|
April 30, 2009
Did Naveen Patnaik’s Break With The BJP Have Anything to Do With Secular Convictions?
The Telegraph
April 30, 2009
A MATTER OF NEW SCRUPLES
- Naveen Patnaik’s decision to drop the BJP is hardly simple
by Mukul Kesavan
On April 23, NDTV aired an interview with Naveen Patnaik in which the chief minister of Orissa was categorical that he had broken with the Bharatiya Janata Party because of its involvement in, and endorsement of, anti-Christian violence in Kandhamal. He spoke of the BJP’s nomination of Ashok Sahu, the Christian-baiting retired IPS officer as the BJP’s parliamentary candidate from Kandhamal, and Manoj Pradhan, the prime accused in the Kandhamal killings and arson from the G. Udaygiri assembly seat, as appalling signals from a national party.
Patnaik ruled out allying with the BJP after the Lok Sabha elections. On the face of it, this seemed as secular and ideologically premised a position as you might want to see.The problem with this conclusion is that Patnaik had cohabited happily with the BJP for a decade. What price, then, this spasm of principled politics?
The realpolitik answer is that Patnaik made his decision to go it alone not because of Kandhamal, nor immediately after the anti-Christian violence there; he decided to break with the BJP after his party handily won local elections in Orissa despite contesting them on its own. Rather than be beholden to an 800-pound gorilla as coalition partner in the state assembly, he began to calculate that it might be feasible to go it alone.
This is certainly the BJP’s view. Chandan Mitra, editor and member of parliament who was the the BJP’s point man in Orissa, said in the course of a news show that he thought the Congress would gain seats in Orissa because the votes cast for the Biju Janata Dal and the BJP would be divided. He said that he had explained this to Patnaik, but the chief minister had embraced the delusion that the BJD could win a legislative majority without a coalition. Sudheendra Kulkarni, another spokesperson for the BJP, declared that Patnaik’s stated critique of the BJP was a sham; behind the broken alliance lay electoral opportunism. Kulkarni went so far as to predict that if the BJD fell short of a majority in the assembly, Patnaik would return to the BJP asking for support.
The BJP’s cynicism can be put down to the resentment of a spurned suitor, but Patnaik’s new scruples raise general questions about how political decisions are historically explained. Colonial Indian history went through a phase where a group of scholars loosely associated with Cambridge tried to explain all political history, including the anti-colonial struggle, in terms of strict self-interest. Thus, we had nationalism boiled down to networks of patrons and clients and the great and the good of nationalist politics described as ‘contractors’ and ‘sub-contractors’ by historians influenced by Sir Lewis Namier’s rigorous but reductive view of political action.
Coalition politics in India is probably the perfect subject for Namierite explanation because of the apparent ideological shiftlessness of most Indian parties and the alacrity with which they switch sides. So it isn’t surprising that Patnaik’s break with the BJP has been understood as political calculation, not only by the BJP but by commentators in general.
This consensus simplifies and coarsens our understanding of the breakdown of the BJP-BJD alliance in particular and political realignments in general. In India, as elsewhere, large ideas set boundaries and limits on the working of self-interest, just as self-interest or the Namierite pursuit of power and political office often reins in the free play of ideological belief.
Naveen Patnaik, despite his metropolitan origins, is a provincial politician. He has, therefore, two priorities: first, a political alliance that allows him to hold office in his province and, two, a working relationship with parties or coalitions likely to hold power at the Centre so that the federal transfer of resources, on which state governments are so dependent, happens frictionlessly.
In the light of these two imperatives, his durable relationship with the BJP is easy to understand. Given that the Congress is his principal rival for provincial power in Orissa, an alliance with that party was out of the question. That left the BJP and the coalition it led, the National Democratic Alliance. For the first few years of the BJD-BJP alliance, the NDA controlled the Central government and Patnaik’s party was the senior partner in Orissa. The victory of the United Progressive Alliance in 2004 left the alliance intact for nearly the whole term of the present Congress-led government: given the Congress’s provincial ambitions, there wasn’t much room for Patnaik to manoeuvre in.
The main reason why Patnaik’s declared revulsion at the BJP’s communal politicking during and after the violence in Kandhamal is met with scepticism is that his pluralist, secular conscience seemed to have been hibernating during the Gujarat pogrom in 2002. And this is reasonable: horrible though Kandhamal was, it was, at best, Gujarat in miniature. So why was Patnaik straining at a gnat, having swallowed the camel?
There’s a straightforward answer to that question. For Patnaik, the pogrom of 2002 happened elsewhere. Any taint by association on account of the BJD’s membership of the NDA could be explained away by saying that the agenda and the doings of BJP satraps were the responsibility of that party alone. This was the position taken by Chandrababu Naidu, by Mayavati and by Patnaik.
But Kandhamal was different: the violence in Kandhamal occurred in Orissa, in the BJD’s backyard. Patnaik and his spokesperson, Jay Panda, appeared on television day after day through late September and October, trying to defend the Orissa government’s response to the systematic assault on Christians. The discomfort of these urbane, Anglophone politicians as they tried to deflect the charge that they were complicit in the ethnic cleansing in Kandhamal because they were allied to the BJP was evident.
I suggest that this discomfort was born of real shock and revulsion. As the chief minister of Orissa, Patnaik had to own administrative responsibility for his government’s inability to prevent or limit Kandhamal’s ethnic cleansing. Nobody has ever accused Naveen Patnaik of being radical or of being any sort of ideologue, but he is the son of Biju Patnaik, a buccaneering cosmopolitan whose single greatest act of derring-do was air-lifting nationalists in Muslim majority Indonesia out of Dutch captivity. He’s also the writer Gita Mehta’s brother. It’s hard to fit the ethnic cleansing of Christians into this family profile.
Naveen Patnaik supped with the devil for many years till he discovered that the long spoon had shrunk. The crucial thing to remember here is that there was no political or electoral downside to his alliance with the BJP even after the Kandhamal violence. Orissa is an overwhelmingly Hindu state. Kandhamal’s large Christian population is an exception; as a rule, minorities make up a tiny fraction of Orissa’s population. The alienation of minorities wouldn’t have diminished the BJD’s electoral base in any significant way.
Breaking with the BJP, on the other hand, has obvious political costs for the BJD. Dividing the vote hands the Congress an immediate advantage. Despite the BJD’s victory in local elections, there is a real possibility that Patnaik’s party might fall short of a legislative majority in the state elections. The nebulous third front with which the BJD is now allied is unlikely to form the next Central government and the prospect of going to the BJP, cap in hand, should the NDA form a government in Delhi, can’t be attractive.
So by going it alone, Naveen Patnaik rolled the dice. His gamble was based partly on his calculation that he could win on his own; but it was also prompted by his conviction that he couldn’t live with a party that had brought to Orissa its strategy of Hindu consolidation through violence. Had he not been revolted by the tragedy in Kandhamal, there was no reason for him to risk the stability of a tried and tested alliance. Patnaik’s secular or pluralist convictions might not have been a sufficient condition for this parting of ways, but they were a necessary condition for it to happen.
The secular idea of India into which Naveen Patnaik was socialized is now vigorously challenged by Hindutva, but it remains the default orientation in Indian politics. It has to be publicly repudiated by those who disagree with it. Politicians and intellectuals, who make a mid-life journey to the Hindu right, are often seen, perhaps unfairly, to be entering into a Faustian compact, because political virtue is so intimately associated with pluralism. Patnaik’s break with the BJP in the wake of Kandhamal was prompted by many considerations; one of them was that he didn’t want the world to believe that he had gone over to the dark side.
April 30, 2009
A MATTER OF NEW SCRUPLES
- Naveen Patnaik’s decision to drop the BJP is hardly simple
by Mukul Kesavan
On April 23, NDTV aired an interview with Naveen Patnaik in which the chief minister of Orissa was categorical that he had broken with the Bharatiya Janata Party because of its involvement in, and endorsement of, anti-Christian violence in Kandhamal. He spoke of the BJP’s nomination of Ashok Sahu, the Christian-baiting retired IPS officer as the BJP’s parliamentary candidate from Kandhamal, and Manoj Pradhan, the prime accused in the Kandhamal killings and arson from the G. Udaygiri assembly seat, as appalling signals from a national party.
Patnaik ruled out allying with the BJP after the Lok Sabha elections. On the face of it, this seemed as secular and ideologically premised a position as you might want to see.The problem with this conclusion is that Patnaik had cohabited happily with the BJP for a decade. What price, then, this spasm of principled politics?
The realpolitik answer is that Patnaik made his decision to go it alone not because of Kandhamal, nor immediately after the anti-Christian violence there; he decided to break with the BJP after his party handily won local elections in Orissa despite contesting them on its own. Rather than be beholden to an 800-pound gorilla as coalition partner in the state assembly, he began to calculate that it might be feasible to go it alone.
This is certainly the BJP’s view. Chandan Mitra, editor and member of parliament who was the the BJP’s point man in Orissa, said in the course of a news show that he thought the Congress would gain seats in Orissa because the votes cast for the Biju Janata Dal and the BJP would be divided. He said that he had explained this to Patnaik, but the chief minister had embraced the delusion that the BJD could win a legislative majority without a coalition. Sudheendra Kulkarni, another spokesperson for the BJP, declared that Patnaik’s stated critique of the BJP was a sham; behind the broken alliance lay electoral opportunism. Kulkarni went so far as to predict that if the BJD fell short of a majority in the assembly, Patnaik would return to the BJP asking for support.
The BJP’s cynicism can be put down to the resentment of a spurned suitor, but Patnaik’s new scruples raise general questions about how political decisions are historically explained. Colonial Indian history went through a phase where a group of scholars loosely associated with Cambridge tried to explain all political history, including the anti-colonial struggle, in terms of strict self-interest. Thus, we had nationalism boiled down to networks of patrons and clients and the great and the good of nationalist politics described as ‘contractors’ and ‘sub-contractors’ by historians influenced by Sir Lewis Namier’s rigorous but reductive view of political action.
Coalition politics in India is probably the perfect subject for Namierite explanation because of the apparent ideological shiftlessness of most Indian parties and the alacrity with which they switch sides. So it isn’t surprising that Patnaik’s break with the BJP has been understood as political calculation, not only by the BJP but by commentators in general.
This consensus simplifies and coarsens our understanding of the breakdown of the BJP-BJD alliance in particular and political realignments in general. In India, as elsewhere, large ideas set boundaries and limits on the working of self-interest, just as self-interest or the Namierite pursuit of power and political office often reins in the free play of ideological belief.
Naveen Patnaik, despite his metropolitan origins, is a provincial politician. He has, therefore, two priorities: first, a political alliance that allows him to hold office in his province and, two, a working relationship with parties or coalitions likely to hold power at the Centre so that the federal transfer of resources, on which state governments are so dependent, happens frictionlessly.
In the light of these two imperatives, his durable relationship with the BJP is easy to understand. Given that the Congress is his principal rival for provincial power in Orissa, an alliance with that party was out of the question. That left the BJP and the coalition it led, the National Democratic Alliance. For the first few years of the BJD-BJP alliance, the NDA controlled the Central government and Patnaik’s party was the senior partner in Orissa. The victory of the United Progressive Alliance in 2004 left the alliance intact for nearly the whole term of the present Congress-led government: given the Congress’s provincial ambitions, there wasn’t much room for Patnaik to manoeuvre in.
The main reason why Patnaik’s declared revulsion at the BJP’s communal politicking during and after the violence in Kandhamal is met with scepticism is that his pluralist, secular conscience seemed to have been hibernating during the Gujarat pogrom in 2002. And this is reasonable: horrible though Kandhamal was, it was, at best, Gujarat in miniature. So why was Patnaik straining at a gnat, having swallowed the camel?
There’s a straightforward answer to that question. For Patnaik, the pogrom of 2002 happened elsewhere. Any taint by association on account of the BJD’s membership of the NDA could be explained away by saying that the agenda and the doings of BJP satraps were the responsibility of that party alone. This was the position taken by Chandrababu Naidu, by Mayavati and by Patnaik.
But Kandhamal was different: the violence in Kandhamal occurred in Orissa, in the BJD’s backyard. Patnaik and his spokesperson, Jay Panda, appeared on television day after day through late September and October, trying to defend the Orissa government’s response to the systematic assault on Christians. The discomfort of these urbane, Anglophone politicians as they tried to deflect the charge that they were complicit in the ethnic cleansing in Kandhamal because they were allied to the BJP was evident.
I suggest that this discomfort was born of real shock and revulsion. As the chief minister of Orissa, Patnaik had to own administrative responsibility for his government’s inability to prevent or limit Kandhamal’s ethnic cleansing. Nobody has ever accused Naveen Patnaik of being radical or of being any sort of ideologue, but he is the son of Biju Patnaik, a buccaneering cosmopolitan whose single greatest act of derring-do was air-lifting nationalists in Muslim majority Indonesia out of Dutch captivity. He’s also the writer Gita Mehta’s brother. It’s hard to fit the ethnic cleansing of Christians into this family profile.
Naveen Patnaik supped with the devil for many years till he discovered that the long spoon had shrunk. The crucial thing to remember here is that there was no political or electoral downside to his alliance with the BJP even after the Kandhamal violence. Orissa is an overwhelmingly Hindu state. Kandhamal’s large Christian population is an exception; as a rule, minorities make up a tiny fraction of Orissa’s population. The alienation of minorities wouldn’t have diminished the BJD’s electoral base in any significant way.
Breaking with the BJP, on the other hand, has obvious political costs for the BJD. Dividing the vote hands the Congress an immediate advantage. Despite the BJD’s victory in local elections, there is a real possibility that Patnaik’s party might fall short of a legislative majority in the state elections. The nebulous third front with which the BJD is now allied is unlikely to form the next Central government and the prospect of going to the BJP, cap in hand, should the NDA form a government in Delhi, can’t be attractive.
So by going it alone, Naveen Patnaik rolled the dice. His gamble was based partly on his calculation that he could win on his own; but it was also prompted by his conviction that he couldn’t live with a party that had brought to Orissa its strategy of Hindu consolidation through violence. Had he not been revolted by the tragedy in Kandhamal, there was no reason for him to risk the stability of a tried and tested alliance. Patnaik’s secular or pluralist convictions might not have been a sufficient condition for this parting of ways, but they were a necessary condition for it to happen.
The secular idea of India into which Naveen Patnaik was socialized is now vigorously challenged by Hindutva, but it remains the default orientation in Indian politics. It has to be publicly repudiated by those who disagree with it. Politicians and intellectuals, who make a mid-life journey to the Hindu right, are often seen, perhaps unfairly, to be entering into a Faustian compact, because political virtue is so intimately associated with pluralism. Patnaik’s break with the BJP in the wake of Kandhamal was prompted by many considerations; one of them was that he didn’t want the world to believe that he had gone over to the dark side.
April 29, 2009
Why Are Political Parties Not Calling For Narendra Modi to Go ?
The Hindustan Times
April 30, 2009
The curious silence around Modi
Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, April 29, 2009
The campaign to project Narendra Modi as the BJP’s future prime minister has taken some interesting turns. First, the Supreme Court has ordered a probe into Modi’s role in the Gujarat riots. Second, the Congress has been strangely reluctant to raise this issue or to call for Modi’s head.
Third, the Rajnath Singh camp within the BJP has hit back. It recognises that the subtext of the campaign is to denigrate Rajnath’s own position. And finally, more BJP leaders have signaled their support for Modi suggesting that they regard his ascension as inevitable.
The Supreme Court order is significant because it suggests that Modi owes the country an explanation. By naming various officials of the Gujarat Police and administration along with Modi, the court has suggested that the oft-repeated allegation that the Gujarat government deliberately let the mobs run riot also needs to be probed.
The court order is not, by any means, a conviction. But at a moral level, and at the level of propriety, it is at least as damning as the charges against Jagdish Tytler.
You would expect the Congress to now go for Modi. You would expect it to ask how the BJP feels about a prime ministerial candidate whose role in mass murder is being probed by the Supreme Court. It could even ask for Modi to step aside till the investigations are complete.
Instead, the Congress has played down the issue, refusing to ask for Modi’s resignation and not saying much about the court’s order — a startling contrast with the way in which the BJP went for Tytler.
The Congress’s argument is that the court order may actually help Modi. He could use it to polarise the electorate, to raise Hindu-Muslim tensions and to project himself again as a Hindutva hardliner. Better therefore to play it down.
This is a risky strategy. A chief minister can afford to polarise the electorate. But a prime ministerial contender cannot afford to do so. If Modi adopts his old Muslim-bashing persona, it might actually scare away moderate voters, terrify potential allies, and embarrass the BJP.
Besides, Modi has spent the last two years trying to make people forget about the Gujarat riots, and projecting himself as a champion of development. Would he really want to go back to his old communally divisive persona?
One indication of how the BJP feels might be its response to the court order. Arun Jaitley offered the standard defence but after that the party tried to play it down. Few BJP leaders wanted to discuss it and the party’s C team of spokesmen was dispatched to TV studios to make the usual noises.
Partly, this reflects a division within the BJP. The Rajnath camp, which is paranoid about Arun Jaitley, sees the campaign to promote Modi as a Jaitley ploy facilitated by the former law minister’s vast access in the media.
So, Sushma Swaraj — no pal of Jaitley’s and a PM candidate herself — went public with her denunciation of the campaign. Rajnath’s supporters sung their man’s praises. And even Jaitley, in an effort to deflect the criticism, declared that this was ‘a media campaign’ — which, at one level, it certainly was.
But within the BJP, the conviction that Modi will be the next leader is growing. Even Yashwant Sinha, one of the BJP’s secular liberals, declared on Monday that, “Modi has all the qualities needed to be PM,” adding, “India would be lucky to have him as prime minister.”
So, the Modi juggernaut rolls on, nevertheless.
April 30, 2009
The curious silence around Modi
Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, April 29, 2009
The campaign to project Narendra Modi as the BJP’s future prime minister has taken some interesting turns. First, the Supreme Court has ordered a probe into Modi’s role in the Gujarat riots. Second, the Congress has been strangely reluctant to raise this issue or to call for Modi’s head.
Third, the Rajnath Singh camp within the BJP has hit back. It recognises that the subtext of the campaign is to denigrate Rajnath’s own position. And finally, more BJP leaders have signaled their support for Modi suggesting that they regard his ascension as inevitable.
The Supreme Court order is significant because it suggests that Modi owes the country an explanation. By naming various officials of the Gujarat Police and administration along with Modi, the court has suggested that the oft-repeated allegation that the Gujarat government deliberately let the mobs run riot also needs to be probed.
The court order is not, by any means, a conviction. But at a moral level, and at the level of propriety, it is at least as damning as the charges against Jagdish Tytler.
You would expect the Congress to now go for Modi. You would expect it to ask how the BJP feels about a prime ministerial candidate whose role in mass murder is being probed by the Supreme Court. It could even ask for Modi to step aside till the investigations are complete.
Instead, the Congress has played down the issue, refusing to ask for Modi’s resignation and not saying much about the court’s order — a startling contrast with the way in which the BJP went for Tytler.
The Congress’s argument is that the court order may actually help Modi. He could use it to polarise the electorate, to raise Hindu-Muslim tensions and to project himself again as a Hindutva hardliner. Better therefore to play it down.
This is a risky strategy. A chief minister can afford to polarise the electorate. But a prime ministerial contender cannot afford to do so. If Modi adopts his old Muslim-bashing persona, it might actually scare away moderate voters, terrify potential allies, and embarrass the BJP.
Besides, Modi has spent the last two years trying to make people forget about the Gujarat riots, and projecting himself as a champion of development. Would he really want to go back to his old communally divisive persona?
One indication of how the BJP feels might be its response to the court order. Arun Jaitley offered the standard defence but after that the party tried to play it down. Few BJP leaders wanted to discuss it and the party’s C team of spokesmen was dispatched to TV studios to make the usual noises.
Partly, this reflects a division within the BJP. The Rajnath camp, which is paranoid about Arun Jaitley, sees the campaign to promote Modi as a Jaitley ploy facilitated by the former law minister’s vast access in the media.
So, Sushma Swaraj — no pal of Jaitley’s and a PM candidate herself — went public with her denunciation of the campaign. Rajnath’s supporters sung their man’s praises. And even Jaitley, in an effort to deflect the criticism, declared that this was ‘a media campaign’ — which, at one level, it certainly was.
But within the BJP, the conviction that Modi will be the next leader is growing. Even Yashwant Sinha, one of the BJP’s secular liberals, declared on Monday that, “Modi has all the qualities needed to be PM,” adding, “India would be lucky to have him as prime minister.”
So, the Modi juggernaut rolls on, nevertheless.
Gujarat: Ray of light in Gulbarg gloom ?
Hindustan Times
April 27, 2009
“Write this,” Qasambhai Allahnoor Mansoori instructed. “My mother, my wife, my daughter, son, three daughters-in-law, six grandchildren... 19 people. Do you even know what that is like?”
Mansoori is the only sign of what used to be before a mob killed 38 people (if those missing are officially presumed dead, the count would rise to 70) here. The dead include former Congress Member of Parliament Ehsan Jafri, who was hacked and burnt to death.
“The police could not cover such a small housing society,” Mansoori asked. “What would Erda have done when all orders came from the top?” After spending four months in a relief camp, Mansoori returned to Gulbarg though his sons, who also survived the massacre, refused to return. In his old house, photographs of his wife and family keep him company. Once a driver, he now earns a living by renting out handcarts to hawkers. His son has a business selling mattresses.
April 27, 2009
| Can there be a bigger constitutional slap on the face of a constitutional functionary? Earlier, the court transferred all cases out of Gujarat and constituted the SIT… If you (Modi) have any morality, you should resign. In fact, he should have resigned at least seven years ago. Abhishek Singhvi, Congress spokesman |
| There had been a convention to raise the Gujarat issue ahead of elections. Just before the Bihar elections, Lalu Prasad released the Banerjee report. Arun Jaitley, BJP general secretary |
| This is a big success for us. This is not against the Gulbarg Society massacre but on the wider conspiracy to allow violence to wrack Gujarat and for illegal and unconstitutional instructions not to protect citizens. Teesta Setalvad, Activist |
| The history of riots in our country is that the perpetrators are never caught and victims never get justice. This order indicates the rule of law will always prevail. Tanvir Jafri, Son of the late Ehsan Jafri |
The 66-year-old resident of Gulbarg Society lived to count the dead in his family. But memories of the gruesome massacre that took place in the locality he lived in for nearly four decades have not managed to drive him out of his now dilapidated house in Gulbarg Society.
This locality — a cluster of 29 bungalows and apartments, in Ahmedabad city’s Dalit-dominated Chamanpura area — saw incidents of arson and looting during the communal riots of 1969, the 1989 anti-reservation protests and the post-Babri Masjid demolition riots in 1992. Many residents moved out after that but some people stayed back, only to leave in 2002.
On a broad street outside, bakers and retailers of electronic goods go about their businesses. But enter through a collapsing grey gate and you see a place caught in a time warp. Seven years later, these houses stand abandoned. There are no buyers and former residents, mostly retailers of consumer durables and tailors, don’t want to return. A few homeless labourers have made these ruins their home and the mosque on the premises is still open for prayer.
 |
| No one lives here anymore: Gulbarg Society was once a lively locality — comprising 19 bungalows and 10 apartment buildings housing upper middle class business families — located in a predominantly Hindu area in Ahmedabad. Today, seven years after the massacre that left 38 of its residents dead and almost as many missing, it resembles a ghost town. Those who survived the massacre moved out. Their homes stand abandoned. |
Jafri used his influence and called everyone he knew in the police and political set-up, begging for help when a 10,000 to 12,000-strong mob attacked the locality, breaking its boundary wall and torching houses. When no help came, Jafri opened fire from his 12-bore licensed double-barrel shotgun to disperse the mob, injuring four persons. The mob, now uncontrollable, entered each house, attacking residents with swords and choppers and burning them alive.
After the incident, in an apparent attempt to destroy evidence, the police did not get post-mortem conducted on most of those killed. With this crucial piece of evidence missing, most of the 40 accused were released on bail.
And while the Special Investigation Team (SIT) has already found through cellphone records that then Joint Commissioner of Police (Sector II) M.K. Tandon, under whose jurisdiction the massacre happened, was present at the spot when the mob assembled but left immediately after the attack, no action has been taken against him. The only high-ranking police officer to be arrested in the case by the SIT is Deputy Superintendent of Police (Valsad) K.G. Erda, who was then a senior police inspector of the area. He was arrested earlier this month for abetment and destruction of evidence.
“Erda should reveal the names of his colleagues and all those involved,” said Jafri’s 46-year-old son Tanvir, who survived because he was not at home. “Our society was hardly two to three kilometers from the police commissioner’s office. Somebody has to answer for what went wrong.”
 |
| Riot victims light candles for their loved ones at their abandoned home in Gulbarg Society. PTI file photo |
Mansoori hopes the SIT’s investigations will lead to the conspirators being booked. “That will act as a deterrent to others,” he said.
Tanvir, too, is positive but feels much more needs to be done and fast. “That Erda and (M.K.) Patel have been taken into custody is a very good sign but they were only inspectors then,” said Tanvir, who now lives in Surat. “Is there no responsibility of the people above them? What about them?”
That is a question all victims are asking.
This report appeared in HT on February 21 this year
April 28, 2009
FT interview with Raj Thackeray
Financial Times
Tuesday Apr 28 2009
ASIA-PACIFIC
India
Transcript: FT interview with Raj Thackeray
Published: April 28 2009 05:32 | Last updated: April 28 2009 05:32
Joe Leahy, Mumbai bureau chief, Varun Sood, Mumbai reporter, and James Fontanella-Khan, India editor FT.com, interviewed Raj Thackeray, founder of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) or Maharashtra Renaissance Army, with Anil Shirode, General Secretary of MNS, present last April. Here is an edited transcript of the interview translated from Hindi.
Financial Times: I want to ask you about your party name Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. What does MNS stands for?
Raj Thackeray: There are two to three things. When I was about to start a party at that time there were so many other parties. What was I going to tell the electorate? I had to decide what message I was going to convey through the name I gave my party. I had always believed I would make the party a state party and confine it to Maharashtra [the state of which Mumbai is the capital]. Hence, I started the party’s name with “Maharashtra”. [The second word I chose was] Navnirman [Renaissance] because in the past 60 years, since independence, India’s political parties have been fighting elections mainly on four to five issues. Despite this, we have never fulfilled [the promises contained in the campaigns regarding] those four to five issues. Everyone promises to invest money in electricity, roads and jobs. But that’s where things have ended [with the promises].
If we want to build something new, then we should show the people [of Maharashtra] something new. So I started a fresh new party. On March 19 [2006] when I presided at the first rally, I told the people these same things. So the whole philosophy [behind MNS] was to overcome the prevailing political hypocrisy. I needed to do something different. Now some time has passed since then but we are facing the same problems with agriculture, with water. The same lectures from our politicians are being proffered. They make promises but they are just that. There is nothing in them. Everyone promises to give free electricity, free housing, everything for free.
Right from that first rally, I thought to myself that if I stand for election, I will need to tell the people what I am going to do. I will need to map out a blueprint. What is the problem, and what is the solution. Today, this is the report on electricity and this is the report on water. We will go before the people with these reports.
During the last elections, the Congress [the main party in India’s ruling coalition] promised to provide free electricity. And then when they won the elections, they said that they couldn’t provide free electricity because it had been a printing mistake [in the manifesto]. How can it be a printing mistake? Hence, people have grown tired of listening to the many promises that the political parties have been making for so long now. And I myself, being first a citizen and second a leader of a political party, have also become tired of listening to unfulfilled promises. Hence, I formed this party to start something new.
Anil Shirode: The literal translation of MNS is Maharashtra New Creation Army. By army, I do not mean that we are some kind of militant outfit. In Maharashtra’s context, it means [we are] a people’s movement for justice.
FT: What are you doing to differentiate yourself from other established political parties, such as the Congress Party and their pledge to provide free electricity. What are your policies?
Raj Thackeray: I do not think anything should be given for free. Everything has a price attached to it. And also people do not want it for free. People just want these things to be reliable. If electricity is provided on a regular basis without load shedding, they will be willing to pay for it. In the last 10 years, we [Maharashtra State] have not been able to deliver one megawatt of [new capacity in] electricity. And they are promising to deliver it for free. I don’t think anything needs to be given for free. And I am not talking only of Maharashtra but of the whole world.
FT: The national elections are coming up. Will they be a test of sentiment for the MNS in the state elections scheduled later this year?
Raj Thackeray: Yes. The [national] elections will be a test. And hence, we do not want to fight all of the 48 seats [of Maharashtra in the national parliament]. One of the problems we face is [raising enough campaign] money. Thanks to the way the other political parties have corrupted the system, we cannot match them [for funding power] since our party is new. Therefore, we have decided to concentrate on contesting 10-15 seats. We are short on time also and this further means we cannot campaign in all seats.
The second thing is that although there are a lot of candidates in our party, most of them are new faces. They will take time to establish themselves. Hence, I am required to visit all our campaign seats. I do not have body doubles like Saddam Hussein had (laughs). So I, personally, do not have enough time to campaign in all of the 48 seats.
We will concentrate on contesting 10-15 seats because these Lok Sabha [lower house of the national parliament] elections are very important.
FT: Which seats will the MNS contest?
Raj Thackeray: All six seats from Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan, Pune, Nashik, and we are discussing which other seats we should nominate candidates for.
FT: I want to return to the theme of Regional Parties. What does that mean in your context? Your Maharashtra-based party campaigns on representing the cause of local Marathi people. How does it play out in your policies?
Raj Thackeray: The Lok Sabha elections highlight relations between the centre [Delhi] and the state [Maharashta]. Now, people accuse me of raking up the Marathi issue [the regional language of the Maharashtrian people]. I think every state or country has its own language and a certain pride of its own. So, when I ask that Marathi be spoken in this state [Maharashta], it is akin to asking that Italian be the spoken language of Italy. It is the same in the case of the French and English languages. In our country, there are numerous languages spoken. They have developed over many years into their present status.
So the locals here should be fed first and then the outsiders. And I think every state and every country has a similar policy.
FT: Do you believe there has been too much immigration into Mumbai?
Raj Thackeray: Every city or state has a limited capacity with regards to its ability to provide adequate facilities. The taxpayer is entitled to some essential things. Families should be able to provide their children with playgrounds and find places for them in schools. There should be enough hospitals. Water should be provided to all. Surplus electricity should be available. The taxpayer should be comfortable. Today there is such an influx [of people] that 40,000 live in slums next to the pipeline that provides water to the city of Mumbai.
Then there is the issue of terrorism. We do not know who is a terrorist and who is a migrant worker.
In addition, although I do not have anything against people coming from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the political leaders from those states follow their people to Mumbai and build constituencies here. .. When Indians go abroad to work, they do not build political constituencies over there. Today, Tamils and people from other states come and reside [in Mumbai] but their leaders don’t come here. It is only the political leaders from [UP and Bihar] who are coming here. You see the political slogans of leaders like Mayawati [chief minister of UP and leader of the BSP party] written on walls here. When I talk about Marathi, you accuse me of threatening Indian unity. But Maywati writes: ‘BSP is fighting for North Indians.’ What does that mean?
So on one hand this influx [of people to Mumbai] is creating problems for the taxpayer, and then they go and create [their own] constituencies. These are the basic issues I am highlighting. I have many non-Maharastrian friends. Mumbai has had non-Maharastrian people staying here for many decades. When have I created a ruckus about them?
FT: You’ve stated that the city lacks the capacity to house an influx of non-Maharastrian people. Should these people be stopped from coming.
Raj Thackeray: You have to stop these people from coming in because we have reached the maximum capacity of the city of Mumbai. We do not have places [for them] to stay. And then these people coming from outside and encroach upon municipal and government lands and set up slums. In today’s Mumbai, can you take your children out safely? Is there a place? Is there an open garden where parents can safely take their children out in the evenings? And then we have this daily influx of families. How will we discover who is a terrorist and who is a normal person? Worldwide, wherever you go there are checks. But here in Mumbai, they are non-existent. Here, two to three taxis work under the one taxi permit with the same number plate on their cars. What kind of a system is this? It defies sense. What kind of a migration is this?
Why doesn’t someone ask the politicians of the states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar why they do not develop their states? They are gobbling up the world’s money, running the central government and sending their people to other states. So whatever has happened has happened. Enough is enough. We need to put an end to this migration.
FT: But how do you stop this migration? India is a free country, there are no controls on the borders …
Raj Thackeray: It is a simple thing. There are laws for it. If only they are implemented, then these migrants cannot come. The migrants come thinking there is space here for them. They can come and live anywhere ... encroach on any pavement and live on any land. But if the government stops them, then where will the migrants stay? If they don’t have a place to stay, why would they come? So if this message can be sent to those planning to come into our cities, they will stop coming. And all these laws are there but because of a lack of political will, these things continue unchecked.
Anil Shirode: There is a 1973 act that states that migrants have to take permission from the state to which they are migrating. They need to have separate ID cards. Also, if any industry is employing more than five migrants, then it needs to take permission from the precinct authorities.
FT: One of the problems with migrants is that political parties, such as your previous party, the Shiv Sena, have used these people as vote banks.
Raj Thackeray: That is what I am coming to. We have schemes such as the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme through which we can build housing for the slumdwellers. But how can your house all the new people coming everyday?
Today, Maharashtra’s financial health is good. We can house all the migrants and people who are residing in the state. Maharashtra is a progressive state … people are coming for a better life. But the continuing fresh influx of people has to stop. Today, there are 350-400 families coming into Mumbai alone every day. How can we provide the necessary infrastructure for them? And moreover, job security is the most important priority when migration happens in other countries. Here, in our state, a person comes first and then scouts for a job. This way no state or country can run.
FT: So you do not have problems with migrants who are already based here. It is only that you do not welcome any new migration?
Raj Thackeray: Absolutely.
FT: Once you said that one of every three employees in Silicon Valley is a Marathi. So people from this state have been welcomed in other states/countries. So don’t you think people from other places should be welcomed from outside?
Raj Thackeray: If there are jobs, then no problem. Why did the US accept all the Maharasthrians? The answer is because the country had jobs. They never overlooked the interests of the US citizens. But in our state, locals are not getting jobs and outsiders are working. First we need to feed those in our own house. If there are surplus jobs, I will call the outsiders, if required. There are 4m unemployed registered with the Employment Exchange Board. No one is getting a call from any employer. And to make matters worse, we have migrants coming who compete for jobs against the locals. So if this tension flares up, then who will be answerable?
FT: We would cross-check the figure of 4m registered with Employment Exchange…
Raj Thackeray: See, there is an act called as Minimum Wages Act. No industry is abiding by it. Now these people from outside can work for as little as Rs2,000-2,500 instead of Rs4,000. So laws are being flouted by industry and the government and this is giving rise to the current wave of tensions. Today, industry favours contract workers over regular or permanent workers. And these contract workers are non-locals. It is not that the locals are not ready to work for below-average wages. If industry asks them to work for lower wages they [the locals] are ready to do so. But here again, they [the locals] do not know where the jobs are being created. There are no advertisements.
FT: Will you ask people to vote on this issue and if you come into power, will you enforce these laws?
Raj Thackeray: Absolutely. In Himachal Pradesh, an industry can be set-up only when it gives in writing that 80 per cent of jobs will be given to locals. Himachal Pradesh is a part of this country right?
FT: Why cannot the locals work for low wages?
Raj Thackeray: They are ready to work but they don’t know where the jobs are. Industries which set up shop, they do not want unions. If they take locals, there would be strong unions. Hence they fear having locals. …
FT: What about the incidents of violence against migrants attributed to your party ...
Raj Thackeray: Basically, what happened was that… [You people not feeling hot? Can we turn on the air-conditioner?]
When I spoke about this thing, I mentioned about Uttar Pradesh day and Chhath puja [a religious festival]. Now there is nothing like Uttar Pradesh day. When India became independent, states were carved out on linguistic lines. Maharashtra for Marathis, Bengal for Bengalis.
The leaders from these states [UP and Bihar] are trying to mobilise people in the city by celebrating such festivals. I have never opposed Chhath puja. But the political tamasha [drama] being played in the backdrop of it by these leaders is something I oppose. A leader from [the UP-based] Samajwadi party, Abu Azmi, said that if someone opposed the Chhath puja, he would bring 20,000-armed people from Azamgarh [Mr Azmi’s village in Uttar-Pradesh] into Mumbai. At the same time, there was a rally of the Samajwadi party in the city where some inflammatory comments were made and tensions built up. There was just this single incident. Other than that there has been nothing. But the English language and Hindi media - owned by the media barons from the states of Uttar-Pradesh, Bihar, and Delhi – claimed that people from UP and Bihar were being attacked. You go and ask people on the streets whether such a thing they were projecting on their channels happened?
But let’s also understand something. If they [the politicians from the northern states] say something inflammatory in their rallies, they will face repercussions in equal measure.
FT: At that time, there was also coverage of violence against migrants in Nashik [a smaller city in Maharashstra]. Was that also done by your party?
Raj Thackeray: See, at a lot of places, locals were involved and it was not entirely our party members. The migrants detest the locals. This is happening here in Mumbai, Pune, Nashik ... many places. The migrants do not respect the locals. The locals then become upset and this spreads. Also, when I was arrested, there was some violence [he was arrested for allegedly making inflammatory comments].
FT: Do you condone the violence?
Raj Thackeray: I do not regret anything. I do not want any violence. But they also should not be aggressive towards us because this could lead to violence. On this same problem, in Assam [another Indian state] people’s throats are slit, they are gunned down. In Manipur too a similar thing is happening. We have problems related to this issue in Punjab, Delhi and Haryana. There no one speaks about this. We do not have violence of the same magnitude here. The leaders of UP and Bihar are responsible for [increasing this type of violence].
FT: Now the issue with Amitabh Bachchan [the Bollywood actor who hails from UP]. There was this controversy in the media where you said he should be more patriotic about Mumbai ...
Raj Thackeray: I had said something then which I would like to say again now. Be it Amitabh Bachchan, Lata Mangeshkar, Sachin Tendulkar. These people are respected globally. Amitabh Bachchan contested his first election as a representative of UP and not Maharashtra … No problem … Then he becomes a brand ambassador for UP .... I have a speech of his which says that: ‘I have lived in Delhi and Kolkata [West Bengal] but my identity is rooted more in UP than anywhere else.’
If these Indian global figures can have so much love for their states, can’t such a small leader like Raj Thackeray also love his state? When I talk about espousing the cause of my state, you accuse me of threatening national unity. But big stars like Amitabh Bachchan can do it.
FT: So are you implying that any “global” Indian who happens to live in Mumbai should not express his love for the state of his birth? Should he refer to himself as an Indian first ...
Raj Thackeray: The thing is that every person loves his state or region. If Raj Thackeray expresses love for his state, I am accused threatening national unity. But when such a big star expresses his love for just one state, don’t his fans from other states feel hurt? Every person loves his or her state. … Why do you get miffed when I express love for my state?
FT: How do you organise your party? I understand you admire some aspects of Adolf Hitler.
Raj Thackeray: [Laughs]. … Every individual has good things and bad things about him. If one admires the good aspects of a person, then what is the issue? Now whether it is Adolf Hitler or Mahatma Gandhi, I respect and appreciate both in equal measure. I respect him [Adolf Hitler] for his love for his country and not for the extermination of Jews. I respect him for his development work ... The world’s first autobahn was done under his tenure.
Will you remember Bill Clinton for reviving the US economy or for the Monica Lewinsky episode?
Our party also has a system. Just like in a pyramid, after me, there is a set of 15 people, and then 50 and then 500.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Tuesday Apr 28 2009
ASIA-PACIFIC
India
Transcript: FT interview with Raj Thackeray
Published: April 28 2009 05:32 | Last updated: April 28 2009 05:32
Joe Leahy, Mumbai bureau chief, Varun Sood, Mumbai reporter, and James Fontanella-Khan, India editor FT.com, interviewed Raj Thackeray, founder of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) or Maharashtra Renaissance Army, with Anil Shirode, General Secretary of MNS, present last April. Here is an edited transcript of the interview translated from Hindi.
Financial Times: I want to ask you about your party name Maharashtra Navnirman Sena. What does MNS stands for?
Raj Thackeray: There are two to three things. When I was about to start a party at that time there were so many other parties. What was I going to tell the electorate? I had to decide what message I was going to convey through the name I gave my party. I had always believed I would make the party a state party and confine it to Maharashtra [the state of which Mumbai is the capital]. Hence, I started the party’s name with “Maharashtra”. [The second word I chose was] Navnirman [Renaissance] because in the past 60 years, since independence, India’s political parties have been fighting elections mainly on four to five issues. Despite this, we have never fulfilled [the promises contained in the campaigns regarding] those four to five issues. Everyone promises to invest money in electricity, roads and jobs. But that’s where things have ended [with the promises].
If we want to build something new, then we should show the people [of Maharashtra] something new. So I started a fresh new party. On March 19 [2006] when I presided at the first rally, I told the people these same things. So the whole philosophy [behind MNS] was to overcome the prevailing political hypocrisy. I needed to do something different. Now some time has passed since then but we are facing the same problems with agriculture, with water. The same lectures from our politicians are being proffered. They make promises but they are just that. There is nothing in them. Everyone promises to give free electricity, free housing, everything for free.
Right from that first rally, I thought to myself that if I stand for election, I will need to tell the people what I am going to do. I will need to map out a blueprint. What is the problem, and what is the solution. Today, this is the report on electricity and this is the report on water. We will go before the people with these reports.
During the last elections, the Congress [the main party in India’s ruling coalition] promised to provide free electricity. And then when they won the elections, they said that they couldn’t provide free electricity because it had been a printing mistake [in the manifesto]. How can it be a printing mistake? Hence, people have grown tired of listening to the many promises that the political parties have been making for so long now. And I myself, being first a citizen and second a leader of a political party, have also become tired of listening to unfulfilled promises. Hence, I formed this party to start something new.
Anil Shirode: The literal translation of MNS is Maharashtra New Creation Army. By army, I do not mean that we are some kind of militant outfit. In Maharashtra’s context, it means [we are] a people’s movement for justice.
FT: What are you doing to differentiate yourself from other established political parties, such as the Congress Party and their pledge to provide free electricity. What are your policies?
Raj Thackeray: I do not think anything should be given for free. Everything has a price attached to it. And also people do not want it for free. People just want these things to be reliable. If electricity is provided on a regular basis without load shedding, they will be willing to pay for it. In the last 10 years, we [Maharashtra State] have not been able to deliver one megawatt of [new capacity in] electricity. And they are promising to deliver it for free. I don’t think anything needs to be given for free. And I am not talking only of Maharashtra but of the whole world.
FT: The national elections are coming up. Will they be a test of sentiment for the MNS in the state elections scheduled later this year?
Raj Thackeray: Yes. The [national] elections will be a test. And hence, we do not want to fight all of the 48 seats [of Maharashtra in the national parliament]. One of the problems we face is [raising enough campaign] money. Thanks to the way the other political parties have corrupted the system, we cannot match them [for funding power] since our party is new. Therefore, we have decided to concentrate on contesting 10-15 seats. We are short on time also and this further means we cannot campaign in all seats.
The second thing is that although there are a lot of candidates in our party, most of them are new faces. They will take time to establish themselves. Hence, I am required to visit all our campaign seats. I do not have body doubles like Saddam Hussein had (laughs). So I, personally, do not have enough time to campaign in all of the 48 seats.
We will concentrate on contesting 10-15 seats because these Lok Sabha [lower house of the national parliament] elections are very important.
FT: Which seats will the MNS contest?
Raj Thackeray: All six seats from Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan, Pune, Nashik, and we are discussing which other seats we should nominate candidates for.
FT: I want to return to the theme of Regional Parties. What does that mean in your context? Your Maharashtra-based party campaigns on representing the cause of local Marathi people. How does it play out in your policies?
Raj Thackeray: The Lok Sabha elections highlight relations between the centre [Delhi] and the state [Maharashta]. Now, people accuse me of raking up the Marathi issue [the regional language of the Maharashtrian people]. I think every state or country has its own language and a certain pride of its own. So, when I ask that Marathi be spoken in this state [Maharashta], it is akin to asking that Italian be the spoken language of Italy. It is the same in the case of the French and English languages. In our country, there are numerous languages spoken. They have developed over many years into their present status.
So the locals here should be fed first and then the outsiders. And I think every state and every country has a similar policy.
FT: Do you believe there has been too much immigration into Mumbai?
Raj Thackeray: Every city or state has a limited capacity with regards to its ability to provide adequate facilities. The taxpayer is entitled to some essential things. Families should be able to provide their children with playgrounds and find places for them in schools. There should be enough hospitals. Water should be provided to all. Surplus electricity should be available. The taxpayer should be comfortable. Today there is such an influx [of people] that 40,000 live in slums next to the pipeline that provides water to the city of Mumbai.
Then there is the issue of terrorism. We do not know who is a terrorist and who is a migrant worker.
In addition, although I do not have anything against people coming from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the political leaders from those states follow their people to Mumbai and build constituencies here. .. When Indians go abroad to work, they do not build political constituencies over there. Today, Tamils and people from other states come and reside [in Mumbai] but their leaders don’t come here. It is only the political leaders from [UP and Bihar] who are coming here. You see the political slogans of leaders like Mayawati [chief minister of UP and leader of the BSP party] written on walls here. When I talk about Marathi, you accuse me of threatening Indian unity. But Maywati writes: ‘BSP is fighting for North Indians.’ What does that mean?
So on one hand this influx [of people to Mumbai] is creating problems for the taxpayer, and then they go and create [their own] constituencies. These are the basic issues I am highlighting. I have many non-Maharastrian friends. Mumbai has had non-Maharastrian people staying here for many decades. When have I created a ruckus about them?
FT: You’ve stated that the city lacks the capacity to house an influx of non-Maharastrian people. Should these people be stopped from coming.
Raj Thackeray: You have to stop these people from coming in because we have reached the maximum capacity of the city of Mumbai. We do not have places [for them] to stay. And then these people coming from outside and encroach upon municipal and government lands and set up slums. In today’s Mumbai, can you take your children out safely? Is there a place? Is there an open garden where parents can safely take their children out in the evenings? And then we have this daily influx of families. How will we discover who is a terrorist and who is a normal person? Worldwide, wherever you go there are checks. But here in Mumbai, they are non-existent. Here, two to three taxis work under the one taxi permit with the same number plate on their cars. What kind of a system is this? It defies sense. What kind of a migration is this?
Why doesn’t someone ask the politicians of the states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar why they do not develop their states? They are gobbling up the world’s money, running the central government and sending their people to other states. So whatever has happened has happened. Enough is enough. We need to put an end to this migration.
FT: But how do you stop this migration? India is a free country, there are no controls on the borders …
Raj Thackeray: It is a simple thing. There are laws for it. If only they are implemented, then these migrants cannot come. The migrants come thinking there is space here for them. They can come and live anywhere ... encroach on any pavement and live on any land. But if the government stops them, then where will the migrants stay? If they don’t have a place to stay, why would they come? So if this message can be sent to those planning to come into our cities, they will stop coming. And all these laws are there but because of a lack of political will, these things continue unchecked.
Anil Shirode: There is a 1973 act that states that migrants have to take permission from the state to which they are migrating. They need to have separate ID cards. Also, if any industry is employing more than five migrants, then it needs to take permission from the precinct authorities.
FT: One of the problems with migrants is that political parties, such as your previous party, the Shiv Sena, have used these people as vote banks.
Raj Thackeray: That is what I am coming to. We have schemes such as the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme through which we can build housing for the slumdwellers. But how can your house all the new people coming everyday?
Today, Maharashtra’s financial health is good. We can house all the migrants and people who are residing in the state. Maharashtra is a progressive state … people are coming for a better life. But the continuing fresh influx of people has to stop. Today, there are 350-400 families coming into Mumbai alone every day. How can we provide the necessary infrastructure for them? And moreover, job security is the most important priority when migration happens in other countries. Here, in our state, a person comes first and then scouts for a job. This way no state or country can run.
FT: So you do not have problems with migrants who are already based here. It is only that you do not welcome any new migration?
Raj Thackeray: Absolutely.
FT: Once you said that one of every three employees in Silicon Valley is a Marathi. So people from this state have been welcomed in other states/countries. So don’t you think people from other places should be welcomed from outside?
Raj Thackeray: If there are jobs, then no problem. Why did the US accept all the Maharasthrians? The answer is because the country had jobs. They never overlooked the interests of the US citizens. But in our state, locals are not getting jobs and outsiders are working. First we need to feed those in our own house. If there are surplus jobs, I will call the outsiders, if required. There are 4m unemployed registered with the Employment Exchange Board. No one is getting a call from any employer. And to make matters worse, we have migrants coming who compete for jobs against the locals. So if this tension flares up, then who will be answerable?
FT: We would cross-check the figure of 4m registered with Employment Exchange…
Raj Thackeray: See, there is an act called as Minimum Wages Act. No industry is abiding by it. Now these people from outside can work for as little as Rs2,000-2,500 instead of Rs4,000. So laws are being flouted by industry and the government and this is giving rise to the current wave of tensions. Today, industry favours contract workers over regular or permanent workers. And these contract workers are non-locals. It is not that the locals are not ready to work for below-average wages. If industry asks them to work for lower wages they [the locals] are ready to do so. But here again, they [the locals] do not know where the jobs are being created. There are no advertisements.
FT: Will you ask people to vote on this issue and if you come into power, will you enforce these laws?
Raj Thackeray: Absolutely. In Himachal Pradesh, an industry can be set-up only when it gives in writing that 80 per cent of jobs will be given to locals. Himachal Pradesh is a part of this country right?
FT: Why cannot the locals work for low wages?
Raj Thackeray: They are ready to work but they don’t know where the jobs are. Industries which set up shop, they do not want unions. If they take locals, there would be strong unions. Hence they fear having locals. …
FT: What about the incidents of violence against migrants attributed to your party ...
Raj Thackeray: Basically, what happened was that… [You people not feeling hot? Can we turn on the air-conditioner?]
When I spoke about this thing, I mentioned about Uttar Pradesh day and Chhath puja [a religious festival]. Now there is nothing like Uttar Pradesh day. When India became independent, states were carved out on linguistic lines. Maharashtra for Marathis, Bengal for Bengalis.
The leaders from these states [UP and Bihar] are trying to mobilise people in the city by celebrating such festivals. I have never opposed Chhath puja. But the political tamasha [drama] being played in the backdrop of it by these leaders is something I oppose. A leader from [the UP-based] Samajwadi party, Abu Azmi, said that if someone opposed the Chhath puja, he would bring 20,000-armed people from Azamgarh [Mr Azmi’s village in Uttar-Pradesh] into Mumbai. At the same time, there was a rally of the Samajwadi party in the city where some inflammatory comments were made and tensions built up. There was just this single incident. Other than that there has been nothing. But the English language and Hindi media - owned by the media barons from the states of Uttar-Pradesh, Bihar, and Delhi – claimed that people from UP and Bihar were being attacked. You go and ask people on the streets whether such a thing they were projecting on their channels happened?
But let’s also understand something. If they [the politicians from the northern states] say something inflammatory in their rallies, they will face repercussions in equal measure.
FT: At that time, there was also coverage of violence against migrants in Nashik [a smaller city in Maharashstra]. Was that also done by your party?
Raj Thackeray: See, at a lot of places, locals were involved and it was not entirely our party members. The migrants detest the locals. This is happening here in Mumbai, Pune, Nashik ... many places. The migrants do not respect the locals. The locals then become upset and this spreads. Also, when I was arrested, there was some violence [he was arrested for allegedly making inflammatory comments].
FT: Do you condone the violence?
Raj Thackeray: I do not regret anything. I do not want any violence. But they also should not be aggressive towards us because this could lead to violence. On this same problem, in Assam [another Indian state] people’s throats are slit, they are gunned down. In Manipur too a similar thing is happening. We have problems related to this issue in Punjab, Delhi and Haryana. There no one speaks about this. We do not have violence of the same magnitude here. The leaders of UP and Bihar are responsible for [increasing this type of violence].
FT: Now the issue with Amitabh Bachchan [the Bollywood actor who hails from UP]. There was this controversy in the media where you said he should be more patriotic about Mumbai ...
Raj Thackeray: I had said something then which I would like to say again now. Be it Amitabh Bachchan, Lata Mangeshkar, Sachin Tendulkar. These people are respected globally. Amitabh Bachchan contested his first election as a representative of UP and not Maharashtra … No problem … Then he becomes a brand ambassador for UP .... I have a speech of his which says that: ‘I have lived in Delhi and Kolkata [West Bengal] but my identity is rooted more in UP than anywhere else.’
If these Indian global figures can have so much love for their states, can’t such a small leader like Raj Thackeray also love his state? When I talk about espousing the cause of my state, you accuse me of threatening national unity. But big stars like Amitabh Bachchan can do it.
FT: So are you implying that any “global” Indian who happens to live in Mumbai should not express his love for the state of his birth? Should he refer to himself as an Indian first ...
Raj Thackeray: The thing is that every person loves his state or region. If Raj Thackeray expresses love for his state, I am accused threatening national unity. But when such a big star expresses his love for just one state, don’t his fans from other states feel hurt? Every person loves his or her state. … Why do you get miffed when I express love for my state?
FT: How do you organise your party? I understand you admire some aspects of Adolf Hitler.
Raj Thackeray: [Laughs]. … Every individual has good things and bad things about him. If one admires the good aspects of a person, then what is the issue? Now whether it is Adolf Hitler or Mahatma Gandhi, I respect and appreciate both in equal measure. I respect him [Adolf Hitler] for his love for his country and not for the extermination of Jews. I respect him for his development work ... The world’s first autobahn was done under his tenure.
Will you remember Bill Clinton for reviving the US economy or for the Monica Lewinsky episode?
Our party also has a system. Just like in a pyramid, after me, there is a set of 15 people, and then 50 and then 500.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
Elections 2009: Regionalist - communal politics vs development in Bombay
A report in The Financial Times (27 April 2009)
Video by Financial Times
Video by Financial Times
Women in the Service of Hindutva - Gender, Hindutva and Seva
The Economic and Political Weekly
VOL 44 No. 17 April 25 - May 01, 2009
Exploring Gender, Hindutva and Seva
by Swati Dyahadroy
This article shows how the women’s wing of the Dnyana Prabodhini, which began as an educational initiative in Pune in the 1960s, uses the concept of seva (service) to provide space for women to engage critically with socially relevant issues and consolidate their identity, as distinct from both the new “consumer” woman or the housewife and the ”modern” woman. The ideal woman it envisages is seva-oriented, and differs from the feminists who extol individualism. Her modernity lies in her physical discipline, mental training, her awareness of social issues, her rootedness in family without getting trapped by the purely domestic for collective cultural regeneration of the Hindu Rashtra. Globalisation is not condemned but seen as an opportunity to achieve this ideal.
View Full Article
VOL 44 No. 17 April 25 - May 01, 2009
Exploring Gender, Hindutva and Seva
by Swati Dyahadroy
This article shows how the women’s wing of the Dnyana Prabodhini, which began as an educational initiative in Pune in the 1960s, uses the concept of seva (service) to provide space for women to engage critically with socially relevant issues and consolidate their identity, as distinct from both the new “consumer” woman or the housewife and the ”modern” woman. The ideal woman it envisages is seva-oriented, and differs from the feminists who extol individualism. Her modernity lies in her physical discipline, mental training, her awareness of social issues, her rootedness in family without getting trapped by the purely domestic for collective cultural regeneration of the Hindu Rashtra. Globalisation is not condemned but seen as an opportunity to achieve this ideal.
View Full Article
Hindutva in BJP's election agenda in Madhya Pradesh
The Hindu
April 28, 2009
Hindutva finally creeps into BJP agenda in Madhya Pradesh
Mahim Pratap Singh
Sushma attacks Central government on inflation
I do not believe in making tall claims: Chauhan
Bhopal: With the second phase polls drawing closer, the Bharatiya Janata Party is finally using its Hindutva trump card to win votes in Madhya Pradesh. Veteran leader and election in-charge for the BJP in the State Sushma Swaraj explicitly brought up the issue of Rama in one of her rallies.
At Nagda in support of party candidate Dr. Satyanarayan Jatiya, Ms. Swaraj said the people did not want a government that denied the existence of Rama. She also attacked the Central government for not being able to rein in inflation.
While Hindutva has been the BJP’s overtly stated agenda at the national level, it has not been at the forefront of campaigning in Madhya Pradesh, largely due to Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan’s image of a moderate. This appears to have made sense for the party in the State where a sizable chunk of the electorate is comprised of religious minorities and tribals.
This policy further gets reflected in the party not inviting firebrand Hindutva propagandists Narendra Modi and Varun Gandhi for campaigning in the State. Ms. Swaraj’s statements, however, mark a departure from this stance.
Meanwhile, Mr. Chauhan reacted to Ms. Swaraj’s statements over the number of seats that the BJP would win in the State.
“I do not believe in making tall claims of victory, those who do so are hypocrites,” said Mr. Chauhan, addressing journalists in Guna. Just two days ago at the same place, Ms. Swaraj said the party would win all seats in M.P.
Ms. Shivraj also said L.K. Advani as Prime Minister would bring stability to the nation. Addressing an election rally in Gwalior, he said “ironman Advani” had the political will to provide stability to the country.
The verbal volley between Rahul Gandhi and Mr. Chauhan, generated by the latter’s strongly worded response to the Congress general secretary’s remarks, has taken a new turn with Mr. Gandhi hitting back at Mr. Chauhan in one of his election rallies.
“How would I know how much is reaching the poor? The State government should know that. I am not the one pilfering funds,” said Mr. Gandhi, speaking at rallies in Bhind, Shujalpur and Khandwa.
The Congress general secretary and former Chief Minister Digvijay Singh is leaving no stone unturned in making matters difficult for his brother and BJP candidate from Rajgarh, Laxman Singh. In last year’s Assembly elections, the BJP could only manage to win three out of the eight Assembly seats in Rajgarh.
Not only has Mr. Singh, or ‘Diggy’ as he is affectionately called, been explicitly condoning his brother Laxman, he has gone a step ahead and called Congress candidate from Rajgarh Narayan Singh “more than a real brother.”
The Rashtriya Swayam Sevak has actively come out in the open in support of Mr. Laxman Singh. Analysts say the reason Mr. Laxman Singh is not making any statements against Digvijay Singh is because he intends to benefit from the royal political legacy of his elder brother.
Realising this, Mr. Digvijay Singh has been repeatedly saying that he has given a large part of his royal property to Laxman, but wouldn’t do the same with his political legacy.
Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh became the latest addition to the long list of violators of the Representation of People’s Act 1951, in this edition of the Lok Sabha polls.
Mr. Amar Singh was booked under sections 125 and 123 (3) of the Act, for delivering a controversial speech at Naugaon in Chhatarpur. An FIR was filed against him in the Naugaon police station.
April 28, 2009
Hindutva finally creeps into BJP agenda in Madhya Pradesh
Mahim Pratap Singh
Sushma attacks Central government on inflation
I do not believe in making tall claims: Chauhan
Bhopal: With the second phase polls drawing closer, the Bharatiya Janata Party is finally using its Hindutva trump card to win votes in Madhya Pradesh. Veteran leader and election in-charge for the BJP in the State Sushma Swaraj explicitly brought up the issue of Rama in one of her rallies.
At Nagda in support of party candidate Dr. Satyanarayan Jatiya, Ms. Swaraj said the people did not want a government that denied the existence of Rama. She also attacked the Central government for not being able to rein in inflation.
While Hindutva has been the BJP’s overtly stated agenda at the national level, it has not been at the forefront of campaigning in Madhya Pradesh, largely due to Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan’s image of a moderate. This appears to have made sense for the party in the State where a sizable chunk of the electorate is comprised of religious minorities and tribals.
This policy further gets reflected in the party not inviting firebrand Hindutva propagandists Narendra Modi and Varun Gandhi for campaigning in the State. Ms. Swaraj’s statements, however, mark a departure from this stance.
Meanwhile, Mr. Chauhan reacted to Ms. Swaraj’s statements over the number of seats that the BJP would win in the State.
“I do not believe in making tall claims of victory, those who do so are hypocrites,” said Mr. Chauhan, addressing journalists in Guna. Just two days ago at the same place, Ms. Swaraj said the party would win all seats in M.P.
Ms. Shivraj also said L.K. Advani as Prime Minister would bring stability to the nation. Addressing an election rally in Gwalior, he said “ironman Advani” had the political will to provide stability to the country.
The verbal volley between Rahul Gandhi and Mr. Chauhan, generated by the latter’s strongly worded response to the Congress general secretary’s remarks, has taken a new turn with Mr. Gandhi hitting back at Mr. Chauhan in one of his election rallies.
“How would I know how much is reaching the poor? The State government should know that. I am not the one pilfering funds,” said Mr. Gandhi, speaking at rallies in Bhind, Shujalpur and Khandwa.
The Congress general secretary and former Chief Minister Digvijay Singh is leaving no stone unturned in making matters difficult for his brother and BJP candidate from Rajgarh, Laxman Singh. In last year’s Assembly elections, the BJP could only manage to win three out of the eight Assembly seats in Rajgarh.
Not only has Mr. Singh, or ‘Diggy’ as he is affectionately called, been explicitly condoning his brother Laxman, he has gone a step ahead and called Congress candidate from Rajgarh Narayan Singh “more than a real brother.”
The Rashtriya Swayam Sevak has actively come out in the open in support of Mr. Laxman Singh. Analysts say the reason Mr. Laxman Singh is not making any statements against Digvijay Singh is because he intends to benefit from the royal political legacy of his elder brother.
Realising this, Mr. Digvijay Singh has been repeatedly saying that he has given a large part of his royal property to Laxman, but wouldn’t do the same with his political legacy.
Samajwadi Party general secretary Amar Singh became the latest addition to the long list of violators of the Representation of People’s Act 1951, in this edition of the Lok Sabha polls.
Mr. Amar Singh was booked under sections 125 and 123 (3) of the Act, for delivering a controversial speech at Naugaon in Chhatarpur. An FIR was filed against him in the Naugaon police station.
April 27, 2009
Book Review: "Narendra Modi - The Architect of A Modern State" (reviewed by Teesta Setalvad)
| | Narendra Modi: MV Kamath and Kalindi Randeri Rupa 298 pages |
Teesta Setalvad
It is the title of the book that is apt. In this book, Narendra Modi, whom the supreme court of India has, in writing described as having the qualities of a “modern day Nero” (April 12, 2004) is equated with the credit for fashioning what is, according to the two authors, the ideal modern nation state. Recently published, and well timed with the ongoing fifteenth Lok Sabha elections it is designed to apply the final gloss on a vast and minutely planned promotional exercise.
The term nation state, even without the sharply fascist edge given by Hitler has been controversial. The fact that the title of the book chooses this to define Modi’s project and not the Indian Constitution’s vision of a secular democracy is telling. Hardened commentators, if not academically qualifies political scientists, have chosen to define a nation state as a territorially defined entity principally of the same kind of racially compatible cultures and peoples. And therein lies the crux of the argument. Modi’s ideal state is a construct where the qualities of a state are defined by a thrust that is inimical to our Constitution.
Difference, dissent, accountability and transparency are simply not acceptable to a formula for governance that believes in half truths peddled through a screened and orchestrated effort, nationally at least. The attempt is to promote a persona to man such a state, who is not challenged, riled or ridiculed as his compatriots in the political class are, either through hard facts or informed criticism. Modi does not speak at accessible press conferences where the media can shout inane questions at him though even Advani, our prime minister in waiting, has to allow himself this indignity in the interests of democracy. He roars and threatens, euphoric with the crowd of his supporters at least 40 metres away. Now an iron railing will guard this self-declared architect of a modern state in case a chappal or shoe whizzing past blurs the image considerably. Through this his place in the nation state’s future is being carved. Little surprise then, that the stinging aggression of a Karan Thapar (July 2007) is unlikely to cause Modi to stutter again.
In large part this book enlists for the reader of the economic wonder that is Gujarat today. In the chapters that add the personal touch, it is the magic of India’s toiling ascetic turned politician who was born to serve --not govern—that is woven by the authors, another attempt to shame his critics. Not just the tremors of the vibrant Gujarat summit and the Nano miracle that had the Indian corporate first family –the Tatas – join the Ambanis and the Mittals in the general backslapping of Modi, but the slogans of water water everywhere…….., jobs galore, and safety and security within the state are enlisted page after page for the fan to devour.
The book does not attempt any critical distance and while, In Gujarat, the print media continues its job, probing of the state’s claims to a glittering Gujarat, the book is a careful collation of the state’s press releases, uncritical and eulogistic. Look at this. While figures released by Modi in January 2009 (about the Vibrant Gujarat summits in 2005 and 2007) peg the total proposed investment inflow from the 229 MoUs signed during the 2005 VGGIS at Rs 106,161 crore, his own government has admitted (RTI applications sought from the Industries Commissioner) that investments, both commissioned and under implementation, totalled only Rs 74,019 crore. This means that while Modi boasted of a spectacular success rate of 63.5 per cent in terms of implementation of proposed investments made in the vibrant summits of 2005 and 2007, the state has not been able to get even 25% of the so called MOUs implemented even in the primary stage. The Nano story is nothing short of scandalous. It was the Times of India, Ahmedabad that exposed the twenty year VAT-free run for the Tatas indicating that this lollipop at the Gujarati tax payers expense, was the sub-text of the deal. The fine print of the MOU revealed that the loan of Rs 9,570 crore offered at a meagre 0.1 per cent interest will be repaid by Tata Motors only from the 21st year.
The poor in Gujarat are not normally Modi’s concern and his exhortation of the five plus crore population of his state is meant to douse the rumblings caused by hunger, poor food security, joblessness and displacement by the all consuming flames of a hate driven hindutva. Only about 59.6 per cent of the rural children of Gujarat can read the standard one text book as against an all-India average of 66.6% (Indian Express December 21, 2008). According to the International Food Policy Research Institute’s 2008 Global Hunger Index, Gujarat (placed in the ‘alarming’ category) is ranked 69th alongwith Haiti, the nation infamous for food riots. Similarly figures of electricity generation and food production dished out by the state have been disproved by its own official documents and the CAG annual report exposes Gujarat’s efficiency being none better than other states when it comes to implementing schemes.
State legislatures in functioning democracies exist as legislative bodies as also as deliberative bodies to question and debate a government’s policy. In Gujarat the assembly, in 2006 and 2007 met for just 23 days in a whole year, the lowest for the country. Journos are rarely allowed inside Sachivalaya’s dep[artments, confined to the canteen. None dare question the questionable in Gujarat.
What then is this well timed volume is all about? At page 165 we have the raison d’etre of the Kamat-Randeri enterprise. The authors callously dismiss the fact that former parliamentarian, Ahsan Jafri made several dozen calls for help before he surrendered himself to a mob that butchered him, bit by bit. (Sixty nine others faced the same fate that day at Gulberg society in a massacre that lasted a whole working day; and a total of 2,500 persons, all Muslims over all of Gujarat between February 28 and March 3, 2002). In a chilling justification why none rushed to Jafri’s help, Kamath and Randeri write, “The common public can ask why help was not given at the time when it was needed the most…The plain answer is that anti-Muslim sentiments run deep in the hearts of most Hindus in Gujarat…..quoting from an editorial from the Indian Express that criticized Modi’s ways the authors gleefully say’ nobody in his wildest dreams could have imagined the kind of game that Modi was going to play. He has played his game, won the match and won it convincingly..’
This forced consensus around Modi that this public relations exercise promotes wishes us to forget not just the gory details of recent events but how this man, at the height of a euphoria in 2002 even dared threatened and bullied our media. “What insecurity are you talking about? People like you should apologize to the five crore Gujaratis for asking such questions. Have you not learnt your lesson? If you continue like this, you will have to pay the price’ is what Modi had boomed to Rajdeep Sardesai on December 15, 2002 in the first flush of his first post massacre electoral victory. Six month earlier, the Indian Express( June 11, 2002) has quoted him as saying that “ That journalists who cover Gujarat… may meet the fate of Danial Pearl… Cover communal riots at your own risk.”
This then is the victorious, chilling sub-text of this biography. It is a book that seeks to sell to the Indian elite a man who has dared to re-model himself on a mini bloodbath. Over the chopped, brutalized and burned bodies of the state’s Muslims in what was post independent India’s ‘justifiable’ ethnic cleansing. A miffed Modi has on occasion has dared say that Muslims in general have even forgiven him; and he uses the appointment of SS Khandwawala as director general of police, as the totem that sells the tale. But here, in this book there is no need for the authors to even speak of the language of forgiveness or remorse since for Kamath Randeri and many of their supporters, this is a small price that India must pay.
For these architects of hindutva India needs to accept this heavy human cost if it needs to emerge, re-incarnated. The real tragedy is that our general culture of impunity to perpetrators of mass crimes committed with the connivance of the state finds for Modi otherwise politically incompatible bedfellows. No wonder then that those among his staunchest political opponents are therefore reluctant to puncture the Modi mirage.
CNN-IBN TV report on SC order to probe Modi's and other officials role & Gujarat Pogrom 2002
SC orders probe into Modi's role in Guj riots
CNN-IBN
Apr 27, 2009 at 15:25, Updated on Mon, Apr 27, 2009
SEE THE VIDEO: SC has asked the Raghavan Committee to look into Modi's role in the riots.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ordered a probe into the alleged role of Gujarat Chief minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The apex court has asked the Raghavan Committee to probe Modi's role and submit its report in the next three months time.
SC has also asked the committee to probe the roles of a cabinet minister in the Modi government, three MLAs, three VHP activists and several IAS and IPS officers as well.
The decision came on a plea filed by the wife of slain ex-MP, Ehsan Jaffri and social activist Teesta Setalvad.
"It's a huge victory because this is an indication of what we have been saying for almost six years now. We have been asking for an investigation and not presuming people are guilty like the opposite side does. The police had used Modi's political clout to delay the probe, now the Supreme Court has renewed faith in the justice system by saying at least investigate it," Teesta Setalvad told CNN-IBN.
"Ten days ago, the Gujarat government was all gung ho when they were trying to malign me and my organisation. People who fight for Human Rights don't look at the elections in that sense that is for the political parties and their opponents to do. We have been struggling non stop since 2002 to get justice and we haven't stopped. In fact neither of the secular parties have supported us either, so we are not there for the politics of it, we are there for Human Rights and justice," she added.
However, BJP leader Arun Jaitley said, "It seems to have become a convention to raise both in and out of courts, issues related to Gujarat prior to any elections. It's just another investigation and previous ones too had not found anything against Narendra Modi. It's still in court. We don't want to comment."
Meanwhile, Congress Spokesperson Veerappa Moily said, "Narendra Modi must step down as Gujarat's Chief Minister for a fair trial."
"The question arises has Advani already been shown the door by his party? Hasn't he just become a mask for Modi? That mask is obviously needed because within the NDA, Modi does not have acceptability. Within the country Modi does not have that much acceptability as much as Advani. Modi, the other PM-in-waiting will turn a blind eye and say 'why should I apologise for Godhra'," added Congress Spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
Attacking the BJP over the 2002 post-Godhra communal riots, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said on Sunday that the carnage was against the historic tradition of Gujarat.
"Only NDA can give you politics of division. Gujarat is the state of Mahatma Gandhi, who worked for communal harmony throughout his life," the Prime Minister said, addressing his first election rally in the state, that goes to polls on April 30.
"Those parties who fan communalism are insulting Mahatma Gandhi and Gujarat. During the NDA regime, due to few people, whatever happened in 2002 was against the historic tradition of your state," Singh said.
"Politics of hate and division cannot take us forward. There is no other way than secularism for this country," he said.
CNN-IBN
Apr 27, 2009 at 15:25, Updated on Mon, Apr 27, 2009
SEE THE VIDEO: SC has asked the Raghavan Committee to look into Modi's role in the riots.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ordered a probe into the alleged role of Gujarat Chief minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Gujarat riots.
The apex court has asked the Raghavan Committee to probe Modi's role and submit its report in the next three months time.
SC has also asked the committee to probe the roles of a cabinet minister in the Modi government, three MLAs, three VHP activists and several IAS and IPS officers as well.
The decision came on a plea filed by the wife of slain ex-MP, Ehsan Jaffri and social activist Teesta Setalvad.
"It's a huge victory because this is an indication of what we have been saying for almost six years now. We have been asking for an investigation and not presuming people are guilty like the opposite side does. The police had used Modi's political clout to delay the probe, now the Supreme Court has renewed faith in the justice system by saying at least investigate it," Teesta Setalvad told CNN-IBN.
"Ten days ago, the Gujarat government was all gung ho when they were trying to malign me and my organisation. People who fight for Human Rights don't look at the elections in that sense that is for the political parties and their opponents to do. We have been struggling non stop since 2002 to get justice and we haven't stopped. In fact neither of the secular parties have supported us either, so we are not there for the politics of it, we are there for Human Rights and justice," she added.
However, BJP leader Arun Jaitley said, "It seems to have become a convention to raise both in and out of courts, issues related to Gujarat prior to any elections. It's just another investigation and previous ones too had not found anything against Narendra Modi. It's still in court. We don't want to comment."
Meanwhile, Congress Spokesperson Veerappa Moily said, "Narendra Modi must step down as Gujarat's Chief Minister for a fair trial."
"The question arises has Advani already been shown the door by his party? Hasn't he just become a mask for Modi? That mask is obviously needed because within the NDA, Modi does not have acceptability. Within the country Modi does not have that much acceptability as much as Advani. Modi, the other PM-in-waiting will turn a blind eye and say 'why should I apologise for Godhra'," added Congress Spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
Attacking the BJP over the 2002 post-Godhra communal riots, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had said on Sunday that the carnage was against the historic tradition of Gujarat.
"Only NDA can give you politics of division. Gujarat is the state of Mahatma Gandhi, who worked for communal harmony throughout his life," the Prime Minister said, addressing his first election rally in the state, that goes to polls on April 30.
"Those parties who fan communalism are insulting Mahatma Gandhi and Gujarat. During the NDA regime, due to few people, whatever happened in 2002 was against the historic tradition of your state," Singh said.
"Politics of hate and division cannot take us forward. There is no other way than secularism for this country," he said.
The Supreme Court Order to Probe Modi is A Ray of Hope for victims of 2002 Gujarat Carnage . . .
A RAY OF HOPE FOR THE VICTIMS OF GUJARAT CARNAGE 2002.......
The decision of the Supreme Court asking the Raghavan Committee to probe the role of the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the Gujarat Carnage of 2002, has certainly come as a ray of hope to the many victims. Above all, this step by the Supreme Court has to be interpreted as a triumph of Justice and for its unstinted commitment to preserve the secular fabric of the Indian Constitution.
For more than seven years now, the one earnest plea by some of those concerned about the injustices of 2002, was that a full and proper investigation be conducted and that every effort be made to address this horrendous act committed on innocent people. It was not without reason that the then Prime Minister Vajpayee when he visited Gujarat in 2002, very directly demanded that the Chief Minister follow “Raj Dharma”. It was also not without reason that a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while admitting applications on behalf of the victims, had to make references like “modern day Nero”.
Obviously, there are many in Gujarat society who would best want the horrors of 2002 to be forgotten. However, one has to realize and accept that when a whole section of one’s population is brutalized and decimated, things will never be the same again.
The only way that one can help towards the realization of this normalcy, is to take a definite stand for the triumph of Justice and Truth. It will therefore be fitting for the people of Gujarat on this, the Diamond Jubilee year of the Constitution of India, to come out strongly as one people, to ensure that atleast in this land of Mahatma, that Ahimsa will come to stay and before that, we can proudly live in a land where ‘Satyameva Jayate’ are not only words that come out from our lips.
Perhaps, the auspicious Akshay Tritiya will definitely be the beginning for brightness to dispel the darkness from the lives of many of the victims of Gujarat Carnage 2002 !!!
Fr. Cedric Prakash sj
The decision of the Supreme Court asking the Raghavan Committee to probe the role of the Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the Gujarat Carnage of 2002, has certainly come as a ray of hope to the many victims. Above all, this step by the Supreme Court has to be interpreted as a triumph of Justice and for its unstinted commitment to preserve the secular fabric of the Indian Constitution.
For more than seven years now, the one earnest plea by some of those concerned about the injustices of 2002, was that a full and proper investigation be conducted and that every effort be made to address this horrendous act committed on innocent people. It was not without reason that the then Prime Minister Vajpayee when he visited Gujarat in 2002, very directly demanded that the Chief Minister follow “Raj Dharma”. It was also not without reason that a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while admitting applications on behalf of the victims, had to make references like “modern day Nero”.
Obviously, there are many in Gujarat society who would best want the horrors of 2002 to be forgotten. However, one has to realize and accept that when a whole section of one’s population is brutalized and decimated, things will never be the same again.
The only way that one can help towards the realization of this normalcy, is to take a definite stand for the triumph of Justice and Truth. It will therefore be fitting for the people of Gujarat on this, the Diamond Jubilee year of the Constitution of India, to come out strongly as one people, to ensure that atleast in this land of Mahatma, that Ahimsa will come to stay and before that, we can proudly live in a land where ‘Satyameva Jayate’ are not only words that come out from our lips.
Perhaps, the auspicious Akshay Tritiya will definitely be the beginning for brightness to dispel the darkness from the lives of many of the victims of Gujarat Carnage 2002 !!!
Fr. Cedric Prakash sj
India's Supreme Courts orders investigation on role of Narendra Modi during Gujarat pogrom of 2002
Times of India
SC orders probe into Modi's role in Gujarat riots
27 Apr 2009, 1621 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi came under the scanner of the Supreme Court which on Monday ordered a probe into a complaint that
he, his cabinet colleagues, police officials and senior bureaucrats aided and abetted post-Godhra killings. ( Watch )
In an embarrassment to the BJP, many of whose leaders have been endorsing Modi as PM in 2014, a two-judge bench of the court ordered the probe by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on a complaint made by Jakia Nasim Ahesan, wife of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri.
"SIT will inquire into the complaint made by the petitioner (Jakia) and file its report within three months," a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and A K Ganguly said.
Jakia had accused Modi and 62 others of aiding and abetting the persons involved in the killings in 2002 in the riots that followed the Godhra carnage.
o o o
Indian Express
SC orders SIT to probe Modi's role in 2002 riots
Posted: Monday , Apr 27, 2009 at 1639 hrs IST
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court has asked the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into allegations against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Gujrat riots. The apex court has asked the Raghavan Committee to submit a report on the role of the Chief Minister and 50 other politicians and government officials who have been alleged to have aided the communal riots in the state in 2002.
The decision came on a plea filed by the wife of slain ex-MP, Ehsan Jaffri and social activist Teesta Setalvad.
o o o
The Hindu (April 27, 2009)
Apex court orders probe into Modi's role in Gujarat riots
New Delhi (IANS) The Supreme Court on Monday asked a special probe panel formed by it to look into the allegations that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi along with over 50 other politicians and government officials had aided and abetted statewide communal riots in 2002.
A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly directed the panel headed by former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director R.K. Raghavan to particularly look into the allegations that Mr. Modi was involved in the killing of an MP in Ahmedabad's Gulbarga Society arson case.
The panel was asked to file its report within three months.
SC orders probe into Modi's role in Gujarat riots
27 Apr 2009, 1621 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi came under the scanner of the Supreme Court which on Monday ordered a probe into a complaint that
he, his cabinet colleagues, police officials and senior bureaucrats aided and abetted post-Godhra killings. ( Watch )
In an embarrassment to the BJP, many of whose leaders have been endorsing Modi as PM in 2014, a two-judge bench of the court ordered the probe by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) on a complaint made by Jakia Nasim Ahesan, wife of former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri.
"SIT will inquire into the complaint made by the petitioner (Jakia) and file its report within three months," a Bench comprising Justices Arijit Pasayat and A K Ganguly said.
Jakia had accused Modi and 62 others of aiding and abetting the persons involved in the killings in 2002 in the riots that followed the Godhra carnage.
o o o
Indian Express
SC orders SIT to probe Modi's role in 2002 riots
Posted: Monday , Apr 27, 2009 at 1639 hrs IST
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court has asked the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to look into allegations against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Gujrat riots. The apex court has asked the Raghavan Committee to submit a report on the role of the Chief Minister and 50 other politicians and government officials who have been alleged to have aided the communal riots in the state in 2002.
The decision came on a plea filed by the wife of slain ex-MP, Ehsan Jaffri and social activist Teesta Setalvad.
o o o
The Hindu (April 27, 2009)
Apex court orders probe into Modi's role in Gujarat riots
New Delhi (IANS) The Supreme Court on Monday asked a special probe panel formed by it to look into the allegations that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi along with over 50 other politicians and government officials had aided and abetted statewide communal riots in 2002.
A bench of Justices Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly directed the panel headed by former Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) director R.K. Raghavan to particularly look into the allegations that Mr. Modi was involved in the killing of an MP in Ahmedabad's Gulbarga Society arson case.
The panel was asked to file its report within three months.
Hindutva's Little Saffron Book ? (content from a Hindutva run site)
http://hindumuslimindia.blogspot.com/
Narendra Modi's Little Saffron Book
[The following are excerpts from the soon-to-be-published The Little Saffron Book. This condensed collection of Narendra Modi quotes - taken from his speeches, interviews and books - has an introduction by L K Advani]
"Hindus of Gujarat, unite and defeat the Mussalmaan Mullahs and all their four wives! Hindus of Gujarat, be courageous, and dare to fight, be brave, and defy decency and humanity; advance wave upon wave like Ravan's rakshasas. Then the whole Gujarat will belong to Hindus. Mussalmaans of all kinds shall be destroyed."
Statement Supporting the Municipality of the Vadodara City Against the Muslim Aggression (May 5, 2006).
"The richest source of power to wage war lies in the masses of Hindus. It is mainly because of the submissive state of the Hindus that Mussalmaans dare to bully us. When this defect is remedied, then the Mullah aggressor, like a mad bull crashing into a ring of flames, will be surrounded by hundreds of millions of our people standing upright, the mere sound of their voices will strike terror into him, and the Mullah will be burned to death."
On Planned Riots (May 2003), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 186.
"What is a true bastion of Shakti? It is the Indian masses, the millions upon millions of people who genuinely and sincerely support Hindutva. That is the real Shakti, which is impossible for any force on earth to smash. The Aamir Khans of the world cannot smash us; on the contrary, we shall smash them. Rallying millions upon millions of people round my government and expanding our holy war, we shall wipe out all the pseudo-secularists and take over the whole of India."
Excerpt of a Speech Made on the Successful, Complete and Absolute Conclusion of a Ban on the Film Fanaa in the Theatres of Gujarat (May 28, 2006).
"The secularists are bullying us in such a way that we will have to deal with them seriously. Not only must we have a powerful, regular and a more violent Bajrang Dal, we must also organize contingents of the ladies-only Durga Vahini on a big scale. This will make it difficult for the secularists to move a single inch in our Gujarat in case of an anti-Mussalmaan genocide, an event which is not very far."
Interview with the Saamna Newspaper (September 29, 2004).
"Without preparedness, a communal riot is not a real pogrom and there can be no final solution either. Having grasped this point, it is good to remember that while making a list of Mians and their Begums in their across-the-'border' Pakistani mohallas, care must be taken to accomplish the task without attracting much notice. The dogs must not be warned of their terrible ends."
Strategies for Genocides and Other Experiments in Rwanda (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 165-66.
"The communal riot is a war of the Hindus; it can be successfully waged only after enlisting the support of the police force and relying on them to wage it."
Be Concerned with the Manipulation of the Masses, Pay Attention to Methods of Murder (January 27, 2002), Selected Works, Vol. I. p. 147.
"Democracy is one of the ways to be cleverly employed and manipulated to struggle for a just, absolute, pure Mussalmaan-less society."
Talk with Prabhu Chawala in Seedhi Baat, Aaj Tak TV Channel (August 2004).
"The Bhartiya Janata Party of Gujarat, having made a clear-headed appraisal of the national and state-level situation on the basis of the science of Nazism-Fascism, recognized that all attacks on the non-Hindus in Gujarat have to be launched in the shortest possible time. If some Mussalmaans still have guts to live here with their countless hordes, we only have to stop doing any dealings with them."
The Present Situation and Our Tasks (December 25, 1997), Selected Shakha Writings, 2nd ed., p. 347.
"If a single Mussalmaan attack us and if the conditions are favorable for battle, we will certainly act in self-defense to wipe him off and all the people of his wretched community resolutely, thoroughly, wholly and completely (we do not strike rashly, but when we do strike, we must win). We must never be cowed by the bluster of English-speaking secularists.."
On Peace Negotiations with Pakistan - Circular of the Central Committee of the Bhartiya Janata Party of Gujarat (August 26, 2001)
"As far as the massacre of Hindus by terrorists in Kashmir is concerned, those Islamic militants, in spite of belonging to the enemy civilization, are like our brothers-in-arms. They provide us an opportunity, reason, and excuse to kill the Maulavis of Ahmedabad."
Talk with the Harvard University Proffessor Samuel Phillips Huntington
(August 1946), Foreign Affairs Magazine
Narendra Modi's Little Saffron Book
[The following are excerpts from the soon-to-be-published The Little Saffron Book. This condensed collection of Narendra Modi quotes - taken from his speeches, interviews and books - has an introduction by L K Advani]
"Hindus of Gujarat, unite and defeat the Mussalmaan Mullahs and all their four wives! Hindus of Gujarat, be courageous, and dare to fight, be brave, and defy decency and humanity; advance wave upon wave like Ravan's rakshasas. Then the whole Gujarat will belong to Hindus. Mussalmaans of all kinds shall be destroyed."
Statement Supporting the Municipality of the Vadodara City Against the Muslim Aggression (May 5, 2006).
"The richest source of power to wage war lies in the masses of Hindus. It is mainly because of the submissive state of the Hindus that Mussalmaans dare to bully us. When this defect is remedied, then the Mullah aggressor, like a mad bull crashing into a ring of flames, will be surrounded by hundreds of millions of our people standing upright, the mere sound of their voices will strike terror into him, and the Mullah will be burned to death."
On Planned Riots (May 2003), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 186.
"What is a true bastion of Shakti? It is the Indian masses, the millions upon millions of people who genuinely and sincerely support Hindutva. That is the real Shakti, which is impossible for any force on earth to smash. The Aamir Khans of the world cannot smash us; on the contrary, we shall smash them. Rallying millions upon millions of people round my government and expanding our holy war, we shall wipe out all the pseudo-secularists and take over the whole of India."
Excerpt of a Speech Made on the Successful, Complete and Absolute Conclusion of a Ban on the Film Fanaa in the Theatres of Gujarat (May 28, 2006).
"The secularists are bullying us in such a way that we will have to deal with them seriously. Not only must we have a powerful, regular and a more violent Bajrang Dal, we must also organize contingents of the ladies-only Durga Vahini on a big scale. This will make it difficult for the secularists to move a single inch in our Gujarat in case of an anti-Mussalmaan genocide, an event which is not very far."
Interview with the Saamna Newspaper (September 29, 2004).
"Without preparedness, a communal riot is not a real pogrom and there can be no final solution either. Having grasped this point, it is good to remember that while making a list of Mians and their Begums in their across-the-'border' Pakistani mohallas, care must be taken to accomplish the task without attracting much notice. The dogs must not be warned of their terrible ends."
Strategies for Genocides and Other Experiments in Rwanda (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, pp. 165-66.
"The communal riot is a war of the Hindus; it can be successfully waged only after enlisting the support of the police force and relying on them to wage it."
Be Concerned with the Manipulation of the Masses, Pay Attention to Methods of Murder (January 27, 2002), Selected Works, Vol. I. p. 147.
"Democracy is one of the ways to be cleverly employed and manipulated to struggle for a just, absolute, pure Mussalmaan-less society."
Talk with Prabhu Chawala in Seedhi Baat, Aaj Tak TV Channel (August 2004).
"The Bhartiya Janata Party of Gujarat, having made a clear-headed appraisal of the national and state-level situation on the basis of the science of Nazism-Fascism, recognized that all attacks on the non-Hindus in Gujarat have to be launched in the shortest possible time. If some Mussalmaans still have guts to live here with their countless hordes, we only have to stop doing any dealings with them."
The Present Situation and Our Tasks (December 25, 1997), Selected Shakha Writings, 2nd ed., p. 347.
"If a single Mussalmaan attack us and if the conditions are favorable for battle, we will certainly act in self-defense to wipe him off and all the people of his wretched community resolutely, thoroughly, wholly and completely (we do not strike rashly, but when we do strike, we must win). We must never be cowed by the bluster of English-speaking secularists.."
On Peace Negotiations with Pakistan - Circular of the Central Committee of the Bhartiya Janata Party of Gujarat (August 26, 2001)
"As far as the massacre of Hindus by terrorists in Kashmir is concerned, those Islamic militants, in spite of belonging to the enemy civilization, are like our brothers-in-arms. They provide us an opportunity, reason, and excuse to kill the Maulavis of Ahmedabad."
Talk with the Harvard University Proffessor Samuel Phillips Huntington
(August 1946), Foreign Affairs Magazine
April 26, 2009
Secularism and Democracy under Siege from Hindutva
Mainstream Weekly
25 April 2009
Kandhamal Violence: Secularism and Democracy under Siege
by Sunny Jacob, 26 April 2009
In the light of the recent violence in Kandhamal every right thinking person of this country must be concerned of the dangers to democracy and the secularist ideals of our nation. The violence that started in December 2007 had already destroyed the backbone of the minority Christian community of Kandhamal. The killing of the Swami, which from day one the Christian leaders and churches condemned in the strongest terms, and unequivocally stated that they had no role in it at all, was used as a lame excuse and as part of the larger conspiracy of the fundamentalist organisations that went on attacking innocent Christians all over Kandhamal and many other parts of Orissa. Even after the claims by the Maoists that they have done the crime, the goons of the fanatics went on destroying the Christian churches, properties, houses, people and their belongings. This second phase of violence has shocked the entire Christian community in India and shaken the basic foundation of our democracy and secularism.
The magnitude of vandalism perpetrated by the religious fanatics indeed reveals that a section of Indian politicians have no faith in the secular and democratic Constitution of India. They simply do not believe in the sanctity of our Constitution. Otherwise how can any one justify the violence and arson, rape and looting, attacks and obstructions, threat and use of muscle power? It is consoling to know that all these are done by a minuscule section of the Hindu community who are the foot-soldiers of the Sangh Parivar. However, what is sickening and shocking is the stoic silence of the majority who know the truth about all these happenings, yet prefer to do nothing against the fundamentalist forces which are bent on destroying not only the minority communities but also the essence of Hinduism itself. The utterances of Sangh Parivar leaders and the writings of so-called intellectuals like Swapan Dasgupta and Chandan Mitra are in fact destroying the very foundation of our cherished democracy and secularism. These so-called intellectual faces of the Sangh Parivar are not far too different from the Hindutva mascots like Narendra Modi and Varun Gandhi. They are merely an expression of a deep ideology that is fundamentalist and fanatic. Knowingly or unknowingly they are attacking the very foundation of our secular nationhood.
The Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of religions. It does not protect or promote any particular religion. In fact it remains neutral to all religions. Secularism seems to have created some doubts in the minds of some people. The main cause for this confusion is the deliberate work of the Hindutva forces in general and the BJP in particular. They coined the word ‘pseudo-secular’ to brand all the secular political parties and defame them in order to create confusion among the public at large.
The meaning of secularism is derived from the word secular, which means worldly or material, not spiritual or religious. It is a concept of social and ethical value; therefore, it is defined as a view of life based on the premise that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or purposely excluded in order to evolve a system of social ethics based upon a doctrine.
This shows clearly that there is no religious and spiritual involvement on the part of the state. According to Prof S.N. Dhyani, “in the civil management and administration of the state, religious or spiritual considerations should be strictly excluded”. Therefore, secularism is a modern progressive philosophy which is mainly based on independent rational thinking with a scientific temper. In a secular society religion, to a great extent, is a personal matter, which has no place in socio-political issues because that is what breeds what we call communalism and sectarianism. Today, unfortunately, communalism and sectarianism are the dangers to our great nation, and these give rise to both terrorism and extremism.
The idea of secularism, in fact, originated in the West. The secular understanding separates the State and Religion in such a way that one does not impinge upon the other. The concern is to make sure that religion does not divide people on social and political matters. In theocratic countries the state fulfils religious ideals and politics is subordinated to religious ideals and tenets. All relations between the state and individuals are essentially regulated and governed with reference to state religion.
India has a long tradition of pluralism. This country not only gave birth to many religions but it has been hospitable to many other alien religions. Besides, today Article 25 of the Constitution of the Indian Republic guarantees to the followers of all religions the freedom to practise and propagate their religion. India is the only country in South Asia where secularism is not only the basic feature of the Constitution but also the symbol of its composite culture, tolerance and equalitarian social order. The state shows neutrality in its policies regarding the religious matters of individuals. The state gives equal treatment, recognition and position to all religions. No discrimination is displayed in employment, educational, political and economic matters on the basis of religion. The laws of the state are formulated, implemented and analysed on a secular basis. It is clear now that the attitude of impartiality towards all religions is made secure by the Constitution. There is no ‘state religion’ in India. There is not just the separation of state and religion, but ‘sarvadharma samabhava’ is the vision of Indian Constitution. This is the meaning of Indian secularism.
Democracy theoretically means the rule of the majority. But this rule enshrines the spirit of the rule of law and consensus, not merely the rule of numbers. An ideal democracy guarantees unambiguously freedom to save life and full opportunity to every section of society, especially minorities, to blossom and prosper, lead a dignified life with full freedom to assert their own welfare.
¨
However, there are many anomalies in the practice of democracy in our country. The powerful classes and castes had always framed their own methodology to remain in power and maintain the status quo. In a democracy the majority always matters. In India the majority is always poor. But the ruling class has explored ways and means to divide their unity in the name of religion, caste, ethnicity and language. The more the number of political parties are, the more divided they become. A modern state exists only because it adheres to a certain fundamental ethos of civil society. No nation worth the name can survive without this ethos. It gives the state legitimacy. When this legitimacy is threatened and defiled, no democratic nation or state can function and hold its ground. Thus in order to have a democratic state, we need a democratic social order. Hence, the principles forming the basis of a democratic social order would also govern the state.
Fraternity, equality and liberty are the essential principles forming the basis of a free democratic social order. Fraternity is the disposition of an individual to treat men as the object of reverence and the desire to be in unity with his fellow beings. If this is undermined there cannot be any democracy. It will be like letting the violent mob to rule over the country. Signs of that are seen in Kandhamal, Mumbai, Karnataka, Assam, Manipur, Darjeeling, Bihar, and J&K. In fact fraternity is the other name of democracy.
Equality meant exactly a free social order, where equivalence in measure, amount, number, degree, value or quality rests. Ambedkar emphasised the idea of equality of consideration which meant none would have a claim to better treatment than another, in advance of good grounds being produced. Liberty falls under two classes: civil liberty and political liberty. Civil liberty refers to i) liberty of movement; ii) liberty of speech, through reading, writing, and discussion; iii) liberty of action, which had to be formal and real. Political liberty consists in the right of the individual to share in the framing of the laws and in the making and unmaking of governments. The government has to, therefore, derive its power from those whose rights it is charged to protect.
Today the concepts of secularism and democracy have been sought to be converted into mischievous slogans. They are put forward as forcible concepts rather than moral and spiritual values. The incidence of communal violence is the most disturbing phenomenon for secularism and democracy. After 70 to 80 years of work the forces of Hindutva have not brought any equality in society. They worked hard to politicise Hinduism but never to democratise it. The BJP, RSS, VHP and BD together under the umbrella named ‘Hindutva’ are a big threat to secularism and democracy of India. Why?
Their declarations of India having only one culture, one language and one religion and being one Hindu nation are nothing but sheer calls to destroy secularism and democracy in the country. The Sangh wants to change the Indian Constitution and abolish the rights of the religious minorities and promote their mono-cultural vision. Any party that does not respect the values enshrined in our Constitution by their actions is striking at the very root of the democratic state order.
A social order based on the values of equality, justice, liberty, dignity and fraternity is the vision of our Constitution. No doubt ours is a sovereign, secular, democratic state. Not merely separation of religion from the state but equal respect to all the religions is the vision of the Indian Constitution.
But Hindutva regards secularism and democracy as threats to its growth. Distorting their meaning and doing away with secularism and democracy are the only weapons left in the hands of Hindutvavadis for their survival. Hence Hindutva poses a major danger to secularism and democracy. Our nation cannot afford to be ruled by fascist forces. We cannot allow mob mentality to be a norm for our governance. We cannot even imagine a repeat of Kandhamal anywhere in the country.
Sunny Jacob S.J. teaches at Loyala School, Bhubaneswar. His e-mail is: sunnyjsj(at)gmail.com
25 April 2009
Kandhamal Violence: Secularism and Democracy under Siege
by Sunny Jacob, 26 April 2009
In the light of the recent violence in Kandhamal every right thinking person of this country must be concerned of the dangers to democracy and the secularist ideals of our nation. The violence that started in December 2007 had already destroyed the backbone of the minority Christian community of Kandhamal. The killing of the Swami, which from day one the Christian leaders and churches condemned in the strongest terms, and unequivocally stated that they had no role in it at all, was used as a lame excuse and as part of the larger conspiracy of the fundamentalist organisations that went on attacking innocent Christians all over Kandhamal and many other parts of Orissa. Even after the claims by the Maoists that they have done the crime, the goons of the fanatics went on destroying the Christian churches, properties, houses, people and their belongings. This second phase of violence has shocked the entire Christian community in India and shaken the basic foundation of our democracy and secularism.
The magnitude of vandalism perpetrated by the religious fanatics indeed reveals that a section of Indian politicians have no faith in the secular and democratic Constitution of India. They simply do not believe in the sanctity of our Constitution. Otherwise how can any one justify the violence and arson, rape and looting, attacks and obstructions, threat and use of muscle power? It is consoling to know that all these are done by a minuscule section of the Hindu community who are the foot-soldiers of the Sangh Parivar. However, what is sickening and shocking is the stoic silence of the majority who know the truth about all these happenings, yet prefer to do nothing against the fundamentalist forces which are bent on destroying not only the minority communities but also the essence of Hinduism itself. The utterances of Sangh Parivar leaders and the writings of so-called intellectuals like Swapan Dasgupta and Chandan Mitra are in fact destroying the very foundation of our cherished democracy and secularism. These so-called intellectual faces of the Sangh Parivar are not far too different from the Hindutva mascots like Narendra Modi and Varun Gandhi. They are merely an expression of a deep ideology that is fundamentalist and fanatic. Knowingly or unknowingly they are attacking the very foundation of our secular nationhood.
The Indian Constitution guarantees the freedom of religions. It does not protect or promote any particular religion. In fact it remains neutral to all religions. Secularism seems to have created some doubts in the minds of some people. The main cause for this confusion is the deliberate work of the Hindutva forces in general and the BJP in particular. They coined the word ‘pseudo-secular’ to brand all the secular political parties and defame them in order to create confusion among the public at large.
The meaning of secularism is derived from the word secular, which means worldly or material, not spiritual or religious. It is a concept of social and ethical value; therefore, it is defined as a view of life based on the premise that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or purposely excluded in order to evolve a system of social ethics based upon a doctrine.
This shows clearly that there is no religious and spiritual involvement on the part of the state. According to Prof S.N. Dhyani, “in the civil management and administration of the state, religious or spiritual considerations should be strictly excluded”. Therefore, secularism is a modern progressive philosophy which is mainly based on independent rational thinking with a scientific temper. In a secular society religion, to a great extent, is a personal matter, which has no place in socio-political issues because that is what breeds what we call communalism and sectarianism. Today, unfortunately, communalism and sectarianism are the dangers to our great nation, and these give rise to both terrorism and extremism.
The idea of secularism, in fact, originated in the West. The secular understanding separates the State and Religion in such a way that one does not impinge upon the other. The concern is to make sure that religion does not divide people on social and political matters. In theocratic countries the state fulfils religious ideals and politics is subordinated to religious ideals and tenets. All relations between the state and individuals are essentially regulated and governed with reference to state religion.
India has a long tradition of pluralism. This country not only gave birth to many religions but it has been hospitable to many other alien religions. Besides, today Article 25 of the Constitution of the Indian Republic guarantees to the followers of all religions the freedom to practise and propagate their religion. India is the only country in South Asia where secularism is not only the basic feature of the Constitution but also the symbol of its composite culture, tolerance and equalitarian social order. The state shows neutrality in its policies regarding the religious matters of individuals. The state gives equal treatment, recognition and position to all religions. No discrimination is displayed in employment, educational, political and economic matters on the basis of religion. The laws of the state are formulated, implemented and analysed on a secular basis. It is clear now that the attitude of impartiality towards all religions is made secure by the Constitution. There is no ‘state religion’ in India. There is not just the separation of state and religion, but ‘sarvadharma samabhava’ is the vision of Indian Constitution. This is the meaning of Indian secularism.
Democracy theoretically means the rule of the majority. But this rule enshrines the spirit of the rule of law and consensus, not merely the rule of numbers. An ideal democracy guarantees unambiguously freedom to save life and full opportunity to every section of society, especially minorities, to blossom and prosper, lead a dignified life with full freedom to assert their own welfare.
¨
However, there are many anomalies in the practice of democracy in our country. The powerful classes and castes had always framed their own methodology to remain in power and maintain the status quo. In a democracy the majority always matters. In India the majority is always poor. But the ruling class has explored ways and means to divide their unity in the name of religion, caste, ethnicity and language. The more the number of political parties are, the more divided they become. A modern state exists only because it adheres to a certain fundamental ethos of civil society. No nation worth the name can survive without this ethos. It gives the state legitimacy. When this legitimacy is threatened and defiled, no democratic nation or state can function and hold its ground. Thus in order to have a democratic state, we need a democratic social order. Hence, the principles forming the basis of a democratic social order would also govern the state.
Fraternity, equality and liberty are the essential principles forming the basis of a free democratic social order. Fraternity is the disposition of an individual to treat men as the object of reverence and the desire to be in unity with his fellow beings. If this is undermined there cannot be any democracy. It will be like letting the violent mob to rule over the country. Signs of that are seen in Kandhamal, Mumbai, Karnataka, Assam, Manipur, Darjeeling, Bihar, and J&K. In fact fraternity is the other name of democracy.
Equality meant exactly a free social order, where equivalence in measure, amount, number, degree, value or quality rests. Ambedkar emphasised the idea of equality of consideration which meant none would have a claim to better treatment than another, in advance of good grounds being produced. Liberty falls under two classes: civil liberty and political liberty. Civil liberty refers to i) liberty of movement; ii) liberty of speech, through reading, writing, and discussion; iii) liberty of action, which had to be formal and real. Political liberty consists in the right of the individual to share in the framing of the laws and in the making and unmaking of governments. The government has to, therefore, derive its power from those whose rights it is charged to protect.
Today the concepts of secularism and democracy have been sought to be converted into mischievous slogans. They are put forward as forcible concepts rather than moral and spiritual values. The incidence of communal violence is the most disturbing phenomenon for secularism and democracy. After 70 to 80 years of work the forces of Hindutva have not brought any equality in society. They worked hard to politicise Hinduism but never to democratise it. The BJP, RSS, VHP and BD together under the umbrella named ‘Hindutva’ are a big threat to secularism and democracy of India. Why?
Their declarations of India having only one culture, one language and one religion and being one Hindu nation are nothing but sheer calls to destroy secularism and democracy in the country. The Sangh wants to change the Indian Constitution and abolish the rights of the religious minorities and promote their mono-cultural vision. Any party that does not respect the values enshrined in our Constitution by their actions is striking at the very root of the democratic state order.
A social order based on the values of equality, justice, liberty, dignity and fraternity is the vision of our Constitution. No doubt ours is a sovereign, secular, democratic state. Not merely separation of religion from the state but equal respect to all the religions is the vision of the Indian Constitution.
But Hindutva regards secularism and democracy as threats to its growth. Distorting their meaning and doing away with secularism and democracy are the only weapons left in the hands of Hindutvavadis for their survival. Hence Hindutva poses a major danger to secularism and democracy. Our nation cannot afford to be ruled by fascist forces. We cannot allow mob mentality to be a norm for our governance. We cannot even imagine a repeat of Kandhamal anywhere in the country.
Sunny Jacob S.J. teaches at Loyala School, Bhubaneswar. His e-mail is: sunnyjsj(at)gmail.com
Open Letter: A response to BJP's shahnawaz hussain's letter
http://www.anhadin.net/article80.html
Syed Shahnawaz Hussain
Member of Parliament
Ex-Union Minister, Govt of Inida
7, Pandit Pant Marg
New Delhi-110001
E-mail: mail@shahnawazhusssain.com
shahnawaz @sansad.nic.in
Syed Shahnawaz Hussain Sahab,
Aapka khat mila, jo apne mere shauhar ke naam bheja hai. Malum kiya to pata chala ke poore apartment main aur kisi ke ghar nahi aya hai yeh khat. Shayad voting list se aise naam nikal kar jo musalman dikhte hoon unhi ko bheja gaya hai. Yeh to bhajpa ka purana pesha hai voting list se naam dhoondna aur malum karna kahan musalman, kahan isai aur kahan dalit rehte hain. Aaj yeh list aap vote mangne ke liye istemal kar rahe hain lekin inke kayee aur bhi istemaal hamne dekhe hain: chun chun kar ghar jalane main, hamla karne main, lootmar aur khoon kharaba karne main.
Aapne kamal ke phool ka button dabane ka agreh kiya hai.
Daryakhan gumbad ke relief camp main jab main ek pedit mahila ke sath baithi thi, uska dukh baant rahi thi tabhi ek boodhi aurat aye, safed dupatta uske sar par tha, umar takreeban 75 saal rahi hogi, muhn par churriyan thi usne aakar poocha ke kya aap widhwaon ko paisa de rahi hain. Isse pehle ke main jawab deti woh khud hi wahan se chahli gayee. Main uske peeche bahar bhagi lekin 5-6 hazar bachchon, boodhon, naujawanon ki bheed, jo us camp main tehri huyee thi, unke beech woh na jane kahan kho gayee. Maine bahut koshish ki lekin 30-40 minute ke baad bhi mujhe woh nahi mili.
Shayad woh kuch din pehle tak apne mohalle ke gareeb logon ke madad karti ho, shayad uske bachche, uska pati sab hi maar diye gaye hoon 2002 ke jansanhar main. Shayad uska poora gharbar loot liya gaya ho aur jala diya gaya ho. Shayad usne kabhi kisi ke age hath na phailya ho. Us din woh itni bebas thi ke ek ajnabi se paisa mangne aa gayee thi. Shayad use ek ajnabi se paisa mangne ki himmat jutane main ghanton lage hoon aur is liye hi woh jawab sunne se pehle hi wahan se chali gaye thi. Woh kisi ki maan thi, kisi ki nani, kisi ki dadi.
Zara soch kar dekhiye agar woh apki ma hoti to?
Us buzurg aurat ki aankhon ki bebasi mujhe aaj bhi sone nahi deti . shahnawaz sahib mantri to aap zaroor ban gaye bhajpa ke lekin yeh aapne kaise soch liya ke hamare jaise log un bebas ankhon ke sath aapki tarah gaddari kar sakte hain?
ek Hindustani aur ek sarkari musalman hone ka farq shayad aap nahi samjhenge.
Shabnam Hashmi
April 26, 2009
Syed Shahnawaz Hussain
Member of Parliament
Ex-Union Minister, Govt of Inida
7, Pandit Pant Marg
New Delhi-110001
E-mail: mail@shahnawazhusssain.com
shahnawaz @sansad.nic.in
Syed Shahnawaz Hussain Sahab,
Aapka khat mila, jo apne mere shauhar ke naam bheja hai. Malum kiya to pata chala ke poore apartment main aur kisi ke ghar nahi aya hai yeh khat. Shayad voting list se aise naam nikal kar jo musalman dikhte hoon unhi ko bheja gaya hai. Yeh to bhajpa ka purana pesha hai voting list se naam dhoondna aur malum karna kahan musalman, kahan isai aur kahan dalit rehte hain. Aaj yeh list aap vote mangne ke liye istemal kar rahe hain lekin inke kayee aur bhi istemaal hamne dekhe hain: chun chun kar ghar jalane main, hamla karne main, lootmar aur khoon kharaba karne main.
Aapne kamal ke phool ka button dabane ka agreh kiya hai.
Daryakhan gumbad ke relief camp main jab main ek pedit mahila ke sath baithi thi, uska dukh baant rahi thi tabhi ek boodhi aurat aye, safed dupatta uske sar par tha, umar takreeban 75 saal rahi hogi, muhn par churriyan thi usne aakar poocha ke kya aap widhwaon ko paisa de rahi hain. Isse pehle ke main jawab deti woh khud hi wahan se chahli gayee. Main uske peeche bahar bhagi lekin 5-6 hazar bachchon, boodhon, naujawanon ki bheed, jo us camp main tehri huyee thi, unke beech woh na jane kahan kho gayee. Maine bahut koshish ki lekin 30-40 minute ke baad bhi mujhe woh nahi mili.
Shayad woh kuch din pehle tak apne mohalle ke gareeb logon ke madad karti ho, shayad uske bachche, uska pati sab hi maar diye gaye hoon 2002 ke jansanhar main. Shayad uska poora gharbar loot liya gaya ho aur jala diya gaya ho. Shayad usne kabhi kisi ke age hath na phailya ho. Us din woh itni bebas thi ke ek ajnabi se paisa mangne aa gayee thi. Shayad use ek ajnabi se paisa mangne ki himmat jutane main ghanton lage hoon aur is liye hi woh jawab sunne se pehle hi wahan se chali gaye thi. Woh kisi ki maan thi, kisi ki nani, kisi ki dadi.
Zara soch kar dekhiye agar woh apki ma hoti to?
Us buzurg aurat ki aankhon ki bebasi mujhe aaj bhi sone nahi deti . shahnawaz sahib mantri to aap zaroor ban gaye bhajpa ke lekin yeh aapne kaise soch liya ke hamare jaise log un bebas ankhon ke sath aapki tarah gaddari kar sakte hain?
ek Hindustani aur ek sarkari musalman hone ka farq shayad aap nahi samjhenge.
Shabnam Hashmi
April 26, 2009
Book Review of Wendy Doniger's "The Hindus"
The New York Times
Another Incarnation
By PANKAJ MISHRA
Published: April 24, 2009
Visiting India in 1921, E. M. Forster witnessed the eight-day celebration of Lord Krishna’s birthday. This first encounter with devotional ecstasy left the Bloomsbury aesthete baffled. “There is no dignity, no taste, no form,” he complained in a letter home. Recoiling from Hindu India, Forster was relieved to enter the relatively rational world of Islam. Describing the muezzin’s call at the Taj Mahal, he wrote, “I knew at all events where I stood and what I heard; it was a land that was not merely atmosphere but had definite outlines and horizons.”
THE HINDUS
An Alternative History
By Wendy Doniger
779 pp. The Penguin Press. $35
Forster, who later used his appalled fascination with India’s polytheistic muddle to superb effect in his novel “A Passage to India,” was only one in a long line of Britons who felt their notions of order and morality challenged by Indian religious and cultural practices. The British Army captain who discovered the erotic temples of Khajuraho in the early 19th century was outraged by how “extremely indecent and offensive” depictions of fornicating couples profaned a “place of worship.” Lord Macaulay thundered against the worship, still widespread in India today, of the Shiva lingam. Even Karl Marx inveighed against how man, “the sovereign of nature,” had degraded himself in India by worshipping Hanuman, the monkey god.
Repelled by such pagan blasphemies, the first British scholars of India went so far as to invent what we now call “Hinduism,” complete with a mainstream classical tradition consisting entirely of Sanskrit philosophical texts like the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanishads. In fact, most Indians in the 18th century knew no Sanskrit, the language exclusive to Brahmins. For centuries, they remained unaware of the hymns of the four Vedas or the idealist monism of the Upanishads that the German Romantics, American Transcendentalists and other early Indophiles solemnly supposed to be the very essence of Indian civilization. (Smoking chillums and chanting “Om,” the Beats were closer to the mark.)
As Wendy Doniger, a scholar of Indian religions at the University of Chicago, explains in her staggeringly comprehensive book, the British Indologists who sought to tame India’s chaotic polytheisms had a “Protestant bias in favor of scripture.” In “privileging” Sanskrit over local languages, she writes, they created what has proved to be an enduring impression of a “unified Hinduism.” And they found keen collaborators among upper-caste Indian scholars and translators. This British-Brahmin version of Hinduism — one of the many invented traditions born around the world in the 18th and 19th centuries — has continued to find many takers among semi-Westernized Hindus suffering from an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the apparently more successful and organized religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
The Hindu nationalists of today, who long for India to become a muscular international power, stand in a direct line of 19th-century Indian reform movements devoted to purifying and reviving a Hinduism perceived as having grown too fragmented and weak. These mostly upper-caste and middle-class nationalists have accelerated the modernization and homogenization of “Hinduism.”
Still, the nontextual, syncretic religious and philosophical traditions of India that escaped the attention of British scholars flourish even today. Popular devotional cults, shrines, festivals, rites and legends that vary across India still form the worldview of a majority of Indians. Goddesses, as Doniger writes, “continue to evolve.” Bollywood produced the most popular one of my North Indian childhood: Santoshi Mata, who seemed to fulfill the materialistic wishes of newly urbanized Hindus. Far from being a slave to mindless superstition, popular religious legend conveys a darkly ambiguous view of human action. Revered as heroes in one region, the characters of the great epics “Ramayana” and “Mahabharata” can be regarded as villains in another. Demons and gods are dialectically interrelated in a complex cosmic order that would make little sense to the theologians of the so-called war on terror.
Doniger sets herself the ambitious task of writing “a narrative alternative to the one constituted by the most famous texts in Sanskrit.” As she puts it, “It’s not all about Brahmins, Sanskrit, the Gita.” It’s also not about perfidious Muslims who destroyed innumerable Hindu temples and forcibly converted millions of Indians to Islam. Doniger, who cannot but be aware of the political historiography of Hindu nationalists, the most powerful interpreters of Indian religions in both India and abroad today, also wishes to provide an “alternative to the narrative of Hindu history that they tell.”
She writes at length about the devotional “bhakti” tradition, an ecstatic and radically egalitarian form of Hindu religiosity which, though possessing royal and literary lineage, was “also a folk and oral phenomenon,” accommodating women, low-caste men and illiterates. She explores, contra Marx, the role of monkeys as the “human unconscious” in the “Ramayana,” the bible of muscular Hinduism, while casting a sympathetic eye on its chief ogre, Ravana. And she examines the mythology and ritual of Tantra, the most misunderstood of Indian traditions.
She doesn’t neglect high-table Hinduism. Her chapter on violence in the “Mahabharata” is particularly insightful, highlighting the tragic aspects of the great epic, and unraveling, in the process, the hoary cliché of Hindus as doctrinally pacifist. Both “dharma” and “karma” get their due. Those who tilt at organized religions today on behalf of a residual Enlightenment rationalism may be startled to learn that atheism and agnosticism have long traditions in Indian religions and philosophies.
Though the potted biographies of Mughal emperors seem superfluous in a long book, Doniger’s chapter on the centuries of Muslim rule over India helps dilute the lurid mythology of Hindu nationalists. Motivated by realpolitik rather than religious fundamentalism, the Mughals destroyed temples; they also built and patronized them. Not only is there “no evidence of massive coercive conversion” to Islam, but also so much of what we know as popular Hinduism — the currently popular devotional cults of Rama and Krishna, the network of pilgrimages, ashrams and sects — acquired its distinctive form during Mughal rule.
Doniger’s winsomely eclectic range of reference — she enlists Philip Roth’s novel “I Married a Communist” for a description of the Hindu renunciant’s psychology — begins to seem too determinedly eccentric when she discusses Rudyard Kipling, a figure with no discernible influence on Indian religions, with greater interpretative vigor than she does Mohandas K. Gandhi, the most creative of modern devout Hindus. More puzzlingly, Doniger has little to say about the forms Indian cultures have assumed in Bali, Mauritius, Trinidad and Fiji, even as she describes at length the Internet-enabled liturgies of Hindus in America.
Yet it is impossible not to admire a book that strides so intrepidly into a polemical arena almost as treacherous as Israel-Arab relations. During a lecture in London in 2003, Doniger escaped being hit by an egg thrown by a Hindu nationalist apparently angry at the “sexual thrust” of her interpretation of the “sacred” “Ramayana.” This book will no doubt further expose her to the fury of the modern-day Indian heirs of the British imperialists who invented “Hinduism.” Happily, it will also serve as a salutary antidote to the fanatics who perceive — correctly — the fluid existential identities and commodious metaphysic of practiced Indian religions as a threat to their project of a culturally homogenous and militant nation-state.
Pankaj Mishra is the author of “An End to Suffering: The Buddha in the World” and “Temptations of the West: How to Be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet, and Beyond.”
A version of this article appeared in print on April 26, 2009, on page BR20 of the New York edition.
Another Incarnation
By PANKAJ MISHRA
Published: April 24, 2009
Visiting India in 1921, E. M. Forster witnessed the eight-day celebration of Lord Krishna’s birthday. This first encounter with devotional ecstasy left the Bloomsbury aesthete baffled. “There is no dignity, no taste, no form,” he complained in a letter home. Recoiling from Hindu India, Forster was relieved to enter the relatively rational world of Islam. Describing the muezzin’s call at the Taj Mahal, he wrote, “I knew at all events where I stood and what I heard; it was a land that was not merely atmosphere but had definite outlines and horizons.”
THE HINDUS
An Alternative History
By Wendy Doniger
779 pp. The Penguin Press. $35
Forster, who later used his appalled fascination with India’s polytheistic muddle to superb effect in his novel “A Passage to India,” was only one in a long line of Britons who felt their notions of order and morality challenged by Indian religious and cultural practices. The British Army captain who discovered the erotic temples of Khajuraho in the early 19th century was outraged by how “extremely indecent and offensive” depictions of fornicating couples profaned a “place of worship.” Lord Macaulay thundered against the worship, still widespread in India today, of the Shiva lingam. Even Karl Marx inveighed against how man, “the sovereign of nature,” had degraded himself in India by worshipping Hanuman, the monkey god.
Repelled by such pagan blasphemies, the first British scholars of India went so far as to invent what we now call “Hinduism,” complete with a mainstream classical tradition consisting entirely of Sanskrit philosophical texts like the Bhagavad-Gita and the Upanishads. In fact, most Indians in the 18th century knew no Sanskrit, the language exclusive to Brahmins. For centuries, they remained unaware of the hymns of the four Vedas or the idealist monism of the Upanishads that the German Romantics, American Transcendentalists and other early Indophiles solemnly supposed to be the very essence of Indian civilization. (Smoking chillums and chanting “Om,” the Beats were closer to the mark.)
As Wendy Doniger, a scholar of Indian religions at the University of Chicago, explains in her staggeringly comprehensive book, the British Indologists who sought to tame India’s chaotic polytheisms had a “Protestant bias in favor of scripture.” In “privileging” Sanskrit over local languages, she writes, they created what has proved to be an enduring impression of a “unified Hinduism.” And they found keen collaborators among upper-caste Indian scholars and translators. This British-Brahmin version of Hinduism — one of the many invented traditions born around the world in the 18th and 19th centuries — has continued to find many takers among semi-Westernized Hindus suffering from an inferiority complex vis-à-vis the apparently more successful and organized religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
The Hindu nationalists of today, who long for India to become a muscular international power, stand in a direct line of 19th-century Indian reform movements devoted to purifying and reviving a Hinduism perceived as having grown too fragmented and weak. These mostly upper-caste and middle-class nationalists have accelerated the modernization and homogenization of “Hinduism.”
Still, the nontextual, syncretic religious and philosophical traditions of India that escaped the attention of British scholars flourish even today. Popular devotional cults, shrines, festivals, rites and legends that vary across India still form the worldview of a majority of Indians. Goddesses, as Doniger writes, “continue to evolve.” Bollywood produced the most popular one of my North Indian childhood: Santoshi Mata, who seemed to fulfill the materialistic wishes of newly urbanized Hindus. Far from being a slave to mindless superstition, popular religious legend conveys a darkly ambiguous view of human action. Revered as heroes in one region, the characters of the great epics “Ramayana” and “Mahabharata” can be regarded as villains in another. Demons and gods are dialectically interrelated in a complex cosmic order that would make little sense to the theologians of the so-called war on terror.
Doniger sets herself the ambitious task of writing “a narrative alternative to the one constituted by the most famous texts in Sanskrit.” As she puts it, “It’s not all about Brahmins, Sanskrit, the Gita.” It’s also not about perfidious Muslims who destroyed innumerable Hindu temples and forcibly converted millions of Indians to Islam. Doniger, who cannot but be aware of the political historiography of Hindu nationalists, the most powerful interpreters of Indian religions in both India and abroad today, also wishes to provide an “alternative to the narrative of Hindu history that they tell.”
She writes at length about the devotional “bhakti” tradition, an ecstatic and radically egalitarian form of Hindu religiosity which, though possessing royal and literary lineage, was “also a folk and oral phenomenon,” accommodating women, low-caste men and illiterates. She explores, contra Marx, the role of monkeys as the “human unconscious” in the “Ramayana,” the bible of muscular Hinduism, while casting a sympathetic eye on its chief ogre, Ravana. And she examines the mythology and ritual of Tantra, the most misunderstood of Indian traditions.
She doesn’t neglect high-table Hinduism. Her chapter on violence in the “Mahabharata” is particularly insightful, highlighting the tragic aspects of the great epic, and unraveling, in the process, the hoary cliché of Hindus as doctrinally pacifist. Both “dharma” and “karma” get their due. Those who tilt at organized religions today on behalf of a residual Enlightenment rationalism may be startled to learn that atheism and agnosticism have long traditions in Indian religions and philosophies.
Though the potted biographies of Mughal emperors seem superfluous in a long book, Doniger’s chapter on the centuries of Muslim rule over India helps dilute the lurid mythology of Hindu nationalists. Motivated by realpolitik rather than religious fundamentalism, the Mughals destroyed temples; they also built and patronized them. Not only is there “no evidence of massive coercive conversion” to Islam, but also so much of what we know as popular Hinduism — the currently popular devotional cults of Rama and Krishna, the network of pilgrimages, ashrams and sects — acquired its distinctive form during Mughal rule.
Doniger’s winsomely eclectic range of reference — she enlists Philip Roth’s novel “I Married a Communist” for a description of the Hindu renunciant’s psychology — begins to seem too determinedly eccentric when she discusses Rudyard Kipling, a figure with no discernible influence on Indian religions, with greater interpretative vigor than she does Mohandas K. Gandhi, the most creative of modern devout Hindus. More puzzlingly, Doniger has little to say about the forms Indian cultures have assumed in Bali, Mauritius, Trinidad and Fiji, even as she describes at length the Internet-enabled liturgies of Hindus in America.
Yet it is impossible not to admire a book that strides so intrepidly into a polemical arena almost as treacherous as Israel-Arab relations. During a lecture in London in 2003, Doniger escaped being hit by an egg thrown by a Hindu nationalist apparently angry at the “sexual thrust” of her interpretation of the “sacred” “Ramayana.” This book will no doubt further expose her to the fury of the modern-day Indian heirs of the British imperialists who invented “Hinduism.” Happily, it will also serve as a salutary antidote to the fanatics who perceive — correctly — the fluid existential identities and commodious metaphysic of practiced Indian religions as a threat to their project of a culturally homogenous and militant nation-state.
Pankaj Mishra is the author of “An End to Suffering: The Buddha in the World” and “Temptations of the West: How to Be Modern in India, Pakistan, Tibet, and Beyond.”
A version of this article appeared in print on April 26, 2009, on page BR20 of the New York edition.
April 25, 2009
RSS: BJP-Father Son and unholy Mission
RSS: BJP- Father, Son and Unholy Mission
Ram Puniyani
Mr. Advani has been calling Manmohan Singh as the weakest Prime Minister for quite some time. Recently Manmohan Singh, decided to hit back and he reminded the nation about the role of Advani in Kandhar episode, Babri demolition and Gujarat violence. Sonia Gandhi’s response to Advani’s barbs was at deeper level as she called Advani and most of BJP leadership as ‘slave of RSS’ (Bidar, Karnataka 15th April) This jolted the BJP leadership which gave some weak mumbled response. BJP-RSS relationship was once again brought to the public attention. It became clear that it is really the RSS which through various mechanisms, ideological and organizational, controls the second largest party in the country.
While RSS has always been calling itself as the cultural organization, by now its mask is off and the society at large knows that it is a political organization which is very shrewdly and cleverly been training swayamsevaks (volunteers) who in turn have formed various organizations to control the politics at all the levels. These organizations formed by it range from Rashtra Sevika Samiti in 1936 to Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Bhartiya Jansangh, Vishwa Hindu Parishad to Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram etc. These organizations in turn have formed other subordinate organizations. What is common in these is that they are all formed by trained RSS swayamsevaks (ideological control) and that the core figures of these organizations meet often under RSS control, to coordinate their strategy. Their aim and job is to carry on the work of RSS, i.e. to push the country in to becoming Hindu Rashtra. Notably all the major characters from its stable from Nathuram Godse, Vajpayee, Advni, Narendra Modi etc. have been the RSS pracharaks at various points of time.
As far as BJP is concerned it is the new avatar of Bhartiya Jansangh which was formed in 1951 jointly with Shyama Prasad Mukerjee of Hindu Mahasabha in 1951. RSS that time felt the need for a political organization in the aftermath of murder of Mahatma Gandhi. This had led to its ban on RSS by the Government of India, with Sardr Patel as the Home minister. For formation of Bhartiya Jansangh RSS loaned three of is prominent Pracharaks, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Deendayal Upadhyay and Lal Krishna Advani. After Mookerji’s death RSS tightened its grip on Jana Sangha.
Later at Sindi (Wardha, Maharahtra) in 1954 from March 9 to March 16 a political training camp was organized for 300 pracharaks. The camp was aimed to train national RSS leadership for running the affairs of the country through Jana Sangh. RSS sarsangh chalak (supreme dictator) M.S. Golwalkar in his speech (March 16) elaborated his vision for Jana Sangh, "If we say that we are part of the organization and accept its discipline then selectiveness has no place in life. Do what is told. If told to play kabaddi, play kabaddi; told to hold meeting then meeting…For instance some of our friends were told to go and work for politics that does not mean that they have great interest or inspiration for it… If they are told to withdraw from politics then also there is no objection. Their discretion is just not required."
[Golwalkar, M. S., Shri Guruji Samagar Darshan, Volume III, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur , 1978, p. 32.] Essentially the swayamsevaks deputed to work for BJP are expected to dance to the tunes of RSS and are there merely working to fulfill the agenda of the controlling organization, the RSS.
After emergency, Bharatiya Janshangh also became part of Janata Party, put together by Jaypraksh Narayan. This coalition was torn apart when the issue of duel membership came up. The socialist members of Janata party raised the issue that there cant be double membership, meaning there by that those who are members of Janata party can’t have affiliation to RSS. The Jansangh component of Janata party broke way as they said their loyalty to RSS is above the membership of Janata party. Their basic goal was out in the open, they were mere players, while RSS is the real controller.
Later the same component resurfaced as Bharatiya Janta Party. They pretended to have Gandhian Socialism as their goal. It was a mere ploy for them so they dumped it soon enough to latch on to the chariot of Lord Ram; exploiting whose name they gradually increased their electoral clout. Especially after their coming to power one could see that they are not only subservient to RSS organizationally and ideologically but even in the matters of small detail like when Jaswant Singh was to become finance minister, RSS got it changed and Yashwant Sinha was made finance minister.
When Atal Bihari Vajpayee was Prime Minister, in his speech in Staten Island US, he reaffirmed his primary loyalty to RSS. Advani has been a regular visitor to RSS office in Jhahndewalan Estate and Nagpur RSS head office. It is well know how RSS, was unhappy with his ‘Secular Jinnah’ speech and so he had to resign from the President-ship of BJP. We also know that the core organizing secretaries of BJP at different levels are RSS nominees and RSS has a special top-level secretary looking after/supervising the BJP affairs.
One will beg to differ with Sonia Gandhi on one small count; slaves normally are just obeying the orders of the masters. Here the BJP, its leadership not only obeys the RSS orders, it has internalized the RSS agenda and its job is to devise different strategies and moves to ensure that RSS agenda of Hindu nation becomes strong. When in power BJP makes ground for infiltration of its siblings (other RSS progeny) in different wings of the state apparatus, social work, education and other possible conduits for transforming the state and society in the image of RSS. It is not for nothing that at election time all RSS volunteers and the workers of its progeny all come in full force to campaign for BJP.
--
Ram Puniyani
Mr. Advani has been calling Manmohan Singh as the weakest Prime Minister for quite some time. Recently Manmohan Singh, decided to hit back and he reminded the nation about the role of Advani in Kandhar episode, Babri demolition and Gujarat violence. Sonia Gandhi’s response to Advani’s barbs was at deeper level as she called Advani and most of BJP leadership as ‘slave of RSS’ (Bidar, Karnataka 15th April) This jolted the BJP leadership which gave some weak mumbled response. BJP-RSS relationship was once again brought to the public attention. It became clear that it is really the RSS which through various mechanisms, ideological and organizational, controls the second largest party in the country.
While RSS has always been calling itself as the cultural organization, by now its mask is off and the society at large knows that it is a political organization which is very shrewdly and cleverly been training swayamsevaks (volunteers) who in turn have formed various organizations to control the politics at all the levels. These organizations formed by it range from Rashtra Sevika Samiti in 1936 to Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad, Bhartiya Jansangh, Vishwa Hindu Parishad to Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram etc. These organizations in turn have formed other subordinate organizations. What is common in these is that they are all formed by trained RSS swayamsevaks (ideological control) and that the core figures of these organizations meet often under RSS control, to coordinate their strategy. Their aim and job is to carry on the work of RSS, i.e. to push the country in to becoming Hindu Rashtra. Notably all the major characters from its stable from Nathuram Godse, Vajpayee, Advni, Narendra Modi etc. have been the RSS pracharaks at various points of time.
As far as BJP is concerned it is the new avatar of Bhartiya Jansangh which was formed in 1951 jointly with Shyama Prasad Mukerjee of Hindu Mahasabha in 1951. RSS that time felt the need for a political organization in the aftermath of murder of Mahatma Gandhi. This had led to its ban on RSS by the Government of India, with Sardr Patel as the Home minister. For formation of Bhartiya Jansangh RSS loaned three of is prominent Pracharaks, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Deendayal Upadhyay and Lal Krishna Advani. After Mookerji’s death RSS tightened its grip on Jana Sangha.
Later at Sindi (Wardha, Maharahtra) in 1954 from March 9 to March 16 a political training camp was organized for 300 pracharaks. The camp was aimed to train national RSS leadership for running the affairs of the country through Jana Sangh. RSS sarsangh chalak (supreme dictator) M.S. Golwalkar in his speech (March 16) elaborated his vision for Jana Sangh, "If we say that we are part of the organization and accept its discipline then selectiveness has no place in life. Do what is told. If told to play kabaddi, play kabaddi; told to hold meeting then meeting…For instance some of our friends were told to go and work for politics that does not mean that they have great interest or inspiration for it… If they are told to withdraw from politics then also there is no objection. Their discretion is just not required."
[Golwalkar, M. S., Shri Guruji Samagar Darshan, Volume III, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur , 1978, p. 32.] Essentially the swayamsevaks deputed to work for BJP are expected to dance to the tunes of RSS and are there merely working to fulfill the agenda of the controlling organization, the RSS.
After emergency, Bharatiya Janshangh also became part of Janata Party, put together by Jaypraksh Narayan. This coalition was torn apart when the issue of duel membership came up. The socialist members of Janata party raised the issue that there cant be double membership, meaning there by that those who are members of Janata party can’t have affiliation to RSS. The Jansangh component of Janata party broke way as they said their loyalty to RSS is above the membership of Janata party. Their basic goal was out in the open, they were mere players, while RSS is the real controller.
Later the same component resurfaced as Bharatiya Janta Party. They pretended to have Gandhian Socialism as their goal. It was a mere ploy for them so they dumped it soon enough to latch on to the chariot of Lord Ram; exploiting whose name they gradually increased their electoral clout. Especially after their coming to power one could see that they are not only subservient to RSS organizationally and ideologically but even in the matters of small detail like when Jaswant Singh was to become finance minister, RSS got it changed and Yashwant Sinha was made finance minister.
When Atal Bihari Vajpayee was Prime Minister, in his speech in Staten Island US, he reaffirmed his primary loyalty to RSS. Advani has been a regular visitor to RSS office in Jhahndewalan Estate and Nagpur RSS head office. It is well know how RSS, was unhappy with his ‘Secular Jinnah’ speech and so he had to resign from the President-ship of BJP. We also know that the core organizing secretaries of BJP at different levels are RSS nominees and RSS has a special top-level secretary looking after/supervising the BJP affairs.
One will beg to differ with Sonia Gandhi on one small count; slaves normally are just obeying the orders of the masters. Here the BJP, its leadership not only obeys the RSS orders, it has internalized the RSS agenda and its job is to devise different strategies and moves to ensure that RSS agenda of Hindu nation becomes strong. When in power BJP makes ground for infiltration of its siblings (other RSS progeny) in different wings of the state apparatus, social work, education and other possible conduits for transforming the state and society in the image of RSS. It is not for nothing that at election time all RSS volunteers and the workers of its progeny all come in full force to campaign for BJP.
--
April 24, 2009
Communalism has spread across the social canvas in Karnataka
The Hindu
April 25 2009
Communalism in coastal Karnataka
by Govind D. Belgaumkar
Hatred based on religion is not limited to organised groups of fundamentalists but has spread across the social canvas
File PHOTO: JEEVAN CHINNAPPA
http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/25/images/2009042550501401.jpg
Sri Ram Sene chief Pramod Muthalik speaking to the media.
I will not need a single minority vote to win, the Bharatiya Janata Party candidate in Karnataka’s Uttara Kannada constituency, Anant Kumar Hegde, had said in March. The statement reflected the aggressive brand of majority politics for which coastal Karnataka is known.
The sitting MP escaped with a warning from the Election Commission of India against saying such things. But the citizens, and the minorities in particular, have been bearing the brunt of communal violence and moral policing by Hindutva fringe groups. The January 24 pub attack in Mangalore was just one of a series of acts of moral policing in the region.
To make matters worse, fundamentalists from the Islamic and Christian fold, have begun to follow suit. While they are no match for their Hindutva counterparts, Islamist organisations such as the Karnataka Forum Dignity and a Christian group, the Social Action Committee, are involved in violently curtailing interaction between boys and girls belonging to different communities.
Vigilante groups
An act of moral policing in Puttur in Dakshina Kannada district brought Hindu and Muslim vigilante groups face to face on March 17 leading to a communal flare-up. Communal violence rocked Bhatkal, and Mundagod in Uttara Kannada district and Kaup in Udupi district after elections to the Lok Sabha were announced. The region witnessed a series of attacks on churches since September 2008 in protest against alleged conversions by evangelical groups. There is now a heightened sense of alienation among Christians, who were earlier not targeted by communal forces.
Hatred based on religion is not limited to organised groups of fundamentalists. It has spread across the social canvas and enveloped large sections of the police, bureaucracy and media. It is not difficult to find voters on the street who say religion will be a factor while voting. Everyone seems to have a story about friends breaking up because of religion.
The same evening when over one lakh frenzied people turned up for the Hindu Samajothsava on March 15 at Mangalore, communal violence flared at Kaup in Udupi district, landing many in hospital. A Hindu youth among a group of cricketers had to show his sacred thread and his pierced ears to save his life from a group returning from the Samajothsava.
Mute witnesses
Policemen are often accused of being mute witnesses to the gross violation of law. There are instances of police failing to register complaints, let alone conducting a fair probe. Gripped by fear psychosis, Christians and Muslims seem to be seeking relief in religion-based extremism.
“A majority of Muslims and Christians have become communal,” declares Umar U.H., vice-president of the Komu Sauharda Vedike (Communal Harmony Forum). The situation is heading from bad to worse, he says.
For once, Muslims and Christians in the region plan on asserting themselves politically in this election. Their religious leaders are encouraging them to register as voters cast their votes for “secular” forces. They may rally behind the Congress en masse.
Many Hindus have expressed their disgust over the Hindutva moral policing. The belief of RSS leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat that all Hindus will support the BJP will be severely tested.
Between the 2008 and 2004 Assembly elections, the party’s support base eroded by about three percentage points in the three districts of coastal Karnataka (down to 40.71 from 43.56 per cent).
The Sangh Parivar obviously wants to arrest this trend in the region. Mr. Bhat promised return of peace to the region if the BJP is elected as in Gujarat.
On the other hand, “a vote against the BJP would lead to disintegration of the country,” he cautions.
April 25 2009
Communalism in coastal Karnataka
by Govind D. Belgaumkar
Hatred based on religion is not limited to organised groups of fundamentalists but has spread across the social canvas
File PHOTO: JEEVAN CHINNAPPA
http://www.hindu.com/2009/04/25/images/2009042550501401.jpg
Sri Ram Sene chief Pramod Muthalik speaking to the media.
I will not need a single minority vote to win, the Bharatiya Janata Party candidate in Karnataka’s Uttara Kannada constituency, Anant Kumar Hegde, had said in March. The statement reflected the aggressive brand of majority politics for which coastal Karnataka is known.
The sitting MP escaped with a warning from the Election Commission of India against saying such things. But the citizens, and the minorities in particular, have been bearing the brunt of communal violence and moral policing by Hindutva fringe groups. The January 24 pub attack in Mangalore was just one of a series of acts of moral policing in the region.
To make matters worse, fundamentalists from the Islamic and Christian fold, have begun to follow suit. While they are no match for their Hindutva counterparts, Islamist organisations such as the Karnataka Forum Dignity and a Christian group, the Social Action Committee, are involved in violently curtailing interaction between boys and girls belonging to different communities.
Vigilante groups
An act of moral policing in Puttur in Dakshina Kannada district brought Hindu and Muslim vigilante groups face to face on March 17 leading to a communal flare-up. Communal violence rocked Bhatkal, and Mundagod in Uttara Kannada district and Kaup in Udupi district after elections to the Lok Sabha were announced. The region witnessed a series of attacks on churches since September 2008 in protest against alleged conversions by evangelical groups. There is now a heightened sense of alienation among Christians, who were earlier not targeted by communal forces.
Hatred based on religion is not limited to organised groups of fundamentalists. It has spread across the social canvas and enveloped large sections of the police, bureaucracy and media. It is not difficult to find voters on the street who say religion will be a factor while voting. Everyone seems to have a story about friends breaking up because of religion.
The same evening when over one lakh frenzied people turned up for the Hindu Samajothsava on March 15 at Mangalore, communal violence flared at Kaup in Udupi district, landing many in hospital. A Hindu youth among a group of cricketers had to show his sacred thread and his pierced ears to save his life from a group returning from the Samajothsava.
Mute witnesses
Policemen are often accused of being mute witnesses to the gross violation of law. There are instances of police failing to register complaints, let alone conducting a fair probe. Gripped by fear psychosis, Christians and Muslims seem to be seeking relief in religion-based extremism.
“A majority of Muslims and Christians have become communal,” declares Umar U.H., vice-president of the Komu Sauharda Vedike (Communal Harmony Forum). The situation is heading from bad to worse, he says.
For once, Muslims and Christians in the region plan on asserting themselves politically in this election. Their religious leaders are encouraging them to register as voters cast their votes for “secular” forces. They may rally behind the Congress en masse.
Many Hindus have expressed their disgust over the Hindutva moral policing. The belief of RSS leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat that all Hindus will support the BJP will be severely tested.
Between the 2008 and 2004 Assembly elections, the party’s support base eroded by about three percentage points in the three districts of coastal Karnataka (down to 40.71 from 43.56 per cent).
The Sangh Parivar obviously wants to arrest this trend in the region. Mr. Bhat promised return of peace to the region if the BJP is elected as in Gujarat.
On the other hand, “a vote against the BJP would lead to disintegration of the country,” he cautions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
