Rahul Gandhi's new sob story about his mother

In his election campaign in Madhya Pradesh which is going to the polls in November, 2013, Rahul Gandhi, the heir-apparent of the ruling dynasty, though a reluctant prime ministerial candidate against the BJP nominee Narendra Modi, narrated a sob story of his mother Sonia Gandhi. Despite her ill-health and deteriorating condition, Mrs Gandhi was adamant on staying in the Lok Sabha to participate in voting for her pet food security bill for which she had "fought". Rahul stated that she had difficulty in breathing and had tears in her eyes. He finally "dragged" his mother to the hospital.

Rahul's purpose in telling the story to poor MP tribals was to impress on them his mother Sonia Gandhi's "commitment" to provide "one rupee kg foodgrain" to the poor so that "no one goes hungry" after the bill is implemented. He did not explain that if his mother was so concerned about the hunger of impoverished Indians, why did she wait so long-nearly ten years of her govt's rule since 2004-and choose a few months before the State elections in Madhya Pradesh and elsewhere in November-December, 2013, and general elections in May, 2014, for the passage of the Food Security Bill? Why shed tears now when her coalition govt had numbers to pass the legislation without her vote? Why then this emotional drama?

This reminded us of Rahul Gandhi's younger, Pappu days when he was fond of recalling what he had heard from his parents about the greatness of Nehru-Gandhis. In one such narration, he recalled that had a Nehru-Gandhi been at the helm of affairs in December 1992, the "Babri masjid" would not have been demolished. He clearly did not know or deliberately overlooked the fact that it was during his father Rajiv Gandhi's regime, the shilanyas(stone-laying ceremony) took place in Ayodhya and the doors of the Ram temple were opened. With this Pappu mindset, it did not occur to Rahul that despite his grand mother Indira Gandhi's slogan of "garibi hatao"(remove poverty), during her Emergency rule, poverty is very much with us nearly four decades after the socalled sloganeering. Even if Sonia Gandhi's food security measure is implemented, and wheat is given at Rs 1 a kg, how will it help the poor when other necessities like oil, vegetables, milk, etc., needed for minimum nourishment, are beyond their reach because of the sky-rocketing prices? Will only cheap wheat and rice will satisfy their hunger and lessen their mal-nourishment? Without a job or skill, will the poor not remain beggars, perpetually dependent and at mercy of a corrupt babu and a middleman? By spending tens of thousands of crores of public money what Sonia Gandhi will achieve besides a temporary vote? What is the past experience of such ill-conceived, extravagant schemes like PDS, NAREGA, etc? Will the poor Indians be really impressed with Rahul Gandhi's juvenile sob stories of her mother shedding tears for their welfare when they hear that she flies to New York just for a health check-up?

     

Pakistani teenager Malala Yousafzai goes international

The story of a 16-year-old Pakistani girl, Malala Yousafzai, is a blend of  courage and sadness. The ruthless Pakistani Taliban, the most radical, violent outfit swearing by Islam to set up Sharia rule in the country, was in full control of the Swat Valley by 2008, where Malala was born. Having realised at a young age that sons were preferred over daughters in her society, she was determined to pursue education to come up in life. Hence, Malala was opposed to Taliban's diktat not to allow girls to attend school. Her courage to defy their orders brought young Malala in confrontation with the Islamist extremists' anger. One afternoon, two youthful gunmen boarded her bus when she was returning home from school and shot her from close range. She was hit in the head and bled profusely. She would have died but for a timely help and an emergency  operation in a military hospital in Peshawar with the assistance of two British surgeons who, luckily, happened to be visiting. After a few days, Malala was flown to the British doctors' hospital in Birmingham for major operations. She has now recovered and started attending a British school in that city.

She has been widely honoured for bravery in standing up to the dictates of Islamic radicalism in her country, with awards as well as an address to the United Nations General Assembly-perhaps the youngest person to do so. She was also invited to the White House by President Barack Obama. This extraordinary world-wide attention seems to have to affected the Pakistani teenager to an extent that she was expecting a Nobel Prize for Peace and talking of becoming the Prime Minister of Pakistan like Mrs Benazir Bhutto! However, the western support and patronage caused adverse ripples in her country:many Pakistanis were angry with her for her "closer relationship" with the West. On her part, she has asserted that she still follows the Pushtun culture and wears salwar kamiz and duppatta, and regards Islam as a "true religion" that preaches peace and tolerance. But, she cannot run away from the bitter reality that she cannot return to her homeland with any sense of security and safety.

Hence, her dreams of promoting women's education in Pakistan will, unfortunately, remain just dreams. These could become a reality only if the Pakistani civil society becomes assertive, modern and progressive and unitedly fight the scourge of Talibanisation of Pakistan. Academics, intellectuals and the media have to show uncompromising determination to cleanse the Pakistani society of Islamic radicals, fanatics and jehadis, or, at least marginalising them. This cannot be done without de-emphasising the influence of Sharia in Pakistani lives. Islam has to adjust to modern times and not get mixed up with politics. All Pakistani citizens, regardless of religion, caste, sect and gender, have to be treated equally with equal opportunities for growth and upward mobility. Only then, Malalas of Pakistan can feel at home in their place of birth.       

Rahul Gandhi's anointment as new Congress supremo

Congress sycophants are overjoyed that their icon, the young crown prince of the ruling Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, Rahul Gandhi has spoken the mind of the Indian people by publicly rubbishing the controversial Ordinance of his government to protect convicted MPs and MLAs, as "complete nonsense". The fact that the Congress party headed by his mother-Sonia Gandhi-he is its vice-president-and the UPA govt led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, put the final stamp of approval on Rahul's rejection of their Ordinance, seemed not only a slap on the face of the PM, as also his own mother, they implicitly accepted Rahul Gandhi as the new supremo of the Congress and UPA dispensation.

True, there were reports of initial unhappiness and sulk of the PM having been publicly humiliated by the young Gandhi when the former was in New York; several of Dr Singh's supporters urged him to resign in protest in the interest of his self-respect. But, a long-time yesman of the dynasty, publicly admitted that he was "thick-skinned" and, hence, there was no reason to quit his job. His dwindling band of sympathisers tend to forget that only the other day, Manmohan Singh expressed his readiness to work under Rahul Gandhi, nearly half his age. Hence, the bitter reality is that the PM himself is responsible for his own diminution and degradation, thus destroying the key stature of the office of Prime Minister by playing a second fiddle, the first time in the history of independent India.

It is also sad day because the party has got a young leader who is immature, impetuous, undignified, temperamental, unpredictable and unwise. He has shown no vision, no thoughtfulness and sagacity to solve India's complex political, social and economic problems. His dramatic appearance in a press conference to condemn the Ordinance as bad, to be torn and thrown away is a classic case of juvenile mind. 

Pakistani author Raza Rumi on Indo-Pak relations

The problem with Pakistani intellectuals appears to be their meaningless and contradictory approach to Indo-Pak relations. One such gentleman is Raza Rumi, Director of the Jinnah Institute, a Pakistani think- tank, and an author of the book:"Delhi by Heart-Impressions of a Pakistani Traveller".

In an article:"Give Sharif a chance", published by the Indian Express(August 9), Rumi has emphatically pleaded that India should adopt a "new Pakistan policy" in which giving a "chance to Nawaz Sharif", Pakistan's new-elected Prime Minister, should be an essential "part" and "stabilising and supporting Pakistan's democracy the central plank". Curiously, Rumi deliberately overlooks the fact that in his nearly two-month-old rule, Prime Minister Sharif has taken no concrete step nor sent a clear signal that he is in full command, ensuring stoppage of anti-Indian acts of terror emanating from his territory. In response to the charges of beheading of an Indian soldier in January this year, and the recent killing of five Indian jawans, Rumi cites Pakistani charges of Indian troops killing a few Pakistani in the same period. Understandably, as a Pakistani, Rumi has to defend his army's aggressive and bloody forays into our territory, but what about the recent bomb attack on the Indian consulate in Jalalabad, Afghanistan?  The Pakistani side flatly denied all the incidents, including the killings on the LOC, whereas the Indian side has accepted the killing of Pakistanis as they intruded the Indian territorywith terrorist intentions. Thus, Pakistan is in a permanent denial mode.

If Rumi believes that Pakistan is committed to peace with India, why his government is aiding and abetting infiltration into J&K? As a supposedly enlightened thinker, why can't he realise that the only possible, practical, peaceful solution is for Pakistan to accept the present status quo. No other solution will be acceptable to India, although formal claims would be forwarded that the entire J&K belongs to India because of its accession in 1947. However, because of Pak occupation of a sizable portion of the original State, the only possible peaceful solution is for both parties to accept the existing situation and settle it once and for all. Raza Rumi will be doing a great service if he tries to convince his countrymen to that effect. In the interest of peace in the subcontinent, Indians would be agreeable to treat the LOC as a permanent border between the neighbours. The alternative is a permanent conflict and tension that would be more harmful to Pakistan which is already facing internal disarray and the bitter reality of a failed State.

Debate on secularism vs communalism

The other day, I happened to watch a highly charged discussion programme on NDTV moderated by Ms Barkha Dutt, on the issue of secularism, in the context of the next year's general election. Those aggressively championing secularism as the most important factor for the survival of Indian democracy, included self-confessed secular fundamentalist Mani Shankar Aiyar, the Congress-nominated Rajya Sabha MP, Ashutosh Varshney, IE columnist who teaches at the Brown University in the US and Javed Akhtar, a pro-Congress film lyricist.

As usual, Aiyar was most intolerant, insufferable and full of hate against his opponents. His poisonous barbs against those disagreeing with him and his contemptuous style, makes him unfit for a civilised company, in my opinion. He seems emotionally sick. In the TV debate, he just dismissed his strong critic Ms Madhu Kishwar, the editor of a women's journal and an academic, who pointed serious flaws in Aiyar's thinking and arguments, with his angry and hateful epithets. The most controversial reasoning of these three advocates of secularism was their belief that it was a Gandhi-Nehru gift to Indian values. They clearly overlooked the defining fact that India was always a "secular" country. MK Gandhi claimed himself as a proud "Hindu" and believed Hinduism to be "the most tolerant of all religions known to me"(From Gandhiji's book:Hindu Dharam-Page 5). Thus, he regarded Hinduism as the most secular faith. The Constitution-makers did not specifically mention secularism in its preamble or the Directive Principles, presumably because they believed that the country's majority faith was the most tolerant and respectful of all other faiths. In other words, secularism-equal treatment of all religions-was the inherent characterisitc of Indian ethos. The word "secularism" was added to the Constitution through an amendment during the Emergency rule of Mrs Indira Gandhi in the mid-seventies

It is amazing that an academic like Varshney who lives most of the time in the US where no one talks of secularism as it is taken for granted, seriously debates secularism when he comes here even when as a born Hindu he knows what his faith stands for! Does Narendra Modi or the BJP talk or promote  Hinduism against other faiths? Mani Shankar Aiyar, a former Indian Foreign Service(IFS) officer who became Rajiv Gandhi's special assistant and speech-writer and later joined the Congress party, is one politician who is not seriously by the party leadership because of his acid tongue. He has been nominated to the Rajya Sabha in the "cultural" quota, as a reluctant reward for his great loyalty to the late boss's family. Javed Akhtar is one those intellectual Muslims who underline their secularism by supporting the Congress whom many regard as the most communally divisive political entity.

Madhu Kishwar, the panelist on the opposite side of the TV debate, strongly condemned the Modi-phobia, applauding Modi for his development agenda and leadership quality. He invited Aiyar to accompany her to a Gujarat village and see its inclusive growth under Modi; Aiyar, of course, spurned it with his usual contempt. Another panelist Ashok Malik emphasised that the secularism-communalism debate was confined to TV studios and an average Indian was not interested in it.  The election focus would good governance and development. Lord Meghnad Desai, a member of the House of Lords in London, the sixth panelist, drew attention to the Congress hypocrisy regarding secularism, adding that it was a party to the Partition of India!


      

Incredible India

For quite some time, the Tourist department of the govt of India has adopted a USP-Unique Selling Proposition:"Incredible India" as its foremost publicity slogan, to attract foreign tourists to the country. Despite India's tremendous variety of people, scenery, culture, cuisine, languages, seasons, heritage sites, religious practices, festivals, the tourist inflow was much smaller in comparison to its Asian neighbours, let alone smaller European nations like Spain.

However, my main focus in this piece is the meaning of "Incredible India" in its more mundane, existential and every day life sense. There is so such insensitivity, inhumanity and apathy that mark Indians' behaviour to each other; it is totally incredible. Even supposedly good things aimed at people's welfare-particularly poor citizens, are executed haphazardly, indifferently, without any real concern whether these will help them. Crores and crores are budgeted for education, health-care, mid-day meals for poor children to motivate their parents to send them to school. But, thanks to corrupt bureaucracy, mismanagement, misgovernance, govt schools are in a pathetic state: absentee teachers, poor infrastructure, no drinking water, no toilets. Thus, the overall picture is dismal.

In a latest incident in a village school in Bihar(Chappra dist), over two dozen small children lost their lives after consuming contaminated mid-day meals. It was shocking to read the story of utter callousness and near-criminality of the school principal who was supposed to supervise the cooking. The pictures of insanitary conditions in which the cooking oil was stored as well as other material, were appalling. It was reported that when the lady cook drew the attention of the lady principal to the bad soyabeans that were on the menu, the latter rejected her plea and ordered to go ahead and cook it. The bad soyabeans and contaminated cooking oil reportedly resulted in the terrible tragedy of young children of poor families dying in a large number.

Even a cursory look at the implementation of the Centre-State scheme-funded in the ratio of 75% and 25%, seemed so bizarre. How could such a delicate scheme dealing with feeding young children be handled in such a cavalier, ad hoc manner without proper, professional planning, supervision and monitoring on a regular basis? The Bihar incident is not the first such tragic occurence. But, unfortunately, after a short media hype and public anger, the tragedy is forgotten till the next one. There are reports of similar mess and chaos in other areas as well, like medicare. Peons, rikshaw-drivers and others without any medical training are allowed to give injections and allied services in the absence of trained nurses. Is itn't "Incredible India"?     

Indian Express Editor Gupta's Walk the Talk with Goa CM Parrikar

The BJP Chief Minister of Goa, an IIT graduate-turned-politician, Manohar Parrikar, in a Walk the Talk interview with the Editor-in-Chief of the Indian Express, Shekhar Gupta, recently televised on NDTV 24x7, has come out strongly and convincingly in defence of his Gujarat counterpart, Narendra Modi on the 2002 riots.

Modi has been relentlessly ridiculed and maligned by a section of the media and his political opponents for allegedly engineering and conniving with the Muslim killings in that riot. They never talk of the post-Godhra carnage as an instant reprisal to the terrible torching of 59 Gujarati pilgrims-men, women and childen, in the Sabarmati Express at Godhra, while returning home from Ayodhya.

The tone and nature of Shekhar Gupta's questions suggested a clear, pre-determined bias against Modi. He insisted that it was Modi's "administrative and political failure", perhaps his "anger" that allowed the carnage, on the plea "what can I do, people are angry". While conceding that it was an "adminstrative failure", Parrikar emphasised that "not defending it does not mean that you put the blame on a particular person...Everyone got "polarised", including the administration and the police. However, "you don't blame the leader". "And Modi at that time had just taken over the govt(4 months). He may not have had that kind of a grip on the administration as he has now...The media should be blamed for it too-they showed the charred bodies...But after that, he has not displayed a single incident of non-governance". After that one "blot" on the administration, there has been no incident of violence in the last 11 years, Parrikar noted.

Responding to Gupta's question on what he called the "Parrikar model" in Goa where "you went and embraced your Catholics", and "Hindus and Catholics came together in Goa under the BJP flag", the CM observed that "a government cannot be complete unless every citizen is included" in the governance. "I am a strong Hindu but my Hindu feeling does not reflect in my decision-making as a Chief Minister. I believe Modi has managed to work in that way. In other words, Modi is fair and has no religious bias.

Parrikar's replies on some other topical matters are equally significant. Referring to the question on govt not taking decisions-"Manmohan Singh doesn't decide", he said, "virtually no one does in the govt." Gupta: "Well, Sonia Gandhi does. Apparently". The reply: "I strongly doubt that...I don't think decision-making has been the hallmark of Mrs Sonia Gandhi or Rahul(Gandhi). Most of the time, they disappear when there is a crisis."

Finally, Manohar Parrikar made it clear that he was in favour of the BJP National Executive meeting in Goa taking the decision on Modi and not postpone it. He added that "this is what the common people and the party cadre feel. I must have spoken to at least 1000 people on this issue at various forums-internet, friends, across the globe, across the country...I got a sense from them that they wanted  Narendra Modi. Because the country is headed by a person ... a Prime Minister(from where) no decisions are coming and people see that... I get a feeling that the Congress is run by a coterie...".