There, now that I’ve vented my frustration at the Malcontents, Inc. of India, and without further ado, I present a compilation of a few good words. (Not that I agree with everything they say, but why duplicate unnecessarily?) In addition to the links themselves, I’ve attached a small preview of the piece. That’s not for your benefit, but for mine, so that I can recall what they wrote.
Modi’s visa denial: Who did it?
March 21, 2005
B Raman I am not an admirer of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, who has been denied entry into the United States by the US State Department. He gets on my nerves.
… One has to see the riot, which was provoked by the gruesome killing of a large number of Hindus at the Godhra railway station in Gujarat, in the proper perspective, without trying to rationalise the incidents. India and every Indian, whatever be his or her religion, ought to feel ashamed of what happened in Gujarat, but unfortunately periodic eruptions of such riots have been a dark feature of Indian history ever since the country became independent.
… Ever since the Gujarat riots of 2002, Modi has been the target of a campaign of criticism and condemnation by many sections of Indian civil society for failing to protect the Muslims and for exacerbating the situation through his oratory. No one can deny that initially the Gujarat authorities failed to deal with the rioters firmly. But subsequently, the police acted ruthlessly against the Hindu mobs.
How does one judge whether the police acted firmly or not in riots between members of two religious communities? From the number of people killed in police firing. It was reported that more Hindus died from police bullets during the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002 than during the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi in 1994 and during the anti-Muslim riots in Madhya Pradesh in the 1960s. Does this show culpability on the part of the Gujarat administration?
… In the US, large sections of the population have been calling for action against Rumsfeld for the human rights violations in Iraq. They have not succeeded. Have they taken their case to a foreign government or court to teach him a lesson? No. And they never will. They would consider it unpatriotic.
Not in India and among sections of Indians abroad. If one Indian stabs another Indian in the back with the help of a foreign power, he is considered a progressive, a liberal, a secularist. Cry, the beloved country!
The False Gods of Secularism
March 10th, 2005
by Kanchan Gupta
It is the Congress that has engineered most of the riots… Rajiv Gandhi failed to protect Harijans and Muslims… Geographical boundaries of the country were jeopardised by the Congress and Rajiv Gandhi…’
… On December 29, 1989, Lalu Prasad Yadav was relentless in his assault on the Congress, more so on Rajiv Gandhi, and took vicarious pleasure by slyly mentioning Sonia Gandhi by name now and then, in total disregard of House rules. ‘It is the Congress party which (has) engineered most of the riots, particularly in Bihar,’ he thundered to the thumping of tables. ‘We shall expose their role in inciting communal riots,’ he promised on behalf of the government.
… Researching communal violence in India, as I have been doing these past six months, can be a dreary and depressing experience. But it also has its illuminating moments. Reading the records of the debate in the Lok Sabha on December 29, 1989, was one such moment when the true face of secular politics in India leapt out with venomous fangs exposed.
Kya lagaya hai, yeh secular, secular?
March 18, 2005
by Aravind Lavkare The truth is finally out: Ram Vilas Paswan rooting for a Muslim chief minister in Bihar is ‘secular,’ but L K Advani rooting for a Ram temple at Ayodhya is ‘communal’ if not a ‘fascist’ as well.
If the country’s entire media and its ‘intellectuals’ chose to be absolutely mum on Paswan’s demand based on alluring the large base of Muslim voters, it was because our media is oh, so ‘secular.’
And when Advani’s demand is based on the historical, revenue and archaeological records of Ayodhya, he is still ‘communal’ because our media is oh, so ‘secular.’ That is the truth and the tragedy of Hindustan’s intellectuals, the Election Commission included.
Yes, the cat is out of the bag: ‘When it comes to the nitty-gritty what determines whether or not a person is secular is his attitude towards the minority communities, mostly towards Muslims who matter much more than Christians or Sikhs.’ That is from the pen of the high priest of liberalism, modernism and smut aka Khushwant Singh, in a recent column…
… All ‘secularists’ of the above kind must be told that by far one of the most clear-cut concepts of pure secularism was propounded on August 11, 1947. It was not propounded by Jawaharlal Nehru, the father of today’s pseudo-secularism, or by Mahatma Gandhi, who, with his Khilafat Movement was the first to officially bring religion into our politics. Rather, and most ironically, the perspective was propounded by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who fought for and got Pakistan for Muslims. At the first meeting of Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly that day in August 1947, following were some of the words he spoke…
Stop this nonsense about our great democracy
March 03, 2005
by TVR Shenoy
At the recent meeting of the finance ministers of G-7 countries, to which India and China were invited, the finance minister of China looked in my direction and told the gathering that China had received US $500 billion worth of foreign investment since China opened its economy in 1980. Of this, nearly US $60 billion came in calendar 2004.’ As you may recall, this was P Chidambaram in his Budget speech.
The Union finance minister did not tell the House about his response to this challenge. ‘Democracy,’ he told the delegates of the world’s wealthiest nations, ‘is a powerful tool for inducing transparency and accountability in economic policy.’ Neither the finance minister nor any other representative of India shall be able to make such a preposterous claim again. If they do, the smiling Chinese can shut them up with two words, namely ‘Jharkhand’ and ‘Goa’. And if that does not suffice they can simply mention ‘Syed Sibtey Razi’ and ‘S C Jamir.’
… Many people were happy to shed crocodile tears over the ‘murder of democracy’ in neighbouring Nepal after King Gyanendra dismissed his prime minister. Let us now stop talking nonsense about India’s great love for democracy and the sanctity of elections. S C Jamir and Syed Sibtey Razi have thrown a pail of manure on the Constitution, and until their sin is redeemed we have no right to preach to Nepal.
May I end by noting that Mulayam Singh Yadav would do well to take care? Sonia Gandhi’s men are already saying it is only a matter of time before there is a change in Uttar Pradesh. After Goa and Jharkhand we all know what that means.
February 24, 2005
by TVR Shenoy
Leave it to the mandarins in the central secretariat to take a bad situation and make it worse! India knew that it had a potential crisis on its hand when King Gyanendra dismissed his prime minister on February 1. It took three weeks to formulate a reaction — which has now come in the form of cutting off aid to the Royal Nepal Army. I happen to believe that this is ridiculously short-sighted.
… Some readers may think that I am raising a bogeyman when I speak of King Gyanendra getting cosy with the Chinese and the Pakistanis. The monarch of the world’s only Hindu state would never sup with an Islamic republic and a Communist state, would he? Why not? Statecraft demands that a ruler must do everything he can to keep his nation safe. That is why the arch-Conservative Winston Churchill danced with Stalin in World War II, and it is why, closer home, King Mahendra allowed Pakistan to gain its first foothold in Nepal.
… But a Maoist regime in Kathmandu is the worst possible option, and a close second is a Nepal dependent on aid from Pakistan and China. Both options are now a distinct possibility thanks to the decision to cut off Indian aid to Nepal. We have preferred rhetoric above reason, and we shall pay the price.
What’s going on in Kanchi?
January 13, 2005
by TVR Shenoy
When you have the law on your side, hammer away at the law,’ the veteran attorney told his junior, ‘When you have the facts on your side, hammer away at the facts.’K T S Tulsi began trying to revive the ghost of supposed Brahminical prejudice. When a lawyer of his experience speaks of casteism rather than cite hard evidence you know he is hammering on the table…
‘Yes, but what does one do if one has neither the facts nor the law to support one’s case?’
‘Hammer away at the table!’
When Jayendra Saraswati was arrested on the morning of November 12 I thought the Tamil Nadu police must have gathered enough evidence to make a prima facie case, perhaps not enough to get him convicted but sufficient to say that he should be taken into custody.
The first doubts began to emerge when the police began to make its case, and the unspoken thought turned into actual suspicion when
If and when you do get the time, take a look through their eyes. Worth it, if you ask me.