Home Blog Page 809

Why Rajnath Singh can be a Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh?

0

I remember an interview of Rajnath Singh Ji before Lok Sabha Election 2014 results. It was somewhere during the 3rd Phase of Lok Sabha Election 2014. While answering to one question to NDTV reporter. He said that if NDA will form the government, he will not join it. He will be happy to continue as a BJP President. Later, he became Home Minister in Modi Government.

Recently, Rajnath Singh denied that he is in the race of Chief Minister post. but I won’t be surprise if he become Chief Minister of UP. You can watch this clip of one such Interview and Judge yourself.

दिल्ली, गुजरात और हिमाचल में भाजपा की जीत लगभग तय

0

दिल्ली नगर निगम के चुनावों की तारीखों का एलान चुनाव आयोग ने कर दिया है. नगर निगम के चुनावों को “मिनी-विधान सभा चुनाव” भी माना जा सकता है. गुजरात और हिमाचल प्रदेश में भी विधान सभा चुनाव इसी साल होने हैं. हाल ही में पांच राज्यों में हुए विधान सभा चुनावों में भाजपा ४ राज्यों में विजयी हुईं है. पंजाब में अकाली-भाजपा गठबंधन को मिली हार की तुलना दिल्ली विधान सभा में भाजपा की हार से की जा सकती है, जहां कांग्रेस और केजरीवाल के “अघोषित गठबंधन” का फायदा केजरीवाल को मिला और उसी के बदले में पंजाब चुनावों में इसी “अघोषित गठबंधन” के तहत केजरीवाल ने पंजाब में कांग्रेस की सरकार बनबाने में मदद की. यह सभी को मालूम है कि केजरीवाल ने पंजाब में अकाली-भाजपा के परंपरागत वोट बैंक में सेंध लगाई है. अगर केजरीवाल को मिले वोट प्रतिशत और अकाली-भाजपा गठबंधन के वोट प्रतिशत को जोड़ दिया जाए तो वह इतना ज्यादा है कि अगर केजरीवाल पंजाब में नहीं लड़ रहे होते तो वहां अकाली भाजपा गठबंधन को उत्तर प्रदेश और उत्तराखंड जैसी ही जीत मिलनी लगभग तय थी.

यह बात भी सच है कि अकाली-भाजपा गठबंधन की सरकार वहां पिछले १० सालों से कायम थी और वहां सरकार उस तरीके से नहीं चल रही थी, जिस तरह से भाजपा की सरकारें अन्य राज्यों में चल रही हैं. अगर पंजाब में सिर्फ भाजपा की सरकार चल रही होती, तो उसे किसी भी “अघोषित या घोषित गठबंधन” से हराना बेहद मुश्किल होता. हालांकि दिल्ली और पंजाब के बाद इस “अघोषित” गठबंधन की कलई भी जनता के सामने खुल चुकी है और दुबारा से जनता किसी ऐसे गठबंधन को कामयाब होने देगी, उसमे संदेह है.

दिल्ली नगर निगम के चुनाव हों या फिर गुजरात और हिमाचल प्रदेश के चुनाव, इन सभी जगहों पर जिन राजनीतिक दलों की शिरकत होने की सम्भावना है, वे कांग्रेस, भाजपा और केजरीवाल की आम आदमी पार्टी ही है. इन सभी पार्टियों की चाल, चरित्र और चेहरा देश की जनता भली-भाँति जानती है. रही सही कसर देश का मीडिया और सोशल मीडिया पूरी कर देता है. चुनावों में हार जीत का आकलन राजनीतिक दलों की जनता में बन रही छवि पर निर्भर करता है और जनता के बीच में किसी भी राजनीतिक दाल की छवि उसके कामों से बनती है. हाल के ५ राज्यों में हुए विधान सभा चुनावों में जिन राजनीतिक दलों को करारी हार मिली है, उनकी हार का विश्लेषण मैं अपने पिछले लेख में कर चूका हूँ.

यहां यह बताना भी मैं जरूरी समझता हूँ कि अभी तक मैंने सिर्फ दो बार ही चुनावी आकलन किये हैं और दोनों ही बार वे शत प्रतिशत सच साबित हुए हैं. २ अप्रैल २०१४ को मैंने सबसे पहले यह ब्लॉग लिखा था, “रोक नहीं सकता अब कोई मोदी की सरकार”, और इसके बाद मई २०१४ में भारी बहुमत से केंद्र में भाजपा की सरकार बनी थी. इसी तरह १४ फरवरी २०१७ को सबसे पहले मैंने- “उत्तर प्रदेश में भाजपा की बम्पर जीत के संकेत” शीर्षक से ब्लॉग लिखा था, और उत्तर प्रदेश के चुनाव नतीजे इस बात के साक्षी हैं, कि मेरा आकलन एकदम दुरुस्त था.

अब इस बात के विश्लेषण पर आते हैं कि आगामी दिल्ली नगर निगम, गुजरात और हिमाचल प्रदेश में भाजपा क्यों जीतेगी और बाकी पार्टियां क्यों हारेंगी. दरअसल देखा जाए तो २०१४ के बाद से ही किसी पार्टी की हार या जीत नहीं हो रही है- जीत उस विचारधारा की हो रही है, जिसे देश की जनता स्वीकार कर रही है. जो हारी हुई पार्टियां हैं, वह अपनी हार के लिए अपनी विचारधारा का कोई भी दोष नहीं मान रही हैं, अभी तक हारी हुई पार्टियों ने हार के जो कारण बताये हैं, उनमे से कुछ मुख्य कारण इस तरह से हैं :

१. पहला मुख्य कारण जो हारी हुई पार्टियों की तरफ से बताया गया, वह था: “EVM मशीनों में गड़बड़ी की वजह से हम हार गए”. इस हास्यास्पद और बचकाने बहाने से हारी हुई पार्टियों की छवि पहले से और ज्यादा ख़राब हुई है और इसका खामियाज़ा इन लोगों को आने वाले चुनावों में भी भुगतना पड़ सकता है.

२. हारने का दूसरा मुख्य कारण कांग्रेस पार्टी के नेता देते दिखाई दे रहे हैं. उनका कहना है क़ि पार्टी में अब नेतृत्व परिवर्तन होना चाहिए. राहुल, प्रियंका और सोनिया गाँधी जैसे “करिश्माई” नेताओं को पहले ही आज़माया जा चुका है. बाकी के और कौन-कौन से “करिश्माई” नेता कांग्रेस पार्टी में और बचे हुए हैं, उन्हें भी देश क़ी जनता बखूबी जानती है. राहुल गाँधी पहले ही कई बार यह बात बोल चुके हैं क़ि भाजपा के साथ उनकी पार्टी की विचारधारा की लड़ाई है. इसका मतलब यह हुआ क़ि कांग्रेस पार्टी अपनी विचारधारा में कोई बदलाव करने के लिए तैयार नहीं है. कांग्रेस की विचारधारा “देश को जाति-पाति-धर्म-संप्रदाय में बांटकर तुष्टिकरण के जरिये ध्रुवीकरण” की रही है, जिसे देश की जनता पूरी तरह से नकार चुकी है. खुद केजरीवाल की पार्टी भी कांग्रेस पार्टी के दिखाए गए रास्ते पर न सिर्फ चल रही है, बल्कि इस समय यह होड़ लगी हुई है कि कांग्रेस पार्टी की इस विचारधारा को आगॆ ले जाने में बाज़ी कांग्रेस मारेगी या फिर केजरीवाल की आम आदमी पार्टी. जब एक गलत विचारधारा को पल्लवित-पोषित करने के लिए राजनीतिक पार्टियों में प्रतिस्पर्धा शुरू हो जाए, तो नतीजे का अंदाज़ा लगाना बिलकुल मुश्किल नहीं होता है.

अब ऐसे हालातों में पाठक खुद ही तय करें कि दिल्ली नगर निगम के चुनाव हों या फिर गुजरात और हिमाचल प्रदेश के विधान सभा चुनाव, भाजपा को यह पार्टियां कैसे हरा सकती हैं ?

Why revisit Nehru?

0

“No tears for what lay behind, no fears for tomorrow’s mayhem and madness.” Thus wrote Stanley Wolpert describing Jawahrlal Nehru’s visage when delivering the Tryst with Destiny speech. Nehru, the crusader for India’s freedom, had come a long way as he stood speaking the stirring words. Freedom had been earned but India had lost her unity. As India awoke to “life and freedom” there laid ahead an uncertain future. But Nehru could afford neither tears for what had been lost nor trepidation for what the future might conceal. There was a nation to build and nurture, now that it was free.

Nehru was a politician and statesman but he was also the romantic. He felt for India with a romantic’s intensity, as is so evident in the Tryst with Destiny speech. Sometimes, his lyrically lilting and expressive prose rendered this intensity in words. Nehru writes in The Discovery of India:

As I grew up and became engaged in activities which promised to lead to India’s freedom, I became obsessed with the thought of India. What was this India that possessed me and beckoned to me continually, urging me to action so that we might realise some deeply-felt desire of our hearts? The initial urge came to me, I suppose, through pride, both individual and national, and the desire, common to all men, to resist another’s domination and have freedom to live the life of our choice. It seemed monstrous to me that a great country like India, with a rich and immemorial past, should be bound hand and foot to a far away island which imposed its ill upon her.

Indeed, Nehru was obsessed with the thought of India as his writings reveal so very often. What was this India that animated his thought and passions? Nehru’s love for India was not only for her sylvan earth and many rivers and hills. It was a love, passionately felt and expressed, for her people. He expresses it in the following words in The Discovery of India:

The mountains and rivers of India, and the forests and the broad fields, which gave us food, were all dear to us, but what counted ultimately were the people of India…spread out all over this vast land. Bharat Mata, Mother India, was essentially these millions of people, and victory to her meant victory to these people.

Nehru had found this love early. Already, about fifteen years ago, he had identified India with her countless children in his autobiography. He had written:

It is curious how one cannot resist the tendency to give an anthropomorphic form to a country. Such is the force of habit and early associations. India becomes Bharat Mata, mother India, a beautiful lady, very old but ever youthful in her appearance, sad eyed and forlorn, cruelly treated by aliens and outsiders, and calling upon her children to protect her. Some such picture rouses the emotions of hundreds of thousands and drives them to action and sacrifice. And yet India is in the main the peasant and the worker, not beautiful to look at, for poverty is not beautiful. Does the beautiful lady of our imagination represent the bare bodied and bent workers in the fields and factories? Or the small group of those who have from ages past crushed the masses and exploited them, imposed cruel customs on them and made many of them even untouchable? We seek to cover truth by the creatures of our imaginations and endeavour to escape from reality to a world of dreams.

Thus, feeling as he did for India and her people, it is no surprise that Nehru, more than anyone else, stands for post-independence India.

The early years. 1889-1920

Jawaharlal Nehru was born in Allahabad on 14 November 1889 to Motilal Nehru and Swarup Rani. The Nehrus were Kashmiri Pundits who had descended to the plains of north India during the reign of the Mughal Emperor Farrukhsiyar. As Nehru writes in his autobiography, they settled in the then imperial capital of Delhi “about the year 1716.” Kaul was originally their family name and they were granted a Jagir on the bank of a canal in Delhi. Since the Hindustani for a canal is Neher, the Kauls soon came to be known as Kaul-Nehrus. In the course of years Kaul was dropped and only Nehru retained as the family name. The Revolt of 1857 drove the Nehrus from Delhi to Agra where an uncle of Nehru, Bansi Dhar Nehru, attached himself to the newly established High Court. When the court moved to Allahabad, the Nehrus too moved with it.

Nehru was born to Motilal and Swarup after eleven years of marriage. In his own words, he spent his early years “as a somewhat lonely child with no companions.” His two sisters arrived many years after him. Nehru’s childhood was a “sheltered and uneventful one.” The Nehru household had increasingly westernised under Motilal’s influence and a child Nehru was looked after by English governesses. However, even as a child Nehru was “filled with resentment against the alien rulers” of India who often ill-treated Indians. Against individual Englishmen, though, “he had no feeling whatever.”

Still not sixteen, Nehru sailed for England in May 1905. Nehru was put in Harrow and his life turned an important leaf. He wrote home often expressing his schoolboy’s concerns. However, Nehru’s mind was eager and not just engrossed in a schoolboy’s concerns. Sometimes, news from India wafted to him and he reacted keenly. When he learnt of the Swadeshi movement having reached the far hills of Kashmir, he was surprised. Soon, we find him taking an interest in the affairs of the Indian National Congress too.

In October 1907 Nehru joined Trinity College, Cambridge. Back in India there was political turmoil and Nehru wanted to play “a brave part in it.” By the end of October we find him having joined the society of Indians at Cambridge- the Majlis. As we gather, the first impression was good. He communicated to his father on 31 October 1907 (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, First Series, Volume -1)

…I went the other day to a meeting of the “majlis” here just to see if they were as bad as they were painted; but I am glad to say I failed to find anything reprehensible in it. It is curious how the Cambridge Indians have got a bad name on account of the doings of a very small number of gentlemen.

Thus, we have the picture of an intelligent, eager youth growing into manhood in the early years of the twentieth century. Nehru’s coming of age coincided with a growing restlessness in India and the close of the age of the moderates. It was a heady time. Soon, a man called Gandhi would arrive with his never before used political weapons. Nehru was to witness, and be a part of, these changes which gradually led to the non-cooperation movement in 1920. This part of our website will be an attempt in tracing Nehru’s coming of age through his letters and other writings. We will witness an age as witnessed by Nehru and, may be, some of its idealism will pulse through us.

Quest for freedom.1921-1947

“The year 1921,” says Nehru in his autobiography, “was a year of great tension, and there was much to irritate and annoy and unnerve the official.” The non-cooperation movement had bedeviled the British and had caused them much reason to be annoyed and unnerved. Besides, the British also had the Khilafat agitation to contend with. Nehru found himself drawn “more and more” to the doctrine of non-violence and felt it to be the right policy for India with her background and traditions. Non-cooperation bode freedom and an end to misery for the disadvantaged. It offered Nehru hope that could survive failures:

…the non-cooperation movement offered me what I wanted – goal of national freedom and (as I thought) the ending of the exploitation of the underdog, and the means which satisfied my moral sense and gave me a sense of personal freedom. So great was this personal satisfaction that even a possibility of failure did not count for much, for such failure could only be temporary.

Hope Nehru did, through imprisonments and disappointments. The non-cooperation movement was suspended by Mahatma Gandhi on 5 February 1922 when a mob burnt alive a few policemen at a place called Chari Chaura in Uttar Pradesh. An imprisoned Nehru, along with all those involved in the movement, reacted with “amazement and consternation.”

Nehru was released from jail in 1923. The same very year C.R. Das formed the Swaraj Party and experimented with council entry. Nehru found Das’s party to be populated by “careerists and opportunists.” Meanwhile, communal amity garnered during the non-cooperation and Khilafat agitations quickly dissipated. Rancour grew and riots erupted. Nehru’s own home town, Allahabad, witnessed rioting in 1924 as he headed its Municipality. There was strain on the personal front too. Nehru’s wife, Kamala, fell seriously ill in 1925. Kamala was recommended treatment in Switzerland and Nehru, along with her and little Indira, sailed for Europe in March 1926. While in Europe, in February 1927, Nehru addressed the Congress of Oppressed Nationalities at Brussels. Nehru was in Moscow when the announcement about the Simon Commission was made. He returned to India as the year 1927 was drawing to a close.

Nehru immediately found himself in a swirl of activity. The Simon Commission, containing no Indian member, was boycotted and the All-Parties Conference was set up as answer to it. Headed by Nehru’s father, Motilal, it met in Lucknow in 1928 to draw up a constitution for India. The British government ignored all its recommendations. In 1929, the Congress gathered in Lahore for its annual session and Nehru was elected President. The atmosphere at Lahore was “electric and surcharged with the gravity of the occasion.” The Congress passed the resolution setting itself the goal of complete independence.

As the Congress was preparing to meet at Lahore, the British government announced that a Round Table Conference will be held in London. Subsequently, three of them were held from 1930 to 1932. The Congress boycotted the Conference in 1930. Instead, Gandhi gave the call for Civil Disobedience and “electrified the atmosphere.” Gandhi marched to the sea-side hamlet of Dandi and picked up a fistful of salt on 6 April. Civil resistance, as salt making and in other forms, spread like “prairie fire.” Nehru along with many others was again cast in jail.

Civil Disobedience was suspended with the signing of the Gandhi Irwin Pact on 5 March 1931. The British government agreed to release all political prisoners and withdraw all ordinances. Gandhi, on his part, confirmed participation in the second Round Table Conference. The Conference was marked by “scheming and opportunism and futile meandering” and failed in the task of producing a constitution for India. The Congress and Gandhi kept away from its third edition in 1932.

The British government announced some facile reforms under the Government of India Act in 1935. Though grievously disappointed with it, the Congress, under the leadership of Nehru, decided to contest the elections to be held under its provisions. Finally, when elections were held in 1937, Congress assumed office in seven of the then eleven provinces of British India. But Congress’s stay in office was destined to be brief. All the Congress ministries resigned in 1939 when the British government declared India a participant in WWII without consulting the Indian leadership. Events now moved quickly. The out of office Congress plunged into the Individual Satygraha movement in 1940 and thousands courted arrest. Barely had its tremors died that Gandhi decided that it was time the British quit India in 1942.

The Quit India agitation created veritable liberated zones in parts of the country and must have made the British sufficiently nervous for it dispatch the Cripps Mission to India in March 1942. Confabulations with the mission yielded nothing. Real headway towards freedom was made in 1946 when the cabinet mission came calling. An Interim Government was set up with Nehru as the Prime Minister. However, the Interim Government, also containing the Muslim League, collapsed under the weight of its contradictions and partition became an inevitability. Finally, on 16 August 1947 Nehru unfurled the flag of a free but truncated India upon the rampart of the Red Fort.

This, in brief, is the story of a febrile twenty-seven years as a nation marched to freedom and Nehru gradually moved to the very van of this march. This is the story of how, as Indira Gandhi puts it at one place, Nehru grew through “storm and stress.”

Nurturing a nation. 1947-1964

The four pillars of free India, which Jawaharlal Nehru as Prime Minister of Independent India hoped for were, universal franchise, social transformation, economic growth and secularism. If one were to listen to his campaign speeches of 1952, 1957 and 1962 one would realize, that his main aim through the speeches was to educate the masses. Even as he spoke, he repeatedly spoke of the fact that the success of democracy was based on the quality of the human-beings of the country.

The India we know today was birthed by him. Nehru looms like a colossus upon the contemporary history of India. He was a renaissance man, an individual with very many passions and interests. A liberal and a humanist, he left his indelible stamp upon the country he deftly steered through the treacherous currents of the immediate post-independence years. Nehru was a visionary and a builder of institutions. He laid the foundations of Indian industry. But for him doing so, India would not have been the promising economy she is today. Nehru initiated the founding of the IITs, invested in atomic research and built up the AIIMS. He, thus, began the production of the scientific and technical manpower so vital to a developing country like ours.

The strides in technology we have made today would not have been possible without him at the helm. In the field of culture, he was responsible for institutions such as Sahitya Akademi and Sangeet Natak Akademi coming into being. Independent India could thus begin to preserve and nurture her precious heritage. One can never cease knowing Nehru for the facets to him are many. Ours will be an exercise in knowing him and making him known. Because, the restless India of today, so riven by prejudice, graft and intolerance, needs to know the man whose words and deeds can be a fount of inspiration. The India of today needs to reminisce and recount a nobler time. Nehru is that time.

Dr. Etee Bahadur is a faculty at Jamia Millia Islamia.

Which side of the fence do you belong?

0

From the time I can remember picking up a newspaper for the first time, to trying to skim through it nowadays whenever possible with such a paucity of time, with our inbuilt inner filters, predisposed to our own biases or general world view points, what has managed to baffle the most is wondering how can an average person even form an opinion that has not been painted with hues, and towards the subtle labels the mainstream media ever so tirelessly pushes, the left, right, extremists, all were just words sounding extremely judgmental in the beginning to me.

This ugly rhetoric and disgusting discourse has to end, not only because it’s fictional, because it is retarding the school of thought of so many in the youth. This article is dedicated to people who are in the process of seeking answers, the late teens, the young adults, the college goers the recent graduates, and the first time voters.

Indeed, who are these writers? Having never established a connection with the masses, with the tendencies to subconsciously try to classify people as soon as they get their first tidbit of opinions from them? Slowly over the times in the teenage, realizing most of my opinions coincided to what the media would pounce to classify as conservative in nature. As gullible as I remember to be, that label was accepted for a while only to later realize what trap I was falling in.

Why are the conservatives portrayed to be the messiahs of Capitalism? The liberals painted as the believers of the hopelessly romanticised version of Socialism? After asking countless people of their opinions, slowly realizing everyone was mostly on the fences of any of these so called particular school of thought. Its the media’s schizophrenic need to classify, albeit in a damaging sense in stark contrast to the normality of human needs and wants.

A person with a critical opinion of figureheads like Umar Khalid, does not automatically qualify as a Sanghi, et all the names and tags the journalists have liberally applied. It would not mean the person supports the school of thought that would be traditionally classified as conservative. What if the same individual believes in free public education even at college graduation levels? Does that make him a liberal in the moulds of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Government?

Surely some stabilizing middle ground has to be established. What if an individual wants no such conclusions? That would drive the press crazy. One has to pick a damn side it seems, in order to appear in their eyes, their version of what’s ‘Normal’.

At the end of the day the concepts fail to achieve squat due to their imaginary nature, shining example of such a thing, being our honorable Prime Minister Modi. Using the liberty of my imagination and construct at this point, thinking if discussed such seemingly trivial but bugging issues with him, one would probably hear a chuckle at the end of my doubts and skepticism and general confusion of what part of fence one lies on. That would in his eyes, be a complete waste of precious and valuable time and resource afforded to the country in the form of youth, gone down an utter despicable drain. He would probably say do what helps not only you, but your nation instead of getting fixated with wasteful classifications. Doing is indeed so much better than all the gossip and the talk.

It’s time we abandon the need to belong to any particular ‘wing’ or so on, and be model citizens of this wonderful country first. Let ‘India First’ not just be a feel good chant, but be used in a literal sense to define our stance on the next problem/adversity we see in our country. This need to stay with no fences, acknowledging the good from all sides if containing merit, comes from a habit of precision, imbibed from having studied engineering, which is another recently much maligned subject. Most people gladly or sportingly accept the Sanghi or Bhakt tag and even put it on their social media bios (albeit sarcastically and in good humour), given by the liberal pixies.

Fellows, your goodwill is deeply appreciated but how about instead of looking for that one article to rub it in that libtards’ face, you look for how you could help a fellow countryman earn a livelihood with your own venture, however small may that manner of contribution be? You won’t get some likes, favorites, retweets, but what you would surely get is the untold appreciation of our honorable Prime Minister,who is doing so much just to help you and others be able to start a business, regardless of it being the modest of occupations.

The only time you do need to genuinely pick sides is during the elections, to,support a cause you believe in and educate others, after which one should hardly ever devote time to the ploys of the evil that surrounds us. This in particular is an address to so many in the youth who end up fighting for causes on social media, even with their good intentions, I would say you’re wasting not only your time, but a valuable resource that could have been helpful to India’s progress.

With a moral compass built on these principles, no political party can take for granted any voter. Governments will come, form and go, what should remain is our sense of judgement in knowing the genuity of the future leaders of India. A scientific temper, helps not only professionally, but in identifying the path of discourse one should move towards. Name calling/Branding has always been the left liberals’ forté, we should not fall for it and embrace the truth, instead of ever getting stuck in the quicksand of deciding what side of fence you belong to.

On the other side, the efforts of the people, of the likes of creators of platforms such as this one, is deeply applauded and welcome change in the routine for not allowing the peddling of half-truths and lies of the mainstream media, it is a service people of my generation couldn’t enjoy due to the lack of such a stage in the past.

Meanwhile, to the youth, let us all try to get the discourse aimed towards the next big break in sciences, commerce, and the arts which would help our motherland get a leverage in dealing with the global forces.

नेहरू का दर्द

0

​​स्वर्ग मे अपसराओ का नृत्य चल रहा था, नेहरू पंडित पृथ्वी का भ्रमण करके आए थे और बहुत दुखी लग रहे थे। बापू ने उनसे पूछा, “पंडित जी क्या बात है? बड़े दुखी लग रहे हो, धरती पर सब ठीक है ना?

नेहरू पंडित भर भरा के रो पड़े। नेहरू पंडित बोले, “क्या बताऊँ बापू, पृथ्वी पर छोटू ने अपनी पार्टी का बेड़ा गर्त कर दिया। सभी का मानना है कि ऐसा ही चलता रहा तो हमारी पार्टी विलुप्त हो जाएगी। अरनब ने तो कह दिया, “अगर छोटू ने पार्टी में जान डाल दी तो, मैं सन्यास ले लुँगा।” छोटू भाषण दे देकर बची खुची इज्जत भी पानी में मिला रहा है। मैंने कभी सोचा नहीं था कि एक दिन अपने छोटू के कारण मुझे बेईज्जत होना पड़ेगा।”

नेहरु पंडित जी ने बापू से कहा, “जानते हो कल का बच्चा मोदी चायवाला, छोटू और अपनी पार्टी से ज्यादा फेमस हो गया है। हर तरफ मोदी चायवाला के चर्चे हैं। ऐसे लगता है कि वो भी भारतरत्न लेकर ही दम लेगा। कलयुग अपनी चरम सीमा पर पहुँच गया है, आज कल धरतीवासी “हर-हर भोले” के बदले “हर-हर मोदी” कहते है। मोदी का नाम चारो तरफ छाया हुआ है। ऐसा लगता है कि खुद विश्वकर्मा ने जाकर चारो तरफ मोदी का पोस्टर और बैनर लगा दिया है। चारो तरफ एक चायवाले कि पूजा हो रही है और अपना छोटू पांच जवाब रट्टा मारके हर सवाल का वही जवाब देता फिर रहा है और अपनी हंसी उड़वा रहा है।”

बापू ने नेहरु साहब से कहा, “कोई और रास्ता नहीं है क्या ? आप 1947 वाला फार्मूला क्यों नहीं अपनाते।”

नेहरु पंडित ने कहा, “कौन सा फार्मूला?”

बापू ने जवाब दिया, “याद है भारत के आजादी का समय आप और जिन्हा आपस में राजा बनने के लिए लड़ने लगे तो सबकी आपसी राय से ये निर्णय हुआ कि हम भारत का दो भागों में बंटवारा कर देंगे और आप दोनों को एक-एक भाग का राजा बना देंगे।”

नेहरु पंडित ने कहा, अरे बापू अब जमाना बदल गया है, छोटू चाहे तो भी मेरा फार्मूला अमल में नहीं ला सकता है उसके पास दिमाग कहा जो वो इतना सोच सके।

बापू ने कहा हो क्यों नहीं सकता, “छोटू काँग्रेस के चाटुकारों को लेकर एक नया देश बना ले और वहाँ का प्रधानमंत्री बन जाए।”

बापू की बात सुनकर नेहरू पंडित मुस्कराते हुए सिगार जलाने लगे और अपनी फ़िक्र को धुँए में उड़ाने लगे।

Power drunk and arrogant Azam Khan threatens bureaucrat

0

A senior minister in the earlier Akhilesh Yadav government, Mr Khan is no stranger to controversy. Three years ago, his lost buffaloes had given sleepless nights to the state police. Three policemen were suspended for “dereliction of duty” for failing to trace the lost buffaloes.

Last year, his comment dubbing the appalling gang-rape of a woman and her teenage daughter in Bulandshahr as an “opposition conspiracy” had drawn the wrath of activists and the civil society. He was recently criticised for comparing Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Ravana during campaigning for the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections.

This Samajwadi Party leader has courted yet another controversy as this video showing him threatening a bureaucrat emerged.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yjko_QAcH0

On the day of counting, while his party got routed by the BJP, Mr Khan had won- one of the 47 Samajwadi Party leaders to do so. Azam Khan was on his way to collect his election victory certificate when his car was stopped from entering the Rampur Mandi and he had to walk through the muddy stretch. Irked by being stopped and made to walk, Khan pulled up the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Rampur who had just gone by the rules and had not allowed the minister’s car into the counting centre.

The infuriated leader lashed out at the sub-divisional magistrate, reminding him that his government was still in power, he was still a minister and he would stay a minister even after the moral code of conduct was repealed. He was caught on camera openly threatening the bureaucrat multiple times.

He even adds, “Did Modiji ask you to bring me through this slush? The government is still ours and I am still a minister. I will continue to be the minister till the new government is formed and I can get you transferred out of here if I want to?”

Interestingly, Azam Khan has been a member of the legislative assembly for nine terms from that very constituency.

It seems that Samajwadi Party leaders have not yet learned any lessons from their party’s humiliating defeat in the recently concluded assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh and they continue misbehave with people in their arrogance whenever resisted.

Have the liberal media ever lost a debate?

0

Last year in Bangalore lit fest, I happened to see a fascinating debate “Culture wars: Narrative of left, right and twitter”. The moderator started the discussion with asking a question to Aakar Patel (the TOI columnist who never hides his hatred for things he dislikes)- “Do you think 2016 has been a bad year for liberals, especially Brexit and the Trump victory in US?” I thought it was a very difficult question for Aakar but I was impressed with the ease he handled it. “No, not at all”, he said, adding, “Liberals had decades of success with various movements, Brexit and Trump events were just a minor blip”. “Media have to be left liberal- it is their moral responsibility, left media will get back to the winning ways soon”, he finished his take on the matter. I know it is very difficult to win a debate with a liberal, but writing-off Brexit and Trump win as minor blip in liberal movement requires another level of refusal to see the writing on the wall.

And if one analyses it further, Aakar was right in his own way, take US election itself as an example. We all thought that the American media (CNN, NYT etc.) would get humbled realizing how far off from the reality they were before the election. Post election we thought, they would critically evaluate where they went wrong (from 90% chance of Hillary winning) and initiate course correction for future. Mistakes make people wiser as one learns from it. But we all see what has happened in reality. The media attacks have become even more vicious. Everyday there is a standoff between the Trump administration and what they call ‘fake media’. CNN or NYT have not become any kind to the new president, they have become even more critical and at times subversive. In fact, they have come up with an explanation “post- truth” that the liberals are lapping up. So the conclusion is that the liberal media were always right even when they lost the election.

In Indian liberal circle also Aakar’s principles apply very well. Take demonetization for example. The move was lambasted by the liberals. The economists from Harvard and Cambridge roared that it would bring down the GDP by several points. The GDP figure somehow did not reflect that forewarning. “The GDP data is manipulated”, was the instant verdict. The liberal economist can’t be wrong. The most optimistic time frame by them (for return to normalcy) was 2 years for currency shortage. Some of them even expected and tried to incite people. Then they said it was despotic action, the people would reject it and the BJP government would lose. Incidentally, BJP kept winning election, one after the other post demonetization. With the recent UP election if one thought that the debate was sealed (at least the political impact) in favor of demonetization, do keep in mind “liberals have never lost a debate”. So now it is a problem with EVM and their arguments on demonetization was always correct.

There was another debate in the same lit fest on demonetization. It was moderated by Mihir Sharma, of no less repute that Aakar Patel when it comes to liberal outlook. The left liberal columnists in media are pretty straightforward in accepting their biases. They don’t give up in their argument ever. The discussion became heated. The moderator himself became the part of the argument. At this point Sanjeev Sanyal, who was probably the only panelist remotely defending demonetization concluded “the only time liberals don’t agree with the result is when they lose an argument”.

I think it was true with Brexit, US election and now demonetization – “liberals have never lost an argument ever”.

Election results and the future of Indian politics

0

As the election results for the 5 states were being declared on 11th March, the future of politics in India was being defined. These much talked about elections got huge media coverage as some were calling it a ‘semi-final’ before the final of 2019. Along with this, they were considered to be a litmus test for claims and counter claims made by the ruling and opposition parties in favor of and against demonetization.

A major takeaway from these elections is that the BJP juggernaut is still going strong and the Modi wave is still pretty much there. For political pundits who started predicting a downfall of Modi and BJP after setbacks in Bihar and Delhi, these results have left them with egg on their faces. The margin of BJP’s victory in UP has only added to their embarrassment. But how did the BJP manage to pull off such a landslide victory and what do these trends tell us?

First things first, reasons behind BJP’s success:

  • The party has started working in a very stable and organized structure as everyone in the management has been assigned a specific role. From Modi to Amit Shah to state party presidents and chief ministers, everyone sticks to their role during an election without any diversion from the job allotted to them. This discipline has been the main reason for BJP’s election successes in and after 2014. The people engaged in political management of the party like the party president Amit Shah have been completely detached from jobs of governance and legislation. The roadmap for the election campaign is prepared by these people working in the political wing of the party while the star campaigners and other popular leaders become the face of the party. This is a finely intertwined model which works on the basis of interdependence and trust.
  • Since 2014, BJP has always been ahead of all its rivals in preparation for elections. The party already has a plan in place for 2019 general elections and various other state elections during this period that ends in 2019. Every political activity that involves the BJP is a step in the direction of that plan. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the opposition parties to compete with a party that’s so focused on achievement of its targets.
  • The central government’s policies for the poor have had a major role to play in Uttar Pradesh elections. One policy that has been repeatedly mentioned during the election campaigns was ‘PM Ujjwala Scheme’ which aims at providing LPG connections to BPL households in the country. As has been said, this scheme became a game changer for BJP as it helped the party in gaining popularity and support from the weaker sections especially women.
  • BJP has been able to reinvent itself in the last 8-10 years. From a party which was portrayed as a party of upper castes, BJP now commands huge support from other sections of voters which were previously considered to be out of their zone of influence. This has been possible because of a carefully devised strategy of diversifying the representation. In the Uttar Pradesh state elections and in the 2014 general elections, they were able to fine-tune this tactic to perfection and the result is well known.

So where is the Congress going wrong? Is it the leadership? Or is it the cadre which should be blamed for this series of debacles? There is a common pattern in this downfall which the Congressmen refuse to acknowledge. This pattern consists of repeated events and consequential actions which have been pushing the sinking Congress harder into the quicksand.

Firstly, the Grand Old Party of India has to admit that it has lost its narrative. They don’t have a story to be labelled as their own. They need to get rid of this habit of tagging along with every other party opposing the government. Instead of following these small regional parties, the Congress should be leading the opposition. They don’t seem to do that. It is evident from the recent JNU/DU cases which involved student leaders’ protests. As soon as the incident took place, Congress leaders, including their Vice President Rahul Gandhi went to the university campus to stand with the students who were accused of shouting anti-national slogans. However, these students were supporters of extreme leftism, which even the Congress, being a centrist party (as it claims to be), should not support as it goes against their ideology. But the Congress went with the flow. They will keep repeating the same mistake till the time they realize that they will have to set their own agenda and depart from the practice of riding on someone else’s back to achieve their aims. Also, Congress’ absence from the national political scene is not a healthy trend for politics in this country. The void left by them would be filled by parties like AAP, SP, TMC and other regional parties and as a result, it will encourage regionalism.

Secondly, there is no doubt that the Congress needs a total revamp in its organizational structure. They have been suffering and will keep suffering under this nepotistic leadership. The party has a choice to make- success or sycophancy. It is a party with some very capable politicians but most of them have either gone quiet or left the party to join BJP (popular leaders like Rita Bahuguna Joshi and Vijay Bahuguna). Long story short, Rahul Gandhi has to give it up in favor of party’s interests. He’s mature enough to realize that he’s not capable enough. For a charismatic leader like Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi is no match. The sooner Congress realizes this, the better.

All in all, the Congress needs radical steps to come out of the mess they have created for themselves. There is no more time for introspection but enough for action. However, if they want to maintain the status quo and remain reluctant to incorporate such changes in the leadership and functioning of the party, then 2019 is a battle they have already lost.

Twitter: Justice denied but never delayed

0

Since yesterday, head of a rising media start up is in the eye of the storm for allegedly sexually harassing a former employee. Since then, several women have made similar accusations against the individual. Accusations have been made on social media websites and as of now no formal complaint has been lodged. As is with anything attention grabbing, social media is abuzz with people taking sides. Some are sure it is done with intent to slander an up and coming young entrepreneur while others say that so many women could not all be lying and there must be a grain of truth in the charges. Basically, social media is doing what social media does best– believing the side of the story that suits their own theories best and being 100 percent certain of it without knowing even 1 percent of the facts. Then there are other twitter celebrities who are contributing their 2 cents (read “Aag mein ghee”) sounding either pious, disgusted, peacemakers or some downright stupid.

The truth remains none of us know what happened. At this point it doesn’t look too good for the accused but at the same time no FIR has been registered and till the time that happens it’s a case of ‘he said and she (they) said’. So why is it so difficult for us tweeple to be reasonable for once? Wait for the facts to come before slut shaming the girls or initiating virtual lynching of the guy.

I believe, that’s because at the end of the day we are all petty gossips. We are more tech savvy than the average neighborhood aunty, I will give us that. But that doesn’t change our real nature which is to have zero concern for facts and only focus on the Masala value of any topic. We don’t want something as silly as truth to ruin our fun. So off we go turning a blind eye to reason and logic, happily gallivanting in our gossip fairy land where every man is avaricious, money grabbing villain out to victimize fair maidens and every woman is a gold digging, ‘must-be-asking-for-it’ slut. And we are “insaaf ka devta/devi” the one who can see all, out to dispense real justice. Which makes me think, how gullible we are to any lie, half-truths that can be peddled to us by someone with an agenda. One just needs to be systematic and persistent and it will eventuality turn into fact. We all are susceptible to a well framed lie. Case in point – demonizing demonetization. That fateful night of 8th November, India as we know it ended. Lines outside ATMs killed people, farmers were ruined, and marriages were broken. And yet the suffering public still overwhelmingly voted for the same man who had subjected them to such horrors. Entities with hidden agendas had us believe that we had been pushed into the dark abyss of an economic disaster. And yet here we are, all ok.

I am digressing. Back to the point which is our gullibility combined with our propensity for gossip, utter disregard for facts amplified by the infinite reach that social media gives us , has turned us into these stupid, unbending, obnoxious, know it alls with a nuclear button in their hands. We can call someone a slut, a whore, pervert, without so much as a thought to how it might affect the other person. I personally do not support Gurmehar’s views for instance. But it was utterly reprehensible how a young girl’s harmless video with friends was circulated shared as a reflection of her “low character” and whatever that means.

So can we at least try to be a little more responsible and humane on social media? Before you start accusing me of supporting curbs on freedom of expression, this is not what it is about. It is in fact about not being obnoxious and taking a moment to feel that whatever I am writing is about another human being and not some digital bot at the other end of the device.

I would also like to mention here that I am in no way taking sides in the case mentioned at the beginning of the article. I solemnly swear that I don’t know any of the party involved from Adam. Neither in anyway is my intent to trivialize the accusations made. It’s a serious charge made by several women and it needs to be thoroughly investigated by competent authority. But at the same time, let’s realize that real people are involved here. There are women who allegedly have been victimized by a man in a position of power and I can’t begin to imagine how enraging that must be. On the other side the good name of a young entrepreneur is allegedly being maligned. Can we for once wait for the truth to come out before we again don our “judge wala blonde wig” to give ruling on the moral low lives of the world?

Between wishful thinking and theological imperatives: The case of Suhana Syed

0

Following her recent performance in a reality show in a private TV Channel, Suhana Syed, a 22 yr old young woman from Karnataka has suddenly found herself shot into the focus of Media limelight. Syed sung a Bhajan (Hindu devotional song) addressed to the Hindu deity Lord Balaji in a contest in Z Kannada channel and under the unanimous verdict of the panel of judges was applauded as the symbol of ‘Hindu-Muslim unity’.

Understandably, a Muslim woman, with her hair covered in a Hijab, in mode Islamique, rendering a devotional song in praise of a Hindu deity was the very picture of the composite India which we all yearn to see. Yet, not everyone took an appreciative view of a matter. A Facebook Group, under the name of ‘Mangalore Muslims’ subjected Syed to vicious trolling and poured vitriolic diatribes upon her for her actions, which, allegedly, were blatant transgressions of Islamic religious principles.

Quite predictably, support for Syed started pouring in from all quarters and her critics were subjected to a barrage of condemnation. Veteran journalist Barkha Dutt cited the tradition of  Sehnai maestro Late Ustad Bismilla Khan performing before the Vishwanath temple at Benaras. Among other instances of the like, mentioned in this context, were Mohammed Rafi’s renditions of Bhajans addressed to  Hindu Gods Ram and Hari. So much so, under this deluge of collective ire, most of the controversial comments and criticisms posted online were deleted by the group.

So far we have a happy ending to an ideal fairy tale. A young braveheart stands up for a just and honourable cause, she incurs the wrath of a group of extremists and bigots who make her a target of their attacks, the entire nation rushes to the defense of the damsel-in-distress and the perceived villains are rebuked and forced to shut up. Until we have further developments in this regard it would be a futile exercise to add yet another epilogue to this well analysed story. However, a totally different perspective of the incident seems to have been surprisingly overlooked.

Radical Islamists, extremists, bigots, fundamentalists, deviant moral policemen, inter alia, were the standard adjectives employed by the Indian intelligentsia in their knee-jerk condemnation of the tormentors of Syed. As a matter of fact, this binary of ‘extremist vs liberal’ is a popular analytical tool of pundits all over the world while dealing with religious affairs in general and those concerning Islam in particular.

Secularists in South Asia, for that matter are quite fond of celebrating the unique syncretic tradition of South Asian Islam. The Mughal Prince Dara Shikoh who authored Majma-ul-Bahrein (Mingling of Two Seas) on comparative religion and had the Upanishads translated into Persian, Sant Kabir whose Dohas or couplets decried both Hindu and Islamic orthodoxy, the Punjabi Sufi mystic Baba Bulle Shah whose poems reverberated with Vedantic overtones, and many more are hailed as the torchbearers of Hindu-Muslim unity in the subcontinent.

No wonder, Suhana Syed, with the Hijab on her head and the Bhajan in her lips represented, nay, personified this unique composite and catholic character of South Asian Islam. As opposed to this brand of liberal Islam, there is yet another version of Islam in South Asia that is a little less accommodating in character. Once confronted with this exclusivist, puritanical version of the Islamic belief system, intellectuals, by and large, either maintain a golden silence or at the best belch platitudes.

Yet another tactic has, of late, become quite popular in the more articulate quarters of the Literati in this part of the world. Blame it on Wahabism! Thus anything from the Islamic world that comes into conflict with the Shibboleths of the liberal secular establishment is attributed to a the influence of the intolerant Wahabi ideology, a direct import from the Arab world, which, untempered by time and space, found its way in the subcontinent and is alien, and more importantly, dangerous for the communal harmony of  multi religious societies like the ones in India and in her immediate neighbourhood.

It is not the intention of this article to elaborate upon the Liberal-Extremist divide of South Asian Islam. Indeed, it is difficult to provide objective definitions of the terms ‘Liberal’ and ‘Extremist’ without having a thorough knowledge of Islamic philosophy and theology. Some would point at the sheer absurdity of the enterprise, given the fact that Islamic culture itself is not a monolith and is characterized by spatial and temporal heterogeneity.

However, all said and done, the fact remains the Islam is a well organised religion without any ambiguity pertaining to the basics of the belief system. Almost a millennium and half after the introduction of Islam in the Indian subcontinent it was not quite irrational to expect at least the educated sections to have some degree of familiarity with the basics of the religion of their Muslim neighbours. However, from the superficial and juvenile arguments articulated from the learned quarters it appears that far from drinking deep, the wise men of this part of the world did not even care to taste the Pierian Spring of Islam.

Whenever an individual has to embrace the Islamic faith he or she has to recite the ‘Shahada‘ or the declaration of the testimony. The act involves declaration of the fact that no one else but Allah is worthy of worship and acknowledgement of the peerless status of the Almighty. Ascribing any partner (‘Shareek‘ in Arabic) to Allah, in other words, worshiping any entity along with or other than Allah constitutes Shirk, the worst possible crime in Islamic worldview, a crime that deserves no mercy in this life or the next. Over this concept of uncompromising monotheism of Islam, called ‘Tauheed’ (Oneness of God) in original Arabic, there is and never was any shred of subjectivity across the length and breadth of the Muslim community all over the world.

This is exactly the reason why there was a countrywide protest from a large section of Indian Muslims over the issue of forcing Muslims to sing ‘Vande Mataram’, the national song of India. The song, after all, was an ode to the deified Mother India. This is exactly the reason why Muslims consider Jesus Christ a Prophet of Allah and not the coeternal Son of God as Trinitarian Christians do. This is exactly the reason why the new version of the original Ram Dhun, a hugely popular devotional song in praise of the deified Legendary Indian hero Ram (considered to the incarnation of the Hindu God Vishnu), endorsed and popularised by Mahatma Gandhi, for having equated Ram, a mortal, with Allah, is pure and unadulterated Shirk from the Islamic point of view.

Despite the best of her intentions, the fact remains that Suhana Syed sang a devotional song addressed to a Hindu deity. If the “Mangalore Muslims”, whoever they were, interpreted this action as Shirk, one wonders where and how they went wrong.

Establishment of communal harmony in the religiously diverse Indian subcontinent is a sacred and desirable goal. This article does not have the slightest intention of contaminating this noble enterprise with any kind of cynicism whatsoever. The sole objective here is to highlight the fact that in most of the inter-religious discourses, especially the ones involving Hindus and Muslims, we rarely put ourselves in each other’s shoes. With all our wishful thinking we construct a reality of our own imagination, seldom congruent with the reality that actually exists. Herein lies the root of all cognitive dissonance.

The Henotheistic Indic worldview and the Monotheistic Abrahamic worldviews are not necessarily mutually incompatible, but they are different nonetheless. As long as these differences remain unacknowledged and unanalysed, confusion and misunderstanding will dominate all Hindu-Muslim discourses and a practical solution will continue to remain a Chimera.