Why do our stylish politicians remain unnoticed? It may be because of the center of attention falls usually around the fair sex. Recently we have found how well-dressed women polling officers in different cities got ample attention from the media. The hype created by the coverage made them reasonably overnight celebrity suddenly. They definitely turned out to be a sensation.
They attained sufficiently more notice than the politicians in the sixth round of the ongoing general elections. Whether it was Bhopal’s lady polling officer in a blue dress or Lucknow’s polling officer in a yellow sari, both of them were complimented on their respective looks and unique dress sense. Their femaleness brought to them a certain level of delight and the lensmen took pleasant pains in bringing them to the wide viewers.
It is only at this point in time the women begin to rebuff by saying when do their bodies become a concept. The two attention-grabbing women confidently posed before the flashing cameras’ inside eyes. They were not awe-struck with an abrupt boost in their comfortable status as their social media celebrity standing was confirmed thus.
We can say this remained a different side of the electoral ambiance because of a lovely picture of trendy women spreading their beautiful dress sense and good looks. However, the elections are bringing certain specific nice spectacles by every means of modern-day faster publicity tools. The two female polling officials had enjoyed utmost media attention lately.
Is not it odd that their colorful dresses mixed with the good countenances drew far more swift attention amid the pure election atmosphere? The voting procedures used to make the politicians more humble towards the feeble voters as they try to understand the public opinion once in a five-year gap. In this angle of people-politicians’ connection, such sort of change does not baffle or perhaps purposely combine vagueness with frailty, social insight with social arrangement and opposites of male and female with rareness.
India, a democratic country, formerly known as the golden bird, is now eventually losing its shine.
The elections, which were previously a sane happening, are now turning into scenes of chaos where politicians work to resolve their personal spats. As a teenager, looking onto how politicians have stooped to a new level of low to find their own way and gain votes is plainly horrifying.
The welfare of the people is kept last on the priority list of these leaders, and provocative speeches to put down the other seems to be the trend of the hour.
What we do not realize is that it is those very leaders who we elect as our representatives.
Though my voting age is still a far sight,the conditions we are now witnessing need to be acknowledged.The recent incidence of violence in Kolkata has itself shown us the levels of shame and it it now that we need to understand that this game of propaganda has to stop.
Maybe it will be too late until we take action,Maybe we will be left empty-handed. But until these issues are addressed, it is our democracy that will crumble, and it will be us who will have to suffer.
I came across Hasan Minhaj’s show Patriot Act’s video on Indian elections on YouTube. Hasan Minhaj is a popular American comedian of Indian origin with a large following. Minhaj was the featured speaker at the 2017 White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Having known this, it made me curious and I started watching it.
I found his act full of bias against Modi and a one sided view on Indian elections. So I thought I should offer a counterview.
Minhaj starts by talking about recent fight between India and Pakistan after the Pulawama attack. He gives only a one sided account of events. When it comes to speaking about India’s official position, he downplays it with jokes. But he reiterates Pak calling India’s retaliation to Pulwama terror attack as Eco-terrorism, an attack only on trees and not on terror base. He omits India’s action of downing a F-16 fighter jet which lead to our soldier being captured by Pak. He omits our destroying Balakot terror camp, which has been substantiated by an independent Italian journalist Francesca Marino, who saw 40-50 killed terrorists’ bodies there, as well as satellite images of damage corroborating the same.
Minhaj claims Modi’s victory was built on his ‘rags to riches story, charisma and economic promises for the poorest’. He very conveniently chooses to ignore Modi’s 15 year successful stint as CM of Indian state of Gujarat where he led his state to highest growth rate and one of the most industrialized state of the country. And no Modi didn’t declare this himself, this was credited by a central government agency when the opposition Congress was in power at the center. His isn’t a ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ like rag to riches story where he has accumulated wealth but one where he has progressed through, with hard work. Indian electorate didn’t just believe his promises but voted him on the basis of his track record of development in Gujarat.
Minhaj then tries to compare Modi’s slogan of ‘India First’ with Trump’s ‘America first’. Modi’s ‘India First’ had emphasis on keeping the welfare of the country he wanted to lead as his priority. Every country’s leader should have the responsibility to look after their country’s interests, because if they wouldn’t then who else will? I see a problem when a country’s leader believes that their country should grow at the expense of all others, a perception that exists about President Trump. PM Modi’s comments should be construed in context. Because of rampant corruption in the Congress’s UPA II government, the very belief of Indian people in India’s democratic setup had started to waver. Indians needed hope which a charismatic person like Modi through his proven track record of 15 years of Chief Ministership and his speeches with the message of ‘Sabka saath, sabka vikas’ i.e. ‘Together with all, development for all’ gave. Modi’s pitch for ‘India First’ was not about progressing at expense of others but rather at keeping his government’s focus on India’s best interests being foremost rather than personal interests of corrupt few like the Congress’s dynast family.
Then Minhaj repeatedly makes racist imitations of how the Indian PM was speaking ‘India First’. Minhaj was born in America and so has an Americanized accent, this doesn’t give him the right to be racist about the way many Indians speak English, which may seem accented to him.
Then Minhaj compares PM Modi and President Trump. He claims they both dislike the Press and a visual appears of tweets from Modi and Trump having the words ‘Very Sad’ and ‘Sad’. If you pause at the exact moment you can see Modi’s tweet says ‘Congress’ 1 point programme is to facilitate the Son Rise in Delhi. The nation is secondary…only the son’s career must be safe. Very Sad.’ (PM usually says that for Congress, India’s interests aren’t first, Gandhi’s career growth is first) And Trump’s tweet is about ridiculing a TV show. How are these two tweets comparable?
Then he accuses both Modi and Trump of ridiculing their opponents on Twitter. Is there any politician who doesn’t use Twitter to politically criticize their competitors, and what’s wrong with that, unless you are making personal derogatory remarks about opponents, something which PM Modi never does? Most people in the world know, that PM Modi maintains political and civil decency to everyone, including his opponents.
Minhaj’s next accusation is that both Modi and Trump are strong man with rabid fans. What kind of a charge is being a strong man? And how can a politician control the kind of his fans. A leftist unqualified journalist in the guise of a comedian, calling a Rightist PM’s fans rabid just shows his frustration. PM’s supporters may feel the same about him.
Then he accuses Modi of not having a press conference so that he never has to answer about any controversy. All Indians know Modi is a Prime Minister who has given one of the largest number of interviews as an Indian PM to a wide variety of news channels, including many those are believed to be among his critics such as India Today and News18. There is not a single major issue or controversy over which the PM has not made his views known, either through interviews, speeches, social media or any other platform.
Then Minhaj accused the Indian PM of maintaining a silence on 2002 riots, which is again a lie. Many a times Modi has been asked in interviews about the same, and his answers are there in the public domain, there for anyone to find out. He has maintained that he tried his best to control the riots and used the security forces the best he could. Some people wanted him to apologize for the riots, but he maintained he did everything possible to stop them and was on his duty full time. If he was wrong then he should be punished, he said, how could an apology help? This built his image as a strong Hindu nationalist instead of Hindu apologist, something that many Congress leaders of the time were, who believed they would be seen as backward if they were openly Hindu. India’s courts instituted Special investigation Team to look into Modi’s response to riots and after lengthy investigations, accepted that he had done no wrong. Truth was there for everyone to see. But what can be done about someone who can see but was pretending to be blind?
Then Minhaj plays a clip where Opposition’s Indian National Congress Party’s leader, Rahul Gandhi, goes and hugs Modi forcibly, while he’s sitting on PM’s place in the Indian parliament, trying to portray he loves everyone. Minhaj then makes fun of how Modi hugs world leaders but was reluctant then. But he easily skips over the next part of the clip where Rahul Gandhi winks at his friend after the hug, which exposed Rahul’s insincerity and mischievous intention to the public.
Minhaj then clumsily mentions how BJP officials didn’t respond to his calls for interview but Shashi Tharoor did. His sincerity in contacting a senior BJP leader is itself questionable, seeing till now, how he takes into account only a one sided biased view. On the other hand his very choice of inviting Shashi Tharoor to give interview was also surprising, given Indians know him to be an alleged wife murderer with pending criminal cases. Was there no other political leader left in India with a clean image to interview? You can easily see how there is an effort from Minhaj’s side to portray India as a banana republic with only tainted politicians and even questions India’s judiciary at another point.
Then Minhaj asks Shashi about a rightward shift in politics in India. He speaks as if it’s a very bad thing which has happened. When Congress wins, there is a leftward shift in politics in India and when BJP wins there is a rightward shift in politics in India, there’s nothing unusual about it.
Then starts Shashi Tharoor’s fear mongering of how this was an election for India’s soul and how a BJP reelection would damage that. Same fear mongering was used in 2014 about how after BJP’s victory, India would become inhospitable to certain sections of society. Modi had always categorically denied this and swore to work for all 1.3 billion Indians without any kind of discrimination. People trusted Modi and nothing like an attack on India’s soul happened these 5 years, which Indians who live in India have noticed.
So Minhaj tries to paint a false image of an intolerant India in the minds of Americans, many of whom believe him, because of lack of adequate information on work being done by PM Modi. Minhaj then seems hugely impressed by Shashi Tharoor’s motherhood statements, which every Indian politician makes, regarding a united India without any discrimination.
When Sahshi Tharoor is asked about corruption scams under Congress Party regime, Tharoor doesn’t take even one moment to paint whole of India as corrupt, saying no party is virtuous, whereas the truth is, there is no proven case of corruption against the Modi government. Not all Indian politicians are corrupt and not all have varying degree of murder charges on them, unlike what is alleged by Minhaj.
Tharoor then puts the onus on electing corrupt politicians on Indians themselves and says every democracy gets the politician they deserve, as if Indian electors beforehand know the corruption scams these politicians are going to be involved in.
Minhaj says unemployment has been on a record high as per data. But the truth is there is no mechanism to record the number of jobs in informal sector, including self-employed people in India, which accounts for the vast majority of total jobs here.
Minhaj then alleges Demonetization was a failure and farmers are most affected by demonetization, but is it true? Uttar Pradesh (politically most crucial and largest Indian state) state elections happened months after demonetization and everyone knows UP has one of largest number of farmers. UP voters gave BJP over a three-fourth majority, puncturing Minhaj’s farmer discomfort by demonetization claim.
Demonetization helped in bringing money into the formal banking system and its intention was never to permanently drive money out of Indian economy’s circulation.
Minhaj then shows a clip of a farmers protest. The protesters are making anti Modi government statements and are wearing red caps and shirts of AIKS. AIKS stand for All India Kisan Sabha, which is the peasant body of Communist Party of India (Marxist) i.e. CPI(M), a political party which is ideologically diametrically opposed to Modi’s BJP. Will you expect their members to support BJP?
The he next shows another clip of yellow shirts clad people having flags saying ‘Jai Kisan Andolan’. This is a front of Swabhiman Abhiyan of another Modi hater politician Yogendra Yadav. Does Minhaj have any credibility left now? Did he expect anti Modi political party’s members to sing praise for him or give genuine feedback on his work.
Minhaj then starts another front against Modi accusing him of trying to disenfranchise Muslim immigrants illegally settled from Bangladesh in Indian state of Assam. Why the hell should illegal foreign immigrants have a vote in India? Has all logic evaded his brain? National Register for Citizens (NRC) has been created to identify these illegal immigrants who bring with them fake currency and indulge in criminal activities. Their sole purpose is to outpopulate locals and take over the control of their state. Many opposition politicians supported them because they became their vote banks. Why should action not be taken on them?
He implies he feels sympathy for these to-be-disenfranchised illegal immigrants, and jokes that people will accuse him of supporting them because he is a Muslim like them. He tries to close a door on future criticisms of him by making this statement, but why would he want enfranchisement for illegal immigrants, voting isn’t a human right but a civil right, for legal residents of a place.
Minhaj says Modi being a member of RSS should be alarming because an RSS ideologue’s book ‘Bunch of Thoughts’ mentions Muslims, Christians and communists as threats. This book was written in 1960s. Not even 20 years had passed since India’s partition on religious lines, where the Muslim majority states of East Bengal and West Punjab separated from India. It was a time when Christian missionaries were rampant in illegally converting the poor and tribals in far flung regions such as North East and South India, using inducements such as jobs, money and even by force. In the Cold war era world, with huge amounts of money being pumped by the Soviet Union and its use of KGB to create satellite states, communists were considered a threat throughout the world.
Minhaj alleges Hindu nationalists have been instigating a culture of intimidation and violence towards religious minority groups wanting Hindu India. Commoner Indians living in India do not believe this fear mongering which is being spread by a desperate opposition and left leaning media houses. The same could be seen when before Bihar elections in 2017, a narrative of growing intolerance in India was created, which vanished into thin air, after opposition victory there.
Minhah then claims Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, is scary because he is a monk with a gun. Yogi says monks are taught in both Scriptures and weapons. People knowing Hindi would know Discipline wasn’t mentioned in Hindi in the clip but Scriptures were. Minhaj uses very clumsily made clips with many gaffes. Monks have long been taught to know self-defense in addition to scriptures in East, be it in India, China, Japan or many other eastern countries. It’s scary only if there are instances of misuse, which are not, in this case.
Minhaj says places’ names are changing from Muslim versions to Hindu like from Allahabad to Prayagraj in India. But he is again clumsy in his research, as the name in Hindi is Illahabad after a conglomerative faith Akbar tried to create, but had no followers. Allahabad was a distorted version of the name. For more than 2000 years the place was called Prayagraj and so it has been restored, over an archaic irrelevant name.
Minhaj claims that not just Muslims, violence against all minorities have gone up, which set me thinking as I couldn’t think of any complaining minority apart from some self-proclaimed Muslim intellectuals. Then he says minority groups called ‘Dalits’ are being targeted. This just proved to me that he has no idea about India and made me wonder where he gets his information from. Dalits constitute a caste in Hindu society and here was an attempt to portray them as different from the rest of Hindus.
Minhaj says religious minorities have been free to deal in cows, which is again incorrect. There is a ban on cow slaughter in many Indian states for long and some states had cracked down on illegal slaughterhouses.
Minhaj reports there were no reported lynching incidents in 2013 as per a BBC News report which is again factually incorrect statement. There are many news articles in public domain to prove this. It had happened before Modi and had continued. PM Modi publically criticized cow vigilantism and made anti-lynching laws and these cases have been drastically reduced for quite some time.
Media had earlier in many instances passed non religion related violence also as communal lynching. Minhaj claims ‘Its gone so bad, that Dalits are routinely subjected to lynching’. This is a lie in itself. Based on one or two isolated incidents, painting a whole nation of 1.3 billion as intolerant and lynching as routine is a crime against that nation. Crime rate in India is below crime rates of many developed countries of the world.
Minhaj concludes that a pattern of growing religious nationalism, violence, disregard for institutions, rampant disinformation, weak and corrupt opposition was seen in all countries having democracy backsliding and implies whether India will join them if Modi is reelected.
Rampant disinformation is what he is spreading. Whether to have the Opposition weak or strong is the will of the people in a democracy. Indian institutions are functioning well despite what he wants to imply. Nationalism is more visible in India as a response of terrorism and national security having gained more importance with Pakistani attacks. This type of trying to create panic and fear among Indian public has failed in past and will fail again.
In the end Minhaj plays a clip of the same left leaning opposition politician with no public support in India, Yogendra Yadav, head of Swabhiman Abhiyan. Minhaj has no idea that this person has no traction in Indian society just like him. Yadav claims something much deeper is at stake in upcoming elections. Will India remain India or not, will India define itself with inclusion or exclusion is what Minhaj wonders, adding it’s much easier to exploit conflict in Kashmir for political gains then address economy and deepening divisions within the country. We don’t need threat of nuclear warfare to flex nationalism as per him.
This threat of nuclear warfare is what Pakistan always plays. National security will remain an important issue in India as only a secure India can progress, despite how much ever Minhaj would want us to ignore it. As far as economy is concerned, we are still the fastest growing major economy in the world and so don’t need his lectures.
Minhaj criticizes the PM in every way possible and finds not even one positive thing to speak about the PM to keep his interaction balanced. Modi government provided electricity to all the 18000 unelectrified villages of India, built millions of houses and toilets to those who couldn’t afford them, provided free cooking gas connections and accidental insurance to poor, insured cheaper medicines, provided crop insurance and income support to small farmers, started Mudra loans for small artisans and workers, increased investments, improved infrastructure, increased ease of doing business, improved foreign relations, strengthened national security with necessary defence procurements and using air strikes and surgical strikes when necessary and enhanced global image of India among other things.
Hasan is a person with Indian roots born in America. But he has lost all touch with India. He jokes he has both Indian and Pakistani friends and which side should he cheer in a India-Pakistan match confuses him. To him I say, you are a person with Indian roots, so in an India Pakistan match you can choose your second motherland after USA which is India. We have friends from all countries, doesn’t mean you are from there. Both of your parents were born Indians. Your confusion reflects in your thoughts. What’s all your confusion about?
The fact is American media is too self-centred. Information deprived American youth resort to such misinformants and comedians for their news on current events around the world. But if you do not have to be a target of their propaganda and not accept whatever fake news is fed by them, one will have to do some research themselves on issues or rely on more trustworthy sources.
Every Indian has great responsibility today to save India from the corrupt dynasty politics, khan market gangs and punkah coolies of certain dynastic political parties and all of them have only one job that is to attack Modi and his corruption free governance.
For the above gang, India should not develop, corruption should prevail, sab ka vikas should not happen, nepotism and dynastic politics should not wane out, religious harmony should not exist, the agenda of progress and national security should not win but all they want is dynastic politics and politics of minority appeasement and loot. For these Dalaals (दलाल) of destructions and negativity, abusing Hindus and appeasing minority is only known and that is how they promote secularism in India. In fact by whipping Hindus and engaging in minority appeasement politics, they are dividing the country and several Hindus have started to fear the fate of India from this gang.
HINDUS ALL OVER INDIA HAVE STARTED TO FEEL THAT ONLY MODIJI, BJP AND RSS ALONE CAN SAVE THE CULTURAL IDENTITY OF HINDUS AND THE ETHOS OF INDIA.
The religious animosity is being fuelled fully by the above gang but conveniently they blame Modi for such division. Modi and BJP firmly believe in sab ka vikas and development of the nation. Patriotism, guarding the national identity, ensuring national security, sab ka vikas and unification of India under Hinduism- the cultural and heritage identity of India are the objectives of Modi. Whether someone follow Hinduism or not and practice Islam or Christianity or Buddhism or other religion for that matter, all of them were Hindus once up on a time and even today they follow several traditions of Hinduism despite practicing other religion. So the attempt to connect all people of different religious faiths in India with one umbilical cord called Hinduism is not communal or anti-secular idea or vision. This truth all the people of India must recognise and understand correctly.
It is like how different flowers are tied together with a thread to make a garland, BJP and RSS wants to use the cultural identity of India – the Hinduism to unite people of India even if they follow different faiths and religions. What BJP and Modi propose and practice is true secularism and not appeasing minority or causing fear among them against Hindus. India can grow strong only when everyone in India develop and prosper therefore the feeling of Indian is more important for the country than own religious faiths. Hinduism is not a religion but is the cultural and philosophical identity of India.
India is secular purely because of Hindus and Hinduism. Most of the countries like US, UK etc., although follow secularism but are known as Christian states but our founding fathers unknowingly has done a great error to India by dooming down the Hindu identity to our nation in order to portray the nation as secular. India can remain secular and can live with diversity by being a Hindu Rashtra. The above historic mistake of our founding fathers has to be corrected. India can remain secular by being a Hindu Rastra and that must be shown to the world by people of other religious faiths joining the mission of Modi. Hinduism is not religion but it is a great living and practicing philosophy, an apostle of peace and harmony, way of life with materialistic fulfillment with deep roots in spirituality, a heritage of universal brotherhood, tolerance and differences. Modi and BJP strictly follow the culture of merit, tolerance and universal brotherhood and that is why BJP always oppose the divisive minority appeasement politics of the dynast and other Tukde Tukde gangs.
If Modi comes back to power with absolute majority, India shall become a super power in several frontiers. The fear of the dynastic parties is that such India may not support the happy life of dynastic politics, khan market gangs, punkah coolies and syndicate of scamsters. Merit alone shall count and not nepotism or corruption.
India must be saved from the above gang and India must be developed. Modi alone can offer stability, durability, development, corruption free governance, governance free of nepotism and dynastic politics, sab ka vikas and national security. People should chant, promote and spread the message of elect Modi and save India because everyone has great responsibility to save India from the corrupt, dynast-naamdaar politicians.
Probably everybody would have heard this at least once in their lifetime. Common Cold — If you don’t take any medicines, then it will last for one week. If you take any medicine, then it will be cured in seven days. There is a kind of common cold which has affected the Congress party and the ‘’one week’’ is yet to be over. That common cold is the Gandhis. The leadership of Congress party remains with the Gandhi family, except for a brief period, which was an aberration. Is there no leader worth guiding the party other than from the Family? The common refrain, from die-hard congressmen, is that the Gandhis have the charisma and they are unifying factor in the party as well as the country. Unfortunately, the common man finds it hard to believe this.
For a few years after Independence, it was the Congress party which held sway over almost all the states and it was getting the unequivocal support of the people. The situation started to change soon, when Congress started to lose elections in state after state. After the death of Pandit Nehru, Lal Bahadur Sastry became the Prime Minister of India and after his unfortunate death, Indira Gandhi became the Prime Minister, though a rank junior at that time. It was Kamaraj who was instrumental in bringing in Indira Gandhi to power, a decision he regretted much in his later days. From that day on, the Congress party was under the grips of one family, whether in power or out of power.
The two main reasons cited for the adulation of the family are Charisma & Unifying force. In 1977, the opposition parties did not have a single charismatic leader but still they won the elections. It was because of the anger against the Emergency and Indira Gandhi. However, within a short span, Indira came back to power. Did it mean that people had completely forgotten or forgiven the excesses during the emergency? No, certainly not. It was because the issue in the elections of 1980 was stability at the centre. In 1984, it was the sympathy wave after the assassination of Indira Gandhi. In 1989, it was Bofors and anti-corruption. In 1991, once again it was a case of stability and the sympathy after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, as the results of elections held before and after the assassination would reveal. In 1996, once again it was anti-corruption which propelled the opposition parties to power, which was also short-lived as in 1977.
In 1998, the victory of BJP, although short of a majority, was based on the promises made by the party on development. In 1999, it was once again giving a chance to the BJP to carry out its development agenda. However, in 2004, things turned out to be different. The defeat of BJP was not because of new found love for the Congress party. The people still reposed faith on BJP and its development agenda but results in just two southern states, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh changed the mandate. Had the BJP won these two states in alliances, it would have resulted in continued rule of BJP as a coalition government. Thus, it is not any individual or charisma which captivates the Indian electorate but issues and leaders who are considered by the people as capable of solving those issues and fulfilling their aspirations. Modi is not a person per se but he is the epitome of aspirations of the common man for development.
Rajiv Gandhi was touted to be the most charismatic leader after Indira Gandhi. The massive mandate in 1984 has got nothing to do with Rajiv who was not into active politics at all during that time. What happened to his charisma in 1989? In 2004, the victory of Congress was attributed to Sonia Gandhi, but it was a victory despite Sonia Gandhi. Same is the case in 2009 also. However, 2014 elections presented the electorate with a clear and positive alternative in Modi with a proven development agenda.
Even if we consider the state elections, especially after 2014, the victory of congress in a few states are to be attributed to the strong local leaders only and not because of Rahul or Sonia. In Punjab, it was a victory for Capt.Amarinder Singh as much as anti-incumbency against the Badals. States which are considered virtually one party state and dominated by Congress are falling like dominoes and where is the charisma of Rahul or Sonia? People who were neglected so long in the development process and who had been fed only rhetoric and nothing else have woken up to the reality and throwing away Congress in state after state.
Everybody would agree that after 1977, the victories of Congress are predominantly due to negative votes and sympathy factor. Rahul holds the dubious distinction of losing the most number of elections consecutively. But why people call him a charismatic leader and the unifying force in the party? The answer to both the questions is one and the same. People know that there is no charisma with Sonia or Rahul but who will call a spade a spade? If anybody raises a question against the leadership, they will be thrown out of the party. Even before disciplinary action is initiated, there will be a chorus for action and party functionaries will vie with each other to draw the attention of the leadership. Here lies the problem affection the Congress party.
It is a known fact that Gandhis cannot win elections for the Congress party but if they are shown the door, who will be the next leader? There is no leader with a pan-India appeal in the Congress party today and most of the leaders are confined to their state, like Scindia, Pilot, Kamal Nath and a few others. Further, the policy of the congress leadership has been not to allow anybody from the state level to grow in popularity in order to avoid becoming a threat the national leadership, read the family. There are some leaders who cannot be termed as leaders because they lack any mass support even in their own states, like P.Chidambaram, who cannot win even in his home state without alliance. Under these circumstances, everyone is afraid that if the family is removed from the leadership and a new one takes the reins, what would be his position in the party and equation with the leadership. The state level leaders have cultivated a sort of rapport with the family and in every state, there are umpteen number of factions in Congress party and the leadership also plays into these factions. In such a scenario, it is nothing but natural that everyone would be worried about change of leadership at the national level. If a leader on his own merit from a state is chosen as the leader of the party at the national level, it would certainly lead to revolt by other so called leaders in all the states.
Thus, it is understood by everyone that victory for the Congress party can come only if there is anger against the ruling party, which is purely a negative vote, but if the party wants to capture the imagination of the electorate by change the leadership towards that direction, the emerging new leadership may not be palatable to most of the factions within the party, which is the only factor rallying the party behind the family. This is the existentialist crisis the Congress party faces itself in. While on the one hand a lack of vibrant opposition may not be good for a democracy, on the other hand, it may give rise to new political dispensation, weeding out the corrupt elements and sycophants.
“No country in the world is facing the kind of grave threat that India is”. These are the words of Chief of Air Force B S Dhanoa. We as a country are in a alarming shape right now. Previous regime hasn’t done much to improve that situation. We have at least 245 old mig21 which were needed to be replaced a decade ago. With 36 Rafale planes are coming to India from September 2019 and India is yet to finalize 110 fighter jets deal; we headed for a deterrent named as S400 air defence system. It is largely feared in the West as it is able to bring down the most advanced fighter jet of the world, the American F35. However USA is lobbying to somehow cancel the deal and make India buy their incoherent THAAD MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM which is in no match to the S400.
S400 triumph missile defence system taking position
India had inked the $5.43 billion (Rs 40,000 crore) contract for the S-400 systems with Russia on October 5 last year.It would significantly deter the south Asia region and for a fact that if it is deployed near the border with Pakistan, a S-400 battery can shoot down a hostile F-16 fighter or cruise missile much before it even comes anywhere near the Indian airspace during hostilities. The highly automated and mobile S-400 systems, with their associated battle-management system of command posts and launchers, long-range acquisition and engagement radars, and all-terrain transporter-erector-launcher vehicles, have four different kinds of missiles with strike ranges from 120-km to 380-km. It gives India a sheer advantage in the mountainous terrain. This defence system can even intercept intermediate ballistic missiles with a velocity of 4800 metre per second. It is in every way second to none.
It is for sure that it would one be the greatest weapon to join the Indian army. But with the threats of US sanctions, can India survive the conquest of diplomacy? Delivery starts in October 2020 with no delay and all batteries will be delivered until April 2023. But there are some serious loopholes which continue to persist in the IAF.
I have been guilty of comparing Hindus in India to Christians in America. But it is only as far as being the majority. Hindus are a majority in India and at times I think they struggle with giving equal voice to others but they come by it honestly. After all, Muslims are not native to India. They came in as invaders and made Hindus second class citizens in their own nation (taxed for not being Muslim if not killed outright).
Hindus as a majority are different from other majorities because unlike just about any other group on the planet today they have zero history of organized violence. ZERO.
Every once in a while a single individual Hindu or a few do something crazy and hurt someone. That is often given as a comparison to terrorist organizations as though they are the same thing. (And there are often non-religious motives behind acts of violence that we hear about, see the linked article below).
There are no Hindu crusades. There is no Hindu ISIS. There is no drive for expansionism.
Despite being a majority, Hindus in India are not like white people in America. They are the original people of India and they have been oppressed and ruled over by invaders twice over. Where is your respect for people rebuilding themselves after colonialism?
Hindus have been beaten down for a long time now and told that our problems don’t matter, that we have no place to complain, no place to ask for help. To draw attention to the places where Hindus are being converted with violence and threat is to be Islamophobic.
I’m feeling betrayed by my fellow liberals. I’m feeling abandoned.
Nationalism in Hinduism is not scary. Because Hinduism is fundamentally about pluralism.
Asking for safety and protection because we don’t fight those who have a philosophical desire to wipe out our existence is not nationalism. While others try to expand, Hindus only ask to remain. You know Hindus don’t convert. You know Hindus aren’t trying to make everyone else in the world Hindu (unlike those around them…). How is it scary to say, “Please stop using threats and disingenuous methods to lure Hindus from their faith and community”? That’s Hindu “nationalism.” (If you have issues with Modi, BJP or RSS I ask that you read the article linked below with care).
Hinduphobia is very real and while other phobias are taken seriously, this one is laughed at. I guess since Hindus are not a threat no one cares if they have allies, if they are protected or cared about. It’s only people that could hurt you that you make nice with so you stay on their good side, right?
I hate that I cannot talk about issues with Hindus being dishonestly converted or racism against them without eyerolls and people saying I’m being a conspiracy theorist or a radical. It’s happening, people. It is actually happening right now and the people I thought cared about everyone don’t care about this.
What words do I have to use for you to know that Hindus are in trouble? Every Hindu today– whether in India or America, Canada or the UK– was educated by a system severely biased against Hinduism. Our entire identity is in crisis but to take pride in the amazing contributions of Hindu thought and philosophy (and language and mathematics) is nationalism and bragging and to be shut down by the white American arbitrators of propriety.
“…my growing conviction that at least in my field of study, which is the media, there is evidence of bias, dishonesty, and good old fashioned racism at the rotten core directed at the people who still swear by the old gods and goddesses despite five centuries of European-Christian colonization and a few more of Islamic imperialism, despite being called, at sword-point and at gun-point, “Kafir” and “Heathen.”
Swati Goel Sharma, a data journalist, has investigated the claims made in this study with field visits to scenes of the actual violence between Hindus and Muslims supposedly over cows. What she has found presents a far more complex picture than the simplistic, Bad Hindu Bad Cow narrative being conjured up in this incredibly omniscient-sounding India Spend report. Muslim crimes against Hindus were simply ignored, or not counted as hate crimes. Conversely, Hindu crimes against Muslims for non-religious reasons were counted as hate-crimes.
फिल्में मनोरंजन का एक साधन हैं,और अभिनेता अभिनय कर के लोगों का मनोरंजन करता है। अभिनेता का एक उद्देश्य यह भी है की वह मनोरंजन के साथ-साथ समाज को एक सकारात्मक संदेश भी दे। फिल्में समाज का आइना होती हैं और यह समाज में हो रहे अच्छे बुरे चीजों को दर्शाती हैं। निर्देशक अपने दर्शकों को एक निष्कर्ष तक पहुँचना चाहते हैं, एक ऐसे निष्कर्ष तक जिससे इस समाज का कुछ भला हो सके।हालाँकि यह बात और है की मनुष्य की प्रविर्ती होती है गलत चीजों के तरफ आकर्षित होने की और ऐसी कई घटनाएं हुई हैं जिसमे अपराधी रुपहले पर्दे पर निभाए हुए अभिनेता के किरदार से प्रेरित हो कर अपराध करता है।
कच्ची उम्र में तो अभिनेता ही आपका आदर्श होता है और आप उसका ही अनुकरण करते हो। पर्दे पर निभाए हुए कलाकार की तरह ही कपड़े पहनना, ठीक वैसा ही अपने बालों को बनवाना या फिल्मों में कहे गए संवादों को दोहराना, ये सब अनुकरण करने का आम तरीका है। चाहे ७०-८० के दशक में राजेश खन्ना,देवानंद को लेकर दीवानगी हो या एंग्री यंग मैन के तौर पर अमिताभ बच्चन को पसंद किया जाना हो। ९० के दशक में शाहरुख खान से प्रेरित हुए प्रौढ़ आज भी आपको अपनी दीवानगी के किस्से सुनते हुए मिल जायेंगे।
ऐसे अभिनेता जब अपने अभिनय से बहार निकल कर अपने अंदर की भावनाओं को प्रकट करते हैं तो कई बार यह बहुत सारे लोगों को नगवार गुजरता है। हालिया दिनों में लोकसभा चुनाव के कारन बहुत सारे लोगों ने अपना वक्तव्य व्यक्त किया जिसमे कई अभिनेता भी हैं। स्वरा भास्कर, जावेद अख्तर का कन्हैया कुमार को समर्थन करना, कमल हसन का हिन्दू आतंकवाद को लेकर नाथूराम गोडसे को आतंकवादी कहना, अनुराग कश्यप का सरकार के खिलाफ अपने विचार रखना, रणवीर शोरी का सरकार के साथ खड़े होना ऐसे कई उदाहरण हैं।
बॉलीवुड का दो खेमे में बट जाना, एक सरकार के खिलाफ वोट की अपील करता है एक मोदी सरकार को वोट करने की अपील करता है, यह भी इस लोकसभा चुनाव का एक अविश्मरणीय हिस्सा रहा है। पहले भी कई अभिनेता राजनीती में आये है अभी भी आ रहे हैं और आगे भी आते रहेंगे, लेकिन गौर करने वाली बात यह है की पहले के अभिनेता इतने बर्हिमुखी नहीं हुआ करते थे, या अगर होते भी थे तो सोशल मीडिया का इतने बड़े पैमाने पर मौजूद नहीं होना उनके लिए लाभकारी होता था। अब जब हर चीज मोबाइल पर उपलब्ध है तो छोटी से छोटी बात भी तूल पकड़ लेती है।
ऐसे माहौल में या तो एक अभिनेता को सचेत रहना चाहिए या अपने विचारों को सोच समझ कर प्रकट करना चाहिए, क्यूंकि न जाने उस अभिनेता के कितने अनुयायी होंगे होंगे और महज दो शब्दों के कारन दिग्भ्रमित हो जायेंगे। अभिनेता भी एक इंसान है और इंसान से ही गलतियां होती हैं लेकिन जब आपके ऊपर जिम्मेदारी आती है और आपके हर चीज से कोई न कोई प्रेरित होता है तो आपको अपनी गलतियों का ध्यान रखना पड़ेगा और यह भी ख्याल रखना पड़ेगा की आपके कहे वक्तव्यों का किसी को आघात न पहुँचे। वैसे भारत देश में आप कुछ भी कहोगे तो किसी न किसी को ठेस लगेगी ही।
कुछ अभिनेता अपने राजनितिक लाभ लेने के चक्कर में जहर उगलने लगे हैं।कमल हसन इसका वर्तमान उदाहरण हैं। हिन्दू आतंकवाद को साबित करने के लिए नाथूराम गोडसे का नाम लेना हिन्दुओं के खिलाफ जहर उगलने जैसा ही है। वैसे तो आतंकवाद का कोई जात या धर्म नहीं होता लेकिन इसको किसी मजहब के साथ जोड़ना कहाँ तक सही है इसका निर्णय कोई नहीं कर सकता। आतंवाद के ज्यादातर घटनाओं में एक ही मजहब के लोग दोषी पाए गए हैं लेकिन फिर भी इसको एक ही मजहब के रंग से पोत देना गलत होगा।हिन्दू आतंकवाद अगर बोला जाता है तो इसको गलत साबित करने के लिए मुस्लिम आतंवाद का उदाहरण पेश किया जायेगा और इससे समाज में हिन्दू और मुस्लिम के बीच की खाई और बढ़ेगी।
अब इसको बढ़ावा कौन दे रहा है? मोदी या कमल हसन?स्वरा भास्कर ने भी साध्वी प्रज्ञा के लिए हिन्दू आतंवाद का जिक्र किया था।तो आप ही बताइए हिन्दू मुसलमान के बीच दरार कौन पैदा कर रहा है स्वरा या मोदी? मोदी ने तो कभी भी मुस्लिम आतंवाद शब्द का प्रयोग नहीं किया लेकिन इन अभिनेताओं को हिन्दू आतंवाद कहने की खुली छूट है, और इन्ही अभिनेताओं से प्रेरित हो कर लोग भी इस हिन्दू मुस्लिम के झगड़े में फस के रह जाते हैं। सवाल इन अभिनेताओं से करना चाहिए की उनको क्या हक है हिन्दू, मुस्लिम, धर्म, राजनीती के बारे में टिपण्णी करने का और अगर उसे वो अपनी अभिव्यक्ति की आजादी मानते हैं, तो, वो व्यक्त करें जिससे समाज में एकजुटता बढे न की समाज विभाजित हो।
समाज में जहर घोलना ही अभिव्यक्ति की आजादी है तो ऐसी आजादी से बेहतर है परतंत्र रहें। वैसे भी ऐसे लोग अपने नकारात्मक विचार धारा के अधीन ही हैं और उन्हें केवल समाज में नकारात्मकता ही फैलानी आती है।भले ही अभिनेता के अभिनय के लिए आप उसे पसंद करें लेकिन ऐसे अभिनेता की विचारधारा को न ही अपनाये तो बेहतर।
Time magazine calls the Indian PM Modi as the Divider-in-chief in its cover page article and the Indian opposition goes gaga over it. Arguments and counter arguments over whether Time magazine is right in its assessment of Modi are flying thick and fast; I do not want to enter into this debate. I just want to focus on who, to me, is the biggest Divider in post Independent India.
I feel that the greatest Divider in post independent India was VP Singh, the leader of the National Front Govt that came to power in 1989. He implemented Mandal commission report that provided for 27 percent reservation to OBCs in public employment. VP was not guided by any messianic zeal of social transformation but his move was aimed at neutralizing his deputy Devi Lal who happened to be the leader of the farmers & backwards. His move was purely political and devoid of any serious study. The Mandal report was based on the 1931 census and because of political reasons, Mandal deliberately gathered as many castes as he could get under OBC list projecting the total population of the Backward castes to be 52 percent of the total population.
Till the implementation of Mandal report, reservation was restricted to an exclusive category of citizens who had suffered historical atrocities and led a life of social exclusion. They were rootless and deprived from land assets which resulted in their low status in society. There was no objection from any quarter to 22.5 percent SC/ST reservation because what Ambedkar did was very much needed to bring the excluded sections of the population to the national mainstream and compensate them for the sins that the society committed on them. It was not a poverty alleviation programme but a policy measure directed at ensuring adequate representation for depressed classes in all levels of governments and legislatures.
While the objective behind Ambedkar giving reservation to SCs/STs in proportion to their population in public employment and legislatures was to usher in a social revolution and dismantle feudalism, the basic thinking behind OBC reservation was political consolidation and capture of power by ending the political hegemony of upper castes. Hence Mandal tried to bring in as many castes as possible under the OBC banner and in doing so, he included castes who had been traditionally dominant and in the national mainstream. Several of the castes that were declared OBC enjoyed traditional power, possessed land and were even ruling dynasties at some point in history.
The only Dalit member of the Mandal Commission objected to certain provisions of the report but his voice was not heard by an OBC heavy body which had no upper caste representation. The OBC solidarity was bound to weaken as it was a heterogeneous grouping in which communities differed from each other as chalk and cheese. Some communities are at par with upper castes in status and some are at par with dalits in status. OBCs never suffered social exclusion and interacted freely with the upper castes in social domain. The Shudras have been called the 4th Varna in Hindu scriptures and have emerged from the feet of Brahma. How could they be mal treated and disowned by the Hindus?
The case of SCs/STs is entirely different as they were not even allowed to enter villages and their very presence was considered polluting. It is pertinent to point that OBC reservation culminated in rise of neo feudalism by the dominant OBC castes, increase in atrocities on dalits and capture of political power in quite a few states like Bihar and UP by RJD and SP. The benefits of land reforms in the sixties had accrued to the OBCs and not to the dalits. Dalits got only reservation while OBCs got both land and reservation.
Mandal legitimized community and caste-based reservation and changed the very philosophy of reservation upside down. Reservation became a trophy to show political clout. Globalization process accentuated the economic inequalities: Agricultural distress resulted in thousands of deaths of farmers while manufacturing collapsed resulting in huge unemployment. Farming communities/intermediate communities like Jats, Patels, Kapus and Marathas came out on the streets demanding reservation from the state. They had seen relatively well off OBC castes cornering benefits and climbing up the social ladder and in fact, going higher than them.
Even within the OBC communities, the unequal dispersal of benefits led to resentment and proliferation of caste parties within the OBC camp. Nishads, Kuswahas, Rajbhars etc all started their own parties under their own leaders. What VP Singh did in 1999 has opened a can of worms the repercussions of which the country is still reaping. Reservation is now not about historical atrocities and social exclusion; it is about display of brute caste power to coerce the state into accepting reservation demands; the grounds for reservation may or may not be genuine. VP tore the social fabric of the nation and ensured the perennial activism of rabid caste groups.
Why should Modi be a Divider? Here is a man who is contemplating to resolve the vexed reservation conundrum which has been allowed by successive governments to linger on and develop into a festering wound. He has democratized social justice by bringing in EWS reservation. Till now reservation was applicable to only 50 percent of the population but by his EWS reservation, Modi has increased the coverage to 95 percent of the population.
Not only this, he has shown the guts to introduce the criteria of economic backwardness to the already existing social and educational backwardness parameters under article 16 of the constitution. He has shown the innovativeness, so rare among our politicians, to take reservation away from its caste centric character. 10 percent EWS reservation has paved the way for Patels, Marathas, Ashraf Muslims, upper castes, Christians etc who were regarded as general category to avail benefits. Now, is this inclusion or division?
Recently, the Rohini Committee on Reorganization of OBC reservation came out with the startling fact that out of 2600 odd OBC castes, 1900 castes have got negligible benefits. The Modi Govt, if elected again, may earmark a separate sub quota for them under OBC quota of 27 percent. All these policy measures of Modi are aimed at making affirmative policies more inclusive. This man can’t be a Divider. He is simply putting the society on track after the messing up act of VP.
The Left-Liberal-caste ecosystem created fissures within the 80 percent strong Hindu population by playing reservation-reservation & Manuwad-Manuwad game. Hindutva may be an anathema for the opposition but don’t forget that the basic intent behind Hindutva is to unite the Hindus politically and create Samajik Samrasta. And yes, Hindutva does not exclude the Muslims as long as they consider themselves to be a part and parcel of Indian civilization and culture and not look towards radical west Asian versions of Islam. Afterall Hindus and Muslims have co-existed together for more than 1000 years in the sub-continent in shared neighborhoods. What Modi wants is to transform identity obsessed individuals into citizens of a modern democracy who are not only conscious of their rights but also duties towards the nation.
This is inclusion and is desirable. The nation does not need brahmins, Hindus and dalits but citizens who are bound together emotionally with the unifying thread of nationalism. And if anyone thinks that it is Janeu nationalism, he is living in a fool’s paradise. Hinduism has de-brahminised to a considerable extent and the nation is witness to a plethora of Babas like Ramdeo, Asharam, RamRahim etc who belong to non-brahmin communities. Various temples are now being run by non-brahmin priests. Brahmins have accepted their position of subordination even in religious matters and they no longer enjoy social power. Only the poor brahmins perform priestly work while the better off and more educated brahmins have left their traditional works.
Like India, it is difficult to understand what Hindu or Hindutva means. The word has various meanings. The word ‘Hindu’ has its origin from Sindhu. It is a word for the land, which lies beyond a body of water. So Hindustan or India is a name given to the land; Hindus are the people living on it. But, Hinduism is also a religion. Thus, it is both religious identity and also the geographic identity of the people who live in this region. There are followers of Hinduism in other parts of the world, too. There can be influences of India in other parts of the world as well. But, not every person residing in India is religiously Hindu. They can be practitioners of different religions or even atheists.
One definition of Hindutva or Hinduness was given by ‘Veer Savarkar’. Savarkar called people living in India, having Hindu ancestry as Hindus. Savarkar was an atheist and can be classified as an early socialist. This definition doesn’t delve into what people are following now or what the Hindu religion is, but simply takes the name as an identity. This was an attempt to counter the other than Indian attitude of minorities particularly that of Muslims.
Another definition is that of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh or RSS which defines Hindus are people, who share cultural likeness regardless of the way they worship. It is to be noted that it is a secular definition of Hindu. Contrary to what some may say. ‘Hindu Rashtra’ or Hindu Nation for RSS doesn’t have theological meaning. An Arab is an Arab regardless of sect or religion. Of course, most are Muslims similarly maximum of those who are Hindu are religiously Hindus. It is a religion absent definition of Hindutva. Mahatma Gandhi too tried to define Hindu. He said it is both cultural identity and religion.
It is important to note both Savarkar and RSS unlike Gandhi reject casteism, but have not been successful to extend this brotherhood to other religions especially Islam. Whereas Gandhi, a religious Hindu has been more tolerant. The reason for this seems to be non-exclusion of politics and religion. Religious Hindu identity cannot make others secure about their religion. So doing away with the religious definition as done by RSS should have been welcomed. Sadly, it has not happened. But, it is the failure of both, the proponents of Hindutva and also of the minorities for not being able to communicate and comprehend views respectively.
Indianness gets challenged by the religion-inspired separatism of minorities. This leads to two kinds of reactions, one of frustration and the other of making the word Hindu as non-religious as possible. Failure of minorities to appreciate this approach further fuels up the tension. Their refusal to come together or do away with otherness anger non-religious Hindutva believer. This seems to be a vicious cycle where no cure seems to work.
The cure is with the minorities, but sadly the Abrahamic religions define religion exclusively, and mix politics and religion. The development that the western world saw with the separation of state and church has not been understood. I believe social and religious reforms amongst the minorities should be given precedence. With backwardness regardless of best intentions, Hindutva will be misunderstood. This will create more disaster and also undermine the Hindu religion.
It will be wrong to take Hindutva only as a counter-movement to minority separatism or extremism. On a broader perspective, it is cultural nationalism. It is a reminder of the good things of the past and the destiny, we have to fulfill. It can be said, Hindutva is a continuation of the religious and cultural trend from ancient India which has seen many developments.
Republished from my personal blog – https://wp.me/p9eFgc-f4
