No one can approve of the misdemeanour of the poor priest of Sri Kodandaramaswamy temple in Tirupati who mortgaged the jewellery of the presiding deity of the temple. Obviously, he seems to have done if out of penury. What is unfolding subsequent to this revelation is that Tirupati temple alone is not the victim of official callousness and mismanagement of Hindu temples and their movable and immovable properties. There are hundreds of temples in the state whose land has been appropriated by unscrupulous elements parading themselves as “bigwigs” in the society.
To be precise, there are 37,602 temples in the state which have 4.33 lakh acres of cultivable land. Out of this, only 1.2 lakh acres are under proper lease. According to one estimate, more than 50,000 acres of temple land have been encroached. Only 18% of the revenue generated from these properties are given back to the temples for maintenance. 82% of the income is misused by the government for purposes other than the Hindu religious interests at its own discretion.
There was a scandal not long ago which exposed the manner in which officials of the HRE department itself were abetting the sale of temple lands in and around the state capital. As usual, the government ordered an enquiry and one does not know what happened to the enquiry and whether those involved in the scam were punished. The priest of the Tirupati temple will undoubtedly be punished because he is a hapless soul without any godfathers to bail him out whereas the bigger sharks enjoying political patronage are getting away with the loot of the temples.
Be that as it may, the focus now is on the Balaji temple in Tirumala and the way the government has been meddling with the affairs of the temple through its political appointees. Right now, the culprit is the chairman of the TTD Board, D K Adikesavalu Naidu, a liquor baron whose only qualification to head the TTD Board is that he saved the Congress government last year, when its existence was threatened and he simply ditched the TDP. So much for his political and moral integrity. It was a highly immoral appointment steeped in dishonesy and Yogaguru Baba Ramdev rightly pointed this out while in Hyderabad. The government, without any compunction, simply insulted millions of Balaji devotees by inducting an arrack contractor to be the chairman of the Board.
But then, the malaise has a long history. Whether it is the TDP government or Congress government, the temple has been treated as yet another tool to dispense political favours to the chosen ones and thus to extend their political influence. Tikkavarapu Subbarami Reddy ruled the roost for a longer time, but in comparison with the present chairman and his immediate predecessor, Karunakar Reddy, he looks like an angel though his only job as Chairman was to issue letters for cellar darshan.
The allegations against the present chairman are quite serious and they are not levelled by the Oppostition, but emanates from within the Board itself. Besides diversion of funds according to his whims and fancies, Adikesavalu Naidu seems to be treating the most sacred and popular temple of the Hindus as his personal estate. Just a couple of days ago, he took the APCC chief D Srinivas and 30 other Congress workers through the Mahadwaram, defying the well established protocol. The reason proffered by him for such a violation is ludicrous. D Srinivas was reportedly sick. He elaborated the sickness to say that he was suffering from arthritis and he can’t be expected to climb the steps at the queue complex. Will he extend this “facility” to all devotees who suffer from arthritis?
Further, he gave an astonishing definition for the physically challenged who are now extended the facility to enter via Mahadwaram. According to him, any person who suffers from heart ailments, high fever, blood pressure and pain in the knee joints can be allowed under the disabled category. Whoever goes up the hills on foot will have knee pain and they should be allowed as per this new definition. Atleast 30 to 40% of the devotees will have blood pressure or heart ailments and they can queue up before the main entrance. What Naidu has to do is to post a doctor with BP monitor, thermometer, at the Mahadwaram to allow the devotees inside.
Let’s give the devil its due. Not only politicians, but seers from Vellore and Bangalore were also extended this “Maha” privilege along with other liquor and mining barons – a sort of social justice, shall we say? This is the allegation of Bhaskar Reddy, TUDA chairman and a proxy of erstwhile chairman Karunakar Reddy. But then, Karuanakar Reddy who is a look alike of our chief minister, had his own share in exploiting his position for advancing his political career though Balaji willed otherwise and he had to bite the dust in the elections. He defied all agama sastras and established traditions of the temple for cheap popularity. He was the one to make a trip to Delhi to meet Sonia Gandhi to apprise her of his achievements as the custodian of the richest temple in the world.
Coming back to Naidu, his “activities” did not stop with allowing VIP darshans to his acolytes, allowing quotas for the arjita seva tickets and the like, but liberally permitted his colleagues to make use of the TTD guest houses for booze and sex. They were caught with pants down in the TTD guest house in the state capital and till now no one knows what happened to the enquiry that was ordered.
Well, Bhaskara Reddy is not a paragon of virtues when it comes to the illegal diversion of funds from the TTD. Naidu’s henchmen allege that Bhaskar is building a temple in his native village Tummalagunta at a cost of Rs 20 crore drawn from the TTD.
When all these Johnnies are mortgaging the Lord Himself for their political dividends, why blame a poor priest for mortgaging the jewellery. Well, he has to be punished for what he has done. But who will punish these political plunderers? We can only pray to Lord Venkateswara to save Himself before saving His devotees!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
ADVANI IN THE DOCK
It was a well orchestrated media campaign on Thursday when all the national channels had “exclusives” to corner Lal Krishna Advani on the Kandahar hijack episode. Former National Security Adviser Brijesh Mishra was quite generous in giving “exclusive” interviews to all those who sought one and he was there in almost all the channels saying the same thing. Was it just because of the competition among the channels or was there a design? Difficult to say! But, it appeared to have been orchestrated because all these channels devoted the whole day showing Mishra, Yashwant Sinha, George Fernandes and Jaswant Singh and also excerpts from an interview with Advani in 2008, just to prove a point that Advani was aware of Jaswant’s escort mission to Kandhahar along with three terrorists ten years ago.
While Times Now called it “explosive exclusive”, it was “Devil’s Advocate” special bulletin in CNN-IBN. How can NDTV 24x7 lag behind? It also had an interview with Brijesh Mishra with the same questions and answers. The only difference was the backdrop for the interviews. Where Mishra exposed himself as Vajpayee buddy was when he spoke for Atal Behari Vajpayee and thus underscored the existence of two powerful factions in the saffron party. He also said while Vajpayee is a statesman, Advani is a mere organiser. To a question as to how Vajpayee would have handled Jinnah book controversy, he said something to the effect that he would not have banned the book and would not have expelled Jaswant. His intent for revealing the “facts” after a lapse of ten years was obvious.
There were corroborative “exclusives” with the former Union Minister Yashwint Sinha as well. Well, nothing new can come further from Jaswant Singh who already described the party with which he had three-decade long association and held three most important portfolios in the NDA government, as an Indian equivalent of Ku Klux Klan (KKK) of the US. (For the uninitiated, KKK is a hate group created in 1865 to protect interests of white farmers and the group used to indulge in violence against immigrants based on race and torched churches.) So, he said, Advani was quite “economical” on facts.
For a better perspective of any controversy, context is important. In his book, My Country, My Life, published last year, Advani sought to give the impression that he was not aware of Jaswant’s mission to Kandahar. There were momentary ripples as you don’t expect the Home Minister of the country not to be privy to such a crucial decision. Of course, as usual, everything was forgotten thereafter until the Congress raised the Kandahar issue at the time general elections this year. Interestingly, Jaswant stood for Advani. Now, after he was expelled from the party in a most undemocratic manner, Jaswant says he covered up for Advani. It should be noted that other members of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) who are opening up now were keeping mum then.
The talk shows that followed the so-called exclusives in all the channels had the same set of panellists – Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Chandan Mitra. Needless to say, discussions were on the expected lines except that the Congress spokesperson wanted an “apology” from Advani for “misleading the nation and his deception and prevarication”. On Times Now channel, Singhvi called Advani a “liar”, saying he would like to use a four-letter word for Advani starting with “l” and ending with “r”.
In none of these shows, the anchors asked a simple question as to whether the Congress party was aware of the decision to free three terrorists and why did the party wait for one full decade to raise the issue. Brajesh Mishra no doubt gave a juicy (or is it explosive?) bits. No one asked him why did he not rebut Advani immediately after the publication of his book? Poor Chandan Mitra was straining his vocal chords to make a point that there was an all-party meeting to find a solution to the crisis and that Sonia Gandhi was present at the meeting. There was no effort on the part of these channels to present the controversy in its correct perspective except to paint Advani black because as Singhvi said “he was caught with his hands on the till”
First of all, why did the Congress make Kandhahar an election issue? There were two reasons. BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate was caught on the wrong foot in his book where he demonstrated his selective amnesia. He made himself quite vulnerable and quite naturally, the Congress did not want to spare him. Two, the Congress wanted to push the principal Opposition into defensive position before the latter could succeed in targeting the ruling coalition for its successive failures in tackling terror culminating in 26/11 and the lacklustre performance of the then Home Minister Shivraj Patil leading to his unceremonious ouster. But the anchors were clinging to their blinkers.
Singhvi said during the show that the nation’s image was sullied when the country’s External Affairs Minister was seen escorting dreaded terrorists. True, if the incident is seen in isolation. The Congress spokesperson conveniently forgot that his own party activists were among those who made high decibel demand in December 1999, effectively channelized by the frenzied media, for the rescue of 160 plus hostages holed up in the Indian Airlines plane in a place surrounded by daredevil Talibans and extremists. Because the media was revving up the campaign for the release of hostages and the nation was sitting on an emotional tinderbox, the option before the government was either sacrifice the lives of 160 plus innocent hostages or free three terrorists as a trade-in. After a series of all-party meetings, the government decided to secure the release of hostages. Assuming for a moment that the government decided to sacrifice the lives of hostages, what would have been the impact of such a decision? It was therefore a Hobson’s choice for the then government.
Of course, this does not absolve Advani of his effort to distance himself from an important decision of the government when it does not suit him politically. To be fair to Jaswant, he clarified in his interviews that he had to escort the terrorists in the same plane for two reasons. Indian negotiators in Kandahar wanted the presence of a senior member of the government just in case of last minute hiccups and they did not want to take any chance with the lives of hostages and secondly, the Pakistan government had refused to allow two planes to overfly its territory and thus the minister and the terrorists had to be accommodated in the same plane. While Singhvi was talking about the “sullied image” of the nation, the channels did not think it fit to re-run the tape as they did in the case of Mishra’s bytes and other portions of Jaswant’s interview where he lambasts Advani.
So much for the national channels’ sense of objectivity and fair play.
While Times Now called it “explosive exclusive”, it was “Devil’s Advocate” special bulletin in CNN-IBN. How can NDTV 24x7 lag behind? It also had an interview with Brijesh Mishra with the same questions and answers. The only difference was the backdrop for the interviews. Where Mishra exposed himself as Vajpayee buddy was when he spoke for Atal Behari Vajpayee and thus underscored the existence of two powerful factions in the saffron party. He also said while Vajpayee is a statesman, Advani is a mere organiser. To a question as to how Vajpayee would have handled Jinnah book controversy, he said something to the effect that he would not have banned the book and would not have expelled Jaswant. His intent for revealing the “facts” after a lapse of ten years was obvious.
There were corroborative “exclusives” with the former Union Minister Yashwint Sinha as well. Well, nothing new can come further from Jaswant Singh who already described the party with which he had three-decade long association and held three most important portfolios in the NDA government, as an Indian equivalent of Ku Klux Klan (KKK) of the US. (For the uninitiated, KKK is a hate group created in 1865 to protect interests of white farmers and the group used to indulge in violence against immigrants based on race and torched churches.) So, he said, Advani was quite “economical” on facts.
For a better perspective of any controversy, context is important. In his book, My Country, My Life, published last year, Advani sought to give the impression that he was not aware of Jaswant’s mission to Kandahar. There were momentary ripples as you don’t expect the Home Minister of the country not to be privy to such a crucial decision. Of course, as usual, everything was forgotten thereafter until the Congress raised the Kandahar issue at the time general elections this year. Interestingly, Jaswant stood for Advani. Now, after he was expelled from the party in a most undemocratic manner, Jaswant says he covered up for Advani. It should be noted that other members of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) who are opening up now were keeping mum then.
The talk shows that followed the so-called exclusives in all the channels had the same set of panellists – Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Chandan Mitra. Needless to say, discussions were on the expected lines except that the Congress spokesperson wanted an “apology” from Advani for “misleading the nation and his deception and prevarication”. On Times Now channel, Singhvi called Advani a “liar”, saying he would like to use a four-letter word for Advani starting with “l” and ending with “r”.
In none of these shows, the anchors asked a simple question as to whether the Congress party was aware of the decision to free three terrorists and why did the party wait for one full decade to raise the issue. Brajesh Mishra no doubt gave a juicy (or is it explosive?) bits. No one asked him why did he not rebut Advani immediately after the publication of his book? Poor Chandan Mitra was straining his vocal chords to make a point that there was an all-party meeting to find a solution to the crisis and that Sonia Gandhi was present at the meeting. There was no effort on the part of these channels to present the controversy in its correct perspective except to paint Advani black because as Singhvi said “he was caught with his hands on the till”
First of all, why did the Congress make Kandhahar an election issue? There were two reasons. BJP’s Prime Ministerial candidate was caught on the wrong foot in his book where he demonstrated his selective amnesia. He made himself quite vulnerable and quite naturally, the Congress did not want to spare him. Two, the Congress wanted to push the principal Opposition into defensive position before the latter could succeed in targeting the ruling coalition for its successive failures in tackling terror culminating in 26/11 and the lacklustre performance of the then Home Minister Shivraj Patil leading to his unceremonious ouster. But the anchors were clinging to their blinkers.
Singhvi said during the show that the nation’s image was sullied when the country’s External Affairs Minister was seen escorting dreaded terrorists. True, if the incident is seen in isolation. The Congress spokesperson conveniently forgot that his own party activists were among those who made high decibel demand in December 1999, effectively channelized by the frenzied media, for the rescue of 160 plus hostages holed up in the Indian Airlines plane in a place surrounded by daredevil Talibans and extremists. Because the media was revving up the campaign for the release of hostages and the nation was sitting on an emotional tinderbox, the option before the government was either sacrifice the lives of 160 plus innocent hostages or free three terrorists as a trade-in. After a series of all-party meetings, the government decided to secure the release of hostages. Assuming for a moment that the government decided to sacrifice the lives of hostages, what would have been the impact of such a decision? It was therefore a Hobson’s choice for the then government.
Of course, this does not absolve Advani of his effort to distance himself from an important decision of the government when it does not suit him politically. To be fair to Jaswant, he clarified in his interviews that he had to escort the terrorists in the same plane for two reasons. Indian negotiators in Kandahar wanted the presence of a senior member of the government just in case of last minute hiccups and they did not want to take any chance with the lives of hostages and secondly, the Pakistan government had refused to allow two planes to overfly its territory and thus the minister and the terrorists had to be accommodated in the same plane. While Singhvi was talking about the “sullied image” of the nation, the channels did not think it fit to re-run the tape as they did in the case of Mishra’s bytes and other portions of Jaswant’s interview where he lambasts Advani.
So much for the national channels’ sense of objectivity and fair play.
Friday, August 21, 2009
JINNAH'S GHOST
It is quite amusing that Jaswant Singh, castigated by the media all along for having played the role of a villain in the Kandahar hijack episode, suddenly finds an adoring and admiring press for himself. What brought this sudden change in the perception of our media? After he released his last book which referred to a “mole” in the Prime Minister’s Office, everyone was after him including our Prime Minister who pinned him down on the floor of the Rajya Sabha to name the “mole”. Jaswanth did not come out well with a convincing response and he had to concede that it was only his “guess”. For the media, he was only a scotch-drinking feudal in a safari suit and with baritone voice which at times was irritating.
May be, there are reasons for the media to develop love for him in the last couple of days. He took on the mighty RSS calling them “Suvidhabhogis”. He could defy the party higher-ups and release his book, Jinnah: India-Partition Independence which blamed Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel for the partition of India – last century’s worst event in human history which displaced 15 million people and killed atleast 1.5 million Hindus and Muslims, ghosts of whom are still haunting both the nations.
Those who were born after Independence, and therefore, not witness to the freedom movement, were fed with the theory that Mohamad Ali Jinnah was the sole culprit and the demon who was responsible for the vivisection of the country. Such a theory suited Jawaharlal, Gandhi and the Sangh Parivar. For the latter, it was yet another tool to demonise the minorities. For nearly sixty years, Jinnah continued to be a devil in the eyes of Indians.
Countless number of publications must be in the market dealing with the freedom struggle and they are only a repetition of the myth that was created by the vested interests – Gandhi was infallible and it was his struggle alone that won freedom for us burying the fact that there were quite a few leaders in different states who contributed in no less a degree to attain independence. To digress a bit, someone filed a petition in the Supreme Court that there should be a law to prohibit any criticism of Gandhi and the apex court in its wisdom dismissed such a plea.
Similarly, Jawaharlal’s blunders were swept under the carpet and he was projected, to the exclusion of his contemporaries like Patel, Rajaji, Subash Bose, as the jewel of India. While the nation is suffering because of his miscalculations and misjudgements, it is his family that has been cornering all the privileges.
Lal Krishna Advani may now be an uninspiring and failed leader, but it was he who changed the perception of atleast a section of Indians towards Jinnah, much to the chagrin of both the Congress and the Sangh Parivar. And he had to pay a price for it. Regrettably, our mediamen, more so, our noisy anchors seem to have a short memory. They have been harping on the fact that the Bharatiya Janata Party had adopted double standards while dealing with Advani and Jaswanth. After his talk about Jinnah’s secular credentials in Pakistan, Advani had a harrowing time and he was stripped of the Presidentship of the party. Since he was the President of the party at that time no one could have expelled him like Jaswanth was expelled by the party. That was the only difference. Otherwise both had to pay a price.
Having said that, we have to admit that the manner in which Jaswanth was shown the door was undoubtedly bereft of grace and highly undemocratic. A frontline leader of Jaswanth’s stature deserves the decency of a notice and an opportunity to explain his case. Or, as he himself suggested, he could have been asked to quit. It is still a mystery why such a precipitate action was taken against him though the media loves to point out its finger at Jhandewalan.
As if to add fuel to the fire, Narendra Modi’s government has banned the book. By its very nature, interpretation of history is bound to give expression to diverse views, both subjective and objective. Jinnah has gone on record in 1947 in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly that the state will have nothing to do with the religion of its citizens and they are free to follow any religion of their choice with equal rights. Unfortunately for Pakistan and also for India, he succumbed to his terminal illness within a year. But for this quirk of history, things could have been different.
It is no secret that both Nehru and Patel did not want further delay in the declaration of Independence and therefore wanted to concede the demand of the Muslim League for partition. They perhaps wanted to ensure that the British rulers did not use this vexed issue as an excuse to delay the independence. Their decision is, therefore, unquestionable. Even Rajaji was party to the decision of conceding the demand of the Muslim League.
Jaswanth interpreted this fact of history to say that there was no point in demonising Jinnah for partition and Nehru and Patel were also equally responsible. This also destroyed the earlier myths about Nehru, Patel and Jinnah. Everyone need not agree with certain universally accepted perceptions. There are people who criticise Gandhi as being hypocrite, Hindu fundamentalist, dictator etc. though we have accepted him as the Father of the Nation. Similarly, Patel is a national hero and the architect of united India despite the fact that Congress leadership has deliberately failed to commemorate him in a manner that he deserved.
Banning a book because of certain uncomplimentary references is not in keeping with our civilisational and democratic ethos. Why did the BJP criticise the then Rajiv Gandhi government for banning Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses? Why did the party lambast the Left government for throwing Tasleema Nasreen out of West Bengal?
Well, there are “holy cows” in every state. Like Patel in Gujarat, you can’t say anything against Chatrpathi Shivaji in Maharashtra, against Tagore and Subash Chandra Bose in Bengal, against Kamaraj in Tamil Nadu. They are not Gods. In fact, Hindu tradition allows you to find fault with God himself. If we don’t allow interpretation of history, however subjective it may be, we may not only be policing the thoughts of our citizens, but leading the posterity in a blind alley. Jaswant may not belong to the BJP now. But as a citizen of this country, he is entitled to his views. Ban on his book smacks of extreme intolerance and prejudice which have no place in a pluralistic society.
May be, there are reasons for the media to develop love for him in the last couple of days. He took on the mighty RSS calling them “Suvidhabhogis”. He could defy the party higher-ups and release his book, Jinnah: India-Partition Independence which blamed Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel for the partition of India – last century’s worst event in human history which displaced 15 million people and killed atleast 1.5 million Hindus and Muslims, ghosts of whom are still haunting both the nations.
Those who were born after Independence, and therefore, not witness to the freedom movement, were fed with the theory that Mohamad Ali Jinnah was the sole culprit and the demon who was responsible for the vivisection of the country. Such a theory suited Jawaharlal, Gandhi and the Sangh Parivar. For the latter, it was yet another tool to demonise the minorities. For nearly sixty years, Jinnah continued to be a devil in the eyes of Indians.
Countless number of publications must be in the market dealing with the freedom struggle and they are only a repetition of the myth that was created by the vested interests – Gandhi was infallible and it was his struggle alone that won freedom for us burying the fact that there were quite a few leaders in different states who contributed in no less a degree to attain independence. To digress a bit, someone filed a petition in the Supreme Court that there should be a law to prohibit any criticism of Gandhi and the apex court in its wisdom dismissed such a plea.
Similarly, Jawaharlal’s blunders were swept under the carpet and he was projected, to the exclusion of his contemporaries like Patel, Rajaji, Subash Bose, as the jewel of India. While the nation is suffering because of his miscalculations and misjudgements, it is his family that has been cornering all the privileges.
Lal Krishna Advani may now be an uninspiring and failed leader, but it was he who changed the perception of atleast a section of Indians towards Jinnah, much to the chagrin of both the Congress and the Sangh Parivar. And he had to pay a price for it. Regrettably, our mediamen, more so, our noisy anchors seem to have a short memory. They have been harping on the fact that the Bharatiya Janata Party had adopted double standards while dealing with Advani and Jaswanth. After his talk about Jinnah’s secular credentials in Pakistan, Advani had a harrowing time and he was stripped of the Presidentship of the party. Since he was the President of the party at that time no one could have expelled him like Jaswanth was expelled by the party. That was the only difference. Otherwise both had to pay a price.
Having said that, we have to admit that the manner in which Jaswanth was shown the door was undoubtedly bereft of grace and highly undemocratic. A frontline leader of Jaswanth’s stature deserves the decency of a notice and an opportunity to explain his case. Or, as he himself suggested, he could have been asked to quit. It is still a mystery why such a precipitate action was taken against him though the media loves to point out its finger at Jhandewalan.
As if to add fuel to the fire, Narendra Modi’s government has banned the book. By its very nature, interpretation of history is bound to give expression to diverse views, both subjective and objective. Jinnah has gone on record in 1947 in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly that the state will have nothing to do with the religion of its citizens and they are free to follow any religion of their choice with equal rights. Unfortunately for Pakistan and also for India, he succumbed to his terminal illness within a year. But for this quirk of history, things could have been different.
It is no secret that both Nehru and Patel did not want further delay in the declaration of Independence and therefore wanted to concede the demand of the Muslim League for partition. They perhaps wanted to ensure that the British rulers did not use this vexed issue as an excuse to delay the independence. Their decision is, therefore, unquestionable. Even Rajaji was party to the decision of conceding the demand of the Muslim League.
Jaswanth interpreted this fact of history to say that there was no point in demonising Jinnah for partition and Nehru and Patel were also equally responsible. This also destroyed the earlier myths about Nehru, Patel and Jinnah. Everyone need not agree with certain universally accepted perceptions. There are people who criticise Gandhi as being hypocrite, Hindu fundamentalist, dictator etc. though we have accepted him as the Father of the Nation. Similarly, Patel is a national hero and the architect of united India despite the fact that Congress leadership has deliberately failed to commemorate him in a manner that he deserved.
Banning a book because of certain uncomplimentary references is not in keeping with our civilisational and democratic ethos. Why did the BJP criticise the then Rajiv Gandhi government for banning Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses? Why did the party lambast the Left government for throwing Tasleema Nasreen out of West Bengal?
Well, there are “holy cows” in every state. Like Patel in Gujarat, you can’t say anything against Chatrpathi Shivaji in Maharashtra, against Tagore and Subash Chandra Bose in Bengal, against Kamaraj in Tamil Nadu. They are not Gods. In fact, Hindu tradition allows you to find fault with God himself. If we don’t allow interpretation of history, however subjective it may be, we may not only be policing the thoughts of our citizens, but leading the posterity in a blind alley. Jaswant may not belong to the BJP now. But as a citizen of this country, he is entitled to his views. Ban on his book smacks of extreme intolerance and prejudice which have no place in a pluralistic society.
Friday, August 14, 2009
FINDING FAULT WITH OUR SECULARISM FOR ALL WRONG REASONS
The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), a US Congress mandated body reporting to the US President, Secretary of State and the Congress, has found fault with India’s secular credentials for all the wrong reasons and placed the country on its “Watch List”. What do they want to “watch” in an open society like India is anybody’s guess and it could possibly be an euphemism for unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign democratic republic.
For once, India behaved with a sense of diplomatic and political maturity when it denied entry to the USCIRF and the minister of state for external affairs Shashi Tharoor, atypical of his cringing boss, expressed his annoyance over the report and said that India need not learn from others about secularism which is inalienable part of Indian traditional and civilizational ethos. Thank God, Dr Manmohan Singh did not enter the scene. He would have said “let us have a composite dialogue over the issue”.
Do you know which are all the countries in this “Watch list”? They are Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey and Venezuela. Demographic profiling of these countries would reveal a pattern in the mindset of USCIRF. Barring Cuba and Venezuela which are anyway hostile to the US, rest are all countries where Islam is the predominant religion with the exception of Laos.
Interestingly, Pakistan does not find a place in this warped list. The minority population in Pakistan has come down to less than 2% from 18% or so at the time of partition. The minority community has the status of second class citizens and they cannot, as decreed by the Constitution, hold high offices. Ahamadiyas are already outlawed in Pakistan. But, if we go by the list of USCIRF, Pakistan must be a secular country giving equal status to its minorities.
Well, where are countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran? Are they secular countries? Do the minorities have a semblance of freedom in those countries? Can the US President carry a copy of the Bible with him when he enters the Saudi territory? Does France permit its minorities to follow their religious practices? President Sarkozy has a plan up his sleeves to impose a ban on Muslim women wearing veil in public places.
Egypt’s inclusion in the list merits attention. It is from this land President Barack Obama wanted to improve relations with the Islamic world, ruled by Sheikhs, kings and dictators, repudiating the theory of “Clash of Civilizations”. But it appears that the US commission is working at cross purposes and it does not seem to care if America’s relationship with peaceful, democratic and secular nations like India is jeopardised.
It is possible that the USCIRF was peeved because it was refused entry into India though it was allowed on previous occasions thanks to the pressure brought up by the so-called secular elements in the country who, in fact, damaged the image of the country with their pathological hatred and prejudice towards the majority community. In 2002, the USCIRF recommended to the state department that India be designated a “country of particular concern” following events in Gujarat.
India is the largest functioning democracy in the world with an independent judiciary, statutorily constituted human rights body, an independent press. Why should it allow another country to meddle with its internal affairs?
The question is who gave the US the right to monitor religious freedom in the rest of the world? According to its own President, racism is alive and kicking in the States despite having elected a Black President. As recently as a week or ten days ago, a highly respected Harvard Professor Gates was put behind the bars for no reason just because of his racial background. We have seen the acrimonious debate over race during the run up to the Presidential Polls last year. So, it does not lie in the mouth of US bodies to talk about the treatment meted out to the minorities in other countries.
Now, let’s come to the facts. USCIRF placed India on its “watch list” because of largely inadequate response in protecting its religious minorities and disturbing increase in communal violence – specifically against Christians in 2008 and Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. The US commission seems to be selective in applying “cause and effect” theory. What caused the unrest in tribal areas of Orissa? Did it ponder over that? It was simply carried away by the propaganda unleashed by the “secular” media and the pseudo-secularists of the country. Did the Commission find out about the diversion of funds , in billions of dollars, from its soil for the cultural molestation of the poor tribals and dalits in the remote areas with the misdirected objective of harvesting of souls.
What sort of freedom it wants when the Western countries trample upon the religious freedom of people in other countries exploiting their social exclusion, poverty and illiteracy. Not only India, but all the Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka, Thailand, South Korea etc are facing similar problems and wherever the missionaries land, there is friction. In fact, Sri Lanka banned religious conversion. First, you create friction among different sections of the society in a country where you have no business to operate and then blame one community for the consequences. If the West, particularly the US, wants communal harmony, let the US commission tell its government that they should stop sending funds and evangelists to other countries for conversion. This will greatly reduce the tension between communities and resultant violence.
As far as Gujarat is concerned, the commission has conveniently forgotten the death of 58 innocent pilgrims which resulted in communal violence.
As I said in the beginning, India is blamed for all wrong reasons. It is not that India does not follow secular principles. It definitely does and overdoes. But, it does to the detriment of the majority community. That is the problem. How do you accept Indian brand of secularism when the government allocate funds for Haj pilgrimage and not for Hindu pilgrimage? It meddles with Hindu temples and their funds, but it is coy when it comes to other religions. Take the field of education. Minority institutions are misusing the privileges. How does the country have different sets of personal law? A secular nation should have uniform personal law and it does have the sanction of our Constitution. But do we have one? So, the US commission, misguided by the indigenous seculars and their shameless propaganda, seems to be barking at the wrong tree.
For once, India behaved with a sense of diplomatic and political maturity when it denied entry to the USCIRF and the minister of state for external affairs Shashi Tharoor, atypical of his cringing boss, expressed his annoyance over the report and said that India need not learn from others about secularism which is inalienable part of Indian traditional and civilizational ethos. Thank God, Dr Manmohan Singh did not enter the scene. He would have said “let us have a composite dialogue over the issue”.
Do you know which are all the countries in this “Watch list”? They are Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Laos, the Russian Federation, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey and Venezuela. Demographic profiling of these countries would reveal a pattern in the mindset of USCIRF. Barring Cuba and Venezuela which are anyway hostile to the US, rest are all countries where Islam is the predominant religion with the exception of Laos.
Interestingly, Pakistan does not find a place in this warped list. The minority population in Pakistan has come down to less than 2% from 18% or so at the time of partition. The minority community has the status of second class citizens and they cannot, as decreed by the Constitution, hold high offices. Ahamadiyas are already outlawed in Pakistan. But, if we go by the list of USCIRF, Pakistan must be a secular country giving equal status to its minorities.
Well, where are countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran? Are they secular countries? Do the minorities have a semblance of freedom in those countries? Can the US President carry a copy of the Bible with him when he enters the Saudi territory? Does France permit its minorities to follow their religious practices? President Sarkozy has a plan up his sleeves to impose a ban on Muslim women wearing veil in public places.
Egypt’s inclusion in the list merits attention. It is from this land President Barack Obama wanted to improve relations with the Islamic world, ruled by Sheikhs, kings and dictators, repudiating the theory of “Clash of Civilizations”. But it appears that the US commission is working at cross purposes and it does not seem to care if America’s relationship with peaceful, democratic and secular nations like India is jeopardised.
It is possible that the USCIRF was peeved because it was refused entry into India though it was allowed on previous occasions thanks to the pressure brought up by the so-called secular elements in the country who, in fact, damaged the image of the country with their pathological hatred and prejudice towards the majority community. In 2002, the USCIRF recommended to the state department that India be designated a “country of particular concern” following events in Gujarat.
India is the largest functioning democracy in the world with an independent judiciary, statutorily constituted human rights body, an independent press. Why should it allow another country to meddle with its internal affairs?
The question is who gave the US the right to monitor religious freedom in the rest of the world? According to its own President, racism is alive and kicking in the States despite having elected a Black President. As recently as a week or ten days ago, a highly respected Harvard Professor Gates was put behind the bars for no reason just because of his racial background. We have seen the acrimonious debate over race during the run up to the Presidential Polls last year. So, it does not lie in the mouth of US bodies to talk about the treatment meted out to the minorities in other countries.
Now, let’s come to the facts. USCIRF placed India on its “watch list” because of largely inadequate response in protecting its religious minorities and disturbing increase in communal violence – specifically against Christians in 2008 and Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. The US commission seems to be selective in applying “cause and effect” theory. What caused the unrest in tribal areas of Orissa? Did it ponder over that? It was simply carried away by the propaganda unleashed by the “secular” media and the pseudo-secularists of the country. Did the Commission find out about the diversion of funds , in billions of dollars, from its soil for the cultural molestation of the poor tribals and dalits in the remote areas with the misdirected objective of harvesting of souls.
What sort of freedom it wants when the Western countries trample upon the religious freedom of people in other countries exploiting their social exclusion, poverty and illiteracy. Not only India, but all the Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka, Thailand, South Korea etc are facing similar problems and wherever the missionaries land, there is friction. In fact, Sri Lanka banned religious conversion. First, you create friction among different sections of the society in a country where you have no business to operate and then blame one community for the consequences. If the West, particularly the US, wants communal harmony, let the US commission tell its government that they should stop sending funds and evangelists to other countries for conversion. This will greatly reduce the tension between communities and resultant violence.
As far as Gujarat is concerned, the commission has conveniently forgotten the death of 58 innocent pilgrims which resulted in communal violence.
As I said in the beginning, India is blamed for all wrong reasons. It is not that India does not follow secular principles. It definitely does and overdoes. But, it does to the detriment of the majority community. That is the problem. How do you accept Indian brand of secularism when the government allocate funds for Haj pilgrimage and not for Hindu pilgrimage? It meddles with Hindu temples and their funds, but it is coy when it comes to other religions. Take the field of education. Minority institutions are misusing the privileges. How does the country have different sets of personal law? A secular nation should have uniform personal law and it does have the sanction of our Constitution. But do we have one? So, the US commission, misguided by the indigenous seculars and their shameless propaganda, seems to be barking at the wrong tree.
Friday, August 7, 2009
PERSONAL LIBERTY OVER PUBLIC GOOD
There is a disturbing trend that is witnessed in the country today where people feel that individual freedom should take precedence over the overall interest of the society whether it is personal consumption, sexual orientation, or entertainment.
At the time of vandalisation of Mangalore pub there was prolonged discussion and debate in public domain over the women’s liberty to consume alcohol. Any protest against pub culture was rubbished as Talibanisation and one of our former loud-mouthed Ministers was in the forefront leading this campaign. Though there were allegations of “other” activities on the premises of the pub and the media’s role as an abettor of the crime came under cloud, they were all dismissed as of no consequence when confronted with the issue of women’s liberty to drink and their right to imbibe Western culture.
Now, the same world’s most powerful English daily, which ran a campaign for women’s right to drink, reports two case studies while discussing the side effects of “Emergency Contraceptives”. This is what a girl in her twenties confided to her doctor. “I was stone drunk when I was with my boy friend and I must have had sex with him. Since I have been regularly taking “Emergency Contraceptives”, I did not bother afterwards. Now I have a nagging doubt because of the uncontrolled bleeding”. Obviously, her periods stopped after she had sex with her boyfriend after getting drunk.
Another case study was about a girl who says that she prefers to have sex with her boy friend without condoms. When asked about the complications of pills, she says without any inhibition “So, what, I may put on weight. That’s all”. But what she did not say in so many words was that there was no thrill in condomised sex especially when “pills” are readily available. By the way, why the pill is called “Emergency Contraceptive” is not known. Surely, it is not meant for married women who do not have any emergency and can always go to gynaecologists for consultation in case of any problem. There is a surfeit of advertisements for these emergency pills in all the media. Is it meant for those who frequent pubs with boy friends? If so, should it be allowed? May be, the neo liberals will argue “Why not? It is their individual right to get drunk and have sex with anyone of their choice?” That is the level to which individual freedom has descended.
35.7 percent of all births were to unmarried women and there are 1.5 million children being born to unwed mothers in the United States. Now, the question is : Are we going to build a similar society where unwed mothers and teenaged pregnancies will constitute the majority as in the West? All because, we have to concede their individual freedom without any thought for the health of the society?
Recently, the nation also witnessed the demand for the individual freedom of people with different sexual orientation. Almost the entire intellectual class and the media were defending their right which, according to them, was guaranteed by the Constitution. The judiciary was also not averse to granting their plea though the government, for political reasons, was found to be equivalent on the issue.
Gay sex is not something new and it has never been recognised as a natural phenomenon throughout the history and all the organised religions were opposed to it. Now that the people in the Christian West are drifting from religion and pursuing fiercely independent way of life where utter selfish interest and enjoyment are equated with individual freedom at the cost of overall health of the society, there is an increasing emphasis on the rights of homosexuals. This is what is catching up with our society as well. The fact that the primary cause of HIV/AIDS has been proved to be the gay/lesbian sex has not deterred the upholders of gay rights.
Let’s take the case of two lesbian women in Andhra Pradesh who got married. The one who played “wife” could not get over her natural instinct to be a mother whatever her sexual orientation. She got a sperm donor and with artificial insemination she became pregnant. If such instances increase, we will have quite a few children whose biological fathers will not be known to the world. Since mother instinct is so strong in her, counselling would have brought her to normal sexual orientation. But, the hype for gay rights was so loud that nobody would have thought of counselling her.
If the Constitution has guaranteed freedom for gay sex, why should we not allow the sex workers to have their right to livelihood? Why should there be SITA? Why should we not allow brewers of hooch to have a field day as after all it is the right of everyone to consume what gives him pleasure? We can go on citing such instances. But in all these cases, the health of the society was given importance rather than individual freedom. And that is what seems to be changing now.
The latest instance of individual freedom overtaking societal interest is the controversy over the reality show “Sach ka saamna”. There was a howl of protest from the liberals questioning the wisdom of our Parliamentarians to waste time on discussing television shows in Parliament. The Gen Next started saying why should the government tell us as to what we should watch on television. Parliament represents the collective will of the billion plus people of this country and if they can’t discuss what is good and what is not for the society, who else can discuss. No freedom is absolute and every right has reasonable restraint. If a section wants to watch hard porn on television can it be permitted just because they have individual freedom to watch what they want.
In the ultimate analysis, any individual freedom should be in harmony with the overall interest of the society. If selfish interest, voyerism and carnal pleasures are equated with individual freedom and if there is an increasing trend to assert that kind of freedom as sacrosanct, then such a society will be heading towards a social disaster.
At the time of vandalisation of Mangalore pub there was prolonged discussion and debate in public domain over the women’s liberty to consume alcohol. Any protest against pub culture was rubbished as Talibanisation and one of our former loud-mouthed Ministers was in the forefront leading this campaign. Though there were allegations of “other” activities on the premises of the pub and the media’s role as an abettor of the crime came under cloud, they were all dismissed as of no consequence when confronted with the issue of women’s liberty to drink and their right to imbibe Western culture.
Now, the same world’s most powerful English daily, which ran a campaign for women’s right to drink, reports two case studies while discussing the side effects of “Emergency Contraceptives”. This is what a girl in her twenties confided to her doctor. “I was stone drunk when I was with my boy friend and I must have had sex with him. Since I have been regularly taking “Emergency Contraceptives”, I did not bother afterwards. Now I have a nagging doubt because of the uncontrolled bleeding”. Obviously, her periods stopped after she had sex with her boyfriend after getting drunk.
Another case study was about a girl who says that she prefers to have sex with her boy friend without condoms. When asked about the complications of pills, she says without any inhibition “So, what, I may put on weight. That’s all”. But what she did not say in so many words was that there was no thrill in condomised sex especially when “pills” are readily available. By the way, why the pill is called “Emergency Contraceptive” is not known. Surely, it is not meant for married women who do not have any emergency and can always go to gynaecologists for consultation in case of any problem. There is a surfeit of advertisements for these emergency pills in all the media. Is it meant for those who frequent pubs with boy friends? If so, should it be allowed? May be, the neo liberals will argue “Why not? It is their individual right to get drunk and have sex with anyone of their choice?” That is the level to which individual freedom has descended.
35.7 percent of all births were to unmarried women and there are 1.5 million children being born to unwed mothers in the United States. Now, the question is : Are we going to build a similar society where unwed mothers and teenaged pregnancies will constitute the majority as in the West? All because, we have to concede their individual freedom without any thought for the health of the society?
Recently, the nation also witnessed the demand for the individual freedom of people with different sexual orientation. Almost the entire intellectual class and the media were defending their right which, according to them, was guaranteed by the Constitution. The judiciary was also not averse to granting their plea though the government, for political reasons, was found to be equivalent on the issue.
Gay sex is not something new and it has never been recognised as a natural phenomenon throughout the history and all the organised religions were opposed to it. Now that the people in the Christian West are drifting from religion and pursuing fiercely independent way of life where utter selfish interest and enjoyment are equated with individual freedom at the cost of overall health of the society, there is an increasing emphasis on the rights of homosexuals. This is what is catching up with our society as well. The fact that the primary cause of HIV/AIDS has been proved to be the gay/lesbian sex has not deterred the upholders of gay rights.
Let’s take the case of two lesbian women in Andhra Pradesh who got married. The one who played “wife” could not get over her natural instinct to be a mother whatever her sexual orientation. She got a sperm donor and with artificial insemination she became pregnant. If such instances increase, we will have quite a few children whose biological fathers will not be known to the world. Since mother instinct is so strong in her, counselling would have brought her to normal sexual orientation. But, the hype for gay rights was so loud that nobody would have thought of counselling her.
If the Constitution has guaranteed freedom for gay sex, why should we not allow the sex workers to have their right to livelihood? Why should there be SITA? Why should we not allow brewers of hooch to have a field day as after all it is the right of everyone to consume what gives him pleasure? We can go on citing such instances. But in all these cases, the health of the society was given importance rather than individual freedom. And that is what seems to be changing now.
The latest instance of individual freedom overtaking societal interest is the controversy over the reality show “Sach ka saamna”. There was a howl of protest from the liberals questioning the wisdom of our Parliamentarians to waste time on discussing television shows in Parliament. The Gen Next started saying why should the government tell us as to what we should watch on television. Parliament represents the collective will of the billion plus people of this country and if they can’t discuss what is good and what is not for the society, who else can discuss. No freedom is absolute and every right has reasonable restraint. If a section wants to watch hard porn on television can it be permitted just because they have individual freedom to watch what they want.
In the ultimate analysis, any individual freedom should be in harmony with the overall interest of the society. If selfish interest, voyerism and carnal pleasures are equated with individual freedom and if there is an increasing trend to assert that kind of freedom as sacrosanct, then such a society will be heading towards a social disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)