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?