The Great Indian Political Debate - 2

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Archives (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Trash Can (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=20)
+--- Thread: The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 (/showthread.php?tid=758)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 01-15-2005

RSS ideology is a serious threat: Natwar Singh
Sombody tell this mad man, there was no Islam 3000 years back. Islam came from outside and forced on Indians. His own ancestors were abused by invaders. He himself was against of his muslim daughter-in-law and later she was found murdered in Delhi Hotel.

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 01-18-2005

''Muslim psyche needs to be healed'' : Natwar

QUOTENew Delhi, Jan 15 (UNI) Asserting that Muslim psyche had been hurt and needed to be healed, External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh today lashed out at the 'Sangh Parivar' and its constituents for ''distorting the very concept of secularism'' and dared them to face a debate ''head on'' on the issue.

Delivering the 12th Lal Bahadur Shastri Memorial Lecture on 'India and Islam,' he said that for several years, the critics of secularism, particularly those from within the Sangh Parivar, had tried to build up a movement to promote their ''exclusivist ideology and their doctrine of hate and abuse.'' But they had not succeeded.

Noting that there had been a vigorous and acrimonious debate on the idea of secularism and its continuing relevance to the Indian polity, Mr Natwar Singh said the most vigorous assault on it had come from the ''Sangh Parivar.'' Those people who believe in India's core national values, should not shy away from a debate from this debate but face it head on and expose the weaknesses, fallacies, distortions and lies in the case presented by the other side.

''For several years, the critics of secularism, particularly those from within the Sangh Parivar, have honed their philosophical moorings, established political alliances, and tried to build up a movement to promote exclusivist ideology and their docctrine of hate and abuse. They have not succeeded,'' he said.

Reiterating the UPA government's commitmenmt to the core national value of secularism, democracy and pluralism, he said this legacy would not be allowed to be frittered away.

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 01-18-2005

QUOTE No evidence to show Muslims persecuted Hindus: Natwar

New Delhi, Jan 15 (UNI) In a scathing attack against the Sangh Parivar, particularly the BJP, for distorting the concept of secularism and core national values, External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh today said there was no evidence to suggest that Muslim rulers had persecuted Hindus and instead, ''the picture was quite the opposite.'' ''Indeed, the picture is quite the opposite...Recollection of ancient wrongs of Muslim rulers is both fallacious and pernicious : there is no evidence to suggest the sustained persecution of Hindus by Muslim rulers,'' the External Affairs Minister said while delivering the 12th Lal Bahadur Shastri Memorial Lecture here.

Hitting out at the BJP and its ideology, Mr Natwar Singh said the premises put forward by the BJP and its fraternity criticise the practice of secularism since independence as having wounded the Hindu ethos and psyche even as Muslims were given privileged status.

In support of these assertions there are frequent references to Indian history based on selective readings of old events and episodes.

He said no political movement would be able to seize power in India on the basis of an exclusivist philosophy and agenda, however emotive ts assertions and seductive its appeals.

''To rule India, a movement or Party must necessarily represent and uphold India's rich diversity and include within its agenda the interest of different sections that make it our national tapestry,'' he said.

He said the ''anti-secular philosophy'' of the BJP, the strident assertions of its adherents and the ''rampages of its cohorts'' had led some observers to believe that there had been an increase in religious bigotry and that minorities remained insecure while communal conflicts proliferated.

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 01-24-2005

QUOTEMore loyal than the queen

By Francois Gautier
Something terribly wrong is going on in India. On the one hand, there is the Shankaracharya, one of the most venerated Hindu leaders, arrested like an ordinary criminal on one of the most sacred days of the Hindus. On the other, politicians such as Mr Lalu Prasad Yadav, who have more corruption cases against them than anybody else - and certain others who may even have some blood on their hands - are made ministers and are strutting around with security guards in tow. The tarnishing of the image of the Kancheepuram mutt is nearly complete. Will it ever be able to recover its sanctity, even if the Shankaracharya is found not guilty?

On the other hand, there is a quack like American evangelist Benny Hinn, who even in the United States has no standing, but can come to India, a country with an overwhelming Hindu majority, to deride idol worship and paganism and convert the poor and the gullible. We see former ministers and ex-prime ministers - many of them Hindus -coming to Benny Hinn live on TV, with bowed heads and folded hands like beggars asking for the White Man's grace. We see the entire state machinery of Karnataka put to the service of the evangelist while all the laws are subverted so that he can conduct his fake show.

We see how, when 58 innocent men, women and children were burnt alive in the most horrible manner in Godhra, for no other reason than being Hindus, that there is not even respect for their memory, for the truth is now twisted for political purposes with the help of India's Marxists who want the death of Hinduism. Hindus are always accused of all the ills and intolerance, but where else in the world will you find a Christian supreme leader in a country with only three per cent Christians, a Sikh Prime Minister when there are only two per cent Sikhs, and a Muslim President with only 10 per cent Muslims?

I am a Westerner and a born Christian, but I am ashamed of what has been happening in the country ever since Ms Sonia Gandhi, also a Westerner and a Christian, has become the de facto ruler of this ancient and extraordinary country of 850 million Hindus and 125 million Muslims. For, what is happening is an insult to India's culture, greatness and intelligence. Even more saddening is the passivity of Indians in the face of the developments. For only a few voices have been raised in these moments of insanity. India's curse is the disunity amongst its Hindus, and their infighting. One is even surprised at the lack of reaction from the top Hindu spiritual leaders of India: Satya Sai Baba, Amrita Anandamayi and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. Together they hold sway on at least 400 million Hindus. Why don't they form a Supreme Spiritual Conclave along with the Shankaracharya? They have only to say one word and it will be followed. But even amongst them there is disunity.

Who will save India, then? Certainly not the Congress, which was incapable of finding a worthy Indian leader amongst its own members, many of whom are intelligent and sincere. By stooping down to Ms Sonia Gandhi, they have repeated the same old story of India's ancient princes and maharajas betraying each other and bowing down to a foreign ruler, be it Aurangzeb, or His Majesty's Viceroy. Who betrayed the mighty empire of Vijaynagar, the last great Hindu kingdom, to Muslims? Who betrayed India to the British? Who is betraying India today? But at least the Congress is true to its ideals. The biggest culprit must be the party which, in five years of power, did nothing except project a Gandhian image of itself, rather than having India's interests at heart.

Not have to say or do anything. She does not have to instruct the Tamil Nadu Police to arrest the Shankaracharya, or tell the Chief Minister of Karnataka, Mr Dharam Singh, to attend Benny Hinn's show. By just being where she is, at the top of India's political hierarchy, she is able to ensure that her silent wishes are fulfilled. Everybody is bending over backwards to please her, even anticipating her wishes!

I have nothing personally against Ms Sonia Gandhi. She was a good wife to her husband, a good daughter to her mother-in-law, and is doubtless a good mother to her children. Many accounts have come of her dignity, grace and concern for others. But what does Ms Gandhi really stand for, as the Eminence Grise of this country, the person who is drawing all the strings behind the scene? The Benny Hinn show points to not only a renewed effort at Christianisation of India (something which even the British and the Portuguese could not do), and a targeting of Hindus and Hindu spiritual leaders, but also at the Westernisation of the subcontinent. India will then become just another nation cloning the West. Even Muslims and Christians in India, who are like no other Christians and Muslims in the world, would lose something.

How sad that this is happening at a time when the West is looking for other spiritual answers to its problems and the Church is in decline there. The only silver lining in the whole story is that these events - whether the arrest of the Shankaracharya, the Benny Hinn show, or the rewriting of Godhra - may open the eyes of Indians. It may be that India needs to go through this painful process, to see the forces that have been unleashed when Indians chose someone who is basically hostile to the majority culture of this country as their leader. Maybe they need to be faced with a Government which is pulling India down, just to please the minorities, the Vatican and the Western powers who do not want India to emerge as a strong and vibrant nation.

Nobody seems to understand that India's unique identity, its Sanatan dharma, which survived so many onslaughts in its long history, is today under mortal threat.

Cry my Beloved India, Look what Thy children have done to Thee.

http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?
main_variable=OPED&file_name=opd4%2Etxt&counter_img=4

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 01-26-2005

QUOTEStained Padma 

The Pioneer Edit Desk
A large number of foreigners have made India their home, empathised with its people and worked shoulder-to-shoulder with Indians because they fell in love with this land. Even during the freedom struggle, several Britons distinguished themselves by participating in the movement and rousing the conscience of their own countrymen against the injustices perpetrated on Indians by the colonial rulers.

A grateful India reciprocated by bestowing affection and honour on the countless foreign-born men and women who helped this country rediscover its self-esteem. In contemporary India, too, there are many examples of such selfless dedication. Therefore, the conferring of the Padma Bhushan on William Mark Tully, for decades the BBC's voice in India and India's voice to the world deserves unstinted commendation. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' />

The same, sadly, cannot be said for the other foreign-born recipient of this year's Padma awards. The honouring of Ms Gladys Staines, widow of Australian missionary Graham Staines, brutally murdered by an irate mob in Orissa some years ago, defies all logic. A person selected for such awards should be distinguished in his/her field and bring glory to this country in some form. A bewildered nation needs to be enlightened on Ms Staines' contribution in this regard. Although her late husband's work in the tribal regions of Orissa was controversial on account of its alleged association with conversions to Christianity, it can still be argued that he brought succour to many diseased and disabled people, particularly leprosy patients.

Further, the manner in which he was murdered along with his young sons was gruesome and despicable. But, it is a measure of the strength of republican institutions in India and the independence of its judiciary that the killers were brought to book, tried and sentenced to severe punishment. In other words, the Indian state discharged its responsibility with impartiality and, in this case, sufficient alacrity. But, however tragic Graham Staines' killing, can it be official policy to honour the widow of every person who dies in mob violence?

There are hundreds of foreign missionaries active in different parts of the country, but controversy has always dogged their actions because of the wide suspicion that their final goal remains proselytisation, regardless of the camouflage. This may not be true in many instances, but the popular anger against conversion-related activities has often led the Government to ask many of them to leave the country. Curiously, Ms Staines too left India "on furlough" for her native Australia some time ago despite averring that Orissa would remain her place of work. That raises an additional question: What were the compelling reasons for honouring an absentee missionary?

What remarkable achievements has she notched up on behalf of India since leaving the country's shores? Arguably, however, Ms Staines acted with remarkable dignity and grace in the aftermath of the murder of her husband and sons. After the court passed severe sentences on the leaders of the murderous mob, she warmed many hearts by declaring in the true Christian spirit that she forgave the criminals. She will rise in the country's esteem if she were now to decline the politically motivated Padma Shri conferred upon her. That will be an appropriate rebuff to the misconceived agenda of bleeding-heart jholawalas who have unfortunately come to dominate decision-making layers of this Government

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 02-06-2005

I cannot believe we have such a nutcase for a FM. He goes on to say

QUOTEThe battle for Indiaâs soul
- By K. Natwar Singh

While a critique of our composite culture has different bases, the central feature of the ideology of the BJP and its fraternity is to view the Muslim as "the Other" and, celebrate, and even idolise an India which exalts Hindu culture and ethos at the expense of other communities and influences in our national polity.

The premises put forward by the BJP and its fraternity in the debate against secularism places the "Hindu" identity at the core of the nation; criticises Muslims for failing to integrate with the nation and even being disloyal to it; and finally, criticises the practice of secularism since Independence as having wounded the Hindu ethos and psyche even as Muslims were given privileged status. In support of these assertions, there are frequent references to Indian history based on a selective readings of old events and episodes.

The presentation I have made so far should make it clear that to see India as a "Hindu" country has little support in our historical and cultural experience, which has seen a continued intermingling of diverse peoples, communities and religions over several centuries. I have also pointed out that Hinduism itself has never been a universal or monolithic concept.

Again, recollection of ancient wrongs of Muslim rulers is both fallacious and pernicious: first, there is no evidence to suggest the sustained persecution of Hindus by Muslim rulers. Indeed, the picture is quite the opposite. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /> What does the statement mean ? There has been hindu persecution of muslims ??Â I cant believe we have such a nutcase for a FM. <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /> Second, even if certain Muslim rulers were guilty of atrocious conduct, it is difficult to see how one can transfer their guilt over the centuries on to millions of Muslims who are in our midst today. I am sure this guy doesnt apply this same logic elsewhere..

Our cultural inheritance is the product of a sustained intermingling of Hindu, Islamic and other traditions. As Amartya Sen has noted, "There is in fact no communal line to be drawn through Indian literature and arts, setting Hindus and Muslims on separate lines." Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who knew his Islam and his history better than most, spoke of "a notable event in history," the fusion of the Islamic and Hindu cultural currents, and "eleven hundred years of common history." I am sure the quote would have been in a different context. Even at face value such a statement is stupid. The common history is thousands of years more then eleven hundred years. This 1100 yr history means muslims came from out of India. This joint wealth, according to him, was the heritage of common nationality. In one of his most eloquent speeches at the Ramgarh session of the AICC, he declared, "I am proud of being an Indian. I am a part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to this noble edifice and without me this splendid structure of India is incomplete. I am an essential element which has gone to build India. I can never surrender this claim."

Azad, who bore the brunt of religious abuse with dignity and fortitude, was overwhelmed by partition. Yet, he could envisage an Islam not of sectarian belligerence but of confident partnership with other cultural and religious entities. And what good did that do ? How many were there like him ? The founding fathers of our polity, as they framed the Constitution, simply gave legal recognition to our religious pluralism which had been a living reality for centuries and which was not and could not be undermined by the misguided zealots and their imperial masters who pursued the partition of our country.

The anti-secular philosophy of the BJP, the strident assertions of its adherents and the rampages of its cohorts have led some observers to suggest that our record in upholding our core national value is at best mixed and, indeed, there has been an increase in religious bigotry, and that minorities remain insecure while communal conflicts proliferate. One observer believes that secularism in India "looks pale and exhausted."

I do not agree with the negative assessment put forward in regard to our secular order. I remain convinced that our commitment to pluralism and multi-culturalism remains our core national value and enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of our people. One more stupid statement. The pluralism comes from Hinduism and not because of secularism. There have been occasional aberrations and some serious setbacks and failures, but the central commitment of our nation has not wavered. Indeed, it would be correct to assert that no political movement will be able to seize power in our polity on the basis of an exclusivist philosophy and agenda, however emotive its assertions and seductive its appeals. Or, to put it in positive terms, to rule India, a movement or party must necessarily represent and uphold Indiaâs rich diversity and include within its agenda the interest, on equitable basis, of the different sections that make it our national tapestry. What equitable basis ? Like in Shah Bano case ?

Having asserted this, it would be wrong to be complacent and to believe that the future is inevitably rosy. To my mind, our failure so far has been in two areas: political and intellectual. In the political arena, we have not always upheld the essential requirements of a secular order, namely, symmetrical treatment of all groups; defence of the rights and interests of all groups but particularly the weaker and vulnerable elements; and, above all, the rigorous use of the instrument of law to penalise those who have participated in crimes against our vulnerable sections.Â Instead, from time to time, tokenism has taken the place of genuine commitment to our core national values. But these core national values remain our ideal and those of the Indian National Congress. I would love to see this guy say this in person with a straight face

However, our more serious failure has been in the intellectual arena. For several years, the critics of secularism, particularly those from within the Sangh Parivar, have honed their philosophical moorings, established political alliances, and have tried to build up a movement to promote their exclusivist ideology and their doctrine of confrontation and abuse. They have not succeeded. The 2004 Lok Sabha elections testify to the fact that bigotry has been shown its place. The peopleâs verdict is for harmony and tolerance rather than discord and disunity. More spin. Does he mean 99 verdict was for discord and disunity ?

I would like to reiterate our commitment to our core national value of secularism, democracy and pluralism. At the same time, we will vigorously participate in the debates in defence of our nationâs heritage and our core national values. We cannot allow our legacy to be frittered away or lost due to complacency, indecisiveness or lack of conviction. The battle is for the soul of our nation and there can be no greater call upon us than this.


I have not seen a more stupid article on secularism. Where do they make morons like these ? <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' />

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 02-07-2005

QUOTEHindutva and beyond 
Roopa Kaushal -Pioneer
In the article, "Conceptual civilisation" (January 24), Sukanya Ghosh has rightly quoted Vishnu Puran in support of her argument that India's geographical boundary, from the time immemorial, consisted of the territory between Himalayas and the Indian Ocean. This description of the the country's cultural unity is also found in both Agni and Vayu Puran. These references contradict the stereotype thinking that India did not constitute a nation before the British Raj.

Ms Ghosh, however, appears confused when she states: "Hindutva is the socially-activated Hindu consciousness which is a civilisational and cultural concept." She says that the prime components of Hindutva are a deep faith in the Sanatan Dharma which postulates spirituality and service to humanity, a feeling of belonging with Bharat-bhoomi and oneness with the followers of Hinduism. But, at the same time, she finds in Bharatiyata an embodiment of civilisational, geographical and political overtones. Earlier, Mr Ram Gopal in the article, "Interpreting Hindutva" (January 14), had aptly stated that the words 'Hindustan' for 'Bharat' and 'Hindu' for its inhabitants had entered into Indian vocabulary about a thousand years back when Arabic or Persian became the country's official languages. The word 'Hindu', however, got a religious connotation much later when all religious sects of Indian origin were grouped together as Hindu religions and subjected to jazia. Even now, English dictionaries give the meaning of 'Hindu' both as a member of the Indian race and an adherent of Hinduism. Hence, etymologically, Bharatiyata and Hindutva are synonyms.

However, it is erroneous to link Hindutva with Hinduism. After all, Hindu religion is not a single religion. It is a commonwealth of about 20 India-born religions. All of them have many commonalties, but each one has its own distinct features, too. Thus, religious bigotry remains an alien phenomenon here.

In the Goa musings of January 2003, former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee observed that Hindutva was a geo-cultural concept whose aim was to strengthen nationalism, not to propagate any particular religious order. But a year later, Mr Vajpayee said that though Hindutva and Bharatiyata meant the same thing, he preferred the latter. Obviously, the BJP wanted to lure Muslims before the 2004 Lok Sabha elections. But, the attempt failed. The reality is that however beautiful and accomplished a girl may be, she cannot be the wife of a devout Muslim, unless she embraces Islam and undergoes nikah. Similarly, no monetary grant or other concessions can satisfy their appetite for complete political sovereignty over the land of their occupation. Jammu & Kashmir is a living example.

A learned Muslim leader and a close associate of Mahatma Gandhi told his community on the eve of the Khilafat agitation of 1920-21: "Their duty is only to act strictly in accordance with the commands of the God, which are incorporated in the Quran. They should empty their minds of all man-made ideas and national sentiments and surrender themselves to the instructions and the guidance of the Supreme Educator" (Tara Chand; History of Freedom Movement in India, volume III). Thus, any attempt to eulogise Bharatiyata in place of Hindutva is futile. The need is to understand Hindutva in its true meaning and educate Muslims that, by nationality, they too are Hindus. What Hindutva requires them is to adopt secularism, like other religionists in India, and shun their old concepts of Dar-ul-Islam and Dar-ul-Harb.

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 02-09-2005

New dimensions of secularism
Tuesday February 8 2005 10:13 IST
S.Gurumurthy

http://www.newindpress.com/newspages.asp?p...e=Main+Article&
QUOTE Why did the Karnataka Chief Minister and other seculars proudly participate in the mass proselytising event of Benny Hinn, who abused Hindus and Hindu Gods? How is it that E. Ahmed of the Muslim League is âsecularâ and L.K Advani of the BJP âcommunalâ? Why is the Kanchi Matham being hounded while the raid on the Islamic religious school at Nadwa to catch ISI insurgents was called off and Central ministers sent to apologise to Ali Mian for the raid? How is it that âsecularâ intellectuals are asking for the release of the Godhra accused and none of them is bothered about Vijayendra Saraswathi in jail? How come even a Congress chief minister like A.K. Antony could not stand the pseudo-âsecularâ polity and was forced to charge the organised minorities for perverting secularism? Why..? How...? These and similar questions repeatedly arise. But no one cares to answer them. You want answers to these questions? Read on.

For âsecularâ India, secularism is not divorced between the state and religion. For them secularism is exclusively for the benefit of the minorities. Extend it, secularism means pampering the minorities. Go further, it includes being allergic to the majority. That is, unless one explicitly appeases the minorities and is overtly allergic to Hindus, one is not âsecularâ enough. How did secularism acquire these new dimensions? Simple: it became a tool of politics. Politics is all about uniting the supporters and dividing the opponents. In Indian politics, uniting a minority for votes is âsecularâ. It is âsecularâ to divide the majority into this or that caste for votes. Consequently, uniting the majority is anti-âsecularâ. And organising the majority is fundamentalist. In contrast, protecting organised minority is a âsecularâ duty. This is the high point of âsecularâ India. A novice in Christian history would know that secularism originated in Christendom as a rule of separation of the Christian church and the Christian state. But how come what started off as an issue of Christian church versus the Christian state has become an issue of majority versus minority?

Now we need to trespass into some history â not an interesting subject for many. With Martin Lutherâs revolt against the âCatholic Churchâ arrived the âProtestant Churchâ. This weakened the Papacy and eventually broke up the Holy Roman Empire. The broken pieces of the Empire, by permutation and combination, became the modern nation-states in Europe. But these separated nation states also owed allegiance to Christ and Bible. These developments were all intra-Christian, within Christendom. No other religion was in the picture. The Church had ensured that no indigenous faith survived after Christianity took charge of Europe. Till this point no one had heard of secularism. It was only when the national Christian churches clashed with the national Christian states for primacy that a formula had to be worked out. That formula was that the Christian State would prevail in worldly issues that were considered to be âsecularâ in Christian theology. In the Abrahamic world all matters pertaining to the âother worldâ were sacred, and the worldly issues âsecularâ. This was how secularism was born. It separated what Christianity regarded as âsacredâ from what it classified as âsecularâ. But the common denominator was the Christian theology and what it certified as sacred and âsecularâ. In the European model, the Christian state was not actually creed-neutral. It was neutrality between the Christian state and the Christian church within Christianity. Secularism mandated that the Christian church would not interfere in matters of the Christian state.

It was the advent of democracy, not secularism, which gave the survival space non-Christian faiths in Christendom. The Christian states ruled by Christian monarchs began clashing with the people when the people began demanding more rights. This is where individualism began conflicting with monarchies. The clashes triggered movements for democracy. It was democracy that really shaped the institution of secularism as later understood in the modern West. With individualism becoming the supreme institution, the society in the West lost its legitimacy. So religion became a personal affair, an individual right. Still, secularism in the West was an all-Christian affair. It was an intra-Christian discipline. The state stood neutral between the Christian church and Christians, whether faithfuls or heretics. But democracy offered space for atheists and agnostics. Added to that was emigration from the rest of the world which turned the Christian West multi-religious and multi-racial. This brought in the issue of religious minorities. But in the West the religion of the majority, the Christian faith, was organised through the Churches of various denominations, around the Bible and Christ. So the secularism of Christendom stood between the organised majority and equally organised minorities, both being essentially Abrahamic in character.

But here in India, while the minorities are organised around their book and their prophets, the majority faith, the Hindu faith, is totally unorganised. In fact, it is not organisable at all. With 33 crore Gods to be propitiated one can understand how impossible it is to organise Hinduism. So we have organised minorities on the one hand and unorganised â why un-organisable â majority on the other. With the result secularism as understood in India protects the organised minorities. It leaves the unorganised majority completely unprotected and undefended. Vote bank politics made it worse. Since the minorities are organised they become readymade vote banks, mere ballot papers. But the Hindu majority does not behave or vote as majority. This is so even on issues of faith as the divergent faiths and Gods within Hinduism makes it difficult for them to unite like the minorities. âSecularâ India denies to the majority the rights it reserves for the majority. So secularism in essence treats the âsecularâ state as a majoritarian institution. In Christendom, the majority is Christian any way. And they are also organised additionally.

But, âsecularâ India will not allow the Hindus to unite. It will snuff out any attempt to organise the Hindus, label those who attempt it as communalists and fundamentalists. But, unless Hindus get organised, âsecularâ India will not allow Hinduism to survive. Then, will âsecularâ India not do to Hinduism what Christianity did to Roman paganism? The Encyclopedia of Britannica says that Rome did not know how to handle Christianity that negated all other faiths. The inability of Roman Pagans to handle an intolerant faith, as the encyclopedia repeatedly refers to Christianity, caused the collapse of the Roman Paganism. âSecularâ Indiaâs intolerance to Hindus is similar. The Hindus have to handle âsecularâ India like the minorities do. That is, the Hindus have to get organised and create a majoritarian regime. This is a rule of survival for them. And for the survival of a faith-neutral state itself! The question is, will they do it in spite of âsecularâ Indiaâs hostility?

Writerâs email: comment@gurumurthy.net

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 02-16-2005

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Feb 5 2005, 11:29 PM) I cannot believe we have such a nutcase for a FM. He goes on to say

I have not seen a more stupid article on secularism. Where do they make morons like these ?Â <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /> 
Here's Balbir Punj's ripping some new holes into the FM.

QUOTEHistoric disinformation
The Asianage (2/14/2005 9:28:32 PM)
External affairs minister K. Natwar Singh, in his "12th Lal Bahadur Shastri Memorial Lecture" (The Asian Age, The Op-Ed Page, February 4, 5 and 6), typical of a loyal Congressman, has seemingly RSS (established 1925) and BJP (established 1980) to blame for 1,200 years of bad blood between Muslims and Hindus. Will this problem vanish from India, let alone the subcontinent, if the Sangh Parivar and the BJP cease to exist tomorrow? Is that likely when Buddhism, the religion of peace, disappeared from India in the 13th century before the Islamic sword, and Gandhiji failed to make Muslims walk alongside him?

But perhaps he had forgotten when Pakistan attacked India in 1965, the then Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri personally rang up the RSS chief Guru Golwalkar in Maharashtra and invited him for the All-Leaders Conference. In Delhi, for the entire period of 22 days of war, traffic control was transferred to the swayamsevaks to free the police for more pressing tasks.

The admittedly pro-Communist and RSS-baiter Jawaharlal Nehru, realised his folly in the twilight of his life during the 1962 Indo-China war. Nehru, in recognition of the Sanghâs services, invited the RSS contingent to take part in the Republic Day parade of 1963. It proves that even Congressmen know whom to rely upon during times of such national crisis.

Mr Singh, of course, is selective in the recall of history. After the crushing of the 1857 uprising, a golden moment in the Hindu-Muslim relations in the subcontinent, the British resorted to the policy of divide and rule. While Hindus mostly ignored their overtures, the bulk of the Muslims fell for the bait, hook, line and sinker. On March 16, 1888, at Meerut, Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan (founder of Aligarh Muslim University, the "epic" centre of partition) spoke of "our Mohammedan nation" and divided the country into "Muslim nation" and "Hindu nation." On October 1, 1906 at Shimla, Aga Khan, at the head of a Muslim delegation, put two demands to Viceroy Lord Minto â Muslims should be represented by Muslims and the representation should be in excess of their numerical strength. Only two months later, in December 1906, the Muslim League was born in Dacca.

So the Muslims embarked upon a separatist agenda (with British sponsorship). The Congress response to this challenge can be divided into two categories. The likes of Gandhiji started pandering to the fundamentalists amongst Muslims to win them over. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar, the founder of the RSS, decided not to succumb to this blackmail but to confront the anti-national mentality instead. Till the Mopla riots (a sequel to the Khilafat movement), Dr Hedgewar was a Congress activist, and earlier, a revolutionary of repute.

To what extent the Congress under Gandhiji crawled before Muslim fundamentalism is best illustrated by a memorandum which he drafted during the Khilafat movement in consultation with the Ali brothers and presented to Viceroy Chelmsford in January 1920 at Delhi. It said, "The loyalty of Indian Musalmans, no less than that of other communities of India to their sovereign, has been an abiding asset." In spite of stooping so low by the Congress, let us see what Muslims felt about the "secular" Congress.

The Muslim community, in deference to the stern advice of Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan, kept away from the Congress. One finds Muslim icons from Sir Sayyid to Jinnah branding the Congress as a majoritarian Hindu organisation. Gandhiji, who made the Congress a mass movement, bent over backwards to court Muslim participation. He so yoked Khilafat and Non-Cooperation Movements together that the illiterate Muslim masses felt that Swaraj implied re-establishment of Muslim rule in India.

"Can any sane man," says Dr B.R. Ambedkar in Thoughts on Pakistan "go so far, for the sake of Hindu-Moslem unity? But, Mr Gandhi was so attached that he did not stop to enquire what he was really doing in this mad endeavour" (Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 8 p. 155). Despite that, the Congress could not woo even 4% Muslims.

Mohammed Ali, alter ego of Gandhi during the Khilafat and Non Cooperation Movements, spoke his mind in a speech at Aligarh in 1924: "However pure Mr Gandhiâs character may be, he must appear to me from the point of view of religion, inferior to any Musalman, even though he be without character." In another meeting held at Aminabad Park in Lucknow, Mohammed Ali endorsed his previous statement without any hesitation: "Yes, according to my religion and creed, I do hold an adulterous and a fallen Musalman to be better than Mr Gandhi" (Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, Vol. 8. p. 302).

Over 90% of the subcontinentâs Muslims rallied behind Jinnahâs masculine call "Ladke Lenge Pakistan" (We shall fight and gain Pakistan). Partition came because Congress promised Muslims equality in independent India, while Muslims did not want equality, but superiority as in yore.

Congressmen exploited the Muslims by using them as a counterweight against the possible rise of any nationalistic force like the Jan Sangh, the way the British had used them to check the Congress. But subsequently, other "secular" parties, like Samajwadis in Uttar Pradesh, RJD in Bihar, Marxists in West Bengal, outdid the Congress in its own game of "secularism." 

Mr Singh lives in a time-warp. Perhaps he remembers the other clichÃ©s of Nehruvian India: "socialism," "Afro-Asian unity," "Indo-Egypt friendship," "India as Asian leader," "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai," "Indo-Soviet amity," "Hindu rate of growth" and Non-Aligned Movement. Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhaism exploded on Nehruâs face; through the "look East" policy we are ingratiating to the Asian Tigers who have no spare time to think of "Afro-Asian unity." The present Egyptian President has not found time in the last 24 years to visit India, while the berated Israel has helped us in so many ways; Soviet Union no longer exists and even the Congress stresses on better relations with the US; NAM members have found new allies: the "Hindu rate of growth" that persisted throughout the "secular" Congressâ years was shattered in Vajpayeeâs era, which has become the new benchmark of Indiaâs economic performance. So much about the infallibility or those once sacrosanct concepts of the Congress era!

Regrettably, this foreign minister doesnât know his own home. He recognises the existence of so many Muslim countries from Mauritania to Indonesia but says there is little historical and cultural proof in support of India as a "Hindu" country. India, according to him, is an influx, "continued intermingling of diverse people, communities and religions," or in other words, a cultural harlotry. It is another thing that foreign ministers, whether of Britain or Saudi Arabia immediately associate "Hindu" with India and India with "Hindu." The word India, is a Greek derivative of the word Hindu.

Indeed, vigorous races like Greek, Sakas, Kushanas, Huns had entered ancient India belligerently. They scored, indeed, spectacular military victories before being defeated by the Hindus inside a generation or so. They had brought no proselytising religion with them. Saka king Kanishka had become a Buddhist and died fighting the Chinese, Hun leader Mihir Gul, a worshipper of Rudra (Shiva) even before he was defeated by the Guptas. Streams of these races lost their separate identity into the vast Indian pluralistic milieu known as Hinduism.

Those who came as warriors, got assimilated, those who came as refuge-seekers, viz. Jews, Syrian Christians and Zoroastrians, co-exist peacefully till date. But the impact of Islam canât be defined by this conventional paradigm. Islam came with a religious mission, to extirpate idolatry and infidelity, and convert people to the true faith. Forced change of faith resulted in the converted adopting an alien culture â exclusive in outlook and intolerant of pre-Islamic identity. For example, the forefather of Ayatollah Khomeini was a Zoroastrian, of Maulana Masood, a Buddhist, and Allama Iqbal, a Kashmiri Pandit.Â <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' />

Singh says, "It is a fact that from Mauritania to Medan Muslim psyche has been hurt and needs to be healed." On the other hand, he is quite sure that the Hindu psyche has absolutely no scar, historic or contemporary, but roses and kisses. But then the greatest hurt for Muslims was the loss of India to the Sikhs, Marathas and the British in the 19th century. This was the genesis of the Ahl-e-Hadith or the Wahhabi movement by Shah Abdul Aziz (who, Mr Singh says, was a devotee of Krishna) in the early 19th century which said that India had ceased to become Dar-ul-Islam (House of Islam) and it was incumbent on Muslims either to re-establish the Muslim supremacy or undertake Hijrat (migration) to any Muslim dominated land like Afghanistan, Persia or Iraq.

The subcontinental ummah was also hurt by Indira Gandhiâs Bangladesh War in 1971, which broke the integrity of the worldâs biggest Muslim country, Pakistan. Every Muslim country, from Mauritania to Indonesia, was against this disintegration. I would love to know how Mr Singh proposes to redress these two great losses that hurt the Muslim psyche. Should we undo them? Muslims wonât be found lacking in enthusiasm, I can assure.

The BJP and the RSS look at all Indians as equals and follow the policy of justice to all and appeasement to none. We cannot undo historical wrongs but we cannot have communal amity by falsifying history. Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. 

Balbir K. Punj is a Rajya Sabha MP and convener of the BJPâs think tank. He can be contacted at bpunj@email.com


Link

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 02-23-2005

QUOTETitle: Revolution in Kerala
Author: M. G. Vaidya
Publication: Mumbai Tarun Bharat
Date: February 20, 2005

Revolution in Kerala! No this is not a revolution wrought by Communists. They have left the road to revolution long time back. It is a good thing. Of course, they talk of revolution from time to time. But there is more of a habit than any import. The philosophy of revolution has become meaningless. The thinking people among them are already aware of it. The violent people who keep some link withÂ this philosophy do not now call themselves as Marxist, but they call themselves Maoists. These violent people do no have Marx as their God, but Mao. Mao whom his motherland has rejected.

Two powerful organizations

Then what is this new revolution in Kerala? That revolution is revolution in Hindu society. There are two large organizations of Hindu society in Kerala. - Nair Service Society (NSS) and Shri Narain Guru Dharmaparipalan Yog (SNDP) and they have come together. Nair means people like Marathas in Maharashtra with theÂ spirit for Kshatriya (fighter). Their powerful society is Nair Service Society. It has many schools and colleges. The great person Mannath Padmanabhan founded it. His thought was of organizing all Hindus but he started to organize from his own community 'Nair'.Â Later he founded an institute for organizing all Hindus.Â But, some people say, he dissolved it on the instance of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. May be it true or not, but it is beyond doubt that the personality of Mannath Padmanabhan was considered like a saviour by Hindus.

The name of another institute is Shri Narain Guru Dharmaparipalan Yog. In English, Nair Service Society is known by initials 'N.S.S' in brief while this is known as 'S.N.D.P.' The importance of SNDP and its founder Shri Narain Guru must be recognized by all Hindus. It is now 150 years that he was born. From 29th August 2004, celebration of his 150th birthday has started and the meet ofÂ RSS Executive Committee at Haridwar has passed a resolution and appealed to all swayamsevaks to participate in it. Who is this Narain Guru? Ilawa (spelled differently in Kerala, I believe)` are the untouchables of lowest layer of the society. Not only their touch was contemptuous for the society, but their movingÂ around also was considered contemptuous and hence if any Ilawa person was passing along a road, he had to beat a large drum as he walked so that other people used to get in the house and close the doors. Their shadow was not also tolerated. Seeing this inhuman tradition, Vivekanand had said in 1892, "Kerala is a madhouse". But now this madhouse does not have even a sign of untouchability. This achievement is of Narain Guru.

Wordless and constructive

He did not abandon the religion by getting infuriated over the injustice and atrocities committed on him. On the contrary, he explained the true nature of our religion to our own brothers. He himself studied Sanskrit and Vedant and explained the true Vedant to his followers. He had no entry in the temples. He did not do any agitation against it. But he himself built new temples, not aÂ few, but during his lifetime, he built up 60 temples. He did not make them a place of only worship and prayer, but gave them an additional form of being temple of knowledge also. His character and his spiritual supremacy so much impressed the then king of Travancore (Princely) state, Shri Balaram Verma opened all temples in his state for untouchables on November 12, 1936. TheÂ annihilation of untouchability in Kerala started from that moment.

Today, it is not in existence there. Presently, innumerable people are taking education of high level in a number of educational institutes of high standard belonging to SNDP. Just as there are these educational institutes imparting education useful for lifetime, there are temples giving religious education also. The essence of Shri NarainÂ Guru is condensed in these three Mantras. "Get organizedÂ and powerful. Learn and be enlightened and thirdly, work hard and get prosperous." He did not abuse Hindu religion. Did not wallow in the slander or denigration of it. Nor did he joinedÂ himself in the ridicule of it. He took over the heritage of great things of Hindu religion and showed his community the way to self emancipation. He did not allow any politics in his own society also.Â He must be knowing that politics breaks the society, while religion and spirituality unites it. Due to Shri Narain Guru's mature and sound principles and constructive philosophy, Ilawa society was saved from being converted toÂ Christianity. Before the rise of Shri Narain Guru, Christian and Muslim communities were in forefront in converting the untouch! ables. Due to Narain Guru's religious and social enlightenment, this was stopped and the way to harmony was paved. That was a unique and new revolution. It was as new and unique as it was wordless and constructive.

Vote Bank politics

But because the road was paved, it is not necessary that people will follow it.Â We do not see that other castes in Hindu Society which were not untouchable, started getting organizing automatically.Â Useful atmosphere is created because of the liberty. But by using that atmosphere, special efforts have to be done for organizing.Â Nobody made any efforts in this direction before the entry ofÂ Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. It can even be said that Sangh also reached there in Kerala after freedom. On the heels of the freedom came democratic Constitution followed by elections.Â Politics of elections means creation of vote banks. Vote Banks of Christians and Muslims were formed immediately. It is rather difficult to make a vote bank of Hindus. There are many castes, many social layers and plurality of many kinds. It is nice to say that we have plurality in our society. But the plurality also underlines the divisions inÂ society also and the anti-social elements highlight them and achieve their selfish objectives.

In such scenario, if there is no ubiquitous and all-inclusive umbrella of Hindutva, the narrow community feelings get stronger. How can Kerala be an exception to this universal experience? Communists took advantage of it. At least in the beginning, generally most of the Hindus were with Communists andÂ Christians were with Congress. But Muslims were keeping close to Muslim League only. Kerala is the only State where there is a party by name Muslim LeagueÂ The party which demanded partition of India. Actually, it was isolated. And perhaps, just like Muslim League in other states, it would have been completely finished.Â But to depose the communist party which had come to power through the route of elections, Congress took the help of Muslim League. Pt Jawaharlal Nehru who understood what secularism was, praised Muslim LeagueÂ and certified that the League which demanded partition is different and Muslim League in Kerala is different.Â This resulted in Muslim League getting resp!ect in Kerala. They got share in the power also. In the present UPA government, there is a Minister of Muslim League. It has been happening in KeralaÂ for aÂ long long time. It automatically comes that Muslim League will ask its pound of flesh in exchange of this support. Mallapuram District in Malabar area was made a Muslim majority district. The percentage of Muslims in this District is 69. The activist of Muslim League from the times before the partition of India,Â Banatwala of Mumbai has been elected many times from this part.

Earlier Congress was influenced by Christians. When they saw that the influence was waning out, they launched another party under the name 'Kerala Congress'. This party which is riding on the Christian Vote Bank is always joining the Congress-led front and ensures that in exchange of its cooperation, gets the full value of it. In this alliance, Hindu is naturally neglected. Presently,Â Hindus are 56.2 per cent, i.e. at least they are in majority today. While Muslims have reached 24 %, Christians are now a bit less than 20 %. Since these 24% and 20% have unity among themselves, the entire politics runs in their favour. Also since politics influences social issues also, Hindus remain behind in that field also. The majority of Hindus there is for name sake only. All theÂ advantages go to the minorities. If we consider educational field, it will be seen that 65% of the private institutes are either Christian or Muslim. And it is natural to happen. Because according to article 30 o!f our constitution Minorities have been given full unrestrained rights to start their own educational institutes and run them. Hindus do not have that right.

The surprise is that most of the makers of the constitution were Hindus.

Implementing thoughts into action

These circumstances were thought over by both NSS and SNDP and they came together to deliberate on the interests of Hindus. The General Secretary of NSS, PK Narain Panikkar and General Secretary of SNDP Vellapalli Nareshan published a joint statement and appealed, "Putting aside all small and big difference among
ourselves, it is necessary that Unity of Hindus must take place and we must make efforts towards it." They did not stop there only by appealing Hindus, but demonstrated mutual understanding and cooperation. In the month of last January, in the celebrations of birthday anniversary of Manmath Padmanabhan arranged byÂ NSS, Nareshan was invited as a chief speaker. This event has taken after many many years. On 29th of January a large rally of SNDP was inaugurated by Panikkar. This meeting which took place in Vayakom town, was the starting point of the joint meetings now being organized for conveying the message of unity in every district. This is the new revolution in Kerala.

As expected, looking at this possibility of unity of the Hindus in majority, people playing break-away politics got scared. Kerala Latin Association sung the first note of opposition. Various churches followed it. Muslim papers made harsh criticism. The mouthpiece of Jamat-e-Islami "Madhyamam" said that this unity isÂ a communal alliance and it will affect badly the social life in Kerala. The mouth piece of Muslim League says, "The road on which Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Vishwa Hindu Parishad were defeated, is followed by NSS and NSDP".

Communists are also confused. State Secretary, Vijayan said, "By this alliance, secular forces in the state will not be strengthened. Sangh Parivar will be benefitted."

Wide-ranging dimensions

Although at the present moment, this unity is of social nature, it is inevitable that it will soon have political dimension also. The secularism in our country is Islamic and Christian. Unfortunately, the meaning of secularism here is opposition to Hindus. It has become a fashion here that anything which is in the interest of Hindus is to be insulted, jeered at and ridiculed as communal. InÂ fact, Hindu is the mainstream of this country. Because Hindus are in majority here, there is a democracy and hence the state is secular here. Why there is no democracy in Pakistan? Because Hindus are in majority here, the smallest majority like Parsis and Jews can live here with honour. Why even 5% Hindus could not live in the valley of Kashmir? This must be answered by all so-called secularists, right from Jamat-e-Islami to Christian Church and from CommunistsÂ to Congress. The followers of Islam must point out in which Muslim country is secularist.

Communal organizations only are engaged in the activities of trying to kill the Hindu strength by misusing the generous philosophy of Hindus. Those who are extremely communal and extremely intolerant are giving the dose of secularism and tolerance to Hindus. Hence the people in Kerala decided to expose the truth about them. This is an event of national importance. Not only in Kerala, the unity of Hindus in the entire country is necessary. This unity alone is the only remedy for politics which fractures the society. When the Hindus in the entire country will realize this, the first rays of the rising star of this nation will appear. Because the fortune of India is forever and inevitably linked with Hindus. Hindus means the number of Hindus, the character of Hindus and the unity of Hindus. The rise of India is not good only for Hindus, but it is in the interest of the entire world. Then all the states will be democratic, plurality will be honoured, and there will be not only tolerance but respect also for the other's opinions. The struggles which has arisen out of intolerance and bigotism will end.Â There will be reign of peace everywhere. The meaning of the rise of Hindu fortune is so wide-ranging. Kerala has set a new example and took a new revolutionary step and hence this article.

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 02-24-2005

ain't this the truth!

QUOTECLASSIC VERSION...

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

MODERN VERSION...

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

BBC, CNN, NDTV show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

The World is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be that this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Arundhati Roy stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house. Amnesty International and Koffi Annan criticizes the Government for not upholdingÂ Â the fundamental rights of the grasshopper.

The Internet is flooded with online petitions seeking support to the
grasshopper. Opposition MP's stage a walkout. Left parties call for "Bharat Bandh" in West Bengal and Kerala demanding a Judicial Enquiry.

Finally, the Judicial Committee drafts the Prevention of Terrorism Against Grasshoppers Act [POTAGA]", with effect from the beginning of the winter. The ant is fined for failing to comply with POTAGA and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government and handed over to the grasshopper in a ceremony covered by BBC,CNN and NDTV.

Arundhati Roy calls it "a triumph of justice".

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 02-25-2005

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /> <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' />

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 02-25-2005

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050225/asp/...ory_4422386.asp
Centre drafts bill to check race [ <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /> ] hatred 
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

New Delhi, Feb. 24: The Centre is planning a law to check the spread of communal hatred.

The home ministry is already preparing a draft bill, on the recommendations of the National Commission for Minorities.

The bill would, among other things, suggest a ban on all provocative speeches - by politicians, religious leaders or individuals - commission sources said.

Once the commission gets the draft bill, it would hold a dialogue with religious leaders of minority communities and, if necessary, with Hindu leaders <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /> as well. A law would be enacted only after thorough debate.

"We demand introduction of a separate anti-hate bill so that there will be provision for punishing those who propagate hatred amongst communities," commission chairperson Tarlochan Singh said.

"Most of the communal tensions begin with the malicious writings and utterances of certain people. Such a law would be pre-emptive as it can prevent outbreak of communal violence," Singh added. {well, we know who is getting to get nailed <!--emo& Tongue

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> }

Terming religious processions as "the main cause" of communal violence, Singh demanded that these should not be allowed in communally sensitive areas. If at all a march is permitted, a written undertaking should be sought from the parties concerned that it will not trigger violence. {precursor to banning ganesh chaturthi processions?}

"Before giving permission for religious processions, the deputy commissioner of the area should call a meeting of all communities to clear any misunderstandings and take steps to prevent any clashes," Singh said, adding that provisions for videographing the procession should be made.

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 02-25-2005

They can't touch Ganesh Chaturthi atleast not in Maharashtra. Similarly, I doubt they can do anything about the Durga Pooja in West Bengal.

Beauty of these festivals is that every strata of the society is involved directly or indirectly not just who are actively part of the festival and organizations including the law enforecement and civil servants who oversee and ensure the smooth passage of these festivals. In other words, these festivals are too big and too old for them to control.

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Sunder - 02-25-2005

QUOTE(k.ram @ Feb 25 2005, 07:44 PM) http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050225/asp/...ory_4422386.asp
Centre drafts bill to check race [Â <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /> ] hatred 
"We demand introduction of a separate anti-hate bill so that there will be
provision for punishing those who propagate hatred amongst communities,"
commission chairperson Tarlochan Singh said.

"Most of the communal tensions begin with the malicious writings and
utterances of certain people. Such a law would be pre-emptive as it can prevent
outbreak of communal violence," Singh added. {well, we know who is getting to get nailedÂ <!--emo& Tongue

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> }


Excellent!!!! it's time to re-open The Calcutta Quran Petition. case.

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 02-26-2005

What about Freedom of Speech? What is their objective, destroy India ASAP?

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 02-28-2005

QUOTEThe Impact Of Democracy On Education

( Extract from Arnold J Toynbee's book, A Study of History, abridged by Somervell.)
-----------------------

Â Â Â Â Â One of the greatest social changes that has been brought about by the advent of democracy has been the spread of education. In the progressive countries a system of universal compulsory, gratious instruction has made education the birthright of every child-- in contrast to the role of education in the pre-Democratic Age, when it was the monopoly of a previleged minority. This new educational system has been one of the principal social ideals of every state that aspires to an honorouble position in the modern world-comity of nations.Â

Â Â Â Â Â When universal education was first inaugurated it was greeted by rnedthe liberal opinion of the day as a triumph of justice and enightenment which might be expected to usher in a new era of happiness and well-being for mankind. But these expectations can now be seen to have left out of account the presence several stumbling-blocks on this broad road to the millennium, and in this matter, as so often happens, it has been the unforeseen factors that have proved the most important.

Â Â Â Â Â One stumbling-block has been the inevitable impoverishment in the results of education when the process is made available for " the masses " at the cost of being divorced from its traditional cultural back-ground. The good intentions of Democracy have no magic power to perform the miracle of loaves and fishes. Our mass-produced intellectual pabulum lacks savour and vitamins. A second stumbling-block has been the utilitarian spirit in which the fruits of education are apt to be turned to account when they are brought within everybody's reach. Under a social regime in which education is confined to those who have inherited a right to it as a social previlege or have proved a right to it by their exceptional gifts of industry and intelligence , education is a pearl cast before swine or a pearl of great price which the finder buys at the cost of all that he has. In neither case is it a means to an end: an instrument of wordly ambition or of a frivolous amusement. The possibility of turning education to account as a means of amusement for the masses-- and of profit for the enterprising persons by whom the amusement is purveyed-- has only arisen since the introduction of universal elementary education; and this new possibility has conjured up a third stumbling-block which is the greatest of all. The bread of universal education is no sooner cast upon the waters than a shoal of sharks arises from the depths and devours the children's bread under the educator's very eyes. In the educational history of England the dates speak for themselves. The edifice of unversal elementary education was, roughly speaking, completed by Foster's Act in 1870; and the yellow press was invented some twenty years later-- as soon, that is, as the first generation of children from the national schools had acquired sufficient purchasing-power--by a stroke of irresponsible genius which had divined that the educational philanthropist's labour of love could be made to yield a royal profit to a press-lord.

Â Â Â Â These disconcerting reactions to the impact of Democracy upon education have attracted the attention of the rulers of modern would-be totalitarian national states. If press-lords could make millions by providing idle amusement for the half-educated, serious states-men could draw, not money perhaps, but power from the same source. The modern dictators have deposed the press-lords and substituted for crude and debased system of state propaganda. The elaborate and ingenious machinery for the mass-enslavement of semi-educated minds, invented for private profit under British and American regimes of laisser fare, has been simply taken over by the rulers of the states who have employed these mental appliances, reinforced by the cinema and radio ( prediction made as per conditions in 1946 when this book was written--now after 60 years and the profuse and easy access to television and telephone, another guesswork can be made-kvr), for their own sinister purposes. After Northcliff, Hitler-- though Hitler was not the first in his line.

Â Â Â Â Thus in countries, where democratic education has been introduced, the people are in danger of falling under an intellectual tyranny, engineered either by private exploitation or by public authority. If the people's souls are to be saved, the only way is to raise the standard of mass-education to a degree at which its recipients will be rendered immune, against at any rate, the grosser forms of exploitation and propoganda; and it need hardly be said, that this is no easy task. Happily, there are certain disinterested and effective educational agencies grappling with it in our Western World today-- such agencies as Worker's Educational Association and the British Broadcasting Corporation in Great Britain and the extra-mural activities of universities in many countries.
Â Â Â
---------------------------------------------------------------------

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 03-07-2005

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=65952

Secular=Communal
Donât let secularism become a doctrine of hate

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 03-07-2005

Cross post from other thread...

QUOTESecular=Communal
SAGARIKA GHOSEÂ Â Â Â Â
Posted online: Monday, March 07, 2005 at 0000 hours IST

Let's glance at the recent ââsecularââ events in the life of the Indian republic. Congress General Secretary Margaret Alva in Panaji, blithely ignoring the controversial sacking of the BJP government, declaring instead that it was about time Goa got a ââsecularââ administration. Laloo Prasad Yadav, boiling out of his residence, defeated yet strangely excited, still thundering that it was time for all ââsecularââ forces to form the government. Minister for Water Resources, Priya Ranjan Dasmunshi in Ranchi, smiling into the TV cameras, convinced that subverting the will of the Jharkhand voters was an act of supreme ââsecularismââ. Ram Vilas Paswan, leader of the triumphant Lojappa (LJP), only the other day a minister in the NDA government, but now also determined to protect ââsecularismââ by issuing warnings that he can only talk to the JD(U) if it severed all links with the BJP. And Shibu Soren, until recently a fugitive from the law, charged with murder and defeated in the polls, but now newly appointed chief minister of Jharkhand. He once flirted with the BJP but now even Shibu is a towering pillar of ââsecularismââ.

In the centre of this weird even violent ââsecularismââ sits Big Mama of 10 Janpath. Cocooned by court poets still dreamily eulogising her supreme ââsecularââ sacrifice. Advised by ageing ââsecularistsââ like Arjun Singh who can no longer win elections, who is isolated within his own party and who wears his defamation case against the RSS like a badge of honour. A whisper goes around the inner circles of the Congress Worshipping Committee: Madam really hates the BJP. And since Madam really hates the BJP, what better way to gain ascendancy in the royal household than by emerging as a warrior of ââsecularismââ? 

Never mind if this ââsecularismââ is simply a synonym for bending the Constitution, indeed all norms of government-formation, to keeping the BJP out of government. Never mind if this secularism ends up by anointing Shahabuddin, the ââdonââ of Siwan as an exemplar of Bharat Nirman. Never mind if this secularism is simply another word for hatred. Sonia Gandhiâs visceral hatred of the BJP has communicated itself down the line to every garden governor and party worker and they are now using the word ââsecularismââ to brazenly block the will of the voters. Jharkhand is the most perverse example of this hatred-filled ââsecularismââ. Even if it is accepted that some MLAs were intimidated, 9 MLAs in an 81-member assembly do not give the Congress any mandate to stake any claim.

Hatred is not the stuff of democracy. A democrat disagrees. A democrat argues. A democrat does not hate. Above all, a democrat respects the Opposition. However wicked some of the sangh parivarâs constituents may be, however backward-looking and socially conservative some of its ideologues certainly are, however uncivilised the parivarâs language may be when it calls governors ââsupari killersââ and prime ministers ââshikhandisââ, yet the BJP/ NDA is an equal partner in Indian democracy, it has as much right to exist as the Congress and as much right to the allegiance of the people. 

A democrat cannot fail to realise that the â87 riots in Meerut, â89 in Bhagalpur or Mumbai riots in 1992-93 all took place under ââsecularââ governments. A democrat will also realise that the 1984 Sikh riots were as heinous, as ghastly as the Gujarat riots of 2002, that many more were killed, many more children were orphaned and that a crucial difference between Gujarat and Delhi was that the former took place under the glare of 24-hour news television and TV images have (rightly) burned the very name ââGujaratââ into a perennially monstrous memory. But having realised all this, a mature democrat would find it difficult to pass irrevocable judgement on who has a ââdivine rightââ to rule and who does not. All a democrat can do is respect the legacy of the idealists of the 1940s who placed, in the hands of every Indian, the power of democratic choice. If the majority of Biharis choose to throw Laloo out, in the name of the people of India, the leaders must bow. If the majority of Jharkhandis choose the NDA, then again, in the name of the people of India, the leaders must bow. If they donât, the short-term battle may be won, but the war for democracy will be lost.

What are the roots of the Congressâs hatred of the BJP? Ever since the pre-Independence period, the Congress has believed that the RSS as ââkillers of the Mahatmaââ represented the polar opposite of Nehruvian secular socialist nationalism. The ââsecularââ versus ââcommunalââ divide has been a primary faultline since Independence and until 1975, anyone remotely connected with the sangh parivar was systematically (and snobbishly) kept out of the national mainstream, whether in politics, culture, academics, or the arts. 1975 and the imposition of Emergency first gave the Jana Sangh the opportunity to occupy a place within the larger Janata movement but the dual membership controversy put an end to the Jana Sanghâs ambitions. But over the last fifteen years, the lines between ââsecularââ and ââcommunalââ have blurred. In 1989 both the Left and the BJP supported the V.P. Singh government.

And today, who is ââsecularââ? Is Laloo ââsecularââ? He waves the U.C. Banerjee Godhra interim report around and detained Pravin Togadia last year. Yet he has buried a report showing how shockingly the condition of the minorities has declined in his rule. Ram Vilas Paswan campaigns with an Osama look-alike and declares that he left the NDA because of Gujarat, but it was so pathetically clear at that time that he only left because he didnât get the telecom ministry. Is the DMK ââsecularââ? It has the unique distinction of sharing power with all the last three governments at the Centre, and Karunanidhi praises Vajpayee and Sonia by turn. Is Mamata Banerjee ââsecularââ? She fights with the Congress in state elections but with the NDA in national elections.

The truth is that secularism as a liberal democratic ideal no longer automatically attaches to the Congress or to the anti-BJP forces. Instead of using ââsecularismââ simply as a barrier to exclude the NDA at all costs, why does the Congress not give more substance to its secular aspirations by focussing on rule of law, building enduring social cohesion and democratising its functioning instead of clinging to its ridiculous antediluvian High Command culture. Hating the NDA as stupidly as Pravin Togadia hates Muslims is an injustice to the Indian votersâ freedom of choice.

The Great Indian Political Debate - 2 - Guest - 03-07-2005

Pioneer
QUOTEMinorities hijack democracy
Sandhya Jain
Two successive assaults on Indian democracy by Governors hailing from minority communities exemplify how this country is hostage to a secular-minority determination to inflict political subordination on the Hindu community. While moves for a hat-trick in Patna were thwarted after Rashtrapati Bhavan rang a warning bell, the possibility of tinkering with the people's verdict remains open in Goa, Jharkhand and even Bihar.

Despite the sharp media exposure that saw Congress Party president Sonia Gandhi scuttling for cover and pushed the Manmohan Singh regime into damage control, the secular media continues to be an unreliable ally in the struggle for Hindu rights and dignity. Readers may question this focus on the majority community since the parties cheated of their democratic dues are not exclusivist Hindu parties.

Yet the larger truth is that since it espoused the Ram Janmabhoomi cause (later abandoned), the BJP came to be regarded as a party that perceived and wooed the Hindu community as a wholistic entity, though local caste arithmetic mattered while fielding candidates. But because it sought votes from a united Hindu community, it was dubbed a "Hindu communalist party".

In contrast, the Congress, Left and secular regional parties regard the Muslim and Christian communities as their political cornerstones. Both groups are wooed on the basis of a collective communal identity rooted in religious exclusivity, and are encouraged to give an anti-Hindu edge to their political consciousness. Hence the importance of the Church and the Imams at poll time; the Election Commission must explain why it takes no cognizance of this religio-political theocracy. The secular parties seek Hindu support as add-ons to their minority vote corpus, to win elections, and hence divide Hindus on caste lines. I view this policy of minority-plus-Hindu-collaborators as post-independence colonialism.

In this context, it needs to be understood that democracy is not just numbers, nor is nationalism merely territory. Democracy means the general will of the people as reflected through the majority. In India, Hindus will always comprise the bulk of any majority, in any situation. Jawaharlal Nehru's antipathy for the Hindu people and their civilizational aspirations, rising after nearly thousand years of powerlessness, led him to pervert our democracy in favour of the minorities at a nascent stage. Disarming critics with the bogey of "Hindu communalism" (never explained), he fathered a perverse democracy that distorted the popular will. For decades, Congress was ably assisted by Election Commissions that placed ballot boxes strategically (sic) and inhibited undesired (read anti-Congress) voters from coming to the booths.

Nationalism too, cannot be delinked from the nation's majority-core population, as it includes love of the native culture and civilisation, as much as of the land. Many minority citizens display exemplary loyalty towards India's territorial integrity, and their personal contributions in this regard are second to none. But this is a nationalism of the body, not of the soul. India's minorities claim only partial citizenship when they emphasise a physical relationship to the soil, on account of genealogical ties, as most are converts. By denying themselves, indeed, by actively shunning, the greater citizenship of its rich civilisational cosmos, they not only spiritually impoverish themselves, but insult the motherland in a manner that causes deep distress to the rest of us.

Living in the same house, they declare themselves outsiders. This naturally creates distrust, and if these psychological barriers are to be overcome, some of us must speak plainly, rather than abet misunderstandings through a conspiracy of silence.

Ever since Ms Sonia Gandhi became party president, there has been an utterly disproportionate rise of minority leaders in the upper echelons of the party, and a highly repulsive in-your-face articulation of so-called minority interests, which are to be achieved by debasing the larger citizenry. Thus, under a secular dispensation, there can be no concord; only conflict or competition.

Congress and its UPA allies are brazen about forming a "secular" government by disrespecting the people's mandate in three States. Minority appeasement is India's new jaziya. It is extracted through State power, and understandably minority members figure prominently among the zamindars, for who will better enjoy the forced servility of the subjected?

In Goa, the Manohar Parrikar regime was destabilized and given just 48 hours to prove its majority by a Governor who danced at a party in the wake of the tsunami tragedy. When the Chief Minister won the vote of confidence, he was peremptorily sacked by Mr SC Jamir, in an operation masterminded from Delhi by Mr Ahmad Patel.

Mr Pratapsinh Rane received a month to prove his majority, but poetic justice rendered this counter-productive. As the tactical resignations by the BJP Speaker and Deputy Speaker tilted the scales, the cussedness of the pro-tem Speaker gave Mr Rane a pyhrric victory. A media that was quiescent over Goa screamed at the rape of democracy in Jharkhand, and Congress had to backtrack. President's rule has since been imposed, but with the Assembly in suspended animation, scope for horse-trading remains, unless elections are called.

Jharkhand enraged public opinion because the BJP was close to victory and quickly garnered a simple majority with the help of Independents. But Governor Syed Sibte Razi displayed a shameful bias from the beginning, insisting upon personal verification with the five MLAs, no doubt to browbeat them. When this did not work, he swore in Mr Shibu Soren and gave him three weeks to prove his majority. Congress spokespersons Ms Ambika Soni and Mr Anand Sharma chortled gleefully until an uproar by BJP and the media prompted President Abdul Kalam to summon the Governor.

Congress immediately went into denial. But Mr Razi was made of sterner stuff. He preponed the vote of confidence by just six days and organised the Assembly session in a manner conducive to enable Mr Soren to manufacture a majority. The Jharkhand chapter is therefore far from over. While I believe that any Congressman could have acted as Mr Jamir and Mr Razi did, the fact of their belonging to minority communities gives an added edge to Hindu unease over the intentions of the Sonia-led Congress.

Mercifully, President Kalam's displeasure over Jharkhand alerted Bihar Governor Buta Singh to err on the side of caution, and Mr Lalu Yadav's determination to install Ms Rabri Devi as Chief Minister has been checkmated for the present. But it is too early to predict the backroom manoeuvres that Congress and the RJD will indulge in to get Mr Ram Vilas Paswan to fall in line once media attention shifts elsewhere. If Mr Paswan shows greater sensitivity to his Muslim votebank than to his Hindu supporters, we may well see the rise of a "secular" regime in Patna, sooner rather than later.

This brings me back to the issue of the usurpation of Indian democracy by the minorities. Much of the fault, as Shakespeare said, lies in the Hindu community itself. We have tolerated a language of political discourse that talks of "creating a secular government" and dares to call the natural ascendance of Hindus in public life as "communal".

However, all is not lost. Over the past five decades, Hindu irritation at Muslim obduracy has led to a sharp fall in winning candidates at national and State level, regardless of party affiliation. Perhaps this is a lesson that the Christian community is now waiting to learn.