Author: Krishen Kak
Publication: www.vigilonline.com
(Vicharamala No. 69)
Date: August 3, 2004
URL: http://www.vigilonline.com/reference/columns/columnsList.asp?columnist_id=1
Thoughts on issues of current interest
[my comments - as an Indian citizen - within square brackets], including
instances of some double standards of our public figures, especially in
the construction of Indian identity (all those Macaulayan myths, and the
hypocrisy that is Nehruvian secularism).
There is such an embarrassment of
examples of the Nehruvian double standards of the current political dispensation
that one is lost in admiring confusion at the sheer shamelessness of it
all - bilkul besharam hain, yeh log! The Pioneer, notably, in daily
column after column, instances not just the corruption of the present political
dispensation, but even the hypocrisy of some of its own columnists such
as chatterqueens Devi Cherian and Archana Dalmia who defend that corruption
exactly as that "good man", our prime minister, the good Doctor Manmohan
Singh does (of whose goodness more later!).
Take, for example, the re-writing
of history (V'mala 57). Nehruvian secularists such as Magsaysay awardee
Aruna Roy went all the way to the Supreme Court against the earlier dispensation,
but the Supreme Court saw no merit in their claims. Now, with a vengeance,
the likes of Roy, through a spineless Union HRD Minister (for example,
"Stop Press: Raja aids Arjun to do it again", The Pioneer, July 28, 2004),
and notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision, engage blatantly in the
rubefaction of textbooks - a process discussed, among others, by Udayan
Namboodiri ("Phoney heroes of secularism", The Pioneer, July 31, 2004),
Chandan Mitra ("What's it about history?", The Pioneer, Aug 1, 2004) and
DN Mishra ("Stalinising history", The Pioneer, Aug 1, 2004); a process
in which these "secular" mullahs and mullahnis do not even bother to read
the books that they ban - it is enough that their authors/editors have
an ostensibly Hindu connection.
Just as the UPA government sacked
State Governors, not because of allegations of any Constitutional impropriety
by them but because they had an ostensibly Hindu connection and were appointed
by an ostensibly "communal" NDA. So, whom will they sack next? The
Vice-President of India, who fits the same bill? Or the President
of India, who was the nominee of that same "communal" NDA?
No, not the President, because he's
a Muslim, just as the "tilting" factor in the UPA nomination of K Rehman
Khan as Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was that "the post should go
to a person from the minority community" ("KR Khan is Congress's
surprise choice", The Pioneer, July 21, 2004). Khan's first statement
as Deputy Chairman amply expresses his own partisanship and justifies the
minorityism underlying his selection - "The voice of the minorities has
to be heard in the legislature and it is my job to ensure that" ("Will
ensure minorities' voice: Rahman Khan", The Hindu, July 23, 2004).
Khan, with the approval of the UPA,
sees himself not as the impartial referee of the proceedings of the Rajya
Sabha, acting according to its rules, but as a representative and spokesman
of Islam and Christianity.
Even Shri APJ Abdul Kalam, for all
his yoga and veena-playing, when it comes to the crunch shows that he's
Muslim first and Indian second (V'mala 67) - as, indeed, his religion requires
of him (V'mala 53). Moreover, Kalam makes the inane suggestion of a "standing
council for school textbooks" with "renowned apolitical educationists as
members" (The Pioneer, July 29, 2004). But who will decide who are
"renowned apolitical educationists"? The UPA government, without
a peep from Kalam, included Javed Akhtar, Praful Bidwai, Nirmala Deshpande,
Shubha Mudgal, Mahashweta Devi and Teesta Setalvad in the Central Advisory
Board on Education , among a a number of openly pseudo-secular educationists
such as Jean Dreze, JS Grewal and Zoya Hasan (whose husband Mushirul "Hasan
shows his gratitude to Congress" for appointing him VC of Jamia Millia
Islamia by announcing the formation at JMI of the Jawaharlal Nehru Centre
to propagate Nehruvianism - The Pioneer, July 13, 2004).
These people do not speak for India;
they are pointsmen for the violently world-conquering proselytising ideologies.
Take again that self-proclaimed
defender of democracy Aruna Roy (V'mala 44). Champion of public transparency
and accountability but brazenly defending prevarication (her own), concealment
(Shekhar Singh) and blatant lying (Harsh Mander) in matters of the transparency
and accountability of their own public persona, she needed to go all the
way to the USA to defend democracy for Muslims only in post-Godhra Gujarat
(V'mala 42), but has never felt the need to likewise defend democracy for
KP Hindus in Kashmir, or democracy for ordinary citizens in Bihar (this
last a State in which its own High Court has more than once declared the
collapse of the rule of law). The "democratic" and "secular" Roy
has no hesitation in joining the extra-Constitutional National Advisory
Council (The Hindu, July 18, 2004), cooperating with such noted "democratic"
and "secular" parties as the RJD and the IUML; professionally associating
with role models of "secularism" and public accountability such as JD Tytler,
and LP Yadav and his RJD colleagues; and maintaining a "secular" silence
as a "secular" government in Andhra Pradesh announces religion-based reservations
in an egregious act of pro-Muslim minorityism. She has never fought
a legislature election but she sees no irony in making the Constitutional
hierarchy of a Government responsible to her and people like her rather
than to the people-at-large who elected them. And in this "Super
PMO" there are Jean Dreze (The Hindu, July 21, 2004) and Sam Pitroda.
Are they Indian citizens? What is the UN-payrolled AK Shivakumar
doing there? And valid questions still remain about Sonia Gandhi's
dual citizenship. Are foreigners now officially to monitor the functioning
of the Indian government? And to top it all, Roy and Dreze as members
of the NAC shamelessly write to its chair Sonia Gandhi "for a speedy enactment
of the Freedom of Information Act" (The Hindu, July 21, 2004), this when
their own National Campaign for People's Right to Information will not
divulge its own source of funds!
Shashi Tharoor lauds the entry of
"Stephanians in Parliament" (The Hindu, Magazine, Aug 1, 2004). He
writes as if they will bring in a new "secular" morality just as he hoped
Rajiv Gandhi would - "that Indian leader who belonged to no single region,
caste or community, but to an all-embracing India I called my own".
But Mr Clean Gandhi had no difficulty becoming Mr Dirty Gandhi. And
it is these adharmic types, conditioned by Macaulayanism and Nehruvian
secularism, that Tharoor holds up as political role models for India.
Let us look at them more closely.
What's so special about being a Stephanian, if it means Principal Anil
Wilson declaring ( http://esamskriti.com/html/inside.asp?cat=643&subcat=642&cname=hindustan
) as a role model for Indian youth that fraud Harsh Mander, also a Stephanian
(V'mala 30)? Tharoor himself is a fine example of the Stephanian
who hypocritically pontificates about the ills of our country while safely
and comfortably abroad. Among the Stephanians that Tharoor lists
are MS Aiyer, Omar Abdullah, Salman Khurshid, Shiela Dixit and Rahul Gandhi.
Is this the same Mani Shankar Aiyar who, at ringmistress Jayalalithaa's
command, hopped like a circus joker onto a stool to be introduced to his
own electorate, and who as court jester wept during Sonia Gandhi's orchestrated
naatak of "renunciation"? Is this the same Omar Abdullah of
that Abdullah family that (including him), KP refugees will tell you, played
a key role in the "ethnic cleansing" of the KPs from Kashmir? Is
this the same Salman Khurshid who, as head of the Delhi Public School Society,
not so very long ago made a substantial transfer of Society funds to his
own privately-controlled Trust that nurses his political and Muslim constituency?
Is this the same Shiela Dixit who heaved a sigh of relief when the finance
secretary of her government retired a few days ago because he would not
kowtow to her financial wheeling-dealing - an IAS officer who was as honest
as his service batchmate Aruna Roy is not.
And is Rahul Gandhi really a Stephanian?
He was there only a year, and that too admitted not on merit but because
he was the prime minister's son. He acquires an M.Phil. without first acquiring
a B.A. and an M.A. He lies about his net worth in his election affidavit.
His Congress Party boycotted in Parliament the allegedly "tainted" George
Fernandes but now he has no qualms justifying UPA-"tainted ministers" as
"a political compulsion" and because the UPA is only following the NDA
precedent(The Pioneer, July 30, 2004)! He preaches Truth in politics,
and practises expediency (V'mala 60, 62).
(As an aside, it is ironic to see
"best parliamentarian" Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee now blustering
about the NDA boycott of these ministers even though he himself had no
hesitation joining in the boycott of Shri Fernandes. Different rules
now, Shri Chatterjee? Double standards, Shri Chatterjee?
And this is the same Speaker who,
in the Soren matter, instead of helping to bring a proclaimed offendor
to book, says "I am not here to help the police" - The Hindu, July 22,
2004. As the brouhaha begins to swamp him, he cries,"How can a Speaker
find about absconders?" - The Hindu, July 24, 2004. Try helping the
police, try helping the law-enforcers rather than the lawbreakers, Shriman
Speakerji !!).
So, what does Manvendra Singh (whom
Tharoor also lists) have in common with Rahul Gandhi? They may both
be Stephanians, but surely their sanskaras are very different. The
one fought one election and lost, still worked conscientiously in his desert
constituency, fought another election, and won. He serves in our
country's Territorial Army, ready to join in protecting us when Duty calls.
The other, from all accounts a playboy, himself goes around surrounded
by protectors. One is a patriot (V'mala 4); the other is a mock one (V'mala
9).
What does Arun Shourie (named by
Tharoor) have in common with Natwar Singh (about whom Tharoor says a great
deal approvingly). Natwar Singh, as a very senior IFS officer, advises
young Stephanians - "the best and the brightest of our fair land, smart,
honest and able" - not to join government service because their fate,
as his is, would be "to take orders from the dregs of our society - the
politicians". But the hypocritical Singh then had no qualms leaving
sarkari naukri to immerse himself in "the dregs"! Just as other Stephanians
- bright, smart, honest, able - have done because the game, Mr Tharoor,
is not about morality or desh-seva, it is about power. And the difference
between the Nehru-Gandhis (whom Tharoor so admires) and the LP Yadavs and
Mayawatis (who certainly are "casteist" and worse) is that the latter practise
openly what the likes of the former prefer to disguise under an elitist,
English-speaking, Nehruvian sophistication. Yadav and Mayawati flaunt
the power and pelf of their politics; the Nehru-Gandhis too live very very
comfortably off the fat of this land, but curtain it with the naatak of
"renunciation" (V'mala 56,59,62).
And in charge of our country's destiny
today - in charge in Constitutional terms, that is - is that "good man",
Dr Manmohan Singh.
So, who is "a good man"?
(or, for that matter, 'a gentleman",
as Amar Singh of the Samajwadi Party described himself, even as he bemoaned
the insults he chose to swallow from Sonia Gandhi - "SP feels discarded,
rejected", The Pioneer, July 30, 2004).
Civil society needs good men (V'mala
34-35). The country needs good men. Shashi Tharoor proposes
Stephanians as ipso facto being good men, and good for the country.
And any criticism of Dr Manmohan Singh is apparently to be explained away
by his being "a good man".
Well, one could attempt a dharmic
description, say, on the lines of "sadachar", or from the Hitopadesa (V'mala
55), but that would be Hindu, wouldn't it, and therefore anathema to our
Nehruvian secularists. So, let's see what Dr Manmohan Singh does - in his
public persona - and say that these then are some of the acts of a good
man and, by his example, we lesser men can become good men too.
1. Dr Manmohan Singh never won our
mandate to represent our country but, as a good man, he does not need to.
A good man can always reach the top by adept bootlicking (V'mala 62) or,
if you prefer, floor-sweeping (V'mala 67).
2. Dr Manmohan Singh is the prime
minister of our country and, according to the Constitution "we the people"
gave ourselves, our country's chief executive officer. The chair
of the board is the President of India but, in quotidian practice, the
buck stops with the CEO. But "a good man" has no embarrassment acquiescing
in and reporting to an extra-Constitutional "Super PMO" disguised as an
extra-Constitutional National Advisory Council of many (like him) non-elected
members including, possibly, foreigners and certainly one who is on a foreign
payroll.
3. Nor does "a good man" have any
conscientiousness objection over the creation of an another extra-Constitutional
"Supreme PMO" that will be the watchdog ("`Left could soon stop barking
and start biting UPA Govt'", The Pioneer, July 16, 2004) of the "Super
PMO" that watches its own lapdog, the "good" Dr Manmohan Singh.
4. Dr Manmohan Singh's own ministerial
collegue (that Stephanian) MS Aiyar on CNBC described our prime minister
as, in effect, the sarkari lackey of Queen Sonia (V'mala 61). "A
good man" takes this as a compliment.
5. Dr Manmohan Singh was part of
the strategy of pointing out the taints and ill-deeds of the previous political
dispensation and that came to power on the promise of setting these aright.
But a good man, now in the Constitutional driving seat, can himself promote
and live with such taints and ill-deeds by justifying them as following
the precedent of the political dispensation he'd earlier condemned.
And to do so not just within the country itself, but also abroad and to
foreigners ("NDA Government too had Ministers who were charge-sheeted:
Manmohan", The Hindu, Aug 1, 2004). Therefore, a good man as prime
minister of a country when abroad represents and speaks not for the country
as a whole but only for his own sectional interest.
6. Dr Manmohan Singh as prime minister
inducts into his ministry a person who openly sold for crores his MP vote
(AK Singh, "Political tribe", The Pioneer, July 24, 2004) and, discovered
to be a court-proclaimed offendor, absconds. But as a good man he
says "I cannot say anything" (The Pioneer, July 24, 2004) and pleads his
helplessness - "What can we do?" (The Pioneer, July 23, 2004).
And, presiding benevolently over
all this "democratic" and "secular" surfeit of goodness is that "Custodian
of our Constitution" (The Pioneer, July 24, 2004), our respected Rashtrapatiji,
Shri APJ Abdul Kalam - and who will dare say that he too is not "a good
man"?
So, again, who is a "good" man?
It seems to me that hypocrisy is
a necessary ingredient, at least of Nehruvian "goodness". But there's
more to Nehruvian "goodness". The man needs to be a coward and a
weakling too. Recall Nehru himself, who lost us vast areas of our
country to China, abandoned Assam, and enabled the jihad against KPs in
Kashmir. Recall his grandson, who ran away with his wife to a foreign
country while his colleagues stood by on duty during a national emergency.
(No, Nehru's daughter was not a coward, but she was not especially Nehruvian
either - she openly lusted for power for herself and her family and, as
to pelf, recall that the "suitcase" phenomenon was the contribution to
our politics of her own home-grown extra-Constitutional authority, her
younger son).
S Kalyanaraman in an email circulated
on 20/7/04 reminds us that Dr Manmohan Singh called himself "a substitute
PM" and suggests "napunsak" as the appropriate adjective for Dr Singh -
"According to the Samskr.tam lexicon, it is both a masculine and a feminine
noun. It is also a neuter gender: n. neither male nor female ; a hermaphrodite
; a eunuch ; a weakling , coward MaitrS. Br.Up. MBh.; neuter n. a word
in the neuter gender or the neuter gender itself S'Br. Pa_n."
"So", concludes Shri Kalyanaraman,
"there is no hint of manliness at all in the powerful term." Just as there
isn't in the public persona of that "good man", Dr Manmohan Singh.
From such good men, may our country
be delivered.
