Author: JS Rajput
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: October 11, 2008
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is an economist,
a great friend of the US and a World Bank pensioner, has enriched India's
political discourse by introducing a new sentence: "India has the right
to act, the US has the right to react!" Jihadis the world over shall
gratefully lap it up. After all, this is their main claim: They are just 'reacting'
and setting earlier wrongs 'right'.
One cannot but be deeply impressed. As a citizen
of India one also has the right to react and write this piece (what else?).
As far as the credibility of the Government of India is concerned, people
all around are asking each other: "Will this Government ever act against
terrorists and terrorism?"
In India, terrorists act and do so at their
convenience. The Government reacts promptly in a standard manner without any
deviations. This consistency deserves appreciation. Its approach is firm and
formal. Without any delay, condolence messages are issued, followed by a condemnation
of the 'cowardly attack', declaration of its 'resolve' to eradicate terrorism,
and the promise to put the guilty behind bars and give them the hardest punishment.
Fresh drafts are not required to be prepared.
Only the names of the dead, the injured and the places are changed. Television
news channels could safely use earlier sound bytes and make their breaking
news truly 'exclusive'! Then it is time to go home and change your clothes
for the next engagement.
Let me be fair. Visits to hospitals and meeting
the injured are mandatory for our politicians, especially the Home Minister.
The injured can wait for medical care but established protocol has to be maintained.
What benign smiles on the faces of the hangers-on of those in power we are
blessed with each time bombs go off -- and this happens not too infrequently.
On September 13 Delhi suffered another terrorist
attack -- the earlier attack was in 2005 on the eve of Diwali. It was declared
that it was the last of a series of bombings that were part of 'Operation
BAD'. First it was Bangalore, next Ahmedabad and then Delhi. As simple as
that.
Once again, the e-mail sent by the terrorists
gave no time to the security forces to act. The anguish, anger and sense of
helplessness witnessed on this occasion were unprecedented in Delhi. Nearly
a month later, fear prevails and nobody knows how long all this shall continue.
On the evening of September 19, once again
the residents of Delhi, as also the people of India, were glued to their television
sets, trying to catch each and every detail of the encounter at Jamia Nagar
in which two terrorists and a distinguished police officer had been killed.
Every Indian was grieving the death of Delhi Police Inspector Mohan Chand
Sharma, killed in the shootout with the 'Indian Mujahideen' terrorists.
People watching the news on television also
got to see residents of Jamia Nagar protesting against the police action and
denouncing it as a 'fake encounter' and 'harassment' of Muslims -- it did
not come as a surprise. People also expected the familiar 'secularists' and
'human rights' activists to parrot the same lines that they have uttered after
every counter-terrorist operation. Their expectation has not proved to be
misplaced.
By the evening of the same day, leaders of
the Congress's allies in the UPA were ranting against the 'terrorists of the
other variety'. With Assembly and general elections approaching, merit has
been discovered in demanding a ban on Hindu organisations.
The Government, meanwhile, has gone into damage
control mode: Orissa and Karnataka Governments have been warned and instructed
under Article 355 of the Constitution to protect the minorities or else face
tough action by the Centre, which can only mean the invocation of Article
356 and imposition of President's rule. The Home Minister, in an effort to
impress the Prime Minister, is making an attempt to look assertive!
Who does not remember Mr LK Advani's rath
yatra of 1993? During a television appearance, senior Congress leader Digvijay
Singh wanted the nation to believe that all terrorism came to India only after
the rath yatra. Some one did attempt to correct him and remind him of pre-1993
terrorist violence. But how could a loyal soldier of the Congress go back
in time to 1986 and 'dare' to recollect the events that followed? Not even
'secular' intellectuals and academics would like to recall that it was Rajiv
Gandhi who got the locked gates of the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya opened. The cartel
of 'secular' intellectuals, ever secure in its liberal and secular image and
infested by the JNU crowd, cleverly removed several such facts from the pages
of modern history books which have been fully 'desaffronised' and 'decommunalised',
thanks to the hard work put in by the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
In this country, imposing Emergency is justified;
the pogrom against Sikhs that followed the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi
is treated as something that 'just happens' in 'certain circumstances' --
as Rajiv Gandhi said, "when a big tree falls, the ground is bound to
shake". The riots that followed the Babri Masjid demolition are just
reactions -- and people do react, it is a natural process. Some may continue
to react for decades together. There are enough 'secularists' to defend it.
But we must remember that this does not apply
to the majority community: It has to behave. If it does not do so, it shall
be made to behave. How dare the majority community react if the coach of a
train is set on fire at Godhra in Gujarat? How dare it react if an 80-year-old
swami is murdered in Orissa's Kandhamal district?
The state, the 'secularists' would insist,
cannot permit Hindus to react if their gods and goddesses are abused in pamphlets
printed, published and distributed by evangelists who, everybody knows, are
involved with converting people to Christianity by hook or by crook. For them,
these evangelists are the embodiment of 'selfless service'; they are toiling
relentlessly to relieve the poor, the deprived and the downtrodden of the
miseries heaped upon them by the privileged class and castes. Wrongs are just
being corrected.
The Constitution has special provisions for
the minority communities. There are no special provisions for the majority
community. The message is clear: Just because the minority communities have
the right to react serially, it does not mean the same privilege must be accorded
to the majority community.
