Communalizing History: Shivaji and Afzal Khan
Ram Puniyani
The assembly elections have been declared in Maharashtra, and with this the atmosphere is heating up politically. In this state there have been substantial number of farmer’s suicides, all over there are serious issues related to rising prices, unemployment and other problems of daily life. But it seems that some political parties in Maharashtra are not much concerned about these core issues of society and seem to be more interested in the identity issues emerging from the past. Recently (September 3rd, 2009) tension developed in Miraj, Sangli and neighboring areas during Ganesh festival. This is the major festival of the state. During the festival trouble began with the erection of an arch on the route of Ganesh Visarjan, this arch depicted the slaying of Afzal Khan by Shivaji. Anticipating trouble due to the communal polarization around Shivaji and Afzal Khan, to maintain peace, the police removed the arch. Protesting against this removal of the arch
some Ganesh Mandals decided not to immerse the Ganpati idols till the arch was restored. This is what led to the violence in due course, in which one person died and five got injured.
BJP leadership condemned the Governments’ step of removing the arch. Shiv Sena leader asserted that they will put posters of Shivaji slaying Afzal Khan all over the state and stated that had Shivaji been not there all of us would have been reading Namaz! The state administration did control the situation but since by now lot of emotive appeal has been generated around Shivaji it was an easy job. Few years ago during the previous Parliamentary elections, the same parties had tried to organize the procession to demolish the tomb of Afzal Khan. Fortunately at that time it was brought to people’s notice that this tomb was built by Shivaji himself and the matters came to a rest, but not before it created lot of bad blood. The matters related to Shivaji are very sensitive in Maharashtra, the state administration has even planned to construct the statue of Shivaji in the Arabain sea, costing thousands of crores, from public exchequer, at the cost other
public necessities.
As a matter of fact, Shivaji is popular amongst people, not because he was anti Muslim or worshipper of Cows and Brahmins, but because he reduced the taxation on the poor peasants. Shivaji adopted humane policy in all the aspects of his administration, which did not base itself on the religion. In the recruitment of his soldiers and officers for army and navy, religion was no criterion and more than one third of his army consisted of Muslims. The supreme command of his navy was with Siddi Sambal, and Muslim Siddis were in navy in large numbers. Interestingly his major battles were fought against the Rajput army lead by Raja Jaisingh, who was in the administration of Aurangzeb. When Shivaji was detained at Agra forte, of the two men on whom he relied for his eventual escape, one was a Muslim called Madari Mehtar. His confidential secretary was Maulana Haider Ali and the chief of his cannon division was Ibrahim Gardi. Rustom-e-Jamaan was his bodyguard.
His respect for other religions was very clear and he respected the holy seers like 'Hazarat Baba Yaqut bahut Thorwale', whom he gave the life pension and also he helped Father Ambrose, whose church was under attack in Gujarat. At his capital Raigad, he erected a special mosque for Muslim devotees in front of his palace in the same way that he built the Jagadishwar temple for his own daily worship.
During his military campaigns Shivaji had issued strict instructions to his men and officers that Muslim women and children should not be subjected to maltreatment. Mosques and Dargah's were given due protection. He also ordered that whenever a copy of Koran came into the hands of his men, they should show proper respect to the book and hand it over to a Muslim. The story of his bowing to the daughter-in-law of Bassein's Nawab is well known to all. When she was brought as a part of the loot and offered to him, he respectfully begged her pardon and asked his soldiers to reach her back from the place from where she was forcibly brought in. Shivaji was in no way actuated by any hatred towards people of other religions.
As a matter of fact he had great respect for holy people of all religions. All this goes on to show the values of communal harmony which Shivaji pursued, and that his primary goal was to establish his own kingdom with maximum possible geographical area. To project him as anti-Muslim and anti-Islam is travesty of truth. Neither was Afzal Khan an anti Hindu king. When Shivaji killed Afzal Khan, Afzal Khan’s secretary Krishnaji Bhasker Kulkarni attacked Shivaji with a sword.
Today communal forces are out to ‘use’ Shivaji issue, to communalize the same for their political goals. In Maharashtra, Shivaji Afzal Khan have been projected as Hindu and Muslim kings. From amongst all the possible pictures of Shivaji, why is the one related to Afzal Khan is chosen? One can also show the pictures of his Pratapgadh fort with Afzal Khans tomb in that, one can show Shivaji paying respect to the Mazar of Madari Mehtar, a Muslim prince, who helped him to escape from Agra? The very selection of this picture is to divide the communities along religious lines. Communal interpretation of History, Communal historiography has been the major tool in the arsenal of communal forces. Minorities should not react to such things and try to call for peace with all the communities all the time. Now we are witnessing this pattern of history being used to communalize the society, to create sectarian divides in society. What is needed is to overcome these communal angles, to undermine identity issues, to build the Indian nation. We need to look at historical icons, as kings ruling for power, rather then the representatives of a particular religion.
--
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Ishrat Jahan Murder
Ishrat Jahan: Murder in Cold Blood
Ram Puniyani
In the aftermath of Gujarat carnage the then Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee subtly reprimanded Modi Governemtn that Raj Dharma should have been followed. The implication was that state should have actively intervened to protect the innocents who were killed during the violence. What will one say if the same state selectively picks up innocent citizens, kills them and presents false stories to save its skin? While taking the oath, while joining the state one is supposed to treat all citizens as equal irrespective of their religion caste and gender. What do we say about the state, which goes on to kill its innocent citizens who happen to belong to minority community?
As the Citizen’s Tribunal pointed out in the aftermath of Godhra train burning Gujarat State machinery was told to sit back when the rioters were unleashed to kill and maim, to loot and to rape during the carnage. Now we know that in the same state, police officers have become emboldened enough to pick up minority elements, kill them in cold blood and proclaim that it is an encounter! The repeated cry of terrorists planning to kill Modi has been a favorite ploy of the police officers for killing innocents to please the CM, to seek promotions. It also helps to create a larger than life picture of Modi.
When Ishrat Jahan was killed in the June 2005, along with three others, the police officers boasted of their success that they have ably averted the attack on Modi by killing four terrorists of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Forensic and post mortem reports confirm that they were killed in cold blood on 14th June, shot at close range in a police custody and then, taken in a car, then put in a row on the road on the outskirts of Ahmadabad. To show that it was encounter, arms-ammunition was kept on their body. At this point of time National Human Rights Commission asked for magisterial inquiry. Later state Government also confirmed of magisterial inquiry going on. At the same time the police investigation was also started.
Justice Tamang has come out with his report that it was not an encounter and that the four killed in cold blood by police were not having any terrorist links. In response the Gujarat government is leaving no stone unturned to say that Justice Tamang had no business to release his report, the Gujarat high court has brought a stay on the report. But already the contents of the report are known through the media reports and Gujarat Government is finding no place to hide its face, also Supreme Court has seen nothing wrong in what Justice Tamang did. The total lack of remorse on the part of Gujarat Government is not surprising at all!
The officer, D. G.Vanjara, who killed these four, was also the one who had brutally killed Soharabbudin and his wife Kauserbi, and is now behind the bars. There is a section of Gujarat people, who are very appreciative of what Vnajara has done, and the situation which Modi Government has brought in. Now the Gujarat Government asks that when the police inquiry was going on, what is the legality of magisterial inquiry? On the contrary as per the law after the death of a person in police custody, or due to police action of this type, inquest, magisterial inquiry and police inquiry all these have to be done.
It is not that it is the first time that encounter, fake encounter killings, are taking place. The difference here is the total identification and defense of such acts by the political leadership of state. The difference is that a section of people are being made to believe such dastardly acts are needed to make the society safe. The effort of Gujarat Government is just to show a brave face in the light of exposure of its brutality in killing the innocents. Incidentally Ishrat was wearing her college, Khalsa College Mumbai, Identity Card around her neck when she was killed in cold blood. Legal nuances and nitty gritty apart where are we heading in twenty in Twenty-first Century?
Just slightly an year ago in the face of police arrest of many Muslim youth in the aftermath of bomb blasts citizens tribunals were held in Hyderabad and then in Jaipur. Legal luminaries and social activists formed the jury of these tribunals. Both tribunals pointed out that the attitude of police is very biased and many a Muslim youth are being arrested without any proof whatsoever. Will such actions by state, will such a defense of killing of innocents, not intensify the sense of injustice amongst a section of Indian citizens?
Where are we heading to? On one hand there are inquiry commission reports showing as to how communal organizations orchestrate crimes and the section of police and part of state administration colludes. On the other plane there is the phenomenon of terrorism, which has many factors contributing to it but it is only Muslims who are blamed for that. We are also witnessing a serious and by now inbuilt discrimination leading to exclusion of minorities from the social facilities. In such an atmosphere what will happen to the psyche of the youth and others from minority community? The social disparities we are creating due to such policies are there for all of us to see. The tragedy is that a section of people have started asserting the correctness of these happenings. The situation which is being created due to all this is further used to blame minorities for it. The Modi-Vanjara duo, which is becoming a law unto them, is the symptom of deeper malaise of
Gujarat.
--
Ram Puniyani
In the aftermath of Gujarat carnage the then Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee subtly reprimanded Modi Governemtn that Raj Dharma should have been followed. The implication was that state should have actively intervened to protect the innocents who were killed during the violence. What will one say if the same state selectively picks up innocent citizens, kills them and presents false stories to save its skin? While taking the oath, while joining the state one is supposed to treat all citizens as equal irrespective of their religion caste and gender. What do we say about the state, which goes on to kill its innocent citizens who happen to belong to minority community?
As the Citizen’s Tribunal pointed out in the aftermath of Godhra train burning Gujarat State machinery was told to sit back when the rioters were unleashed to kill and maim, to loot and to rape during the carnage. Now we know that in the same state, police officers have become emboldened enough to pick up minority elements, kill them in cold blood and proclaim that it is an encounter! The repeated cry of terrorists planning to kill Modi has been a favorite ploy of the police officers for killing innocents to please the CM, to seek promotions. It also helps to create a larger than life picture of Modi.
When Ishrat Jahan was killed in the June 2005, along with three others, the police officers boasted of their success that they have ably averted the attack on Modi by killing four terrorists of Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Forensic and post mortem reports confirm that they were killed in cold blood on 14th June, shot at close range in a police custody and then, taken in a car, then put in a row on the road on the outskirts of Ahmadabad. To show that it was encounter, arms-ammunition was kept on their body. At this point of time National Human Rights Commission asked for magisterial inquiry. Later state Government also confirmed of magisterial inquiry going on. At the same time the police investigation was also started.
Justice Tamang has come out with his report that it was not an encounter and that the four killed in cold blood by police were not having any terrorist links. In response the Gujarat government is leaving no stone unturned to say that Justice Tamang had no business to release his report, the Gujarat high court has brought a stay on the report. But already the contents of the report are known through the media reports and Gujarat Government is finding no place to hide its face, also Supreme Court has seen nothing wrong in what Justice Tamang did. The total lack of remorse on the part of Gujarat Government is not surprising at all!
The officer, D. G.Vanjara, who killed these four, was also the one who had brutally killed Soharabbudin and his wife Kauserbi, and is now behind the bars. There is a section of Gujarat people, who are very appreciative of what Vnajara has done, and the situation which Modi Government has brought in. Now the Gujarat Government asks that when the police inquiry was going on, what is the legality of magisterial inquiry? On the contrary as per the law after the death of a person in police custody, or due to police action of this type, inquest, magisterial inquiry and police inquiry all these have to be done.
It is not that it is the first time that encounter, fake encounter killings, are taking place. The difference here is the total identification and defense of such acts by the political leadership of state. The difference is that a section of people are being made to believe such dastardly acts are needed to make the society safe. The effort of Gujarat Government is just to show a brave face in the light of exposure of its brutality in killing the innocents. Incidentally Ishrat was wearing her college, Khalsa College Mumbai, Identity Card around her neck when she was killed in cold blood. Legal nuances and nitty gritty apart where are we heading in twenty in Twenty-first Century?
Just slightly an year ago in the face of police arrest of many Muslim youth in the aftermath of bomb blasts citizens tribunals were held in Hyderabad and then in Jaipur. Legal luminaries and social activists formed the jury of these tribunals. Both tribunals pointed out that the attitude of police is very biased and many a Muslim youth are being arrested without any proof whatsoever. Will such actions by state, will such a defense of killing of innocents, not intensify the sense of injustice amongst a section of Indian citizens?
Where are we heading to? On one hand there are inquiry commission reports showing as to how communal organizations orchestrate crimes and the section of police and part of state administration colludes. On the other plane there is the phenomenon of terrorism, which has many factors contributing to it but it is only Muslims who are blamed for that. We are also witnessing a serious and by now inbuilt discrimination leading to exclusion of minorities from the social facilities. In such an atmosphere what will happen to the psyche of the youth and others from minority community? The social disparities we are creating due to such policies are there for all of us to see. The tragedy is that a section of people have started asserting the correctness of these happenings. The situation which is being created due to all this is further used to blame minorities for it. The Modi-Vanjara duo, which is becoming a law unto them, is the symptom of deeper malaise of
Gujarat.
--
Friday, September 11, 2009
Partition Puzzle: Role of British
Partition Puzzle: Role of British Policy
Ram Puniyani
Jaswant Singh in his recent book on Jinnah has praised the secular nature of Jinnah and has held Nehru-Patel responsible for Partition of India. Many people from Pakistan are praising Jaswant Singh’s book to the sky, while here in India there is a mixed reaction. Most strong one came from BJP President Rajnath Singh who hinted that any praise of Jinnah, will be met with strict action. The problem with such formulation, Jinnah was secular, Nehru-Patel were responsible for partition, is that it is an extremely superficial analysis and does not look at the complex multilayered phenomenon of partition tragedy. It totally by passes the role of British rulers and the different interests of diverse classes during freedom movement. The response to the book is either at emotive level, our leader versus your leader, or how dare you speak against our icon!
In the midst of the whole debate, the British get away with the cake. As such they not only took all the measures, implemented all policies which were divisive but also accepted all the demands which led to partition. In the process they ensured that even after they leave, the interests of imperial powers, UK-USA, in the Middle East remain safe and secure. This ensured that they continue to dominate the area and retain their military and political base in the region. While the mini battle, Jinnah versus Nehru-Patel is on, the role of the major culprits of partition, the Colonial powers of yesteryears and the imperialist power of today is generally not being brought under scrutiny.
If we look at the British polices, right from the beginning there were germs of divide and rule. They saw Indian society as divided along religious lines, underplaying the fact that the real divisions were not along religious lines but along class and caste lines. Shaken by the massive revolt of 1857, their subtle policies of ‘divide and rule’ started becoming more overt and articulate. In 1858 Lord Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay Province, in his communication to The East India Company’s executives wrote, “Divide et Impera’ (Divide and Rule) was old Roman motto and it should be ours.” In return Charles Wood, Secretary of State for India wrote that, “The antagonism of Indian races was an element of strength to the British India. Therefore ‘a dissociating spirit’ should be kept up, for if India was to unite against us, how long could we maintain ourselves.”
Both these quotes amply indicate towards shape of policies in times to come. As a foundation of these polices, ‘doctoring of mass consciousness’ along religious lines began through specially sponsored History books. The two major ones’ in this direction were Six Volume ‘History of India as told by her Historians’ by Elliot and Dawson and History of India by James Mill, who periodized the Indian History into Hindu Period, Muslim Period and British period. This periodization gave the impression that history’s period is determined by the religion of the king. Needless to say that the medieval administration of Kings was never based along religious lines; their court officials and chain of Landlords were belonging to both the religions. These British sponsored accounts of History argued that Muslims Rulers had enslaved India and now British have come to end the misrule of Muslim Kings. Such an account became a convenient tool in the hands of Hindu communalists, Hindu Mahsabha and RSS, to play their part of divisive politics amongst masses. The Muslim League turned it around to say that Muslim rulers were glorious and great.
This communalization of minds was the fertile soil on which the communalists could plant their narrow agenda of Muslim Nation and Hindu Nation. Another British Historian Sir T.W. Holderness in his book Peoples and Problems of India mooted the idea that Hindus and Muslims regard themselves as separate nations. This book came out in 1923 and in the same year Savarkar came out with his book, ‘Hindutva or Who is a Hindu’?, where the same formulation was presented in a different way.
At concrete level on the political chessboard, Lord Curzon, the then Viceroy of India, partitioned Bengal (1904) with communal motivation and this was probably the first concrete experiment in communalizing the politics at big level. Curzon went on to declare that this is an attempt to invest in the Mussalmans of Eastern Bengal. Just a couple of years later (2006) the delegation of Muslim Landlords and Nawabs was received by Viceroy, where he declared that these Muslim elite to be the representatives of Muslim community. The delegation went to ask for separate electorate for Muslims, and these separate electorates introduced later acted as the trigger to polarize the nation along religious lines. Many a members of this delegation were also part of United India Patriotic Association, an organization of Hindu and Muslim landlords and Kings which had come up in the wake of formation of Indian National Congress. Indian National Congress was critical of British and in response, this association pledged to enhance the loyalty of the people to the British crown.
Thus Viceroy Minto subtly encouraged Muslim communalism, and later the same delegation members went on to form Muslim League. Lady Minto in her communication takes pride in what the Lord had done. She commented that what has happened, the receiving of delegation etc. will pull back sixty million people from joining the ranks of seditious opposition, meaning the rising national movement.
MacDonald’s Communal Award of 1932 was the next step, which enhanced the communal divides. Interestingly in 1939 Congress firmly told the British that they will not join the war efforts until they are guaranteed freedom in return. And lo and behold in 1940 Jinnah comes with the demand for Pakistan at Lahore Muslim League convention. Can such things be coincidental? Demand of Pakistan may have been a bargaining counter but its timing is interesting.
No doubt the Cabinet mission plan could have prevented partition, but it is debatable whether it would not have sown the fissiparous tendencies amongst the princely states and the states where Muslim League was in majority. The other necessity which made British to partition India, related to their strategic needs in the area. At the end of WWII, the global power equations changed. USA and USSR both emerged as major powers. US had posted its representative in India from 1942. With British deciding to leave India, freedom was imperative. The British calculation at this time was that an Undivided India with leadership of Congress will not let Britain continue with its military bases in the area. With USSR coming up in a big way, Mao Tse Tung rising in China and section of Congress leadership impressed by socialism, UK-USA were sure that India will not side with them in their global designs of countering USSR militarily and in continuing their oil plunder in middle east. Here comes the Radcliff Line, which runs in the areas adjacent to Iraq, Afghanistan and Sinkiang. British diplomats had the job cut out for them, to make Jinnah accept moth eaten Pakistan and to make Congress leadership to accept the partition.
Somehow the plans of imperialists were immaculate. And in times to come Pakistan, where Mr. Jinnah wanted to have religious freedom, was converted into a land ruled by Mullahs, Army and American Ambassador. It was the same Pakistan which was supported to the hilt on the Kashmir issue; the idea was that US strategic interests are safe with this arrangement. It is a matter of great relief that Pakistan is struggling to come out from the vice like grip of Army, but can it shed its client state type status vis a vis US, is the million rupee question. The people of Pakistan have been big victim of Imperialist designs all through while Pakistan military has been having all the green pastures for itself.
In partitioning India, colonialists reaped rich harvest at the cost of the people of the subcontinent, millions dead, a single entity India, divided into Pakistan, India and Bangla Desh. These countries keep on spending a major part of their budgets in investing in armaments and fattening of their armed forces, something which could have been meaningfully invested for the growth and development of the region. We need to wake up from the blame game and see the real culprit.
Ram Puniyani
Jaswant Singh in his recent book on Jinnah has praised the secular nature of Jinnah and has held Nehru-Patel responsible for Partition of India. Many people from Pakistan are praising Jaswant Singh’s book to the sky, while here in India there is a mixed reaction. Most strong one came from BJP President Rajnath Singh who hinted that any praise of Jinnah, will be met with strict action. The problem with such formulation, Jinnah was secular, Nehru-Patel were responsible for partition, is that it is an extremely superficial analysis and does not look at the complex multilayered phenomenon of partition tragedy. It totally by passes the role of British rulers and the different interests of diverse classes during freedom movement. The response to the book is either at emotive level, our leader versus your leader, or how dare you speak against our icon!
In the midst of the whole debate, the British get away with the cake. As such they not only took all the measures, implemented all policies which were divisive but also accepted all the demands which led to partition. In the process they ensured that even after they leave, the interests of imperial powers, UK-USA, in the Middle East remain safe and secure. This ensured that they continue to dominate the area and retain their military and political base in the region. While the mini battle, Jinnah versus Nehru-Patel is on, the role of the major culprits of partition, the Colonial powers of yesteryears and the imperialist power of today is generally not being brought under scrutiny.
If we look at the British polices, right from the beginning there were germs of divide and rule. They saw Indian society as divided along religious lines, underplaying the fact that the real divisions were not along religious lines but along class and caste lines. Shaken by the massive revolt of 1857, their subtle policies of ‘divide and rule’ started becoming more overt and articulate. In 1858 Lord Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay Province, in his communication to The East India Company’s executives wrote, “Divide et Impera’ (Divide and Rule) was old Roman motto and it should be ours.” In return Charles Wood, Secretary of State for India wrote that, “The antagonism of Indian races was an element of strength to the British India. Therefore ‘a dissociating spirit’ should be kept up, for if India was to unite against us, how long could we maintain ourselves.”
Both these quotes amply indicate towards shape of policies in times to come. As a foundation of these polices, ‘doctoring of mass consciousness’ along religious lines began through specially sponsored History books. The two major ones’ in this direction were Six Volume ‘History of India as told by her Historians’ by Elliot and Dawson and History of India by James Mill, who periodized the Indian History into Hindu Period, Muslim Period and British period. This periodization gave the impression that history’s period is determined by the religion of the king. Needless to say that the medieval administration of Kings was never based along religious lines; their court officials and chain of Landlords were belonging to both the religions. These British sponsored accounts of History argued that Muslims Rulers had enslaved India and now British have come to end the misrule of Muslim Kings. Such an account became a convenient tool in the hands of Hindu communalists, Hindu Mahsabha and RSS, to play their part of divisive politics amongst masses. The Muslim League turned it around to say that Muslim rulers were glorious and great.
This communalization of minds was the fertile soil on which the communalists could plant their narrow agenda of Muslim Nation and Hindu Nation. Another British Historian Sir T.W. Holderness in his book Peoples and Problems of India mooted the idea that Hindus and Muslims regard themselves as separate nations. This book came out in 1923 and in the same year Savarkar came out with his book, ‘Hindutva or Who is a Hindu’?, where the same formulation was presented in a different way.
At concrete level on the political chessboard, Lord Curzon, the then Viceroy of India, partitioned Bengal (1904) with communal motivation and this was probably the first concrete experiment in communalizing the politics at big level. Curzon went on to declare that this is an attempt to invest in the Mussalmans of Eastern Bengal. Just a couple of years later (2006) the delegation of Muslim Landlords and Nawabs was received by Viceroy, where he declared that these Muslim elite to be the representatives of Muslim community. The delegation went to ask for separate electorate for Muslims, and these separate electorates introduced later acted as the trigger to polarize the nation along religious lines. Many a members of this delegation were also part of United India Patriotic Association, an organization of Hindu and Muslim landlords and Kings which had come up in the wake of formation of Indian National Congress. Indian National Congress was critical of British and in response, this association pledged to enhance the loyalty of the people to the British crown.
Thus Viceroy Minto subtly encouraged Muslim communalism, and later the same delegation members went on to form Muslim League. Lady Minto in her communication takes pride in what the Lord had done. She commented that what has happened, the receiving of delegation etc. will pull back sixty million people from joining the ranks of seditious opposition, meaning the rising national movement.
MacDonald’s Communal Award of 1932 was the next step, which enhanced the communal divides. Interestingly in 1939 Congress firmly told the British that they will not join the war efforts until they are guaranteed freedom in return. And lo and behold in 1940 Jinnah comes with the demand for Pakistan at Lahore Muslim League convention. Can such things be coincidental? Demand of Pakistan may have been a bargaining counter but its timing is interesting.
No doubt the Cabinet mission plan could have prevented partition, but it is debatable whether it would not have sown the fissiparous tendencies amongst the princely states and the states where Muslim League was in majority. The other necessity which made British to partition India, related to their strategic needs in the area. At the end of WWII, the global power equations changed. USA and USSR both emerged as major powers. US had posted its representative in India from 1942. With British deciding to leave India, freedom was imperative. The British calculation at this time was that an Undivided India with leadership of Congress will not let Britain continue with its military bases in the area. With USSR coming up in a big way, Mao Tse Tung rising in China and section of Congress leadership impressed by socialism, UK-USA were sure that India will not side with them in their global designs of countering USSR militarily and in continuing their oil plunder in middle east. Here comes the Radcliff Line, which runs in the areas adjacent to Iraq, Afghanistan and Sinkiang. British diplomats had the job cut out for them, to make Jinnah accept moth eaten Pakistan and to make Congress leadership to accept the partition.
Somehow the plans of imperialists were immaculate. And in times to come Pakistan, where Mr. Jinnah wanted to have religious freedom, was converted into a land ruled by Mullahs, Army and American Ambassador. It was the same Pakistan which was supported to the hilt on the Kashmir issue; the idea was that US strategic interests are safe with this arrangement. It is a matter of great relief that Pakistan is struggling to come out from the vice like grip of Army, but can it shed its client state type status vis a vis US, is the million rupee question. The people of Pakistan have been big victim of Imperialist designs all through while Pakistan military has been having all the green pastures for itself.
In partitioning India, colonialists reaped rich harvest at the cost of the people of the subcontinent, millions dead, a single entity India, divided into Pakistan, India and Bangla Desh. These countries keep on spending a major part of their budgets in investing in armaments and fattening of their armed forces, something which could have been meaningfully invested for the growth and development of the region. We need to wake up from the blame game and see the real culprit.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Whither BJP?
Dilemmas of Defeat: Whither BJP?
Ram Puniyani
The humiliating electoral defeat continues to dodge the BJP. In quick succession lot of things are happening, old pillars are crumbling, earlier cracks are on display with bigger clarity and those who joined the party in the hope of basking in the glory of power are deserting. In the process a lot of things which were slightly hidden are becoming glaringly obvious.
After Jaswant Singh was expelled from the party he talked about certain incidents which show the true nature of the party and the major political personalities involved. Later some of these points were confirmed by Arun Shourie, Brajesh Mishra and Company. The first point which strikes an observer is that it is the nature of people who have come out with statements. First in the row was Yashwant Sinha, then Jaswant Singh, followed by Arun Shourie, another one, Sudheendra Kulkarni, was prompt enough to leave the party. What is common about them is that they all are not having RSS background. Most of BJP leaders, trained in RSS shakhas kept mum on the reasons for defeat and state of disarray in the party. Sushma Swaraj is an exception anyway, as women are not allowed to be members of RSS. Some of the beans which were spilled during the process are very revealing.
Jaswant Singh pointed out, later confirmed by Arun Shourie, that Vajpayee wanted to sack Modi when the Gujarat carnage was on. It was Advani who blocked it. It reflects as much on Advani as on Vajpayee. When Vajpayee raised the issue of dealing with Modi, Advani retorted that if that is done there will be bawal, severe turmoil, in the party. As they went for the Goa meeting Modi offered to resign and as if on a cue most of the top brass of the party attending the meeting opposed it. After he realized that most of the party is with Modi in executing the anti minority carnage, Vajpayee changed his tune and said those words, which subtly went in for Modi’s defense, The words were, …but Godhra also happened! This episode shows that while Advani was hard core in supporting Modi line of violence against minorities, most the party stood by Modi, endorsing his violence and making him a Hero. This is what happens when one is trained by RSS, trained in ‘Hate minority’ sentiments. The character of most of the BJP top brass is there for all to see. But what about Vajpayee, he talks of action against Modi and when he sees that most of the party is for supporting what is going in Gujarat, he goes on to give a hidden justification for what Modi was doing. Not only that he made a weak willed attempt to resign but was ‘easily persuaded’ to stay on. The swayasevak, the RSS soul in his body, was alive and kicking and he went on to serve the full term.
Advani’s lies about Kandhar episode do not need further criticizing the person, who driven by the ambition to show his iron man character, kept lying to the whole nation, that much about his leadership qualities. He is not alone in this. Earlier at one point of time Vajpayee had also claimed to be the part of freedom movement and having gone to jail for the same during 1942 Quit India movement. This lie was exposed by two journalists of Frontline, but this has not become so known to the public mind. Vajpayee had been mistaken to be the participant of Quit India agitation by the police and arrested. After his arrest Vajpayee clarified in a letter written to the authorities that he was not part of the procession; agitation but was a mere onlooker to the procession organized by the youth who were part of the national movement. On this ground he sought his release from jail and he was duly released. So in that sense, what Advani has done is not something which the earlier top BJP leader has not done. The cash for votes scam also shows very clearly as to what low level BJP can stoop for the sake of power.
Now despite the fact that the BJP is in tatters, it will not die. The reason is, BJP has been a mere political arm of RSS. At most of the crucial junctures RSS has been controlling BJP from behind the scene. The only difference is that now all is in the open. To begin with majority of BJP workers, leaders are from RSS background, totally indoctrinated in the ideology of ‘Hate Minorities’, in the ideology of Hindu nation. The statement of Shourie that RSS should take over BJP is a bit complex. Shourie must know that as a BJP member he is mostly amidst RSS workers, barring few. On the top of that RSS always keeps a watchful eye on what its subordinate organizations are doing and keeps coordinating their activities. Its agenda is clear, to bring in Hindu Rashtra over a period of time.
Since the electoral debacle, many a commentators said that BJP can give up Hindutva and survive as a rightwing opposition. Such a suggestion has no place in the real politic, as BJP is nothing but a political child of RSS. It has autonomy to work in the given framework, the framework laid out by RSS. While the current RSS Sarsanghchalak says that BJP will decide its own policies that statement is merely something from the World of make-believe. As things are becoming clearer RSS has taken a total and direct charge of the tottering party.
What is the trajectory for future? For some time, with RSS imprints being very direct, the other NDA allies will opt to remain aloof from NDA and BJP. As happened in 1996 all the opposition parties refused to touch it even with barge pole. They came around the next time as it emerged as the big party and lured by the power, they hung on to BJP. It is likely that despite all its efforts BJP will become a marginal national outfit for quite some time.
It does prevail in the form of its power through states, where it is implementing Hindutva agenda with full vigor. It is also likely that it will try to build itself more through states than at national level. Till RSS is alive BJP will be there, goes without saying. The only difference will be the speed of infiltration of RSS agenda of Hindutva by infiltration in the state machinery, media and education will become slightly slower than usual.
--
Ram Puniyani
The humiliating electoral defeat continues to dodge the BJP. In quick succession lot of things are happening, old pillars are crumbling, earlier cracks are on display with bigger clarity and those who joined the party in the hope of basking in the glory of power are deserting. In the process a lot of things which were slightly hidden are becoming glaringly obvious.
After Jaswant Singh was expelled from the party he talked about certain incidents which show the true nature of the party and the major political personalities involved. Later some of these points were confirmed by Arun Shourie, Brajesh Mishra and Company. The first point which strikes an observer is that it is the nature of people who have come out with statements. First in the row was Yashwant Sinha, then Jaswant Singh, followed by Arun Shourie, another one, Sudheendra Kulkarni, was prompt enough to leave the party. What is common about them is that they all are not having RSS background. Most of BJP leaders, trained in RSS shakhas kept mum on the reasons for defeat and state of disarray in the party. Sushma Swaraj is an exception anyway, as women are not allowed to be members of RSS. Some of the beans which were spilled during the process are very revealing.
Jaswant Singh pointed out, later confirmed by Arun Shourie, that Vajpayee wanted to sack Modi when the Gujarat carnage was on. It was Advani who blocked it. It reflects as much on Advani as on Vajpayee. When Vajpayee raised the issue of dealing with Modi, Advani retorted that if that is done there will be bawal, severe turmoil, in the party. As they went for the Goa meeting Modi offered to resign and as if on a cue most of the top brass of the party attending the meeting opposed it. After he realized that most of the party is with Modi in executing the anti minority carnage, Vajpayee changed his tune and said those words, which subtly went in for Modi’s defense, The words were, …but Godhra also happened! This episode shows that while Advani was hard core in supporting Modi line of violence against minorities, most the party stood by Modi, endorsing his violence and making him a Hero. This is what happens when one is trained by RSS, trained in ‘Hate minority’ sentiments. The character of most of the BJP top brass is there for all to see. But what about Vajpayee, he talks of action against Modi and when he sees that most of the party is for supporting what is going in Gujarat, he goes on to give a hidden justification for what Modi was doing. Not only that he made a weak willed attempt to resign but was ‘easily persuaded’ to stay on. The swayasevak, the RSS soul in his body, was alive and kicking and he went on to serve the full term.
Advani’s lies about Kandhar episode do not need further criticizing the person, who driven by the ambition to show his iron man character, kept lying to the whole nation, that much about his leadership qualities. He is not alone in this. Earlier at one point of time Vajpayee had also claimed to be the part of freedom movement and having gone to jail for the same during 1942 Quit India movement. This lie was exposed by two journalists of Frontline, but this has not become so known to the public mind. Vajpayee had been mistaken to be the participant of Quit India agitation by the police and arrested. After his arrest Vajpayee clarified in a letter written to the authorities that he was not part of the procession; agitation but was a mere onlooker to the procession organized by the youth who were part of the national movement. On this ground he sought his release from jail and he was duly released. So in that sense, what Advani has done is not something which the earlier top BJP leader has not done. The cash for votes scam also shows very clearly as to what low level BJP can stoop for the sake of power.
Now despite the fact that the BJP is in tatters, it will not die. The reason is, BJP has been a mere political arm of RSS. At most of the crucial junctures RSS has been controlling BJP from behind the scene. The only difference is that now all is in the open. To begin with majority of BJP workers, leaders are from RSS background, totally indoctrinated in the ideology of ‘Hate Minorities’, in the ideology of Hindu nation. The statement of Shourie that RSS should take over BJP is a bit complex. Shourie must know that as a BJP member he is mostly amidst RSS workers, barring few. On the top of that RSS always keeps a watchful eye on what its subordinate organizations are doing and keeps coordinating their activities. Its agenda is clear, to bring in Hindu Rashtra over a period of time.
Since the electoral debacle, many a commentators said that BJP can give up Hindutva and survive as a rightwing opposition. Such a suggestion has no place in the real politic, as BJP is nothing but a political child of RSS. It has autonomy to work in the given framework, the framework laid out by RSS. While the current RSS Sarsanghchalak says that BJP will decide its own policies that statement is merely something from the World of make-believe. As things are becoming clearer RSS has taken a total and direct charge of the tottering party.
What is the trajectory for future? For some time, with RSS imprints being very direct, the other NDA allies will opt to remain aloof from NDA and BJP. As happened in 1996 all the opposition parties refused to touch it even with barge pole. They came around the next time as it emerged as the big party and lured by the power, they hung on to BJP. It is likely that despite all its efforts BJP will become a marginal national outfit for quite some time.
It does prevail in the form of its power through states, where it is implementing Hindutva agenda with full vigor. It is also likely that it will try to build itself more through states than at national level. Till RSS is alive BJP will be there, goes without saying. The only difference will be the speed of infiltration of RSS agenda of Hindutva by infiltration in the state machinery, media and education will become slightly slower than usual.
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)