[Reader-list] "The naked secularist" - R Jagannathan

[Kshmendra Kaul]

I looked at myself. I wasnt naked.
 
I checked whether there a difference between being a 'secularist' and being a 'secular' person. Nothing registered.
 
Perhaps Jagannathan is talking about the (cliched) "pseudo-seculars" and he would be right (IMO). 
 
Cliched terms become so because they find widespread representation of the same form. Some on this List are an excellent example. 
 
Kshmendra
 
 
"The naked secularist"
R Jagannathan
Thursday, April 1, 2010 
 
Recent media coverage of Narendra Modi’s interrogation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the Amitabh Bachchan controversy constitute further evidence of the emptiness of Indian secularism. By gloating over the simple fact that Modi was called by the SIT for questioning, and then fulminating over his non-appearance on March 21, the secularists have proved that what they care about is not justice, but their own vanity.
 
India’s humbug secularists have personalised the definition of secularism for narrow political ends. It corresponds to no dictionary meaning of the word. Secularism is defined as the opposite of what the Sangh parivar stands for. Like Pakistan defining itself as “not India,” secularists define themselves as “not the Sangh parivar”. The Sangh is the unspeakable “other”, the demon they are trying to exorcise in themselves. And in Modi they have found the perfect personification of all that they hate in themselves.
 
Modi has often been accused — and legitimately — of equating his state’s interests with his own. But his detractors are playing into his hands. When Amitabh Bachchan is asked to be the state’s brand ambassador for tourism, he is pilloried for his impertinence. Modi may have had his own agenda in inviting him to promote Gujarat’s cause, but isn’t that what politicians do anyway? Why is anyone who promotes Gujarat an instant target for secularists? This is ideological tyranny.
 
If Modi is wrapping himself in the state’s colours, the secularists are helping him do so through sheer stupidity. By blasting anyone who is hired by the state, they are effectively saying that working for Gujarat is the same as working for Modi. So when Modi says the secularists are trampling on Gujarati asmita, it is entirely believable.
 
Blind hatred cannot lead to any good. Before the Gujarat elections in 2007, Jairam Ramesh made out a case suggesting that the state’s economic success under Modi was less due to him than the Gujarati’s business instincts — which may be partly true. But this no different from saying that the UPA’s economic performance is due to India’s demographic bulge driven by George Bush’s global growth engine — which was equally the case. Being a supporter of dynasty, Ramesh, of course, won’t have the guts to acknowledge this. But Modi’s achievements are worth sullying.
 
It is also sickening to see secularists salivating at the prospect of Modi’s humiliation — when justice is the priority. No one noted that Rajiv Gandhi was never called to answer questions on Bofors when it was more than clear that he and his nominees were the unstated suspects. The Swedish prosecutor in the Bofors case expressed surprise why Sonia Gandhi was not quizzed in the scam — when she is also the obvious link to Ottavio Quattrochi. Is it any surprise that Quattrochi gets a quiet exit during the UPA regime?
 
Much is also being made of the fact that the Congress expressed regrets for the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 while Modi has kept mum. Ask yourself: is the apology of a Sikh prime minister for his party’s anti-Sikh pogrom really worth taking at face value? Not that apologies make any difference. LK Advani’s belated “saddest day of my life” apology was not good enough for the secularists to forgive him for the Babri demolition, but Manmohan Singh’s apology 20 years after 1984 is a wonderful example of contrition!
 
As for the Bachchan episode, he has no chance of being excused by the secular cabal. In fact, he is doubly guilty. His first crime was, of course, related to the fact that he had the temerity to bat for Gujarat. His second crime was that he had fallen foul of the Gandhi family. Combine the two, and he had no chance of being left alone. This is why Congress party buffoons are busy demanding all kinds of explanations from him when Ratan Tata, Mukesh Ambani and Anil Ambani — all businessmen who showered praise on Modi directly —got away unnoticed, as Amitabh pointed out in his blogs.
 
It is not anybody’s case that Modi should not be punished or tried for whatever he did or didn’t do in 2002. But we have already tried him in the media and convicted him. Even assuming this is poetic justice for a man who let unspeakable things happen in his state eight years ago, it is no excuse for one-sided secularism.
 
In Hans Christian Andersen’s immortal tale, it took the innocence of a child to tell the emperor that he was wearing no clothes. The emperor’s tailors had told him that the invisible clothes they had made for him would not be seen by anyone who was “just hopelessly stupid.” Since the emperor did not want to be labelled stupid, he pretended to wear the clothes when he was really walking stark naked.
 
It seems our secularists are also running stark naked — and they don’t seem to know it.
 
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/column_the-naked-secularist_1365849