Podcast: Remaking History - 1948 Police Action and the Muslims of Hyderabad, Deccan, India | Afsar Mohammad

Zonism and Hindutva | Christophe Jaffrelot, Kalrav Joshi

From Savarkar to Golwalkar, why Hindutva admires Zionism The foundation of this emerging alliance rests on hostility to Islam, but there are other affinities between Zionism and Hindutva. Both are characterised by ethno-nationalist ideologies that prioritise factors like race, territory and nativism Written by Christophe Jaffrelot, Kalrav Joshi Updated: December 7, 2023 12:00 IST https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/from-savarkar-to-golwankar-why-hindutva-admires-zionism-9057486/

Roots of Terrorism: In Religion or Politics

Roots of Terrorism: In Religion or in Politics Ram Puniyani Fifteen years ago, on 26 November 2008, Mumbai witnessed a horrific terror attack. Ten terrorists, armed to the teeth, landed in the city via sea route and indiscriminately killed 166 innocent citizens. The chief of the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), Hemant Karkare, and two other police officers were also killed in these coordinated attacks. Today, as we remember the horrors of 26/11, the impact of another act of terror by Hamas in Israel is very much in the air. The Mumbai attacks fifteen years ago were engineered by Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiaba (LeT). In all the years gone by, many parts of West Asia have witnessed terror acts, such as by the Taliban and the Islamic State or ISIS. In India, Kashmir has also suffered acts of terror, the roots of which lie in its complex political scenario. A section of the dominant media and many political commentators present all these acts as resulting from a common thread—boundary-less religious extremism related to Islam. However, this position ignores the deeper dynamics of these painful acts. However, nothing can be further from the truth. While many terror acts and groups have in common an Islamic identity, the underlying reasons for terrorism are highly varied. The birth of Hamas lies in the injustices heaped upon Palestinians and the total violation of United Nations resolutions by Israel time and again. The issue of Kashmir has another political dynamic altogether. Al Qaeda and ISIS are products of United States-sponsored training camps in Pakistan. Therefore, rather than roots in Islam, the origins of terror acts lie in deeper political issues. One major cause of acts of terrorism is the policies pursued by global superpowers trying to control oil wealth. The imperialists and their allies have their eyes fixed on appropriating global oil resources. In recent years, a central phenomenon that spurred the rise of terrorist groups has been the United States cultivating fundamentalist Islamist groups through the CIA in client states such as Pakistan. The United States’ goal to dominate West Asia due to its “oil hunger" has been brought out very well by many commentators. Their research based on the CIA’s own documents has shown how the CIA funded the training of the Mujahideen, ultimately leading to the formation of Al Qaeda and later ISIS. In his book, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War and the Roots of Terror (Harmony, 2003), Mahmood Mamdani writes that funding these outfits cost around $8,000 million and 7,000 tons of armaments. On 19 May 2009, then-United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that her country “came in in the ’80s and helped build up the Mujahideen to take on the Soviet Union in Afghanistan….The Soviet Union fell in 1989, and we basically said, thank you very much…” Many commentators and the mainstream media deliberately underplay how the United States funded madrasas in Pakistan to train Al Qaeda and its clones, who later became Frankenstein monsters for the country. What is also underplayed is how these terrorist outfits have hurt Muslims around the world. The Kashmir imbroglio has different dynamics. When the autonomy promised to Kashmir in Article 370 was undermined in the 1950s and 1960s, the disgruntled youth resorted to violent means instigated by Pakistan’s ISI, which had the backing of the United States. This situation was worsened by the entry of Al Qaeda clones in the 1990s, and the resistance in Kashmir, based on Kashmiriyat, or the synthesis of the region’s Buddhist, Vedantic and Sufi traditions, became a communal issue, and Kashmiri Pandits were targeted as a result. To restate: this terrorism had regional and local political undercurrents and expressed itself in the language of religion. Hamas has a different mechanism as far as its roots and origins are concerned. The Zionists initially declared an intention to settle in Palestine but began to appropriate the land. Further, they blocked any democratic expressions of resistance of Palestinians. It kept expanding the areas under occupation to the extent that, through two major expansions, its existing hyper-representation in the land (55% of land for 30% Jews) expanded the occupation to nearly 90% of Palestine. Zionists are occupiers who constantly try to extend their hold over the Palestinian lands. They resort to ancient holy books to claim that Palestine is their land and they are its chosen people. Their expansionism has reduced the Gaza Strip to an “open prison” and forced the West Bank Arabs to live with tremendous hardships. These three phenomena—Palestine, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban—are propagated as being due to Islamic terrorism. Nothing could be more myopic than this deliberate propaganda about ‘Islamic terrorism’ that the United States media has expounded in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. This propaganda allowed the United States to invade Afghanistan, where it killed 60,000 people. Its oil hunger led it to attack Iraq on the pretext that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction”, which it did not have. They repeatedly claimed that Iraqis would welcome the invasion of their country and greet the invading army “with flowers and chocolates”. Instead, Iraqis resisted, and the Islamic State was eventually born. The Mumbai terror attacks were also an outcome of sour Indo-Pak relations. As the army dominated Pakistan and was influenced by the United States, it harboured terrorist groups like the Lashkar e Taiba, which the Pakistan Army used to drive a wedge between Pakistan and India. As Pakistan’s civil leadership initiated some peace manoeuvres, the generals, uncomfortable with peace efforts, would unleash trouble—as when Pervez Musharraf occupied Kargil and later came the 26/11 attack. The 26/11 attack also led to the murder of Karkare, who was investigating terrorism cases from Malegaon to the Samjhauta Express, in which the likes of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Aseemanand, and Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit were arrested. Sadhvi is still on bail in the Malegaon blast case and once said she had given a "shraap" or curse to Karkare. While remembering the 26/11 tragedy of Mumbai and the killing of ordinary innocents and police personnel is very important, to think that it was due to religion is off the mark. To club all these geopolitical developments as ‘boundary-less religious extremism’ that is Islamic in nature serves the goals of imperialist nations and their allies who have wrought havoc in West Asia, particularly by training Al Qaeda. The media must go deeper into these developments instead of taking recourse to propaganda or easy ‘answers’ in blaming Muslims and Islam. Terrorism is not a religious but a political phenomenon with a range of instances from the Irish Republican Army to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and innumerable others.

UP: Banning Halal Meat

Uttar Pradesh: Divisive Agenda to the Fore Ram Puniyani A new divisive agenda has taken hold over India’s most populous state—on 18 November, the Uttar Pradesh government banned halal-certified edible items. In the province which has contributed the most prime ministers of India and where the holy sites of Ayodhya and Kashi, revered by the Hindus, are located, the ruling regime seems to have hit upon a pre-election issue to hit the bullseye with its core. Voters who might want to drift away, anguished by the lacklustre economic situation and poor employment record, seem never to lack a polarising issue to galvanise them in Uttar Pradesh. It began decades ago with the Ram Temple issue, but now politics is tuning into the Kashi Vishwanath temple ‘issue’. Meat and meat consumption capture headlines regularly while few note how Uttar Pradesh has become a hub for wandering stray cattle, which are allowed to recklessly roam the streets, creating a nuisance, falling prey to passing cars, if not raiding standing crops and adding to farmers’ economic losses. Politics related to cow slaughter and allegations of eating beef have taken many lives in Uttar Pradesh—the lynching of Akhlaq, Junaid, and Rakbar Khan, among others, sent shockwaves at regular intervals. Still, those ruling the state apparatus seem to have an appetite to repeatedly bring up the meat issue. Uttar Pradesh has paid dearly for communal politics every time it has been raked up. So-called love jihad was drummed into such a heated political issue in the state that it culminated in the Muzaffarnagar violence of 2013. With Adityanath Yogi as the Chief Minister since 2017, the problems of Uttar Pradesh have only grown. The frequency with which hate speeches are made, the raids on meat shops that have devastated the economy of a section of the Muslims and Dalits, and the introduction of bulldozer (in)justice—all have frightening consequences for the disadvantaged groups, and especially for the religious minorities. Interestingly, the ban on halal-certified edible products applies only to the local market. Products meant for export have been excluded, though all meat exported to countries where halal meat is consumed requires halal certification. Halal, in Arabic, simply designates what is permissible as per Islamic religious practices. Halal certification of meat items guarantees that the animals, including poultry, were slaughtered in the prescribed Islamic way. India has no clear nationwide law or rule that requires halal meat to be sold—it has been left to individual preferences. Meat that is exported is, naturally, subject to proper checks for halal certification. The halal trade is economically highly significant—a roughly $3.5 trillion industry—and India has benefitted vastly from the promotion of halal exports. Its significant trading partners are the Organization of Islamic Countries and South East Asian nations. The Uttar Pradesh government has justified the ban by saying that some companies had issued “forged” halal certificates for financial gain—meaning that they did not follow the prescribed rules, but claimed they did. Surprisingly, a communal angle has been inserted into the forgery allegation by claiming that these companies cause social animosity and violate public trust. If the issue is fake halal certificates, why impose a blanket ban on domestic sales? If it is about animosity, where is the evidence? Indeed, a more detailed presentation of the facts of this case known so far is here but was there a need to ban halal certified foods altogether? Does not the state government, along with the Centre, need to thrash out the law it wishes to prescribe, or not, in a more dignified and realistic fashion? According to Mufti Habeeb Yusuf Qasmi, president of the Halal Council of India, the controversy over halal certification reflects the propensity to view every development from a myopic Hindu-Muslim lens. “Halal is about hygiene and purity. It is not a Hindu-Muslim matter but about food,” he said. Indeed, while the meat trade and beef export are associated with Muslims, many prominent companies in the meat and beef trade are from the majority community—Al Kabeer Exports, one of the biggest meat exporters, is owned by Satish Sabharwal, and Sunil Kapoor owns Arabian Exports Pvt. Ltd. There are many such instances. All in all, the ban implies that those who do wish to consume certified halal edibles—which is, of course, the Muslims—would be denied access to these items. The situation is made even more ironic when the state government sees an effort to create a market for halal-certified products as a “conspiracy”. But in the past, the state government’s problem was also with small meat traders, many of whom are Muslims. Immediately after coming to power, the Yogi Adityanath government shut many meat shops, saying they did not have proper licenses. In the end, the Allahabad High Court asked the Yogi Adityanath government under which provision of law were meat shops in the state capital, Lucknow, being forced to shut. It rapped the Lucknow Municipal Corporation for not having taken timely action to renew the licenses of meat shops. Meat has become a major irritant in Uttar Pradesh—one that has repeatedly aided the Uttar Pradesh government in polarising the state’s people and politics. But the politics of the Chief Minister goes beyond food. In a very blunt fashion, he coined the ‘80-20’ term, which implied that he was not banking on getting votes from the Muslims, who are 20% of the population of Uttar Pradesh. He put forward this formulation in an advertisement in a national newspaper, the dog whistle intensifying the communal divide as expected. He also uses the term “abba-jaan”, which means dear father in Urdu, in his speeches to humiliate the Muslim community—he actually accused the community of appropriating food grains meant for all communities. He deliberately attributed the violence in Muzaffarnagar to its Muslim residents, although numerous fact-finding reports have disclosed that the violence was orchestrated in the name of the “security of Hindu girls”. Further, it is not in dispute that the violence led to the large-scale displacement of Muslims from Muzaffarnagar, and that the Jats in the area suffered, too, but their losses were far fewer. Yogi Adityanath recklessly targeted the Muslim residents of Kairana town when he spread myths about the forced displacement of Hindus. It turned out that 346 Hindus had migrated away from Kairana, mainly for economic reasons. Another divisive practice introduced by the Yogi Adityanath government, which other chief ministers of BJP-ruled states have adopted, is of bulldozing residential and commercial properties, mainly of Muslims and the poor, on a variety of pretexts. After the fact, the authorities paper over their actions by making claims about having sent notices and that the bulldozed structure was illegal. Indeed, a structure could be illegal, but are bulldozers the government's only administrative tool against them? From recent experience, it has become evident that bulldozers are selectively used against Muslims and those the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) considers its rivals or opponents. The practice, whatever the pretexts, has devastated coexistence in Uttar Pradesh, especially its Muslim residents. That is why it has been said that “while Yogi Adityanath has called bulldozers a symbol of development and peace and a means to enforce the law, the opposition has criticised his government by calling bulldozer ‘justice’ a violation of the law”. All in all, the ban on halal products for domestic consumption is yet another instance of the divisive policies initiated in BJP-ruled Uttar Pradesh. Halal certification is internationally accepted, and respecting people's feelings is the core of a plural society. Halal products, it must be remembered, are not just meat or culinary items but an array of products and services that inform the lives of many Indian citizens. Whatever the pretext for banning halal certification, this step will worsen the communal divide already prevalent in society. One also must understand that the BJP repeatedly needs to strengthen its divisive core, especially since the Lok Sabha election is due in a few months. The halal ban is yet another issue for the BJP to whip up in the service of sectarian politics. Food habits and personal preferences, guided by the cultural practices of any community, must be respected. What fits the bill in a plural, diverse society should not be outlawed.

Ambedkar: RSS-Two opposite poles of Indian Political spectrum

RSS and Ambedkar: Two Poles of Indian Political Spectrum Ram Puniyani RSS ideology and Ambedkar’s ideology can be called as two opposite poles of the Indian political spectrum. While Ambedkar stands for ‘annihilation of caste’, struggle for democratic values and marching towards social justice, RSS stands for status quo and ‘revival of the hierarchical values system’ of pre modern times. It is ironic that despite these core opposition; RSS ideologues try to make a show of paying respect to Ambedkar in various forums including celebrating his anniversary. So in a way, it was not surprising when RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat in his annual Vijyadashmi speech (October 24, 2024) called upon his followers to read speeches of Ambedkar, particularly the last two speeches delivered by him in the Constituent Assembly. Bhagawat went to the extent of putting Ambedkar in the category of RSS founder and First Sarsanghchalak (Supreme leader) of RSS, Dr. K. B. Hedgewar. The response of RSS types to Ambedkar’s striving has always been to oppose his efforts at ideological level under the garb of ‘our glorious past’. As such the struggle for social justice which initially came up in the form of ‘Non-Brahmin Movement’ in Nagpur area of Vidarbha (1920s) was one of the major reasons for the Landlord-Brahmin alliance to form RSS. In Maharashtra, this alliance is referred to as Shetji-Bhatji (Landlord-Brahmin) Alliance. The dalit awakening began with Jotirao Phule who struggled to open schools for education for dalits. The awakening of this section was backed up and enhanced by Ambedkar starting his paper Mooknayak in 1920 and Bahujan Hitkarini Sabha in 1923. These might have added tremendously to awakening. Later in his pursuit for social justice Ambedkar organized Chavdar Talab movement (access to public drinking water for dalits) in 1927 and Kalaram Temple entry movement in 1930. RSS itself is never known to have come forward to support these movements of Babasaheb. Actually it was Gandhi, who took up the caste issue most seriously and devoted his time exclusively for improving dalit’s plight for the next few years after the Poona Pact of 1932. RSS was propagating Hindu Rashtra. Savarkar was at the forefront of the theory that there are two Nations here, the Hindu Nation and Muslim Nation. This Hindu nation theory propagated by RSS came under severe criticism from Ambedkar as he wrote, "Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it. Both agree not only agree, but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation." (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar wrote in his well-known book Thoughts on Pakistan, published in 1940.) Ambedkar was totally opposed to the concept of Hindu Nation, “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.… Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost,” wrote B.R. Ambedkar in Pakistan or the Partition of India (1946, pages 354-355). He was against majoritarianism, which in the Indian context meant unbridled rule of the majority community, the Hindus. This is the current dominant ideology of RSS led by Bhagwat as Narendra Modi has come forward to defend it by asking as to what is wrong with Majoritarianism? After the presentation of the final draft of the Constitution, RSS opposition to the draft of the Indian Constitution came from the ‘unofficial mouthpiece’ of the RSS, Organiser. It wrote a scathing piece against the Indian Constitution, Organiser issue for November 30, 1949, carried an editorial stating “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat…is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”. Hindu Code Bill drafted by Ambedkar was a major step in efforts towards loosening the hold of patriarchy and striving for equality of women. The orthodox forces led by RSS frontally attacked it. Ramchandra Guha, the eminent historian of Modern India, writes, “The Sangh opposed the passage of the Hindu Code Bill that sought to give Hindu women the right to marry outside their caste, divorce their husband, and inherit property. In 1949, the RSS organized hundreds of meetings and protests across India to stop the bill, where sadhus and sants came to speak.” The constituent Assembly in its wisdom enunciated the provisions of reservation for SC and STs. Through word of mouth propaganda, these provisions were undermined and defamed leading to anti-Dalit violence in Gujarat in 1980-1981 and again in 1985. Similarly OBC reservation provision, Mandal Commission was indirectly opposed when Rath Yatras for Ram Temple were jacked up and the then major leader of BJP, Atal Bihari Vajpayee stated something to the effect that “They brought Mandal, so brought Kamadal”. Interestingly, RSS combine organized the Babri demolition on 6th December on the death Anniversary of Ambedkar, a tactical move to undermine the importance of this day for democratic values. As far as the status of religious minorities was concerned Ambedkar was for providing full protective clauses for them. Though these clauses have not been implemented in full any time, the attempt to implement them is labeled as ‘minority appeasement’. Babasaheb was for implementing the concept of Fraternity; on the contrary the politics of majoritiarinanism has spread hatred against minorities, leading to violence and polarization of society. The concept of Social democracy was an inalienable part of democracy as far as Ambedkar was concerned. He was for ‘annihilation of caste’. RSS on contrary has founded “Samajik Samrasta Manch” (Social harmony Forum). For RSS different castes were part of the whole giving the strength to Hindu society! In this lies the major opposition between the ideologies of these two streams. Attempt of Hindu majoritarian politics is to maintain the caste hierarchy in newer terminologies. While paying lip service to the Indian Constitution, its ideologues are arguing that India is a ‘Civilizational state’ (symbol for caste and gender hierarchical values in holy books like Manusmriti) for which the Constitution should be secondary! Cleverly while being totally opposed to Ambedkar, ‘RSS Combine’ is paying lip service and now even quoting him. This is a clever ploy meant purely for electoral purposes.

Announced: Upcoming Report on Hindutva in Britain -- zoom launch on Nov 21, 2023

 

Ambedkar and RSS: Two Opposite Poles of Indian Political Spectrum

RSS and Ambedkar: Two Poles of Indian Political Spectrum Ram Puniyani RSS ideology and Ambedkar’s ideology can be called as two opposite poles of the Indian political spectrum. While Ambedkar stands for ‘annihilation of caste’, struggle for democratic values and marching towards social justice, RSS stands for status quo and ‘revival of the hierarchical values system’ of pre modern times. It is ironic that despite these core opposition; RSS ideologues try to make a show of paying respect to Ambedkar in various forums including celebrating his anniversary. So in a way, it was not surprising when RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat in his annual Vijyadashmi speech (October 24, 2024) called upon his followers to read speeches of Ambedkar, particularly the last two speeches delivered by him in the Constituent Assembly. Bhagawat went to the extent of putting Ambedkar in the category of RSS founder and First Sarsanghchalak (Supreme leader) of RSS, Dr. K. B. Hedgewar. The response of RSS types to Ambedkar’s striving has always been to oppose his efforts at ideological level under the garb of ‘our glorious past’. As such the struggle for social justice which initially came up in the form of ‘Non-Brahmin Movement’ in Nagpur area of Vidarbha (1920s) was one of the major reasons for the Landlord-Brahmin alliance to form RSS. In Maharashtra, this alliance is referred to as Shetji-Bhatji (Landlord-Brahmin) Alliance. The dalit awakening began with Jotirao Phule who struggled to open schools for education for dalits. The awakening of this section was backed up and enhanced by Ambedkar starting his paper Mooknayak in 1920 and Bahujan Hitkarini Sabha in 1923. These might have added tremendously to awakening. Later in his pursuit for social justice Ambedkar organized Chavdar Talab movement (access to public drinking water for dalits) in 1927 and Kalaram Temple entry movement in 1930. RSS itself is never known to have come forward to support these movements of Babasaheb. Actually it was Gandhi, who took up the caste issue most seriously and devoted his time exclusively for improving dalit’s plight for the next few years after the Poona Pact of 1932. RSS was propagating Hindu Rashtra. Savarkar was at the forefront of the theory that there are two Nations here, the Hindu Nation and Muslim Nation. This Hindu nation theory propagated by RSS came under severe criticism from Ambedkar as he wrote, "Strange as it may appear, Mr. Savarkar and Mr. Jinnah, instead of being opposed to each other on the one nation versus two nations issue, are in complete agreement about it. Both agree not only agree, but insist that there are two nations in India—one the Muslim nation and the other the Hindu nation." (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar wrote in his well-known book Thoughts on Pakistan, published in 1940.) Ambedkar was totally opposed to the concept of Hindu Nation, “If Hindu Raj does become a fact, it will, no doubt, be the greatest calamity for this country.… Hindu Raj must be prevented at any cost,” wrote B.R. Ambedkar in Pakistan or the Partition of India (1946, pages 354-355). He was against majoritarianism, which in the Indian context meant unbridled rule of the majority community, the Hindus. This is the current dominant ideology of RSS led by Bhagwat as Narendra Modi has come forward to defend it by asking as to what is wrong with Majoritarianism? After the presentation of the final draft of the Constitution, RSS opposition to the draft of the Indian Constitution came from the ‘unofficial mouthpiece’ of the RSS, Organiser. It wrote a scathing piece against the Indian Constitution, Organiser issue for November 30, 1949, carried an editorial stating “The worst [thing] about the new Constitution of Bharat…is that there is nothing Bharatiya about it… [T]here is no trace of ancient Bharatiya constitutional laws, institutions, nomenclature and phraseology in it”. Hindu Code Bill drafted by Ambedkar was a major step in efforts towards loosening the hold of patriarchy and striving for equality of women. The orthodox forces led by RSS frontally attacked it. Ramchandra Guha, the eminent historian of Modern India, writes, “The Sangh opposed the passage of the Hindu Code Bill that sought to give Hindu women the right to marry outside their caste, divorce their husband, and inherit property. In 1949, the RSS organized hundreds of meetings and protests across India to stop the bill, where sadhus and sants came to speak.” The constituent Assembly in its wisdom enunciated the provisions of reservation for SC and STs. Through word of mouth propaganda, these provisions were undermined and defamed leading to anti-Dalit violence in Gujarat in 1980-1981 and again in 1985. Similarly OBC reservation provision, Mandal Commission was indirectly opposed when Rath Yatras for Ram Temple were jacked up and the then major leader of BJP, Atal Bihari Vajpayee stated something to the effect that “They brought Mandal, so brought Kamadal”. Interestingly, RSS combine organized the Babri demolition on 6th December on the death Anniversary of Ambedkar, a tactical move to undermine the importance of this day for democratic values. As far as the status of religious minorities was concerned Ambedkar was for providing full protective clauses for them. Though these clauses have not been implemented in full any time, the attempt to implement them is labeled as ‘minority appeasement’. Babasaheb was for implementing the concept of Fraternity; on the contrary the politics of majoritiarinanism has spread hatred against minorities, leading to violence and polarization of society. The concept of Social democracy was an inalienable part of democracy as far as Ambedkar was concerned. He was for ‘annihilation of caste’. RSS on contrary has founded “Samajik Samrasta Manch” (Social harmony Forum). For RSS different castes were part of the whole giving the strength to Hindu society! In this lies the major opposition between the ideologies of these two streams. Attempt of Hindu majoritarian politics is to maintain the caste hierarchy in newer terminologies. While paying lip service to the Indian Constitution, its ideologues are arguing that India is a ‘Civilizational state’ (symbol for caste and gender hierarchical values in holy books like Manusmriti) for which the Constitution should be secondary! Cleverly while being totally opposed to Ambedkar, ‘RSS Combine’ is paying lip service and now even quoting him. This is a clever ploy meant purely for electoral purposes.