[Reader-list] Feudalism in Pakistan

[Rajendra Bhat Uppinangadi]

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Anupam jee
>
> I agree with you that there are good people in all parties who would never
> want a riot or genocide at all in India. And what's more, there are bad
> people in all parties as well, who would like to see that step being taken
> for electoral purposes.
>
> But my understanding of the BJP also comes from the ideology and the RSS to
> which they attribute their ideology, by and large. While as per the
> Constitution, every political party has to adhere to the norm of ensuring
> that India is a 'secular, sovereign, socialist, democratic republic', in
> practice these norms are flouted in different measures and degrees by
> various political parties, while being in and out of power.
>
> The problem as I see it with the BJP is that they are unwilling to accept
> that the ideological basis upon which their vision of India is premised, it
> itself wrong and incorrect. The age before Islamic invasion may have seen
> scientific and other discoveries, but to term it as the Golden Age is
> far-fetched. While the RSS tends to glorify Hinduism, it's ironic that the
> two greatest rulers of India, were non-Hindu (Ashoka and Akbar). By
> 'greatest', I mean that they at some point of time in their life, realized
> that violence is futile and against the principle of human rights. What's
> more, in some measure they did allow democratization of the polity.
>
> (Democracy doesn't only mean elections and legislature. It means discussion
> and hearing every section of the society, which they both allowed in some
> measure. Ashoka turned to Buddhism and went on this path, while Akbar made
> secularism into state policy, way before Nehru. It's ironical that like
> Nehru, Akbar was attacked for 'appeasing Hindus'.)
>
> The RSS, when it states that minorities must live based on goodwill of the
> majority community, by definition, deny the right of minorities to exist in
> India on a dignified basis. And this, to a certain extent, is understood by
> our minorities, as also those who suffer because of the violence unleashed
> by the Sangh Parivar organizations in one form or the other (be it
> desecration of statues of Jesus Christ, or those involved in Mangalore pub
> attack whose ideological basis is also derived from the Sangh).
>
> The BJP, as I see it, came to power predominantly because it aligned with
> political parties, all of which were anti-Congress, and most of which came
> into being to provide an answer to the disgruntled people of this country,
> who wished to know what had the Congress rule given to them in the 40 years
> of their rule. Of course, other political parties also made use of it, but
> what it did was significantly unleash the forces of caste and religion into
> the mainstream of Indian politics, as also the use of development as an
> instrument thanks to the anti-incumbency factor.
>
> Also, I said the loss of BJP may be based on certain factors, one of which
> is existence of peace. However, that is not always necessary or true. If the
> Congress or the UPA does what the NDA did (and to be honest enough, yes the
> NDA did do good in certain sectors, but my problem is with their concept of
> using revenues only for growth, and this growth was 'jobless growth'), then
> it will be kicked out in the most surprising way. Even Vajpayee, the Bhishma
> Pitamah of Indian politics, was unable to avoid his being kicked out, and
> was too little in the face of complexities of Indian politics. Ironically,
> he himself had advised his party to be austere in their campaigning. And it
> was thrown to the dustbin. Then what is Manmohan Singh in front of the
> public?
>
> However, this does not mean that if UPA actually unleashes the public
> schemes, it will come back to power. It may not. But if it does nothing for
> the people, then it certainly will not come back, because people will not
> feel satisfied enough to vote for it. And peace in that case is not going to
> help them at all. That's why I said, if the Congress rules badly, they
> should be prepared for a defeat under their mascot Rahul Gandhi.
>
> As for coalition politics, I consider it important because these parties do
> have a vote bank behind them, and certain voters who can switch over to or
> away from them, depending on circumstances. They can and may determine the
> course of Indian politics in various ways. And elections are the most
> toothless way of proving a govt.'s accountability to the people, because you
> may not be responsive and accountable, and yet you may actually win the
> election, because of certain other reasons. That is the beauty of the
> election. o, it's not the media houses, but the complexity of Indian
> politics, which makes me say that BJP will have inded a tough time to come
> back to power. Of course, another matter is that if they do come back, they
> don't even know who among them will become a PM, which seemed to be the
> primary concern for them in 2009 elections.
>
> So, it's not the media houses, but the complexity of Indian politics, which
> makes me say that BJP will have inded a tough time to come back to power. Of
> course, another matter is that if they do come back, they don't even know
> who among them will become a PM, which seemed to be the primary concern for
> them in 2009 elections.
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh


 Dear Rakeshjee,
   the issue of who will be next PM is not the new factor if and when BJP
comes to govern, it was present when Nehru was the PM, and we know that
nation saw the best of leadership in Shri. Lal Bahadur Shastri, who became
the victim of KGB and Indira in the power game as USSR then eventually
wanted their puppet in Delhi and the file is classified one, and
unfortunately the persons involved in this misadventure are all dead, but
the present ruling dispensation or NDAa did not take the democratic step of
declassifying the archive as done in all progressive democracies.
"So, it's not the media houses, but the complexity of Indian politics, which
makes me say that BJP will have inded a tough time to come back to power. Of
course, another matter is that if they do come back, they don't even know
who among them will become a PM, which seemed to be the primary concern for
them in 2009 elections" is your surmise which is far off the mark, as the
same argument is equally relevant for all political parties as voyers do not
easily accept the foisted leaders as in early years of the rule.
Regards,

Rajen..


-- 
Rajen.