[Reader-list] Mallika Sarabhai's Public Meeting in JNU on 31stMarch

[Pawan Durani]

Rakesh Iyer Wrote :" And the biased way in which our army behaved during the
Amarnath
protests (no killings by Army in Jammu but many killed in Kashmir) makes me
suspicious about the way they control these protests. (Thanks to Perveiz
Bukhari who is a member of this forum)"

Mr Iyer ,

You are a very passionate guy. However your knowledge is half baked.

Would you kindly check how many hindus were martyred by army during Amarnath
Agitation in Jammu , Kathua and elsewhere .

Please do check and correct yourself before we can proceed further with the
discussion.

The kind of propogonda you make , justify the separatists and that is
unfortunate.

Rgds

Pawan

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Bipin ji (and all, especially Pawan ji)
>
> First of all, I am sorry if the tenor and some part of the content I used
> in
> my previous mail has hurt you, which makes you say that this is your last
> mail to me. I respect your opinion, but my point is the same as that of
> yours, which is that one should also go with the present. However, having
> said that, the principles of natural justice and human rights must also be
> considered while taking decisions, so also the principle of reason.
> Otherwise we may be blinded by happenings around us.
>
> Now, let me come and answer the few important points you have put across:
>
> 1) There is only one particular reason for which I find Advani appealing as
> such, which is that he was the man who showed (or publicly pointed out)that
> Muslims are actually appeased in India. Yes, Muslim appeasement is rampant
> among today's 'secular' parties. But in my mind, appeasement only means
> 'pleasing someone for the sake of pleasing'. In other words, Laloo,
> Mulayam,
> Mayawati, Chandrababu Naidu, Left (Communists too), and others also appease
> Muslims, as they only wish to win their votes, rather than doing something
> for the benefit of Muslims which can help them in the long term. The same
> thing has been pointed out in the Sachar Committee Report.
>
> My problem with the BJP is that they use the wrong meaning of appeasement.
> According to their tenor and content, Muslim appeasement means only Muslims
> are benefited. My contention is that Muslims are not benefiting at all from
> the measures supposedly directed at them, by parties supposedly getting
> their votes by and large.
>
> As for Advani, his Rath Yatra had led to second biggest riots in India.
> Nobody can forget the kind of politics his party, as well as the so called
> seculars played in order to rally behind their vote bank around them.
>
> 2) I feel the issue of Bangladeshi immigrants is being mixed up with
> secularism. It is certainly true that in today's era of states in the
> world,
> citizens from one state should not be allowed to migrate to other states to
> turn as voters, and change demographies in order to vote. However, I think
> this issue has been mishandled quite a bit. So, let me clarify my view on
> this.
>
> Most of these immigrants would be travelling to India, primarily on account
> of improving their economic situation. I don't think they would be voters
> who migrate to India only to vote and then go back to Bangladesh. Their
> plight is made use of by possibly Indian politicians in order to change
> demographics of constituencies and thereby win votes.
>
> Since there are certain procedures to secure citizenship of India, based on
> which you can get voting rights, it's certainly true that this is quite
> wrong and illegal. However, that does not mean we as a state should not
> strive to be responsible towards these citizens. While such immigrants
> should not be granted right to vote unless they secure Indian citizenship,
> I
> believe that since these immigrants come to India to better their economic
> status, we too should strive to improve conditions of livelihood for them
> as
> far as possible.
>
> As far as secularism is concerned, I don't feel these issues are
> inter-related.
>
> 3) I have no objections with a party like BJP saying that Congress only
> plays politics for minority benefit, and hence we want Hindu votes to be
> behind us.  But why organize riots for that, like post-Godhra? What is the
> logic behind that? Moreover, are their concerns based on reason? When the
> Sachar Committee report concludes that Muslims are poor even after 50 years
> of Congress rule, then how have Muslims benefited from the Congress rule?
> And how is then the BJP's allegation tenable?
>
> My second allegation comes from misusing religion. Religion can be used to
> build societies and even bring together people across different faiths, or
> even for improving the unity of India, as Gandhi showed. Instead, we have
> situations where BJP fights for Hindu vote bank and Congress/some other
> secular party fights for Muslim vote bank after creating riots, and
> ensuring
> police don't administer the situation properly. So, religion is now being
> used to destroy India, rather than to build it. Is this right?
>
> 4) I think you didn't get the importance of what I said Bipin jee. Suppose
> you have been living in a house belonging to your family since say about
> 100-200 years ago, and you have been now asked to leave that because either
> a temple/mosque existed on that place supposedly (not proven) and it was
> destroyed later, only to result in your house being built, and you have a
> family, would you leave it, without any compensation? And even if
> compensation were given, would you leave it?
>
> The fact is that today, Nandigram people didn't wish to leave their lands
> on
> which they worked, in the name of industrialization, because it affected
> their livelihood, and the way governments ensure rehabilitation of
> displaced
> people is known to everybody. Similarly, Sardar Sarovar dam oustees have
> yet
> not been rehabilitated properly. And most of these oustees have to be
> rehabilitated by the Madhya Pradesh govt. (not Gujarat govt.), and yet this
> has not been done properly, so much so, that the SC had issued an order to
> do the very same thing.
>
> When people attach value to the land on which they live because of their
> livelihood, and don't want to leave it on account of industrialzation or
> building dams, how are you expecting them to leave their land on account of
> religion?
>
> Secondly, as far as Babri Masjid is concerned, I agree that the Muslim
> elite
> had a role to play in ensuring that the Masjid was not given and thus
> communalize the situation. But equally, it was the VHP's stubbornness in
> only asking for the Masjid site as the place to build the Ram Mandir. After
> all, Ram is of Ayodhya. Why not have his temple built anywhere in Ayodhya?
> Why only the Masjid site? Is there any proof that Ram was born there? And
> even if a temple was there which was destroyed, is it so big a compromise
> that one would lose his head were he/she to shift the temple site?
>
> Thirdly, I am not interested in this mandir-masjid imbroglio. After all,
> there are much more important issues to look at. But these are questions I
> have for the VHP and the Babri Masjid Action Committee which want to
> communalize the situation in the name of this fight. And hence I use reason
> to argue upon this.
>
> As far as faith in Ram/Krishna is concerned, I have my faith in Ram and
> Krishna as well. And I like the Gita. For me, it's an important piece of
> literature which has its effects all across the Indian society. However,
> that does not mean we misuse the name of Ram and Krishna, or misuse the
> message of Gita, to direct 'anger of Hindus' against 'Muslims' for vote
> bank
> purposes, superceding the question of development. And no Ram/Krishna/Gita
> would approve killing of innocents, be it for whatever purpose. And unlike
> you, I think Gita is a piece of when should war be conducted. The
> Mahabharata as a whole stresses on peace; the Gita stresses on the times
> when war is required unfortunately.
>
> By the way, Paigamber and Christ are considered sons of God, not God
> themselves. According to Islam, there is a distance between God and humans.
> About Christianity, I don't know.
>
> 5) Sir, you have stated that people should be taken as guilty if they are
> named by the police. I can't accept that simply because that way, the
> police
> can frame anybody. Now the UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act,
> Amendment) has been passed in Parliament, if I tomorrow protest on a simple
> issue of increasing wages under NREGA, the police can arrest me and impose
> an anti-terror case against me under this act. Then I would be declared a
> terrorist, when I was none. Is that acceptable?
>
> You may say, this is far-fetched. In the Hyderabad Mecca Masjid blasts
> case,
> the investigative agencies had argued for 124 (not sure about exact number,
> but around 120 or so) people arrested to be convicted. Not a single one of
> them faced conviction, as they faced some very absurd charges. Infact, I
> read somewhere that the judge had commented that the police should first go
> and learn how to investigate cases before actually taking up such cases.
> What a shame!! In one of the PUCL meetings in Chennai here, which I
> attended, one man related his own harrowing experience, where his fathers'
> taxi was said to have hidden a bomb inside it, and policemen spread the
> rumour to arrest his father, and then he was made to pay a bribe, in order
> to secure the release of both his father and taxi, and the case closed
> without any knowledge of the media.
>
> My point is that with today's police, it is very easy to frame cases
> against
> people. And when our police doesn't have the capability to solve murder
> cases like 'Aarushi Murder case', how can I believe it has the capability
> to
> solve tough cases like those related to bomb blasts. Hence, Muslims can't
> be
> accused of having actually undertaken all these blasts (Ahmedabad,
> Bangalore, Guwahati etc.) until proven guilty. Similar goes the case of
> Sadhvi Pragya as far as Malegaon blasts is concerned. There can be no
> double
> standards on this.
>
> As far as Afzal Guru is concerned, on the basis of the police reports
> against him, the Delhi High Court and even the SC had stated that Delhi
> police have investigated the matter in a very shoddy way. Moreover, it
> isn't
> as if Afzal hasn't accepted that he hasn't done anything. However, the kind
> of evidence on which he has been charged, is what the human right activists
> have been against. Since, you would not believe me, I would like you to
> read
> the following link (by Arundhati Roy. Now for one moment, forget that you
> don't like her as her ideology is very different from that of yours. Read
> the content, and then tell me what your questions are. At least for once,
> read that with an open mind as well):
>
>
> http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20061030&fname=Cover+Story+(F)&sid=1
>
> I hope all read this link, and then decide for themselves whether he should
> be hanged or not. For me, I believe that let us re-investigate the case
> within 5 months, and if he is found to be guilty, hang him on 13th December
> 2009. That would be the perfect day for him.
>
> 6) Any law, whether it should be introduced or not, should be determined by
> all the constituents affected in the process. In the case of POTA, it
> should
> include experts of law, experts from police and law & order dept, those
> from
> the home ministry related to internal security, as well as human right
> experts (because the act is said to infringe on human rights). They should
> in totality decide whether the law is right or wrong.
>
> My issue with POTA is that firstly, it doesn't stop suicide bombers from
> carrying out bombings. Secondly, the low conviction rate when it was
> implemented, meant that mostly innocents were framed under POTA, and the
> proper criminals were caught rarely. Thirdly, from the media reports, it
> comes out that it was misused, mainly against Muslims. And the low
> conviction rate only proves this. Inspite of this, if police officials
> think
> it stops terror acts, then they should provide ample proofs of the same.
> And
> I agree with you on this, that ultimately all these experts should combine
> together to decide whether we require such a special law on terror or not.
>
> Anyways, most of the amendments introduced in POTA (or even its sections)
> are already there in the IPC/CRPC. Then I don't understand what is the need
> of a separate law.
>
> 7) Any root based development does not only mean sadak, bijli and
> infrastructure. It means proper water supply, health and sanitation
> facilities, proper education, and more importantly, the major issues of
> 'roti, kapda and makaan'. When all these mails came in that Gujarat was
> worse on some of the major social indicators of development (like female
> literacy, health programmes for women and children etc.), so much so that
> it
> was being compared to poor nations of Africa, then how can we claim that
> the
> development, even if it has taken place, is just and equal? As I said, any
> government must be judged on the basis of whether it has allowed efficiency
> and equity in the growth of the people.
>
> Modi and the BJP govt. in Gujarat may have done very well when it comes to
> efficiency, but in case of equity, they have failed to a certain extent.
> And
> as for power and sadak, my issue is that when people are below the poverty
> line, neither would they be receiving any power nor would they use vehicles
> for which sadak is important.
>
> Moreover, while some credit for efficiency can go to Modi and his govt, a
> substantial portion of credit should go to Gujaratis as people for being
> good entrepreuneurs. After all, if Modi is such a good CM, then let him go
> and be the Bihar CM's post. That can tell us how good is he. To a certain
> extent, your point also reflects this, when you say he speeded up
> development. I appreciate that.
>
> 8) About the Narmada dam, the first problem I had with this issue is
> regarding the rehabilitation of displaced people. Not for nothing does SC
> periodically remind the MP govt of rehabilitating these people properly.
> Not
> for nothing do these people come to Bhopal regularly and sit on dharna for
> proper rehabilitation. After all, it's their own homes which are dealt
> with.
>
>
> Sir, everybody has a name. And that name should be respected. How good
> would
> it be if you were to be referred to derogatorily by your caste/religion? A
> name gives a respect, and one can certainly give it for a woman who is
> elder
> to us, even if in your view, she is doing a wrong thing.
>
> Secondly, while I can agree that I don't have 2009 data, since you are
> chiding me for this, I would kindly request you to give me the 2009 data
> (or
> even 08) to prove me wrong. I would be very happy for this. After all, for
> me the more important issue is whether this dam project is actually useful
> for Gujarat or not. The observations made from 1993 to 2004 make you have
> pity on me. Hence, I would like you to at least put the recent data to
> prove
> that I am incorrect. After all, even I can correct my stand on this issue
> if
> I were wrong. And I am willing to change my stand if found to be wrong.
>
> And anything foreign may not be bad. After all even the VHP receives a lot
> of funding from American Hindu societies and businesses, which it then uses
> to distort history and get arms for violence. And Medha Patkar has not
> practiced any violence either in Gujarat or Madhya Pradesh to the best of
> my
> knowledge. As for the part that she has toyed with funds, that is something
> which can be investigated, provided anyone launches a case against her on
> that account.
>
> 9) Here again, I have been chided for producing data of older times (I
> don't
> know 4 years is past, but again past is quite relative). See sir, the data
> is based on the 61st National Sample Survey Scheme, which was conducted in
> 2004. My contention is that as of now, I didn't get any research based on
> the sample surveys conducted after this. While I accept my fault that I am
> using data based on 4 years ago, the fact is that you have not shown any
> data of upto 2009 or 2008 to prove that I am wrong grossly. Since you
> yourself say that things or policies of any govt, can start taking affect
> only after 2.5/3 years, the UPA  govt would have shown its effect only
> after
> 2007, and even then as the CAG report goes, the NREGA implementation is
> only
> about 14% or so. And even the World Bank had stated that about 80% of
> Indian
> people earn less than $2 per day (this $2 is not in American dollar terms,
> but in PPP or purchasing power parity terms) as per 2006 data.
>
> My contention is that if you think I am wrong, I would like you to present
> data from the recent years ahead of what I have presented, for those are
> the
> data sets available to me, from which I made the assessment. And if your
> theory of leakages in public funds is right, there is hardly any incentive
> for me to believe that things can be very much different from what they
> were
> 3-4 years ago.
>
> I have no regrets other than that. And even I would be glad if you could
> put
> up such data as required.
>
> 10) I have no way to say that the subsidy Tatas got is justified or not.
> What I wished to say there was that when business houses get double or
> triple the subsidy bill incurred on food and agriculture, they should not
> be
> cribbing about it. After all, the latter is a way of bringing about equity
> in the system in a certain way (especially the populist schemes, if
> properly
> implemented, actually ensure equity), whereas can't even ensure winning of
> elections, though on a long term could bring about development and
> prosperity if properly channeled.
>
> 11) Nationalism and Patriotism are different for me in one sense:
> patriotism
> is love for the land because the land you love is the place related to your
> culture, your way of life, your language, your religion, your values etc.
> In
> other words, you connect to yourself through the land. On the other hand,
> nationalism is just love for your land (even if none of these are same),
> just because somebody tells me that this belongs to my state.
>
> For example, a person living on the Tripura -Bangladesh border would be
> much
> closer culturally to Bangladesh rather than New Delhi or Maharashtra. Even
> then, the Tripura person has to believe that India belongs to him (or even
> Maharashtra land belongs to him) because he is an Indian, and Bangladesh is
> foreign to him. This is a googly for me. After all, what is closer
> culturally, you can have more affinity only with that. Not with something
> with which you don't share anything.
>
> 12) I am not a Communist, and neither do I own or run the CPI or any other
> communist party. Hence, please do not refer by statements like ' your
> communists' or other phrases like this.
>
> 13) I would have agreed to your point that 60% voting is a referendum.
> However, when I heard news items that candidates were paid by intelligence
> agencies to contest elections and get their supporters to vote (with the
> aim
> of ensuring that the J & K elections could be termed successful), I was
> stumped. And the biased way in which our army behaved during the Amarnath
> protests (no killings by Army in Jammu but many killed in Kashmir) makes me
> suspicious about the way they control these protests. (Thanks to Perveiz
> Bukhari who is a member of this forum)
>
> Hence, I would like to have a referendum. From your statement, it seems we
> are confident that Kashmiris want to stay back in India. A referendum would
> be an excellent way to confirm that. After all, if they do want to stay
> back, I would be happy as it is a shot in the arm for our Indian democracy.
> Why are we so afraid of it. It won't require much expense to have a
> referendum, when compared to costs incurred for national elections.
>
> 14) You hit the nail on the head as far as the efficiency part is
> concerned.
> Since private companies are very efficient in creating capital, let them do
> so and hand over a part of their revenue as taxes to the government. Let
> the
> government use these revenues in order to ensure that through schemes like
> NREGA and other employment generation schemes in the urban sector, not only
> the necessary infrastructure is created, but moreover, poor can also earn
> in
> their villages, don't have to migrate to urban areas in search of
> employment, and their livelihood improves. And certainly, here is where we
> have to plug leakages.
>
> The government would have to take over the role of ensuring equity in
> development and growth, because the private model of development feeds on
> efficiency only and hence they won't bother about equity or employment of
> poor people. And populist schemes can be undertaken to help the poor
> people,
> but ultimately the idea should to be to combine the two and ensure that
> people earn well and pay for their buying so that ultimately they can live
> with pride instead of just being dependent on the govt totally for food.
>
> And dekhiye jee, what I said in the previous mail is that we need to look
> at
> issues from micro based. That's something I like in Dreze. Here too, in our
> mails, both of us have looked at issues only from macro angle. But that
> can't help the situation.
>
> I never meant to demean you or your view. But I thought we need to shift
> from discussions on macro based figures to micro based realities of India,
> for that can signal a different kind of situation in our country.
>
> Thanks to Aashish for the last point which I have put up here. Aashish is
> someone who is a member of this list, and a great person to discuss issues
> with. Sometimes I wonder how skewed my outlook would have been if I hadn't
> met him and discussed these issues with him.
> My only issue with this is that I would like to experiment at sectors where
> the govt can intervene. That would be interesting to see as well.
>
> And for Pawan jee, you have not mentioned anywhere about Mallika jee. My
> thoughts on that account were with respect to Bipin jee's mail, so please
> don't get angry.
>
> Bipin jee, you have your views with respect to Mallika jee, but I would say
> that let us first look with open mind at the kind of prospects she brings
> to
> her constituency, and then decide whether she is fine or not. That is how
> reason demands of us. Just deriding someone for being secular, is wrong.
> Secularism is a right virtue, provided it is properly practised.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
> _________________________________________
> 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: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>