07-08-2005, 03:09 AM
Check the joker.
A befitting reply to the Ayodhya outrage
Harish Khare
A united, secular, plural, and egalitarian state order is the answer to thejihadis.
ON DECEMBER 31, 1999, Jaswant Singh, Foreign Minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government, personally escorted three hard-core terrorists to the Kandahar airport where he handed them over to the Taliban's Foreign Minister, Abdul Wakil Muttawakil, whom he described as "my good friend." The terrorists were later to resurface periodically to make life difficult for security forces around the world. Of them, Masood Azhar went on to found the Jaish-e-Mohammed, the jihadi outfit that masterminded the attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001. The setting free of the terrorists who were in Indian jails was a difficult choice the Government made in order to secure the release of the passengers aboard the hijacked IC-814 flight. Home Minister L.K. Advani let it be known then that he was not with the "softies" in the Cabinet Committee on Security.
On July 5, 2005, the same Jaswant Singh, now Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, went before the television cameras to demand the resignation of the Union Home Minister on the Ayodhya incident earlier in the day. While he was at it, he also asked for the resignation of the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister. Never mind that the terrorists had been killed and the attack foiled, and that there was no damage to the makeshift temple. For good measure, Mr. Jaswant Singh raised the foiled attempt on the makeshift temple to a higher level of affront than other spectacular terrorist attacks such as those in Kaluchak, Parliament House, Akshardham Temple, and the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly.
Mr. Jaswant Singh was not alone in going overboard in cranking up divisive emotionalism. Mr. Advani, who till the other day was trying for an image makeover from a hardliner to a moderate, asked for "a befitting reply" because the attack at Ayodhya was "alarming." Throughout the day, assorted BJP activists kept appearing on television screens, coming close to threatening to let loose violence by way of a "response." A strange manifestation of desh bhakti.
The Sangh Parivar's Pavlovian response is understandable, but Mr. Jaswant Singh? Until a year ago, he and Mr. Advani were senior Ministers in the Vajpayee Government; for six years they dealt with complex issues and intricate problems and know a thing or two about coping with terrorism. Mr. Jaswant Singh, in particular, strutted on the international diplomatic stage, negotiating with the likes of Strobe Talbott. He tried to convince the world that he and his senior ministerial colleagues were responsible, mature and circumspect, quite capable of the restrained leadership becoming of a nuclear power. At home he was serenaded by the very astute "strategic community" as a very astute strategic thinker. Now these same two gentlemen are conducting themselves as if they remain untutored, unversed, and uninterested in the responsibility of power, its constraints and compulsions.
On October 1, 2003, the motorcade of Chandrababu Naidu, then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, was attacked on the Tirumala Ghat Road by naxalites. It was a dramatic and audacious attack. Mr. Naidu had a providential escape. A one-man Commission of Inquiry (headed by former BSF chief Prakash Singh) was constituted to probe the conspiracy behind the attack on Mr. Naidu. Among its sobering conclusions is this assessment: "The Commission would like to make it clear that absolute security is a myth. In the best of arrangements, with the best of forces, the most dedicated personnel and the most sophisticated equipments, there would still be some grey area. Any extremist can count on five to ten per cent chances of success under all circumstances. Human nature being what it is, there would always be imperfections in its efforts â and one never knows when and where the shortcoming or any gaps in security arrangements may be exploited." A sober and balanced judgment.
Mr. Naidu thought the attack on his life had generated a "wave of public sympathy" and decided to garner a third-term mandate for himself. The Andhra Pradesh electorate saw through the game. Emotionalism gave way to the hard realities of economic and social inequity instigated by the self-styled "CEO" of Andhra Pradesh. The voters taught the Andhra Pradesh political class a valuable lesson. The lesson is yet to be replicated on a national scale.
The excited manner in which the BJP leadership has seized on the terrorist attack in Ayodhya simply shows that the Sangh Parivar refuses to understand that the India of 2005 cannot possibly remain in the thrall of the 1992-minted hate mantras. That the likes of Mr. Jaswant Singh could go out to bat for the Sangh Parivar is a grim reminder of how difficult it would be for the BJP to transform itself into a normal political party. That the BJP-run State Governments would countenance hooliganism on the part of the Sangh Parivar's so-called cadres only shows lumpen instincts and habits have become part of the party's organisational personality.
It is one thing for the Opposition parties to want to alert and warn the government of the day against any kind of slackening; but a calculated and cynical pursuit of divisiveness is an altogether different proposition. How can "national resolve" be demonstrated to outsiders and potential enemies by disrupting commercial, educational, and business activities in parts of the country? How will our potential adversaries respect us more if we end up creating fault lines along religious lines at home? Political leaders and parties have to be made to understand that they cannot pursue their limited agenda at the expense of the national good.
It is less important whether or not the BJP is capable of rediscovering the joy of responsible Opposition politics; what is more important is that the Ayodhya incident has come as a reminder to all secular forces, moderate voices, and modern minds that the gains of the 2004 Lok Sabha election are still to be consolidated. The 2004 verdict and the Left-supported United Progressive Alliance arrangement have created an opportunity to reshape our polity in a manner that the communal forces cannot possibly hope to make electoral or political profit out of their business.
The secular forces need to make the 2004 gains irreversible by creating space for firm and fair governance at the Centre and in the States. The BJP itself will need to be forced to realise that the strategy of religion-centric mobilisation of jan shakti will no longer work.
A rehearsal?
The Ayodhya incident may well turn out to be a kind of rehearsal.<b> Every senior ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) strategist must be watching how the Indian political class, the Indian media, and the Indian public react to a development such as the attack in Ayodhya.</b> The ISI brass would be happy to see India inflict on itself a destabilisation of its polity or anything that distracts the Indian state from attending coherently to the task of internal security and economic prosperity.
It would be the ultimate triumph of the radical jihadis if they succeed in creating conditions in India that once again bring the religious fringe elements to the fore. The terror-vendors from across the border are hoping to find jugalbandi partners in this country. Once the Vishwa Hindu Parishad kind of hotheads regain ascendancy in BJP affairs or the national discourse, the jihadis' task would be that much easier.
India is on a growth trajectory of unparallel potential. But if our senior political leaders waste their credibility and prestige in cranking up a "befitting reply" to this or that terror outfit, India will be denying itself a historic opportunity. Immediate and consequential responsibility thus dwells on two sections to ensure that India does not get sucked into the terrorists' game-plan.
First, the business community. As a rule, the business leadership in this country should have the greatest stake â greater than that of the political class â in social harmony and communal peace. But time and again, businessmen of different categories have ended up financing the political elements that thrive on a sectarian agenda. It is time business leaders spoke up against the communal virus.
<b>Secondly, the middle classes. Over the years, especially since the dawn of the Mandal age, the middle classes â doctors, lawyers, academics, managerial executives â have found the communal voices and appeals rather seductive. Part of this seduction was a promise of good governance, inherent in the concept of "Ram rajya"; though the middle classes stand disillusioned on that count, they remain enamoured of the Hindutva brand of desh bhakti.</b> But the middle classes should realise for their own sake that they stand to lose the most should India again be taken over by the Hindu fanatic. (THey are after the middle class since they make the nation)
The Ayodhya incident has provided us yet another opportunity to refashion our priorities in a manner so as to exorcise our polity of those very impulses that the jihadis keep exploring. A united, secular, plural, and egalitarian state order is the only befitting reply to the jihadis. A mature polity does not allow itself to be that easily joggled by a terrorist outfit.
A befitting reply to the Ayodhya outrage
Harish Khare
A united, secular, plural, and egalitarian state order is the answer to thejihadis.
ON DECEMBER 31, 1999, Jaswant Singh, Foreign Minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government, personally escorted three hard-core terrorists to the Kandahar airport where he handed them over to the Taliban's Foreign Minister, Abdul Wakil Muttawakil, whom he described as "my good friend." The terrorists were later to resurface periodically to make life difficult for security forces around the world. Of them, Masood Azhar went on to found the Jaish-e-Mohammed, the jihadi outfit that masterminded the attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001. The setting free of the terrorists who were in Indian jails was a difficult choice the Government made in order to secure the release of the passengers aboard the hijacked IC-814 flight. Home Minister L.K. Advani let it be known then that he was not with the "softies" in the Cabinet Committee on Security.
On July 5, 2005, the same Jaswant Singh, now Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, went before the television cameras to demand the resignation of the Union Home Minister on the Ayodhya incident earlier in the day. While he was at it, he also asked for the resignation of the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister. Never mind that the terrorists had been killed and the attack foiled, and that there was no damage to the makeshift temple. For good measure, Mr. Jaswant Singh raised the foiled attempt on the makeshift temple to a higher level of affront than other spectacular terrorist attacks such as those in Kaluchak, Parliament House, Akshardham Temple, and the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly.
Mr. Jaswant Singh was not alone in going overboard in cranking up divisive emotionalism. Mr. Advani, who till the other day was trying for an image makeover from a hardliner to a moderate, asked for "a befitting reply" because the attack at Ayodhya was "alarming." Throughout the day, assorted BJP activists kept appearing on television screens, coming close to threatening to let loose violence by way of a "response." A strange manifestation of desh bhakti.
The Sangh Parivar's Pavlovian response is understandable, but Mr. Jaswant Singh? Until a year ago, he and Mr. Advani were senior Ministers in the Vajpayee Government; for six years they dealt with complex issues and intricate problems and know a thing or two about coping with terrorism. Mr. Jaswant Singh, in particular, strutted on the international diplomatic stage, negotiating with the likes of Strobe Talbott. He tried to convince the world that he and his senior ministerial colleagues were responsible, mature and circumspect, quite capable of the restrained leadership becoming of a nuclear power. At home he was serenaded by the very astute "strategic community" as a very astute strategic thinker. Now these same two gentlemen are conducting themselves as if they remain untutored, unversed, and uninterested in the responsibility of power, its constraints and compulsions.
On October 1, 2003, the motorcade of Chandrababu Naidu, then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, was attacked on the Tirumala Ghat Road by naxalites. It was a dramatic and audacious attack. Mr. Naidu had a providential escape. A one-man Commission of Inquiry (headed by former BSF chief Prakash Singh) was constituted to probe the conspiracy behind the attack on Mr. Naidu. Among its sobering conclusions is this assessment: "The Commission would like to make it clear that absolute security is a myth. In the best of arrangements, with the best of forces, the most dedicated personnel and the most sophisticated equipments, there would still be some grey area. Any extremist can count on five to ten per cent chances of success under all circumstances. Human nature being what it is, there would always be imperfections in its efforts â and one never knows when and where the shortcoming or any gaps in security arrangements may be exploited." A sober and balanced judgment.
Mr. Naidu thought the attack on his life had generated a "wave of public sympathy" and decided to garner a third-term mandate for himself. The Andhra Pradesh electorate saw through the game. Emotionalism gave way to the hard realities of economic and social inequity instigated by the self-styled "CEO" of Andhra Pradesh. The voters taught the Andhra Pradesh political class a valuable lesson. The lesson is yet to be replicated on a national scale.
The excited manner in which the BJP leadership has seized on the terrorist attack in Ayodhya simply shows that the Sangh Parivar refuses to understand that the India of 2005 cannot possibly remain in the thrall of the 1992-minted hate mantras. That the likes of Mr. Jaswant Singh could go out to bat for the Sangh Parivar is a grim reminder of how difficult it would be for the BJP to transform itself into a normal political party. That the BJP-run State Governments would countenance hooliganism on the part of the Sangh Parivar's so-called cadres only shows lumpen instincts and habits have become part of the party's organisational personality.
It is one thing for the Opposition parties to want to alert and warn the government of the day against any kind of slackening; but a calculated and cynical pursuit of divisiveness is an altogether different proposition. How can "national resolve" be demonstrated to outsiders and potential enemies by disrupting commercial, educational, and business activities in parts of the country? How will our potential adversaries respect us more if we end up creating fault lines along religious lines at home? Political leaders and parties have to be made to understand that they cannot pursue their limited agenda at the expense of the national good.
It is less important whether or not the BJP is capable of rediscovering the joy of responsible Opposition politics; what is more important is that the Ayodhya incident has come as a reminder to all secular forces, moderate voices, and modern minds that the gains of the 2004 Lok Sabha election are still to be consolidated. The 2004 verdict and the Left-supported United Progressive Alliance arrangement have created an opportunity to reshape our polity in a manner that the communal forces cannot possibly hope to make electoral or political profit out of their business.
The secular forces need to make the 2004 gains irreversible by creating space for firm and fair governance at the Centre and in the States. The BJP itself will need to be forced to realise that the strategy of religion-centric mobilisation of jan shakti will no longer work.
A rehearsal?
The Ayodhya incident may well turn out to be a kind of rehearsal.<b> Every senior ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) strategist must be watching how the Indian political class, the Indian media, and the Indian public react to a development such as the attack in Ayodhya.</b> The ISI brass would be happy to see India inflict on itself a destabilisation of its polity or anything that distracts the Indian state from attending coherently to the task of internal security and economic prosperity.
It would be the ultimate triumph of the radical jihadis if they succeed in creating conditions in India that once again bring the religious fringe elements to the fore. The terror-vendors from across the border are hoping to find jugalbandi partners in this country. Once the Vishwa Hindu Parishad kind of hotheads regain ascendancy in BJP affairs or the national discourse, the jihadis' task would be that much easier.
India is on a growth trajectory of unparallel potential. But if our senior political leaders waste their credibility and prestige in cranking up a "befitting reply" to this or that terror outfit, India will be denying itself a historic opportunity. Immediate and consequential responsibility thus dwells on two sections to ensure that India does not get sucked into the terrorists' game-plan.
First, the business community. As a rule, the business leadership in this country should have the greatest stake â greater than that of the political class â in social harmony and communal peace. But time and again, businessmen of different categories have ended up financing the political elements that thrive on a sectarian agenda. It is time business leaders spoke up against the communal virus.
<b>Secondly, the middle classes. Over the years, especially since the dawn of the Mandal age, the middle classes â doctors, lawyers, academics, managerial executives â have found the communal voices and appeals rather seductive. Part of this seduction was a promise of good governance, inherent in the concept of "Ram rajya"; though the middle classes stand disillusioned on that count, they remain enamoured of the Hindutva brand of desh bhakti.</b> But the middle classes should realise for their own sake that they stand to lose the most should India again be taken over by the Hindu fanatic. (THey are after the middle class since they make the nation)
The Ayodhya incident has provided us yet another opportunity to refashion our priorities in a manner so as to exorcise our polity of those very impulses that the jihadis keep exploring. A united, secular, plural, and egalitarian state order is the only befitting reply to the jihadis. A mature polity does not allow itself to be that easily joggled by a terrorist outfit.