INDIA ABROAD JUNE 19, 2009
Hindu body settles case against California textbooks
GEORGE JOSEPH
The California textbook case has finally ended in a settlement between the state Board of Education and the California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials (CAPEEM), a Hindu organization that was set up to fight the case.
United States District Judge Frank C Damrell Jr in Sacramento, California approved the settlement to pay the Northridge-based CAPEEM $175,000. Some say it will not suffice to cover the legal fees and court charges incurred in the three years the case dragged on. (This is not true and a red herring, in the interview posted below, Arvinf Kumar clearly states that they recovered twice the costs that they incurred)
Also, crucially, though the board , will pay this amount, it will not make any curriculum concessions (this is a gross oversimplification , read the whole column). Earlier, a Sacramento Superior Court had in 2007 allowed the Washington, DC-based Hindu American Foundation $250,000 to settle its case with the board. (ED: the net of this is that the California tax payer has had to shell out 425,000 $ at a time when the state is 20,000,000,000 in deficit and is issuing IOUs to its vendors . And all because some knucklehead in the CBE decided to invite Prof Witzel to intervene in the case )
With the settlement with CAPEEM Judge Frank C Damrell entered the final judgment in the case against the State Board of Education and the state's curriculum czar. The suits by CAPEEM and HAF accused the board of portraying Hinduism wrongly in its textbooks and flouting constitutional guarantees,
CAPEEM alleged that the board discriminated against Hindus during the adoption process for sixth-grade history and social science textbooks, It also accused that the textbooks indoctrinate children with Abrahamic religions and teach biblical events as actual facts. while treating Hinduism in a derogatory manner. It said the board failed to provide equal opportunities and equal representation to every religion and culture.
Seattle attorney Venkat Balasubramani, who appeared for CAPEEEM, said it would not be true to say the Hindu group had merely won a Pyrrhic vctory,.
'The lawsuits demonstrated that when facing arbitrary, disparate and discriminatory treatment, the Hindu American community is not going to just turn the other cheek'
Suhag Shukla, executive director of the HAF, an attorney , told INDIA ABROAD
Symbolically I think both HAFs lawsuit and CAPEEM’s lawsuit were extremely valuable. To the state board the lawsuits demonstrated that when facing arbitrary, disparate and discriminatory treatment, the Hindu American community is not going to turn the other cheek. "And to the Hindu American community, they proved our intellectual capital in being able to understand the laws of this land and articulate bases for change; our courage and perseverance in taking the chance to stand up for our rights; of course, our financial strength; and most importantly, the power of a collective voice," he said.
Theresa Garcia, the new executive director of the Board of Education, told the Sacramento Bee that she doesn't see it as a no-win for CAPEEM. 'It was a good outcome for everybody” she said.
After the settlement with the HAF, the board took efforts to change much of the textbook as per the request of the Hindu organizations. “The board worked really hard to make the changes they had requested following the suit in state court. We only wanted to ensure that all religions are depicted accurately” she said.
CAPEEM and HAF filed the suits after their pleas before the Board of Education failed. the Board of Education failed. The Hindu groups appeared before the board to challenge many ideas depicted in the textbook, and proposed many changes. However some of the more liberal of the Hindu groups opposed some changes sought by the Hindutva oriented hard-line CAPEEM, leading to considerable confusion.
When the board selected the text, the HAF filed suit in the Superior Court in 2006. The suit said that the board did not take into consideration the concerns of California Hindu parents, and that the religion was portrayed mistakenly and unfairly in the social studies text.
State superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette rejected HAFs content claim, but ruled that the text book adoption process was improper and not done as per the applicable law
Following this judgment, the board published new regulations for the textbook-adoption process. As readers may recall the court ruled in favor of HAF in finding that the board had, throughout the textbook adoption process, acted arbitrarily and illegally, Shukla noted.
As a result, under court order the board had to revamp its entire textbook and instructional material adoption process last year with the addition of numerous safe¬guards for significantly greater transparency and public accountability. The court did not however grant our request for a recall of the textbooks; the court had before it advance copies of the textbooks with nearly 75 percent of the edits suggested by the Hindu community already incorporated, and accordingly the judge did not find the advance copies to be grossly inaccurate.
Though HAF then left the litigation scene, CAPEEM went to Federal court. However, the court only agreed with CAPEEM that the text book adoption violated the Constitution's equal-protection guarantee. The judge however denied other claims based on the establishment clause, which requires government neutrality towards religion, as well as its free speech and association clause. 'Believing that its points had been clearly understood by the defendants, CAPEEM opted not to prolong the litigation. The State entered into negotiations with CAPEEM and agreed to pay $175,000 in exchange for a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit.
'CAPEEM looks forward to participating in a review process free from biases, and to work with the State to approve textbooks that do not favor or disfavor any religious doctrines; a message on the body's website says.
In terms of the CAPEEM settlement. I do not believe I am in a position to comment on the merits of the case," Shukla said. "'CAPEEM's lawsuit was organizationally and legally different from that of HAFs; CAPEEM had federal constitutional claims in federal court while HAF had pro¬cedural claims in state court.
As an attorney. I found the due process claim brought forth by CAPEEM sound, given the arbitrary actions of the board vis-a-vis California Hindus, but I also know that litigation can be a mentally and financially draining process and the reality is that over 95 percent of cases set¬tle out of court."
GEORGE JOSEPH
The most important aspect of the case was that it challenged the Biblical indoctrination in history textbooks In California under the Establishment Clause and brought the issue to the attention of Americans for the first time," said Arvind Kumar, one of the four people who would start the California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials. The others are Mayank Shekhar, Rajesh Goswami and Murali Menon. We Intend to continue opposing biblical indoctrination In textbooks through lawsuits. Kumar also disputed the contention that CAPEEM had not through the settlement, got enough to even cover its court expenses and said in fact the settlement was for double the amount the body spent on the lawsuit.
The group had retained as one of its lawyers the redoubtable Mike Newdow who hit national prominence when he filed suit asking that the words 'under God be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, and suits to remove the motto 'In God we Trust' from the Federal currency. He had also filed a case to prevent the US Supreme Court from using the words 'So help you God, In the presidential oath Barak Obama had taken at his January 21 swearing in.
Joe Barnhart, one of CAPEEM’s expert witnesses who testified on the question of biblical indoctrination in the textbooks, was one of the victims of last year's shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist . Church in Knoxville. Barnhart a retired professor of philosophy and religious studies at the University of North Texas in Denton, Texas survived the attack. "The textbooks treat biblical myths as historical facts instead of treating them as religious beliefs, and even assign dates to biblical events. The chapters on Judaism and Christianity together read like Sunday School textbooks, B Kumar said. Citing examples, Kumar said the books claim that Paul had a vision of Jesus in 33 CE; Moses received the Ten Commandments from God in 1290 BCE; Constantine saw a flaming cross in the Sky, and that Jesus worked miracles when he grew to manhood. The books also assert that the Egyptians could not capture the Jews because the Lord made the wheels fall off their Chariots.
"We would like to see changes in the areas where the books indulge in religious indoctrination of children, and would like to see the books remove claims about Jesus’ miracles and his so called Resurrection as historical facts, and would like the book to teach the truth that the ‘Aryan Invasion Theory' is not only unscientific, but a byproduct of the biblical stories of Noah’s Ark and the Tower of Babel. The books must also teach that the field of philology is a pseudo-science that arose as an attempt to prove that every language originated in the Tower of Babel, a fact known to many scholars. Kumar says the case exposed the fact that the indoctrination in textbooks was no accident, and that the Church was involved in creating these textbooks. For example, CAPEEM uncovered an email exchange between Rae Belisle, the legal counsel of the Department of Education, and the pastor of a church, to determine the content of the disputed textbooks, in which the Legal counsel stated that the California standards require the textbooks to be consistent with New Testament. "Another email we uncovered when we issued a subpoena was a celebratory email by a Curriculum Commission member who informed a member of his church about his role in getting the textbooks to teach about the New testament version of the crucifixion of Jesus.¬
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Indic Intellectual Tradition.
I will be giving a talk on The Indic Intellectual tradition at the 17th biannual TANA convention at the Rosemont convention center in Chicago during July 2 to July 4. Sheldon Pollock of Columbia University had written a paper on the History of Indic Intellectual Ideas titled " "Is there an Indian Intellectual History?" Journal of Indian Philosophy (in press) (download) . The content of the paper was relatively unremarkable, but the title was intriguing. I was astonished that the civilization with the largest literary output in the ancient era should be confronted with such a question.
In this power point presentation i will try to address the contributions of the Indics in specific areas such as The Indic Weltanschuung (Darshanas), Astronomy, and History . Th choice of the areas is restricted to those in which i have some competence to speak. I do not imply that the Indic contribution was restricted to these fields .
There are many distortions in the current version of Indic History. Nehru was only right partially when he said that the History of India is , "an ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously." (Nehru, Discovery of India, 1946, 38-39). Where he was wrong was that for the most part the history of the Indic peoples has been a continuous evolution. For example, the Buddhists never attempted to erase what was there before them and the notion of exclusive allegience to a religious dogma is entirely an Abrahamic construct that was certainly not practiced in India before India was colonized. Due to exigencies of time I will be able to address only a few of the distortions in indic History.
If you, the reader, happen to attend the convention, I will be happy to meet with you. A downlevel version of the presentation is available at scribd.com.Itis also available at Lulu.com
The Indic Intellectual Tradition (ID #7334508): http://www.lulu.com/content/hardcover-book/the-indic-intellectual-tradition/7334508, both as a download and as a hard bound book
In this power point presentation i will try to address the contributions of the Indics in specific areas such as The Indic Weltanschuung (Darshanas), Astronomy, and History . Th choice of the areas is restricted to those in which i have some competence to speak. I do not imply that the Indic contribution was restricted to these fields .
There are many distortions in the current version of Indic History. Nehru was only right partially when he said that the History of India is , "an ancient palimpsest on which layer upon layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously." (Nehru, Discovery of India, 1946, 38-39). Where he was wrong was that for the most part the history of the Indic peoples has been a continuous evolution. For example, the Buddhists never attempted to erase what was there before them and the notion of exclusive allegience to a religious dogma is entirely an Abrahamic construct that was certainly not practiced in India before India was colonized. Due to exigencies of time I will be able to address only a few of the distortions in indic History.
If you, the reader, happen to attend the convention, I will be happy to meet with you. A downlevel version of the presentation is available at scribd.com.Itis also available at Lulu.com
The Indic Intellectual Tradition (ID #7334508): http://www.lulu.com/content/hardcover-book/the-indic-intellectual-tradition/7334508, both as a download and as a hard bound book
Monday, June 08, 2009
“Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism, stupid!”
ARAN BR
show details 1:12 AM (8 hours ago) Reply
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=623
Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism, stupid!
B R Haran
8 June 2009
Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, the Chief of the terrorist organization Jamaat-ud-Dawah, who was also the mastermind behind the 26/11 Mumbai attack and against whose involvement the Indian government had given Pakistan incontrovertible evidences and proofs, was set free by the Lahore High Court last Tuesday, after nearly six months of house arrest. The High Court felt that there was no concrete evidence to extend his detention and hence ordered for his immediate release.
In the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai attack, India had demanded the extradition of Hafiz and also former ISI chief, apart from asking Pakistan to crackdown on JuD (LeT). The US for its part gave an ultimatum of 48 hrs to Pakistan government to raid the JuD HQs and arrest the culprits. Even while yielding to the pressure, Pakistan played a silly game of telling the world that President Zardari received a threatening call from Pranab Mukherjee, which later turned out to be a hoax, and attempted to ready its Armed Forces.
As India quickly pointed out that Pakistan was trying to divert the world’s attention from its involvement in Mumbai attack, one of its nuclear scientists, Dr Samar Mubarakmand, audaciously threatened India through a selective media leak, saying Pakistan had the capacity to nuke all cities in India and that it could be done within ten minutes as their missile systems were kept ready for any eventuality.
The US and the European Union, in support of India, strongly criticized Pakistan for aiding, abetting and promoting terror. The US even talked of imposing sanctions on Pakistani officials like former ISI chief Hamid Gul and others, who have had links with LeT, Taliban and Al Qaida. It is reliably learnt that some former ISI and Army officers have been helping all three terror outfits in their operations in Afghanistan, Kashmir and elsewhere. But finally US’ tantrums turned out to be tokenism and mere “lip service.”
Though the UN declared a ban on Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the US and UK simply asked Pakistan to cooperate with India in its investigation in order to bring the culprits to book. Since then, Pakistan has been defiant to the core, putting its foot down and influencing the world community to accept its stand. In contrast, India has been literally begging for support, refusing to realise that whether it is US or UK or China, each would act only in its interests.
Despite being a victim of terror for years, India doesn’t seem to have learnt its lessons properly. Instead of teaching lessons to Pakistan, it attempted to convince US and other nations seeking their cooperation to pin down Pakistan. Ironically those very same nations have been helping Pakistan, to achieve their self interests! In January 2009, Home Minister Chidambaram went to US with a huge dossier on Pakistan, and the UPA government also held discussions with the Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister, who visited India then. The end result was a big ZERO; Pakistan won the so-called diplomatic war! Its friendly relations with China and UK continued; it got more aid from US.
At this juncture, it would be pertinent to remind ourselves the first warning issued by US President Obama to Pakistan immediately after taking charge: “the $ 11 million dollar aid given by Bush administration was not for military upgradation, but a ‘conditional’ one for fighting against terror and Pakistan’s performance against terror would be monitored.” It was reliably learnt then that the American establishment had short-listed 20 senior level officers of the ISI and the Pakistan Army, who have been aiding and abetting the terror outfits for years. Incidentally, though India’s list was bigger, all names were present in the US list figured in India’s list as well!
Meanwhile, though Pakistan accepted the validity of the first ‘dossier’ given by India and constituted a three member committee to probe the Mumbai terror attack with a commitment to try those involved, nothing constructive came out of it; US too lived neither up to its commitment nor to India’s expectations. In fact, after Pakistan’s offensive against the Taliban, US immediately disbursed $110 million in the name of welfare aid for the displaced people.
Even now, after the release of Hafiz Saeed, Washington pretended to be unhappy and President Obama’s special representative Richard Holbrooke stated that US was “disturbed” by the news! But, soon afterwards Holbrooke changed his stance and termed the release as “Pakistan’s internal matter”! Assistant Secretary of State Philip J Crowley also made it clear that US wanted to make sure Pakistan was acting aggressively against extremist elements (read Taliban) and added that US was involved in intensive dialogue with Pakistan on its military needs. Even as he was talking about US’ readiness to help Pakistan enhance its military capabilities, Obama’s administration is believed to have decided to grant another $200 million to Pakistan following the anti-Taliban operations.
Immediately after his release, Hafiz Saeed condemned Pakistan Army’s offensive against the Taliban and avowed that his terror activities against India would continue, particularly in Kashmir. As if this was not enough and knowing India would be outraged, Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani came out with a damning statement asking “Indian occupying forces” to stop repression and human rights abuses in Kashmir, and offering “political, moral and diplomatic” support to the people of Kashmir to exercise their right to self-determination.
Gilani had the audacity to ask India to create a conducive atmosphere for a final settlement to the Jammu & Kashmir dispute. India once again exposed its weakness, with External Affairs Minister S M Krishna saying: “Kashmir was part of the composite dialogue which we had initiated with Pakistan, and the responsibility of creating conducive climate rested with Pakistan.” It is unfortunate India didn’t have the guts to question Gilani on his outrageous statements, which have the intention of not only diverting India’s attention from the release of Hafiz, but also attempting to spite India.
As the Congress-led UPA government has a childish habit of looking up to the US for making each and every move vis-à-vis Pakistan, we can rest assured it would do the same now. History has shown that US always safeguarded its own interests by helping Pakistan while restraining India and forcing it to engage in dialogue with Islamabad. Even in the present circumstances, especially with regard to the 26/11 Mumbai attack, US has not been sincere in backing India, and Barack Obama has surpassed his predecessor George Bush. Bush at least refrained from interfering in India’s Kashmir policy, but Obama seems to be having a ‘special’ agenda, as evidenced by the wrong signals emanating from his side. Pressure is likely to be more on India to give more concessions to Pakistan and start the so-called peace talks early.
Meanwhile, credible inputs have come from intelligence agencies that the LeT and JeM are planning major strikes across India, including Kashmir and South Indian cities. It is reported that groups of Jihadis (25 terrorists in each group) have been ordered to infiltrate the borders and strike at the earliest. If Pakistan showed audacity in perpetrating terror against India, India exposed naivety in identifying the terrorists as ‘non-state’ actors, as if ‘state actors’ (Pakistan government) were not involved. India didn’t even have the brains to understand that non-state actors could not act without the knowledge and support of state actors!
Immediately after the release of Hafiz Saeed, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna doubted Pakistan’s “seriousness” in fighting terror, and Home Minister P Chidambaram questioned its “commitment” to investigate the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack. OK, but what about the ‘seriousness’ and ‘commitment’ of the UPA government? What is the response of the Prime Minister to the release of Hafiz and the statement of his Pakistani counterpart?
“Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism, stupid!”
show details 1:12 AM (8 hours ago) Reply
http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=623
Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism, stupid!
B R Haran
8 June 2009
Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, the Chief of the terrorist organization Jamaat-ud-Dawah, who was also the mastermind behind the 26/11 Mumbai attack and against whose involvement the Indian government had given Pakistan incontrovertible evidences and proofs, was set free by the Lahore High Court last Tuesday, after nearly six months of house arrest. The High Court felt that there was no concrete evidence to extend his detention and hence ordered for his immediate release.
In the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai attack, India had demanded the extradition of Hafiz and also former ISI chief, apart from asking Pakistan to crackdown on JuD (LeT). The US for its part gave an ultimatum of 48 hrs to Pakistan government to raid the JuD HQs and arrest the culprits. Even while yielding to the pressure, Pakistan played a silly game of telling the world that President Zardari received a threatening call from Pranab Mukherjee, which later turned out to be a hoax, and attempted to ready its Armed Forces.
As India quickly pointed out that Pakistan was trying to divert the world’s attention from its involvement in Mumbai attack, one of its nuclear scientists, Dr Samar Mubarakmand, audaciously threatened India through a selective media leak, saying Pakistan had the capacity to nuke all cities in India and that it could be done within ten minutes as their missile systems were kept ready for any eventuality.
The US and the European Union, in support of India, strongly criticized Pakistan for aiding, abetting and promoting terror. The US even talked of imposing sanctions on Pakistani officials like former ISI chief Hamid Gul and others, who have had links with LeT, Taliban and Al Qaida. It is reliably learnt that some former ISI and Army officers have been helping all three terror outfits in their operations in Afghanistan, Kashmir and elsewhere. But finally US’ tantrums turned out to be tokenism and mere “lip service.”
Though the UN declared a ban on Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the US and UK simply asked Pakistan to cooperate with India in its investigation in order to bring the culprits to book. Since then, Pakistan has been defiant to the core, putting its foot down and influencing the world community to accept its stand. In contrast, India has been literally begging for support, refusing to realise that whether it is US or UK or China, each would act only in its interests.
Despite being a victim of terror for years, India doesn’t seem to have learnt its lessons properly. Instead of teaching lessons to Pakistan, it attempted to convince US and other nations seeking their cooperation to pin down Pakistan. Ironically those very same nations have been helping Pakistan, to achieve their self interests! In January 2009, Home Minister Chidambaram went to US with a huge dossier on Pakistan, and the UPA government also held discussions with the Chinese Vice-Foreign Minister, who visited India then. The end result was a big ZERO; Pakistan won the so-called diplomatic war! Its friendly relations with China and UK continued; it got more aid from US.
At this juncture, it would be pertinent to remind ourselves the first warning issued by US President Obama to Pakistan immediately after taking charge: “the $ 11 million dollar aid given by Bush administration was not for military upgradation, but a ‘conditional’ one for fighting against terror and Pakistan’s performance against terror would be monitored.” It was reliably learnt then that the American establishment had short-listed 20 senior level officers of the ISI and the Pakistan Army, who have been aiding and abetting the terror outfits for years. Incidentally, though India’s list was bigger, all names were present in the US list figured in India’s list as well!
Meanwhile, though Pakistan accepted the validity of the first ‘dossier’ given by India and constituted a three member committee to probe the Mumbai terror attack with a commitment to try those involved, nothing constructive came out of it; US too lived neither up to its commitment nor to India’s expectations. In fact, after Pakistan’s offensive against the Taliban, US immediately disbursed $110 million in the name of welfare aid for the displaced people.
Even now, after the release of Hafiz Saeed, Washington pretended to be unhappy and President Obama’s special representative Richard Holbrooke stated that US was “disturbed” by the news! But, soon afterwards Holbrooke changed his stance and termed the release as “Pakistan’s internal matter”! Assistant Secretary of State Philip J Crowley also made it clear that US wanted to make sure Pakistan was acting aggressively against extremist elements (read Taliban) and added that US was involved in intensive dialogue with Pakistan on its military needs. Even as he was talking about US’ readiness to help Pakistan enhance its military capabilities, Obama’s administration is believed to have decided to grant another $200 million to Pakistan following the anti-Taliban operations.
Immediately after his release, Hafiz Saeed condemned Pakistan Army’s offensive against the Taliban and avowed that his terror activities against India would continue, particularly in Kashmir. As if this was not enough and knowing India would be outraged, Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani came out with a damning statement asking “Indian occupying forces” to stop repression and human rights abuses in Kashmir, and offering “political, moral and diplomatic” support to the people of Kashmir to exercise their right to self-determination.
Gilani had the audacity to ask India to create a conducive atmosphere for a final settlement to the Jammu & Kashmir dispute. India once again exposed its weakness, with External Affairs Minister S M Krishna saying: “Kashmir was part of the composite dialogue which we had initiated with Pakistan, and the responsibility of creating conducive climate rested with Pakistan.” It is unfortunate India didn’t have the guts to question Gilani on his outrageous statements, which have the intention of not only diverting India’s attention from the release of Hafiz, but also attempting to spite India.
As the Congress-led UPA government has a childish habit of looking up to the US for making each and every move vis-à-vis Pakistan, we can rest assured it would do the same now. History has shown that US always safeguarded its own interests by helping Pakistan while restraining India and forcing it to engage in dialogue with Islamabad. Even in the present circumstances, especially with regard to the 26/11 Mumbai attack, US has not been sincere in backing India, and Barack Obama has surpassed his predecessor George Bush. Bush at least refrained from interfering in India’s Kashmir policy, but Obama seems to be having a ‘special’ agenda, as evidenced by the wrong signals emanating from his side. Pressure is likely to be more on India to give more concessions to Pakistan and start the so-called peace talks early.
Meanwhile, credible inputs have come from intelligence agencies that the LeT and JeM are planning major strikes across India, including Kashmir and South Indian cities. It is reported that groups of Jihadis (25 terrorists in each group) have been ordered to infiltrate the borders and strike at the earliest. If Pakistan showed audacity in perpetrating terror against India, India exposed naivety in identifying the terrorists as ‘non-state’ actors, as if ‘state actors’ (Pakistan government) were not involved. India didn’t even have the brains to understand that non-state actors could not act without the knowledge and support of state actors!
Immediately after the release of Hafiz Saeed, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna doubted Pakistan’s “seriousness” in fighting terror, and Home Minister P Chidambaram questioned its “commitment” to investigate the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attack. OK, but what about the ‘seriousness’ and ‘commitment’ of the UPA government? What is the response of the Prime Minister to the release of Hafiz and the statement of his Pakistani counterpart?
“Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism, stupid!”
Saturday, May 30, 2009
A COLUMN ON TOLERANCE AND ITS ROLE IN A FUNDAMENTAL SYSTEM OF ETHICS
A COLUMN ON TOLERANCE AND ITS ROLE IN A FUNDAMENTAL SYSTEM OF ETHICS
This is more than a casual remark on Tolerance. We ask ourselves whether there is a minimum subset of ethics which are universal in nature and which transcend the limitations of geography and ethnic identification. Suppose we found ourselves amongst a civilization about which we knew nothing. Is there a universal set of ethics that could be used to establish rapport with an otherwise alien population? And finally is Tolerance a universal ethic or virtue? I will explain why this is an important ethic in the current era.
Most values which we like to think of as universal are transmitted to us thanks to our parents at a very early age. These values originate in very familiar familial admonitions e.g., be courteous to your guests , treat people with respect and dignity, be kind and helpful to seniors, heed the admonitions from elders in the family , do not indulge in gratuitous violence, do not be derisive of those of who are less fortunate than you are, tell the truth, etc. etc.. If one follows these simple rules, the question of intolerance does not arise., because if a person follows these universal principles , there is very little incentive or opportunity for him or her to be intolerant. Generally the teachings we imbibe in the home before we get into our teenage years are universal values and the exceptions that do occur in these behaviors are not of relevance to young children. It is our contention that tolerance is not a part of the set of ethics that are taught at a very early age as a universal ethic. There is good reason for this , because immediately questions arise . Should we tolerate evil and if so what constitutes evil.
We maintain that neither an individual nor society should tolerate evil in general and intolerance in particular.
And yet in our zeal to be liberal (being liberal makes us feel good without sacrificing whole lot)) and our natural tendency to think well of people from other ethnic or religious backgrounds , we choose to overlook the blatant intolerance that sometimes pervades the world. We tend to argue that because we observe a universal set of ethics that others do so also. Herein, lays the problem. Not every individual or society will profess to have the same set of values as we may have . In particular, not every society will have the same reverence for life as we may have. It is certainly the case that when it comes to tolerance towards other faiths there are significant differences between religions and societies. Whenever the Occidental stepped out into a new world his first endeavor was to convert the people in the new world to his own faith . And once they were converted to the new faith , they could exercise considerable control over the mind and body of the newly converted person. The main reason for such conversion was that they had very little tolerance for the native faiths.
Similarly there are significant differences in the reverence for life that are observed by different societies and faiths . So the question arises , should we tolerate faiths that are inherently intolerant. I mean by inherently intolerant if the faith calls for extermination of those who do not belong to the faith. But one might argue that most members of a faith do not take such injunctions (to kill the infidel) seriously. That may very well be true but even if the percentage who believed in the injunctions of their holy book are only 1% that could still be a very large number, enough to do harm to you or your family should the occasion arise.
So what to so ? I say , that it is legitimate to ask that such injunctions (to Kill) in a holy book are not acceptable in the modern age and should not be tolerated in any civilized society .
There is one more problem with tolerance . And that is , it is not particularly proper to talk about tolerating other faiths or civilizations , because that raises the question of putting oeself on a pedestal and judging who or what we should tolerate and the question here is what right do we have to arrogate unto ourselves the right to tolerate others with all the attendant condescension . If one embraces diversity , then one should say so and act accordingly rather than grudgingly tolerate diversity.
To summarize
1 Tolerance can never be a universal ethic
2. It must always be qualified (what are we asked to tolerate)
3. Even when it is qualified , should we put ourselves on a moral pedestal and tolerate others or should we be genuinely understanding of other faiths andvalues
4. In any event, no society or individual should be placed in the position of having to tolerate evil or intolerant behavior .
This is more than a casual remark on Tolerance. We ask ourselves whether there is a minimum subset of ethics which are universal in nature and which transcend the limitations of geography and ethnic identification. Suppose we found ourselves amongst a civilization about which we knew nothing. Is there a universal set of ethics that could be used to establish rapport with an otherwise alien population? And finally is Tolerance a universal ethic or virtue? I will explain why this is an important ethic in the current era.
Most values which we like to think of as universal are transmitted to us thanks to our parents at a very early age. These values originate in very familiar familial admonitions e.g., be courteous to your guests , treat people with respect and dignity, be kind and helpful to seniors, heed the admonitions from elders in the family , do not indulge in gratuitous violence, do not be derisive of those of who are less fortunate than you are, tell the truth, etc. etc.. If one follows these simple rules, the question of intolerance does not arise., because if a person follows these universal principles , there is very little incentive or opportunity for him or her to be intolerant. Generally the teachings we imbibe in the home before we get into our teenage years are universal values and the exceptions that do occur in these behaviors are not of relevance to young children. It is our contention that tolerance is not a part of the set of ethics that are taught at a very early age as a universal ethic. There is good reason for this , because immediately questions arise . Should we tolerate evil and if so what constitutes evil.
We maintain that neither an individual nor society should tolerate evil in general and intolerance in particular.
And yet in our zeal to be liberal (being liberal makes us feel good without sacrificing whole lot)) and our natural tendency to think well of people from other ethnic or religious backgrounds , we choose to overlook the blatant intolerance that sometimes pervades the world. We tend to argue that because we observe a universal set of ethics that others do so also. Herein, lays the problem. Not every individual or society will profess to have the same set of values as we may have . In particular, not every society will have the same reverence for life as we may have. It is certainly the case that when it comes to tolerance towards other faiths there are significant differences between religions and societies. Whenever the Occidental stepped out into a new world his first endeavor was to convert the people in the new world to his own faith . And once they were converted to the new faith , they could exercise considerable control over the mind and body of the newly converted person. The main reason for such conversion was that they had very little tolerance for the native faiths.
Similarly there are significant differences in the reverence for life that are observed by different societies and faiths . So the question arises , should we tolerate faiths that are inherently intolerant. I mean by inherently intolerant if the faith calls for extermination of those who do not belong to the faith. But one might argue that most members of a faith do not take such injunctions (to kill the infidel) seriously. That may very well be true but even if the percentage who believed in the injunctions of their holy book are only 1% that could still be a very large number, enough to do harm to you or your family should the occasion arise.
So what to so ? I say , that it is legitimate to ask that such injunctions (to Kill) in a holy book are not acceptable in the modern age and should not be tolerated in any civilized society .
There is one more problem with tolerance . And that is , it is not particularly proper to talk about tolerating other faiths or civilizations , because that raises the question of putting oeself on a pedestal and judging who or what we should tolerate and the question here is what right do we have to arrogate unto ourselves the right to tolerate others with all the attendant condescension . If one embraces diversity , then one should say so and act accordingly rather than grudgingly tolerate diversity.
To summarize
1 Tolerance can never be a universal ethic
2. It must always be qualified (what are we asked to tolerate)
3. Even when it is qualified , should we put ourselves on a moral pedestal and tolerate others or should we be genuinely understanding of other faiths andvalues
4. In any event, no society or individual should be placed in the position of having to tolerate evil or intolerant behavior .
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Kargil day remembrance
A SALUTE TO
OF KARGIL WAR
KARGIL'S FIRST HERO
Lt. Saurabh Kalia
His UNIFORM as a MEMORY
Capt.Vikram Batra
Param Vir Chakra(Posthumous)
Grenedier. Yogendra Singh
Param Vir Chakra
RFN .Sanjay Kumar
(Param Vir Chakra)
Major Padmapani Acharya,
Maha Vir Chakra (Posthumous)
Of the 2nd Battalion of The RAJPUTANA RIFLES
Lieutenant Balwan Singh,
Maha Vir Chakra
Of the 18th Battalion of GRENADIERS Regiment
Major M Saravanan,
VirChakra,
1 Bihar
Lieutenant Kanad Bhattacharya,
Sena Medal (Posthumous)(22 YEARS)
Captain Saju Cherian,
Sena Medal
307 Medium Regiment
Lieutenant Keishing Clifford Nangrum,
Maha Vir Chakra (Posthumous)
Of the 12th Battalion of JAMMU AND KASHMIR Light Infantry
Captain R Jerry Prem Raj,
Vir Chakra (Posthumous),
158 Medium Regiment
Major Sonam Wangchuk,
Maha Vir Chakra
Of the LADAKH Scouts
v
Officers & Jawans from the 2nd Rajputana Rifles pray before going into battle, to get back Tololing Top. Behind the jawan in the foreground (with a 5.56mm INSAS rifle) is Captain Vijayant Thapar
Major Padmapani Acharya, 2nd Rajputana Rifles, leads his men into battle after the successful capture of Tololing Top. The 2 Raj. Rifles' next assignment was to capture the Knoll mountain feature in the Black Rock area, which is in the Drass sub-sector. It was here, that Major Acharya laid down his life in the highest traditions of the Indian Army on 29 June 1999. He was awarded the Maha Vir Chakra, posthumously .
Making the way through narrow valley
The Leh-Batalik road is as notorious as the Srinagar-Kargil road. At its beginning lie staging areas, at its end fierce fighting and often, death. Jawans patrol the rugged slopes near Batalik.. For them, there is little time for rest and little time to think, always poised on the edge of action.
Capt.Vijayant Thapar (Robin)
He Laid down for OUR BETTER TOMORROW
At the age of only 22
His Last Letter to his parents
Moments before the final assault Capt. Vijyant Thapar (Robin) left this letter at the war front base, to be handed over to his family.
AND AFTER THAT
HE CAME BACK HOME WITH TRI COLOR DRAPED
Jawans from the 2nd Rajputana Rifles, remember their 23 comrades who fell in the decisive battle for the Tololing Top. The battalion earned four Maha Vir Chakras, one of India 's highest medals for gallantry, three of them being awarded posthumously.
Captain (Dr.) Rajshree Gupta, Army Medical Corps (AMC), salutes the tricolour-draped coffin of her husband, Major Vivek Gupta of the 2nd Rajputana Rifles, who died fighting the enemies.
JAIHIND!!!!
KINDLY SPARE A MAIL TO FORWARD THIS TO YOUR FRIENDS ALONG WITH OTHER IMPORTANT MAILS U SEND THRU…
Be patriot
Send it to all Indians
THANKS®ARDS,
VIJAYARAJ. M
Sales Manager-Lifeline CISPL
TRIVANDRUM
Contact-9446970201
------ End of Forwarded Message
Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India Travel Click here!
Get an email ID as yourname@ymail.com or yourname@rocketmail.com. Click here.
--
SHER SINGH AGRAWAL
Please see my blog at
http://agrasen.blogspot.com/
OF KARGIL WAR
KARGIL'S FIRST HERO
Lt. Saurabh Kalia
His UNIFORM as a MEMORY
Capt.Vikram Batra
Param Vir Chakra(Posthumous)
Grenedier. Yogendra Singh
Param Vir Chakra
RFN .Sanjay Kumar
(Param Vir Chakra)
Major Padmapani Acharya,
Maha Vir Chakra (Posthumous)
Of the 2nd Battalion of The RAJPUTANA RIFLES
Lieutenant Balwan Singh,
Maha Vir Chakra
Of the 18th Battalion of GRENADIERS Regiment
Major M Saravanan,
VirChakra,
1 Bihar
Lieutenant Kanad Bhattacharya,
Sena Medal (Posthumous)(22 YEARS)
Captain Saju Cherian,
Sena Medal
307 Medium Regiment
Lieutenant Keishing Clifford Nangrum,
Maha Vir Chakra (Posthumous)
Of the 12th Battalion of JAMMU AND KASHMIR Light Infantry
Captain R Jerry Prem Raj,
Vir Chakra (Posthumous),
158 Medium Regiment
Major Sonam Wangchuk,
Maha Vir Chakra
Of the LADAKH Scouts
v
Officers & Jawans from the 2nd Rajputana Rifles pray before going into battle, to get back Tololing Top. Behind the jawan in the foreground (with a 5.56mm INSAS rifle) is Captain Vijayant Thapar
Major Padmapani Acharya, 2nd Rajputana Rifles, leads his men into battle after the successful capture of Tololing Top. The 2 Raj. Rifles' next assignment was to capture the Knoll mountain feature in the Black Rock area, which is in the Drass sub-sector. It was here, that Major Acharya laid down his life in the highest traditions of the Indian Army on 29 June 1999. He was awarded the Maha Vir Chakra, posthumously .
Making the way through narrow valley
The Leh-Batalik road is as notorious as the Srinagar-Kargil road. At its beginning lie staging areas, at its end fierce fighting and often, death. Jawans patrol the rugged slopes near Batalik.. For them, there is little time for rest and little time to think, always poised on the edge of action.
Capt.Vijayant Thapar (Robin)
He Laid down for OUR BETTER TOMORROW
At the age of only 22
His Last Letter to his parents
Moments before the final assault Capt. Vijyant Thapar (Robin) left this letter at the war front base, to be handed over to his family.
AND AFTER THAT
HE CAME BACK HOME WITH TRI COLOR DRAPED
Jawans from the 2nd Rajputana Rifles, remember their 23 comrades who fell in the decisive battle for the Tololing Top. The battalion earned four Maha Vir Chakras, one of India 's highest medals for gallantry, three of them being awarded posthumously.
Captain (Dr.) Rajshree Gupta, Army Medical Corps (AMC), salutes the tricolour-draped coffin of her husband, Major Vivek Gupta of the 2nd Rajputana Rifles, who died fighting the enemies.
JAIHIND!!!!
KINDLY SPARE A MAIL TO FORWARD THIS TO YOUR FRIENDS ALONG WITH OTHER IMPORTANT MAILS U SEND THRU…
Be patriot
Send it to all Indians
THANKS®ARDS,
VIJAYARAJ. M
Sales Manager-Lifeline CISPL
TRIVANDRUM
Contact-9446970201
------ End of Forwarded Message
Explore and discover exciting holidays and getaways with Yahoo! India Travel Click here!
Get an email ID as yourname@ymail.com or yourname@rocketmail.com. Click here.
--
SHER SINGH AGRAWAL
Please see my blog at
http://agrasen.blogspot.com/
Monday, May 25, 2009
Rise of BJP fall of Hindu right
http://rhopi.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/rise-of-bjp-fall-of-hindu-right/
I have been following BJP at least since 1986 when RJB was unlocked by an court order. Those days were really hostile for
someone to advocate Hindu cause. Not only you were outnumbered by secularists but also there was no one willing to listen
to a Hindu argument. To a lot of people the decline of BJP has come as a shock and is cause of heartburn. Those who have
seen the BJP from very close knew it all along that it was bound to fail. It was predicted by scholars as early as in 1996
when the first Vajpayee govt was installed. No other party has angered its core constituents as much as BJP. Sitaram Goel is
known to have commented that one can save Hindus from secularist but how will one save hindus from BJP. I guess the voter who
are closer to action realized it and voted out BJP. GOOD RIDDANCE !!
To borrow from Joseph Schumpter, I will equate demise of BJP as creative destruction. But, this destruction is like death of
someone terminally ill. Who needs a lot of attention just to remain alive. The death finally frees both the person and people
attending from the pain of looking after someone who has been perennially sick. I feel very relieved with the results because
it was something even I have been expecting and I believe is good for Hindus. The relief is same as that you feel after a bad
news, which you have been anticipating for a long time, finally comes true. No doubt it makes you sad. But, it also relieves
you of the pain of thinking of that unknown with no end at sight. Akin to to the pain that a convict condemned to death
sentence has to go through each day waiting for that final moment. The uncertainty surrounding Hindu movement and its
relation with BJP has been cleared up. A large number of BJP supporters begin to realize as early as in mid 90's that there
is a huge gap between what BJP claims and what it can do.
It has been clearly established the BJP is not the platform of choice to further cause of Hindu interest. BJP lacked of
clarity of purpose and played by rule set by its opponent. Its duplicity on Hindu matters neither impressed its
constituents nor amused its opponent. You might recall that rules of game are as important part of strategy as the game itself.
unfortunately. BJP's half hearted attempt towards Hindu right only made the matter worse for itself.
Time and again BJP raises an issue only to dump it half way.
1. BJP NEVER CHALLENGED SECULARISM. Contrary to what many Hindus believed, BJP never challenged secularism.
BJP has always claimed to be secularist. By calming to promote Hindu interest within secularist framework of constitution of
India, BJP created a dilemma for itself. BJP was never able to overcome this dichotomy in its creed. It ended up keeping
no-one happy. The core supporters saw BJP not doing anything to promote Hindu interest. However, to non-hindus and
non-supporters, BJP looked like a communal party, and main stream media correctly projected BJP as such. BJP choose to
highlight more symbolic and visual to prove its commitment to Hindutvaa than by taking anything substantial or silent.
One good example is article 25 of Constitution of India which gives freedom to minorities to establish schools of their
choice and take admissions without having to allocate any seat for reserved categories like SC/ST/OBC etc. BJP did nothing for
it although secularists would not have objected to such amendment to extend
same benefits to Hindus. Instead BJP
remained in news for wrong reasons like 2002 riots in Gujrat, 2008 riots in Orissa, or beating of pub going women in
Mangalore by Ram Sene cadre.
If only BJP had tried to amended the constitution by extending same rights to hindus and allowing them to run educational
institutions without interference from state, it would have helped hindu cause in long run without creating any opposition.
Never in its 6 year rule at center, BJP even tried to bring up a bill in parliament to do something substantial but non-violent
in nature. Somethings BJP could have done is like bringing bills to implement UCC, scrap article 370 etc. These were quite
matters with little symbolism but more value.
The life of average Hindu did not undergo any noticeable change under BJP regime. BJP ended up being a congress without
Gandhi.
2 BJP lacked courage of conviction From the day Babri Mosque was demolished, the BJP leaders claimed demolition of mosque
was shame. If BJP leaders sincerely believed it was shame, then what was need of doing kar sewa and pulling down the disputed
structure. And if they were convinced pulling down mosque was right thing to do, they should have challenged the opponents
blaming them of crime. Instead, BJP leaders were always apologetic about it and felt feeble (as opposed to defiant) to defend
the charge of pulling down the mosque.
The problem is that BJP did everything that it criticized everyone else of doing. It criticized Mufti Mohammad Sayed of
releasing terrorist to seek release of her daughter in 1989. Then itself bowed to terrorists and released dreaded terrorists
in Kandahar. It opposed Hajj Quotas, but then when it was in power, it increased the same. Photo of BDR soldiers carrying a
dead Indian soldier was flashed to the whole world. BJP govt did nothing to restore some hurt pride and went on to protect
Shaikh Hasina, then PM of Bangladesh. The list is just too long. Convicts of Purulia arm drops were released. Indian forces
were deployed on border for months without any real action.
3. BJP's Half hearted efforts I guess what caused the credibility crises among the constituents of BJP is the half-heartedness
in BJP's action. A strong and committed action requires that once a goal is taken up, it is followed through its logical end,
come what may. However, BJP time and again gave up on slightest resistance by its opponents. Not only did it back down, but
it went so far as to be apologetic about it. This can be seen in all the targets it set for itself. RJB, UCC, 370 etc.
BJP proved it incapable of fighting for an issue. The most it did was to raise awareness. For it people rewarded handsomely
by increasing BJPs seat in parliament from just two in 1980 to 180 in 1998. After that BJP has been in downfall. Once it came
closer to power, it starting choosing path of least resistance. This caused serious division within BJP and its down fall
started.
4 BJP killed itself to show it is moderate I recall KL Sharma, a very senior BJP leader telling in 1995 that it was nice
that Shiv Sena was there because BJP appears moderate as compared to them. In order to prove its was moderate and secular
credential, it went overboard and distanced itself from the leaders who once formed backbone Hindutvaa movement.
The early BJP supporters had begin to realize the BJPs weakness by 1996/1997. But, BJP had so much momentum then that leaders
were unwilling to listen to anyone. The critics were also shouted down. How could the prove that BJP was wrong unless
something wrong does happen to BJP. Finally, the wrong did happen in 2004 followed by 2009. The critics were proven correct.
But, in the process precious decade or so has been lost in Hindu empowerment project.
Year 2000 was about time when BJP stopped growing. It is the time when the mismatch between number of new people going for BJP
and number of people leaving BJP started to grow. When 2004 elections happened, not everyone who had voted BJP earlier voted
again. By, 2009 the number further went down. After reaching its peak in 2000, BJP did not grow enough both in depth and width.
A lot of people who held leaders like Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti started deserting BJP. If BJP cannot take care of its heroes
who spend the decade of 80's building the party, how could it the constituents take care of BJP.
The irony is that BJP used identity politics to grow but it is today struggling in search of its own identity? To die hard
Hindus it is no different than a Congress but without Gandhis. For its critics, it is a communal party with divisive agenda.
After 2009 elections, there is a huge debate among hindus as to what should it do. Should it return to its Hindu root with
spirit of sacrifice? Or, should it another umbrella organization like Congress?
It is hard to answer this question. BJP has crushed the extreme Hindu right just to look nice to secularist. Today it is
paying for its sin. The BJP's biggest challenge will be to convince the die-hard Hindus that it indeed is a party that is
capable and committed to deliver on the promises it made to Hindus in 1980's. Just as difficult it will it be to convince
the secularists that it is not a communal party.
______________________________________________________
I have been following BJP at least since 1986 when RJB was unlocked by an court order. Those days were really hostile for
someone to advocate Hindu cause. Not only you were outnumbered by secularists but also there was no one willing to listen
to a Hindu argument. To a lot of people the decline of BJP has come as a shock and is cause of heartburn. Those who have
seen the BJP from very close knew it all along that it was bound to fail. It was predicted by scholars as early as in 1996
when the first Vajpayee govt was installed. No other party has angered its core constituents as much as BJP. Sitaram Goel is
known to have commented that one can save Hindus from secularist but how will one save hindus from BJP. I guess the voter who
are closer to action realized it and voted out BJP. GOOD RIDDANCE !!
To borrow from Joseph Schumpter, I will equate demise of BJP as creative destruction. But, this destruction is like death of
someone terminally ill. Who needs a lot of attention just to remain alive. The death finally frees both the person and people
attending from the pain of looking after someone who has been perennially sick. I feel very relieved with the results because
it was something even I have been expecting and I believe is good for Hindus. The relief is same as that you feel after a bad
news, which you have been anticipating for a long time, finally comes true. No doubt it makes you sad. But, it also relieves
you of the pain of thinking of that unknown with no end at sight. Akin to to the pain that a convict condemned to death
sentence has to go through each day waiting for that final moment. The uncertainty surrounding Hindu movement and its
relation with BJP has been cleared up. A large number of BJP supporters begin to realize as early as in mid 90's that there
is a huge gap between what BJP claims and what it can do.
It has been clearly established the BJP is not the platform of choice to further cause of Hindu interest. BJP lacked of
clarity of purpose and played by rule set by its opponent. Its duplicity on Hindu matters neither impressed its
constituents nor amused its opponent. You might recall that rules of game are as important part of strategy as the game itself.
unfortunately. BJP's half hearted attempt towards Hindu right only made the matter worse for itself.
Time and again BJP raises an issue only to dump it half way.
1. BJP NEVER CHALLENGED SECULARISM. Contrary to what many Hindus believed, BJP never challenged secularism.
BJP has always claimed to be secularist. By calming to promote Hindu interest within secularist framework of constitution of
India, BJP created a dilemma for itself. BJP was never able to overcome this dichotomy in its creed. It ended up keeping
no-one happy. The core supporters saw BJP not doing anything to promote Hindu interest. However, to non-hindus and
non-supporters, BJP looked like a communal party, and main stream media correctly projected BJP as such. BJP choose to
highlight more symbolic and visual to prove its commitment to Hindutvaa than by taking anything substantial or silent.
One good example is article 25 of Constitution of India which gives freedom to minorities to establish schools of their
choice and take admissions without having to allocate any seat for reserved categories like SC/ST/OBC etc. BJP did nothing for
it although secularists would not have objected to such amendment to extend
same benefits to Hindus. Instead BJP
remained in news for wrong reasons like 2002 riots in Gujrat, 2008 riots in Orissa, or beating of pub going women in
Mangalore by Ram Sene cadre.
If only BJP had tried to amended the constitution by extending same rights to hindus and allowing them to run educational
institutions without interference from state, it would have helped hindu cause in long run without creating any opposition.
Never in its 6 year rule at center, BJP even tried to bring up a bill in parliament to do something substantial but non-violent
in nature. Somethings BJP could have done is like bringing bills to implement UCC, scrap article 370 etc. These were quite
matters with little symbolism but more value.
The life of average Hindu did not undergo any noticeable change under BJP regime. BJP ended up being a congress without
Gandhi.
2 BJP lacked courage of conviction From the day Babri Mosque was demolished, the BJP leaders claimed demolition of mosque
was shame. If BJP leaders sincerely believed it was shame, then what was need of doing kar sewa and pulling down the disputed
structure. And if they were convinced pulling down mosque was right thing to do, they should have challenged the opponents
blaming them of crime. Instead, BJP leaders were always apologetic about it and felt feeble (as opposed to defiant) to defend
the charge of pulling down the mosque.
The problem is that BJP did everything that it criticized everyone else of doing. It criticized Mufti Mohammad Sayed of
releasing terrorist to seek release of her daughter in 1989. Then itself bowed to terrorists and released dreaded terrorists
in Kandahar. It opposed Hajj Quotas, but then when it was in power, it increased the same. Photo of BDR soldiers carrying a
dead Indian soldier was flashed to the whole world. BJP govt did nothing to restore some hurt pride and went on to protect
Shaikh Hasina, then PM of Bangladesh. The list is just too long. Convicts of Purulia arm drops were released. Indian forces
were deployed on border for months without any real action.
3. BJP's Half hearted efforts I guess what caused the credibility crises among the constituents of BJP is the half-heartedness
in BJP's action. A strong and committed action requires that once a goal is taken up, it is followed through its logical end,
come what may. However, BJP time and again gave up on slightest resistance by its opponents. Not only did it back down, but
it went so far as to be apologetic about it. This can be seen in all the targets it set for itself. RJB, UCC, 370 etc.
BJP proved it incapable of fighting for an issue. The most it did was to raise awareness. For it people rewarded handsomely
by increasing BJPs seat in parliament from just two in 1980 to 180 in 1998. After that BJP has been in downfall. Once it came
closer to power, it starting choosing path of least resistance. This caused serious division within BJP and its down fall
started.
4 BJP killed itself to show it is moderate I recall KL Sharma, a very senior BJP leader telling in 1995 that it was nice
that Shiv Sena was there because BJP appears moderate as compared to them. In order to prove its was moderate and secular
credential, it went overboard and distanced itself from the leaders who once formed backbone Hindutvaa movement.
The early BJP supporters had begin to realize the BJPs weakness by 1996/1997. But, BJP had so much momentum then that leaders
were unwilling to listen to anyone. The critics were also shouted down. How could the prove that BJP was wrong unless
something wrong does happen to BJP. Finally, the wrong did happen in 2004 followed by 2009. The critics were proven correct.
But, in the process precious decade or so has been lost in Hindu empowerment project.
Year 2000 was about time when BJP stopped growing. It is the time when the mismatch between number of new people going for BJP
and number of people leaving BJP started to grow. When 2004 elections happened, not everyone who had voted BJP earlier voted
again. By, 2009 the number further went down. After reaching its peak in 2000, BJP did not grow enough both in depth and width.
A lot of people who held leaders like Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti started deserting BJP. If BJP cannot take care of its heroes
who spend the decade of 80's building the party, how could it the constituents take care of BJP.
The irony is that BJP used identity politics to grow but it is today struggling in search of its own identity? To die hard
Hindus it is no different than a Congress but without Gandhis. For its critics, it is a communal party with divisive agenda.
After 2009 elections, there is a huge debate among hindus as to what should it do. Should it return to its Hindu root with
spirit of sacrifice? Or, should it another umbrella organization like Congress?
It is hard to answer this question. BJP has crushed the extreme Hindu right just to look nice to secularist. Today it is
paying for its sin. The BJP's biggest challenge will be to convince the die-hard Hindus that it indeed is a party that is
capable and committed to deliver on the promises it made to Hindus in 1980's. Just as difficult it will it be to convince
the secularists that it is not a communal party.
______________________________________________________
Sunday, May 24, 2009
BJP’S FAILURE: An Unbiased Observation
BJP’S FAILURE: An Unbiased Observation
Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
rbrahmachari1946@yahoo.co.in
While BJP was in Power:
Before analyzing the defeat of BJP in the present Lok Sabha election, it is necessary to have a look how the Party came to power in 1999 with 183 MPs. One may recall that in the Lok Sabha elections held in 1998 the BJP led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) obtained a simple majority. This time, the BJP had allied with the AIADMK and the Biju Janata Dal besides its existing allies, the Samata Party, the Shiromani Akali Dal and Shiv Sena. Outside support was provided by the Telugu Desam Party.
The NDA had a slim majority, and Vajpayee returned as Prime Minister. But the coalition ruptured in May 1999 when the leader of AIADMK, Jayalalitha, withdrew her support, and fresh elections were again called in October, 1999. Within this brief period, BJP did two remarkable jobs that made it popular across the country. Firstly, it conducted the testing of the nuclear device at Pokhran and secondly, it fought the Kargil war with Pakistan in May-July, 1999.
These two achievements were hailed by the entire population who discovered a courageous fighter in BJP, capable of protecting the sovereignty and freedom of the nation and thrashing the rogue enemy state Pakistan . The people of this country gave BJP a hero’s welcome and, as a consequence, in the Lok Sabha election held on October 13,1999, the BJP-led NDA won 303 seats. The BJP won an all-time high of 183 seats. Vajpayee became Prime Minister for the third time in his life, and Advani became the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister.
But the said image of BJP was considerably shattered when the NDA government shamefully submitted to the unjust demands of the Pakistani terrorists after the hijacking of the Indian Airlines plane, Flight no. 814 on December 24, 1999, and released three dreaded terrorists, most undemocratic way, from the Kashmir jail and one cabinet minister went to Kandahar, by a special plane, with those three terrorists and rupees 900 crores and a planeload of high explosive (to be used against India),.as ransom But after the hijacking drama, it would have been proper for the NDA government to order our army to cross the border of Afghanistan and our air force to bomb Kabul and Kandahar. And thus force the terrorists to release 174 passangers and 15 crew members of the hijacked plane. In this context, one may recall how the Russian government dealt with the Chechen terrorists who seized a school in Beslan in 2004.
On December 13, 2001, five terrorists attacked the Parliament House (Sansad Bhawan) in Delhi . It was due to the prompt and brave action of our security forces, six of whom sacrificed their lives, the lives of a few hundred of our MPs were saved.
After this incident many of our commentators described it as a rape of our Parliament, or rather a rape of our democracy. Our military top brass advised the government to take immediate military action against Pakistan and hence to teach a good lesson to that rogue state. Some of our top army personnel commented that we had enough of talks, and time had arrived to act. So an army mobilization was ordered and our troops, with their modern sophisticated weapons were dispatched to the Indo-Pak border and were waiting for final signal from our leaders to cross the border.Our troops were waiting for months after months, but the NDA government failed to gather sufficient courage to give that final signal.
Ultimately troops were withdrawn wasting nearly three thousand crores of rupees, as the cost of mobilization and wear and tear of the sophisticated weapons. It is important to note that, had the NDA government conducted the military operation against Pakistan and taught that rogue state a good lesson, the people of this country would have given a hero’s welcome to BJP for the second time and they would have voted BJP to victory in the 2004 Lok Sabha election.
On April 21, 2001, Bangladesh Rifles abducted 15 Border Security Force (BSF) personnel into Bangladesh . They subsequently butchered all the 15 BSF men and carried their mutilated bodies like carcass of animals to return the dead bodies in an extremely humiliating manner. As a cover up of that criminal act by the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), the government of Bangladesh said that our BSF men illegally crossed the Bangladeshi border and hence BDR captured and killed them. It is to be noted here that, even if it is admitted that the BSF men had entered Bangladesh illegally, it was proper for BDR arrest them and produce them in the court of law. In any case, they could not have killed them.
The most justified reply of the NDA government to this heinous crime was to give order to our army to cross the border of Bangladesh and march towards Dhaka . But our leaders, for the lack sufficient courage or for the sake of its newly adopted policy of Muslim appeasement, failed to take military action against even a small and weak nation like Bangladesh . On the contrary, they supported the claim of the government of Bangladesh that our forces had done a wrong and by entering Bangladesh without any provocation. Our PM sent his personal secretary Brojesh Misra to Dhaka to beg pardon on behalf of the Indian Government for the so called offence committed by our BSF personnel.
It is needless to say that all the above mentioned cowardice acts have completely shattered the image BJP had built up by fighting the Kargil War and testing nuclear device at Pokhran. And there is no doubt that this loss of image had played a major role in its defeat in 2004 Lok Sabha election.
The Hindu Nationalist Party Turned Secular:
We should now have a look on the other activities of the NDA government during its tenure that lasted for 6 years. As a matter of fact, the BJP is a direct successor of The Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), founded in 1951 by Dr Syama Prasad Mookherjee and it was considered the political wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). After the murder of Dr Mookherjee in custody in 1953, the BJS lasted for 24 more years, but never seriously challenged the power of Indian National Congress It is well known that in 1980, a group of top leaders of BJS, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani, formed the new party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the RSS duly recognized this new party as its political organ. So, it is not difficult to understand that “Hindutva” was the fundamental basis of BJP and its ultimate goal was to make India a “Hindu Rastra”.
So, before the Lok Sabha elections in 1998 and 1999, the BJP declared the followings as its professed goals. :
1. No special treatment for any religious group or BJP would never resort to appease the Muslims for securing their votes.
2. The Repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, which prevents non-Kashmiris, including Hindus who have fled the area due to increasing terrorism, from owning property in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
3. The Promulgation of a Uniform Common Civil Code, which create only one personal and civil law code for Hindus, Muslims and Christians.
4. A Ban on Cow Slaughter, to honor the Hindu tradition of not consuming the flesh of cow, and prohibiting the consumption of beef.
5. A Complete Ban on Religious Conversions
6. The Construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya,.
7. To achieve the full territorial and political integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India. Presently over 40% of the territory is under the control of Pakistan and China.
8. Identification of Bangladeshi Muslim infiltrators and send them back to Bangladesh and at the same time taking proper steps to stop infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims to West Bengal..
9. Rehabilitation of the Kashmiri Pundits, who have been evicted from their home land Kashmir and living as refugees in the refugee camps in Delhi .
But after assuming power, the NDA government did not take any initiative to implement any of the above promises. On the contrary, during his visit to Jammu and Kashmir , the Prime Minister Sri Vajpayee assured the Kashmiri Muslims that, so long he is the Prime Minister, the Article 370 would continue. During election campaign BJP promised that it would never indulge in appeasement of the Muslims. But after assuming power, NDA government increased Hajj subsidy for the Muslims and hiked the salary of the imams. Previously the Muslims pilgrims intending to go to Mecca to perform Hajj, had to travel to Mumbai and from Mumbai they used to fly to Jeddah at subsidized rate.
But the NDA government arranged flights from all the major cities of India to Mecca and built rest houses, specially for the Hajj pilgrims, in all the major cities of the country.
While it was expected that the NDA government, after assuming power, would strive hard to implement the above mentioned national agenda and hence to consolidate Hindu votes, but on the contrary, it displayed a strong inclination to acquire Muslim votes by appeasement of the Muslims. They floated the idea that all Muslims are not anti-nationals and there also exists a large group of good as well as nationalist Muslims, who are to be brought under the banner of BJP. Which was as ridiculous and bogus as saying, “All cobras are not bad and there are good cobras as well.” On the basis of this newly invented ridiculous, baseless and bogus ideology, they started to appease the Muslims in a big way, especially in 2000-2001, when Bangaru Laxman became the president of the Party. It is needless to say that from this time onwards, the Hindus started not only to reject, but to hate BJP and its leaders.
As mentioned above, prior to the 1999 election, BJP promised to identify every Bangladeshi Muslim infiltrator and send them back to Bangladesh . But after assuming power, the NDA government, according to their newly adopted policy of Muslim appeasement, took no step in this direction. On the contrary, it adopted a serious anti Hindu step in this context. Previously, the Hindus who, being persecuted by the Muslims, were coming to India from Bangladesh were treated as refugees. But NDA government deprived the Hindus from this facility (which is the standing policy of the UN) and started to treat the Hindus as infiltrators, like the Muslims. In one incident, a Hindu housewife, to save her life from the Muslim goons of Bangladesh , was crossing the border by swimming a canal and the Indian security forces gunned her down. Due to this step-motherly attitude of the NDA government towards the Bangladeshi Hindus, lakhs of Bangladeshi Hindus are still not getting refugee status and hence any assistance from either the state or the Central government.
Another important promise made by BJP was implementation of the uniform civil code for all the citizens on India , irrespective of religion or other differences. In this context, it is important to note that, a verdict of the Supreme Court in mid-2003 upheld the necessity of enforcing ‘common civil code’ in India , which could liberate India 's Muslim women from the shameful gender discrimination like polygamy and oral divorce. But the NDA government, in tune with its new policy of Muslim appeasement, did not take any initiative in this direction, because such a step would have displeased the orthodox Muslim clerics.
Most importantly, the NDA government remained not only silent regarding the construction of temple at Ayodhya, but opposed any attempt or any movement for temple construction. During its tenure Vishwa Hindu Parishad gave a call for a demonstration of the activists at Ayodhya. But to frustrate the effort, NDA government promulgated an ordinance so that police can arrest anyone found to purchase a railway ticket for Ayodhya anywhere in the country. In Kolkata, many VHP workers were arrested and put into police custody, while they were found to purchase railway ticket for Ayodhya at Howrah and Sealdah railway stations. It is really surprising that the NDA government took such step against the people who voted it to power.
When the author of this article asked a BJP leader about this affair, he said that most of the allies of the NDA are secular minded and hence if the government wanted to move forward any issue concerning the Hindus, they would withdraw their support leading to a fall of the NDA government. The question naturally arises – Did the Hindus voted BJP to rule for a full term at the sacrifice of the Hindutva issues? The leaders of BJP failed to understand that,had the government fallen due to an initiative of the BJP to fulfill its pre-election promises, the Hindus would have voted BJP again, perhaps more profusely, and help form the government. But our leaders preferred to remain in power at the sacrifice of its pre-poll promises and thus earned distrust of the Hindus. Many Hindus began to call BJP as “Biswasghatak Janata Party”.
Thus, without caring for the sentiment of the electorate, who voted it to power, BJP or the NDA government dumped all its nationalist agenda into the cold storage and at the fag end of its tenure started to build roads, as if the voters had voted it to power for making roads. Prime Minister Sri Atal Bihari Vajpayee was, perhaps, confident that the said road building and the economic reforms he had undertaken, would return him to power again. But the poll results 2004 election reflected that he was wrong. He learned the bitter lesson that the Hindu voters did not make him the Prime Minister of India for making roads and bringing economic reforms.
During the 5 year period from 2004 to 2009, BJP has left no stone unturned to expose itself a truly secular party through complete renunciation of its Hindu identity. Its leaders failed to grasp that it drew strength and status from Hindu society alone and it was the Hindus who voted it to power. They failed to learn a lesson from the debacle of 2004 election. So, in stead of Hindutva agenda, they depended on good governance and development to win the 2009 election and kept silence about the most cherished Hindu issues like temple building in Ayodhya, scrapping of Article 370, enforcement of common civil code and so on.
Projecting L K Advani as the Prime Ministerial Candidate:
In this election, the leaders of BJP, without giving much thought, projected elderly Sri L K Advani as its Prime Ministerial candidate, whom a section of the Hindus have identified as a traitor quite a long ago. Sri Advani is the man who, after the demolition of the old temple at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992, said that it was the most tragic day in his life. Not only that, “Mr. Advani took the demolition of the contentious structure as a personal slight (he had promised the Supreme Court nothing would happen), and without any discussion with senior party colleagues present there, especially then party president Murli Manohar Joshi, resigned his post as Leader of the Opposition by faxing his resignation to the Lok Sabha Speaker and releasing the information to the press. The party was faced with an uncomfortable fait accompli”, writes Mrs Sandhya Jain in her recent article L K Advani: From History to Oblivion.
On 4th June, 2007, when Advani was visiting the mausoleum of M A Jinnah in Karachi , Pakistan , said that Jinnah was a great man and he was secular leader. When I asked a BJP leader of West Bengal , about that contentious comment of Advani, to my utmost astonishment, he supported Advani and said, “Advaniji was right. In fact, Jinnah was a staunch secular leader at the beginning of his political career. But later on Gandhi and Nehru spoiled him.” If this was the BJP-way of looking at things, who would rescue it from its imminent downfall?
Nearly 7-8 years ago, when NDA was in power, Advani said that the day of idealism is over, now the day is of new ideas. Or indirectly, he made it clear that BJP would no longer follow the Hindutva ideology as propagated by its parent organization RSS. Or the ideology which had been identified by Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurovindo, Dr Hedgewar and Guruji Gowalkar as the sole path for the revival of this Hindu nation. All such utterances of Advani makes one to convince that Sri Advani and his coterie have dragged BJP, originally a political party of distinction with the aim for achieving a noble and lofty goal, down to an ordinary political party of petty and conspiratorial politics.
As a result, Hindus lost faith in BJP and its staunch supporters, on their poll-day, remained indoor and enjoyed a holiday. Only 25 per cent of the Hindu electorates turned up at the polling booths to exercise their democratic right and BJP suffered the obvious setback. Only God knows how many years it will take to recover this setback and get back the confidence of the Hindus again.
Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
rbrahmachari1946@yahoo.co.in
While BJP was in Power:
Before analyzing the defeat of BJP in the present Lok Sabha election, it is necessary to have a look how the Party came to power in 1999 with 183 MPs. One may recall that in the Lok Sabha elections held in 1998 the BJP led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) obtained a simple majority. This time, the BJP had allied with the AIADMK and the Biju Janata Dal besides its existing allies, the Samata Party, the Shiromani Akali Dal and Shiv Sena. Outside support was provided by the Telugu Desam Party.
The NDA had a slim majority, and Vajpayee returned as Prime Minister. But the coalition ruptured in May 1999 when the leader of AIADMK, Jayalalitha, withdrew her support, and fresh elections were again called in October, 1999. Within this brief period, BJP did two remarkable jobs that made it popular across the country. Firstly, it conducted the testing of the nuclear device at Pokhran and secondly, it fought the Kargil war with Pakistan in May-July, 1999.
These two achievements were hailed by the entire population who discovered a courageous fighter in BJP, capable of protecting the sovereignty and freedom of the nation and thrashing the rogue enemy state Pakistan . The people of this country gave BJP a hero’s welcome and, as a consequence, in the Lok Sabha election held on October 13,1999, the BJP-led NDA won 303 seats. The BJP won an all-time high of 183 seats. Vajpayee became Prime Minister for the third time in his life, and Advani became the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister.
But the said image of BJP was considerably shattered when the NDA government shamefully submitted to the unjust demands of the Pakistani terrorists after the hijacking of the Indian Airlines plane, Flight no. 814 on December 24, 1999, and released three dreaded terrorists, most undemocratic way, from the Kashmir jail and one cabinet minister went to Kandahar, by a special plane, with those three terrorists and rupees 900 crores and a planeload of high explosive (to be used against India),.as ransom But after the hijacking drama, it would have been proper for the NDA government to order our army to cross the border of Afghanistan and our air force to bomb Kabul and Kandahar. And thus force the terrorists to release 174 passangers and 15 crew members of the hijacked plane. In this context, one may recall how the Russian government dealt with the Chechen terrorists who seized a school in Beslan in 2004.
On December 13, 2001, five terrorists attacked the Parliament House (Sansad Bhawan) in Delhi . It was due to the prompt and brave action of our security forces, six of whom sacrificed their lives, the lives of a few hundred of our MPs were saved.
After this incident many of our commentators described it as a rape of our Parliament, or rather a rape of our democracy. Our military top brass advised the government to take immediate military action against Pakistan and hence to teach a good lesson to that rogue state. Some of our top army personnel commented that we had enough of talks, and time had arrived to act. So an army mobilization was ordered and our troops, with their modern sophisticated weapons were dispatched to the Indo-Pak border and were waiting for final signal from our leaders to cross the border.Our troops were waiting for months after months, but the NDA government failed to gather sufficient courage to give that final signal.
Ultimately troops were withdrawn wasting nearly three thousand crores of rupees, as the cost of mobilization and wear and tear of the sophisticated weapons. It is important to note that, had the NDA government conducted the military operation against Pakistan and taught that rogue state a good lesson, the people of this country would have given a hero’s welcome to BJP for the second time and they would have voted BJP to victory in the 2004 Lok Sabha election.
On April 21, 2001, Bangladesh Rifles abducted 15 Border Security Force (BSF) personnel into Bangladesh . They subsequently butchered all the 15 BSF men and carried their mutilated bodies like carcass of animals to return the dead bodies in an extremely humiliating manner. As a cover up of that criminal act by the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), the government of Bangladesh said that our BSF men illegally crossed the Bangladeshi border and hence BDR captured and killed them. It is to be noted here that, even if it is admitted that the BSF men had entered Bangladesh illegally, it was proper for BDR arrest them and produce them in the court of law. In any case, they could not have killed them.
The most justified reply of the NDA government to this heinous crime was to give order to our army to cross the border of Bangladesh and march towards Dhaka . But our leaders, for the lack sufficient courage or for the sake of its newly adopted policy of Muslim appeasement, failed to take military action against even a small and weak nation like Bangladesh . On the contrary, they supported the claim of the government of Bangladesh that our forces had done a wrong and by entering Bangladesh without any provocation. Our PM sent his personal secretary Brojesh Misra to Dhaka to beg pardon on behalf of the Indian Government for the so called offence committed by our BSF personnel.
It is needless to say that all the above mentioned cowardice acts have completely shattered the image BJP had built up by fighting the Kargil War and testing nuclear device at Pokhran. And there is no doubt that this loss of image had played a major role in its defeat in 2004 Lok Sabha election.
The Hindu Nationalist Party Turned Secular:
We should now have a look on the other activities of the NDA government during its tenure that lasted for 6 years. As a matter of fact, the BJP is a direct successor of The Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), founded in 1951 by Dr Syama Prasad Mookherjee and it was considered the political wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). After the murder of Dr Mookherjee in custody in 1953, the BJS lasted for 24 more years, but never seriously challenged the power of Indian National Congress It is well known that in 1980, a group of top leaders of BJS, including Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Lal Krishna Advani, formed the new party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the RSS duly recognized this new party as its political organ. So, it is not difficult to understand that “Hindutva” was the fundamental basis of BJP and its ultimate goal was to make India a “Hindu Rastra”.
So, before the Lok Sabha elections in 1998 and 1999, the BJP declared the followings as its professed goals. :
1. No special treatment for any religious group or BJP would never resort to appease the Muslims for securing their votes.
2. The Repeal of Article 370 of the Constitution, which prevents non-Kashmiris, including Hindus who have fled the area due to increasing terrorism, from owning property in the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
3. The Promulgation of a Uniform Common Civil Code, which create only one personal and civil law code for Hindus, Muslims and Christians.
4. A Ban on Cow Slaughter, to honor the Hindu tradition of not consuming the flesh of cow, and prohibiting the consumption of beef.
5. A Complete Ban on Religious Conversions
6. The Construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple in Ayodhya,.
7. To achieve the full territorial and political integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India. Presently over 40% of the territory is under the control of Pakistan and China.
8. Identification of Bangladeshi Muslim infiltrators and send them back to Bangladesh and at the same time taking proper steps to stop infiltration of Bangladeshi Muslims to West Bengal..
9. Rehabilitation of the Kashmiri Pundits, who have been evicted from their home land Kashmir and living as refugees in the refugee camps in Delhi .
But after assuming power, the NDA government did not take any initiative to implement any of the above promises. On the contrary, during his visit to Jammu and Kashmir , the Prime Minister Sri Vajpayee assured the Kashmiri Muslims that, so long he is the Prime Minister, the Article 370 would continue. During election campaign BJP promised that it would never indulge in appeasement of the Muslims. But after assuming power, NDA government increased Hajj subsidy for the Muslims and hiked the salary of the imams. Previously the Muslims pilgrims intending to go to Mecca to perform Hajj, had to travel to Mumbai and from Mumbai they used to fly to Jeddah at subsidized rate.
But the NDA government arranged flights from all the major cities of India to Mecca and built rest houses, specially for the Hajj pilgrims, in all the major cities of the country.
While it was expected that the NDA government, after assuming power, would strive hard to implement the above mentioned national agenda and hence to consolidate Hindu votes, but on the contrary, it displayed a strong inclination to acquire Muslim votes by appeasement of the Muslims. They floated the idea that all Muslims are not anti-nationals and there also exists a large group of good as well as nationalist Muslims, who are to be brought under the banner of BJP. Which was as ridiculous and bogus as saying, “All cobras are not bad and there are good cobras as well.” On the basis of this newly invented ridiculous, baseless and bogus ideology, they started to appease the Muslims in a big way, especially in 2000-2001, when Bangaru Laxman became the president of the Party. It is needless to say that from this time onwards, the Hindus started not only to reject, but to hate BJP and its leaders.
As mentioned above, prior to the 1999 election, BJP promised to identify every Bangladeshi Muslim infiltrator and send them back to Bangladesh . But after assuming power, the NDA government, according to their newly adopted policy of Muslim appeasement, took no step in this direction. On the contrary, it adopted a serious anti Hindu step in this context. Previously, the Hindus who, being persecuted by the Muslims, were coming to India from Bangladesh were treated as refugees. But NDA government deprived the Hindus from this facility (which is the standing policy of the UN) and started to treat the Hindus as infiltrators, like the Muslims. In one incident, a Hindu housewife, to save her life from the Muslim goons of Bangladesh , was crossing the border by swimming a canal and the Indian security forces gunned her down. Due to this step-motherly attitude of the NDA government towards the Bangladeshi Hindus, lakhs of Bangladeshi Hindus are still not getting refugee status and hence any assistance from either the state or the Central government.
Another important promise made by BJP was implementation of the uniform civil code for all the citizens on India , irrespective of religion or other differences. In this context, it is important to note that, a verdict of the Supreme Court in mid-2003 upheld the necessity of enforcing ‘common civil code’ in India , which could liberate India 's Muslim women from the shameful gender discrimination like polygamy and oral divorce. But the NDA government, in tune with its new policy of Muslim appeasement, did not take any initiative in this direction, because such a step would have displeased the orthodox Muslim clerics.
Most importantly, the NDA government remained not only silent regarding the construction of temple at Ayodhya, but opposed any attempt or any movement for temple construction. During its tenure Vishwa Hindu Parishad gave a call for a demonstration of the activists at Ayodhya. But to frustrate the effort, NDA government promulgated an ordinance so that police can arrest anyone found to purchase a railway ticket for Ayodhya anywhere in the country. In Kolkata, many VHP workers were arrested and put into police custody, while they were found to purchase railway ticket for Ayodhya at Howrah and Sealdah railway stations. It is really surprising that the NDA government took such step against the people who voted it to power.
When the author of this article asked a BJP leader about this affair, he said that most of the allies of the NDA are secular minded and hence if the government wanted to move forward any issue concerning the Hindus, they would withdraw their support leading to a fall of the NDA government. The question naturally arises – Did the Hindus voted BJP to rule for a full term at the sacrifice of the Hindutva issues? The leaders of BJP failed to understand that,had the government fallen due to an initiative of the BJP to fulfill its pre-election promises, the Hindus would have voted BJP again, perhaps more profusely, and help form the government. But our leaders preferred to remain in power at the sacrifice of its pre-poll promises and thus earned distrust of the Hindus. Many Hindus began to call BJP as “Biswasghatak Janata Party”.
Thus, without caring for the sentiment of the electorate, who voted it to power, BJP or the NDA government dumped all its nationalist agenda into the cold storage and at the fag end of its tenure started to build roads, as if the voters had voted it to power for making roads. Prime Minister Sri Atal Bihari Vajpayee was, perhaps, confident that the said road building and the economic reforms he had undertaken, would return him to power again. But the poll results 2004 election reflected that he was wrong. He learned the bitter lesson that the Hindu voters did not make him the Prime Minister of India for making roads and bringing economic reforms.
During the 5 year period from 2004 to 2009, BJP has left no stone unturned to expose itself a truly secular party through complete renunciation of its Hindu identity. Its leaders failed to grasp that it drew strength and status from Hindu society alone and it was the Hindus who voted it to power. They failed to learn a lesson from the debacle of 2004 election. So, in stead of Hindutva agenda, they depended on good governance and development to win the 2009 election and kept silence about the most cherished Hindu issues like temple building in Ayodhya, scrapping of Article 370, enforcement of common civil code and so on.
Projecting L K Advani as the Prime Ministerial Candidate:
In this election, the leaders of BJP, without giving much thought, projected elderly Sri L K Advani as its Prime Ministerial candidate, whom a section of the Hindus have identified as a traitor quite a long ago. Sri Advani is the man who, after the demolition of the old temple at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992, said that it was the most tragic day in his life. Not only that, “Mr. Advani took the demolition of the contentious structure as a personal slight (he had promised the Supreme Court nothing would happen), and without any discussion with senior party colleagues present there, especially then party president Murli Manohar Joshi, resigned his post as Leader of the Opposition by faxing his resignation to the Lok Sabha Speaker and releasing the information to the press. The party was faced with an uncomfortable fait accompli”, writes Mrs Sandhya Jain in her recent article L K Advani: From History to Oblivion.
On 4th June, 2007, when Advani was visiting the mausoleum of M A Jinnah in Karachi , Pakistan , said that Jinnah was a great man and he was secular leader. When I asked a BJP leader of West Bengal , about that contentious comment of Advani, to my utmost astonishment, he supported Advani and said, “Advaniji was right. In fact, Jinnah was a staunch secular leader at the beginning of his political career. But later on Gandhi and Nehru spoiled him.” If this was the BJP-way of looking at things, who would rescue it from its imminent downfall?
Nearly 7-8 years ago, when NDA was in power, Advani said that the day of idealism is over, now the day is of new ideas. Or indirectly, he made it clear that BJP would no longer follow the Hindutva ideology as propagated by its parent organization RSS. Or the ideology which had been identified by Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurovindo, Dr Hedgewar and Guruji Gowalkar as the sole path for the revival of this Hindu nation. All such utterances of Advani makes one to convince that Sri Advani and his coterie have dragged BJP, originally a political party of distinction with the aim for achieving a noble and lofty goal, down to an ordinary political party of petty and conspiratorial politics.
As a result, Hindus lost faith in BJP and its staunch supporters, on their poll-day, remained indoor and enjoyed a holiday. Only 25 per cent of the Hindu electorates turned up at the polling booths to exercise their democratic right and BJP suffered the obvious setback. Only God knows how many years it will take to recover this setback and get back the confidence of the Hindus again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
