W(h)ither BJP?

Re: # 79
Ahmedis in India are more fanatical Muslims than even DeoBandis or Meerut.
They must find it strange to be at receiving end now.

Chowk Staff - Why hasn`t Saminasha been banned permanently?

This is what she posted in her own ``WTF`` thread:


#97 by Saminasha on September 30, 2005 9:38am PT
Stuka,

Fuck you. Seriously. Make all your references than act like it was out of innocence

Stuka #71: ``Romair: You have repeatedly stated that the BJP stands for a ``Hindu India``, the implication being that Muslims are not Indians. ``

I have never once stated this. Once again, I will ask you the same question. Kindly point out where I have stated this....Or kindly do not put words in my mouth........

What I have stated is that BJP practices religious communalism. And to me, that makes it a non-secular party (though in various other inviduals` opinions, it still remains secular). However, where in the world did I say that BJP does not consider Muslims to be Indians?

So please point it out, and I will accept it......Otherwise, please accept that you are misquoting......

Re: #80 by Myself

Sorry for the typing error.

The full sentence was:

The American Government admitted that it`s denial of visa to Modi was based on THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT`S OWN COMMISSION`s REPORT WHICH INVESTIGATED THE GUJRAT INCIDENT.

Re: #64 by dost-mittar


[Arrey yaar, who is asking you to take me seriously? By all means don`t if it makes you feel better. If Modi`s being declared an unwelcome person in Europe and America does not make him suspect in your eyes, none of his speeches will. I don`t think that he is so stupid as to have publicly called for the killing and rape of muslims.]


This is incredibly shallow. And yes, henceforth I won`t take you seriously.
ON THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT``S OWN COMMISSION WHICH INVESTIGATED THE GUJRAT INCIDENT. The Indian Administration which was then being run by such luminaries as Laloo and the Rajiv Gandhi`s Italian wife.



[As for Farzana Versey, she has responded to charges of treason before and can do so again, if she likes. All I would say to you is to distinguish between anti-establishment and anti-national. ]

You are also pretty slippery, like many others on this site. But you won`t slip by where I am concerned. I WAS NOT DEBATING WITH YOU WHETHER SHE IS ANTI-NATIONAL. My point a) was that EVEN IF SHE IS NOT ANTI-NATIONAL, just because she lives in India does not make her more of an Indian.

But you skillfully avoided that argument.



[You can click on the following url to see who I would have voted for in the last election, btw my predictions made there have mostly come true:http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00003195&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1]

I did click, and came up with this gem:

``These changes are meant to demonise Muslim Indians and paint them as unpatriotic and disloyal to the country.``


As usual, no proof. Only your FEELINGS that they are out to demonize Muslims.


I think you fancy yourself as a level-headed kind of bloke - even-keeled, fair to both sides.

But you are not, I`m afraid. Your approach is more emotional than reasoned. This leads me to suspect (although it doesn`t have to be true) that you have some kind of Muslim influence in your life - either a family member, or a very close friend.

In any case, even if this is not true, you are definitely not a reasonable person. Because that word has ``reason`` in it, and requires some reasoning.

Re: # 78

Satyamvada,

You are so right.

I feel no sadness when these Ahmadis are getting rammed in Pakistan.
They wanted Pakistan, and were only gleeful when Sikhs and Hindus were getting
butchered and exterminated in Pakistan and did nothing.
Nobody is going to come to Ahmadi`s help.

Next is Ismaili`s turn and then Shias and then Barelvis and so forth.

Same thing with these Sindhi Muslims. They would rather live with UP and Bihari muslims
than Sindhi Hindus who had lived there for centuries.

It is their time to feel the pain that Hindus and Sikhs had to go through because of
their hate.

Dont believe all the claims and opinions of liars like YLH ( who quotes
from the paki Ayesha Jalal - her dissertation advisor was a commie Indian)
Look at the original works/docs yourself,
Just take a look at the demands that Jinnah and the muslim league made, see
if it was feasible to accept those demands and still have a democratic united country.

Whatever his faults. Nehru (and Patel and others in the Congress) made the
right decision in agreeing to the Partition, otherwise, India would have been
completely balkanised by now.

Kaalchakra wrote:i The country was once divided and millions were forced to flee their homes and butchered over fears of such things as Ram Rajya and Vande Mataram.

This is absolute nonsense. Kaalchakra you need to learn to read the urdu media
of both pakistan and india to understand the mentality of the groups involved.
What is said in english is different than what is said in urdu. Note even Mushy does
the same - he says onething in English to the world media and then alludes to
hudaibiya in his urdu speeches at home.

India was divided because a group of people wanted a dar-ul-islam.
The Jinnah faction of the group wanted to take as much as possible at one stroke, create a
strong dar-ul-islam and then attack the weak dar-ul-harb India.
Another faction in the group (like Maulana Azad and other mullahs - now the mma in
pakiland) wanted to stay within the dar-ul-Harb and convert it from within. The education system in India is so sanitised that all this is not taught.
Jinnah and his faction had a lot of Ahmedis in it. That is why YLH and his ilk take
recourse to Jinnah`s lone speech. The Ahmedis thought that they could get more
powerful by creating pakiland, it so happened that the mullahs also migrated to
pakiland and made it pure dar-ul-islam as desired.
So the world indeed got a pure paradise.

India and Hindus/Sikhs in particular were saved because of partition (not withstanding the whacko claims about akhand-bharat).

Indians need to be extremely careful about the words they use, and the meanings they assign to words and phrases. The country was once divided and millions were forced to flee their homes and butchered over fears of such things as Ram Rajya and Vande Mataram.

stuka#69:

I did not make the statement that you quoted.

#65 by jang on September 29, 2005 7:26am PT


in other words, commies are grouped with prostitutes and pimps.


That`s just plain silly...hookers don`t get paid on the basis of seniority...It`s a very capitalistic enterprise....

BJP philosophy

http://www.bjp.org/philo.htm

#68 go to item 30 a, b, c, ...

http://foia.state.gov/FORMS/visa/ds0230.pdf

``Everything I quote about BJP is based on what is on their own website. ``

Romair: You have repeatedly stated that the BJP stands for a ``Hindu India``, the implication being that Muslims are not Indians. I have searched high and low on the BJP site and have not founfd the BJP asking for Hindu Rashtra.

Okay, u clarify and tell me what the BJP stands for in your opinion?

Stuka #69: ``You seem to be borrowing from Romair`s speech. When has the BJP declared Muslims to be non Indians.``

Could you point out exactly where I stated that BJP had declared Muslims to be non-Indians. Everything I quote about BJP is based on what is on their own website. However, if you can point it out, I will accept it. If you cannot point it out, then could I know your motivations for mentioning my name?

````They have to firmly declare to fight the Wahaabis in Muslims but SIMULTANEOUSLY they have to acknowledge a Muslim to be Indian.``
``

Dost Mittar

You seem to be borrowing from Romair`s speech. When has the BJP declared Muslims to be non Indians.

The BJP is considered communal because of two things:

Uniform Civil Code and Article 370.

What is so communal about having the same laws regardless of religion? It is in fact the opposite of Communal. Also, why the hell is every mainstyream political party so much for Article 370? What do Indian Muslims have to do with Kashmir if they themselves live in Ahemedabad or Patna?

If anything, IF Muslims in rest of Iindia support Article 370 (and that is a BIG IF as I have seen no proof that it is the case) then it proves Muslim communalism and nothing else. The removal of the article would be of benefir to all Indians outside Kashmir, regardless of religion. If Muslims would rather support traitor Kashmiri Muslims then look for their own benefit, it is the ultimate proof of communal thinking on their part.

Re: # 65

Jang,

Are you serious? When do they ask it? I really do not recall reading that question.
Is that asked when you are becoming citizen or you want to obtain visa?

Re: # 56 DM
//.... If an NRI, then India is more of Farzana`s country than yours....//

Well, that depends .... farzana is a communalist - so if we have an NRI who has invested millions in Indian market and then we have avowed communalist - then it`s a no brainer.....

As far Indians are concerned, they will take the NRI with his millions any day over this communalist freak....

Re: # 63 DM
//....why this allergic reaction to the mention of muslim identity?....//

You tell me - How do you feel when RSS freaks start their monkey-dance with ``Hindu identity``, ``Hindu culture`` bullsh!t?..... Does that make you feel good ... or do you smell a rat?....Well - those who understand the motivations , do smell a rat....

Same thing with this so called ``Muslim identity`` - it`s a dangerous political game of polarisation.... it has nothing to do with muslim identities [mark the plural] or their unique culture and practices ... It has nothing to do with ``unity in diversity`` ....

++++

//...All I can say is that such absurdity is possible only in India. ..//

No - it`s no ``absurdity``.... It`s the ``natural`` consequence of commie sponsored Identity Politics in India....

US immigration service asks that immigrants declare themselves to be NOT commies, prostitutes or pimps. (only thing that comes close is pakistni requirement declaring ahmedis to be non-muslims). in other words, commies are grouped with prostitutes and pimps.

Ajeya:

Arrey yaar, who is asking you to take me seriously? By all means don`t if it makes you feel better. If Modi`s being declared an unwelcome person in Europe and America does not make him suspect in your eyes, none of his speeches will. I don`t think that he is so stupid as to have publicly called for the killing and rape of muslims.

As for Farzana Versey, she has responded to charges of treason before and can do so again, if she likes. All I would say to you is to distinguish between anti-establishment and anti-national.

You can click on the following url to see who I would have voted for in the last election, btw my predictions made there have mostly come true:http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00003195&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&chapter=1&page=1

I am surprised at the strong reaction to my mention of muslim identity/identities. We all seem to take pride in the cliché that India is a land of unity in diversity, then why this allergic reaction to the mention of muslim identity? Isn`t that identity a part of the composite Indian identity?

Mind you that nowhere did I say that Muslims need to be given a special status; I have indeed argued consistently, without any support from my Muslim friends, that the special status given to Muslims and other religious minorities in the Indian constitution is at the root cause of the rise of hindu nationalism. It is indeed an irony of India that those who support special status, haj subsidies, madrassas, etc. are considered progressives and secular in India while those who want to end these and treat all Indians as equal are labelled hindu fanatics. All I can say is that such absurdity is possible only in India.


harimou:
Thanks for that informative post; it is quite consistent with my understanding of the situation.

Re: #56 by dost-mittar


[This is an opinion piece based on what I have been reading (and not saving in a file, except on the ``hard disc`` over my shoulders, which is getting floppier by the day). If it were an academic piece, I would have posted it under ``University Avenue`` instead of ``Civic Centre`` of chowk. ]

dost-mitter,

This is a cop-out, I`m afraid.

All of us come across pieces of information by various means, and build up our views about different things from that. A lot of times we do not remember what the exact source of our ``impression`` was.

That is perfectly reasonable.

What is not reasonable is the fact that you are WRITING AN ARTICLE and DEBATING other people. Just because you are writing an article on ``civic Centre`` does not mean that you can write something based on gut-feel and not solid research. If this article was about tooth fairies, few people would have cared about facts. But you are making statements about things that are very material, and touch the lives of many people in a very personal way.

Also, you cannot ARGUE based on your FEELINGS. It has to be more substantial than that, I`m afraid, if you want to be considered as someone who should be taken seriously.

Isn`t this ``hard disc/floppy`` excuse a little bit too convenient?




[But I can answer one of your questions without doing extensive searches. I did not vote for any party since I do not live in the country. ]

Okay then. Tell us who you WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR IF you were in India.




[BTW. do you live in India or are an NRI like me? If an NRI, then India is more of Farzana`s country than yours. ]


Dost-mitter, I would strongly urge you (in a VERY polite manner, of course), to think a little bit before you voice your opinions. Or at least, give us a REASON for your opinions.

I think that after some reflection you would agree with me that this statement is eminently asinine (also, I think she can defend herself).

MY basis for asking her to leave the country was that she is anti-national.

Are you saying that:

a) She IS NOT anti-national, and ALSO lives in India - therefore she is more Indian than me,

or,

b) She IS anti-national, but BECAUSE she lives in India - therefore she is more Indian than me.


If it is a), then of course my response would be that Indianness has little to do with my NRI status - for example Americans working in Saudi Arabia consider themselves no less American than those living in America.

If it is b) then I would have to say that it`s no point discussing ANYTHING with you.


In any case, LET ME KNOW (since YOU are the one that started this particular thread of argument about this female) what your reason was for making this statement.

Dost-Mittar,

From CPUSA`s own pages:

Was the CPUSA Ever Banned by the U.S. Government?

The answer is both yes and no. The CP was never banned as a political party in name by the US government. However, the CP has had its leaders sent to prison for long terms for teaching Marxism-Leninism, has been declared illegal in more than a few states, and has been the target of numerous forms of official and unofficial government repression.

Shortly after its founding in 1919, the CP was the target of the so-called ``Palmer Raids`` which arrested and deported many foreign-born radicals. J. Edgar Hoover got his start as a Justice Department official helping to direct these raids, which resulted in the deportation of several thousand foreign-born radicals, including members of the CP.

In the 30s, Communists were the targets of many forms of repression, both as Communists and as key organizers of industrial unions. In Detroit, Chicago, San Francisco, and many other cities, Communists were killed by police forces trying to prevent union organization and public demonstrations.

During this period, the House of Representatives set up a committee named after its first chairman, Martin Dies, which ``investigated`` radical activity. This committee later became the House Un-American Activities Committee, responsible for many of the anti-communist witch-hunts of the late 40s and 50s.

In 1948, the top leadership of the CP was arrested under the Smith Act. It was charged with trying to overthrow the US government by force and violence. Later, many other national and state Party leaders were arrested and charged.

In none of these cases was any criminal activity ever an issue, none of them were every charged with engaging in any activity of force or violence; only with teaching Marxism-Leninism. Some of the national leaders spent 4 years in prison, several who went underground spent 8 years in prison, when they turned themselves in after the others were finally released.

Eventually, after long legal and political struggles, the Supreme Court invalidated key sections of the Smith Act as unconstitutional. After long struggles for democratic rights, waged in many cases by the Party and a few supporters, portions of the McCarren Act were also declared unconstitutional.

Other struggles were over various so-called ``loyalty oaths`` for jobs, for union membership in some unions, and for running for office in some states. Eventually most of these were dropped, invalidated by courts, or simply ignored.

Nonetheless, in some states, for example Washington State, there remain unenforced laws on the books, which make it illegal to be a member of the CP, subject to heavy fines and imprisonment.

In the 1950s, a government program was set up by the FBI named COINTELPRO. Its assignment was to conduct spying on the legal activities of Communists, and to use subterfuge and lying to split the CP.

Mr DM:

So you say indian muslims have a `distinct identity` and it has to be protected. well lets agree to it for a moment.

When you last time came to india , how many identities you saw here? every state , city has its own identity. So like indian muslims these people have a right to preserve their identity.

Like say mumbai had a disntict identity, culture, language from bihar/up. But overtime this idetity of mumbai is getting increasingly diluted because of influx.

Now if some people (say Shiv Sena) want to protect it, you calll them #$% $%^** . Why?

you moron, identity is not something which can be casted in stone. It has to change with time, reflecting the changed circumstances when the old identity was formed else the people carrying that identity will decay and become a fossil.

India was identified as a land of beggars and snake charmers. Now its a land of outsourcing. Is this change in identity bad? should we just stick to that one?


The group of people being called indian muslim had some disticnt identity before they embraced islam or islam was forced on them. If they changed their identiy at that time why can`t they change it now or again in future.

want do you want ? they just mouth Urdu and carry a paandaan? If hindus can leave behind , sanskrit or the christians can leave their latin and carry on with english / hindi/french/ tamil or other languages then why can`t urdu arabic be left out from day to day life?


what kind of social scientist are you? have you heard the name evolution? change? adaptation?

one thing that sets BJP apart from other parties is their core strength, the RSS. RSS supplies BJP with disciplined cadre. the typical profile of a RSS delegated party-worker is 25-30 year old, college graduate, polite, clean-dressed with a mobile phone, and willing to work 24 hrs without question. they are typically given about Rs. 5000 as a salary, with no expectation of moolah in future. when asked what do you do as an rss graduate, the reply is ``sanghatan``..its a pithy word. basically they take a long view, politics being one part.

apparently, their ranks are decreasing, and few young are joining. i saw one shakha in action, and it was all 60+!

so, given this, BJP as we know it will likely not be there..it wont be like congress, because it does not have the ``gandhis``, wont be like regional parties. i suspect it will shrink in proportion to rss strength.

unless, something ``interesting`` happens and rss ranks start swelling again...

Re: # 56
Just because an Indian has left his country to seek a better fortune for himself and his family does not make him less indian. Many of my friends have gone to dubai to make a living and improve the standards of living for their parents and grand parents. India still belongs to them as much as to any indian hater living in India.
I am sure you have never been to gujarat either and dont know the gujarati language. It is very common in gujarati to call a muslim ``Mian bhai`` or ``Mian``.
Modi raised ire against Mushyy only after he talked about Gujarat riots in UN. He was pointing the similarity between statements of Musharaaf and Sonia Madame. He has never riled against Muslim community in Gujarat nor were his speech anti-Muslim otherwise he would be breaking the code of Electoral Commission.

By terming gujarat riots as experiment, you are implying that it was pre-planned by RSS.

#39, DM {``....This was perhaps a simplification on my part. There is perhaps no single muslim identity``}

DM Sahib,
I agree with Mohar that there really isn`t a single muslim identity, not in the world, not in Pakistan, and not in India. There are too many interpretations, sects, priorities, and other differences for there to be a monolithic Muslim identity. Of course there are cultural elements and even religious rituals, but not a common mind set. Seriously, I think that Bengali Muslims have more in common with Bengali Hindus and the same applies throughout the provinces of undivided India. I think that in today`s India, except for large metropolitan areas, there is considerable homogeneity in terms of language, food, clothing, priorities, and aspirations. The differences and attempt to accentuate identities are the work of religious zealots and religious bigots.

Ajeya:

This is an opinion piece based on what I have been reading (and not saving in a file, except on the ``hard disc`` over my shoulders, which is getting floppier by the day). If it were an academic piece, I would have posted it under ``University Avenue`` instead of ``Civic Centre`` of chowk.

But I can answer one of your questions without doing extensive searches. I did not vote for any party since I do not live in the country.

BTW. do you live in India or are an NRI like me? If an NRI, then India is more of Farzana`s country than yours.

arjun_m:
The only comparison I made was to say that the BSE is overheated now as KSE was a few months ago, and is due for a correction. And I stand by that!

#40 by satyamvada on September 27, 2005 3:18pm PT


Read that first and understand issues before spouting nonsense.


DM is too addicted to the kool-aid to do that...For example, his comparing the BSE to the joke that is the KSE...

Re: # 42
This guy is nuts, you belong to UP not here. This is an matured person thread only.

Besides, none of the examples he cited are Indian Muslim, At best they are comingled with Hindus.
Maybe Urdu script(Nastalique) is Arabic or Muslim, thats it.

#42

Isnt that a gangetic belt muslim identity? a Moplah from Kerala for instance cannot identify with that.

Re: # 42 kham
//...premchand, krishan chand, rajinder singh bedi and firaq gorakhpuri. rss types called them half-muslim anyway....//

Yep. And on the otherside - we have people who call Kalam ``adha-hindu`` or even ``not-good-muslim`` ....

Just like RSS freaks who are suckers for ``Hindu Identity`` business - we have entire left-commie establishment who are suckers for ``Muslim Identity`` business....They have designed the straight-jackets - good hindu jacket and good muslim jacket. Everybody needs to fit into their designs and definitions....

#46 Ajeya

I do not agree with Farzana`s victim complex or belief that BJP is bad, bad, bad and someone else (Mulayam, Lalloo??) is good, good, good. At the same time, I have to say that RSS has not updated its vision of bharat/india (our nations official name) for the 21st century.

Why not take a look at the RSS web site (http://www.rss.org)?

It`s a pretty good site and pretty clear about RSS ideology. I would have to say that overall it is pretty narrow minded. It is quite similar to the ideology of the Catholic church or other ultra-conservative groups in the west. For the RSS, hindu kings are intrinsically better than muslim kings. Akbar is a cunning person who caused traitorous hindus to serve him. Sikhs are important because they were ``sword arm`` of hinduism and not because Nanak preached equality of all and rejected many traditional rituals. The site has no reference to personalities such as Kabir, Raidas. etc. who have acted as connection points between hindus and muslims and espouse an egalitarian social order.

I agree with you that indian liberals and islamists are combining to potray the RSS as some kind of nazi organization. This is deeply stupid and false: the quotes from the 30s approving of Hitler etc. come well before the holocaust and from a time when 75% of Western world admired such dictators. This also cunningly plays into western perceptions of asians as naturally authoritarian and violence-prone. We should reject this potrayal while at the same time demanding more transparency, scholarship and pro-activeness against caste from the RSS.

Re: # 48

``A party is merely a vehicle for channeling people`s sentiments. If the BJP disappears today, the people who are in it will find a place in other parties, most likely the Congress. They may even capture the Congress party which already has many like-minded people in it. ``

Like in USA when southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond started becoming Republicans.

Re: # 47 DM

Urdu, Kathak, Tabla is indian muslim Identity? Really? Well - I am not sure how many muslims in tamilnad, orissa, bengal speak urdu or dance kathak or play tabla.....But I am not going to get into this idiotic ``identity`` business....

That was my point to begin with....Fixing identities on an ancient people spread over diverse landscape is futile and dangerous.... Apparently - you didn`t read my post....

+++

//...The undisputed Indian muslim nationalist, Rafique Zakaria said that Kalam was a good Indian but cannot be called a good muslim...//

That further proves my point.... Even good people have swallowed this leftist promoted ``muslims identity`` bullsh!t, hook, line and sinker..... so much so that a person of Kalam`s calibre is NOT considered a good muslim..... Why is Kalam not a good muslim? I mean - if a person of kalam`s caliber is not a good muslim - then WHO is a good muslim? ..... and moreover, who the f*** decides who is a good muslim? Zakaria? .... There are people who consider Zakaria as not a good muslim? what happens then?....

I mean that`s what RSS does - doesn`t it? Issue fatwas on good hindu/bad hindu, good culture/bad culture[valentine`s day] ?.....Then why the f*** are the leftists dabbling in this ``good muslim/bad muslim`` business?.....

And morevoer - Why the f*** are you defending this bullsh!t?

Dear Farzana#43:

``The slogan that did it was not `pseudo-secularism`; it was `mandir waheen banayenge`.``

It was what we social scientists call a multi-variate phenomenon in which shah bano, mandal, mandir, ramayana serial and other factors all contributed to a resurgent hindu nationalism. It is almost impossible to say which was the most significant variable in all this.

``I think Mahatma Gandhi and Tilak had already added a religious flavour to Indian politics.``

Gandhi did introduce religion into politics and may have indirectly contributed to their communalisation, but he cannot be said to have ``succeeded`` in doing so; indeed, it was a failure of what he wanted to achieve. ML, on the other hand, like Advani, succeeded in what it wanted, namely a polarisation of the country along hindu-muslim lines.

``What happened to Sikander Bakht?``

His was a remarkable story. I remember when he married Raj Sharma and had to face the wrath of Jan Sanghis who accused him of ``kidnapping`` her. I think that, with his antics and assumption of indispensability, his antics were tolerated by the BJP leadership precisely because he was a Muslim. He did get a very lucrative cabinet post and was offered a governorship even after he fell from grace.

``The BJP will never become moderate. Iss baat par hum atal hai... ``

BJP or a similar party is a necessity. A party is merely a vehicle for channeling people`s sentiments. If the BJP disappears today, the people who are in it will find a place in other parties, most likely the Congress. They may even capture the Congress party which already has many like-minded people in it. Remember that the rank and file membership of the Party would have preferred Patel to Nehru even before the partition.

mohar11#41:

I think that khamkhwa has answered your question about the distinctiveness of IM identity, although he is somewhat misinformed about the kathak part. You ask a good question as to who represents Indian Muslims? One can ask a similar question about hindus, sikhs or christians. However, if you go back to the time when Kalam`s name was mentioned for nomination, there was hardly any muslim chowkie, even ardent nationalist like nasah, who supported his nomination. The undisputed Indian muslim nationalist, Rafique Zakaria said that Kalam was a good Indian but cannot be called a good muslim. In fact, I do not remember any muslim opinion columnist supporting his nomination as a muslim candidate; most criticised him for accepting nomination of a party associated with the Gujarat riots.

khamkwa#42:
[token Pakistani participant:)]

Thanks for answering the question re. IM distinctiveness. My only complaint is that, among hindus, you ignored my urdu teacher, Prof. Tilok Chand Mehroom and his son, Jagan Nath Azaad who, according to Manto, wrote the first national anthem of Pakistan.

Re: #30 by dost-mittar


[Appointment of Kalam - in my opinion India`s best ever President - or Naqvi are correctly perceived as an act to placate Muslim sentiments. BTW neither of them represents Indian Muslim identity or even claim to represent Indian Muslims.]


You`re dead wrong.

Motives might be debated, but what is UNDENIABLE is that appointing someone to the post of President is a symbolic gesture that raises the prestige of the entire Muslim community, AND MAKES A VERY PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT THEIR STATUS IN THE SOCIETY.



[But it is more than a matter of appointing a Muslim or two in important positions, the Party has to purge itself of the openly anti-muslim elements if it wants to have credibility among Muslims. ]

1) WHICH openly anti-Muslim elements? PLEASE name names.
2) What is your definition of anti-Muslim?
3) Also kindly include the reasons WHY you think they are anti-Muslim.



[I am sorry that I do not have access to any other sources than news reporters or NGOs who have have gone to the spot and studied the situation.]

For every reporter you cite, I can find one that said the opposite.

If you are not biased, then how are you so sure? Could you explain?





[But I am aware that the Modi government has been repeatedly chastised by the Supreme Court for its attempts to cover up the prosecution of the accused in the Gujarat riots. ]

Could you give references?


[The Congress role was every bit as reprehensible as that of the Modi government. ]

Did you vote in the last elections? Who did you vote for? Pro-BJP or pro-Congress?

(You can tell us because you are anonymous here, and neither party is going to send goons after you)



[3) Could you quote some of the ``extremist views`` that Modi has propounded?``

I am not privy to any private statements of Modi, except those he has frequently made calling all Muslims ``mian musharraf`` insinuating that they are traitors. ]

I am very happy that you gave a somewhat concrete example.

Could you kindly give me the full quote?

Re: #34 by contra

[re:#21
to ajeya
your questions are so ridiculous and insanely stupid that i don`t feel like answering them ]


The questions were directed at dost-mitter, fu ckhead.

Re: #43 by Islamic Traitor


[The BJP can never have the `national` appeal it so craves. Forget Muslims, where are the Christian and Parsi supporters? ]

The BJP has learnt the painful lesson of what happens when they abandon their base. They have realized that they do not need Islamic votes to win elections.

Also, the BJP lost primarily because of two states - AP and TN. Both for reasons that had NOTHING to do with Muslims.



Get out of my country.

Dear dost-mittarji:

While I agree with the gist of what you are saying, I am not too sure that the withering is due to fissures. This is a good ruse for them to obfuscate the more important issue -- that, as of now, the Indian electorate is not buying whatever it is they are trying to sell.

[Advani is no ordinary political leader. He is someone who changed the political landscape of the country. With a slogan of “pseudo-secularism”, he caught the imagination of the educated Hindu elite and communalised Indian politics in a way that only Muslim League had been able to do in pre-partition India.]

The slogan that did it was not `pseudo-secularism`; it was `mandir waheen banayenge`.

I am afraid you cannot compare this with the Muslim League position pre-Partition. The people then were under foreign rule and there was a reason to capture their imagination. Where is the need for it now? Besides, I do not think it was only the ML that should be blamed for communalising Indian politics then -- the great IMs were with the Congress. I think Mahatma Gandhi and Tilak had already added a religious flavour to Indian politics.

[It was this dedication and commitment which made a political pariah, Jana Sangh, acceptable as a partner to the likes of Jai Prakash Narain, George Fernandez and Morarji Desai after the Emergency in 1977.]

No, it was political expediency and their own battles with Mrs. G. (Refer to JP`s famous letter addressed to her.)

[Many ambitious politicians hitched their fortunes to that of the rising party, including some Muslims. ]

Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi? What happened to Sikander Bakht? The BJP can never have the `national` appeal it so craves. Forget Muslims, where are the Christian and Parsi supporters?

[The more Vajpayee became popular with the moderate elements of the Indian polity, the more unacceptable he became to the RSS leadership. ]

This is my old theory. Vajpayee is not really a moderate; he is the `mukhota` that is being paraded around in case they need to swing both ways.

The BJP will never become moderate. Iss baat par hum atal hai...

Regards,
Farzana

PS: For some of the other interactors here who have been talking about there not being a single Muslim identity, why do they not agree when I say so? Who are they to decide who is a `moderate` and `acceptable` Muslim?

Re: # 40
What distinct language ? What literature - can you name any distinctively muslim literature ?What artistic expression ? dance , music - what is so distinctively muslim ?

1. Urdu.
2. Entire urdu prose and poetry sans premchand, krishan chand, rajinder singh bedi and firaq gorakhpuri. rss types called them half-muslim anyway.
3. Dance = Kathak
4. Music = Khayal Gayeki
5. Music = Tabls, Sur Bahar and Sitar
6. Distinctly Muslim... Turki topi, lota, Pandaan and Burqa...;)

Re: # 39 DM
//....This was perhaps a simplification on my part. There is perhaps no single muslim identity ...//

It`s more than just a ``simplification``.... It has been a long running deliberate attempt on part of lefties and commies to manufature a ``single muslim identity``....And the consequences of such m0r0nic policy has been utterly disastrous....

There is no single muslim identity - just like there is no single hindu identity - any such single identity is impossible in an ancient society spread over a diverse landscape....Any attempt to create such an identity is futile and dangerous...This is exactly what RSS has been trying to do and we all know where that has led to....

Lefties condemn such attempt on part of RSS and rightly so....But the same leftist and commie have been hell-bent on creating one for the muslims right from the beginning....right from the day one of independent india.... They have created this big mythology around ``Indian Muslim Identity`` which has to be ``protected``...Not only have they create the identity out of thin air - they also have decided who represent that mythical identity...In their infinite wisodm - commies have decide that that mullahs are the ones who represent the muslim identity......And they have been pandering to the mullahs in name of ``protecting`` muslim identity...

Who says Kalam and Naqvi DO NOT represent Indian muslims..... If they don`t represent muslims - then who does? That mothf**er Jama Masjid mullah Bukhari?

dost mitter said:
but I was thinking of North Indian Muslim identity, which centres around a distinct language, literature, culture, artistic expression, music, etc

huh ?
What distinct language ? urdu eh ?
What literature - can you name any distinctively muslim literature ?
What artistic expression ? dance , music - what is so distinctively muslim ?

You are not ``thinking`` - you just mouth off liike a dhimmi wanting to please his master.

Also you weaseled out of answering Ajeyas questions. One of the recent India-Today
issues had details on how Modi acted. Read that first and understand issues before
spouting nonsense.

mohar11:

``What exactly is ``Indian Muslim Identity``?``

This was perhaps a simplification on my part. There is perhaps no single muslim identity but I was thinking of North Indian Muslim identity, which centres around a distinct language, literature, culture, artistic expression, music, etc.

Re: # 32
I don`t know which world you are in.
Gora Log do bitch and are can be racist but without these gor logs where would you be?
No Internet no IT boom in India, no US education for you. nothing.

Re: # 33 DM
//....I think that it was Mahatma Gandhi who wanted to dismantle Congress; .....Nehru....was merely saddled with something that Gandhi started...//

you are right - it was Gandhi who wanted to dismantle Congress - the old fool had some good ideas, after all..... And I agree that MK Gandhi was no democrat.... I mean, that`s what happens to people when they get crowned with big titles like ``Mahatma``.... they think they are some kind of prophets who are always right....

But I don`t agree with your ``saddling`` theory - or as I call it the ``devil-made-me-do-it`` theory.... Nehru had a choice - he could have done things differently - he ruled for a long time and gandhi was long dead....

Re: # 30 DM
//....BTW neither of them represents Indian Muslim identity or even claim to represent Indian Muslims....//

What exactly is ``Indian Muslim Identity``? And why can`t Kalam or Naqvi represent Indian muslims? .....Is there also a ``Indian hindu identity``? If so, who represents that?

What`s wrong with you people? .....Why do you left-wing m0r0ns bent on creating and promoting this mythical ``Indian Muslim Identity``? ..... When are you going learn the lessons and understand that this is the reason why things are so f**ked as far as communal relations are concerned?.....

How much more damage has to be done to the body-politics before you fools learn not to create and promote bullsh!t ``identities`` out of thin air?

dw#28:

I think that pmishra has said most of what I wanted to say. Yes, democracy in India is almost limited to having elections every five years and let the rascals loot them during the interim. If democracy means empowerment of the people in matters that are of daily concern to them, even China may be more democratic than India; people may not be free to mouth off obscenities at their leaders and there may not be a freewheeling media, but in matters of daily importance, Chinese may have more say within the parameters of the communist party local unit than Indians do.

And that arya samaji was not representing too many Indians. Most of the educated Indians I meet are full of admiration for MM Singh.

re:#21
to ajeya
your questions are so ridiculous and insanely stupid that i don`t feel like answering them

Mohar11#23:

``According to one story - Sardar Patel wanted to dismantle Congress after independence - specifically for this reason....``

I think that it was Mahatma Gandhi who wanted to dismantle Congress; I don`t know if Patel also wanted the same. We all blame Nehru for catering to Muslim obscurantists but, in truth, he was merely saddled with something that Gandhi started, as Mantolives keeps reminding us. Gandhi might have been a Mahatma but he was no democrat. He prevented left-wing Bose from remaining a duly elected president of the Congress Party; later on, he prevented Patel from becoming the Prime Minister of India even though he was the overwhelming choice of provincial congress committees; this was again to please the deobandi supporters of the Congress party. I should add however that Patel was unacceptable to all muslims, not just deobandis. The point is that India was saddled with Nehru`s brand of socialism not because the majority of the Congress Party believed in socialism but because Gandhi saddled India with Nehru and his fabian fantasies.

harimou#24:

``Nope. Just like the US had banned the CPUSA, India should ban anybody associated with Communism, Socialism and any similar leftist ideologies, put them under surveillance, hound them out of jobs and make life intesely miserable for them.``

I don`t think that the communist party is banned in the USA. Even during the Mcarthy era, people like Paul Sweezy were allowed to function. And even today, Noam Chomskys and Michael Moores are allowed to flourish in the USA.

But Naxalites are a different case. Their activities are outside the pale of constitution and they cannot be accorded the same latitude.

#28 dehliwala

You have way too much ``respect`` for gora log. I have heard 10X more racist and hateful comments about leaders in USA and UK from their residents. Your arya samaji bigot is NOTHING compared to these guys.

There are always nasty comments about leaders in any open setup. That is the nature of democracy.

I agree with your points about local elections. That is where there is some real difference between western democracy and india. Real information is available at the local level about spending. money, taxes, road repair, etc. Some of this has started happening in various regions in India - more so in south, also in some cities.

Read about Madhu Kishwar`s experiments in true local democracy:

http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=306026

Re: # 28 dw
//...hardly anybody votes for policies rather than their indivdual preferences i.e. caste/region/ethnic group etc...//

Not everywhere. Caste may be a major factor in UP/Bihar - but not everywhere. I can speak of the state I come from - Orissa. Caste is not a factor there - by and large people vote for personalities and to some extent, policies......It`s just bad luck that people of orissa had never got the calibre of leaders they deserved - which is why the state is in a bad shape....

pmishra#19:

I agree with most of what you say, except that I think that the BJP should/will not survive as is for the next 2-3 elections.

``Here is another topic: the poor quality of right-of-centre discourse in India. Generally speaking, the people on the left have been very much more effective. While there are plenty of left-wing fanatics (ashok mitra, praful bidwai), you can also find many reasonable and achieving people (Amartya Sen, Romila Thapar). Any thoughts on why/how this is the case?``

In the kind of political environment during the Nehruvian era when rightwing discourse was almost a heresy, it was not possible for right-wing talent to develop. Even Manmohan Singh had to claim that he was not deviating from Nehru`s socialism when he introduced his economic reforms back in 1993. The situation is likely to change now. For example, I have seen Arun Shourie take on the likes of Thapars and better them in a academic-type discussion.

Ajeya#20
``So according to you the BJP HAS NOT YET accepted ``that Indian Muslims have an identity of their own, which is an integral part of the composite Indian identity``.

In other words appointing a muslim as the President of the country was just an eyewash? And Naqvi?``

Appointment of Kalam - in my opinion India`s best ever President - or Naqvi are correctly perceived as an act to placate Muslim sentiments. BTW neither of them represents Indian Muslim identity or even claim to represent Indian Muslims. But it is more than a matter of appointing a Muslim or two in important positions, the Party has to purge itself of the openly anti-muslim elements if it wants to have credibility among Muslims.

``1) I have tried to read up on the Gujarat Riots. On Chowk, it seems that it is taken for granted that he was in some ways complicit in the Gujarat riots. Could you point me in the direction of the source of your information (not reporters` opinions, but facts) that led you to this conclusion?``

I am sorry that I do not have access to any other sources than news reporters or NGOs who have have gone to the spot and studied the situation. But I am aware that the Modi government has been repeatedly chastised by the Supreme Court for its attempts to cover up the prosecution of the accused in the Gujarat riots.

``2) Also, could you contrast that with the Congress Government`s role in the anti-sikh riots, and explain to me the difference.``

The Congress role was every bit as reprehensible as that of the Modi government.

``3) Could you quote some of the ``extremist views`` that Modi has propounded?``

I am not privy to any private statements of Modi, except those he has frequently made calling all Muslims ``mian musharraf`` insinuating that they are traitors.

Re: # 28

``Even though we have elections but hardly anybody votes for policies rather than their indivdual preferences i.e. caste/region/ethnic group etc. ``

i too believed that in u.s. policies matter more than individual preferences until Bush was elected the second time. the conservative/bible belt south voted for Bush, it didn`t matter to them about his policies regarding medicare, iraq. what mattered to them was that he was anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage.

Re: # 25
DM Sir,
My $.02, India does not have a proper democracy that is deeply rooted in it`s culture as in Western world. Even though we have elections but hardly anybody votes for policies rather than their indivdual preferences i.e. caste/region/ethnic group etc. India despite being the largest working Democracy in the world is far from being what the Greeks and Romans envisaged for their “Demos”. By far and large an Indian views elections as the means to end a bad government or to elect a leader of their choice, nothing more. Watching American elections in actions at state and federal level opened my eyes to this subtle difference, in a town in America you can elect a councilman or police chief or any town administrator position by simply looking on a board where the main questions are listed along with candidate’s leanings. How easy! In USA people vote for Fed/State policies that are actually listed on a ballot form. For e.g in MA, while voting for Kerry/Bush you also had to pick local councilmen and some other municipality laws. You clearly knew where the candidates will head if elected.

In India, it is hardly the case.

For e.g. Millions of voters who elected Congress Party in India during last year were shocked when a Sikh MM Singh became PM, they felt that they were cheated.
One Hindu-Khatree-Arya Samaji neighbour`s comment was ``Eh kithon Sardar nu PM banna ditta, sadde vote wapis karo``.

Till every Citizen of India has read basic Civic Shastra in his/her schoolroom and understands the working politics and the procedures we will have these corrupt people to rule India who would manipulate as much as they like.

When one speaks of perceptions, the question always is: ``Whose perceptions?``

To limit oneself according to some other people`s perceptions is to hand them too much power over oneself.

In many situations, that is neither healthy nor safe.

During all this discussion, did it occur to any of the interactor that rise of BJP in India is due to Islamic Pakistani politics??

RSS and BJP combine is the India`s answer to JUI and ML of Pakistan. I was asked this question while travelling in a train by a Hindu fanatic.
``Why can`t India have a Hindu government when Pakistan can have Islamic government?``
BJP/RSS combine compares itself to CDP of Germany, Republican Party of USA and some other conservative groups in Western World, where they have democratically elected religous parties and the nations are overwhelmingly ``SECULAR``.

I am not a supported of RSS/BJP but I do like Vajpayee as a national leader, he is probably the only person who is retainable in the BJP/RSS league.

rahulmal#18:


``1) Why should govt. of a secular country allocate money for religious activities of a community?``

It should not.

``2) Why shouldn`t all citizens of a nation follow the same set of laws, when the constitution professes equality?``

They should. A non-communalist BJP would have the strength to demand a uniform civil code without being accused of having a hidden agenda.

``3) Should some part of country be given same rights as other parts, without having to fulfil the same obligations as others?``

Could you please elaborate this point?

4) Is Hindu Rashtra enshrined in the constitution of BJP or RSS? If yes, what does it mean?

I do not know if the RSS has a constitution but it is certainly part of its agenda, as enumerated by the likes of MS Golwalkar (Guruji). As for the BJP, it is not part of its official platform, but as long as it is associated with the RSS, it would be perceived to have such an agenda. And politics is all about perceptions.

Ref dost-mittar #12

[The pea-brained Hindu secularists and anti-Hindu communalists have to be provided their space in the democratic spectrum. Democracies survive because they are tolerant of even intolerant viewpoints, thus providing safety valves to those who would otherwise be inclined to subvert the system.]

Nope. Just like the US had banned the CPUSA, India should ban anybody associated with Communism, Socialism and any similar leftist ideologies, put them under surveillance, hound them out of jobs and make life intesely miserable for them. One man-one vote has survived in the USA despite such tactics and would survive in India too.

Naxalites should be hunted like vermin and exterminated. If necessary, do what the British did to the Scots in the 18th century: burn down entire villages and force them into the forests and then hunt them down.

Re: # 19
//...the poor quality of right-of-centre discourse in India. ....Any thoughts on why/how this is the case? ...//

Good question. The reason is - post-independence, Congress Party wanted to be everything to everybody - they tried to encompass the entire spectrum of politics. They gave no space for legitimate center-right politics....

According to one story - Sardar Patel wanted to dismantle Congress after independence - specifically for this reason....People like Sardar Patel are good center-right leaders who would have given the much needed balance during those early days of political evolution....That would have led to good quality of center-right politics and a safety valve for ultra-right freaks....

But that didn`t happen - because Nehru opposed the plan to dismantle Congress....So there were never any legitimate/popular center-right leader to begin with... RSS were freaks, they were never accepted in the mainstream, so they could never fill the void....

So once again, blame it on Chacha Nehru :)) .... God, I hate to blame the old b@stard all the time .... I actually like the guy in some ways [ especially the way he sticked up that big fool jinnah] - but he really screwed up India`s chances of a balanced politics and economics...

Ref delhiwala #4

[What India really need is a Progressive Democratic Front that is a mix of BJP/CONG/Commie etc.]

No. what India needs is the equivalent of the Moral Majority, backed by the equivalent of Fox News with commentators like Bill O`Reilly, Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto with a Edward Teller-like nuclear scientist who will lead a nuclear establishment that would develop thermonuclear weapons and test 1000 of them, with the armed forces led by someone like Curtis LeMay.

That ought to keep the Wahhabi fcukers in Saudi Arabia in check and Pakistan would keep its tail shoved up its butt.

Re: #15 by dost-mittar


[contra#7:

I did not forget Modi. If the BJP splits, he would be a natural leader of the extremist group. But in my opinion, if Modi wins elections in Gujarat again, it wouldn`t be because of his extremist views...]


Three questions:

1) I have tried to read up on the Gujarat Riots. On Chowk, it seems that it is taken for granted that he was in some ways complicit in the Gujarat riots. Could you point me in the direction of the source of your information (not reporters` opinions, but facts) that led you to this conclusion?

2) Also, could you contrast that with the Congress Government`s role in the anti-sikh riots, and explain to me the difference.

3) Could you quote some of the ``extremist views`` that Modi has propounded?




I would really appreciate it.

Thanks,

Ajeya

#14 by dost-mittar

[Inquirer#3:

``They have to firmly declare to fight the Wahaabis in Muslims but SIMULTANEOUSLY they have to acknowledge a Muslim to be Indian.``

I quite agree. But if they want to be acceptable to Muslims, they would have to do more than that and also accept that Indian Muslims have an identity of their own, which is an integral part of the composite Indian identity. ]

DM,

This was a very well-written and informative article.

A question.

So according to you the BJP HAS NOT YET accepted ``that Indian Muslims have an identity of their own, which is an integral part of the composite Indian identity``.

In other words appointing a muslim as the President of the country was just an eyewash? And Naqvi?

Could you elaborate on this?

Thanks,

Ajeya

I am never going to be a real fan of advani BUT he has done a really good thing by pointing to a more centrist path for the BJP. It is unfortunate that the younger leaders are still hoping for free ``prasad`` from the RSS and haven`t followed him.

Maybe it will take 2-3 lost elections with diminishing percentages and finding out that allying with various self-proclaimed hindu leaders doesn`t buy them much. But he has done all of us a service by highlighting a right-of-center political space in india.

Here is another topic: the poor quality of right-of-centre discourse in India. Generally speaking, the people on the left have been very much more effective. While there are plenty of left-wing fanatics (ashok mitra, praful bidwai), you can also find many reasonable and achieving people (Amartya Sen, Romila Thapar). Any thoughts on why/how this is the case?

DMji,

Some questions:

1) Why should govt. of a secular country allocate money for religious activities of a community?
2) Why shouldn`t all citizens of a nation follow the same set of laws, when the constitution professes equality?
3) Should some part of country be given same rights as other parts, without having to fulfil the same obligations as others?
4) Is Hindu Rashtra enshrined in the constitution of BJP or RSS? If yes, what does it mean?

nazar saheb#10:

I am glad that you found the article informative.

``In the thousands of years of its existance, it is the first time that Dharma got politicised. And if I am not wrong, it is a fall out of the partition.``

I think that`s a bit of an exaggeration. I would say the first politicisation of dharma took place at the time of the sixth Sikh Guru Har Kishen, who combined Meeri and Peeri (spiritual and temporal) in his person after the cruel death of the fifth guru. At that time, Sikhs were not quite distinct from Hindus.

Even the RSS itself was founded in 1925 and the doctrine of Hindutva was developed soon after by Savarkar. And as you are no doubt aware, Hindu Maha Sabha was quite active as a political voice of sanatanist hindus before the Partition. However, these elements did not exercise much support among the Hindus. They would have perhaps remained marginal if the Congress did not ally itself with the Deobandis and succumbed to the most obscurantist elements in the Muslim leadership. People like Advani simply channelised the resentment among Hindus about this apeasement of the Congress to the Muslim obscurantist elements.

arstoo#11:

I dont think that you have made the comment you made if you had read the article.

Netizen#16:
``If gujarat riots would not have occured maybe some more muslims would have voted for BJP, but I don`t think it would have made any dent in other parties vote-bank. Muslims would still prefer Mulayam in u.p., lalu in bihar, commies in bengal.``

I think that you are making the mistake of thinking that Muslims are a monolithic vote bank. They are not. However, they do hate the BJP, as it stands now, with a passion and would vote en bloc against it in favour of any non-BJP candidate with the biggest chance of winning. With a sanitised BJP, many Muslims who are truly secular in their outlook but are not leftists would find a welcome home in this new party.

Yes, the BJP could win even without any support from Muslims, but it would be a Gujarat type scenario which would lead India down a fascist path.

dost-mittar:

If gujarat riots would not have occured maybe some more muslims would have voted for BJP, but I don`t think it would have made any dent in other parties vote-bank. Muslims would still prefer Mulayam in u.p., lalu in bihar, commies in bengal. Nejma Heptullah, arif mohd joined BJP after having problems in congress. They are not the representatives of common muslims. How much command does Shahnavaz have over muslims in Kishinganj?

Also its a myth that without 15% muslim vote BJP cannot win. Didn`t it win in guj., raj, madhya pradesh, chhatisgarh. The problem with BJP is that it has no southern base. Last year it was the biggest winner in karnataka though.

the BJP has to provide a clean administration, should not tolerate corruption,, bring efficiency. it should learn about realpolitik, something like ``aam-admi`` that sonia refers very often without any real concern.

these ``secular`` parties are always going to fall over one another to get muslim votes. like the recent imrana case where mualyam was ``satisfied`` with the ulema decision and sonia looked the other way, people are going to be frustated by these appeasing policies. in this kind of situation, bjp can provide the alternative as long it itself doesn`t join the other two and sticks to nation building.

contra#7:

I did not forget Modi. If the BJP splits, he would be a natural leader of the extremist group. But in my opinion, if Modi wins elections in Gujarat again, it wouldn`t be because of his extremist views but because he seems to be paying a lot of attention to governance. From my point of view, Modi is far more dangerous than someone like Uma Bharati who may have similar views. A combination of communal hatred and successful economy is very potent and could lead India towards a Hitler type fascism. One can only pray and hope that this does not happen in India. But if a majority of the Hindus want to go that destructive path, who can prevent them from doing so?

Netizen:
I am not sure that I can agree with you. While in the realm of speculation, my guess is that if Gujarat had not happened, the BJP would have succeeded in winning at least a section of Muslim votes. It could have then claimed that it had a better record of protecting Muslims and avoiding communal riots than any Congress government before it. Vajpayee had won quite a few admirers among Muslims with his soft touch. And Javed Akhtar types notwithstanding, many Muslims really agreed with his view that ending hostilities with Pakistan would reduce anti-muslim feelings in India. The BJP had indeed succeeded in winning over some muslims with solid credentials, such as Najma Heptullah and Arif Khan. Even the Imam Bukhari of Jama Masjid had started to speak kind words about the party.

But Gujarat changed all that. More than losing Muslim votes, it caused great damage to BJP`s coalition partners in West Bengal, Bihar, Andhra, Tamil Nadu and other places. While these parties secular credentials were impeccable, Muslims punished them for the company they kept, namely the BJP. A sanitised BJP would have no such problem and may even succeed in merging itself with its coalition partners, creating a powerful centrist, secular party.

Inquirer#3:

``They have to firmly declare to fight the Wahaabis in Muslims but SIMULTANEOUSLY they have to acknowledge a Muslim to be Indian.``

I quite agree. But if they want to be acceptable to Muslims, they would have to do more than that and also accept that Indian Muslims have an identity of their own, which is an integral part of the composite Indian identity.

I also agree that the RSS should spend its time and efforts to dealing with the internal malaise of the Hindu society and restore some of the noble ancient traditions of the hindus, such as the respect for nature and campaign against polluting Ganga and other rivers and destroying forests and other natural environment.

Beej#6:

You are right that it was the Emergency which brought them together, literally, in prisons where they discovered the human side of each other. But without the organizational strength that it had, I doubt that other parties would have accepted Jana Sangh with its considerable communal baggage as their coalition partner.

delhiwalla#2

I do not think that Advani is coming back as President even if wants to. He is having two sets of problems, only one of which relates to the RSS. A smaller problem is the personality clash he is having with the likes of Madan Lal Khurrana and Sushma Swaraj - his own proteges who are now anxious that he leave to make room for her generation.

kaalchakra#1:

The pea-brained Hindu secularists and anti-Hindu communalists have to be provided their space in the democratic spectrum. Democracies survive because they are tolerant of even intolerant viewpoints, thus providing safety valves to those who would otherwise be inclined to subvert the system.

Dear DM ji

I have not read this article. Donot intend to read it. But I have read some of the point of views in the forum. What I feel is it is does not matter whether the BJP/RSS want to establish Hindu rashtra or not.

What matters is for people of book like me that whether the constitution of India allows that or not. In fact it does not allow that.

What is wrong if the BJP gets elected and looses democratically ?

I feel it is thousand times better then bankcrupt congress.

With all the drawbacks of BJP did it succeed to pass even a single legistation against the miniorities? If the answer is no than what is hue and cry.

You guys should be sent for a year to live in society like Pakistan where even Yosouf Yohana under pressure converted to the cancer of Islam.

Dost

Very educative & interesting.

In the thousands of years of its existance, it is the first time that Dharma got politicised. And if I am not wrong, it is a fall out of the partition.

While Pakistan gradually deepened its green colour - India had this bubble of saffronization.

NHK

BJP, it seems has gone the Congress way. Other than the dynastic rule that Congress survives on BJP has not offered a better alternative.

BJP has to learn a few facts and stay with it. It should not bend the rules to accomodate others and cling to power. BJP has to realise that muslims are never going to vote for it. It doesn`t matter how relations are with pak or how many urdu teachers have been appointed by them. There is no point offering them any carrots. The damage has already been done.

Instead of pursuing some foolish ideas like fighting for lowering the IIT fees, claiming that indians were the first to invent aeroplane they should serve their constituency, their proponents. BJP made a grave mistake by ignoring them. Even in Jammu where BJP had a lot of support no one showed up for Advanis speech. at that time he admitted that bjp should have taken care of its supporters. What BJP did was, it tried to placate its coalition partners. It diluted its own agenda to stay in power.

it should try to break the intra-religious divisions within hinduism. It should use the offices of rss, vhp, bajrang dal to bring the hindu society together. it should not tolerate any injustice on lower castes. if possible it should try to remove the caste divisions.

in 92 it seemed that bjp would provide a clean, efficient gov. but it turned into another congress. it should provide a clean administration and should not cover up cases against its own people.

it should believe in ideology not power.

watch the movie black friday which is banned by govt to cover up nuisances of muslims

you have forgotten telling about modi ,both advani and atal are spent forces both are
above 80 and so with little political future but modi is in his early 50`s and here in gujrat
he has and rightly so cult like following ,media does not discusses about nuiance which
muslims in gujrat created before modi ,they had free hand and used to burst crackers
when pakiland wins the cricket match and in muslim slums even now it is not uncommon
to see paki flag and with money from saudis everywhere there were madrasas not to mention there prayers from loud speakers waking everyone at 5 even in winter nights
just to mention among the long list of their exploits,everything has stopped now why?
becoz of modi , one instance is when we were seeing movie dev the muslims started their
provocative slogans ,seeing this police came and took them while rest of the audience
yelled in collective voice ``ley jao inko pakistan`` ,modi will remain becoz he has the support of common man if not of media or impotent page 3 people

This could be considered a sort of interesting summary – but there is not much new information here. Anyway, I am here just to scold you!

Note:
[It was this dedication and commitment which made a political pariah, Jana Sangh, acceptable as a partner to the likes of Jai Prakash Narain, George Fernandez and Morarji Desai after the Emergency in 1977.]

You know this is buckwas – it had nothing to do with the dedication and commitment – what made a political pariah, Jana Sangh, acceptable as a partner to the likes of Jai Prakash Narain, George Fernandez and Morarji Desai after the Emergency in 1977 was – the emergency!

Re: # 3
Good analysis but here is the problem, RSS founding fathers does not agree with you.

What India really need is a Progressive Democratic Front that is a mix of BJP/CONG/Commie etc.

Re: # 3
Good analysis but here is the problem, RSS founding fathers does not agree with you.

What India really need is a Progressive Democratic Front that is a mix of BJP/CONG/Commie etc.