A shorter version of this was published in The Pioneer here and here.
Background reading
#1 – Last week’s Column in The Pioneer and associated blog post
#2 Sanjeev Sabhlok’s archives on the failed attempts at a Indian Liberal Party
#3 Lok Satta’s recent alliance with the Communists
Last week’s column on the Indian Liberal generated a spirited debate on the Pioneer’s website and even wider reactions within the social media. My good friend Sanjiv Sabhlok who has toiled tirelessly to resurrect an Indian Liberal Movement first through the India Policy Institute and subsequently through the Liberal Party of India as the successor to Rajaji’s Swatantra Party expressed vehement disagreement. Sadanand Dhume a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a frequent columnist with the Wall Street Journal and an avid India watcher while expressing disagreement through Twitter made an interesting point on the failure of the Indian Right to reach out to Intellectuals outside of the saffron fold.
This follow up column is to put in perspective why there needs to be more engagement between the Indian Right and the Indian Liberal.
I am not speaking here of the shallow Indian Liberal some of who are celebrities dominating the news media landscape to whom Liberalism is nothing more than a calling card to elite clique. Nor am I speaking here of those to whom Liberalism is merely the extreme pursuit of personal liberty with little or no appreciation for Economic Freedom, Federalism and autonomy to Local Government on a wide range of issues from Education to Policing.
But first some personal background.
Coming from a Sangh family where my first exposure was perhaps to the Sangh prarthana well before the national anthem, my dabbling with the Liberal movement was a logical extension of a heightened political awareness from early childhood years.
My formative years were a mixture of first hand exposure to Sangh ideologues on the one hand and high degree of political awareness on the other. Two clippings from the Organiser remained seared in my mind – the first was an essay by Dattopant Thengadi calling for more “Modernization than Westernization”. The second was an argument on the need for a “Market based economy”.
The next significant influence during those formative years were Arun Shourie’s writings during the Mandal protests and the robust intellectual debate that followed during the RJBM movement. I will forever be indebted to Arun Shourie for having taught me early on to never be shy of challenging conventional intellectual wisdom even if one found oneself in the minority.
Campus life at IIT Mumbai opened up a window to the world of Political Economics that was hitherto shut. It is inexcusable that one can go through 12 whole years of Education within the early school system with no formal training on Economics and the various schools of thought. I hope that is beginning to change now with the various curriculum modifications introduced since 2006 but I must be sceptical given the preponderance of Left Liberal thought in the academia. I have argued on multiple occasions that Atanu Dey’s book Transforming India and Sanjeev Sabhlok’s book Breaking Free from Nehru must make it to school curriculum.
Luckily Economics 101 at IIT was not limited to the prescribed Keynesian text by Paul Samuelson, and the Professor went out of her way to introduce Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose” as an outside the text essay. Over the years at IIT further exposure to thinking on economic freedom ensued through Ayn Rand’s many works.
This was also the time when political events in India of significant magnitude were taking shape. Nuclear Physicist Dr. Rajendra Singhji popularly known as Rajju Bhaiyya had taken over as the Chief of the RSS while the nation was witnessing the opening up of the economy and political turmoil simultaneously over Mandal, Masjid etc….
Here I was attempting to reconcile within my mind the two diverse streams of political thought that had taken root within me over the years. A lengthy handwritten letter to Shri Rajju Bhaiyya followed on the outside chance that he might actually read it. I was pleasantly surprised to receive a long hand written letter from Rajju Bhaiyya. The gist of that letter was that the Sangh was acutely aware that the future was bound to be dominated by economic issues far more than cultural issues as the country opened up and the Sangh was grappling with the question of how to respond to that future.
In the years that followed India saw a tectonic shift politically with the first BJP Prime Minister taking office. While being a passive observer to the changes happening in India from distant shores my exposure to Indian Liberal movement started through Sanjeev’s efforts over the Internet through his India Policy Institute. Before there was Twitter, Facebook, Blogs or YouTube Sanjeev was a Pioneer in using the Internet to bring together diverse individuals with common political thoughts to the Right of Center centered primarily around Economic Freedom. His use of e-mailing lists was unique.
As the NDA struggled to reconcile the demands of economic liberalization with protectionist impulses of Swadeshi movement, I got a close look at the Indian Liberal movement being both part of it partially and as an observer. It was fascinating to see how disconnected the Indian Liberal movement was from the political realities of India in some respect while being way ahead of its times in some other respects.
A combination of personality differences and lack of judgement saw the India Policy Institute falter and fall by the way side. A few years later well before the 2004 election Sanjeev had a second go at resurrecting the Liberal movement. This time the plans were grander and the outreach wider by drawing in the only two political parties that could remotely be described as Liberal – Sharad Joshi’s SBP and Jayprakash Narayan’s Lok Satta. These two political parties that could be described as liberal were marginal in their impact. Sharad Joshi the pragmatist politician that he was aligned with the BJP lead NDA ahead of the 2004 polls primarily on account of support for a statehood for Vidarbha. The grand design for a Liberal Party of India fell apart as a telling tale of how the dogmatic pursuit of Classical Liberalism was incompatible with the pragmatism demanded of a political upstart.
The liberal movement’s only other political hope, Jayprakash Narayan’s Lok Satta has since taken that pragmatism to its logical extreme by aligning opportunistically with the Communists. Attempts at rationalizing this come across as shallow after all the Lok Satta was on record backing the irrational Lokpal Bill.
What remains of Sanjeev’s efforts to resurrect a successor to C. Rajagopalachari’s Swatantra is his latest formulation Freedom Team India. Over the years I have questioned (myself on) Sanjeev’s judgment and lack of pragamtism but I continue to deeply respect his dogged persistence.
But here is the problem – today all we have is a smattering of “classical liberals” dominating the Opinion Landscape with intellectual positions deeply disconnected from the political realities in a classic case of “Ivory Tower” intellectualism.
Bibek Debroy perhaps stands out among a few others as notable exceptions who have been able to marry their faith in Economic Freedom with the political realities of India to take a clear and unambiguous political stance.
My own reconciliation of economic liberalism with cultural nationalism happened after 2004 Lok Sabha elections when I took to blogging. Reading and re-reading ancient Indian works thanks to the vast body of knowledge that has now become accessible digitally, a clear stream of thought has emerged to my mind.
A single common thread of intellectual thought running through – Dharma, Economic Freedom, the Republican State as conceived by Kautilya, Ambedkar’s Cosntitutionalism and on the limited Role of Government. Only one book in my opinion captures this single common thread over the centuries – the now out of print book by Mackenzie Brown titled “Shveta Chhatra or the White Umbrella“.
Within the political spectrum no political party today comes close to espousing all of the ideals within this single common thread of political thought. However one politician does embody most of these. Little wonder intellectuals like Bibek Debroy who symbolize a harmonious blend of the ancient and the modern have not been shy in sticking their neck out and taking a stance.
Hence my argument that Indian Liberals need to get out of their ivory tower of dogmatic Classical Liberalism and get behind the idea of Narendra Modi if not the man himself.
In closing, to Sanjeev’s comment on Modi’s illiberalism, I can do no more than point him to a book written in chaste Hindi in January of 1978 after the end of Emergency. If all the 227 pages in chaste Hindi are too much for the classical liberal to digest, the personal reflections on pages 219 and 220 should suffice to make a judgment.
Filed under: economic freedom, Flat World Hindutva, Gujarat Polls 2012, Internet Hindus, Narendra Modi, nitish kumar, Shveta Chhatra
The Indian Liberals have to leave their ivory tower. Which ivory tower my friend? are we well to do men and women with filled pockets and minds? We are middle class people. Normal people who struggle to meet their monthly ends. We are men and women who find the difficulty in doing what we want to do due to excessive govt presence in everything. It is the circumstance that led us to liberalism and not its intellectual appeal by virtue of names associated with it. I will tell you what tower we can’t leave, the one of commitments to our loved ones. Most of us nether have the money nor time to engage in full-time politics. Unfortunately those who do have those seem busy caught up in looking down upon any ideology not their own. Liberalism is not an ideology to us but a solution to our problems, one that doesn’t depend upon the virtue of the ruler or the politician but on our freedom to act. With the intellectuals reluctant to support us despite their own admission of the need of freedom in the fear of being seen with an apparently losing side, I don’t see what more you could want us to do than holding our stand despite the wave of criticism directed from most of those who have no idea what liberalism is and simply bank their opinions based on others instead of investigating it themselves. Join the liberals and you will not see ivory tower intellectuals but common men and women fighting for freedom in an independent nation.
This ivory tower – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_tower
” a world or atmosphere where intellectuals engage in pursuits that are disconnected from the practical concerns of everyday life. As such, it usually carries pejorative connotations of a wilful disconnect from the everyday world; esoteric, over-specialized, or even useless research; and academic elitism, if not outright condescension. “
you talk of empirical observation but pursuit of principles have always been normative. that disconnect you talk about is the distance between what people believe and what liberty stands for. People have found the need for identity which enough ideologies in India are providing. Liberty stands for coming out of that shell of identity. Its preconditions are those that which doesn’t exist now. We observed this disconnect much before you or any other critique of liberalism pointed it out. We are in the process of reinventing the principles presentable in Indian context. We know the difficulty of presenting a widely western ideal to Indian people despite its universal applicability. If you believe in the need for Individual liberty and want to see a society where people decide for themselves and not govt, then help us in getting the idea of liberty to people sooner and effectively. Standing on the sidelines and commenting is very easy. criticising the liberals seems to be the most uniting factor among those who differ among themselves. It is the nature of liberalism to become a rigid ideology that people see as its weakness. Our strength lies in the knowledge that we stand for freedom for the very same people who criticise us. You think we are fighting for liberty for only those who vote for us? whom do you think will benefit from a minimal state which will not extort money from you in the name of tax and only to waste it away in scams. We stand for a govt that will not promise people to take care of everything in their life only to mess it all up. people know what they want and they can decide for themselves. If not India as a whole whom do you think will benefit from a country free of corruption and govt intervention? if asking this for india is a disconnect from the status quo, then it only means that others are busy in being loquacious about that which lies not at the root of the issues or do not understand the true nature of liberalism which is nothing but freedom for all. remove the label and see what we stand for, it is the most basic requirement of all of us, the freedom to act.
Who is “we” ?
anyone who believes in liberalism in its essence
There in lies the disconnect
– abstract arguments don’t help. Need to get into specifics – who, when, where, what, how. Thanks for the persepctive nevertheless.
it is not in the nature of liberalism to become a rigid ideology*. kindly refer to my one to last comment for the correction
if you could be more specific about your questions, I will answer them to my best…
@ Arvind.
The entire article seems to be a piece of intellectual sophistry. The purpose of the article is simple. To promote Mr. Narendra Modi and put one more coat of paint to whitewash of ‘liberalism’ over the existing whitewash of ‘development’.
But neither the whitewashes nor the newer labels created by ‘committed’ intellectuals will ever hide the truth or the perception about Modi.
It will be a sad day for India indeed if Mr. Modi becomes the prime minister of India.
As for trying to propagate and stick to Indian culture while following economic liberalisation, I would say nothing wrong with it, because the traditional ethos of Indianism is liberalism, whether it is cultural or economic.
Despite the author’s high education and again Dr. Rajendra’s high education, I am not surprised that they have chosen to be part of the ‘straight-jacket’ cultural paradigm rather than choosing to defend the cause of freedom in thinking that is the real Indian tradition.
But it does not surprise me. I have seen highly educated Muslims (Ph.Ds) who believe that Allah is the only way to truth and highly educated christians who believe that Christ is the only way to salvation.
So it is hardly surprising that there are highly educated Indians who believe sincerely in the superiority of their paradigm of ‘cultural nationalism’.
As for me, I have no objections against any belief system as long as these belief systems respect individual freedom, freedom for minorities (including disadvantaged groups like disabled, children and women) and firmly condemn use of violence (except by law enforcement agencies and that too, under a system of fair and transparent trial).
All other intellectually roundabout ways of arguing for any type of cultural nationalism which espouses violence is morally untenable.
“Hence my argument that Indian Liberals need to get out of their ivory tower of dogmatic Classical Liberalism and get behind the idea of Narendra Modi if not the man himself”
There is lot to agree with your article but the above line is completely unacceptable. I fail to understand the Indian trait of having super faith in a individual- Be it Nehru, Gandhi or now Modi. I asked the question to a friend – What if Modi dies. Has he build a institution which will survive after him. The answer is big no.
The real problem why liberal party is a challenge in India because those who need to stand up- theorize and complain or best start praising Modi.
Socialism has done something deep to Indian middle class psyche. It has made him a complete non political animal. He is just not able to take the risk of being into real politics.
But I think time will come when people will dare and become a citizen and participate in real politics. Classical liberalism is the philosophy of you and me. It is natural state when people who who want to lead a accountable life come together.
In reality what India needs is offstumped and others to move out of the periphery of politics and jump into it. No more hero worship of any one. It is our nation and we have to fix it.
thank you Rocky. Would like to interact more with you.
my e-mail: vi.arvind@gmail.com
@author: I am looking forward to hearing constructive suggestions from you on how ideas of liberty can be taken to people if you agree with us in essence.
The so-called liberals are most illiberal. As far as NaMo is concerned, I think thanks to the congress, there would be a groundswell of support for him. NaMo may be a bit of an autocrat and that could be the stick these liberals may beat up with. Just one question, there is no democracy in the congress party, I have never heard anyone wag a finger at Sonia? In any case, this is the play of time. NaMo or the economic ideas that he represents will get its time under the sun, no matter the Teesta setalvads and Nandys of the world
It is a shame that liberalism in India has been reduced to comparison with Teesta Setalvad.
It is strongly recommended that people read
http://freedomteam.in/blog/content/are-you-a-liberal
http://freedomteam.in/blog/draft-policies
Dear Shashi, Nice to learn [for the first time] abt yr Sangh background.Even nicer to learn that late shri Rajju Bhaiya personally replied to you.Sangh may not see such a noble and kindly soul for a very long time to come.You are right about Indian liberalism being a compound of cultural nationalism,constitutionalism,minimal government and an economy that is in harmony with the state,people,planet and our values.
Some respondents have issues with NaMo and his autocratism.But then we need an autocrat at the helm to liberate the state from the clutches of the statists,the socialists,the free booters, the corrupt ,the do gooders [at the cost of the state eg NAC] and such riff raff that has taken control of the state.NaMO could LIBERATE us from such all pervading ,corrupt government by being in the government and cleansing it from within.Liberals need to work first to liberate people from this wicked government.[ Minimum government ,maximum governance].Once that happens,the economy could liberate us from the wants and once that happens, we will be at liberty to pursue freedom in our own ways.
@jitendra: you reflect the mindset of people who chose hitler to reform the weimar republic which eventually led to third reich. i dont know much about modi but your idea of attaining freedom by replacing hypocrisy with autocracy doesn’t need an explanation.
I am amazed at the talk of Modi being a superman who will reform India using his magic wand. This will never happen. For sure he is better than the socialist, but can he take India to its true potential ? Some will argue where is the alternative to the socialist. Why not stick with the available better solution – Modi ?
The answer is why don’t we even try for the best solution. Why do liberals in India do not organize ? Why do they remain on margins ? Why not dream for India where its true potential can be realized. What is the psychological reason for liberals not to plunge in politics, form a political party ? If Rajagopalachari could form a liberal party and make a impact in 70′s then why not today ?
@Arvind IIamaran, It is easy to go back to Hitler when discussing Modi.He has been CM of Gujarat for more than decade now.Pl come and find out for yourself if he has turned the province in to third or fourth reich.What we are seeing in Delhi is not mere hypocrisy as mentioned by you.Delhi is witnessing the misrule coupled with corruption and worst kind of vote bank politics, unprecendented in our 60 year old history.[ Pl tell us why UPA II is so eager to cut a deal with Pakistan at this juncture on Siachin?]
What we want is rule of law.Do we have it? If establishing no nonsense rule of the law ammounts to being branded neo Nazis, so be it.
People give up pretty quick in their discussion and invoke that inevitable “Hitler” so-early in their discourse. They should also check what they are comparing against.
Dont they ever see a dictator in a lady who leads the party & the govt with a iron-hand and demolishes all institutions that comes her way, from constitutional to judiciary, from Media to Free-Speech, like everything in India is her own fiefdom. oops… Did I give up too
the idea of modi has to be debated based on what he stands for .. i hope people who are critical of modi and drawing parallels with hitler and the 3rd reich have read his books including the one mentioned by the author …. read his blogs ….heard him speak …. and compared then compared with mein kamph ?
godwin law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) in action here?
I was not comparing Modi to Hitler but the similarity between logic behind choosing Hitler and Modi. Any sustainable change cannot be brought by one person but by society as a whole. What happens after Modi leaves power?
I live in Gujarat and I appreciate his administration of the state. but there is no evidence to extrapolate this possibility to the whole of India. Could Modi work the magic? May be. We may get what we wish for, but is it really the right thing?
Arvind, Whats your suggestion MMS? Or a Mulayam? Or perhaps even Mamata? NaMo may not be perfect choice, but he beats anyone who could be second!!!
Dear Rocky F, You just fell short of saying it all:
“But neither the whitewashes nor the newer labels created by ‘committed’ intellectuals will ever hide the truth or the perception about Modi.”
At the very least, have the balls to accept that the ‘perception’ arises out of the ‘truth’. Chashma utaar aur duniya dekh.
As for the sad day for India, my friend, you and me are living it.
Arvind, “I live in Gujarat and I appreciate his administration of the state. but there is no evidence to extrapolate this possibility to the whole of India.”
Well, what can I say. We did experiment giving major-time buffoons too many chances and they have fucked us pretty bad this far. and educated people don’t want to extrapolate. Maybe we must give RahulG another chance – he has the G behind him, no?
@Vishal Kumar Singh:
“The answer is why don’t we even try for the best solution.”
Answer: “Evolution always builds on its weaknesses, rather than making a fresh start. The lack of a grand plan is what makes life so adaptable and humans – the greatest opportunists of all – such a success” – From the book I read recently, “The language of the genes” by Steve Jones.
The point that the author(Steve Jones) is trying to make is that when a particular species(or as Richard Dawkins would say genes) are faced with problems that need an urgent solution, they come up with variations which are not the best solutions for the problem, but which nevertheless help them survive. If the species were looking for the best solutions, they wouldn’t survive.
In the same way, at this point of time, Narendra Modi looks the most promising in liberalising Indian economy and initiating “Minimum government – Maximum governance”
Your another question. What if Modi dies?
Even if he dies today, he has steered the debate from “Communal – Secular” to “Economic development and governance”. If he comes to power in centre even for a few years, he would show Indians what a good liberal economic policy could do to India, and the electorate would then demand the same from others.
@plainspeak The real reason why we don’t try for the better solution is that the people who can do so, really never try.
Let me ask another question. Does plainspeak ever think of organizing and being in politics. The answer is big no. Does Narayan Murthy think of doing something politically. History would remember this phase of India, where people who were expected to do something always thought it was not their job, but some one elses job.
So, the real answer is that we are into denial mode. The middle class does not remotely think it has to do anything with politics. I mentioned in my last post- This is a product of socialism.
But I am sure things will change. India will indeed produce citizens one day. Evolution works when species is most threatened.
@onechance,
I have no chashma on my eyes my friend. You are the one with the chashma of committment to Modi ‘no matter what’.
Even if someone presents photo or video evidence of what Modi did in 2002, you would still say that the camera is a trick or the video is a trick.
In my case I have no special ideological axe to grind. (I have never hesitated to condemn the congressis as and when needed, nor the communists..)
My only ideology is the ideology of liberty, freedom and fairness in law for every Indian from the pandit in kashmir to the muslim in gujrarat or kanyakumari.
People like you are the ones who want to hang Kasab or Afzal but want to protect Modi. You are the ones who want to punish the congressmen guilty of killing sikhs, but want to protect Modi and his goons for killing muslims.
Learn to call a spade a spade. Don’t let the foolish theories of some ‘pseudo Hindu’ organisations corrupt your mind.
Just remember that in the spiritual world there is no religion. Every person who participates or encourages killing of another human being is guilty of ‘nara’ hatya.
I also cannot understand what is wrong with a clean person like Sushma Swaraj. Not a single person on this forum has answered me.
Is it a drawback in BJP that if you are not a militant person with involvement in genocide, then you cannot be a candidate for PM?
@Venkatesh,
There are plenty of decent candidates for the post of PM -only if you are willing to go past your misguided worship of the genocide-tainted Modi.
1. Why not Sushma Swaraj? – Good, articulate, clean, decent
2. Why not Manohar Parrikar ? – A liberal, highly educated (IIT), clean, decent, great administrator, simple and humble
3. Why not Nitish Kumar? – He has proved his administrative acumen and whatever his socialistic background (which is still better than Modi’s genocidal background), he is well educated.
MMS was never a poor prime minister. He is a well educated and unfortunately surrounded by corrupt people, controlled by Sonia and all his ideas of reform scuttled by his coalition partners. He is like the poor helpless Vajpayee of congress.
Even Vajpayee despite his clean, ethical mind-set could not get rid of people like Modi (and had to confine himself to making oblique criticism). On youtube you can see Vajpayee talking in a press conference. Without looking at Modi he is seen saying that rulers should follow rajdharma and there should not be discrimination between ‘praja’ and ‘praja’ (implying that the riots selectively targetted one community). You can clearly see the body language of Vajpayee who does not even look at Modi. You can see in that video Modi looking shamefacedly and trying to insert his comment ‘wohi ham kar rahen hain’.
Rocky
You don’t seem to get it. You are still comparing Modi with Kasab and Afzal. Kasab and Afzal are convicts and if there wad even an iota of evidence against Modi he would not have survived when the entire Congress Govt wants to destroy him. Although I agree with you about Parikar and Sushma, we cannot accept Nitish who is an opportunist who has supported a UPA candidate for presidential election.
The problem with Sushma is she is not a mass leader and she has not demonstrated that she could govern considerably better than others and also she doesn’t appear to have any new ideas.
Problem with Parrikar is though he scores in governance, clean image and new ideas, he is a CM of a very small state and he is not known all over India as Modi is. But, this could of course change if he does well over the years. He is PM material no doubt but being a CM of a small state will always be a handicap I think.
Rocky F,
Good points.
Plainspeak made some good points on Parrikar and Sushma. i wont repeat them. re why should Nitish Kumar ever be considered as the PM? At best he can get 30 MPS. This would be the tail wagging the dog. It is like getting Mamata being the PM of UPA 2!!! I dont think it is even worthwhile to discuss his other limitations
Re MMS not being a poor PM. really? Do you really believe that? Under his rule India is getting into a ruinous position. i dont buy the puppet theory. Well if he was a good PM he would have resigned. If he remains the PM without doing anything or worse getting the country into a mess, harldy can say he is a good PM. No comparison to vajpayee who governed and created a base where the UPA thugs could fund all their corruption programmes
Rocky F.
You are spot on with your comments. These Modi fans will never agree even if you present video or photo evidence of his complicity. They keep on bringing 1984 as if that is enough to forgive Modi for 2002 riots. In the first place, 1984 riots cannot be compared to 2002 riots at all. A leader was gunned down inspite of warning to replace her guards and then congress goons took over. It was an accident which is really sad. But 2002 riots were not an accident. In response to the burning of kar sevaks, everyone knew there would be riots but Modi encouraged it by showing the dead bodies and then asking the police to go slow or turn a blind eye. The agenda here is to have a Hindu Rashtra while in case of 1984 there was no such agenda to have any Rashtra. After 2002, the whole society has been polarised in Gujarat but thankfully India is not Gujarat and hence Modi has no chance of getting the top post.
The liberals have liberated too much too soon and a day may come when all their liberties will be taken off by the liberated communities!
Loneranger,
I would encourage you to personally check out the report prepared by the Supreme Court appointed SIT. If Modi is ever chargesheeted, I would drop my support for him till he is acquitted in a trial
Rocky F,
you said –>”My only ideology is the ideology of liberty, freedom and fairness in law for every Indian from the pandit in kashmir to the muslim in gujrarat or kanyakumari.”
Means, you are for abolishing art364, common civil code & against the rampant appeasement of the muslims by congress; leaving aside godhra(for which you seem less informed) you are more a bjpiite than congresswali.
@Loneranger,
What you say are the thoughts of Ram Puniyani (http://www.tehelka.com/story_main53.asp?filename=Fw260612Supreme.asp). As a courtesy, you could have given credit to him. Is that too much to ask for from a Liberal in our country?
Mr.Shekar, you are wicked. You wrote a water-tight argument with some heavy english words about Indian Liberals and put them in a spot. How can they acknowledge something which they have been ignoring? They are in eternal catch22 situation and too idealist to think practical.
And all the comments precisely strengthens your point.
Hats off to you.
I wonder why loneranger cannot provide the video and photo evidence to Sonia’s personal investigation agency CBI so that they can prosecute Modi. For Modi baiters inquiry commision’s exoneration or people’s mandate for Modi is not enough. Now political opponents and a group of NGOs will decide who is guilty and who is secular in India.
@Rocky F,
Even if someone presents photo or video evidence of what Modi did in 2002, you would still say that the camera is a trick or the video is a trick.
So you believe that the Supreme Court’s investigationg and judgement through a SIT was wrong? and have no qualms about a purpoted video or photo ‘evidence’ that you claim to have? Or believing that phony phone call to Ms Roy that night?
And I am the one with the Kool-aid?
People like you are the ones who want to hang Kasab or Afzal but want to protect Modi. You are the ones who want to punish the congressmen guilty of killing sikhs, but want to protect Modi and his goons for killing muslims.
For one, you do not even know me or what I want. In case you are interested in knowing, or in spite of it, I hold the view that every GUILTY person must be punished. What I am against, is seemingly educated people such as yourselves, blindly incriminating someone based on purpoted facts conjured up based on the whims and fancies of arm-chair and flag-burning (anti-)social activists.
I rest my case. If I have not been able to make my point to you thus far, then I never will. Or perhaps, it probably isnt worth making. Whichever.
I do not know if I am amazed or amused at the points made by loneranger who summarily claims that ‘these’ (meaning us?) Modi fans bring up 1984 when 2002 riots are questioned
I wonder who, before him on this forum brought them up.
On second thoughts, I think i am amused. For, my past experience tells me that this ‘put words in ones mouth and claim high-handedness based on what I believe’ attitude is pretty common. Yes, I am very sure, I am amused. Again.
onechance,
I think we (ie the communal hindu ones) should no longer debate 2002 as it has been investigated and no prosecutable evidence has been found. The SIT was appointed by the SC. If the so called liberals believe that this can be biased, then it can be biased only towards the UPA as they have more carrots to dangle. Inspite of this if there is no evidence, then there is no point of any debate.
@Arvind :: It is not a rocket science to know that very few powerful people have been punished in India – look at the exoneration of Jayalalitha. People like Mayawati, Lalu Yadav, Raj Thackerey and Bal Thackerey roam free with head high. So these things speak about the efficacy of the Indian justice system. The less said the better.
Regarding evidence against Modi please talk to the victims. Please refer the voluminous evidence gathered by various organisations including Human rights watch etc.
Do you really believe that all these organisations and individuals are simply talking ill about Modi simply because they do not like his face? Are you this gullible my friend?
Leave all that. Go for yourself quietly and talk to some of the poorest of poor Muslims in the effected areas in Gujarat. Don’t say you are a journalist or a Hindu. Just pretend to be some parsi or someone neutral and ask them. They will tell you.
Luckily I have both Gujrati Hindu friends from Gujarat and also a few Muslim ones.
In private (after looking over their shoulder), the Muslim Gujratis say that Modi was the man responsible. Of course they also accept that in recent years Modi has been focussing on development.
Similarly I have put this question in private to some of the Hindus too. All of them said of course the police and administration supported the Hindu rioters and went on to ‘jusitify’ it saying that the ‘muslims had it coming’.
Wake up your conscience….
In this birth you are a Hindu, but remember that once you leave this body you can be born again as a Hindu or a Muslim or in any family.
We need a better world than the one which existed at the time of Aurangzeb or Alauddin Khilji.
With the support of intellectuals like you we are moving slowly towards that ‘fanatic Hindutva’ version of an intolerant world.
Hinduism is good, but ‘hindutva’ which believes that using force against innocents for political goals is OKAY, is nothing but a fascist philosophy sugar-coated in the colour of nationalism.
@siculaar,
Thanks for putting forth my viewpoints. Of course in many areas I used to support BJP before the events of 1992-1993 and afterwards the events in Godra, Kandamal etc. These events convinced me that BJP wants to bring in some form of fascism in the name of ‘cultural nationalism’.
MY PRESCRIPTION FOR THE BJP AND RSS::
I am still willing to be a hard-core BJP supporter if BJP accepts the following:
1. Every Indian of any religion, caste or creed must have the inviolable right to live as per his beliefs, thoughts and style.
2. Religion, caste or language spoken by an Indian is his personal matter. The state should not get involved unnecessarily.
3. All forms of reservations must be abolished. Disadvantaged sections can be given some form of subsidies in things like buying books, allowances for medicines etc.
The BJP should also jettison projects which push India backward:
1. It should not use mass mobs or violence to achieve political purposes. There should be due respect for law. Innocent members of any community cannot be held guilty for the crimes of some. If a person of any religion has committed a crime he must face the justice system.
2. Justice system must be revamped. More prompt efficient justice is needed. Police investigations must be more scientific (as in developed countries) and not merely torture based. Use of advanced scientific tools, cctvs and better police ratio to population can ensure that members of mobs/groups which take the law into own hands are punished.
What is needed is prompt enquiry, investigation, identification of culprits, trial and punishment.
This is the cycle which must happen.
If BJP is willing to be modern and protecting individual rights and liberties, willing to treat every Indian first and last as an Indian and willing to build systems of governance which will take India forward, I will whole-heartedly support BJP.
Of course in order to achieve this it is important that the RSS also revises its agenda a little to consider the fact that the full globe today can benefit from the teachings of ancient India. In order to do this the RSS must do the following:
1) Expand its reach into every corner of the world and invite people of every religion, creed or race to join it. In fact I have seen that many western youth, often having nothing better to do, often waste their youth in drugs and alcohol. Some of the RSS teachings might be useful in this context too. From ‘nation-building’ its goal should be ‘world-building’.
2) Within India itself the RSS should welcome Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and tribals whole-heartedly to build a strong, liberal, global India and to counter the rise of any sort of fascism – whether it is Islamic fascism seen in some parts of the country or whether it is the government which attempts to impose some type of emergency in the future.
3) RSS must not propagate use of violence or support those groups which in the name of ‘hinduism’ want to propagate chauvinism or violence.
4) RSS must remember that every human being or living entity always changes. So there is nothing very bad in embracing positive change.
5) RSS must accept all religions which have been in India for more than a couple of centuries as Indian religions and accept good things/individuals from those religions also. For instance Muslim poets like Ghalib, freedom fighters like Ashvaqullah Khan or Maulana Abdul Kalam or good nationalist Christians like T.B. Cunha, Anand diary chairman Kurien and so on must be acknowledged in RSS meetings etc. Attempts to show that only those who came from Hindu background have contributed to the building of the India that we have today is chauvinistic and very similar to the Catholic belief that all saints have to be necessarily Catholics. Just because they want to follow Allah or Christ or any other god exclusively does not automatically make them any less patriotic or less Indians.
If the BJP and RSS are able to rise to this challenge of creating a great, liberal, global India (similar to the great liberal, forward-thinking ethos of the ancient India), then I am all for it.
Otherwise I am all for professionals and educated people in India getting together and making a new cadre-based party.
Rocky – Anymore incendiary references to Nazism and Hitler and I will be forced to ban you from the site.
@Rocky
You spoke to some gujarati muslims – and they said Modi was responsible – and you call Arvind gullible?!
Its just that many people (including you it appears) got taken in by what the media was reporting.
Do see this: http://www.gujaratriots.com/13/the-reaction-of-the-english-media/
And this comes from a man who openly calls Namo a Mass Murderer.
Best,
Jai (71)
The courts would decide whether Modi is guilty or not. But all the people who could understand what was happening that time clearly know that Modi allowed the riots to go on. He indeed is guilty and according to me should be punished severely.
People are choosing development and turning a blind eye to justice. Justice is the basis of a state. If there is no justice then long term development is impossible.
But all the people who could understand what was happening that time
And pray, how was this understanding bestowed upon the chosen ones? Please enlighten us rejects.
@onechance The understanding comes when one makes a choice to be truthful in assessing a situation. It come when people remove their blinkers of ideology and see the situation as it is.
The justice system is there for a reason. If we use intuition to decide whether a person is guilty or not, why wait for the courts?. Let’s lynch the suspects. “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” . This is the principle we need to follow. Till, he is proven guilty by a due process of law, he is innocent.
People who are declaring Modi guilty I want to ask some questions to you.
Do you think the Indian media is behaving in an unbiased manner ?
Why did the media not give a damn when UPA maligned the institutions of Governors, President, CAG, CBI, CVC?
Why did the media not report the 2G scam till it could no longer not report?
The Indian media either amplifies or attenuates its reportage depending on the case. Chidambaram’s case in 2G/Aircel-Maxis ? Attenuate. 2G scam? Attenuate. AP problems/Telangana : Attenuate. Modi ? Amplify. (If you want someone to design digital filters, you should recruit the media)
You know how they brainwash people in Guantanamo bay? They play the same Bruce Sprinsteen record over and over at high volume. The media has done the same with Modi
These were the very people who gave the initial reports on the Gujarat riots and of course because of the magnitude of the tragedy, they played it over and over in a format which would increase their TRPs. We can’t fault you if you can’t now distinguish between Truth and misinformation and have come to the conclusion that Modi is guilty. You would have also come to the conclusion that Arushi’s parents had nothing to do with their daughter’s murder. How’s that turned out? Even when SIT report(by a reputed individual) exonerated Modi of any complicity, it repeats the same charges ad nauseam. So, if you were to ask someone to know the truth to save your life, would you ask the Indian media? Then, why do you trust its assertions that Modi is guilty when all evidence points otherwise?
We gullible people have a rule of thumb that what media reports must be the truth. The UPA and the media have used that well.
If you want to know why we should not go by intuition and statements by unreliable witnesses to pronounce someone guilty, here is a book which tells us exactly that.
Circumstantial Evidence: Death, Life, and Justice in a Southern Town
Rocky
I fully agree with you that RSS should accept all indians irrespective of religion. There is a need for a new cadre based party since BJP is filled with corrupt and selfish people. But, I am still not convinced that Modi is guilty. Just because some people including muslims say Modi is responsible, we cannot hold him responsible for riots. Did they hear or see Modi doing it? I don’t think any common man has access to Chief Minister’s office. Less talked about human rights organization the better. They are all in money making business. So, until there is any evidence against Modi, we cannot hold Modi responsible for riots. India cannot be dictated by muslim community dictats. Muslims always find somebody responsible when they are killed, but don’t bother about people belonging to other communities. Obviously, in this life I may have born as a Hindu although I don’t believe in any religion. I believe that I can never be born as a muslim since I believe that Karma and samskaras determine one’s birth. I pity all muslims since they have been brainwashed into an ideology from which escape or moksha is difficult.