Home Blog Page 670

From Raj to Swaraj to Suraaj

Vijaya Dar
-
0
From Raj to Swaraj to Suraaj

As the date for India’s tryst with destiny (that has remained unfulfilled from that fateful day in 1947) draws closer, the voices of the status-quoists are getting shriller and shriller, prophetically promising doom and destruction if the BJP wins the general elections in 2019 and Narendra Modi again becomes the Prime Minister. There is a whole phalanx of these political past-masters in deceit, religious pontiffs, public-school-educated historians and columnists, leftist jholawalas surviving on government grants and Break-India NGOs, Media Moguls and their chosen editors and TV anchors who have mortgaged their souls to Mammon, and a whole battalion of bloggers, whose sole aim is to put the fear of imminent disaster in the minds of the people should such a catastrophe(?) come about.

When the departing British Raj handed over the reins of government to Nehru and the Congress party, the mood within the country was full of buoyancy and optimism, notwithstanding the trauma of partition. But Nehru, who had grown up in privilege and pelf, was not up to the task to ensure that each and every citizen of India would transit from Raj to Swaraj that had been so wonderfully articulated by Tilak when he said, “Swaraj is my birth right and I shall have it.” The first casualty of Nehru’s wishy-washy utopianism was Kashmir that went up in flames almost immediately after that historic speech at the Red Fort. Nehru’s effete response and disconnect from realpolitik led him to an equally effete organization, the United Nations, to resolve the crisis.

Kashmir continues to burn 70 years after independence and the waters of the melting Himalayan glaciers every spring, instead of dousing the flames, bring in their wake, hordes of armed terrorists to spread mayhem within the valley. Almost 30 years after the forced expulsion of the Pandits from the valley, a generation of Kashmiri Muslims there has grown up in an exclusivist Islamic society, completely out of touch with the Pandits who had not only carried on the ancient Kashmiri Sanskriti in the face of multiple attempts to destroy it, but also kept enriching it with their scholarship and administrative acumen.

Today, the young, mostly unemployed youth of the valley, identify themselves with these jihadi terrorists, abusing and provoking the security forces whenever some action against armed terrorists is under way. Some of them inevitably get caught in the conflict and pay for their folly with their lives. Political hyenas like the Abdullahs, the Muftis, and the cowards that constitute the Hurriyat, then go about beating their breasts, trying to alienate the civilian population even further away from good sense and well being. On 21st October 2018 an encounter took place in Kulgam between Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorists and security forces. Three Jaish terrorists were sent to their maker. The civilians of the area tried to hinder the cleaning up operations and went poking into the debris of the building that was damaged in the encounter. An explosive device went off and seven of these “pokers” lost their lives. But this is what Omar Abdullah had to say about it:

“Alienating the people in the fight against militancy is a sure fire recipe for losing the fight. How long can we go on ignoring the ground realities and living in denial about how bad things are in Kashmir?”

Mehbooba Mufti, till recently the CM of J&K, went one step further in her exercise in deception, lying when she said that the civilians were caught in “crossfire.”

“Civilians again caught in the crossfire of violence, thus adding fuel to the already volatile situation.”

These leaders care a fig for the lives of others and while civilians poke in the debris of destroyed buildings, Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti stir the debris of their lives to keep the fires of separatism and terrorism burning.

Not only did Nehru fail in Kashmir, but also his promise of Panchsheel, touted with great fanfare with Zhou En Lai was betrayed in 1962, when the Chinese army strolled into India, inflicting the most humiliating defeat on us. The Henderson Brookes report, leaked by an Australian journalist, Neville Maxwell, while damning Nehru’s favourites V.K. Krishna Menon and Lt. Gen. B. M. Kaul, is also a pointer to the corruption and incompetence that had been inherited by the country from the rulers of the Raj; the ICS that would later morph into the all-powerful IAS that would surpass its predecessor in both oppression and corruption. India had exchanged one set of brutal, colonial masters for another set of brutal, indigenous masters.

At the same time, Nehru’s strategy of putting military boots on the grounds of the North-East, suppressing the legitimate demands of the native Nagas, the Mizos, the Manipuris, and the other original inhabitants of this region, further fractured the Indian state and the fault lines kept getting wider and wider. Like Kashmir, the Northeast remained in conflict and a large part of the Indian security forces were made to engage in a meaningless war with their own people.

The first decisive answer to a conflict imposed upon the country came, not from Nehru, but from his successor, Lal Bahadur Shastri, whose diminutive stature was misunderstood by the aggressive Ayub who launched a war against India in 1965. The reply this time was not wishy-washy, but swift and definite, and the Pakistani Army was roundly defeated. India was unfortunate to lose this Prime Minister so soon thereafter, and the conspiracy theories surrounding his death in Tashkent refuse to go away. Patwant Singh in his book, “The Second Partition” writes, “Dynamism is associated with energy and movement, not passive acceptance of every assault on the country’s self-esteem and pride.” Nehru was a passive acceptor and that has become the default position of the Congress party, from the time it became the private monopoly of the Nehru-Gandhi family. Indira Gandhi’s intervention in East Pakistan was an opportunistic movement, created by the mishandling of the Bengali question by Yahya and Bhutto, and cannot be compared to Shastri’s decisive response to Ayub’s aggression. Manmohan Singh, the accidental Prime Minister, continued this tradition of “passive acceptance” to the eternal sharm of the country.

The anti-Modi rhetoric that occupies space in the print and electronic media, traverses from the crude “chaiwala” comment of Mani Shankar Aiyer, an alumnus of St. Stephens College, via the sophisticated chant of another Stephenian, Ramchandra Guha’s “Fear of Fascism”, to the murderous final solution promised by a Congress Lok Sabha candidate who would “chop Narendra Modi into pieces.” Of the three, I found Imran Masood’s hostility to Modi quite honest and understandable, as he belongs to a community that has largely remained outside the mainstream and preferred its Islamic credo to the Constitution. Perhaps Rahul Gandhi believed that Masood would actually perform this act for him and, therefore, rewarded him with a Lok Sabha ticket from Saharanpur in 2014. As per the CD that went viral in social media, Masood was reported to have said: “I am a man of the street, ready to give my life for my people. I am neither afraid of death or of killing.” But long before Masood, the matriarch of the party had already set the tone for this rhetoric when she made the infamous “maut ka sudagar” comment in 2007 while canvassing in the Gujarat Assembly elections that practically obliterated the presence of her party from that state. Various Congressmen and their allies among the communists and communalists repeatedly express such pathological sentiments.

What makes Modi so untouchable to people like Ramchandra Guha? After all, the events of 2002 in Gujarat are not a unique episode in the history of post-colonial India that would bring instant revulsion into the minds of cultured men and women. Why don’t the events of 1983 in Nellie, followed by Delhi in 1984, Meerut in 1987, Kashmir valley in 1989, Mumbai in 1992, Muzaffarnagar in 2013, and countless other riots evoke a similar revulsion? How many political heads have rolled after these heinous and dastardly acts? Why is the spotlight so constantly focused on Modi? It is as if a policy of “hot pursuit” that should have been put in place against Pakistani terrorists has instead been implemented against Modi. There is no denying the riots of 2002 that took many lives, but why is there a single-minded focus on Modi, and why the other CMs are not called to share similar responsibility for the violence that happened under their watch? No public person in this country has been hounded so single-mindedly by the state, the judiciary, the media, and the so-called guardians of secularism, as Modi. The “Gujarat model” of development is still derided and questioned without any reference to the non-development in other states.

Does this hostility stem from the assiduous cultivation of the Indian mind by the introduction of Macaulay’s insidious policy of liquidating indigenous culture through the planned substitution of it by the alien culture of a colonizing power via the education system? Is it because Narendra Modi does not belong to that elite group of public-school products that have occupied privileged space in post-colonial India? Is he seen as an interloper who dares to challenge their monopoly on national discourse? Is his vocabulary not as sophisticated and erudite as that of the children of Lord Macaulay?

Modi’s has been a lonely furrow. He rarely expresses his incense at the constant abuse and venom that is spewed at him daily. His calm, detached exterior doesn’t betray the turbulence that could be taking place inside. Like a yogi he is unaffected by all the criticism, fair and unfair that is hurled at him. When he entered the Lok Sabha in 2014 he made a promise of Suraaj and form his first day in office he has been working towards this aim. When he unfurled the Indian Tricolour from the ramparts of the Red Fort in Delhi on the 75th anniversary of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s declaration of “Azad Hind Government” he was also declaring that India may have moved from the British Raj to Swaraj, but real Suraaj had eluded the nation all these years. Nehru’s betrayal of the real architect of India’s freedom, Bose, is a closely guarded secret of the political history of the Congress. Bose’s Azad Hind Government had not only declared India’s independence with a new national flag, but also brought out its currency and postage stamps, that today are the envy of collectors. It was wonderful to see PM Modi paying the highest respect to the forgotten heroes of India’s Independence struggle by donning the Azad Hind Fauj cap, and saying, “Today I can definitely say that in the later decades of independent India, if the country had got the guidance of personalities like Subhas Babu, Sardar Patel, the conditions would vary greatly” (from those that the Nehru-Gandhi family rule had created over their decades of bad governance.)

India’s progress along the developmental plank and the economic emancipation of the miserably poor is unprecedented in the annals of modern history. The respect with which the World looks at us today is mainly due to Modi’s record in office. There is no leader of the World today that can command the same attention that Modi does. The gruelling schedule he has followed from Day 1 is unbelievable. He has not taken a single day’s holiday, working into the late hours day after day. Now that elections to the main Hindi-belt states have been announced, he will be expected by his party to address many election meetings across central India. There is no chance of rest for him, as the general elections will follow the state elections. His energy levels will be tested once more, as a punishing schedule will demand the highest physical and mental agility. Modi is not a shirker, and one can be sure that he will go through this rigorous routine with his usual equanimity.

Unfortunately, there are many who have failed to appreciate the superhuman efforts of this man. Their impatience blinds their eyesight. They were expecting that within months of taking charge the Gandhis, Sibals, Chidambarams, etc., would be in jail; Ayodhya would have a Ram Temple; Kashmir would be rid of terrorists; corruption would disappear; there would be no crimes; and India would have “Ram Rajya” after the Diwali in 2014. The fact that none of the above has happened fills them with despair and they question Modi’s commitment to both the country and its Hindus. “What has he done for Hindus?” is a common plaint. Drunk in the taverns of hope they had built for themselves in May 2014, they are now down in the cellars of fear as Shabarimala boils; RTE remains unrepealed; Urban Naxals use the highest courts of justice to give new, ridiculous definitions to open calls for the assassination of the Prime Minister, terming them merely as harmless dissent; fuel prices, freed from administrative control, follow the market; and the stock market corrects from the giddy heights it had reached. They forget the thousand small achievements of the four-and-a-half years of the many reforms, of which the Ujwala scheme is a prime mover of meaningful change in the lives of the poor. Enough and more has been written about these reforms and it would be difficult to catalogue them in one blog. Earnest readers can find them easily on the web and on the Narendra Modi App that is freely available for download.

If the Northeast today is quiet, it is mainly because Modi allowed the democratic process to mature without interference from the centre. The experiment failed in Kashmir because its Muslims have extra-territorial loyalty to Pakistan and an Islamic state that has no place in a democratic world.

In conclusion, I am reminded of a line from the Greek writer Nikos Kazantzakis, who in his autobiographical work, “Report to Greco,” wrote: “the man who either hopes for heaven or fears hell cannot be free. Shame on us if we continue to become intoxicated in the taverns of hope or the cellars of fear.”

So, when the time comes, remember to press the button on your EVM without fear and without being intoxicated by unrealistic hope. Remember that NOTA represents neither dynamism nor energy and movement; but a passive acceptance of every assault on the country’s self-esteem and pride.

Do we need vague idea of ‘constitutional morality’ when we have written exhaustive constitution?

Rohit Chauhan
-
0
Do we need vague idea of ‘constitutional morality’ when we have written exhaustive constitution?

The recent use of ‘constitutional morality’ by the Supreme Court on some occasions in its judgments begs the question that can such vague loosely defined idea that has no mention in constitution can be used a basis for judicial decision in any case apart from and on the top of what is already written in the constitution.. Are the texts of the constitution not sufficient in deducing or deciding constitutionality of something that one has to drag in some external idea like this ‘constitutional morality’ which is foreign to the written texts of the constitution which is likely to create inherent bias in favour of some particular ideas while disfavouring others? After all, the constitution does not come from ‘constitutional morality, it is the ‘constitutional morality’ that can come from the constitution if one is indeed wanting to decipher it .

Constitutional morality is vague arbitrary, loosely defined and is of only philosophical value. It does not have any specific context, or texts to contain any specific issue within its scope. It has descriptive language that only contain views of generic nature and values as a matter of general principle that has no application to any specific area of public life in practical terms. It is not contextual or has no specific purpose or aim to address or deliberate on any specific area of public governance but rather a general theoretical commentary of generic values that institutions of public life are supposed to imbibe. It is theoretical and can be said to aspire for achieving general objectives or lay down or develop general moral and ethical framework for the operation of constitution and the institution created within the texts of the constitution.

But because of its precisely generic theoretical nature detached from precision and details that it can not tell or reveal the forms and structures those institutions are supposed to take, the ways in which they can be established because all of these can only come from reading and going in detail the texts of the constitutional and not through general theoretical ideas and hence can not be basis of governance, law making or judicial order. Hence any use of such vague loosely defined idea lacking precision, context and details as a basis of adjudication of any matter by court deserve serious scrutiny and is bound to raise alarm. Using such vague idea that has no place or mention within the text of constitution while ignoring the text of constitution itself for judgement is seriously questionable. For any excessive unnecessary emphasis on ‘constitutional morality’ can be viewed by many as deviation or act of giving up on relying upon the text of the constitution or refusal to belief in sufficiency and exhaustiveness of the texts of the constitutional itself.

Hence textual reading should be given importance only for it discuss details, contexts and forms of different matters in the constitution not general idea of philosophical nature. For example, constitutional morality may contain the general principle for separation of power among the three organs of state which one can expect to find this general principle common in almost all constitutional based democracies: executive, judiciary and legislature. But it will facetious to assume that the general principle of separation of power among the three organs of state will have same form and content followed across all constitutional democracies. For example, Article 123 of the Indian constitution that vests power in the executive to promulgate an ordinance, which is an aberration in usual scheme of separation of power does have same provision in every country.

If one insists on finding what is ‘constitutional morality’ despite it has not been mentioned specifically within the text of the constitutional one can get a vague sense of it by doing superficial reading of the Indian constitution just to make sense of what  people who use the term mean. But the precise problem with the superficial reading is that it can at best allow you to make a general sense of the text of the constitution and its objectives but can not tell you the content and context of the text. This general sense or view based on superficial reading of constitutional and not textual and literal, can not be basis for functioning of any organ of the state including judiciary. If constitution is to maintain its importance and governance is supposed to be based on this document and following its letters and texts, then the content of constitution must be given the sole basis of reference and not its superficial reading. Because it is its content that reveals about the nature of governance, institutions, their forms, functions, structures and their respective powers vested in them, types of right given and their scope of application and limitations that come with them and not generic theoretical views.

No law or judicial cases should be made or decided on the basis of general reading of the constitution. Laws are always based on the textual reading of the constitution that  states in clear language, the rights contained within them and the prohibitions they have where those rights can not be claimed as entitlements stressing the fact that entitlements always need to be balanced with responsibilities and restrictions and and areas of limitations where they should cease to exists, the forms of institutions created by the constitution and what the nature of inter-relations and interactions in terms of power and functions and purpose they are going to have with each other etc .

Constitutional morality also as it is defined today by people who talk about it, is said to contain in itself cosmopolitan or universal principles like liberty, equality and fraternity. Ardent fans of constitutional morality whether they are in judiciary or outside of it, like in some in liberal left media, as they understand it today which seems to be different from what Dr BR Amebedkar meant, are its fans and seem to be obsessive about it because of precisely these reasons. Hence recently, liberal judges in Supreme Court seem to talk a lot about it in their judgments. But the problem is that while liberty, equality and fraternity are indeed universal principles common to almost all constitutional democracies, but their applications and presence and ways of use in rules and laws, are not universally same in their forms and essence and can never be same as nations and societies across the world are not uniform or same in terms of culture, traditions, political social and economic landscape, degree of diversity they contain and the history that they have or challenges they have endured in pasts which greatly shape or continue to shape the present or future of these countries and the form of governance, institutions and laws they have.

Some countries are much more diverse than the others ,have unique culture identities shaped by religions, history, geography and traditions of those societies. Due to these they have unique social realities and identities they bear and along with it they have unique challenges too. Hence any attempt to take universal principles like liberty and equality under the cover of ‘constitutional morality’ and apply it blindly to any country without understanding or realizing the context and culture and social life of people living within a country is futile exercise that may bring disastrous consequence or tension or disruption in social, political and economic life of that country much to the inconvenience of people living within it while blatantly disregarding their wishes and aspirations and ways in which they would like to be governed or forms of laws they would like to subject themselves too. The wishes of people and things they prioritize in their life are shaped by their social life and culture they live in. Therefore, application of theoretical universal concepts like liberty and equality in universal forms on any society without understanding or taking into consideration the nature of that society and its culture is not only unwise, it s highly impractical and dangerous. Because general principles of liberty and equality do not make any sense without giving any context to them.

Contexts like what kind of people are supposed to be governed by it, on whom are these going to be applied, issues that are supposed to be addressed and the extent of application,what kind of equality and liberty it is  and in which area, to what extent it will be given and how necessary it is for people to have it, whether it would harm others interests or not, the culture and traditions and way of life of those people, their wishes and their aspirations, etc are important to take into consideration. Theoretical principles like liberty and equality for their application must have practical purpose and real life contexts and circumstances. Because if people who are supposed to be brought under the net of governance are real people living in the real world, then theoretical ideas like liberty and equality must have elements of realism and practicality and must reflect the realities of social life of people that are to be governed. These ideas must be contextual, precise, elaborate and issue specific and must take due consideration of social life of people, their culture and traditions.

To put it simple, the concept of liberty as understood in the West, say for example, liberty and thoughts and actions which form the basis of their laws and regulations can not be copied in Indian context as these two parts of the world have entirely different culture, society and their traditions and social realities. Western societies are largely homogeneous in terms of social realities like race and religions that shape their culture hence right to free speech as a part of liberty of thoughts and actions is almost absolute in countries like America which is mostly homogeneous in terms of religion which is Christianity. But the principle of right to free speech can not be applied in India in the same form as it is in the USA. India is a highly diverse societies with almost people of almost all religions and therefore, prohibition of speeches that offend religious feelings or may seem to incite one religious group against the other can not be permitted as freedom of speech. Therefore any universal concept like liberty and equality must be accommodating and tuned according to the social life of local people, their culture and traditions and social values. It can not be applied blindingly by importing it from somewhere else where people’s culture and social life are different.

In the same way,  Hinduism as a religion is diverse with multitude of gods, goddesses and deities which brings a high degree of diversity to it unlike Abrahamic faiths like Islam and Christianity that are monotheistic and based on single major books like Bible and Quran, respectively acting as a source of their religious doctrines and practices that can easily be located within those texts for  reference for their basis. Hence, essential practices of Abrahamic religions can easily be found as one would only need a specific scripture or a limited number of sources to locate them. But in Hinduism, such attempts are not only unwise and foolhardy but also pose a threat to the core feature of Hinduism which is diversity and will slowly have effect in imposing forced uniformity on it which will erode it unique diverse nature and bring it close to Abrahamic faiths.

Ignoring this fact about Hinduism and applying universal principle like equality under the cover of constitutional morality without the contexts such as the diversity of the religion, will be a fallacy.

Therefore, universal concepts like liberty and equality are only or should be universal at best in sense that they are universally followed in some form or another to varied degree truncated and tuned to local life needs and culture and traditions of people. They can not be universal in the sense that they can or should take the exact same form everywhere universally. The degree of equality and liberty say for example in French society can not take the exact same form as in Indian society due to differences in culture, traditions, history, social compositions and geography that shape and continue to shape daily life people in respective countries. So any universal idea that may have found its place within constitution and may deemed to be part of ‘constitutional morality‘ by those who often use such terms, must be understood in terms of specific context, must be understood that they have limitations and restrictions and limited areas of application and also those who are meant to adhere to those ideas within the limited context defined by the literal text of the constitution are also specific entities or people.

For example  when one talks about equality under Article 14 or Article 15 (1), one has to understand that the said provisions only apply on the state as a specific political entity, that is the state shall not deny or discriminate any person based on limited context or area of application like race, gender, caste, religion or place of birth. Such discrimination in the above articles are not prohibited or can not be prohibited on private individuals or any person or entity not forming the part of the state. Because private individuals should be free to extend favor to anyone they like and can not be forced to extend the same privilege to everyone or to treat everyone equally, if it suits their personal interests or they feel they are better treating some with favour and prohibiting some. While the state has no personal interests so it is supposed to treat every citizen equally. So private individuals and the state can not be subjected to the same standard of equality in the same form under the cover of ‘constitutional morality’ because the constitution itself does not allow that to force private entities or individuals or those which are not part of the state to treat everyone equally. So talking about constitutional morality in the context of non-state entities and forcing them to such standards is itself assault on the  rights to those non-state entities given the very same constitution whose morality its passionate fans seem to profess .

In the context of recent debacle by the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala case which it seemed to put test of the ban of women in the age group of 10 to 50 from entering within the philosophical loose frame of ‘constitutional morality’ by conflating it with Article 14 and Article 15 and thus committing a gross error of total misfit and by ignoring or giving least consideration to the literal texts of the constitution and its correct contextual interpretation suitable the diverse faith Hinduism is, by requiring it to see it as issue to be understood closely with Article 25 (Right to freedom of religion that should protect the interests and will of deities and rules of the temple where he resides) and Article 26 (Religious denominations or any of its sections right to manage their affairs in matter of religion), the Supreme Court has again proved how loose idea of the theoretical nature like constitutional morality while ignoring the literal reading of the texts of the Constitution which has elaborately led down various fundamental rights that only after that, requires contextual holistic harmonious interpretations of various articles together to understand checks and balances and proper areas of their respective applications that suit the given context (here the diverse religion like Hinduism), if forms the basis of any court judgement, can result in serious error and thus will dilute the very rights given in the constitution by suppressing them and giving privilege and preference  to certain other rights over them.

As it has happened in this case, by giving preference to right to equality (which only apply on the state and its entities not private one or any religious denomination) over right to freedom of religion and right to manage religious affairs by a religious denomination, the latter rights gets suppressed or held subservient to the former and thus creating an impression that in the court’s view of ‘constitutional morality’, there perhaps exists a hierarchy of order in which constitutional rights are supposed to be seen or given preference which is a total manufactured idea that is not sanctioned by the constitution itself.

Moreover, the use of terms like ‘constitutional morality’ by the court, seem to create an impression that the Supreme Court is going into unnecessary and extra-constitutional  philosophical commentary rather than limiting itself to just plain reading and interpretation of the texts of the constitution and laws, which is all it is supposed to do. By doing philosophical commentary of moral nature like these as side activity along with textual interpretation, the judiciary seems to assume on itself as a moral guardian of the society. The result of falling into such temptation, is or will be that the Court has been or will be enticed to enter into territory it is not supposed to enter and assume on itself, the legislative and policy making power on the pretext that the other organs of the government are not acting or have failed to do their jobs, thus committing grave error in not practicing judicial self-restraint, which is something that should itself be seen as an essential part of ‘constitutional morality’ by its speakers if they indeed care about ‘constitutional morality’. The court by not resisting such temptation, has and will transform itself in the job of judicial activism and ‘public opinion influencer’. Through controversial Sabarimala Judgement based on its complete misreading and lack of appreciation for diversity within Hinduism and narrow and erroneous reading of Article 25 and Article 26 that seems to misread and judge Hinduism at par with some monotheistic faith, it has given to itself a role of some kind of ‘social reformer’ and ‘gender equality activist’, a job, never supposed to play in the first place. Judiciary can not sponsor any cause like activists. It is supposed to be impartial and detach itself from any ideology or emotion. Unnecessary emphasis by judiciary in trying to decipher the secret moral codes hidden in the texts of the constitution in order to create concept like ‘constitutional morality’ will create ideological biases in judiciary based on such pre-conceived vague notion which may impact its impartiality and fairness and capacity to approach a case with openness rather than motivations like ‘reform and change’. 

Who needs ‘constitutional morality’ when we have such an exhaustive elaborate written constitution suitable to the diversity and culture of India and the needs and aspirations of its people which just needs its textual interpretation depending upon the context?

The Indian Supreme Court is not a part of any Western country. It is a institution set up under the Indian constitution to operate under Indian territory and therefore it must be aware of realities of Indian society, its culture, traditions and values and hence should not import some western ideas blindly. Some Ideas may be universal but their applications can not be same as the world is not uniform in terms of its people, their culture and traditions, social composition, history and geography. Hence their applications must take different forms and degree based on local context and needs. It is this thing that the judiciary or any organ of the government should always keep in mind .

Two scary scenarios are overstated– A response to Markanday Katju’s article

Fayaz Ganie
-
0
Two scary scenarios are overstated– A response to Markanday Katju’s article

This article was written in response to Markanday Katju’s DailyO article of 22-09-2018 in which the author had predicted two scary scenarios before or during the 2019 Parliamentary Elections. But, like many of my article it could not find a place there, or was not deliberately carried. As, such the response is reproduced here.

According to the figure given in the article the Congress has ruled the country for 49 years, in coalition or on its own. And the Bhartiya Janta Party for 10 years. Neither the Congress years were golden rule and nor was that the case with the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP). Yet people elected the congress for 49 years. Plus the people had tested the BJP rule before and still elected it in 2014 with absolute majority. There normally are no big surprises in the elections that are held in India.

Mr. Markanday Katju has give two possibilities about the outcome of the coming Lok Sabha elections and that of the assembly elections in some states before that. One there will be no instigation of large scale communal riots and or there will be.

In the first case scenario he states that there will be heavy losses to the BJP at the Centre and, may be, in the states too. To me it was the Modi factor than anything else which gave absolute majority to the BJP in the Parliament and many states, with Jumlas or without them. To this factor the opposition of the country has not yet able to produce a counter force. Considering that it will again be the BJP.

If the BJP is able to retain their Brahmin vote bank they are surely to get number sufficient to form the government or at least to head a coalition in the worst case scenario for them. Plus, there is no political party yet in the country which is perceived as more Hindu than the BJP. Ram Mandir might have become a non-issue but who knows when that non-issues is made to resurrect as the main issue by the political maneuvering of the party.

About vikas, development, India has a long way to go when parties will win elections because of vikas or lose by lack of it. The rising unemployment, soaring fuel prices, inflation and distress of farmers and depreciating rupee might affect the vote share of the BJP but that would not be so much that the BJP would be left with less than 125 seats in the Lok Sabha. When Markanday Katju has already lost hopes with the youth, who make major chunk of the voters, how can he expect them to act wisely while using their electoral rights? How would he expect Brahmins to forget their caste considerations overnight?

Hence, it again would be communal and caste factors which would decide the outcome of the elections and in terms of these factors the BJP is at a position of advantage than all the other political parties. About the congress getting somewhere 125 seats would be a big gain and I think they would not be expecting more than that at this juncture.

The regional parties surely will play more active role in the national politics of the country. They would be king makers but expecting that there will be only 6-12 month duration Prime Ministers is expecting too much or too less. There in most probability will be a stable coalition government even if it is headed by a non-congress non BJP leader. Indian parties have learned the art of sharing the power for the sake of gaining the dividends that accrue out of that power.

The best example is that of the Shiv Sena. This party criticizes the BJP more than anybody else but still the party is not breaking the coalition. Saying that the parties in coalitions will break the coalitions after every six months, it means leaving many factors unattended.

The possibility of orchestrating communal riots in Indian politics remains always there. But this time the BJP even in the worst case scenario expects to lead a coalition government. The recently held assembly election have given them an assurance that things are still in their favor and even if some of recent developments could cause some electoral losses but the losses, they think, would not be so much to dislodge them from the power.

Therefore, the BJP has fewer reasons to instigate large scale communal riots this time. Also instigating communal riots when in power and doing that when out of power produce completely different results for a party. This time the BJP is in power, when in power a party instigating communal riots is the same which has to use force against the rioters. Some damages are caused while acting against the rioters.

God forbid if something like that happens, of which Mr. Katju has no doubt, the BJP will suffer losses than gains, it can certainly not sweep the elections like the Congress did after the 1984 Sikh massacre.

10 Best transformations of Modi Government

amritanshu
-
0
10 Best transformations of Modi Government

When Narendra Modi stormed into power in 2014 by winning Lok Sabha election with massive mandate, he delivered a strong message: “We are not here for any positions but for a responsibility”. From bureaucrats to MPs, everyone started falling in line. Be it strengthening foreign policy or launching welfare schemes for low-income group, team Modi has been working hard to fulfil people’s expectations.

Modi-led government is clocking over a year at the wheel. Here are  major things Modi government has achieved since coming to power:

1. Make in India
To facilitate investment, boost research & development (R&D), ensure product originality and create skill-based jobs by establishing industrial sector; major national programme was started by Narendra Modi. Modi has reached out to the world with his idea of ‘Make in India’ and it has generated positive response from foreign companies. Key Labour Law reform in the pipeline will boost manufacturing industry and foreign investment in India.

2. Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (Clean India Campaign)
Swachh Bharat Abhiyan was launched on 2 Oct 2014 by the Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Filth is considered one of the major problems in India and Modi gave the issue its due importance by launching a nationwide campaign. Many called it a masterstroke from Modi as it put him at par with Mahatma Gandhi in public perception and also gave people the message to act on hygiene and civic sense. Modi nominated notable personalities from film industry, sports, media, business and other celebrities to promote the initiative.

3. Creation of NITI Aayog to Replace Planning Commission
On 1 Jan 2015, PM Modi formed National Institution of Transforming India (NITI) Aayog, which is a policy think-tank of Government of India that replaced Planning Commission. The panel was abolished along with GOMs and EGOMs which caused policy paralysis under UPA rule. NITI Aayog is headed by PM Modi and its members include top-notch economists, consultants and advisers along the lines of US think-tanks.

4. Jan Dhan Yojana
On 15 August 2014, Modi announced Jan Dhan Yojana. Over 15 crore bank accounts were opened in last one year. Main focus has been on reaching every household to provide credit facility, pension and insurance to account holders.

5. Economic Reforms and Policy Implementation
Modi-led NDA government’s primary focus is on reviving Indian economy through major reforms in manufacturing and export sector. Government has not only increased the limits of FDI in Railways, Insurance and Defence but also encouraged privatisation of loss-making public sector companies.

Without being bogged down by coalition partners, Modi persisted with his focus on transformation. On the infrastructure front, government has already begun work on connecting major metros under Diamond Quadrilateral rail corridor project. Major reforms and developments are under process for Modi’s dream projects: 100 Smart Cities and Clean Ganga Mission.

6. Foreign Policy Put on Fast-track Mode
Modi’s foreign policy is currently focussed on improving relations with neighbouring countries and getting the world to invest in India. In the US, he met several American business leaders and invited them to be a part of Make in India programme. During his recent visit to France, he urged Airbus, the aerospace giant, to explore manufacturing opportunities in India. While in Germany, he made a strong pitch for the Make in India initiative. He has been trying to send across the message of a more “competitive, confident and secure” India.

7. Tourism Gets a Push
Tourism featured prominently in the government’s action plan. Its prime target has been to make India a world class travel destination. In last one year, the visa system underwent a major revamp. Introduction of visa-on-arrival service for all leading nations was a key step in this direction.  Moreover, growth has been reportedly observed in the number of foreign tourist arrivals after the Modi government came to power.

8. Implementation of Neighbourhood First Policy
One of the major policy initiatives taken by Modi government was to actively focus on improving ties with immediate neighbours. Inviting all heads of SAARC nations to Modi’s swearing-in ceremony was an aggressive and smart move by Modi as a Prime Minister. It gave bold message to the World that no one does swearing-in in Asia like we do. It was the first diplomatic victory for Modi and India started taking itself seriously again.

9. Campaign for Building Toilets
PM Modi has initiated a huge project to construct 10 crore toilets by 2019 at an unbelievable rate of one toilet per second. Modi appealed to corporate sector for contribution in this Clean India drive. Positive response has come from IT giant TCS and they have decided to build 10,000 toilets in girls’ schools across the country. An enormous fund of 100 crore has been provisioned for this cause. Oriental Bank of Commerce has announced contribution of 2 crore for building toilets. Bharti Foundation, Adani Group, Reliance Group and Vedanta Group have also pledged support for the campaign and contributed significantly.

10. Confidence-building Measures in Kashmir
Kashmir is an integral part of India but has a long list of complaints against previous governments – both Centre and state. When the flood created devastations in the valley, response from Modi government was immediate and genuine. Modi dedicated constant monitoring system for flood affected areas and people of Kashmir. He also decided to spend Deepawali with Kashmir flood survivors. Even his critics praised his move. After a long time an Indian politician managed to establish a connect with the Kashmiri people.

Sabarimala, judicial overreach, activism or ill-informed grandstanding?

kishku0809
-
0
Sabarimala, judicial overreach, activism or ill-informed grandstanding?

Repeated transgressions, muddle-headed thinking and missing woods for the trees are the hallmarks of a liberal mind with a skewed perspective.

Any other person in public sphere could be ignored but not arbiters of law who approach, reviews, listens to issues brought up for their consideration, through a prism of fixated prejudices.

The society would be better served if such minds while still being given a space in the society is not allowed to muddy the waters or create schisms. A sane society that is still treading water needs to be all the more vigilant to ensure that the edifices that are being built does not get battered by the ill-winds caused by such mavericks in the judiciary, hellbent on imposing their idea of liberalism.

Ideal solution would be removing (if impeachment is a harsh word) such judicial minds who dispense jurisprudence with a fixed notion/ ideal of “crushing majoritarianism”.

The observations during the course of the Sabarimala hearing, made it farcical since the prejudices and fixed notions of justice that clouded the intellect and ability to interpret constitution in an equanimous manner as evidenced by the invocation of “Untouchability“- which is not practiced at Sabarimala and “dignity”- not explicitly spelt-out in the constitution, while coming up with a flawed judgement stand mute witness.

In sec 497 verdict, instead of revoking the law, we saw this grandstanding wherein it had been observed that a lady through marriage does not have to stop exploring sexual happiness outside the marriage! While, as a stand alone that is an interesting thought but a degenerate one since that hits at the very core of the idea of a family.

This is not the first time that we had the spectacle of the propensity to be this show-pony rather than be true arbiters of law.

Is our democracy being handicapped by such minds is the bigger question.

We live in a divided world

msadavarte
-
0
We live in a divided world

Whether it’s productive to discuss and debate reasons for divisions in the world is anybody’s guess. For the skeptics most things out of order are unproductive, for optimists anything even remotely probable is a ray of hope. So let me try and put forward a hypothesis, which is based on the 17th chapter of Bhagawad Gita.

We live in a divided world, because of little understanding on roots of daily actions, their origins and their relation with faith one follows. If one has to simply qualify these actions/thoughts and the faith that gives rise to such behavior by measuring them as Faith based in Goodness, Passion or Ignorance could we be able to then evolve to a less divisive society?

World was always divided and great men and women always worked towards unifying the divided world. These great men and women from across globe invented religions, war, commerce, art, sports, transportation, electricity, medicine, and transceivers, Internet. All these major inventions were aimed at unifying or making the world come closer. Physically we may have succeeded in shortening the perceived distance between someone in India and say America, but faith has kept the divide. If anything, today we are more aware about these divisions, which go at micro level than just at the physical levels of commerce, travel and communication.

I believe, as awareness of such divisions increases, more and more people will find ways to communicate without having to challenge or confront the opposing faith or actions deriving from faith based in one of the 3 classifications; Goodness, Passion or Ignorance.

During the war of Kurukshetra the 2 opposing sides believed in the same set of Gods & teachers but yet were divided by faiths. One side was convinced with the physical power & its need to govern while the other side being equipped to win a physical war, believed in cooperation than confrontation.

Faith or belief system is more than religious belief or rituals or scientific facts or legends that become beliefs due to mass acceptance. This belief system is a combination of multiple elements of an individual’s life & family and the society one lives in.

In order to remain objective in our discussion let us define Goodness, Passion and Ignorance:

  • For any action or behavior or faith to qualify under goodness it needs to be perceived as Rational & Empathetic. It cannot be either or only when both conditions are met any action qualifies as Goodness.
  • Passion is any behavior influenced by emotions of greed or fear or insecurity.
  • Ignorance will be any action led by believing physical identity as supreme or under false ego. The attitude, of rationality and empathy, emotional or apathetic and with false ego, in which a person behaves, his belief system and faith can be distinguished being in goodness, in passion or in ignorance.

According to ones identity, basically who he/she is, what’s his/her purpose & why, created under the influence of these 3 modes (goodness, passion & ignorance) one creates a set of principles that evolve into a particular kind of belief system (faith).

Any person is recognized by his faith (belief system) based on the qualities one acquires as an individual. These qualities are goodness/behaving with rationality & empathy or passion/behavior influenced by emotions or ignorance/behavior led by believing physical identity as supreme, false-ego.

People who live life or want to live life in the quality of goodness, which is acquiring rationality and knowledge & satisfaction, believe and follow the teachings or life of a person/object/idea who is considered righteous. Righteous living is essentially life of satisfaction, irreversible success, detachment (detached from emotions generated by every action) & believed to be liberated from the cycle of birth & death on earth.

People who live life or want to live life in the quality of passion, which is behaving under the influence of emotions, believe and follow the principles of demon. Demons are defined here as those who behave under the influence of fear, anger or greed  leading to destruction of nature and humanity in general.

Those who perform sever conditioning of mind & physical body and act with harshness towards self and others, out of pride (believe in self capabilities and knowledge of self & surrounding) and egoism (believing physical self to be most important). Those who are driven by lust (sex) and attachment (towards physical self and its senses/emotions), who are irrational and who have a misled mentality about composition of material elements (physical nature & body) and the universe (principle energy behind birth of universe and evolution), behave in a way that disturbs themselves physically and mentally and harms their surrounding nature (living and non living) and humanity.

People who live life or want to live life in the quality of ignorance, which is behavior led by believing physical identity as supreme, basically false-ego believe in and follow principles of denials, sadism and manipulation.

The three qualities of physical body also influence the food that is preferred by each person. The same qualities (goodness, passion & ignorance) are also responsible for behavior, conditioning of body & mind and charity (giving back to the society & nature in the form of wealth as well as ideas/thoughts/emotions).

Following are the distinctions between such food, sacrifice, austerity and charity.

Food:

Those who live in the mode of goodness, eat food that helps them live a longer life, helps in finding who we/humans truly are and the purpose of life. Such food gives strength to the physical body as well to the mind (proteins & amino acids), improves health (vitamins, minerals, salts), and gives satisfaction and happiness by way of no acidity & ease of passing stool. Such foods are juicy (fruits), fatty (milk and its products), wholesome (fibers & grains) and bad-cholesterol free (pleasing to the heart).

Foods that are very bitter, too sour, salty, hot, pungent, dry and burning are dear to those in the quality of passion (behaving under the influence of emotions). Such foods cause harm to the digestive system and causes distress, misery and diseases.

Food that is fermented and consumed (prepared about 3 hours before being eaten), food that’s tasteless, decomposed and putrid and food consisting of spare parts of animals and those things that shouldn’t be even touched (poisonous things) are liked by those living life in the quality of darkness simply saying living like animals driven by only emotions and not rationality.

Sacrifice: All those activities that help evolve to a state of self-realization.

Activities performed after understanding relationship and composition of material elements (physical nature, body) and the universe (principle energy behind birth of universe and evolution of life) as a matter of duty towards true self (so that soul can be liberated) and for no desire of external reward (fame, money, success etc.) is considered to be in quality of goodness.

Simply saying living life of empathy, self-improving knowledge and skills, nurturing nature and humanity qualify as living in goodness.

Activities done under the hope or want of some material benefit, basically behavior guided for gratification to the senses or by greed of more or fear of less or to derive pride are performed under the mode of passion (emotions).

Any activity performed without understanding the evolutionary principle and purpose as observed in Gita (understanding relationship and composition of material elements (physical nature, body) and the universe (principle energy behind birth of universe and evolution of life), wasting food or eating more than needed or eating food that is not recommended as human, without invoking true self (to self realize) and without paying respects in kind or material to the priests (one who imparts belief system) and without any belief (behaves in denial without taking responsibilities, manipulates for benefit or from fear) is considered to be in the quality of ignorance (false ego with no regard for others).

Austerity: Behavior, which is aimed at self-improvement and not only for gratifying senses

Conditioning of the body (senses) consists of believing and improving understanding of the principle source of energy and it’s principle of evolution and purpose of life
Increasingly becoming self-aware/realize, respecting the teacher who imparts knowledge of life and elders like father and mother.
Conditioning of the body also consists of keeping self & surrounding clean (physically from dirt etc. & mentally from speculations, anxiety), living a simple life, empathizing with others, self-restraint on sex (celibacy) and nonviolence.

Conditioning of speech consists of speaking words that are truthful (factual), pleasing (empathetic), beneficial and not hurting the sentiments (agitating) of others.

Conditioning of the mind consists of controlling emotions (feeling satisfied), simplicity (understanding fundamentals), gravity (understanding in-depth), and self-control over emotions and actions. And realizing who we are within the various material body we have changed and finally evolved to human form.

Conditioning of body, mind and speech (threefold austerity) performed with complete belief in true self (soul) with no expectation of any material benefits (gratification to the senses) but acting only for the sake of liberation (not just physical liberation but liberation from any anxiety) is called conditioning self to behave in the quality of goodness.

Activities performed for the sake of gaining respect, honor and followers; influenced from pride is said to be in the quality of passion (emotionally influenced to gratify senses), which is neither stable (ever fulfilled and changes constantly) nor permanent. Ones gratified emotions are over, they resurface later when senses are devoid of its objects. Simply like when the stomach has digested all food hunger returns, all other senses too are never permanently full.

Activities performed out of disrespect to the body & soul, with sadism (self-torture, deceit) to cause destruction or injury to others is said to be in the quality of ignorance (false-ego, irrationality).

Charity: Imparting knowledge & skills learned & experienced and wealth acquired is real charity.

Giving away acquired knowledge and wealth out of duty to a worthy person (person who shows empathy, desire to self realize and cooperates with all living beings and nature for nurturing) at the proper time and place without expecting anything in return is considered to be in the quality of goodness.

Imparting with wealth and knowledge for expecting something in return or with a want for some gratification to the senses or reluctantly is said to be in the quality of emotions (passion).

Imparting with wealth and knowledge at a place where it can be misused, at an improper time or to a person who isn’t worthy (apathetic, motivated and irrational) or without proper attention and respect to the details and fundamentals of its usage is said to be in the quality of ignorance.

Conclusion:

Since the beginning of the creation of the universe the three words Om Tat Sat were used to indicate that Om (indication of the supreme, sound that came from the black hole at the time of big bang) is the eternal principle of the absolute truth.

These three symbolic representations were used by earlier living beings who learned the truth and lived life practicing it to be able to liberate soul and while behaving so as to keep the true self (soul) satisfied and free of being influenced by any emotions.

Therefore, those who practice self realization behave to gain knowledge or skill or to improve them, imparts with knowledge and wealth to others and when conditions the body and mind always begins with Om (remembering that the purpose is to be liberated and not to gain any emotions) in accordance with the principles observed in nature, to attain liberation from any emotions deriving from action and thus eventually be able to liberate true self from cycle of life and death.

Those who actually desire liberation from the cycle of birth and death on earth (get free from material entanglement), perform various activities without the desire to satisfy senses of the body.
Sacrifice (our behavior and actions), penance (conditioning body and mind) and charity (imparting knowledge learned/experienced and wealth acquired) these 3 are the basic activities which determines our intentions (purpose) and when these activities are done with the intention to gain anything or fear of less or in anger the end result is only temporary (satisfaction of the senses) and takes the true self (soul) away from supreme (liberation).

The sound person makes (what we say) and the various activities a person does are meant to identify his true self (soul), separate from the physical body he has acquired by way of evolution.
The nature of this true self (soul) is said to be similar to that of the absolute truth, which is essentially the singularity from where everything evolved.

Thus every action, speech, conditioning of body & mind and giving away knowledge and wealth earned should be performed to understand the objectivity of absolute truth, in order to evolve beyond human.

Any behavior or purpose that doesn’t lead to self-realization, done without belief in true self produces emotions, which are impermanent in nature.

These emotions of pride, fear and anger are hindrance to reaching true potential in this life and evolving.

These basic elements of our daily life represent the basic faith one follows and where that faith origins, in Goodness, Passion or Ignorance. As we become more aware and global citizens, it is every person’s duty to measure their own basic behavior based on simple classification of good, passionate or ignorant. And decide for themselves what faith to follow and create in order to make this world less divisive.

Tamil Nadu: Responsibility or opportunity for BJP?

Hariharan Iyer
-
0
Tamil Nadu: Responsibility or opportunity for BJP?

Having adopted a federal democratic structure, the Indian Political domain space can be bifurcated into two parts – Centre and State / UT. Personifying the vivid diversities of different states to be different rivers, it can be said that the Centre is the culminating congregation point of all the rivers whereas States/UT being the point of origin of those diversities.

These diversities offered by states can be due to various reasons – religious, linguistic, caste, cultural, historical, geographical etc. But when these differences are exploited by regional political parties it leads to the emergence of Sub Nationalism which is often fostered by reverberating the popular passions of people. When these regional political parties, over a period of time start enjoying considerable political representation, the State and its people are deprived of an alternative political narrative.

Tamil Nadu brings to the table diversities in all the horizons. But these diversities have seldom reached the ultimate point of congregation; bound by strong regional ideological walls. It has seldom penetrated the Indian political mainstream and the mainstream has been unsuccessful in merging the regional Dravidian political thought. Exception is a universal reality and the exception to Tamil Nadu’s diverse offering is the political space. Tamil Nadu’s politics is a completely different ball game as it is played on a completely different platform. It has its roots in the Dravidian Ideology. Dravidian politics is the only strong root in to the Tamil soil with its various branches experiencing blooming flowers in different points of time. Dravidism as portrayed by its pioneers feature certain fundamental traits like rejection of a substitute language to Tamil, Atheism, Anti Brahmanism, Self respect etc. Pioneers of Dravidism have ensured that these concepts are enshrined in the masses deeper than their intellect which is a testimony to the fact that Dravidian politics has driven Tamil Nadu for over five decades.

The Official Languages Act 1963, intending to unite the linguistically diverse nation through Hindi faced the strongest opposition in Tamil Nadu leading to secessionist sentiments. Dravidian ideology was so dense that the governing elite had to ultimately kneel down to Dravidian demands and offer concessions with respect to Hindi. This Dravidian movement was spearheaded by E V Ramaswamy, through his Dravida Kazhagam which also had as its objective a separate land for Dravidians, The Dravida Nadu. Tamil (Dravidians/Adi Dravidas), one of the oldest languages on earth, was used as a tool to woo the theists, by portraying how it was significantly better than Sanskrit (Brahmins) or Hindi (Aryans). He propagated Dravidian ideology without having any intention to take a political plunge. The reason given for his reluctance to enter electoral politics is that politics has the inherent tendency to compromise which will dilute the ideology. As an alternative viewpoint, a question still remains unanswered – Did the disbelief in the Indian Union and demand for Dravida Nadu as a separate nation prevent his participation in the Indian electoral politics?

Loyal to E V Ramaswamy’s ideology, but wanting to enter electoral politics was C N Annadorai, E V Ramaswamy’s lieutenant in Dravida Kazhagam. He separated himself from E V Ramaswamy and formed a separate political entity, which later on became an important pillar of Tamil Nadu politics, The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). After C N Annadorai, M Karunanidhi took over DMK. Although accused of unparalleled levels of corruption and promoting family interests, he went on to become one of the most important & successful Indian politicians of all times. M G Ramachandran, an important face of Tamil Nadu’s politics and film fraternity, created the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) from DMK after falling apart from its leader M Karunandihi. He went on to become one of the most successful Chief Ministers which India has ever produced as his policies were focused on social Issues of poverty, hunger, education & health. J Jayalalitha succeeded M G Ramachandran in AIADMK.

When Dravidian ideology seeped through generations, expectedly or unexpectedly it also brought Personality Oriented Politics to Tamil Nadu. Over the years – Who was speaking took precedence over What was being spoken. Mere utterance of the names like M K Karunanidhi or MGR would reverb passions amongst the masses, equivalent to the passions which would be generated when Dravidism was being discussed. Hence, a renowned, mass based leader, enjoying substantial clout was indispensible to succeed politically in Tamil Nadu.

With the demise of two stalwarts – J Jayalalitha & M Karunanidhi  a new, never before experienced political situation has developed in Tamil Nadu:
1) AIADMK lost J Jayalalitha which led to a deep turmoil in the party as it broke into many factions fighting the succession battle under the same ideological banner. This will definitely lead to a strong disenchantment amongst the electorate. Even loyalists would be tempted to move away from their loyalties as significant questions would be raised regarding the capability of a party to give stable governance whose house itself is in disorder. J Jayalalitha herself united splinter AIADMK factions into a strong united AIADMK and ascended the throne. However she could not nurture strong leaders to take over the party as part of her succession strategy. No one would believe that AIADMK lacked talent which can blossom into mass leadership. No one can believe that J Jayalalitha lacked the foresight of a probable succession issue to plague the party after her.

2) DMK lost M Karunanidhi, patriarch of Dravidism for over 5 decades. M K Stalin has been formally declared as the successor of DMK.

AIADMK is in its second consecutive term and therefore facing anti incumbency. The succession battle in AIADMK adds fuel to the already existing problems. Hence prima facie, winds would naturally turn in favor of the largest opposition party –DMK.

But, how is this political vacuum in Tamil Nadu going to affect the central political domain space? With 39 seats, Tamil Nadu has much to offer to the Lok Sabha and parliamentarians from Tamil Nadu are essential to form a stable government in Delhi. Cornering 37 seats in the 2014 General Elections, AIADMK’s performance in Tamil Nadu under J Jayalalitha can be compared to BJPs performance at the national level. But, what Tamil Nadu has for 2019?

The 16th Lok Sabha elections witnessed an outcome which impacted the political fortunes and the altered political dimensions like never before. BJP won a thumping majority single handedly uprooting 10 years of UPA tenure led by the Indian National Congress (INC). Later, BJP went on to win a number of state assembly elections, municipal bodies & panchayat polls riding on the positive sentiments of 2014 & the charismatic leadership of Hon Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi.

But, these victories cannot be played down as mere victories as there are other important political dimensions to it.
1) The INC was decimated in successive assembly elections leading to the significant realignment of the political positions with the regional parties in many states replacing the congress.
2) Although BJP has significantly gained since 2014, its political victories were restricted to the north, west and the eastern parts of the nation.

This clearly brings out the hidden truth that Tamil Nadu, as it is, is not understood outside Tamil Nadu.

With the current political vacuum, BJP has a bigger role and responsibility to play than looking at this as an opportunity. It should not enter into any pre poll alliance as no one knows where the votes would go as this is the 1st election without regional stalwarts.BJP should strive hard to make itself a cadre based party, rather than trying to look at this through the narrow perspective of elections. When the iron is hot, it needs to be struck. BJP should ensure that it devises a long term ideologically rich vision for Tamil Nadu, separate from election objectives.State level leaders should be nurtured and a broad based acceptable figure should be developed for the state.

It is upon the BJP to ensure that Tamil Nadu is integrated into national mainstream politics as the INC, which has previously captured power, failed miserably in front of rising Dravidism. Election is a recurring phenomenon, but a strong party presence is important, to direct the narrative, to impact public thought.

Glasnost, RSS and confusion

OliveGreens09
-
0
Glasnost, RSS and confusion

Ever since Mohan Bhagwat chose to speak at Vigyan Bhawan in September there have been tomes of the writings describing his departure from the past to a new Inclusive kind of narrative which was like a fresh air to the moth eaten environs of Nagpur.

Its most loquacious speaker nowadays, Ram Madhav was out with his own version in the Indian Express, calling his September address as Glasnost, Perestroika, a change in the way RSS views the country in light of its new found confidence. It was called coming of age of RSS, maybe after 70 years of Independence and with a firmer place in the Political Firmament, it has found another reason for its own good. The address while dwelling on the issue of diversity of the country, the emphasis on the inclusion rather than exclusion as the mantra for going forward was touted by many as the new RSS.

Mohan Bhagwat in his Vigyan Bhawan address also pondered rather thoughtfully as to why was the Swayamsevak only attracted towards the BJP and why did he not have a different perspective. Certainly, these words do sound like a whiff of spring in the cold winters but I could imagine a smug smile on the face of Mohan Bhagwat and the older lot at RSS headquarters at Nagpur. After all the wily Sarsanghchalak is a master at the art of hypnosis and the September address was a beautiful deliverance of his art in midst of Delhi Elite.

However, Ram Madhav editorial was punctured just two days before the Vijayadashami by Manmohan Vaidya in his own subtle way by calling Ram Madhav’s Glasnost idea as the failure on part of the author and the public in their inability to understand the fact that RSS was an ever evolving and changing organisation which was socially mobile. Besides, the word Glasnost and Perestroika were alien to the RSS ethos. Surprisingly, both RSS leaders chose Indian Express as the medium is not without reason.

Manmohan Vaidya had to reach the same audience which was addressed by Ram Madhav with his Glasnost Theory and debunk the whole idea in itself. Hence, the rebuttal, albeit subtly. The timing of Vaidya’s article is more important, he came up with it just a couple of days before Bhagwat was to make his annual VijayaDashmi speech which set the tone for his Reshmibagh address.

And today, the newspapers are still trying to figure out the contours of the VijayaDashmi speech. They are screaming treason, betrayal by Bhagwat of his ideas expressed in the Vigyan Bhawan speech.

It must be said that Bhagwat has been the most consummate political Sarsanghchalak seen by the country in the recent years. He definitely comes off as much more affable than his predecessors, besides, can be seen engaging with people who hold absolutely divergent views than RSS. The invite to former President, Mr Pranab Mukherjee was an act of extraordinary dexterity, though RSS has called people who differed with them to their annual Bhaudhiks but Mukherjee was a coup de grace to an extent it rankled the main opposition, Congress to no avail.

It was his actions preceding the VijayaDashmi address which lulled the RSS Watchers and Baiters into a false sense of an awaited Glasnost. It also raised hackles among the hard core Swayamsevaks who were at quite an unease over his earlier avatar at the Vigyan Bhawan. It created some confusion among the RSS supporters who have developed a keen anti Congress politics over the decades. The confusing statements on diversity, inclusiveness, the broader definition of a Hindu all seemed foreign to a spiritual Swayamsevak whose world view was restricted by the teachings at his local Shakha.

It seems that the Glasnost speech of Bhagwat did create some confusion among the Believers and it has been the catalyst for his renewed call to Back To Basics on VijayaDashmi.

Interestingly, political analysts are at pains to dispel any Glasnost coming from the RSS stables. Suhas Palshikar has called Bhagwat’s address at Reshmibagh as a “reality check”. He says, “There’s no Glasnost. The same consistently confusing politics manifests itself as the core project of RSS “. What prompted this change of narrative by the RSS needs to be looked at in view of recent Court judgements, the fall out of the amendments to the SC/ST Act, the Sabarimala showdown, Sec 377, have all acted in a manner which puts a question mark on the efficacy of the Narendra Modi government dealing with the higher judiciary, in its ability to safeguard the core interests of the Hindus and the will of the government on contentious issues like Ram Mandir.

The year end elections looming large over the important states of MP, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh are also a factor in Bhagwat’s articulation on VijayaDashmi. Only, Shivraj Singh Chouhan seems to be in a relatively comfortable position compared to Raman Singh and Vasundhara Raje, who is facing a veritable revolt in the state. What else than a thundering statement on Ram Mandir can lift the heat off the elections better, a call for an Ordinance is a virtual Brahamastra in the Sangh arsenal.

It is a well known fact that Ram Mandir still has the potential to swing any election in the country. The reference to Sabarimala is an afterthought, especially as recently as few days back, RSS was singing a different tune, advocating an unrestricted entry of women to Sabarimala. The protests in Kerala in particular and South of Vindhyas in general has led to this change of heart.

However, it has moderated its stand by bringing in the concept of consensus on the entry of women in Sabarimala, which according to the RSS has been ignored to the detriment of the Hindus of Kerala by the Communist Government of Pinarayi Vijayan.

The nuance has worked fine to the benefit of BJP in Kerala where it continues to be a fringe political power despite a robust and strong RSS, his latest statement has put the leading opposition Congress on a back foot in Kerala. Congress fears the prospect of losing the Hindu vote to the BJP in southern Kerala. It has also compounded the problem for the Communists whose last bastion is feeling the heat of Hindu resurgence in wake of Sabarimala protests.

RSS is trying to do what the BJP failed as a party in power, achieve the impossible of breaking the Untouchable tag in the Deep South. It has its eyes on the States of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu to compensate for the losses in the Cow Belt. Though ambitious, but RSS’ changed stand on Sabarimala has some gains goes without saying.

Bhagwat has also tried to allay the fears of his succumbing to the new narrative of Inclusiveness by once again forcing the idea of Hindu being the One who was born in India or belonging to one of the Sects which originated from India. His not so subtle messaging is pure delight to the Swayamsevak who was confused with the Vigyan Bhawan rhetoric.

The VijayaDashmi address was primarily to his constituents rather than some eclectic gathering at an elite gathering in Delhi, far from the ideological headquarters of Nagpur.

The Hindutva proponents are enthusiastic by some plain speaking after a brief period of confusion over the impending Glasnost and Perestroika, words foreign to the RSS vocabulary as stated by Manmohan Vaidya in his article. The sigh of relief is apparent from the reaction of the Swayamsevaks after VijayaDashmi.

#MeToo from where to where

G Indira
-
0
#MeToo from where to where

#MeToo movement could successfully dislodge the Union State Minister MJ Akbar for his alleged past misdeeds of sexual harassment in the workplace. Sexual misconduct is in commonplace in all the institutions hence, it is ubiquitous. Many women of conservative background also supported the movement, for, the issue at hand was the union minister, a constitutional head and therefore the protector of constitutional morality was said to have involved in the acts that were not appropriate to his position and violation of women’s rights. So, irrespective of the court’s verdict on the criminal defamation case he filed, he was tainted in the perception battle. Anyway, it’s all an old story. Now the application of mind should be on the future course of the movement that will have a greater impact on the society. The emboldened women in #MeToo who are all liberal in their thinking have a program. What could that be? What next? It is a dilemma.

Liberals in India ape the West in many ways. Liberalism entails all FREEDOMS. To put it bluntly, free to eat what they like, drink and also indulge in casual/consensual sex outside the marital bonds. I don’t say all liberals lead that kind of life. But they vouch for such freedom. They are all not immoral, but are amoral. For them, that way of life is not wrong and the Indian Constitution guarantees them.

The bedrock of the western Constitution is FREEDOM. India adopted the same principle. Freedom of thought, Freedom of expression, Freedom in dressing, Freedom of food, Freedom on one’s own body, that is, ‘my body, my choice’ kind. All agreed. These freedoms should not be used in breach, but should be used as a privilege. This doesn’t seem to be the case.

MJ Akbar is a product of liberal thought and application. His habits, as written by his ex-colleague-journalists amply testify that. The #MeToo women wouldn’t mind him being what he is privately but harassing them in the workplace was their grievance.

Most of the Indians are unaware of what the liberals stand for. The traditional Indians get shocked to hear what the liberals stand by. The ordinary women who are conservative by nature stick to certain family values. The kind of indulgences the liberals have, these people shun. They go by tradition but they understand to a limited extent what #MeToo movement is all about. They have no knowledge that the liberals are fighting against rape not only outside the marriage but within the marriage which is called ‘marital rape’! For them, adultry is no sin. Their fight for individual rights goes to dizzy heights.

Liberal women freely mingle with men in pubs and parties. They are close in exchanging greetings and hugs and kisses. Of course, as individuals it’s their prerogative to do what they like. Suddenly, they get livid and complain about their compatriot, another liberal to have touched or held their hand which is inappropriate to them. Who decides whether the touch is good or bad? Invariably a woman. For, a man, has no right to decide. He is always filled with ‘toxic-masculinity’.

Traditional wisdom coming from ages, that is, the wisdom handed over from generation to generation by our grandparents is a strict no, no to the liberal world. At least a part of it, which is relevant to our time, is also shunned.
Any sort of harassment against a woman is equivalent to a rape as per liberals. With this theory they alleged, Tarun Tejpal of Tehalka had committed an assault on his subordinate woman employee in the lift of 2-3 minute journey.

The other liberal men on whom recently sexually inappropriate behavior comments were made are: Chetan Bhagat, Suheil Seth, Jatin Das (the famous Nandita Dad’s father). The liberals are castrading themselves. They are strangulating their heads by a long rope made by themselves. The liberals must know India is in the old world with thousands of years old tradition and America is in the new world with only three-four hundred years of history.The rules that are applied in America cannot forcibly be applied here. If applied, the application is not good for India. That way # Me Too, a liberal movement, will slide to its natural death if it goes overboard.

India’s current predicament

Fayaz Ganie
-
0
India’s current predicament

The sheer demographic size of the country, and diversity of that demography, normally gives rise to numerous centrifugal, and dis integrative, forces which the leadership of India is duty bound to keep in check. In fact, the governments in all the countries, India being no exception, come into existence primarily to strengthen the centripetal forces and weaken the centrifugal ones.

Only the country which is held together by strong centripetal and integrative forces is able to defeat the outside forces inimical to the sovereignty of the country. Those where there are internal dissensions and disturbances lack that ability to defeat the external enemies.

In respect of India the challenges are even higher for the religious, regional, caste and income diversities are far greater in number in this country than any other country of the world. All these diversities carry with them more of the disintegrative forces than those of the integrative ones, if there is any of the latter type. It is the responsibility of the government to build strong forces of integration to keep the country united.

In the current times, and under the current circumstances, the centrifugal forces are becoming pronounced and the integrative ones are getting weaker. The primary cause behind this predicament in which the country today is the existence of extremes, rigid positions held by different groups with no readiness to change.

All the party associations, group loyalties, religious doctrinaires, caste equations and regional affiliations are held in a rigid and uncompromising manner where coming to common terms is becoming difficult with the passage of time. The groups are simply holding the extreme positions in respect of the others and are not ready to move a bit from those positions.

Those who are communal and belong to a religion hold their religion as the only perfect religion and that of the rest imperfect and faulty. And, in order to prove that they can go to any extent, from misrepresentation of the facts to manipulation of the truth and from desecration of religious institutions to the lynching of the innocents. Change of names of the different cities and places in the country is a part of the extreme positions where majoritarianism is thrust upon a country where the size of minorities is greater than the entire demography of many large countries of the world.

In such a country with such huge population of minorities, creating a wedge between the majority and the minority communities is by no means in the interests of the country, it is antinational pure and simple. This way of acting by some of the people belonging to the majority is a disservice which they, in their ignorance or deliberately to serve some parochial party interests, fail to realize.

Wise it is to take the minorities along. Change names no problem but it should be done where necessary and by taking all the sides into confidence. No haphazard manner of changing the names should be followed where the minorities might feel betrayed and cheated by the government, the trust of the minorities is vital for the growth prosperity and progress of the country.

Another example of extreme positions is where on the one side government tries to regulate all the areas of life and on the other there are people who have turned from liberal to libertarian. On the one side all the voices and free speech are tried to be muzzled and on the other pure and simple anti-constitutional acts and activities are tried to be justified as constitutional.

This is a serious area of fiction where the government in the recent past has resorted to arrest of the activists to eliminate the opposition to its policies. The liberals on the other hand are not ready to concede even that which is genuinely the jurisdiction of the government.

Both these tendencies are never good for a healthy democracy. As the totalitarian way of the governing is by no way good for the country and so is the extreme liberty, without any government control, dangerous.

Here the two sides need to reconcile with each other. The government should try to provide the best government not the maximum government. The areas where there is no need of government control and regulation should not be encroached, they are governed the best when they are not governed at all. The liberals on their part should realize the role of government for the vast country as India is. At times such country needs to take bold decisions which should duly be supported.

Amidst all this the MeToo Movement is a recent addition to the list of friction areas. Tough the movement should be supported but, if misused, it carries with it the potential where the fine balance in the gender equations in the country could get disturbed. In the already innumerable extreme positions the addition of one more critical area could have disastrous consequences.

The world, and the country, in all ages have remained divided in different groups. In the current day India in the guise of women emancipation some attempts are being made to divide the country on gender basis, where the men and women would become hostile to each other. Here again it is the game of interest where the national interests, and genuine interests of humans are tried to be thrown to the background at the cost of the benefits to few people who run the show.

In case of all the issues like those of farmers, poverty, caste considerations, the growing gulf between rich and the poor and the movements seeking secession from the country, the parties concerned are hardening their positions. Less scope is left for reconciliation, consensus and moderation thereby creating internal discords and disturbances of serious ramifications.

In all this the role of the government is immense and it is somewhere the failure of the people holding important positions in the government whose failure to perform their duties as per the constitutional scheme give weight to the centrifugal forces and weaken the integrative ones.

These people must shun working on a partisan basis and they should desist from supporting the majority at the cost of the minorities. They must realize and acknowledge that their way of working leaves a question mark on the entire set up of the government.

Better is to attend to the basic needs and requirements of the country. At this critical juncture where India aspires to be a global leader, the government should solve all the chronic and acute problems of the country. In case that is not done the history will never forgive these people.

1...669670671...889Page 670 of 889