Sadhvi Pragya’s utterances in the Indian context

Sadhvi Pragya’s remarks on Hemant Karkare caused a furore in the liberal media on expected lines. Initially, when her selection as a contestant of the BJP from Bhopal seat was declared, the liberal journalists and the Congress party tried in vain to corner the BJP to drop her candidature from the electoral fray on the grounds of terror charges. However, they found that the ‘law of land’ would not bar her on that front they were gunning for. Next alternative line, they chose as a handy tool was: her remarks on Hemant Karkare who was martyred in 26/11 in an almost – a war like-attack by the Pakistani-sponsored terrorists in their mission to bleed India by thousand cuts.

On the contrary to what Pakistan did, Shri Digvijaya Singh, the mascot of Congress’s faux secularism released a book whose title stated: 26/11 was an RSS conspiracy. By releasing the book with the likes of Mahesh Bhatt, he implicitly gave a clean chit to Pakistan. Now, it’s anybody’s guess where his heart lies. Shri Digvijaya Singh was also instrumental in coining the word saffron/ Hindu terror to please his minority vote-bank. So, the BJP had no option but to pit Sadhvi Pragya, a dyed- in-the-wool Hindutva proponent who is ever combative for her ideology.

Sadhvi Pragya is a novice to politics. She has not yet graduated from being an activist of a Hindu organisation to a politician. Her statements may not be politically correct and she may also be unvarnished in representing her side of the story (relating to Hemant Karkare), however, undoubtedly she wanted to vent her agony in public. Had her word of ‘curse’ not been on the Late Police IPS officer Karkare, (who laid his life by instantaneously attacking the terrorists – without even wasting a second to wear a bullet proof jacket to stop the mayhem) it could have been taken lightly as if it was a routine word (from the Indian Hindu- psyche).

As far as Sadhvi is concerned: she narrated how the late police officer, in his interrogation was coercing her to answer his questions on which she had no knowledge. She described how the irritant officer queried her: if not she, who would know the answers? To which she said, “God”. Again the irate officer asked her whether he should go to God to enquire. She said he should, if God ordained so. According to her, the kind of ill-treatment, disdain and unbecoming language and behaviour of that particular police personnel had made her curse him. As a result the nemesis that followed.

Going by her description, one should understand that she was only expressing a view that any normal average Indian expresses in such situations. For, India has a highly hierarchical society wherein the poor, helpless and marginalised that work as domestic workers/ helpers, workers in construction firms, daily wage labourers and so on, are often abused and humiliated by their masters. They usually take that lying low for they have no grievance- redress mechanism. Often, in their helplessness, they curse their masters silently. These curses invariably come out from the weak on the mighty. Sadhvi was one such weak person when imprisoned and cornered by impugned charges. It’s a strange coincidence that her curse and the catastrophe that followed.

Nowhere Sadhvi had said (in the TV clipping) that she was endowed with a supreme power to curse people that would haunt and lead to some kind of denouement. In whole context, one should not forget, that the Late Karkare had a close proximity with Shri Digvijaya Singh (now the electoral rival and staunch opponent of Sadhvi Pragya) and often shared his thoughts with the Congress leader.

Reams and reams of columns appeared in the newspapers from liberal journalists of Barkha Dutt kind on Sadhvi Pragya’s statements as to how bad and disdainful her comments were and some went to the extent of calling the supporters of her to be anti national. However, by proxy, they wanted to help the Congress candidate Digvijaya Singh. For all Liberals if the Congress comes to power, they can have their field-day. In that enthusiasm they are batting. Somehow, they are conveniently obscuring faulty secular credentials of the other person, Shri Singh. Showing one side of the coin has been a habit of all Liberals. Why do they hesitate to question Digvijaya Singh’s busy temple-hopping, performing Poojas and participating in Yagnas in his constituency, Bhopal? Of course, he is personally entitled to do what he wants. However, he never did before, so glaringly in public. How come this new realisation now? To counter the BJP, the Congress needs religion now, otherwise Hindu traditions are something mumbo-jumbo for them. What had the Congress done to promote Hindu culture in their long innings of rule?

Shri Digvijaya Singh has brought Dwarka-Sharda Peeth Sankaracharya Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati to virtually campaign for him. Look, for a party – the Congress, which says that religion is a personal matter and should only be followed in close-doors and who proudly say that don’t wear their religion on their sleeve etc. now flaunting their allegiance to Hinduism!

Sadhvi Pragya’s statement and assertion on Ayodhya-temple construction may enthuse her cadre who are otherwise beleaguered and demoralised for having no headway on the temple-front, however, she needs to be careful in her utterances here after to win an election, since the election commission took cognisance of the matter to register an FIR on her confession of involvement in demolishing the Babri. She should be mindful that she represents the whole of Bhopal with all communities (when she wins) and the Constitution of India mandates that commitment towards people. Hopefully, the BJP as a responsible party will get her to that end.

Advertisements
The opinions expressed within articles on "My Voice" are the personal opinions of respective authors. OpIndia.com is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information or argument put forward in the articles. All information is provided on an as-is basis. OpIndia.com does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.