The letter I posted to the Letters in The Hindu.
Sir, This is with reference to the bill passed by the Gujarat Assembly to make voting in local body elections mandatory. The Chief Minister is reported to have explained that the new rule was not to ‘punish’ the ‘defaulters’ but only to instill in them a sense of ‘discipline’ so as to strengthen democracy. But the wish to discipline and punish is authoritarian, not democratic. Whatever the bill says, no one can be punished on this count.
It is common knowledge that the right to vote is not an obligation or a duty one can default or breach, or a largesse of the State government, but an inalienable right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The right of a voter to choose a candidate is absolute, which includes also the right not to choose any candidate.
The real purpose of the bill, it appears, is to bring all the voters of the majority community to the polling booths, hoping that they would vote en bloc only for their community candidates. Vote-bank politics in disguise!
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
The occasion was the news item given below.
Modi makes it compulsory to vote in local bodies elections in Gujarat
The Hindu, Date:20/12/2009 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2009/12/20/stories/2009122060790800.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National
Now, it is compulsory to vote in local bodies elections in Gujarat
Manas Dasgupta
Assembly adopts Bill; a historic move to strengthen democracy, says Chief Minister
GANDHINAGAR: The Gujarat Assembly on Saturday adopted an official Bill making voting compulsory in elections to all the local bodies in the State amidst opposition from the Congress which termed the move as “impractical and designed with political motives.”
Gujarat has emerged as the first State in the country to make voting compulsory in the local elections following the example, as Chief Minister Narendra Modi described, of 32 countries where the pattern of exercising the adult franchise showed a remarkable improvement from 45 per cent to over 90 per cent.
Earlier, the House also adopted another official Bill providing for death penalty for those who manufacture, supply and distribute spurious liquor causing loss of precious human lives. The Bill, which was earlier adopted by the House in July but was returned by the then Governor, S. C. Jamir, for reconsideration on grounds that the provision of death penalty could be prescribed only in the Central Acts, was re-introduced in the same form without taking the Governor’s concern into account and passed by the House second time amidst protests from the Congress Opposition benches.
Talking to journalists after the adoption of the “Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment), 2009,” the Chief Minister described the measure to make voting compulsory in the local body elections as a “historic move to strengthen democracy” and taking it from “drawing room politics to the polling booth level.”
Regretting that the kind of solidarity the people showed in lighting the candles in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attack was not demonstrated in the elections to choose their own rulers who would handle such situations, Mr. Modi said Gujarat had shown the way and hopefully other States and the country would follow suit. Claiming that the move would help eliminate some corrupt practices in the electoral process, he said, “politics and politicians would have to think beyond vote bank politics and ethnic groups and regional settings.”
He said the idea was not to “punish” the “defaulters” who fail to cast their votes without a valid reason, but to instill a sense of discipline. “Why should not people spare just half-an-hour as and when the elections are held to cast their votes?” he asked. It was intriguing that the candidates and parties with support of less than 25 per cent of the total voters ruled for years because a large majority of people did not participate in the voting and had no voice in selecting their rulers, he said.
The Bill seeks to make voting compulsory in all the seven municipal corporations, 159 municipalities, 26 district panchayats, 223 taluka panchayats and over 13,000 village panchayats in the State. It empowers an official chosen by the State Election Commission to declare an absent voter as a “defaulter” except under the circumstances of illness or being away from the state or the country on the voting day. The defaulter could be “punished” under rules to be framed by the government later after giving due notice.
The House also passed another official measure providing 50 per cent reservation for women in all the local bodies in the state.
After a marathon debate, the House passed the “Bombay Prohibition (Gujarat Amendment) Bill, 2009” providing for death penalty for the handlers of the spurious liquor. The Bill was originally passed in July in the aftermath of the hooch tragedy in Ahmedabad in which 136 people were killed and many others affected by partial blindness and other complications. The then Governor, however, had returned the bill for re-consideration and wider discussions with various sections of the society before re-adoption. Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly Shaktisinh Gohil said, the Bill was “merely a political gimmick of the ruling BJP to garner cheap popularity and indulge in muscle flexing to show that the Central government is not helpful. It is an extension of the confrontationist mindset of the State against the Centre,” he said.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
The Hindu on Rita Bahuguna Joshi's verbal violence
This is what I sent The Hindu in response to its editorial, The violence of words (July 17):
The editorial, The violence of words (July 17) says, Ms. Mayavati ‘quite rightly took offence at the remarks’ about rape made by Ms. Joshi. Using rape for settling political rivalry, whoever does it, is despicable, but does Ms. Mayavati, who had made almost similar remarks about rape in 2007, have the right to take offence now?
Let us hope the Congress president would remove Ms. Joshi from the party post immediately, as is demanded by The Hindu, but who would chastise Ms. Mayavati for her verbal violence? I wish the editorial had been more even handed.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
Prof. P.P.Sudhakaran (Retd.),
301, East Mansion,
No.2. Hutchins Road,
Cooke Town,
Bangalore. 560005.
Ph. 080 25467483
As expected with more certitude than usual, it was not published.
This is the editorial concerned:
The violence of words
Words, however provocative, cannot justify violent acts. But Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee president Rita Bahuguna Joshi exceeded all limits of political decency in her attack on Chief Minister Mayawati in the context of the State government’s offer of monetary assistance to a rape victim. Without doubt, the attack and arson at the residence of Ms Joshi deserve condemnation; and her arrest and remand under different sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act do seem excessive. But this over-reaction must not be allowed to divert attention from the viciousness and vulgarity of what the UPCC chief said and meant (notwithstanding her and her party’s half-hearted attempts at apology that seem more like rationalisation of political stupidity). Quite rightly, Chief Minister Mayawati took offence at the remarks, which she described as “humiliating, uncivilised, and derogatory.” If Ms Joshi wanted to make the point that cash cannot compensate for anything that cannot be bought, she could have done so without invoking the language of sexual assault against Ms Mayawati. If the Congress leader’s intention was to call attention to the vulnerability of women, that point was lost in the gutter-level personal attack.
Not surprisingly, Ms Joshi found little or no support from women functionaries in her own party and in alliance parties. If the Congress is determined to take the line that the charges filed against their U.P. unit president are politically motivated and unjustified, then the party must first unequivocally condemn, and distance itself from, Ms Joshi’s remarks. This means immediately removing her from the post of UPCC president. Independent of whether the specific charges against Ms Joshi will stand in a court of law, the Congress must abandon its present stance of hiding behind the legal issues and taking the moral low ground. Cash as “compensation” might sound morally abhorrent to some people but the reality is that most rape victims need the help and solidarity of the state to rebuild their lives. In a society where they tend to be stigmatised, the state must have adequate support systems in place to help them overcome the trauma. Monetary aid must be seen not as “compensation” for rape but as an essential element in the rehabilitation of the affected persons, most of whom are from a deprived background. Most damagingly, the stigma attached to rape is now being extended to accepting material help from the state. Ms Joshi has done more harm than vilifying Chief Minister Mayawati — and Congress president Sonia Gandhi must act immediately to remove her from the party post.
The editorial, The violence of words (July 17) says, Ms. Mayavati ‘quite rightly took offence at the remarks’ about rape made by Ms. Joshi. Using rape for settling political rivalry, whoever does it, is despicable, but does Ms. Mayavati, who had made almost similar remarks about rape in 2007, have the right to take offence now?
Let us hope the Congress president would remove Ms. Joshi from the party post immediately, as is demanded by The Hindu, but who would chastise Ms. Mayavati for her verbal violence? I wish the editorial had been more even handed.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
Prof. P.P.Sudhakaran (Retd.),
301, East Mansion,
No.2. Hutchins Road,
Cooke Town,
Bangalore. 560005.
Ph. 080 25467483
As expected with more certitude than usual, it was not published.
This is the editorial concerned:
The violence of words
Words, however provocative, cannot justify violent acts. But Uttar Pradesh Congress Committee president Rita Bahuguna Joshi exceeded all limits of political decency in her attack on Chief Minister Mayawati in the context of the State government’s offer of monetary assistance to a rape victim. Without doubt, the attack and arson at the residence of Ms Joshi deserve condemnation; and her arrest and remand under different sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act do seem excessive. But this over-reaction must not be allowed to divert attention from the viciousness and vulgarity of what the UPCC chief said and meant (notwithstanding her and her party’s half-hearted attempts at apology that seem more like rationalisation of political stupidity). Quite rightly, Chief Minister Mayawati took offence at the remarks, which she described as “humiliating, uncivilised, and derogatory.” If Ms Joshi wanted to make the point that cash cannot compensate for anything that cannot be bought, she could have done so without invoking the language of sexual assault against Ms Mayawati. If the Congress leader’s intention was to call attention to the vulnerability of women, that point was lost in the gutter-level personal attack.
Not surprisingly, Ms Joshi found little or no support from women functionaries in her own party and in alliance parties. If the Congress is determined to take the line that the charges filed against their U.P. unit president are politically motivated and unjustified, then the party must first unequivocally condemn, and distance itself from, Ms Joshi’s remarks. This means immediately removing her from the post of UPCC president. Independent of whether the specific charges against Ms Joshi will stand in a court of law, the Congress must abandon its present stance of hiding behind the legal issues and taking the moral low ground. Cash as “compensation” might sound morally abhorrent to some people but the reality is that most rape victims need the help and solidarity of the state to rebuild their lives. In a society where they tend to be stigmatised, the state must have adequate support systems in place to help them overcome the trauma. Monetary aid must be seen not as “compensation” for rape but as an essential element in the rehabilitation of the affected persons, most of whom are from a deprived background. Most damagingly, the stigma attached to rape is now being extended to accepting material help from the state. Ms Joshi has done more harm than vilifying Chief Minister Mayawati — and Congress president Sonia Gandhi must act immediately to remove her from the party post.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Crisis in BJP contd.
This is what The Hindu published on 17.6.2009. The editor's heavy hand has done its work this time also, but there is no mutilation.
After throwing Hindutva out, there will be no BJP left to save. The BJP was launched to first win and then keep in perpetuity the Hindu vote bank, which its leaders thought was waiting to be used. But Hindus were never a single vote bank. The grand Hindu identity is an artificial construct, the real being the sub-identities of castes and sub-castes, which have already aligned themselves with various regional and national parties occupying almost the entire political space. The BJP, therefore, is left with only one option — disintegrate.
P.P. Sudhakaran
After throwing Hindutva out, there will be no BJP left to save. The BJP was launched to first win and then keep in perpetuity the Hindu vote bank, which its leaders thought was waiting to be used. But Hindus were never a single vote bank. The grand Hindu identity is an artificial construct, the real being the sub-identities of castes and sub-castes, which have already aligned themselves with various regional and national parties occupying almost the entire political space. The BJP, therefore, is left with only one option — disintegrate.
P.P. Sudhakaran
Monday, June 15, 2009
BJP’s deepening crisis
The Hindu today came out with an editorial that is fairly accurate in its analysis but off the mark in its prognosis.
Here is the editorial:
Date:16/06/2009 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2009/06/16/stories/2009061655290800.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion - Editorials
BJP’s deepening crisis
Nothing fails like failure, judging from the upheavals in the Bharatiya Janata Party following its worst electoral performance in two decades. A defeat on this scale was bound to lead to some discord but the profound unrest points to an existential crisis in a party whose claimed strengths have been its discipline and its rock-solid faith in Hindutva. Today these ideals appear under serious challenge, with dissidents rising in open rebellion against the leadership and ques tioning the mobilisational utility of Hindutva. At the centre of the storm are former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh and former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha. Both have hit out at the leadership quartet of Lal Krishna Advani, Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj, and Arun Jaitley. Significantly, the anger seems directed more at the last three than at Mr. Advani who was re-elected party leader in the Lok Sabha. The reason for this is twofold. Mr. Advani, who went into the election as the party’s prime ministerial candidate, owned up responsibility for the defeat, although he was quickly persuaded to stay on. Secondly, the dissidents know that the 80-year-old leader’s re-appointment is a holding operation and that the real jockeying for power will start later this year when a successor will be chosen.
Naturally, last week’s key decisions — the appointment of Ms Swaraj as deputy leader in the Lok Sabha and Mr. Jaitley as leader in the Rajya Sabha, with Mr. Rajnath Singh continuing as party chief — have raised hackles in some quarters. Mr. Jaswant Singh and Mr. Sinha, who lead the BJP’s middle rung, feel outmanoeuvred by the ‘gang of three’ who seem to have promoted the impression that one among them would lead the party into the 16th general election. But there is more to this churning than the personal ambitions of a handful of malcontents. The BJP’s rout has brought home the brutal truth that Hindutva — and by extension the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh — has little purchase among today’s young voters. That the RSS has been pitching for a younger leadership underscores the irony. The BJP’s biggest problem is the stifling relationship in which it is trapped with its ideological and ‘social’ mentor. Sections of the party want a rethink on the association — Mr. Jaswant Singh has gone so far as to claim that he did not know what Hindutva meant — yet predictably the leadership has squashed speculation through loud reiterations of loyalty to the command centre. With the revolt gathering force, the party can take one of two courses: take the RSS bull by its horns and move away from the disruptive influence of Hindutva — or fall back on its Jana Sangh pre-history of ideological obscurantism, isolation, and political stagnation.
I think, BJP has hardly any choice but disintegrate. Its best moment was in 1999 when its Hindutva frenzy bred success facilitated forming a government with the support of about 23 other parties with opportunism as their main ideology. It thought that it was the only natural and legitimate ruling dispensation for India as the 'Hindus' were about 80% of the population and it was "the" party of the hindus. Therefore, it was 'shocked' by the 2004 results, and it preferred to delude itself with the explanation that the defeat was a freak accident. When the 2009 elections repeated the previous verdict with more devastating losses, even the delusions deserted its leaders, who are now savaging on each other.
Since a letter has to be brief and compact, I sent only the following to The Hindu. As always, I am not anxious that it publishes. But I wish it does, so that I can develop it for the Open Page.
This is the letter I sent:
Sir,
The editorial, BJP’s deepening crisis (June 16), has hit the bull’s eye as far as the gravity of the crisis is concerned, but the solution it suggested may not work. After throwing ‘hindutva’ water out, there won’t be a BJP baby left to save. BJP was launched to first win and then keep in perpetuity the ‘Hindu’ vote bank, which its leaders thought was there just waiting to be milked. But the Hindus never were or will ever be a single vote bank, because, the grand “Hindu” identity is an artificial construct, the real being the sub-identities of castes and sub-castes, which have already aligned themselves with various regional and national parties that are now occupying almost all available political spaces. BJP is, therefore, left with only a Hobson’s choice – disintegrate!
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
Prof. P.P.Sudhakaran (Retd.)
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road, Cooke Town,
Bangalore. 560 005.
Ph. 080 25467483
Here is the editorial:
Date:16/06/2009 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2009/06/16/stories/2009061655290800.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion - Editorials
BJP’s deepening crisis
Nothing fails like failure, judging from the upheavals in the Bharatiya Janata Party following its worst electoral performance in two decades. A defeat on this scale was bound to lead to some discord but the profound unrest points to an existential crisis in a party whose claimed strengths have been its discipline and its rock-solid faith in Hindutva. Today these ideals appear under serious challenge, with dissidents rising in open rebellion against the leadership and ques tioning the mobilisational utility of Hindutva. At the centre of the storm are former External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh and former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha. Both have hit out at the leadership quartet of Lal Krishna Advani, Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj, and Arun Jaitley. Significantly, the anger seems directed more at the last three than at Mr. Advani who was re-elected party leader in the Lok Sabha. The reason for this is twofold. Mr. Advani, who went into the election as the party’s prime ministerial candidate, owned up responsibility for the defeat, although he was quickly persuaded to stay on. Secondly, the dissidents know that the 80-year-old leader’s re-appointment is a holding operation and that the real jockeying for power will start later this year when a successor will be chosen.
Naturally, last week’s key decisions — the appointment of Ms Swaraj as deputy leader in the Lok Sabha and Mr. Jaitley as leader in the Rajya Sabha, with Mr. Rajnath Singh continuing as party chief — have raised hackles in some quarters. Mr. Jaswant Singh and Mr. Sinha, who lead the BJP’s middle rung, feel outmanoeuvred by the ‘gang of three’ who seem to have promoted the impression that one among them would lead the party into the 16th general election. But there is more to this churning than the personal ambitions of a handful of malcontents. The BJP’s rout has brought home the brutal truth that Hindutva — and by extension the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh — has little purchase among today’s young voters. That the RSS has been pitching for a younger leadership underscores the irony. The BJP’s biggest problem is the stifling relationship in which it is trapped with its ideological and ‘social’ mentor. Sections of the party want a rethink on the association — Mr. Jaswant Singh has gone so far as to claim that he did not know what Hindutva meant — yet predictably the leadership has squashed speculation through loud reiterations of loyalty to the command centre. With the revolt gathering force, the party can take one of two courses: take the RSS bull by its horns and move away from the disruptive influence of Hindutva — or fall back on its Jana Sangh pre-history of ideological obscurantism, isolation, and political stagnation.
I think, BJP has hardly any choice but disintegrate. Its best moment was in 1999 when its Hindutva frenzy bred success facilitated forming a government with the support of about 23 other parties with opportunism as their main ideology. It thought that it was the only natural and legitimate ruling dispensation for India as the 'Hindus' were about 80% of the population and it was "the" party of the hindus. Therefore, it was 'shocked' by the 2004 results, and it preferred to delude itself with the explanation that the defeat was a freak accident. When the 2009 elections repeated the previous verdict with more devastating losses, even the delusions deserted its leaders, who are now savaging on each other.
Since a letter has to be brief and compact, I sent only the following to The Hindu. As always, I am not anxious that it publishes. But I wish it does, so that I can develop it for the Open Page.
This is the letter I sent:
Sir,
The editorial, BJP’s deepening crisis (June 16), has hit the bull’s eye as far as the gravity of the crisis is concerned, but the solution it suggested may not work. After throwing ‘hindutva’ water out, there won’t be a BJP baby left to save. BJP was launched to first win and then keep in perpetuity the ‘Hindu’ vote bank, which its leaders thought was there just waiting to be milked. But the Hindus never were or will ever be a single vote bank, because, the grand “Hindu” identity is an artificial construct, the real being the sub-identities of castes and sub-castes, which have already aligned themselves with various regional and national parties that are now occupying almost all available political spaces. BJP is, therefore, left with only a Hobson’s choice – disintegrate!
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
Prof. P.P.Sudhakaran (Retd.)
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road, Cooke Town,
Bangalore. 560 005.
Ph. 080 25467483
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
The Hindu does it again
Sir,
The editorial, ‘Political fight on legal issue’ (June 9), does not appear to be an instance of journalistic ‘independence’ The Hindu claims and its readers value. Governor is not a rubber stamp. Permission to prosecute is not a pronouncement of guilt. Gathering of more evidence to substantiate his decision could have been appreciated. Instead, The Hindu faulted him for not being ‘less discrete’! The truth of the case will be known only after the trial is over. Why is The Hindu appearing to be against finding out truth?
The above letter I sent to The Hindu in response to its editorial on 9.6.2009.
This is the editorial:
Political fight on legal issue
The Hindu, 9.6.2009, Editorial
Something is clearly amiss in the motivation, manner, and timing of Governor R.S. Gavai’s grant of sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to prosecute Communist Party of India (Marxist) Kerala State secretary Pinarayi Vijayan in a corruption case. The State Cabinet, acting on the basis of the views expressed by the Advocate General, advised against giving permission for prosecution in the case. But the Governor chose to ignore the advice and gave the go-ahea d to the investigating agency in the long-pending SNC-Lavalin case. Independent of the issue of whether or not he was bound to go wholly by the Cabinet’s advice in granting permission for the prosecution of public servants, the Governor should have shown scrupulous caution and less discretion, given the twists and turns of the case in keeping with the changes in the political landscape of Kerala. Instead of accepting or rejecting the CBI’s request on the basis of the material originally submitted by it, Mr. Gavai went out of his way to obtain additional material as evidence in order to buttress his own decision to grant sanction in the face of government’s advice to the contrary. The hidden political hand at work is that of the Congress, which heads the government at the Centre and is the main opposition party in Kerala.
The Governor is a political appointee of the Centre. It is well established that gubernatorial office is more often than not misused by the party heading the Central government. Following the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Bommai case (1991), the prospect of a head of State dismissing a government is virtually non-existent. But the office continues to be used in myriad ways by the political establishment at the Centre to needle State governments headed by political rivals. To make matters worse, the integrity and independence of the investigative process under the law of the land are further compromised. On sensitive issues such as the prosecution of political opponents, as the handling of cases against Mulayam Singh, and Lalu Prasad demonstrates, the CBI has been stripped of professionalism and made a political tool. In the case of Pinarayi Vijayan, the Governor and the CBI have combined to great political effect. They have of course been helped in this matter by the factionalism within the CPI(M): Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan is known to hold the view that Mr. Vijayan ought to face prosecution. Political manoeuvring derails serious investigation of corruption cases, and erodes people’s faith in constitutional authorities. For the CPI(M), as for Mr. Vijayan, the fight will have to be political as much as legal.
I am sure the letter won't be published. That is not a problem, but the blantly partisan stand it takes of late is disturbing. It is 'independent' only to be partisan.
The editorial, ‘Political fight on legal issue’ (June 9), does not appear to be an instance of journalistic ‘independence’ The Hindu claims and its readers value. Governor is not a rubber stamp. Permission to prosecute is not a pronouncement of guilt. Gathering of more evidence to substantiate his decision could have been appreciated. Instead, The Hindu faulted him for not being ‘less discrete’! The truth of the case will be known only after the trial is over. Why is The Hindu appearing to be against finding out truth?
The above letter I sent to The Hindu in response to its editorial on 9.6.2009.
This is the editorial:
Political fight on legal issue
The Hindu, 9.6.2009, Editorial
Something is clearly amiss in the motivation, manner, and timing of Governor R.S. Gavai’s grant of sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to prosecute Communist Party of India (Marxist) Kerala State secretary Pinarayi Vijayan in a corruption case. The State Cabinet, acting on the basis of the views expressed by the Advocate General, advised against giving permission for prosecution in the case. But the Governor chose to ignore the advice and gave the go-ahea d to the investigating agency in the long-pending SNC-Lavalin case. Independent of the issue of whether or not he was bound to go wholly by the Cabinet’s advice in granting permission for the prosecution of public servants, the Governor should have shown scrupulous caution and less discretion, given the twists and turns of the case in keeping with the changes in the political landscape of Kerala. Instead of accepting or rejecting the CBI’s request on the basis of the material originally submitted by it, Mr. Gavai went out of his way to obtain additional material as evidence in order to buttress his own decision to grant sanction in the face of government’s advice to the contrary. The hidden political hand at work is that of the Congress, which heads the government at the Centre and is the main opposition party in Kerala.
The Governor is a political appointee of the Centre. It is well established that gubernatorial office is more often than not misused by the party heading the Central government. Following the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Bommai case (1991), the prospect of a head of State dismissing a government is virtually non-existent. But the office continues to be used in myriad ways by the political establishment at the Centre to needle State governments headed by political rivals. To make matters worse, the integrity and independence of the investigative process under the law of the land are further compromised. On sensitive issues such as the prosecution of political opponents, as the handling of cases against Mulayam Singh, and Lalu Prasad demonstrates, the CBI has been stripped of professionalism and made a political tool. In the case of Pinarayi Vijayan, the Governor and the CBI have combined to great political effect. They have of course been helped in this matter by the factionalism within the CPI(M): Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan is known to hold the view that Mr. Vijayan ought to face prosecution. Political manoeuvring derails serious investigation of corruption cases, and erodes people’s faith in constitutional authorities. For the CPI(M), as for Mr. Vijayan, the fight will have to be political as much as legal.
I am sure the letter won't be published. That is not a problem, but the blantly partisan stand it takes of late is disturbing. It is 'independent' only to be partisan.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
The Hindu contradicts itself
The Hindu editorial of June 6, Going beyond the Obama speech, is what follows:
It is already clear that President Barack Hussein Obama’s address to the Muslim world has gone some way towards correcting the widespread perception that the United States government is “anti-Muslim.” To be sure, speaking respectfully about Islam and its precepts was something Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, also learned to do after his initial gaffe on waging a “crusade” against militant Islam. But the policies he followed and the wars he launched in Afghanistan and Iraq were so misconceived, so destructive, and so irrational that it was easy for Muslims and others to assume the worst about the U.S. Apart from conceding that his country had been wrong to believe terrorism could be fought by adopting illegal or inhumane methods, Mr. Obama has held out the promise of a more balanced approach to the one issue that lies at the root of Muslim angst about the west: the plight of the Palestinian people. From his rostrum in Cairo, he described their situation as “intolerable” and made a strong plea for a two-state solution as the basis for durable peace between Israel and Palestine. By itself, such a plea breaks no new ground. Washington has been officially committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state and the cessation, and even reversal, of Israel’s illegal settlement activities in the Occupied Territories. What has been lacking is any real willingness to push the Zionist state towards fulfilling its obligations.
President Obama has correctly reminded both Israelis and Palestinians of the need to honour past commitments. If some Palestinians are still reluctant to accept Israel’s right to exist, that is related to the Israeli state’s refusal to specify its borders. And if the dispossessed are to be counselled to give up violence as a method of struggle, the Israeli use of state terrorism to enforce its illegal occupation must be condemned even more. On Iran, Mr. Obama has done well to acknowledge the role Washington played in overthrowing the Mossadegh government during the Cold War, thus accepting, by implication, that the distrust existing with Tehran is the product of mutual action. But nothing he has done so far on the nuclear issue represents a reversal of the approach George W. Bush followed during his years as President. The Muslim world erred in assuming the U.S. was against Muslims. Superpowers do not run imperial projects on the basis of prejudice; it is interests that are supreme. In fact, saying kind words about Islam and denouncing anti-Muslim prejudice come easy to an American leader. What is crucial is ending the indulgence Washington continues to show towards a state that believes at its core that international law, the elementary principles of justice, and the rules of peaceable conduct just do not apply to it.
As can be noted, it is full of contradictions. Personalities do not matter, it is the material factors that determine history is a worn out Marxian dogma, which The Hindu is still holding. So, I sent the following:
Sir,
The editorial, “Going beyond the Obama speech” (June 6), appears to contradict itself when it describes the shift in the U.S. policy under Obama from that of Bush on the one hand, and on the other asserts that “super powers do not run imperial projects on the basis of prejudice”. No matter who the head of a state is, its policies will be determined only by its “interests”, assuming that they are always correctly identified, is a worn out dogma smacking of determinism. If state’s interests alone will prevail, how can Obama ever make a break with the Bush legacy? Personalities of leaders and group-fantasies play a vital role in shaping history, Psychohistorians believe. Perhaps, what we are witnessing in the U.S. under Obama is the playing out of those psychological motivations.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
I am sure The Hindu will not publish it.
It is already clear that President Barack Hussein Obama’s address to the Muslim world has gone some way towards correcting the widespread perception that the United States government is “anti-Muslim.” To be sure, speaking respectfully about Islam and its precepts was something Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, also learned to do after his initial gaffe on waging a “crusade” against militant Islam. But the policies he followed and the wars he launched in Afghanistan and Iraq were so misconceived, so destructive, and so irrational that it was easy for Muslims and others to assume the worst about the U.S. Apart from conceding that his country had been wrong to believe terrorism could be fought by adopting illegal or inhumane methods, Mr. Obama has held out the promise of a more balanced approach to the one issue that lies at the root of Muslim angst about the west: the plight of the Palestinian people. From his rostrum in Cairo, he described their situation as “intolerable” and made a strong plea for a two-state solution as the basis for durable peace between Israel and Palestine. By itself, such a plea breaks no new ground. Washington has been officially committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state and the cessation, and even reversal, of Israel’s illegal settlement activities in the Occupied Territories. What has been lacking is any real willingness to push the Zionist state towards fulfilling its obligations.
President Obama has correctly reminded both Israelis and Palestinians of the need to honour past commitments. If some Palestinians are still reluctant to accept Israel’s right to exist, that is related to the Israeli state’s refusal to specify its borders. And if the dispossessed are to be counselled to give up violence as a method of struggle, the Israeli use of state terrorism to enforce its illegal occupation must be condemned even more. On Iran, Mr. Obama has done well to acknowledge the role Washington played in overthrowing the Mossadegh government during the Cold War, thus accepting, by implication, that the distrust existing with Tehran is the product of mutual action. But nothing he has done so far on the nuclear issue represents a reversal of the approach George W. Bush followed during his years as President. The Muslim world erred in assuming the U.S. was against Muslims. Superpowers do not run imperial projects on the basis of prejudice; it is interests that are supreme. In fact, saying kind words about Islam and denouncing anti-Muslim prejudice come easy to an American leader. What is crucial is ending the indulgence Washington continues to show towards a state that believes at its core that international law, the elementary principles of justice, and the rules of peaceable conduct just do not apply to it.
As can be noted, it is full of contradictions. Personalities do not matter, it is the material factors that determine history is a worn out Marxian dogma, which The Hindu is still holding. So, I sent the following:
Sir,
The editorial, “Going beyond the Obama speech” (June 6), appears to contradict itself when it describes the shift in the U.S. policy under Obama from that of Bush on the one hand, and on the other asserts that “super powers do not run imperial projects on the basis of prejudice”. No matter who the head of a state is, its policies will be determined only by its “interests”, assuming that they are always correctly identified, is a worn out dogma smacking of determinism. If state’s interests alone will prevail, how can Obama ever make a break with the Bush legacy? Personalities of leaders and group-fantasies play a vital role in shaping history, Psychohistorians believe. Perhaps, what we are witnessing in the U.S. under Obama is the playing out of those psychological motivations.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
I am sure The Hindu will not publish it.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Indian elections of 2009
The Indian elections of 2009
Indian elections are more difficult to predict than those of, say the U.S. or Britain, for the reason that the factors going into the making of voters’ choices are more numerous and more complex but less articulated. For the same reason, it is also difficult to manipulate voters’ choices.
Except when there is a clear wave of sympathy or anger or whatever, which is what the demagogues and the rabble rousers of all the parties try to whip up all the time, and the media agitate and amplify, predicting election results is a gamble. This is exactly the reason why leaders of all parties consult astrologers or seek divine dispensations. Sephology is also no better. It is just sophisticated astrology. Instead of basing predictions on astronomical conjunctions, it uses sample surveys among a minuscule section of the population. Both are humbug, as they themselves have proved this time also.
Analysing election results to diagnose voters’ behaviour is just an idle exercise or a palliative indulgence. So, drawing any conclusions about why the BJP lost or the Congress gained is hazardous. And projecting them as a trend will be delusional.
For the loss in the 2004 elections, Mr.L.K.Advani has repeatedly blamed two mistakes his party had committed: the slogan of ‘India shining’ and the party’s ‘overconfidence’. Blaming a slogan for the loss of an election in which close to half a billion voters participated is like blaming a horseshoe nail for losing a battle. It is sheer baloney, floated desperately to sell his claim that the loss was a mistake the voters committed inadvertently. He blamed, unintentionally perhaps, the voters of flippantly exercising their franchise in a fit of reaction to a silly slogan. This need not surprise anyone, as Mr.Advani is known to relish insulting his detractors and adversaries.
If the slogan excuse is only silly, the ‘overconfidence’ excuse is plain stupid. Mr.Advani was blaming overconfidence as the reason for his party’s underperformance. The performers were the voters, and the overconfidence, if real, was of the party leaders. How could the overconfidence of the BJP leaders impact the voters’ choice? Is he, perhaps, suggesting that the voters chose to punish the BJP for the indiscretion of displaying arrogance or neglecting proper campaigning? How one wishes the near half a billion voters of India are diligently tracking even the private thoughts of their leaders to punish or reward them instantly!
By chance, was Mr.Advani blaming only his own workers? It cannot be even by a whisker, for the workers are only the cheerleaders, not the players. The players are the voters.
Personally I am happy that the BJP lost, because, they are enemies of an inclusive, pluralistic political system. They disrupt the life of many, mostly for no fault of theirs, by fanning whatever tensions are already there among different communities. Its leaders indulge in mouthing personal insults against their political adversaries, in which, invariably, Mr. Advani himself leads the rest from the front.
And I wish they would never come to power again at the centre.
Regarding the Left, especially the CPI(M), it is a pity that Mr.Karat has blundered on more than one occasion, may be under the pressure of ideological compulsions and the real-politik in West Bengal and Kerala. That India could absorb much of the effects of the global economic downturn was largely due to the Left’s spirited resistance to the Manmohan-Chidambaram plan to throw open the Indian financial market to foreign direct investments, to invest employees pension fund in share markets, etc. But, it overreached itelf and landed itself in an undeserved political crisis. It may recover lost ground and even improve their tally in course of time, and I wish it well, for it was the Left that had functioned as a constructive Opposition in the Parliament when the legitimate Opposition led by Mr.Advani had recklessly forfeited its constitutional obligations.
SUZARIN
Indian elections are more difficult to predict than those of, say the U.S. or Britain, for the reason that the factors going into the making of voters’ choices are more numerous and more complex but less articulated. For the same reason, it is also difficult to manipulate voters’ choices.
Except when there is a clear wave of sympathy or anger or whatever, which is what the demagogues and the rabble rousers of all the parties try to whip up all the time, and the media agitate and amplify, predicting election results is a gamble. This is exactly the reason why leaders of all parties consult astrologers or seek divine dispensations. Sephology is also no better. It is just sophisticated astrology. Instead of basing predictions on astronomical conjunctions, it uses sample surveys among a minuscule section of the population. Both are humbug, as they themselves have proved this time also.
Analysing election results to diagnose voters’ behaviour is just an idle exercise or a palliative indulgence. So, drawing any conclusions about why the BJP lost or the Congress gained is hazardous. And projecting them as a trend will be delusional.
For the loss in the 2004 elections, Mr.L.K.Advani has repeatedly blamed two mistakes his party had committed: the slogan of ‘India shining’ and the party’s ‘overconfidence’. Blaming a slogan for the loss of an election in which close to half a billion voters participated is like blaming a horseshoe nail for losing a battle. It is sheer baloney, floated desperately to sell his claim that the loss was a mistake the voters committed inadvertently. He blamed, unintentionally perhaps, the voters of flippantly exercising their franchise in a fit of reaction to a silly slogan. This need not surprise anyone, as Mr.Advani is known to relish insulting his detractors and adversaries.
If the slogan excuse is only silly, the ‘overconfidence’ excuse is plain stupid. Mr.Advani was blaming overconfidence as the reason for his party’s underperformance. The performers were the voters, and the overconfidence, if real, was of the party leaders. How could the overconfidence of the BJP leaders impact the voters’ choice? Is he, perhaps, suggesting that the voters chose to punish the BJP for the indiscretion of displaying arrogance or neglecting proper campaigning? How one wishes the near half a billion voters of India are diligently tracking even the private thoughts of their leaders to punish or reward them instantly!
By chance, was Mr.Advani blaming only his own workers? It cannot be even by a whisker, for the workers are only the cheerleaders, not the players. The players are the voters.
Personally I am happy that the BJP lost, because, they are enemies of an inclusive, pluralistic political system. They disrupt the life of many, mostly for no fault of theirs, by fanning whatever tensions are already there among different communities. Its leaders indulge in mouthing personal insults against their political adversaries, in which, invariably, Mr. Advani himself leads the rest from the front.
And I wish they would never come to power again at the centre.
Regarding the Left, especially the CPI(M), it is a pity that Mr.Karat has blundered on more than one occasion, may be under the pressure of ideological compulsions and the real-politik in West Bengal and Kerala. That India could absorb much of the effects of the global economic downturn was largely due to the Left’s spirited resistance to the Manmohan-Chidambaram plan to throw open the Indian financial market to foreign direct investments, to invest employees pension fund in share markets, etc. But, it overreached itelf and landed itself in an undeserved political crisis. It may recover lost ground and even improve their tally in course of time, and I wish it well, for it was the Left that had functioned as a constructive Opposition in the Parliament when the legitimate Opposition led by Mr.Advani had recklessly forfeited its constitutional obligations.
SUZARIN
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Response to Jerrold Atlas of Psychohistory-Historical Motivations
Response to Atlas about Pakistan
Your reading of the situation in Pakistan is absolutely correct. Pakistan is in deep trouble, which is perhaps the worst in its history. It may break up again, as it did in 1971 when its East Pakistan province broke off to become Bangladesh; but this time it may be into three or more parts.
The breaking off of East Pakistan from the West was an event waiting to happen ever since Pakistan was formed. The former was treated more or less like a colony by West Pakistan. The two were not geographically contiguous, being at the extreme ends of the Indian sub-continent with the vast Gangetic plane in between. There were all kinds of conflicts – ethnic, cultural, linguistic, economic, and even religious as the Islam they practised was of different flavours. India helped the break up in a big way.
The present situation, however, is largely its own making that has cumulatively gathered into a crisis.
In any plan to save Pakistan by its ‘friends’ like the U.S. or China, India may not be of much help, because, India is actually a part of the problem. The distrust between the two is almost visceral, in which religion has played and is playing a major role. With fundamentalism on the rise among Muslims as well as Hindus, it may only worsen.
India would definitely prefer a weak or dismembered Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue the way it wants, and to please the radical anti-Muslim elements.
As to your pointed question, ‘what can the US gain from being involved in this region?’, I think, the involvement is a carry over from the past engagements with Pakistan as well as a worry about the danger from radical Islamic groups.
I am not sure whether the U.S. ever had a genuine concern for Pakistan’s well being or for democracy in Pakistan. It had all along helped Pakistan with money and arms, in fact more when Pakistan was under military dictatorships than when it had elected governments. The U.S. had earlier used Pakistan as an observation post and a military base for action against the Soviet Union, as a poke to taunt India in the name of maintaining ‘balance of power’ in South Asia, and as a broker of friendship between itself and China. This situation changed after the end of the cold war and especially under the presidentship of George W. Bush. Pakistan’s use for the U.S. now may be solely as a base for its operations against Al Qaida and Taliban.
If you would like to to have another view, please check http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22557.htm
Suzarin
Your reading of the situation in Pakistan is absolutely correct. Pakistan is in deep trouble, which is perhaps the worst in its history. It may break up again, as it did in 1971 when its East Pakistan province broke off to become Bangladesh; but this time it may be into three or more parts.
The breaking off of East Pakistan from the West was an event waiting to happen ever since Pakistan was formed. The former was treated more or less like a colony by West Pakistan. The two were not geographically contiguous, being at the extreme ends of the Indian sub-continent with the vast Gangetic plane in between. There were all kinds of conflicts – ethnic, cultural, linguistic, economic, and even religious as the Islam they practised was of different flavours. India helped the break up in a big way.
The present situation, however, is largely its own making that has cumulatively gathered into a crisis.
In any plan to save Pakistan by its ‘friends’ like the U.S. or China, India may not be of much help, because, India is actually a part of the problem. The distrust between the two is almost visceral, in which religion has played and is playing a major role. With fundamentalism on the rise among Muslims as well as Hindus, it may only worsen.
India would definitely prefer a weak or dismembered Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue the way it wants, and to please the radical anti-Muslim elements.
As to your pointed question, ‘what can the US gain from being involved in this region?’, I think, the involvement is a carry over from the past engagements with Pakistan as well as a worry about the danger from radical Islamic groups.
I am not sure whether the U.S. ever had a genuine concern for Pakistan’s well being or for democracy in Pakistan. It had all along helped Pakistan with money and arms, in fact more when Pakistan was under military dictatorships than when it had elected governments. The U.S. had earlier used Pakistan as an observation post and a military base for action against the Soviet Union, as a poke to taunt India in the name of maintaining ‘balance of power’ in South Asia, and as a broker of friendship between itself and China. This situation changed after the end of the cold war and especially under the presidentship of George W. Bush. Pakistan’s use for the U.S. now may be solely as a base for its operations against Al Qaida and Taliban.
If you would like to to have another view, please check http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22557.htm
Suzarin
Sunday, May 03, 2009
The Hindu did not disappoint. It did not publish my letter.
Indidentally, Dr.Steve Farmer mentioned in one of his postings in the Indo-Eurasian forum one Indian historian saying that The Hindu was getting 'hinduized'. I cannot agree more if the tense is 'was'. There was a clear 'hindu' slant in the choice and exposition of topics for some of the editorials, and in the choice of people for interviews and reporting during the last two years that peaked during the cofidence motion debate in the Parliament around July last year - N.Ram's two-part interview of L.K. Advani, coverage given to Narendra Modi and Dr.Subramanian Swami are some of the relevant instances. As a diligent reader, I feel that the slant is being corrected to regain its rating as a liberal, left-leaning paper.
Indidentally, Dr.Steve Farmer mentioned in one of his postings in the Indo-Eurasian forum one Indian historian saying that The Hindu was getting 'hinduized'. I cannot agree more if the tense is 'was'. There was a clear 'hindu' slant in the choice and exposition of topics for some of the editorials, and in the choice of people for interviews and reporting during the last two years that peaked during the cofidence motion debate in the Parliament around July last year - N.Ram's two-part interview of L.K. Advani, coverage given to Narendra Modi and Dr.Subramanian Swami are some of the relevant instances. As a diligent reader, I feel that the slant is being corrected to regain its rating as a liberal, left-leaning paper.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Investigation of Godhra and post-Godhra riots
An extremely hard hitting article by Siddarth Varadarajan, one of the best writers on current affairs with The Hindu, was published today. This is the article:
Where silence prevails, justice will not
Siddharth Varadarajan
Narendra Modi is unwilling to even apologise for the Gujarat massacres because neither religious India nor political India considers his involvement a liability.
When young Aman Kachroo was murdered by fellow students in a distant medical college in Himachal Pradesh last month, some politicians tried to appropriate his death to the narrative of forcible displacement that Kashmiri Pandits were subjected to by terrorist violence in the 1990s. Had the valley’s Hindus not felt compelled to flee, they argued, young Aman might well have studied in Srinagar, where the academic and social culture would not have allowed such wanton vi olence to be visited on a student in the name of “ragging.” Despite his death reflecting this invisible dimension of the larger tragedy of exile, however, the Kachroo family asked the politicians to back off. Aman died not because he was a Kashmiri Pandit or because the community was in exile but because of the insensitivity of the educational and law enforcement systems of the country. And his family is determined to make sure the lessons are learned and such tragedies never repeated.
The Kachroo family’s dignity and steadfastness reminded me of a meeting I had in September 2003 with a delegation of Kashmiri Pandits from the Hindu Welfare Society of Kashmir. They wanted something to be done to enable the community to return to their homeland without fear. Apart from official indifference, what angered the Pandits was the manner in which “Hindu” politicians had tried to exploit their plight. “Since 1990, groups like the VHP and RSS have played politics with the fate of the Hindus of Kashmir,” Sanjay Tickoo, a young Pandit from Srinagar, told me. “Riots were organised in Gujarat in our name. But tell me, what do the poor Muslims of Gujarat have to do with our plight?”, he asked.
That conversation — and the heartfelt manner in which one set of victims was attempting to reach out to another — moved me so much, I wrote about it at the time. And I bring it up again now because of a recent statement by Sri Sri Ravishankar on the condition of relief camps run by the Sri Lankan government for Tamil refugees displaced by the war against the LTTE in the Vanni. These camps, he said, had better facilities than “those the Indian Government has provided for the Kashmiri pandits and those provided for Sri Lankan Tamils in Tamil Nadu.”
For Ravishankar to draw a parallel with Indian camps for Lankan refugees was entirely appropriate. I also applaud him for reminding us of the terrible conditions in which thousands of Pandits, who are now entering the 20th year of their displacement, are forced to live in camps in Jammu. But I must also confess to feeling bad that Sri Sri, who is one of India’s most influential godmen, missed an opportunity to prick our conscience by also remembering the callousness of the Indian authorities towards other internally displaced persons like the Muslims of Gujarat or the Christians in the Kandhamal district of Orissa. During the 2002 riots, the Gujarat government played no role whatsoever in setting up relief camps for the victims. Even today, an unconscionable number of Muslim IDPs there eke out a living under the most parlous of circumstances. And in Orissa, impoverished Christians who want to return to their villages are unable to do so because of the demand by Hindu missionaries that they first give up their faith. Like the Pandits, the Muslims and Christians have also been forgotten by all of us. Ravishankar missed an opportunity to build collective awareness and empathy towards the three groups who are all victims of the Indian state’s indifference.
This omission of Muslims and Christians from the story of displacement is, I believe, not accidental or innocent. It is of a piece with the new age guru’s elliptical moral orbit which appears to be drawing him closer and closer to the sangh parivar. One manifestation of this is his pronouncement on various topics like the Babri Masjid. Another is the warning issued to his Art of Living foundation by the Election Commission that its Mantranaad programme in Gujarat not be misused to lend political support to any political party during the ongoing election. The warning was sent following a complaint by the Congress which alleged the foundation was backing the Bharatiya Janata Party. But the omission is also symptomatic of a wider silence maintained by most Hindu religious figures over the blatant distortion and misuse of their great religion by organizations like the RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal, Ram Sene, Shiv Sena and BJP. Whenever terrorist incidents suspected to be the handiwork of jihadi groups take place, dozens of Muslim clerics issue immediate statements of condemnation. It is a different matter that our media usually doesn’t bother to report these statements. But when the large-scale killing of Muslims was orchestrated in Gujarat in 2002 by organisations claiming allegiance to Hinduism with the backing of the State administration, hardly any Hindu religious preacher stood up to denounce the profaning of their faith by these politically motivated groups. And this in a region where the concept of ahimsa was born and took deep roots, and where the followers of influential preachers like Morari Bapu or Asaram Bapu or sects like the Swaminarayans run into millions.
Is there a connection between this silence and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s refusal to speak when he was asked by a persistent television reporter whether he intended to apologise to the country for the Gujarat killings in the same manner that the Congress party now had for the 1984 massacres? Mr. Modi first replied that he had already given many interviews. When the reporter asked what he meant, he kept silent. When the question of an apology was again raised, he remained silent and gestured for a glass of water. And he refused to utter a word on the subject.
When those who are tasked by the almighty to introspect prefer the comforting shores of silence, why should a mere politician be any different? Now we are told that the BJP will create a regular “consultative mechanism” with religious leaders if it comes to power. In a letter to “1,000 religious heads of all denominations,” the party’s prime ministerial candidate, L.K. Advani, said that a government he heads would “seek on a regular basis” their guidance “on major challenges and issues facing the nation.” Among the two names the BJP confirmed sending this letter to was Sri Sri Ravishankar. The other was Baba Ram Dev. Were such a “consultative mechanism” to ever get established, it is unlikely that the spiritual heads who stuck to their vow of silence during Gujarat or Orissa would remain tongue-tied. Apart from making a mockery of the constitutional separation of religion and state, as the Left parties and the Congress have pointed out, this mechanism could easily metamorphose into something truly malignant. As in Pakistan, where Sufi Mohammed has tasted the sweet blood of appeasement, the opinions of our seers on everything except the misuse of religion in politics will flow thick and fast.
When Mr. Advani was presented with a “lifetime achievement award” by NDTV in February, he was asked by Prannoy Roy what he considered his greatest accomplishment to be. The BJP leader said it was the rathyatra he led as part of the Ayodhya agitation. That agitation led to the demolition of the Babri masjid, an event that Mr. Advani had once described as the “saddest day” of his life. But when Prannoy asked what was the one thing he regretted about his life, he said it was the fact that he belonged to an occupation where so many of his peers were corrupt! What explains Mr. Advani’s unwillingness to introspect over how his greatest accomplishment could have ended in that “saddest day”? Could his unwillingness be the product of our unwillingness to ask such questions? Everyone agrees that the presence of Jagdish Tytler at the scene of an attack on a gurudwara in 1984 is enough to render him ineligible for public office. And yet we do not regard the presence of senior BJP leaders at the scene of the mosque’s demolition or the burning of Gujarat as being enough to morally disqualify them for the job of Prime Minister. Is this because the Congress party has more of a conscience than that of the BJP? No. It is because influential sections of our society —corporate leaders, religious personalities, media commentators, strategic analysts and everyone else who is in the business of forming and influencing the groupthink that goes by the name of ‘public opinion’ in India — do not consider 1992 and 2002 as crimes on par with the 1984 genocide of the Sikhs. Unless that changes, we can forget about apologies and remorse. As for justice, I’m not holding my breath.
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu
I felt it could have ended expressing faith in the judicial process initiated and being supervised by the Supreme Court. So I wrote a letter to The Hindu. This is it:
Sir,
Congratulations to Siddharth Varadarajan for the hard hitting article, ‘Where silence prevails, justice will not’, and to The Hindu (2 May) for publishing it. But, unlike the author, I am holding my breath, anxiously waiting for the noose to tighten around the necks of the perpetrators of Godhra and post-Godhra violence. The directives of the Supreme Court are so thoroughgoing and the Chairman of the SIT is so professional that justice will certainly catch up with the criminals this time. Rhetoric about development, endorsements by industrialists, or the red herring of other communal riots will not and should not save any one of them.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
Prof. P.P.Sudhakaran,
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road, Cooke Town,
Bangalore. 560005
Ph. 080 25467483
Hope it will be published
Where silence prevails, justice will not
Siddharth Varadarajan
Narendra Modi is unwilling to even apologise for the Gujarat massacres because neither religious India nor political India considers his involvement a liability.
When young Aman Kachroo was murdered by fellow students in a distant medical college in Himachal Pradesh last month, some politicians tried to appropriate his death to the narrative of forcible displacement that Kashmiri Pandits were subjected to by terrorist violence in the 1990s. Had the valley’s Hindus not felt compelled to flee, they argued, young Aman might well have studied in Srinagar, where the academic and social culture would not have allowed such wanton vi olence to be visited on a student in the name of “ragging.” Despite his death reflecting this invisible dimension of the larger tragedy of exile, however, the Kachroo family asked the politicians to back off. Aman died not because he was a Kashmiri Pandit or because the community was in exile but because of the insensitivity of the educational and law enforcement systems of the country. And his family is determined to make sure the lessons are learned and such tragedies never repeated.
The Kachroo family’s dignity and steadfastness reminded me of a meeting I had in September 2003 with a delegation of Kashmiri Pandits from the Hindu Welfare Society of Kashmir. They wanted something to be done to enable the community to return to their homeland without fear. Apart from official indifference, what angered the Pandits was the manner in which “Hindu” politicians had tried to exploit their plight. “Since 1990, groups like the VHP and RSS have played politics with the fate of the Hindus of Kashmir,” Sanjay Tickoo, a young Pandit from Srinagar, told me. “Riots were organised in Gujarat in our name. But tell me, what do the poor Muslims of Gujarat have to do with our plight?”, he asked.
That conversation — and the heartfelt manner in which one set of victims was attempting to reach out to another — moved me so much, I wrote about it at the time. And I bring it up again now because of a recent statement by Sri Sri Ravishankar on the condition of relief camps run by the Sri Lankan government for Tamil refugees displaced by the war against the LTTE in the Vanni. These camps, he said, had better facilities than “those the Indian Government has provided for the Kashmiri pandits and those provided for Sri Lankan Tamils in Tamil Nadu.”
For Ravishankar to draw a parallel with Indian camps for Lankan refugees was entirely appropriate. I also applaud him for reminding us of the terrible conditions in which thousands of Pandits, who are now entering the 20th year of their displacement, are forced to live in camps in Jammu. But I must also confess to feeling bad that Sri Sri, who is one of India’s most influential godmen, missed an opportunity to prick our conscience by also remembering the callousness of the Indian authorities towards other internally displaced persons like the Muslims of Gujarat or the Christians in the Kandhamal district of Orissa. During the 2002 riots, the Gujarat government played no role whatsoever in setting up relief camps for the victims. Even today, an unconscionable number of Muslim IDPs there eke out a living under the most parlous of circumstances. And in Orissa, impoverished Christians who want to return to their villages are unable to do so because of the demand by Hindu missionaries that they first give up their faith. Like the Pandits, the Muslims and Christians have also been forgotten by all of us. Ravishankar missed an opportunity to build collective awareness and empathy towards the three groups who are all victims of the Indian state’s indifference.
This omission of Muslims and Christians from the story of displacement is, I believe, not accidental or innocent. It is of a piece with the new age guru’s elliptical moral orbit which appears to be drawing him closer and closer to the sangh parivar. One manifestation of this is his pronouncement on various topics like the Babri Masjid. Another is the warning issued to his Art of Living foundation by the Election Commission that its Mantranaad programme in Gujarat not be misused to lend political support to any political party during the ongoing election. The warning was sent following a complaint by the Congress which alleged the foundation was backing the Bharatiya Janata Party. But the omission is also symptomatic of a wider silence maintained by most Hindu religious figures over the blatant distortion and misuse of their great religion by organizations like the RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Bajrang Dal, Ram Sene, Shiv Sena and BJP. Whenever terrorist incidents suspected to be the handiwork of jihadi groups take place, dozens of Muslim clerics issue immediate statements of condemnation. It is a different matter that our media usually doesn’t bother to report these statements. But when the large-scale killing of Muslims was orchestrated in Gujarat in 2002 by organisations claiming allegiance to Hinduism with the backing of the State administration, hardly any Hindu religious preacher stood up to denounce the profaning of their faith by these politically motivated groups. And this in a region where the concept of ahimsa was born and took deep roots, and where the followers of influential preachers like Morari Bapu or Asaram Bapu or sects like the Swaminarayans run into millions.
Is there a connection between this silence and Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s refusal to speak when he was asked by a persistent television reporter whether he intended to apologise to the country for the Gujarat killings in the same manner that the Congress party now had for the 1984 massacres? Mr. Modi first replied that he had already given many interviews. When the reporter asked what he meant, he kept silent. When the question of an apology was again raised, he remained silent and gestured for a glass of water. And he refused to utter a word on the subject.
When those who are tasked by the almighty to introspect prefer the comforting shores of silence, why should a mere politician be any different? Now we are told that the BJP will create a regular “consultative mechanism” with religious leaders if it comes to power. In a letter to “1,000 religious heads of all denominations,” the party’s prime ministerial candidate, L.K. Advani, said that a government he heads would “seek on a regular basis” their guidance “on major challenges and issues facing the nation.” Among the two names the BJP confirmed sending this letter to was Sri Sri Ravishankar. The other was Baba Ram Dev. Were such a “consultative mechanism” to ever get established, it is unlikely that the spiritual heads who stuck to their vow of silence during Gujarat or Orissa would remain tongue-tied. Apart from making a mockery of the constitutional separation of religion and state, as the Left parties and the Congress have pointed out, this mechanism could easily metamorphose into something truly malignant. As in Pakistan, where Sufi Mohammed has tasted the sweet blood of appeasement, the opinions of our seers on everything except the misuse of religion in politics will flow thick and fast.
When Mr. Advani was presented with a “lifetime achievement award” by NDTV in February, he was asked by Prannoy Roy what he considered his greatest accomplishment to be. The BJP leader said it was the rathyatra he led as part of the Ayodhya agitation. That agitation led to the demolition of the Babri masjid, an event that Mr. Advani had once described as the “saddest day” of his life. But when Prannoy asked what was the one thing he regretted about his life, he said it was the fact that he belonged to an occupation where so many of his peers were corrupt! What explains Mr. Advani’s unwillingness to introspect over how his greatest accomplishment could have ended in that “saddest day”? Could his unwillingness be the product of our unwillingness to ask such questions? Everyone agrees that the presence of Jagdish Tytler at the scene of an attack on a gurudwara in 1984 is enough to render him ineligible for public office. And yet we do not regard the presence of senior BJP leaders at the scene of the mosque’s demolition or the burning of Gujarat as being enough to morally disqualify them for the job of Prime Minister. Is this because the Congress party has more of a conscience than that of the BJP? No. It is because influential sections of our society —corporate leaders, religious personalities, media commentators, strategic analysts and everyone else who is in the business of forming and influencing the groupthink that goes by the name of ‘public opinion’ in India — do not consider 1992 and 2002 as crimes on par with the 1984 genocide of the Sikhs. Unless that changes, we can forget about apologies and remorse. As for justice, I’m not holding my breath.
© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu
I felt it could have ended expressing faith in the judicial process initiated and being supervised by the Supreme Court. So I wrote a letter to The Hindu. This is it:
Sir,
Congratulations to Siddharth Varadarajan for the hard hitting article, ‘Where silence prevails, justice will not’, and to The Hindu (2 May) for publishing it. But, unlike the author, I am holding my breath, anxiously waiting for the noose to tighten around the necks of the perpetrators of Godhra and post-Godhra violence. The directives of the Supreme Court are so thoroughgoing and the Chairman of the SIT is so professional that justice will certainly catch up with the criminals this time. Rhetoric about development, endorsements by industrialists, or the red herring of other communal riots will not and should not save any one of them.
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
Prof. P.P.Sudhakaran,
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road, Cooke Town,
Bangalore. 560005
Ph. 080 25467483
Hope it will be published
Saturday, March 28, 2009
PM asks for Mr.Advani’s record.
This is what I sent The Hindu on 25.3.09:
PM asks for Mr.Advani’s record.
Sir,
It would be appreciated if Mr.Advani answers Dr.Manmohan Singh’s poser about his track record as Home Minister, and, if one may add, also as Leader of the Opposition. He is seen, instead, to repeat ad nauseam a taunt that Dr.Singh is the weakest ever PM of India. Psychology of taunt, as in the case of name-calling, is that it would give the taunter a false sense of being above the blame. If Mr.Advani wants the voters to believe that he would make a ‘strong’ PM, he may attempt it with the support of his track record. P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore.
This is what it published on 26.3.09 under the title, "unfortunate":
Mr. Advani, besides telling Dr. Singh about his track record as Home Minister, should also explain his performance as the Leader of the Opposition instead of repeating ad nauseam that Dr. Singh is the weakest Prime Minister India has seen. If Mr. Advani wants the voters to believe that he can make a “strong” Prime Minister, he can convince them by producing his track record.
PM asks for Mr.Advani’s record.
Sir,
It would be appreciated if Mr.Advani answers Dr.Manmohan Singh’s poser about his track record as Home Minister, and, if one may add, also as Leader of the Opposition. He is seen, instead, to repeat ad nauseam a taunt that Dr.Singh is the weakest ever PM of India. Psychology of taunt, as in the case of name-calling, is that it would give the taunter a false sense of being above the blame. If Mr.Advani wants the voters to believe that he would make a ‘strong’ PM, he may attempt it with the support of his track record. P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore.
This is what it published on 26.3.09 under the title, "unfortunate":
Mr. Advani, besides telling Dr. Singh about his track record as Home Minister, should also explain his performance as the Leader of the Opposition instead of repeating ad nauseam that Dr. Singh is the weakest Prime Minister India has seen. If Mr. Advani wants the voters to believe that he can make a “strong” Prime Minister, he can convince them by producing his track record.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Advani: NDA lost in 2004 because of over-confidence, wrong slogans
This is what The Hindu reported on 3.3.2009
Advani: NDA lost in 2004 because of over-confidence, wrong slogans
New Delhi: Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani on Monday said the National Democratic Alliance lost the 2004 general elections because of “over confidence” and use of wrong slogans like “India Shining.” Addressing a conference of the BJP’s traders’ cell here, Mr. Advani said that after being in power for six years and giving good governance under the prime ministership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, NDA was confident of forming the next government.
“The impression even among the opponents and foreign analysts was that we will win....but we lost...one, due to over-confidence and, secondly, using some wrong slogans like India Shining,” he said. Mr. Advani, who was the then Deputy Prime Minister, said this slogan was used by BJP’s opponents who asked the voters if they really felt India was shining.
“Our opponents went to the people and asked them if their homes were shining...everybody has his own problems...there is so much poverty in the country, farmers have their problems... they said where is India shining?” he quipped. Taking a dig at the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance, Mr. Advani said they won the 2004 polls with the support of the common man.
“Five years down the line, we get reports that so many Indians have become billionaires. On the other hand, Indian Statistical Institute has said the number of people below the poverty line has gone up by 5.5 crore from 3.5 crore in the last five years,” he said.
Advani: NDA lost in 2004 because of over-confidence, wrong slogans
New Delhi: Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial candidate L.K. Advani on Monday said the National Democratic Alliance lost the 2004 general elections because of “over confidence” and use of wrong slogans like “India Shining.” Addressing a conference of the BJP’s traders’ cell here, Mr. Advani said that after being in power for six years and giving good governance under the prime ministership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, NDA was confident of forming the next government.
“The impression even among the opponents and foreign analysts was that we will win....but we lost...one, due to over-confidence and, secondly, using some wrong slogans like India Shining,” he said. Mr. Advani, who was the then Deputy Prime Minister, said this slogan was used by BJP’s opponents who asked the voters if they really felt India was shining.
“Our opponents went to the people and asked them if their homes were shining...everybody has his own problems...there is so much poverty in the country, farmers have their problems... they said where is India shining?” he quipped. Taking a dig at the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance, Mr. Advani said they won the 2004 polls with the support of the common man.
“Five years down the line, we get reports that so many Indians have become billionaires. On the other hand, Indian Statistical Institute has said the number of people below the poverty line has gone up by 5.5 crore from 3.5 crore in the last five years,” he said.
Advani insults the voters
The letter sent to The Hindu on 3.3.2009
Mr.L.K.Advani’s opinion that the NDA lost the 2004 elections because of overconfidence and wrong slogans is an acute oversimplification, like saying a battle was lost for want of a horseshoe nail. That the NDA deserved to win and would have won except for the two minor indiscretions verges on the delusional. Election results are too complex to be explained away with simple causes. Blaming a slogan for losing an election is an insult to the electorate.
I am sure it won't be published
4.3.2009
As expected, The Hindu did not publish. Amen!
Mr.L.K.Advani’s opinion that the NDA lost the 2004 elections because of overconfidence and wrong slogans is an acute oversimplification, like saying a battle was lost for want of a horseshoe nail. That the NDA deserved to win and would have won except for the two minor indiscretions verges on the delusional. Election results are too complex to be explained away with simple causes. Blaming a slogan for losing an election is an insult to the electorate.
I am sure it won't be published
4.3.2009
As expected, The Hindu did not publish. Amen!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
CEC equal or superior to EC
I sent the following letter to The Hindu on Feb.9,2009 in response to Justice S.Mohan's article,Chief Election Commissioner: equal or superior,(Feb.9). It was not published. There were no letters on the article.
Sir,
The question whether the CEC is equal or superior to the ECs has been complicated unnecessarily. "Chief Election Commissioner: equal or superior" (Feb.9) is a case in point. Article 324(5) states clearly that the CEC can initiate a proposal to remove an EC and never the other way. To that extent the CEC is superior to the ECs, if it can be called superiority; but it goes no further.
The CEC has suo motu powers only to make a proposal to remove an EC, not to actually remove an EC. Though such a proposal is a prerequisite, the decision to remove rests entirely with the President of India. Unlike as in the case of Parliament bills submitted for approval, the President is not under any constitutional obligation to accept CEC's proposal. The whole confusion was created when the BJP claimed that such a proposal would be ‘binding’ on the President. Where is such a clause in Article 324(5)?
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
Sir,
The question whether the CEC is equal or superior to the ECs has been complicated unnecessarily. "Chief Election Commissioner: equal or superior" (Feb.9) is a case in point. Article 324(5) states clearly that the CEC can initiate a proposal to remove an EC and never the other way. To that extent the CEC is superior to the ECs, if it can be called superiority; but it goes no further.
The CEC has suo motu powers only to make a proposal to remove an EC, not to actually remove an EC. Though such a proposal is a prerequisite, the decision to remove rests entirely with the President of India. Unlike as in the case of Parliament bills submitted for approval, the President is not under any constitutional obligation to accept CEC's proposal. The whole confusion was created when the BJP claimed that such a proposal would be ‘binding’ on the President. Where is such a clause in Article 324(5)?
P.P.Sudhakaran
Bangalore
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Justice Markandey Katju on caste system
The letter I sent to The Hindu on Friday, 9.1.2009
Justice Markandey Katju on caste system
Sir,
The certitude with which Justice Markandey Katju has explained the origin, nature and future of caste system (The Hindu, Jan.8 and 9), especially the prediction that it will be destroyed in the next 20 years, has the stamp of a visionary. But scholarly opinion is sure to dispute many of his inferences.
Caste ‘system’ was never static and is so complex that generalizations about it are extremely hazardous. Castes did not originate the same way or at the same time, or ever possess uniform characteristics all over South Asia. Never was there a strict correspondence between castes and their generally assumed identificatory markers such as ‘varnam’, physical features, occupation, hierarchy, pollution rules, customs or rituals.
The rigidity and definitiveness of the ‘system’, except at the ritually highest levels, was a colonial construct occasioned by the census studies in the 19th century.
As to the prediction that castes will be destroyed: they will only get refurbished; for our slogan already is, ‘Cast your vote, vote your caste’.
P.P.Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
The Hindu published the following edited version on Saturday:
The caste system is so complex that it is difficult to draw generalisations on it. Castes did not originate in the same manner or at the same time, or possess uniform characteristics, across South Asia. Nor was there a strict correspondence between castes and their generally assumed markers such as physical features, customs and rituals. As for the prediction that castes will be destroyed in a decade or two, they are likely to be reinforced in future for our people’s slogan is: ‘cast your vote, vote your caste.’
P.P. Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
Justice Markandey Katju on caste system
Sir,
The certitude with which Justice Markandey Katju has explained the origin, nature and future of caste system (The Hindu, Jan.8 and 9), especially the prediction that it will be destroyed in the next 20 years, has the stamp of a visionary. But scholarly opinion is sure to dispute many of his inferences.
Caste ‘system’ was never static and is so complex that generalizations about it are extremely hazardous. Castes did not originate the same way or at the same time, or ever possess uniform characteristics all over South Asia. Never was there a strict correspondence between castes and their generally assumed identificatory markers such as ‘varnam’, physical features, occupation, hierarchy, pollution rules, customs or rituals.
The rigidity and definitiveness of the ‘system’, except at the ritually highest levels, was a colonial construct occasioned by the census studies in the 19th century.
As to the prediction that castes will be destroyed: they will only get refurbished; for our slogan already is, ‘Cast your vote, vote your caste’.
P.P.Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
The Hindu published the following edited version on Saturday:
The caste system is so complex that it is difficult to draw generalisations on it. Castes did not originate in the same manner or at the same time, or possess uniform characteristics, across South Asia. Nor was there a strict correspondence between castes and their generally assumed markers such as physical features, customs and rituals. As for the prediction that castes will be destroyed in a decade or two, they are likely to be reinforced in future for our people’s slogan is: ‘cast your vote, vote your caste.’
P.P. Sudhakaran,
Bangalore
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)