Weclome to the new kid on the block - Ramaswamy.R.Iyer
The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Gujarat elections: some reflections
Sonia Maino should be excused for her remark because it was justified. Can it get better than that? You bet.
Ramaswamy has his logic twisted here. The understanding is obviously wrong because Congress party said it was a personal attack on Modi, which it later tried to withdraw after EC's notice.
We agree. There is no point in comparing Sikh riots to Gujarat riots, because the Congress politicians' involvement in Sikh riots is very well documented, whereas there is still no clear incontrovertible proof of State Government's involvement in Gujarat.
Extra clever use of vocabulary - "some politicians and groups", very typical of Chindu. The truth is much simpler and very well known for Ramaswamy to force-fit it into his theory. The sikh riots were not perpetrated by Hindus but by the "secular" Congress party. The Hindus have no enmity against Sikhs.
The 84 riots were Congress party's pogrom against Sikhs. It was not a social conflict.
Just in case you missed it, I am repeating Ramaswamy's assertions: In Gujarat, one fears that the horrors of 2002 had, apart from direct participation by some, widespread social acquiescence among Hindus.
Ramaswamy is making a sweeping statement against all the Hindus of Gujarat that they supported the "pogrom". What a "secular" assertion.
Gujarat should not be upset with all that is written against it. After all, Ramaswamy, by virtue of his position in Chindu, is sanctioned to write anything against the Hindus.
What justice!
We ask the same question - Is Chindu redeemable?
The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Gujarat elections: some reflections
It is indeed possible to argue with some justification that the Commission was excessively concerned about appearing to be even-handed, and that the issue of a notice to and the passing of an order on Ms Gandhi was not really called for.
Sonia Maino should be excused for her remark because it was justified. Can it get better than that? You bet.
The expression “merchants of death” that she used was not personal vilification but a criticism of a grave failure of rajya dharma (recall Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s exhortation to Mr. Modi at an early stage). If this understanding is correct, the Commission’s judgment that she had violated the code of conduct was questionable.
Ramaswamy has his logic twisted here. The understanding is obviously wrong because Congress party said it was a personal attack on Modi, which it later tried to withdraw after EC's notice.
In scale, duration, and the number of people killed, Delhi 1984 was possibly worse than Gujarat 2002. However, in comparing the two events and trying to be “fair” and “even-handed,” we fail to note two points. First, it is meaningless to compare the two horrors; abhorrence, grief, and shame are the appropriate responses in both cases. One horror does not mitigate the other.
We agree. There is no point in comparing Sikh riots to Gujarat riots, because the Congress politicians' involvement in Sikh riots is very well documented, whereas there is still no clear incontrovertible proof of State Government's involvement in Gujarat.
Secondly, while some politicians and groups might have been actively involved in Delhi 1984, the Hindus of Delhi as a whole were not complicit in the anti-Sikh violence, nor did they condone it. Of course, the state was complicit, and ipso facto the citizens could be said to be indirectly complicit too, but we cannot say that the madness of those few days had social sanction.
Extra clever use of vocabulary - "some politicians and groups", very typical of Chindu. The truth is much simpler and very well known for Ramaswamy to force-fit it into his theory. The sikh riots were not perpetrated by Hindus but by the "secular" Congress party. The Hindus have no enmity against Sikhs.
The 84 riots were Congress party's pogrom against Sikhs. It was not a social conflict.
In Gujarat, one fears that the horrors of 2002 had, apart from direct participation by some, widespread social acquiescence among Hindus. In Germany, the people renounced the Nazi madness, undertook severe self-criticism and experienced remorse. One is not aware of any similar development in Gujarat; perhaps it will happen in due course.
Just in case you missed it, I am repeating Ramaswamy's assertions: In Gujarat, one fears that the horrors of 2002 had, apart from direct participation by some, widespread social acquiescence among Hindus.
Ramaswamy is making a sweeping statement against all the Hindus of Gujarat that they supported the "pogrom". What a "secular" assertion.
On the other hand, there is anger at “Gujarat bashing.”
Gujarat should not be upset with all that is written against it. After all, Ramaswamy, by virtue of his position in Chindu, is sanctioned to write anything against the Hindus.
Either Mr. Modi was the demon that he was said to be, or he was not. If he was, it was right to describe him so; there is then no question of demon-ising, much less “unduly.” If he was not, it was simply wrong to have so described him.
What justice!
We can draw our inferences from a study of what happened in 2002, the manner in which the Gujarat Government responded to the outbreak of violence, the Chief Minister’s role in that context, the inferences that can be drawn from the Tehelka tapes (if they are authentic), his impugned election speeches, and the Election Commission’s finding on them. Plenty of material is available: reports by persons such as Harsh Mander, Swami Agnivesh, the National Human Rights Commission, and so on, and now the Tehelka tapes.Note that all the demonisation is purely based on "inferences". Sources used? -- "secular" cohorts, hearsay and Tehelka "porn" tapes.
What is needed is a proper investigation. Investigations and consequential action must not be put off merely because he is back as Chief Minister with a strong popular mandate. Those who boasted on camera about criminal actions must be brought to book. State failure and possible complicity must be looked into, and the officials concerned proceeded against. If the trail leads to the Chief Minister, that too must be followed up and action taken.
What should worry us, then, is not whether Mr. Modi is a demon, but the change in the Gujarati psyche. What has happened to Gujarat? Is it still redeemable?
We ask the same question - Is Chindu redeemable?
Posts
2 comments:
Hi HF,
I am pasting a comment from churumuri on the same subject for all.
Rgds
VA
Bhaskar Chatterjee Says:
5 January 2008 at 10:41 am
Elite Indian English media is arrogant, and simply refusing to see the simple facts:
1. 3000 Sikhs butchered in Capital Delhi alone. In just 3 days. Not a single Hindu died - whether in counter attack by Sikhs, or at the police bullet. One Hindu died to save Sikhs.
While 1000 died in 3 months in large parts of Gujarat. Close to 300 of those hapless were Hindus- died both at retaliatory attack from Muslims, as well as Modi’s Police.
2. Rajiv Gandhi is on record saying “when a tree falls….”. While Modi’s invocation of Newton is unproven. Indian Law minister rubbished it inside Parliament the very next day.
3. How many rounds of bullets Delhi Police fired to control mob? ZERO rounds.
While, literally 100s died before Guj Police’s bullet.
4. How many people punished so far by Indian legal system for 1984 riots so far? NIL.
Already, at least, 10 people got punished by the courts of Guj for 2002 riots.
Its not that these columnists do NOT know these facts. BUT THEY ARE SO ARROGANT, SO INTERESTED FOR BJP-BASHING, THEY REFUSE TO SEE THE REALITY. Its these people who behave as facists. Not Gujaratis, or BJP.
I feel ashamed that once I belonged to these “secular’ cabal. They are most communal, most casteist whose sole agenda is oppose anything Indian, Hindu.
Pieces like these can do only one thing: rally Muslims religiously in India against BJP. However, make no mistake, these are creating backlash from Hindus. They can’t have it both ways: terming rallying Muslims religiously as ’secular’, and terming Hindus doing the same as ‘communal’.
***
Society has its own way of doing things. It does not wait for sermon from Sonia, Yechuri, or the Hindu op-ed page. Neither, they needed ’secularism’ in Indian constitution to become tolerant.
Interestingly, nobody is talking about ‘no backlash’ from Hindus of Gujarat after Akshardham terror attack.
However, if you are brave enough, ask this question to yourself: ARE MUSLIMS MORE GHETTOISED AFTER AKSHARDHAM? OR LESS?
We all know the answer. In the West too, there were no organized attack on ‘muslims’ after 911. But, Muslims are more ghettoised, anti-Muslim sentiment has grown tremendously post 911. Ditto in Gujarat. After Akshardham.
Ask this simple question: WILL MUSLIMS BE ABLE TO GET HOUSE RENT IN A HINDU AREA IN KOLKATA/WEST BENGAL?
Even though many of them vote for CPIM, they will behave exactly same as Hindus of Gujarat- i.e., deny house on rent to Muslims.
All these crap worked to tap Muslim Vote. However, as Hindus unite, psuedo rants are communalizing, helping BJP in a big way.
Personally I had to cross the Rubicon of secular mindset to jump into the realm of Hindutva(whatever it means). My understanding of Hindutva and my taking to it is to save Hinduism from internal and external onslaught. The sole reason being that the establishment (read Congress and Communists and Secularist) had had a craftily designed program to eliminate self-pride by making Hindus feel guilty for every historical accident our country had faced. This strategy of shifting of blame, though not explicitly, along with deliberate attempt to shield any achievement and contribution of Hindus to this country and the world has been very successful in softening concerted opposition to Congress and Communists alike. Between them they tacitly agree to be each other’s political enemies but wouldn’t want others to oppose them. Hindus, as a vote bank, are the real threat to these people and hence would go to any length to consolidate anti-hindu votes and ensure the sustenance of division amongst Hindus. Arjun Singh wasn’t concerned about OBC’s plight for the last 55 years of Congress rule. His focuss was to divide Hindus in Madhya Pradesh and buy the loyalty of the majority OBC community there to help his son win elections and become Chief Minister. At the same time he wanted reservation for Muslims in the Army. Then they instituted Sachhar committee after a Muslim in America wrote a book on how police force behaves during communal riots in India. This is a clear act of subversion and perfidy to weaken any opposition.
To me all this affects Hinduism and its followers. People often say Hinduism is stronger and can withstand onslaught but for one who has a modicum of understanding of international politics would realise that 40% of our population is poor and are really vulnerable to these soul harvesters. Only a determined government with a long term view on unity and integrity of this country can tackle this organised crime. To me this conversion business is social engineering and we have seen all through history that any social engineering is bound to fail catastrophically. Look at Soviet Union(communism), Pakistan, Bangladesh(West Pakistan), Srilanka(ethnic cleansing), Burma, China(a looming danger always awaits this country) and so on.
India will remain as one as long as Hindus are in majority because they have shown the tolerance it takes to coexist with others but any other religion becoming dominant will tear this country apart.And for that reason I want Hindus to unite to save this country. Also as a Hindu I have the right to protect my people and its culture too.
Post a Comment