07.06.05
Advani must have resigned because he was angry that he was charged even before he was given a chance to be heard. Now I think he and Vajpayee will seek to promote the NDA front to the exclusion of Congress and Left, largely the leftists of all hues. Sangha would take over BJP and BJP would take on the role of a pressure group in the political spectrum, a role that they most relish playing.
Why did Advani praise Jinnah? I think he planned, anticipating the consequence and relishing the opportunity to take on the ‘hot heads’ head on. Therefore we can see the BJP splitting.
08.06.05
Its incredible that Advani should be out in the cold on the issue of Jinnah. He simply does not deserve it. But there would be no gainers if Sangha does not seize the moment. It has to bring in Modi if it is to seize the initiative.
09.06.05
I think it is a rather tortured reasoning that anything good can come of an Indian praising Jinnah. Jinnah was the arch villain of partition. He may have been secular, if by that is meant that he in practice was not a ritualistic religionist. But what do we Hindus mean by secular? That a person accepts the multiplicity of religious cultures as valid. And that the state does not discriminate on the basis of religion. If Jinnah was secular, on what basis did he propound the two nation theory? His two nations meant the Muslim nation and the non-Muslim nation. Which is about exclusivity – not a very secular attitude. Then again if secularism is about the state not being partial to any religion, why did he want Pakistan, a state for the Muslims and by the Muslims?
We have to talk about his constituent assembly speech to come up with anything secular to say about him.
10.06.05
Advani’s Jinnah speech must be seen in the context of pointing out that secularism is the only way forward for the sub-continent. He was trying to point out that even Jinnah, the greatest communalist there was, could see the merits of secularism.
The whole problem was that VHP jumped the gun. Would the sky have fallen down if it waited for clarification from Advani? Why on earth did it talk of a traitorous Advani?
=================
Aren’t Mirwaiz Farooq and his Huriyat ilk Jinnahs-in-the-making? What have we gained by Advani’s admiration of Jinnah except embarrassment?
15.06.05
VHP has in a way proven that it is not in the game of sophistry and appeasement. In fact, what else can Hindus, who have always been at the receiving end of injustice, do? VHP has to be a militant organisation, if it is going to push through its agenda of militant Hinduism.
Advani must have resigned because he was angry that he was charged even before he was given a chance to be heard. Now I think he and Vajpayee will seek to promote the NDA front to the exclusion of Congress and Left, largely the leftists of all hues. Sangha would take over BJP and BJP would take on the role of a pressure group in the political spectrum, a role that they most relish playing.
Why did Advani praise Jinnah? I think he planned, anticipating the consequence and relishing the opportunity to take on the ‘hot heads’ head on. Therefore we can see the BJP splitting.
08.06.05
Its incredible that Advani should be out in the cold on the issue of Jinnah. He simply does not deserve it. But there would be no gainers if Sangha does not seize the moment. It has to bring in Modi if it is to seize the initiative.
09.06.05
I think it is a rather tortured reasoning that anything good can come of an Indian praising Jinnah. Jinnah was the arch villain of partition. He may have been secular, if by that is meant that he in practice was not a ritualistic religionist. But what do we Hindus mean by secular? That a person accepts the multiplicity of religious cultures as valid. And that the state does not discriminate on the basis of religion. If Jinnah was secular, on what basis did he propound the two nation theory? His two nations meant the Muslim nation and the non-Muslim nation. Which is about exclusivity – not a very secular attitude. Then again if secularism is about the state not being partial to any religion, why did he want Pakistan, a state for the Muslims and by the Muslims?
We have to talk about his constituent assembly speech to come up with anything secular to say about him.
10.06.05
Advani’s Jinnah speech must be seen in the context of pointing out that secularism is the only way forward for the sub-continent. He was trying to point out that even Jinnah, the greatest communalist there was, could see the merits of secularism.
The whole problem was that VHP jumped the gun. Would the sky have fallen down if it waited for clarification from Advani? Why on earth did it talk of a traitorous Advani?
=================
Aren’t Mirwaiz Farooq and his Huriyat ilk Jinnahs-in-the-making? What have we gained by Advani’s admiration of Jinnah except embarrassment?
15.06.05
VHP has in a way proven that it is not in the game of sophistry and appeasement. In fact, what else can Hindus, who have always been at the receiving end of injustice, do? VHP has to be a militant organisation, if it is going to push through its agenda of militant Hinduism.
17.06.05
The Editor,
Asian Age,
Mumbai.
Dear Sir,
Advani must be thanked for bringing up the subject of Jinnah. It is not as if it is an historical subject meant only for academic appraisal, having no relevance to the present times. In fact, what with a melange of Hurriyat leaders being ashamed to call themselves Indians, as also the Naga rebels, we have on hand many Jinnahs in the making. As Advani himself said in Pakistan, there shall be no more partitions. We ought to be telling our neo-Jinnahs that they consider Jinnah’s speech in Pakistan’s constituent assembly and learn to live amicably with the rest of Indians.
Asian Age,
Mumbai.
Dear Sir,
Advani must be thanked for bringing up the subject of Jinnah. It is not as if it is an historical subject meant only for academic appraisal, having no relevance to the present times. In fact, what with a melange of Hurriyat leaders being ashamed to call themselves Indians, as also the Naga rebels, we have on hand many Jinnahs in the making. As Advani himself said in Pakistan, there shall be no more partitions. We ought to be telling our neo-Jinnahs that they consider Jinnah’s speech in Pakistan’s constituent assembly and learn to live amicably with the rest of Indians.
20.06.05
In retrospect, it is clear that Advani’s Jinnah appraisal was uncalled for and has not benefited anyone, except the aniti-Sangha Parivar folks. However, he having made it, it should have been incumbent on the Sangha Parivar to at least give him the opportunity to explain himself. Instead Togadia went and called him a traitor. Wasn’t he prejudiced to have called a Advani a traitor? And Advani, instead of explaining matters and cooling tempers and putting things in a proper perspective, went and resigned, thus bringing his ego into the fray. So, all in all, it was a tragedy of errors. No one showed the maturity to come on top of the situation.
Now why is Govindacharya gunning Advani? Shouldn’t he instead be talking about swadeshi and swadeshi alone, having quit politics? Moreover, his statement that the Babri Masjid fell because of the irresponsibility of BJP leadership also reveals that he, like Togadia, is prejudiced against Advani.
Sarsanghchalak's Shekhar Gupta interview had two flaws - spring chickens and uncultured Uma Bharati.
In retrospect, it is clear that Advani’s Jinnah appraisal was uncalled for and has not benefited anyone, except the aniti-Sangha Parivar folks. However, he having made it, it should have been incumbent on the Sangha Parivar to at least give him the opportunity to explain himself. Instead Togadia went and called him a traitor. Wasn’t he prejudiced to have called a Advani a traitor? And Advani, instead of explaining matters and cooling tempers and putting things in a proper perspective, went and resigned, thus bringing his ego into the fray. So, all in all, it was a tragedy of errors. No one showed the maturity to come on top of the situation.
Now why is Govindacharya gunning Advani? Shouldn’t he instead be talking about swadeshi and swadeshi alone, having quit politics? Moreover, his statement that the Babri Masjid fell because of the irresponsibility of BJP leadership also reveals that he, like Togadia, is prejudiced against Advani.
Sarsanghchalak's Shekhar Gupta interview had two flaws - spring chickens and uncultured Uma Bharati.
13.07.05
Is what’s happening now actually a game-plan to free BJP from the Sangha constraints and for Sangha to free itself from BJP inconveniences?
Yet I must say all was not planned. Definitely Togadia’s outburst was spontaneous. Maybe the ‘Ayodhya betrayal’ hurt was deep in him and he responded under its influence. Still, the outburst was spontaneous. It was not a calculating, planned move. Advani too was spontaneous. He wanted to contribute to the ‘peace atmosphere’ fast being built up. After all, if peace succeeds, it would be thanks to the BJP’s (Vajpayee’s) first move. So he did everything diplomatic and warm. Yet he did not put his feet in his mouth. All in all, his moves in Pakistan were dignified. He must have taken it for granted that his constituency was matured enough to see it all in proper perspective. Then came the ear-shattering yell of Togadia calling him traitor. Traitor? Can any word be further away from all that Advani stood for in his public life all these years? So naturally he wanted to meet this outrageous name calling of Togadia head on. Unfortunately, his praise of Jinnah, even indirectly, sounded differently through the ‘mike’ of the media, and, added to this, his sentiments about the demolition of Babri Masjid being the saddest day of his life, stirred a cauldron and, such being the fate of such misfortunes, his inability to do anything substantial about Ramjanmabhomi when in power was now seen as being a result of his disloyalty to the cause.
So the whole thing snowballed. Now where are we? Having awakened on the ideology issue, I don’t think the RSS can afford to allow everything to become fussy again.
20.07.05
It is amazing that we have come to such a situation. First of all, Advani did not say Jinnah is a secular person - he only pointed out to Jinnah's speech in Pakistan’s constituent assembly, which he wanted to be an eye-opener to the Pakistanis. Not just that, later he clarified that he brought up the matter in the context of the Katras temple complex that Pakistan has decided to renovate and also in the light of what the renowned and revered late Swami Ranganathanda had to say about Jinnah's speech.
He did say that Jinnah was not only a historic personage, but a rare person who made history. This may be a fact, but what rankles is that Jinnah made history at our expense. However, if we see it in the context of a confident and resurgent India that we are today, the history making by Jinnah is a blow that we have overcome. So Advani may have said it somewhat mockingly.
He visited Jinnah’s mausoleum, no doubt, but we have to place this detour in the realm of diplomacy, which is inevitable in state visits.
He wrote praisingly in the visitor’s book therein. That’s statesmanship - always seeing the good in others. In any case, having visited the mausoleum, it’s customary writing.
He said the demolition of the structure at Ayodhya was the saddest day of his life. But this he also said in the immediate aftermath of the demolition, though it was said in the context of the parivar having wanted the situation to so come to pass that the mosque would be shifted by the Muslims themselves. The sadness is on account that this did not come to pass. This is what he meant in Pakistan too. Not that he was saddened because the structure was demolished and a temple raised thereon.
Finally, he said that Akhand Bharat is no longer an ideal. This he should not have said. Since this concept is inevitability understood in Pakistan as ‘gobble Pakistan’, he wanted to downplay the ideal to avoid an elaborate explanation and causing unnecessary controversy in Pakistan. Little did he realise that a controversy would erupt within the Parivar, who he would have expected would understand.
Is what’s happening now actually a game-plan to free BJP from the Sangha constraints and for Sangha to free itself from BJP inconveniences?
Yet I must say all was not planned. Definitely Togadia’s outburst was spontaneous. Maybe the ‘Ayodhya betrayal’ hurt was deep in him and he responded under its influence. Still, the outburst was spontaneous. It was not a calculating, planned move. Advani too was spontaneous. He wanted to contribute to the ‘peace atmosphere’ fast being built up. After all, if peace succeeds, it would be thanks to the BJP’s (Vajpayee’s) first move. So he did everything diplomatic and warm. Yet he did not put his feet in his mouth. All in all, his moves in Pakistan were dignified. He must have taken it for granted that his constituency was matured enough to see it all in proper perspective. Then came the ear-shattering yell of Togadia calling him traitor. Traitor? Can any word be further away from all that Advani stood for in his public life all these years? So naturally he wanted to meet this outrageous name calling of Togadia head on. Unfortunately, his praise of Jinnah, even indirectly, sounded differently through the ‘mike’ of the media, and, added to this, his sentiments about the demolition of Babri Masjid being the saddest day of his life, stirred a cauldron and, such being the fate of such misfortunes, his inability to do anything substantial about Ramjanmabhomi when in power was now seen as being a result of his disloyalty to the cause.
So the whole thing snowballed. Now where are we? Having awakened on the ideology issue, I don’t think the RSS can afford to allow everything to become fussy again.
20.07.05
It is amazing that we have come to such a situation. First of all, Advani did not say Jinnah is a secular person - he only pointed out to Jinnah's speech in Pakistan’s constituent assembly, which he wanted to be an eye-opener to the Pakistanis. Not just that, later he clarified that he brought up the matter in the context of the Katras temple complex that Pakistan has decided to renovate and also in the light of what the renowned and revered late Swami Ranganathanda had to say about Jinnah's speech.
He did say that Jinnah was not only a historic personage, but a rare person who made history. This may be a fact, but what rankles is that Jinnah made history at our expense. However, if we see it in the context of a confident and resurgent India that we are today, the history making by Jinnah is a blow that we have overcome. So Advani may have said it somewhat mockingly.
He visited Jinnah’s mausoleum, no doubt, but we have to place this detour in the realm of diplomacy, which is inevitable in state visits.
He wrote praisingly in the visitor’s book therein. That’s statesmanship - always seeing the good in others. In any case, having visited the mausoleum, it’s customary writing.
He said the demolition of the structure at Ayodhya was the saddest day of his life. But this he also said in the immediate aftermath of the demolition, though it was said in the context of the parivar having wanted the situation to so come to pass that the mosque would be shifted by the Muslims themselves. The sadness is on account that this did not come to pass. This is what he meant in Pakistan too. Not that he was saddened because the structure was demolished and a temple raised thereon.
Finally, he said that Akhand Bharat is no longer an ideal. This he should not have said. Since this concept is inevitability understood in Pakistan as ‘gobble Pakistan’, he wanted to downplay the ideal to avoid an elaborate explanation and causing unnecessary controversy in Pakistan. Little did he realise that a controversy would erupt within the Parivar, who he would have expected would understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment