. |
. |
EDITORIAL While addressing the millennium summit of the United Nations, Prime Minister AB Vajpayee has made it amply clear that terrorism and dialogue cannot go together. He has rebuffed Pak military dictator General Musharraf and outrightly rejected his oft-repeated offer of dialogue with India as long as damocles sword of terrorism let loose by Pakistan continues to hang over our heads. He has very adeptly demolished Musharraf's concerns for peace, dialogue, nuclear disarmament and so-called freedom of the ‘suppressed masses’ in Jammu & Kashmir. The person who has stiffled democracy in Pakistan loses right to talk about democracy ....more Some highly disturbing edicts are being issued by militant outfits that are portentous enough to be nipped in the bud itself. First, it was the Hizbul Mujahideen that issued the call for census boycott and threatening the census staff with dire consequences if they dare perform their job. It is good that J&K State Government did not take notice of it and instead went ahead. ..more |
|
MEN AND MATTERS From B L Kak Is BJP giving the Sangh
hare a turn?....... By Dr. R. L. Bhat Clouds of despire over
Valley skies By M L Kotru By M J Akbar |
 |
||
EDITORIAL While addressing the millennium summit of the United Nations, Prime Minister AB Vajpayee has made it amply clear that terrorism and dialogue cannot go together. He has rebuffed Pak military dictator General Musharraf and outrightly rejected his oft-repeated offer of dialogue with India as long as damocles sword of terrorism let loose by Pakistan continues to hang over our heads. He has very adeptly demolished Musharraf's concerns for peace, dialogue, nuclear disarmament and so-called freedom of the ‘suppressed masses’ in Jammu & Kashmir. The person who has stiffled democracy in Pakistan loses right to talk about democracy and freedom for others. Suppressors can never be liberators. When such persons talk about values, they in fact devalue themselves in world esteem. Musharraf seeks third party mediation or call it UN intervention under its relevant charter for resolving the Kashmir issue which has defied solution all these five decades. In justification thereof he quotes intervention of United Nations in East Timur. He conveniently forgets that UN did intervene and its 1948-49 resolution asked Pakistan to vacate aggression and restore status quo ante of the composite State of Jammu & Kashmir as it existed before 1947. Instead of vacating aggression from PoK, it absorbed northern areas (Gilgit, Skardu, Baltistan) in Pakistan itself as discernible from other areas under occupation of Pakistan. Again, it ceded 5138 sq. km of most strategic J&K territory to China in gross violation of UN Resolutions. Its second part of exposing the State to plebiscite therefore became redundant so much so that Kashmir stands removed from the annual agenda of UN itself. Prime Minister Vajpayee is right on course when he scoffs at the idea of ‘No war pact’ enunciated by General Musharraf during his speech at the UN. How such a person and Pakistan itself can be trusted when it is consistent in sabotaging and violating all international and bilateral agreements. He sabotaged Lahore Declaration by initiating aggression in Kargil. He continues advocating open support for all jehadis to liberate Kashmir from India in the name of Islam. Earlier, Shimla accord as also Tashkent accord besides the Karachi agreement were given short shrift by successive Pak rulers. It is to be noted that General Musharraf has outrightly rejected India's offer of signing accord on ‘No first nuclear strike’. Pakistan insists that it retains the right to strike first. Yet he talks of nuclear disarmament even as it goes about clandestine development of nuclear and missile programmes. This clearly indicates Pak malafides which has sabotaged all peaceful overtures and goodwill gestures shown by India. Musharraf bluntly says that Lahore Declaration is not acceptable to him as Kashmir issue has been related to lower priority. Yet he wants to have dialogue to sign fresh agreements only to gain time and sabotage the same subsequently. Pakistan is also gross violator of many international conventions. It mutilated and disfigured dead bodies of the soldiers captured by it during war by puncturing their eyes and cutting off their vitals. This is in gross violation of Geneva Convention when POWs are supposed to be treated well by all signatories to the convention. It is also to be seen that Pakistan refuses to abide by the letter and spirit of the Vienna Convention which guarantees safety and security of the diplomatic personnel. Pakistan has habitually violated this spirit by inflicting injuries on the body and mind of our mission staff in Pakistan and has not spared even their families. The depth of uncivil behaviour can best be guaged from the latest incident of two small girls of the diplomatic staff aged 8 & 4 years being molested by Pak agents. So a country and the person who heads such a country cannot be trusted to honour any bilateral or international agreement. Incidentally, it is worth mentioning that General Musharraf has trampled even the Supreme Court of Pakistan to legitimise his military rule and yet he advocates UN intervention for ‘freedom’ of J&K people. The entire world knows that democracy keeps its head high in Jammu & Kashmir despite Pak sponsored terrorism and jehad. Prime Minister Vajpayee thus makes it abundantly clear that terrorism and dialogue cannot co-exist. For any dialogue to be purposeful, terrorism must be stopped forthwith. This stand has gained wide support amongst the civilised world which is for ending global terrorism. Prime Minister has appealed to them all to pass the anti-terrorism convention notably against funding of terrorism by terrorist sponsor nations during the UN General Assembly session which has this item on agenda to be discussed later this month. Global terrorism remains a threat to peace world-wide. It is a scourge on civilisation as a whole. And those who sponsor it in the name of religion need to be shown their place correctly in the comity of nations for the sake of global peace. India's stand is thus very clear that Pakistan must stop cross-border terrorism to prove its sincerity as a peace loving neighbour and a civilised country. Unless that happens no agreement or dialogue can ever be effective in resolving contentious issues. Some highly disturbing edicts are being issued by militant outfits that are portentous enough to be nipped in the bud itself. First, it was the Hizbul Mujahideen that issued the call for census boycott and threatening the census staff with dire consequences if they dare perform their job. It is good that J&K State Government did not take notice of it and instead went ahead with preparations for the census. It is now followed by similar threat by foreign mercenary outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba which edicts death for 22,000 Government employees if anyone dared join the census exercise. As per the handout this decision was taken at a meeting of the command council of the outfit in Srinagar. In yet another decision by the so-called command council, it is edicted that if women in Kashmir do not use ‘purdah’ while on streets they would be shot in their legs. Yet another edict is for the cable operators to stop relaying all channels except BBC, PTV and National Geographic Channel or face the consequences. To be precise these edicts are exact replicas of what happened in 1990 when insurgency was at its peak and administration had totally collapsed and succumbed to the diktats of the militants. Bars were ordered closed. Cinema halls stopped screening films. Women were prime targets of terror tactics whence faces of many of them were smeared with acid. One shudders to think of similar episodes to create mass fear psychosis amongst the hapless citizens surfacing again. At this stage some questions are posed to the powers that be. First, who are these villains endeavouring to treat the people and the State administration with such sarcasm and hatred. Second, where is the ‘council’ and who are the functionaries. Third, how dare they come to issue edicts and remain scot free right inside the capital city. It is inconceivable that thanedars are not aware of such mercenaries and their cronies blatantly challenging civilisation as a whole. It is expected that Government will put its act together and foil such demoralisation attempts being made by the forces of mayhem. They should be immediately identified, nabbed and eliminated to assert supremacy and authority of the administration. Lessons of 1990 should activise the administration so that perpetrators of such inhuman and barbarous acts do not hold the people and the State to ransom. |
||
|
||
MEN
AND MATTERS From B L Kak People and politicians, though not all, belonging to the Jammu province of the J&K State cannot be faulted if they, individually or collectively, decide to raise a hue and cry in the coming weeks and months for the grant of Statehood to Jammu. Culturally and otherwise, Jammu region is totally different from the two other units of the present State, Kashmir Valley and Ladakh. Hence, at a time when the Buddhist population of Ladakh has intensified its cry for the region’s separation from Kashmir and grant of Union Territory status to the trans-Himalayan region, the demand, albeit subdued so far, from certain categories of Jammu region’s population for creation of new State of Jammu cannot be termed as irrelevant. In fact, this demand has been encouraged by Parliament’s recent step, namely, the adoption of the three Bills to carve out Chattisgarh, Uttaranchal and Jharkhand States. The Vajpayee Government’s decision to create these three smaller States even while demands persist, often accompanied by violence and bandhs, for setting up separate States like Vidarbha, Telangana, Gorkhaland, Bodoland etc., was not even once seriously challenged. The Opposition as a whole failed to discharge its duty of advising the Government to suspend the creation of the three States pending a thorough examination of the question of reorganising States once and for all in a manner that would satisfy the requirements of good governance, sound administration and speedy economic development. Indeed, all the MPs seemed to be in an extraordinary hurry to enact the enabling legislation to establish new States. This explained the absence of serious objection to the proposals and also of a reasoned and well-informed debate on the political and economic consequences of dividing the existing States. At no time during the debate on each of the three Bills was the Government challenged to guarantee, with facts and figures, the economic viability of the new States or the continued economic strength of the parent States. To observers from States other than Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar (the three parent States), it seemed as if the MPs from the three States and the Government were obliging one another in passing the Bills hurriedly and on a voice vote. The entire episode highlighted the fact that there were no statesmen to tell the Government to stay its hand while the demands for Vidarbha, Telengana, Gorkhaland and Bodoland are looked into, and the map of political India is redrawn finally and in one go, rather than in instalments. Indications are by no means uncertain that the country will witness in the coming days the articulation of demand for further reorganisation of States. Politicians belonging to Jammu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Assam are bound to whip up passions in support of the demand for separate States, citing the establishment of Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh as justification for dividing their respective States. It is not as if the demand will be fresh or that it will arise only as an offshoot of the creation of the three new States. These demands have been on the table for at least the last four decades. Some of these date back to the days of the States Reorganisation Commission , which brought into being most of the existing 25 States in the country. Sacrifices in terms of human lives have been made by the protagonists of these small States. The rationale which was accepted by the NDA Government as justification for creating Uttaranchal, Jharkhand and Chhatisgarh was that small States would encourage better development, more efficient administration and effective maintenance of law and order. Another important argument was that smaller States would vindicate the concept of federalism which the Founding Fathers had in mind. All these arguments apply equally forcefully in the case of Vidarbha, Telangana, Jammu etc. Quite a few members of Parliament concede in private conversation the inevitability of these small States also coming into being in due course. However, they evade a direct and frank answer to the question why the Vajpayee Government was not well disposed towards including the rest of the smaller States also on the reorganisation agenda. One reason cited by the Home Minister, Mr LK Advani, during the debate was that the Legislative Assemblies of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal and Assam has not passed resolutions recommending the division of their States. Had such resolutions been passed, on the lines of the resolutions in the Assemblies of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and UP, the Centre might have considered their cases, he added. This was the typical response of the politician. A statesman would have reacted differently and advocated the setting up of a second States Reorganisation Commission to look into all aspects of all the demands for smaller States and decide on well-established principles and criteria the entire issue of division of States so as to strengthen the national interest and polity. The politician, it is said, plans for the next 10 years whereas the statesman plans for the next century. In India, it would seem that both plan for tomorrow, to hell with the next decade or the century. There was a time when a distinct line separated the politician and the statesman. However, that line has all but been obliterated. Today, the politician lives for the moment and could not care less what happens to the country in the next decade or the century. |
||
|
|
Clouds of despire over
Valley skies By M L Kotru Between the time I visited Kashmir valley last, in the first half of July and the second time now, in late August - early September, much has happened on the ground to warrant a second look. The last time I was in Pahalgam, the place was bustling with life, Amarnath yatris and the locals were jostling for space in this famed resort, a tented township had sprung up, community langars (kitchens) dotted the Lidder banks. Security forces were very much around but somehow you chose to ignore their presence then, given the fact that they were massively outnumbered by the locals and the pilgrims. That was in early July. In between, we had the unilateral cease-fire declaration by Hizbul Mujahideen, followed, two days later, by the massacre of Amarnath yatris, the talks between Hizb representatives and those of Government of India and the withdrawal of the cease-fire by Pakistan-based Hizb leadership. The clouds of despair had once again enveloped the Valley and if you had any doubt about that the car bomb explosions in the heart of Srinagar city dispelled these. The All Parties Hurriyat Conference, which had lately started basking in the glory of having "earned" recognition as a representative movement, stood exposed as not-so-representative after all. The fissures in its ranks revealed themselves with unexpected swiftness. It has continued to be a badly shaken outfit, its 22 constituent units not unloath to speak in discordant voices. Its "yes, no, yes" response to the Hizb's initiative left many wondering what exactly the Hurriyat leadership, Abdul Ghani Bhat at its top, was upto, apart from its known commitment to the Pakistani cause. The Kashmiriness of the leadership, at least for the moment, seemed to have deserted it. So much so, even some of the militant outfits, have begun to see it as a grouping of self-serving interests. The ugly face of the Hurriyat looked even uglier than before and the mood was best summed up by the "Greater Kashmir" front-page cartoon on August 30, which depicted a growling Hizb supremo, Syed Salahuddin, his hirsute bearing looking more menacing than ever, thundering at a miserable-looking twosome of Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Abdul Ghani Bhat, "You won't do anything yourselves nor will you let us do anything". Clear disapproval of the Hurriyat's dog-in-the-manger approach to resolving the problems with New Delhi. The Hurriyat's discomfiture became even more complicated when one of the militant groups questioned the sincerity of its leadership" which accepts Indian security cover while professing to be fighting Indian terror tactics in Kashmir". It threatened to target the security details assigned to the Hurriyat leaders and "if you get hurt we won't be responsible". About the same time there was the spate of statements issued by the newly elected Amir (head) of the Jamaat-e-Islami, G M Bhat and the man he replaced, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, taking pot shots at one another. The Hurriyat once again looked very vulnerable when G M Bhat threatened to withdraw Geelani as the Jamaat's representative on it. Three days later Bhat, who commands an overwhelming majority in the Jamaat's shoora (general council), persuaded himself to allow Geelani to continue on the Hurriyat executive but the nasty public debate that preceded it, had made both the Jamaat and the Hurriyat look ridiculous. The question was asked why the Hurriyat leaders, ostensibly, on a visit to call on the ailing Yaseen Malik in a New Delhi hospital, chose to meet American and Pakistani diplomats there. For a people caught in the cross-fire of the 11-year old militancy, it is only natural that ordinary Kashmiris should have developed an enlightened self-interest in the prospects of direct peace talks between the Hizbul Mujahideen and Indian officials. They did indeed heave a sigh of relief the few days the cease-fire lasted, even when the talks had been preceded by the unprecedented massacre at Pahalgam. The Hizb, after all, was the most indigenous of the various Pakistan-backed militant outfits. Most of its members had families in the Valley, including Salahuddin and commander Abdul Majid Dar. They thus had a stake in peace. So, the peace talks had become an occasion to celebrate, in the event a shortlived celebration it was. The collapse of the talks was, therefore, bound to cause disappointment. The Hurriyat's image did, in the bargain, take a serious drubbing, given its double-speak on the aborted process. The negative role played by its top leader, Abdul Ghani Bhatt still rankles. As indeed does, according to a well-placed local intellectual, the attitude of the Indian Government. How can New Delhi say that it will talk to militants but not to Pakistan. Assuming that there is an agreement, he goes on, between the Hizbul and New Delhi but would that mean an end to the Kashmir crisis ? By linking the failed dialogue with Hizb to no-talks with Pakistan, New Delhi cannot achieve much except that Hizb will feel marginalised even as Pakistan continues its campaign of cross-border terrorism with foreign mercenaries forming the core. This is a view you may or may not agree with but to the Kashmiri intellectual it makes a lot of sense. What doesn't make any sense at all, though, is the half-baked rehabilitation plan for the four lakh Kashmiri Pandits driven out of the Valley in 1990. The cock-eyed Rs. 2200 crore project envisages rehabilitating the migrant Pandit community in transit settlements in the Valley. If these have to be transit camps only, what's wrong with their living in their existing camps in Jammu and other parts of the country. With half the allocation made for the resettlement camps, life in their present camps could be wholly transformed. And, in any case, even if the transit settlements were materialize up who will ensure their safety in the Valley, ensure their being gainfully employed or allow them to pursue their careers. And what happens to the very substantial properties which they left behind when they were forced to move out. The project, if anything, appears to be doomed even before it has taken off unless it be the idea that someone, somewhere has plans to gobble up the money in the name of rehabilitation. The scheme, to be honest, is only in keeping with the State Government's obsession with wasteful expenditure. May be some day in the very near future the Comptroller and Auditor General of India will tell us the sordid story of the financial mess created by the Farooq Government. If the Kashmiri Muslims are going ahead with the pretense of living "normally" the credit goes to their own ingenuity and their lust for life (good life, wherever possible). The Government has very little to do with it. Their capacity to survive in the face of the most punishing odds is really amazing. When Mohammed Shafi Qureshi, in his latest incarnation as the Pradesh Congress Party chief, accuses the Farooq Abdullah Govenment of having given a license to its Ministers and MLAs to "loot the treasury" he is not overstating the case. And it's not as if the bureaucrats are lagging behind, particularly those in cahoots with the ruling establishment. The Chief Minister, continues to be rarely seen at the Secretariat. The administration is run by a coterie currently headed by his Principal Secretary. The more efficient and upright bureaucrats have been sidelined, like the six Commissioner-level officials, including several IAS cadres, who have been transferred to something called the State Recruitment Board. This, at a time when the State Government has a standing MOU with the Centre which bars all fresh recruitment. The Board members continue to be workless while at the same time you find officials with below par credentials holding key appointments. I met this band of bright-eyed young Kashmiri Muslims, all with university degrees, who on their own have joined together to help form the Green Kashmir movement. Their first task has been to save the Dal Lake and for starters they have successfully convinced the 39,000 people living on or off the Lake of the disastrous consequences of dumping all the waste, from houseboats and houses, into the Lake. They have arranged garbage collection teams which, as one of them put it, has aroused much positive interest among the people. But then they ran into the unrelenting arms of authority when they suggested that another way be found for disposing of the sewage and other waste from the houses and hotels built by the rich and famous, from Boulevard Road to Harwan (Nishat and Shalimar fall in between), All of it goes into the Lake now. They were told to lay off. Not just that. Another department of the Government is in the process of building a massive multi-core sewerage system from the densely populated Hazratbal, Raghunathpora which will again and up in the Lake. The youngmen's protest over the proposed scheme has fallen of deaf years. Meanwhile, the official organisation overseeing the preservation of the Lake is busy doing nothing except obstructing the Green Kashmir boys. Forget, the mournful recital above. My last three days in the Valley were spent in attending marriages. And it was quite soothing for my aching ears to hear Kashmiri Muslim women singing traditional marriage songs in the lanes and by-lanes of Srinagar. My overnight stay in Pahalgam gave me an eerie feeling, though. The mainstreet, which was bustling with life in July, was deserted at 5 p.m. when I arrived there. Only six of the 300 shops were open. One of these, the general store run by a Sikh, The next morning when I decided to take a walk down the street the scene was even more scary. Not a soul around, bar a few stray dogs. The only vehicle on the road was the one which I and my friend had bought along with us. "Last year we had tourists right into the second week of November. We haven't had any for two weeks now, not event the locals are coming", said the Sikh trader. |
|
|
By M J Akbar Let me confess: I like being wooed. The pleasure, as you will surely appreciate, multiplies when the wooing is done by political Brahmins who have hitherto treated me as a species somewhere between an Untouchable Dalit and an upwardly mobile Sudra. The highest honour reserved for me by the BJP was tokenism, at least till this revolutionary Nagpur session that witnessed the embryo of what will surely be called the New BJP. If as an Indian Muslim I had joined the BJP, I could always aspire to become another Sikandar Bakht. (Who he? He former Cabinet Minister, with special responsibility for speaking correct Urdu and being available for lunch during VIP visits from Muslim nations.) But the just-elected BJP president Bangaru Laxman has changed all that with his breakthrough speech at the Nagpur session of the party: I could now even dream of becoming a Union Minister for Human Resource Development in a BJP Government, and let's not sneer at that, for that essentially was the job reserved for the ranking Muslim under the biggest secularist of them all: one is referring of course to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Jawaharlal Nehru. The Indian National Congress was always happy to nominate Azad as president of the party, until it reached power. After that no Mulsim in a Congress Government was ever considered patriotic enough, or may be capable enough, to become a Home Minister or a Defence Minister. Jawaharlal Nehru could consider Kailas Nath Katju for the Home Ministry after Sardar Patel passed away but not Maulana Azad, Indira Gandhi, to her credit made a Sikh, Giani Zail Singh, Home Minister and later elevated him to President, but the best choice Muslim she could find in her long spell was, briefly, M.C. Chagla for foreign affairs, and the eminent Mumbaikar was Chagla was around more for his personal capabilities than for his political worth. Mrs Gandhi's political Mussalman was from Assam, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, a President made famous by the brilliant cartoonist Abu Abraham for his ability to rubberstamp ordinances sent by Mrs Gandhi. Fakhruddinbhai was considered competent enough to become President of India but never competent enough to become Home Minister or Defence Minister or even Finance Minister. Every Congress Prime Minister down to P V Narasimha Rao has been certain that an Indian Muslim could never be trusted with either the police or the armed forces. For Narasimha Rao, even the HRD ministry was out of reach of the gaggle of sycophantic Muslims who crowded around him for handouts. Civil Aviation was the cut-off point for his little blue-eyed boy Ghulam Nabi Azad, S B Chavan, large, soild silent and obedient was the kind of Home Minister he needed to preside over the demolition of the Babri mosque. So the new BJP under Bangaru Laxman has only to match the five-decade, five -Prime Minister pecking order etablished by the Secular Party of India, which should not be beyond its means. But when the moonlight Sonata is over, and bright sunshine has bathed the horizon and reopened eyes, even the most gullible woo-ee tends to ask;am I being courted for myself, or for my dowry? Indian Muslims bring a substantial dowry in our democracy. There are now about a hundred Lok Sabha constituencies that have been identified as vulnerable to the Muslim bring. One of the reasons why the BJP's performance in the last general elections was much worse than of its allies is because the Muslim refused to vote for the party. They voted for Mamata Banerjee and Chandrababu Naidu and George Fernandes in sufficient numbers to give the allies crucial additional seats, but there were no dewdrops on the lotus. Let us not get pious. In a democracy there is nothing wrong in dowry based wooing. The Congress there its titbits before the Muslims because it wanted their votes as well. Muslims, in fact, stuck, to varying degrees, with the Congress even after continual betrayal and mismanagement of communal riots during the sixties, seventies, eighties and of course following the Babri destruction in 1992. It took a long while for them to arrive at the point where they are now: today they only vote for the Congress against a BJP candidate of the more virulent kind. However, if the BJP wants to be a legitimate claimant for the Muslim vote, it will have to up the ante into something more substantial than lip service. Let us not totally discount the value of lip service; if you are going to effect a sharp change in direction, it is necessary to start by talking about it. Mr Bangaru Laxman's speech has been heard not only by the Muslims, but also by the hardliners within the BJP-led alliance who are getting increasingly convinced that the BJP is now doing precisely what it accused the Congress of: appeasing the Muslims. In Mumbai the Shiv Sena hoisted a couple of signals of disenchantment. Lip service has its consequences. It all bolls down to a very simple question. Is the BJP serious about change, or is it merely fooling Muslims? Politicians do not have a good reputation; experience has confirmed the value of scepticism. There is more than one kind of invitation: a fly also gets invited by the spider to enter its parlour. Is BJP the same party that created the momentum for the destruction of the Babri mosque, with all the attendant horrors? Is Lal Krishna Advani the same leader who strode through the country on a chariot in the name of the Ram temple at Ayodhya? Or has the experience of power, or simply the experience of the consequences of that movement, led to remorse and change? There is increasing evidence of a serious debate, perhaps even a rift, within the BJP, Cohabitation between hard and softliners is a natural law of politics. In the BJP the battle is over two issues: economic reform, and the altitude towards Muslims. The liberals, underpinned by the power of the Prime Minister's office and Mr Vajpayee's personal stature, have scored an unreserved triumph in the economic debate. The swadeshi brigade has been reduced to giving interviews on the inside pages of newspapers; Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, as polite as they come, has become extremely adept at deflecting pressure with a sop. But those who are willing to concede defeat in the economic debate, are not going to be so easily outmanoeuvred on the question of minorities, and particularly Muslims and Christians, for this goes to the very fundamentals of the rationale for the creation of the BJP. The Jana Sangh was not created in order to protect India from multinationals; in fact , it was the Congress which adopted an aggressively protectionist formula in the confrontation with "neo-colonialism". But the Jana Sangh was formed to lead the movement for a Hindu India in which minorities would be a tolerated perhaps even respected, second class citizenry. The argument was simple: Muslims had their country in Pakistan, why should Hindus not have their country in India? Why should there be equal rights in India when there were no equal rights in Pakistan? Mr Vajpayee, who forced economic reform into his party, is now attempting to forcefeed mindset reform. Bangaru Laxman is the Yashwant Sinha of mindset reform. The party is nonplussed, and publicity obedient after Mr Advani's admonition that dissent should not become a newspaper story. The hardliners outside the BJP and within the Sangh Parivar are angry. Vishwa Hindu Parishad leaders are see thing. They want a Government that helps them construct a Ram temple: instead they find even Mr Advani suffering from withdrawal symptoms. The shock must be palpable on the tridents. The Prime Minister has set in motion a current on a saffron river. During the coming months the waters will be tested to check whether this current is growing or whether it has been overwhelmed by the more familiar tide in the affairs of the BJP. A battle for change is time consuming, and one of the hidden ironies of the situation is that neither side may have too much time: the hardliners want to force the party on temple construction, and the liberals would be massacred if they did not have the complete and confident support of the Prime Minister. The thought of the Uttar Pradesh elections must be a weight on saffron minds, for if the party loses power in UP, then the hardliners will lose steam faster than an engine out of control. Conventional wisdom suggests that political drama is always better when created by the Opposition. Since we do not have an Opposition right now, we must depend on the ruling party to provide us such sustenance. Anyway, who ever said that there was anything conventional about Indian wisdom? |
|
|
|
