[Reader-list] The "Sickular" History

[Venugopalan K M]

Dear Rakesh,

As far as I can gather from your post, you seem to suggest that
generalization about people feeling themselves (again,generally) let
down by single point hate/communal /sensational agenda one after
another, is not possible against the backdrop of the verdict 2009.

>"....and if the people feel the BJP is communal, it should not have got a single vote, nor should it have won any seat in India..."

You seem to forget that the rise of BJP to power itself was precisely
on a single point communal agenda. This is why I would suggest that
the Hindu majority were misled in the
recent past; (even in the 2009 elections, among other things, Ram
temple /demolition of Babari Masjid was raised as an important issue).

The BJP's main plank has always been communalism plus bellicose
nationalism-  this is hatred unlimited, expressed toward
Muslims,Christians and Communists. While the RSS even with enjoying
tacit logistic support from Congress regimes earlier could not gather
the critical mass of electoral support to its earlier political child
Janasangh, the BJP could accomplish this through its renewed hate
propaganda in the late 1980s and the 1990s.
Take the example of Gujarat-  you ask the majority to treat the
minority as second class citizens and assure the former  protections
for whatever crimes committed against the latter, the state itself
showing the models of how the 'second class' citizens could be
treated.

I like to appreciate your point that the Congress as well had done
these sort of things at certain points of time. But communalism and
hatred , as an ideology is not inscribed at large on the face of
Congress.This is not to suggest that the organized pogrom against the
Sikhs in the aftermath of the assassination of Indira Gandhi in 1984
had shown lesser display of communalism and hate than the BJP brand.
Rather, I wish to see this as an aberration of the  its basic
orientation to secularism. These two are essentially different in as
much as  the former is of strategical and  permanent, while the latter
is tactical and temporal.

Though we don't have to blame the people and undoubtedly we should not
do so (for voting in favour of communalism),  certainly we do have
reasons to laud them in the context of the verdict 2009!

Regards,
Venu.


Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Rakesh Iyer <rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Venugopalan jee
>
> With full respect to your views and perceptions, I think making comments
> like the way you have made in your post, is something akin to what Mr. Bipin
> usually used to do on this forum. Then also, I had stated that such general
> comments should not be made particularly since there was no proof of certain
> things he said.
>
> The BJP may have lost vote share in all the states (except Karnataka and one
> more state, which I don't remember, their vote percentage went down in all
> the states, compared to 2004 Lok Sabha elections), but the reasons can vary
> from state to state. Even in Gujarat, the reasons for their vote share going
> down need not be attributed to secularism without looking at the ground
> level response. And so from the technical point of view, as I see it myself
> and you will also accept, it's difficult to say that the BJP lost because
> people voted for secularism. If that were the case, and if the people feel
> the BJP is communal, it should not have got a single vote, nor should it
> have won any seat in India.
>
> The problem here is that there is a difference between the conclusions of
> the election verdict, and the reasons for the verdict. I accept that the
> conclusion drawn is that the verdict has broken the back of the Left and the
> Right. But I can't accept that the reason was that the people wanted to
> throw both of them away, otherwise the BJP would also have suffered the
> plight of the Left and it's seats would have gone down below 100 or even
> 50.(Like the Left went down from 61 in 2004 to below 30 this time)
>
> Secondly, the assumption you have made is somewhat tricky. As the Congress
> has won, you congratulate people for having voted on secularism. If the BJP
> would have won, you say people were misled! This way, the BJP supporter can
> argue for the vice versa! Whom should I believe?
>
> The fact is that the Lok Sabha has 543 constituencies, and each constituency
> has its own set of issues and ideas based on which people vote. These are
> determined by numerous factors. People vote based on caste, religion, sex,
> sometimes money or other gifts obtained, the reputation of the candidates
> standing from the constituency, the party which they belong to, the ideology
> they believe in(Marxism/Hindutva/secularism/others), the national issues,
> local issues like bijli-sadak-pani-roti-kapda-makan-etc., and so on.
>
> To say that people were misled because one party won or because people are
> intelligent because they voted for the other party, I don't think is a fair
> thing to say about any verdict, whether the Congress wins or the BJP.
>
> Most importantly, I believe the Congress is not a secular party. It can
> change colours from being communal in 1984 to being 'secular' now. As for
> the others, it's just the Muslim vote they want, if they can get that
> through riots then they will definitely try to do so. (The Mau riots in UP
> during Mulayam's rule or the Bhagalpur riots in which RJD men were also
> involved is a testimony to this. Infact, if I am not wrong, one of the
> convicted persons in the Bhagalpur riots was contesting on RJD ticket in
> assembly elections in 2005 from Bhagalpur)
>
> The BJP's rise has forced the Congress to remain secular, otherwise it would
> have been a B-team of Hindutva on the national scale. Of course, their idea
> of a 'Hindu consolidated vote', also an idea of the RSS, started with Indira
> Gandhi during her second reign and the riots which took place every year
> somewhere in some part of the country with police involvement both directly
> and indirectly, which was a huge shame.
>
> As for the Congress majority, the fact is that the Congress has just got 206
> seats, not 272 on its own. And the DMK and the Trinamool Congress have
> already shown that it's a 'coalition' govt, not a one-party govt. Plus of
> course, the Congress should not forget to thank Raj Thackeray in Maharashtra
> and Chiranjeevi in Andhra Pradesh (I would not name DMDK here because
> according to a survey done by CSDS which is also a part of Sarai, the DMDK
> snatched voters from both the DMK and the AIADMK allliance. How much was it
> true in the final verdict is something only God knows)
>
> The Left unnecessarily stopped some steps which could have helped the nation
> at large. Infact, the Left's implementation of the NREGA was a huge
> disaster. And about their politics, the less said the better. It's been a
> long time since they were associated with a non-electoral mass movement to
> improve the lives of the downtrodden and the poor. A point probably for the
> Karats, the Yechurys, the Biman Boses and the Buddhadevs to ponder about.
>
> The silver lining in this verdict is that the verdict has given the UPA to
> actually conduct some important economic reforms (like making a common
> consumer-based inflation index instead of the wholesale price index we use,
> refrain from being in sectors like hotels and making beedis or even airlines
> etc.), major governance, police and judicial reforms (in other words the
> administrative reforms as stated by the ARC under Veerappa Moily, the
> current Law Minister), and bring about transparency and accountability in
> the system, to give relief to the 'aam aadmi'.
>
> Otherwise be ready for the people to be misled in the next elections. (In
> your own words, sir)
>
> Regards
>
> Rakesh
>
>
>



-- 
http://venukm.blogspot.com/