Sonia Gandhi in combative mood

At a time when political atmosphere is already tense and volatile owing to the ruling Congress party's acts of omission and commission on the Lokpal bill and other issues, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress and the chairperson of the UPA, after months of silence, has suddenly emerged into a fiercely combative role. She has urged her party MPs to be ready "to fight" the opposition and Team Anna. Thus, the fears of some observers that frequent confrontations between the two sides is essentially the result of the aggressive and non-conciliatory mood of the dynasty-the mother and son duo. As a foreign-born bahu of a combative mother-in-law, with little grounding in Indian ethos and values of consensus and respect for others' views, she is unable to see grave risks involved in such aggressive posture. By ignoring wide-spread public sentiments for a strong Lokpal with its investigating responsibilities transferred from the CBI, the ruling Congress seems to have paved the way for inevitable confrontation with the opposition and Team Anna movement. It has to be seen how the potential conflict will be sorted out, given the half-heartedness and arrogance of the Congress leadership.

Sonia Gandhi's low-witted son, pursuing his own combative style, has already drawn up serious battle-lines in his hyped electoral campaign in UP on the eve of the Assembly elections. In view of the prolonged infighting in the state unit, opinion polls independently undertaken by some media houses recently, do not predict any dramatic improvement in the Congress party's electoral prospects. The forecasts are for a fragmented/fractured verdict with the Congress in 3rd/fourth position, SP and BSP taking the first two positions. During his shrill campaign, Rahul Gandhi has been accusing his opponents of casteism and communalism; but, unfortunately, his own record is not very clean. In an incredible, mysterious act, he revealed that Sam Pitroda, an NRI entrepreneur settled in the US whom his father Rajiv Gandhi had invited to help in mobile phone revolution, was a low caste carpenter. Why Rahul did this to disgrace an Indian innovator who was helping his mother country selflessly? What was he trying to achieve or prove that the Congress was low-caste friendly? Was itn't a most silly, thoughtless and insenstive exercise? Does it behove a potential Prime Minister? Such lack of wisdom and sobriety is aggravating the tensions in the polity because of the small-mindedness and myopia of some ruling party leaders.      

Harvard University's action against Swamy for his article on Islamic terrorism

After the controversy that has followed the decision of the Harvard University to abruptly terminate a few Summer Courses that Dr Subramanian Swamy was conducting at the campus as a visiting professor, I re-read his article in the Mumbai journal-DNA, dated July 16, 2011, captioned:"Analysis:How to wipe out Islamic terrorism", that has triggered the adverse action against him. Written within three days of the terrorist blast in Mumbai on July 13, 2011, Swamy's article seemed to have been driven by emotional reaction to the terrible terror act. One may differ with some extreme solutions the author has suggested to fight the menace of Islamic terrorism which, undoubtedly, posed a grave threat to India-its social, communal harmony and stability. It is true that the kind of strong, wide-spread condemnation should have emanated from the Muslim community is hardly visible. On the top of it, one hears voices in favour of Sharia, separate personal laws, firm opposition to Uniform Civil Code provided in the Constitution and repeatedly underlined by the Supreme Court; also, wide support for burqa, special quotas in jobs, education as well as financial packages as if backwardness and poverty is only confined to the minority community! All these factors are creating a pre-partition environment of special pampering and favouritism that ultimately resulted in the division of the country.

In this disturbing background and given the goals of Islamic fanatics to which Dr Swamy has referred in his article, the emerging scenario does seem alarming and not so innocuous. Hence, it would be suicidal to ignore Islamic terrorism, aided and abetted by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, al-Qaeda and other sundry radical outfits. The USA is itself a major victim of this menace. Hence, it appears that the Harvard University has over-reacted to Dr Swamy's unpalatable, blunt views, not politically correct and traditionally liberal. At any rate, his Summer Courses were limited to economics; they did not relate to Islamic terrorism, radicalism in Muslim societies or any analysis of Islam. Thus, shutting him out of Harvard on his non-economic opinions, hardly does any credit to the prestigious University's respect for the right of the freedom of expression. It is terribly saddening.         

J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah's advice on China's unfriendly posture

The Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, speaking in Mumbai at the Indian Express discussion programme-Adda-on December 4, was frank and forthright in his advice to his national ally, the ruling Congress party, to show " more spine when dealing with China". Under Jawaharlal Nehru's leadership
as our first Prime Minister after independence, we were the first to champion China's cause at the UN and the world at large. Even ignoring India's own interests to become a permanent member of the Security Council. But, unfortunately, within a few years of Communist China's emergence as an independent entity under Mao Tse-tung, its policy of double-speak and duplicity towards India began. But, as usual, we were too goody-goody and stupid to see its real motives. India-China Bhai Bhai slogan adopted by us never became bilateral; it was one-sided. Despite Sardar Patel's warning to Prime Minister Nehru, in a letter, shortly before his death, to be vigilant about China and not take its words at their face value, we did not prepare ourselves for any eventuality at the hands of an aggressive neighbour with expansionist designs. We paid a heavy price and suffered a humiliating defeat when Mao's hordes invaded the North-East(Arunachal Pradesh-then called NEFA), in the early winter of 1962.

Although some lessons were learnt, but essentially we seem to be frightened of our big neighbour. It keeps pushing us, humiliating us with occasional pin-pricks about territorial claims on Arunachal Pradesh and other areas and dictating to us on the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees in India. Recently, when the World Buddhist Conference took place in Delhi, even a junior diplomat-a vice consul in Kolkata, had the audacity to tell the government that the State Governor or the Chief Minister must not attend a function to honour the Dalai Lama. Fortunately, he was ignored. But the basic fact of our softness and reluctance to tick off China remains that has resulted in our hostile neighbour taking us for granted. They regard J&K as disputed in order to support their friend of all seasons-Pakistan.

Hence, in this backdrop of pusillanimity and timidity vis-a-vis China, we needed a young man in authority like the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah to tell his senior ally at the Centre, the ruling Congress, to display "more spine when dealing with China". He rightly added that if we are expected to follow a one-China policy and not question Taiwan's and Tibet's status, shouldn't China reciprocate and follow "one India policy for India" and not calling "Kashmir disputed"? In other words, he urged the policy of tit for tat, to tell China that we cannot take her aggressive and provocative statements and posture lying down.   

Muslim quota

As elections to five State Assemblies are nearing, the despicable vote bank politicians from the Congress, the Mulayam Singh's SP and Mayawati's BSP, alongwith communal bigots in academia and intellectual class, are vying with each other to shamelessly play the Muslim quota card. The issue is being hotly debated in the media, particularly TV news channels. In one such discussion on December 1 night, one was struck by an unexpected parochial mindset of one leading panelist, the vice-chancellor of the Jamia Milia university who was unabashedly batting for Muslim quota. Fortunately, another Muslim panelist and a Muslim student in the audience, challenged the vice-chancellor as to why reservations should be done on religious and not economic basis?

Why this self-serving perception is being deliberately perpetuated that Indian Muslims are the most backward and impoverished lot? Why are we refusing to look at the misery and deprivation of other groups? What have Muslim leaders and other well-off members of the community have done to extricate their community from self-imposed obscurantist ways and madarsa teaching? Who is responsible for keeping Muslim women backward, homebound and in purdah(burqa)? Is the quota demand not dangerously divisive and disharmonious?

AFSPA controversy

The Armed Forces Special Powers Act(AFSPA) has come under sharp focus, thanks to the J&K Chief Minister Oma Abdullah's clearly unwise and potentially dangerous insistence to withdraw it from certain areas in the Valley which, in his view, have returned to peace and normalcy. However, the Indian Army and the Defence Ministry strongly oppose the proposal on security and strategic considerations. Hence, the Central govt. has not given the green signal to the State govt.

Omar Abdullah's logic for the Act's revocation seems primarily motivated by Kashmiri separatists' long-held antipathy and hostility to the central forces, including the Indian army's presence in the State for its safety and security. Strangely, the CM appears to overlook the fact that Kashmir is enjoying peace owing to the sacrifices and good work of the Indian army and the central para-military forces. How can he ignore intelligence inputs that Pakistan's terror infrastructure is still intact and active; 2000-2500 terrorists are under training in these camps; 700-850 militants are waiting to cross over. Nearly 70 terrorists-infiltrators have been killed in the last two years. By proclaiming certain areas in the Valley as safe havens, free from terrorists, is the CM not inviting these killers and bombers to shift to these peaceful zones to plan their heinous operations?

The Indian army is in J&K since 1947 when Pakistani invaders attacked the State to illegally annex it to the newly-created Muslim State-Pakistan. Having failed in its evil attempt, Pakistan engineered cross-border infiltration and terrorism with the help of separatist elements in the Valley. The security forces, including the army, had to be strengthened to counter the aggressive designs of the anti-Indian forces, aided and abetted by our hostile neighbour. The army had to operate under a protective, enabling legal framework. Hence, the AFSPA. It was not a licence to kill innocent people.Any excesses and aberrations were promptly looked into and action taken. The army was primarily there to come to the help of the civilian authority whenever required. It was not an army of free-booters and marauders.

Hence, it was ridiculous for a former Central Information Commissioner and one of the three centrally-appointed J&K interlocutors, to support the revocation of the AFPSA on the plea that it was a "draconian law" to "suppress people's voice". He wrote this in an article in the Indian Express of November 22, 2011. How can a J&K interlocutor who had visited the State several times on behalf of the Union govt., overlook the bitter reality of the cross-border infiltration and terrorism and Pakistani involvement in this criminal activity? Misgovernance and alienation of some sections of Kashmiris should be attributed to local leaders who have always been heading the State govt.

Indian Express Editor advises getting out of Afghanistan for Pak sake

Shekhar Gupta, the chief editor of the Indian Express, in his latest Saturday commentary(November 19), entitled:"Get out, leave Af to Pak", has championed our neighbour's cause, urging the govt of India to "get out" of Afghanistan along with the scheduled exit of Americans, to enable Pakistan to achieve its dream of geographical and strategic depth. Is it'nt a most appalling, bizarre, cynically argued piece of advice, coming from a leading Indian editor who should know that India has only a benign presence in that country, and that too on the invitation of the Afghan govt and its people? We are not a colonial  or an expansionist power. On the other hand, Pakistan had always wanted Afghanistan as its ward and tried its hand  to attain its objective through the Taliban, a radical, Islamist band of students(Taliban) spawned in Pakistani madrasas. With the US and Pakistani help, the Taliban captured power in Kabul and imposed a ruthless and tyrannical form of sharia regime there. In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist assault on the US, the American armed forces intervened and ousted the Taliban govt. The US govt. called upon the Pakistani military ruler Gen Musharraf to choose between the Taliban and the US and he had no choice but to fall in the US line.

Since the Pakistan govt became the US ally against terrorism, it was hoping that once the US forces quit the scene, it would give them the opportunity to cash in. In 2014, the US forces are scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan and the way will open for Pakistanis to fill the power vacuum to dominate a conflict-ridden, war-torn nation with the help of their Afghan Taliban allies. In this situation, Pakistanis are hostile to any Indian presence in Afghanistan. The whole world knows that we are not a colonial power but a soft one which is more interested in helping a poor neighbour with infrastructure projects like building roads, hospitals, schools, etc., as well as offering training facilities to Afghans. Our historic ties with the country go back to ancient times. Since our friendly assistance is widely popular with the Afghan people, the Pakistanis are deeply worried.

In this backdrop, it is incredible that a major Indian newspaper is batting for our adversary and asking us to leave that unfortunate country to the mercy and ravages of a military-dominated regime, making us more vulnerable to its conspiracies alongwith its great and reliable patron, China, who, in any case, hates our emergence as a rival Asian power.       

Prime Minister Singh calls Pak PM "man of peace"

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gives a deceptive appearance of being a man who loves his silence more than the usual verbosity of politicians. One will presume that such a taciturn person will weigh his words more carefully when he speaks on major issues of vital concern to the nation. On this account, Dr Singh's record is quite dismal, particularly when dealing with Pakistan and its leaders, irrespective of the fact whether they are military dictators or civilians. His thinking process seems to take a break, his tongue strangely loosens and he announces decisions that are not only incredibly bizarre, these take a sudden U-turn on established, consensual national policies.

This happened first time within a couple of years of Manmohan Singh's prime-ministership in 2004, when he atteneded the Non-aligned Summit in Havana,Cuba where the Pakistani dictator Gen. Pervez Musharraf  was also present. In a joint statement with the Pakistani military ruler, Prime Minister Singh proclaimed that both India and Pakistan were equal victims of terrorism! He totally disregarded India's long-time charge against its neighbour, based on voluminous details, that Pakistan was the primary aider, abettor and perpetrator of cross-border terrorism against India, specially in J&K. And in a total flip-flop, the Indian PM, thoughtlessly put the victim of terrorism and its promoter and mastermind  on the equal footing! This utterly senseless action stirred a huge uproar in the country which forced him to keep the Havana agreement to fight terrorism jointly at the backburner.

However, Prime Minister Singh's pro-Pakistan itch resurfaced at the Sharm El-Sheikh(Egypt) where the former met his Pakistani counterpart. Forgetting his strong rhetoric in the wake of 26/11 Mumbai massacre perpetrated by Pakistani terrorists under the guidance of the ISI, that no dialogue with Pakistan would take place until our unprincipled, untrustworthy, neighbour took action against the State and non-state criminals involved in the mayhem, Manmohan Singh agreed to delink bilateral talks with Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Again, history repeated itself and in the face of tremendous furore in the country, Dr Singh reversed his position.

As if the pitcher of the Prime Minister's faux pas and stupidities in domestic and foreign affairs was not yet full, he, once again, indulged in his romantic view of Pakistan, the place of his birth, by giving an undeserved certificate to his counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani as "a man of peace", at the Maldive SAARC summit recently. He even trusted the Pakistan Prime Minister's assurance that the Pakistan Army was on board with the civilian leadership on the issue of restoring friendship and normalcy between the two neighbours. But, again, following the pattern of national reaction against his indiscreet and needlessly sugary sentiments, the PM stepped back, qualifying his remarks that he has not abandoned his approach of "trust but verify" theory. No wonder, a senior, retired Indian diplomat, Satish Chandra, former Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad, and the National Deputy Security  Adviser, in an article in a national daily, sharply attacked Dr Singh for "appeasing" Pakistan in the hope that it will lead to a "thaw" in bilateral relations and lend him the stature of a "statesman"! He accused him of offering Pakistan "far too many concessions" at the cost of India's "national interests".         

Anna Hazare to reconstitute core committee

According to press reports, Anna Hazare wants representatives of  tribals, Dalits, minorities and youth in his next core committee. On the face of it, the anti-corruption crusader's idea to make his executive group broad-based, including all sections of the Indian society,  seems sensible and necessary. However, when one examines the issue closely, it appears an over-reaction to a politically motivated, malicious campaign mounted  by a small group of Dalit and Muslim fanatics like Udit Rajs, Kancha Illiah, Farooqis, etc. Even at the peak of the anti-corruption movement in its Ramlila Ground phase, when a vast number of Anna supporters assembled there day after day and night after night, representing all classes, castes and age groups, this anti-national bunch started insinuating that all this tamasha was an upper caste affair; Dalits and minorities are not there even when the elaborate TV coverage visibly refuted their malafide claim. They did not give any credit to Anna Hazare and his group of social activists belonging to all sections of the nation, including poor, lower, middle and upper classes of different communities. If there was Kumar Vishwas, there was also Shazia Ilmi. Then, why this calculated attempt to give a parochial, vote-bank-type of colour to a nation-wide crusade? Thus, the evil motive is to damn and divide it on communal and caste basis.

But, the question is: Why an apolitical Gandhian with no axe to grind, who is fully focussed on the passage of a strong Jan Lokpal legislation to fight and eradicate corruption as much as possible and as effectively as possible, should be cowed down by engineered noises of notoriously vicious anti-national and disruptive elements? Shouldn't he choose members of his new enlarged core committee on the basis of the appointees' merit, dedication, commitment, selflessness and their capacity for team work, instead of looking at their religious and caste affiliation, to make it "inclusive and representative"? How could Anna decide the membership of the committee on some sort of a quota for each group? If these bigoted fellows reject Anna's choice as too little and unrepresentative of their socalled communities, what will he do? Consult them to include their names in the committee? Where will this charade end? Have the implications of such a dubious exercise considered?     

Controversy on Ramanujan's Essay on Ramayana

A long essay on Ramayana writtten by a linguist, late AK Ramanujan, nearly two decades ago when he was working at a leading US university, titled: "Three Hundred Ramayanas":Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation", has suddenly become a subject of heated debate in the media. According to press reports, this clearly controversial Essay was included in the syllabus of the Delhi University's BA 2nd year history course, in 2006. Presumably, the Essay came under adverse notice of a section of students and teachers. Recently, the Delhi University Academic Council, in a majority decision of 141 members against 9, removed the Essay from the syllabus.

This democratic decision by the most important body of the DU has triggered a vociferous protest  by "Marxist" and "Left-liberal" teachers and student unions. Some of them even came out in a protest demonstration in the DU's north campus, calling the Academic Council's decision as "wanton philistinism" and an assault on "academic freedom". One lady history teacher of Jawaharlal Nehru University(JNU), prof. Mridula Mukherjee went to the outrageous extent of condemning it as "goondagardi"(goondaism). "Hindutva" groups who had favoured the removal, were accused of bigotry and "taking one view of history".

Strong views of the critics of the Essay that some versions of the "retellings" of the epic in Ramanujan's collection were incredibly perverse, even obscene, in their projection of the iconic figures like Ram, Lakshman, Hanuman and Indra, and deeply hurt the religious feelings of  the vast numbers of the majority community, were totally dismissed. Their argument that there were no demands for banning the book and that it was only excluded from the syllabus of the history course of undergraduate students still in their teens, also had no relevance to these "Marxists". Strangely, even some leading intellectuals belonging to the Capital's think tanks, wittingly ignored this limited restriction.

Here are a few examples of some of these offensive "tellings": Ravana and Lakshman seduced Sita; Sita was unfaithful to Rama; Hanuman was ladies' man; Indra, king of devas, was debased; his testicles fell down because of ...a curse and animal testicles were implanted; Indra's body was covered with vaginas of thousands of women! When such evil and malicious "tellings" are part of the Ramanujan's essay , is it improper for the DU Academic Council to remove it from the syllabus of college freshers?

Will these history teachers show similar enthusiasm to recommend Salman Rushdie's novel "Satanic Verses" for the English syllabus at the DU, or the JNU  as it makes derogatory references to Prophet Mohammed's wives? Did they come out on the streets to shout against the ban on the book? And what about the Bangladeshi writer Tasleema Nasreen's book that was banned? Why hurting the sentiments of the Hindu majority community seems easy meat to these psuedo-secular thinkers and teachers? 
  .

Defence of Mayawati's Statue-mania

UP Chief Minister Mayawati's obsession with building a series of memorial parks in the State with statues of Dalit leaders like Dr BR Ambdkar and the Bahujan Samaj Party(BSP) founder Kanshi Ram-the latest one was recently inaugurated in NOIDA, costing close to seven hundred crores of rupees-has been widely condemned as a huge waste of public funds. The critics point out that Uttar Pradesh(UP), the most populous State in the country, is the poorest and most backward in all parameters of growth such as illiteracy, malnourishment, health, medicare,etc., Instead of using valuable financial resources which are always inadequate for the heavy needs of the State, to the eradication of poverty, improving infrastructure, education, health care, rural road connectivity, etc., Mayawati has the perverted priority:To erect a large number of statues not only of dalit icons who are no more but of her own in her life time; even of the party symbol-Elephant! One can understand one or two but she does them in dozens with zero regard for budgetary constraints!

Yet, we have a non-dalit columnist like Jaithirth Rao of the Indian Express who has joined Dalit ideologues and apologists, to justify Mayawati's statue-mania! In his article in the IE(October 18), Rao ridicules "media pundits" for having "a great time taking swipes at the building projects" of Mayawati. He also pooh-poohs "self-appointed fiscal hawks" and "self-appointed defenders of the poor" for criticising "the waste of tax-payers' money" which "could have been spent on education or medical facilities for the poor". One can easily turn around Rao's arguments to question him as to why he is acting as a"self-appointed" defender of one of the most corrupt, dictatorial, Chief Minister, supposedly a "poor dalit ki beti" who has become one of the wealthiest politicians, in a decade or so?

Rao has used an extremely curious justification for Mayawati's mania, as "a central theme in human affairs" where "all architecture is political". He mindlessly compares her statues to the Red Fort and the Parliament House, forgetting that both these structures were functional as centres of governance, although built by foreign rulers. They had no parochial or narcissist symbolism.  

Attack on Prashant Bhushan for his anti-Indian views on Kashmir

The attack on senior Supreme Court advocate, human rights and anti-corruption activist, Prashant Bhushan, in his chamber in the court premises, by three youngmen reportedly belonging to Ram Sena and Bhagat Singh Sena, on October 12 afternoon, has been widely condemned. He was beaten up and kicked for his recent remarks made in Varanasi supporting plebiscite in J&K. There can be no two opinions that violence is unaccepetable in a democratic society to settle differences of opinion.

It is true that Prashant Bhushan, who is a leading member of the Team Anna in its anti-corruption campaign, has a dubious record of advocating the cause of Maoist terrorists, terrorism convicts like Afzal Guru and being in the league of anti-national activists like Arundhati Roy; his statement supporting the Kashmiri separatists' and Pakistani call for a referendum which amounts to championing the breaking away of J&K from being an integral part of India, had outraged a vast majority of Indians, including Anna's adherents. No wonder, the Ralegan Sidhi nationalist leader Anna Hazare who had started his movement with the slogans of "Bharat Mata ki Jai" and "Vande Matram", has distanced himself from his associate's anti-Indian obervations on Kashmir. He told Bhushan that he did not approve of his views on Kashmir which he regarded as an indivisible part of India. Prashant may hold any opinions as an individual but he cannot express them at Anna Hazare's platforms. His movement is confined to the anti-corruption issue and the Lokpal bill.

But, it is clear that taking law into one's  hands is not the right method to show disapproval or indignation. Peaceful protests could have been staged to challenge Bhushan's viewpoint; there are social networking websites to air one's opposition to Bhushan's statement. However, while unequivocally condemning the fringe group of hotheads who beat up  Bhushan, one has to remind left-liberal human rightists-the Arundhati Roy-type anti-Indians-to look within for their provocative postures on Maoist violence, terrorist convicts and treacherous Kashmiri separatists and Azadiwalas.  

Planning Commission's "clarification" on BPL benchmark

When the Planning Commission, headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, an economist, submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court recently, specifying a benchmark of Rs.32 and Rs 26,  per day expenditure on food items, in urban and rural areas respectively, to determine Indians above the poverty line, it could not have imagined a nation-wide furore against this bizarre line of thinking. All sections, including politicians,  media, thinkers were aghast and furious at the utter insensitivity of the Planning Commission whose CEO is Prime Minister Singh's crony and colleague of his World Bank days, Dr Montek Singh Ahluwalia. Two leading members of Mrs Sonia Gandhi's National Advisory Council(NAC), Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander, in an open letter, angrily asked Dr Ahluwalia to withdraw the affidavit or quit his office. He was told how can he mock the poor when he is drawing a salary without perks nearly 2000 times of Rs 32?  Maybe more? Clearly, the economist has lost touch with Indian reality as he seems to be living in an ivory tower! Aruna and Mander are right in insisting that if he cannot withdraw the affidavit, Montek Singh must go.

Unfortunately, while clarifying the Commission's approach under pressure from the ruling party, the opposition and the people at large, that the govt's schemes aimed at uplifting the deprived will not be confined  only to those falling under the BPL category, Dr Ahluwalia, in a public appearance, however, defended the benchmark as "factually correct" which was based on the Suresh Tendulkar committee recommendations. His contention was that it was fixed in 1973. If so, how could nearly a four-decade-old "rock bottom level of existence" be relevant today? Was Tendulkar's the last word in judging the lowest level of poverty? Have our economic experts remained static in their thinking and ideas in these years? Then, why is Ahluwalia promoting crazy benchmarks? If poverty-alleviation programmes are meant to help all deprived Indians irrespective of the cap of Rs 32 and Rs 26, then what is so sacrosanct about these ridiculous figures?  Why can't the panel experts conceive of some more relevant, innovative method to calculate the percentage of Indians living below the poverty line year after year and tell us when we can expect to get rid of this curse of poverty substantially, if not fully?      

PM accused of "distancing" himself from govt in 2G

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, a Cambridge-educated economist who served the World Bank before ending up as an economist-bureaucrat in the govt of India, has a dubious distinction of effecting a major reform in India's official socialistic policy in 1991, serving as Finance Minister under the Congress Prime Minister, PV Narsimha Rao. In fact,  the loosening of the stranglehold of Licence-Inspector Raj was forced on the govt. by the IMF-World Bank as a precondition for much-needed international loan. However, Manmohan Singh's supporters in the media and elsewhere, never tire of giving him a major share of the credit. They never answer the charge that if Singh was so committed to basic economic reforms, why did he shy away from taking any further initiative in that respect when he became the Prime Minister in 2004 and renominated to the post even in 2009 without fighting the Lok Sabha elections and again getting elected to the Rajya Sabha?

On the contrary, he proved to be a disaster as the weakest, laissez-faire-ist, largely mute, uncommunicative head of govt in the history of independent India. The bitter reality was, as commentd by the London weekly Economist, that Manmohan Singh was in office but not in power. The power was held by the super Prime Minister, Mrs Sonia Maino Gandhi, president of the Congress party and chairperson of the United Progressive Alliance(UPA). He essentially played the second fiddle, merrily. In scam after scam, and crisis after crisis-Prime Minister Singh was hardly in the picture. In the latest 2G spectrum allocation scandal, even when he was informed in writing about the 2G policy his Telecom Minister A.Raja was going to adopt, causing huge losses to the public exchequer, the PM chose not to intervene or stop him! Thanks to the apex court's monitoring, Raja  is now in jail and under trial for corruption and irregularities, allocating the spectrum arbitrarily to his alleged favourites.

According to some new revelations in public domain, made in a Finance Ministry document sent to the PMO on 25 March, 20ll, the then Finance Minister P.Chidambaram could have stopped A.Raja from following the non-auction route if he had wanted, but he chose to go along with his DMK colleague's decision! Following a huge furore in the media and the opposition, the govt., Mrs Sonia Gandhi and the party spokesmen are busy frantically dousing the fires to lessen the damage to their already terribly dented image. After his return from New York, Dr Singh is trying hard to counter the opposition  attack by accusing them of political motives to destabilise the govt and hasten mid-term poll. But, the worst news for Dr Singh is that even his former sympathisers and supporters are abandoning him; they are seeing the ground reality of the PM being a poor, unethical leader who is more interested in "defending" himself  by "distancing" from taking crucial decisions. Writing in the Indian Express(September 28), its respected columnist, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President of the Centre for Policy Research, Delhi, a think-tank, has severely indicted the PM for "distancing the entire structure of ministerial politics by not frontally owning and defending the decision not to auction 2G". He has tried to play "the avoidance game implausibly distancing himself from his own govt". And then, defending Chidambaram and other cabinet colleagues! Is it not hypocritical and duplicitous? Neither here,  nor there?  

Chidambaram's role in 2G and govt's new BPL norm

The UPA government, in its second tenure, starting from May 2009, again under Dr Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister, has been a veritable disaster with one scam after another virtually paralysing it. It has caused tremendous damage to India's image. There is hardly any sign of governance; it is mostly fire-fighting-to defend the indefensible. The latest Minister-a senior one-P.Chidambaram who is currently in the line of  fire, was earlier Finance Minister in UPA-1 when the 2G spectrum allocation scandal hit the headlines. No less than the senior-most Minister-Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, No.2 in the Cabinet, has endorsed his Ministry's note to the PMO on March 25, 2011, that his predecessor P.Chidambaram did not assert his authority to scuttle the then Telecom Minister A.Raja's decision to allot the spectrum at 2001 price and not auction it against the advice of the then Finance Secretary, resulting in huge losses to the public exchequer. This note has been submitted to the Supreme Court for examination and action.

In the meanwhile, in the light of this revelation confirming the opposition charge against Chidambaram for the dereliction of duty and failure to stop Raja's manipulative method of spectrum allocation, the demand for his resignation from the Cabinet  has been  reinforced to facilitate a proper probe into his conduct. Yet, in a typically characteristic Manmohanesque style, the PM pleads ignorance to Pranab Mukherjee's note to his office, on the non-application of his predecessor's mind to the crucial matter. He stated this with straight face to a media question on this note during his flight to New York, on September 22.  At the same time, he and his govt. has vociferously come out in defence of Home Minister Chidambaram and his integrity, forgetting the fact that his critics were not doubting his integrity; the questions were being raised about his competence, alertness and serious application of mind. The PM has asked him to keep quiet until the former returns home from New York, and tries to sort out the crisis. In other words, the PM is again indirectly defending himself, because in our democratic system of collective responsibility of the Cabinet, the buck finally stops with the head of the govt; hence, Manmohan Singh cannot escape  his own lack of alertness and intervention to stop the loot of public money!

To add to the misery of the Indian people,  who have yet to emerge from the current crisis of a series of scams,  and the resultant chaos, drift and disarray,  Manmohan Singh-headed Planning Commission has submitted to the Supreme Court a new bench mark of poverty in rural and urban India: Any Indian earning Rs.26 and Rs 32 per day, respectively, is above the poverty line, hence, not entitled to poverty alleviation programmes of the govt! These incredible norms of determining the people below the poverty line (BPL) in these days of stunningly spiralling prices of essential commodities, have been widely condemned as sheer lunacy and insensitivty of the govt, supposedly headed by a world-known economist! Perhaps, the idea seems to be to project a healthy, happy picture of lower  percentage of millions of Indians living below the poverty line!     

Sonia Gandhi's surgery

The Congress President Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the chairman of the ruling United Progressive Alliance(UPA), has returned home a few days ago after a surgery in New York that necessitated her absence from the Capital for nearly two months. It was presumably a major surgery requiring long recovery period. But, the most mystifying fact of her ailment was that there was not even a whisper about its nature. The nation was informed only after she had quietly flown to the USA alongwith her son Rahul  and the daughter Priyanka Vadra and admitted to a New York hospital. It was reported in one or two newspapers that Mrs Gandhi was undergoing treatment in a well-known cancer hospital. Even that news later disappeared from the media. Thus, it seemed a well-planned, well-orchestrated strategy to wrap her illness in total secrecy. Amazingly, the Indian media that normally asserts its right of free expression, specially with regard to public leaders, their activities, their health, etc., acted in a coy, conniving and obedient manner.

I privately heard here as well as from a source in Singapore that Mrs Gandhi's ailment was cancerous. The fact that she was in a cancer hospital in New York, although not acknowledged or confirmed officially, was clear enough indication. Yet, the party, the govt., opposition parties and the media, all played the game of secrecy as if it was some rare, unheard of, utterly embarrassing, disgraceful occurence that can't be aired publicly! The media, even now, when Mrs Gandhi has come back, obviously hale and hearty, and, yesterday, presided over the first core committee meeting of his party to approve the second list of Congress candidates for the UP elections scheduled early next year, continued the facade of her "undisclosed" ailment!

Well-being and health of major public leaders is a major concern of  the people everywhere. In a democracy, citizens have the right to know this and the media have the primary duty to inform the public about it. Hence, the conspiracy of silence that was on display is a serious blot on the ruling party, its govt and the national media. 

Latest Bomb Blast at Delhi High Court

Two days ago, September 7, 2011, around 10.30 am, a powerful bomb placed in a briefcase, exploded at the Gate No.5 of the Delhi High Court, nearly 2km away from the Parliament House and the Rashtrapati Bhawan(Presidential Palace), killing 13 and injuring nearly 100 innocent people who had come to the court to seek justice. Wednesday designated as a Public Interest Litigation(PIL)day, the court premises, particularly, the entrance where the bomb was kept, was crowded. The same site had witnessed the first blast-a mild one-in May, four months ago. At that time, counter-terror experts and the media had warned that it could be a dress rehearsal-a dry run-for a bigger, deadlier blast next time. But, the police and the Union Home Ministry that oversees the Delhi police, obviously did not take it seriously. Some TV channels showed one youthful eye-witness who disclosed that he saw one man leaving a brief case near the gate; he immediately informed a nearby policeman about this suspicious small suitcase lying there, but no notice was taken! One High Court lawyer told a TV channel that at the time of the first blast in May, the police was alert and security conscious for two-three days; then, it was back to business as ususal:casual, indifferent and lax. He envisaged a similar attitude even this time.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh government's response was a replay of  the earlier incident:condemnation of "cowardice" of the perpetrators, sympathy for the victims and their families as also an expression of hollow assertion that we will not succumb to the terrorists! There were VIP visits to the hospitals where the victims were being treated. However, the anger against the govt for its repeated failure to provide safety and security to the people against these horrible terrorist attacks was palpable. There were even slogans against Rahul Gandhi by relatives and friends of the injured and the dead, present in the RML hospital.

It is a bitter truth that all the noise that was made by the State and the Central govts following 26/11/08 Mumbai massacre, to strengthen anti-terror infrastructure in the country in order to minimise such terrorist attacks, is just that:a hollow, meaningless noise backed by no action to prevent such deadly incidents. All the promised counter-terrorist and efficient intelligence-gathering entities are no where in the picture. All the bloody terror assaults on our cities-a half dozen or more in which scores of innocents were killed or wounded, still remain unsolved; those involved in carrying out those ghastly acts as well as their master-minds and handlers sitting safely across the border,  have not been apprehended and punished. Nor any heads have rolled in three years of P.Chidambaram's taking over the Home Ministry after 26/11. This clearly insensitive govt and the ruling Congress party, more concerned about vote-bank politics, have chosen not to own moral responsibility for all the killings and casualties that have resulted  from these brutal incidents. Perhaps, another Anna Hazare-type movement is required to channelise the people's anger against terrorism to force the regime into taking strong anti-terrorist  action, or ship it out in the next poll.     

Harassment of Hazare associates

It is no mean tragedy of India that the Congress culture of sycophancy of the ruling Nehru-Gandhi dynasty by its loyalists, and the intimidation of its opponents, that was inculcated during the rule of Mrs Indira Gandhi in the 1970s-pre-and post-Emergency, is very much alive and kicking at present, under the rule of her daughter-in-law Mrs Sonia Gandhi. We have witnessed numerous such instances over the years wherein even Mrs Indira Gandhi's own Principal Secratary Mr Haksar's in-laws-Pandit Bros., who had a well-known shop in the Connaught Place, were not spared during the Emergency. The purpose of raiding them was to give a signal to Mr Haksar who was known to be a critic of Sanjay Gandhi's wayward ways as Mrs Indira Gandhi's favourite son, at that point of time, to behave!

To cut the story short, we had the recent case of Baba Ramdev whose camp was raided by the police past midnight on June 4, 20ll, and his anti-corruption supporters who were sleeping, were forcibly thrown out on the streets, with lathis and tear gas. Ramdev's guilt was that he was leading an anti-corruption and anti-black money crusade against the govt.,  peacefully. The govt did not stop at that. All sorts of Income Tax and Enforcement Directorate investigations were ordered, accusing him and his Trust of amassing hundreds of crores in illegal manner! His pleas of innocence and having submitted all accounts and relevants documents to the concerned authorities, were ignored. The police also launched a witch-hunt against his closest associate Acharya Balkrishan for allegedly getting an Indian passport even though he was a "Nepali", and that too on "fake educational degrees". All these cases are in various stages of investigation and judicial scrutiny.

As in the case of Baba Ramdev who was initially offered a red carpet treatment  by the UPA govt. which sent three senior Ministers to receive him at the airport, and then abusing and hounding him when he did not come around to dance to their tune, Anna Hazare Team witnessed a similar action replay. However, in Anna's case, after initial strong resistance, the govt capitulated when they realised that he had evoked an unprecedented massive nation-wide support from the youth and all classes of Indians, against the scourge of corruption; the govt agreed to his three minimum demands from his bill which were also endorsed by both Houses of the Parliament. The first phase of the anti-corruption campaign, thus, ended with Anna breaking his fast on August 28. After a few days stay in a hospital for recovery, Hazare was back to his village Ralegan Siddhi, to celebrate Ganesh Chaturthi with his people.

But, the troubles of his three associates-Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi and Prashant Bhushan are beginning, particularly, Kejriwal, Anna's closest supporter. Arvind was an Indian Revenue Service officer working in the Income Tax office. He voluntarily resigned in 2006 to engage himself in social work. For two years, until 2008, there was some correspondence between Kejriwal and his former office regarding some outstanding dues the office was claiming. For three years, until August 5,20ll, there was no further official letter on the earlier claims. But, suddenly on the eve of Anna's fast from August 16, Kejriwal got a fresh letter raising the claims of three year salary not refunded as per the bond before going on the two-year study leave. He refuted that, asserting that he did join the service after the leave and worked for three years as committed in the Bond. He also told the authorities that as a social worker he has no bank balance to pay them. At any rate, whatever amount is due in their calculation, can be deducted from his GPF still with his office. The timing of the official action has naturally given rise to the suspicion of vindictiveness.

Such intimidatory acts of pettymindedness on the part of the ruling Congress are reminiscent of its past practices against its political opponents since long. Unfortunately, its present myopic leadership does not seem to be sensitive to the serious implications of such unethical, mean behaviour that can only further destroy its credibility.     

Prime Minster Manmohan Singh and Anna Hazare's fast

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, replying to a debate in the Lok Sabha(House of the People), the lower House of the Indian Parliament, on August 25, on the issue of Anna Hazare's indefinite fast in support of  his anti-corruption Jan Lokpal bill, expressed his deep sense of hurt over the senior BJP leader Dr Murli Manohar Joshi's "personal attack" on him "as if I am the foundtainhead of corruption". Since I did not listen to the live coverage of the debate, I am unable to comment  on the actual contents and the context in which they were made. But my impresssion is that the opposition attack on the PM  is generally confined to his dismal failure as the head of the UPA govt to provide a responsive, sensitive and competent governance,  ensuring probity and incorruptability. Several scams have hit his govt over a few years, involving thousands of crores of public money; in each case, Dr Manmohan Singh was an indifferent, almost silent spectator, and not a prompt interventionist to stop the rot. No wonder, in the 2G spectrum allocation case and the CWG scandal, the accused, A.Rajan and Suresh Kalmadi, have claimed in the court that all their decisions had the approval of the PMO! The CBI(called by critics as the Congress Bureau of Investigation) and the Central govt took action against the culprits only after the opposition, media and public uproar-and, more importantly, the Supreme Court intervention.

In his August 25 address to the Lok Sabha, Dr Singh stated that "in the course of seven years as Prime Minister, I may have made mistakes. Who is above making mistakes? To err is human but to accuse me of evil intentions, of conniving at corruption, is a charge I firmly repudiate". Dr Singh might have had no "evil intentions" but there is no doubt that he was guilty of overlooking acts of criminality by his cabinet colleagues and other senior bureaucrats. Yes, "to err is human", but to err repeatedly is hardly human; it is criminal negligence.

Anna Hazare anti-corruption agitation captured nation-wide attention from early April, 2011, when thousands of young people responded to his call. The UPA govt after initial resistance and rejection, finally capitulated and agreed to form a Joint Drafting Committee(JDC), including Hazare and four of his associates to prepare an effective, strong  draft Lokpal bill for submission to the Parliament. After two months of discussions in the JDC, between the govt ministers and the Hazare team, the government members and Congress spokesmen started ridiculing the civil society representatives as "unelected and unelectable tyrants" who were out to subvert democracy and the Parliament. They did not remember their commitment to draft a strong Jan Lokpal legislation. After prolonged dithering and no movement for four months and the 10th day of Anna Hazare's indefinite fast in protest against the govt's apathy and arrogance, the PM stated in his speech of August 25 in the Lok Sabha that he was worried about the 74-year-old Gandhian's health. Responding to the PM's "concern", Anna Hazare thanked him and the Parliament for their appreciation of his idealism. But, he added, why this "worry" after so long and without any sense of urgency to resolve the issue, and listen to the voices  of the vast majority of the Indian people for a strong anti-corruption law? Delaying tactics were being used. There was no sign that a unanimous resolution would be adopted to discuss and accept his three minimum demands of having Lokayuts in the States, people's charter and lower bureaucracy to be covered by the bill. Finally, after several flip-flops, under the tremendous pressure of of the anti-corruption movement's vast nation-wide support, most opposition parties and even some Congressmen, the UPA govt. agreed to have an eight-hour debate in the Lok Sabha on August 27 which finally endorsed  Anna Hazare's three points. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, as the leader of the House, replying to the debate, summed up the "sense" of the House as positive, in favour of Anna Hazare's demands. This was widely applauded by the thumping of the deks by the members in place of the voice vote. Later, the PM sent a letter to Hazare conveying the Parliament's consensus; the latter thanked the Parliament and all supporters for what he called "half victory" and broke his fast the next morning(August 29, around  10 am). Thus, the first chapter of this historic people's struggle for clean, honest,  responsive government, has ended. Anna Hazare  mentioned that struggle for reforms in electoral system, including Right to Recall, people's participation in law-making through their elected representatives, education, etc., will begin in the next phase.       

Congress diatribe against Anna Hazare

The ruling Congress party seems to have lost its dignity and mental balance in deciding to mount a rabid diatribe against Anna Hazare personally, calling him corrupt, less than two days before his scheduled fast against corruption and for a strong Lokpal bill. Using its most foul-mouthed, crude,  spokesman to attack Hazare in a language a civilised person will not use even for a street urchin, the Congress party gave the impression of desperation and panic in the face of the rising tide of nation-wide support to the anti-corruption movement of the 74-year-old Gandhian. The Congress foot soldier Manish Tewari tried to flog a dead horse of Justice Sawant's report, allegedly accusing Anna Hazare of various acts of corruption. Tewari clearly devoid of any prick of conscience, used the phrase "A Company" for Hazare and his associates, on the lines of the mafia don Dawood Ibrahim's "D Company".  What one can say about such lunacy and total bankruptcy of ethics and sensitivity! Forgetting traditional Indian ethos of respect for elders, Tewari was deriding  the person who was his father's age and whom his Prime Minister had earlier invited to join the Joint Drafting Committee alongwith his four colleagues for preparing a common draft of the proposed Lokpal bill. The PM had accepted the demand of Hazare under tremendous public pressure despite his initial opposition to the latter's indefinite fast.

Yet, within a few weeks, when the popular agitation receded due to the government's flexible stand, the ruling party reverted to its duplicitous stance and started questioning the legitimacy of the Hazare movement and its demand for a srtong Lokpal. They even attacked the group for being undemocratic and even fascist. The die seems to been cast and the earlier chasm between the two sides was back. First, the police refused the Hazare side permission to assemble at Jantar Mantar to start his fast from August 16 that he had threatened if the Jan Lokpal bill was rejected or its pro-people provisions were not incorporated in the govt bill. Later, the Anna team agreed to shift to any venue in central Delhi. A park named after Jaya Prakash Narayan was offered which they accepted. Then, started another of game of weakening the agitation with all sorts of undemocratic and unconstitutional  conditions like the fast could be only for three days, the attendance cannot exceed 5000, etc. When Anna rejected these conditions instantly and wrote to the PM against the govt's "dictatorial" and emergency-type stand, Dr Manmohan Singh washed his hands of the issue and told Hazare to approach the Delhi police directly as if the police was autonomous. Singh himself forgot what he had said on the Ramdev episode in which the police had used cruel methods to evict the peaceful protestors from the Ramlila grounds:"There was no option" but  the police action!

However, without waiting for the problem to get sorted out amicably, the senseless ruling party unleashed a ferocious assault on its opponent-Anna Hazare. It also forgot that its State govt. of Maharashtra had formed an investigating committee under Mr Sukthanker to examine the Justice Sawant report and it had given Hazare a clean chit. Thus, is it not a fraud on the Indian people to use a rejected report to malign Anna Hazare who is proving a thorn? Does it behove a grand old party of stalwarts like Gandhiji, Sardar Patel, Pandit Nehru, Rajendra Prasad, Lal Bahadur Shastri and others? Does it not suggest a terrible degeneration?         

Indian Police brutality

The Indian police brutality that is often on display in the streets of the country-in the capital, UP, Maharashtra, and elsewhere, to tackle peaceful protests by resentful citizens, is a notorious phenomenon. Two latest incidents of the police high-handedness relate to Delhi and Maharashtra. In Delhi, the police mobilised in large numbers to deal with the BJP youth demonstration against corruption in which a large number of young people from all parts of India participated, went berserk. They did not spare even a polio-afflicted young leader from Bihar. The TV images of the incident provided the tell-tale evidence of the police mercilessness. The standard practice is to deny that excessive force was used as they did in the case of the forcible eviction of Baba Ramdev and his supporters with lathis and tear gas past-mid night in early June, 2011.

In Maharashtra, the Kisan protest of water supply from a dam, was handled even more ferociously: TV coverage showed how the police were firing into the demonstrating farmers to kill, resulting in the death of three. Contrast this with the riots in London and some other British cities recently where no one was killed in police action even though the scale of looting, arson and destruction of property was colossal. Some may say that the UK police was too soft. But, the fact remains that the situation was brought under control in a couple of days with large scale arrests of the criminals and raids of their houses to recover looted property. Our police appears like a brute force, a trigger-happy one, without mercy, that too in a democracy! Who is to blame? The buck must stop with the police leadership, lack of training in modern, civilised ways of policing, winning public goodwill and cooperation. The political bosses must also share the blame for police excesses on common people who are supposed to be the masters in a democratic system.

Some times, one has a lurking feeling that our bureaucracy-administrative and police-have not yet emerged from the colonial mindset. Their contempt for the hoi polloi is persisting, surfacing in their ill-treatment and arrogant behaviour. Among our first Prime Minister Nehru's several failures, indifference to administrative reforms, including those dealing with the  police, can be considered high on the list. Unfortunately, even his successors largely ignored these. We are paying a heavy price for that negligence.

Prakash Jha's film "Aarakshan" on reservations

Prakash Jha's latest film:"Aarakshan"(Reservations) that was viewed by an Examination Committee of the Central Film Certification Board (commonly known as Film Censor Board), comprising a representative each of SCs, STs and OBCs, before it was certified for universal exhibition after one or two minor cuts like removing the word "dalit", has triggered a major controversy in the media. The culprits for raising needless passions alleging anti-dalit nature of the film, are their socalled custodians like the head of the Commission for Scheduled Castes and others. The film-maker in his interviews with the media has been insisting that the his film is not against dalits. Hypothetically speaking, even if the film diapproves of the open-ended continuation of reservations, Prakash Jha has every right to do so in a democracy.

It is common knowledge that the beneficiaries of the reservations-particularly the creamy layer, and their political patrons, have developed a vested interest in the indefinite continuation of this privilege at the cost of other deprived and disadvantaged Indians who do not have the SC/ST/OBC tag. Why, for instance, the children and grand children  of a top level bureaucrat or diplomat, who had been to foreign schools and colleges for studies, should be entitled to reservations, even for promotions? Is it fair and just? Why should the accident of birth in a BPL family,  even though it may be a Brahmin or an upper caste one, deprive its child with merit an opportunity for reservation? Is it not time to discard caste-based reservations in favour of economically, socially, educationally weak Indians? 

Dr Zakir Naik's Peace TV

The Peace TV channel, set up by the Islamic Research Foundation headed by Dr Zakir Naik, a Mumbai medical doctor-turned Islamic scholar and evangelist, had disappeared from the Karol Bagh cable network(Punjab Vision), following the I&B Ministry directive that unregistered channels like the Peace TV should not be shown. Hence, I was surprised to notice that Dr Naik's channel has suddenly made a comeback; and occupying the number one slot. Has it got registered as required under the rules? Or, is it still continuing to function without the official registration? My reservations about this channel relate to its star preacher's orthodox and fundamentalist interpretations of the Quran which, in this day and age, seem totally obscurantist and provocatively parochial, hence, unacceptable.

In its earlier incarnation, Dr Zakir Naik's main emphasis was on the supremacy of Islam in comparison to other faiths. It was the Allah's own divine dispensation for the emancipation of humanity. To cover up his Islamic zealotry, he invited spiritual leaders of other faiths like Shri Ravi Ravi Shankar to his congregations where his followers would ask loaded questions on Hinduism. Once, I heard Shri Shankar ticking the questioners off, telling them to respect other faiths in equal measure. The basic motive of Dr Naik seemed to find fault in the approach of leaders of other faiths vis-a-vis his interpretation of Islam and to belittle them. 

I still cannot get over the shock of his strong opposition to mixed marriages:Momins(Islamic believers) marrying non-Muslims(non-believers) when he was asked about it in a question-answer programme. The logic used by him to reject mixed marraiges was most ridiculous and bizarre. First, he said how can a two-wheeler run smoothly if one wheel is from a bicycle and another from a truck. Although he did not clearly spell out the ownership of the wheels, it was clear that the truck wheel-being superior belonged to the momin and the bicycle one to the non-Muslim. Another negative argument given by him: The momin partner will go to heaven after death, whereas the non-momin partner will to hell.

In his current appearance, I watched Dr Naik reiterate his unambiguous disapproval of Muslim marrying non-Muslim as "haraam"(illegal). He quoted the Quran in support of his thesis. In his August 1 night session, he performed another most offensive and provocative act: He presented a number of men and women who, announcing their Hindu names and surnames, declared  that they have converted to Islam. Is this legally permissible and religiously, socially acceptable to project conversions on TV channels? Will Indian Muslims accept it if Hindu religious channels follow the example of Dr Naik's channel and show Muslims embracing Hinduism? Is Dr Naik not playing with fire and fuelling inter-community conflict? Should he not be disowned by his co-religionists?     

Digvijay Singh's latest red herring

Digvijay Singh, a former Congress Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, has rapidly degenerated as a most irresponsible, utterly undignified, senior ruling party leader, bordering on lunacy, after assuming the office of a  Congress general secretary at the party's head office in New Delhi. Despite all his senseless remarks, sometimes offensive even to his own party  and some of its sober leaders, he is known as a loyalist to the ruling dynasty and its heir-apparent, Rahul Gandhi! He never tires of pushing his icon's claims to the Prime Minister's chair, causing immense embarrassment to the incumbent, Dr Manmohan Singh who seems in no hurry to vacate it in favour of Digvijay Singh's favourite Gandhi. If nothing untoward happens to the PM's health, nor any other grave political disaster or fiasco hits his regime, Dr Singh seems determined to complete his term until the next general elections in 2014, when he will be 82.

In the meantime, unfortunately for Digvijay, his prime ministerial candidate further spoiled his chances for wider popular acceptance as the next head of government, by his immature and ill-timed remarks in the immediate aftermath of the bloody Mumbai bomb blasts which killed 20 innocent persons and injuring over 130. Rahul effusively praised the Congress governments at the Centre and Maharashtra for taking "profound steps" to fight terrorism and improving security by "leaps and bounds". Then why such ghastly terror incidents are recurring, his insensitive reply was that some blasts would continue to happen and cannot be stopped. Instead of applying a much-needed healing touch to the terror victims who had lost their dear ones, he was rubbing salt  into their wounds. There was a sharp and angry reaction over Rahul Gandhi's "bachkana"(childish)comments  in the public and the media.

But, sure enough, Rahul's apologist Digvijay Singh defended his remarks. He went even to a crazy extent: Out of the blue, he accused the RSS for being possibly involved  in the Mumbai mayhem! Even though he added that he had no proof against the RSS in this latest incident, he had evidence on the RSS involvement in earlier terrorist acts! However, his main worry seemed that his party's Muslim vote bank was being heavily eroded as all investigating agencies  were naming Muslims as possible suspects. Hence,  in order to impress the minority community for being their well-wisher, Digvijay Singh used this  mischievously clever ploy to divert the attention to the possible role of  non-existing "Hindu terrorists" in the Mumbai blast, by naming the RSS. He had done this earlier in the Batla House terrorist incident in Delhi in which a police inspector was gunned down by the terrorists present in the House. He had dubbed it as a fake encounter contrary to the policy of his own govt. Hence, it is beyond  comprehension as to why his party leadership is not expelling him from his important post. The only explanation could be that he enjoys the patronage of the ruling dynasty-Mrs Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul Gandhi who seem to be quietly supporting his pro-minority and anti-majority angle in the interest of their nefarious vote-bank politics.    

Apex Court verdict on Chhattisgarh's anti-Maoist campaign

The two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices B.Sudershan Reddy and Surendra Singh Nijjar, recently ordered the disbanding of the Special Police Officers' force of 4000 armed youth set up by the Chhattisgarh government for counter-insurgency operations. The verdict came on the petition filed by Ms Nandini Sunder and others. Having watched Ms Sunder of the Delhi University-a known sympathiser and apologist of Maoist terrorists-in TV debates, one was deeply appalled by the court accepting her petition as a gospel truth and rejecting the case of Dr Raman Singh-headed State govt as "horror, the horror"!

Excerpts of the judgement that appeared in the press made a terrible reading. References to Joseph Conrad's novella:"Heart of Darkness", to describe the situation on the ground in Chhattisgarh in its fight against Maoist terrorists seemed highly misplaced  and overly dramatised. It appeared that one was not reading a serious judgement on a most menacing crisis that is facing the Indian State in general and the tribal-dominated State of Chhattisgarh, in particular, but accounts of an intellectual  seminar at the India International Centre, dominated by the likes of Arundhati Roy!

Chhattisgarh is one State that is widely acknowledged to be well-governed by a dedicated Chief Minster whose administration is trying its utmost to involve its tribal youth through proper training and motivation to stand up to Maoist extremists with the help and guidance of the security forces. One could understand judicial intervention if there are glaring excesses and human rights violations. But, the apex court order was a blanket ban on the State govt's major innitiative of forming a SPO brigade- a sort of people's force, armed  and trained,  to supplement the security campaign against seditious, anti-national brigands. Thus, the apex court order will be a huge set back to the Raman Singh govt's efforts to mobilise forest-dwellers who know the terrain where the militants operate. It will serve as a morale-booster to these authoritarian tyrants who were reportdly on a backfoot due to the popular hostility against their violent and criminal ways.   

Delayed, inadequate justice to two Delhi widows

In a Connaught Place shoot-out case, two businessmen were gunned down by the Delhi police on March 31, 1997.  It later proved to be a fake encounter to eliminate alleged terrorists. The Delhi High Court condemned the Central Home Ministry for a "lackadaisical appraoch" in taking action against the guilty policmen for "wanton  and callous killing" of the two innocent businessmen. After 14 years, the High Court ordered the two widows-Mrs Neema Goyal and Mrs Jaspal Kaur, to be paid a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs  each. They had petitioned for Rs 2 crore as compensation.

Once again, we are reminded of the terrible tyranny of delayed justice that amounts, in effect, to denying  justice. The governments at the Centre and the States may be castigated for their mindless insensitivity to delayed justice due to infrastructural deficiencies and systemic problems, but the end-result is that our criminal justice mechanism continues to remain ham-handed and inefficient. On its part, sadly, the judiciary has hardly covered itself in glory with its decision to pay Rs.15 lakhs as compensation to the tragedy-overwhelmed widows after 14 long years of mental and physical agony of going to the courts, and loneliness. One widow, Mrs Neema Goyal whose only child-a son-was 2-year-old when his father Pradeep Goyal was gunned down, narrated her painful and moving saga, in a TV interview last night(July 4). She outrightly rejected the sum of Rs15 lakhs as totally inadequate. She is right. In these days of unprecedented inflation, the poor lady can't even buy a small DDA flat.And what about her teen-age son's higher education? With tremendous suffering and sacrifice, she has somehow struggled to survive and bring him up as a single parent, all these years. And, this is how our heartless, cruel system treats her! No wonder, her lament was that law is blind and an ass, more so in our country.    

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Press Meet

Independent India never had the experience of a Prime Minister, supposedly a political leader with a large popular following, who was so reluctant to communicate with his countrymen. Although Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has a reputation of being a man of integrity and honesty, this economist-turned bureaucrat-turned politician, is ironically heading a most corrupt and direction-less administration. The Prime Minister, though unelected to the Lok Sabha in 2004, was nominated by his party supremo-Mrs Sonia Gandhi to occupy the chair of  the country's head of government. To follow the well-established convention of the PM being a member of the more important House of the People(Lok Sabha), he should have decided to legitimise his prime ministership by contesting a bye-election as soon as possible. But he chose otherwise. Even after the first term of five years, he was renominated by his boss(Mrs Sonia Gandhi)to continue in his post. Thus, he again avoided the Lok Sabha  general elections in 2009 and re-entered the Parliament through an indirect, convenient Rajya Sabha route. Consequently, he cannot be the Leader of the House as he is not an elected member of the Lok Sabha, as the elected Prime Minister would normally be, and he cannot vote in this House. His deputy, Pranab Mukherjee, being an popularly elected member of the Lok Sabha, is the Leader of the House and his Congress legislative party.

There has been a constant onslaught on the PM's habitual taciturnity from the media, thinking Indians and the opposition parties. His invisibility and long silence on critical problems facing the nation and his govt. has been a subject of tongue-in-cheek write-ups in the press. One columnist of a leading pro-Congress English daily wrote that the PM was reported "lost but not found"! Hence, in the face of  the crescendo of criticism, the party seemed alarmed by enormous damage this lack of communication with the people was causing and egged on Dr Singh to have a regular interaction with the media to reach the people. The first of these press meetings was held in the Prime Minister's residence on June 29, 2011, where five "carefully chosen" editors were invited for a 100-minute questions and answers session. Two editors-one from a small Marathi journal-a known pro-Congress apologist, and another from a Hindi one, the CEO of a leading news agency dependent on the govt for funding, and two editors, one each from an economic daily and another from an English regional daily. One would have expected that being the first press meet after a gap of nearly six months, the PM and his press advisers would arrange to televise the event for maximum impact. But, a restricted format was chosen:A summary of the proceedings will be placed on the official website. What a way to communicate in this age of television!

Judging from the account of the press meet given by the participants to the media afterwards, it was evident that the Prime Minister did not say anything new on problems like galloping price rise, corruption, Lokpal bill, cohesion in his govt, alleged party-govt discord, and his own future. He will quit if his party asked him to go, but they have not done so. He is, thus,  in full command, he insisted. Some media commentators called the PM's repeated claim of his being in charge as an indication of the opposite. It does not seem so settled. Even Dr Singh's comment that he had no objection to be within the ambit of Lokpal but that his colleagues had different views, did not seem sincere. If he was serious, he could have persuaded his cabinet colleagues to fall in line. Similarly, his observation that he had no magic wand to solve burning problems of corruption and inflation, etc., evoked derisive response. His certificate to the Chinese President and the Prime Minister that they are "men of peace" does him hardly any credit. How can any Indian forget the immense pain they have caused to us because of their aggressive policies towards Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh, damming Brahamputra, and their arrogant attitude towards Tibetans and the Dalai Lama and pro-Pakistan strategies,etc?    

Letter to IE Chief Editor Shekhar Gupta

Dear Mr Gupta,

I am sorry to say that your commentary:"Our Singapore fantasy"(National Interest column-Indian Express-June 25)was completely out of focus-and even hypocritical.  In your deep-seated prejudice against Anna Hazare and his anti-corruption movement("India Against Corruption"-IAC), you have been ridiculing and misrepresenting them from the very beginning. At no stage, you have objectively analysed the divergence between Hazare and his men and the five Central Ministers in the Joint Drafting Committee of the Lokpal Bill. For instance, the demand for Prime Minister to come under the Bill's ambit, as also the entire bureaucracy and the Members of the Parliament. While a large majority of Indians support these demands of the Hazare team, the government opposes them. Yet, you have accused  the anti-corruption campaigners of "impatience" with democratic processes and "extra-parliamentary" approach.

Although I am not a member of the  IAC movement nor I hold any brief for them, I have closely watched their moves and read their statements, as an ordinary, concerned Indian citizen, to convince myself that these people are as attached to democracy as you and I; they seem determined to work within the democratic parameters. Hence, they are not only debating on TV news channels in the presence of studio audiences as also in public fora, they want all discussions with the govt., including the drafting committee proceedings, to be telecast as a proof of their adherence to transparency. They are also meeting all political parties to acquaint them with their draft as well as the govt draft to seek their support in the Parliament when the bill comes for discussion and approval. As regards the selection of the Lokpal and his team, what is your idea on its composition? Will you give  representation to dalits, SCs, STs, OBCs,etc., and not choose experienced, honest people from the judiciary, bureaucracy, politics, academia, and so on?

Thus, this preference for "Singapore fantasy" seems to be your own figment of imagination. How many times have you criticised the disarray and confusion in the ruling Congress alliance and its misgovernance or non-governance? But, when some one else does it, you do not like it! Similarly, your hypocrisy on casteism shows. You mocked your high class, "upper crust" audience for their lack of communication and interaction with dalits, tribals, etc. May I ask you the same question? How many dalits, tribals, SCs you have befriended and appointed in your newspaper without suitable merit and credentials? Is this the only proof of one's liberalism and inclusivism in your eyes?

Yours truly,
M.Ratan
New Delhi  

Cong charge against Hazare team:"Tyranny of unelected"

The Congress spokesman Manish Tewari, notoriously combative, arrogant and self-righteous, recently came out with an utterly thoughtless and despicable charge against the Anna Hazare team which is currently engaged with some UPA Ministers to jointly draft a Lokpal bill for consideration of the nation and the Parliament. He accused them of the "tyranny of the unelected and the unelectable"! In other words, the ruling Congress party was telling the representatives of the people's anti-corruption movement that since you were not elected, you have no right to "dictate" to those who are elected. If the election was the sole criterion for taking up a public cause, why the UPA govt. accepeted Anna Hazare's demand for a strong Lokpal bill in the first place, after tremendous nation-wide support to his indefinite fast in this regard? Why did it listen to the voice of "the unelected"? Does it not show dupilicity and dishonesty? And why Mrs Sonia Gandhi has unleashed her barking dogs to attack Anna and his associates and their mythical backers-the RSS? If she and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were sincere and serious about tackling corruption, why did they not use this golden opportunity to work with the non-political group of people to draft a credible and strong anti-corruption measure for the approval of the Parliament?

All democratic societies have room for public pressure groups to influence and offer helpful inputs to elected politicians and parliamentarians in the interest of the people at large. Wisdom and public-spiritedness is not the monopoly of the elected. Otherwise, the people like Gandhiji, Vinobha Bhave and Jaya Prakash Narain  would have been fringe players and not widely popular, respected, influential leaders. The JP movement  succeeded in toppling the Indira Gandhi authoritarianism. Was he elected?

Unfortunately, under our present electoral system, polluted by money and muscle power as well as casteism, criminals and history-sheeters get elected in large numbers. How can one forget the manner in which the  previous Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav catapulted his illiterate wife from the kitchen to the Chief Minister's chair as he was jailed under a corruption charge?  Also, we have a classic case of  "a poor Dalit ki beti"(daughter of a poor scheduled caste) becoming a crorepati(multi-millionaire) in a decade, by manipulating Dalit and minority vote in her favour to capture the office of Chief Minister.  It is quite easy for powerful politicians to get their children, daughters-in-law and sons-in-law, elected to legislatures. Thus, what is so sacred and holy about elections?  If the elections are regarded as supremely important, why the Congress party has allowed an unelected bureaucrat-turned-politician to occupy Prime Minister's office for two terms(ten years) without fighting an election? Dr Singh is not a member of the Lok Sabha, hence, he cannot hold the office of the Leader of the House, nor he can vote in the House. Having lost one Lok Sabha election earlier, he refuses to fight another Lok Sabha election;  he has chosen the convenient and comfortable Rajya Sabha route to enter Parliament. Why is the party not insisting on his respecting the long established convention of the Prime Minister belonging to the Lok Sabha? All his predecesors-Jawaharlal /Nehru, Mrs Indira Gandhi, Lal Bahadur Shastri, did so. Why one norm for Hazare's men and another for their PM?  

PM and his deputy Mukherjee attack anti-corruption groups

Two recent statements-one by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, justifying the police brutality against peaceful followers of Baba Ramdev at the Ramlila Maidan, past midnight on June 5, when they were sleeping, and another by his deputy Pranab Mukherjee, Finance Minister, made in Kolkata on June 12, in which he accused Anna Hazare, the  leader of the anti-corruption movement, of "subverting democracy", are very ominous. Both unmistakably suggest the depth of insensitivity, illogicality and the Emergency-type misuse of power, to which they have fallen.

Take the case of the PM's assertion that he had no alternative but to order the police armed with lathis and teargas bullets to throw the sleeping elderly men, women and children out on the streets at that unearthly hour. Dr Singh did not explain how the assembled peaceful anti-corruption protestors were threatening his govt and the Capital's law and order. Baba Ramdev's camp was on for a couple of days in the June heat without any untoward incident. It is reported that an official paper was delivered to the Baba at 11.30pm, an hour or so before the police assault, indicating that most his demands against corruption and black money had been accepted. But without waiting for the yoga guru's response, the police action was launched, injuring scores of  camp-dwellers. One lady in 50s continues to be in coma. Yet, the PM insists that he had no option  but to resort to undemocratic, repressive and cruel operation against his peaceful citizens! Does it do any credit to his image as a man of integrity and high moral values? Has he not forfeited his right to remain in office? The irony is that a few days ago, he had sent four of his senior ministers, led by his deputy, Pranab Mukherjee, to receive the Baba at the airport and to negotiate with him.

Now, the same Mukherjee who is co-chairing the Joint Drafting Committee for the Lokpal Bill alongwith Anna Hazare and his men, is accusing the Gandhian of "subverting democracy". He and his govt had agreed with Hazare 's time-table for the passage of the anti-corruption bill without bothering to consult opposition parties in the Parliament. Now,  in a sudden somersault, he declares that the Parliament is supreme and no one can dictate to it. Is it'nt a double-speak and double-act? Anna Hazare activists have rightly accused the Mukherjee talk as an indication of "elected Tanashahi"(autocracy). 

Post-midnight police assault on Ramdev camp in Delhi

Past midnight, around 1.00 am, Sunday June 5, witnessed the blackest chapter of the UPA-2 when the Delhi Police, controlled by the Central government headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, staged an assault on the camp of Baba Ramdev at the Ramlila Ground in Delhi to evict him and thousands of his followers who were sleeping in their tents. Images of the brutal happening on Indian TV news channels that must have been seen all over the world have clearly done enormous damage to India's "vibrant" democracy, thanks to the moral and mental bankruptcy of its ruling leadership. The barbaric attack on children, women and elderly men who had assembled in the Capital a couple of days ago, to show solidarity with the yoga guru Ramdev in his anti-corruption campaign through Gandhian fast, is reminiscent of the dreadful Emergency era of Mrs Sonia Gandhi's mother-in-law, Mrs Indira Gandhi in June 1975. It was a peaceful show of support and the Swamiji had himself repeatedly assured that it would remain so. Hence, for this ruthless breach of people's fundamental right for peaceful protest in a democracy, Baba Ramdev has publicly accused foreign-born super Prime Minister, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, the chairperson of the UPA, as the main culprit.

Describing the police action as an "abominable misdeed", India's nationalist daily, the Pioneer has indicted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as a "morally decrepit wimp" and "dishonest" head of government who has presided over "the most corrupt regime India has ever witnessed". The dupilicity of the UPA govt. was evident in the manner in which it handled-rather mishandled-the Anna Hazare and the Ramdev fasts. Since the Yoga guru posed a much bigger challenge in terms of sheer numbers of his followers, the regime clearly panicked, going from one extreme to another. First, the Baba was provided a red carpet treatment at the Delhi airport when four senior Ministers led by Pranab Mukherjee travelled there to receive, placate and negotiate with him. While publicly announcing a full understanding with the Swamiji on his major demands, Kapil Sibal, acting as the spokesman,  with his tendency to being clever by half, mixed suavity with firmness, implying an obvious threat. Baba  Ramedev was only insisting on a written commitment by the govt which Sibal could have promptly given on the Saturday evening itself. Instead of despatching the crucial piece of paper to the Ramlila maidan, suddenly choosing the hour of thieves and evil men, Mrs Sonia Gandhi and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh despatched gendarmes with  lathis and tear gas bullets to pounce on unarmed, peaceful people in thousands to oust them at that unearthly hour from their tents. If the government's motives and intentions were honest and civilised, why did they not choose a daylight hour for the eviction? On the top of this cruelty, the Congress general secretary, the dynasty's loyalist foot soldier, Digvijay Singh who had earned notoriety by championing the cause of the Batla House terrorists, has called its victim, Ramdev, "a thug"!

Unfortunately, some of the TV news anchors-particularly English ones-are being less than honest and impartial:Their main concern is not the Baba's anti-corruption movement but an obsessive fear that it is being "hijacked" by the BJP, the RSS, the VHP and Sadhvi Rithambara;they have deliberately overlooked the repeated assertion of social activists like Mrs Kiran Bedi and a few others that all Indians despite their affiliations are welcome and  have the democratic right to support the anti-corruption campaign. Are these people antinationals and terrorists? Do these TV news overlords similarly object to the participation of persons like Swami Agnivesh and Prashant Bhushan who are known supporters of Maoist terrorists? If my memory serves me right, Bhushan is also a staunch advocate of terrorists who attacked the Parliament. Why these double standards?       

Second anniversary of UPA-2

The ruling Congress recently celebrated the second anniversary of the UPA's second term with a dinner hosted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. It was a low key affair. The major southern ally-the DMK, that is upset with the senior partner because of the arrest and detention in the Tihar jail of Kanimozhi, the daughter of its leader M.Karunanidhi, on the corruption charges registered by the CBI, was represented at the dinner party by a single leader. There was hardly any public participation or enthusiasm on display for the occasion. Thus, the people's mood seemed glum due to excessive rise of prices of essential commodities. The price of petrol with the latest hike of Rs.5, crossed Rs 63/- per litre in Delhi and was close to Rs.70/- in other metros. The excuse advanced by the ruling party spokesmen was that they could do nothing to intervene as market forces determined the price. When critics and opponents of the petrol hike reminded  Finance Minister  Pranab Mukherjee and others that how come the increase talked about much earlier was delayed for several weeks due to State elections to avoid voter backlash, they had no answer.

As if the series of scams, including 2G spectrum allocation and Commonwealth Games, and terrible, uncontrolled inflation, were not enough to distress and disillusion the common people, the ruling party unleashed several legislative proposals in the fields of food security for BPL and "average" families, land acquisition, communal violence, etc. Although these were supposed to deal with serious problems to help common people, they were found to be controversial and counter-productive, with potential for more harm than good. All of these proposals were drafted by Mrs Sonia Gandhi's favourite National Advisory Council(NAC), a virtual parallel centre of decision-making headed by Mrs Gandhi herself which is not accountable to the Parliament or any other official agency.

On the top of that irresponsibility and insensitivity is the loose cannon and foot-in-the mouth tendency of some Cabinet Ministers and senior general secretaries of the party. We recently witnessed Rahul Gandhi and Digvijay Singh's verbal excesses relating to alleged massacre of farmers of the Greater NOIDA villages of Bhatta-Parsaul and the alleged rape of women without any reliable evidence. Singh was earlier guilty of anti-national comments in support of Batla House terrorists. And the latest case of utter impropriety and stupidity is the fulmination of  Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh against the IIT/IIM faculties, calling them almost sub-standard, totally ignoring the fact that these national institutes have made a name for themselves and India worldwide due to the high quality of their alumni. How can "world class students" be produced by a less than world class faculty? Does it make sense? With such Ministers in the Indian govt., do we need any external enemies to malign the country?    

Mamata takes charge

A new chapter has begun in West Bengal with Mamata Bannerjee taking over as the first woman Chief Minister of the State. It was a remarkable achievement on her part to single-handedly topple a powerful leftist regime that was in office for 34 long years. The change in West Bengal was long overdue and Ms Bannerjee became the catalyst for it. However, her real test begins now. It is easy to sway the electorate which is already fed up with an incumbent regime that ruled over them for over three decades, with emotional issues at a given time. One has to wait and watch whether she delivers what she has promised, sooner than later. Good governance is a long and painstaking effort.

There is no dearth of sceptics and cynics who keep reminding us about Ms Bannerjee's unimpressive record as Union Railway Minister. On the top of it, she is known as mercurial and maverick with her own eccentricities. Once in power as Chief Minister of a volatile and sophisticated people, she has to lead with sagacity, finesse and patience, taking every one along.

Her Finance Minister Dr Amit Mitra, the erstwhile FICCI honcho, who starts his political career with a lot of media goodwill, however, disappointed me somewhat in his maiden TV interview on Headlines Today, May 20 night, He sounded too much of a faithful-more on the lines of a religious convert who chants "Allah, Allah, more than necessary, defending his leader Mamata Bannerjee whom he mysteriously insisted on repeatedly calling as "Mamata Bandhopadhya"(perhaps a more puritanical Bengali surname and not the Anglicised one); one has not heard her ever use "Bandhopadhya" as her surname. Ms Bannerjee struck her own discordant note at her first press conference as Chief Minister when she enthusiastically embraced the Congress minoritism plank as one of her foremost priorities. It seemed like Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's "Muslim first" slogan following the Sachar committee's recommendations. 

Karnataka Governor Bhardwaj's motivated move

It is a painful fact of Indian political life that more often than not, political appointees to important constitutional posts act more as agents or loyal workers of the ruling party at the Centre to promote its agenda, rather than serving as impartial, objective functionaries within the clearly defined parameters of the Constitution and the apex court's relevant judgements. Frankly speaking, the Indian National Congress that has ruled at the Centre close to nearly five decades since independence, shares the major part of the guilt in this respect.

For almost first twenty years during the prime ministership of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and then Mr Lal Bahadur Shastri who was unfortunately in office briefly, these constitutional appointments were generally made fairly, keeping high moral values and merit in mind. The decline and degeneration started  with Mrs Indira Gandhi when the emphasis suddenly was on committed bureaucracy and judiciary. The Emergency excesses did not spare even highly respected bureaucrats like Mr PN Haksar, the then Principal Secretary of the Prime Minister,  because he was perceived to be independent-minded and unhappy with Sanjay Gandhi's ruthless shenanigans. Mr Haksar's in-laws' well-known shop in the Connaught Place was raided to give him a signal "to behave". Arbitrary judicial appointments and promotions of "committed" judges during the dark era of 19 months are common knowledge.

The appointment of Governors like Mr HR Bhardwaj is the product of that reprehensible and politically motivated mindset. For them, loyalty to the ruling dynasty is supreme; if, in the process, constitutional proprieties are thrown to the winds, so be it. Mr Bhardwaj did enough damage to the reputation of the UPA government when he was the Union Law Minister. Finally, he had to be eased out of his post but, instead of sending him home, he was kicked up to the Governor's office, that too in the southern State of Karnataka where the opposition party, the BJP, had trounced his party to form its first State govt. Obviously, to keep his party bosses in Delhi happy, he was needling the BJP govt from the very outset. The recent Supreme Court judgement reinstating the disqualified BJP MLAs who had openly rebelled against the party govt thus inviting the wrath of the anti-defection law, gave Governor Bhardwaj his excuse to recommend the Yeddyurappa govt.'s dismissal and imposing the President's rule-in effect, his rule. Unfortunately for Mr Bhardwaj, however, in the face of strong BJP reaction in Delhi, better sense seems to have  prevailed at the Centre: the Governor's recommendation was rejected. There is speculation in the media that dejected and humiliated Mr Bhardwaj may choose to resign.  

What can India do to help Pakistan in its crisis?

At a time when Pakistan is in turmoil, assailed by outraged Pakistanis' angry questioning,  following the stealth operation by its strategic, long-time ally, the US, to kill the 9/11 terrorist mastermind, Osama bin Laden, in a hideout in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad, in an alleged violation of its sovereignty and territory, some pro-Pak Indian voices have come out in open. Known Pak apologists like Mani Shankar Aiyar-a compulsive one-have appeared in electronic and print media to plead for Pakistan. We must show our sympathy and hold Pakistan's hand in their hour of crisis, they insist. It is in our interest to make Pakistan a better place to live in, it is argued.

It is not clear what exactly these Pak lobbyists want India to do. How can an outsider, though a neighbour, make it a more enlightened, humane and tolerant society, at peace with itself and its neighbours? Isn't it a job that only its civil society can do? This is regardless of our past experience when such gestures and moves were spurned. For Pakistan, we are essentially an enemy country. Pakistani advocates like Aiyar presumably want us to forget all the crimes that the Pakistani establishment and the ISI have done to India, including illegal infiltration, cross-border terrorism, 26/11 mayhem, sleeping modules they have set up all over India, and tremendous loss of innocent lives. The resultant pain is unimaginable and colossal. Have they extradited even one Indian fugitive criminal like Dawood Ibrahim who has been given sanctuary in Pakistan? On the contrary, they are denying that Dawood is in Pakistan. Were they not similarly denying the presence of Osama in Pakistan? Have they dismantled even one terrorist training camp aimed at India, as a friendly gesture?

There is almost a one-way traffic of Pakistani artists and writers to India, some of whom make millions and go back. Some even stay and work in Bollywood. Is there any evidence of reciprocity? Are the Pakistani authorities, the army and other powerful elements really interested in genuine friendship and neighbourly relations? Any mention that basically we Indians and Pakistanis are the same people, have the same race, music, language, cuisine, etc., is generally frowned upon as a ploy to destroy their separate identity and nationhood! It seems a psychological problem-a sense of insecurity. We genuinely wish them well; we want them to prosper in peace and modernity, away from Islamic orthodoxy and bigotry. In effect, we are natural friends.