Cartoon Scape - Anna Hazare teams up with Ramdev to fight corruption

Funny Cartoon appeared on THE HINDU - Cartoon Scape

Anna Hazare teams up with Ramdev to fight corruption. Too late to act perhaps. For he even didn't am in doing..

Original link below...

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/cartoon/article3342928.ece

The real face of Indian Sports Authority - An institutional Failiure

Pathetic.. I know no other words to say.. The sports authority of India is in absolute shambles... They seem to see nothing beyond cricket as sports. Its unfortunate that such a non-mainstream sports is favoured or rather worshiped than anything else..

Should sachin be awarded Bharat ratna...?? Damn it I say.. even he wouldn't agree to be awarded the highest honor at the cost of other sport for the modest person he is...

Inset Message: Shashikant Hotkar , winner of Mumbai Shree for the year 2011, making papad with his family in Dharavi Slum , Mumbai.

We give so much importance to cricket and cricket players as compared to other games.. though these players perform well they still need to struggle in the daily life for living!!!!! Though they r doing hard work for making records for Indian games they doesn't get any help frm government... emphasizing the real need to change this situation

Its not about Shashikant or whether he deserves whatever he does, the perennial question is what the Sports Authority of India is doing with the worlds second largest population. Had they provided the sufficient infra structure with proper maintenance the situation would be rather different.

Its the very reason that we still are languishing at the bottom of the table every olympics struggling so hard to clinch atleast a Bronze cheering the mediocre success and crediting that to the non-sense sports Authority and the IOC who did not even to care to move their ass out for anything other than abusing the institution while even every small african countries and with people not even equalling the population of the capitol. 

When are we going to realize this very fact and act. I guess whatever the changes should be proposed should start fundamentally. Thatz where we lack. We lack the very foundation. We lack the very infrastructure. We lack the very culture where sports is treated in par with the success of other professions. Can you imagine somebody saying I play kabbadi or I play Football in india when they were asked what you do for a living ?? We'd joke at them as losers. 

This is what we should change and the rest takes care by itself when we introduce the sports as a compulsory eductaion or rather give more emphasis by giving some more credits like we do for Arts, languages, Mathematics and science.

I dont really know if these things gonna happen during my lifetime or the respected politicians would spare some time from facing their never-ending list of cases of corruption, crime, treason and the likes. Not that i should be worried about it now for I have long lost the grip of playing tennis or cricket and just play Ping pong to cut loose stress out of the maniacal work only tuning me to be a moron every progressing day.

Gandhian Era II - Evidence by a swiss magazine on rajiv's swiss assets, On looting the county

This might quite be old but i really wonder how it went quite un-noticed by any of the mainstream media that boasts on every non-sense they call as news (atleast not a news that i've heard of). The editorials too have been quite over-boasting to every developments expressing either cynical or rather titillating.

It really makes us wonder what are we working for. What these politicians are hiding that they could fool around with crores of people feebly hoping to make out a future for their country with whatever is left with. Is it fair to say that the post gandhian era has been looted by the un-gandhian gandhi family. Well i dont wanna say much about the gandhian era for i hardly believed the motif of the man's vision.

Does it really matter who fights for attention towards revealing the identities of those who have invested in banking safe heavens... it hardly matters whether Anna Hazare, Ramdev, Bushan's or Bedi's or whoever for that matter fights for the cause. The crux of the matter is we have tainted people ruling us and it hardly matters of what gradient they were. They need not recognise the civil society for whatever reason they might say like which one of them is tainted... anna is using luxury hotels, ramdev has a fortune at hand and luxury houses worth crores at some exotic locations, Bushan has vouched for several false cases etc., do they ever care to look back at them?? as to how many folds their property and income has increased from one term to another of their MP's, Ministers .

Well there is a saying in tamil. "Unless the thief himself decides to reform himself it cannot be extirpated". Its highly unlikely that the modern day thiefs sitting on the top echelons would ask for the details even the swiss might consider giving.

This could only favor the recoup of sorts thats emerging of late around the world where people have demonstrated they can change regimes if they think they've had enough. whether its in the form of representatives of the civil society or by some other means, a new revolution will soon emerge and will change for the change that is inevitatble.

Artikel als: PDF-Download
Visit Blog: Ramanan's Blog

Independent India - Musings on the IDay 63

Every August, it will be Independence Day just like it was since the day it all began way back in 47 which many of us would've never seen.... The entire nation will wear a festive look. The tri-colour will flutter on the buildings and roads. The media will recapitulate the events of the freedom struggle. Political leaders will display their oratorical prowess from public platforms listing out their achievements and calling upon the masses to be vigilant in guarding the country's sovereignty against external aggression. As usual, they will dish out more promises to work for the uplift of the downtrodden and poor and ensuring equal rights and opportunities to one and all as enshrined in the Constitution.

As we all would know, ours is a predominantly agricultural country. You like him or not, Mahatma Gandhi had said, "the heart of India lies in its villages". The majority of our population lives in villages. Even after 62 years of Independence, most of them live below the poverty line and are socially oppressed. Though we have made impressive and spectacular strides in various fields like science and technology, education and industries, Its imperarative that the benefits have not reached the common man (Aam Aadmi) . Basic needs such as drinking water, electricity and shelter are still a distant dream for many. We should look deeper inside within so as to develop our outlook. There are lots more to be done at the grassroot level. Developing the villages (gaav's) should be our topmost priority for us to move forward to reach the status of the superpower. Rather we are making deals and working with cities just to make them more glamorous and attractive towards the FDI's and VC's. Unless we develop our basic infra nothing gonna change even if things seems so won't last for years and aren't worth to take us to the level we all aspire of.

Our economic order has been liberalised and has drifted away from nationalisation to globalisation even still we stayed a bit conservative which almost saw us through these recession thing thatz rocking the world these days. Our foreign policies have always stayed introversive. But still oflate we've managed to pull of deals with other G8's to collaborate on all front to advance in Science, Technology, Industries, Textile, Engineering, Sports and even Literary & Arts. We have leaders in every front but still we lack the professional approach and the lack of proper stystem to groom the future aspirants still haunts and its not just the UID's thatz gonna help us in our way forward we need a inspiring vision with palpable action.

Our political system has become corrupt to a degree none of us can imagine. Our Politicians are totally engrossed in driving wedges between communities, religion, castes and what not to gain political mileage and strengthen their vote banks. Even the face of terror proved futile in bringing us together. Parliaments are full of dogfights without consensus on any issues. We are left fighting selfishly on every issues of national importance.

I wish every Independence Day there should be a time for political introspection by India’s political leaders and its polity as to whether they have been able to deliver on the political promises made by them to the people of India. It is also the time for personal introspection by India’s political leaders in that whether they themselves personally have contributed to the strengthening of the ‘moral fabric’ of India in terms of setting exemplary standards of political probity, honesty and integrity and also ensuring that their political flock does likewise.

Independence Day had come and went like every year but has left in its wake the troubling thought as to whether India really has ‘dignified political leaders’ or they all have juggled the spelling of ‘leaders’ and ended up as ‘political dealers’ devoid of political morality and conscience. Especially the country's current state of affairs seriously demands a reality check on everyone of us and the country as a whole. It is true that we have lots of things to boast off over the last year but its equally eventful in terms of adversities and mishaps. I would not like to dwell too much on any of the issues as it would only evoke grave criticism.

I've not been wonderstruck at the electrifying spectacle of the English parting us at the stroke of the midnight when Nehru delivered his landmark speech 'Tryst with destiny. Iam still wondering as to why India’s politicians who succeed them and those who head them can no longer recreate those electrifying moments on every passing Independence Day. The answer is obvious as there are no political leaders left of the genre of India’s freedom movement. India today has been left with ‘political pygmies’ whose sole political activity is focused not on nation-building but on devising political tricks to capture power and survive in power at any cost.

How does one term the sordid spectacle that India’s polity put on display (on the event of last elections) for the citizens who voted them to power hoping that somehow even if they were ‘not fit to lead’ they would ‘at least provide honest governance’? Will their hopes be realised or will their needs be ever fulfilled. Defenitely not as it seems so in the due course. But will this pain ever abate is left to be seen.

The Worst of all was as to how the Indian Muslim communal card was being played by the so called secular parties. In the Parliament debate where India’s national issues should have been in the forefront and especially those really connected with the trust vote in terms of honest governance no effort was spared to dramatize the Congress Party’s so called secular credentials by lionizing the speeches of Indian Muslim Members of Parliament singing praises of the Congress

Few obvious questions arise from this sordid display of low political morality. The first is whether the Congress President and the Congress Prime Minister can absolve themselves from all that happened inside and outside the Parliament last year in terms of political wheeling and dealing. Secondly, both of them should be asking themselves whether all their wheeling and dealing was politically worth it keeping in mind that they are indeed debasing further the state of political affairs in the country which is already facing a severe lack of moral credentials upon which they are built upon. They somehow had lost their ultimate goal and are fighting only for their survival and in-turn their loyals to stay in power.

The answer however to many of such questions is a resounding ‘no’. If it is their contention that by winning a trust vote or just by signing a deal with US or showing their great indifference to any of the burning issues and still boasting off their resounding win by politically and morally questionable methods has raised India’s stock in the international arena then they are deluding themselves. They have only belittled themselves and in-turn had left us in a hapless state.

Finally, the people of India themselves are to blame for facilitating the rise of a motley group of unprincipled political midgets to power by an apathetic indifference to India’s political affairs and India’s political governance. This particularly applies to India’s rising middle class like me.There had been several calls over these years that stressed on the imperatives of India’s middle class politically empowering themselves to break the stranglehold of India’s captive vote-banks on India’s electoral arithmetic

Having said all these i believe the country is at the crossroads. Its for them to take a call (timely call) on framing the path ahead and rise to the call of duty beyond all issues and adversities. I wish the current leaders would focus on taking the country in the right direction and bring about development, prosperity and peace. May thins IDay be just another beginning of a new India... Truly Independent India

Union Home minister Shivraj patil resigns - Breaking news

Breaking News! Under fire from several quarters for his "inability" to prevent the rising terror attacks in India, Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil resigned, owning moral responsibility for the loss of lives and properties in Mumbai due to the recent terror attacks. The terror attack in Mumbai was the immediate cause for his resignation.

Shivraj Patil's own partymen from Congress and other UPA partners were gunning for his head. The BJP, Left and other political parties have been demanding for Shivraj Patil's resignation for a long time. The UPA government did not want to take any chance over Shivraj Patil in the wake of rising anger and emotion in the public after the terror attacks in Mumbai. Pranab Mukherjee is tipped to be the next Home Minister of India.

Where is thackery now ?? after mumbai mayhem, Raj and his pseudo feelings

Raj and his pseudo feelings. Where is Raj Thackeray & his ‘brave’ sena? Forget about he supporting the country, he didn’t even come to save his own state/city. Over 200 NSG from all parts of the country including Bihar and no Marathi Manoos, have been fighting to take terrorists out of Mumbai. Isn’t it ironic that when we required him and his ’sena’ the most, he was no where to be seen? Hitting on gullible poor Indians, this is the true face of his politics. Use ’solvable’ NON-issues to politicize his career.

Poor Raj

Where is his face now in the midst of all the chaos the mumbai has been under the last 4 days ?? What will he say now?? when the National Security Guard (NSG) with all its commandos came in to rescue the Hotels. They hardly cared about their lives as they fought not just for their countrymen but also for the foreigners saving the country some pride from this adverse situation...

Now it seems hez blaming the NCP Govt. for sending the Mumbaikar - Kakre, vijay and all for sending them to rescue foreigners from the Islamist terrorists The article in zeenews

How easily would his ’sena’ would come and bash people for buying greeting cards on Valentine’s day, his men would bash outsiders for ‘working’ in Maharashtra and now when his own people were brutally murdered, he has no qualms and watches TV in the comfort of his luxury home.

Now as i wrote this article im hearing the news about the resignation of the home minister Shivraj Patil facing the intelligence lapse in mumbai. I seriously think that its time the UPA led govt. had to tighten its belt to curb the violence and peaking violence reaching newer highs everytime it strikes.

India Under Siege .. And The Traitors Within

Arundhati Roy joins the rally held by terrorists and Paksitani supporters and calls for India to give “azaadi” to Kashmir. Of course Kashmir’s separation will lead to the balkanization of India and that’s what this maoist activist eventually wants.

Here’s an article by Dr. Gautam Sen about the Islamic and Maoist Seige of India:

India is undergoing outright warfare, with its cities bombed at will and massive infiltration across its borders. The Pakistani rationale for cutting India down to size has rarely faltered since 1947 and echoes a much older Islamic tradition. It stretches back a millennium and reasserted itself the moment British usurpers of Islamic rule were expelled by Hindus. Of course the Anglo-American imperialists and cold warriors actively incited this diabolical outcome because they assumed Islam would be an ally against Soviet communism and Nehru’s India would not. The Arabs in general and the Saudis in particular eventually become co-conspirators in the project to restore Islamic primacy in the Indian subcontinent even if Hindus were to continue ruling it nominally as vassals. They correctly perceive that the ability to control and deploy India’s economic and demographic assets will allow them to challenge the Christian West. The Saudis are the main source of the catalytic funding for the jihad that is threatening to break India’s political will and evidently succeeding. The Chinese also became active after the mid-1950s in arming Pakistan and, more recently, encouraging its bombing campaign of Indian cities to curb the economic advance of India, which it regards as an irritating, lowly rival.

Within India, some mosques and madrasas are the fifth column that provides critical support for the aggression that it is encountering. Their role is to cultivate passive and active support for the Islamic onslaught. It entails ensuring that most Muslims refuse to co-operate in efforts to interdict Islamic terrorists by remaining silent spectators while the murderous bombings continue, provide safe havens in impenetrable Muslim areas for terrorists and a vital element of local manpower to the Pakistani and Saudi agencies engaged in terrorist activities. The deployment of Muslim votes strategically is also an important aspect of their overall goals in order to make it impossible for important Hindu families (rather than the nominal political organisations that they preside over) to survive politically without their consent. The economic sabotage of counterfeit currency produced by Pakistani government agencies is another aspect of the Islamic onslaught that has the virtue of making Indians themselves defray the cost of jihad.
Indian themselves are profoundly complicit in the project that seems destined to destroy their country and their civilisation. Two underlying factors that have facilitated the rapid expansion of the Islamic onslaught against India are its political culture and constitutional arrangements. The first is the product of the bumbling imbecility of the Gandhian project that de-legitimised the whole notion of self-defence, on which all societies are founded and to which the most important Hindu text is almost exclusively addressed. And it was Pandit Nehru whose arrogance and intellectual mediocrity accentuated and institutionalised this Gandhian self-destructiveness in India’s constitutional arrangements, again the product of the wilful ignorance of its leaders, created a parliamentary democracy after independence that guaranteed to highlight and deepen every division among its citizens. In a presidential system, by contrast, Indians would have been compelled to begin overcoming their multiple identities and the potential divisions they incubated because the constituency for president would have been a national one.

India now exhibits all the political and psychological symptoms of a defeated society. The unprecedented protests in Jammu have been greeted with surprise across the board precisely because they are exceptional. But the overall situation in India is dismaying, with virtually its entire political class overawed by the intimidatory truculence of Islam, anxious not to provoke even if it entails conceding the most fundamental norms of Indian society. The ascendant media, harbouring crude Western aspirations and their concomitant political interests, and elite higher education institutions dominated by Christians are gleefully nurturing a deracinated Indian establishment. Their purpose is to exercise influence over India by completely dominating its intellectual life and of course continue saving souls in the way it has done successfully by Christianising South Korea. The Islamic onslaught against India provides them with a window of opportunity, by keeping India off balance and preventing the emergence of a self-confident indigenous elite that might resist its imperialist designs. This is why Islam and Christianity co-operate cynically over what is becoming the spoils of a broken-backed India, postponing their own competition with each other until they have destroyed all traces of the civilisation of the Hindus first.

The economic success of India in recent years and the resulting additional resources at the disposal of the Indian State are not relevant to the grievous outcome threatening it. These huge resources are actually being used for electoral bribery or stolen and to purchase arms that have little relevance for the prosecution of the deadly internal war against Islamic and other forms of terror. Some of the terrorists have clearly formed a seamless political alliance among themselves, with the Naxalites publicly declaring support for Pakistani terrorists and no doubt benefiting from Pakistani largesse. It may also be hazarded that many individuals, media outlets and alleged human rights organisations are mere fronts for terrorists and the evidence is in the public realm in some important instances. The armaments being purchased with uncharacteristic purposiveness by the entire political class has some bearing on potential external threats to Indian security, but one suspects that the alacrity with which they are undertaken has much to do with spin-offs that result from bribes. But most relevant of all is the failure of India’s politicians to engage with conviction against internal terror by deploying appropriate resources and motivating trained personnel instead of hobbling them in the performance of their duties because of apprehensions about losing Muslim votes.

The end is not necessarily going to take the shape of an invasion by the rapist Pakistan army across the Punjab towards Delhi. In fact, India’s demise and the retreat of Hindus will express itself as an accentuation of trends and processes already underway, with occasional dramatic departures that underline the calamity unfolding. The expulsion of the Pandits, which failed to truly exercise even India’s official nationalists, is a harbinger of the shape of things to come. Hindus are likely to face expulsion from areas dominated by Islam though some of it will occur and is occurring in a huge swathe of eastern India because Hindus are voluntarily abandoning Muslim areas for fear of consequences if riots occur. These areas then come under implicit Pakistani rule under the guise of the autonomy of Sharia practices and constitute bases for militant activity against adjacent areas outside the immediate control of Islam. As the political balance changes in favour of Islam, the Indian political class will behave even more supinely, in a pattern that has already become well established, further sealing the fate of India. And with each success Islam will demand more, as it has increasingly begun to do dramatically in less than four years.

The first major Indian city likely to come under the total sway of Islam is Kolkata since its demographics are changing rapidly, with whole areas being abandoned by Hindus and becoming

Inflation still rising...

Inflation still rising...
yes every nation is going through rough patches nowadays as the oil prices keeps mounting by, yet the going has only got tougher for the UPA led govt. Having the advantage of two economic wizards one of which being the PM Himself and the other being theonly Finance Minister to file more budgets one cannot help but wonder whatz happening..

'Too many cooks only spoil the soup' they say which seems to be true in the case of the current UPA govt. Im not a supporterof BJP or any other party for that matter and not a fan of congress either but as a concious citizen could only worry aboutthe rising prices which ultimately affects the Majority of people esp. middle-class. Its getting more evident nowadays in everyforms of our lives, from transportation cost, food, groceries, products to everything. As they say this will have cascading effecton everything.

They say 3-5% is max. one can compromize for a healthy or rather wealthy govt. But a double digit inflation is only indicativeof the flawed economic policies esp. by a govt in its last days which can only leave a large chunk of deficit for the new govt. to be sworn-in. Though the UPA is still banking on its last budget offers like farm-loan waiver (which has run into lot of controversies and indeed is in toruble much like the other plans of congress).

The govt however is helpless as the FM cries every week pointing out the fuel hike, food hike, steel prices etc., they seriouslyaint seem to be concerned at all as most opposition parties are asking what is the need to push nuke deal alone why not u pplconcentrate on the ppl. ppl are dying day by day to cope-up with the rising prices.

Instead of providing course-correction actions releasing the inflation report well if i may sound like a politician curse me not im just expressing my raw anger as the situation seemed to me had crossedverges. i may sound illusioned but the fact remains that ppl are suffering for the futile plans and economic policies this govt. had framed so far. They only seemed to be reacting rather than being pro-active....

Further more they seem to be only doing what the previous govt. had done or planned to or left with just to earn accolades.from 4way roads, Nuke deal (which was planned earlier by BJP earlier as a low-profile deal), the ram sethu project, and more...

Common man like me can only hope the future would change and change for better..

PS: Yesterdays inflation report shows rise to 11.98%

of The Trust Vote Debate and the last lap of UPA...

I had grabbed every chance i had to watch the trust vote debate held last week following the crisis the congresshad to face in pursuing the Nuclear Deal. As advani had said clearly in the debate replying to pranab mukerjeescomments "IF you are in this state its because of yourself not because of us as pranab complaines. You wereonly trying to convince left to save the government and never at any point you considered conveying an all-partymeeting on a strategic Deal involving national security by putting it to risk for the years to come. Instead ofdoing so u convened a Left-UPA meeting only to convince left which apperantly you failed to"

I felt jolted as to why cant they atleast act like matured politicians unlike their state members. Should theycontine doing so by criticizing within themselves putting the nation under risk. Manmohan had surely took thischance to show the politician in all his acts which surprised evem the UPA ppl. Atleast the argument could've been decent without any personal attacks. which had been exchanged equally between both the sides amid the quarellingfuckers (i mean it) constantly shouting without a point...

However the Speaker deserves a salute in conducting the proceeding in a dignified manner even with the heart-pumpingMoney-for-vote scandal extravaganza.. many parties and even media complained of ethics and cried of pollutingthe assembly's ethnicity by showing money in the assembly... i donno why they can't show it in there.. if whatthey showed is true PM surely doesn't deserves right even to live.. Im sure both the sides would've been involved in the so called Horse trading but this is absurd... chaotic, pulling off such a thing could only worsenthe pm's state in the current state of affair of rising inflation, insecurity due to the recent bombings, scamsetc.,

appart from these i think most of the proceedings were a delight to watch... be it Omar's inspiring speech, advani'spiercing attach on PM (also personally), Pranab's conter attacks, rahuls maiden speech, CPMs new found flaws in the government, had pm maintained his dignity by avoiding personal counterattcks on Mr. Advani, it would've beenadvantage UPA. Now being won the trust vote by a undpredicted margin, it had only worsen its already shatteredimage in the country.

Now having won the trust vote, the UPA has got its last (Lost) opportunity to correct its course and sail completelyin the opposite direction atleast by completing its promises like loan waiver ( which is in troubled waters), Controlling inflation even at the cost of rising fuel prices, compromising the nuke-deal but the cons seemed to weigh morethan its earlier counter part, having only its supporters yet undependable allys viz sp, amarsingh, mulayam et al.they only enjoy the backup whereas they've got to restructure heavily to accomodate their new found ministers likeshibu soren, amarsingh and almost every individual seemed had wanted a piece of the cake, DMK drivng sethu deal as itspart and mulayam being won its ally back for the next election, it seems the going can only get tougher for the UPA

having depleted on every section of its boat the government seems to be on troubled waters what it can achieve in itslast lap is left to be seen as the whole nation watches including the to-be-pm...

of The Trust Vote Debate and the last lap of UPA...

I had grabbed every chance i had to watch the trust vote debate held last week following the crisis the congresshad to face in pursuing the Nuclear Deal. As advani had said clearly in the debate replying to pranab mukerjeescomments "IF you are in this state its because of yourself not because of us as pranab complaines. You wereonly trying to convince left to save the government and never at any point you considered conveying an all-partymeeting on a strategic Deal involving national security by putting it to risk for the years to come. Instead ofdoing so u convened a Left-UPA meeting only to convince left which apperantly you failed to"

I felt jolted as to why cant they atleast act like matured politicians unlike their state members. Should theycontine doing so by criticizing within themselves putting the nation under risk. Manmohan had surely took thischance to show the politician in all his acts which surprised evem the UPA ppl. Atleast the argument could've been decent without any personal attacks. which had been exchanged equally between both the sides amid the quarellingfuckers (i mean it) constantly shouting without a point...

However the Speaker deserves a salute in conducting the proceeding in a dignified manner even with the heart-pumpingMoney-for-vote scandal extravaganza.. many parties and even media complained of ethics and cried of pollutingthe assembly's ethnicity by showing money in the assembly... i donno why they can't show it in there.. if whatthey showed is true PM surely doesn't deserves right even to live.. Im sure both the sides would've been involved in the so called Horse trading but this is absurd... chaotic, pulling off such a thing could only worsenthe pm's state in the current state of affair of rising inflation, insecurity due to the recent bombings, scamsetc.,

appart from these i think most of the proceedings were a delight to watch... be it Omar's inspiring speech, advani'spiercing attach on PM (also personally), Pranab's conter attacks, rahuls maiden speech, CPMs new found flaws in the government, had pm maintained his dignity by avoiding personal counterattcks on Mr. Advani, it would've beenadvantage UPA. Now being won the trust vote by a undpredicted margin, it had only worsen its already shatteredimage in the country.

Now having won the trust vote, the UPA has got its last (Lost) opportunity to correct its course and sail completelyin the opposite direction atleast by completing its promises like loan waiver ( which is in troubled waters), Controlling inflation even at the cost of rising fuel prices, compromising the nuke-deal but the cons seemed to weigh morethan its earlier counter part, having only its supporters yet undependable allys viz sp, amarsingh, mulayam et al.they only enjoy the backup whereas they've got to restructure heavily to accomodate their new found ministers likeshibu soren, amarsingh and almost every individual seemed had wanted a piece of the cake, DMK drivng sethu deal as itspart and mulayam being won its ally back for the next election, it seems the going can only get tougher for the UPA

having depleted on every section of its boat the government seems to be on troubled waters what it can achieve in itslast lap is left to be seen as the whole nation watches including the to-be-pm...

Victory, at what price ??? an article from Frontline

A self-explanatory title however would like to add that this is a excellant article from a neutral standpoint which gives us a factual repot on what has happened.... Over to frontline...

The vote is won, but the deals struck to achieve this will haunt the United Progressive Alliance for long.

Uncharacteristic aggression. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

A FEW minutes after the announcement in the Lok Sabha on the evening of July 22 that the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had won the vote of confidence, a few journalists caught up with External Affairs Minister Pranab Kumar Mukherjee in the corridors of the Parliament House. He said: “It is a legal, constitutional and political victory for the government. The vote of confidence has not only cleared the way for the government to go forward with the India-U.S. nuclear deal in a rightful manner but has also accorded political sanction to the agreement since a majority of legislators of the Indian Parliament have put their stamp of approval on it.”

When some journalists pointed out that the win seemed to suffer from a lack of moral authority on account of the unseemly cash-for-vote allegations, Mukherjee responded that an inquiry would be conducted into the allegations and promised appropriate action if anything amiss was found.

Obviously, the veteran politician was not as audacious as his new ally, Samajwadi Party (S.P.) general secretary Amar Singh, who addressed the moral authority question with characteristic nonchalance. He said there was no need to invoke a morality parameter in this matter as sections of the opposition also tried to induce ruling party members to go over to their side and defeat the government.

There is little doubt that the spate of issues relating to the trust vote – how it was won, the methods adopted to make parties and Members of Parliament fall in line, the legal, constitutional, political and moral validity of the entire process – would be debated in the public sphere for long.

Whatever the qualitative dimensions of this debate, it will not alter the fundamental facts of the trust vote, which the UPA won with 275 votes against the Opposition’s 256 in a House of 542 members (including the Speaker). There were 10 abstentions too.

But beyond these irrefutable statistics, the claims about the political and moral authority of the win have not found many takers. Interestingly, even a section of leaders and workers of the Congress, cutting across the different segments of the party hierarchy, agrees that the ruling dispensation has not made any real political gain out of the win.

How the vote went

The trust vote witnessed as many as 28 members defying the whip of their parties and siding with the opposite camp. Of them, 21 belonged to the Opposition parties and seven to the government side. Of the 21 Opposition members, 13 voted for the government and eight abstained or remained absent from the House. Of the 21, the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) accounted for 13 members, including eight from the BJP, and the non-NDA opposition parties for the rest.

Of the seven from the ruling side who voted with the Opposition, six belonged to the S.P. and all of them had long-standing differences with the S.P. leadership. For the record, they claimed that their party had opposed the nuclear deal until the first week of June and that the shift in policy was not acceptable to them. Kuldeep Bishnoi, the Congress member who voted against the UPA, has had a running battle with the party leadership for long.

Leaders of the BJP, including the party’s prime ministerial candidate Lal Krishna Advani, indicated that the primary motivation for the crossing over was money. They added that they had deputed the three members – Ashok Argal, Faggan Singh Kulaste and Mohan Bhagora – who displayed wads of money in the Lok Sabha to expose the money-peddling politics.

The BJP leadership’s contention on the motivation for the crossing over stands to reason because none of those members has a significant political support base in his respective State. This is true of other members in the NDA as well as in the non-NDA parties. The crossing over of these members to the UPA does not make any value addition to the Congress or the UPA in concrete terms.

The dimensions of this deficiency becomes all the more striking in the context of the politics in the days immediately following the Left parties’ withdrawal of support to the UPA government. The Left formally withdrew support on July 9 and the Mulayam Singh Yadav-led S.P. formally announced its support to the UPA the same day. This was not a dramatic or unexpected development because the S.P. had been negotiating with sections of the Congress leadership and the two parties had worked out a broad agreement on a political deal nearly a month earlier. The Congress leadership’s calculation at that time was that with the S.P. on board they would be able to convince Ajit Singh’s Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), H.D. Deve Gowda’s Janata Dal (Secular) and the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS), a former member of the UPA in the present Lok Sabha, without much problem. In fact, several Congress leaders even claimed that these parties were natural allies of the Congress.

Calculation gone wrong



The main political players. (From left) Mulayam Singh Yadav of the S.P., Prakash Karat of the CPI(M), Mayawati of the BSP and L.K. Advani of the BJP.

When the process of wooing these parties began, the inducement for Ajit Singh came in the form of naming the Lucknow airport after his father, former Prime Minister Choudhary Charan Singh. The JD(S) had already started cooperating with the Congress in Karnataka after the drubbing that both parties received at the hands of the BJP in the Assembly elections held in May. The two parties had joined hands in a Rajya Sabha election last month. The negotiations with the JD(S) and the TRS apparently involved the entry of these parties into the Union Cabinet. In spite of all this, the three parties refused to come to the aid of the Congress.

The parties backtracked on the basis of discussions they had with Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, who heads the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). She made the offer of a political alignment to the three parties, with the principal aim of fighting the next elections together. It was an offer that was hard to resist, given the significant Dalit base that the BSP has across Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan.

The parties then decided to stay away from the Congress and be part of a third formation, which was to include the Left parties, the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and a few other regional parties such as the Indian National Lok Dal (INLD).

As this development shows, the ruling Congress was not able to win over a new political ally in the run-up to the trust vote, while parties that were not in government at the Centre were able to come together as part of a combination that would fight elections and take up people’s issues together.

A day after the trust vote, the parties in the new grouping met in New Delhi and announced the launch of a mass campaign against the UPA government highlighting issues such as price rise and inflation, the anti-national nature of the India-U.S. nuclear deal and the negative fallout of the neoliberal economic policies.

According to Parliamentary Affairs Minister Vayalar Ravi, the UPA leadership was indeed rattled by the failure to rope in parties such as the RLD, the JD(S) and the TRS, but it breathed a sigh of relief when the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), with its five members, took a firm position supporting the Manmohan Singh government.

By all indications, the operation to bring around the JMM involved some outrageous bargaining, which was qualitatively not much different from the exercises to win over Opposition MPs with individual allurements. The JMM is officially a constituent of the UPA in Jharkhand, but in the run-up to the trust vote its leadership negotiated simultaneously with the NDA and the UPA.

Both sides made big offers to JMM supremo Shibu Soren. While the NDA was ready to make him the Chief Minister of Jharkhand by engineering the collapse of the Madhu Koda-led government, the UPA had to give a firm commitment that it would induct Soren into the Union Cabinet at the earliest.

Soren was Coal Minister in the UPA government but was compelled to resign in November 2006 following his conviction in a murder case. The Jharkhand leader was acquitted in August 2007 but the UPA leadership apparently would not take him back into the Ministry on moral grounds. The Congress and UPA leadership had to abdicate that high moral position in order to rustle up the JMM votes for the July 22 trial of strength.

Far from isolated

PTI/COURTESY LOK SABHA TV


BJP members show wads of money in the Lok Sabha on July 22 during the special session called to test the majority of the Manmohan Singh government. They alleged that the money was the first instalment of a bribe given to three members to get them to abstain during the confidence vote.

Another political calculation that went awry in the run-up to the trust vote was the one that visualised the isolation of the Left parties following their withdrawal of support to the government. Large sections of the Congress and its partners in the UPA and a number of political pundits and media analysts had held this view. The premise once again was that the RLD, the TRS and the JD(S) were natural allies of the Congress. This supposition took a beating when the Left regrouped successfully in the company of parties that included the BSP, the TDP, the RLD, the TRS and the JD(S).

However, the stand-off that the Communist Party of India (Marxist) had with Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee over his resignation became a cause for embarrassment for the Left in general and the CPI(M) in particular. Somnath Chatterjee, defying directions of the CPI(M) leadership, held on to the Speaker’s post and even presided over the vote of confidence discussions. At the end of it all, the CPI(M) ended up expelling Chatterjee from the party while the Speaker continued in his constitutional position.

Already, there are suggestions within the Left that its association with the BSP could prove to be a much more cohesive alliance ideologically and politically than the one it had with the S.P. earlier. This assumption has its roots in the fact that the BSP’s core base is drawn from some of the most oppressed communities of the country. “This should help us develop a better working relationship with the BSP since the Left’s commitment to empowering the oppressed sections is unquestionable, although we have not been able to carry forward this struggle successfully in many North Indian States,” said a senior Left leader to Frontline.

While this optimism can be justified theoretically, it remains to be seen how the equation develops when the corruption cases against Mayawati come up for consideration in the courts and in public debates.

Beyond this, the Left leadership is certain that its anti-UPA campaign along with other parties will help it consolidate its position in Kerala and West Bengal, where the Left is in power. The Left leadership is sure that it can capitalise on the widespread anti-U.S. sentiment in Kerala. It also believes that its stand on the nuclear deal will help it win back at least a section of Muslims, who have moved away from the Left parties following the Nandigram episode in West Bengal.

New push for reforms

Even as the new non-BJP, non-Congress grouping is going ahead with its agitation plans, the UPA is also getting set to unleash new initiatives. In his reply to the debate on the trust motion, which he was not allowed to complete, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that over the past four years the Left parties had treated him as a slave and that he was not able to move forward on many of the policies and programmes. The reference must have been to reforms in sectors such as insurance and retail trade, which the Left opposed vehemently.

Manmohan Singh’s performance in Parliament was followed up by the leaders of industry, including organisations such as the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), who demanded a further thrust to the economic reform process.

Such assertive demands had new qualitative dimensions in the background of allegations that many corporates bankrolled the moves to win over Opposition MPs. Indications from the Congress were that the government would go all out on the reform path in the near future.

Toppling game

V. SUDERSHAN


The official residence of Chander Bhan Singh, BJP member from Madhya Pradesh who abstained during the confidence vote in Parliament, comes under attack from angry party supporters on July 24.

At the political level, highly placed Congress sources said, moves were afoot in Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka to repeat the tactics employed in the trust vote so as to destabilise the governments there. The discussion vis-a-vis Uttar Pradesh among sections of the government and the Congress involved the filing of charge sheets against Mayawati, followed by the demand for Mayawati’s resignation by a section of Brahmin MLAs and the elevation of Satish Chandra Mishra, the number two leader in the BSP, to the top post.

This, sources in the Congress said, would divide Mayawati and Mishra and lead to the collapse of the government. Once that happened, an alternative would be rustled up by splitting the BSP’s MLAs. The responsibility for conceiving and implementing this project, the sources said, was with select leaders in the party and officers in the government who were once castigated as the “policemen” group by the S.P. leadership. That was between 2003 and 2007 when the S.P. government was sought to be destabilised by the Congress. Ironically, some S.P. leaders may also find a place in the group now.

In Karnataka, where the BJP enjoys a thin majority, “operation topple” is expected to be easier. H.T. Sangliana, the Lok Sabha member from Bangalore North who defected during the trust vote, could be a key player in this. Sangliana, a former Police Commissioner of Bangalore, is immensely popular among the MLAs in and around Bangalore and could well attract a handful of them to his side.

Informed sources said the Congress expected these operations to be completed before September so as to give the party leadership the political cushion to face the next Lok Sabha elections. It seems that the upbeat mood of the confidence vote is developing into political audaciousness.

Should Shivaraj Patil resign?

An astonishing aspect of the current political atmosphere is the complete lack of accountability—or demands for it. Heads are demanded and heads roll when a politician is caught in some minor sexual peccadillo, in a sting operation, or a corruption scandal. But the slaughter of scores of hard-working Indians in City after City across the nation, and the burgeoning fear “psychosis” that threatens to rip the country asunder, barely evokes a squeak either from the media or from the opposition.

Shivaraj Patil is a standout case. Rejected by the voters of Latur in the 2004 elections but resurrected by the Congress in one of those actions that beggars belief, Patil’s performance as Union home minister has been dull, lack-lustre and insipid. Not only has Patil presided over blast after serial blast, he has seemed as clueless as everybody else. Even the Sai Baba of Puttaparthi, whom he personally credits for helping him preside over an unruly Lok Sabha as Speaker, seems to be in no position to provide help at this critical juncture.

Question: Should the man who has helplessly watched the Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bombay, Hyderabad, Jaipur blasts and countless other incidents resign? And if the Congress high command is unwilling, should the “new, improved” Manmohan throw him out to show Singh is King after the trust-vote?

PM's reply to the debate on the Motion of Confidence in the Lok Sabha

Quite self-explanatory title here... and exert from www.pmindia.nic.in < Click for more info
My views later...

The Leader of Opposition, Shri L.K. Advani has chosen to use all manner of abusive objectives to describe my performance. He has described me as the weakest Prime Minister, a nikamma PM, and of having devalued the office of PM. To fulfill his ambitions, he has made at least three attempts to topple our government. But on each occasion his astrologers have misled him. This pattern, I am sure, will be repeated today. At his ripe old age, I do not expect Shri Advani to change his thinking. But for his sake and India’s sake, I urge him at least to change his astrologers so that he gets more accurate predictions of things to come.


As for Shri Advani’s various charges, I do not wish to waste the time of the House in rebutting them. All I can say is that before leveling charges of incompetence on others, Shri Advani should do some introspection. Can our nation forgive a Home Minister who slept when the terrorists were knocking at the doors of our Parliament? Can our nation forgive a person who single handedly provided the inspiration for the destruction of the Babri Masjid with all the terrible consequences that followed? To atone for his sins, he suddenly decided to visit Pakistan and there he discovered new virtues in Mr. Jinnah. Alas, his own party and his mentors in the RSS disowned him on this issue. Can our nation approve the conduct of a Home Minister who was sleeping while Gujarat was burning leading to the loss of thousands of innocent lives? Our friends in the Left Front should ponder over the company they are forced to keep because of miscalculations by their General Secretary.


As for my conduct, it is for this august House and the people of India to judge. All I can say is that in all these years that I have been in office, whether as Finance Minister or Prime Minister, I have felt it as a sacred obligation to use the levers of power as a societal trust to be used for transforming our economy and polity, so that we can get rid of poverty, ignorance and disease which still afflict millions of our people. This is a long and arduous journey. But every step taken in this direction can make a difference. And that is what we have sought to do in the last four years. How far we have succeeded is something I leave to the judgement of the people of India.


When I look at the composition of the opportunistic group opposed to us, it is clear to me that the clash today is between two alternative visions of India’s future. The one vision represented by the UPA and our allies seeks to project India as a self confident and united nation moving forward to gain its rightful place in the comity of nations, making full use of the opportunities offered by a globalised world, operating on the frontiers of modern science and technology and using modern science and technology as important instruments of national economic and social development. The opposite vision is of a motley crowd opposed to us who have come together to share the spoils of office to promote their sectional, sectarian and parochial interests. Our Left colleagues should tell us whether Shri L.K. Advani is acceptable to them as a Prime Ministerial candidate. Shri L.K. Advani should enlighten us if he will step aside as Prime Ministerial candidate of the opposition in favour of the choice of UNPA. They should take the country into confidence on this important issue.


I have already stated in my opening remarks that the House has been dragged into this debate unnecessarily. I wish our attention had not been diverted from some priority areas of national concern. These priorities are :


(i) Tackling the imported inflation caused by steep increase in oil prices. Our effort is to control inflation without hurting the rate of growth and employment.


(ii) To revitalize agriculture. We have decisively reversed the declining trend of investment and resource flow in agriculture. The Finance Minister has dealt with the measures we have taken in this regard. We have achieved a record foodgrain production of 231 million tones. But we need to redouble our efforts to improve agricultural productivity.


(iii) To improve the effectiveness of our flagship pro poor programmes such as National Rural Employment Programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Nation-wide Mid day meal programme, Bharat Nirman to improve the quality of rural infrastructure of roads, electricity, safe drinking water, sanitation, irrigation, National Rural Health Mission and the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission. These programmes are yielding solid results. But a great deal more needs to be done to improve the quality of implementation.


(iv) We have initiated a major thrust in expanding higher education. The objective is to expand the gross enrolment ratio in higher education from 11.6 per cent to 15 per cent by the end of the 11th Plan and to 21% by the end of 12th Plan. To meet these goals, we have an ambitious programme which seeks to create 30 new universities, of which 14 will be world class, 8 new IITs, 7 new IIMs, 20 new IIITs, 5 new IISERs, 2 Schools of planning and Architecture, 10 NITs, 373 new degree colleges and 1000 new polytechnics. And these are not just plans. Three new IISERs are already operational and the remaining two will become operational from the 2008-09 academic session. Two SPAs will be starting this year. Six of the new IITs start their classes this year. The establishment of the new universities is at an advanced stage of planning.


(v) A nation wide Skill Development Programme and the enactment of the Right to Education Act,


(vi) Approval by Parliament of the new Rehabilitation and Resettlement policy and enactment of legislation to provide social security benefits to workers in the unorganized sector.


(vii) The new 15 Point Programme for Minorities, the effective implementation of empowerment programmes for the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, paying particular emphasis on implementation of Land Rights for the tribals.


(viii) Equally important is the effective implementation of the Right to Information Act to impart utmost transparency to processes of governance. The Administrative Reforms Commission has made valuable suggestions to streamline the functioning of our public administration.


(ix) To deal firmly with terrorist elements, left wing extremism and communal elements that are attempting to undermine the security and stability of the country. We have been and will continue to vigorously pursue investigations in the major terrorist incidents that have taken place. Charge-sheets have been filed in almost all the cases. Our intelligence agencies and security forces are doing an excellent job in very difficult circumstances. They need our full support. We will take all possible steps to streamline their functioning and strengthen their effectiveness.


Considerable work has been done in all these areas but debates like the one we are having detract our attention from attending to these essential programmes and remaining items on our agenda. All the same, we will redouble our efforts to attend to these areas of priority concerns.


I say in all sincerity that this session and debate was unnecessary because I have said on several occasions that our nuclear agreement after being endorsed by the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group would be submitted to this august House for expressing its view. All I had asked our Left colleagues was : please allow us to go through the negotiating process and I will come to Parliament before operationalising the nuclear agreement. This simple courtesy which is essential for orderly functioning of any Government worth the name, particularly with regard to the conduct of foreign policy, they were not willing to grant me. They wanted a veto over every single step of negotiations which is not acceptable. They wanted me to behave as their bonded slave. The nuclear agreement may not have been mentioned in the Common Minimum Programme. However, there was an explicit mention of the need to develop closer relations with the USA but without sacrificing our independent foreign policy. The Congress Election Manifesto had explicitly referred to the need for strategic engagement with the USA and other great powers such as Russia.


In 1991, while presenting the Budget for 1991-92, as Finance Minister, I had stated : No power on earth can stop an idea whose time has come. I had then suggested to this august House that the emergence of India as a major global power was an idea whose time had come.


Carrying forward the process started by Shri Rajiv Gandhi of preparing India for the 21st century, I outlined a far reaching programme of economic reform whose fruits are now visible to every objective person. Both the Left and the BJP had then opposed the reform. Both had said we had mortgaged the economy to America and that we would bring back the East India Company. Subsequently both these parties have had a hand at running the Government. None of these parties have reversed the direction of economic policy laid down by the Congress Party in 1991. The moral of the story is that political parties should be judged not by what they say while in opposition but by what they do when entrusted with the responsibilities of power.


I am convinced that despite their opportunistic opposition to the nuclear agreement, history will compliment the UPA Government for having taken another giant step forward to lead India to become a major power centre of the evolving global economy. Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision of using atomic energy as a major instrument of development will become a living reality.


What is the nuclear agreement about? It is all about widening our development options, promoting energy security in a manner which will not hurt our precious environment and which will not contribute to pollution and global warming.


India needs to grow at the rate of at least ten per cent per annum to get rid of chronic poverty, ignorance and disease which still afflict millions of our people. A basic requirement for achieving this order of growth is the availability of energy, particularly electricity. We need increasing quantities of electricity to support our agriculture, industry and to give comfort to our householders. The generation of electricity has to grow at an annual rate of 8 to 10 per cent.


Now, hydro-carbons are one source of generating power and for meeting our energy requirements. But our production of hydro-carbons both of oil and gas is far short of our growing requirements. We are heavily dependent on imports. We all know the uncertainty of supplies and of prices of imported hydro-carbons.


We have to diversify our sources of energy supply.



We have large reserves of coal but even these are inadequate to meet all our needs by 2050. But more use of coal will have an adverse impact on pollution and climate. We can develop hydro-power and we must. But many of these projects hurt the environment and displace large number of people. We must develop renewable sources of energy particularly solar energy. But we must also make full use of atomic energy which is a clean environment friendly source of energy. All over the world, there is growing realization of the importance of atomic energy to meet the challenge of energy security and climate change.


India’s atomic scientists and technologists are world class. They have developed nuclear energy capacities despite heavy odds. But there are handicaps which have adversely affected our atomic energy programme. First of all, we have inadequate production of uranium. Second, the quality of our uranium resources is not comparable to those of other producers.Third, after the Pokharan nuclear test of 1974 and 1998 the outside world has imposed embargo on trade with India in nuclear materials, nuclear equipment and nuclear technology. As a result, our nuclear energy programme has suffered. Some twenty years ago, the Atomic Energy Commission had laid down a target of 10000 MW of electricity generation by the end of the twentieth century. Today, in 2008 our capacity is about 4000 MW and due to shortage of uranium many of these plants are operating at much below their capacity.


The nuclear agreement that we wish to negotiate will end India’s nuclear isolation, nuclear apartheid and enable us to take advantage of international trade in nuclear materials, technologies and equipment. It will open up new opportunities for trade in dual use high technologies opening up new pathways to accelerate industrialization of our country. Given the excellent quality of our nuclear scientists and technologists, I have reasons to believe that in a reasonably short period of time, India would emerge as an important exporter of nuclear technologies, and equipment for civilian purposes.


When I say this I am reminded of the visionary leadership of Shri Rajiv Gandhi who was a strong champion of computerization and use of information technologies for nation building. At that time, many people laughed at this idea. Today, information technology and software is a sun-rise industry with an annual turnover soon approaching 50 billion US dollars. I venture to think that our atomic energy industry will play a similar role in the transformation of India’s economy.


The essence of the matter is that the agreements that we negotiate with USA, Russia, France and other nuclear countries will enable us to enter into international trade for civilian use without any interference with our strategic nuclear programme. The strategic programme will continue to be developed at an autonomous pace determined solely by our own security perceptions. We have not and we will not accept any outside interference or monitoring or supervision of our strategic programme. Our strategic autonomy will never be compromised. We are willing to look at possible amendments to our Atomic Energy Act to reinforce our solemn commitment that our strategic autonomy will never be compromised.


I confirm that there is nothing in these agreements which prevents us from further nuclear tests if warranted by our national security concerns. All that we are committed to is a voluntary moratorium on further testing. Thus the nuclear agreements will not in any way affect our strategic autonomy. The cooperation that the international community is now willing to extend to us for trade in nuclear materials, technologies and equipment for civilian use will be available to us without signing the NPT or the CTBT.


This I believe is a measure of the respect that the world at large has for India, its people and their capabilities and our prospects to emerge as a major engine of growth for the world economy. I have often said that today there are no international constraints on India’s development. The world marvels at our ability to seek our social and economic salvation in the framework of a functioning democracy committed to the rule of law and respect for fundamental human freedoms. The world wants India to succeed. The obstacles we face are at home, particularly in our processes of domestic governance.


I wish to remind the House that in 1998 when the Pokharan II tests were undertaken, the Group of Eight leading developed countries had passed a harsh resolution condemning India and called upon India to sign the NPT and CTBT. Today, at the Hokkaido meeting of the G-8 held recently in Japan, the Chairman’s summary has welcomed cooperation in civilian nuclear energy between India and the international community. This is a measure of the sea change in the perceptions of the international community our trading with India for civilian nuclear energy purposes that has come about in less than ten years.


Our critics falsely accuse us, that in signing these agreements, we have surrendered the independence of foreign policy and made it subservient to US interests. In this context, I wish to point out that the cooperation in civil nuclear matters that we seek is not confined to the USA. Change in the NSG guidelines would be a passport to trade with 45 members of the Nuclear Supplier Group which includes Russia, France, and many other countries.


We appreciate the fact that the US has taken the lead in promoting cooperation with India for nuclear energy for civilian use. Without US initiative, India’s case for approval by the IAEA or the Nuclear Suppliers Group would not have moved forward.


But this does not mean that there is any explicit or implicit constraint on India to pursue an independent foreign policy determined by our own perceptions of our enlightened national interest. Some people are spreading the rumours that there are some secret or hidden agreements over and above the documents made public. I wish to state categorically that there are no secret or hidden documents other than the 123 agreement, the Separation Plan and the draft of the safeguard agreement with the IAEA. It has also been alleged that the Hyde Act will affect India’s ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. The Hyde Act does exist and it provides the US administration the authorization to enter into civil nuclear cooperation with India without insistence on full scope safeguards and without signing of the NPT. There are some prescriptive clauses but they cannot and they will not be allowed to affect in any way the conduct of our foreign policy. Our commitment is to what has been agreed in the 123 Agreement. There is nothing in this Agreement which will affect our strategic autonomy or our ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. I state categorically that our foreign policy, will at all times be determined by our own assessment of our national interest. This has been true in the past and will be true in future regarding our relations with big powers as well as with our neighbours in West Asia, notably Iran, Iraq, Palestine and the Gulf countries.


We have differed with the USA on their intervention in Iraq. I had explicitly stated at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC in July 2005 that intervention in Iraq was a big mistake. With regard to Iran, our advice has been in favour of moderation and we would like that the issues relating to Iran’s nuclear programme which have emerged should be resolved through dialogue and discussions in the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency.


I should also inform the House that our relations with the Arab world are very good. Two years ago, His Majesty, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was the Chief Guest at our Republic Day. More recently, we have played host to the President of Iran, President of Syria, the King of Jordan, the Emir of Qatar and the Emir of Kuwait. With all these countries we have historic civilisational and cultural links which we are keen to further develop to our mutual benefit. Today, we have strategic relationship with all major powers including USA, Russia, France, UK, Germany, Japan, China, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa. We are Forging new partnerships with countries of East Asia, South East Asia and Africa.


CONCLUSION


The Management and governance of the world’s largest, most diverse and most vibrant democracy is the greatest challenge any person can be entrusted with, in this world. It has been my good fortune that I was entrusted with this challenge over four years ago. I thank with all sincerity the Chairperson of the UPA, the leaders of the Constituent Parties of the UPA and every member of my Party for the faith and trust they reposed in me. I once again recall with gratitude the guidance and support I have received from Shri Jyoti Basu and Sardar Harkishen Singh Surjeet.


I have often said that I am a politician by accident. I have held many diverse responsibilities. I have been a teacher, I have been an official of the Government of India, I have been a member of this greatest of Parliaments, but I have never forgotten my life as a young boy in a distant village.


Every day that I have been Prime Minister of India I have tried to remember that the first ten years of my life were spent in a village with no drinking water supply, no electricity, no hospital, no roads and nothing that we today associate with modern living. I had to walk miles to school, I had to study in the dim light of a kerosene oil lamp. This nation gave me the opportunity to ensure that such would not be the life of our children in the foreseeable future.


Sir, my conscience is clear that on every day that I have occupied this high office, I have tried to fulfill the dream of that young boy from that distant village.


The greatness of democracy is that we are all birds of passage! We are here today, gone tomorrow! But in the brief time that the people of India entrust us with this responsibility, it is our duty to be honest and sincere in the discharge of these responsibilities. As it is said in our sacred texts, we are responsible for our actions and we must act without coveting the rewards of such action. Whatever I have done in this high office I have done so with a clear conscience and the best interests of my country and our people at heart. I have no other claims to make.

Singh Is King ...

Funny post ahead of the trust vote....

The pre scripted, nuclear trust drama is nearing its climax. With so much money and power in hand, it should not be difficult to induce abstentions and realignments in opposition ranks. The Government will win the trust vote by only hook and crook. And there may be difference of more than ten votes.

Sometimes people who watch it from near by do not predict it correctly but people far away who are used to gather as many opinions, analyse faces of the interviewed and with some mathematical acumen can predict the inevitable more accurately. No channel or newspaper is predicting what I have so far. Everyone predicts it to be too close to call mainly because they want to increase the suspense. But the body language of the UPA folks show it off. They will make it.



It is a well known fact that the Left and congress had to be in opposite blocks at the time of election when ever it is held. It will be very difficult for the Left if they had remained as out side supporters till the time elections are announced and then fight against them. So it is obvious that they were looking for an opportunity to break ranks. And they knew it well that time was running out for the deal. That is why they chose this as a pretext to withdraw support. And that is why I say this is pre scripted. It suits both the camps. The deal has resulted in realignment of political forces and further cornering of their arch rival BJP. After election the mathematics of coalition may change alignments once again. But it is this set up which will ensure Left numbers in the next house. Otherwise they were facing depletion of their present strength. It is not a gamble but a well thought pre planned rightly timed withdrawal of support.


Trust vote, the government will win in the house but what about it in the next elections. Will the people forget inflation for energy? CNN-IBN says most urban in India say Singh is right. while Star Tv says most do not know about the deal and prefer advani. 29% say it should be him. 19% say Manmohan, 14% for Sonia and 11% for Rahul as their PM choice. 43% say BJP will win while 39% say it will be Congress. While CNN-IBN is supporting the American cause clandestinely, Star is voicing the Chinese angle?


Singh is King because he has very successfully launched himself as a shrewed politician. The economist in him has taken a back seat and that is visible in the Inflation graph. Hope this trust vote will reawaken the economist in him. The challenge for him in the next six months is to shine in both aspects and that is the only way they can hope to be back in the saddle.


By tomorrow evening we will know. but what. We will know who are the deserters. we will know who are the new king makers. we will know who are the next six months only cabinet ministers. we will know which side spent the most. The rest is obvious atleast for me.



With in three months we will surely see an Expose mostly by Tehelka on some bribe video. They must have had ample opportunity in the past two weeks. Some scandal against BJP or Mayawathi will be exposed and then Congress will talk only about that and the people will be made to forget inflation and live with it for may be five more years.

N.Ram interviews top BJP leader L.K.Advani

“In the name of energy autonomy, you are surrendering our strategic autonomy”

N. Ram

N. Ram interviews top BJP leader L.K. Advani on the present political crisis, the nuclear deal, election prospects, and other key issues. The one-hour indepth interview was conducted at the residence of the Leader of the Opposition on Wednesday.

Advaniji, how do you see the present political situation in the country, with the Left withdrawing support and the Samajwadi Party being drafted in to make up the numbers along with smaller players?

It is surprising that this kind of final outcome should have taken so long. In fact, I will recall the first statement in this regard, which made everyone who follows political events feel that this alliance between the Left and the Congress could not continue for long. This was when the Prime Minister told The Telegraph correspondent, and perhaps consciously, that so far as the deal was concerned, the government had decided to finalise it. It was non-negotiable. And so if the Left parties didn’t like it, they were free to do what they wanted. I was told by those related to that interview that he wanted it to be published very prominently.

At least I assumed that this was very calculated and either they had decided, ‘All right, we’ll go to the people on this issue,’ or they had made alternative arrangements to continue in the government. Because 61 members is not a small figure. When you have two major partners in the government taking up positions of this kind, I said, ‘This is the starting point.’ Apart from the discussions held in both Houses of Parliament on this issue several times where it appeared that there was a wide gulf in the thinking. But even then, all the while, the replies given by the Prime Minister were of a nature that made Parliament feel, even we who were opposed to it for different reasons, that they would not agree to what America wanted, and that the assurances given in Parliament would be taken due care of either by America itself or if it did not do it, the deal would not go through in its present form.

I think it was some time in August 2007 that this exchange took place, the Prime Minister’s statement and the reply from the other side, in which Prakash Karat’s statements had been as resolute — I won’t use any other word. And it seemed that it was the end.

‘Close contest’

Unfortunately since then, the whole thing has been dragging on in a manner as to make even the common man feel that the government is not concerned with anything else. It’s concerned only with this and it is not able to make any progress. This is apart from the other factors, namely prices, the condition of the farmers, the repeated assaults on internal security either by the terrorists or by the naxalites, or even what’s happening around us, which often indicates a failure of foreign policy — numerous failed states around us, the happenings in Nepal …The common man, particularly agonised by prices and his day-to-day life, feels: ‘What kind of government is this, which seems so obsessed with one agreement that nothing else seems to matter with it!’ This is one main reason why the people have been getting more and more disillusioned with the government.

And the aam aadmi, who doesn’t go into the nuances … and for many in the country perhaps this is something esoteric, asks: ‘What is this deal, about which they are quarrelling so much?’ So when it came yesterday, I said: ‘At least, it’ll be a new chapter now.’ That chapter will depend very much on whether they are able to survive the vote of confidence that is going to be taken in Parliament. Today it seems it’s a close contest, at least on the face of it. And particularly if the reports about the Samajwadi Party are correct. Some say it is five, some say it is eight, I don’t know.

Are you satisfied with the government opting for a vote of confidence ahead of going to the IAEA Board of Governors, a demand that the BJP made first?

Yesterday, immediately after our meeting here, where we gave an official reaction on behalf of the party, I had a lecture. There I said, ‘I welcome it. I demanded it and I’m told they propose to have a special session soon and move a vote of confidence, seeking the approval of the Lok Sabha. Manmohan Singh said on the plane itself: ‘I’ll see to it that all parliamentary norms are observed.’ I said in this situation that’s the parliamentary norm. Because the government had been formed on the basis of the support extended to it by these 61 members of the Left parties, who have withdrawn their support. Whether others’ support will be forthcoming or not is a subsequent matter. It has to be tested on the floor of the House.

Possibilities If the government fails to win the vote, an early general election is certain. If it makes it through, as it evidently expects to do, what will the political scenario look like? Will it strengthen the stock of the Con gress party and the UPA ahead of the 15th general election? That’s the big question.

Suppose, for instance (as it is said), they propose to convene a special session of the Lok Sabha on the 21st of July. If they win a vote of confidence, the situation continues to be what it is today. Then the option is before them of holding an early general election or holding it in 2009. It’s their choice. But if they lose this confidence vote, I’m sure they will resign. The President will ask them to continue until alternative arrangements can be made, which means until the elections are held and another government comes in.

The situation today is that if the Central government asks the Election Commission to prepare for the Lok Sabha election, the Election Commission, as I can see it, is sure to tell them that by November so many State Assembly elections are due. So the Lok Sabha election can be held along with them. That would be what seems natural. These are the two possibilities, unless the Election Commission wants to advance one or some of those Assembly elections. The States due to go to the polls are Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir, and Mizoram. It should not be difficult to hold these Assembly elections together and link up the Lok Sabha elections with them.

But during this period, however short or long it is, do you see the Congress and the UPA improving their political stock?

What improvement can come about at this point of time? It’s the fag end. Everyone — the government as well as the opposition as well as the Communist parties — will all be engaged in preparing for the elections. And a government which has lost a vote of confidence in the House would have no choice for taking any new initiatives. That’s a parliamentary convention.

You have listed the key issues before the people, as you see them. At a time of 13 per cent inflation, how will implementing the nuclear deal play with the electorate?

My own feeling all along has been that the nuclear deal is not an issue of the people. After all, the proposal is, ‘We are short of energy sources and nuclear energy will provide us the wherewithal — after 25 years!’ And that too a small percentage of our requirements. It is welcome, whatever it is. But it is not crucial, it is not vital for the people.

We were against it but we reiterate that our opposition to this deal has been different from that of the Communist parties. The Communist parties feel — they may not have spelt it out that way, but I found an article in your newspaper that is quite clear on that — that we are accepting their [the United States’s] supremacy over us by becoming part of their strategic alliance. It’s not merely the 123 agreement by itself. We are opposed to the 123 agreement because it is also preceded by the Hyde Act. We do not agree with the government’s stand that ‘the Hyde Act has nothing to do with us, we are governed only by the 123 agreement.’ Whenever they have made a statement of this kind, it has been immediately rebutted by the American spokesman.

Therefore, our objection has been not to the strategic relationship, which 123 may involve. Our objection has been to the Hyde Act, which imposes a constraint on our strategic options in the nuclear field. Furthermore, I would say, it was during our period, when we were in government — we did not start the nuclear deal, as is often said — but we did start the process of strategic relationship. I for one — it was not my Ministry at all — but I said several times that India and the USA are the two major democracies of the world — one the strongest, the other the largest. It would be in the interest of the world, of these two countries themselves, if there is a relationship beyond merely friendship. If you call it a ‘strategic relationship,’ it is fine. It should be there.

So we are not against any strategic relationship with the USA. In fact, I would feel that the Communist parties, after all that has happened, also should be able to get out of that mindset. After all, during that entire period of the Cold War, we also were never very favourable to the USA. Because at that time, their relationship was entirely with Pakistan. They were hostile to us. In a way, it is America which has made even the Congress government change Pandit Nehru’s approach of utilising nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes. That was a consistent policy followed by India not only when it was under the Congress regime of Pandit Nehru but even when it came to Morarji Desai, in whose government we also were there. (Vajpayee was there, I was there.) Before going to the U.N. once, when he was to make a speech about nuclear weapons, he categorically said, ‘India will never go in for nuclear weapons.’ Categorical. He read it out to us deliberately, because he knew ours was the only party in the country which had been advocating that course of action.

So it was America which during the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 sent its nuclear fleet here. It was this which prompted Indira Gandhi to go in for Pokhran-I in ’74. She did Pokhran-I in ’74; we completed the process in ’98. In between, efforts were made but somehow they were not completed. Preparations were made but they were not executed. I don’t want to go into all that. Once [former President R.] Venkataraman, in a book release function, publicly complimented Vajyapee-ji for what he had done, saying ‘When I was Defence Minister, this was planned but somehow we could not go forward with it. I compliment you for completing it.’

I am referring to all this because there is that basic difference between what happened in our time [and the rest]. And yet our relations with America — yes, they imposed sanctions on us. I cannot forget that Pokhran-II was criticised not only by the Leftists but even by Dr. Manmohan Singh in the Rajya Sabha. He severely criticised us. ‘Why have you done it?’ There was a very sharp exchange between my colleague K.R. Malkani, Editor of The Organiser, who was a BJP member of the Rajya Sabha, and Manmohan Singh. He said he did not buy the argument that the economic sanctions would not hurt India, ‘You do not understand what will happen to the country’s economy by what you have done!’ Malkani said, ‘Nothing will happen. You wait and watch.’ Actually nothing happened. One by one, all those restrictions were lifted. In fact, today some of those restrictions imposed after ’74 may be continuing but not those imposed after ’98.

Basically I feel, for a long time America has been wanting to make every non-nuclear country part of the non-proliferation regime, by having them sign the NPT. Even Pandit Nehru or Morarji Desai, who were not in favour of making India a nuclear weapon state, said: ‘We are not going to sign any Treaty which binds us now.’

Our complaint about this [deal] is that in the name of energy autonomy, you are surrendering our strategic autonomy. This is what we oppose.

One criticism of your stand is that there is an underlying continuity of nuclear policy between 1998 and now. In the sense Prime Minister Vajpayee made a number of policy commitments, for example on joining the CTBT a nd the unilateral moratorium on nuclear explosive testing, and this was continued through the Jaswant-Talbott talks.

I know that. When any country by itself says something, there is no restriction or a change in policy. And secondly, even the argument given now, that in any case there will be economic sanctions, that is always there. But economic sanctions coming, as they came in ’98 or as they came in ’74, were not because we violated any law or violated any agreement or any international commitment. This would be a violation of an international commitment. If we sign this agreement, we accept the Hyde Act. At one stage, therefore, what I had suggested was this — if they discussed it at length with us, we might have suggested it. I said, ‘All right, after all the Hyde Act is a domestic law of America. Let our legal experts consider whether India’s own Atomic Energy Act can be amended in a way as to insulate India from the consequences of the Hyde Act. Let’s examine that.’

One of my biggest complaints about this government, and Dr. Manmohan Singh personally, has been that if they were really so serious about it that they have brought their own government to the brink on this basis, what was the difficulty in accepting our suggestion that ‘this matter has been discussed thrice in Parliament after you signed that joint statement with President Bush; and numerous misgivings, numerous questions have been raised. You have answered many of them very categorically: “If this does not happen, then the deal will not take place.”

Let a parliamentary committee examine all that and then make the suggestion to you. If they had done that, we would have made this suggestion there. We would have offered other suggestions also. Instead of that, first they said that no committee could be formed in respect of a proposed international agreement. And then they formed a committee with the Left. A UPA-Left committee was formed, which again and again … even today Prakash Karat was quoting that: ‘This is what they have said, this is what they have said.’ It’s a very curious way of running the government and a very curious way of implementing something you think is very important.

One last question on this particular issue. I think the BJP’s position is, should you come into government, as is distinctly possible, after the 15th general election, you will renegotiate the deal. You said that about WTO earlier. Is it feasible, is it practicable to renegotiate this agreement, assuming it goes through?

If it is not practicable, if America says, ‘No, we are not going to renegotiate,’ we will naturally deal with the situation as it is there. But the objective is there. Sometimes people say, ‘You do not agree with this agreement. So will you rescind it, scrap it?’ I would like to tell them that if the major objection to this is that it brings us into a strategic relationship with America, that’s not our objection. A strategic relationship with America, as I have said, was first talked about when we were there. The objection is particularly to the Hyde Act. So our objective of renegotiation would be: Is it feasible to reword this agreement or to do something? The option of having our own domestic law, which insulates us from the consequences of the Hyde Act, is always open. This is what we would examine.

(Part II of the interview will follow.)

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu

Courtesy_
http://www.thehindu.com

Also read the Second Part of his Interview

“Coalition dharma means whatever is agreed upon in a common minimum programme should be implemented”

Top BJP leader and former Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani answers N. Ram’s questions on the BJP’s electoral prospects; lessons learnt from 2004; coalition governance; Ayodhya; Gujarat 2002; his reputation as a hardliner; the intra-parivar controversy over his Jinnah remarks in Pakistan; the explosive Amarnath Shrine land affair; combating terrorism; and the contemporary meaning of Hindutva. This is the concluding part of an in-depth interview given toThe Hinduat the residence of the Leader of the Opposition in New Delhi on Wednesday. The first part was published on July 11.

— Photo: V. Sudershan

L.K. Advani: ‘Somehow, I have acquired an image’ of a hardliner

Advaniji, you are not known to exaggerate the political prospects of your own party or formation. What is your realistic assessment of the political prospects of the BJP and the NDA at this juncture?

In a country like ours, so large, such a large electorate, so many States to bear in mind, it is never easy, particularly when you don’t know when the elections are going to be held — in November or some time next year? — to be precise or even close to precision insofar as the outcome of an election is concerned. But I’ve seen elections right from ’52 till today, every election I’ve seen. I have never seen so much despair in the people and so much disillusionment in the people with an incumbent government as with the present government.

In fact, people have been asking me, ‘If NDA comes to power tomorrow, we will be inheriting a very difficult situation, in the field of economy as well as in the field of foreign policy and several other fields … the problems of agriculture.’ But as I said to some of my colleagues yesterday: ‘All these have to be tackled. But much more than that, during the six years of NDA rule there was a feeling of buoyancy. The development of the infrastructure; the highways built up; numerous facilities, like the kisan credit card and all that, were given to the farmers. And happily, the growth in the field of IT came at that time. Telephones, which were a real headache for us for decades; I have been in Parliament from 1970 and I know that one of the biggest complaints from the constituency was ‘Telephone mil sakta hai kya, telephone mil sakta hai kya? [can you help us get a telephone?]’ And suddenly these mobile phones and all that came.

Of course it’s technology development but it came at that time. We managed the IT development and the communications in a manner that gave great satisfaction to the people. I wish our plans for the interlinking of rivers also had made some progress. We set up a committee. Now all these things had made the country buoyant, the people buoyant. The feeling was that the country was moving forward. Unfortunately in the last four years, there has been a feeling of despair. So I said to my colleagues that the first task is to be able to do things in the first two years itself which recreate hope — that now things are happening and the country will move forward.

Lessons from 2004? As the next Prime Minister should the NDA or the BJP-led coalition win the next general election, you surely know that the outcome of the last one was a political upset. Virtually no one I knew — other than Sharad Pawar, who once gave me a fairly accurate prediction — expected that. What is the lesson you have learnt from the last experience, in particular the campaign that highlighted the “India Shining” theme?

[The lesson from] the last experience is: ‘Don’t be overconfident. And do not neglect your own constituency.’ I’m not referring to the individual constituency, I’m talking of the party’s constituency.

It was neglected?

Yes, they did feel neglected. We did not neglect them. And very often that has been a continuing process of education for my own constituency also in these years. But if you have a coalition government, then the limitations imposed by a coalition also should be borne in mind. They should not be disregarded, not only by the party or those who are in power but also by its constituency.

May I tell you this has been a contrast — talking about the nuclear issue. In our case, among the distinctive features that the BJP incorporated in its [2004 election] manifesto, which were not there in the manifesto of any of our allies, one was that the BJP was in favour of making India a nuclear weapons state. Therefore, we would develop a nuclear deterrent of our own. No other alliance partner of ours had this in its manifesto. So when we were preparing our common minimum programme, we discussed with them all these things. And it was only when they accepted it, all of them, including the AIADMK and the Akali Dal and all of them who were with us, that we incorporated it in the common minimum programme, which we described as the National Agenda of Governance.

Our other distinctive features, they would not agree to. We did not press them at all — except subsequently at one stage when they agreed that if a temple can be built at Ayodhya, either by a court verdict or by agreement between the two communities, it should go through. It was much later. But in the National Agenda of Governance, only one point, namely: ‘Yes, we should go in for Pokhran.’ Pokhran was not [specifically] mentioned, but nuclear deterrent. And the credit goes to Vajpayee-ji that on the 19th of March 1998 he was sworn in and within less than two months, on the 11th of May, 1998, we had Pokhran-II.

And in contrast — the Communists have a point, the Left parties when they complain, ‘Was this in the Congress manifesto? Was this in the Common Minimum Programme? It wasn’t there,’ so they have a point …

Nor the ‘strategic alliance.’

Therefore our coalition functioned very well. And today one of the points that we are going to hammer home to the electorate is: ‘You just compare the functioning of these coalitions — one the NDA, the other the UPA — and see the contrast!’

On the backburner? Now this brings me to the other issues you referred to — the issue of the Ram temple, Article 370, and the Uniform Civil Code. They were kept on the back burner during NDA rule.

I won’t call it the back burner. I don’t call it the back burner. If we were to have a government of our own and we don’t do it, then it’s on the back burner. But when a coalition is formed of several parties who do not agree, then whatever is agreed upon has to be implemented. I remember that this is what I said the first time even to V.P. Singh when he became Prime Minister, with our outside support. I as president of the party wrote him a long letter, in which I said that ‘In my manifesto and your manifesto, the Janata Dal manifesto, there are many common points. I hope — ‘even though I’m supporting you from outside, without my support your government cannot be formed’ — I hope that while carrying out your programmes, you will keep in mind that the issues that are common to both should be implemented, freedom of information, this, that, there were several things. But if there is any issue on which there is a difference of opinion, we would be free to withdraw support. And that’s what happened actually.

Yes. This could be repeated because in the next test, your allies could do quite strongly in some States, you will have formidable allies ...

Therefore, coalition dharma. The first and foremost guideline should be: whatever is agreed upon in the common minimum programme should be done.

Hindutva hardliner? Now this question you must have been asked in many forms. Mr. Vajpayee, who was once described by Mr. Karunanidhi as ‘the right man in the wrong party,’ was reputed for taking along coalition partners of different ideological hues. You have a reputation for being a hardliner on core Hindutva issues. That’s the perception. Is that a valid differentiation? Why don’t you let us into your innermost thoughts on this question?

Anyone who calls my party a ‘wrong party,’ you cannot expect me to agree with him in his assessment. No one — not Vajpayee-ji — would agree with him. But I can tell you that, in my experience, what surprised me was my experience in Pakistan. Even today people coming from Pakistan to Delhi, meeting everyone, whosoever has invited them, they invariably ask: ‘Can we not meet Advani?’ Anyone who goes to Pakistan will find that the impression about Advani in Pakistan, where this [the perception of him being a hardliner] should have been the maximum, [is quite different]. So it only means that somehow I have acquired an image. So many people have contributed to it, not only adversaries but others also. I don’t mind it that way.

Remarks on Jinnah of August 1947 In fact, this brings me to your celebrated remarks in Pakistan, of which The Hindu did quite a bit of editorial coverage …

Yes, you wrote an editorial. I greatly appreciate all that you wrote that time…

… about your remarks on Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s secular vision of August 1947.

Yes and surprisingly before going to Pakistan, I made a longish speech here — just on this lawn outside, releasing a book on Pakistan — where I quoted exactly what Jinnah had said in his first speech in the Constituent Assembly. Because I had just then come from Kolkata where Swami Ranganadananda had reminded me of that speech. Nothing happened at that time. I was Deputy Prime Minister at that time.

That was misconstrued and even targeted within your camp.

I know that.

How did you respond to that?

I don’t blame them. It was not targeted. It was misunderstood. There was no deliberate criticism of it.

How did you cope with that period? Must have been difficult for you.

I felt… Prannoy Roy interviewed me on NDTV and I told him: ‘I did feel distressed about the reaction in my party but my greater distress was that my party lost an opportunity.’ When in six days whatever I said or did there [in Pakistan] was able to change the totally wrong and negative image that the party had. I wish the party had followed it up, built on that.

Gujarat 2002 What happened in Gujarat in 2002 was a very serious matter. You were in government. At the least it was one of the issues on which people might have judged the BJP adversely in the 14th general election. What is your feeling now about what happened in Gujarat in 2002, this huge loss of life, this genocide?

There was no genocide. Genocide is a word that should not be lightly used. But in India there have been riots and riots — and sometimes riots far worse than those that took place in Gujarat in 2002. In fact, in the capital itself, I have been witness to what was not a riot — because not a single Hindu was killed when 3500 Sikhs were killed, in 1984. It’s sad. It’s tragic. It should not happen. It is to be condemned. So also in Gujarat I condemned it, everyone condemned it. Whether it was Godhra or the post-Godhra riots, all were condemnable. But that doesn’t mean that you blame whosoever is at the helm of affairs for ‘genocide’ and what not. And the only Chief Minister in the country who has distinguished himself by his performance also being pursued in a manner, so viciously, as to have him denied a visa in America, which has never happened before with any Chief Minister of the country! This is not fair. And therefore I did defend Narendra Modi.

Amarnath land controversy Now on the Amarnath shrine land issue, the issue of the GO which perhaps was misconstrued. But the campaign on both sides raised communal tensions. Had you been in the central government, how would you have handled this in the first instance? A sensitive issue was clearly mishandled when we don’t need more trouble in Jammu & Kashmir.

I wish the Chief Minister’s advice had been respected. I went to Amarnath on the 20th of June, just two days after the yatra started. I spoke to the shrine executives who told me all that had been going on. And I spoke to many of the pilgrims. There were thousands there, at the shrine itself and all along the way. Spoke to many. Almost everyone was telling me that ‘Whatever assistance we have got, help we have got, we have got it from the Army, not from the State officers.’

Because the PDP’s attitude was hostile. They were critical even of the Chief Minister at that time. The Chief Minister also was unhappy about it. I have been several times to Vaishnavodevi [in Jammu] where a similar shrine has been created. And there similar facilities and land allotment have also been made to enable the pilgrims to feel happy. Today those who are used to going on pilgrimages often come back from Vaishnavodevi with a comment: ‘Why cannot all the places in the country which are places of pilgrimage be run in the same manner as Vaishnavodevi is being run?’

The shrine in Amarnath is also, like the Vaishanavodevi Shrine, created by a resolution of the Assembly. Here that shrine is created and then when the government thinks of giving all the facilities — temporary facilities, toilets, this, that, resting places, lighting, etc. — there is such an uproar!

Instead of correcting it and telling the PDP that ‘You are wrong,’ the authorities succumbed and succumbed in a manner as to lose even the stewardship of the government, lose the government. What kind of attitude is this? There is no reason, no justification, no explanation — except that it is a very glaring example of what I have always described as pseudo-secularism. ‘That may be a Hindu shrine, all right, do with it what you want. But this is in a Muslim locality, where the bulk of the people are Muslims. Therefore you cannot have land here.’ Because — of course, those are the extremists and fundamentalists — who said: ‘There is a demographic design, to change the population.’ So absurd.

I wish the Government of India had realised that the consequences of this can be very serious, if you condone it.

Combating terrorism On the issue of terrorism, what’s the difference between your handling of it and the present government’s?

My handling was not confined to merely following up an event. After an incident occurs, investigate, apprehend the culprits, punish them. It was a continuing process. During NDA regime, the terrorist threat was very serious and therefore the IB agencies and the other agencies dealing with terrorists were told to carry out continuing and vigorous search for the ISI modules, wherever they are. And apprehend them, destroy them. That process went on continuously. Nearly every year, a large number of modules were destroyed. That process stopped. And even when events occur, the investigations have been of such a nature that till today so many incidents have occurred which I can list out and there has not been a single case in which people have been charge-sheeted, what to say of punished.

Hindutva as cultural nationalism The last question: on Hindutva. You have written a great deal on it in terms of ‘cultural nationalism.’ You have been charged with majoritarianism and worse. In response to the contemporary situation, what is your summation of Hindutva?

Majoritarianism is a word coined: it can be applied to America, it can be applied to every democracy. But the fact is that in India political parties, after Partition, came to the conclusion that even though India has been divided on the basis of Hindu and Muslim, we would like it to be a successful democracy. So let us run the government, run the country through this process of elections and vote.

In the process, however, some people discovered that Hindus are not a homogeneous community: they are divided into castes, they are divided into languages, and their identity is more related to that caste or language than to the fact that they are Hindus. In the case of Muslims, it’s different. In that case, it is the religious identity which is predominant. Therefore, if you want to get votes, you try to mobilise vote banks — casteist, linguistic vote banks in the case of the Hindus, religious vote banks in the case of the Muslims or the Christians. That is the reason why all this came in.

So far as we are concerned, we have held that … it was my first party general secretary, Deendayal Upadhyaya [1916-1968], who taught us that in India, Hinduism is not the name of a religion. It’s more of a national connotation. I was just reading an old book by that famous historian of philosophy, Will Durant. It was banned by the Britishers. Because it was Will Durant’s The Case for India [Simon and Schuster, New York, 1930], an excellent book about how the Britishers tortured India, what they did here. But in that he again and again uses the word ‘Hindu.’ ‘I have not consulted any Hindu while writing this,’ meaning I have not consulted any Indian. For him, Hindu and Indian are totally synonymous.

I was telling you about Deendayal Upadhyaya, who has been the greatest influence on me, in terms of conduct as well as in terms of my thinking. He said: ‘In independent India, we want India to be a secular country in which all citizens are equal. Hindutva should be equated to Bharatiyata. Bharatiyat is a Hindu. Indianness and Hindutva are synonymous. Don’t make a distinction between the two. It should mean nationalism essentially.’ Therefore it is that I grew up with cultural nationalism.

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu

Courtesy_
http://www.thehindu.com