(This is a reprint from NewsBred).
Hyderabad and its municipal elections would carry a deeper political meaning in days to come.
All this while we wondered why BJP was investing so much of its political campaign on a piddly elections. After the results are out, and BJP has been spectacular, we must read its meaning.
One of course is that Asaduddin Owaisi must watch his back. It’s no good saying that we didn’t contest all seats. But BJP won even in your backyard. It limits your options.
One, any party which aligns with you would think twice. It would be seen as pandering to the Islamist theme which in today’s terms is seen as secessionist, jihadis and standing on an anti-Hindu platform. Call it polarization if you must but that’s the ground reality. You might think you are speaking for minority Muslims but majority feel you are masking Rohingyas, trouble-makers everywhere.
Two, the likes of Mamata Banerjee, Pinaryi Vijayan etc would be back in the drawing room if they are fancying a tie-up with AIMIM post assembly elections. They would be loathe to declare Owaisi as their partner before the elections and BJP would keep pressing its thumb on that sore wound: That its rivals are hand in gloves with Islamist forces and must come clean.
Third, it doesn’t bode good for KCR at all. He faces a double whammy. One of course is that in order to control the 150-seat civic body, he would have to align with Owaisi. There is no other option. Congress with two seats is wretched and BJP is out of bounds. It compromises him ahead of the 2023 assembly elections.
Fourth, the days of dynasty politics are over in India. KC Rao was blatant in promoting his son and daughter. The nation is no longer interested in surnames, your kitchen dwellers. There was a reason how BJP cashed in on the frustration of youth—the very force which had led to creation of Telangana in the first place.
Fifth, spare us this concocted myth that BJP is nothing but a two-man show. The first man to show up in Hyderabad was Tejasvi Surya, still in his 20s; and the man in charge on ground was Bandi Sanjay Kumar, BJP state unit head, not yet 50.
It would interest readers to know that Modi had been calling up Bandi Sanjay Kumar to know which way the wind was blowing. Kumar wasn’t being treated as dirt like Congress does to its long-standing pillars, Khushboo for instance. And Kumar doesn’t carry any political heritage. Son of ordinary parents, he went through the grind of RSS, ABVP, BJP Youth Morcha etc. He twice had tickets for assembly elections and he lost on both occasions. But he wasn’t dumped. He returned with win in 2019 Lok Sabha elections. That’s how talent is spotted and invested in in the BJP.
Further, Bandi Sanjay Kumar isn’t just Telangana BJP head. He was in-charge of the BJP in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, both of which go under assembly elections in next few months. He has been kept in eye since 1996 when LK Advani, during his 35-day Suraj Rath Yatra, relied on then 19-year-old Kumar for the seamless movement of his vehicle. After a quarter of a century, he is ready.
The critics could cry themselves hoarse. They could term it brute majority, polarization, poll-machine etc but the fact is BJP is unstoppable. People are convinced of their sincerity and integrity and the benefits they could spot in their changed lives.
You want to believe you own propaganda, please go ahead. But the voters know better.
(This is a reprint from NewsBred).
Indian Express is going to length to find voices which could question the Centre on its fiat on Jammu & Kashmir, notably on constitutional, human rights and its federal-character-under-assault grounds.
Conveniently kept out of view is terrorism, loss of tens of thousands of civilian/army lives and billions of tax-payers money which never reached the commoners of the troubled state.
The newspaper doesn’t have a stance on the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits, that minorities were discriminated against in the state, that caste reservations was out of bounds; and that 106 Central Laws (Prevention of Corruption Act, Land Acquisition Act, Right to Education Act, National Commission for Minorities Act etc) were rendered lifeless by those who governed the Centre and Srinagar.
Where are people in Indian Express’ discourse? Do we hear from them on Jammu and Ladakh which has bigger area and still bigger population than the Valley? Where are its investigating geniuses who hide from its readers that Kashmir Valley gets more financial allocation that what Jammu and Ladakh divisions, put together, are provided for? Why it escapes them that the per-capita subsidy to J & K is 16 times more than West Bengal and 12 times more than Bihar?
In its’ Sunday’s edition today (September 1, 2019), Indian Express has flushed out a Supreme Court lawyer Aman Hingorani who turned a doctoral research into a book (Unravelling the Kashmir Knot) and now has an entire page dedicated to his discourse to the crème da la crème of the Capital on the Constitutional heist which the Modi government has pulled off in J & K. The newspaper takes Hingorani’s discourse on a page they pompously call “Explained”. The man himself is preening to his audience that at the end of his discourse, they would realize the futility of Centre’s move. (You dumbs, here I am to get you rid of your ignorance).
I am not sure if it was an interactive session or Hingorani’s monologue. But since Express claims the session was meant to benefit its’ readers, I as one of its most long-lasting consumer, have a few questions for Hingorani and I hope they are not inconvenient enough to be ducked by both the newspaper and the “star” it has peddled today.
HINGORANI: The Accession terms were the same in J & K as it was for other princely states. But while other princely states merged their territory into India, Jammu and Kashmir refused to do so…
Question: Please avoid the misinformation that all other princely states had merged their territory into India. Junagadh and Hyderabad hadn’t. They were intransigent compared to a prostrated Maharaja Hari Singh of J & K. But while Junagadh and Hyderabad succumbed to India’s military pressure, J & K was allowed to dictate terms.
Now how did that happen? Was it because Junagadh and Hyderabad were managed by Sardar Patel while J & K was left to be Pt. Nehru’s toy? Your turn Mr Hingorani.
HINGORANI: Article 370 had been emptied long ago…It had never come in the way of New Delhi dealing with the state in the way it wanted to deal with the state.
Question: Article 370 was the stepping stone on which Article 35 and 1954 Presidential Order were later added. It allowed J & K to have a separate constitution, a state flag and autonomy over the internal region of Kashmir. It allowed the state government to discriminate against Hindu and Sikhs who migrated at Partition; against Valmikis of Punjab whom they lured with the promise of citizenship but never delivered.
Article 370 makes a mockery of Article 14 which guarantees equality before the law and the principles of liberty. As we know, not everyone living in J & K could vote in the election to the state assembly. Further, Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, sex, place of birth or race etc.
So Mr Hingorani, could you please revisit your position in light of the facts obscured in your discourse?
HINGORANI: Many states have restrictions on people buying land, what’s so special about it (Article 370)?
Question: Let me rephrase this question and see Mr Hingorani what’s your response: Which are other states where a woman, if she marries outside her state, is denied rights over land? Ok, here’s a dollop of escape route I let you have: Just name one state.
HINGORANI: India can’t go to United Nations and then say (Kashmir) is an internal issue…
Question: So Mr Hingorani, what did United Nations do when Pakistan not only occupied a part of Kashmir but also later ceded 20% of the entire area, Gilgit-Baltistan etc, to China? What right Pakistan has on the area of Kashmir it has illegally occupied? What rights Pakistan has of ceding Kashmir to China which has no claim over the territory? Did they take the route of people’s referendum? Was there any instrument of accession signed that you are so fond of quoting? Hasn’t United Nations become irrelevant on Kashmir? If it hasn’t, then why didn’t United Nations make any noise after India’s move this month: That wait, this matter is under us, and India can’t decide on its own on J & K?
HINGORANI: Presidential Rule is an emergency provision. It is not meant for taking far-reaching decisions…
Question: And you think 70 years spent in the quagmire still doesn’t confer an emergency-status to J & K. If the application of President’s Rule now is a travesty of justice, what would you say to the Presidential Order of 1954? Does our constitution bind the President not to take such a decision? If it doesn’t, what’s your gripe?
HINGORANI: Can you use emergency provisions to dismember and destroy the identity of a state?
Question: You call it dismembering of state but not question the latter which had no time for Ladakh. You would call it destruction of identity of state but would make no mention that how come Kashmir Valley, with lesser population and lesser area, had 46 assembly seats to Jammu’s 37 in the state assembly. Isn’t it a stolen identity? Who did it? Didn’t it allow Muftis and Abdullahs perpetuity in power? Was it subversion or empowerment of democracy?
It’s important we interject when our newspapers peddle a one-sided warped discourse. It’s certainly not neutral or unbiased. It’s easy to hide behind the cloak that it’s a writer’s own personal view. But when none of your editorials present any piece which speaks for Kashmiri Pandits, minorities, deprivation of central laws or the welfare of SC-STs in J & K or even question why after 70 years the lot of Kashmiris haven’t improved, then it’s legitimate to ask: Who are you speaking for?
(It’s a reprint from NewsBred).
It’s a wonder that in India there has been only one Nathuram Godse.
When thousands of Kashmiri Hindus were murdered, maimed, raped and “cleansed” out of Kashmir; when conversions in Kerala, West Bengal, Goa and North-East is going on hand-in-hand with slaughters; Kairana happened; Diamond Harbour transpired; it’s some wonder than only one Nathuram Godse passed us by.
Amartya Sen, that Nobel laureate who matches Manmohan Singh in skullduggery (now you know how economists fudge data), has a piece in New York Times where he fears for the “lives of minorities, particularly Muslims” in the wake of Modi 2.0. Rajdeep Sardesai, last night in his show, was frothing fire on Sadhvi Pragya even as BJP IT cell chief Amit Malviya kept correcting him that the newly elected Bhopal MP is no longer a terror-accused. Shekhar Gupta wants her expelled from the parliament.
This morning, May 28, 2019, Lutyens Media, like a pig, is rolling in the filth. Indian Express is zipping on the story of a Muslim man who had has skull cap thrown on the ground (It’s been proved a sham now). The naivety of Gautam Gambhir is all the ammunition they needed. The Hindu has a story where a Muslim man has been shot at. Both the newspapers have ramped up these stories on their front pages.
Both the newspapers didn’t have a word on RSS’ Prof Rakesh Sinha pointing out (a) A BJP worker killed in West Bengal and (b) hand-grenades being thrown on BJP worker. Surender Singh (Amethi) was due for a similar treatment but for Smriti Irani’s presence and the fact that she was a pall-bearer which women are never in Hindu funeral processions. Lutyens Media would never point that Asaduddin Owaisi and his All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) had association with Qasim Rizvi and his Razakars in the years when the latter was killing Hindus by thousands in Hyderabad in 1947, listed as war crimes.
Everyone keeps talking about Godse, the killer of Gandhi. Nobody mentions his source of angst. Shouldn’t we know more about him if want no more of his prototypes?
Razakars butchery of Hindus made Godse hit the streets. It also landed him up in jail. Gandhi insisting on Rs 55 crore be paid up to newly-formed Pakistan—when trains were returning from Pakistan filled with butchered Hindus—might have been the last straw, but the sense of injustice had been building up all along. Godse has outlined it all in his testament – Gandhi’s appeasement of Muslims during the Khilafat movement; assembly elections along communal lines; Direct Action Day calamity on Hindus in West Bengal etc. He felt Gandhi was taking Hindus for granted and his “appeasement” politics was emboldening Muslims to foster a sense of “persecution” and finally propelled Muslim League to gain ground. India lay dismembered into three parts in 1947. (For instance, Gandhi insisted on Quran being read in his daily prayers; did he himself or recommend Ramayana be read in mosques?)
That’s why I say it’s a wonder that India has had only one Nathuram Godse (in a way it also debunks the Saffron Terror implant for Hindus who, even under serious provocation, remain non-violent). Anand Ranganathan has chronicled over 250 instances when Hindus were attacked/killed/raped by others in Modi’s India till now. In trying to drive sense in Gautam Gambhir, OpIndia has listed several instances. NewsBred covered the rally of Kapil Mishra, formerly with AAP, on the Capital’s streets where the fiery leader mentioned several instances in Delhi NCR where murders of Hindus was blanked out in Lutyens Media (and by Arvin Kejriwal). Mishra didn’t pull his punches: “Hindus are being treated as second class citizen.”
What do we call such media and such leaders? Why Kamal Haasan has been allowed a free goal on Godse as “first Hindu terrorist?” Why there is no analysis that only BJP workers are killed and rarely from RJD, SP, BSP, CPI(M) or Shiv Sena?
The Break-India forces can only survive on polarization: Build a sense of “persecution” among Muslims; fuel resentment amongst Hindus by ignoring crime/injustices to them; tear them apart and never allow India to be one people, one nation.
The irony is, even as they criticize Nathuram Godse, Break-India forces would be filled with delight if one or more Godses emerge. That would be the stick they could beat Hindus with for another century; as they do in the case of Gandhi.
(This is a reprint from NewsBred)
Controversial Congress leader Saifuddin Soz launched his book in the Capital on Monday. Two things were of interest to average Indians: (a) Would Congress be seen in public with the leader who echoes secessionists’ voices; (b) Would Congress respect the popular sentiment and punish its key man in the Kashmir Valley.
Soz in the past one week has brought the focus on Congress and its’ exchanges with the secessionist forces. Officially, Congress dubbed Soz’s statements as stray remarks and “cheap gimmick”. The party also talked about the state unit taking action against him.
However, even as Congress threatened action, Soz continued speaking the voice of secessionists to the media, stating that Kashmiris would prefer freedom.. This was incongruous and appeared a classic smokescreen: to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.
Hence the interest in the book launch of Soz and the related two questions, uppermost in mind. There was no live coverage of the event but TV news and newspapers this morning were all airbrushed versions: Manmohan-skips; Chidambaram-stays-away-as-panelist etc. There was no media questioning on what senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh was doing in the event. Is he not part of Congress? And isn’t his presence a soft message to Soz that he remains one of the boys?
So has Congress really distanced itself from Soz??? Or would it distance itself from Jairam Ramesh???
Now look at what Congress has promised as action against Soz: It has said that it’s the state unit which will take an action. Really??? Since when state units have mattered to hideously dynastic Congress? Since when state units could take decisions independent of central command? And if the state unit absolves Soz of any guilt, may be a week, a month or a year from now, shouldn’t it be seen as a ruling of the Congress leadership itself?
Soz’ brazenness shows the support he is getting from his own ranks. At the book launch, he made another shocker: That Sardar Patel wanted to exchange Kashmir for Hyderabad with Pakistan. Nobody has asked Congress if it believes in this claim. And if it doesn’t, would it move to take action against Soz?
There must be a lot in Soz’s persona for Congress to play this game of red herring. And it’s involvement in the Kashmir politics.
The media, mostly TV channels have also merrily stated that Arun Shourie termed the famous “surgical strike” as “farzical strike” in a bid to attack the Modi government. What they haven’t reported and which is highlighted in a Hindi report is that journalists questioned him, pointing out that the claims of “surgical strike” was made by the army itself. So by terming it “farzical strike,” isn’t Shourie insulting our own armed forces?
In response, the news report states, “शौरी ने पत्रकारों को भी गधा बता दिया और फिर गुस्से में निकल गए.(Shourie called journalists as asses and walked out in anger).”
If the above report is true, it throws up very disturbing questions. One, that Shourie sidetracks facts; two, his lack of tolerance and respect for fellows of own profession; and three, the “deep state” within India which advocates Kashmir’s independence and toes the lie of terrorists, ISI and Pakistan.
Above all, independent voices in this country must question these forces and our very own media for their commitment to India’s integrity and sovereignty.
Three communal incidents have rocked India in the last fortnight.
A 15-year-old Muslim boy, Junaid, was killed in a train. Let’s concede it was a communal murder. Arrests have been made, weapon recovered.
Then North 24-Parganas in West Bengal erupted over a Facebook post where Hindus bore the brunt of Muslim backlash. The State’s silence is viewed by most as complicity. Arrests have been few and far between. The Chief Minister hasn’t bothered to visit and soothe the nerves.
A bus on way to holy Amarnath yatra in Kashmir was ambushed by terrorists who gunned down seven and injured 19 pilgrims. All the right noises have since been made.
If the binary is only Hindu-Muslim divide in this country, the score would show: 2 Muslims; 1 Hindus. Yet you wouldn’t guess so by the narrative being played out.
Junaid’s murder, within hours, was branded as one by cow vigilantes with the implicit blessing of the ruling party in Centre.
West Bengal was dubbed as a convoluted political ploy by BJP looking to secure the upcoming Gujarat elections.
The tragic Amarnath killings were again linked to BJP for its hand in letting Kashmir become a blood-drenched valley.
In between, the stories abounded of a Hindu LeT terrorist (since proven wrong), a stray fake image on Facebook (true) and a prominent Hindi daily (see image) accused of dramatizing the horror of Amarnath yatra survivors.
None of the Lutyens Media, who I prefer to call DALALS (Damn Left and Lutyens Scribes), ever described it as an “Islamic terror”–like they do with concocted “Hindu terror” theme – and, instead, drowned us with the virtues of “Kashmiriyat” and justly heroic “Salim bhai”, the driver of that ill-fated bus.
The DALALS have concentrated on the “form” and not on “substance” or they would have highlighted the onset of Jihadi presence in India stoking and riding on Hindu-Muslim divide.
This is an anti-Hindu brigade. Since Hindus have largely hoisted BJP in the Centre, the corollary is unmistakable. This bunch is partly “brainwashed” and mostly “funded” which either way is not good for India’s unity.
The “brainwashed” ones are no better than the leaders of pre-Independence India who claimed “principle” in public but “compromised” in private with the British. Most of them were lawyers –like Gandhi, Patel and Nehru—and the first two, despite their Indian attire, had political theories of Western orientation. British had nicely sized them up and like monkeys—no offence intended for we have monkey as Gods–made them jump through the hoop.
The “funded” ones are of more dangerous variety. But they conform to the pattern of India’s history which is replete with “betrayals.” These Jaichands and Mir Jafars must have been in the mind of French Francois Bernier, physician to both Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb in the 17th century, who wrote back home that a capable French general with 20,000 soldiers could subdue all of India.
Take the case of Nizam of Hyderabad. In 1767 he joined the English and the Marathas against Haider Ali of Mysore. He then switched side in Haider’s favour. Once Haider was beaten, he again came back to the English side. Ten years later, in 1779, he again was by Haider’s side against the English. In 1786, he had joined the Marathas against Tipu Sultan, Haider’s son. In 1790, he revived a triple alliance with Marathas and English against Tipu.
There is a reason why India could never expel a foreign enemy. The likes of Alexander, Timur, Abdali or Nadir Shah only withdrew. India was a ripe picking for all and sundry—Shaka, Kushans, Huns, Arabs, Afghans and succeeding invaders. And that’s because Indians of then and Indians of now could barely rise above their petty interests. India was and is NOT a single entity in their psychology.
The same unfortunate India is again unfolding in front of our own eyes. The subjugation and invasions of over 1000 years has taught us nothing. There are still embedded forces within who are ready to betray India for personal gains. The real beneficiaries are (a) colonial powers of West and (b) Islamic forces who are breathing down its East and West flanks.
Fortunately, the majority Indians are not with them and have reposed their trust in BJP to govern the country. The danger is BJP and other Hindutva forces are still measuring themselves through the prism of this pseudo-sickular gang. It’s time to bite the bullet and say India is a “Hindu Rashtra” who protects and safeguards the interests of its minorities without distinction or prejudice. Israel has no qualms in declaring itself a Jewish state.
Or else, this fortnight of communal violence will keep itself repeating till BJP themselves falls by the wayside, losing the trust of the majority. Indians want them to stand up for India and against the DALALS.
Or the succeeding generations would hold us accountable for the misfortune which is bound to be their fate.