NO POINT IN RECITING SARKARIA MANTRA EVERY TIME

When we listen to the public discourse on television talk shows or when we flip through the newspapers, we wonder whether “rape” has become the national pastime. Gone are the days when it was considered that the use of this word would be an “uncivil” or “unprintable” expression. “Outraging the modesty of woman” was considered to be the appropriate phrase to report cases of rape. Of course, we are living in different times. Foreign tourists are subjected to this inhuman act quite often, policemen commit such atrocities on their own female colleagues, i.e if they don’t get other victims, father does it on daughter or daughter-in-law and so on and so forth.

Even as we are disgusted with this obnoxious social crime, what do the politicians do? When they don’t get gullible women, they “rape” democracy. This is the precise expression we hear these days – Rape and murder of democracy. Is this something new?

Quarter century ago, the late NTR made the same charge against the then Governor Ram Lal and the Opposition in Karnataka has fine -tuned the same theme song today. Prior to the Ram Lal episode, which humbled the all-powerful Indira Gandhi, and after Ram Lal, there were a number of such outrages on the modesty of democracy and our Constitution. In 90% of the cases, the rapist was none other than the Congress appointed Governors who invariably acted as the agents of the ruling party at the Centre. Exceptions can be counted on your fingers.
Hansraj Bharadwaj, considered to be the retainer of 10 Janpath, is only the latest manifestation of this malaise afflicting the nation. When he was the Union Law Minister, he was only acting as the personal legal adviser of Madam to help her wriggle out of crises. He must have thought God has sent him to this planet only to serve the cause of the Congress party.

But to be fair to the “Panditji”, Karnataka chief minister BS Yeddiyurappa also seduced him to commit the “offence”. There were a slew of corruption charges, his MLAs were a greedy lot and paraded themselves for “sale” with a price tag ranging from 20 crores of rupees to 40 crores. Yeddy’s administration was a good example for “bad governance”. HD Kumaraswamy had only acted as an efficient “pimp” when he lured the rebel MLAs, paraded them before the Governor and took them on a pleasure trip to resorts. There was no discipline in the ruling party, a point on which none can disagree with the Governor. It was just a year ago, BSY came out of the crisis engineered by Reddy Brothers who are now behind the beleaguered chief minister. BSY convincingly proved that he is clueless and tactless in political management.

Does this make the act of Governor legal and constitutional when he originally wanted President’s rule? Is there a state government in the country which cannot be accused of corruption? If unproved corruption and indiscipline in the party are the only criteria for constitutional remedy, President Pratibha Patil should have advised Prime Minister ManMohan Singh to step down as he has been shielding notoriously corrupt ministers in his cabinet. Can we have a better example than A Raja who was instrumental in making the government to lose one lakh crore of rupees by bending and twisting every prescribed procedure to benefit his accomplices? Now that the Commonwealth Games are over, Suresh Kalmadi will walk free with no accountability.

What is the state of Congress party in Andhra Pradesh? There are ‘n’ number of scams. A Congress MP wants the CM to quit if he can’t remove the corrupt ministers. Another MP suggests that the Congress cannot win any election in future. APCC is merely a conglomeration of disparate groups representing various regions and interests in the state each one cutting the throat of the other.

Everyone who has some air time in the channels and column space in the newspapers are saying that democracy was trampled in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and the entire proceedings were vitiated on 11th Oct. Blame is apportioned on the Speaker for not maintaining the decorum in the House. Look at the scenario. Both the Congress and JD(S) members of the House acted as hoodlums assaulting the Police Commissioner and the Marshals and the disqualified members of the BJP and Independents forcing their way into the House, and some other members creating ruckus on the floor. Was it possible to have a division of votes in a proper manner? Chaos in the House was not in the interest of the ruling party. But it is the Opposition that wanted to disable the Speaker from conducting the proceedings of the House and he resorted to voice vote.
That apart, the charge against the Speaker is that he violated the provisions of the Anti-defection law. Yes, he failed to follow the letter of the Law, but not the spirit. Rebels’ intentions are no secret. They wanted to overthrow their own elected government with the help of the “political lepers” in the state ably assisted by the Congress and the Governor, party’s political manager in the state. When you know a person is going to commit a murder, should the policeman watch and wait until he commits murder or should he prevent a dastardly crime? Rebels had nothing to lose were they to be disqualified after the voting, except for the remaining term of 2 and-a-half years. But they have been adequately compensated for the loss. But what would have been the damage to democracy when a handful of greedy legislators could succeed in dislodging a democratically elected government? Obviously, there is a big loophole in the law which encourages the kind of defection that was witnessed in Karnataka.

Even if the anti-defection law is made foolproof there is no guarantee that the office of the Governor will not be misused and there will be no political rehabilitation for those who are defeated by the people. Whenever we find a situation where the politically rehabilitated governors misuse their office, we extensively quote from the report of the Sarkaria Commission on the appointment of governors which has only archival value. After the dust is settled the report is forgotten.

Irrespective of the party at the Centre, there is temptation for the government to use the office of the Governor for political agenda. It started in 1950s when the “great democract” Jawaharlal Nehru invoked Art 356 in Kerala. The unholy and anti-democratic tradition continues. Karnataka is just a recent example. Only compulsions of numbers in Parliament forced the Centre to retreat from imposition of President’s rule. Therefore, instead of reciting Sarkaria mantra every time depending on which side of the fence you are placed, there must be a serious attempt by all concerned to make some of the suggestions of Sarkaria Commission on the appointment of governors as law. Constitution should be amended in such a manner that there is a clear disqualification for those who held political office in the last 5 or 10 years or those held active party positions to be appointed as governors. Unless this is done, Karnatakas are bound to recur and Bharadwajes will continue to “rape” democracy.

GOD AND GRAVITY

Stephen Hawking is a world-renowned cosmologist and theoretical physicist. He is the recipient of innumerable awards and honours for his seminal contribution in the field of science and the latest he received was the United States’ highest civilian honour – The Medal of Freedom – last year. He vehemently denies the existence of God and fervently feels that it is unnecessary to explain the origin of the Universe. He believes that since there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. In sum, God did not create the Universe. For Hawking, law of gravity is the omnipotent and omniscient force if I have to put it in the language of the faithful.

Now, this goes against the very belief system of all religions of the world. The very foundation of any religion – Abrahamic, Sanatanic or its offshoots – is that God created this world and all are answerable to him on the D-day. Well, Sanatanis may say what they call by three letters – G O D – Hawking gives a different name – GRAVITY. It can be 1001st name of God whom they believe to be the origin, sustenance and destruction of the Universe. But the admirable side of Hawking is that he never questions the belief of the faithful nor decries them as unscientific or irrational.

Take for instance the official motto of the US. “In God We Trust”. The US law allowed the motto to be used on coins and currencies. The US Supreme Court upheld the motto because it has “lost through repetition any significant religious context” as Ram is not merely a religious symbol, but national identity. Otherwise, Gandhiji would not have dreamt of Ram Rajya.

Likewise, “God Save the Queen (King) is the sole national anthem of the United Kingdom and some of its territories. Hawking does not advocate that these motto and anthem should be removed since he has proved that God does not exist. “Faith” in God has become an accepted reality even in modern democracies governed by rule of law. In fact, Sri Krishna laid the foundation for such a belief system when he said in the Gita “A man is made up of his faith, he verily is what his faith is” (Ch 17 – 3)

Let’s contrast this with the secular fundamentalists in our country who are disguised as “eminent historians”, archaeologists, liberals, atheists and legal luminaries. Because they are the authors or abettors of distorted version of Indian history and as they have no love or respect for India’s civilizational values and culture, they would like every Hindu to believe that Lord Ram is just a mythical figure or may be an artefact. Everything has to be explained in terms of what they believe to be the scientific basis. There is no place for the word “faith” in their parlance.
Well, this is again selective and applies to only Hindu faith. In Shah Bano case, the very same secular fanatics wanted to uphold faith as enshrined in Sharait as against the law of the land. Law was changed to uphold faith. Now, after September 30th, when faith was upheld by law, (to borrow LK Advani’s phrase) there is cacophony.

According to these “seculars”, judiciary is at fault for recognising the faith of the people, and Archeological Survey of India for coming out with some “stupid findings” because the latter exposes the “seculars” decades long false campaign that was deliberately unleashed on the people. One such secular writer has listed out instances where ASI had favoured Hindutva forces as against the interests of the Muslim community. He has included Tourism sector also as an accomplice of Hindutva because it has been promoting places of religious significance. His attempt is only to reinforce the vilification campaign that is going on today against the ASI just because its report has shaken the very basis of the arguments of Sunny wakf board and the “secular pretenders”.

If you recall, Syed Shahabuddin, the key architect of the Babri Masjid Action Committee, said in the nineties that if ever it was proved that there was a temple beneath the mosque, he himself would take a hammer and pull down the mosque. Where will he and men of his ilk hide their faces today after the ASI conclusively nailed their oft-repeated lie. So, let’s call the dog mad before we kill it. That seems to be the spirit behind the campaign against the ASI.

“Eminent historians” and their cohorts would like the people of this country to believe that India was never subjugated by Muslim invaders, they did not destroy temples in order to humiliate the vanquished, they did not impose tax on non-believers and that rulers like Aurangazeb, Alauddin Khilji, Thuglak were highly benevolent towards their subjects. For example, the same author feels Chittor Rani Padmini’s self-immolation is a myth and it was invented to highlight Khilji’s atrocities. What did the ASI do? It just put a signpost at the location where Rani Padmini committed self-immolation.

Let’s be clear about one thing. It is the present government that wanted the ASI to take up the job of excavation at Ayodhya site when the (in)famous Liberhan Commission wanted a national commission of experts. Turning down this suggestion, the UPA government said that it was not necessary to appoint another national commission and that the ASI could do the job. Of course, the Allahabad High Court ordered such an excavation monitored by two judges and employing workers from both the communities.

Let’s accept for a moment that the ASI was wrong to conclude that there was a temple-like structure beneath the demolished mosque. What about the tell-tale evidence in Mathura and Kashi. Even a hard –boiled secular has to accept that the mosques were raised in the temple premises. You don’t need any expert nor the services of ASI. Will the “seculars” lobby with the Muslims and convince them to give up those two places?

You don’t need to be an “eminent historian” to understand the mindset of Moghal invaders. What their descendents, who operate under the tag “Taliban” did to the two colossal statues of Buddhas carved into the sandstone cliffs in Bhamiyan. They were destroyed unmindful of the world outcry and outrage. Mullah Omar said he wanted to get rid the land of all un-Islamic graven images. What did Osama bin Laden do? As a manifestation of the “clash of civilizations” he wanted to teach the US a lesson and humiliated the country by razing to the ground the imposing World Trade Centre. And now there is a proposal to have an Islamic Centre which in due course will be known to the posterity as “victory monument”.

What Taliban or al Quaeda did or is doing was done by the Moghal rulers some centuries ago. History is this, my dear eminent historians! Despots destroyed what their ideologies could not accept – Stalin’s destruction of churches, Mao’s cultural revolution that removed Confucius from the collective conscience of the Chinese, Hitler’s destruction of synagogues, Pol Pot’s destruction of schools and cities are all examples. Babar, Aurangazeb, Ghazni and invaders of their reputation should share this hall of shame, no matter to what extent you twist history to suit your agenda. Why make ASI a scapegoat?

CIVILISATIONAL REVIVAL

If there is one section which was greatly disappointed over the verdict of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabd High Court on the vexed issue of the ownership of the disputed land in Ayodhya, it is not the contending parties to the dispute, nor the general public but the secular fanatics of the vocal minority who were, in a way, responsible even in the eighties and nineties to push the faithfuls in the majority community to the wall.

Yes, Sunni wakf board is not happy over the partition of the land and so is the case of the Hindu Mahasabha. But their displeasure is basically confined to the issues related to the ownership and they are not trying to pick holes in the judgement. They said that they would respect the verdict of the High Court before the delivery of the judgement and they are sticking to that stand. But, as the law provides for an appeal to the apex court, they would like to exercise that right. Fair enough.

Even the Communist parties which do not spare any occasion to deride the majority community in the country were more restrained in their reaction. Of course, there were one or two discordant notes from the lawyer community whose allegiance to the ruling Congress is well known.

However, that is not the case with the secular pretenders in the media and a miniscule section of the so-called intellectuals. And that is where the danger lies because they succeeded in the past in ridiculing the aspiration of the majority. They are in a position, once again, to mislead the public at large with their warped thinking and borrowed concepts of secularism.

This section can be broadly divided into three groups. One is plain non-believers and according to them talking about religion in public discourse by itself is anti-secular exercise. Second group is anti-Hindu historians whose business is to distort Indian history and to lampoon Indian civilisational ethos, beliefs and culture. And the third group is those in the media who would like to compete with each other about their “secular” credentials.

Let’s take a few examples of these groups which are bent upon thwarting any negotiated settlement. They were appealing to the people, pre-verdict, that every one should respect the judicial verdict because they were hopeful that the judiciary cannot oblivious to the fact that a mosque did exist at the disputed site and hence the outcome of the judicial process could be in favour of the Muslims at least in parts. But when the Allahabad High Court felt that one should respect the faith and belief of the majority community on the issue of Janmasthan, they are unable to digest it.

That is the reason one could hear statements, immediately after the verdict was delivered and even before one could lay his hands on the full text of the three judgements, that the judiciary has exceeded its brief and has treaded on an area that belonged to faith. In a way, the secular lobby wanted the judgements in terms of their definition of secularism and faith. It was said that “secular” court tried its hands on “non-secular” areas. The very same section might not find anything wrong in shariah courts. Had the verdict been wholly in favour of the Wakf board, the “secular” lobby would have been in its orgasmic best.

A national television channel said that the verdict is an “assertion of Hindu majoritarianism”. The majority judgement said that the land should be divided into three parts and one part should go to the Muslims. On one hand the media was crying hoarse that there should be no attempt to wrongly interpret the verdict or make any statements that could be provocative, but on the other, what they were doing in practice was just the opposite.

Yet another “intellectual” who once edited the “most powerful daily in the world”, reacting to the statement of RSS sarsangchalak, said “how can we accept Ram as a symbol of national identity in a secular democracy?” According to him, it was quite “disturbing”. These are the people who vitiated the atmosphere two decades ago with their statements that “Lord Ram” was only a myth and there was no historical evidence for his existence. In fact, they should be taken around the countryside to know what exactly is the soul of India. Lord Ram is not just an idol worshipped in temples, but part and parcel of social, and spiritual life of the population even centuries before they were enslaved by invaders.

Strangely, people were also trying to find a difference between Gandhiji’s “Ram” and “Lord Ram” worshipped by others. A secular fanatic also suggested that there should be a multi-faith centre in the disputed area. Remember? In those days, there was a suggestion from the same lobby that we should construct a “urinal” in the Janmasthan. It is not the reluctance or absence of “generosity” on the part of Muslims alone that drove the majority to go to the extreme. What frustrated them was the public discourse of these secular fundamentalists questioning the existence of Ram.

And now there is action re-play. A political analyst says in a national daily that “force of faith has triumphed over law and reason in Ayodhya case”. He also suggests that “if left unamended by the Supreme Court, the legal, social and political repercussions of the judgement are likely to be extremely damaging”.

Historians of Aligarh Muslim University and Jawaharlal Nehru University - I don’t have to be explicit about their mindset - are rubbishing the Archeological Survey of India report on the existence of the temple prior to the mosque. They attributed motives to the ASI since the excavation was done during the NDA regime. For them, ASI report was not foolproof and inscriptions found in debris might have been planted.

Biased historians and secular fundamentalists can go on arguing whether Tulasidas talked about Ramjanmasthan or whether the central dome of the mosque was the exact place where Ram was born or whether faith can be the basis for judicial resolution of disputes. But civilisational issues cannot be settled by such inane discussions by those who have no respect for India’s civilisational values.

As Girilal Jain wrote some twenty years ago, “Civilisational revival is a gradual, complex and many sided affair...The heart of the matter is that if India’s vast spiritual energies, largely dormant for centuries, had to be tapped, Hindus had to be aroused, they could be aroused only by the use of a powerful symbol; and that symbol could only be Ram, as was evident when Mahathma moved millions by his talk of Ramrajya” To quote Jain again, “it is natural that Indiana culture should seek to recover its genuine self. Surely this is neither an anti-Islamic nor anti-Western activity”