NEEDLEPOINT

A Bangrappa emerging in Madhya Pradesh?

By Amba Charan Vashishth


One of the weaknesses of Indian system of democracy is the lack of birth control on our political parties. Just as uncontrolled sex is the cause for booming population, so is the uncontrolled ego and ambition the cause of the almost daily birth of our political parties. That is one of the reasons why during the last sixty-one years we have failed to have a ruling party which commanded more than 50 percent of the votes cast. India could never register a poll percentage of more than 70 percent and this only means that India has always been ruled by a party/alliance not commanding the majority support but only a minority of much less than one-third of the total electorate.

It is the feeling of self-righteousness, arrogance and ego fuelled by the henchmen of the leaders that we witness birth of a new party the moment a party fails to satisfy the whims of individuals bred and brought up by it. Equally true is the fact that in political parties justice is not always dispensed to individuals or merit is not always rewarded. But if one believes in inner party democracy, the aggrieved individual should fight for justice and prove the justness of his cause/stand within the party. But, no. Our leaders wish to teach the party and its leadership a lesson for a wrong, they think, has been done to them. Many have the airs that the party exists only because of them; the moment they leave it, it is a void, doomed.

Comparisons may be odious, yet not always out of place. There is a great similarity between the cases of Mr. S. Bangrappa and Sushri Uma Bharati. Both are former chief ministers, one of Karnataka and the other of Madhya Pradesh. They nurture, right or wrong, the grievance against their respective party leadership that they have been wronged.

Mr. Bangrappa was the chief minister of a Congress government in Karnataka. He was made to resign by the high command. On the eve of 1989 assembly elections, he quit Congress, formed his Karnataka Congress Party and contested 218 out of 224 seats. The incumbent Congress government facing an anti-incumbency wave crumbled from a tally of 178 seats to just 34, its vote share crashing down to 26.95% from 43.76%, a loss of 16.81%. Congress loss was shared by BJP by increasing its vote share from 4.14 to 16.99% (seats from 4 to 40) and Janta Dal from 27.08 (24 seats) to 33.54% (115 seats). What cost Congress the power was the Bangarappa's Karnataka Congress slicing 7.31% votes (10 seats).

Politicians seem too eager to get one of their legs amputated if it could make their opponent lose two. Mr. Bangarappa had nothing further to lose; he had already lost power. So his limited and narrow objective was -- if not he, then Congress too not. He drew the vicarious pleasure of making that party lose power which had snatched it from him.

If there is anything like bravery or chivalry in politics, it should either be to ensure victory for self or for own party, but not to a third person in any case. Otherwise, it settles down to monkey business in which the gainer is the third person benefitting from the fight between two uncompromising persons.

What has been the end result? The lone political traveller Mr. Bangarappa who had hogged from one party to the other a number of times temporary halts and shelters in a number of political parties, ultimately, faced the ignominy of a defeat for himself and his sons in the assembly elections. Till 2008 Karnataka elections Mr. Bangarappa had been the invincible hero who never lost an election. But this time his vengeance made him lose both power and prestige.

As things stand today. The Bangrappa history seems to be repeating itself in Madhya Pradesh this assembly election. Sushri Uma Bharati's Bharatiya Janashakti Party is going to contest all the 230 assembly seats in the State. There seems to be no dearth of political parties and individuals to fan her ego and arrogance with a design and objective of their own. They know her presence in the elections is going to harm one and benefit the other. She too seems to wish to teach her former party a lesson: "If not me, you too not".

Her real brother has deserted Sushri Bharati. There are dissensions within her clan. It will be too much for a sagacious person, like her, to daydream of coming to power on her own. But she does wish – and all wishes are not always granted! – to 'punish' BJP. It is too early to predict – and psephology these days is no longer that precise a science with correct predictions and no one has so far prophesied with certainty either that BJP will once again romp home to power or Congress will win. But nobody can risk foretelling Sushri Bharati storming to power defeating both BJP and Congress in the current elections.

Whatever may be the outcome of the elections, this much can easily – and safely – be forecast: the only great loser to emerge, like Mr. S. Bangarappa in Karnataka, will only be Sushri Uma Bharati in Madhya Pradesh in the long run. If BJP swings back to power, she stands decimated from the State politics as a force to reckon with. If Congress is crowned with power, Sushri Bharati will lose relevance because having rode to power on the strength of her shoulders, it too would not like to massage these to make them more powerful. Congress would not be beholden to her, as was the Janta Dal not to Mr. Bangarappa for power it could never aspire without Bangarappa slicing Congress cake.

Where is Mr. S. Bangarappa today? Nowhere on the political scene. Nowhere in the political reckoning.

Will assembly elections results on December 8 throw out another Bangarappa in Madhya Pradesh? ***

NEEDLEPOINT: Terrorists at war with India

NEEDLEPOINT:
Terrorists at war with India
India at peace with terrorists

By A. C. Vasishth

September 13 2008 serial bomb blasts in New Delhi have once again proved that we may be bold in our words but we are as much week in our actions in fighting terror. This has been proved not once, numerous times.

One of the main reasons for our failure to win the war against terror is that we always play politics with terrorism. This fact has paralysed the government as well as the political system. This reality has emboldened the terrorists so much that they feel free to strike any time and any place in the country where they want. When terrorists strike in non-Congress and non-UPA States – the way they did in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Karnataka two months back -- our government at the Centre and the Intelligence Bureau were quick to say that the State governments had been alerted in advance. It, obviously, meant that the State governments had failed to take the necessary precautions, in advance, to thwart the designs of the terrorists. But this time – and last time on the Diwali eve in 2005 – the terrorists struck right under the nose of the Union government. Does it then mean that here both the Union government and the intelligence agencies failed to both to gather information about the activities of the terror outfits and take precautionary measures?

Not only that. With Congress-led UPA at the Centre, in Andhra Pradesh, in Assam, in Maharashtra etc. there are Congress or Congress-led governments. But the State and the Central government failed to prevent the serial blasts in those States even and as a result hundreds of innocent men, women and children were killed and property worth hundreds of crores destroyed.

Each time the terrorists strike, our Prime Minister, Home Minister and others echo a stock reaction: The terrorists will not be able to defeat our resolve to fight terror. Each time the terrorists have given a befitting reply to the Union Government to prove that it does not means business while they do.

In the heat of the nation’s agony at the loss of life and property in Rajasthan and Gujarat when there were demands, even from the intelligence agencies, for enacting a strong anti-terror law, the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh was again bold to declare that there is no need for revival of POTA and the existing laws were sufficient to deal with them. By striking in the heart of the national capital the terrorists have once again sent out a message that the Prime Minister is not right.

If the existing laws, as the Prime Minister claims, are sufficient, why is it that during the last over four years the present government has failed to take a single criminal case against terrorists to a logical conclusion and got him/them punished? Why is it that during the last three years the UPA government has failed to bring to book those involved in the 2005 Diwali-eve serial bomb blasts in Delhi, Samjhauta Express, Malegaon, Mumbai train serial blasts, blasts in Mecca masjid in Andhra Pradesh? The only inference one can draw is that while the existing laws are sufficient, it is the Government that has been found to be wanting.

USA is the oldest democracy in the world as is India the largest one. UK too is a democracy. But the moment 9/11 happened in USA, the moment 11/7 occurred in UK in the form of serial train blasts, they rose to the occasion to enact stringent laws to fight terror. This has paid dividends. The terrorists failed to strike again in both the countries.

But here in India, obviously, for political, nay electoral, reasons we are fighting shy of enacting any stringent law against terror. We do not gather the courage even to use the existing laws to catch hold of the culprits, lest our constituency of electoral supporters gets annoyed.

Our prime minister loses his sleeping over the wailing of the mother of a person taken into custody for suspected terror links in a foreign country. But, regrettably, he has never lost sleep over the death of hundreds of innocent men, women and children in terrorist strikes since he took over.

At the same time Dr. Manmohan Singh says "no community" should be singled out. Further, according to the Central intelligence agencies too, while the hand of SIMI has been unsuspectingly been proven, two Cabinet Ministers in his Government – Lalu Prasad Yadav and Ramvilas Paswan – have publicly opposed the ban on SIMI. The other important leader SP leader Mulayam Singh on whose support hinges the life of UPA has gone to the extent of saying that it is a social organisation.

In the face of September 13 blasts while the intelligence agencies, according to reports, are now focussing their attention on the three days spent by top SIMI activist Abu Bashir in Delhi in July this year to unravel the mystery of the Delhi serial blasts, Congress and Samajwadi Party leaders went to the extent of visiting Azamgarh home of the Ahmedabad blast mastermind "for expressing their solidarity with the jailed SIMI terror merchant" after he was arrested by Gujarat police.

The most failed Home Minister Shivraj Patil appealing for peace said: "We will continue to deal firmly with such (terrorist) elements. We will find those responsible behind the blasts and harshest punishment would be given..." How laughable from a person during whose performance has throughout been dismal!

In their e-mail the terrorist outfit has threatened Mumbai to be the next target. If past performance is any indication, its threat may prove to be real while the government may be found fumbling for words of explanations for having miserably failed to act.

If the present government closes its eyes to see the reality that the terrorists are at war against India, it alone is to be blamed for this. But it must understand that this war against terrorism cannot be fought with the doves of peace. We need the honestly, zeal and the spirit to turn our words into actions. ***

Interview with Syed Shahnawaz Hussain

‘Secularists’ dividing Hindus & Muslims: Shahnawaz
Personally I stand for Akhand Bharat

Syed Shahnawaz Hussain is a young two-time BJP MP with a broad, progressive outlook. He was yet to complete 32 when he became first a Minister of State and later elevated to Cabinet rank in NDA government at the Centre. From the start of his political career he is in the BJP. Presently, he is the President of BJP Minority Morcha Cell. Congress-Lalu-Mulayam are politically thriving on by creating divisions between Hindus and Muslims, he says. “If there was no misunderstanding between the two main communities, many leaders and political parties, I realized, would go out of political business”. BJP is practicing an honest secularism and giving equal respect and honour to all communities, including Muslims, he maintains.

Amba Charan Vashishth had a detailed interview with him in Delhi in the last month. Excerpts:

What made you to join politics?

My original dream was to be a doctor or engineer. When I was in third class, I discovered that President and Prime Minister was the highest office in the country. Therefore, I got fascinated towards politics. Even otherwise, I had interest in politics from my school days. When in the eighth class I contested a school election, but lost by just one vote. I did my Matriculation in 1982 getting 87 percent marks. I wanted to join Aligarh Muslim University but we were hard up of money because we had lost our lands to the tillers. My mother said she would sell her ornaments to make me study higher. I revolted. I said I can remain uneducated, but not study with this money. I did my intermediate staying with my maternal uncle where I came in contact with Shri George Fernandes.


Why only BJP even when there is so much propaganda regarding its being anti-minorities?

In 1984 I came to Delhi in Pusa Polytechnic from where I received a diploma. Here I came in contact with Shri Suresh Srivastava who was connected with BJP. He told me in detail about BJP. He took me to BJP leader Shri Arif Beg. I took a dig at him: How is he in BJP being a Muslim? We waited for him. As he heralded I came to know he was coming after namaz. I myself was not used to it at that time. I got impressed.

Shri Arif Beg made me understand that BJP is a big party working for the welfare of Hindus/Muslims and if more and more Muslims associated with it, the Hindu-Muslim unity will get strengthened. The misunderstanding and misconception about BJP in the Muslim mind is because of lack of communication and false propaganda by vested interests who, for their political selfishness, do not wish that Hindus and Muslims should be one. We have to act as a bridge between the two communities, he told me.

From there started my association with BJP and I never looked back. I myself found that there was great false propaganda against BJP. As my association with the party grew deeper and longer, my dedication and commitment to the Party went on increasing. I found BJP was the only party that was truly and honestly secular while others were just paying a lip service just for community’s votes without doing anything for it. BJP, I found, entertained no ill-will against Muslims and all my misgivings were removed. If there was no misunderstanding between the two main communities, many leaders and political parties, I realized, would go out of political business.

How did you scale up the ladder?

Then I came in contact with ABVP national president Shri Raj Kumar Bhatia and Sushri Uma Bharti. I worked in JNU. I became active in BJP Yuva Morcha. On December 4, 1997 I organised a Muslim Youth sammelan in Delhi which impressed both Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Shri Lal Krishna Advani. Atalji said if Shahnawaz could enter Parliament that would be good. I was made to contest against Syed Shahabuddin from Kishanganj whose 70 percent population is Muslim. Only Shri Sushil Modi had come for my election campaign. I was defeated by this stalwart by just six thousand votes. But I did not lose heart. I stuck to the constituency and worked hard. In 1999 Lok Sabha elections I defeated Mr Taslimuddin. My first speech in Lok Sabha was on Ayodhya. Atalji blessed me with an embrace. Advaniji and Georgeji also appreciated it.

Was your work and dedication rewarded?

Yes, very much. I was first made a Minister of State for Sports and Youth Affairs. Later, I was given independent charge of Coal. Then, I was elevated to Cabinet rank with the Textile portfolio and later given the charge of Civil Aviation. I was made a member of the Central Election Committee in which I still continue. When Venkaiahji, Advaniji and Rajnathji became Party presidents, they made me the National Secretary. Now I have been made the President of the Minority Morcha. Rajnathji said, “It will send out a positive message and help the party reach out to minority communities”.


When some 'secular' leaders or some of your Muslim brothers call BJP 'communal', what feelings does it ignite in your mind?

I only laugh at their ignorance. They are living on misconceptions and only harming the cause of the community. I can say with confidence that no party is more secular than BJP. In fact, in India we have two kinds of secularism -- honest secularism and dishonest one. BJP is practicing the honest secularism. It is a false propaganda that BJP is opposed to minorities. The so-called secular parties are responsible for the present plight and sufferings of the Muslim community. Post-Godhra riots in Gujarat are an aberration under BJP rule. There have been numerous communal riots in Gujarat under successive Congress governments. During the past seven years, not a single case of communal riots has taken place in Gujarat. If the opposition criticizes Shri Modi for other things, it should also appreciate at least this achievement of his.
We do not make distinction between majority and minority. BJP Minority Morcha Cell shows that there is a place of honour for minorities in the Party.

Did you any time feel that you are a misfit in BJP?

No. Never. I did never feel any time that I am being discriminated against being a Muslim. In spite of my being quite young, I have always received place of honour and invited to every important party meeting, chintan bhaithaks in Goa and Mumbai.


What does religion mean to you?

For me rashtra dharma is supreme. Pitri dharma and matri dharma also come in the same category. Whether somebody recites his namaz or worships a god; it is a matter personal to him.
.
Crores of Muslims because of their love for the motherland decided to stay put in India after Partition and could not be lured into shifting to Pakistan just because of their religious affinity. Do you think they have assimilated themselves into the national mainstream?

Crores of Muslims because of their patriotism and love for India continued to live in their motherland despite partition of the country on communal lines. Those who accepted partition migrated to Pakistan. But our ancestors decided to stick to their soil. They preferred to throw their lot with their Hindu brethren than with others. That is why today we have a galaxy of Muslims who have brought laurels to the country -- Capt. Abdul Hamid, Capt. Hanifuddin, Sania Mirza, Zahir Khan, Irfan Khan, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam and many others.

How safe, in your view, are minorities in India, particularly in NDA or BJP-ruled States?

Minorities are safer in the BJP and NDA-ruled States than elsewhere. I want an open discussion on this issue. The condition of Muslims is very bad in the States of West Bengal and Assam while they are quite well off in Gujarat where Muslims have a higher per capita income than in other States.

How far, in your view, the abolition of Article 370 in the Constitution and Common Civil Code is going to adversely affect the interests of minorities, particularly Muslims?

If Article 370 had been scrapped, there would have been no Kashmir problem today. It even discriminates between a J&K Muslim and a Muslim in the rest of the country. Today people of Jammu-Kashmir can purchase property in Patna, but the people, including Muslims, of the rest of the country cannot in J&K. If Article 370 is removed, I would wish to have a house in Gulmarg area. Mr. Omar Abdullah says I am an Indian, but he speaks a different language in his State. Article 370 should be scrapped immediately.

I stand for a Common Civil Code. Actually, it involves reforms only in marriage laws. Today Hindus and Muslims wear the same clothes; they have common food habits. India presents a picture of unity in diversity. Actually, some people are misleading the Muslims saying that if this is done, Muslims will have to don dhoti and instead of visiting a graveyard (kabristan) they will have to go to Hindu cremation grounds. This is all non-sense, unfortunate


What place do minorities enjoy in your Party?

A place of respect and honour like any Hindu.

What have you so far done to dispel the misgivings about BJP among minorities?

I have been assigned the duty to connect more and more minorities with the BJP. It is as difficult a matter as it is easy. It is a challenge too. Reason: Since the days of Nehru, a sustained campaign has been continuing to paint Jana Sangh and now BJP as anti-minority. This impression is now getting obliterated. We organized a Muslim Yuva Sammelan in 1997. Advaniji’s speech was very much appreciated there. We wish to turn the injustice that is being perpetrated against Muslims since the days of Congress into justice. Recently, we organized a rally at Kota (Rajasthan) where 20,000 Muslims participated. Morcha organized rallies against terrorism all over the country. Indo-US Deal is an attempt to enslave India. It is against Indians whether they are Hindus, Muslims or others.

Terrorism is a great threat to the country. This must be curbed at all costs. On this account, Muslims of the country, as a whole, should not be seen as suspects. They love the country and are patriots.

What should the majority and minority communities do to obliterate the distinction between the two to make India acquire one identity of Indians and Indians alone?

In the Muslim Yuva Sammelan we passed a resolution that cow-slaughter should be banned. Media ignored it. Darrul Uloom has also demanded its ban. Muslims need to come forward on this issue. Ram Mandir issue too should be solved amicably through understanding between the two communities.

We want that Afzal Guru should be hanged as per the verdict of the Supreme Court. The only problem is that we look at him as a terrorist and Congress-Lalu-Mulayam look at him as a Muslim. They look at terrorism through the prism of religion. It is the Congress and its friends who have put a question mark on the patriotism of Muslims. POTA should be revived. Section 302 IPC too is misused; should it also be abolished?

To what extent has the rise of terrorism, particularly the cross-border terrorism, impacted the life of Muslims in India?

I wish to make it clear that Pakistan is the enemy of Indian Muslims. Muslims in India are thriving unhindered. They have made the country proud with having Presidents, Chief Justices, Vice-Presidents, Governors, and made their name in every sphere including cricket and films. This Pakistan cannot digest. That is why it is conspiring against India. It is Pakistan and not Hindus who are enemies of Muslims. ISI is the mother of all troubles. If Pakistan had not been created, Hindus and Muslims would have progressed shoulder to shoulder. Although I accept the reality of Pakistan, yet as an Indian I stand for the concept of Akhand Bharat. If the Berlin wall can fall leading to unification of East and West Germany, India and Pakistan can also be one day united into one country.


What are the main reasons for the backwardness of the Muslim community, particularly women?

Congress which ruled over the country for about 50 years since independence is responsible for all the ills and problems facing the minorities, particularly Muslims. They have not allowed Muslims to join the national mainstream just to exploit them for votes.

How much weightage would you give to the fatwas of Deoband?

Day-today fatwas have no meaning. These should be issued only when necessary and should be for the benefit and progress of the community

What are your Minority Morcha’s immediate plans, particularly in view of the year-end elections in five State assemblies and then Lok Sabha elections in 2009?

The Muslim community is angry with Congress Party for all the ills facing it. It feels cheated. Muslims are making the country proud in every field. If Israel and Philistine could be at peace; if Sushri Mayawati can have friendship with Brahmins, why can’t BJP earn the faith and confidence of Muslims when it is their real benefactor? It is not something impossible.

We will mobilize the minority community by organizing large demonstrations, rallies and conferences. Three times in the past Shri Rajnath Singh has come to our conferences. Shri Advaniji too blessed our programmes. Shri Atalji is also with us. We plan to organize a massive Muslim rally in Delhi where we expect a congregation of 2 lakh Muslims to show that Muslims in India are with BJP.
Muslims have great faith in the clean and honest image of Advaniji. Under his leadership BJP will form a government at the Centre. This government will usher in all-round prosperity and progress of the minorities. ***










‘Secularists’ dividing Hindus & Muslims: Shahnawaz
Personally I stand for Akhand Bharat



Shri Syed Shahnawaz Hussain is a young two-time BJP MP with a broad, progressive outlook. He was yet to complete 32 when he became first a Minister of State and later elevated to Cabinet rank in NDA government at the Centre. From the start of his political career he is in the BJP. Presently, he is the President of BJP Minority Morcha Cell. Congress-Lalu-Mulayam are politically thriving on by creating divisions between Hindus and Muslims, he says. “If there was no misunderstanding between the two main communities, many leaders and political parties, I realized, would go out of political business”. BJP is practicing an honest secularism and giving equal respect and honour to all communities, including Muslims, he maintains.

Shri Amba Charan Vashishth had a detailed interview with him in Delhi in the last week of July. Excerpts:

What made you to join politics?

My original dream was to be a doctor or engineer. When I was in third class, I discovered that President and Prime Minister was the highest office in the country. Therefore, I got fascinated towards politics. Even otherwise, I had interest in politics from my school days. When in the eighth class I contested a school election, but lost by just one vote. I did my Matriculation in 1982 getting 87 percent marks. I wanted to join Aligarh Muslim University but we were hard up of money because we had lost our lands to the tillers. My mother said she would sell her ornaments to make me study higher. I revolted. I said I can remain uneducated, but not study with this money. I did my intermediate staying with my maternal uncle where I came in contact with Shri George Fernandes.


Why only BJP even when there is so much propaganda regarding its being anti-minorities?

In 1984 I came to Delhi in Pusa Polytechnic from where I received a diploma. Here I came in contact with Shri Suresh Srivastava who was connected with BJP. He told me in detail about BJP. He took me to BJP leader Shri Arif Beg. I took a dig at him: How is he in BJP being a Muslim? We waited for him. As he heralded I came to know he was coming after namaz. I myself was not used to it at that time. I got impressed.

Shri Arif Beg made me understand that BJP is a big party working for the welfare of Hindus/Muslims and if more and more Muslims associated with it, the Hindu-Muslim unity will get strengthened. The misunderstanding and misconception about BJP in the Muslim mind is because of lack of communication and false propaganda by vested interests who, for their political selfishness, do not wish that Hindus and Muslims should be one. We have to act as a bridge between the two communities, he told me.

From there started my association with BJP and I never looked back. I myself found that there was great false propaganda against BJP. As my association with the party grew deeper and longer, my dedication and commitment to the Party went on increasing. I found BJP was the only party that was truly and honestly secular while others were just paying a lip service just for community’s votes without doing anything for it. BJP, I found, entertained no ill-will against Muslims and all my misgivings were removed. If there was no misunderstanding between the two main communities, many leaders and political parties, I realized, would go out of political business.

How did you scale up the ladder?

Then I came in contact with ABVP national president Shri Raj Kumar Bhatia and Sushri Uma Bharti. I worked in JNU. I became active in BJP Yuva Morcha. On December 4, 1997 I organised a Muslim Youth sammelan in Delhi which impressed both Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Shri Lal Krishna Advani. Atalji said if Shahnawaz could enter Parliament that would be good. I was made to contest against Syed Shahabuddin from Kishanganj whose 70 percent population is Muslim. Only Shri Sushil Modi had come for my election campaign. I was defeated by this stalwart by just six thousand votes. But I did not lose heart. I stuck to the constituency and worked hard. In 1999 Lok Sabha elections I defeated Mr Taslimuddin. My first speech in Lok Sabha was on Ayodhya. Atalji blessed me with an embrace. Advaniji and Georgeji also appreciated it.

Was your work and dedication rewarded?

Yes, very much. I was first made a Minister of State for Sports and Youth Affairs. Later, I was given independent charge of Coal. Then, I was elevated to Cabinet rank with the Textile portfolio and later given the charge of Civil Aviation. I was made a member of the Central Election Committee in which I still continue. When Venkaiahji, Advaniji and Rajnathji became Party presidents, they made me the National Secretary. Now I have been made the President of the Minority Morcha. Rajnathji said, “It will send out a positive message and help the party reach out to minority communities”.


When some 'secular' leaders or some of your Muslim brothers call BJP 'communal', what feelings does it ignite in your mind?

I only laugh at their ignorance. They are living on misconceptions and only harming the cause of the community. I can say with confidence that no party is more secular than BJP. In fact, in India we have two kinds of secularism -- honest secularism and dishonest one. BJP is practicing the honest secularism. It is a false propaganda that BJP is opposed to minorities. The so-called secular parties are responsible for the present plight and sufferings of the Muslim community. Post-Godhra riots in Gujarat are an aberration under BJP rule. There have been numerous communal riots in Gujarat under successive Congress governments. During the past seven years, not a single case of communal riots has taken place in Gujarat. If the opposition criticizes Shri Modi for other things, it should also appreciate at least this achievement of his.
We do not make distinction between majority and minority. BJP Minority Morcha Cell shows that there is a place of honour for minorities in the Party.

Did you any time feel that you are a misfit in BJP?

No. Never. I did never feel any time that I am being discriminated against being a Muslim. In spite of my being quite young, I have always received place of honour and invited to every important party meeting, chintan bhaithaks in Goa and Mumbai.


What does religion mean to you?

For me rashtra dharma is supreme. Pitri dharma and matri dharma also come in the same category. Whether somebody recites his namaz or worships a god; it is a matter personal to him.
.
Crores of Muslims because of their love for the motherland decided to stay put in India after Partition and could not be lured into shifting to Pakistan just because of their religious affinity. Do you think they have assimilated themselves into the national mainstream?

Crores of Muslims because of their patriotism and love for India continued to live in their motherland despite partition of the country on communal lines. Those who accepted partition migrated to Pakistan. But our ancestors decided to stick to their soil. They preferred to throw their lot with their Hindu brethren than with others. That is why today we have a galaxy of Muslims who have brought laurels to the country -- Capt. Abdul Hamid, Capt. Hanifuddin, Sania Mirza, Zahir Khan, Irfan Khan, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam and many others.

How safe, in your view, are minorities in India, particularly in NDA or BJP-ruled States?

Minorities are safer in the BJP and NDA-ruled States than elsewhere. I want an open discussion on this issue. The condition of Muslims is very bad in the States of West Bengal and Assam while they are quite well off in Gujarat where Muslims have a higher per capita income than in other States.

How far, in your view, the abolition of Article 370 in the Constitution and Common Civil Code is going to adversely affect the interests of minorities, particularly Muslims?

If Article 370 had been scrapped, there would have been no Kashmir problem today. It even discriminates between a J&K Muslim and a Muslim in the rest of the country. Today people of Jammu-Kashmir can purchase property in Patna, but the people, including Muslims, of the rest of the country cannot in J&K. If Article 370 is removed, I would wish to have a house in Gulmarg area. Mr. Omar Abdullah says I am an Indian, but he speaks a different language in his State. Article 370 should be scrapped immediately.

I stand for a Common Civil Code. Actually, it involves reforms only in marriage laws. Today Hindus and Muslims wear the same clothes; they have common food habits. India presents a picture of unity in diversity. Actually, some people are misleading the Muslims saying that if this is done, Muslims will have to don dhoti and instead of visiting a graveyard (kabristan) they will have to go to Hindu cremation grounds. This is all non-sense, unfortunate


What place do minorities enjoy in your Party?

A place of respect and honour like any Hindu.

What have you so far done to dispel the misgivings about BJP among minorities?

I have been assigned the duty to connect more and more minorities with the BJP. It is as difficult a matter as it is easy. It is a challenge too. Reason: Since the days of Nehru, a sustained campaign has been continuing to paint Jana Sangh and now BJP as anti-minority. This impression is now getting obliterated. We organized a Muslim Yuva Sammelan in 1997. Advaniji’s speech was very much appreciated there. We wish to turn the injustice that is being perpetrated against Muslims since the days of Congress into justice. Recently, we organized a rally at Kota (Rajasthan) where 20,000 Muslims participated. Morcha organized rallies against terrorism all over the country. Indo-US Deal is an attempt to enslave India. It is against Indians whether they are Hindus, Muslims or others.

Terrorism is a great threat to the country. This must be curbed at all costs. On this account, Muslims of the country, as a whole, should not be seen as suspects. They love the country and are patriots.

What should the majority and minority communities do to obliterate the distinction between the two to make India acquire one identity of Indians and Indians alone?

In the Muslim Yuva Sammelan we passed a resolution that cow-slaughter should be banned. Media ignored it. Darrul Uloom has also demanded its ban. Muslims need to come forward on this issue. Ram Mandir issue too should be solved amicably through understanding between the two communities.

We want that Afzal Guru should be hanged as per the verdict of the Supreme Court. The only problem is that we look at him as a terrorist and Congress-Lalu-Mulayam look at him as a Muslim. They look at terrorism through the prism of religion. It is the Congress and its friends who have put a question mark on the patriotism of Muslims. POTA should be revived. Section 302 IPC too is misused; should it also be abolished?

To what extent has the rise of terrorism, particularly the cross-border terrorism, impacted the life of Muslims in India?

I wish to make it clear that Pakistan is the enemy of Indian Muslims. Muslims in India are thriving unhindered. They have made the country proud with having Presidents, Chief Justices, Vice-Presidents, Governors, and made their name in every sphere including cricket and films. This Pakistan cannot digest. That is why it is conspiring against India. It is Pakistan and not Hindus who are enemies of Muslims. ISI is the mother of all troubles. If Pakistan had not been created, Hindus and Muslims would have progressed shoulder to shoulder. Although I accept the reality of Pakistan, yet as an Indian I stand for the concept of Akhand Bharat. If the Berlin wall can fall leading to unification of East and West Germany, India and Pakistan can also be one day united into one country.


What are the main reasons for the backwardness of the Muslim community, particularly women?

Congress which ruled over the country for about 50 years since independence is responsible for all the ills and problems facing the minorities, particularly Muslims. They have not allowed Muslims to join the national mainstream just to exploit them for votes.

How much weightage would you give to the fatwas of Deoband?

Day-today fatwas have no meaning. These should be issued only when necessary and should be for the benefit and progress of the community

What are your Minority Morcha’s immediate plans, particularly in view of the year-end elections in five State assemblies and then Lok Sabha elections in 2009?

The Muslim community is angry with Congress Party for all the ills facing it. It feels cheated. Muslims are making the country proud in every field. If Israel and Philistine could be at peace; if Sushri Mayawati can have friendship with Brahmins, why can’t BJP earn the faith and confidence of Muslims when it is their real benefactor? It is not something impossible.

We will mobilize the minority community by organizing large demonstrations, rallies and conferences. Three times in the past Shri Rajnath Singh has come to our conferences. Shri Advaniji too blessed our programmes. Shri Atalji is also with us. We plan to organize a massive Muslim rally in Delhi where we expect a congregation of 2 lakh Muslims to show that Muslims in India are with BJP.
Muslims have great faith in the clean and honest image of Advaniji. Under his leadership BJP will form a government at the Centre. This government will usher in all-round prosperity and progress of the minorities. ***

Needlepoint

They killed Rajiv Gandhi again on July 22

By Amba Charan Vashishth

A mother had a son unemployed. Each day he would roam about to earn something and in the evening return empty handed to the dismay of his distraught mother who was yearning for the day when he would put his earnings in her lap.

One day, he returned all smiling with a bag full of money which he presented to his mother. In disbelief, she put the bag aside and asked, “From where did you earn this much money? This cannot be a hard day’s honest earnings. Tell me the truth”

The son was not expecting this response. He had thought his mother would be damn happy. He kept quiet. The mother started shouting, “Have you robbed somebody? Have you murdered someone to snatch this much money? I am not going to touch it”, she said and kicked the bag away.

This exactly would have been the response of Dr. Manmohan Singh’s proud and virtuous mother if she were alive today. When he would have waved the two-finger victory sign with a broad smile to her, she would certainly have questioned, “How did you achieve this miracle, my son?” She could not have so easily swallowed this wonder of marvelous victory.

When explained that he had robbed the opposition of 24 MPs who cross voted for him or absented from voting in defiance of the party whip, the pious, virtuous lady would certainly have, with a deep sigh, reminded her illustrious, victorious son of Michael de Montaigne’s words: "There are some defeats more triumphant than victories."

Of late, we have turned very permissive. We explain away victories gained through underhand means by subverting the law, puncturing the balloon of morality, kicking the standards of ethics and ignoring the qualms of conscience. Everything is fair in love, war and in politics, we say. Whatever the means, we explain, victory is victory, defeat is defeat. . And that mentality is also the mother of all our troubles in politics.

Some may bestow Dr. Manmohan Singh with the honour of now being a “King Singh” or Opposition Killer who “comes into his own to win” Politicians in India may celebrate this victory which is, in effect, a defeat of the parliamentary democracy in the world’s largest democracy. We have made ourselves a laughing stock of the world by having won a vote of confidence through the weapon of horse-trading. With what face can India claim to be a nation which had, in the ancient past, preached high moral values, standards of ethics and ideals of honesty. No wonder, if tomorrow we may have to import these virtues from abroad.

The Manmohan government victory has put to shame the victory late prime minister Mr. P. V. Narasimharao recorded in 1993 by purchasing three JMM MPs. Mr. Rao was convicted of the crime of bribing the MPs but the MPs got scot free because of the provisions of Article 105 (2) in the Constitution: “No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, ….” Its interpretation in the case implied that our honourable MPs had the proud ‘privilege’ to be bribed for voting in the House inspired by hefty monetary considerations.

This ugly, notorious example should have stirred the conscience of our lawmakers to plug the loophole and amend the law so that the country had not once again to feel small in the eyes of the world. But who can do it? The lawmakers and the ruling party alone, nobody else. But why should a ruling party do? Every ruling dispensation, particularly in the present era of coalition governments, has a vested interest to let this situation persist. Who knows when a ruling alliance may need this very Rambaan to save its gaddi?

Ironically, it is the illustrious Nehru-Gandhi dynasty presently represented by the mother-son duo of Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and Mr. Rahul Gandhi taking pride at this great victory through massive defections. The same clan which otherwise feels great at the Nehru-Gandhi legacy. These Gandhis, Dr. Manmohan Singh and the like have humbled late Rajiv Gandhi who raised his head high in having saved the country of the curse of defections.

Is it not ironical that about two dozen MPs, who played the chivalrous act of saving Manmohan government stand to lose their membership of the House sooner or later for their crime of defection by defying the party whip, but the government that survived with these illegal votes would get away with the booty of this crime?

A person is the legal heir to the property of his father or brother in the event of their death, but not when he/she ventures to inherit that property by eliminating them through a crime of murder. But here is a case in which the UPA government will get away with the spoils of the crime committed to save itself by instigating, alluring and motivating persons to throw to the winds the anti-defection law.

It is on record that our victorious Prime Minister telephoned to thank and pat each one of the ‘daring’ MPs to extend a halo of respectability for what is a crime in the eyes of the anti-defection law passed by this very Parliament to whom he is responsible.


State after State and lately, at the Centre, the present Congress leadership is killing Rajiv Gandhi again and again for what he stood for. ***

Satirically speaking: Ask our honourable public representatives, son!

Satirically yours
Ask our honourable public representatives, son!
By Amba Charan Vashishth

Son: Father.

Father: Yes, my son.

Son: What is horse-trading?

Father : Quite simple -- trading in horses.

Son: Are our MPs horses?

Father: You fool, what are you saying? Are you crazy? They’re our honourable
MPs.

Son: But why is voting in parliament being referred to have been
influenced by horse-trading?

Father: Because some MPs changed their loyalty and voted against the party
whip.

Son: But then how is it horse-trading?

Father: Because some money was exchanged in changing loyalties.

Son: But a horse is an animal and our MPs are human beings with a head
and a conscience. Can they be traded?

Father: No, son, they can’t be.

Son: Then what does it mean that there was horse-trading in Parliament.

Father: It looks that was said because there were media reports suggesting
that crores of rupees were exchanged in exchange of loyalty of each
MP.

Son: But the horse only changes his master and not loyalty because he
remains loyal to his master who purchases him.

Father: This is exactly what did our MPs. They voted in favour of whoever
paid the highest bid amount ignoring the party whip.

Son: But the horse is an animal very loyal and obedient.

Father: So are the MPs to the person or the Party who pays them.

Son: But no money is paid to the horse. It is exchanged only between the
buyer and the seller.

Father: That’s true, son.

Son: Does that mean a horse is more honest and sincere than our MPs
because he gets no money?

Father: I don’t know son. Ask, our honourable public representatives.
***

Satirically speaking

Needlepoint: Country's curse -- Ignoramus Union Ministers

Country's curse – ignoramus Union Ministers

By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 1042

"Can Advani be called a Pakistani infiltrator because he's from Sindh? Most chief ministers of West Bengal were from erstwhile East Bengal. Can they be called infiltrators?"

These are the words and arguments not of an ordinary Congress worker in the street but of India's Minister for External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee while addressing a seminar organized by a Muslim NGO on June 15 at Kolkata. His message was obviously and deliberately targeted at the peculiar audience before him.

Such arguments only betray desperate frustration giving credence to an old saying that when a person falls short of arguments, he starts calling names and comes to blows.

By comparing Advani with infiltrators Mr Mukherjee has repeated the same blunder which his veteran colleague Home Minister Shivraj Patil committed by comparing Afzal Guru with Sarabjit Singh. The former is an Indian held guilty of conspiring a terrorist attack in which about 9 innocent securitymen were killed defending the Parliament building where the top leadership of the country was holed up at that time. He was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court (SC). On the contrary Sarabjit Singh is an Indian pronounced guilty of terrorism and espionage by a Pakistani court. The former is a traitor, the latter a hero, a patriot. Our great home minister fails to distinguish between the two.

And contrast what Sarbjit’s wife Mrs. Sukhpreet Kaur says, “I and my daughters would never like Sarabjit freed in exchange for any hardcore Pakistani terrorist lodged in Indian jails. Nothing is above the nation and we can’t go against the interests of the motherland”. Who should feel ashamed is obvious.

And now our venerable Minister for Foreign Affairs fails to distinguish between an Indian citizen and a Bangladeshi infiltrator. He appears ignorant of the law of the land and the Constitution. According to the Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary, an infiltrator is “a person who secretly becomes a member of a group (in our case India) or goes to a place to get information or to influence the group”.

Article 6 of the Constitution, as applicable to the case of Mr. Advani, says “:….a person who has migrated to the territory of India from the territory now included in Pakistan shall be deemed to be a citizen of India at the commencement of this Constitution if (a) he or either of his parents or any of his grandparents was born in India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935 …”

One can only pity Mr. Mukherjee's understanding. The only saving grace however is that he spared his party and the country by not saying that Pakistan President General Musharraf is more “Indian” than is Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh because Musharraf was born in Delhi and Dr. Manmohan Singh in what now forms part of Pakistan.

Lakhs of Indians migrated (and in the process more than 10 lakhs were killed) to this side of the border from those parts which are now in Pakistan and Bangladesh to an uncertain future leaving their ancestral homes and hearths for their love of India. By equating refugees from Pakistan with infiltrators from Bangladesh Mr. Mukherjee has only put salt on the wounds of these Indians and insulted their patriotism.

And he goes on, “…it was not unusual for people from a smaller economy like Bangladesh to move into a bigger economy like India…this happens all over the world”. Here again he fails to make distinction between people of one country moving to the other as per law and those doing it in a clandestine manner, illegally.

If there were no infiltrator, why did the Congress government enact the Illegal Migrants (Detection by Tribunals) Act, 1983? Setting aside this Act as “unconstitutional” the Supreme Court said: "This IMDT Act, 1983 has created the biggest hurdle and is the main impediment or barrier in the identification and deportation of illegal migrants.”

That UPA was playing politics was evident from the fact that instead of acting as per the judicial verdict, on the eve of last assembly elections it clandestinely amended the Foreigners’ Act as applicable to Assam. SC was once again constrained to strike down this amendment too as "unconstitutional" calling it a crude attempt to bring in the IMDT Act from the backdoor.

Mr. Mukherjee's logic only repudiates Congress' supreme leader, late Mrs. Indira Gandhi who, way back in 1971, raised a great hue and cry the world over, over the exodus of about 80-90 lakh people from the then East Pakistan into India.

Mr. Mukherjee is again playing politics when he says “there is no reason to believe that lakhs of Bangladeshi are infiltrating into India”. As a Union Minister he should have the exact figures with him to buttress his argument. He is deliberately indulging in selective memory/amnesia and selective beliefs. The Congress Chief Minister of Assam, late Mr. Hiteshwar Saikia had admitted in the Assembly of more than one crore Bangladeshis having infiltrated into Assam. But under pressure, for obvious political reasons, he was later made to withdraw this statement.

On May 6, 1997 Mr Inderjit Gupta, Union Home Minister in the United Front government supported by Congress from outside, in reply to a question informed the Lok Sabha that the number of illegal infiltrators in the country is estimated to be about one crore.

Mr. Mukherjee does not wish to remember or believe what doesn’t suit his party's political and electoral purposes. The former Assam Governor, General S. K. Sinha, in a report to the President of India, had warned that "the unabated influx of migrants from Bangladesh to Assam and the consequent perceptible change in the demographic pattern of the State….threatens to reduce the Assamese people to a minority in their own State".

Mr. Mukherjee is oblivious of the fact that Indians legally living for generations together in Kenya, Uganda, Thailand, South Africa, Fiji, etc. were mercilessly thrown out although they were not infiltrators, as Bangladeshis are, whom UPA wishes to provide shelter and extend every facility that is available to native Indians.

The problem is that people like Mr. Pranab Mukherjee and Mr. Shivraj Patil are playing politics with the interests of the nation for obvious electoral gains. Does India deserve such ignoramus government leaders? That remains the question. ***

Spidernet: A Satire

Ask them, my son!

Roadshow as armour in election warfare

By Amba Charan Vashishth

Son: Father.
Father: Yes, my son.
Son: What is a roadshow?
Father: It is a new weapon invented in the armoury for use during election warfare.
Son: Who invented it, father?
Father: Nobody has so far claimed the intellectual rights. But as my knowledge goes, it was first tested-fired in 1998?
Son: By whom, father?
Father: Mrs. Sonia Gandhi and later, rightly inherited by her son, Rahul Gandhi.
Son: How does it work?
Father: It is easier to handle and simpler to use than the conventional technique of speech-making.
Son: How, father?
Father: An election speech is a fling of love for the audience and shot of an arrow of words at the opponents. It earns supporters and smashes the opposition forts.
Son: Is making a speech as simple as throwing a stone at your opponents?
Father: No, my son. Making a speech targeting your opponent is as intricate and difficult a job as going on an aerial sortie for bombardment at enemy targets. It needs expertise and experience.
Son: Does a person making a speech become an effective communicator?
Father: No. Not certainly always and, the least, everybody.
Son: But where is the problem? Today we have professional speechwriters who create great speeches which have great instant impact.
Father: We do have great speechwriters. But writing a speech and making a speech are two different things, equally difficult. If speechwriters could turn every Tom, Dick and Harry into prime ministers and presidents in a democracy, we need no intelligence and experience to make a mark.
Son: But we do have leaders who make great speeches.
Father: Yes, we do have. But many of them are readers, not leaders.
Son: How does the roadshow armour strike?
Father: When you don't wish to speak or have nothing to speak, the armour of roadshow is the best weapon against your opponent. In an election rally, it is the public that comes to see and hear you. In a roadshow it is the leaders who come to show their face to the roadside spectators, wave their hands, shake hands with them and trade their smile for votes.
Son: Our film actors and actresses too gesture to their fans in halls with their arms wide open, smooching their fingers crying wildly: "I love you all." And the hall bursts wild into roars of applause in response. Is this also of the same kind?
Father: I don't know, son. The only similarity seems to be that in both cases the gathering is of fans that may or may not necessarily vote in an election.
Son: Do these actresses love all?
Father: I don't know. I have no personal experience, son. Others may know better.
Son: In which election warfare was the weapon of roadshow used?
Father: In UP, then Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh and lately, in Karnataka.
Son: With what results?
Father: I don't know son. Ask Sonia and Rahul. ***

A satire: Who rules India? Ask them, son!

A satire
Who rules India?
Ask them, son!

By Amba Charan Vashishth*


Son: Father, there's a great hue and cry over price rise.

Father: That's right, son.

Son: Why's the opposition targeting Government and Congress President?

Father: Because they run the government. People have voted them to power to administer public affairs, manage the economy.

Son: But, father, Dr. Manmohan says prices are rising because of global reasons beyond government control.

Father: Yes, he does say so.

Son: But who runs the government in India?

Father: Obviously, Dr. Manmohan Singh.

Son: Who's the Finance Minister?

Father: Another eminent economist P. Chidambaram.

Son: What are the two doing to manage the economy, control the unbridled prices and runaway inflation?

Father: Obviously watching the global trends.

Son: Will it do the trick?

Father: They know it better. They're wise people.

Son: But who rules the country – Manmohan government or the globe?

Father: Ask them, son. ***

*Amba Charan Vashishth is a freelance political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly in English

SPIDERNET: Congress No. 2

SPIDERNET: Congress No. 2

By Amba Charan Vashishth*

The veteran CPI (M) leader, Mr. Sitaram Yechury is a veteran of the pen too. In one of his writings recently, he appeared to be hollow, without solid content and strong arguments. He also seems to be ignoring hard facts, obviously deliberately. A review of his writings is both interesting and astonishing, besides being self-contradictory.

“Advani’s willingness to be PM", according to Mr Yechury, "poses a serious challenge to the future of our democracy”. Only a fascist with no respect for people's mandate can say that. In democracy, everybody has a right to be "willing" to be prime minister. And it is not mere "willing" that does the trick; it is the people who will or will not turn it into a reality. Therefore, if tomorrow Advani is PM, it will not be courtesy CPM, Left parties or the Congress, but on the strength of people's mandate.

Mr. does recount the “solid drubbings” BJP received in last year’s UP Vidhan Sabha elections forgetting that his own party’s record was much worse, nothing to feel proud of. While BJP did win 51 seats, the Left front and other leftists who contested about 100 seats drew a glorious blank from the electorate.

It was in 2005 that CPM decided to come out of its nest in the three States of Tripura, West Bengal and Kerala to spread its wings to the Hindi heartland. During the last three years all it has achieved is just total rejection at the hands of the electorate in the North. In Punjab and Uttarakhand elections it failed to open its account. Only in December 2007 the Left parties, including CPM, were given a worst “drubbing” by the electorate both in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, where all their candidates lost security deposits.

Just last month CPI (M) itself confessed that because of its acts of omission and commission the Party was losing popularity and support of the people both in Left ruled States and the country.

To Mr. Rajnath Singh’s words “minority (which Mr. Yechury reads Muslim) appeasement”. But if it is not "minority appeasement" what else is it to extend reservation to Muslims on the basis of religion, and religion alone, in employment and education, ordering no power cuts in Muslim dominated areas, reserve 15% loans for Muslims in Bank loans and the like, at the cost of all others?

According to Sachar Committee statistics, while Muslims command a 25% share in population in West Bengal, their representation in services is only 4%. Who is to be blamed for this?

It looks, championing the cause of minorities and Muslims is a sacred act of ‘secularism’ for the pseudo-secularists and doing so for the cause of the majority community of Hindus is an abominable ‘crime of communalism’. This gives substance to the feeling in some quarters that in the ‘secular’ India of their conception it is a ‘crime’ to be a Hindu or Hindu supporter or sympathizer.

CPI (M) can champion the cause of Babri masjid to be ‘secular’ but BJP and other parties become ‘communal’ when they speak of Ram temple in Ayodhya.

CPI (M)'s WB Minister Subhash Chakravarty was made to apologise when he visited a temple and said he is a Hindu first and CPI (M) member afterwards. But it is the same 'secular' CPI (M) which in Kochi (Kerala) allowed its Muslim members to leave the party meeting in between to say their namaz. It gave an iftar party in Regent Hotel to its Muslim members. Is it the CPI (M) brand of ‘secularism’?

Let us, for a minute for the sake of argument, accept CPI (M)'s unsubstantiated charge that the current “agrarian crisis” and “distress” is because of the NDA. But what have the UPA and Left parties done to stem the rot during the last over three-and-a-half years? Do they need centuries to help the farmers? But it is also a hard fact that when NDA left, the food grain godowns in the country were full to the brim and the agricultural production was at its peak. Who is responsible for emptying the stocks and for the fall in the food production which, according to the latest reports, has come down to 2.5% from last year’s 3.8%?

It is unimaginative to blame the “food for work” programme for depletion in food stocks. If food, instead of money, was distributed the food grains went to the stomach of the poor Indians and not to foreign countries. Even otherwise, they would have had to purchase food grains at exorbitant rates from the market with the low wages they would have received.

Till 1998 and now since 2004 it was the Congress or Congress and Left supported governments which had been in power at the Centre and the States. Can they absolve themselves of the responsibility for the present “agrarian crisis” and “distress” the farming community is experiencing?

CPM’s pro-farmer and pro-minority boast was exposed by what it did to the Singur and Nandigram farmers. It only revived the memories of Stalin in Soviet Russia. Leftist litterateur Mrs. Mahasweta Devi has written that women were raped and bullets were made to pierce through their private parts. Governor, Human Rights Commission, and High Court -- all condemned what the West Bengal Government did in Singur.

It goes to the credit of excellent administration that food riots broke out in CPI (M) ruled West Bengal, perhaps for the first time in the history of Independent India. According to the figures released by the Central Statistical Organisation, the highest number (10.6%) of those going to bed without food for a number of days in the country belong to West Bengal.

CPI (M) belongs to that tribe of politicians who must condemn BJP for all its acts of omission and commission at all times and in whatever situations for no rhyme or reason. They condemn BJP if it champions for a Uniform Civil Code, repeal of Article 370 and promises to construct a magnificent Ram temple at Ayodhya. But it equally gives them stomachache if BJP puts these issues to the back burner till its gets full people's mandate for the purpose. Enactment of Uniform Civil Code forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Constitution and the Supreme Court has reminded the Union government at least thrice of its responsibility to enact it. The Constitution itself says that Article 370 is a temporary measure.

It also exposes the hypocrisy of both the Congress-led UPA and the Left parties supporting it from outside when they argue that Article 370 cannot be revoked till the minority community consents to it. But it is the same very 'secular democrats' who wish to thwart the attempt of the majority to construct a Ram temple at Ayodhya.

It is a misstatement of facts that BJP MPs ever “sabotaged its adoption demanding reservation for OBC women within this reservation” when the women’s reservation Bill was “first introduced in Parliament”.

CPM leader has kept a count of NDA allies who left it, but not of those who left UPA. He is insomniac about the rift within the CPI (M) and the Left allies in West Bengal and Kerala. As recently as the first week of February, 2008 the ‘people’s’ government of West Bengal gunned down five activists of its own ally, the Forward Block.

Recently, in West Bengal local bodies' elections, Forward Block contested against its big ally CPM. In the current Tripura assembly elections, Forward Block is fighting against the ruling CPM.

Principles had never been the moral forte of left parties, particularly the CPI (M). Their commitment to nationalist causes has always been questionable. They have recently taken an about-turn on socialism and capitalism. Only recently Shri Jyoti Basu supported West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee's stand on capitalism saying that there is a need to industrialise the state. "Socialism is not achievable at this point of time”, he said.
How ironic is Mr Yechury’s boast that “out of the 61 Left MPs in the Lok Sabha, 54 of them reached there by defeating Congress candidates”. And yet the Left parties had the cheek – and the high 'democratic' principles -- to support that very Party in Parliament speaking and fighting against whose programmes, policies and individuals had it won people’s mandate for these 54 parliamentary seats. Does it not amount to cheating the electorate? Why should the people have voted for CPI (M) if they knew that Left MPs were, ultimately, to support Congress?
It remains a fact that the Left parties are speaking in two tongues – one in New Delhi and quite the opposite in Kerala, West Bengal and Tripura.
This also substantiates the charge the Left parties are “sleeping with the enemy” and have entered into a marriage of convenience, devoid of principles, in their lust for power without responsibility.
It again is a hard fact that the moment the Left parties make a bold declaration not to support an anti-people policy of the UPA government, like hike in prices of petroleum products, increase in EPF interest rates, Indo-US Deal, disinvestment and the like, they receive invitation to lunch or dinner either by the Prime Minister or UPA chairperson. After having the sumptuous meals they forget their opposition to UPA policies and come out smiling. It is this behaviour of theirs that has given strength to the charge that the Left parties wave the red flag on the streets for public consumption and wave the green flag at private meetings with Government. The fact remains that the UPA had its way at all the times and it was the Left parties which had to compromise and submit each time. Remember their famous words on Indo-US Deal, “Congress has to choose between us and US”. Where do they stand today?
Needless to remind Shri Yechury of his own famous remark that Left not only barks; it can bite too. CPI (M) and Left have yet to come true to their words.
On February 14 the UPA government announced a hike of Rs. 2 per litre in petrol prices and Re. 1 in diesel. According to official announcement, the decision was taken after taking all the UPA allies and the Left parties in confidence. But the Left parties are opposing the decision publicly. Is it not cheating the people?
The least said the better about the Left. In fact the Left Parties, particularly CPI (M), may pose whatever they may, in reality they are only proving themselves as Congress No. 2 in the current political scenario.

*Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.

SPIDERNET: Lest he marries the other woman

SPIDERNET; Lest he weds the other woman

By Amba Charan Vashishth

It is no exaggeration to say that the stand of Left parties supporting the UPA from outside is nothing short of hypocrisy and double standards.
They claim that supporting the UPA is "their helplessness" because the alternative is the rise to power of 'communal' forces which, they say, are represented by BJP and its allies.
Before 1989, Congress was the enemy No. 1 for the Left Parties. They deplored the division of anti-Congress votes that made Congress to continue in power. For the purpose of defeating it they had joined hands with the Jana Sangh, whom today the Left parties call 'communal'. They even shared power with this communal outfit in the northern States of India when united front governments became a phenomenon in post-1967 electoral scenario.
In 1989 they had no qualms of conscience not to join hands with 'communal' BJP to support V. P. Singh government. But BJP became 'communal' the moment it withdrew support to VP Singh government.
Now they support the Congress-led UPA government from outside. But hardly has there been any time during the last four years when they have not condemned and threatened this government on various issues like rise in prices of petroleum products, Indo-US deal, disinvestment and what not. We have heard their now famous byte through the mouth of CPM veteran Sita Ram Yechury: "We don't only bark. We can bite too". Everybody in the country knows what they have done so far.
Getting hurt at the recent rise in prices, they called for a four-day bandh in Left ruled States. They continue threatening but at the same time assuring that they don't wish to make this government collapse. Actually, the fact is that they don't want to lose the luxury of being in power without the mandate and without accountability. Their argument: they cannot help ushering the BJP-led NDA.
Their response is similar to the woman who quarrels with her husband and cannot stand him even for a moment. When the couple face each other, they only quarrel and shout. She doesn't share a room with him. But she is not willing to divorce him only because that would facilitate her husband marry the other woman which she cannot digest under no circumstances. ***

*Amba Charan Vashishth is a political commentator on the editorial board of a political fortnightly.

Spidernet: The Myth & Reality of Parliamentary Privileges

SPIDERNET:

The Myth and Reality of
PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGES


By A. C. Vashishtha
Words: 1506

Not-so- far-codified parliamentary privileges of our elected representatives have always been in the news and a matter of controversy. Like the mother who every other moment hurls the "I'll slap you" threat to his errant child, we also hear our parliamentarians threaten a privilege motion against every Tom, Dick and Harry. The latest has been the case of Indian Muslim League Member of Rajya Sabha, Mr. Abdul Wahab from Kerala who was made to leave the Air India aircraft before takeoff from Kozhikode on April 7 after a tiff with the pilot. The MP is reported to have threatened to move a privilege motion against the erring airline staff.

Whether the incident involves breach of privilege is a question that is the unchallenged discretion of the Rajya Sabha Chairman or Lok Sabha Speaker. But for academic interest, it is useful to understand what, in effect, can amount to a breach of parliamentary/legislative privilege although during the last sixty years no effort – and perhaps deliberately! – has been made to define it.

Our public representatives, honourable as they are, are yet human beings. And to err is human. An error whether of words or actions, can invite criticism and reproach from the people who bestow the aura of 'honour' on our public representatives on the strength of their vote. It is the people who make and unmake our elected representatives; the latter derive all their power and privileges from the people.

Yet, our public representatives seem to be growing more and more zealous and protective of their rights and privileges. They overlook their duties. The thin attendance at the time of important debates in our legislatures, at times having to be adjourned a number of times for want of quorum because the members had more important business other than legislative to take care of – the legislative business for which they are paid hefty pay, perks, allowances and, above all, the privileges. Any criticism of theirs, exposure of their activities these days invariably inviting motions of breach of privilege guaranteed.

The privileges are, no doubt, necessary for the proper exercise of the functions entrusted to Parliament by the Constitution "to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament", according to famous authority on parliamentary business Mr. M. N. Kaul,. These are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and the vindication of its authority and dignity. The privileges have been granted to members so that "they may be able to perform their duties in Parliament without let or hindrance". (Report of Committee of Privileges in Captain Ramsay case House of Commons (H.C. 164(1939-40) p vi, para 19)

Yet, privileges "do not discharge the member from the obligations to society which apply to him as much and perhaps more closely in that capacity, as they apply to other subjects" (H. C. 1951 Lewis case). These "do not place a member of Parliament on a footing different from that of an ordinary citizen in the matter of laws." (Committee of Speakers 1956).

Even after winning an election, a public representative does not lose his individual identity and personal existence – a person with his own profession, vocation and a circle of his own relations, friends and acquaintances. The one facet of his personality as a private individual engrossed in his personal affairs and business promotion cannot be made a part and parcel of his other facet of a public representative. Nor can – and should – both these aspects come into clash with each other. A respectable distance and dichotomy between the two has to be maintained for a harmonious functioning. The powers, functions and duties of the one should not transgress into the field of the other.

A public representative may come to have a clash of interests and, in the process, there could be some infringement of civil or criminal law even. But that does not provide a privilege to him against his spouse, brothers, parents and other relatives because these have nothing to do with his duties, functions and powers as a public representative. There may, at times, be a hot exchange of words or a brawl between two individuals without the other knowing even that the other is a public representative. That is why no person can – and should – claim privilege or immunity in anything said or done in his personal capacity as a private individual, whether in matters concerning himself, his family or profession. And that is why the Constitution gives the members of Parliament and of State legislatures the privilege and immunity only from "any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof" and not in any of their other functions or speeches delivered outside the House. Protected by the security ring of "proceedings in Parliament" and in State legislatures) these privileges do not extend beyond the legislative building, except when they are prevented from attending the session of Parliament or Assembly.

The concept of parliamentary privileges has been adopted by us in India on the pattern of the one prevailing in the British Parliament and is, more or less, governed and guided by the famous treatise May's Parliamentary Practice. The contempt of the House, according to May, is "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House, in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency directly or indirectly, to produce such results…"

Breach of privilege means a disregard of any of the rights, privileges and immunities either of members of Parliament individually, or of the House in its collective capacity. Referring to various debates in the House of Commons and the Lok Sabha in Procedure and Practice of Parliament M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdhar state that "in order to constitute a breach of privilege, a libel upon a member of Parliament must concern his character or conduct in his capacity as a member of the House and must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the House. Reflections upon members otherwise than in their capacity as members do not, therefore, involve a breach or privilege or contempt of the House. Similarly, speeches or writings containing vague charges against members or criticizing their parliamentary conduct in a strong language particularly in the heat of a public controversy without, however, imputing any malafides are not treated by the House as a contempt or breach of privilege".

Every activity of a member of Parliament does not attract the privilege. The House of Commons in 1958 rejected the opinion of the Committee of Privileges "that a particular letter written by a member to a Minister relating to a Nationalised Industry was a proceeding in Parliament".

Privilege of freedom from arrest "cannot extend or be contended to operate, where the member of Parliament is charged with an indictable offence". (Case of Venkateswarlyu, AIR 1951, Madras 272). Further, "the House will not allow even the sanctuary of its walls to protect a member from the process of criminal law" (May, p. 101)

The Constitution, the law and the parliamentary practice in India and the United Kingdom, therefore, clearly draw a distinct dividing line between the duties and functions of a public representative as a parliamentarian in the House and those outside, the latter bereft of the element of privilege.

In the Import Licence Case that surfaced about 15 years back, allegations of bribery and forgery of signatures of other MPs for promoting the cause of certain applicants were made. But the question of privilege was disallowed since the conduct of the member, although improper, was not related to the business of the House. At the same time it was held that as the allegations of bribery and forgery were serious and unbecoming of a member of Parliament, he could be held guilty of lowering the dignity of the House (Kaul and Shakdhar, ibid p. 231)

On the contrary, on the conduct of certain JMM MPs who voted for the Narasimharao Government during a vote of confidence in the House after allegedly receiving money, the Supreme Court held that trial must proceed against the alleged ``bribe-givers'' but not against the alleged ``bribe-takers'' since they enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution which states that ``no MP shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.''

There is a very thin line dividing the two facets of an individual's personality – personal and the one as a representative elected by the people. During the course of one's life one has to come face to face with the realities of life. One must be ready to face such situation. What is important is not whether it involves parliamentary privilege or not, but the truth and the truth alone. A public representative should fight for truth, for the unearthing of it. And the truth prevails; it must always prevail.

NEEDLEPOINT: They need honour & Education, not alms of reservation

Spidernet

They deserve honour and education
Not the alms of reservation

By Amba Charan Vashishth

Reservation was certainly a necessity – legal, social and economic -- when such a provision was made in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were men of wisdom and foresight. They knew that making such a provision permanent would make it have an adverse effect on the Indian society and may ultimately divide it on the basis of caste. They actually had a vision of India as a nation not divided on caste lines, as it was in the past till India won freedom. That was why the provision for reservation was made for just 10 years. In the Constituent Assembly, Dr. Ambedkar had with a sense of pride declared that the scheduled castes would not beg for it after that.

But that is a history now. There was a time when claiming to belong to a scheduled caste/tribe family looked embarrassing. Reservation too looked upon like a gracious favour. But today it has become a matter of pride, a sign of status, and something one should fight and even sacrifice for.

Without going into the justification or otherwise of their demand, the recent agitation by Gurjars for grant of scheduled tribes (and not the Other Backward Class status, as the Government has granted), has to be seen in this very light. Of late, in Rajasthan some sections among the forward castes of Brahmins and Rajputs too have come out with a demand for granting them backward/scheduled caste status. Even the non-Hindu religions, which hitherto prided themselves in being casteless creeds in denunciation of Hindu society, are now condescending to demand reservation on the basis of castes – a fact which their religion doesn't recognize. Such demands will continue to be on the increase as long as there is reservation.

This situation has ignited the spark of a class/caste conflict in the society. Rajasthan's Meena community, already enjoying a scheduled tribe status, is equally vehement in opposing the Gurjars.

Malady lies not in the demand, but in the politics behind in the name of votes. The reservation provision that was temporary for a decade has now become a permanent feature of the Constitution. No political party can dare to do otherwise

There was no narrow electoral politics at play when the Constitution in one of its Directive Principles provided for enactment of a uniform civil code in the country, a provision about which the Supreme Court has also reminded the Union government not once, but at least thrice. But now the electoral considerations have made our leaders deaf, blind and dumb on the issue.

Similar is the story about the Article 370 which, again, was a temporary one. Now it has virtually turned into a permanent feature, as against the spirit of the Constitution, lest it costs the ruling party votes of a particular community.

No serious effort has been made, for obvious reasons, to assess the extent of amelioration the reservation provision has ushered in the condition of the scheduled castes/tribes. In the absence of the creamy layer provision, now enforced because of Supreme Court verdict, the benefit of reservation has been usurped by only a very few families. We can count on our tips the families whose four generations are in the IAS, IPS and other prestigious Central services. Others continue to indulge in the age-old professions as before, living in slums in pecuniary.
Reality is that those who got into power and prestige because of reservation no longer wish to be identified with the castes to which they belonged. They snapped their relations with the community and married off themselves in higher castes, instead of doing so to uplift someone in their own community. For them the value of the caste certificate was reduced to just claiming benefit. Inter-caste and inter-community marriages should always be welcome. But, unfortunately, doing so in these cases has only resulted in the neglect of the rest in their own community. And that was not what our Constitution visualized.

In fact, reservation is a curse on the merit of the mankind. What we should have done was to extend the benefit of a good education and multiplicity of opportunities the higher castes enjoyed more because of their economic condition and less because of their social upbringing. We should have empowered the scheduled tribes/castes and backward classes by providing them with a good environment for higher education and coaching to compete with the higher castes on the platform of equality on the strength of their merit. It is a folly to think that the reserve classes lack merit or intelligence and that they can survive or march forward only if there is reservation to the exclusion of merit. Given the opportunity that have excelled in fields nobody could earlier think even.

Thousands of crores has been wasted during the past sixty years without any significant and tangible improvement in the life and condition of our neglected and dalit sections of society. Why were they not provided the type of education and extent of opportunities other castes enjoyed?

The present agitations by more and more castes for their inclusion in the scheduled castes/scheduled tribe category is because of the impression ingrained in their mind that the very act of their inclusion in these proud categories will overnight make their wards grab prized posts without earning the merit. A sense of inferiority complex has been generated in the minds of these neglected sections that they can never earn merit and reservation is the only panacea. The neglected castes have been made to beg for the alms of reservation and not to agitate for their right to education and merit. That is the crux of the problem. Empowering the downtrodden doesn't fetch votes; our politicians know it very well.

Our rulers will have to change their mindset to barter favours with electoral benefits from certain castes and communities. Unless this is done, the kind of situation that developed in Rajasthan may erupt in other parts of the country with similar demands from other castes/communities. Let our politicians ponder in a cool manner. ***

Needlepoint: Right to Information; Arrogance to Deny it

Needlepoint
The Right to information
The Arrogance to deny it

By Amba Charan Vashishth
Words: 910

On April 24 in all his wisdom and authority Rajya Sabha Chairman Mr. Hamid Ansari invoked, for the first time after 1989, Rule 255 and named Mr. V. Maitreyan of the AIADMK for disorderly behaviour and asked him to leave the House.
The provocation for the Chairman’s order was the member’s persistent demand for a response from Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, who was present in the House, to the charge that Union Surface Transport Minister Mr T.R. Baalu sought a favour for his sons’ firms in allocation of gas and that the Prime Minister had recommended his case.
The Chairman disallowed his plea and asked him not to disrupt the proceedings. However, Mr. Maitreyan continued to press for a “clarification” by the Prime Minister. At this stage, Mr. Ansari warned him that he would invoke Rule 255, observing that “this disorderly behaviour was unbecoming of a parliamentarian.” When an agitated Mr. Maitreyan remained adamant, Mr. Ansari said he was invoking the rule.
There are no two opinions on the righteousness of the Hon’ble Chairman’s directions. An MP is expected to behave and submit to the directions of the chair in all humility in the interest of decorum in a house.
It is none of anybody’s business to comment upon what happens within the precincts of a house. Yet, as a free citizen – above all, a responsible voter – of this great country and democracy, it is equally his inalienable right to keep a close watch on what right or wrong is going on in the two houses of Parliament and to ponder over dispassionately, when, what, why and how did it happen.
Two basic questions do arise in the mind. Does an honourable MP not have a right to seek clarification or reaction of a minister or prime minister on any matter of public importance in which the name of a minister or PM may have been rightly or wrongly been dragged? Is it not the duty and responsibility of a minister concerned to satisfy the curiosity of the member – and through him and Parliament, of the general public – of the facts of the case?
It is right that no member can expect – and force – a minister or government into instantly and there and then making a statement without first referring to records and verifying facts. But in this age of fast means of communications promising to do so next day or day after should not be construed as meaning something like asking for the moon. That would only have soothed the frayed tempers and sent out a clear message that there is no intention to hide facts.
The greatest tragedy of our system of democracy is that rights and duties don’t go hand in hand; these are neither inter-linked nor inter-dependent. In the Westminster style of parliamentary system of government, an honourable MP or minister does have the right to reply immediately if his name is referred to by any other member in the house. But, it is not the duty – and, on the contrary, it is his sole discretion -- to respond or not if any allegation, howsoever serious it may be, against a member or minister.
In democracy, no person/minister, howsoever high, has the right – and don't forget the Right to Information Act – to withhold facts – unless, of course, it involves the security of the country, which is not true in the instant case – from the house because he/she is answerable, accountable and responsible to Parliament and the people.
Till the time this piece has been sent, neither the right of the House – and through it, of the people – to know the reality has been respected nor has the government discharged its duty to lay the facts bare. The Minister for Parliamentary Affairs does have given an assurance that government will look into it and respond but, at the same time, without specifying when.
When the matter was raised in the Rajya Sabha on April 25, saying that the members expected some understanding from the Chair of their intentions and feelings, and that there were many situations which could be resolved without invoking any penal provisions of the rules of the House, the Chairman Mr. Ansari said, “In fact none was punished or castigated. All that had happened was that in pursuant to the rule of the House, the attention of the member was drawn to that and he complied”.
Rule 255: “The Chairman may direct any member, whose conduct is in his opinion grossly disorderly, to withdraw immediately from the Council, and any member so ordered to withdraw shall do so forthwith and shall absent himself during the remainder of the day’s meeting.”
It clearly means that the Hon’ble Chairman invoked this Rule only after “in his opinion, Mr. Maitreyan’s conduct was “grossly disorderly" and, therefore, ordered him "to withdraw immediately from the Council". The concerned MP "so ordered to withdraw" did so forthwith and did "absent himself during the remainder of (that) today's meeting".
Earlier the Rule was invoked in 1989 in a slightly different context and situation. A member had physically prevented another member from asking a supplementary question. When the chair asked the recalcitrant MP to tender an apology to the House for this "grossly disorderly" conduct and the latter refused to comply, the provisions of the Rule were applied.
The people of the country do have the right – and the duty – to draw their own conclusion, right or wrong. They certainly will. ***

M F Hussain: Myth of his Innocence; Truth of his wrongs

MF Hussain
Myth of his innocence
Reality of his wrongs

By Amba Charan Vashishth*
Words: 700


On April 7 the Indian Express published an interview with famous artist Satish Gujaral in which he said that Mr. M. F. Hussain's exile "makes me ashamed of my own culture…the mob culture" and that" we have made such a great man live abroad."

Such utterances just confuse the people evading the real issue. These deprive the people from having a comprehensive and indepth look at the issues involved from every angle. We do drum about "our culture" but ignore that it also that teaches us to introspect on our own conduct before raising an accusing finger on the other. It is the same very "culture" that teaches us only to respect and not to offend others' sentiments. Mr. Gujaral seems to be ignoring "our culture" when he calls Mr Hussain "a great man" who has the audacity to injure, without provocation, the sentiments of crores of his countrymen.

If Mr. Hussain, as he and his supporters claim, has not done anything wrong then why is he afraid of returning to his country? Never has any government declined to provide him adequate security. But it will be expecting to much if they expect the government to grant him blanket immunity from any criminal offence he may or may not have committed. No government worth its name can do that in a democracy. He seems to be afraid to return because of a sense of guilt created by his own deeds and not because of "our culture". Everybody knows that to hurt somebody’s or some section of society’s faith and religious sentiments is an offence -- criminal, social and ethical. If one poses to be brave to stand by his commitments and principles, he should equally be bold to face the consequences.

Neither Mr. Hussain himself nor his protagonists explain why has he availed himself of his democratic right to freedom of expression only with Hindu goddesses and not taken the same liberty with holy men of his own creed?

If “he is a prime target precisely because he is a Muslim”, as some allege, then it can, inversely, also mean that he exercised his license with Hindu gods and goddesses “precisely because he is a Muslim”. Had the liberal and ‘secular’ Mr. Hussain painted in the same fashion somebody belonging to his own religion, or put the caption as “My Mother Durga”, or “My Mother Saraswati” or “My Mother Bharatmata” on the nude photographs, perhaps, he would have blunt the sharpness of the tongue and logic of his critics and detractors.

Mr. Hussain is, no doubt, a great painter but, at the same time, we have yet to know of a great painter, like him, who has painted his mother in the nude.

It is great human weakness and reality that everybody wishes to flirt with or throw amorous glances over someone else’s wife, sister and mother. One wishes to draw vicarious pleasure by seeing them in the nude. But when it comes to our own wife, mother or sister, we would wish to gouge the eyes of the culprit; it could lead to a scuffle and a murder even.

Arundhati Roys, Nandita Dasses, and a horde of well-known writers and artists/artistes throng the streets in support of Mr. Hussain's freedom. Yet, they have never publicly declared that they would appreciate with the same sense of glee and pride their own or of any member of their own family's nude paintings by a ‘great’ artist like Mr. Hussain. They need to do that, otherwise they will only stand exposed as hypocrites who have one standard for others and quite the opposite for themselves.

Do we need to remind what "our culture….mob culture" has done to the likes of Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie? Or the orgy of violence let loose causing loss of innocent lives and to private/public property in various parts of the country following publication of some Danish cartoonist outside India or hanging of Saddam Hussain in Iraq – an act in which "our culture" had no direct or indirect role to play?

It is a virtue to be liberal and condescending; it is a sin to be one-eyed and partial to deliberately gloat over the other side of reality! ***

Needlepoint: The Enigma that is Delimitation

The Enigma that is Delimitation

By Amba Charan Vashishth

At the height of controversy over delimitation of constituencies in Himachal Pradesh, the Chairman of the Delimitation Commission in 2002 declared: He will go by the convenience of the public and not by that of the politicians. But actually, with the Government of India now deciding to the accept the report of Delimitation Commission for Himachal along with other States where election process has already been completed, the Election Commission and the Delimitation Commission have in fact achieved exactly the reverse and ignored the "convenience of the public".

In 2002, the Delimitation Commission was trying to run against time to complete the process in time for the HP assembly elections then due in February 2003. But for some reason or the other, this could not be done and the elections were held as per the old delimitation. But it was then thought that the process of delimitation would be completed well before next elections due in February 2008 (though held in December 2007) to hold elections as per the new recommendations.

It is worth mentioning that although the report of the Delimitation Commission was notified by the HP Government as back as January 2007, yet in the elections held after 11 months in December 2007, the Report was totally ignored.

The elections to Gujarat assembly in December 2007 too were held according to the old delimitation. So about the States of Tripura, Nagaland, Meghalaya going to the polls in March this year. In Karnataka elections due in May 2008 the report of the Delimitation Commission is again likely to be ignored.

In all fairness, the elections to every State assembly should be held as per the recommendations of the Delimitation Commission to cater to the "convenience of the public" instead of creating practical problems for them later on.

The elections held as per the old system have created a very anomalous situation, at least for the people who voted in the elections concluded less than a month ago in the States of Himachal and Gujarat, and so will they in the three North-eastern States.

Being more acquainted with the ground realities in Himachal, I would like to concentrate more on the situation that has developed in this State. The situation in other States can be no different.

Not the one they voted

The kanungo circle being the unit for re-drawl of constituencies, the boundaries of almost every constituency stand altered. Consequently, the persons whom people voted in the last elections are no longer their representatives and the one they did not vote are to be their 'elected' representatives. In many cases they may have voted for a person who belongs to some other party and won, but in the newly drawn constituency, the person may belong to a different party. The elected 'representative' too may not give to them that much care and attention because they were not the people instrumental in his victory.

No MLA to represent

A new assembly constituency of Manali has been added to the Kullu district increasing the number of its MLAs to four from the existing three. The voters of the newly created constituency of Manali have now been left high and dry with nobody to represent them in the House because their area falls in the constituency of none of the three individuals who won the election. The latter will now only concentrate on the areas from where they have to seek re-election next time.

No constituency to represent

The number of assembly constituencies in Kangra, the biggest district of the State which sends almost one-fourth of MLAs (16 in a house of 68) has been reduced to 15. The Thural constituency, which the incumbent Irrigation & Public Health Minister Mr. Ravinder Singh Ravi has been representing and won for the fourth time consecutively, has been obliterated and he is left with no area to represent, his present area having been fragmented and merged with other adjoining constituencies.

Nowhere to go

The number of constituencies reserved for Scheduled Castes has been increased by one, from the present 16 to 17 (one-fourth of the House). Unreserved constituencies of Chintpurni (Una), Baijnath (Kangra), Rohroo (Shimla) and Solan have been reserved for scheduled castes and the present reserved constituencies of Gagret (Una), Pragpur (Kangra) and Kasumpati (Shimla) have been de-reserved. Consequently, the MLAs elected only a month back, including former Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh (Rohroo) and Health Minister Dr. Rajeev Bindal (Solan), have been left high dry with no areas to contest next time. Mr Virbhadra Singh may opt from some other constituency in Shimla district, but the fate of the remaining three is doomed.

As a result of this delimitation, the people inhabiting these newly reserved and de-reserved seven constituencies will suffer because the incumbent representatives will lose interest in nursing the areas that voted for them because they have not to seek votes from these constituencies for at least three decades hence when another delimitation of constituencies may take place. The last delimitation took place in 1972.

The only redeeming feature will be that the next Lok Sabha elections in 2009 will be held as per the newly redrawn parliamentary constituencies. Although the four parliamentary constituencies too stand redrawn, yet the people will have the opportunity to vote for an individual and a political party of their choice under the new set up. ***