[Reader-list] Amaranth Land Issue

[radhikarajen at vsnl.net]

Tapas, 

 thank you for your agreement on the fact that the so called "secular" parties are not exactly secular in their governance as they are also using the communes to appease selectively for vote gains. Thus hindu votes without the division are larger than the divided vote banks, and as regards, Rastriya swayam sevak Sangh, I no authority to speak about the socio cultural organisation, but being hindu, i am proud to be hindu, a tolerent hindu,  whose patience is tried in every day life by PM and his cronies who use retired judges to make jhoota reports of one community only, not of all the citizens in the nation, irrespective of their faith, caste and region. 
   True democratic rule must address the needs of every citizen of the nation, otherwise we see the gujjars agitating, jats  fuming, farners committing suicides, and muslims , it is a myth to say that hindus hate the muslims, it is only when they assert with their numerical power show off the damage they can do after friday prayers, that hindus think of some control on this sudden burst of unlawful actions for danish cartoon, or alleged insults to their faith. Same comes true for the fanatics in hindu faith who also seem to show off the power of mob fury when rule of laws are compromised. RSS never indulges in bashing muslims but unfortunately because they do not respond to tv anchors and become celebrities , the true side of the story never gets in to societal intelligence. ?

 Regards.

----- Original Message -----
From: Tapas Ray <tapasrayx at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, July 4, 2008 2:17 am
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Amaranth Land Issue
To: sarai list <reader-list at sarai.net>

> Radhika,
> 
> Here's how I see things.
> 
> I agree if you mean that the parties you call "pseudo-secular" use 
> communal sentiments for narrow political gain. However, they do 
> this not 
> just with religion but also with other identity factors like 
> language, 
> ethnicity, and caste, according to taste. This sets them apart 
> from the 
> BJP to some extent. But only to some extent, because I think the 
> BJP too 
> would not, and probably does not, give up a chance to use those 
> other 
> identities. It is probably just a question of degree.
> 
> However, this does not put the BJP, and the Parivar in general, in 
> the 
> same category as those parties, because unlike those, these are 
> exclusionary, supremacist, feed on anti-minority paranoia, have 
> institutionalised violence (think of the RSS shakhas), and used it 
> on a 
> scale probably not reached by the "pseudo-seculars".
> 
> The BJP (as a representative of the Parivar) may or may not have 
> been 
> better or worse than the "pseudo-seculars" in specific instances 
> of 
> governance, but even a "better performance", however defined, can 
> never 
> be its claim to power as long as the above are true.
> 
> Last but not the least, before thinking about Lalbahadur Shastri's 
> death, etc., we should recall the Gandhi assassination, which we 
> tend to 
> forget but never should. Unless the BJP and the Parivar openly 
> admit 
> that their role has been extremely harmful for the country, and 
> give up 
> their Hindutva ideology in both theory and practice, they will 
> continue 
> to be an anomaly in our democratic system.
> 
> Tapas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> radhikarajen at vsnl.net wrote:
> >  Very correct, those who say they are secular are actually seen 
> very communal in day to day governance, but it is funny that if 
> BJP unites all in the nation it is called communal just because 
> united hindu votes would be more of potent force. ?
> > 
> >  As to administration of religious places it should be noted 
> that rich funds of dioceses of any denomination of christian faith 
> has absolutely no control as how it is used. recent news of about 
> the priest of an evangelist was bashed up by his own commune in 
> kerala, accounts were asked for 1499 crores misused by him. This 
> news appeared in all the print but not in visual media. !
> > 
> >  Regards.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Tapas Ray <tapasrayx at gmail.com>
> 
> >> Radhika,
> >>
> >> You did not get my point. I was saying exactly the opposite of 
> >> what you 
> >> thought I was saying. My point was that Prakash Ray should be 
> the 
> >> last 
> >> person to say that the government of J&K ought to get out of 
> the 
> >> wakf 
> >> board/temple trust business.
> >>
> >> But I am not surprised, because he has done similar things in 
> the 
> >> past - 
> >> spoken fiery words against Modi's "right-wing economic 
> policies" 
> >> if I 
> >> remember correctly, while the party he is always defending, 
> namely 
> >> CPI(M), has been condemned on that very issue in the state it 
> >> rules, 
> >> i.e., West Bengal.
> >>
> >> On the present issue, he is suggesting that the J&K government 
> get 
> >> out 
> >> of the wakfs and temple trusts, even though in West Bengal a 
> >> minister 
> >> heads the wakf board, and that board was the focus of an 
> >> investigation 
> >> into a massive scandal a few years ago, involving CPI(M) 
> people. 
> >> You 
> >> will see this if you read the news items I copied below my post.
> >>
> >> Hope this helps.
> >>
> >> Tapas
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with 
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-
> list 
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>