S Gurumurthy
First Published : 03 Apr 2010 11:17:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 03 Apr 2010 12:33:57 AM IST
Supreme Court legalises premarital sex”. “Live in relationships and premarital sex are fine: SC”; “Premarital sex is okay, says Supreme Court”; “Sexual revolution as Supreme Court sanctions co-habitation”. This was how leading newspapers had headlined what three judges of the Supreme Court orally had said in the court on March 23, when they dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by a famous cinema actress from Tamil Nadu to quash the prosecutions against her for her remarks on pre-marital sex. Famous in Tamil Nadu, she had become world famous after she touched the global subject of premarital sex.
Two things must register first. One, oral remarks of judges need not form part of the judgement of the court. Lawyers cannot cite newspaper reports as precedents in courts later. It is only what the judges say in a written judgement that becomes the law of the land. What the judgement of the court is on a petition filed by the Tamil actress is not known as yet. But the newspapers had made out that a judgment okaying pre-marital sex has been delivered by the Supreme Court! Live in partners beware! It is only an oral remark by the judges; it carries no value in law. Read the judgement when it comes to know whether the judges had said in the judgement what they had orally said in the court before celebrating. Two, the issue in the petition of the actress is not whether premarital sex is right or wrong, but, whether she has offended any law by saying that pre-marital sex is okay. The issue she had raised was about the right to free expression, and not the right to free sex. How the judges, as reported, spoke on a subject which could not be an issue in the petition is not clear. Even if the judges wrote an order to the effect on an issue not before the court that would be regarded as obiter dicta (a non-binding opinion). But the actress herself does not seem to be confused by newspaper reports. She seems to know clearly what she had gone to the highest court for — to assert her right to express her opinion on premarital sex. Feeling vindicated she says, “Supreme Court’s direction clearly shows freedom of speech does exist in India”. So much for the spate of reports that the Supreme Court has okayed pre-marital sex.
The next, and the most important, question is whether the Supreme Court, which can at best say that pre-marital sex is unobjectionable, has the authority to make it acceptable. Many unobjectionable things in law are unacceptable in the society. All that the Supreme Court can do is to ask, as it has: “when two adult people want to live together, what is the offence? Does it amount to an offence? Living together is not an offence. It cannot be an offence”. It is again part of the oral exchange between the judges and the counsel arguing against the actress. See what the counsel arguing that the actress should be punished for advocating premarital sex had told the court according to media reports. “The argument of the counsel was that her comments allegedly endorsing pre-marital sex would adversely affect the minds of young people leading to decay in moral values and country’s ethos”. But see what the judges had asked him in response, according to the media. “Please tell us what is the offence and under which section. Living together is a right to life”, implicitly referring to Article 21 that makes right to life and liberty a fundamental right.
By their oral remarks, the judges seem to have impliedly made it clear that the court is not concerned with “moral values” or “country’s ethos” which seemed to be the anxiety of the arguing counsel. But what the court seems to be unconcerned is unfortunately what the society is not only concerned with, but apparently lives by and even lives on. Laws or constitutions do not — in fact cannot — form societies. On the contrary, they may deform them in the name of reforming them, as it has happened now in much of the West, with consequences that are becoming unmanageable. Take the case of the US, which until a year ago, was the unfailing benchmark for our intellectuals and institutions including, in some cases, courts.
The 2002 National Survey of Family Growth in US found that more than half of all women aged 15 to 44 had lived with an unmarried partner. The result is that today, in the US, the number of single parent households is in excess of 50 per cent and more than four-fifths of them are fatherless and mother-led. This resulted in a research book titled Fatherless America in late 1990s. The proportion of children living with a never-married parent rose to 42 per cent in 2001, from four per cent in 1960. But, the growth in live-in relations in the US has less to do with the rights of the individuals as is normally thought here. It has more to do with the decline of traditional marriages and the rise of contractual marriages imposing huge cost of divorce. More than half the first marriages in US end in divorce! Couples in the US with the tenacity to try a second one, found that more than two-thirds of the second ended in divorce!! If still some further energy were left to have a go at the third, three-fourth of that too ended in divorce!!! The decline of weddings is the beginning of unwed lifestyle, not the other way round. All this started in the US with the kind of views — which the Tamil actress had expressed and the Supreme Court did not find unobjectionable — becoming fashionable in US in 1970s and turning socially legitimate later. This erosion was first seen, therefore dismissed — as it is happening here now — as just a moral and cultural issue which was not worth in modern times. But it has now become a huge economic issue in US with uncared for elders, under-cared children, unsupported unhealthy, plummeting savings, bankrupt households, soaring state subsidies, social and health security bill threatening nation’s solvency — all transforming the US from being the biggest lender to the world in 1980s to becoming the greatest borrower from the world today, besides topping in crime rate and jailed population in the world. The global meltdown is not just the US economic meltdown; it is equally a US social and moral meltdown.
If this had not happened in traditional Asian societies, it is because they have struggled to maintain values that nourished relations and families and respected the society. Therefore, the question is not what is not bad, as the judges have asked, but what is good, which they have left unasked.
(To be concluded)
(Reductio ad absurdum will return next week)
Friday, April 2, 2010
More power to the collider
The New Indian Express
First Published : 03 Apr 2010 11:00:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 03 Apr 2010 12:35:04 AM IST
The long wait is almost over. The God particle lurks in the wings and may soon hog centrestage. On Tuesday, the cheers from CERN, whose Large Hadron Collider is finally pumping the expected wattages, were heard across the world as dewy eyed physicists celebrated the start of a new chapter in the story of elementary particles. And this one may turn out to be the most exciting, given a small, unnoticed caveat. There is, it seems, a chance that the God particle may be the last thing anyone will ever find because then we will cease to be.
Still, that is no reason not to celebrate a signal achievement. When the LHC smashed subatomic particles together at near-light speeds, it created, on an infinitesimal scale, versions of what George Gamow in a memorable understatement called a “hot, big bang,” which scientists believe created the universe. When fully operative, LHC will accelerate particles to 99.99 per cent of the speed of light (186,200 miles a second). At that speed and those energies physicists will observe what the universe may have been like a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. In other words, the LHC provides a ride on a ray to the remotest past, to a time when time nearly wasn’t. That would be irresistible to the meekest romantic, and in this at least, scientists are nothing if not romantics. Their search for meaning is very different from the mystic’s quest for oneness, but it is no less pure, no less essential.
Still, there are sceptics, in hordes. What’s the use of it, they ask. And the cost, they groan. It’s true that the LHC cost $10-15 billion, and it will cost more to keep going, but just for comparison the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost trillions of dollars. This is about the search for a theory of everything, from subatomic to super-galactic, and a few billions is a small price. But as they search for the Higgs Boson, among other things, scientists might reflect that every time they thought they had found the grail, new unknowns opened up, a virtual infinity of them, like ‘islands’ in a Mandelbrot set. Perhaps this is folded into the structure of the universe itself, as Uncertainty Principle suggests. But that is another story. Right now, let us cry ‘more power to your collider’ as CERN charges into the future (or the past) in the quest for understanding.
First Published : 03 Apr 2010 11:00:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 03 Apr 2010 12:35:04 AM IST
The long wait is almost over. The God particle lurks in the wings and may soon hog centrestage. On Tuesday, the cheers from CERN, whose Large Hadron Collider is finally pumping the expected wattages, were heard across the world as dewy eyed physicists celebrated the start of a new chapter in the story of elementary particles. And this one may turn out to be the most exciting, given a small, unnoticed caveat. There is, it seems, a chance that the God particle may be the last thing anyone will ever find because then we will cease to be.
Still, that is no reason not to celebrate a signal achievement. When the LHC smashed subatomic particles together at near-light speeds, it created, on an infinitesimal scale, versions of what George Gamow in a memorable understatement called a “hot, big bang,” which scientists believe created the universe. When fully operative, LHC will accelerate particles to 99.99 per cent of the speed of light (186,200 miles a second). At that speed and those energies physicists will observe what the universe may have been like a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. In other words, the LHC provides a ride on a ray to the remotest past, to a time when time nearly wasn’t. That would be irresistible to the meekest romantic, and in this at least, scientists are nothing if not romantics. Their search for meaning is very different from the mystic’s quest for oneness, but it is no less pure, no less essential.
Still, there are sceptics, in hordes. What’s the use of it, they ask. And the cost, they groan. It’s true that the LHC cost $10-15 billion, and it will cost more to keep going, but just for comparison the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost trillions of dollars. This is about the search for a theory of everything, from subatomic to super-galactic, and a few billions is a small price. But as they search for the Higgs Boson, among other things, scientists might reflect that every time they thought they had found the grail, new unknowns opened up, a virtual infinity of them, like ‘islands’ in a Mandelbrot set. Perhaps this is folded into the structure of the universe itself, as Uncertainty Principle suggests. But that is another story. Right now, let us cry ‘more power to your collider’ as CERN charges into the future (or the past) in the quest for understanding.
Reason over blind emotion
The New Indian Express
First Published : 03 Apr 2010 11:14:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 03 Apr 2010 12:34:52 AM IST
Politicians are supposed to be, by definition, chary of putting principle above pragmatism, especially when it comes to taking a public stand contrary to prevailing mores. Clearly, then, E V K S Elangovan, ex-Union minister and former Tamil Nadu Congress party head, is not your usual politician. And, since this column has often urged people to take a stand in favour of a more liberal polity, we offer our commendation. It was only last November that Tamil fanatics threw bombs at his Chennai house after Elangovan tore down posters put up to mark the birth anniversary of V Prabhakaran, the would-be chief of a Lankan Tamil nation. Elangovan must have been almost the only politician in any party to publicly denounce Prabhakaran as a fascist-cum-terrorist, one undeserving of Tamil respect. The other day, he must have further condemned himself in the eyes of fanatics by having an audience burst into laughter with jokes at Tamil language chauvinism. Our staffer reported him as noting a language was only a set of sounds and it was absurd to insist that one such lot of sounds was superior to other intonations of the throat.
There could be many who legitimately differ from his views. What we commend is the fact that here is a man in public life who dares to differ, urging people to use reason instead of blind emotion. This is not the sort of thing one expects from those who aspire to high office in public life and it is an amusing exercise to ponder what that arch iconoclast, Ramaswamy ‘Periyar’ Naicker, would make of his grandnephew’s views on modern-day icons. He would probably differ, maybe with much anger, at some of his descendant’s views, but could hardly object to the latter’s assuming the right to dissent against what passes for Tamil political orthodoxy. It is this point we’d like to single for appreciation, for this is the heart of a democratic society — the freedom to think, to read, to reason and to express. Without violence, one need hardly add. The same rights must be given to others, unless they insist on backing their own views with fists and worse. It is a latitude in short supply in much of our polity, this upholding of the right to propagate the view you dislike. Which is why we’d like much more of this spirit which is unafraid to differ, using facts and reason, and expecting a response in like manner.
First Published : 03 Apr 2010 11:14:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 03 Apr 2010 12:34:52 AM IST
Politicians are supposed to be, by definition, chary of putting principle above pragmatism, especially when it comes to taking a public stand contrary to prevailing mores. Clearly, then, E V K S Elangovan, ex-Union minister and former Tamil Nadu Congress party head, is not your usual politician. And, since this column has often urged people to take a stand in favour of a more liberal polity, we offer our commendation. It was only last November that Tamil fanatics threw bombs at his Chennai house after Elangovan tore down posters put up to mark the birth anniversary of V Prabhakaran, the would-be chief of a Lankan Tamil nation. Elangovan must have been almost the only politician in any party to publicly denounce Prabhakaran as a fascist-cum-terrorist, one undeserving of Tamil respect. The other day, he must have further condemned himself in the eyes of fanatics by having an audience burst into laughter with jokes at Tamil language chauvinism. Our staffer reported him as noting a language was only a set of sounds and it was absurd to insist that one such lot of sounds was superior to other intonations of the throat.
There could be many who legitimately differ from his views. What we commend is the fact that here is a man in public life who dares to differ, urging people to use reason instead of blind emotion. This is not the sort of thing one expects from those who aspire to high office in public life and it is an amusing exercise to ponder what that arch iconoclast, Ramaswamy ‘Periyar’ Naicker, would make of his grandnephew’s views on modern-day icons. He would probably differ, maybe with much anger, at some of his descendant’s views, but could hardly object to the latter’s assuming the right to dissent against what passes for Tamil political orthodoxy. It is this point we’d like to single for appreciation, for this is the heart of a democratic society — the freedom to think, to read, to reason and to express. Without violence, one need hardly add. The same rights must be given to others, unless they insist on backing their own views with fists and worse. It is a latitude in short supply in much of our polity, this upholding of the right to propagate the view you dislike. Which is why we’d like much more of this spirit which is unafraid to differ, using facts and reason, and expecting a response in like manner.
Maya sacks Brahmin officials to woo Dalits
Piyush Srivastava
Lucknow, April 3, 2010
Comment Buzz up!
Bookmark and Share
A A A Email
Print Single View Buy article
Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati is switching the caste variables in her political calculus, replacing Brahmins with non-Yadav backward castes to consolidate her Dalit vote bank.
The early signs of a game-changing formula were visible in the sacking of 68 Brahmin public prosecutors and the appointment of 20 new Dalit ones a couple of days ago.
Call it the Rahul Gandhi effect on Dalit hamlets across the dusty countryside or the sobering impact of the 2009 parliamentary elections when 56 per cent of the Dalit electorate in UP did not vote. Mayawati first sidelined Satish Chandra Mishra, the Brahmin face of her Bahujan Samaj Party ( BSP). Top sources in the party insist she may not field most of her 42 Brahmin MLAs in the assembly polls two years from now.
A BSP coordinator for eastern UP said party workers had finally made Mayawati see the reality of an eroding mass base. "Behenji has realised that she has alienated about 50 percent of the Dalits by letting Brahmins run away with power and pelf. The Dalit-Brahmin combination which had helped her to ride to power in 2007 failed in 2009. We had complained to her after the Lok Sabha polls that though five out of 20 Brahmin BSP candidates won with Dalit votes, 15 out of our 17 Dalit candidates lost because they didn't get Brahmin votes," he alleged.
The BSP supremo had put up 86 Brahmin candidates in the 2007 Uttar Pradesh assembly elections.
Two years later, after the shock victory of 21 Congress candidates in the Lok Sabha elections, the BSP has reportedly come to the conclusion that Brahmins have refused to transfer their votes to the Dalit party and have gone back to the community's original icons, the Gandhis.
In this politics of diminishing returns, Mayawati seems to be dumping the Brahmins and seeking a new caste alliance.
Uttar Pradesh Congress spokesman Akhilesh Pratap Singh said Mayawati was angry with the Brahmins for shifting their allegiance to the Congress. "She is deserting the Brahmins because they are moving towards the Congress," he said.
Of the 145 public prosecutors she sacked on Tuesday, 68 were Brahmins and only three Dalits.
When she appointed 75 new prosecutors the next day, she made sure that 20 of them were Dalits. The number of Brahmins was just 18. Though she has brought in only 10 backward caste prosecutors, party insiders said she was searching for more.
Mayawati had earlier let Mishra farm out these jobs, which command immense local clout and social prestige to Brahmins, as a thanksgiving gesture for their support in 2007. But not any longer.
From the role of prime troubleshooter, Mishra has now been reduced to monitoring her cases in the Supreme Court. Additional cabinet secretary Vijay Shanker Pandey, the man who ran her bureaucracy, was shifted from the state capital to Allahabad as member of the revenue board.
Instead, Netram, a Dalit additional cabinet secretary, is now assigned to tame errant bureaucrats.
Mishra has been replaced by four second-rung leaders - PWD minister and party general secretary Nasimuddin Siddiqui, the party's Muslim face, mining minister Babu Singh Kushwaha, a backward caste leader, social welfare minister Indrajit Saroj and rural development minister Daddu Prasad, both Dalits.
Mayawati even sacked her Karnataka unit spokesman Y.N. Sharma, alleging that he let the details of her "cash garland" out by speaking out of turn. Sharma insists his dismissal too is part of a pattern.
"She used me as a Brahmin face in Karnataka during the Lok Sabha polls because I am a member of the All-India Brahmin Federation. She expelled me when she realised that the Brahmin-Dalit combination would not succeed in my state. She has decided to dump about 40 Brahmin MLAs in 2012 and increase the ratio of Dalits, Muslims and backward castes," Sharma claimed.
Dalits form approximately 21 per cent of the state's population, but the BSP cannot win polls with just Dalit votes. It will need the support of at least two more communities. If the Brahmins, supposed to be about 13 per cent, abandon her, she needs to look at the conglomeration of non-Yadav backward castes like Lodhs, Kurmis, Kushwahas and others, who add up to 20 per cent.
Sharma said Mayawati has been "terrified" of Rahul's visit to Dalit houses because this could lead to Dalits abandoning her and the Brahmins shifting to the Congress. Political analyst A.K. Verma said her only option now is to forge a Dalit-Mulsim-backward alliance.
Nanaji — as I knew him
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 01 Mar 2010 11:07:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 01 Mar 2010 12:28:53 AM IST
Nanaji’ as Nana Deshmukh was known in political and social circles, which he dominated for almost six decades, is no more. Many who were inspired by him in politics and outside saw and knew him as a towering idealist; his admirers and friends experienced and rated him as a great political strategist. Joining the RSS at a young age and becoming its pracharak (whole-time volunteer), he was undoubtedly a great organiser. He had intimate friends in high places everywhere. He was equally at ease with both the noble Bhoodhan movement of Vinobha Bhave and the gutter politics of Delhi. He had friends even in the garrisons of his adversaries. When Jawaharlal Nehru had banned the RSS in 1948, Nanaji Deshmukh began organising the underground movement.
From where? Believe it, from the house of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, a minister in Pandit Nehru’s government. It was public knowledge that Nehru had regarded RSS as his archenemy and had even declared that he would not give an inch in India for the Bhagwa (the flag of the RSS) to fly. Still Kidwai, a great friend of Nehru, had issues about keeping Nanaji in house and more — allowing him to organise underground activities. This indicates the magnetic personality of Nanaji who must have been then in his twenties!
My association with Nanaji Deshmukh started with my friendship with Ramnath Goenka. Ramnathji and Nanaji were not only great friends, they both thought and felt about the country almost alike. The mutual trust and admiration that they had was rooted wholly in their love of the motherland, totally devoid of any kind of personal interest. The Nanaji-Ramnathji combine felt that no goal other than what they thought was the good of the nation. Ramnath Goenka had shaped the Indian Express not as just a newspaper. It was an active partner with all nationalist forces in the cause of the country, setting the agenda for political and social discourse. Ramnathji never knew what fear meant in life. So was Nanaji. And these two courageous persons could effortlessly infect many others of high relevance, journalists or others, with fearlessness. It was the Ramnathji-Nanaji duo that persuaded Jayaprakash Narayan to agree to lead the Bihar movement in 1974, which changed the political picture of the country.
An incredible incident made Jayaprakash Narayan to agree to the plea of Nanaji and Ramnathji to lead the movement against Indira Gandhi. I came to know of this in the late 1980s when at a dinner in the Express Towers in Bombay I asked Nanaji and Ramnathji how they brought JP into the movement. Nanaji described the thrilling and unbelievable episode. A historic meeting of Ramnathji, Nanaji, Achyut Patwardhan, the hero of the 1942 underground movement and Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, a great Hindi poet, took place sometime in 1973 in the Indian Express Guest House in Bangalore. Ramnathji, Nanaji, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar and Achyut Patwardhan, began insisting that JP should lead the movement as Indira Gandhi had become highly autocratic and had begun destroying the institutional framework of democracy including the judiciary and bureaucracy. Incidentally, Dinkar was one of the greatest friends of the Nehru family and particularly of Indira Gandhi herself. But that did not detract him from doing what he thought was his duty to the nation. JP was hesitant mainly because of his health. He was a diabetic and had acute prostrate gland issues. He said that he would not be able to live for long and his health did not permit him to undertake such an arduous task. Ramnathji assured him that he would have his prostrate operation done in Vellore, which he eventually got done later. But JP could still not make up his mind. At that point, Ramnathji suggested that all of them should go to Tirupati, have darshan and prayers and from there, go to Madras as it was known then, and continue the discussions. And they all left for Tirupati.
During the darshan at Tirupati, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar openly prayed to Lord Balaji, to the hearing of JP and the others, that whatever remaining years of life Dinkar had the Lord should give them to JP to help him serve the cause of the motherland. And they all returned to Madras and to Ramnathji’s house in the Express Estates in Mount Road. Within hours Ramdhari Singh Dinkar fell on the lap of Ramnath Goenka and died — yes he died when JP, Nanaji and Achyut Patwardhan were around. It was clear that Lord Balaji had answered Dinkar’s prayers. JP’s decision to lead the movement came in no time. Despite my several requests Nanaji had refused to write about it in the Indian Express. When I asked him how will the people of India know about it, he said that he had written in his diary and he would like it to be known after his death. Now that he is no more I felt free to write about it.
After the operation JP began to lead one of the biggest mass movements against corruption in free India and that led to the imposition of Emergency, arrest of all national opposition leaders and a ban on the RSS. That was the best period in the life of Nanaji. He was one of the initiators of the underground movement that finally exploded as the Janata wave when in 1977 Indira Gandhi, with a view to securing mandate for her autocracy declared elections to Parliament, not knowing that, without her intelligence agencies having a whiff of it, the underground movement had generated a political tornado against her. Nanaji was the architect of the Janata Party. He contested elections for the first time and won. He refused to join the ministry when Morarji Desai insisted.
Later when the Janata Party split and the Bharatiya Janata Party was formed in 1980, Nanaji announced that he would like to retire from active politics as he was attaining the age of 65. A new role — that of a social worker — to lift moral and spiritual values and to promote economic and social well-being of the distanced people awaited him. He started his work first in the most backward districts of Gonda in UP and next in the equally drought-prone and poverty-ridden Bead district in Maharashtra and finally settled to do a more comprehensive work of socio-economic progress with moral values covering some 500 villages in Chitrakoot district. The President of India Abdul Kalam visited Nanaji’s Chitrakoot project, praised and blessed it as the most suitable one for India noting that almost 80 villages in the district had become litigation free. That was his final karma bhoomi even though the whole country was his karma bhoomi. He once told me that when he was a child many days he had had nothing to eat. But that did not turn him into a naxalite. But his introduction to the RSS at the right age, and association with the right persons, had turned him into a great nationalist who lived for his motherland’s glory and nothing else.
comment@gurumurthy.net
About The Author;
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.
First Published : 01 Mar 2010 11:07:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 01 Mar 2010 12:28:53 AM IST
Nanaji’ as Nana Deshmukh was known in political and social circles, which he dominated for almost six decades, is no more. Many who were inspired by him in politics and outside saw and knew him as a towering idealist; his admirers and friends experienced and rated him as a great political strategist. Joining the RSS at a young age and becoming its pracharak (whole-time volunteer), he was undoubtedly a great organiser. He had intimate friends in high places everywhere. He was equally at ease with both the noble Bhoodhan movement of Vinobha Bhave and the gutter politics of Delhi. He had friends even in the garrisons of his adversaries. When Jawaharlal Nehru had banned the RSS in 1948, Nanaji Deshmukh began organising the underground movement.
From where? Believe it, from the house of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, a minister in Pandit Nehru’s government. It was public knowledge that Nehru had regarded RSS as his archenemy and had even declared that he would not give an inch in India for the Bhagwa (the flag of the RSS) to fly. Still Kidwai, a great friend of Nehru, had issues about keeping Nanaji in house and more — allowing him to organise underground activities. This indicates the magnetic personality of Nanaji who must have been then in his twenties!
My association with Nanaji Deshmukh started with my friendship with Ramnath Goenka. Ramnathji and Nanaji were not only great friends, they both thought and felt about the country almost alike. The mutual trust and admiration that they had was rooted wholly in their love of the motherland, totally devoid of any kind of personal interest. The Nanaji-Ramnathji combine felt that no goal other than what they thought was the good of the nation. Ramnath Goenka had shaped the Indian Express not as just a newspaper. It was an active partner with all nationalist forces in the cause of the country, setting the agenda for political and social discourse. Ramnathji never knew what fear meant in life. So was Nanaji. And these two courageous persons could effortlessly infect many others of high relevance, journalists or others, with fearlessness. It was the Ramnathji-Nanaji duo that persuaded Jayaprakash Narayan to agree to lead the Bihar movement in 1974, which changed the political picture of the country.
An incredible incident made Jayaprakash Narayan to agree to the plea of Nanaji and Ramnathji to lead the movement against Indira Gandhi. I came to know of this in the late 1980s when at a dinner in the Express Towers in Bombay I asked Nanaji and Ramnathji how they brought JP into the movement. Nanaji described the thrilling and unbelievable episode. A historic meeting of Ramnathji, Nanaji, Achyut Patwardhan, the hero of the 1942 underground movement and Ramdhari Singh Dinkar, a great Hindi poet, took place sometime in 1973 in the Indian Express Guest House in Bangalore. Ramnathji, Nanaji, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar and Achyut Patwardhan, began insisting that JP should lead the movement as Indira Gandhi had become highly autocratic and had begun destroying the institutional framework of democracy including the judiciary and bureaucracy. Incidentally, Dinkar was one of the greatest friends of the Nehru family and particularly of Indira Gandhi herself. But that did not detract him from doing what he thought was his duty to the nation. JP was hesitant mainly because of his health. He was a diabetic and had acute prostrate gland issues. He said that he would not be able to live for long and his health did not permit him to undertake such an arduous task. Ramnathji assured him that he would have his prostrate operation done in Vellore, which he eventually got done later. But JP could still not make up his mind. At that point, Ramnathji suggested that all of them should go to Tirupati, have darshan and prayers and from there, go to Madras as it was known then, and continue the discussions. And they all left for Tirupati.
During the darshan at Tirupati, Ramdhari Singh Dinkar openly prayed to Lord Balaji, to the hearing of JP and the others, that whatever remaining years of life Dinkar had the Lord should give them to JP to help him serve the cause of the motherland. And they all returned to Madras and to Ramnathji’s house in the Express Estates in Mount Road. Within hours Ramdhari Singh Dinkar fell on the lap of Ramnath Goenka and died — yes he died when JP, Nanaji and Achyut Patwardhan were around. It was clear that Lord Balaji had answered Dinkar’s prayers. JP’s decision to lead the movement came in no time. Despite my several requests Nanaji had refused to write about it in the Indian Express. When I asked him how will the people of India know about it, he said that he had written in his diary and he would like it to be known after his death. Now that he is no more I felt free to write about it.
After the operation JP began to lead one of the biggest mass movements against corruption in free India and that led to the imposition of Emergency, arrest of all national opposition leaders and a ban on the RSS. That was the best period in the life of Nanaji. He was one of the initiators of the underground movement that finally exploded as the Janata wave when in 1977 Indira Gandhi, with a view to securing mandate for her autocracy declared elections to Parliament, not knowing that, without her intelligence agencies having a whiff of it, the underground movement had generated a political tornado against her. Nanaji was the architect of the Janata Party. He contested elections for the first time and won. He refused to join the ministry when Morarji Desai insisted.
Later when the Janata Party split and the Bharatiya Janata Party was formed in 1980, Nanaji announced that he would like to retire from active politics as he was attaining the age of 65. A new role — that of a social worker — to lift moral and spiritual values and to promote economic and social well-being of the distanced people awaited him. He started his work first in the most backward districts of Gonda in UP and next in the equally drought-prone and poverty-ridden Bead district in Maharashtra and finally settled to do a more comprehensive work of socio-economic progress with moral values covering some 500 villages in Chitrakoot district. The President of India Abdul Kalam visited Nanaji’s Chitrakoot project, praised and blessed it as the most suitable one for India noting that almost 80 villages in the district had become litigation free. That was his final karma bhoomi even though the whole country was his karma bhoomi. He once told me that when he was a child many days he had had nothing to eat. But that did not turn him into a naxalite. But his introduction to the RSS at the right age, and association with the right persons, had turned him into a great nationalist who lived for his motherland’s glory and nothing else.
comment@gurumurthy.net
About The Author;
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.
A Bhadralok Communist
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 18 Jan 2010 12:54:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 18 Jan 2010 01:08:18 AM IST
‘Gana’ as Jyoti Basu who ruled West Bengal as chief minister for 23 long years from 1977 to 2000, was affectionately known at home, is no more. Undoubtedly a versatile politician whose public life lasted six decades, different people will recall Basu in different ways. His adversaries and friends alike will recall him as a practical communist who even undertook a visit to the US, the arch enemy of his party and its ideology, seeking its investment in his state. The official website of the Left Front government brings out his greatest achievement. It eulogises him as the one who perpetuated Communist control over the state apparatus of West Bengal — an indisputable fact. Understanding how he achieved this feat is critical to know Jyoti Basu as a politician as also his mission.
The State website www.jyotibasu.net says that Jyoti Basu “is known primarily” for “establishing a seemingly indestructible Communist control over some of the levers of the state-level political power in West Bengal”. The official website says that he achieved this by combining “communist extra parliamentary” political tactic with the parliamentary tactic “aimed at establishing indestructible Communist control”. But could ‘indestructible communist’ control be consistent with parliamentary democratic process? No. It could not be. But a re-reading of the official website makes it evident that what it talks of is not democratic, but “Communist”, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary political tactics.
Here is a telling illustration of how ‘the Communist extra parliamentary political tactic’ is different from democratic parliamentary process. In its editorial dated August 6, 2003 written in the context of the unprecedented violence that marked the panchayat polls in the state which the CPI(M) had won, The Statesman newspaper said it was not “the popularity of the Marxists” that was the reason for the marginalisation of the opposition parties in the elections, but, it was the Marxists’ “expertise in fixing elections by violence, intimidation, and by simple expedient of preventing opposition candidates from filing nominations”. The edit concluded: “it is the prescriptive right of the communists to use any method they choose and if it is a wrong or illegal method, the stigma is instantly washed away when they touch it.” The implication is clear. The Marxists never considered it a sin to fix elections by fraud and violence, and if they did it, no stigma would attach to them! The use of this extra parliamentary tactic along with the parliamentary — read electoral — process is the secret of Jyoti Basu’s success in perpetuating communist control over the State apparatus in West Bengal. But more than this achievement, that he did so without being faulted for it speaks volumes about how an acceptable face can make unacceptable things acceptable to the people who count.
Jyoti Basu was the face of Bengali Communism most acceptable to the Bengali Bhadralok. For the British, Bhadralok meant the ‘well-mannered’ Bengali. But, in the dictionary of Indian politics, it would simply mean the upper castes in Bengal. While in rest of India, with the democratic process deepening with each election, the lower castes’ share of power increased, the Marxist controlled West Bengal had virtually kept out the lower castes and denied their due share in power. Surprised? Here is the evidence. In the governments led by Jyoti Basu between 1977 and 1982, “there were even more Brahmins than in the Congress governments, over 35 per cent; the number of Kayasthas (31 per cent) and Vaishyas (23 per cent) was almost the same as in Congress governments”. What was the share of the Scheduled Castes in Jyoti Basu ministry? Believe it — just “1.5 per cent”. If the “inferior ministers — ministers of state and deputy ministers — were left out”, it would be even “lower”. Stunningly, in Basu’s ministry in 1977 and 1982 “there was not a single Scheduled Caste member of the Council of Ministers”. Yes, not a single one despite West Bengal having the highest concentration of Scheduled Caste population in the whole country — almost 24 per cent (Census 1991). These shocking facts have been brought out in a scholarly work that appears in http://www.ambedkar.org/books/tu2.htm.
The message is evident. The transfer of power from Congress to Marxists had actually made it worse for the lower castes. The reason. Jyoti Basu largely represented the traditional Bengal, contrary to the popular notion that he and the likes of him were products of Marxian modernity. His dress and circle of friends readily identified him with the Bengali Bhadralok and endeared him to the media in Bengal dominated by the Bhadralok, which in turn made him inevitable for the party within. Result, Bhadralok actually dominated Bengali politics more under the Marxists than even under the Congress. The website www.jyotibasu.net says that Jyoti Basu was “initially distrustful of parliamentary politics as the politics of the ‘bourgeois talking-shops’”. But that is precisely what his politics substantially ended with. The Bhadralok-led media in Bengal, save exceptions like The Statesman, were understandably comfortable with the tactics of Jyoti Basu government since that preserved the political primacy of the Bhadralok. The national media was content to certify the CPI(M) as secular, which was sufficient to wash off all sins of its extra parliamentary tactics.
The extra parliamentary tactic that Jyoti Basu had bequeathed to the Marxists has sustained them for almost a decade after Basu quit in the year 2000. But things seem to be changing now. Thanks to the aggressive politics of Mamata Bannerjee, the Bengali lower caste political assertion is on the rise. The southern states witnessed such assertion in 1950s and the northern states, much later, in 1990s. But, thanks to Marxist — read Bhadralok — control over West Bengal politics, lower caste assertion has been delayed for almost half a century and has not taken off even today in the State. With the Marxists beginning to falter, the national media too has begun pointing to the Bhadralok character of Marxism in West Bengal which it would not do a day earlier. Analysing the Nandigram issue in Indian Express (March 20, 2007) Yogendra Yadav, a well-known political analyst wrote: “Nandigram did not surprise me…….. In West Bengal, the proportion of upper castes increased in the state assembly after the Left Front came to power. A coincidence? Not if you calculate the caste composition of successive Left Front ministries: About two-thirds of the ministers come from the top three jatis (Brahman, Boddis, Kayasthas)”. Yet, thanks to the very media’s indulgence, Jyoti Basu was not perceived as a traditional Bhadralok politician who did not share power with the lower castes, but, as a Marxian modernist.
But the one area where Jyoti Basu combined the parliamentary and extra parliamentary tactics to keep the lower sections of society satisfied was land reform. Thus, even as Jyoti Basu reserved state power for the Bhadralok, he also ensured that legislative land reforms were supported by extra legislative abrogation of land by the communists for distribution. Thus, Basu secured land for the lower castes but reserved power for the upper castes — a trade-off that retained the Bhadralok primacy in power politics, and also won rural Bengal for the CPI(M). But ironically, this is precisely where the Trinamool Congress is challenging the Marxists. How? The very land, distributing which the CPI(M) became the ideological darling of the people, has now become its nemesis as the CPI(M) forcibly took it back from the people in Singur and Nandigram to give it to the ideological enemies of the party.
But undoubtedly Jyoti Basu knew the art of building and wielding power within, and without altering, the existing social architecture. He was a practical politician, not an idealist nor a statesman. But despite ruling the state of West Bengal for 23 long years Jyoti Basu himself died as an unhappy man because when other parties wanted him as the prime minister of the country in 1996, it was his party which prevented him. Expressing his frustration, not once but twice, Jyoti Basu said that his party’s decision to veto his elevation to the highest political office was a “Himalayan Blunder”. Yet, till now there is no explanation from his party as to why it denied him the high office when the dream of any political party would be to see one of its leaders as the prime minister. The mystique veto of the CPI(M) against its own most popular leader makes Jyoti Basu unique. Thus ends the political saga of Jyoti Basu who made his party acceptable to Bengal but found himself unacceptable to his own party, to lead India!
(S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues. E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net)
First Published : 18 Jan 2010 12:54:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 18 Jan 2010 01:08:18 AM IST
‘Gana’ as Jyoti Basu who ruled West Bengal as chief minister for 23 long years from 1977 to 2000, was affectionately known at home, is no more. Undoubtedly a versatile politician whose public life lasted six decades, different people will recall Basu in different ways. His adversaries and friends alike will recall him as a practical communist who even undertook a visit to the US, the arch enemy of his party and its ideology, seeking its investment in his state. The official website of the Left Front government brings out his greatest achievement. It eulogises him as the one who perpetuated Communist control over the state apparatus of West Bengal — an indisputable fact. Understanding how he achieved this feat is critical to know Jyoti Basu as a politician as also his mission.
The State website www.jyotibasu.net says that Jyoti Basu “is known primarily” for “establishing a seemingly indestructible Communist control over some of the levers of the state-level political power in West Bengal”. The official website says that he achieved this by combining “communist extra parliamentary” political tactic with the parliamentary tactic “aimed at establishing indestructible Communist control”. But could ‘indestructible communist’ control be consistent with parliamentary democratic process? No. It could not be. But a re-reading of the official website makes it evident that what it talks of is not democratic, but “Communist”, parliamentary and extra-parliamentary political tactics.
Here is a telling illustration of how ‘the Communist extra parliamentary political tactic’ is different from democratic parliamentary process. In its editorial dated August 6, 2003 written in the context of the unprecedented violence that marked the panchayat polls in the state which the CPI(M) had won, The Statesman newspaper said it was not “the popularity of the Marxists” that was the reason for the marginalisation of the opposition parties in the elections, but, it was the Marxists’ “expertise in fixing elections by violence, intimidation, and by simple expedient of preventing opposition candidates from filing nominations”. The edit concluded: “it is the prescriptive right of the communists to use any method they choose and if it is a wrong or illegal method, the stigma is instantly washed away when they touch it.” The implication is clear. The Marxists never considered it a sin to fix elections by fraud and violence, and if they did it, no stigma would attach to them! The use of this extra parliamentary tactic along with the parliamentary — read electoral — process is the secret of Jyoti Basu’s success in perpetuating communist control over the State apparatus in West Bengal. But more than this achievement, that he did so without being faulted for it speaks volumes about how an acceptable face can make unacceptable things acceptable to the people who count.
Jyoti Basu was the face of Bengali Communism most acceptable to the Bengali Bhadralok. For the British, Bhadralok meant the ‘well-mannered’ Bengali. But, in the dictionary of Indian politics, it would simply mean the upper castes in Bengal. While in rest of India, with the democratic process deepening with each election, the lower castes’ share of power increased, the Marxist controlled West Bengal had virtually kept out the lower castes and denied their due share in power. Surprised? Here is the evidence. In the governments led by Jyoti Basu between 1977 and 1982, “there were even more Brahmins than in the Congress governments, over 35 per cent; the number of Kayasthas (31 per cent) and Vaishyas (23 per cent) was almost the same as in Congress governments”. What was the share of the Scheduled Castes in Jyoti Basu ministry? Believe it — just “1.5 per cent”. If the “inferior ministers — ministers of state and deputy ministers — were left out”, it would be even “lower”. Stunningly, in Basu’s ministry in 1977 and 1982 “there was not a single Scheduled Caste member of the Council of Ministers”. Yes, not a single one despite West Bengal having the highest concentration of Scheduled Caste population in the whole country — almost 24 per cent (Census 1991). These shocking facts have been brought out in a scholarly work that appears in http://www.ambedkar.org/books/tu2.htm.
The message is evident. The transfer of power from Congress to Marxists had actually made it worse for the lower castes. The reason. Jyoti Basu largely represented the traditional Bengal, contrary to the popular notion that he and the likes of him were products of Marxian modernity. His dress and circle of friends readily identified him with the Bengali Bhadralok and endeared him to the media in Bengal dominated by the Bhadralok, which in turn made him inevitable for the party within. Result, Bhadralok actually dominated Bengali politics more under the Marxists than even under the Congress. The website www.jyotibasu.net says that Jyoti Basu was “initially distrustful of parliamentary politics as the politics of the ‘bourgeois talking-shops’”. But that is precisely what his politics substantially ended with. The Bhadralok-led media in Bengal, save exceptions like The Statesman, were understandably comfortable with the tactics of Jyoti Basu government since that preserved the political primacy of the Bhadralok. The national media was content to certify the CPI(M) as secular, which was sufficient to wash off all sins of its extra parliamentary tactics.
The extra parliamentary tactic that Jyoti Basu had bequeathed to the Marxists has sustained them for almost a decade after Basu quit in the year 2000. But things seem to be changing now. Thanks to the aggressive politics of Mamata Bannerjee, the Bengali lower caste political assertion is on the rise. The southern states witnessed such assertion in 1950s and the northern states, much later, in 1990s. But, thanks to Marxist — read Bhadralok — control over West Bengal politics, lower caste assertion has been delayed for almost half a century and has not taken off even today in the State. With the Marxists beginning to falter, the national media too has begun pointing to the Bhadralok character of Marxism in West Bengal which it would not do a day earlier. Analysing the Nandigram issue in Indian Express (March 20, 2007) Yogendra Yadav, a well-known political analyst wrote: “Nandigram did not surprise me…….. In West Bengal, the proportion of upper castes increased in the state assembly after the Left Front came to power. A coincidence? Not if you calculate the caste composition of successive Left Front ministries: About two-thirds of the ministers come from the top three jatis (Brahman, Boddis, Kayasthas)”. Yet, thanks to the very media’s indulgence, Jyoti Basu was not perceived as a traditional Bhadralok politician who did not share power with the lower castes, but, as a Marxian modernist.
But the one area where Jyoti Basu combined the parliamentary and extra parliamentary tactics to keep the lower sections of society satisfied was land reform. Thus, even as Jyoti Basu reserved state power for the Bhadralok, he also ensured that legislative land reforms were supported by extra legislative abrogation of land by the communists for distribution. Thus, Basu secured land for the lower castes but reserved power for the upper castes — a trade-off that retained the Bhadralok primacy in power politics, and also won rural Bengal for the CPI(M). But ironically, this is precisely where the Trinamool Congress is challenging the Marxists. How? The very land, distributing which the CPI(M) became the ideological darling of the people, has now become its nemesis as the CPI(M) forcibly took it back from the people in Singur and Nandigram to give it to the ideological enemies of the party.
But undoubtedly Jyoti Basu knew the art of building and wielding power within, and without altering, the existing social architecture. He was a practical politician, not an idealist nor a statesman. But despite ruling the state of West Bengal for 23 long years Jyoti Basu himself died as an unhappy man because when other parties wanted him as the prime minister of the country in 1996, it was his party which prevented him. Expressing his frustration, not once but twice, Jyoti Basu said that his party’s decision to veto his elevation to the highest political office was a “Himalayan Blunder”. Yet, till now there is no explanation from his party as to why it denied him the high office when the dream of any political party would be to see one of its leaders as the prime minister. The mystique veto of the CPI(M) against its own most popular leader makes Jyoti Basu unique. Thus ends the political saga of Jyoti Basu who made his party acceptable to Bengal but found himself unacceptable to his own party, to lead India!
(S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues. E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net)
Liberhan takes suspicions as proof
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 07 Dec 2009 11:13:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 07 Dec 2009 12:35:16 AM IST
Was there a conspiracy to demolish the disputed structure at Ayodhya by the leaders of the Ayodhya movement or any of them or anyone else? Or was it the result the sudden outburst of the emotions of the thousands of karsevaks who wanted a temple to be built where the disputed structure stood? This question arose when in a matter of hours the disputed structure was demolished by the crowd on December 6, 1992. There were two theories — one it was spontaneous outburst and the other, it was a deeper conspiracy. After years of fact-finding by government and the judiciary, the issue had been virtually settled that there was no conspiracy.
Liberhan had completed recording evidence on January 22, 2003, that is, over six years ago. Thereafter, for six long years, he patiently waits for the ‘crucial records’ from intelligence agencies, does not get it, yet dares to look at the ‘fragmented information’ and ‘misinformation’ produced before him and finally builds up almost an imaginary theory of conspiracy by the leaders of the movement to demolish the structure. See how Liberhan imaginatively reinstates the conspiracy theatre with no fresh evidence and claiming to cite evidence already in the public domain! Read on.
CBI, GOI and HM: “no conspiracy”
When Liberhan says there was a conspiracy to demolish the structure, what evidence he cites to support his conclusion? He actually cites those that are against his theory, with none in favour. He first says that the CBI, which was assisting him, “has not been able to come to any conclusion” on the basis of the facts collected by it. (para 8.19, p22). Liberhan notes: ‘I may observe that they were primarily guided by the CBI inquiry made for prosecution of some of the participants in movement’. What he means is that the CBI chargesheet does not contain any case of conspiracy to demolish the structure against any of the BJP or VHP or RSS leaders. The CBI has merely charged the Ayodhya movement leaders with provocative speeches and inciting communal discord.
See next, how the judiciary has dealt with the conspiracy angle. The trial court at Rae Bareilly dismissed the conspiracy charge against the leaders of the movement in the year 2001. When this issue was taken to the Allahabad High Court, the ‘secular’ Mulayam Singh government in UP filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that the demolition of the structure at Ayodhya ‘was done under criminal conspiracy by any specific community or political party is wrong and denied’. The Allahabad High Court upheld the trial court order. That order was challenged in the Supreme Court. In February 2009, the Supreme Court refused to intervene in the matter. So legally there is no conspiracy charge against the leaders of the movement.
Third, Liberhan says he has carefully considered the White Paper issued by the Government of India on the Ayodhya events. The White Paper does not even hint at any conspiracy. Instead it says that everything was normal, the karseva was proceeding ‘as per the plan’ of the organisers; but ‘in a sudden development’ the karsevaks broke the police cordon and entered the structure in large numbers and then the demolition took place.
Fourth, just seven days before the government had released the White Paper, S B Chavan, the then home minister, had told the media in clear terms that there was no conspiracy to demolish the structure. But Liberhan turns a blind eye to these crucial facts. First, even as he says he has carefully considered the government’s White Paper, he does not utter a word about its view that the demolition was sudden. Second, he does not refer to S B Chavan’s statement at all. Third, he says that the CBI has confined its view to the prosecution it has launched — in which of course there is allegation of conspiracy to demolish the structure. Fourth he sidesteps the judicial rulings. How does Liberhan seed his the conspiracy theory?
Liberhan: Yes, there is
Despite the government’s White Paper seeing no conspiracy, the CBI concluding there was none, and the then home minister clearly ruling out any, Liberhan suspects and concludes on the basis of the suspicion, that there was indeed a conspiracy. He sees (para 122.4, p725) ‘the seeds of the conspiracy’ sown 1983 in when, according to him, late Gulzari Lal Nanda, veteran Congress leader of 1950s and 1960s, had participated. Closer to December 1992, Liberhan vaguely refers to a report in the Telegraph in two places (in Chapter 4, paras 41.9 and 42.19) which said that on November 2, 1992, VHP, RSS, BJP leaders including Ashok Singhal, V H Dalmia, L K Advani, Murali Manohar Joshi, Kalyan Singh, K S Sudharshan met and worked out logistics and other details for the karseva. By noting that ‘there was no documentation of what transpired or was decided at the meeting’, Liberhan hints at some secret decision having been taken. Apart from this clinching evidence, he claims circumstantial evidence against them (Chapter 14 para 164.2 and 164.3). That was nothing but his first suspicion that the leaders had the means to prevent the demolition and his next suspicion that they did not and so his further suspicion that they were guilty of conspiring. That is, he suspects Advani and others could have prevented the demolition and on that suspicion, he further suspects since they did not do so, they were part of the conspiracy. But, the Liberhan missile of suspicion does not spare anyone. Before examining further his logic of suspicion to condemn Atal Behari Vajpayee, L K Advani and 66 others, see on what logic he trashes the intelligence agencies and how that gives a clue to the psychology that drives him.
Suspicions as proof
Liberhan says that either the intelligence agencies are guilty of “over-optimism” and “gross failure” or in the alternative they have “withheld crucial records” from the Commission. What does he mean by this? First, the two charges cannot be alternatives to each other. If the agencies are guilty of over-optimism and gross failure, they could not overcome that charge by producing the crucial records. More, why will they hold back records, which will disprove their guilt? So the charge of suppression of the record could only be in addition to that and not an alternative charge. Behind the messy words, his main grouse seems to be that the intelligence agencies would not trust him with their confidential information even at the risk of being censured by him.
Obviously he was upset with them for their couldn’t-care-less approach. But, did he go into why they had claimed privilege for their record? Even under the Freedom of Information Law, the intelligence agency records are not open to public. This binds even a commission of inquiry. But Liberhan does not stop at charging the intelligence agencies with holding back crucial records, but says more. He holds them guilty of over optimism and gross failure. Does it mean that if they had produced the record he would have absolved them of the charge of over-optimism and gross failure? Does he mean that because the records had been withheld he had to charge them with over-optimism and gross failure? With his propensity to suspect all, he suspects them too and would not believe their reasons for withholding records. Once he does not believe them he begins to doubt their motives, to construct theories against them. And finally he indicts them by concluding that the security agencies were over-optimistic in their assessments or guilty of gross failure as otherwise he sees no reason why they should withhold the crucial records from him? Except his suspicion that they must be withholding their records only to protect themselves what evidence he has to charge them of being over optimistic or guilty of gross failure? None. But, for Liberhan, suspicions are sufficient as proof. Starting thus and targeting the intelligence agencies, suspicions as substitute for logic and evidence run through the entire report in Liberhan’s construction of the conspiracy at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.
E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net
First Published : 07 Dec 2009 11:13:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 07 Dec 2009 12:35:16 AM IST
Was there a conspiracy to demolish the disputed structure at Ayodhya by the leaders of the Ayodhya movement or any of them or anyone else? Or was it the result the sudden outburst of the emotions of the thousands of karsevaks who wanted a temple to be built where the disputed structure stood? This question arose when in a matter of hours the disputed structure was demolished by the crowd on December 6, 1992. There were two theories — one it was spontaneous outburst and the other, it was a deeper conspiracy. After years of fact-finding by government and the judiciary, the issue had been virtually settled that there was no conspiracy.
Liberhan had completed recording evidence on January 22, 2003, that is, over six years ago. Thereafter, for six long years, he patiently waits for the ‘crucial records’ from intelligence agencies, does not get it, yet dares to look at the ‘fragmented information’ and ‘misinformation’ produced before him and finally builds up almost an imaginary theory of conspiracy by the leaders of the movement to demolish the structure. See how Liberhan imaginatively reinstates the conspiracy theatre with no fresh evidence and claiming to cite evidence already in the public domain! Read on.
CBI, GOI and HM: “no conspiracy”
When Liberhan says there was a conspiracy to demolish the structure, what evidence he cites to support his conclusion? He actually cites those that are against his theory, with none in favour. He first says that the CBI, which was assisting him, “has not been able to come to any conclusion” on the basis of the facts collected by it. (para 8.19, p22). Liberhan notes: ‘I may observe that they were primarily guided by the CBI inquiry made for prosecution of some of the participants in movement’. What he means is that the CBI chargesheet does not contain any case of conspiracy to demolish the structure against any of the BJP or VHP or RSS leaders. The CBI has merely charged the Ayodhya movement leaders with provocative speeches and inciting communal discord.
See next, how the judiciary has dealt with the conspiracy angle. The trial court at Rae Bareilly dismissed the conspiracy charge against the leaders of the movement in the year 2001. When this issue was taken to the Allahabad High Court, the ‘secular’ Mulayam Singh government in UP filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that the demolition of the structure at Ayodhya ‘was done under criminal conspiracy by any specific community or political party is wrong and denied’. The Allahabad High Court upheld the trial court order. That order was challenged in the Supreme Court. In February 2009, the Supreme Court refused to intervene in the matter. So legally there is no conspiracy charge against the leaders of the movement.
Third, Liberhan says he has carefully considered the White Paper issued by the Government of India on the Ayodhya events. The White Paper does not even hint at any conspiracy. Instead it says that everything was normal, the karseva was proceeding ‘as per the plan’ of the organisers; but ‘in a sudden development’ the karsevaks broke the police cordon and entered the structure in large numbers and then the demolition took place.
Fourth, just seven days before the government had released the White Paper, S B Chavan, the then home minister, had told the media in clear terms that there was no conspiracy to demolish the structure. But Liberhan turns a blind eye to these crucial facts. First, even as he says he has carefully considered the government’s White Paper, he does not utter a word about its view that the demolition was sudden. Second, he does not refer to S B Chavan’s statement at all. Third, he says that the CBI has confined its view to the prosecution it has launched — in which of course there is allegation of conspiracy to demolish the structure. Fourth he sidesteps the judicial rulings. How does Liberhan seed his the conspiracy theory?
Liberhan: Yes, there is
Despite the government’s White Paper seeing no conspiracy, the CBI concluding there was none, and the then home minister clearly ruling out any, Liberhan suspects and concludes on the basis of the suspicion, that there was indeed a conspiracy. He sees (para 122.4, p725) ‘the seeds of the conspiracy’ sown 1983 in when, according to him, late Gulzari Lal Nanda, veteran Congress leader of 1950s and 1960s, had participated. Closer to December 1992, Liberhan vaguely refers to a report in the Telegraph in two places (in Chapter 4, paras 41.9 and 42.19) which said that on November 2, 1992, VHP, RSS, BJP leaders including Ashok Singhal, V H Dalmia, L K Advani, Murali Manohar Joshi, Kalyan Singh, K S Sudharshan met and worked out logistics and other details for the karseva. By noting that ‘there was no documentation of what transpired or was decided at the meeting’, Liberhan hints at some secret decision having been taken. Apart from this clinching evidence, he claims circumstantial evidence against them (Chapter 14 para 164.2 and 164.3). That was nothing but his first suspicion that the leaders had the means to prevent the demolition and his next suspicion that they did not and so his further suspicion that they were guilty of conspiring. That is, he suspects Advani and others could have prevented the demolition and on that suspicion, he further suspects since they did not do so, they were part of the conspiracy. But, the Liberhan missile of suspicion does not spare anyone. Before examining further his logic of suspicion to condemn Atal Behari Vajpayee, L K Advani and 66 others, see on what logic he trashes the intelligence agencies and how that gives a clue to the psychology that drives him.
Suspicions as proof
Liberhan says that either the intelligence agencies are guilty of “over-optimism” and “gross failure” or in the alternative they have “withheld crucial records” from the Commission. What does he mean by this? First, the two charges cannot be alternatives to each other. If the agencies are guilty of over-optimism and gross failure, they could not overcome that charge by producing the crucial records. More, why will they hold back records, which will disprove their guilt? So the charge of suppression of the record could only be in addition to that and not an alternative charge. Behind the messy words, his main grouse seems to be that the intelligence agencies would not trust him with their confidential information even at the risk of being censured by him.
Obviously he was upset with them for their couldn’t-care-less approach. But, did he go into why they had claimed privilege for their record? Even under the Freedom of Information Law, the intelligence agency records are not open to public. This binds even a commission of inquiry. But Liberhan does not stop at charging the intelligence agencies with holding back crucial records, but says more. He holds them guilty of over optimism and gross failure. Does it mean that if they had produced the record he would have absolved them of the charge of over-optimism and gross failure? Does he mean that because the records had been withheld he had to charge them with over-optimism and gross failure? With his propensity to suspect all, he suspects them too and would not believe their reasons for withholding records. Once he does not believe them he begins to doubt their motives, to construct theories against them. And finally he indicts them by concluding that the security agencies were over-optimistic in their assessments or guilty of gross failure as otherwise he sees no reason why they should withhold the crucial records from him? Except his suspicion that they must be withholding their records only to protect themselves what evidence he has to charge them of being over optimistic or guilty of gross failure? None. But, for Liberhan, suspicions are sufficient as proof. Starting thus and targeting the intelligence agencies, suspicions as substitute for logic and evidence run through the entire report in Liberhan’s construction of the conspiracy at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.
E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net
How did it turn unsafe?
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 09 Nov 2009 11:48:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 09 Nov 2009 01:03:54 AM IST
As usual political parties and their leaders, as also the media, seem to be tracking the trivia and losing the profound. The subject is the fatwa — the Islamic religious edict — issued by the Darul Uloom Deoband seminary directing the Muslim community not to sing the National Song Vande Mataram, and the resolution of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind at its convention on November 2, 2009 supporting that fatwa. The BJP and the media seem more concerned about whether Union home minister P Chidambaram — who spoke at the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind convention where the resolution was passed — was present at the precise time when the resolution was adopted. Chidambaram is equally keen to deny that he was present when the resolution was passed. But the real issues behind these trivia are far more serious.
First, what is the stand of the home minister on the fatwa and the resolution? He has not uttered a word on what he, or his government, thought of the resolution. Does the government disagree with the seminary’s fatwa against singing Vande Mataram? And does the home minister not disapprove of the resolution?
Here is some history.
The Constituent Assembly, which framed India’s Constitution, had unanimously declared Vande Mataram as National Song with the same status as the National Anthem. According to the Constituent Assembly records, Rajendra Prasad, who was presiding the Assembly on January 24, 1950, made the following statement which was also adopted as the unanimous final decision on the issue: The composition consisting of words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations as the government may authorise as occasion arises, and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it. (Applause) I hope this will satisfy members. (Constituent Assembly of India, Vol XII). The Assembly had consisted of 28 members of the Muslim League on the Indian side who had also supported Rajendra Prasad’s statement. It is that decision of the founding fathers of the Constitution that is being defied and defiled. The home minister should first make it clear where the government stands on the fatwa and the resolution.
For the less familiar, here are some details about Darul Uloom Deoband and Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind. Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind (JUH), meaning ‘organisation of Indian scholars’, is one of the leading Islamist organisations in India. Founded in 1919, it joined the Khilafat movement against the British, which brought it close to Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. JUH later opposed the partition of India. Widely networked all over India, it is politically very powerful. Its general secretary, Mahmood A Madani, is a Rajya Sabha member. The Darul Uloom Deoband (DUD) is an Islamic seminary for turning out millions well instructed on the pure version Sunni Islam in India and elsewhere. Deobandi Islamic movement, which provided the theological motivation for the Taliban, originated from the Deoband seminary. Despite their ultra-fundamentalist Islamic credentials, being church-like in their structure, they form opinions and DUD’s fatwas carry high value among Islamists. Yet, they have been taking responsible positions on different, difficult issues. DUD declared twice — once in 1880s and again in 1992 — that Hindus are not kafirs and India is not Darul Harb — that is, it is not a land of war against which Islamists should carry out jihad. It issued a fatwa last year saying that terror is anti-Islamic. JUH has held several rallies of Islamic religious leaders against terrorism. On the Vande Mataram issue also, DUD and JUH had taken a reasonable approach in the past.
In 2007, which was the centenary year of the adoption of Vande Mataram as the National Song, the UPA government had directed all schools to sing the first two stanzas on September 7. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board — which deceptively shows an official character but is merely a sectarian body of Muslims — had opposed the singing of Vande Mataram by Muslim children. There were reports that the DUD too had issued an edict supporting the AIMPLB. But the DUD steered clear of the issue saying that it had ‘no role to play’ in the controversy. It openly asserted that it had not issued any fatwa against Vande Mataram nor directed Muslim children to skip classes on September 7, to protest against its mandatory recitation in the BJP-ruled states. (See http://ibnlive.in.com/news/if-vande-means-salutation-muslims-to-sing-along/ 20762-3.html). Then why did the DUD do a U-turn now and issue a fatwa against the singing of the song as un-Islamic? If singing of the Vande Mataram in 2007 was not un-Islamic, how come it has suddenly become un-Islamic in 2009? How did the monotheistic character of Islam — belief in Allah and no one else as god — suddenly become the ground for banning the Muslims from singing the Vande Mataram? Recall here the fact that more orthodox Muslims of the pre-Partition Muslim League had participated in the Constituent Assembly to declare it as the National Song.
It is important that the other equally powerful monotheistic religion that is also loyal to one god, Christianity, has no objection to Vande Mataram. Fr Cyprian Kullu, from Jharkhand told Asia News in an interview that “The song is a part of our history and national festivity and religion should not be dragged into such mundane things. The Vande Mataram is simply a National Song without any connotation that could violate the tenets of religion.” The Sikh religion, which too does not believe in idol worship and is monotheistic in character, has openly supported the singing of the song. The Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee, the paramount body of the Sikhs, ordered in 2007 that the song be sung in its schools. In an interview, Jathedar Avtar Singh Makkar asked, “What is wrong with Vande Mataram? It is a National Song and speaks of patriotism. We are part of the Indian nation and Sikhs have greatly contributed for its Independence.” What then is so special about Islamic monotheism that singing Vande Mataram minimises the importance of only the Islamic God and not the gods of other monotheistic faiths? More, when Islamic monotheism was safe from Vande Mataram a couple of years ago, why does it suddenly feel so unsafe now? Why did the DUD U-turn on Vande Mataram? This is the question that media and political parties should ask.
QED: The DUD fatwa is a serious national drift and risk, which needs correction.
First Published : 09 Nov 2009 11:48:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 09 Nov 2009 01:03:54 AM IST
As usual political parties and their leaders, as also the media, seem to be tracking the trivia and losing the profound. The subject is the fatwa — the Islamic religious edict — issued by the Darul Uloom Deoband seminary directing the Muslim community not to sing the National Song Vande Mataram, and the resolution of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind at its convention on November 2, 2009 supporting that fatwa. The BJP and the media seem more concerned about whether Union home minister P Chidambaram — who spoke at the Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind convention where the resolution was passed — was present at the precise time when the resolution was adopted. Chidambaram is equally keen to deny that he was present when the resolution was passed. But the real issues behind these trivia are far more serious.
First, what is the stand of the home minister on the fatwa and the resolution? He has not uttered a word on what he, or his government, thought of the resolution. Does the government disagree with the seminary’s fatwa against singing Vande Mataram? And does the home minister not disapprove of the resolution?
Here is some history.
The Constituent Assembly, which framed India’s Constitution, had unanimously declared Vande Mataram as National Song with the same status as the National Anthem. According to the Constituent Assembly records, Rajendra Prasad, who was presiding the Assembly on January 24, 1950, made the following statement which was also adopted as the unanimous final decision on the issue: The composition consisting of words and music known as Jana Gana Mana is the National Anthem of India, subject to such alterations as the government may authorise as occasion arises, and the song Vande Mataram, which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it. (Applause) I hope this will satisfy members. (Constituent Assembly of India, Vol XII). The Assembly had consisted of 28 members of the Muslim League on the Indian side who had also supported Rajendra Prasad’s statement. It is that decision of the founding fathers of the Constitution that is being defied and defiled. The home minister should first make it clear where the government stands on the fatwa and the resolution.
For the less familiar, here are some details about Darul Uloom Deoband and Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind. Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Hind (JUH), meaning ‘organisation of Indian scholars’, is one of the leading Islamist organisations in India. Founded in 1919, it joined the Khilafat movement against the British, which brought it close to Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. JUH later opposed the partition of India. Widely networked all over India, it is politically very powerful. Its general secretary, Mahmood A Madani, is a Rajya Sabha member. The Darul Uloom Deoband (DUD) is an Islamic seminary for turning out millions well instructed on the pure version Sunni Islam in India and elsewhere. Deobandi Islamic movement, which provided the theological motivation for the Taliban, originated from the Deoband seminary. Despite their ultra-fundamentalist Islamic credentials, being church-like in their structure, they form opinions and DUD’s fatwas carry high value among Islamists. Yet, they have been taking responsible positions on different, difficult issues. DUD declared twice — once in 1880s and again in 1992 — that Hindus are not kafirs and India is not Darul Harb — that is, it is not a land of war against which Islamists should carry out jihad. It issued a fatwa last year saying that terror is anti-Islamic. JUH has held several rallies of Islamic religious leaders against terrorism. On the Vande Mataram issue also, DUD and JUH had taken a reasonable approach in the past.
In 2007, which was the centenary year of the adoption of Vande Mataram as the National Song, the UPA government had directed all schools to sing the first two stanzas on September 7. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board — which deceptively shows an official character but is merely a sectarian body of Muslims — had opposed the singing of Vande Mataram by Muslim children. There were reports that the DUD too had issued an edict supporting the AIMPLB. But the DUD steered clear of the issue saying that it had ‘no role to play’ in the controversy. It openly asserted that it had not issued any fatwa against Vande Mataram nor directed Muslim children to skip classes on September 7, to protest against its mandatory recitation in the BJP-ruled states. (See http://ibnlive.in.com/news/if-vande-means-salutation-muslims-to-sing-along/ 20762-3.html). Then why did the DUD do a U-turn now and issue a fatwa against the singing of the song as un-Islamic? If singing of the Vande Mataram in 2007 was not un-Islamic, how come it has suddenly become un-Islamic in 2009? How did the monotheistic character of Islam — belief in Allah and no one else as god — suddenly become the ground for banning the Muslims from singing the Vande Mataram? Recall here the fact that more orthodox Muslims of the pre-Partition Muslim League had participated in the Constituent Assembly to declare it as the National Song.
It is important that the other equally powerful monotheistic religion that is also loyal to one god, Christianity, has no objection to Vande Mataram. Fr Cyprian Kullu, from Jharkhand told Asia News in an interview that “The song is a part of our history and national festivity and religion should not be dragged into such mundane things. The Vande Mataram is simply a National Song without any connotation that could violate the tenets of religion.” The Sikh religion, which too does not believe in idol worship and is monotheistic in character, has openly supported the singing of the song. The Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee, the paramount body of the Sikhs, ordered in 2007 that the song be sung in its schools. In an interview, Jathedar Avtar Singh Makkar asked, “What is wrong with Vande Mataram? It is a National Song and speaks of patriotism. We are part of the Indian nation and Sikhs have greatly contributed for its Independence.” What then is so special about Islamic monotheism that singing Vande Mataram minimises the importance of only the Islamic God and not the gods of other monotheistic faiths? More, when Islamic monotheism was safe from Vande Mataram a couple of years ago, why does it suddenly feel so unsafe now? Why did the DUD U-turn on Vande Mataram? This is the question that media and political parties should ask.
QED: The DUD fatwa is a serious national drift and risk, which needs correction.
Is he America’s Asoka?
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 12 Oct 2009 12:19:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 12 Oct 2009 12:49:12 AM IST
The Americans seem shocked and embarrassed instead of celebrating at the choice of Barack Hussein Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize. The US media, instead of celebrating the award for its president, is consequently in splits as to how to handle the embarrassment of the award to the new and untested president. “It is an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honouree”, said The Washington Post almost feeling shy at the choice. It continued: “A more suitable time for the Prize would have been after those efforts had borne some fruit; that barely nine months into his presidency, his goals are still goals”. The Los Angles Times, among the first to endorse Obama’s candidature, asking, “whether Obama deserves the Prize”, commented that “the Nobel committee didn’t just embarrass Obama, it diminished the credibility of the Prize itself.” The Time said that “the last thing Barack Obama needed at this moment in his presidency and our politics is a prize for a promise” saying that he has so far only made promises and has done nothing.
It cited that former Polish President Lech Walesa, himself a Nobel Peace laureate, has, while responding to Obama’s prize, asked “So soon?” and said, “Too early. He has no contribution so far”. Some in the US seem to be more surprised that Obama, who they had first thought would politely say “No” to the prize, chose to accept it, albeit with such riders as “not deserving it”. Never before in the history of Nobel Peace Prize, the country of the honouree had acted with such contempt for the award as well as the awardee.
Some in the US even feel that geopolitical strategists with left leanings in the Norwegian Parliament have fixed the US. What have geopolitical strategists with left leanings to do with the Nobel Peace Prize? The reason is that unlike the other Nobel Prizes for which selection is made by specialised bodies, it is a five-member committee of the Norwegian Parliament that selects for the Nobel Peace Prize. The present parliament has a leftist slant and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee mirrors it. It has three members with left of centre and two with right of centre leaning.
So according to some in the US, the choice of Obama, despite being claimed as unanimous, is political and is intended to embarrass the US. It has thrown up such momentous issues at Obama and US as what will the US do to contain Iran’s nuclear advancement, or, North Korea’s? Can Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, bomb Tehran’s, or Pyongyang’s nuclear facility even if it is in US or global interest? Can he continue the US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq without embarrassment? Can he continue to raid the tribal areas of Pakistan and hunt down the Taliban? If he does, disregarding the Nobel Peace Prize, the award may lose credibility. If he does not, he will. Will Obama not be left to choose between his Nobel Peace Prize image and his duty to US itself?
But the most surprising question is: why was Obama chosen in the first place? He is barely into the tenth month of his presidency; and in this entire period, apart from delivering beautiful speeches in and out of America, he has only been fire fighting at home. More than the fact that the award was given when he had just been nine months in his office, the rapidity with which he seems to have been nominated within days of becoming president shocks one even more. He was sworn in as president on January 20, 2009 and the deadline for the nominations for the Peace Prize was February 1, 2009. It means that he must have been nominated within 10 days of assuming office as US President and the basis of the nomination could only be his election speeches. Who nominated him? Under the rules of the Nobel Committee, that is kept as secret for 50 years; so only in 2059 the name of Obama’s proposer will be revealed.
But, what do the selectors, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, say on their choice of Obama? “Attaching great importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons”, the committee has decided “to award the Prize to Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. It is Obama’s efforts and not accomplishments, which constituted the basis of the choice.
Going back in history why did Alfred Nobel institute the award? Nobel’s Will of 1895 directs that the peace prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and formation and spreading of peace agreements.” Obama has accomplished none of these. Even those who selected him speak only of his ‘efforts’ to do, and not anything done by him. As a presidential candidate Obama had promised that he would reduce the US involvement in Iraq but is obviously unable to turn his promise into action. In contrast he is considering intensifying US involvement in Afghanistan. He is unable to push the Middle East peace agenda, despite his Cairo talk of ‘US-Muslim bhai bhai’. Even according to the media in the honouree’s country, the US, the efforts are oral, in beautifully articulated speeches; with no firm action on the ground. So how far the choice of Obama for the Prize is in line with Alfred Nobel’s testament which stipulates doing something and not promising in the cause of peace? Obviously Obama’s words are not what Alfred Nobel had in mind: he wanted some accomplishment to deserve the award. The gap between Nobel’s stipulations and the actual choice seems to question the motive of the Norwegian politicians in choosing Obama. There is no doubt that there is more politics to the choice of Obama than peace.
The only ruler in known history who gave up war and stood by peace was emperor Asoka in India. Neither before, nor after, has anyone in history dare take such a decision and remain true to it. The modern wars have been several thousand times more violent than the Kalinga war, which made Asoka give up wars altogether. Asoka was the kind of honouree-statesman that Alfred Nobel must have had in mind when he wrote his Will for the Peace Prize. Can a country like the US with a history of wars afford a leader of peace? Sometimes even wars are for peace. Again America is a country, which has one of the largest stocks of nuclear warheads, with over 10,000 in position and 20,000 plus awaiting dismantlement. Its military capability is the most powerful in the world. Can such a country afford an Asoka at the helm? If it does, the US will not be US. If it does not, Obama will not be Asoka. So unless the US ceases to be US, Obama cannot be Asoka. Will he then be the Asoka of US at all?.
comment@gurumurthy.net
About the author:
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
First Published : 12 Oct 2009 12:19:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 12 Oct 2009 12:49:12 AM IST
The Americans seem shocked and embarrassed instead of celebrating at the choice of Barack Hussein Obama for the Nobel Peace Prize. The US media, instead of celebrating the award for its president, is consequently in splits as to how to handle the embarrassment of the award to the new and untested president. “It is an odd Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honouree”, said The Washington Post almost feeling shy at the choice. It continued: “A more suitable time for the Prize would have been after those efforts had borne some fruit; that barely nine months into his presidency, his goals are still goals”. The Los Angles Times, among the first to endorse Obama’s candidature, asking, “whether Obama deserves the Prize”, commented that “the Nobel committee didn’t just embarrass Obama, it diminished the credibility of the Prize itself.” The Time said that “the last thing Barack Obama needed at this moment in his presidency and our politics is a prize for a promise” saying that he has so far only made promises and has done nothing.
It cited that former Polish President Lech Walesa, himself a Nobel Peace laureate, has, while responding to Obama’s prize, asked “So soon?” and said, “Too early. He has no contribution so far”. Some in the US seem to be more surprised that Obama, who they had first thought would politely say “No” to the prize, chose to accept it, albeit with such riders as “not deserving it”. Never before in the history of Nobel Peace Prize, the country of the honouree had acted with such contempt for the award as well as the awardee.
Some in the US even feel that geopolitical strategists with left leanings in the Norwegian Parliament have fixed the US. What have geopolitical strategists with left leanings to do with the Nobel Peace Prize? The reason is that unlike the other Nobel Prizes for which selection is made by specialised bodies, it is a five-member committee of the Norwegian Parliament that selects for the Nobel Peace Prize. The present parliament has a leftist slant and the Nobel Peace Prize Committee mirrors it. It has three members with left of centre and two with right of centre leaning.
So according to some in the US, the choice of Obama, despite being claimed as unanimous, is political and is intended to embarrass the US. It has thrown up such momentous issues at Obama and US as what will the US do to contain Iran’s nuclear advancement, or, North Korea’s? Can Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, bomb Tehran’s, or Pyongyang’s nuclear facility even if it is in US or global interest? Can he continue the US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq without embarrassment? Can he continue to raid the tribal areas of Pakistan and hunt down the Taliban? If he does, disregarding the Nobel Peace Prize, the award may lose credibility. If he does not, he will. Will Obama not be left to choose between his Nobel Peace Prize image and his duty to US itself?
But the most surprising question is: why was Obama chosen in the first place? He is barely into the tenth month of his presidency; and in this entire period, apart from delivering beautiful speeches in and out of America, he has only been fire fighting at home. More than the fact that the award was given when he had just been nine months in his office, the rapidity with which he seems to have been nominated within days of becoming president shocks one even more. He was sworn in as president on January 20, 2009 and the deadline for the nominations for the Peace Prize was February 1, 2009. It means that he must have been nominated within 10 days of assuming office as US President and the basis of the nomination could only be his election speeches. Who nominated him? Under the rules of the Nobel Committee, that is kept as secret for 50 years; so only in 2059 the name of Obama’s proposer will be revealed.
But, what do the selectors, the Norwegian Nobel Committee, say on their choice of Obama? “Attaching great importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons”, the committee has decided “to award the Prize to Obama “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”. It is Obama’s efforts and not accomplishments, which constituted the basis of the choice.
Going back in history why did Alfred Nobel institute the award? Nobel’s Will of 1895 directs that the peace prize should go “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and formation and spreading of peace agreements.” Obama has accomplished none of these. Even those who selected him speak only of his ‘efforts’ to do, and not anything done by him. As a presidential candidate Obama had promised that he would reduce the US involvement in Iraq but is obviously unable to turn his promise into action. In contrast he is considering intensifying US involvement in Afghanistan. He is unable to push the Middle East peace agenda, despite his Cairo talk of ‘US-Muslim bhai bhai’. Even according to the media in the honouree’s country, the US, the efforts are oral, in beautifully articulated speeches; with no firm action on the ground. So how far the choice of Obama for the Prize is in line with Alfred Nobel’s testament which stipulates doing something and not promising in the cause of peace? Obviously Obama’s words are not what Alfred Nobel had in mind: he wanted some accomplishment to deserve the award. The gap between Nobel’s stipulations and the actual choice seems to question the motive of the Norwegian politicians in choosing Obama. There is no doubt that there is more politics to the choice of Obama than peace.
The only ruler in known history who gave up war and stood by peace was emperor Asoka in India. Neither before, nor after, has anyone in history dare take such a decision and remain true to it. The modern wars have been several thousand times more violent than the Kalinga war, which made Asoka give up wars altogether. Asoka was the kind of honouree-statesman that Alfred Nobel must have had in mind when he wrote his Will for the Peace Prize. Can a country like the US with a history of wars afford a leader of peace? Sometimes even wars are for peace. Again America is a country, which has one of the largest stocks of nuclear warheads, with over 10,000 in position and 20,000 plus awaiting dismantlement. Its military capability is the most powerful in the world. Can such a country afford an Asoka at the helm? If it does, the US will not be US. If it does not, Obama will not be Asoka. So unless the US ceases to be US, Obama cannot be Asoka. Will he then be the Asoka of US at all?.
comment@gurumurthy.net
About the author:
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
The rhetoric grips no more
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 09 Sep 2009 12:20:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 09 Sep 2009 01:06:45 AM IST
He said, ‘Yes We can’, ‘Yes We Can’, ‘Yes We Can’, in succession. He ended his speech saying: ‘Yes’, ‘We’, ‘Can’, pausing dramatically in between. These three words set America on fire. That was Barrack Hussein Obama seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for the presidency making his first speech on January 8, 2008. The words soon turned into a lyric that instantly became a hit song, for singing and dancing celebrities. It forthwith became Obama’s campaign video, and was on YouTube on February 2, 2008. In the next three weeks, it achieved a combined total viewing of more than 22-million times. Said Time magazine, the three words “turned into a brilliant video featuring an array of young, hip, talented and beautiful celebrities” and posed existential questions to the Democrats like, “How can you not be moved by this? How can you vote against the future?”
Borrowing a slogan
They were moved; they voted for Obama. By this one lyrical slogan that became a song, Obama took over America, overtook Hillary Rodham Clinton and became the Democratic presidential nominee. Surprisingly, the slogan ‘Yes We Can’ wasn’t Obama’s brainchild. He copied it from the slogan, Si, se peude (Spanish for ‘Yes, it can be done’), which a US farm workers union on fast had raised way back in 1972. Obama did not seem to have acknowledged that his star campaign theme was drawn from farm workers. This slogan-song reverberated in the US for months. It travelled beyond to Europe; even to India where many began asking where was the Indian Obama to say ‘Yes We Can’.
By September 2008, when the presidential campaign was peaking, and the slogan sagging, Obama shifted the campaign gear with a new slogan — ‘We are the CHANGE we seek’. The new one instantly became the lead; the first one, the second. “We are the change we need from more of the same”, said Obama. He went on: “We are the ones we have been waiting for”. “This time can be different” because, he said, this campaign “is different.” And added, “It is not different because of me. It is different because of you”, turning many Americans into hysterical supporters.
Commenting on this, Time wrote: “The man’s use of pronouns (never ‘I’), of inspirational language and of poetic meter is unprecedented in recent memory.” The campaign, it said, had no ‘focus or cause’ ‘other than an amorphous desire for change’. Titling the article as ‘Inspiration vs Substance’ the magazine said: ‘In the recent past, Democrats have favoured candidates who offer meaty, detailed policy prescriptions and that is not Obama’s game’. That is, Time left unsaid, the Obama campaign lacked substance.
It concluded, the ‘Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is’, meaning that the beauty of the campaign became the theme of campaign itself. Thus, with the first slogan Obama became the Democratic nominee. And with the next, he became the President of America. Just two slogans did the trick. His election proved that ‘mature’ democracies — read the US — are no different from not so mature democracies — read India — where demagogues with their oration and slogans carry the people lock, stock, and barrel.
Yes, Obama, the presidential candidate, was undoubtedly most popular not only in the US, but elsewhere too. See how popular is Obama, the president, eight months since he was sworn in. According to a Gallup poll, he started with a very high approval rating of 68 per cent in late January this year; and a very low disapproval rating of 12 per cent. His rating remained steady for four months, 67 per cent, till late April. But in the next four months his approval rating has slid from 68 per cent to 52 per cent on August 28/30; and his disapproval rating has dramatically gone up 3 ½ times, from 12 per cent to 42 per cent. Many times in recent weeks his rating went as low as 50 per cent. His support among Democrats itself is down from 92 per cent to 82 per cent; among Republicans, from 31 per cent to 16 per cent; among independents, from 61 per cent to 48 per cent.
His popularity rating of 52 per cent as of September, his ninth month in office, is 24 points lower than that of his predecessor George W Bush, regarded as the most unpopular president after Richard Nixon; Bush Jr had a much higher rating in his ninth month of office — 76 per cent. The ninth month rating of all but one post War US presidents, George H W Bush (76) Jimmy Carter (57) Richard Nixon (59) John F Kennedy (79) and Dwight Eisenhower (61) far exceeded Obama’s 52 per cent. Obama equalled Ronald Reagan’s (52); exceeded only Bill Clinton’s (50).
The average third quarter rating of all (elected) US presidents is 64 per cent; Obama’s is 61 per cent. In specific areas, his rating is even lower. In health care, 46 per cent approved Obama in July; 37 per cent disapproved. It reversed the very next month, with approvals down by six points to 40 per cent, and disapprovals up by 10 points to 47. On Afghanistan his rating dropped from 56 per cent in July to 53 per cent in August. Only on the economy he gained two points from 51 in July to 53 in August.
Less popular now
So, Obama, the candidate, was rising in popularity aided by poetic slogans, and celebrity songs, dance and music that inspired but lacked substance. But Obama, the president, is now becoming less and less popular. Why? Inspiring campaigns create high expectations and generate even higher popularity. But the extraordinary expectations created cannot be met by ordinary performance. That’s his problem now. Also, he sidestepped the truth with his mesmeric words. He trivialised the US economic crisis as the making of George W Bush. But in truth it is the product of the American consumerist lifestyle. Obama wanted change at the top — himself at the top; but America needed change at the bottom, its people to change their habits and lifestyle, to recover. Had Obama spoken of that change he would neither have become popular; nor won the vote.
It is easy to become popular today with technologically structured campaigns orchestrated by money, media, slogans, songs and celebrity support. In contrast, as late as a couple of decades ago, it took a lifetime’s work. But the popularity acquired by fast models wanes even faster, if it were acquired for the sake of becoming popular just and, worse, for votes. The media ladder, by which one goes up, also brings one down. Popularity is a tool, not a solution. It is easy to acquire, but, difficult to retain.
QED: Is that why Mahatma Gandhi said, “popularity comes without invitation, and goes without farewell”?
(The author is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues)
First Published : 09 Sep 2009 12:20:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 09 Sep 2009 01:06:45 AM IST
He said, ‘Yes We can’, ‘Yes We Can’, ‘Yes We Can’, in succession. He ended his speech saying: ‘Yes’, ‘We’, ‘Can’, pausing dramatically in between. These three words set America on fire. That was Barrack Hussein Obama seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for the presidency making his first speech on January 8, 2008. The words soon turned into a lyric that instantly became a hit song, for singing and dancing celebrities. It forthwith became Obama’s campaign video, and was on YouTube on February 2, 2008. In the next three weeks, it achieved a combined total viewing of more than 22-million times. Said Time magazine, the three words “turned into a brilliant video featuring an array of young, hip, talented and beautiful celebrities” and posed existential questions to the Democrats like, “How can you not be moved by this? How can you vote against the future?”
Borrowing a slogan
They were moved; they voted for Obama. By this one lyrical slogan that became a song, Obama took over America, overtook Hillary Rodham Clinton and became the Democratic presidential nominee. Surprisingly, the slogan ‘Yes We Can’ wasn’t Obama’s brainchild. He copied it from the slogan, Si, se peude (Spanish for ‘Yes, it can be done’), which a US farm workers union on fast had raised way back in 1972. Obama did not seem to have acknowledged that his star campaign theme was drawn from farm workers. This slogan-song reverberated in the US for months. It travelled beyond to Europe; even to India where many began asking where was the Indian Obama to say ‘Yes We Can’.
By September 2008, when the presidential campaign was peaking, and the slogan sagging, Obama shifted the campaign gear with a new slogan — ‘We are the CHANGE we seek’. The new one instantly became the lead; the first one, the second. “We are the change we need from more of the same”, said Obama. He went on: “We are the ones we have been waiting for”. “This time can be different” because, he said, this campaign “is different.” And added, “It is not different because of me. It is different because of you”, turning many Americans into hysterical supporters.
Commenting on this, Time wrote: “The man’s use of pronouns (never ‘I’), of inspirational language and of poetic meter is unprecedented in recent memory.” The campaign, it said, had no ‘focus or cause’ ‘other than an amorphous desire for change’. Titling the article as ‘Inspiration vs Substance’ the magazine said: ‘In the recent past, Democrats have favoured candidates who offer meaty, detailed policy prescriptions and that is not Obama’s game’. That is, Time left unsaid, the Obama campaign lacked substance.
It concluded, the ‘Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is’, meaning that the beauty of the campaign became the theme of campaign itself. Thus, with the first slogan Obama became the Democratic nominee. And with the next, he became the President of America. Just two slogans did the trick. His election proved that ‘mature’ democracies — read the US — are no different from not so mature democracies — read India — where demagogues with their oration and slogans carry the people lock, stock, and barrel.
Yes, Obama, the presidential candidate, was undoubtedly most popular not only in the US, but elsewhere too. See how popular is Obama, the president, eight months since he was sworn in. According to a Gallup poll, he started with a very high approval rating of 68 per cent in late January this year; and a very low disapproval rating of 12 per cent. His rating remained steady for four months, 67 per cent, till late April. But in the next four months his approval rating has slid from 68 per cent to 52 per cent on August 28/30; and his disapproval rating has dramatically gone up 3 ½ times, from 12 per cent to 42 per cent. Many times in recent weeks his rating went as low as 50 per cent. His support among Democrats itself is down from 92 per cent to 82 per cent; among Republicans, from 31 per cent to 16 per cent; among independents, from 61 per cent to 48 per cent.
His popularity rating of 52 per cent as of September, his ninth month in office, is 24 points lower than that of his predecessor George W Bush, regarded as the most unpopular president after Richard Nixon; Bush Jr had a much higher rating in his ninth month of office — 76 per cent. The ninth month rating of all but one post War US presidents, George H W Bush (76) Jimmy Carter (57) Richard Nixon (59) John F Kennedy (79) and Dwight Eisenhower (61) far exceeded Obama’s 52 per cent. Obama equalled Ronald Reagan’s (52); exceeded only Bill Clinton’s (50).
The average third quarter rating of all (elected) US presidents is 64 per cent; Obama’s is 61 per cent. In specific areas, his rating is even lower. In health care, 46 per cent approved Obama in July; 37 per cent disapproved. It reversed the very next month, with approvals down by six points to 40 per cent, and disapprovals up by 10 points to 47. On Afghanistan his rating dropped from 56 per cent in July to 53 per cent in August. Only on the economy he gained two points from 51 in July to 53 in August.
Less popular now
So, Obama, the candidate, was rising in popularity aided by poetic slogans, and celebrity songs, dance and music that inspired but lacked substance. But Obama, the president, is now becoming less and less popular. Why? Inspiring campaigns create high expectations and generate even higher popularity. But the extraordinary expectations created cannot be met by ordinary performance. That’s his problem now. Also, he sidestepped the truth with his mesmeric words. He trivialised the US economic crisis as the making of George W Bush. But in truth it is the product of the American consumerist lifestyle. Obama wanted change at the top — himself at the top; but America needed change at the bottom, its people to change their habits and lifestyle, to recover. Had Obama spoken of that change he would neither have become popular; nor won the vote.
It is easy to become popular today with technologically structured campaigns orchestrated by money, media, slogans, songs and celebrity support. In contrast, as late as a couple of decades ago, it took a lifetime’s work. But the popularity acquired by fast models wanes even faster, if it were acquired for the sake of becoming popular just and, worse, for votes. The media ladder, by which one goes up, also brings one down. Popularity is a tool, not a solution. It is easy to acquire, but, difficult to retain.
QED: Is that why Mahatma Gandhi said, “popularity comes without invitation, and goes without farewell”?
(The author is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues)
FM’s sleight of hand
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 27 Feb 2010 12:34:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 27 Feb 2010 12:36:37 AM IST
The finance minister has done a fantastic job”. “Very good budget”. “See the positives”. “Fiscal deficit controlled to 5.5 per cent”. “Government borrowings reduced to just Rs 3.45 lakh crores”. “Roadmap laid for oil sector reform”. “Infrastructure boosted”. “Consumer demand to rise on tax cuts”. “Bonanza for the Middle Class”. “An Inclusive budget”. “10 on 10 for the budget”. Thus went the comments on the budget as this column was being written after a strenuous effort to browse online the hundreds of pages of budget papers to see what the Union finance minister’s speech left unsaid. But those who eulogised the budget and the finance minister had nothing other than what he had claimed in his speech and none of them would have had even a cursory glance at the budget papers which were put on the NIC website almost an hour after the speech.
Thanks to the experts’ euphoria, the BSE sensex rose by 400. But as the facts in the budget documents were slowly becoming known, the sensex moderated to a gain of 175 at close. But the finance minister had won approval with his well-structured speech which was long on words, including quotes from Kautilya, and well short on numbers. By now, taking his words as Gospel, the opinion of ‘Elite India’ has been sealed in favour of the budget. Of course, the ‘Other India’ has no instant opinion to express; already reeling under high inflation, against which there is no measure in the finance minister’s speech, it has only to experience in the days to come what the budget actually does. Now let us look at what the facts and numbers that lay deeply buried in the budget documents disclose.
Examine the claim that it is an inclusive budget. The additional provision for rural development is just Rs 3,936 cr, to a total Rs 66,137 cr for the coming year. This is a rise of 6.3 per cent. The estimated rise in the GDP for the coming year is 12.5 per cent. It means that the rural sector does not even get half of the rise in the prosperity of the country. The rise in the NREGS is just 2.5 per cent. Contrast this with the rise of 146 per cent in NREGS for 2009-’10 over 2008-’09. The tax cut for the middle class is some five times the extra rural development provision. Still the budget is claimed as an aam aadmi budget! Move on. The additional provision for agriculture is a pittance — just Rs 900 cr. So much for the finance minister’s claim of inclusive growth. So, what was an inclusive agenda in the budgets from 2004 till last year seems to have become a mere slogan. And this was the only finance minister who said he couldn’t care less about what the stock market felt.
Now look at the FM’s sleight of hand in his claims on infrastructure. See the provision for the road sector. It is just an additional Rs 2374 cr — just 13 per cent rise in the coming year, against 23 per cent rise in the current year over the previous. The additional provision for railways is Rs 950 cr — a mere rise of six per cent for the coming year against the rise of 46.3 per cent in the current year over the previous year. In 2009-’10 the additional provision in the urban infrastructure was 87 per cent. More. The finance minister had claimed in the 2009-’10 budget that IIFCL, the infrastructure finance set-up, along with banks was in a position to support infrastructure projects of Rs 1,00,000 cr! Against that claim, he admits in his speech now that the disbursement and refinance by IIFCL so far has been just Rs 12,000 cr. It will rise to Rs 25,000 crore in the next three years! How did the finance minister dare to say one thing in his previous speech and another thing now? He was confident that the experts who would give instant opinion would hardly have time to check what he had claimed some eight months back. The claim by the finance minister that the infrastructure provision of Rs 1,72,552 cr is 40 per cent of the plan allocation is less than honest. Acting cleverly, he does not give comparative figures for the current year. Indeed, there was no appreciable improvement in the coming year over the current year and yet the experts continued to eulogise the infrastructure boost in the budget.
What then is the secret of the reduction in deficit? The finance minister simply refused to spend this year. And that is perhaps correct. But he has concealed that and said something to the contrary. The income will increase in 2010-’11 but the expenditure will not. The increase in the non-plan expenditure in 2009-’10 over 2008-’09 was 37 per cent; in 2010-’11 over 2009-’10 is just six per cent. The non-plan expenditure was Rs 6,42,000 cr in 2009-’10, and in the coming year it will be just Rs 6,44,000 cr. That is, there will be no increase at all. If the finance minister had increased non-plan expenditure for 2010-’11 in proportion to the estimated GDP rise of 12.5 per cent, the deficit would have risen by Rs 1,99,000 cr to Rs 5,80,000 cr plus. It would have meant that the deficit would have been up by almost 2.9 per cent to some 8.4 per cent! If this had happened would the experts have gone gaga over the budget? Would the stock market have gone crazy? Obviously not.
See how faulty the comment is that the budget puts extra money in the consumers’ hands. Non-plan expenditure is a straight injection of money into the system. If that does not grow next year as it did in the previous how will the consumer get extra money? The finance minister’s claim that he had cut taxes to put extra cash into the consumer’s pocket is less than honest as the amount in the consumer’s hands will be actually less by Rs 1,80,000 cr as compared to the last year! His claim that he was putting money into the hands of the people through tax cuts is only one side of the story. The other side of the story, concealed in this budget, is the cut in non-plan expenditure. See more. The biggest component of the rise in non-plan expenditure in the current year was the Pay Commission dues, which was extra money into the pockets of the people to spend. That was the reason why, despite the downturn in the economy in 2009-’10, private consumption, which was expected to fall according to the Economic Survey 2008-’09, did not. Private consumption powered by the Pay Commission dues sustained GDP growth and was the secret of the growth in 2009-’10. This factor is absent in 2010-’11. How will the aggregate demand rise more than last year when the amount of additional money in the hands of the people is less in the coming year? So the claim that the tax cut will put huge money in consumers’ hands and activate domestic demand is less than honest.
In sum, the finance minister’s speech intends to conceal more than it reveals — in fact, it cheats. He has trusted in the propensity of instant commentators on TV to rely on ornamented words in the budget speech, and won the day against the experts and the market!
(Reductio ad absurdum will return next week)
comment@gurumurthy.net
About The Author;
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
First Published : 27 Feb 2010 12:34:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 27 Feb 2010 12:36:37 AM IST
The finance minister has done a fantastic job”. “Very good budget”. “See the positives”. “Fiscal deficit controlled to 5.5 per cent”. “Government borrowings reduced to just Rs 3.45 lakh crores”. “Roadmap laid for oil sector reform”. “Infrastructure boosted”. “Consumer demand to rise on tax cuts”. “Bonanza for the Middle Class”. “An Inclusive budget”. “10 on 10 for the budget”. Thus went the comments on the budget as this column was being written after a strenuous effort to browse online the hundreds of pages of budget papers to see what the Union finance minister’s speech left unsaid. But those who eulogised the budget and the finance minister had nothing other than what he had claimed in his speech and none of them would have had even a cursory glance at the budget papers which were put on the NIC website almost an hour after the speech.
Thanks to the experts’ euphoria, the BSE sensex rose by 400. But as the facts in the budget documents were slowly becoming known, the sensex moderated to a gain of 175 at close. But the finance minister had won approval with his well-structured speech which was long on words, including quotes from Kautilya, and well short on numbers. By now, taking his words as Gospel, the opinion of ‘Elite India’ has been sealed in favour of the budget. Of course, the ‘Other India’ has no instant opinion to express; already reeling under high inflation, against which there is no measure in the finance minister’s speech, it has only to experience in the days to come what the budget actually does. Now let us look at what the facts and numbers that lay deeply buried in the budget documents disclose.
Examine the claim that it is an inclusive budget. The additional provision for rural development is just Rs 3,936 cr, to a total Rs 66,137 cr for the coming year. This is a rise of 6.3 per cent. The estimated rise in the GDP for the coming year is 12.5 per cent. It means that the rural sector does not even get half of the rise in the prosperity of the country. The rise in the NREGS is just 2.5 per cent. Contrast this with the rise of 146 per cent in NREGS for 2009-’10 over 2008-’09. The tax cut for the middle class is some five times the extra rural development provision. Still the budget is claimed as an aam aadmi budget! Move on. The additional provision for agriculture is a pittance — just Rs 900 cr. So much for the finance minister’s claim of inclusive growth. So, what was an inclusive agenda in the budgets from 2004 till last year seems to have become a mere slogan. And this was the only finance minister who said he couldn’t care less about what the stock market felt.
Now look at the FM’s sleight of hand in his claims on infrastructure. See the provision for the road sector. It is just an additional Rs 2374 cr — just 13 per cent rise in the coming year, against 23 per cent rise in the current year over the previous. The additional provision for railways is Rs 950 cr — a mere rise of six per cent for the coming year against the rise of 46.3 per cent in the current year over the previous year. In 2009-’10 the additional provision in the urban infrastructure was 87 per cent. More. The finance minister had claimed in the 2009-’10 budget that IIFCL, the infrastructure finance set-up, along with banks was in a position to support infrastructure projects of Rs 1,00,000 cr! Against that claim, he admits in his speech now that the disbursement and refinance by IIFCL so far has been just Rs 12,000 cr. It will rise to Rs 25,000 crore in the next three years! How did the finance minister dare to say one thing in his previous speech and another thing now? He was confident that the experts who would give instant opinion would hardly have time to check what he had claimed some eight months back. The claim by the finance minister that the infrastructure provision of Rs 1,72,552 cr is 40 per cent of the plan allocation is less than honest. Acting cleverly, he does not give comparative figures for the current year. Indeed, there was no appreciable improvement in the coming year over the current year and yet the experts continued to eulogise the infrastructure boost in the budget.
What then is the secret of the reduction in deficit? The finance minister simply refused to spend this year. And that is perhaps correct. But he has concealed that and said something to the contrary. The income will increase in 2010-’11 but the expenditure will not. The increase in the non-plan expenditure in 2009-’10 over 2008-’09 was 37 per cent; in 2010-’11 over 2009-’10 is just six per cent. The non-plan expenditure was Rs 6,42,000 cr in 2009-’10, and in the coming year it will be just Rs 6,44,000 cr. That is, there will be no increase at all. If the finance minister had increased non-plan expenditure for 2010-’11 in proportion to the estimated GDP rise of 12.5 per cent, the deficit would have risen by Rs 1,99,000 cr to Rs 5,80,000 cr plus. It would have meant that the deficit would have been up by almost 2.9 per cent to some 8.4 per cent! If this had happened would the experts have gone gaga over the budget? Would the stock market have gone crazy? Obviously not.
See how faulty the comment is that the budget puts extra money in the consumers’ hands. Non-plan expenditure is a straight injection of money into the system. If that does not grow next year as it did in the previous how will the consumer get extra money? The finance minister’s claim that he had cut taxes to put extra cash into the consumer’s pocket is less than honest as the amount in the consumer’s hands will be actually less by Rs 1,80,000 cr as compared to the last year! His claim that he was putting money into the hands of the people through tax cuts is only one side of the story. The other side of the story, concealed in this budget, is the cut in non-plan expenditure. See more. The biggest component of the rise in non-plan expenditure in the current year was the Pay Commission dues, which was extra money into the pockets of the people to spend. That was the reason why, despite the downturn in the economy in 2009-’10, private consumption, which was expected to fall according to the Economic Survey 2008-’09, did not. Private consumption powered by the Pay Commission dues sustained GDP growth and was the secret of the growth in 2009-’10. This factor is absent in 2010-’11. How will the aggregate demand rise more than last year when the amount of additional money in the hands of the people is less in the coming year? So the claim that the tax cut will put huge money in consumers’ hands and activate domestic demand is less than honest.
In sum, the finance minister’s speech intends to conceal more than it reveals — in fact, it cheats. He has trusted in the propensity of instant commentators on TV to rely on ornamented words in the budget speech, and won the day against the experts and the market!
(Reductio ad absurdum will return next week)
comment@gurumurthy.net
About The Author;
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
Worse than street corner gossip
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 08 Dec 2009 12:44:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 08 Dec 2009 05:00:32 PM IST
Liberhan’s theatre of conspiracy starts with exonerating the Ayodhya movement leaders from the guilt of demolition first, on evidence and later, on suspicion, indicting them for the conspiracy to demolish. In this exercise he does not spare anyone, including A B Vajpayee who never visited Ayodhya during or after the movement. Read on to know how he achieves this impossible feat.
Exonerate first, indict later
Look at how Liberhan’s conclusion in one place destroys his own conclusion in another. He swings from exonerating the leaders while seeing the evidence to indicting them at the end purely on suspicion. Analysing the (fragmented) evidence in Chapter 8 (para12) of his report, he says that “the leaders of the movement” — who must necessarily include Vajpayee, Advani, Singhal, Seshadri and the like — “may not have approved the demolition”. But six chapters later in Chapter 14 he ends up concluding (para 171) that each of them — naming them all — is individually ‘culpable’, on suspicion! How could the later indictment in Chapter 14 match with the earlier exoneration in Chapter 8? The exoneration was based on evidence; the indictment, on suspicion. This is the pattern of Liberhan’s jurisprudence.
Advani pretended to save structure — Liberhan
Again, Liberhan (para 44.24, Chapter 4) suspects as ‘feeble’ the ‘requests to the karsevaks’ by L K Advani, M M Joshi, Ashok Singhal, Vijay Raje Scindia, H V Seshadri, etc, who were present there ‘to come down from the disputed structures either in earnest’ or, as Liberhan suspects, ‘for the media’s benefit’. He doubts that Advani was merely pretending. He says: “The icons of the movement present … could have easily proceeded to the corridors and utilising the administration’s assistance or that of their highly disciplined swayamsevaks, prevented the demolition”, virtually leaving it unsaid that, unless Advani and others had rushed towards the crowd to stop them, it would be correct to suspect that Advani was part of the conspiracy. Liberhan knows that the movement leaders are themselves under high security and the security would not allow them to rush into the crowd. Yet he says that unless they did so they would be suspect, and they did not and so he suspects them. His logic of suspicion yielding suspicion is adequate, according to him, to nail Advani.
Advani actually attempted to save the structure, Liberhan again!
But, contradicting his suspicion (in para 44.24, p256) that Advani was just pretending to stop the karsevaks, Liberhan notes the evidence in his possession, in the very next para (para 44.25) which totally destroys his suspicion that Advani was pretending. Liberhan notes: ‘L K Advani first made requests over the public address system to the karsevaks on the dome to come down. When the request fell on deaf ears, then he deputed Uma Bharati, Acharya Dharmendra Dev, Baikunt Lal Sharma ‘Prem’ to go along with his own personal security officer Anju Gupta to the disputed structure to persuade the karsevaks to come down. The karsevaks paid no heed to this request either. Uma Bharati claimed that when the persuasion failed, an attempt was made to bring them down by instilling fear of the paramilitary forces, saying that there would be firing and bloodshed. The karsevaks’ reply reportedly was, “we have not come here to eat Halwa Puri. We are not that brand of karsevaks. We have come from home to face firing. The karsevaks did not react to persuasion nor fear”. This evidence about the level of motivation of the karsevaks recorded by him from different persons, should have completely removed his suspicion in the earlier para that Advani was merely pretending to ask the karsevaks to stop the demolition. More. Liberhan recognises (in para 59.12, p346) that ‘all witnesses including’ the then BBC correspondent ‘Mark Tully accepted’ that Advani ‘did not make any provocative speeches’. Again (in para 44.5, p263) Liberhan finds that ‘there was mixed reaction among the leadership of the movement. L K Advani and other more sober leaders were taken aback by the demolition’. These are all Liberhan’s findings on evidence. How could Liberhan then hold, as he does, that Advani did incite the crowds when all witnesses say he did not? Why would Advani who, Liberhan suspects, was inciting the karsevaks to demolish and pretending to stop it, be taken aback by the demolition? Evidence recorded by Liberhan establishes that Advani never made provocative speeches; he tried to prevent the demolition; he was taken aback by the demolition. Yet Liberhan holds him, purely on suspicion, guilty of conspiracy to demolish the structure. How? He first suspects that Advani was pretending to prevent the demolition. On that basis he further suspects in Chapter 14 that Advani and others could have prevented the demolition but did not do so. On that basis he further suspects that Advani must have been part of the conspiracy. So his suspicions aggregated become, for Liberhan, proof even though it is contrary to evidence.
Flip-flop-flip on RSS
See how he flips-flops on the RSS, first exonerating it and later indicting it for conspiracy. Liberhan (para 43.11, p241) refers to allegations of training and rehearsal for the demolition, but concludes that, even though there are doubts, it was not safe to hazard a finding about training in the absence of conclusive evidence. But he says in the very next page (paras 43.15-27 p242-45) that ‘it was never in dispute that they (karsevaks) had the ability to carry out the demolition’ — which is exactly the opposite of what he says earlier. How come that ‘there is no conclusive evidence of training for karsevaks for demolition’ in para 43.11 becomes, ‘it was never in dispute that the karsevaks have the ability to carry out the demolition’ in para 43.19? A flip-flop! Again Liberhan notes (paras 43.15/43.19/43.27) that tempers among the emotionally surcharged and belligerent karsevas started rising, but concludes (in para 158.10, page 917), against all the evidence to the contrary, that ‘the theory or the claim made by the leaders of the movement’ … ‘does not carry conviction to conclude that the demolition was carried out by the karsevaks spontaneously or sheer anger or emotions’. Again a flip-flop!!
Liberhan notes (paras 43.12/13, p253) that a defiant group of karsevaks breached the security cordon ‘despite the resistance offered by the RSS swayamsevaks’ and ‘the RSS swayamsevaks succeeded in physically throwing the intruders from the platform’ when ‘no visible substantial resistance was put up by the police or the administration for stalling the intruders’. All this was in the presence of Advani and M M Joshi. Thus the evidence clearly proves that the RSS, on its part, was determined to protect the structure. But in defiance of this direct evidence, he concludes, in the end, that the RSS was the main conspirator to demolish the structure. But why would the RSS volunteers throw the intruders out if the RSS was conspiring to demolish? Again a flip-flop!!!
Suspicions as conclusions, against evidence
Thus, against all evidence in his possession and no evidence to support him except his own high propensity to suspect, Liberhan conclusively suspects that not only Advani against whom Liberhan has, in possession, evidence that establishes that he had tried to prevent the demolition, and others, but, also A B Vajpayee — yes Vajpayee — was part of the conspiracy.
See his sequential ‘logic’ for holding that the BJP leaders are culpable: one, it cannot assumed even for a moment that L K Advani, A B Vajpayee and M M Joshi did not know the designs of the parivar; two they could not have defied the mandate of the parivar; three, the BJP is appendage of the parivar; four, they could not be given the benefit of doubt! (para 166.11, p943). That is, they should be not exonerated, but indicted, on doubt! Is this logic any different from the gossip in street corner tea stalls and coffee shops like how could Dr Manmohan Singh be not aware of the payoff in the Spectrum scam, so he should also be indicted?
QED: The Liberhan report is worse than street corner gossip.
(The author is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.
E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net)
First Published : 08 Dec 2009 12:44:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 08 Dec 2009 05:00:32 PM IST
Liberhan’s theatre of conspiracy starts with exonerating the Ayodhya movement leaders from the guilt of demolition first, on evidence and later, on suspicion, indicting them for the conspiracy to demolish. In this exercise he does not spare anyone, including A B Vajpayee who never visited Ayodhya during or after the movement. Read on to know how he achieves this impossible feat.
Exonerate first, indict later
Look at how Liberhan’s conclusion in one place destroys his own conclusion in another. He swings from exonerating the leaders while seeing the evidence to indicting them at the end purely on suspicion. Analysing the (fragmented) evidence in Chapter 8 (para12) of his report, he says that “the leaders of the movement” — who must necessarily include Vajpayee, Advani, Singhal, Seshadri and the like — “may not have approved the demolition”. But six chapters later in Chapter 14 he ends up concluding (para 171) that each of them — naming them all — is individually ‘culpable’, on suspicion! How could the later indictment in Chapter 14 match with the earlier exoneration in Chapter 8? The exoneration was based on evidence; the indictment, on suspicion. This is the pattern of Liberhan’s jurisprudence.
Advani pretended to save structure — Liberhan
Again, Liberhan (para 44.24, Chapter 4) suspects as ‘feeble’ the ‘requests to the karsevaks’ by L K Advani, M M Joshi, Ashok Singhal, Vijay Raje Scindia, H V Seshadri, etc, who were present there ‘to come down from the disputed structures either in earnest’ or, as Liberhan suspects, ‘for the media’s benefit’. He doubts that Advani was merely pretending. He says: “The icons of the movement present … could have easily proceeded to the corridors and utilising the administration’s assistance or that of their highly disciplined swayamsevaks, prevented the demolition”, virtually leaving it unsaid that, unless Advani and others had rushed towards the crowd to stop them, it would be correct to suspect that Advani was part of the conspiracy. Liberhan knows that the movement leaders are themselves under high security and the security would not allow them to rush into the crowd. Yet he says that unless they did so they would be suspect, and they did not and so he suspects them. His logic of suspicion yielding suspicion is adequate, according to him, to nail Advani.
Advani actually attempted to save the structure, Liberhan again!
But, contradicting his suspicion (in para 44.24, p256) that Advani was just pretending to stop the karsevaks, Liberhan notes the evidence in his possession, in the very next para (para 44.25) which totally destroys his suspicion that Advani was pretending. Liberhan notes: ‘L K Advani first made requests over the public address system to the karsevaks on the dome to come down. When the request fell on deaf ears, then he deputed Uma Bharati, Acharya Dharmendra Dev, Baikunt Lal Sharma ‘Prem’ to go along with his own personal security officer Anju Gupta to the disputed structure to persuade the karsevaks to come down. The karsevaks paid no heed to this request either. Uma Bharati claimed that when the persuasion failed, an attempt was made to bring them down by instilling fear of the paramilitary forces, saying that there would be firing and bloodshed. The karsevaks’ reply reportedly was, “we have not come here to eat Halwa Puri. We are not that brand of karsevaks. We have come from home to face firing. The karsevaks did not react to persuasion nor fear”. This evidence about the level of motivation of the karsevaks recorded by him from different persons, should have completely removed his suspicion in the earlier para that Advani was merely pretending to ask the karsevaks to stop the demolition. More. Liberhan recognises (in para 59.12, p346) that ‘all witnesses including’ the then BBC correspondent ‘Mark Tully accepted’ that Advani ‘did not make any provocative speeches’. Again (in para 44.5, p263) Liberhan finds that ‘there was mixed reaction among the leadership of the movement. L K Advani and other more sober leaders were taken aback by the demolition’. These are all Liberhan’s findings on evidence. How could Liberhan then hold, as he does, that Advani did incite the crowds when all witnesses say he did not? Why would Advani who, Liberhan suspects, was inciting the karsevaks to demolish and pretending to stop it, be taken aback by the demolition? Evidence recorded by Liberhan establishes that Advani never made provocative speeches; he tried to prevent the demolition; he was taken aback by the demolition. Yet Liberhan holds him, purely on suspicion, guilty of conspiracy to demolish the structure. How? He first suspects that Advani was pretending to prevent the demolition. On that basis he further suspects in Chapter 14 that Advani and others could have prevented the demolition but did not do so. On that basis he further suspects that Advani must have been part of the conspiracy. So his suspicions aggregated become, for Liberhan, proof even though it is contrary to evidence.
Flip-flop-flip on RSS
See how he flips-flops on the RSS, first exonerating it and later indicting it for conspiracy. Liberhan (para 43.11, p241) refers to allegations of training and rehearsal for the demolition, but concludes that, even though there are doubts, it was not safe to hazard a finding about training in the absence of conclusive evidence. But he says in the very next page (paras 43.15-27 p242-45) that ‘it was never in dispute that they (karsevaks) had the ability to carry out the demolition’ — which is exactly the opposite of what he says earlier. How come that ‘there is no conclusive evidence of training for karsevaks for demolition’ in para 43.11 becomes, ‘it was never in dispute that the karsevaks have the ability to carry out the demolition’ in para 43.19? A flip-flop! Again Liberhan notes (paras 43.15/43.19/43.27) that tempers among the emotionally surcharged and belligerent karsevas started rising, but concludes (in para 158.10, page 917), against all the evidence to the contrary, that ‘the theory or the claim made by the leaders of the movement’ … ‘does not carry conviction to conclude that the demolition was carried out by the karsevaks spontaneously or sheer anger or emotions’. Again a flip-flop!!
Liberhan notes (paras 43.12/13, p253) that a defiant group of karsevaks breached the security cordon ‘despite the resistance offered by the RSS swayamsevaks’ and ‘the RSS swayamsevaks succeeded in physically throwing the intruders from the platform’ when ‘no visible substantial resistance was put up by the police or the administration for stalling the intruders’. All this was in the presence of Advani and M M Joshi. Thus the evidence clearly proves that the RSS, on its part, was determined to protect the structure. But in defiance of this direct evidence, he concludes, in the end, that the RSS was the main conspirator to demolish the structure. But why would the RSS volunteers throw the intruders out if the RSS was conspiring to demolish? Again a flip-flop!!!
Suspicions as conclusions, against evidence
Thus, against all evidence in his possession and no evidence to support him except his own high propensity to suspect, Liberhan conclusively suspects that not only Advani against whom Liberhan has, in possession, evidence that establishes that he had tried to prevent the demolition, and others, but, also A B Vajpayee — yes Vajpayee — was part of the conspiracy.
See his sequential ‘logic’ for holding that the BJP leaders are culpable: one, it cannot assumed even for a moment that L K Advani, A B Vajpayee and M M Joshi did not know the designs of the parivar; two they could not have defied the mandate of the parivar; three, the BJP is appendage of the parivar; four, they could not be given the benefit of doubt! (para 166.11, p943). That is, they should be not exonerated, but indicted, on doubt! Is this logic any different from the gossip in street corner tea stalls and coffee shops like how could Dr Manmohan Singh be not aware of the payoff in the Spectrum scam, so he should also be indicted?
QED: The Liberhan report is worse than street corner gossip.
(The author is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues.
E-mail: comment@gurumurthy.net)
Islamic politics targets song
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 25 Nov 2009 12:23:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 25 Nov 2009 01:19:15 AM IST
The story of Vande Mataram first shows how, citing religious text, a society, otherwise one, could be set on the boil and divided. It also shows how, once the process of division based on a religious text starts, it does not stop at dividing a society into this or that religion. And how after the division it enters the body of the divided religious society to tear it further apart as the Pakistan situation demonstrates.
See how the advent of the song Vande Mataram, as common to both Hindus and Muslims, is captured by a Muslim writer in an Islamic website: “In 1905 came Curzon’s announcement of the partition of Bengal, and suddenly Vande Mataram turned into a national mantra, rending the skies with the protest against the partition of Bengal. Reacting quickly, the British government banned the song or even raising it as a slogan.. Peasant leader Abdul Rasul, was presiding over the Bengal Congress provincial conference session of 1906 when hundreds were struck down and grievously injured for singing Vande Mataram. This brutality at Barisal popularised the song overnight. According to Bengalee of May 23, 1906, ‘an unprecedented procession of Hindus and Muslims singing national songs and crying Vande Mataram and Allah-o-Akbar passed through all the principal streets of the town. Both Hindus and Mussalmans carried Vande Mataram flags. It is interesting to know that while Vande Mataram was banned in Bengal, the British government allowed the Bengali Regiment to attack German trenches during the First World War with Vande Mataram on their lips.”
The quote is not a century old, but is dated May 2004 (‘The history and Politics of Vande Mataram’ by Shasul Islam published in The Milli Gazette — Indian Muslims’ leading English newspaper www.milligazette.com).
The agitation against the partition of Bengal was not an accident or isolated event in respect of Muslim comfort with Vande Mataram.
The Calcutta session of the Congress in 1896, where Tagore first sang the song was presided over by Rahamatullah Sayani. The song became a regular feature in all later Congress conventions. It was again the lead hymn in Karachi in 1913 with Nawab Syed Mohammed Bahadur presiding. It was the inaugural song in the Bombay Congress in 1918 when the president was Syed Hasan Imam. Hakim Ali Khan, a founder of the Muslim League, left the League and joined the Congress in 1920 and became president of the Ahmedabad Congress at which again the song was sung as the invocation hymn. Abul Kalam Azad, who became president of the Congress in 1940, had presided over the special session of the Congress at Delhi in 1920 when the song was the inaugural hymn. In the Nagpur Congress in 1920, where, for the first time, a large number of Muslim delegates, as much as 1,050 out of 13,532, participated, Vande Mataram was as usual the lead song. M A Ansari was president of the Madras Congress in 1927 where too it was the lead song. Again, when Frontier Gandhi Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan led his redshirt Pathan Muslim volunteers into the Karachi Congress chanting Vande Mataram (See — ‘Vande Mataram and Islam’ by Aurobindo Mazumdar pp 66-71).
The solitary objection was by Maulana Mohammed Ali (at the Kakinada Congress in 1923) who termed it as idolatry — a charge that remained unsupported by anyone till Jinnah, the political, not religious, Muslim, repeated it in October 1937. Surprisingly, three years earlier Maulana Ali was present at the Nagpur Congress in 1920 when the song was sung and did not raise any objection. (ibid.p67)
Why then the perceived Islamic objection to Vande Mataram which was acceptable to the Muslims till 1937? Answer, in a couple of words: divisive politics. It was not Islamic theology, but Islamic politics, the politics of partition that targeted Vande Mataram. Curzon lured the Muslims with the partition of Bengal, and result was the birth of the Muslim League. But it remained a marginal force for almost three decades. Jinnah, who led it, had almost given up, left India and almost settled in London in 1929. He was brought back to India in 1936 to resurrect the League. Despite his efforts, the League lost the 1937 elections even in Muslim majority provinces. But a hurt Jinnah then moved into top gear to separate Muslims from Hindus. He targeted Vande Mataram in 1937 and projected it as a Hindu religious and anti-Islamic song. Jinnah’s idea was to club Hindus and India, not just to divide Hindus and Muslims. Jinnah’s aim was to show that the Congress represented only the Hindus and only the League represented Muslims.
In the next couple of years Jinnah succeeded in what he set out to do, namely, make large sections of Muslims feel they had nothing to do with Hindus, therefore with India, which Jinnah had successfully clubbed with the Hindus in the Muslim mind.
In pre-Partition India, Islamic politics smuggled itself as respectable Islamic theology. The sequence of theology-led politics divided the Darul Uloom Deoband chapter in Pakistan as Darul Uloom Karachi, and the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind wing in Pakistan separated as Jamiat Uema-e-Islam in Pakistan.
The urge to seek text-defined purity in the faith and in the people has now made Darul Uloom Karachi and the Jamiat in Pakistan extremist in their views and part of the terrorist ideological infrastructure in Pakistan. And Pakistan, which was forged by the use of religious text for mass appeal, is now the springboard of global terrorism. So, divisive Islamic politics, which started with Vande Mataram and other icons that integrated India and Indians, did not stop at dividing Hindus and Muslims.
It has infected the body of Islamists and started dividing Muslims in Pakistan. The Muslim leaders who divided the pre-Partition Indians on the basis of their text as pure Muslims and impure Hindus now divide the Muslims in Pakistan as who, according to their text, are true Muslims and those who are not.
The Bhasmasur of Islamic separatism that Jinnah created and successfully employed against India in 1937 is testing its powers on the Islamic society in Pakistan in 2009, threatening civil war and chaos.
But, on the Indian side, Jinnah’s poison of Islamic separatism is now almost an integral part of India’s secular politics. Will Indian Islamic leaders and writers who are continuing the process of dividing Indians on the basis of what their religious texts say stop for a moment and look at what is happening inside Pakistan?
PS: Copying Muslim leaders, the Sikh body, SGPC, first opposed Vande Mataram on September 4, 2007, but, within 48 hours, it turned back and asked the Sikhs to sing the song. (http://ibnlive.in.com dated September 6, 2007).
comment@gurumurthy.net
About the author:
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
First Published : 25 Nov 2009 12:23:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 25 Nov 2009 01:19:15 AM IST
The story of Vande Mataram first shows how, citing religious text, a society, otherwise one, could be set on the boil and divided. It also shows how, once the process of division based on a religious text starts, it does not stop at dividing a society into this or that religion. And how after the division it enters the body of the divided religious society to tear it further apart as the Pakistan situation demonstrates.
See how the advent of the song Vande Mataram, as common to both Hindus and Muslims, is captured by a Muslim writer in an Islamic website: “In 1905 came Curzon’s announcement of the partition of Bengal, and suddenly Vande Mataram turned into a national mantra, rending the skies with the protest against the partition of Bengal. Reacting quickly, the British government banned the song or even raising it as a slogan.. Peasant leader Abdul Rasul, was presiding over the Bengal Congress provincial conference session of 1906 when hundreds were struck down and grievously injured for singing Vande Mataram. This brutality at Barisal popularised the song overnight. According to Bengalee of May 23, 1906, ‘an unprecedented procession of Hindus and Muslims singing national songs and crying Vande Mataram and Allah-o-Akbar passed through all the principal streets of the town. Both Hindus and Mussalmans carried Vande Mataram flags. It is interesting to know that while Vande Mataram was banned in Bengal, the British government allowed the Bengali Regiment to attack German trenches during the First World War with Vande Mataram on their lips.”
The quote is not a century old, but is dated May 2004 (‘The history and Politics of Vande Mataram’ by Shasul Islam published in The Milli Gazette — Indian Muslims’ leading English newspaper www.milligazette.com).
The agitation against the partition of Bengal was not an accident or isolated event in respect of Muslim comfort with Vande Mataram.
The Calcutta session of the Congress in 1896, where Tagore first sang the song was presided over by Rahamatullah Sayani. The song became a regular feature in all later Congress conventions. It was again the lead hymn in Karachi in 1913 with Nawab Syed Mohammed Bahadur presiding. It was the inaugural song in the Bombay Congress in 1918 when the president was Syed Hasan Imam. Hakim Ali Khan, a founder of the Muslim League, left the League and joined the Congress in 1920 and became president of the Ahmedabad Congress at which again the song was sung as the invocation hymn. Abul Kalam Azad, who became president of the Congress in 1940, had presided over the special session of the Congress at Delhi in 1920 when the song was the inaugural hymn. In the Nagpur Congress in 1920, where, for the first time, a large number of Muslim delegates, as much as 1,050 out of 13,532, participated, Vande Mataram was as usual the lead song. M A Ansari was president of the Madras Congress in 1927 where too it was the lead song. Again, when Frontier Gandhi Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan led his redshirt Pathan Muslim volunteers into the Karachi Congress chanting Vande Mataram (See — ‘Vande Mataram and Islam’ by Aurobindo Mazumdar pp 66-71).
The solitary objection was by Maulana Mohammed Ali (at the Kakinada Congress in 1923) who termed it as idolatry — a charge that remained unsupported by anyone till Jinnah, the political, not religious, Muslim, repeated it in October 1937. Surprisingly, three years earlier Maulana Ali was present at the Nagpur Congress in 1920 when the song was sung and did not raise any objection. (ibid.p67)
Why then the perceived Islamic objection to Vande Mataram which was acceptable to the Muslims till 1937? Answer, in a couple of words: divisive politics. It was not Islamic theology, but Islamic politics, the politics of partition that targeted Vande Mataram. Curzon lured the Muslims with the partition of Bengal, and result was the birth of the Muslim League. But it remained a marginal force for almost three decades. Jinnah, who led it, had almost given up, left India and almost settled in London in 1929. He was brought back to India in 1936 to resurrect the League. Despite his efforts, the League lost the 1937 elections even in Muslim majority provinces. But a hurt Jinnah then moved into top gear to separate Muslims from Hindus. He targeted Vande Mataram in 1937 and projected it as a Hindu religious and anti-Islamic song. Jinnah’s idea was to club Hindus and India, not just to divide Hindus and Muslims. Jinnah’s aim was to show that the Congress represented only the Hindus and only the League represented Muslims.
In the next couple of years Jinnah succeeded in what he set out to do, namely, make large sections of Muslims feel they had nothing to do with Hindus, therefore with India, which Jinnah had successfully clubbed with the Hindus in the Muslim mind.
In pre-Partition India, Islamic politics smuggled itself as respectable Islamic theology. The sequence of theology-led politics divided the Darul Uloom Deoband chapter in Pakistan as Darul Uloom Karachi, and the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind wing in Pakistan separated as Jamiat Uema-e-Islam in Pakistan.
The urge to seek text-defined purity in the faith and in the people has now made Darul Uloom Karachi and the Jamiat in Pakistan extremist in their views and part of the terrorist ideological infrastructure in Pakistan. And Pakistan, which was forged by the use of religious text for mass appeal, is now the springboard of global terrorism. So, divisive Islamic politics, which started with Vande Mataram and other icons that integrated India and Indians, did not stop at dividing Hindus and Muslims.
It has infected the body of Islamists and started dividing Muslims in Pakistan. The Muslim leaders who divided the pre-Partition Indians on the basis of their text as pure Muslims and impure Hindus now divide the Muslims in Pakistan as who, according to their text, are true Muslims and those who are not.
The Bhasmasur of Islamic separatism that Jinnah created and successfully employed against India in 1937 is testing its powers on the Islamic society in Pakistan in 2009, threatening civil war and chaos.
But, on the Indian side, Jinnah’s poison of Islamic separatism is now almost an integral part of India’s secular politics. Will Indian Islamic leaders and writers who are continuing the process of dividing Indians on the basis of what their religious texts say stop for a moment and look at what is happening inside Pakistan?
PS: Copying Muslim leaders, the Sikh body, SGPC, first opposed Vande Mataram on September 4, 2007, but, within 48 hours, it turned back and asked the Sikhs to sing the song. (http://ibnlive.in.com dated September 6, 2007).
comment@gurumurthy.net
About the author:
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
Q can draw $29 million more
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 19 Oct 2009 11:57:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 19 Oct 2009 06:03:58 PM IST
The truth about bribery in the Bofors case which haunted the ruling family for over 20 years is now awaiting the signal from the Supreme Court for its final burial. The Central government told the Supreme Court on September 29 it had decided to withdraw the case against Quattrocchi — more famously known as ‘Q’. If that happens, it would be the end of the pursuit of the buccaneers who had looted the Indian public in the Bofors deal. This is what happens when the accused captures power over the prosecutor. No court, including the Supreme Court, can dispense justice if the prosecutor joins hand with the accused and refuses to prove the case.
If the Supreme Court accepts the plea of the government, the corrupt will claim that the Supreme Court itself has said there is no case against them and claim victory and also charge those who pursued the case with having persecuted them politically through a false case.
When Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister he was blatantly protecting the accused in the Bofors case. But Narasimha Rao, who became the prime minister in 1991, was more even-handed; he supported the CBI in its effort to get at the accused Q and also assisted the accused to escape the country! Later, in August 1999, when Sonia Gandhi, with whose family Q shared close relations, was baptised into politics, she gave a clean chit to her former Italian compatriot. When the media questioned her on Q’s guilt in the Bofors case, she said. ‘‘The CBI has said he is a suspect. We have never seen the papers naming him in the deal. They (the NDA government) should show the papers establishing he is guilty.” But the papers which showed that Q had taken the bribe remained strewn all over in the media and in the court for almost a decade. Here is a quick recall of the evidence about Q looting Indian public money, which was in public domain for over 15 years.
In 1985, the Rajiv Gandhi government was dithering for over a year on which gun to buy — the British, Austrian or Swedish. Two brokers engaged by the Swedish gun maker Bofors could not expedite the deal. Suddenly, in the second half of 1985, A E Services (AES), a shell company based in London, made this offer to Bofors: “Look. If we get you the deal by March 31, 1986, give us a fee of three per cent. If not, don’t pay.” Bofors accepted the offer and signed up with AES on October 15, 1985. Unless Bofors knew that the man, or the woman, behind AES had had the clout to get it done from the Rajiv government, it would never have signed with a shell company.
And AES did get the Rajiv government to sign the contract with Bofors on March 22, 1986 — seven days ahead of the target date of March 31, 1986. Within six months, AES got the first tranche of its fee of $7.3 million — the full payment due being $36.5 million. Proof emerged slowly that this money finally went to Q, showing he was the man behind the shell.
* Bofors paid (on September 3,1986) $7.3 million into AES’ account number 18051-53 in Nordfinanz Bank, Zurich.
* Two weeks later (on September 16, 1986) AES transferred $7 million to an account in the name of Colbar Investments, controlled by Q and Maria.
* As the Bofors scam had become a huge issue by 1988, Q and Maria began shifting their loot, grown with interest, from place to place — Geneva to Channel Islands, to New York to Austria, in a bid to hide it. On July 25, 1988, $7.9 million moved from Colbar to Wetelsen Overseas SA, in UBS, Geneva. On May 21, 1990, $9.2 million moved from Wetelson to IIDCL, a company in Channel Islands. On June 5, 1990, $2.4 million was transferred to a code-named account ‘Robusta’ in Banque Karfinco SA from Swiss Bank Corp, New York. On June 12, 1990, $5.3 million was transferred to code-named accounts ‘Arabica’, ‘Robusta’ and ‘Luxor’ in Austria from Swiss bank accounts in Geneva.
* Later, in June 2003, Interpol found that Q and Maria had two accounts, bearing numbers 5A5151516L and 5A5151516M in the London branch of the Swiss bank BSI AG with €3 million and $1 million. These accounts were frozen on CBI’s request.
* The first thing the UPA-I did was to defreeze the account to enable Q and Maria to withdraw and run away with the money. The next thing it did was to allow Q to escape from Argentina where he was detained.
And now the UPA-II has decided to bury the case altogether, of course with the stamp of the Supreme Court of India. It is not that the UPA is keen to protect Q; it has to protect Q to ensure that its chairperson Sonia Gandhi is not embarrassed. That Sonia, Maria and Q were close family friends was established by the CBI search of Q’s residence in 1993. It found that they shared annual holidays, dined together at weekends, had joint family photographs and left each other’s children in one another’s custody. These pieces of evidence instead of becoming proof against Q’s proximity by which he looted the Indian people have become the reason for the UPA government to withdraw the case altogether. Sten Lindstorm, the Swedish police investigator who probed the Bofors fraud in Sweden, told the Indian government that ‘Sonia must be questioned on the scam’ and on her links with Q. Any further discussion needed on why the UPA government is keen to do down the Bofors case?
QED: The present generation of readers were toddlers when the Bofors scam broke out. So most of them would not know that the Bofors scam involved a total pay-off of $126 million including $36.5 million to AES shell — read Q. Only 20 per cent of the pay-off — that is Rs 64 crore — was paid by the time the scandal broke out as the pay-off was linked to proportion of the gun purchase amount paid by India. Since the Indian government had paid only 20 per cent of the amount, the bribe paid at that time was limited to 20 per cent. Further bribe was to be paid under the contract only when Indian government paid the further purchase money. The Indian government has subsequently paid up the full balance consideration; but because the scam had broken out and the Bofors case was on, further payment of bribes had remained suspended. Now that the prosecution is being withdrawn, the buccaneers are free to draw the balance bribe money from Bofors. Q will get his balance $29 million and others would get their balance of $227 million. In today’s rupee terms, Q’s further $29 million means Rs 140 crore plus. The entire bribe money at current rupee value of the dollar will exceed Rs 600 crore! It’s worth waiting for 20 years, isn’t it?.
comment@gurumurthy.net
About the author:
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
First Published : 19 Oct 2009 11:57:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 19 Oct 2009 06:03:58 PM IST
The truth about bribery in the Bofors case which haunted the ruling family for over 20 years is now awaiting the signal from the Supreme Court for its final burial. The Central government told the Supreme Court on September 29 it had decided to withdraw the case against Quattrocchi — more famously known as ‘Q’. If that happens, it would be the end of the pursuit of the buccaneers who had looted the Indian public in the Bofors deal. This is what happens when the accused captures power over the prosecutor. No court, including the Supreme Court, can dispense justice if the prosecutor joins hand with the accused and refuses to prove the case.
If the Supreme Court accepts the plea of the government, the corrupt will claim that the Supreme Court itself has said there is no case against them and claim victory and also charge those who pursued the case with having persecuted them politically through a false case.
When Rajiv Gandhi was the prime minister he was blatantly protecting the accused in the Bofors case. But Narasimha Rao, who became the prime minister in 1991, was more even-handed; he supported the CBI in its effort to get at the accused Q and also assisted the accused to escape the country! Later, in August 1999, when Sonia Gandhi, with whose family Q shared close relations, was baptised into politics, she gave a clean chit to her former Italian compatriot. When the media questioned her on Q’s guilt in the Bofors case, she said. ‘‘The CBI has said he is a suspect. We have never seen the papers naming him in the deal. They (the NDA government) should show the papers establishing he is guilty.” But the papers which showed that Q had taken the bribe remained strewn all over in the media and in the court for almost a decade. Here is a quick recall of the evidence about Q looting Indian public money, which was in public domain for over 15 years.
In 1985, the Rajiv Gandhi government was dithering for over a year on which gun to buy — the British, Austrian or Swedish. Two brokers engaged by the Swedish gun maker Bofors could not expedite the deal. Suddenly, in the second half of 1985, A E Services (AES), a shell company based in London, made this offer to Bofors: “Look. If we get you the deal by March 31, 1986, give us a fee of three per cent. If not, don’t pay.” Bofors accepted the offer and signed up with AES on October 15, 1985. Unless Bofors knew that the man, or the woman, behind AES had had the clout to get it done from the Rajiv government, it would never have signed with a shell company.
And AES did get the Rajiv government to sign the contract with Bofors on March 22, 1986 — seven days ahead of the target date of March 31, 1986. Within six months, AES got the first tranche of its fee of $7.3 million — the full payment due being $36.5 million. Proof emerged slowly that this money finally went to Q, showing he was the man behind the shell.
* Bofors paid (on September 3,1986) $7.3 million into AES’ account number 18051-53 in Nordfinanz Bank, Zurich.
* Two weeks later (on September 16, 1986) AES transferred $7 million to an account in the name of Colbar Investments, controlled by Q and Maria.
* As the Bofors scam had become a huge issue by 1988, Q and Maria began shifting their loot, grown with interest, from place to place — Geneva to Channel Islands, to New York to Austria, in a bid to hide it. On July 25, 1988, $7.9 million moved from Colbar to Wetelsen Overseas SA, in UBS, Geneva. On May 21, 1990, $9.2 million moved from Wetelson to IIDCL, a company in Channel Islands. On June 5, 1990, $2.4 million was transferred to a code-named account ‘Robusta’ in Banque Karfinco SA from Swiss Bank Corp, New York. On June 12, 1990, $5.3 million was transferred to code-named accounts ‘Arabica’, ‘Robusta’ and ‘Luxor’ in Austria from Swiss bank accounts in Geneva.
* Later, in June 2003, Interpol found that Q and Maria had two accounts, bearing numbers 5A5151516L and 5A5151516M in the London branch of the Swiss bank BSI AG with €3 million and $1 million. These accounts were frozen on CBI’s request.
* The first thing the UPA-I did was to defreeze the account to enable Q and Maria to withdraw and run away with the money. The next thing it did was to allow Q to escape from Argentina where he was detained.
And now the UPA-II has decided to bury the case altogether, of course with the stamp of the Supreme Court of India. It is not that the UPA is keen to protect Q; it has to protect Q to ensure that its chairperson Sonia Gandhi is not embarrassed. That Sonia, Maria and Q were close family friends was established by the CBI search of Q’s residence in 1993. It found that they shared annual holidays, dined together at weekends, had joint family photographs and left each other’s children in one another’s custody. These pieces of evidence instead of becoming proof against Q’s proximity by which he looted the Indian people have become the reason for the UPA government to withdraw the case altogether. Sten Lindstorm, the Swedish police investigator who probed the Bofors fraud in Sweden, told the Indian government that ‘Sonia must be questioned on the scam’ and on her links with Q. Any further discussion needed on why the UPA government is keen to do down the Bofors case?
QED: The present generation of readers were toddlers when the Bofors scam broke out. So most of them would not know that the Bofors scam involved a total pay-off of $126 million including $36.5 million to AES shell — read Q. Only 20 per cent of the pay-off — that is Rs 64 crore — was paid by the time the scandal broke out as the pay-off was linked to proportion of the gun purchase amount paid by India. Since the Indian government had paid only 20 per cent of the amount, the bribe paid at that time was limited to 20 per cent. Further bribe was to be paid under the contract only when Indian government paid the further purchase money. The Indian government has subsequently paid up the full balance consideration; but because the scam had broken out and the Bofors case was on, further payment of bribes had remained suspended. Now that the prosecution is being withdrawn, the buccaneers are free to draw the balance bribe money from Bofors. Q will get his balance $29 million and others would get their balance of $227 million. In today’s rupee terms, Q’s further $29 million means Rs 140 crore plus. The entire bribe money at current rupee value of the dollar will exceed Rs 600 crore! It’s worth waiting for 20 years, isn’t it?.
comment@gurumurthy.net
About the author:
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
He’s taller than the Prize
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 09 Oct 2009 11:50:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 09 Oct 2009 12:40:08 AM IST
Nobel Indian’; ‘From physicist to Nobel Laureate in chemistry’; ‘Nobel Laureate keeps his home links’; ‘Keeps in touch with Vadodara’; ‘listens to music’. This is how the media generally captures Ramakrishnan Venkatraman, the Tamil Nadu-born Indian who, along with two others, has won the 2009 Nobel Prize for chemistry. ‘Venky’ as he seems to be known to his peers, is today a Nobel Laureate, yes. He is now the toast of his school and college, of Tamil Nadu and of India.
He is the fourth in the list of Indian-born scientists, the first three being C V Raman, S Chandrasekhar, and Har Gobind Khorana, who have won the Nobel Prize. But there seems to be much more in the man than the media seems to see in him. The first glimpse of the deeper man in Venky is perhaps in the headlines of this newspaper that ran ‘TN-born American bags Nobel, with humility’ — note the last word ‘humility’.
This seems to give the first clue to something more profound in the man. Most want to see ordinary things in great people — what sari or dog one likes. Many want to look for great qualities in ordinary people — like a poor person donating a capital sum. In the search for the ordinary in the extraordinary, and for the extraordinary in the ordinary, the elevating profoundness that is in many is missed. Here is an attempt to get at that profounder element of ‘Venky’.
The bio-profile of Ramakrishnan Venkatraman does not look extraordinary at the start. Born in Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu in the year 1952, he was schooled in ‘Ramaswamy Chettiar Town Higher Secondary School’ — the only school in the temple town. He did his pre-university course in Annamalai University, in the same town, and his BSc in physics from Maharaja Sayajirao College in Vadodara in Gujarat in 1971. The media reports say that in his school days he was ‘sincere, loyal’, ‘above average’ and ‘was among the top 10’, and so not the topmost. According to the media, his professors at Vadodara recall him as a ‘shy’ student, who would never ‘talk’, but ‘very disciplined’. He is described as god fearing and his family as followers of the Kanchi Mahaswami who lived till 1994.
The first major clue to the firm mind behind the shy and soft exterior of Venky seems to come from the way he kicked away the most covetous medical career that was inviting him, in favour of physics. Reports say that after his pre-university, he passed the medical entrance examination, but flatly refused to become a doctor, and had resolved to pursue physics. This is not what a shy or soft person would do. The second clue came from the way he dropped his pursuit of physics after taking his doctorate in physics from Ohio University in 1976 and within two years thereafter, took to molecular biology as his field of research. This finally landed him in the Nobel Club. This is the history of how the inherent skill and talent hidden from Venky himself first seem to have been unfolded to him in the course of his own search for knowledge. But the profoundness of a person, in contrast to the deficiencies of the un-profound one, manifests in how he reacts to great success or great failures. See how Venky reacts to his success.
The India Abroad News Service quoted him as saying to the BBC Hindi service, that the Nobel Prize “is a great honour”, adding quickly, “I think it is a mistake to define a good work by awards. This is a typical mistake that the public or even the press make.” None of you called me about my work even two days ago… right?”, he asked. “I think people have to do what interests (them) and then pursue it.... That’s the way to do important work. Whether prizes come your way or not, it’s really not so important”.
Does this ring somewhere? “Work, but, without expecting rewards”, Sri Krishna told his disciple Arjuna in his discourse in Bhagavad Gita, that is to keep the work above reward, as the essence of Karma Yoga. That Venky kept his work above the award shows that this spirit of Karma Yoga was inherent in his deeper consciousness. Otherwise, within minutes of scaling the Everest of glory any scientist longs for, Venky could not have shown such spontaneous detachment from the glory that the award could otherwise mean to him. His instant response is the expression of the elevating profoundness of his inner consciousness.
More shockingly, he indicates in a manner that clearly differentiates him from those for whom the Nobel Prize becomes the very soul of their life, that the Prize is after all not the test of one’s excellence. Speaking about Indian scientists, “There are lots of good scientists in India, but I notice the press is hung up about these Western prizes like the Nobel Prize instead of appreciating the excellent work they (scientists) are doing within the context of India” This statement sets him apart completely. Only an award winner who, out of sheer love of his work, is totally detached from the glory of the award could have made this statement.
His message to the Indian scientists is equally profound. “Don’t look at the Nobel Prize as the recognition of your excellence. Your work is more valuable; more profound” This, he does, by clearly discounting the value of the Nobel Prize to him. Contrast Venky with the award winners who flaunt their awards at their compatriots and build an awesome brand for the Prize and for themselves. See his message to the Indian students. Asked whether Western countries are still the destination for Indian students aspiring higher research, Venky says, “No, no, I don’t feel it is necessary more. There are lots of good labs in India where they can do excellent work.” Comparing the state of affairs in 1971 when he left India, he says, “I have been to India several times since and these days there are some really fantastic places in India like the Indian Institute of Sciences and several others … those are very good places and have very good scientists”. Each statement takes him to a higher altitude. His humility is virile, not servile.
Yes. Venky deserves a higher award for defining the Nobel Prize; what it is and what it is not; and how Indian science and scientists should see it. But there is no award, which is greater, and has greater credibility, than public recognition. Venky will have public recognition of the elevating profoundness in him. He is taller than the Nobel Prize, undoubtedly.
comment@gurumurthy.net
About the author:
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
First Published : 09 Oct 2009 11:50:00 PM IST
Last Updated : 09 Oct 2009 12:40:08 AM IST
Nobel Indian’; ‘From physicist to Nobel Laureate in chemistry’; ‘Nobel Laureate keeps his home links’; ‘Keeps in touch with Vadodara’; ‘listens to music’. This is how the media generally captures Ramakrishnan Venkatraman, the Tamil Nadu-born Indian who, along with two others, has won the 2009 Nobel Prize for chemistry. ‘Venky’ as he seems to be known to his peers, is today a Nobel Laureate, yes. He is now the toast of his school and college, of Tamil Nadu and of India.
He is the fourth in the list of Indian-born scientists, the first three being C V Raman, S Chandrasekhar, and Har Gobind Khorana, who have won the Nobel Prize. But there seems to be much more in the man than the media seems to see in him. The first glimpse of the deeper man in Venky is perhaps in the headlines of this newspaper that ran ‘TN-born American bags Nobel, with humility’ — note the last word ‘humility’.
This seems to give the first clue to something more profound in the man. Most want to see ordinary things in great people — what sari or dog one likes. Many want to look for great qualities in ordinary people — like a poor person donating a capital sum. In the search for the ordinary in the extraordinary, and for the extraordinary in the ordinary, the elevating profoundness that is in many is missed. Here is an attempt to get at that profounder element of ‘Venky’.
The bio-profile of Ramakrishnan Venkatraman does not look extraordinary at the start. Born in Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu in the year 1952, he was schooled in ‘Ramaswamy Chettiar Town Higher Secondary School’ — the only school in the temple town. He did his pre-university course in Annamalai University, in the same town, and his BSc in physics from Maharaja Sayajirao College in Vadodara in Gujarat in 1971. The media reports say that in his school days he was ‘sincere, loyal’, ‘above average’ and ‘was among the top 10’, and so not the topmost. According to the media, his professors at Vadodara recall him as a ‘shy’ student, who would never ‘talk’, but ‘very disciplined’. He is described as god fearing and his family as followers of the Kanchi Mahaswami who lived till 1994.
The first major clue to the firm mind behind the shy and soft exterior of Venky seems to come from the way he kicked away the most covetous medical career that was inviting him, in favour of physics. Reports say that after his pre-university, he passed the medical entrance examination, but flatly refused to become a doctor, and had resolved to pursue physics. This is not what a shy or soft person would do. The second clue came from the way he dropped his pursuit of physics after taking his doctorate in physics from Ohio University in 1976 and within two years thereafter, took to molecular biology as his field of research. This finally landed him in the Nobel Club. This is the history of how the inherent skill and talent hidden from Venky himself first seem to have been unfolded to him in the course of his own search for knowledge. But the profoundness of a person, in contrast to the deficiencies of the un-profound one, manifests in how he reacts to great success or great failures. See how Venky reacts to his success.
The India Abroad News Service quoted him as saying to the BBC Hindi service, that the Nobel Prize “is a great honour”, adding quickly, “I think it is a mistake to define a good work by awards. This is a typical mistake that the public or even the press make.” None of you called me about my work even two days ago… right?”, he asked. “I think people have to do what interests (them) and then pursue it.... That’s the way to do important work. Whether prizes come your way or not, it’s really not so important”.
Does this ring somewhere? “Work, but, without expecting rewards”, Sri Krishna told his disciple Arjuna in his discourse in Bhagavad Gita, that is to keep the work above reward, as the essence of Karma Yoga. That Venky kept his work above the award shows that this spirit of Karma Yoga was inherent in his deeper consciousness. Otherwise, within minutes of scaling the Everest of glory any scientist longs for, Venky could not have shown such spontaneous detachment from the glory that the award could otherwise mean to him. His instant response is the expression of the elevating profoundness of his inner consciousness.
More shockingly, he indicates in a manner that clearly differentiates him from those for whom the Nobel Prize becomes the very soul of their life, that the Prize is after all not the test of one’s excellence. Speaking about Indian scientists, “There are lots of good scientists in India, but I notice the press is hung up about these Western prizes like the Nobel Prize instead of appreciating the excellent work they (scientists) are doing within the context of India” This statement sets him apart completely. Only an award winner who, out of sheer love of his work, is totally detached from the glory of the award could have made this statement.
His message to the Indian scientists is equally profound. “Don’t look at the Nobel Prize as the recognition of your excellence. Your work is more valuable; more profound” This, he does, by clearly discounting the value of the Nobel Prize to him. Contrast Venky with the award winners who flaunt their awards at their compatriots and build an awesome brand for the Prize and for themselves. See his message to the Indian students. Asked whether Western countries are still the destination for Indian students aspiring higher research, Venky says, “No, no, I don’t feel it is necessary more. There are lots of good labs in India where they can do excellent work.” Comparing the state of affairs in 1971 when he left India, he says, “I have been to India several times since and these days there are some really fantastic places in India like the Indian Institute of Sciences and several others … those are very good places and have very good scientists”. Each statement takes him to a higher altitude. His humility is virile, not servile.
Yes. Venky deserves a higher award for defining the Nobel Prize; what it is and what it is not; and how Indian science and scientists should see it. But there is no award, which is greater, and has greater credibility, than public recognition. Venky will have public recognition of the elevating profoundness in him. He is taller than the Nobel Prize, undoubtedly.
comment@gurumurthy.net
About the author:
S Gurumurthy is a well-known commentator on political and economic issues
Why Lisa Miller should look at Vivekananda!
S Gurumurthy
First Published : 23 Aug 2009 10:15:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 23 Aug 2009 10:26:23 AM IST
The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: `Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names.' A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur'an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal." This is no monk of the Ramakrishna Mission discoursing on the spiritual teachings of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa who had experienced the truth of all three faiths -Hinduism, Islam and Christianity -- as valid for their respective faithfuls. It is Lisa Miller, Society editor in Newsweek, in her column (August 15, 2009), "We Are All Hindus Now". By "We" she means Americans.
Lisa Miller is highly concerned that Americans, while remaining true to their Christian faith otherwise, have begun to think and act like Hindu faithfuls. Here is an account of the interesting rendezvous between modern America and ancient Hinduism and its potential for global religious harmony .
From melting pot to WASP The choice of "We" for Americans by Lisa Miller is intentional. It is calculated to reinstate an attempted debate in the US on "the challenges to America's national identity" that had failed to take off. Samuel P Huntington, who had prognosticated the clash of faiths and civilisations in the 1990s, later wrote a book in 2002 titled Who Are We? -- a question addressed to Americans. Huntington's answer to the question was that the core American identity -- `America's Creed' as he puts it -- was WASP, that is, White (in race) Anglo-Saxon (in ethnicity) and Protestant (in faith). All other identities, Huntington says, are subordinate. But, unlike his earlier work on clash of civilisations that had set off a furious debate within and outside the US, his theory on WASP as American identity did not.
Now, some history. For over two centuries, the American identity was based on the metaphor of `the melting pot' where all identities eventually, inevitably melt to become the unique American porridge. The theory of `the melting pot' is traced back to 1782 when a French settler in New York, J Hector de Crevecoeur, envisioned the US as not merely a land of opportunity but as a society where individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men whose labours and posterity will one day cause change in the world.
But, the metaphor of the `melting pot' received a jolt after Islamist terror struck at the US from within. The US identity was alternately seen as a `bowl of salads', where all identities remain, but in the same bowl, that is, the US. But "where is the dressing to cover it all?," asked the dissenters of the `Salad Bowl'. The result was Huntington's WASP as the core American identity; but that failed to click.
Now in her article, Lisa Miller seemingly answers Huntington's titular question "who are we" derisively, yet provocatively. She says `we are `Hindu' -- that means, not WASP! Her conclusion "let us all chant OM"; the emphasis on `us' can even incite.
The crisis of national identity in the US is evident in the article. Lisa Miller is no novice in matters of faith; she is a specialist. She writes a weekly column "Belief Watch" in Newsweek. Says her bio, `she reports, writes and edits stories on spirituality and belief; she wrote The Politics of Jesus, a cover story in Newsweek (March 10, 2006) on the impact of religion in the midterm elections in the US.' See why she fears that the US might get Hinduised.
Hinduised America?
After describing how Hindus accept all Gods and all forms of worship as valid, Lisa Miller says: "The most traditional, conservative Christians have not been taught to think like" the Hindus do.
"They learn in Sunday school that their religion is true, and others are false; Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." Shortly, what Lisa Miller says about the two faiths is this: Christianity regards all non-Christian faiths as false, but Hinduism recognises all faiths as valid, as valid as the Hindu creed itself. But, she does not stop at this comparison. She laments that most Christians in the US are beginning to think and believe the way the Hindus do. She says: "recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity."
Lisa Miller goes on to show how Americans are deviating from the fundamentals of Christianity.
"Americans", she says, "are no longer buying" the view that Christianity is the only true religion and all other religions are false. She cites a 2008 Pew Forum Survey and says that 65 per cent of "us" believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life". This includes 37 per cent evangelicals -- "the section", Lisa Miller points out, "most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone". She adds. For the Hindus who believe in rebirth, the soul alone is sacred; for the Christians, who do not believe in rebirth, their body is as sacred as the soul; yet a third of the Americans, up from six per cent in 1975, cremate their dead like Hindus. Worse, a fourth of the Americans believe in rebirth, according to Harris 2008 poll, like Hindus. More. And some 30 per cent of the Americans, up from 20 in 2005, say "they are spiritual, not religious"; this marginalises the Church. She implies that these are just consequences of the American Christian distancing from the basic tenet of Christianity as the only true faith and all other faiths as false.
`Semitic' propensity for conflict But, what is wrong if American Christians refuse to regard the other faiths as false? Is it not the right approach to accommodate other faiths in a world of diverse faiths? Two-thirds of Christians in America believe in Christianity and, at the same time, they do not view other faiths as false. She knows that those Americans, who do not hate the other faiths as false, still believe in Christianity.
But she does not seem to regard mere belief in Christianity Christian enough, unless the faith extends more to dismiss -- that is hate -- all other faiths as false. This view directly flows from belief that the sacred text of Christianity, which proclaims it as the only true faith and others false, is inerrant. This is what has come to be known as fundamentalism. Lisa Miller's view clearly seems fundamentalist. This leads to how this fundamental tenet has been the very source of intolerance.
The Encyclopaedia of Britannica, compiled mostly by Christian intellectuals, says that in the very view that Christianity is the only true faith and other faiths are false inheres intolerance. It says, "Christianity, from its beginning, tended toward an intolerance that was rooted in its religious self-consciousness. Christianity understands itself as revelation of the divine truth that became man in Jesus Christ himself....To be a Christian is to `follow the truth' (III John); ...He who does not acknowledge the truth is an enemy "of the cross of Christ" (Phil 3:18); he "exchanged the truth about God for a lie" (Rom 1:25) and made himself advocate and confederate of the "adversary, the devil" (I Pet 5:8). Thus one cannot make a deal with the devil and his party -- and in this lies the basis for the intolerance of Christianity (15Ed. Vol4. Pp.49192). That is, recognising other faiths as valid amounts to making "a deal with the devil". The fundamental command to regard other faiths as false, which is what, in Lisa Miller's view, makes one a true Christian, has the propensity and potential for conflicts; it has actually led to violent conflicts in history. This propensity and potential is shared by the three monotheistic faiths -- Judaism, Islam and Christianity. That is why the Fundamentalism Project of Chicago University found that the "traits of fundamentalism are more accurately attributed to" sacred text-based Abrahamic faiths -- read the monotheistic ones -- "than to their cousins" in the East, namely Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Confucianism (Fundamentalisms Observed, University of Chicago, p820). This brings the discourse closer to India.
Hinduised Christianity?
While Lisa Miller complains about Hinduisation of the (`Semitic') Christianity in the US, the secular intellectuals object to semitisation of Hinduism in India! The seculars who complain about semitisation dare not name any faith as `Semitic', even though, by `Semitic', they can mean only the Abrahamic. Scholars like Sitaram Goel and Konrad Elst say that the label `Semitic' is "hopelessly inaccurate" for the Abrahamic faiths besides sounding anti-`Semitic' to the Western ears. Yet the Indian seculars insist on the word `Semitic' for the Abrahamic faiths. Keeping aside the label issue, move on to the core of the debate and its history. Dr Karan Singh first characterised the rise of Hindutva in 1990s as semitisation of Hinduism; later, the secular intellectuals appropriated the label! The Ayodhya movement, which gave birth to the ideology of Hindutva, had challenged the views of Indian seculars who had, for decades, derided Hinduism as "illiberal" and "inequitable" and successfully de-legitimised Hinduism in the Indian public domain. But, the rise of Hindutva in 1990s made it tough for them to continue their anti-Hindu line; so they not only U-turned, but also fell in love with Hinduism and, more, certified it as "liberal"! They went on to distinguish the "liberal" Hinduism from the "illiberal" and "semitisised" Hindutva; they castigated Hindutva for importing `Semitic' features into the liberal, tolerant Hinduism. But, surprisingly, in the entire debate, the seculars would not name the "illiberal" and "intolerant" `Semitic' faiths -- read the Abrahamic faiths -- nor say what objectionable features of theirs Hindutva imports into Hinduism! Here the secular scholars in India have been less than open and honest, while Lisa Miller has been brutally explicit and honest. She says that Hinduism is polluting the American Christian beliefs.
Lisa Miller's logic seems to be: what is the Christianity left of Christianity if Christians do not believe it to be the only true faith and see other faiths as false. In Lisa Miller's view, while Hinduism accepts all faiths as valid as itself, a true Christian has to believe that only his faith is true and that even Hinduism, which accepts other faiths, is a false faith. But the secular scholars in India have no guts to say about the `Semitic' faiths what Lisa Miller says about the Hindu faith.
The need to de-semitisise The charge of semitisisation of Hinduism by the seculars is political, not theological. The real issue is the need for de-semitisising the `Semitic' -- that is Abrahamic -- faiths. Beginning with Swami Vivekananda's expositions on inter-religious harmony the discourse of the Hindu school has been a continuous plea for `de-semitisising' the `Semitic' faiths. Vivekananda even wanted India to be "junction of Vedanta brain and Islamic body"; that is India, with Hindus and Muslims, should have a body, organised and united like the Muslims, and a mind liberated by Vedanta -- namely a society organised on Vedanta as the core thought. That is, organised Hindus and de-semitisised Muslims! His was a call for the de-semitisisation of all `Semitic' faiths; mention of Islam was just the context. The `de-semitisisation', which Vivekananda had pleaded for, seems to have started in Christianity in US with American Christians beginning to accept, like Hindus do, the other faiths too as valid. Yet, despite that being a welcome development, Lisa Miller is clearly frightened of the de-semitisation process.
But unless the `Semitic' faiths `de-semitisise', they will not be able to contain their inherent propensity for conflict. When a faith says that the other faiths are false, as in Lisa Miller's view Christianity does, it is an invitation for conflict with other religions. In contrast, if each religion accepts that other religions are as true, will that not put an end to clash between religions? This is conflict avoidance. This has been the very fundamental of Hindu approach to other faiths. A religion -- read Hinduism -- which believes that all religions are as valid as itself, has no potential for conflict with other religions. And a religion -- read a `Semitic' faith -- which believes that its faith and God alone, are true and all other religions as false, has all propensity for conflict with other religions.
Once a faith is declared to be false, does it not become an object of hate? How then can religious harmony be achieved if some religions declare other religions to be false?
This is where opinion-makers like Lisa Miller need to rethink. What she sees as the USP of Christianity -- namely Christians believing in their faith as the true faith and other faiths as false -has the propensity and potential to dynamite global religious harmony; more so because Christianity is the largest faith in the world. Her logic equally applies to what Islam also believes in, namely that Islam alone is true and all others including Christianity false. And that is what inspired the terrorists to attack the US on 9/11. If Christians are mandated by their Text to think that theirs is the only true faith and others as false, Islamists too are mandated by their Text to think likewise.
Where will the two conflicting and explosive mandates against all other faiths lead the world? Here is where the Hindu view that all religions are true is not only relevant, but seems to be the only way out of the dangers of religious fanaticism. The Hindu faith itself is different from the Hindu view of other faiths. By saying that each faith is sacred for its followers, a Hindu does not cease to be a Hindu. Likewise if a Muslims or Christians say that all faiths are as valid as theirs, they are no less Muslims or Christians. They remain Christians or Muslims and accept others faith as valid; they only become less sectarian.
It needs no seer to say that the features of `Semitic' faiths, which tend to promote conflict with other faiths, need to be given up -- that is, the `Semitic' faiths need to be de-semitisised. That is the only way out of the current drift towards religious and civilisational clashes. This is what Swami Vivekananda had warned the world, particularly the West, on September 11, 1893, exactly 108 years to the date of the religious terror strike at the US on September 11, 2001. The young Indian monk, who was just 30 then, pleaded before the august audience of religious elders of the world against "sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism" which, he pointed out, "have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often with human blood, destroyed civilization and sent whole nations to despair." How far-sighted a warning?
Yet, Lisa Miller seems to lament, instead of celebrating, the decline of bigotry and sectarianism in her faith. And the Indian seculars are still impeding, instead of enabling, the emergence of the non-conflicting Hindu thought as the global mediator between different faiths. Will Lisa Miller look at Vivekananda? Will our seculars and leftists heed him?
comment@gurumurthy.net
First Published : 23 Aug 2009 10:15:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 23 Aug 2009 10:26:23 AM IST
The Rig Veda, the most ancient Hindu scripture, says this: `Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names.' A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur'an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal." This is no monk of the Ramakrishna Mission discoursing on the spiritual teachings of Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa who had experienced the truth of all three faiths -Hinduism, Islam and Christianity -- as valid for their respective faithfuls. It is Lisa Miller, Society editor in Newsweek, in her column (August 15, 2009), "We Are All Hindus Now". By "We" she means Americans.
Lisa Miller is highly concerned that Americans, while remaining true to their Christian faith otherwise, have begun to think and act like Hindu faithfuls. Here is an account of the interesting rendezvous between modern America and ancient Hinduism and its potential for global religious harmony .
From melting pot to WASP The choice of "We" for Americans by Lisa Miller is intentional. It is calculated to reinstate an attempted debate in the US on "the challenges to America's national identity" that had failed to take off. Samuel P Huntington, who had prognosticated the clash of faiths and civilisations in the 1990s, later wrote a book in 2002 titled Who Are We? -- a question addressed to Americans. Huntington's answer to the question was that the core American identity -- `America's Creed' as he puts it -- was WASP, that is, White (in race) Anglo-Saxon (in ethnicity) and Protestant (in faith). All other identities, Huntington says, are subordinate. But, unlike his earlier work on clash of civilisations that had set off a furious debate within and outside the US, his theory on WASP as American identity did not.
Now, some history. For over two centuries, the American identity was based on the metaphor of `the melting pot' where all identities eventually, inevitably melt to become the unique American porridge. The theory of `the melting pot' is traced back to 1782 when a French settler in New York, J Hector de Crevecoeur, envisioned the US as not merely a land of opportunity but as a society where individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men whose labours and posterity will one day cause change in the world.
But, the metaphor of the `melting pot' received a jolt after Islamist terror struck at the US from within. The US identity was alternately seen as a `bowl of salads', where all identities remain, but in the same bowl, that is, the US. But "where is the dressing to cover it all?," asked the dissenters of the `Salad Bowl'. The result was Huntington's WASP as the core American identity; but that failed to click.
Now in her article, Lisa Miller seemingly answers Huntington's titular question "who are we" derisively, yet provocatively. She says `we are `Hindu' -- that means, not WASP! Her conclusion "let us all chant OM"; the emphasis on `us' can even incite.
The crisis of national identity in the US is evident in the article. Lisa Miller is no novice in matters of faith; she is a specialist. She writes a weekly column "Belief Watch" in Newsweek. Says her bio, `she reports, writes and edits stories on spirituality and belief; she wrote The Politics of Jesus, a cover story in Newsweek (March 10, 2006) on the impact of religion in the midterm elections in the US.' See why she fears that the US might get Hinduised.
Hinduised America?
After describing how Hindus accept all Gods and all forms of worship as valid, Lisa Miller says: "The most traditional, conservative Christians have not been taught to think like" the Hindus do.
"They learn in Sunday school that their religion is true, and others are false; Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." Shortly, what Lisa Miller says about the two faiths is this: Christianity regards all non-Christian faiths as false, but Hinduism recognises all faiths as valid, as valid as the Hindu creed itself. But, she does not stop at this comparison. She laments that most Christians in the US are beginning to think and believe the way the Hindus do. She says: "recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity."
Lisa Miller goes on to show how Americans are deviating from the fundamentals of Christianity.
"Americans", she says, "are no longer buying" the view that Christianity is the only true religion and all other religions are false. She cites a 2008 Pew Forum Survey and says that 65 per cent of "us" believe that "many religions can lead to eternal life". This includes 37 per cent evangelicals -- "the section", Lisa Miller points out, "most likely to believe that salvation is theirs alone". She adds. For the Hindus who believe in rebirth, the soul alone is sacred; for the Christians, who do not believe in rebirth, their body is as sacred as the soul; yet a third of the Americans, up from six per cent in 1975, cremate their dead like Hindus. Worse, a fourth of the Americans believe in rebirth, according to Harris 2008 poll, like Hindus. More. And some 30 per cent of the Americans, up from 20 in 2005, say "they are spiritual, not religious"; this marginalises the Church. She implies that these are just consequences of the American Christian distancing from the basic tenet of Christianity as the only true faith and all other faiths as false.
`Semitic' propensity for conflict But, what is wrong if American Christians refuse to regard the other faiths as false? Is it not the right approach to accommodate other faiths in a world of diverse faiths? Two-thirds of Christians in America believe in Christianity and, at the same time, they do not view other faiths as false. She knows that those Americans, who do not hate the other faiths as false, still believe in Christianity.
But she does not seem to regard mere belief in Christianity Christian enough, unless the faith extends more to dismiss -- that is hate -- all other faiths as false. This view directly flows from belief that the sacred text of Christianity, which proclaims it as the only true faith and others false, is inerrant. This is what has come to be known as fundamentalism. Lisa Miller's view clearly seems fundamentalist. This leads to how this fundamental tenet has been the very source of intolerance.
The Encyclopaedia of Britannica, compiled mostly by Christian intellectuals, says that in the very view that Christianity is the only true faith and other faiths are false inheres intolerance. It says, "Christianity, from its beginning, tended toward an intolerance that was rooted in its religious self-consciousness. Christianity understands itself as revelation of the divine truth that became man in Jesus Christ himself....To be a Christian is to `follow the truth' (III John); ...He who does not acknowledge the truth is an enemy "of the cross of Christ" (Phil 3:18); he "exchanged the truth about God for a lie" (Rom 1:25) and made himself advocate and confederate of the "adversary, the devil" (I Pet 5:8). Thus one cannot make a deal with the devil and his party -- and in this lies the basis for the intolerance of Christianity (15Ed. Vol4. Pp.49192). That is, recognising other faiths as valid amounts to making "a deal with the devil". The fundamental command to regard other faiths as false, which is what, in Lisa Miller's view, makes one a true Christian, has the propensity and potential for conflicts; it has actually led to violent conflicts in history. This propensity and potential is shared by the three monotheistic faiths -- Judaism, Islam and Christianity. That is why the Fundamentalism Project of Chicago University found that the "traits of fundamentalism are more accurately attributed to" sacred text-based Abrahamic faiths -- read the monotheistic ones -- "than to their cousins" in the East, namely Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Confucianism (Fundamentalisms Observed, University of Chicago, p820). This brings the discourse closer to India.
Hinduised Christianity?
While Lisa Miller complains about Hinduisation of the (`Semitic') Christianity in the US, the secular intellectuals object to semitisation of Hinduism in India! The seculars who complain about semitisation dare not name any faith as `Semitic', even though, by `Semitic', they can mean only the Abrahamic. Scholars like Sitaram Goel and Konrad Elst say that the label `Semitic' is "hopelessly inaccurate" for the Abrahamic faiths besides sounding anti-`Semitic' to the Western ears. Yet the Indian seculars insist on the word `Semitic' for the Abrahamic faiths. Keeping aside the label issue, move on to the core of the debate and its history. Dr Karan Singh first characterised the rise of Hindutva in 1990s as semitisation of Hinduism; later, the secular intellectuals appropriated the label! The Ayodhya movement, which gave birth to the ideology of Hindutva, had challenged the views of Indian seculars who had, for decades, derided Hinduism as "illiberal" and "inequitable" and successfully de-legitimised Hinduism in the Indian public domain. But, the rise of Hindutva in 1990s made it tough for them to continue their anti-Hindu line; so they not only U-turned, but also fell in love with Hinduism and, more, certified it as "liberal"! They went on to distinguish the "liberal" Hinduism from the "illiberal" and "semitisised" Hindutva; they castigated Hindutva for importing `Semitic' features into the liberal, tolerant Hinduism. But, surprisingly, in the entire debate, the seculars would not name the "illiberal" and "intolerant" `Semitic' faiths -- read the Abrahamic faiths -- nor say what objectionable features of theirs Hindutva imports into Hinduism! Here the secular scholars in India have been less than open and honest, while Lisa Miller has been brutally explicit and honest. She says that Hinduism is polluting the American Christian beliefs.
Lisa Miller's logic seems to be: what is the Christianity left of Christianity if Christians do not believe it to be the only true faith and see other faiths as false. In Lisa Miller's view, while Hinduism accepts all faiths as valid as itself, a true Christian has to believe that only his faith is true and that even Hinduism, which accepts other faiths, is a false faith. But the secular scholars in India have no guts to say about the `Semitic' faiths what Lisa Miller says about the Hindu faith.
The need to de-semitisise The charge of semitisisation of Hinduism by the seculars is political, not theological. The real issue is the need for de-semitisising the `Semitic' -- that is Abrahamic -- faiths. Beginning with Swami Vivekananda's expositions on inter-religious harmony the discourse of the Hindu school has been a continuous plea for `de-semitisising' the `Semitic' faiths. Vivekananda even wanted India to be "junction of Vedanta brain and Islamic body"; that is India, with Hindus and Muslims, should have a body, organised and united like the Muslims, and a mind liberated by Vedanta -- namely a society organised on Vedanta as the core thought. That is, organised Hindus and de-semitisised Muslims! His was a call for the de-semitisisation of all `Semitic' faiths; mention of Islam was just the context. The `de-semitisisation', which Vivekananda had pleaded for, seems to have started in Christianity in US with American Christians beginning to accept, like Hindus do, the other faiths too as valid. Yet, despite that being a welcome development, Lisa Miller is clearly frightened of the de-semitisation process.
But unless the `Semitic' faiths `de-semitisise', they will not be able to contain their inherent propensity for conflict. When a faith says that the other faiths are false, as in Lisa Miller's view Christianity does, it is an invitation for conflict with other religions. In contrast, if each religion accepts that other religions are as true, will that not put an end to clash between religions? This is conflict avoidance. This has been the very fundamental of Hindu approach to other faiths. A religion -- read Hinduism -- which believes that all religions are as valid as itself, has no potential for conflict with other religions. And a religion -- read a `Semitic' faith -- which believes that its faith and God alone, are true and all other religions as false, has all propensity for conflict with other religions.
Once a faith is declared to be false, does it not become an object of hate? How then can religious harmony be achieved if some religions declare other religions to be false?
This is where opinion-makers like Lisa Miller need to rethink. What she sees as the USP of Christianity -- namely Christians believing in their faith as the true faith and other faiths as false -has the propensity and potential to dynamite global religious harmony; more so because Christianity is the largest faith in the world. Her logic equally applies to what Islam also believes in, namely that Islam alone is true and all others including Christianity false. And that is what inspired the terrorists to attack the US on 9/11. If Christians are mandated by their Text to think that theirs is the only true faith and others as false, Islamists too are mandated by their Text to think likewise.
Where will the two conflicting and explosive mandates against all other faiths lead the world? Here is where the Hindu view that all religions are true is not only relevant, but seems to be the only way out of the dangers of religious fanaticism. The Hindu faith itself is different from the Hindu view of other faiths. By saying that each faith is sacred for its followers, a Hindu does not cease to be a Hindu. Likewise if a Muslims or Christians say that all faiths are as valid as theirs, they are no less Muslims or Christians. They remain Christians or Muslims and accept others faith as valid; they only become less sectarian.
It needs no seer to say that the features of `Semitic' faiths, which tend to promote conflict with other faiths, need to be given up -- that is, the `Semitic' faiths need to be de-semitisised. That is the only way out of the current drift towards religious and civilisational clashes. This is what Swami Vivekananda had warned the world, particularly the West, on September 11, 1893, exactly 108 years to the date of the religious terror strike at the US on September 11, 2001. The young Indian monk, who was just 30 then, pleaded before the august audience of religious elders of the world against "sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism" which, he pointed out, "have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often with human blood, destroyed civilization and sent whole nations to despair." How far-sighted a warning?
Yet, Lisa Miller seems to lament, instead of celebrating, the decline of bigotry and sectarianism in her faith. And the Indian seculars are still impeding, instead of enabling, the emergence of the non-conflicting Hindu thought as the global mediator between different faiths. Will Lisa Miller look at Vivekananda? Will our seculars and leftists heed him?
comment@gurumurthy.net
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)