The Great Indian Political Debate - 2

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If we were truly secular, she would have been arrested. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hindu seer can be arrested on Diwali night by some bogus claim. It’s called “Secularism"

[Guest]

<b>Secularism is no virtue </b>

Sandhya Jain
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Secularism today ranks foremost among India's burden of bad ideas, a term coined by Prof. Shiva Bajpai to debunk the ill-founded Aryan Invasion Theory, which held academics in thrall for a century before being flung into the dustbin of history. The term secular entered India's political vocabulary as a device to disarm the Hindu majority and inhibit expression of resentment against minority-appeasing policies of successive Governments.

Given the shoddy motives of its promoters, it is surprising that the term secular has come to acquire such a powerful hold over the elite. Secularism is not a lofty ideal, like liberty or equality. It owes its birth to Christianity's inability to maintain peace between warring Christian sects, especially as the State itself sponsored pogroms against different denominations. Wearied of prolonged intra-religious warfare, France invented secularism to ensure State neutrality in matters of faith, and separation of Church and State. Secularism was thus born as an extra-religious answer to the intolerance of both Church and State.

Hindu civilization has never, even when under murderous assault, indulged in pogroms on grounds of faith. Hence, unlike western concepts of democracy and equality, which find resonance in Indian hearts, secularism cuts no ice with the masses. India has traditionally vested spiritual authority in the guru and political power in the king, and given the latter the duty to protect dharma. 

Dharma is not religion in the sense that monotheistic creeds are. Dharma is a generic term for all native spiritual experience and includes the specific dharmas of specific groups (desachara, lokachara), which the king is duty bound to uphold and protect. Since dharma was never identified with a specific doctrine, the State was never doctrinaire. However, the State was always dharmic (non-secular, non-communal), because dharma is all-encompassing and embraces all without discrimination. The duty of the State (king) in Hindu thought is best exemplified by the concept of Rajdharma, which is a sacred duty for which the ruler can sacrifice anything. Stories of the travails of Raja Harish Chandra and the sufferings of Shri Rama reflect how seriously the monarch is expected to take his responsibilities and fulfill commitments.

Dharma is thus not co-terminus with religion; the closest Indian word for religion is pantha. Secularism in India, as noted jurist Dr. L.M. Singhvi insisted when translating the modified Preamble of the Constitution into Hindi, is pantha-nirpeksha (non-discrimination towards individual faiths). So, while 'secular' is the opposite of 'religion' and 'communal,' dharma is neither secular in the sense of being anti-religious nor communal in the sense of favouring a particular sect.   

This brings us to the peculiar practice of secularism in modern India. While the proper definition of secularism should be pantha-nirpeksha, as noted previously, the media and politicians speak of dharma nirpeksha or neutral in the matter of religion. This is antithetical to Hindu civilizational experience which demands that the State respect and uphold dharma; but this is only part of the problem.

The real difficulty is that even dharma nirpeksha is not implemented honestly. Dharma nirpeksha means the State should be aloof from all religions or treat all equally. The Indian Government however, has not been religiously neutral since independence itself. Despite the terrible sufferings of Hindus before and during Partition, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru created the false bogey of "majority communalism" to create and consolidate a Muslim votebank for Congress. The first blow was struck with the refusal to implement a uniform civil code, even though this was both desirable and possible at the time of framing the constitution.

Despite grandiose commitments to equality before law, non-discrimination on grounds of religion, and equality of opportunity in public employment and public office, the Indian Constitution was manipulated to give weightage to minorities. Cumulative Hindu disquiet over the politics of appeasement gave Mr. L.K. Advani the ovation he received from Somnath-to-Ayodhya, when he promised "Justice for all, appeasement of none."

             Sadly, little has been done in the nearly fifteen years since the problem was raised in the public arena. Article 28(1) says no religious instruction should be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of the State funds, but this was undone by Article 28(3) which permits a state-recognized or state-aided school to give religious instruction or offer religious worship to those desiring it. Thus, religious schools (madrasas) receive generous state funds and the religious training imparted therein is considered at par with normal secular education. Recently, the Aligarh Muslim University was permitted fifty percent reservation for Muslim students. Interestingly, the controversy revealed that the previous NDA regime had permitted fiftypercent communal reservations to Jamia Hamdard University in the capital!             
The Indian state, therefore, does not practice religious neutrality, and uses secularism as a tool to discriminate against Hindus. It was a silent spectator to the brutal expulsion of Hindus from Kashmir and Buddhists from Nagaland and parts of Arunachal Pradesh. It remains mute while Andhra Pradesh moots five percent reservation for Muslims in State employment and educational institutions. It has failed to end terrorist infiltration in Kashmir, and despite warnings from the Assam Governor, appears determined to inhibit action against illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh. Meanwhile, a new danger beckons in the form of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind's demand for communal reservations in Parliament and State legislatures.  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Why Mr Advani is spot on

June 13, 2005


Here is a little-known fact that the secularists of the Congress, and its sympathisers in the extended Left Parivar, have been trying to obliterate for the last 60 years.

In the 1937 election, when the time came for what would be called seat adjustments today, Jawaharlal Nehru, who was in charge of UP, had the option of tying up with the Muslim League or the Jamaat-e-Islami. Guess who he chose?

Had he tied up with the League, the course of history may well have been different. Certainly, when it came to what is called communalism now, the League at the time was no patch on the Jamaat.

It was only because Nehru was adamant about not having anything to do with Jinnah, rather than generally with any overtly Muslim organisation, did Jinnah pull out all the stops.

The usual ifs and buts of history aside, did that decision make Nehru communal? Or did it not make his politics as communal as that of Jinnah?

<b>Why, the Congress still ties up for elections with Muslim political organisations and yet claims to be secular. Does that make, say, Mani Shankar Aiyar communal? </b>

Although it is important to draw this distinction in the case of Jinnah too, we Indians have never been taught to do so. His politics, that too only after 1937, may have been based on exploiting communal differences. But as a man he was as secular as Gandhiji and Nehru.

This elementary point has never been understood in India because our politicians have not told us any differently. The result is that political postures and personal beliefs are treated identically. This is responsible for 99 per cent of the confusion about Jinnah.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Nor has the Congress allowed the blame for Partition to be placed where it properly belongs: British policy. </span>It has, instead, always tried to project itself as the saviour of Indian Muslims (or should I say Muslim Indians?) and kept the wedge driven in by the British in place.

The result is that instead of the blame being directed outwards, it has been directed inwards. <b>Is it not ironic that Indians and Pakistanis hate each other but love the British as though they were completely blameless? </b>For this, all political parties are responsible.

How many Indians have heard of Harcourt Butler? How many have heard of Principal W A J Archbold of the Anglo-Oriental College of Aligarh? How many know about the role played by these two in the formation of the Muslim League in 1906?

Here are also some facts that the Sangh Parivar has not heard of, such as the role played by Jinnah in the Lucknow Pact (1916). It brought the Hindus and Muslims together in a joint scheme for postwar reforms by conceding Muslims the right to separate electorates. <b>No less a person than Sarojini Naidu then called him 'the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity</b>.'

How many Indians know <b>Jinnah started out as a Congressman, as private secretary to Dadabhai Naoroji</b>?

How many Indians know that he worked and worked and worked to bring about formulae that would lead to Hindu-Muslim unity? Let me give you a list.

There were his 'Proposals' of 1927. <b>In 1928 he begged and pleaded for basic Muslim demands to be included in the Nehru Report</b>.

In <b>1929 he formulated the 'Fourteen Points' as minimum Muslim demands for a constitutional settlement</b>.

<b>He participated in the Round Table Conference that started in 1930 in London. Finally, fed up with the Congress, he quit politics altogether</b>. This was not a 'communal' man.

Nor has it taught Indians that Jinnah's political career had two phases here, one before 1931 and the other after 1935. Few Indians know that Jinnah retired from politics in 1931 and went off to England to practise law.

Fewer still know why he came back at the end of 1934 after Liaquat Ali pleaded with him to return to lead the League in the elections that were to follow the passing of the Government of India Act in 1935.

What brought him back was not the fear that the Congress would defeat everything in sight. It was the fear that the liberal Muslim political opinion in India would go unheard.

The Muslim League at that time was actually the least 'communal' of the Muslim political outfits.

It was not until 1940 that Jinnah asked for Pakistan. And that was a result of Congress policies over ministry formation in UP, where it refused to take League ministers unless the League was dissolved.

<b>It is worth noting in this context that the Congress tried to split the League when Nehru sought to entice some major UP Leaguers by offering them ministerships! But he had a pre-condition: they must quit the League and denounce it. None did.</b>

The import of all this was not lost on Jinnah. Even so, as Ayesha Jalal, the US-based Pakistani historian, has asked: when he demanded Pakistan, did he really want a theocratic State, or was he just using it as a bargaining chip to get the Muslims a better political deal?

Nor is the class dimension of the Hindu-Muslim antagonisms taught properly. How many Indians know that Muslim separatism was fuelled largely by the big zamindars of Punjab, Bengal, and UP?

<b>How many know that they determined to get a separate country only when the Congress turned explicitly 'socialist' at the behest of Nehru after the Nowgong Congress of 1937, when land reform became an integral part of the programme? </b>

Had they known that land reform would stop in India in 1950, they may not have asked for a separate country. How many know that they used Jinnah as an interlocutor with the British?

Does any of this make Jinnah communal?

Let me end by giving another little-known fact, one that the Congress has been at pains to downplay. How many Indians know that when the time came to choose a prime minister in the interim government of 1946, out of the 20 DPCC members who voted, 19 voted for Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and that it was only after Gandhiji asked him to stand down in favour of Nehru that the latter became prime minister? But that is another story.

The short point is that Jinnah was no more communal than Nehru or Gandhiji was. He became an instrument of forces that he thought he could control but could not eventually. But that is not so unusual, is it?
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Imrana case: Mulayam backs clerics' decision </b>

NDTV Correspondent

Wednesday, June 29, 2005 (Muzzafarnagar):


<b>In a controversial statement, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav today virtually defended the fatwa issued by Islamic clerics in the Imrana rape case.

Yadav said the order against Imrana must have been a well-thought out decision by religious leaders.</b>

"The government will not interfere in the case till we have more details. The leaders after all are very learned," he said.

Earlier this month, Imrana, a Muslim woman, was allegedly raped by her father-in-law.

After the incident, the local community leaders, as well as religious leaders, said she should separate from her husband and move in with her father-in law.

Protests against fatwa

Women activists in Muzzafarnagar today held protests against the fatwa that refuses Imrana the permission to stay with her husband because she was raped by her father-in-law.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board has also refused to overturn the local fatwa.

The UP women's commission had written to Yadav, requesting his intervention in granting Imrana permission to stay with her husband.

They have also demanded stern action against her father-in-law, who has been arrested and refused bail.

Political tone

The case is becoming far more political, with CPM General Secretary Prakash Karat also stepping in with criticism of the fatwa.

"The act of barbarity that was committed on a woman from Muzaffarnagar is very deplorable. In our country the guilty should be punished and justice given to the deserving. But this has not happened in the case," he said.

He added that the law of the land should prevail over personal laws if women's rights have to be protected. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

By Tavleen Singh
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->

The Dar-ul-Uloom's fatwa last week condemning Imrana to a marital
life of unmitigated hell and absolving her rapist father-in-law
comes as no surprise to me. It comes as no surprise because last
year I had the dubious pleasure of visiting the Dar-ul-Uloom in
Deoband and seeing for myself what this Islamic school that inspired
the Taliban is really like.

It was this inspiration that caused the Taliban to execute women in
Kabul's infamous football field for crimes they often did not know
they had committed. It was this inspiration from Deoband's
interpretation of the shariyat that caused the Taliban to ban
education for women and to punish them for such supposed
misdemeanors as wearing white socks and shoes that made a noise when
they walked.

Now, Deoband rules that Imrana, a mother of five children, of
Charthawal village, district Muzaffarnagar, in UP is haraam for her
husband, Noor Ilahi because she dared protest publicly about being
raped by her father-in-law, Ali Mohammad.

It is typical of the Deobandi interpretation of the laws of Islam
that they have not condemned the rapist. And, if you were following
the story you would have noticed that the bearded maulvis who
expounded on the subject on television hinted that they did not
believe she could have been raped. "Taali donon haathon sey bajti
hai," said one bearded monster with a smug smile on his face.
As a Muslim woman Imrana showed extraordinary courage in going
public at all because under Islamic law rape can only be punished if
four male witnesses exist. They never do. Her only hope now is that
the normal laws of the land are implemented and her father-in-law
charged and punished under them. Her personal life is ruined because
her wimp of a husband has already announced that he will obey the
fatwa from Deoband.

There are wider implications of Imrana's story and they should
concern us all. What should concern us is that the Dar-ul-uloom will
get away with its outrageous interference in the law. What should
concern us even more is that the Dar-ul-uloom should exist at all on
the soil of India. If you are shocked that I can say something so
politically incorrect let me describe for you what this institution
of Islamic teaching looks like.

During the general election in May last year I happened to drive
past Deoband on my way to cover election stories in UP and since I
had heard of how the Taliban took their inspiration from the Dar-ul-
Uloom decided that it would be worth my while to stop and take a
look at this influential school.

Deoband is a shabby, little hick town with a dusty, disorderly
collection of half-built shops as its main bazaar and its shabbiness
makes the magnificence of the Dar-ul-Uloom even more startling. But,
I go too fast. I drove through the dusty bazaar, along a gutted road
to arrive at a pair of tall, black wrought iron gates. Beyond these
gates I could see several fine, white-washed Islamic buildings and
beyond them a magnificent mosque that seemed almost bigger than the
town of Deoband. At the entrance was a white-bearded gentleman in
traditional Islamic clothing — a long kurta over loose pajamas that
barely reached his calves. I asked him if I could meet the chief
Maulana and after several minutes on the telephone to someone to
whom he conveyed my request he said I could not meet him because a)
I did not have an appointment and b) I was not veiled.

This irritated me and I pointed out that this was India and not
Saudi Arabia and in any case I was not Muslim and that if the
Maulana was so keen on purdah then perhaps he should be in it.
At this point a group of bearded students walked by and asked what
was going on. When I explained they said I should go to the main
office and make an appointment to come back another time. Knowing
that I would never have any desire to come back to the Dar-ul-Uloom
I decided that as I was there I could at least look around the famed
seminary.

So, despite the protests of the white bearded watchman I strolled
onto the grounds and found myself in a little bit of Saudi Arabia.
All the men I saw were bearded and in Islamic clothes, a small
bazaar on the campus sold books only in Urdu and Arabic and when I
stopped to talk to a group of young men they said (in Urdu) that
they could not talk to me because they spoke only Arabic and I had
been rude about their Maulana. I never found out what they
considered rude but thought them not just rude but nauseatingly
fanatical.

The whole atmosphere was medieval and extremely unpleasant
especially if you happened to be a woman. In the forty minutes or so
that I spent in the Dar-ul-Uloom I saw only one other woman and she
was so heavily veiled that only her eyes and a bit of her nose were
exposed. So you see why the fatwa that punishes the victim and not
the rapist comes as no surprise to me.

Finally, two questions. Why is a seminary that can only breed
Islamic fanatics allowed to exist in India? Will the government of
India take action against the maulvis who issued that fatwa
declaring Imrana haraam for her husband? Both questions demand
answers from `secular' leaders like Sonia Gandhi and Mulayam Singh
Yadav. And, if this is the secular India they want to build then
give me Hindutva any old time.

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

A new take on fundamentalism

Anjali Dhal Samanta

Film shows that tackling fundamentalism with fanaticism is counter-productive

NEW DELHI: "Samira" could be any ordinary girl living in some town of Kerala; an ordinary girl who has to live through the reality of growing religious fundamentalism as her husband gets drawn towards terrorism.

Premiered in the Capital on Monday, "Daivanamathil" is a story about a Muslim family coming to terms with fundamentalism. Directed by Kerala-based director Jayaraaj, this 100-minute film aims to portray how Muslim youth, reacting to Hindu fanaticism, are drawn towards terrorism. However, it tries to establish that reacting to Hindu fundamentalism with fanaticism is counter-productive. Instead, it suggests that the answers lie in the path shown by our freedom fighters during the struggle for India's independence.

"There is a feeling of insecurity among the Muslim youth. But taking up terrorism is not the right path," said producer and scriptwriter Aryadan Shoukath at a press conference here on Monday. Explaining how the story was conceived, Aryadan said: "The real story behind this film is my personal experiences. A friend of mine, who was a strong secularist with a Leftist bent of mind, went for a post-graduation degree to Aligarh Muslim University. When he returned from the University, he was completely transformed. I was shocked! This friend had become a fundamentalist. He had been a part of the University when the Babri Masjid was being demolished. This story has emerged from that observation and my research." But he is quick to point out that the film is not a comment on the University. "It could have happened anywhere. For this film, I have borrowed from my experience. But this is certainly not a generalisation about the University," he said.

For Jayaraaj, as a Hindu, directing this film was a learning experience. "When Shoukath asked me to direct this film, I was very excited. I have always wanted to know more about this. This is so far my favourite film. And the feeling has always been that such films are directed mostly by Muslims. I thought I could do a little bit for society through this," said the director, who has numerous national awards to his name.

"The film suggests that the answer is in the legacy of the freedom movement. I have noticed that after the communal carnage in Gujarat, people have started negotiating with every association. The Muslims were targeted but the solution is not that we meet every group. This is a dangerous trend to fight against communalism," said Shabnam Hashmi of Anhad.

[acharya]

‘Gandhi’s dream of India has slowly gone to pieces on certain issues...we all should come together...India wants a dream’
Posted online: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 at 0000 hours IST
Vishwanath Pratap Singh
Vishwanath Pratap Singh started many remarkable things. One, he ended one-party rule. Two, he ensured that whoever has to rule Delhi has to give a say to Patna, Lucknow, Hyderabad and Bangalore. Third, with the help of a man called Mandal, he started a process of social and political engineering that still goes on.When he walked out of Rajiv Gandhi’s Cabinet on the Bofors issue, he set in motion a set of events which historians will judge for years to come. He spoke with Shekhar Gupta, Editor-in Chief, The Indian Express, on NDTV 24X7’s Walk the Talk. Excerpts:

Let me use the phrase that Vajpayee used about himself: ‘Never tired, never retired.’ You fought sickness, you fought political wild-erness, but you’ve always been, somehow, at the centrestage.

Somehow, I never get bored in life.

So, not tired, not retired, not bored?

Yes. And I always find something that totally absorbs me and because I am totally absorbed, much of my worries just vanish.

Worries about health?

Oneself.

But even in terms of health and your own sort of worries, it looks like they are much less now than they were two or three years back. All of your friends and admirers are happy, like me, but you have brought about a remarkable turnaround in your own outlook.

One thing I have found most useful is acceptance. Acceptance that it’s not going to change. For instance, I have this kidney failure and also multiple myloma, which is malignant. I know they are not going to be cured.

Is it cancer?

Yes. It is cancer. I know my days are not many. But if I spend them with a long face, then whatever I’ve got is lost. Why lose what little I have? In the morning, when I get up and feel no pain in my body, I look at myself in the mirror and say: ‘I am alive, so I’ll enjoy this state of health.’ And that is how it is. But if I were grumbling: ‘Had I not been ill, I would have been going around, would have been doing this, I would have been doing that,’ then one is lost.

Your disease and political decline happened around the same time. Was one a consequence of the other?

No, I don’t think so. Right up to 1996, I was active, you know, the prime ministership was half-offered to me in 1996. And somehow, I’ve been in politics anyway, whether it was bringing down the BJP government in 13 days. That way, something or the other has always engaged me. But now, it is not in the formal political sense of being a party member or campaigning.

But that was a remarkable change, from Rajiv Gandhi being your political rival No 1 to the BJP becoming your political enemy No 1. With Rajiv Gandhi, at least, you fought for power. With the BJP, you are only fighting to bring them down, to keep them out of power. It’s a kind of negative arrangement.

Well, disease is also a negative engagement, but it is necessary.

Let me read between the lines. Are you trying to say that the BJP is like a disease?

Not in the sense, personally. I know many of their leaders and have got very good relations with them, and I have no personal animosity. But it is their hate agenda at the ground level—hate towards the minorities, particularly the Muslims. If they can drop that agenda, they become a normal party. What I find is that it’s so difficult for them that it comes (up) over and over again. And I don’t think it’s good for the country.

Can they drop their agenda? Are they capable? Their leaders?

It’s difficult. Because right from their RSS shakha, their mental psyche is made up like that. And whatever the top leaders may say, at the ground level what happens, everybody knows. But still, one can wish.

But you know these senior leaders. Mr Vajpayee, Mr Advani, Mr Murli Manohar Joshi — he’s from your state.

No, senior leaders are alright.

But do they understand what you are saying?

Even if they understand, they are in a set-up where they can’t do anything.

But when did you come to the conclusion that Rajiv and Bofors were a lesser enemy or lesser target than the BJP?

Well, Rajiv and I fought each other in the elections... But after his death, I never raised the issue.

But it was a very bitter election. I remember, I came to cover your by-election in Allahabad in 1988... I was 17 years younger, even I was having a tough time following you. It was a very hot summer...you were so motivated and all the rhetoric was anti-Rajiv: corruption, personal. How did you and Rajiv relate to each other after that election?

I never made a personal charge against him. I made many charges of lapses as a government head but I didn’t make a personal charge. After that, it was on him. On the Kashmir issue, I’d invited him for dinner, and on a few more issues, we had a one-to-one talk.

Was there bitterness?

No. That way, he was very sophisticated and polished.

But did he never ask you why you did this? Do you really believe I made money from Bofors?

No, he didn’t do that.

But did you believe he made money in Bofors?

Well, I never made that charge. What I had said was that the government is covering up and making wrong statements. And there is no reason why a government should go on making and revising its statements, unless there is a cover-up. I went only to that extent.

But knowing Rajiv, you’ve known him very well. He was also a friend of yours. Do you think he was the kind of person who could have made money out of a defence deal? Give me your honest answer.

I was a great admirer of his and virtually saw no fault in him. And I used to fight with my friends that he was a better leader than Indira Gandhi. That was my state of mind. The differences arose not on Bofors, it was on the HDW submarine. I got a telegram on my desk from our Ambassador in Germany that there were commissions in this by Indian agents. I reported it to Rajiv and then ordered an enquiry. That led to differences and I resigned from the government.

But now it has been more than a decade and-a-half. Do you have any regrets that had you not done it, may be Rajiv would have been feeling better alive today? Because the Bofors charge will stick forever.

Well, I think we fought each other very honestly. He did what he believed at that time and I did what I really believed. And it was an honest fight from both sides. In what each of us believed. Now I remember, it was Bimal Jalan. Now I can speak out because he is not a government official. He came to me ...and he said that you two should not part—Rajiv and you.

Oh, he came to advise you?

Yes. I told him how can I alone matter. He said there will be a big impact. Now, looking back, he was very right. It did have some impact.

The idea of putting a dead Rajiv Gandhi’s name in the Bofors chargesheet...

That should not have been done. That, the BJP should not have done.

It is something that sounds cussed to me.

It is not in our Indian culture to make charges against those who cannot reply....

So, you are willing to forgive and forget on Bofors after Rajiv Gandhi passed away?

After that, I never raised the issue, unless somebody pointedly put it to me. I never, on my own, raised it, unless I was cornered.

And when you met Sonia Gandhi for the first time after the last election, was the ghost of Bofors hovering in the room?

No, she was very good to me, very gracious.

Nobody imagined that you and Sonia would strike such a warm rapport.

I think when I decided to support the Congress, I didn’t negotiate. I didn’t even talk to any Congress leader. I thought it was in the interest of the country that without the Congress, we can’t dislodge the BJP. So, I decided to support it. And I think she believed that my support to the Congress was genuine, based on my own principles and conviction.

How would it be to compare, as a leader and politician, Indiraji and Rajiv? You worked with both of them. They were your mentors in many ways.

Yes, of course. Indiraji had more experience than him. She was with Jawaharlalji. The grooming that she had, Rajiv did not have. Then, she was in the freedom struggle. Rajiv was modern, dynamic and a very polite person.

It’s a tragedy he died very young.

That is a different thing. But his presence in the Indian polity would have been a positive thing for the country.

And how do you compare Sonia with him?

Sonia has now shown much political talent, especially against the odds she has fought —of language, of being foreign-born. Amidst all these handicaps, she has been able to lead her party and has taken very wise decisions.

Can you think of one remarkable difference that makes her different from Rajiv and Indira?

Well, principles of leadership are usually the same. So, it is the capacity to motivate and inspire.

It is very strong in her.

So long as she can hold the Congress party and lead it and motivate it, that’s one thing that each leader has.

What is that one thing that she has?

I think she has been able to hold the party which was disintegrating. She has been able to form a government. She was wise enough to not accept the prime ministership. Many of her decisions and interventions, I think her sensitivities are correct.

In fact, I think that sets her apart. That is what got her so much good press. Did she surprise you by saying no to prime ministership?

Well, I got an inkling a little before others got it.

So she took you into confidence?

I think she would have taken all the important people (into confidence). At the same time, Karunanidhi would have also been briefed.

But for Mr VP Singh to be among those important people is a big change for Indian politics.

I don’t know. But anyway, the very fact that she took us in confidence about it, also personally for me, is an expression of trust.

Also, many of us noticed that that warmth and trust was not only between you and her but between you and the family.

Well, I always respect and regard them as a family and owe so much to Indiraji.

That is so remarkable because that family also doesn’t forgive easily. They haven’t forgiven most others who were involved in Bofors on the other side but you are an exception.

I don’t know, but the warmth and trust they have shown is certainly a thing of value for me.

Don’t you think the time has now come for senior leaders from all parties to get together and end this probe culture?

Not only the probe, I think we should all come together because we have to dream India once again. Gandhi gave us a dream of India. There was a consensus on that dream. Now that has slowly gone to pieces on certain issues. All should come together and on certain issues, India wants a dream.

So will you take the lead in doing that because many of them are older than you but you are distanced from politics, you might have some moral....

I don’t know whether I can take the lead, but any initiative on this part, I’d certainly want to share.

You have had a remarkable government supported by both the Left and the BJP. Many people don’t remember that now.

Well, I knew it the day I took oath that this experiment is like achieving the sun’s temperature in a lab, which cannot be for a long time. The day I was taking oath, I had given my government two years. But then the tape was put into fast forward and it became one year. So, that was no surprise for that government. That had to go. There were too many contradictions.

But what was it like to have the Left on one side and the BJP on the other?

I did not have any problems. Administratively, I had no problem with the BJP.

So that is not something that the Left wants to be reminded of now?

No.

The secret meetings that Jyoti Basu and Advaniji used to have in Viren Shah’s house.

There used to be a meeting between the Left and BJP in my house every Tuesday. Dinner meetings. I had no pressure. I was one prime minister of a coalition where the partners did not put any pressure.

But now you see the Left almost treating the BJP as untouchables, this never happened in our politics.

Really, after Gujarat.

And when the Congress was the enemy, the Left had no problems making common calls to the BJP in Punjab, at the Centre.

After Gujarat, even I have hardened my view of the BJP. Though personally, I know Atalji, I know Advaniji, I know Shekhawatji. We communicate also at times....

In fact, we think that is a very positive feature of our politics. For example, do you believe that Vajpayeeji advised Sonia not to accept prime ministership?

I think it came on her own and the family.

Not that he also advised her.

They were demanding it, so what was the advice? BJP was demanding it.

And now, to quote one of your favourite lines: When Laloo got elected in Bihar the second time, you said ‘Bihar is my laboratory for social change.’ How is the change going? Do you now need new chemicals and new burners?

I think the idea was to get (in) all deprived sections, which are mainly in our society. When we see historically, we can understand this need of social justice in our context, not in abstract. The Supreme Court said if victimisation is on the basis of birth, relief also has to come by birth, only then the victims will be identified.

But has the experiment gone wrong now?

It has derailed in the sense that it was a concept of getting all the deprived sections together, cutting across caste lines, including the poorer or the upper castes, because we demanded 10% for the upper castes also. We made a demand. It was part of our psyche. It has derailed now into my caste, plus the minority. So it has degenerated.

Do you have any regrets that this has now become so casteist. Do you see this rolling back now?

No, I don’t have regrets in this sense that it was a constitutional obligation. Mandal has been accepted by the Supreme Court. It has been accepted by all the parties.

Do you see any correction coming in now? Developments?

It will. But spreading it to the voting area, I don’t think, is good.

[Guest]

Secularism: A fraud on the Hindus
By M.S.N. Menon

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->HINDU India was tolerant to every faith. Buddhist India was not
different. Is this the tradition of the Semitic faiths? No. Hindu
India kept politics and religion separate. Was this the tradition of
the Semitic faiths? No.

It was the tradition of rajadharma (Politics) to protect all people
irrespective of their faiths. And be impartial in whatever the ruler
did. Thus, Ashoka, the great Buddhist emperor, gave protection to
all his subjects: to the Brahmanas, Sramanas and even the atheists.
It was this impartiality which gave the Indian state its moral
competence. It was from this that its authority flowed. Are these
the traditions of the Semitic faiths? No. Then what is it that
Hinduism has in common with Semitic faiths? Very little.

In Rock Edict XII, Ashoka says (2300 years ago): "A person should
not make an exhibition of reverence of his own sect (religious
group) and condemn another without good reason." On the contrary, he
says, "the other sect should be shown reverence. By so doing, a
person exalts his own sect and does service to another's sect. By
doing otherwise, he does harm to both." This policy came to be known
as sarva dharma samabhava (Equal respect to all religions). Does the
Pope of Rome look upon other religions with `equal respect'? Do the
American Methodists respect Hinduism? Does Islam respect other
religions? The answer is: No, No, No!

Then why was this doctrine of samabhava imposed on the Hindus, when
they needed no Nehru to tell them of their ancient tradition? India
will remain secular, not because of Nehru, but because freedom is at
the bottom to tell them of their ancient traditio to tell them to
tell them of their ancient tradition? India will remain secular, not
bec to tell them of their ancient tradition? India will remain
secular, not because of Nehru, but because freedom is at the bottom
to tell them of their ancient tradition? India will to tell them of
their ancient tradition? India will remain secular, not because to
tell them of their to tell them of their ancient tradition? India
will remain secular, not because of Nehru, but because fr the
Wahhabis, major Sunni sects, consider the samabhava of Hindus and
European secularism as the worst evils.

Both Christianity and Islam are proselytising religions. To denounce
Hinduism is a daily routine with their missionaries. That is the
traditional way to win converts. The Christians say that Hinduism
represents `demonic forces', while Muslims say it (Hinduism) is
a `false religion'.

So, was it not a deliberate fraud on the part of Nehru to impose
this doctrine of `equal respect for all religions' on the Hindus
alone? Didn't he know that Christianity and Islam, both foreign
religions, are committed to convert India. Even a man of ordinary
intelligence (and he certainly was not so `ordinary') would have
called for a ban on conversion to make his doctrine of samabhava
meaningful. But he did nothing. He was as cussed to the Hindus as he
was when he passed the Hindu Code Bill.

When the American colonies founded the United States, they declared
themselves in favour of secularism. So, when the Mormons (an
obscurantist Christian sect) insisted on retaining their Personal
Laws including polygamy (as the Indian Muslims have been insisting
on) they were told that admission to the Union would depend on their
giving up their Personal Laws.

Was Nehru aware of this episode? Did he have the courage to follow
the American example? Perhaps he was more comfortable with the
adulation of the Muslims.

So, the appeasement went on. The Congress party continued to make
concessions to the minorities for their votes. Nehru had little to
say against minority fundamentalism, but much against Hindu
fundamentalism. This suited the Muslims. But this does not suit the
Hindus. They want this pseudo-secularism of Nehru to be scrapped.

The case against religion is that it is divisive. But by introducing
the Parliamentary system, with unchecked growth of political
parties, the Congress brought in the worst divisive form of
government that one could think of. Race, religion, ethnicity,
caste, language, region-all these became fault lines in the divisive
process. The Indian polity is already highly fragmented. The damage
has been done. Thanks to the Congress Party.

But what is one to make of Nehru, the `visionary', the `builder of
modern India' when he went for the `first-past-the-post' system of
elections? Was this not done in the full knowledge of its
consequences? Of course it was, but it helped the Congress to stay
in power.

Secularism was, therefore, designed to hold the Hindus in duress. In
the event, it kept the fault lines open. To close these fault lines,
the Indian people must go back to nationalism. One simple way is to
insist that the winner in an election must secure 51 per cent of the
votes cast.

In a country of India's diversity, further fragmentation poses great
danger. The time is, therefore, ripe for the reverse process. Only
nationalism, modified to suit our times, can unite our people. Only
nationalism can close the fault lines<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

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 — 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 — greater than that of the political class — 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 — doctors, lawyers, academics, managerial executives — 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.

[acharya]

The Hindu Art of Self Hate
Shachi Rairikar
January 22, 2005
(The author is a Chartered Accountant working in a software company in Indore, MP, India and manage www.indpride.com)

http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_050122.htm

The Hindu talent for self-condemnation does not find a parallel anywhere in the world. The art of self-hate is what the Hindus have mastered in during the latter half of the last century. The politicians, media, so-called secularists, intellectuals, human-rights activists who never tire condemning Hindus are themselves Hindus. The greatest enemies of the Hindus today are the Hindus themselves.

Understanding the Hindu mind is not difficult. Let us try and analyse our mentality - the Hindu mentality. Whenever there is a problem with some other community, which is harming the Hindus, how do we address the problem? We have two options ­ we acknowledge the problem and take action for its resolution or we do not acknowledge the problem. What if we acknowledge this problem? ­ We will have to take steps to resolve it, interact with the other community in question; there might be confrontation and agitation; we will have to "fight". What if we do not acknowledge the problem at all. Nothing happens ­ no confrontation, no agitation, no "fight". The adverse effects of the problem can be tolerated ­ after all, it is easier to tolerate than to fight. What if grave consequences will have to be faced in the years to come? At the moment we are comfortable with few adjustments and compromises, so why worry about the future? Who cares if to make today more comfortable we make tomorrow bleak?

How do we address the problem then? The easier course of actions is to blame our own people for being communal, narrow-minded fundamentalists. After all, it is much easier to confront the Hindus as they are less aggressive and less violent. Fighting the real enemy would require a lot of courage so we choose to make the enemy look saintly and turn against our own people. We find faults with our own people rather than addressing those who are actually at the crux of the problem. So our politicians, media and the so called secularists and intellectuals call the Hindus communal and fundamentalists, responsible for rioting but never have the courage to criticize the Jehadi terrorists; and the human rights activists agitate for the human rights of the terrorists, never caring for the human rights of the victims of terrorism.

So we don't acknowledge that the rising Muslim population is a threat to the integrity of our country and to the very existence of the Hindu civilization. What if we have faced a vivisection of our Motherland when the Muslim population became one third of the country's population? What if the only Muslim majority state Kashmir saw the driving away of the Hindu minority from their homeland? That is history and we Hindus have an excellent record of not learning anything from history. Even though the current trends and figures clearly reveal that we are heading towards a second partition, our intellectuals and media refuse to acknowledge this. Instead, they are criticizing our people who conducted demographic studies on the basis of religion. They find census figures on the basis of religion completely irrelevant and uncalled for in a "secular" country like India. The larger threat facing the country becomes a non-issue whereas whether religious demographics should be studied as a principle or the technical errors like the publication of wrong data on the first day become the issue. The idea is to take the attention away from the larger issues and focus on the non-issues, so that we don't have to address the real issues. To address the real issue we will need to talk to our Muslim community, persuade them to go against Islam and practise family planning, persuade them to not shelter but report the illegal Bangladeshi immigrants staying in their colonies, we will need to confront and "fight". We quietly look for an escape route, don't acknowledge that the problem exists and condemn those who perceive it, then there is no confrontation and we need not "fight".

Thus, when Uma Bharati gets arrested for hoisting the national flag on "disputed ground", we do not question how and why a ground became "disputed" for hoisting the national flag, we do not question the loyalty of the community whose "sentiments" get "hurt" by the hoisting of the national flag, instead we blame her for indulging in communal politics and criticize her for using the national flag to play with the sentiments of the people. When the Shankaracharya gets arrested on the charges of murder, we do not see the conspiracy and evil motive behind it, instead we start doubting his innocence and character and start discussing "equality before the law". When riots break out in the aftermath of Godhra, we condemn the rioters as communal fundamentalists but do not say a word to those who started it all by torching a train full of Hindus. Instead we conduct an enquiry to prove that the Hindus had themselves deliberately started the fire in order to have justified grounds to riot.

Thus, we cannot perceive a threat to the country's integrity from illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, we cannot acknowledge that the terrorism faced in India and throughout the world is Islamic terrorism, we cannot see the merits of teaching the real history of the atrocities of the Muslim invaders, we cannot change the British education system, we cannot regulate the madrasas which breed terrorism, we cannot ban the missionaries who defame our religion and convert our tribals by unethical means and methods, we cannot feel pride in rebuilding our demolished temples, we cannot call India what it truly is ­ a Hindu Nation.

Thus, we condemn our own people who talk of driving away the Bangladeshis staying illegally in our country, we call our people who implement laws against terrorism communal, we call the teaching of the true history of India as "right-wing" history, we call the teaching of Vedic mathematics and astrology as "saffronisation" of education, we believe that the missionaries are doing great services for our tribals, we find the re-building of demolished temples a wasteful effort to dig up the past, we call India what it officially is - a secular country.

If we acknowledge all these problems, we will have to work towards their solution. The cowardly, escapist Hindu mentality refuses to acknowledge the problem, so the question of working towards a solution does not arise. We do this under the pretext of Hinduism being secular, peace-loving and non-violent, but we accept and practise only those aspects of Hinduism which suit us. Hindus spend time, money and energy in performing poojas, yagyas, Bhagwat path, visiting swamis and babas but when it comes to practicing the real philosophies of the Vedas and the Bhagwat Geeta, we back out.

We have forgotten the teachings of the Bhagwat Geeta which asks us to fight against the wrong ­ adharma. We are using the tolerant and secular mask to hide our incapacity. We have tampered and moulded the doctrine of ahimsa or non-violence to camouflage our inaction. Not protesting against violence is in fact supporting and encouraging more violence, which is a greater sin. What we are resorting to today is not tolerance, secularism or non-violence but cowardice. Mahatma Gandhi had once said, "My own experiences but confirm the opinion that the Mussalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu is a coward; where there are cowards there will always be bullies." Even this great apostle of peace and ahimsa had said, "I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence ... but non-violence is infinitely superior to violence."

The ostrich mentality of the Hindus does not help make Bharat a better place to live in. Rather it endangers the very existence of the Hindu civilization. Turning a blind eye to our problems will not solve the problems, instead it will only aggravate them. Nehruvian secularism has already left us with a legacy of complications and it would be sad if our successors were to inherit more. Playing the blind man's bluff is leading us to disaster. It is high time we call a spade a spade, "fight" the real enemies or else it will be too late. It is time we pay heed to what Lord Krishna told Arjun:

"Klaibyam maa sma gamah Paarth naitatvayyupapadyatey
Kshudram hridaya daurbalyam tyaktovttishta Parantapa"

"O Arjun! Yield not to unmanliness for such an attitude is not worthy of you. Casting aside your weakness of mind, therefore arise, O scorcher of enemies, and get ready for the battle."

Shachi Rairikar

[Guest]

Amarnath: A lesson in secularism

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Sudharshan has a valid point on women</b>
S Gurumurthy

Brinda Karat, a Left feminist, has criticised RSS chief K.S. Sudharshan for his views on the role of women. In Sudharshan’s view, a woman who puts the family above her career is the role model for others. Brinda chided him for being anti women. For her, a family woman is subordinated. Conversely, a career woman is liberated. Sudharshan’s view and Brinda’s are not just a conflict of the ‘traditional’ India with the ‘modern’. Today, it involves the ‘modern’ West as well and a debate is on out there. Look at the facts and the thoughts on the role of women in the West, which our intellectuals of the Left and also of the rest generally benchmark.

Long before, the West had caught on to what the likes of Brinda now advocate for Indian women. The West, ideologically close to Brinda, moved even faster. In the Russian Federation, 65 percent of the marriages end in divorce. The divorce-to marriage rate in the Ukraine is 63 percent, Czech 61 percent, the UK 51 percent, the US 49 percent, and Germany 41 percent. Swedish women are the most ‘liberated’ and ‘empowered’ with half and more of Swedish parliamentarians and civil servants being women. Is it just a coincidence — or consequence — that 65 percent or more of Swedish women and men live together without marriage, any one with anyone for any length of time? In the end, over two-thirds of Swedish elders are bereft of family support. This has forced the Swedish government to pass a law to provide caretakers, at its cost, for assisting the aged who are orphaned.

Look at the USA, which many look towards. The traditional arrangement where men go to work and women look after the house has fallen from 53 percent of married couples in 1972 to 21 percent in 1998. The divorce rate in the US has doubled between 1960 and 1998. Don’t dismiss it as merely a cultural fall. It is economic as well. The state had to step in to fill the void in families. So the social security cost, that is the cost of caring for the aged and the infirm, unemployed and others, has skyrocketed. Many in the West are frightened of this time bomb ticking under their economies. Some of the best minds in the US fear that the emerging ‘Fatherless America’, as one writer put it, will bankrupt the country.

In contrast, the entire social security cost is privatised in India through the traditional family mechanism. But for such traditional families the Indian state would have gone broke long ago. Now the West is realising the criticality of women who put home above career. A study made in 2003, covering over 100,000 families in the UK and the US, found all this: wherever men and women have competed and claimed arithmetical equality, families broke up; the happiness of families and their overall economic status stood eroded; wherever women had the full support of husbands and had been mothers taking care of the family, happiness in the family was complete; separation forcing women to remarry or remain single caused a drastic reduction in their overall happiness.

Look at the relatively more traditional Germany. An article in The Christian Science Monitor (March 25, 2005) reads: “In Germany, the idea that it’s possible to combine family life and a career is rejected by society as a whole,” argues Barbara Vinken, author of “The German Mother.” German society, she says, is increasingly split into two camps: those who have children, and those who don’t. “It’s a society in which a growing segment isn’t reproducing anymore.” The article goes on: “Sending your child (to day-care in order) to work is seen as something that weakens the family rather than strengthens it,” says Giscela Ehler, head of Familenservice, a childcare consultant based in Berlin. “Women,” she says, “feel that they have to choose between family and career.” Yet, only 16  percent of German women with children less than six go for work.

Now see the stunning decay in women’s status in the relatively traditional Germany. Like in all West the German government provides doles till employment is offered to the unemployed. An unemployed German girl receiving the dole was stunned when told by the employment office to either join a brothel that had jobs to offer her or, if she declined to, become disentitled to her dole! Why? As Germany had legalised prostitution as an industry, a job in a brothel was as good any other employment for women in market economics!

So the West is now debating what the ideal role of a woman should be. In the West, one abuses Barbara Vinken as anti-women or dismisses her as Biblical. Nor does anyone trivialise Giscela as medieval. What Sudharshan says in India is precisely what Barbaras and Giscelas say in Germany. So let us look at the debate in the West, developed and more than that, decaying — lest even as we replicate their development, we don’t bring in their decay. Sudharshan has a valid point. He never said women should not opt for a career. He only cautioned against idolising career women and trivialising the family-bound. In an intellectually spineless atmosphere, he has had the guts to raise a point, a profound one. Let us discuss it without being dismissive or abusive.

Writer’s email: comment@gurumurthy.net <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[acharya]

Nationhood and frequently unasked questions

Sabyasachi Bhattacharya

Is there taking place in Indian consciousness a reorientation towards the paradigm of nationhood? What are the reasons why the way in which we relate to the past of nationalism is now highly contested?

NOW THAT the dust raised by the controversy occasioned by some remarks made by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at Oxford has settled, it may be useful to look back upon the whole episode. Many commentators rushed to the defence of the Prime Minister — though in retrospect it seems that he is abler than them in defending himself. The critics ranged from far Right to the Left but their reactions bore, at least superficially, some surprising similarities; where they differed among themselves was in respect of emphases — on the Right there was an emphasis on national pride and on the Left on the Marxian appraisal of colonialism. Looking beyond the ephemeral in the affair, after we forget tomorrow who said what he or she was expected to say, the question that will remain as a residue of the `national debate' The Hindu desired editorially, are questions which have not been posed as clearly by the contestants in the debate as they might have been. Is there taking place in Indian consciousness a reorientation towards the paradigm of nationhood? What are the reasons why the way in which we relate to the past of nationalism is now highly contested? And, to put it very simply, is it true that nationalism is no longer what it used to be?

Arguably, globalisation has brought in its wake not only greater mobility of skilled persons, greater flow of capital and commodities across national borders, outsourcing, and what have you in the economic domain — perhaps globalisation has also brought about among its votaries an altered perception of national identity. With globalisation there has now emerged a kind of trans-nationalism, vacuous at times in terms of validation of its intellectual premises but drawing its strength from the materiality of objects of consumption globally available if you can pay for them, jobs for the professionally skilled anywhere in the world, access to a world wide web of electronic communication, opportunities of service under multinational corporations and new inter-national civil services connected with global non-governmental and inter-governmental organisations, etc. These are some of the material rewards for allegiance to globalisation on the part of members of a limited class in countries such as India.

We are not concerned for the present with other aspects of this scene: what matters for the present is that nationhood as perceived earlier is possibly inconsistent with the sensibilities of that class. Nationhood to them is something to be imagined primarily in cultural terms. A purely culturalist definition of national identity has had an interesting consequence. That stance sometimes slides into a sort of indigenism, a cast of mind which falls back on ethnic or religious definition of identities — which tends to be exclusivist, indeed at times communalist (in the sense in which the term is used in the Indian sub-continent). This seems to be a notable trend in, among others, some segments of the communities of `non-resident Indians' abroad. Concurrently a paradoxical thing has overtaken us. While a globally dirigiste regime of capitalism (with ample armoury in the hands of the multinational corporations aided by the World Bank, the WTO, the new international protocol for protection of patents and proprietary rights over knowledge, etc.) undermines the autonomy of nation states, a supposedly radical critique of the idea of the nation state indirectly subserves the same end today. The latter may be a trend limited to a small intellectual circle but it does pose a definite challenge to the unquestionability of old fashioned nationalism.

The process of re-thinking nationalism had begun earlier when decolonisation and the passage of time over five decades made the encounter of the colonised nation with its `other' a thing of the past. The farther did the memory of that overwhelming encounter and of imperialist rule recede, the weaker became the passion that inspired the `national feeling.' At another level, one might say that in the latter half of the twentieth century Indian historical vision was informed with the memory of the colonial past and this deeply influenced the effort of independent India to position herself at the head and front of an anti-imperialist Third World bloc — that too now is part of history, an almost forgotten history.

This diminution of the political role of the new nation states of the Third World that Nehruism had aimed at also reduced the salience of the polarity which that paradigm posited between the erstwhile predators and the prey in the age of imperialism. There is now a tendency abroad to soft-pedal the antinomies of the colonial past, inspired by the notion that the erasure of the ex-colonial self and softening the conflicts that lie in the past would ease admission into the comity of nations as of now. This may be a delusion. One is reminded of the instance of Japan, a country regarded by the West as on a par with the colonised Asian countries until Japan showed her armed might in Manchuria, causing barbarous havoc in the conquered country. Thereafter the Western states began to treat Japan almost as an equal. A Japanese diplomat said: "As soon as we show our capacity in barbarous force we are readily admitted to the comity of civilised nations. It is a lesson to us." Getting soft is not always the way to get the key to the club. Be that as it may, there is a notion abroad that harping on the colonial past is not a nice thing to do.

Nationalism is no longer what it used to be for other reasons as well. The nationalist cause was bolstered by arguments which began with the interrogation of the colonial rulers' record of governance. M.K. Gandhi in his first polemical work Hind Swaraj, wrote how he had tears in his eyes reading Romesh Chandra Dutt's historical account of the economic impact of British administration. To Dutt, after having served in the Indian Civil Service, the question of questions was, `qui bono, for whose benefit'? And hence his indictment of British administration, mild though it was in the hands of a `moderate' Congressman like him. When you make a fetish of administrative efficiency for its own sake, and fail to ask the question who benefits, you are likely to end up with a fetishism of good governance. Here is another obvious disjuncture between old nationalism and the new philosophy.

That is not to say that those in India who make a positive evaluation of some aspects of the British Indian administrative system are necessarily `anti-national'. The point is to underline the newness of the world outlook which makes such positive assessment acceptable to a great many people. Observe, for instance, the recent comments by readers of The Hindu in the correspondence column. The man in the street (if the reader of this newspaper may be assumed to be such) seemed to recognise that while on the one hand there was an exploitative side to colonial governance there also came other things which appear to be necessary ingredients in the recipe for building India as we know her today. Now, this came pretty close to Karl Marx's assessment in the oft quoted New York Daily Tribune articles, subsequent debate about the `destructive' and `regenerative' aspects of British rule notwithstanding. (Even ten years earlier, in German Ideology, Marx had arrived at a similar assessment in the light of his understanding of `world history' under the capitalist system). An essentialist approach to the intervention of world capitalism and the British Indian administration is not consistent with a dialectical understanding which Marx had posited. Perhaps in the popular perception there is a similar perception of an interplay between dialectical opposites. Essentialism will reduce all historical reality to one-sided characterisation, while a dialectical approach seeks to analyse the complexities of the reality with its apparent contrary trends and tensions. An essentialism had at one time characterised Europe's so-called "Orientalist" perception of the East, a reduction of whole peoples and civilisations into stereotypes; to build a similarly essentialist picture of the West was a natural reaction in the early stages of the growth of political consciousness in many Eastern countries. The Marxian approach marked a departure from both these perceptions in positing a dialectical as opposed to an essentialist approach.

Nationalism as a shield

If we infer from the trends briefly touched upon above that the days of nationalism are over we shall be probably mistaken. The ascendancy of the transnational fraction of capital vis-à-vis the fraction in the lower reaches distant from transnational engagement is not yet a foregone conclusion of the contest that is on-going. Disputations on admission of FDI (foreign direct investment) to certain sectors bring this fact to the fore. Even if the old nationalist passion is replaced by calculus of self-interest, effectively nationalism serves as a shield. To those who are in principled opposition to multinational capital, needless to say, preservation of the nation states' autonomy acquires a new urgency, whatever be the differences among themselves about the class character of the state. They will surely also take into account the entry of capitalism into a new epoch quite different from the stage Rudolf Hilferding looked at in the beginning of the twentieth century; then the national states advanced the interests of national corporations in the international and colonial market, whereas now very often the national states are almost bypassed by supranational agencies of global capitalism and footloose capital. That relocates the old nation state in a different place in strategic thinking on the part of the Left: shoring up the nation state exposed to external infringements helps towards keeping the wolf at bay.

Among the frequently un-asked questions about the attitude to nationhood are also questions about the non-state interventions to defend the self-governance and autonomy of the relatively new nation states, fragments of the erstwhile empires. Curiously enough, the agenda some politicians of those states have abandoned has been taken over by some social activists' movements, international in scope and organisation, to restore to the countries of the South their autonomy. Fiestas and protests beautifully coexist in demonstrations of such activists wherever the masters of the world in WTO, G8, etc., meet at Cancun or Mumbai or Edinburgh — that too, ironically, is an offshoot of the globalisation process. These endeavours perhaps give expression to the opinion of those who are persuaded neither by the proponents of chauvinist ethnic fundamentalism nor by the flag waving of those who instrumentalise age old patriotism for their own purposes, and yet react against what they perceive as the impact of globalisation on their life. These are the unheard voices of common citizens.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, formerly Professor of History at Jawaharlal Nehru University, is President of Indian History Congress, 2005; the views above are personal.)

[acharya]

Nationalism today

The article "Nationhood and frequently unasked questions" (Aug. 4) was informative and interesting. As atomised individuals we may think little about nationalism today, yet it is here to stay. No matter how far we travel in the world of globalisation or even cultural exchange, nationalism is a lurking emotion. It is difficult to explain why a five-year-old gets excited about India winning a cricket match against Pakistan. Nationalism will never be over-run by internationalism — not even in a global village.

Shrivridhi Shukla,
New Delhi

Unification of India

Former RSS spokesperson M.G. Vaidya has wondered why India cannot try unifying when Germany and Vietnam can be united, and the two Koreas can try unifying (Aug. 2). The Germans, the Vietnamese, and the Koreans had the inner urge to come together. The Indian subcontinent is different. We are Indians on this side of the border and they are Pakistanis on the other. We have been taught to suspect, never to trust. Germans were divided by Cold War politics; we were divided by the politics of religion and hate.

P.S. Prasanth,
Thiruvananthapuram

[Guest]

<!--emo&:argue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<span style='font-family:Geneva'><b>Do u agree with Cabinet or Prez on Info Law </b></span>:
<b>Govt disagrees with Kalam’s confidentiality clause </b>
<i>Info law Kalam said exchanges between President’s office and Cabinet should be privileged, Govt says otherwise </i>
ANITA SALUJA
Posted online: Saturday, August 06, 2005 at 0209 hours IST
NEW DELHI, AUGUST 5: The UPA Government has disagreed with the suggestion by President A P J Abdul Kalam that communication between the President and the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, be kept confidential—and out of the purview of the Right to Information Act.

While giving his assent to the law in June—which will be notified in October—Kalam had reminded Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of the Constitutional provision that guarantees privilege of such communication, Article 74 (2): “The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into it in any court.”

However, in a note prepared by the Department of Personnel and Training, after consultation with the Law Ministry, the Centre has said that ‘‘the claim of immunity and privilege has to be based on public interest.’’

Citing the ruling in the landmark S R Bommai vs Union of India, the Centre has said that Article 74 (2) does not bar the court from calling upon the Council of Ministers to disclose the material on which the President had formed the requisite opinion.

‘‘The material, on the basis of which advice was tendered, does not become part of the advice,’’ says the official note.

Allaying the President’s fears, the Centre has observed that there is no absolute proviso under Article 74 (2) of the Constitution, which bars making public the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof and the material on the basis of which the decision was taken.

Point & polite counterpoint

• Kalam: Art 74 (2) says that advice tendered by Ministers to President shall not be inquired into it in any court. Govt: Does not bar court from calling upon Cabinet to disclose material on which President formed opinion.
• Kalam: Only Centre should frame RTI rules; not states Govt: Centre and State empowered to frame rules in respect of subjects falling in their spheres.
• Kalam: Definition of information could even include notings on files Govt: Whether definition should be narrowed is a matter of policy.

The Government has also turned down another suggestion of the President that the Centre should be allowed to frame rules under the proposed RTI law and the state governments should be kept out of it.

According to the Act, both Centre and the states can frame rules on its various provisions on how accountability of different Government departments will be fixed.

The Government has argued that as per Section 28 of the Act, the competent authorities (Centre and the State) are empowered to frame rules in respect of the subjects falling in their spheres only. “As such, the question of overlapping of the rules may not arise.”

It noted that the legislature can always delegate rule-making authority to the state government or to any other authority.

On Kalam’s observation that the definition of information in the Act is such that even notings on files, containing advice, can be insisted upon, the Centre has said that whether the definition should be narrowed down or not is a matter of policy.

The Centre has not replied to the President but duly taken note of his advice and come to its own conclusions.

The Prime Minister’s office had sent the President’s observations to the Law Ministry and Department of Personnel and Training, for their observations.

Both the key Ministries have not found anything which can be incorporated in the Act.

[Guest]

A landmark ruling:

Do away with notified minorities list: SC
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Supreme Court has said that the practice of listing religious groups as 'minority communities' should be discouraged and the list be gradually be done away with as it promotes divisive tendencies to weaken the nation.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice R C Lahoti, Justice D M Dharmadhikari and Justice P K Balasubramnyan reminded minorities commissions set up by the centre and state governments that the goal of the Constitution was to create social conditions where there was no need to shield or protect rights of minority or majority communities.

"The commissions, instead of encouraging claims from different communities for being added to a list of notified minorities under the Act, should suggest ways and means to help create social conditions where the list of notified minorities is gradually reduced and done away with altogether," said Justice Dharmadhikari, writing for the bench recently.

The ruling was given while disposing of a petition demanding minority status for the Jain community. The bench accepted the centre's stand that it was for the states to determine whether Jains were a minority community depending on their social condition in their respective states.

The Court said "in a caste-ridden Indian society, no section or distinct group of people can claim to be in majority. All are minorities amongst Hindus. Many of them claim such status because of their number and expect protection from the state on the ground that they are backward."

<b>It said if each minority group felt afraid of the other group, an atmosphere of mutual fear and distrust would be created, posing serious threat to the integrity of the nation leading to sowing of seeds of multi-nationalism.</b>

Claims for minority status-based on religion would increase as various sections would hope for getting special protections, privileges and treatment as part of constitutional guarantee, it added.

"<b>Encouragement to such fissiparous tendencies would be a serious jolt to the secular structure of the constitutional democracy," the bench said, cautioning that "we should guard against making our country akin to a theocratical state based on multi-nationalism</b>".

<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[utepian]

Remember the incident in Hubli-Dharwad, when a public ground was encroached upon by an Islamic body, the land-grab supported by the state Congress and citizens disallowed to unfurl the tricolor which they did for decades on that maidan? To refresh your memory, Uma Bharti tried to forcibly hoist the flag. What was an illegal encroachment by Islamic body, what was a fundamental right of common citizens (hoisting the flag), what was an blatantly anti-national stance (of disallowing hoisting of flag) by the said Islamic body - all became secondary.

What became the focus was Uma Bharti forcibly hoisting the flag, the subsequent arrest warrant executed 10 years post haste that ultimately led to her resignation as the Chief Minister of MP.

The ghost of that grossly anti-national mischief is taking rebirth - no not in a remote town like Hubli this time - but in the nation's capital.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Double standards of a secular kind</b>

<b>The historic Ramlila Maidan in central Delhi has in the not-so-distant past witnessed huge and sometimes historic rallies.</b>

Of late, however, it has been shunned by parties because it is no longer possible for any of them to gather half-a-million people to fill up the ground.

<b>Delhiites are now shocked that a multi-storeyed complex has come up just behind what is the main podium, from where speakers from Jawaharlal Nehru to Indira Gandhi, Lal Bahadur Shastri and Jayaprakash Narayan often inspired the faithful.
</b>

<b>The building, named Haj House, has come up on land that is an integral part of the Maidan.</b> Several prominent residents of the area have taken up the matter with the authorities, to no avail.

<b>Nobody was willing to invite the wrath of those who had encroached on the public maidan in such a flagrant manner.</b>

<span style='color:#FF0000'><b>In sharp contrast, a month ago, an old temple on Rajendra Prasad Road was partially demolished by authorities when senior leaders of the Opposition, including Uma Bharti and Vijay Kumar Malhotra, rushed to the spot and stopped the demolition of idols.</b></span><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/12capbuz.htm

[Guest]

Not at all surprised. Lavakare and Sandhya Jain had long ago documented Sonia and Mamohan's land/property grab episodes in the very same capital so not much can expected for those folks lamenting for that maidan in Delhi.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=52458
<b> 'For Hindu rashtra democracy is a hurdle' </b>
PressTrust of India
Bhopal, August 10: Terming democracy in India as the `major hurdle' in formation of `Hindu rashtra' and `root cause of all problems', VHP senior vice-president Giriraj Kishore last night proposed an alternative system - like `guildism' in France - where every section selects their most suitable member to help form the government.

"Democracy is now demagogy. It is a hurdle (in formation of Hindu rashtra).., " Giriraj Kishore said at a discussion meet on "Why is it necessary to make India a Hindu rashtra?"

"Democracy is the root cause of all problems due to which we have to suffer," he said alleging politicians have become worshippers of votes.

"The best alternative to democracy is guildism wherein people from all sections choose their suitable member. There will be no grudge as the most acceptable people will form the government", the VHP leader later told reporters.

"Democracy is territorial now. It can be changed and a system can be developed like the guild system in France," he said, soon after speaking at the function. 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

A massacre is a massacre

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When is a riot not a riot? When is a massacre not a massacre? When is a
mass murderer not a mass murderer? And when is public outrage to be
muted - if not entirely suspended?

<b>When the Congress is the culprit. And when the victims are Sikhs</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->