My response to a post by Mats in Psychohistory-Historical Motivations:
Racial differences as far as the physical features are concerned are not imaginary, but to what extent they determine culture or group behavior or whatever Mats wanted to connect with them is not as clear as he assumes. Mats seems to believe that group identities, rivalries and affinities begin and end exclusively along ethnic fault lines. There are innumerable other fault lines, including parenting practices, which crisscross or overlap ethnic identities. Mats could have at least acknowledged the influence of parenting practices on group formation, which is a matter of utmost importance to psychohistorians.
Raising an assumption as a question may not make it any clearer. E.g.; ‘people are so fixated on skin colour – why?’; ‘most parents in the world get upset if their daughter brings home a Negro as her latest boyfriend – why?’. The problem here basically is the lack of evidence, which Jerry has already pointed out. Assuming that in the instance of a parent objecting to the daughter bringing home a Negro is solely because of the skin colour is unwarranted. Skin colour is only one of the many components of a complex matrix of group prejudices. What Mats says may be valid in the case of some ethnic sub groups, but not all.
A good example to illustrate this is that of the caste groups of South Asia, perhaps the most virulent bonding – differentiating social system ever known. There is definitely a sub-stratum of ethnic differences webbing through the castes but they are interwoven so thoroughly that the racial features of almost all the castes are blurred. Yet, the exclusiveness of the castes, the bond within castes and the tensions within and between castes were, perhaps, more intense than any among or between the races.
What bonds a caste and differentiates it from other castes is an extra-ethnic identity bundle each caste carries with it. Those identities are supposed to be two or more millennia old, but, except in the case of a few core caste groups such as the brahmins, they are actually only two or three centuries old. The caste ‘system’ as is known today is largely a colonial construct, almost an invention of the English colonisers of south Asia. The contours of even that are changing fast. To understand the bonding of a group and the tensions between groups, therefore, one may have to look beyond races.
In this context, I would like to bring to the notice of the List a recent article published in Science, 11 June 2010: Vol. 328. no. 5984, pp. 1408 – 1411, DOI: 10.1126/science.1189047, for responses.
This is the abstract:
The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans; Carsten K. W. De Dreu,1,* Lindred L. Greer,1 Michel J. J. Handgraaf,1 Shaul Shalvi,1Gerben A. Van Kleef,1 Matthijs Baas,1 Femke S. Ten Velden,1 Eric Van Dijk,2 Sander W. W. Feith3
Humans regulate intergroup conflict through parochial altruism; they self-sacrifice to contribute to in-group welfare and to aggress against competing out-groups. Parochial altruism has distinct survival functions, and the brain may have evolved to sustain and promote in- group cohesion and effectiveness and to ward off threatening out- groups. Here, we have linked oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, to the regulation of intergroup conflict. In three experiments using double-blind placebo-controlled designs, male participants self-administered oxytocin or placebo and made decisions with financial consequences to themselves, their in-group, and a competing out-group. Results showed that oxytocin drives a "tend and defend" response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out- groups.
1 Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, Netherlands.
2 Department of Psychology, Leiden University, Postbox 9555, 2300 RB, Netherlands.
3 Stichting AllesKits, Cypruslaan 410, 3059 XA Rotterdam, Netherlands.
I may add, this need not diminish the importance of parenting practices in culture formation, or group behavior.
Link to abstract and full paper here (subscription needed for full paper):
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/328/5984/1408
Suzarin
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Hindu has egg on its face
The Hindu published the following news today, June 12, perhaps in a bid to please its newfound favourite – the BJP. The latest news from Bihar today is that Nitish Kumar has distanced himself from Narendra Modi. He has threatened to sue whoever that has brought out an advertisement showing Nitish Kumar and Narendra Modi holding each other’s raised hand. Did The Hindu go to town this time without cross checking Neena Vyas’ input? Has The Hindu gone overboard in its bid to forge a BJP-JD(U)-CPI(M) front?
Bihar no longer out of bounds to Modi
Neena Vyas
BJP will signal that it is not just a junior partner in Nitish enterprise
Patna conclave will target Congress also for RJD “misrule”
PATNA: The big show of strength planned by the Bharatiya Janata Party here on Sunday evening will carry a double message: it will mark the start of its all-out election campaign, and signal that the party is not just a “junior” partner in Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's Bihar enterprise.
It may also turn out to be the ‘coming out in Bihar' party for Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who has so far been virtually kept out of the election campaign in the State in due deference to the alliance partner, the Janata Dal (United).
The other significant aim of the rally on the historic Gandhi maidan is to send out a clear message that the Congress was equally responsible for the disastrous years of the Rashtriya Janata Dal rule as it was a partner in the coalition government in the last five years before the RJD was swept away.
The BJP seems wary of the sudden upswing in Congress electoral fortunes in Uttar Pradesh on the back of a ‘swing' of Muslim and “upper caste” votes towards it, and hopes to prevent that here by blaming the party equally for the RJD “misrule.”
“The 15 years of RJD rule was propped up by the Congress. It was RJD plus Congress raj,” Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Modi said here on Friday, a day before the start of the BJP's two-day national executive committee meeting, which will end with the rally.
Development is the ‘mantra' the party has adopted and the speakers lined up for the public meetings have apparently been told not to stray from this line. Significantly, Mr. Narendra Modi has been chosen to showcase “development” in Bihar. “Party president Nitin Gadkari, senior leader L.K. Advani and Mr. Narendra Modi will certainly be key speakers at the rally,” Mr. Sushil Modi said. Mr. Kumar had never directly or indirectly interfered in the BJP's internal affairs and the two decades-old alliance was a “model” for coalition governments, he added.
A senior BJP leader said the Gujarat Chief Minister was the “most qualified” as he himself had shown the road to development in his State. Over the last couple of days full-page advertisements have appeared in some local newspapers here on the better status of Muslims in Gujarat than in some regions — the statistics were sourced to the Sachar Committee report.
There would be nothing exceptional in the decision to field Mr. Narendra Modi except that for some days now senior party leaders had hinted that the Gujarat Chief Minister would not be a speaker. For, “normally Chief Ministers of States, other than those where the party conclave takes place, do not address the public meetings.”
A party leader here said the BJP wanted to send out a message to the JD(U) that it was its own master and would take its own decisions. It wants to dispel the impression that in each election the BJP decides to keep Mr. Narendra Modi out of the Bihar campaign for fear of annoying the JD(U).
Mr. Narendra Modi is also to be fielded as the key speaker on the third resolution — on the alleged step-motherly treatment meted out to non-UPA States by the Manmohan Singh government — that the party conclave is expected to adopt.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Bihar no longer out of bounds to Modi
Neena Vyas
BJP will signal that it is not just a junior partner in Nitish enterprise
Patna conclave will target Congress also for RJD “misrule”
PATNA: The big show of strength planned by the Bharatiya Janata Party here on Sunday evening will carry a double message: it will mark the start of its all-out election campaign, and signal that the party is not just a “junior” partner in Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's Bihar enterprise.
It may also turn out to be the ‘coming out in Bihar' party for Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who has so far been virtually kept out of the election campaign in the State in due deference to the alliance partner, the Janata Dal (United).
The other significant aim of the rally on the historic Gandhi maidan is to send out a clear message that the Congress was equally responsible for the disastrous years of the Rashtriya Janata Dal rule as it was a partner in the coalition government in the last five years before the RJD was swept away.
The BJP seems wary of the sudden upswing in Congress electoral fortunes in Uttar Pradesh on the back of a ‘swing' of Muslim and “upper caste” votes towards it, and hopes to prevent that here by blaming the party equally for the RJD “misrule.”
“The 15 years of RJD rule was propped up by the Congress. It was RJD plus Congress raj,” Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Modi said here on Friday, a day before the start of the BJP's two-day national executive committee meeting, which will end with the rally.
Development is the ‘mantra' the party has adopted and the speakers lined up for the public meetings have apparently been told not to stray from this line. Significantly, Mr. Narendra Modi has been chosen to showcase “development” in Bihar. “Party president Nitin Gadkari, senior leader L.K. Advani and Mr. Narendra Modi will certainly be key speakers at the rally,” Mr. Sushil Modi said. Mr. Kumar had never directly or indirectly interfered in the BJP's internal affairs and the two decades-old alliance was a “model” for coalition governments, he added.
A senior BJP leader said the Gujarat Chief Minister was the “most qualified” as he himself had shown the road to development in his State. Over the last couple of days full-page advertisements have appeared in some local newspapers here on the better status of Muslims in Gujarat than in some regions — the statistics were sourced to the Sachar Committee report.
There would be nothing exceptional in the decision to field Mr. Narendra Modi except that for some days now senior party leaders had hinted that the Gujarat Chief Minister would not be a speaker. For, “normally Chief Ministers of States, other than those where the party conclave takes place, do not address the public meetings.”
A party leader here said the BJP wanted to send out a message to the JD(U) that it was its own master and would take its own decisions. It wants to dispel the impression that in each election the BJP decides to keep Mr. Narendra Modi out of the Bihar campaign for fear of annoying the JD(U).
Mr. Narendra Modi is also to be fielded as the key speaker on the third resolution — on the alleged step-motherly treatment meted out to non-UPA States by the Manmohan Singh government — that the party conclave is expected to adopt.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
This is regarding the editorial The Hindu carried on May 25.
It is a jumbo editorial written with a pre-set mind and possessing near zero noteworthiness.
Its first paragraph attempts to create space to say what it had decided beforehand: that the UPA II government is a “failure”. This it expands later on mentioning mainly two “defining” failures, namely, controlling the spiraling of prices of essential commodities, above all food items, and managing law and order.
That the prices have gone up is an indisputable fact, and the Government cannot hide behind any excuses, at least morally, for its failure. But whether it was entirely due to the government’s “lethargy” or “indecisiveness” or “complacency” or “corruption” is not that undisputable. That is OK and there is no need to repeat the truism that while facts are sacred, opinions are free!
But what it says further, at least the following, is a little baffling.
It says that the UPA II government seems to have spent its first 12 months “in a do-little state bred by political complacency and neo-liberal conservatism”.
I sent the following letter to The Hindu:
Sir,
This is regarding the editorial (May 25). It says that the UPA II government seems to have spent its first 12 months “in a do-little state bred by political complacency and neo-liberal conservatism”. ‘
As a diligent reader of The Hindu, I was curious to know what is neo-liberal conservatism and whether there is any other government in the world that is also Neo-liberal conservative, and I googled, but drew a blank. I understand ‘liberal conservatism’ itself is an oxymoron, in which case, ‘neo-liberal conservatism’ may only worsen the ambiguity.
Was it a Freudian slip? Was The Hindu, perhaps, thinking about a future coalition government of the (neo-conservative) BJP and the (neo-liberal) Left parties while writing the edit?
A Post Script to this response could be:
The Hindu seems to have achieved what it had been working for during the last two years, specifically, ever since the Left withdrew its support to UPA I and the government moved a confidence motion in the Parliament in July 2008. The BJP and the Left, as opposed to a common enemy, worked in unison to oust the UPA from power. They attacked the government almost on identical points and voted together on the same side. That it failed was only of incidental importance. The real significance of this coming together of the neo-conservative BJP and the neo-liberal Left was a new phenomenon in Indian politics – something almost everybody following the Indian political developments would have thought was impossible till a few years back. The Hindu with its inherent streak of Hindu orthodoxy (what else does the choice of its name ‘Hindu’ signify?) and the acquired leaning towards Left liberalism (a baggage its present Editor in Chief carried from his JNU days and the All India Vice Presidentship of the SFI) was eminently qualified to work towards this. Therefore, the use of ‘neo-liberal conservatism’ need not be an innocent slip; it could very well be a Freudian slip - making the impossible possible!
It is a jumbo editorial written with a pre-set mind and possessing near zero noteworthiness.
Its first paragraph attempts to create space to say what it had decided beforehand: that the UPA II government is a “failure”. This it expands later on mentioning mainly two “defining” failures, namely, controlling the spiraling of prices of essential commodities, above all food items, and managing law and order.
That the prices have gone up is an indisputable fact, and the Government cannot hide behind any excuses, at least morally, for its failure. But whether it was entirely due to the government’s “lethargy” or “indecisiveness” or “complacency” or “corruption” is not that undisputable. That is OK and there is no need to repeat the truism that while facts are sacred, opinions are free!
But what it says further, at least the following, is a little baffling.
It says that the UPA II government seems to have spent its first 12 months “in a do-little state bred by political complacency and neo-liberal conservatism”.
I sent the following letter to The Hindu:
Sir,
This is regarding the editorial (May 25). It says that the UPA II government seems to have spent its first 12 months “in a do-little state bred by political complacency and neo-liberal conservatism”. ‘
As a diligent reader of The Hindu, I was curious to know what is neo-liberal conservatism and whether there is any other government in the world that is also Neo-liberal conservative, and I googled, but drew a blank. I understand ‘liberal conservatism’ itself is an oxymoron, in which case, ‘neo-liberal conservatism’ may only worsen the ambiguity.
Was it a Freudian slip? Was The Hindu, perhaps, thinking about a future coalition government of the (neo-conservative) BJP and the (neo-liberal) Left parties while writing the edit?
A Post Script to this response could be:
The Hindu seems to have achieved what it had been working for during the last two years, specifically, ever since the Left withdrew its support to UPA I and the government moved a confidence motion in the Parliament in July 2008. The BJP and the Left, as opposed to a common enemy, worked in unison to oust the UPA from power. They attacked the government almost on identical points and voted together on the same side. That it failed was only of incidental importance. The real significance of this coming together of the neo-conservative BJP and the neo-liberal Left was a new phenomenon in Indian politics – something almost everybody following the Indian political developments would have thought was impossible till a few years back. The Hindu with its inherent streak of Hindu orthodoxy (what else does the choice of its name ‘Hindu’ signify?) and the acquired leaning towards Left liberalism (a baggage its present Editor in Chief carried from his JNU days and the All India Vice Presidentship of the SFI) was eminently qualified to work towards this. Therefore, the use of ‘neo-liberal conservatism’ need not be an innocent slip; it could very well be a Freudian slip - making the impossible possible!
Under the the title, Traders' leader shot dead in Sopore, The Hindu carried a report on 24 May 2010 on the killing of Ghulam Nabi Khan, President of the Traders' Federation of Sopore, by Kashmiri militants. That was passe. What was extraordinary was the picture accompaying the report. Here is the relevant part of the report:
The Hindu, Date:24/05/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/05/24/stories/2010052454721400.htm
Front Page
Traders' leader shot dead in Sopore
Shujaat Bukhari
SRINAGAR: Militants on Sunday shot dead a prominent businessman in the north Kashmir town of Sopore. The Traders' Federation has called a protest strike against the killing on Monday.
Police sources told The Hindu that Federation's Sopore president Ghulam Nabi Khan was shot point blank while travelling in a horse-cart in the main chowk.
Mr. Khan was taken to a hospital, but declared dead on arrival. The militants, the sources said, managed to escape.
The killing resulted in panic in the town and the markets soon closed. Police rushed to the spot and cordoned off the area.
Thousands of people gathered at Mr. Khan's home as his body was taken there. Mr. Khan was a popular businessman in the town and his murder has enraged the traders, who have called for a strike to protest the “senseless murder.” Mr. Khan was buried later.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
And here is the letter I sent to The Hindu on the 24th:
Sir,
The picture accompanying the report, ‘Traders' leader shot dead in Sopore’ (May 24), has captured a strange spectacle. The caption of the picture says, the body of the slain trader was being “carried”. With the bearers at the ends of the bier appearing to face opposite sides, to which side could it have been carried? Convention is for the head-side to lead. But one cannot make out from the picture which was the head-side and which the feet-side as the kalma on the mantle over the bier is not clear. That the cortege in this instance would have reached the khabaristan is in no doubt, but the picture, interestingly, has symbolised the true state of Kashmiri politics. With so many conflicting interests pulling it in all directions, it may not reach anywhere.
The Hindu, Date:24/05/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/05/24/stories/2010052454721400.htm
Front Page
Traders' leader shot dead in Sopore
Shujaat Bukhari
SRINAGAR: Militants on Sunday shot dead a prominent businessman in the north Kashmir town of Sopore. The Traders' Federation has called a protest strike against the killing on Monday.
Police sources told The Hindu that Federation's Sopore president Ghulam Nabi Khan was shot point blank while travelling in a horse-cart in the main chowk.
Mr. Khan was taken to a hospital, but declared dead on arrival. The militants, the sources said, managed to escape.
The killing resulted in panic in the town and the markets soon closed. Police rushed to the spot and cordoned off the area.
Thousands of people gathered at Mr. Khan's home as his body was taken there. Mr. Khan was a popular businessman in the town and his murder has enraged the traders, who have called for a strike to protest the “senseless murder.” Mr. Khan was buried later.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
And here is the letter I sent to The Hindu on the 24th:
Sir,
The picture accompanying the report, ‘Traders' leader shot dead in Sopore’ (May 24), has captured a strange spectacle. The caption of the picture says, the body of the slain trader was being “carried”. With the bearers at the ends of the bier appearing to face opposite sides, to which side could it have been carried? Convention is for the head-side to lead. But one cannot make out from the picture which was the head-side and which the feet-side as the kalma on the mantle over the bier is not clear. That the cortege in this instance would have reached the khabaristan is in no doubt, but the picture, interestingly, has symbolised the true state of Kashmiri politics. With so many conflicting interests pulling it in all directions, it may not reach anywhere.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
The Hindu going out of the way to please Narendra Modi?
Sir,
The Hindu, among all other major Indian newspapers, has voluntarily decided to explain to its readers where ever it finds necessary, what it prints and why, which is what you do through your column. Hence this letter.
Under the title, ‘Report on comment attributed to Narendra Modi denied’, The Hindu published on 29.4.2010 a long, 789 words, denial statement with the following endorsement: “Gujarat government spokespersons Jaynarayan Vyas and Saurabh Patel, both State Ministers, have issued the following statement in Gandhinagar on Wednesday. This statement is in the context of a report published by Gujarat Samachar that falsely attributed to Chief Minister Narendra Modi a comment on Dalits”.
As far as I know, The Hindu had not published the news item that appeared in the Gujarat Samachar and had provoked this rebuttal. What was then the context for The Hindu to publish it?
The statement is a diatribe against the Congress, which it mentions by name 23 times. It is the business of the BJP to do.
There is also a photo of Mr. Modi accompanying the mews, to print which, of late, The Hindu seldom misses a chance.
I was wondering whether it was necessary for The Hindu, an ‘independent’ English newspaper, to join issue with Gujarat Samachar, a regional vernacular newspaper, in which it had apparently no stakes and to do which it had apparently no obligations.
More serious than that, was it necessary for The Hindu to endorse the denial statement by calling the Samachar report ‘false’?
If The Hindu had carried a misinformation earlier, journalistic ethics required it to issue a correction for the sake of its readers. The Hindu here was not trying to dispel a misunderstanding it had caused to its readers. The rebuttal was, therefore, published for some other reason.
We are hearing a lot about paid news these days. The Hindu had been in the forefront of the campaign against the scourge of paid news. But nobody ever discusses other genres of news. All that is not paid news is not clean news. For that matter, news is never clean. There are sponsored news, subsidised news, favored news and captive news, to mention a few.
Just as there is no unbiased news, there is no unbiased newspaper also. The problem for a professedly ‘independent’ newspaper, however, is when the interest becomes patent.
There are newspapers, which are mouthpieces of political parties and corporate interests. Nobody expects them to be unbiased. They are self-admitted captive news media. What they publish is, strictly speaking, paid news. The only difference is that they do not ‘sell’ the print space to outsiders as they are ‘owned’ by their publishers and print only what the boss permits.
In between the ‘owned’ and the ‘sold’, fall all other kinds of news, such as, the ‘sponsored’, the ‘favored’ and the ‘subsidised’. They are definitely contaminated. Incidentally, of all the different kinds, they are the most dangerous. If the reader knows what dish to expect, he may prepare himself to take it with less or more salt as the case is. In the case of interested news camouflaged as ‘independent’, the reader becomes a victim of duplicity.
My fervent question to you is, in which category will a report like the rebuttal statement in respect of Mr. Narendra Modi fall?
P.P.Sudhakaran,
(Retired Professor of History)
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road,
Cooke Town,
Bangalore 5.
Ph. 080 25467483.
The Hindu, among all other major Indian newspapers, has voluntarily decided to explain to its readers where ever it finds necessary, what it prints and why, which is what you do through your column. Hence this letter.
Under the title, ‘Report on comment attributed to Narendra Modi denied’, The Hindu published on 29.4.2010 a long, 789 words, denial statement with the following endorsement: “Gujarat government spokespersons Jaynarayan Vyas and Saurabh Patel, both State Ministers, have issued the following statement in Gandhinagar on Wednesday. This statement is in the context of a report published by Gujarat Samachar that falsely attributed to Chief Minister Narendra Modi a comment on Dalits”.
As far as I know, The Hindu had not published the news item that appeared in the Gujarat Samachar and had provoked this rebuttal. What was then the context for The Hindu to publish it?
The statement is a diatribe against the Congress, which it mentions by name 23 times. It is the business of the BJP to do.
There is also a photo of Mr. Modi accompanying the mews, to print which, of late, The Hindu seldom misses a chance.
I was wondering whether it was necessary for The Hindu, an ‘independent’ English newspaper, to join issue with Gujarat Samachar, a regional vernacular newspaper, in which it had apparently no stakes and to do which it had apparently no obligations.
More serious than that, was it necessary for The Hindu to endorse the denial statement by calling the Samachar report ‘false’?
If The Hindu had carried a misinformation earlier, journalistic ethics required it to issue a correction for the sake of its readers. The Hindu here was not trying to dispel a misunderstanding it had caused to its readers. The rebuttal was, therefore, published for some other reason.
We are hearing a lot about paid news these days. The Hindu had been in the forefront of the campaign against the scourge of paid news. But nobody ever discusses other genres of news. All that is not paid news is not clean news. For that matter, news is never clean. There are sponsored news, subsidised news, favored news and captive news, to mention a few.
Just as there is no unbiased news, there is no unbiased newspaper also. The problem for a professedly ‘independent’ newspaper, however, is when the interest becomes patent.
There are newspapers, which are mouthpieces of political parties and corporate interests. Nobody expects them to be unbiased. They are self-admitted captive news media. What they publish is, strictly speaking, paid news. The only difference is that they do not ‘sell’ the print space to outsiders as they are ‘owned’ by their publishers and print only what the boss permits.
In between the ‘owned’ and the ‘sold’, fall all other kinds of news, such as, the ‘sponsored’, the ‘favored’ and the ‘subsidised’. They are definitely contaminated. Incidentally, of all the different kinds, they are the most dangerous. If the reader knows what dish to expect, he may prepare himself to take it with less or more salt as the case is. In the case of interested news camouflaged as ‘independent’, the reader becomes a victim of duplicity.
My fervent question to you is, in which category will a report like the rebuttal statement in respect of Mr. Narendra Modi fall?
P.P.Sudhakaran,
(Retired Professor of History)
301, East Mansion,
No.2, Hutchins Road,
Cooke Town,
Bangalore 5.
Ph. 080 25467483.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Reconciling the irreconcilable
IPL controversy and The Hindu.
Ever since the IPL controversy broke out, The Hindu had been reporting it prominently. It has already written two editorials about it. But, I am sorry to say that, over all, the impression it helped to create is that they were loaded against Shashi Tharoor and were supportive of Nalin Modi. It carried titles that were explicit about Tharoor’s guilt and suggestive of Modi’s innocence - like “BJP wants Shashi Tharoor sacked as IPL row hots up”, “Tharoor abused office, says BJP”, “Question mark over Kochi IPL owners: Modi”, and “Pawar backs Lalit Modi in IPL Kochi row”. The Hindu would be knowing that for many readers the title is the news, and there were enough of them to make the readers feel that Nalin Modi was not guilty of any wrong doing. But, it now turns out that Modi is being investigated for match fixing, tax evasion and many other serious wrong doings.
The latest editorial, ‘Behind and beyond Tharoor’, while squarely condemning Tharoor for his “egregious acts of ministerial misconduct” and demanding a CBI enquiry, saw only an indiscretion on the part of Modi, of only doing “enough to provoke the Income Tax department to carry out a survey on the IPL's funding”. But it now turns out that it is not a survey but an all out investigation of the murky dealings of the IPL during the last three years it was running the 20/20 show, during which time Modi was its Chairman and Commissioner. As Tharoor has already admitted his role in sponsoring Ms.Pushkar, a CBI investigation is needed more in the case of Modi who has not admitted a single wrongdoing.
As a side thought, it occurred to me that The Hindu might have found in Tharoor a perfect punching bag as he had become a common target of both the BJP and the Left Parties. Being able to concur two irreconcilable political outfits is not a mean achievement. Congratulations.
Ever since the IPL controversy broke out, The Hindu had been reporting it prominently. It has already written two editorials about it. But, I am sorry to say that, over all, the impression it helped to create is that they were loaded against Shashi Tharoor and were supportive of Nalin Modi. It carried titles that were explicit about Tharoor’s guilt and suggestive of Modi’s innocence - like “BJP wants Shashi Tharoor sacked as IPL row hots up”, “Tharoor abused office, says BJP”, “Question mark over Kochi IPL owners: Modi”, and “Pawar backs Lalit Modi in IPL Kochi row”. The Hindu would be knowing that for many readers the title is the news, and there were enough of them to make the readers feel that Nalin Modi was not guilty of any wrong doing. But, it now turns out that Modi is being investigated for match fixing, tax evasion and many other serious wrong doings.
The latest editorial, ‘Behind and beyond Tharoor’, while squarely condemning Tharoor for his “egregious acts of ministerial misconduct” and demanding a CBI enquiry, saw only an indiscretion on the part of Modi, of only doing “enough to provoke the Income Tax department to carry out a survey on the IPL's funding”. But it now turns out that it is not a survey but an all out investigation of the murky dealings of the IPL during the last three years it was running the 20/20 show, during which time Modi was its Chairman and Commissioner. As Tharoor has already admitted his role in sponsoring Ms.Pushkar, a CBI investigation is needed more in the case of Modi who has not admitted a single wrongdoing.
As a side thought, it occurred to me that The Hindu might have found in Tharoor a perfect punching bag as he had become a common target of both the BJP and the Left Parties. Being able to concur two irreconcilable political outfits is not a mean achievement. Congratulations.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
One of the best editorials in my recent memory
This is the The Hindu editorial of 20.3.2010:
Behind the plea bargain of Headley
Date:20/03/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/20/stories/2010032056461200.htm
Opinion - Editorials
Behind Headley's plea bargain
Five years after he began the surveillance operation that finally guided a ten-man death squad through the streets of Mumbai in November, 2008, Pakistani-American jihadist David Headley has entered into a plea bargain with U.S. prosecutors. In India, the deal has provoked media outrage but careful study of the Plea Agreement (accessible under Resources at beta.thehindu.com) shows that claims that Headley has got off lightly are misplaced. Plea bargains in the United States work around a complex points system set up by the United States Sentencing Commission. In return for pleading guilty to all the 12 terrorism-related charges, and for meeting specified obligations for cooperation with investigators, prosecutors will recommend a reduction in sentence. In essence, Headley will avoid facing the death penalty and will not be extradited to India, Pakistan, or Denmark. However, the judge hearing the case is not bound by the sentencing recommendations — and if they are rejected, Headley will not be able to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor, unlike an approver in an Indian criminal trial, will he be granted a pardon in return for giving state's evidence. Some commentators have speculated that the Plea Agreement means Headley was a secret U.S. agent. The truth is that the U.S. repeatedly passed on substantial intelligence to India of the looming threat to Mumbai in the months before 26/11. Had Headley been the source of those warnings, he would be in the process of receiving a medal — not life in prison.
Just what has Headley — who made a similar plea bargain earlier in his troubled life, in connection with a narcotics-trafficking prosecution — promised in return for his life? Paragraph 12 of the Plea Agreement states that he will, when directed to do so by the U.S. Attorney's office, “fully and truthfully participate in any debriefings for the purpose of gathering intelligence or national security information.” In addition, he will “fully and truthfully testify in foreign judicial proceedings held in the United States, videoconferencing or letters rogatory.” This means he will have no choice but to testify in the ongoing trial of Mumbai attack suspects if called on to do so by Maharashtra prosecutors. He must also cooperate in any future criminal proceedings initiated by the National Investigations Agency on the Lashkar-e-Taiba's plot to attack the National Defence College in New Delhi. Further, Headley has agreed to “the postponement of his sentencing until after the conclusion of his cooperation.” Paragraph 8 of the Plea Agreement reveals that he has already “provided substantial assistance to the criminal investigation, and also has provided information of significant intelligence value.” This cooperation should strengthen the case against his co-accused, Tahawwur Rana, as well as key Lashkar operatives in Pakistan. Barring death-penalty enthusiasts, no one has any reason to bemoan the Plea Agreement. India's investigators and justice system must move quickly to capitalise on Headley's intelligence and testimony.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu.
In appreciation, I sent the following to The Hindu's Letters Editor on 21.3.2010:
Sir,
The editorial, Behind Headley's plea bargain (20 March), must have made The Hindu’s committed readers happy about their commitment. When most of the English media, print as well as TV, were wildly speculating about a secret deal between the US prosecution and Headley, and were dubbing the plea agreement as a ruse, beside other things, to prevent his interrogation by India, The Hindu showed extreme restraint and circumspection. Actually, the prospect of not giving Headley death penalty should help the Indian cause as he would now live and be available to answer under oath India’s questions.
This is the kind of editorials that will enhance the reputation of The Hindu as an independent, thoughtful and responsible newspaper.
Behind the plea bargain of Headley
Date:20/03/2010 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/20/stories/2010032056461200.htm
Opinion - Editorials
Behind Headley's plea bargain
Five years after he began the surveillance operation that finally guided a ten-man death squad through the streets of Mumbai in November, 2008, Pakistani-American jihadist David Headley has entered into a plea bargain with U.S. prosecutors. In India, the deal has provoked media outrage but careful study of the Plea Agreement (accessible under Resources at beta.thehindu.com) shows that claims that Headley has got off lightly are misplaced. Plea bargains in the United States work around a complex points system set up by the United States Sentencing Commission. In return for pleading guilty to all the 12 terrorism-related charges, and for meeting specified obligations for cooperation with investigators, prosecutors will recommend a reduction in sentence. In essence, Headley will avoid facing the death penalty and will not be extradited to India, Pakistan, or Denmark. However, the judge hearing the case is not bound by the sentencing recommendations — and if they are rejected, Headley will not be able to withdraw his guilty plea. Nor, unlike an approver in an Indian criminal trial, will he be granted a pardon in return for giving state's evidence. Some commentators have speculated that the Plea Agreement means Headley was a secret U.S. agent. The truth is that the U.S. repeatedly passed on substantial intelligence to India of the looming threat to Mumbai in the months before 26/11. Had Headley been the source of those warnings, he would be in the process of receiving a medal — not life in prison.
Just what has Headley — who made a similar plea bargain earlier in his troubled life, in connection with a narcotics-trafficking prosecution — promised in return for his life? Paragraph 12 of the Plea Agreement states that he will, when directed to do so by the U.S. Attorney's office, “fully and truthfully participate in any debriefings for the purpose of gathering intelligence or national security information.” In addition, he will “fully and truthfully testify in foreign judicial proceedings held in the United States, videoconferencing or letters rogatory.” This means he will have no choice but to testify in the ongoing trial of Mumbai attack suspects if called on to do so by Maharashtra prosecutors. He must also cooperate in any future criminal proceedings initiated by the National Investigations Agency on the Lashkar-e-Taiba's plot to attack the National Defence College in New Delhi. Further, Headley has agreed to “the postponement of his sentencing until after the conclusion of his cooperation.” Paragraph 8 of the Plea Agreement reveals that he has already “provided substantial assistance to the criminal investigation, and also has provided information of significant intelligence value.” This cooperation should strengthen the case against his co-accused, Tahawwur Rana, as well as key Lashkar operatives in Pakistan. Barring death-penalty enthusiasts, no one has any reason to bemoan the Plea Agreement. India's investigators and justice system must move quickly to capitalise on Headley's intelligence and testimony.
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu.
In appreciation, I sent the following to The Hindu's Letters Editor on 21.3.2010:
Sir,
The editorial, Behind Headley's plea bargain (20 March), must have made The Hindu’s committed readers happy about their commitment. When most of the English media, print as well as TV, were wildly speculating about a secret deal between the US prosecution and Headley, and were dubbing the plea agreement as a ruse, beside other things, to prevent his interrogation by India, The Hindu showed extreme restraint and circumspection. Actually, the prospect of not giving Headley death penalty should help the Indian cause as he would now live and be available to answer under oath India’s questions.
This is the kind of editorials that will enhance the reputation of The Hindu as an independent, thoughtful and responsible newspaper.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Hindu errs!
The following letter I sent to The Readers' Editor of The Hindu on 10th Mar. 2010:
The Hindu carried the article ‘UPA fails to pull through Women's Bill in Upper House’ by Gargi Parsai on Tuesday, Mar 09, 2010, which claimed that SP and RJD had withdrawn support to the UPA government. This is what it said:
“On a day of fast moving developments, the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal withdrew support to the government, and its leaders met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee, while the Bill itself was deferred to Tuesday.”
The fact, as reported by other newspapers and news channels, was that on the 8th the two Yadavs had only decided to withdraw support, which is not the same as withdrawing support. To use The Hindu’s own terminology, they had only “threatened” to withdraw support.
But, instead of correcting the error next day, The Hindu carried the headline: “Lalu withdraws support”. The text of the news, however, was correct: “Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad on Tuesday announced his decision to formally withdraw support to the government….
Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh, who too had threatened to do so, however, was evasive on the issue. When journalists persisted with their questions, he said he would inform the media when he took a decision in this regard. Mr. Prasad said he would call on President Pratibha Patil and submit his letter to her on Wednesday”.
How on earth did this mixup occur?
The Hindu carried the article ‘UPA fails to pull through Women's Bill in Upper House’ by Gargi Parsai on Tuesday, Mar 09, 2010, which claimed that SP and RJD had withdrawn support to the UPA government. This is what it said:
“On a day of fast moving developments, the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal withdrew support to the government, and its leaders met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Leader of the House, Pranab Mukherjee, while the Bill itself was deferred to Tuesday.”
The fact, as reported by other newspapers and news channels, was that on the 8th the two Yadavs had only decided to withdraw support, which is not the same as withdrawing support. To use The Hindu’s own terminology, they had only “threatened” to withdraw support.
But, instead of correcting the error next day, The Hindu carried the headline: “Lalu withdraws support”. The text of the news, however, was correct: “Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad on Tuesday announced his decision to formally withdraw support to the government….
Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh, who too had threatened to do so, however, was evasive on the issue. When journalists persisted with their questions, he said he would inform the media when he took a decision in this regard. Mr. Prasad said he would call on President Pratibha Patil and submit his letter to her on Wednesday”.
How on earth did this mixup occur?
Friday, March 05, 2010
Ideology of the CPI (Maoists) and Arundhati Roy
The following letter I sent to The Hindu Letters to the Editor on 6.3.2010. The next letters day is on the 8th.
The news item in The Hindu was:
Ideology can't be wiped out by attacking tribals: Arundhati Roy
Manisha Jha
NEW DELHI: Dubbing the Centre's talk of ceasefire and talks with naxals “non-serious,” members of democratic and civil rights organisations on Friday demanded that the state stop the military offensive, Operation Greenhunt, “against its own people” and initiate back-channel talks with the CPI (Maoist).
Addressing a press conference here, writer and human rights activist Arundhati Roy said: “The government's use of the military to solve political problems is not new. The government has long since followed a policy of extermination against the Maoist movement. But each time the movement has come back stronger and better organised as it is not the people but an ideology under attack and this ideology cannot be wiped out by attacking tribals in the name of defeating Maoism. Moreover, considering the fact that no one has defined the word ‘Maoist', if the government talks of wiping them out, then it refers to a genocidal language where it could be dispensing with lakhs of people who are anyway fragile and on the brink of survival.”
Ms. Roy said: “We are in a situation wherein corporatisation of natural resources such as coal and iron ore has led to scandals galore and it is this money which can buy governments, elections, courts and media, making our democracy the best democracy that money can buy today. Despite a large number of farmer suicides and a majority of the population living below poverty line, we have the most expensive elections in the world and the money for the same comes from the iron ores of Karnataka and Chhattisgarh and bauxite in Orissa which is then is used to cleverly subvert democracy and wage war against its own people.”
Sumit Chakravartty, Editor, Mainstream magazine, said: “The Union government has undertaken the task of launching a full-scale war against the indigenous tribal population in the vast tribal heartlands. The most important thing for talks to be successful between the CPI (Maoist) and the government is that it has to be a mutual affair of cessation of hostilities. It cannot be one-sided. While asking the Maoists to abjure violence, the Centre should also do the same and initiate back-channel talks, but so far this seriousness and initiative on the part of the government has been lacking.”
Alluding to the treatment meted out to social activists working in naxal-affected areas in Chhattisgarh, he said: “The government's allegation that the Maoists are not allowing development works to take place is hollow because if that was true, then why would civil society and voluntary organisation representatives working for the uplift of the Maoists be targeted? Since the government is not interested in the development of tribals, a large number of them have joined the Maoists as it is a question of survival for them.”
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Sir,
One cannot agree more with Arundhati Roy in her assessment of the present Indian democracy and the State. But her demand to stop the Operation Greenhunt against the CPI (Maoist) is baffling. Assuming that the ideology Roy refers to is a programme to install a people’s government after overthrowing the present State through a relentless and protracted armed struggle, one may wonder how it can ever propose a ceasefire except as part of a strategy. Is Roy a partisan to this strategy? Or is she romanticizing the Maoist violence as mere acts of ‘innocent savages’?
The news item in The Hindu was:
Ideology can't be wiped out by attacking tribals: Arundhati Roy
Manisha Jha
NEW DELHI: Dubbing the Centre's talk of ceasefire and talks with naxals “non-serious,” members of democratic and civil rights organisations on Friday demanded that the state stop the military offensive, Operation Greenhunt, “against its own people” and initiate back-channel talks with the CPI (Maoist).
Addressing a press conference here, writer and human rights activist Arundhati Roy said: “The government's use of the military to solve political problems is not new. The government has long since followed a policy of extermination against the Maoist movement. But each time the movement has come back stronger and better organised as it is not the people but an ideology under attack and this ideology cannot be wiped out by attacking tribals in the name of defeating Maoism. Moreover, considering the fact that no one has defined the word ‘Maoist', if the government talks of wiping them out, then it refers to a genocidal language where it could be dispensing with lakhs of people who are anyway fragile and on the brink of survival.”
Ms. Roy said: “We are in a situation wherein corporatisation of natural resources such as coal and iron ore has led to scandals galore and it is this money which can buy governments, elections, courts and media, making our democracy the best democracy that money can buy today. Despite a large number of farmer suicides and a majority of the population living below poverty line, we have the most expensive elections in the world and the money for the same comes from the iron ores of Karnataka and Chhattisgarh and bauxite in Orissa which is then is used to cleverly subvert democracy and wage war against its own people.”
Sumit Chakravartty, Editor, Mainstream magazine, said: “The Union government has undertaken the task of launching a full-scale war against the indigenous tribal population in the vast tribal heartlands. The most important thing for talks to be successful between the CPI (Maoist) and the government is that it has to be a mutual affair of cessation of hostilities. It cannot be one-sided. While asking the Maoists to abjure violence, the Centre should also do the same and initiate back-channel talks, but so far this seriousness and initiative on the part of the government has been lacking.”
Alluding to the treatment meted out to social activists working in naxal-affected areas in Chhattisgarh, he said: “The government's allegation that the Maoists are not allowing development works to take place is hollow because if that was true, then why would civil society and voluntary organisation representatives working for the uplift of the Maoists be targeted? Since the government is not interested in the development of tribals, a large number of them have joined the Maoists as it is a question of survival for them.”
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu
Sir,
One cannot agree more with Arundhati Roy in her assessment of the present Indian democracy and the State. But her demand to stop the Operation Greenhunt against the CPI (Maoist) is baffling. Assuming that the ideology Roy refers to is a programme to install a people’s government after overthrowing the present State through a relentless and protracted armed struggle, one may wonder how it can ever propose a ceasefire except as part of a strategy. Is Roy a partisan to this strategy? Or is she romanticizing the Maoist violence as mere acts of ‘innocent savages’?
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Modi and the vote bank politics in disguise
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)