Indian politics has long term repercussions and is indicative of the growing perverse mindset in this country where icons like Gandhi are being fast replaced by fanatics like Modi. Their encouragement by influential people further speeds up this process, creating a situation where hatred and stereotypes forbid masses to be guided by any sense of reason. Rather public willingly begins to take great pride in 'hatred' and communal violence but they deem it as collective assertion of a majority community, mistakenly defined as a nation.
Pakistan and Muslims do not only become arch enemies, they become synonymous to each other and to terrorism. This kind of narrow parochial and partisan mindset forbids anyone to make a distinction between a Muslim and a terrorist. They are both rolled into one single distorted logic, perpetuated by manufactured consent glorifying divisive politics, making them appear like mirror images. While the public, especially the majority upper caste Hindus, gladly accept the hate soaked rhetoric of demonising Muslims, their appearance and even their names, as something unobjectionable, stories of Hindutava terror don't register in their sub-conscious. Gujarat is a forgotten story. So is Babri mosque demolition, an event that spiraled up the graph of divisive politics in India and also the entire South Asian region. No different is the case of Mumbai riots, though bomb blasts are deeply etched in the memory and consciousness of the majority community of the country. Malegaon is still something that everyone is in absolute denial of. Amir Kasab is the country's most hated person but Sadhvi Pragya and Col. Purohit arrested and charged with the same crime are not. In fact, the latter may in due course of time be recalled as heroes. While entire Muslims are branded terrorists for a crime perpetrated by one person of that community, the Hindu involved in a similar crime is instead rewarded and praised for what eventually is deemed as valour-not terror.
This is not to deny presence of elements within the minorities including Muslims who too conveniently find such divisive politics fodder to further their own narrow-minded and fanatic interests. Indeed, they do exist but as Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, had rightly warned against this majoritarian communalism that we are witnessing today, rising fanaticism within the majority community is of potential threat to country's secularism. But in a land where Mahatma Gandhi and his ideology has been appropriated by the Gandhigiri of Varun Gandhi, how can one find space for the logic and wisdom of statesmen like Nehru?
March 28, 2009
The peculiar art of political denial
(Daily News and Analysis
March 25, 2009)
by Antara Dev Sen
The doctor is in. Like the ghost in the machine, the doctor in the tape seems to be in permanent residence in every piece of recorded evidence that threatens to rip the mask off our politicians. Earlier, you could go rabblerousing with no fear of legal reprimand, you could say you were misquoted and get away with inciting murder.
Not anymore. Now you have enthusiasts with cameras running amok, sending off tapes to television channels, cramping your campaign style. So you say all evidence is doctored, and pretend that nobody knows you are lying. And once you deny it, civil society is expected to be civil and presume you are innocent till 'proven' guilty. Of course, given adequate muscle, no proof is enough to nab you.
Except human vanity. So when Sena Chief Bal Thackeray appreciates Varun Gandhi's anti-Muslim diatribe, declaring that he should not apologise for speaking the truth, dear Varun perks up and thanks him. He is grateful and overwhelmed by Thackeray's support, he says, quickly accepting congratulations for something he denies having done. Never mind. We have seen too many obvious truths denied, too many shameless lies established. We know the truth, and the lie, and do not disturb either.
It's a bit of a game, this 'I know that you know I'm lying but I still will', a game of nerves to see who blinks first. And we, the people give up and return to our daily struggle for survival.
But we do have memories. So when we hear LK Advani, now standing for prime minister, say that he was opposed to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, that it was the saddest day of his life, some of us remember the excitement and joy on the faces of Advani, Uma Bharati, Murali Manohar Joshi and Ashok Singhal as the 400-year-old mosque was pulled down. We remember his nation-wide rath yatra provoking people to destroy the mosque and build a temple at this Ram Janmabhoomi.
We remember Advani presiding over the demolition, sharing a platform with Uma Bharati and others as they urged the kar sevaks: "Ek dhakka aur do, Babri Masjid tor do!" (Give one more push, pull down the Babri masjid!) And "Tel lagao Dabur ka, naam mitao Babur ka." (Use Dabur's oil, erase Babur's name!) Till finally their joy burst forth with, "Ram naam satya hai, Babri Masjid dhvasth hai!" (Ram's name lives, the Babri Masjid is gone!) Advani was there, on that platform, looking dignified amidst the hate speech of his colleagues.
And will remain there, in the memories of millions who witnessed the day's events either directly or through the media. Even if he is airbrushed out of the evidence and even his own conscience.
There's more where that memory came from. The hate speeches of Narendra Modi, including one where he said that the relief camps for Muslims (set up after the 2002 massacre) had become breeding factories and should be closed down. "Hum paanch, hamare pachees! (We are five, we have 25!)" he had sneered, calling upon the crowd to teach Muslims a lesson for increasing our population so alarmingly. Sure enough, he said the tapes aired on television were all doctored. And his justifying Sohrabuddin's murder on the grounds that he was a terrorist (which was disproved) was also media manipulation. Shameless denial is now customary.
Denial itself is certainly not new. The massacre of Sikhs in 1984 elicited similar denials from the Congress, even though everyone knew that Congress leaders like HKL Bhagat, Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar had incited the killer mobs. But the BJP has made brazen denial an art form. Now it is more a norm than an aberration.
Who blinks first is fine as a game. But in a democracy you need more than raw nerve. You need informed dialogue on a common platform of truth, not flagrant doublespeak on the shifting sands of make-believe. For a stable democracy, we first need a stable reality.
The writer is is editor, The Little Magazine
March 25, 2009)
by Antara Dev Sen
The doctor is in. Like the ghost in the machine, the doctor in the tape seems to be in permanent residence in every piece of recorded evidence that threatens to rip the mask off our politicians. Earlier, you could go rabblerousing with no fear of legal reprimand, you could say you were misquoted and get away with inciting murder.
Not anymore. Now you have enthusiasts with cameras running amok, sending off tapes to television channels, cramping your campaign style. So you say all evidence is doctored, and pretend that nobody knows you are lying. And once you deny it, civil society is expected to be civil and presume you are innocent till 'proven' guilty. Of course, given adequate muscle, no proof is enough to nab you.
Except human vanity. So when Sena Chief Bal Thackeray appreciates Varun Gandhi's anti-Muslim diatribe, declaring that he should not apologise for speaking the truth, dear Varun perks up and thanks him. He is grateful and overwhelmed by Thackeray's support, he says, quickly accepting congratulations for something he denies having done. Never mind. We have seen too many obvious truths denied, too many shameless lies established. We know the truth, and the lie, and do not disturb either.
It's a bit of a game, this 'I know that you know I'm lying but I still will', a game of nerves to see who blinks first. And we, the people give up and return to our daily struggle for survival.
But we do have memories. So when we hear LK Advani, now standing for prime minister, say that he was opposed to the demolition of the Babri Masjid, that it was the saddest day of his life, some of us remember the excitement and joy on the faces of Advani, Uma Bharati, Murali Manohar Joshi and Ashok Singhal as the 400-year-old mosque was pulled down. We remember his nation-wide rath yatra provoking people to destroy the mosque and build a temple at this Ram Janmabhoomi.
We remember Advani presiding over the demolition, sharing a platform with Uma Bharati and others as they urged the kar sevaks: "Ek dhakka aur do, Babri Masjid tor do!" (Give one more push, pull down the Babri masjid!) And "Tel lagao Dabur ka, naam mitao Babur ka." (Use Dabur's oil, erase Babur's name!) Till finally their joy burst forth with, "Ram naam satya hai, Babri Masjid dhvasth hai!" (Ram's name lives, the Babri Masjid is gone!) Advani was there, on that platform, looking dignified amidst the hate speech of his colleagues.
And will remain there, in the memories of millions who witnessed the day's events either directly or through the media. Even if he is airbrushed out of the evidence and even his own conscience.
There's more where that memory came from. The hate speeches of Narendra Modi, including one where he said that the relief camps for Muslims (set up after the 2002 massacre) had become breeding factories and should be closed down. "Hum paanch, hamare pachees! (We are five, we have 25!)" he had sneered, calling upon the crowd to teach Muslims a lesson for increasing our population so alarmingly. Sure enough, he said the tapes aired on television were all doctored. And his justifying Sohrabuddin's murder on the grounds that he was a terrorist (which was disproved) was also media manipulation. Shameless denial is now customary.
Denial itself is certainly not new. The massacre of Sikhs in 1984 elicited similar denials from the Congress, even though everyone knew that Congress leaders like HKL Bhagat, Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar had incited the killer mobs. But the BJP has made brazen denial an art form. Now it is more a norm than an aberration.
Who blinks first is fine as a game. But in a democracy you need more than raw nerve. You need informed dialogue on a common platform of truth, not flagrant doublespeak on the shifting sands of make-believe. For a stable democracy, we first need a stable reality.
The writer is is editor, The Little Magazine
Farzana Versey => 'On Varun Gandhi's Nice Touch'
by Farzana Versey (18 March 2009)
My dear Varun Gandhi…
You naughty boy! What a nice little roundabout way to get Muslim votes. What did you say? You said what would swell the heart of any Saudi – that you would cut the hand of “anyone who raises a finger towards Hindus”. This is not in the Hindu shastras or the Indian Constitution; you are following primitive Islamic laws banned in most Muslim countries. Bravo…
At the same time you said:
“They have scary names - Karimullah, Nazarullah - its scary to see them at night…………… When my cousin who is seven-eight years old, saw Samajwadi Party's candidate's photo, she said Bhaiya (big brother), I didn't know that Osama Bin Laden is fighting from your constituency”.
Maan gaye ustaad…you know all these mullahs are trying to distance themselves from Osama, so the thought of little eight-year-old girl being scared of large section of population will bring out motherly instincts of all the Darul-Uloom types…and they do look frightening at night. You did not say day. See? You are conveying that in darkness everything looks different; we must see the light.
You called Muslims “katuas”; you were saying the obvious – circumcised. I don’t understand why these television anchors have suddenly become so demure and say they cannot even utter these derogatory words; these same channels used to reproduce Bal Thackeray’s speeches where he screamed the word all the time.
I think you are right. This is a political conspiracy against you.
"I am a proud Gandhi, an Indian and a Hindu in equal measure.”
This, I am afraid, you cannot be. It has to be 33.99 per cent or something each. Alumni of the posh Sanawar School are not supposed to be good with numbers, so it is okay.
"Nothing I have said was to incite anybody. There is a rigorous attempt to malign my faith, each time anyone tries to identify with Hinduism, he is being branded communal. I am pro-India, I am not against anybody.”
Look at your party. Even the BJP is anti-India then, they are not standing up for you. But you know what? It is all a smart strategy. They are using you and you are using them.
If the Election Commission debars you, then you have two years to practise your skills. This one speech has brought you in the foreground; the BJP is happy but won’t show it. They have got a lot of attention and are now speaking through both sides of their mouths – one is the Hindutva side; the other the secular side.
Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi (if he had “ullah” in his name would you be scared of him?) said that your speech is part of your Congress family legacy…he is not wrong. Your father Sanjay was known for carrying out lots of forced family planning measures, bulldozing slums…
On the positive side it also means that you have left room for your entry into that party too. The Congress needs Hindu votes; it also needs a Gandhi who is not just breaking bread with Dalits. And the fact that your mummyji is keeping quiet could help you – she can flash her Sikh card and 1984 won’t trouble the Congress.
I am telling you, this is a good time for you, as the astrologers would say. Rahu-Ketu, Shani-Ravi all are in alignment and you can swing anyway you want.
Er, Jai Sri Ram!
PS: I liked your reference to cutting off heads of “katuas”. Nice touch.
My dear Varun Gandhi…
You naughty boy! What a nice little roundabout way to get Muslim votes. What did you say? You said what would swell the heart of any Saudi – that you would cut the hand of “anyone who raises a finger towards Hindus”. This is not in the Hindu shastras or the Indian Constitution; you are following primitive Islamic laws banned in most Muslim countries. Bravo…
At the same time you said:
“They have scary names - Karimullah, Nazarullah - its scary to see them at night…………… When my cousin who is seven-eight years old, saw Samajwadi Party's candidate's photo, she said Bhaiya (big brother), I didn't know that Osama Bin Laden is fighting from your constituency”.
Maan gaye ustaad…you know all these mullahs are trying to distance themselves from Osama, so the thought of little eight-year-old girl being scared of large section of population will bring out motherly instincts of all the Darul-Uloom types…and they do look frightening at night. You did not say day. See? You are conveying that in darkness everything looks different; we must see the light.
You called Muslims “katuas”; you were saying the obvious – circumcised. I don’t understand why these television anchors have suddenly become so demure and say they cannot even utter these derogatory words; these same channels used to reproduce Bal Thackeray’s speeches where he screamed the word all the time.
I think you are right. This is a political conspiracy against you.
"I am a proud Gandhi, an Indian and a Hindu in equal measure.”
This, I am afraid, you cannot be. It has to be 33.99 per cent or something each. Alumni of the posh Sanawar School are not supposed to be good with numbers, so it is okay.
"Nothing I have said was to incite anybody. There is a rigorous attempt to malign my faith, each time anyone tries to identify with Hinduism, he is being branded communal. I am pro-India, I am not against anybody.”
Look at your party. Even the BJP is anti-India then, they are not standing up for you. But you know what? It is all a smart strategy. They are using you and you are using them.
If the Election Commission debars you, then you have two years to practise your skills. This one speech has brought you in the foreground; the BJP is happy but won’t show it. They have got a lot of attention and are now speaking through both sides of their mouths – one is the Hindutva side; the other the secular side.
Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi (if he had “ullah” in his name would you be scared of him?) said that your speech is part of your Congress family legacy…he is not wrong. Your father Sanjay was known for carrying out lots of forced family planning measures, bulldozing slums…
On the positive side it also means that you have left room for your entry into that party too. The Congress needs Hindu votes; it also needs a Gandhi who is not just breaking bread with Dalits. And the fact that your mummyji is keeping quiet could help you – she can flash her Sikh card and 1984 won’t trouble the Congress.
I am telling you, this is a good time for you, as the astrologers would say. Rahu-Ketu, Shani-Ravi all are in alignment and you can swing anyway you want.
Er, Jai Sri Ram!
PS: I liked your reference to cutting off heads of “katuas”. Nice touch.
LSE-SOAS Statement Against the Campaign of Varun Gandhi
Statement
We, the faculty, staff, students and alumni of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), wish to dissociate our institutions from the values recently expressed by the politician Varun Gandhi. We note with chagrin that Varun Gandhi's association with these institutions is being used as a testament to his ethics and quality as a politician. His statements are antithetical to the values promoted by our institutions, and to our beliefs about responsible leadership in electoral democracy.
Varun Gandhi is a young politician whose great-grandfather, grandmother and uncle have each been Prime Minister of India. His branch of the family is no longer associated with the Indian National Congress, but instead with the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He holds a degree from the LSE (BSc in Economics), earned through a distance-learning provision, although he was never admitted to LSE's own undergraduate body. Later he was enrolled at SOAS (MSc in Sociology) but never completed the degree.
The general election to India's parliament will be held over the next month. Varun Gandhi is currently campaigning as the BJP candidate from Pilibhit constituency in Uttar Pradesh. Excerpts from his speeches, widely reported and viewable on the internet, include these statements:
*
"This is the hand of the Lotus [the symbol of the BJP]. After the elections, the hand of the Lotus will slit the throat of Muslims."
*
"Ask all Hindus to unite if you want to save this area from turning into Pakistan."
*
"I am contesting for Hindus. I don't want a single Muslim vote, either from Khalistan [the state sought by Sikh separatists; the Congress candidate is a Sikh] nor from Pakistan."
*
"If somebody lifts a hand against Hindus, or thinks they are weak, there is nobody behind them, then I swear on the Bhagvad Gita that I will cut off that hand."
The Central Election Commission has studied the recordings, found them to be genuine, and informed the BJP that it 'expected' Varun Gandhi to be dropped as a candidate. Despite this, the BJP national executive has refused to cancel Varun Gandhi's candidacy. In doing so, it has given implicit endorsement to a kind of electoral campaigning that severely damages the fragile social relations between religious communities in India. Uttar Pradesh has a long history of violence between religious communities, much of it the result of inflammatory political appeals, which have a demonstrated role in mobilizing religious pogroms.
By our signature here, we emphatically dissociate our institutional values from the ones expressed by Varun Gandhi in the recordings, and condemn his statements.
We, the faculty, staff, students and alumni of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), wish to dissociate our institutions from the values recently expressed by the politician Varun Gandhi. We note with chagrin that Varun Gandhi's association with these institutions is being used as a testament to his ethics and quality as a politician. His statements are antithetical to the values promoted by our institutions, and to our beliefs about responsible leadership in electoral democracy.
Varun Gandhi is a young politician whose great-grandfather, grandmother and uncle have each been Prime Minister of India. His branch of the family is no longer associated with the Indian National Congress, but instead with the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He holds a degree from the LSE (BSc in Economics), earned through a distance-learning provision, although he was never admitted to LSE's own undergraduate body. Later he was enrolled at SOAS (MSc in Sociology) but never completed the degree.
The general election to India's parliament will be held over the next month. Varun Gandhi is currently campaigning as the BJP candidate from Pilibhit constituency in Uttar Pradesh. Excerpts from his speeches, widely reported and viewable on the internet, include these statements:
*
"This is the hand of the Lotus [the symbol of the BJP]. After the elections, the hand of the Lotus will slit the throat of Muslims."
*
"Ask all Hindus to unite if you want to save this area from turning into Pakistan."
*
"I am contesting for Hindus. I don't want a single Muslim vote, either from Khalistan [the state sought by Sikh separatists; the Congress candidate is a Sikh] nor from Pakistan."
*
"If somebody lifts a hand against Hindus, or thinks they are weak, there is nobody behind them, then I swear on the Bhagvad Gita that I will cut off that hand."
The Central Election Commission has studied the recordings, found them to be genuine, and informed the BJP that it 'expected' Varun Gandhi to be dropped as a candidate. Despite this, the BJP national executive has refused to cancel Varun Gandhi's candidacy. In doing so, it has given implicit endorsement to a kind of electoral campaigning that severely damages the fragile social relations between religious communities in India. Uttar Pradesh has a long history of violence between religious communities, much of it the result of inflammatory political appeals, which have a demonstrated role in mobilizing religious pogroms.
By our signature here, we emphatically dissociate our institutional values from the ones expressed by Varun Gandhi in the recordings, and condemn his statements.
Appeal to support Mallika Sarabhai
APPEAL
RALLY BEHIND MALLIKA SARABHAI IN HER FIGHT AGAINST COMMUNAL FASCISM
As you must be aware Mallika Sarabhai is contesting from the Gandhi Nagar loksabha seat against BJPs Prime ministerial candidate, L.K. Advani. Ms. Sarabhai's electoral fight against Mr. Advani assumes utmost political significant because it has become a symbol of struggle between the forces of secular democracy versus communal fascism. This is a struggle for pluralist democracy where the religious minorities are respected as equal citizens against the fascist Hindutva ideology of creating a demonic "other" and carrying out pogroms against religious minorities and treating them as second class citizens in a modern liberal democratic society. This goes against the very ethos of our constitution.
One recoils in horror about the memory of the gory episodes of murder, rape and mayhem of the ghastly state sponsored communal carnage in Gujrat in the year 2002. Mr. L.K. Advani as the Home Minister of India and Narendra Modi as the Chief Minister of Gujrat presided over this most shameful chapter of Post Independent Indian History.
It is needless to recall Mr. Advani's role as the prime mover of communalizing the Indian society and imposing fascist Hindutva ideology on toiling workers, peasants and peace loving citizens of our country, thus tearing apart the social fabric of our society, which continues to bleed until today.
L.K. Advani's infamous RathYatra in 1989 spread the communal poison across the length and breadth of the country, polarized the society on religious lines, inflicting a severe blow on the very basis of peaceful, dignified coexistence of various religious groups in a pluralist liberal democratic society undermining the secular democratic foundations of our constitution, which was achieved after numerous sacrifices in our long drawn freedom struggle.
The Rathyatra of Advani and the resultant communal frenzy culminated in the shameful demolition of Babri Masjid which has traumatized the Muslim community and secular citizens for a long time. Mr. Advani was present on the spot along with other B.J.P. leadership encouraging the lumpen Kar Sevaks when they forcibly brought down the Babri Masjid.
The recent incidents like the horrifying killing of Christians in Kandhmal, the attack on women in Mangalore and other places are frightening indicators of Hindutva ideology led by Mr. Advani. It bears ominous signs of the fascist take over of India if we don’t make the necessary effective intervention to stem this tide of regressing in to medieval barbarism.
Mr. Advani is the symbol of both communal fascism and patriarchy, which spells doom for religious minorities and women in this country. Therefore it is imperative all of us join hands to defeat the nefarious designs of the Sangh Parivar.
We appeal to all the secular, democratic, organization, womens, organizations, students and youth to actively campaign for Ms. Mallika Sarabhai against her principled electoral battle against Mr. L.K. Advani in Gandhi Nagar.
(Note : Please endorse this appeal and forward it to your friends and other
activist groups.)
1. Vijay Pratap (Convenor Socialist front)
2. Babulal Sharma (Global Gandhi forum)
3. Wilfred - (Insaf. New Delhi)
4. Kiran Shaheen - ( Journalist and Politicl activist - New Delhi)
5. Faisal Khan - (NAPM - New Delhi)
6. Prakash Kumar Ray (Research scholar, film studies, school of arts
and Aesthetics, New Delhi JNU)
7. Usman (Research scholar, centre for Indian languages school of
languages JNU)
8. Rishika Meherishi (Research scholar, school of Art and Aesthetics
JNU)
9. P.K. Sundaram (Research scholar school of International studies
JNU)
10. Laxman Singh (Research scholar, Third world studies Jamial Milia
Islamia, New Delhi)
11. Putul (Social activist, New Delhi)
12. Asit (Activist and researcher New Delhi)
13. Sayantoni (Researcher, New Delhi)
14. Bhuwan Pathak (Social activist, Uttarakhand)
15. Kumar Sameer (Social activist, New Delhi )
16. Anil Pushkar (Research scholar centre for Indian languages
school of language, JNU)
17. Ajit Jha (Reader, Delhi University)
18. Amit Pokhriyal (Research scholar centre for science policy JNU)
19. Aftab Alam (Research scholar centre for political studies JNU)
RALLY BEHIND MALLIKA SARABHAI IN HER FIGHT AGAINST COMMUNAL FASCISM
As you must be aware Mallika Sarabhai is contesting from the Gandhi Nagar loksabha seat against BJPs Prime ministerial candidate, L.K. Advani. Ms. Sarabhai's electoral fight against Mr. Advani assumes utmost political significant because it has become a symbol of struggle between the forces of secular democracy versus communal fascism. This is a struggle for pluralist democracy where the religious minorities are respected as equal citizens against the fascist Hindutva ideology of creating a demonic "other" and carrying out pogroms against religious minorities and treating them as second class citizens in a modern liberal democratic society. This goes against the very ethos of our constitution.
One recoils in horror about the memory of the gory episodes of murder, rape and mayhem of the ghastly state sponsored communal carnage in Gujrat in the year 2002. Mr. L.K. Advani as the Home Minister of India and Narendra Modi as the Chief Minister of Gujrat presided over this most shameful chapter of Post Independent Indian History.
It is needless to recall Mr. Advani's role as the prime mover of communalizing the Indian society and imposing fascist Hindutva ideology on toiling workers, peasants and peace loving citizens of our country, thus tearing apart the social fabric of our society, which continues to bleed until today.
L.K. Advani's infamous RathYatra in 1989 spread the communal poison across the length and breadth of the country, polarized the society on religious lines, inflicting a severe blow on the very basis of peaceful, dignified coexistence of various religious groups in a pluralist liberal democratic society undermining the secular democratic foundations of our constitution, which was achieved after numerous sacrifices in our long drawn freedom struggle.
The Rathyatra of Advani and the resultant communal frenzy culminated in the shameful demolition of Babri Masjid which has traumatized the Muslim community and secular citizens for a long time. Mr. Advani was present on the spot along with other B.J.P. leadership encouraging the lumpen Kar Sevaks when they forcibly brought down the Babri Masjid.
The recent incidents like the horrifying killing of Christians in Kandhmal, the attack on women in Mangalore and other places are frightening indicators of Hindutva ideology led by Mr. Advani. It bears ominous signs of the fascist take over of India if we don’t make the necessary effective intervention to stem this tide of regressing in to medieval barbarism.
Mr. Advani is the symbol of both communal fascism and patriarchy, which spells doom for religious minorities and women in this country. Therefore it is imperative all of us join hands to defeat the nefarious designs of the Sangh Parivar.
We appeal to all the secular, democratic, organization, womens, organizations, students and youth to actively campaign for Ms. Mallika Sarabhai against her principled electoral battle against Mr. L.K. Advani in Gandhi Nagar.
(Note : Please endorse this appeal and forward it to your friends and other
activist groups.)
1. Vijay Pratap (Convenor Socialist front)
2. Babulal Sharma (Global Gandhi forum)
3. Wilfred - (Insaf. New Delhi)
4. Kiran Shaheen - ( Journalist and Politicl activist - New Delhi)
5. Faisal Khan - (NAPM - New Delhi)
6. Prakash Kumar Ray (Research scholar, film studies, school of arts
and Aesthetics, New Delhi JNU)
7. Usman (Research scholar, centre for Indian languages school of
languages JNU)
8. Rishika Meherishi (Research scholar, school of Art and Aesthetics
JNU)
9. P.K. Sundaram (Research scholar school of International studies
JNU)
10. Laxman Singh (Research scholar, Third world studies Jamial Milia
Islamia, New Delhi)
11. Putul (Social activist, New Delhi)
12. Asit (Activist and researcher New Delhi)
13. Sayantoni (Researcher, New Delhi)
14. Bhuwan Pathak (Social activist, Uttarakhand)
15. Kumar Sameer (Social activist, New Delhi )
16. Anil Pushkar (Research scholar centre for Indian languages
school of language, JNU)
17. Ajit Jha (Reader, Delhi University)
18. Amit Pokhriyal (Research scholar centre for science policy JNU)
19. Aftab Alam (Research scholar centre for political studies JNU)
Maya Kodnani: the mob leader who they have arrested for now
Maya Kodnani: Conceiving and aborting career in misdeeds
by Mustafa Khan
On February 21, 2009 the Gujarat Government submitted in the High court an affidavit in which it says “in spite of being an MLA, Kodnani was a leader of the mob instigating them to commit the crimes and in fact even fired from her pistol”. If the government of Narendra Modi said that to the High Court why did it not ask her to resign there and then? With her arrest on March 27 it is morally imperative that the Modi government should either resign or the Centre impose its rule in the state. Neither would happen because the atmosphere in Gujarat remains vitiated by saffron politics of what PUCL calls Godse’ legacy of hatred and violence. There is also the election round the corner which ironically makes democracy a dangerous proposition.
But not exactly if the courts of the land are allowed to function. As Justice DH Waghela who cancelled her anticipatory bail observed: “Religious fanatics do not belong to any religion, they are no better than terrorists who kill innocent people for no rhyme or reason. Communal harmony is the hallmark of democracy. If in the name of religion people are killed, that is absolutely a slur and a blot on a society governed by the rule of law.” The judge goes further and remarks that death sentence and not just life imprisonment should be passed when mass murder is committed by faceless crowds under the influence of such leaders as Kodnani. He also came down heavily on the lower session court which had given anticipatory bail on the basis of the gynecologist and her accomplice pathologist Jaydeep Patel not having tampered with records and unlikelihood of the accused committing any further crime!
The judgment also rubbishes what is often flaunted as specious argument that the present peace calls for not raking up past unpleasant disturbances. This mistakenly is called reconciliation! “The distance in time from the date of the alleged offences to the present stage of investigation is unfortunate and attributable to the failure of law enforcement agencies, but it cannot derogate from the requirements of bringing to book all the persons who might have had a role in rudely disrupting the lives of millions of citizens eking out their living in harmony in a progressive state of secular democratic Republic of India.”
The Sindhi background of Kodnani is quite significant. Her father like many of the migrants from Sindh was a refugee of the partition. He settled down at Deesa near a pilgrimage site and was RSS leader. He even founded a school. It is natural that antagonism against the Muslims was a streak in the family. Another migrant, LK Advani, played a pivotal role from behind the stage as she rose to become a minister despite murder charges leveled against her. Indeed she got the highest lead over her rival in Gujarat election of 2007:1, 80 000 votes. She first contested in 1995 and won with 75 000 votes, in December 2002 her margin jumped to 1,10 000. Her constituency includes Naroda Patiya where 98 Muslims were killed and Naroda gam where 11 more were done to death. It is also the place where Sindhis are in a sizable number many of whom have not come out of the hangover of partition and displacement and nurture the same kind of grudge against the minority Muslim as her refugee father. They also eye the Muslims as potential rivals in business given the freewheeling economy of the state unless it is checked by communal disturbances as is proved by the track record of BJP. The saffron party has rock bottom support of the migrants from Sindh and Punjab.
The government of Narendra Modi was and still is complicit in the crimes committed in 2002. In direct opposition to the advice of the collector of Godhra, the chief minister ordered that the dead bodies of the Sabarmati express train victims should be brought to Ahmedabad in public display and that the police should not check Hindu anger and retaliation. The high court has recently ruled that there was no conspiracy behind the Godhra mishap. If anything it was the machination of the chief minister. Modi shielded Kodnani till Friday March 27 when she was forced to resign as she was arrested by the police.
--
Mustafa Khan
http://commonalty.blogspot.com/
by Mustafa Khan
On February 21, 2009 the Gujarat Government submitted in the High court an affidavit in which it says “in spite of being an MLA, Kodnani was a leader of the mob instigating them to commit the crimes and in fact even fired from her pistol”. If the government of Narendra Modi said that to the High Court why did it not ask her to resign there and then? With her arrest on March 27 it is morally imperative that the Modi government should either resign or the Centre impose its rule in the state. Neither would happen because the atmosphere in Gujarat remains vitiated by saffron politics of what PUCL calls Godse’ legacy of hatred and violence. There is also the election round the corner which ironically makes democracy a dangerous proposition.
But not exactly if the courts of the land are allowed to function. As Justice DH Waghela who cancelled her anticipatory bail observed: “Religious fanatics do not belong to any religion, they are no better than terrorists who kill innocent people for no rhyme or reason. Communal harmony is the hallmark of democracy. If in the name of religion people are killed, that is absolutely a slur and a blot on a society governed by the rule of law.” The judge goes further and remarks that death sentence and not just life imprisonment should be passed when mass murder is committed by faceless crowds under the influence of such leaders as Kodnani. He also came down heavily on the lower session court which had given anticipatory bail on the basis of the gynecologist and her accomplice pathologist Jaydeep Patel not having tampered with records and unlikelihood of the accused committing any further crime!
The judgment also rubbishes what is often flaunted as specious argument that the present peace calls for not raking up past unpleasant disturbances. This mistakenly is called reconciliation! “The distance in time from the date of the alleged offences to the present stage of investigation is unfortunate and attributable to the failure of law enforcement agencies, but it cannot derogate from the requirements of bringing to book all the persons who might have had a role in rudely disrupting the lives of millions of citizens eking out their living in harmony in a progressive state of secular democratic Republic of India.”
The Sindhi background of Kodnani is quite significant. Her father like many of the migrants from Sindh was a refugee of the partition. He settled down at Deesa near a pilgrimage site and was RSS leader. He even founded a school. It is natural that antagonism against the Muslims was a streak in the family. Another migrant, LK Advani, played a pivotal role from behind the stage as she rose to become a minister despite murder charges leveled against her. Indeed she got the highest lead over her rival in Gujarat election of 2007:1, 80 000 votes. She first contested in 1995 and won with 75 000 votes, in December 2002 her margin jumped to 1,10 000. Her constituency includes Naroda Patiya where 98 Muslims were killed and Naroda gam where 11 more were done to death. It is also the place where Sindhis are in a sizable number many of whom have not come out of the hangover of partition and displacement and nurture the same kind of grudge against the minority Muslim as her refugee father. They also eye the Muslims as potential rivals in business given the freewheeling economy of the state unless it is checked by communal disturbances as is proved by the track record of BJP. The saffron party has rock bottom support of the migrants from Sindh and Punjab.
The government of Narendra Modi was and still is complicit in the crimes committed in 2002. In direct opposition to the advice of the collector of Godhra, the chief minister ordered that the dead bodies of the Sabarmati express train victims should be brought to Ahmedabad in public display and that the police should not check Hindu anger and retaliation. The high court has recently ruled that there was no conspiracy behind the Godhra mishap. If anything it was the machination of the chief minister. Modi shielded Kodnani till Friday March 27 when she was forced to resign as she was arrested by the police.
--
Mustafa Khan
http://commonalty.blogspot.com/
First Modi minister arrested for 2002 riots
Express news service Posted: Mar 28, 2009 at 0242 hrs IST
Maya Kodnani arrested in connection with the Gujarat communal carnage of 2002, accompanied by her husband.
Ahmedabad: Maya Kodnani on Friday became the first minister to be arrested in connection with the Gujarat communal carnage of 2002.
Kodnani, 53, minister for women and child development in the Narendra Modi cabinet, now faces charges of murder, abetment to murder and arson in the Naroda Gam and Naroda Patiya massacres. As many as 98 Muslims were killed in Naroda Patiya and 11 in Naroda Gam.
The Gujarat High Court on Friday struck down the anticipatory bail that a lower court had given to Kodnani, an Ahmedabad gynaecologist, and VHP leader Jaideep Patel, accused in the Naroda Gam case, leaving them no choice but to surrender before the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigative Team (SIT).
Kodnani resigned from the Modi cabinet earlier on Friday.
“Religious fanatics do not belong to any religion, they are no better than terrorists who kill innocent people for no rhyme or reason,” Justice DH Waghela, who struck down the bail, said. “Communal harmony is the hallmark of democracy¿ If in the name of religion people are killed, that is absolutely a slur and a blot on a society governed by the rule of law.”
Is Jesus God?Scholars examine the facts
www.Y-Jesus.com/JesusFact
IB School in BangaloreSchool for expat kids in Bangalore
StonehillInternationalSch
Hannover Fair 2009Personal Security etc.
www.hannovermesse.de/prog
Ads By Google
Justice Waghela, referring to the call records of Kodnani’s cellphone on February 28, 2002, said Kodnani could have been present in Naroda area for at least 40 minutes in the morning and also in the afternoon. In November 2004, The Indian Express had reported, based on cellphone records, Kodnani and Patel’s movements and conversations on February 28.
The judgement said that the activities of Kodnani (who was then an MLA) at the scene of offence where violent mobs with weapons had gathered in an atmosphere surcharged with anger and hatred, showed nothing to claim that she made a bid to quell or control the mobs. “Nor is it believable that they visited the scenes of offences for any personal or private purpose.”
“In such circumstances, prima facie, allegations of inciting or encouraging the mobs into wanton display of hatred, destruction of properties and killing of innocent men, women and children produce a chilling picture of communal violence on an unprecedented scale, leaving on the psyche of ordinary citizens scars which might take decades to fade,” the judgement said. “Therefore, the offences which are alleged to have been committed by faceless mobs of thousands of persons led by a few have to be treated as very heinous and having far-reaching implications,” Justice Waghela said.
In a severe indictment of the role of the ruling party politicians, Justice Waghela said: “A murder committed due to deep-seated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an organized crime for mass murders of innocent people would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence.”
Coming down heavily on the Ahmedabad Sessions court that granted anticipatory bail to the minister, he said: “The exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the minister ascribed a leadership role, on irrelevant grounds of them not having tampered with the evidence or being unlikely to commit other offences, was highly improper and perverse, and calls for interference, particularly when the investigation is still underway and the respondent still holds the status from where (she) can influence the witnesses”.
“The distance in time from the date of the alleged offences to the present stage of investigation is unfortunate and attributable to the failure of law enforcement agencies, but it cannot derogate from the requirements of bringing to book all the persons who might have had a role in rudely disrupting the lives of millions of citizens eking out their living in harmony in a progressive state of secular democratic Republic of India,” he said.
After going through the arguments put by the defence and prosecution counsels, Justice Waghela noted that there were no less that 40 statements of witnesses that directly named the minister in the Naroda Patia and Naroda Gam mass murder cases. Kodnani is wanted by the SIT in connection the twin massacres on the outskirts of Ahmedabad on February 28, 2002 and March 1, 2002. Both the areas are parts of Naroda assembly constituency represented by Kodnani.
“In fact, some of the statements of witnesses like that of Habib Mirza indicated some prior planning and preparation for carrying out the riots even as police force was approached by the victims for help and it was present at the scene of the offence,” Justice Waghela said.
Stating that some of the police personnel on duty were now being implicated in SIT investigation, he observed that “it puts the earlier investigation by local officers in a shade and under the cloud of serious doubt”.
Maya Kodnani arrested in connection with the Gujarat communal carnage of 2002, accompanied by her husband.
Ahmedabad: Maya Kodnani on Friday became the first minister to be arrested in connection with the Gujarat communal carnage of 2002.
Kodnani, 53, minister for women and child development in the Narendra Modi cabinet, now faces charges of murder, abetment to murder and arson in the Naroda Gam and Naroda Patiya massacres. As many as 98 Muslims were killed in Naroda Patiya and 11 in Naroda Gam.
The Gujarat High Court on Friday struck down the anticipatory bail that a lower court had given to Kodnani, an Ahmedabad gynaecologist, and VHP leader Jaideep Patel, accused in the Naroda Gam case, leaving them no choice but to surrender before the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigative Team (SIT).
Kodnani resigned from the Modi cabinet earlier on Friday.
“Religious fanatics do not belong to any religion, they are no better than terrorists who kill innocent people for no rhyme or reason,” Justice DH Waghela, who struck down the bail, said. “Communal harmony is the hallmark of democracy¿ If in the name of religion people are killed, that is absolutely a slur and a blot on a society governed by the rule of law.”
Is Jesus God?Scholars examine the facts
www.Y-Jesus.com/JesusFact
IB School in BangaloreSchool for expat kids in Bangalore
StonehillInternationalSch
Hannover Fair 2009Personal Security etc.
www.hannovermesse.de/prog
Ads By Google
Justice Waghela, referring to the call records of Kodnani’s cellphone on February 28, 2002, said Kodnani could have been present in Naroda area for at least 40 minutes in the morning and also in the afternoon. In November 2004, The Indian Express had reported, based on cellphone records, Kodnani and Patel’s movements and conversations on February 28.
The judgement said that the activities of Kodnani (who was then an MLA) at the scene of offence where violent mobs with weapons had gathered in an atmosphere surcharged with anger and hatred, showed nothing to claim that she made a bid to quell or control the mobs. “Nor is it believable that they visited the scenes of offences for any personal or private purpose.”
“In such circumstances, prima facie, allegations of inciting or encouraging the mobs into wanton display of hatred, destruction of properties and killing of innocent men, women and children produce a chilling picture of communal violence on an unprecedented scale, leaving on the psyche of ordinary citizens scars which might take decades to fade,” the judgement said. “Therefore, the offences which are alleged to have been committed by faceless mobs of thousands of persons led by a few have to be treated as very heinous and having far-reaching implications,” Justice Waghela said.
In a severe indictment of the role of the ruling party politicians, Justice Waghela said: “A murder committed due to deep-seated mutual and personal rivalry may not call for penalty of death. But an organized crime for mass murders of innocent people would call for imposition of death sentence as deterrence.”
Coming down heavily on the Ahmedabad Sessions court that granted anticipatory bail to the minister, he said: “The exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the minister ascribed a leadership role, on irrelevant grounds of them not having tampered with the evidence or being unlikely to commit other offences, was highly improper and perverse, and calls for interference, particularly when the investigation is still underway and the respondent still holds the status from where (she) can influence the witnesses”.
“The distance in time from the date of the alleged offences to the present stage of investigation is unfortunate and attributable to the failure of law enforcement agencies, but it cannot derogate from the requirements of bringing to book all the persons who might have had a role in rudely disrupting the lives of millions of citizens eking out their living in harmony in a progressive state of secular democratic Republic of India,” he said.
After going through the arguments put by the defence and prosecution counsels, Justice Waghela noted that there were no less that 40 statements of witnesses that directly named the minister in the Naroda Patia and Naroda Gam mass murder cases. Kodnani is wanted by the SIT in connection the twin massacres on the outskirts of Ahmedabad on February 28, 2002 and March 1, 2002. Both the areas are parts of Naroda assembly constituency represented by Kodnani.
“In fact, some of the statements of witnesses like that of Habib Mirza indicated some prior planning and preparation for carrying out the riots even as police force was approached by the victims for help and it was present at the scene of the offence,” Justice Waghela said.
Stating that some of the police personnel on duty were now being implicated in SIT investigation, he observed that “it puts the earlier investigation by local officers in a shade and under the cloud of serious doubt”.
March 27, 2009
RSS in the Congress Party (and surely in other parties too?)
From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 13, Dated Apr 04, 2009
‘Rss Members Are Present Even In The Congress Party’
The election of 58-year-old Mohan Bhagwat as the Sarsanghchalak, or chief, of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has signaled a generational change in the controversial Hindu supremacist organisation. The youngest-ever RSS chief, Bhagwat, a bachelor and a full-time RSS activist for decades, has his social and political agenda cut out. The RSS General Secretary since 2000, one of Bhagwat’s key goals is to expand his organisation’s base. Ram Madhav, 43, a key Bhagwat aide and the RSS’ national spokesperson, talks to AJIT SAHI about his new boss and the challenges the RSS now faces.
New era Ram Madhav says new RSS chief Bhagwat will herald more openness
In his first public speech after he was named the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat said the RSS should evolve along modern lines. What does that mean?
Bhagwatji always says everything is changeable in the RSS except our core belief in the Hindutva ideology: that Hindustan is a Hindu rashtra [nation]. Contrary to what people think, we are not fixated on anything — not even on our uniform; even that will change whenever our cadres want. But our core ideology cannot change.
What are the key challenges before the RSS?
One of the challenges is that we are identified too closely with one political party, whereas the appeal of Hindutva cuts across all political parties. We took a major decision in 2005 — the Chitrakoot resolution — to completely abstain from electoral politics. Earlier, during elections, the RSS cadres would run parallel campaigns, such as the Jan Jagrans. Now, we want to promote the Hindu social agenda without being seen as an appendage of any political party. Our challenge is to maintain this fine balance between pursuing the Hindu agenda and keeping a distance from dayto- day politics.
Bhagwat is said to support LK Advani but not BJP President Rajnath Singh.
This campaign that he is Advani’s man does not hold water. He is everybody’s man. He is the man of the organisation and the ideology that it represents.
The general impression always was that the RSS leads and the BJP follows. But now it is said that Bhagwat is a supporter of Advani’s.
As I said, this is a spin given by a section of the media. In fact, he was on the dais when Advaniji’s book was released last year, and there he had said clearly that he didn’t know Advaniji well enough until he became the Sarkaryavah [General Secretary] in 2000.
Why doesn’t the RSS help the BJP sort issues, such as the one between Rajnath Singh and Arun Jaitley?
The BJP should have an internal mechanism to sort issues between two senior leaders. Why should the Sangh step in? The Sangh refused to intervene in the trouble between these two. Not a word about it was spoken during the Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha, though senior BJP leaders were present there.
What are the other challenges that the RSS faces?
We face an image problem. There is a huge gap between our image and reality, accentuated by incidents like [last year’s Christian killings in] Kandhamal in Orissa and the 2002 [anti-Muslim] violence in Gujarat. To some extent, these incidents have created an image for the organisation that does not bode well. We know the reality is different. A large section of the Hindu society that has seen us directly understands the reality. But the wrong image persists in some sections. Under Bhagwatji’s guidance, we know we would be able to address this issue.
What do you mean that the RSS has an image problem?
After the post-Godhra violence, there was propaganda the world over that the RSS is anti-Muslim and a violent organisation. The whole case was presented wrongly by a section of the media as if Hindus were butchering Christians and Muslims, which is not the reality. The ground situation is totally different, both in Gujarat as well as in Kandhamal.
A report telecast on a reputed English TV channel had sound-bites from some people accusing the RSS and the Hindu groups of the violence against Christians. Later, I saw a documentary by a filmmaker in Kolkata in which the same people were speaking against the Christians! Last week, a story on [Gujarat Chief Minister] Narendra Modi in The Atlantic magazine of the US devoted one full paragraph to abusing us.
How do you propose to resolve this?
The image and the reality are 180 degrees apart. We have thought of making a major documentary on this question of our image and the reality. See, many things that are said about the RSS are not true. For example, it is said that only Brahmins can hold positions in the RSS. But half our pracharaks are not even from the so-called forward castes. People say this just because the RSS head may be from a so-called forward caste.
What is Bhagwat’s approach to this problem?
He is a great pragmatic leader. Today, if I can discuss with you so many things, that is because of the new visionary leadership. He believes we should be open and communicate with society. Earlier, we spoke only to our cadres. Now we plan to meet opinion-makers to put forward our points of view.
What kind of opinion-makers?
A huge spectrum: academicians, eminent citizens such as a doctor who could be a member of the Rotary or Lion’s club…
Within the RSS, too, we have challenges. Three years ago, we had 50,000 shakhas [branches]. In 2007-08, we got busy with celebrating the birth centenary of the second RSS chief, Guru Golwalkarji. Our shakhas were cut down to 44,000. We now aim to take it back to 50,000.
We plan to focus in a big way on reviving and protecting tribal culture. The Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram runs regular centres in 14,000 of the country’s 30,000 tribal villages. We go through education, healthcare and literacy campaigns.
A prominent saint from Karnataka is undertaking a Gau Gram Sanrakshan Yatra [Cow-Village Protection March], which will touch at least 300,000 villages. The Yatra will collect 10 crore signatures to ask the government to revive the rural economy. The protection of our cattle wealth, rural industry and agriculture has to be the focus of any development.
What about groups like the Sri Ram Sene and their attacks on the women visiting pubs in Mangalore?
The Congress leaders spoke more than us against the women going to the pubs. What did [Rajasthan Chief Minister] Ashok Gehlot say about the pub culture? When a TV journalist was killed in New Delhi last year, didn’t [Delhi Chief Minister] Sheila Dixit ask what she was doing alone at 3 am, the time she was killed?
Groups like Sri Ram Sene have no connection with the RSS. We don’t support vandalism. But we have views on many social issues. For example, we don’t approve of Valentine’s Day celebrations.
You say the RSS realises that the appeal of Hindutva cuts across political parties. The Communists must be out of the question, but which other political parties have RSS members?
We have our members in several political parties, including the Congress. We interact with them regularly. But this does not mean that we oppose the BJP. The BJP is closest to us in terms of ideology. Someone is 10 feet away from us; someone else is 1 km away — that’s the difference.
Bhagwat is said to have been hands-on as General Secretary. How different will he be in his new role?
Nothing changes with position in the RSS. His work will continue as before. The RSS is not personality-oriented. Rather, the leaders take decisions collectively through consultation.
The outgoing RSS chief KR Sudarshan is 79 years old. Bhagwat is 58. Does being young have any significance?
Bhagwatji’s rapport with the entire cadres is much stronger as he has the advantage of age. He is a patient listener. Anyone can walk up to him and share his thoughts and ideas. He is very open-minded and transparent. The cadres at all levels feel comfortable talking to him. He answers his e-mails personally as much as possible.
He has an excellent grounding in our ancient knowledge and wisdom, while he also has a scientific temper. In his speech after taking over last week he quoted from a magazine of the Ramakrishna Mission, which he regularly reads. Incidentally, Bhagwatji is also a regular reader of Reader’s Digest and extensively quotes from it in his speeches.
WRITER’S EMAIL
ajit@tehelka.com
‘Rss Members Are Present Even In The Congress Party’
The election of 58-year-old Mohan Bhagwat as the Sarsanghchalak, or chief, of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has signaled a generational change in the controversial Hindu supremacist organisation. The youngest-ever RSS chief, Bhagwat, a bachelor and a full-time RSS activist for decades, has his social and political agenda cut out. The RSS General Secretary since 2000, one of Bhagwat’s key goals is to expand his organisation’s base. Ram Madhav, 43, a key Bhagwat aide and the RSS’ national spokesperson, talks to AJIT SAHI about his new boss and the challenges the RSS now faces.
New era Ram Madhav says new RSS chief Bhagwat will herald more openness
In his first public speech after he was named the RSS chief, Mohan Bhagwat said the RSS should evolve along modern lines. What does that mean?
Bhagwatji always says everything is changeable in the RSS except our core belief in the Hindutva ideology: that Hindustan is a Hindu rashtra [nation]. Contrary to what people think, we are not fixated on anything — not even on our uniform; even that will change whenever our cadres want. But our core ideology cannot change.
What are the key challenges before the RSS?
One of the challenges is that we are identified too closely with one political party, whereas the appeal of Hindutva cuts across all political parties. We took a major decision in 2005 — the Chitrakoot resolution — to completely abstain from electoral politics. Earlier, during elections, the RSS cadres would run parallel campaigns, such as the Jan Jagrans. Now, we want to promote the Hindu social agenda without being seen as an appendage of any political party. Our challenge is to maintain this fine balance between pursuing the Hindu agenda and keeping a distance from dayto- day politics.
Bhagwat is said to support LK Advani but not BJP President Rajnath Singh.
This campaign that he is Advani’s man does not hold water. He is everybody’s man. He is the man of the organisation and the ideology that it represents.
The general impression always was that the RSS leads and the BJP follows. But now it is said that Bhagwat is a supporter of Advani’s.
As I said, this is a spin given by a section of the media. In fact, he was on the dais when Advaniji’s book was released last year, and there he had said clearly that he didn’t know Advaniji well enough until he became the Sarkaryavah [General Secretary] in 2000.
Why doesn’t the RSS help the BJP sort issues, such as the one between Rajnath Singh and Arun Jaitley?
The BJP should have an internal mechanism to sort issues between two senior leaders. Why should the Sangh step in? The Sangh refused to intervene in the trouble between these two. Not a word about it was spoken during the Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha, though senior BJP leaders were present there.
What are the other challenges that the RSS faces?
We face an image problem. There is a huge gap between our image and reality, accentuated by incidents like [last year’s Christian killings in] Kandhamal in Orissa and the 2002 [anti-Muslim] violence in Gujarat. To some extent, these incidents have created an image for the organisation that does not bode well. We know the reality is different. A large section of the Hindu society that has seen us directly understands the reality. But the wrong image persists in some sections. Under Bhagwatji’s guidance, we know we would be able to address this issue.
What do you mean that the RSS has an image problem?
After the post-Godhra violence, there was propaganda the world over that the RSS is anti-Muslim and a violent organisation. The whole case was presented wrongly by a section of the media as if Hindus were butchering Christians and Muslims, which is not the reality. The ground situation is totally different, both in Gujarat as well as in Kandhamal.
A report telecast on a reputed English TV channel had sound-bites from some people accusing the RSS and the Hindu groups of the violence against Christians. Later, I saw a documentary by a filmmaker in Kolkata in which the same people were speaking against the Christians! Last week, a story on [Gujarat Chief Minister] Narendra Modi in The Atlantic magazine of the US devoted one full paragraph to abusing us.
How do you propose to resolve this?
The image and the reality are 180 degrees apart. We have thought of making a major documentary on this question of our image and the reality. See, many things that are said about the RSS are not true. For example, it is said that only Brahmins can hold positions in the RSS. But half our pracharaks are not even from the so-called forward castes. People say this just because the RSS head may be from a so-called forward caste.
What is Bhagwat’s approach to this problem?
He is a great pragmatic leader. Today, if I can discuss with you so many things, that is because of the new visionary leadership. He believes we should be open and communicate with society. Earlier, we spoke only to our cadres. Now we plan to meet opinion-makers to put forward our points of view.
What kind of opinion-makers?
A huge spectrum: academicians, eminent citizens such as a doctor who could be a member of the Rotary or Lion’s club…
Within the RSS, too, we have challenges. Three years ago, we had 50,000 shakhas [branches]. In 2007-08, we got busy with celebrating the birth centenary of the second RSS chief, Guru Golwalkarji. Our shakhas were cut down to 44,000. We now aim to take it back to 50,000.
We plan to focus in a big way on reviving and protecting tribal culture. The Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram runs regular centres in 14,000 of the country’s 30,000 tribal villages. We go through education, healthcare and literacy campaigns.
A prominent saint from Karnataka is undertaking a Gau Gram Sanrakshan Yatra [Cow-Village Protection March], which will touch at least 300,000 villages. The Yatra will collect 10 crore signatures to ask the government to revive the rural economy. The protection of our cattle wealth, rural industry and agriculture has to be the focus of any development.
What about groups like the Sri Ram Sene and their attacks on the women visiting pubs in Mangalore?
The Congress leaders spoke more than us against the women going to the pubs. What did [Rajasthan Chief Minister] Ashok Gehlot say about the pub culture? When a TV journalist was killed in New Delhi last year, didn’t [Delhi Chief Minister] Sheila Dixit ask what she was doing alone at 3 am, the time she was killed?
Groups like Sri Ram Sene have no connection with the RSS. We don’t support vandalism. But we have views on many social issues. For example, we don’t approve of Valentine’s Day celebrations.
You say the RSS realises that the appeal of Hindutva cuts across political parties. The Communists must be out of the question, but which other political parties have RSS members?
We have our members in several political parties, including the Congress. We interact with them regularly. But this does not mean that we oppose the BJP. The BJP is closest to us in terms of ideology. Someone is 10 feet away from us; someone else is 1 km away — that’s the difference.
Bhagwat is said to have been hands-on as General Secretary. How different will he be in his new role?
Nothing changes with position in the RSS. His work will continue as before. The RSS is not personality-oriented. Rather, the leaders take decisions collectively through consultation.
The outgoing RSS chief KR Sudarshan is 79 years old. Bhagwat is 58. Does being young have any significance?
Bhagwatji’s rapport with the entire cadres is much stronger as he has the advantage of age. He is a patient listener. Anyone can walk up to him and share his thoughts and ideas. He is very open-minded and transparent. The cadres at all levels feel comfortable talking to him. He answers his e-mails personally as much as possible.
He has an excellent grounding in our ancient knowledge and wisdom, while he also has a scientific temper. In his speech after taking over last week he quoted from a magazine of the Ramakrishna Mission, which he regularly reads. Incidentally, Bhagwatji is also a regular reader of Reader’s Digest and extensively quotes from it in his speeches.
WRITER’S EMAIL
ajit@tehelka.com
Gujarat Court Cancels bail for Mayaben Kodnani: Time to bring her to book
Prashant
A Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace
Post Box No. 4050, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380 009, Gujarat, India
Tel. : +91 (079) 66522333, 2745 5913
.Fax : +91 (079) 2748 9018
Mobile : 9824034536 . e-mail : sjprashant@gmail.com
www.humanrightsindia.in
“Religious fanatics don’t belong to any religion and they are no less than terrorists”
That Mayaben Kodnani was involved in the Gujarat Carnage of 2002 was never in doubt. That the Gujarat High Court has cancelled her anticipatory bail and that in all likelihood, she will soon be arrested will surely come as a relief to many of the victim survivors, eagerly waiting for some signs of justice, after more than seven long years.
It is imperative therefore, that even at this late stage, the wheels of justice move expeditiously and all those responsible for the dastardly acts of 2002 are brought to book immediately.
On 21st February 2009, the Gujarat Government finally filed an affidavit in the Gujarat High Court on the basis of findings of the Special Investigating Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court challenging the anticipatory bail given to Kodnani by the Lower Court. The affidavit very categorically stated that, “inspite of being an MLA, Kodnani was a leader of the mob instigating them to commit the crimes and in fact even fired from her pistol”. True to its tradition, the BJP Government of Gujarat did not think it appropriate to ask her to resign and in fact has been shielding her and others, all these years.
The BJP and their other constituents in the Sangh Parivar, will as usual, do their best to turn this adversity into an opportunity, portraying her and the others as “martyrs”, and continue with their agenda of hate and divisiveness.
It is therefore fitting, that atleast now the law enforcement mechanisms of the country hold Modi and his cohorts directly responsible for the killing of innocent people, for their continued attacks against minorities and for their utter disregard for the rule of law.
The Gujarat High Court in its judgment has rightly stated “Religious fanatics don’t belong to any religion and they are no less than terrorists”. It is time that civil society comes out in large numbers, acknowledges the pain of the Gujarat Carnage of 2002, ensures that such fascist forces are no longer allowed to sabotage the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and above all, never ever elects them to any office or position.
Fr. Cedric Prakash sj
Director
27th March 2009
A Centre for Human Rights, Justice and Peace
Post Box No. 4050, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380 009, Gujarat, India
Tel. : +91 (079) 66522333, 2745 5913
.Fax : +91 (079) 2748 9018
Mobile : 9824034536 . e-mail : sjprashant@gmail.com
www.humanrightsindia.in
“Religious fanatics don’t belong to any religion and they are no less than terrorists”
That Mayaben Kodnani was involved in the Gujarat Carnage of 2002 was never in doubt. That the Gujarat High Court has cancelled her anticipatory bail and that in all likelihood, she will soon be arrested will surely come as a relief to many of the victim survivors, eagerly waiting for some signs of justice, after more than seven long years.
It is imperative therefore, that even at this late stage, the wheels of justice move expeditiously and all those responsible for the dastardly acts of 2002 are brought to book immediately.
On 21st February 2009, the Gujarat Government finally filed an affidavit in the Gujarat High Court on the basis of findings of the Special Investigating Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court challenging the anticipatory bail given to Kodnani by the Lower Court. The affidavit very categorically stated that, “inspite of being an MLA, Kodnani was a leader of the mob instigating them to commit the crimes and in fact even fired from her pistol”. True to its tradition, the BJP Government of Gujarat did not think it appropriate to ask her to resign and in fact has been shielding her and others, all these years.
The BJP and their other constituents in the Sangh Parivar, will as usual, do their best to turn this adversity into an opportunity, portraying her and the others as “martyrs”, and continue with their agenda of hate and divisiveness.
It is therefore fitting, that atleast now the law enforcement mechanisms of the country hold Modi and his cohorts directly responsible for the killing of innocent people, for their continued attacks against minorities and for their utter disregard for the rule of law.
The Gujarat High Court in its judgment has rightly stated “Religious fanatics don’t belong to any religion and they are no less than terrorists”. It is time that civil society comes out in large numbers, acknowledges the pain of the Gujarat Carnage of 2002, ensures that such fascist forces are no longer allowed to sabotage the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and above all, never ever elects them to any office or position.
Fr. Cedric Prakash sj
Director
27th March 2009
March 26, 2009
Victims of Kandhamal riots wants polls postponed
Mail Today
March 26, 2009
Kandhamal victims want polls deferred
By Mail Today Bureau in New Delhi
Claim 22,000 displaced persons will not be able to cast vote
VICTIMS of the Kandhamal riots in Orissa have urged the Election Commission ( EC) to postpone polling in the violence- hit district, saying a large number of displaced persons would not be able to vote.
A delegation of victims, led by social activist Teesta Setalvad, met EC officials in this regard on Wednesday.
Expressing fear that bogus votes could be cast in the name of displaced persons, the victims appealed to the EC to defer polling in the Phulbani parliamentary segment and Bariguda, Phulbani and Udaigiri Assembly constituencies, that were affected by the violence.
Assembly polls are being held in the state in two phases on April 16 and 23 along with the Lok Sabha polls.
According to official figures, about 3,100 persons are living in relief camps in the wake of the anti- Christian violence last year following the killing of Swami Laxmananand Saraswati.
But the victims claimed that 22,000 people were still missing and they would be deprived of their franchise unless the EC took special measures to ensure that the displaced persons cast their vote.
The poll panel is understood to have directed Orissa’s chief electoral officer Alka Panda to look into the complaint and tally the identity of the displaced persons with the electoral rolls. Of the 6.56 lakh voters in the district, 1.14 lakh are Christians.
Some of the riot- affected women, brought to Delhi by Setalvad’s NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace, gave a first- hand account of their harrowing experiences. They alleged that the situation is still tense as hate speeches are being made to polarise voters along communal lines.
For 35- year- old Priyatama Naik, elections hold little meaning as life is a daily struggle against poverty, deprivation and Hindu fundamentalism.
A mob burnt her husband Abhimanyu alive in front of her eyes in Barapali village. Unable to give a decent burial to Abhimanyu, Priyatama sat by the body for four days, helplessly watching it being dismembered and eaten by hungry canines.
After she finally managed to bury him with help of villagers, Abhimanyu’s body was exhumed some days later for a postmortem.
“ Despite my husband naming the culprits in his dying declaration and an FIR being lodged, precious little has been done. I was threatened not to cast the ballot,” she said.
“ There is no help from the police or the government. What is the meaning of taking part in an election if the whole system has failed?” Another woman, Nurna Digal, said: “ Official records last September indicated 25,173 people were languishing in relief camps. But a month later, the government claimed only 10,000 people were present there. The latest claim is that only 3,000 people are taking shelter in these camps. Where are the missing 22,000 voters?” Kadamfula Naik alleged that government officials were forcing refugees like her to leave relief camps in exchange of Rs 10,000.
“ My husband was butchered with a sword. My land was forcibly seized and the rioters are refusing to let me return to my village unless I convert,” she said.
The delegation demanded that the state government should not forcibly close the relief camps and that there should be a proper assessment of the human loss and damages in 300 villages.
“ Special courts should be set up under the National Human Rights Commission to deal with the riot cases and book the guilty,” a statement from the delegation said.
March 26, 2009
Kandhamal victims want polls deferred
By Mail Today Bureau in New Delhi
Claim 22,000 displaced persons will not be able to cast vote
VICTIMS of the Kandhamal riots in Orissa have urged the Election Commission ( EC) to postpone polling in the violence- hit district, saying a large number of displaced persons would not be able to vote.
A delegation of victims, led by social activist Teesta Setalvad, met EC officials in this regard on Wednesday.
Expressing fear that bogus votes could be cast in the name of displaced persons, the victims appealed to the EC to defer polling in the Phulbani parliamentary segment and Bariguda, Phulbani and Udaigiri Assembly constituencies, that were affected by the violence.
Assembly polls are being held in the state in two phases on April 16 and 23 along with the Lok Sabha polls.
According to official figures, about 3,100 persons are living in relief camps in the wake of the anti- Christian violence last year following the killing of Swami Laxmananand Saraswati.
But the victims claimed that 22,000 people were still missing and they would be deprived of their franchise unless the EC took special measures to ensure that the displaced persons cast their vote.
The poll panel is understood to have directed Orissa’s chief electoral officer Alka Panda to look into the complaint and tally the identity of the displaced persons with the electoral rolls. Of the 6.56 lakh voters in the district, 1.14 lakh are Christians.
Some of the riot- affected women, brought to Delhi by Setalvad’s NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace, gave a first- hand account of their harrowing experiences. They alleged that the situation is still tense as hate speeches are being made to polarise voters along communal lines.
For 35- year- old Priyatama Naik, elections hold little meaning as life is a daily struggle against poverty, deprivation and Hindu fundamentalism.
A mob burnt her husband Abhimanyu alive in front of her eyes in Barapali village. Unable to give a decent burial to Abhimanyu, Priyatama sat by the body for four days, helplessly watching it being dismembered and eaten by hungry canines.
After she finally managed to bury him with help of villagers, Abhimanyu’s body was exhumed some days later for a postmortem.
“ Despite my husband naming the culprits in his dying declaration and an FIR being lodged, precious little has been done. I was threatened not to cast the ballot,” she said.
“ There is no help from the police or the government. What is the meaning of taking part in an election if the whole system has failed?” Another woman, Nurna Digal, said: “ Official records last September indicated 25,173 people were languishing in relief camps. But a month later, the government claimed only 10,000 people were present there. The latest claim is that only 3,000 people are taking shelter in these camps. Where are the missing 22,000 voters?” Kadamfula Naik alleged that government officials were forcing refugees like her to leave relief camps in exchange of Rs 10,000.
“ My husband was butchered with a sword. My land was forcibly seized and the rioters are refusing to let me return to my village unless I convert,” she said.
The delegation demanded that the state government should not forcibly close the relief camps and that there should be a proper assessment of the human loss and damages in 300 villages.
“ Special courts should be set up under the National Human Rights Commission to deal with the riot cases and book the guilty,” a statement from the delegation said.
March 25, 2009
Trishul Wielding Varun (Cartoon in Mail Today, 23 Martch 2009)
Not Much like Gandhi
in: Mail Today, March 23, 2009
March 24, 2009
BJP's double talk and coming national elections of 2009
Deccan Herald
25 March 2009
BJP's double talk: Will they ever learn?
By B G Verghese
It's a cause for worry that policies presented as exercises in electoral persuasion should be so vicious and divisive.
Varun Gandhi’s best qualification currently appears to be that he has managed to obtain anticipatory bail. What an inglorious certificate to carry. His Pilibhit election speeches have been aired and there is no escaping the meaning of what he intended to convey.
To plead that the tapes were doctored to add sentences he did not utter because they were not immediately aired and his voice sounded gruff rather than soft, strains credulity. In any event the Election Commission has rightly held that it is not for it to disprove his charge but for him to adduce convincing proof in support of his contention.
Speakers at the hustings rarely speak softly. More often than not they rant in tone and content. But apart from finding little reason to believe that the tape was tampered with, Varun himself justified much of what he said and sought to contexualise it in the background of a series of rape cases in the constituency that were soon disproved.
BJP’s many voices
The BJP tried to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Initially, the party dissociated itself from him in view of his denial. Yet it endorsed him as the party candidate for the Pilibhit seat. The Shiv Sena openly applauded Varun’s hate speech as a frank espousal of the Hindutva cause while more than one report has suggested that not all Parivar cadres are displeased by his remarks which obviously echo their own sentiments.
It is certainly a cause for worry that policies and programmes presented as exercises in electoral persuasion and future governance should be so vicious and divisive. What the outcome of the charges levelled against Varun Gandhi will be remains to be seen, and both Advani and Mohanrao Bhagwat, the new chief of the RSS, should introspect on what they stand for and where they are headed to, pious disavowals notwithstanding.
None of these negative trends is unique. The BSP’s list of Lok Sabha candidates from UP includes five persons facing murder charges and two nominees allegedly involved in other crimes. Five wives have been given tickets.
In announcing this list Mayawati has appealed to the UP electorate to return the BSP in sufficient numbers so that she can be prime minister though her ‘manifesto’, thus far revealed, is vacuous.
Other partiers have also dredged dirt to pick up candidates. At least two Hindu right extremists who have been in the news of late for all the wrong reasons, are seeking court permission to contest the elections. Whatever the law, it is morally wrong to release such undertrials on bail to contest elections and, if they perchance win, to claim thereafter that they have been exonerated by the ‘people’s court’ and now stand above the law in their new avatar.
It is in this context heartening to see bright new and younger candidates entering the lists, some of them with proven records and achievements. Shashi Tharoor (Congress, Thiruvananthapuram) and Mallika Sarabhai (Independent, Gandhinagar), are two among them. Win or lose, their presence will add some leavening to the campaign and compel the electorate and their opponents — Advani in Gandhinagar — to take note of the issues they raise.
The other focus of excitement is the new alignments being forged between parties and coalitions. Even as the BJD has walked out of the NDA, Lalu’s RJD and Paswan’s LJP — both UPA partners, have tied up a seat-sharing arrangement that has left the Congress out in the cold. Speculation is rife, as elsewhere, about the fallout; but what must be remembered is that candidatures, party alliances and friendly contests will continue to be fought over until the last date of withdrawal in each phase in a game of brinkmanship. The tussle may be a little keener this time but the pattern is familiar.
Post-poll machinations
The other issue being debated is the merits and sanctity of pre-poll versus post-poll alliances and whether joint manifestos or common minimum programmes will issue and when. These are all matters of tactics and much will depend on the results in terms of party numbers and personalities.
That there will be hard post-poll bargaining among and within the major parties and formations goes without saying. But this is not uncommon elsewhere, as in Europe and Israel. There is no reason to baulk at this and assume that chaos will ensue. At worst, a government will be formed as unlikely partners get together to prevent a vacuum with every expectation that subsequent upheavals could lead to fresh elections.
Fresh elections are not to be feared as they will serve to sift the grain from the chaff. It will be for the president and the governors to maintain cool heads and, if necessary, to summon the House and by floor tests determine which party or combination enjoys the confidence of members. It is giving undue time for and, indeed, inviting horse trading by seeing parades and letters of ‘majority’ support is what must be avoided. These are bad practices.
25 March 2009
BJP's double talk: Will they ever learn?
By B G Verghese
It's a cause for worry that policies presented as exercises in electoral persuasion should be so vicious and divisive.
Varun Gandhi’s best qualification currently appears to be that he has managed to obtain anticipatory bail. What an inglorious certificate to carry. His Pilibhit election speeches have been aired and there is no escaping the meaning of what he intended to convey.
To plead that the tapes were doctored to add sentences he did not utter because they were not immediately aired and his voice sounded gruff rather than soft, strains credulity. In any event the Election Commission has rightly held that it is not for it to disprove his charge but for him to adduce convincing proof in support of his contention.
Speakers at the hustings rarely speak softly. More often than not they rant in tone and content. But apart from finding little reason to believe that the tape was tampered with, Varun himself justified much of what he said and sought to contexualise it in the background of a series of rape cases in the constituency that were soon disproved.
BJP’s many voices
The BJP tried to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. Initially, the party dissociated itself from him in view of his denial. Yet it endorsed him as the party candidate for the Pilibhit seat. The Shiv Sena openly applauded Varun’s hate speech as a frank espousal of the Hindutva cause while more than one report has suggested that not all Parivar cadres are displeased by his remarks which obviously echo their own sentiments.
It is certainly a cause for worry that policies and programmes presented as exercises in electoral persuasion and future governance should be so vicious and divisive. What the outcome of the charges levelled against Varun Gandhi will be remains to be seen, and both Advani and Mohanrao Bhagwat, the new chief of the RSS, should introspect on what they stand for and where they are headed to, pious disavowals notwithstanding.
None of these negative trends is unique. The BSP’s list of Lok Sabha candidates from UP includes five persons facing murder charges and two nominees allegedly involved in other crimes. Five wives have been given tickets.
In announcing this list Mayawati has appealed to the UP electorate to return the BSP in sufficient numbers so that she can be prime minister though her ‘manifesto’, thus far revealed, is vacuous.
Other partiers have also dredged dirt to pick up candidates. At least two Hindu right extremists who have been in the news of late for all the wrong reasons, are seeking court permission to contest the elections. Whatever the law, it is morally wrong to release such undertrials on bail to contest elections and, if they perchance win, to claim thereafter that they have been exonerated by the ‘people’s court’ and now stand above the law in their new avatar.
It is in this context heartening to see bright new and younger candidates entering the lists, some of them with proven records and achievements. Shashi Tharoor (Congress, Thiruvananthapuram) and Mallika Sarabhai (Independent, Gandhinagar), are two among them. Win or lose, their presence will add some leavening to the campaign and compel the electorate and their opponents — Advani in Gandhinagar — to take note of the issues they raise.
The other focus of excitement is the new alignments being forged between parties and coalitions. Even as the BJD has walked out of the NDA, Lalu’s RJD and Paswan’s LJP — both UPA partners, have tied up a seat-sharing arrangement that has left the Congress out in the cold. Speculation is rife, as elsewhere, about the fallout; but what must be remembered is that candidatures, party alliances and friendly contests will continue to be fought over until the last date of withdrawal in each phase in a game of brinkmanship. The tussle may be a little keener this time but the pattern is familiar.
Post-poll machinations
The other issue being debated is the merits and sanctity of pre-poll versus post-poll alliances and whether joint manifestos or common minimum programmes will issue and when. These are all matters of tactics and much will depend on the results in terms of party numbers and personalities.
That there will be hard post-poll bargaining among and within the major parties and formations goes without saying. But this is not uncommon elsewhere, as in Europe and Israel. There is no reason to baulk at this and assume that chaos will ensue. At worst, a government will be formed as unlikely partners get together to prevent a vacuum with every expectation that subsequent upheavals could lead to fresh elections.
Fresh elections are not to be feared as they will serve to sift the grain from the chaff. It will be for the president and the governors to maintain cool heads and, if necessary, to summon the House and by floor tests determine which party or combination enjoys the confidence of members. It is giving undue time for and, indeed, inviting horse trading by seeing parades and letters of ‘majority’ support is what must be avoided. These are bad practices.
Little Chance for Reconciliation in Post-Godhra Gujarat
The Times of India
Book on post-Godhra riots scenario released
15 Mar 2009, 0450 hrs IST, TNN
Ahmedabad : Professor TK Oomen, a professor emeritus of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, released a book on Godhra on
Saturday here. Speaking at the launch, Oomen said, "Not a single person from Gujarat was willing to be associated with our conflict project in the state, no matter how hard we tried to recruit them". The book is called Reconciliation in Post-Godhra Gujarat: The Role of Civil Society .
Oomen, a Padma Bhushan awardee, said, "It was out of fear during post-Godhra times that no one wanted to get associated with issues related to communal harmony."
Oomen in his book has argued that communal violence is often a deliberate product of human design, seemingly provoked by national or religious passions.
He was a member of Prime Minister's High Level Committee (2004-6) for the study of Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community in India. Oomen was also associated with the rehabilitation programme in post-Godhra Gujarat.
Book on post-Godhra riots scenario released
15 Mar 2009, 0450 hrs IST, TNN
Ahmedabad : Professor TK Oomen, a professor emeritus of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, released a book on Godhra on
Saturday here. Speaking at the launch, Oomen said, "Not a single person from Gujarat was willing to be associated with our conflict project in the state, no matter how hard we tried to recruit them". The book is called Reconciliation in Post-Godhra Gujarat: The Role of Civil Society .
Oomen, a Padma Bhushan awardee, said, "It was out of fear during post-Godhra times that no one wanted to get associated with issues related to communal harmony."
Oomen in his book has argued that communal violence is often a deliberate product of human design, seemingly provoked by national or religious passions.
He was a member of Prime Minister's High Level Committee (2004-6) for the study of Social, Economic and Educational Status of the Muslim Community in India. Oomen was also associated with the rehabilitation programme in post-Godhra Gujarat.
Refurbished Hindutva Danger
Frontline
March 28-April 10, 2009
Ways of Hindutva
by K.N. Panikkar
The violence in Gujarat and Orissa has generated disgust towards the Sangh Parivar, but Hindu communalism is seeking to refurbish its image.
AP
NO other phenomenon has affected life in the subcontinent so adversely as communalism. When this “monster” came on the stage as early as the beginning of the 18th century, as evidenced by a communal riot in Ahmedabad, no one perhaps had an inkling about the magnitude and character it might assume in future.
Although it took a long time for it to take centre stage, when it did, it had a devastating effect on Indian polity and society. Its inherent ability to divide people on the basis of religion and sow the seeds of mutual hatred led to the partition of the country. The people of India and Pakistan can ill afford to forget the human tragedy that Partition entailed. The pathos of Partition, which the Urdu writer Sadat Ali Manto so touchingly captured in Toba Tek Sing and Khol Do, or the masterly account in Bhishm Sahni’s Hindi novel, Tamas, tell us how devastating and brutal communalism can be.
The heart-rending experience of Partition, however, did not put an end to communalism. It only exacerbated it, at least in India, as the memories of inter-communal violence were invoked for political mobilisation. As a result, during the post-Independence period, communalism continued to plague social consciousness and colour political perspectives in the country. By the end of the 20th century, its influence had assumed such proportions that Hindu communal forces succeeded in wielding power at the Centre and in some States. This success heralded a new stage in the development of communalism and at the same time a tumultuous phase in the political history of the nation.
The access to power that the communal forces gained by the end of the 20th century was important for a variety of reasons. Among them, the most significant was the two-fold agenda that the communal forces pursued in order to perpetuate the newly acquired political power. They realised that controlling the state institutions in itself was not sufficient if they were to consolidate power and exercise it for a long time to their political advantage. It would be necessary to transform the character of the administration itself.
The secular administrative practices, which the Indian state had followed since Independence, albeit with limitations, were out of sync with the new regime. The Sangh Parivar expected from the state institutions active involvement in the pursuit of its communal agenda. In other words, it wanted the administration to shed its secular character and serve as the communal arm of the state. In pursuit of this objective, the governments led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), both at the Centre and in the States, ensured that communal elements were extensively, if not exclusively, recruited into various branches of the administration.
The extent to which it succeeded in this endeavour is difficult to ascertain, but it is fairly apparent that a conscious policy to induct Sangh Parivar cadre was followed. A good example is the police. It is widely reported that the police force in States ruled by the BJP, such as Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, has been “saffronised” by inducting recruits from the Sangh Parivar. The consequences are by now well known. In the communal conflagration in Gujarat in 2002, the police not only refused to intervene to save the victims but actually abetted members of organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal in their crimes.
Police partisanship has also been reported from Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and other States in which the BJP is or was in power. Almost all state institutions underwent such a transformation under BJP rule. When the National Democratic Alliance was defeated in the last elections, it was hoped that the secular character of the administration would be retrieved. However, it did not happen. The lack of political will was not the only reason. The communal elements were so well entrenched in the administration that they could prevent the attempts to recover secular practices. This has led to a paradox: a government pledged to secularism, but an administration predominantly manned by communal elements. As a result, communal influence remained unabated in administration. Even the Army, it is reported, was not free from the communal influence. If so, it is possible that the example of Lieutenant Colonel S.K. Purohit, who is accused of being the brain behind the Malegaon bomb blast, may not be an isolated instance.
What distinguished BJP rule from the previous administrations was the manner in which the government was used to realise the political agenda of creating a Hindu state. The Sangh Parivar looked upon the government not from the perspective of what was immediately possible, but as an instrument to create a communal future. As such, its main interest was to construct a social and political consciousness that would usher in and sustain a Hindu nation. That was the purpose for which the institutions of the state, particularly the ideological apparatuses, were used extensively.
Almost every initiative in the fields of education and culture were undertaken with such an intention. In order to realise it, the ideological apparatuses of the state were placed under the control of communal activists, ideologues and fellow travellers. They rewrote the national agenda in communal terms. Their interventions in the educational, cultural and intellectual fields sought to privilege indigenous knowledge over others and thus create a Hindu nationalist fervour. In the process, they sought to redefine the nation as Hindu.
[. . .]
Read More
March 28-April 10, 2009
Ways of Hindutva
by K.N. Panikkar
The violence in Gujarat and Orissa has generated disgust towards the Sangh Parivar, but Hindu communalism is seeking to refurbish its image.
AP
NO other phenomenon has affected life in the subcontinent so adversely as communalism. When this “monster” came on the stage as early as the beginning of the 18th century, as evidenced by a communal riot in Ahmedabad, no one perhaps had an inkling about the magnitude and character it might assume in future.
Although it took a long time for it to take centre stage, when it did, it had a devastating effect on Indian polity and society. Its inherent ability to divide people on the basis of religion and sow the seeds of mutual hatred led to the partition of the country. The people of India and Pakistan can ill afford to forget the human tragedy that Partition entailed. The pathos of Partition, which the Urdu writer Sadat Ali Manto so touchingly captured in Toba Tek Sing and Khol Do, or the masterly account in Bhishm Sahni’s Hindi novel, Tamas, tell us how devastating and brutal communalism can be.
The heart-rending experience of Partition, however, did not put an end to communalism. It only exacerbated it, at least in India, as the memories of inter-communal violence were invoked for political mobilisation. As a result, during the post-Independence period, communalism continued to plague social consciousness and colour political perspectives in the country. By the end of the 20th century, its influence had assumed such proportions that Hindu communal forces succeeded in wielding power at the Centre and in some States. This success heralded a new stage in the development of communalism and at the same time a tumultuous phase in the political history of the nation.
The access to power that the communal forces gained by the end of the 20th century was important for a variety of reasons. Among them, the most significant was the two-fold agenda that the communal forces pursued in order to perpetuate the newly acquired political power. They realised that controlling the state institutions in itself was not sufficient if they were to consolidate power and exercise it for a long time to their political advantage. It would be necessary to transform the character of the administration itself.
The secular administrative practices, which the Indian state had followed since Independence, albeit with limitations, were out of sync with the new regime. The Sangh Parivar expected from the state institutions active involvement in the pursuit of its communal agenda. In other words, it wanted the administration to shed its secular character and serve as the communal arm of the state. In pursuit of this objective, the governments led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), both at the Centre and in the States, ensured that communal elements were extensively, if not exclusively, recruited into various branches of the administration.
The extent to which it succeeded in this endeavour is difficult to ascertain, but it is fairly apparent that a conscious policy to induct Sangh Parivar cadre was followed. A good example is the police. It is widely reported that the police force in States ruled by the BJP, such as Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, has been “saffronised” by inducting recruits from the Sangh Parivar. The consequences are by now well known. In the communal conflagration in Gujarat in 2002, the police not only refused to intervene to save the victims but actually abetted members of organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bajrang Dal in their crimes.
Police partisanship has also been reported from Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and other States in which the BJP is or was in power. Almost all state institutions underwent such a transformation under BJP rule. When the National Democratic Alliance was defeated in the last elections, it was hoped that the secular character of the administration would be retrieved. However, it did not happen. The lack of political will was not the only reason. The communal elements were so well entrenched in the administration that they could prevent the attempts to recover secular practices. This has led to a paradox: a government pledged to secularism, but an administration predominantly manned by communal elements. As a result, communal influence remained unabated in administration. Even the Army, it is reported, was not free from the communal influence. If so, it is possible that the example of Lieutenant Colonel S.K. Purohit, who is accused of being the brain behind the Malegaon bomb blast, may not be an isolated instance.
What distinguished BJP rule from the previous administrations was the manner in which the government was used to realise the political agenda of creating a Hindu state. The Sangh Parivar looked upon the government not from the perspective of what was immediately possible, but as an instrument to create a communal future. As such, its main interest was to construct a social and political consciousness that would usher in and sustain a Hindu nation. That was the purpose for which the institutions of the state, particularly the ideological apparatuses, were used extensively.
Almost every initiative in the fields of education and culture were undertaken with such an intention. In order to realise it, the ideological apparatuses of the state were placed under the control of communal activists, ideologues and fellow travellers. They rewrote the national agenda in communal terms. Their interventions in the educational, cultural and intellectual fields sought to privilege indigenous knowledge over others and thus create a Hindu nationalist fervour. In the process, they sought to redefine the nation as Hindu.
[. . .]
Read More
Traumatised Tribals of Orissa Cant Vote: Will meet the Press (25 March 2009, New Delhi)
Citizens for Justice and Peace
Delegation of 20 tribals and indigenous peoples from the Kandhmahals region of Orissa badly traumatised by the communal violence accompanied by local activists are in the capital since March 23 and will meet the Election Commission on Wednesday March 25, 2009. The delegation is appealing to the Election Commission to address seriously the issue of disenfranchisement of over 22,000 indigenous peoples from this district and either consider postponement of elections in these areas or implement special measures to ensure their franchise for the displaced.
The delegation will meet the press at the Press Club of India on March 25 at 2 p.m.
Over the three day visit, the delegation has also met the National Human Rights Commission, the National Minorities Commission and the office of the United Nations Commmissioner for Human Rights. To address the critical issues of the state meetings with national political parties have also been organised.
On March 23 the petition file by victims and activists came up for hearing before the apex court and Chief Justice Balakrishnan posted it along with the Archbishops matter for hearing on April 6. The main prayer in the petition is for restraining the Orissa administration from forcible closure of relief camps and the stay on the functioning of the camp courts that in the situation where tribal Christians are unable to be pesent at the hearings are in effect rendering tribals landless. The entire visit has been supported by Citizens for Justice and Peace.
Teesta Setalvad, Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________
Nirant, Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 049. Ph: 2660 2288 email: cjp02in@yahoo.com
Delegation of 20 tribals and indigenous peoples from the Kandhmahals region of Orissa badly traumatised by the communal violence accompanied by local activists are in the capital since March 23 and will meet the Election Commission on Wednesday March 25, 2009. The delegation is appealing to the Election Commission to address seriously the issue of disenfranchisement of over 22,000 indigenous peoples from this district and either consider postponement of elections in these areas or implement special measures to ensure their franchise for the displaced.
The delegation will meet the press at the Press Club of India on March 25 at 2 p.m.
Over the three day visit, the delegation has also met the National Human Rights Commission, the National Minorities Commission and the office of the United Nations Commmissioner for Human Rights. To address the critical issues of the state meetings with national political parties have also been organised.
On March 23 the petition file by victims and activists came up for hearing before the apex court and Chief Justice Balakrishnan posted it along with the Archbishops matter for hearing on April 6. The main prayer in the petition is for restraining the Orissa administration from forcible closure of relief camps and the stay on the functioning of the camp courts that in the situation where tribal Christians are unable to be pesent at the hearings are in effect rendering tribals landless. The entire visit has been supported by Citizens for Justice and Peace.
Teesta Setalvad, Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________
Nirant, Juhu Tara Road, Juhu, Mumbai – 400 049. Ph: 2660 2288 email: cjp02in@yahoo.com
Nayantara Sahgal on the disgraceful speechs of Varun Gandhi
outlook Magazine
March 30, 2009
Nehru's Turning In His Grave
Why harp on Varun's lineage when he has abandoned its ideals? ...
by Nayantara Sahgal
There's only one word for the speech that Varun Gandhi gave in Pilibhit last fortnight—disgraceful. It's horrifying that anybody could speak like that, doubly so when it happens to come from someone who is even remotely connected with the Nehru-Gandhi family. I say "remotely connected" with deliberation, because, while Varun is no doubt a fourth-generation descendant of the family, let us not forget that both he and his mother, Maneka, made an open break with the family. Varun may have only been a toddler when Maneka severed her ties with the family, but he struck out just as irrevocably when he joined the BJP some five years ago. His break with the family and its ideals was just as decisive as his mother's. He owes his allegiance to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) now, and his connection to the Nehru-Gandhi family is now completely irrelevant.
Which is why I am a little surprised at the way the media has been reporting Varun's speech, constantly referring in the same breath to his Nehru connection. The point is that Varun Gandhi is a member of the BJP. What else do you expect any member of the BJP to say? After all, the BJP is the party that has divided the country on the basis of religion. It's also the party that destroyed the Babri Masjid, the party whose role model is Narendra Modi, on the strength of a massacre in Gujarat. Varun now belongs in the camp that is taking India back to the Middle Ages.
India has a long and ancient history that has demonstrated that Hinduism has an awe-inspiring resilience, which has enabled it to survive through the ages. It does not need all these self-appointed guardians, like the BJP, the Shiv Sena—or any other kind of sena—to safeguard Hinduism. Parties like these are a danger to India. Not just Nehru, even Feroze Gandhi, Varun's grandfather, must be turning in his grave at some of the things he is saying.
The difference between Varun and his cousins, Rahul and Priyanka, is that while they were nurtured on the family's secular ideals, he was simply not there. He may have kept up with his cousins and his aunt, Sonia, but having not been brought up within the family, he lost out on his family inheritance, both the ideology and the training. I had my differences with Indira Gandhi, of course. But we were on the same side on many things, especially secularism. Whatever differences I had with her were because I was speaking and writing in defence of Nehru and what he stood for, and I felt the path she took was going ultimately towards the Emergency—which she herself recognised as a mistake. We were never in divergence on ideology, but on the fact that I felt she was departing from Nehru's own ideals.
The Congress, whatever its sins, is dedicated to secularism and the unity of India. These religion-based parties aren't. Priyanka and Rahul grew up with these ideals. Varun did not. So what if he bears the family name? Many people bear that name: it's neither here nor there. And if the BJP picked him because of his name, that's the BJP's problem, not the family's.
I haven't seen Varun since he was a child. But to hear what he is saying now makes me very angry. Even if I were to meet him now, there is nothing I could say to him. He and I don't speak the same language. There are two languages being spoken in India today: one is Hindutva, and this is finding its own defendants, like Varun and so many others. It's a language that should be severely condemned and punished so that it doesn't damage India any further. From what I have read in the papers, his inflammatory remarks have already led to small riots in Maharashtra. The Ayodhya issue is being raked up and some CDs called 'Ayodhya Chalo' are being circulated. The other language is secularism and peace and equal respect for all religions.That is the language I speak, and that is the language of the Congress. It would be interesting to know why Varun Gandhi has turned his back so squarely against everything his name stands for.
(Nayantara Sahgal is Jawaharlal Nehru's niece.)
as told to Sheela Reddy.
March 30, 2009
Nehru's Turning In His Grave
Why harp on Varun's lineage when he has abandoned its ideals? ...
by Nayantara Sahgal
There's only one word for the speech that Varun Gandhi gave in Pilibhit last fortnight—disgraceful. It's horrifying that anybody could speak like that, doubly so when it happens to come from someone who is even remotely connected with the Nehru-Gandhi family. I say "remotely connected" with deliberation, because, while Varun is no doubt a fourth-generation descendant of the family, let us not forget that both he and his mother, Maneka, made an open break with the family. Varun may have only been a toddler when Maneka severed her ties with the family, but he struck out just as irrevocably when he joined the BJP some five years ago. His break with the family and its ideals was just as decisive as his mother's. He owes his allegiance to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) now, and his connection to the Nehru-Gandhi family is now completely irrelevant.
Which is why I am a little surprised at the way the media has been reporting Varun's speech, constantly referring in the same breath to his Nehru connection. The point is that Varun Gandhi is a member of the BJP. What else do you expect any member of the BJP to say? After all, the BJP is the party that has divided the country on the basis of religion. It's also the party that destroyed the Babri Masjid, the party whose role model is Narendra Modi, on the strength of a massacre in Gujarat. Varun now belongs in the camp that is taking India back to the Middle Ages.
India has a long and ancient history that has demonstrated that Hinduism has an awe-inspiring resilience, which has enabled it to survive through the ages. It does not need all these self-appointed guardians, like the BJP, the Shiv Sena—or any other kind of sena—to safeguard Hinduism. Parties like these are a danger to India. Not just Nehru, even Feroze Gandhi, Varun's grandfather, must be turning in his grave at some of the things he is saying.
The difference between Varun and his cousins, Rahul and Priyanka, is that while they were nurtured on the family's secular ideals, he was simply not there. He may have kept up with his cousins and his aunt, Sonia, but having not been brought up within the family, he lost out on his family inheritance, both the ideology and the training. I had my differences with Indira Gandhi, of course. But we were on the same side on many things, especially secularism. Whatever differences I had with her were because I was speaking and writing in defence of Nehru and what he stood for, and I felt the path she took was going ultimately towards the Emergency—which she herself recognised as a mistake. We were never in divergence on ideology, but on the fact that I felt she was departing from Nehru's own ideals.
The Congress, whatever its sins, is dedicated to secularism and the unity of India. These religion-based parties aren't. Priyanka and Rahul grew up with these ideals. Varun did not. So what if he bears the family name? Many people bear that name: it's neither here nor there. And if the BJP picked him because of his name, that's the BJP's problem, not the family's.
I haven't seen Varun since he was a child. But to hear what he is saying now makes me very angry. Even if I were to meet him now, there is nothing I could say to him. He and I don't speak the same language. There are two languages being spoken in India today: one is Hindutva, and this is finding its own defendants, like Varun and so many others. It's a language that should be severely condemned and punished so that it doesn't damage India any further. From what I have read in the papers, his inflammatory remarks have already led to small riots in Maharashtra. The Ayodhya issue is being raked up and some CDs called 'Ayodhya Chalo' are being circulated. The other language is secularism and peace and equal respect for all religions.That is the language I speak, and that is the language of the Congress. It would be interesting to know why Varun Gandhi has turned his back so squarely against everything his name stands for.
(Nayantara Sahgal is Jawaharlal Nehru's niece.)
as told to Sheela Reddy.
March 23, 2009
Editorial in The Hindu on Election Commision's order on Varun Gandhi's campaign speeches
The Hindu
March 24, 2009
Editorial
A stinging censure
The Election Commission’s order on Varun Gandhi is a damning indictment of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s candidate for Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh. It strongly censures Mr. Gandhi for making two inflammatory and “offensive” campaign speeches on March 7 and 8; at the same time it totally rejects his weak and implausible explanation that the tapes of those rallies were doctored or morphed because of a conspiracy to politically malign him. The EC reached its conclusion after viewing — and several times at that — a video CD that was “more comprehensive” than the clips aired on some television channels. As the EC has suggested, Mr. Gandhi’s principal defence has been a “bald assertion” to the effect that the tapes were doctored. He has not denied the material facts — that he did hold these election meetings and that the video recordings were taken at these very rallies; moreover, he has not been specific about which portions of his speeches, if at all, were doctored. In fact, the explanation offered by Mr. Gandhi is directed solely at advancing his fanciful conspiracy theory. For instance, quite incredibly, he uses the gap of some 10 days between his speeches and the airing of the TV clips to substantiate his claim that they were manipulated.
As the Election Commission has admitted, it has no teeth to prevent Mr. Gandhi from contesting the elections. Its observations that he does not deserve to be a candidate and that the BJP should deny him nomination to contest must be seen in the context of the entire incident. First, for their sheer crudeness and insensitivity, Mr. Gandhi’s remarks easily surpass even the appalling standards set by dyed-in-the-wool communalists. Secondly, there was not even a speck of remorse for what he said; rather only a bland denial accompanied by a strident reassertion of his Hindu identity. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the BJP — on which the EC’s notice was also served — had told the Commission that it disapproved of Mr. Gandhi’s remarks shown on the TV clips and declared that it stood by the Model Code of Conduct. The Commission felt that, in keeping with this attitude, the least the BJP could do is to take the logical step of denying him the party nomination. It is unfortunate that rather than adopt a course of action that would signal it is against spreading hate and creating enmity on the grounds of religion, the BJP has chosen to reiterate his candidature while questioning the Commission’s right to proffer such advice. As a result, the entire controversy over the hate speeches has reflected badly not only on the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family but also on the party that hopes to exploit his legacy for political gain.
March 24, 2009
Editorial
A stinging censure
The Election Commission’s order on Varun Gandhi is a damning indictment of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s candidate for Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh. It strongly censures Mr. Gandhi for making two inflammatory and “offensive” campaign speeches on March 7 and 8; at the same time it totally rejects his weak and implausible explanation that the tapes of those rallies were doctored or morphed because of a conspiracy to politically malign him. The EC reached its conclusion after viewing — and several times at that — a video CD that was “more comprehensive” than the clips aired on some television channels. As the EC has suggested, Mr. Gandhi’s principal defence has been a “bald assertion” to the effect that the tapes were doctored. He has not denied the material facts — that he did hold these election meetings and that the video recordings were taken at these very rallies; moreover, he has not been specific about which portions of his speeches, if at all, were doctored. In fact, the explanation offered by Mr. Gandhi is directed solely at advancing his fanciful conspiracy theory. For instance, quite incredibly, he uses the gap of some 10 days between his speeches and the airing of the TV clips to substantiate his claim that they were manipulated.
As the Election Commission has admitted, it has no teeth to prevent Mr. Gandhi from contesting the elections. Its observations that he does not deserve to be a candidate and that the BJP should deny him nomination to contest must be seen in the context of the entire incident. First, for their sheer crudeness and insensitivity, Mr. Gandhi’s remarks easily surpass even the appalling standards set by dyed-in-the-wool communalists. Secondly, there was not even a speck of remorse for what he said; rather only a bland denial accompanied by a strident reassertion of his Hindu identity. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the BJP — on which the EC’s notice was also served — had told the Commission that it disapproved of Mr. Gandhi’s remarks shown on the TV clips and declared that it stood by the Model Code of Conduct. The Commission felt that, in keeping with this attitude, the least the BJP could do is to take the logical step of denying him the party nomination. It is unfortunate that rather than adopt a course of action that would signal it is against spreading hate and creating enmity on the grounds of religion, the BJP has chosen to reiterate his candidature while questioning the Commission’s right to proffer such advice. As a result, the entire controversy over the hate speeches has reflected badly not only on the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi family but also on the party that hopes to exploit his legacy for political gain.
India badly needs debate on perils of identity politics
Hindustan Times
March 12, 2009
Our singularly plural ways
by Sitaram Yechury
Noted writer and Sahitya Akademi winner, U.R. Anantha Murthy, recently delivered the fourth Sumitra Chishti Memorial Lecture. In his lecture, he extended the frontiers of discussion on multiple identities by drawing upon the conterminous use of various languages by Indians. Though this was not the basic thrust of his lecture (‘Globalisation, English and ‘other’ languages’), this adds to the rich discussion on this issue raised by the likes of Amartya Sen.
Sen has systematised what intuitively many of us have lived with. When I travel abroad, I am an Indian. In India, I am a Telugu-speaking Andhra. In Andhra, I am from the Godavari district. There I am from its delta region, and so on — apart from being identified by my religious and caste identities. I am elected to Parliament from West Bengal and have been living in Delhi for four decades.
Each one of us is comfortable with all these identities and identify with any of them depending on the context.
The question of identity has always haunted human consciousness. Reflecting a fundamental human urge, Socrates raised identity to the level of a basic question of philosophy by seeking to ‘know thyself’. More recently, in the context of terrorist attacks, the contemporary discourse on identity politics — particularly of religious minorities like ‘Muslim radicalisation’ — has acquired an important bearing determining policy. So a discussion on identity assumes importance in the practical sense for pursuing correct policies.
Philosophically, the concept of identity has often been based on two assumptions: that there is a principal or dominant identity; and that we seek to discover this identity. Sen negates both. An identity cannot be chosen at random. It is, naturally, prescribed by where we are born, our community, traditions etc. The point, according to Sen, is “... whether we do have choices over alternative identities or combination of identities, and perhaps more importantly, substantial freedom on what priority to give to the various identities that we may simultaneously have.”
Anantha Murthy’s extension of this understanding to include languages is important in the context of it often becoming a bone of chauvinistic contention. He shows that in much of recorded history and in today’s realities, we, in India, live using, at least, three languages simultaneously — the mother tongue, the language at work, and the language of creative expressions.
Many facts that we already knew now suddenly appear as inseparable parts of our harmonious diversity and not points of chauvinistic conflict. The trimurthi of Carnatic music — Thyagaraja, Shyama Sastry and Muthuswami Dikshitar — all composed their music in Telugu, though having different mother tongues. Yet, the music is called ‘Karnatak’. Instead of recognising this simple truth, there were ugly expressions of chauvinism when M.S. Subbalakshmi was once not allowed to perform at the annual Thyagaraja Gana Sabha, Thanjavur, simply because she used to sing in Tamil, not knowing Telugu. The harmony of our diversity is such that Telugu compositions can be effortlessly rendered in Tamil — or in Kannada.
Yet another point of chauvinistic conflict between Kannadigas and Telugus relates to the choice made by the doyen of the Vijayanagara empire, Krishna Devaraya, to compose his masterpiece Amukta Malyada in Telugu, by saying that of all languages of this land Telugu is “the best”. Once the multiplicity of the language identity is recognised, such potential conflict situations simply cease. A more modern example would be that of Firaq Gorakhpuri. A high caste Hindu by birth, a professor of English Literature in Allahabad University, he earned his fame for the heights he scaled in Urdu poetry.
Once a learned intellectual from across the seas visited the Vijayanagara court at Hampi and challenged Krishna Devaraya’s famed ‘Ashta Diggajas’ (eight court poets) to identify his mother tongue as he effortlessly spoke in many languages. When all failed, Tenali Rama (the Vijayanagara court’s version of Birbal of Akbar’s court) is summoned to save the pride of Hampi. At night when the foreigner was fast asleep, Tenali Rama throws cold water on him. The language in which he, in shock, exclaims was declared as his mother-tongue. While the mother tongue is, of course, important, ‘the choice’ of language in ‘the context’ that Amartya Sen speaks of becomes important in understanding multiple identities.
While the debate on identity as ‘given’ or ‘chosen’ will continue, the recognition of multiple identities is important to determine social policies. For instance, the policies of ‘multiculturalism’ in Britain, according to Sen, have been reduced to “plural mono culturalism”: “Bangladesh’s separation from Pakistan was not based on religion but on their language, literature and secular policies.” Yet, says Sen, they are merged with “Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia”. Multicultural policies, by “downplaying political and social identities, as opposed to religious identities”, have “weakened civil society precisely when there is a great need to strengthen it”.
There is much, for us in India, to learn from this. But that will only be possible when we have a political ambience conducive to such, much required, discourse. This requires a shift in our policy trajectory that only an alternative political formation can ensure. India must rise to accomplish this in the coming elections.
(Sitaram Yechury is CPI(M) Politburo member and MP)
March 12, 2009
Our singularly plural ways
by Sitaram Yechury
Noted writer and Sahitya Akademi winner, U.R. Anantha Murthy, recently delivered the fourth Sumitra Chishti Memorial Lecture. In his lecture, he extended the frontiers of discussion on multiple identities by drawing upon the conterminous use of various languages by Indians. Though this was not the basic thrust of his lecture (‘Globalisation, English and ‘other’ languages’), this adds to the rich discussion on this issue raised by the likes of Amartya Sen.
Sen has systematised what intuitively many of us have lived with. When I travel abroad, I am an Indian. In India, I am a Telugu-speaking Andhra. In Andhra, I am from the Godavari district. There I am from its delta region, and so on — apart from being identified by my religious and caste identities. I am elected to Parliament from West Bengal and have been living in Delhi for four decades.
Each one of us is comfortable with all these identities and identify with any of them depending on the context.
The question of identity has always haunted human consciousness. Reflecting a fundamental human urge, Socrates raised identity to the level of a basic question of philosophy by seeking to ‘know thyself’. More recently, in the context of terrorist attacks, the contemporary discourse on identity politics — particularly of religious minorities like ‘Muslim radicalisation’ — has acquired an important bearing determining policy. So a discussion on identity assumes importance in the practical sense for pursuing correct policies.
Philosophically, the concept of identity has often been based on two assumptions: that there is a principal or dominant identity; and that we seek to discover this identity. Sen negates both. An identity cannot be chosen at random. It is, naturally, prescribed by where we are born, our community, traditions etc. The point, according to Sen, is “... whether we do have choices over alternative identities or combination of identities, and perhaps more importantly, substantial freedom on what priority to give to the various identities that we may simultaneously have.”
Anantha Murthy’s extension of this understanding to include languages is important in the context of it often becoming a bone of chauvinistic contention. He shows that in much of recorded history and in today’s realities, we, in India, live using, at least, three languages simultaneously — the mother tongue, the language at work, and the language of creative expressions.
Many facts that we already knew now suddenly appear as inseparable parts of our harmonious diversity and not points of chauvinistic conflict. The trimurthi of Carnatic music — Thyagaraja, Shyama Sastry and Muthuswami Dikshitar — all composed their music in Telugu, though having different mother tongues. Yet, the music is called ‘Karnatak’. Instead of recognising this simple truth, there were ugly expressions of chauvinism when M.S. Subbalakshmi was once not allowed to perform at the annual Thyagaraja Gana Sabha, Thanjavur, simply because she used to sing in Tamil, not knowing Telugu. The harmony of our diversity is such that Telugu compositions can be effortlessly rendered in Tamil — or in Kannada.
Yet another point of chauvinistic conflict between Kannadigas and Telugus relates to the choice made by the doyen of the Vijayanagara empire, Krishna Devaraya, to compose his masterpiece Amukta Malyada in Telugu, by saying that of all languages of this land Telugu is “the best”. Once the multiplicity of the language identity is recognised, such potential conflict situations simply cease. A more modern example would be that of Firaq Gorakhpuri. A high caste Hindu by birth, a professor of English Literature in Allahabad University, he earned his fame for the heights he scaled in Urdu poetry.
Once a learned intellectual from across the seas visited the Vijayanagara court at Hampi and challenged Krishna Devaraya’s famed ‘Ashta Diggajas’ (eight court poets) to identify his mother tongue as he effortlessly spoke in many languages. When all failed, Tenali Rama (the Vijayanagara court’s version of Birbal of Akbar’s court) is summoned to save the pride of Hampi. At night when the foreigner was fast asleep, Tenali Rama throws cold water on him. The language in which he, in shock, exclaims was declared as his mother-tongue. While the mother tongue is, of course, important, ‘the choice’ of language in ‘the context’ that Amartya Sen speaks of becomes important in understanding multiple identities.
While the debate on identity as ‘given’ or ‘chosen’ will continue, the recognition of multiple identities is important to determine social policies. For instance, the policies of ‘multiculturalism’ in Britain, according to Sen, have been reduced to “plural mono culturalism”: “Bangladesh’s separation from Pakistan was not based on religion but on their language, literature and secular policies.” Yet, says Sen, they are merged with “Muslims from Morocco to Indonesia”. Multicultural policies, by “downplaying political and social identities, as opposed to religious identities”, have “weakened civil society precisely when there is a great need to strengthen it”.
There is much, for us in India, to learn from this. But that will only be possible when we have a political ambience conducive to such, much required, discourse. This requires a shift in our policy trajectory that only an alternative political formation can ensure. India must rise to accomplish this in the coming elections.
(Sitaram Yechury is CPI(M) Politburo member and MP)
Open letter to allies of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
The Hindu
24 March 2009
BJP’s allies urged to deny ticket to Varun
by Anita Joshua
NEW DELHI: The Citizens for Justice And Peace (CJP) and the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT) on Monday issued an open letter to allies of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) urging them to not only condemn “outright” the communal “hate-ridden” speeches of Varun Gandhi, but to ensure that he was not given ticket for the coming elections.
The letter has been sent to the Janata Dal (United), the Indian National Lok Dal, the Asom Gana Parishad and the Rashtriya Lok Dal. It says Mr. Gandhi’s hate speech epitomises the core of BJP’s “supremist and ultra-nationalist” ideology that has always targeted India’s syncretic civilisational ethos and specifically targets Muslims and Christians. Not to oppose his candidature will amount to support for the content of his violence-ridden speech, the signatories have said.
Stating that the BJP’s core ideology stems from its political heart — the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh — the CJP and SAHMAT said the NDA constituents needed to make their position clear on Mr. Gandhi’s speech and his possible nomination as a Lok Sabha candidate from Pilibhit. “Not to oppose his nomination and candidature as Lok Sabha candidate is to support not just Varun Gandhi but the BJP that has grown from strength to strength through flagrant violations of the Constitution and the rule of law.”
Delving into history, the letter draws attention to how the NDA’s prime ministerial aspirant, L.K. Advani, indulged in similar “hate mongering.” Special mention is made of his statements en route to Ayodhya in December 1992. Similar offences, according to the letter, have been committed by senior BJP leaders like Murli Manohar Joshi.
Referring to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, the letter notes that his statements on internally displaced refugees living in pathetic conditions in relief camps of the State are not just violation of the law, but shocking. Add to this the activities of fraternal organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal who have “taken the entire content and tempo of hate speech to the levels of a cynical game and continue to indulge in these criminal violations because they escape the long arm of the law.”
The signatories to the open letter include Teesta Setalvad, Javed Akhtar, Javed Anand, Rahul Bose, Vivan Sundaram, Ram Rahman, M.K. Raina, Shakti Kjak, Archana Prasad, Madhu Prasad, C.P. Chandrashekhar, Indira Chandrashekhar, Badri Raina, Prabhat Patnaik, Utsa Patnaik and Chanchal Chauhan.
24 March 2009
BJP’s allies urged to deny ticket to Varun
by Anita Joshua
NEW DELHI: The Citizens for Justice And Peace (CJP) and the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT) on Monday issued an open letter to allies of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) urging them to not only condemn “outright” the communal “hate-ridden” speeches of Varun Gandhi, but to ensure that he was not given ticket for the coming elections.
The letter has been sent to the Janata Dal (United), the Indian National Lok Dal, the Asom Gana Parishad and the Rashtriya Lok Dal. It says Mr. Gandhi’s hate speech epitomises the core of BJP’s “supremist and ultra-nationalist” ideology that has always targeted India’s syncretic civilisational ethos and specifically targets Muslims and Christians. Not to oppose his candidature will amount to support for the content of his violence-ridden speech, the signatories have said.
Stating that the BJP’s core ideology stems from its political heart — the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh — the CJP and SAHMAT said the NDA constituents needed to make their position clear on Mr. Gandhi’s speech and his possible nomination as a Lok Sabha candidate from Pilibhit. “Not to oppose his nomination and candidature as Lok Sabha candidate is to support not just Varun Gandhi but the BJP that has grown from strength to strength through flagrant violations of the Constitution and the rule of law.”
Delving into history, the letter draws attention to how the NDA’s prime ministerial aspirant, L.K. Advani, indulged in similar “hate mongering.” Special mention is made of his statements en route to Ayodhya in December 1992. Similar offences, according to the letter, have been committed by senior BJP leaders like Murli Manohar Joshi.
Referring to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, the letter notes that his statements on internally displaced refugees living in pathetic conditions in relief camps of the State are not just violation of the law, but shocking. Add to this the activities of fraternal organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the Bajrang Dal who have “taken the entire content and tempo of hate speech to the levels of a cynical game and continue to indulge in these criminal violations because they escape the long arm of the law.”
The signatories to the open letter include Teesta Setalvad, Javed Akhtar, Javed Anand, Rahul Bose, Vivan Sundaram, Ram Rahman, M.K. Raina, Shakti Kjak, Archana Prasad, Madhu Prasad, C.P. Chandrashekhar, Indira Chandrashekhar, Badri Raina, Prabhat Patnaik, Utsa Patnaik and Chanchal Chauhan.
Varun Gandhi’s bigotry against Muslims is hardwired into the DNA of the BJP
The Hindu
March 24, 2009
A stench that is all too familiar
by Siddharth Varadarajan
Varun Gandhi’s bigotry against Muslims is hardwired into the DNA of the BJP and the sangh parivar. That is why he is still his party’s candidate for the elections.
I cannot decide what is more offensive about the recent statements made by the Bharatiya Janata Party candidate for Pilibhit, Varun Gandhi — the original sin of inciting religious hatred against Muslims or the cowardly dissembling when confronted with irrefutable evidence of his incendiary oratory. In the old days before television news and the internet, politicians could always deny the veracity of the printed word by claiming they had been misquoted or that their words had been taken out of context. The hapless hack might well have a recording of the offensive words but in the absence of any way to disseminate that evidence, the politician would invariably get away. Not anymore. Varun has regularly been spewing communal hate in his stump speeches. And not one but several video and audio recordings exist to prove this.
What the whole of India saw and heard in the flailing of his arms, the hysterical movement of his lips and his coarse, insistent promise to cut and kill Muslims was reality TV stripped of the comforting gauze of distance. “This is not the ‘hand’ [of the Congress], this is the hand of the lotus. It will cut the throats of Muslims after the elections,” he said, using a pejorative that plays on the fact that Muslims are circumcised. We all saw it, heard it and recognised it. That is why the Election Commission rejected Varun Gandhi’s unproven claim that the clips were somehow “doctored” and found him guilty of violating the code of electoral conduct.
That he would do everything possible to prevent himself from being debarred or even imprisoned is understandable. In Pilibhit, the Hindutva hero bravely promised to cut the throats of Muslims if elected. Back in Delhi, he whimpers that he threatened violence not on Muslims but on “vote katuas,” or spoilers, an explanation which is nonsensical because that phrase is used only to describe a minor third party which enters an election and cuts into the votes of a bigger rival.
The k-word Varun deployed is the Indian equivalent of the n-word racists in the U.S. use for African-Americans and belongs in the gutter rather than in an election speech. He also demonised Muslim names and said Hindus ought to fear encountering Muslims at night. In any democracy worth the name, a politician would be arrested and prosecuted for making such a speech. In a country where such speeches have been used to incite actual violence against Muslims, he would immediately be barred from standing for election. And even if he were able to take refuge under the labyrinthine legal process to postpone the inevitable for several months and years, his party certainly has a moral and political obligation to stop him contesting under its symbol.
In America, racism in politics has sometimes been used at the subliminal level. The Republicans used the case of a Black felon to attack Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election. But were a mainstream candidate to break the taboo against using racist language, let alone threaten violence, his party would expel him before the day were out. But this is India, and the party concerned is the BJP. How can it act against Varun when all he did was to echo the anti-Muslim message that its parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, has been giving since its inception?
As Jyotirmaya Sharma convincingly demonstrates in Terrifying Vision: M.S. Golwalkar, the RSS and India, Muslims have always been seen by the sangh parivar as alien, violent and threatening — “incomplete, uncultured and demonic” in the words of its most important sarsanghchalak. Muslims (and Christians) were scary like rakshasas and had no loyalty to India because they did not accept their kula dharma, or ancestral duty, towards Hinduism. They were ghar ke baaharwaley — those who are not part of our home — and had to agree to be assimilated to the point where they no longer called themselves Ali, Hassan, John or Thomas. And if they refused, how should Hindus deal with the desecration of their motherland? “Parashuram avenged his father’s humiliation by offering him libations of blood of those who had insulted him,” Professor Sharma explains. “Likewise, the only way to worship the motherland after she had been defiled,” warns ‘Guru’ Golwalkar, “would be to wash it with the blood of those who dared commit such an act.”
The anti-Muslim construct and the threat of violence is a congenital part of the RSS’ philosophical DNA, a genetic flaw so potent that it contaminates anyone who comes into contact with it. Muslims are the enemy around which the edifice of the BJP’s wider politics is built, even if the requirements of legality mean the party has to be guarded in the manner in which it expresses itself. Sometimes, of course, the mask slips, either by carelessness or design. Varun Gandhi is a novice but even a consummate politician like Atal Bihari Vajpayee could occasionally trip up. In a venomous speech at a BJP meeting in Goa in April 2002, shortly after the anti-Muslim violence which shook Gujarat that year started, Mr. Vajpayee, who was Prime Minister at the time, declared: “Wherever Muslims live, they don’t like to live in co-existence with others, they don’t like to mingle with others; and instead of propagating their ideas in a peaceful manner, they want to spread their faith by resorting to terror and threats.”
Mr. Vajpayee later claimed he was speaking about “followers of militant Islam” and not Muslims in general. Subsequently, the PMO put out a doctored version of the speech in which the phrase “wherever Muslims live” was changed to “wherever such Muslims live.” There the matter would have ended, except that Mr. Vajpayee made the mistake of telling Parliament the doctored transcript was the actual speech delivered by him in Goa. Priyaranjan Das Munshi produced a recording and moved a privilege motion claiming the House had been deliberately misled. Manohar Joshi, who was Speaker at the time, exonerated Mr. Vajpayee. But in his ruling, he noted that the BJP leader had admitted the recording of his speech did not contain the word “such.”
Despite emendations and clarifications, however, the party’s DNA keeps asserting itself. On the eve of the 2007 Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh, the BJP officially produced and distributed a VCD, Bharat ki Pukar, in which a number of actors play out scenes of Muslim villainy to underline the sangh’s message that Hindus are under siege. The VCD’s hero was a school teacher (masterji) who goes around telling Hindus to act before it is too late. “If you don’t vote the BJP, you will regret it. This country will be enslaved by the Muslims and these tikas on your forehead will have to go and in their place you will have to grow beards.” His commitment to the cause eventually causes him to have a stroke and die. At his funeral, one of the mourners sounds a dire warning. “That day is not far away when we will be afraid to even call ourselves Hindu, and you will never be able to find a Sohanlal, Mohanlal, Atmaram or Radhekrishan anywhere. Wherever we look, we will only see Abbas, Naqvi, Rizvi, and Maulvi.”
From Guruji to Atalji, Masterji to Varun, the words may vary but the notion that Muslims are outsiders and enemies, that they are “scary,” have peculiar names and are plotting to turn the country into Pakistan is constant. So Varun Gandhi could warn his voters, “go to your villages and give the call that all Hindus must unite to save this area from becoming Pakistan.” His words, in their totality and in their relationship to the sangh parivar’s message, make clear what he was talking about. Regrettably, the Election Commission never took the BJP’s 2007 campaign VCD seriously. This time, however, it has not made the same mistake and has said Varun should not stand.
The BJP is upset about due process. It has also complained about double standards, since the Congress is again fielding Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar, despite their more than questionable role in the November 1984 massacre of Sikhs. That the Congress should do so is shocking and condemnable but two wrongs don’t make a right. The law may allow Varun Gandhi to claim he is innocent until proven guilty but the imperatives of political judgment are different. By failing to condemn his hate speech and disregarding the Election Commission’s request that his candidature be withdrawn, the BJP and its leadership have made clear that they concur with, and are complicit in, the incitement of religious hatred as a means of winning elections.
March 24, 2009
A stench that is all too familiar
by Siddharth Varadarajan
Varun Gandhi’s bigotry against Muslims is hardwired into the DNA of the BJP and the sangh parivar. That is why he is still his party’s candidate for the elections.
I cannot decide what is more offensive about the recent statements made by the Bharatiya Janata Party candidate for Pilibhit, Varun Gandhi — the original sin of inciting religious hatred against Muslims or the cowardly dissembling when confronted with irrefutable evidence of his incendiary oratory. In the old days before television news and the internet, politicians could always deny the veracity of the printed word by claiming they had been misquoted or that their words had been taken out of context. The hapless hack might well have a recording of the offensive words but in the absence of any way to disseminate that evidence, the politician would invariably get away. Not anymore. Varun has regularly been spewing communal hate in his stump speeches. And not one but several video and audio recordings exist to prove this.
What the whole of India saw and heard in the flailing of his arms, the hysterical movement of his lips and his coarse, insistent promise to cut and kill Muslims was reality TV stripped of the comforting gauze of distance. “This is not the ‘hand’ [of the Congress], this is the hand of the lotus. It will cut the throats of Muslims after the elections,” he said, using a pejorative that plays on the fact that Muslims are circumcised. We all saw it, heard it and recognised it. That is why the Election Commission rejected Varun Gandhi’s unproven claim that the clips were somehow “doctored” and found him guilty of violating the code of electoral conduct.
That he would do everything possible to prevent himself from being debarred or even imprisoned is understandable. In Pilibhit, the Hindutva hero bravely promised to cut the throats of Muslims if elected. Back in Delhi, he whimpers that he threatened violence not on Muslims but on “vote katuas,” or spoilers, an explanation which is nonsensical because that phrase is used only to describe a minor third party which enters an election and cuts into the votes of a bigger rival.
The k-word Varun deployed is the Indian equivalent of the n-word racists in the U.S. use for African-Americans and belongs in the gutter rather than in an election speech. He also demonised Muslim names and said Hindus ought to fear encountering Muslims at night. In any democracy worth the name, a politician would be arrested and prosecuted for making such a speech. In a country where such speeches have been used to incite actual violence against Muslims, he would immediately be barred from standing for election. And even if he were able to take refuge under the labyrinthine legal process to postpone the inevitable for several months and years, his party certainly has a moral and political obligation to stop him contesting under its symbol.
In America, racism in politics has sometimes been used at the subliminal level. The Republicans used the case of a Black felon to attack Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election. But were a mainstream candidate to break the taboo against using racist language, let alone threaten violence, his party would expel him before the day were out. But this is India, and the party concerned is the BJP. How can it act against Varun when all he did was to echo the anti-Muslim message that its parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, has been giving since its inception?
As Jyotirmaya Sharma convincingly demonstrates in Terrifying Vision: M.S. Golwalkar, the RSS and India, Muslims have always been seen by the sangh parivar as alien, violent and threatening — “incomplete, uncultured and demonic” in the words of its most important sarsanghchalak. Muslims (and Christians) were scary like rakshasas and had no loyalty to India because they did not accept their kula dharma, or ancestral duty, towards Hinduism. They were ghar ke baaharwaley — those who are not part of our home — and had to agree to be assimilated to the point where they no longer called themselves Ali, Hassan, John or Thomas. And if they refused, how should Hindus deal with the desecration of their motherland? “Parashuram avenged his father’s humiliation by offering him libations of blood of those who had insulted him,” Professor Sharma explains. “Likewise, the only way to worship the motherland after she had been defiled,” warns ‘Guru’ Golwalkar, “would be to wash it with the blood of those who dared commit such an act.”
The anti-Muslim construct and the threat of violence is a congenital part of the RSS’ philosophical DNA, a genetic flaw so potent that it contaminates anyone who comes into contact with it. Muslims are the enemy around which the edifice of the BJP’s wider politics is built, even if the requirements of legality mean the party has to be guarded in the manner in which it expresses itself. Sometimes, of course, the mask slips, either by carelessness or design. Varun Gandhi is a novice but even a consummate politician like Atal Bihari Vajpayee could occasionally trip up. In a venomous speech at a BJP meeting in Goa in April 2002, shortly after the anti-Muslim violence which shook Gujarat that year started, Mr. Vajpayee, who was Prime Minister at the time, declared: “Wherever Muslims live, they don’t like to live in co-existence with others, they don’t like to mingle with others; and instead of propagating their ideas in a peaceful manner, they want to spread their faith by resorting to terror and threats.”
Mr. Vajpayee later claimed he was speaking about “followers of militant Islam” and not Muslims in general. Subsequently, the PMO put out a doctored version of the speech in which the phrase “wherever Muslims live” was changed to “wherever such Muslims live.” There the matter would have ended, except that Mr. Vajpayee made the mistake of telling Parliament the doctored transcript was the actual speech delivered by him in Goa. Priyaranjan Das Munshi produced a recording and moved a privilege motion claiming the House had been deliberately misled. Manohar Joshi, who was Speaker at the time, exonerated Mr. Vajpayee. But in his ruling, he noted that the BJP leader had admitted the recording of his speech did not contain the word “such.”
Despite emendations and clarifications, however, the party’s DNA keeps asserting itself. On the eve of the 2007 Assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh, the BJP officially produced and distributed a VCD, Bharat ki Pukar, in which a number of actors play out scenes of Muslim villainy to underline the sangh’s message that Hindus are under siege. The VCD’s hero was a school teacher (masterji) who goes around telling Hindus to act before it is too late. “If you don’t vote the BJP, you will regret it. This country will be enslaved by the Muslims and these tikas on your forehead will have to go and in their place you will have to grow beards.” His commitment to the cause eventually causes him to have a stroke and die. At his funeral, one of the mourners sounds a dire warning. “That day is not far away when we will be afraid to even call ourselves Hindu, and you will never be able to find a Sohanlal, Mohanlal, Atmaram or Radhekrishan anywhere. Wherever we look, we will only see Abbas, Naqvi, Rizvi, and Maulvi.”
From Guruji to Atalji, Masterji to Varun, the words may vary but the notion that Muslims are outsiders and enemies, that they are “scary,” have peculiar names and are plotting to turn the country into Pakistan is constant. So Varun Gandhi could warn his voters, “go to your villages and give the call that all Hindus must unite to save this area from becoming Pakistan.” His words, in their totality and in their relationship to the sangh parivar’s message, make clear what he was talking about. Regrettably, the Election Commission never took the BJP’s 2007 campaign VCD seriously. This time, however, it has not made the same mistake and has said Varun should not stand.
The BJP is upset about due process. It has also complained about double standards, since the Congress is again fielding Jagdish Tytler and Sajjan Kumar, despite their more than questionable role in the November 1984 massacre of Sikhs. That the Congress should do so is shocking and condemnable but two wrongs don’t make a right. The law may allow Varun Gandhi to claim he is innocent until proven guilty but the imperatives of political judgment are different. By failing to condemn his hate speech and disregarding the Election Commission’s request that his candidature be withdrawn, the BJP and its leadership have made clear that they concur with, and are complicit in, the incitement of religious hatred as a means of winning elections.
Supreme Court on Religion in poll symbols
The Times of India
Religion in poll symbols? We can do nothing: SC
24 Mar 2009, 0108 hrs IST, Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN
NEW DELHI: Many an election symbol in India, where religion is intrinsic to the way of life, can be associated either with God or his elements.
Can these symbols be used by political parties without being accused of wooing voters in the name of religion, which is a grave electoral malpractice?
This question came up before the Supreme Court on Monday as a PIL filed by ‘Youthmen Hindu Association’ questioned the use of the `rising sun' symbol used by DMK in Tamil Nadu.
Though ironically DMK did not believe in the existence of God, it was accused by PIL petitioner's counsel K Biju of falling foul of Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act which prohibited wooing of voters by means of religion or religious symbols.
He argued that sun, right from the vedic age, has been worshipped by Hindus as a God and the DMK's election symbol could "exploit sentiments of illiterate and poor people". He demanded an immediate freeze of the symbol.
Far from being impressed with this argument, a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam chided the petitioner for coming to the court 57 years after the `rising sun' was allotted to DMK as its election symbol.
Before the threat of dismissal forced the counsel to withdraw the petition, the Bench said there are at least 15 to 20 election symbols like tree, cow, moon etc, which could be classified as having some link or the other to the religion. "Does this mean every such symbol needs to be banned," the Bench asked.
The symbols which have some religious connotation are -- elephant which is the election symbol of BSP, lotus (BJP), bow and arrow (JMM), conch (BJD). Apart from the national and state parties, there are 1,000 registered unrecognised parties in India, the latter being asked to choose from 59 free symbols.
Though the counsel repeated his arguments basing it on Section 123(3) of RP Act, he did not mention the proviso to the section, which read: "Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the purpose of this clause."
A similar unsuccessful attempt was made by one Shaheen Parvez last week before a Bench headed by CJI to challenge the `lotus' symbol allotted to BJP. Her contention was that lotus was a national symbol and no political party could make use of it.
Religion in poll symbols? We can do nothing: SC
24 Mar 2009, 0108 hrs IST, Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN
NEW DELHI: Many an election symbol in India, where religion is intrinsic to the way of life, can be associated either with God or his elements.
Can these symbols be used by political parties without being accused of wooing voters in the name of religion, which is a grave electoral malpractice?
This question came up before the Supreme Court on Monday as a PIL filed by ‘Youthmen Hindu Association’ questioned the use of the `rising sun' symbol used by DMK in Tamil Nadu.
Though ironically DMK did not believe in the existence of God, it was accused by PIL petitioner's counsel K Biju of falling foul of Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act which prohibited wooing of voters by means of religion or religious symbols.
He argued that sun, right from the vedic age, has been worshipped by Hindus as a God and the DMK's election symbol could "exploit sentiments of illiterate and poor people". He demanded an immediate freeze of the symbol.
Far from being impressed with this argument, a Bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justice P Sathasivam chided the petitioner for coming to the court 57 years after the `rising sun' was allotted to DMK as its election symbol.
Before the threat of dismissal forced the counsel to withdraw the petition, the Bench said there are at least 15 to 20 election symbols like tree, cow, moon etc, which could be classified as having some link or the other to the religion. "Does this mean every such symbol needs to be banned," the Bench asked.
The symbols which have some religious connotation are -- elephant which is the election symbol of BSP, lotus (BJP), bow and arrow (JMM), conch (BJD). Apart from the national and state parties, there are 1,000 registered unrecognised parties in India, the latter being asked to choose from 59 free symbols.
Though the counsel repeated his arguments basing it on Section 123(3) of RP Act, he did not mention the proviso to the section, which read: "Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the purpose of this clause."
A similar unsuccessful attempt was made by one Shaheen Parvez last week before a Bench headed by CJI to challenge the `lotus' symbol allotted to BJP. Her contention was that lotus was a national symbol and no political party could make use of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
