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
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)